1 Tuesday, 9 June 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made to tell the truth still
9 applies today, of course.
10 Yes, Mr. Stamp.
11 WITNESS: ALEKSANDAR VASILJEVIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
14 Q. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 Good morning, General Vasiljevic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. Following on from your last answer yesterday can you please tell
18 us if you know General Djakovic was posted in 1998 and 1999?
19 A. You mean 1999 or 1989?
20 Q. 1998 in particular?
21 A. He, as far as I know, served in the command of the 3rd Army doing
22 operational tasks. After the state of war ended, he came to the people's
23 defence school, or national defence school, from September 1999 on; and
24 after graduating from that school, he was appointed head of the security
1 Q. And when he was doing operational tasks in the 3rd Army, who was
2 the 3rd Army commander?
3 A. The commander of the 3rd Army was General Pavkovic.
4 MR. STAMP: If we could return to 65 ter document number 01468.
5 And move to page 11 in the English, 9 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. These are minutes for a meeting on the 27th of July, 1998
7 writing is this?
8 A. You know, I, generally speaking, could recognise that this could
9 be General Djakovic's handwriting. He had very nice handwriting, close
10 to calligraphy. But my recognition is based more on his admission that
11 he had kept minutes. But if you were to juxtapose this handwriting with
12 another, it would be difficult for me to say this would be a
13 graphological expertise. But this is based on what he told me that he
14 had taken the minutes. Basically I do know his handwriting. He writes
15 in the Latin script, and he has this very nice legible handwriting. I
16 know this from our joint work in security administration during 2000.
17 Q. Okay. Just so -- are you able to say or not whose handwriting
18 this is, that you have there?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Just a minute, Mr. Djurdjic. We'll have the
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said I presume that
22 this is General Djakovic's handwriting. I cannot be absolutely sure. If
23 you were to put down in front of me a similar handwriting, I would still
24 say that it was his handwriting; but my assertion stems from his
25 admission that he had those minutes at the Joint Commission, and it
1 follows from my general knowledge of what his handwriting looked like.
2 JUDGE PARKER: You object, Mr. Djurdjic?
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Second time round, but everything
4 remains the same, Your Honours. First, well, the two answers are
5 identical. I reiterate, General Djakovic is going to testify before this
6 Bench, and this -- these minutes are going to be adduced through
7 General Djakovic. This witness is a counter-intelligence officer, he
8 knows many methods; but he is not a graphologist, and he cannot be used
9 to introduce this piece of evidence into evidence. Thank you.
10 I apologise, another thing, at the time the witness was not in
11 active duty in the military.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp, are you -- that objection anticipated
13 you were about to tender.
14 MR. STAMP: Indeed, yes.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Is that something that is in your mind?
16 MR. STAMP: It is in my mind, but I wish to show the witness
17 another part of the document.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on.
19 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at page 18 in English, 13 in
20 the B/C/S.
21 Q. These are the notes in respect to the 27th of July. The top part
22 is not in the English version here. At the top you see a Mr. Gajo. Who
23 would that be, do you know?
24 A. Mr. Gajo is down towards the bottom of the page. That is
25 supposed to be Mr. David Gajic from state security in Pristina.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] This is not an objection, but
2 B/C/S and English pages do not correspond so what is shown on the B/C/S
3 cannot be shown in the English version. So in the Serbian there is a
4 heading followed by a date, and what is shown in the Serbian is the end
5 of the page.
6 MR. STAMP: On the English copy could you go back to the previous
8 Q. And on both of the pages that I've shown you, have you noticed
9 the participants recorded at this meeting?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And --
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Again, Your Honour. My learned
13 friend, the page in the English version is not the correct one. You
14 should change either the Serbian copy or the English copy, the beginnings
15 of the page do not correspond. It starts here with General Djakovic in
16 the Serbian.
17 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Djurdjic,
18 you'll have to accept that there will be some differences as you go
19 between one and the other. But you should by now have had an opportunity
20 to see the equivalent of what is on the English page on two pages of the
21 B/C/S. Is that correct?
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, but the
23 content of the B/C/S page and the English page do not correspond. Here
24 it starts with the briefing of General Djakovic in Serbian, am I right,
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is the briefing of
2 General Pavkovic.
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No, I thought it was Djakovic,
4 it's Pavkovic. It's okay. I withdraw my objection.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. The two pages you have been shown, you see reference to the
7 participation of Mr. Minic; Mr. Sainovic; Mr. Djordjevic; Mr. Majic;
8 Mr. Gajo, who you have just told us is David Gajic; General Pavkovic;
9 General Djordjevic, again; and General Lukic. And I recall your evidence
10 yesterday when you said that Colonel Stojanovic told you who were the
11 regular participants at these meetings; are these the same persons who
12 told you were the regular participants?
13 A. You mean Colonel Stojanovic?
14 Q. Colonel Stojanovic, pardon me.
15 A. I cannot tell you anything else other than what I told you
16 yesterday, what Colonel Stojanovic told me when we were driving from the
17 meeting of the Joint Commander to the security organs meeting. He told
18 me who were the attendees of those meetings. Some of those persons are
19 mentioned here. David Gajic, for instance. But at that occasion he did
20 not mention who among the MUP generals attended those meetings, which
21 doesn't mean that they did not. But since this was not an issue that I
22 was interested in, I did not ask him for any details. But some of the
23 persons he mentioned were recorded as being present at this meeting as
24 far as I can see.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I waited for the witness to finish
3 to object not to influence his answer. My learned friend's statement was
4 in contravention of what the witness said. He had said that Stojanovic
5 used to attend those meetings and then his attendance ceased. And now
6 Mr. Stamp said that he always attended Joint Command sessions. I would
7 like to petition the Bench to ask my learned friend to rephrase his
8 questions and not to put words into the witness's mouth.
9 MR. STAMP: That might have been a mistranslation, but I did not
10 say that Colonel Stojanovic always attended, I did not even mention
11 Colonel Stojanovic's attendance. What I sought to get from the witness,
12 and he has answered, is that the persons here in this document are
13 generally consistent with the persons that Colonel Stojanovic said would
14 attended these meetings. And in those circumstances, Your Honours, that
15 is as far as I can go with this documents, and I would tender it and ask
16 that it be received in evidence.
17 If I may, the witness has indicated his knowledge about the
18 document from the maker and his knowledge about the meetings from
19 somebody who used to attend the meetings, that's Colonel Stojanovic, and
20 the persons who attended. He has looked at the writing and although he
21 cannot claim, he says he is not absolutely sure it is the writing of the
22 person who told him he made it, he can see that the document is entitled
23 "Meetings of a Joint Command" and the persons minuted here as being in
24 attendance are the same persons he was told by Colonel Stojanovic would
25 attend these meetings.
1 So I submit that it is identified to the extent where it could be
2 admitted in evidence for whatever value the Chamber would give to it in
3 the course of the other evidence that may come before the Court about
4 this document.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE PARKER: In the view of the Chamber, the document should be
7 marked for identification, not received as an exhibit in evidence.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00886 MFI, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MR. STAMP: Very well. Thank you very much.
11 Q. General, could we move on. You told us yesterday that it was the
12 intention of General Ojdanic that a meeting should be held with the MUP
13 to resolve differences in terms of allegations about criminal conduct by
14 the MUP and the VJ, and that General Farkas did make efforts to have such
15 a meeting and eventually one was held on the 9th of July, notwithstanding
16 the difficulties that were placed in arranging the meeting by certain MUP
18 Sir, I'd like to go to that meeting of the 9th of July now. And
19 that is the 9th of July, 1999. Where was this meeting held, and who were
20 the participants?
21 A. First of all, I have to correct you about the reason for that
22 meeting. You said because of the criminal activities of the MUP and the
23 military, but it was not --
24 Q. Sorry, I'm sorry, that is not what I said or meant to say. I
25 said because of competing allegations, there were differences.
1 JUDGE PARKER: You're busy this morning, Mr. Djurdjic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] My learned friend reads in a funny
3 way. It's stated here:
4 [In English] " ...Ojdanic that a meeting should be held with the
5 MUP to resolve differences in terms of allegations about criminal
7 [Interpretation] I heard the same thing as the witness.
8 MR. STAMP: That's precisely what I'm saying. The meeting were
9 to be held to resolve allegations, differences in terms of allegations
10 that were to be made about criminal conduct. In any case, may I say this
11 is not a proper objection. This is a situation where I was trying to
12 clarify a question with the witness and.
13 Q. Do you understand the question I'm asking you General?
14 JUDGE PARKER: I would like to know what it is.
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. When and where -- sorry, when. Withdrawn.
17 Where was this meeting held, and who were the participants?
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer to this, the meeting
20 took place on the 9th of July in the General Staff of the VJ in Belgrade
21 But I'm obliged to say what the problem was. The 17th of May meeting at
22 President Milosevic's, it was stated that there was insufficient
23 cooperation between the military and the MUP. And let me remind you more
24 precisely, it was said whoever is hindering that cooperation, they are
25 doing something which is tantamount to sabotage and criminal activity.
1 It was a general assessment and statement that the level of cooperation
2 was unsatisfactory.
3 So let us be in no doubt as to the motivation for that meeting.
4 The meeting was held on the 9th of July, 1999, after several attempts
5 from the security administration and the General Staff from MUP. In
6 attendance were Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic; MUP generals, Djordjevic,
7 Stevanovic, and Lukic. General Ojdanic who chaired the meeting,
8 represented the VJ; General Geza Farkas, General Branko Gajic,
9 General Krga, head of the intelligence administration; and myself.
10 Q. Did you, as was your practice in those days, take your own notes
11 of this meeting?
12 A. As usual, I jotted down my own notes. I cannot be sure whether
13 the meeting was recorded and whether an Official Note was taken
14 afterwards. I don't know that. I took my notes; I'm sure that
15 General Gajic did so as well because of his style of work and my style of
16 work. I can tell you about the main points deliberated at that meeting
17 as far as my recollection serves me.
18 Q. Just one minute.
19 MR. STAMP: May I go into private session just to make one
20 comment to the Court.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 5721 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 MR. STAMP:
4 Q. Now, have you had an opportunity to refresh your memory as to
5 what occurred at that meeting and could you, if you have, tell us from
6 your memory who spoke and who said what.
7 A. I remember exactly who it was that intervened, although I cannot
8 quote all of them precisely. In any case, I can tell you the gist of it.
9 Everyone I mentioned took part in the discussions at the meeting, save
10 for myself and General Gajic.
11 MR. STAMP: Can he proceed, Your Honours?
12 Q. Please proceed.
13 A. General Ojdanic opened the meeting and put forth its goal. The
14 goal of the meeting was to establish as firm a cooperation as possible
15 between the military and the MUP. There was a joint task at hand which
16 was protecting the constitutional order of the country, as well as
17 protecting the legally elected central governmental bodies. He believed
18 there was a need for such cooperation based on joint implementation of
19 the Kosovo Agreement and the tasks that were ahead of both the army and
20 the MUP in relation to the newly created situation in Kosovo.
21 Next, firmer cooperation had to be established in terms of
22 receiving and exchanging information pertaining to the reserve forces of
23 the VJ, as well as gathering the weapons which by that time were not
24 returned by certain reservists. That was in terms of his introductory
1 After that, General Vlajko Stojiljkovic took the floor.
2 Q. General?
3 A. Yes, the Minister of the Interior of Serbia.
4 Q. Oh, I didn't know he was a general. Sorry.
5 A. I may have misspoken, if I said he was a general. In any case,
6 the MUP Minister, Vlajko Stojiljkovic. He dominated the meeting. His
7 contribution was longest, and he put forth the most information. At the
8 beginning, he paid respect or rather he expressed his satisfaction with
9 the work of the security services and the army; they have achieved
10 significant results in defending the country. He congratulated those who
11 were promoted on their promotion and on the commendations they received.
12 General Ojdanic, at the end of his introductory remarks,
13 introduced each and every one of us from the security services, and he
14 mentioned a few details about each of us concluding that he -- that we
15 enjoyed his full trust. That is why the minister congratulated on the
16 promotions and commendations received.
17 Then he stated that our joint assessment was correct in terms of
18 what was going on in Kosovo and the way the situation developed. These
19 assessments were confirmed during the previous period. He said that
20 these need to be further analysed and used as a basis for future
21 generations to educate them based on the experience gained prior to that.
22 He also pointed out that MUP organs played a significant role and
23 achieved success. He said that MUP was put under a lot of pressure and
24 had to perform a number of out-of-the-ordinary tasks saying that during
25 1998 and 1999 many MUP members were killed or injured. He said that some
1 262 MUP members were killed and 904 wounded. Only during the aggression
2 on the country, 116 MUP members were killed --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the counsel please
4 turn his microphone off; we cannot hear because of the background noise.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. I'm sorry, some of what you were saying was not picked up by the
7 interpreters, so could you go back to what you were saying about MUP
8 members were killed and wounded and continue from there.
9 A. I was going through the figures of those who were killed and
10 wounded. The numbers for 1998 and 1999 were captured, I believe.
11 During the war, 116 policemen were killed and 386 wounded.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 376.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He said that these figures were
14 exceptionally high having in mind the overall staffing strength of the
15 MUP. He also said that Kosovo could only be defended by keeping Serbs
16 present in Kosovo. He said that the army perhaps made a concession
17 because it allowed large numbers of Serbs to pull out as part of their
18 convoys from Kosovo.
19 He stated that there were many Serbs from Kosovo who were out of
20 Kosovo by that time but that the general political position was that they
21 were supposed to go back to Kosovo. He stated that MUP will see to it
22 that they should not receive permanent residence in Serbia proper, but
23 rather that they be registered temporarily. This also applied to their
24 vehicles, which could not receive registration plates from those
25 locations where they were at the moment. They were to keep the Kosovo
2 All that entire body of population was supposed to return to
3 Kosovo eventually because in his words that was the only way to keep
4 Kosovo. He also stressed some general information on the various types
5 of crime in Serbia
6 of the few months prior to that but that the figures were dropping as
8 He mentioned two entrepreneurs in particular who were trying to
9 make use of the situation by providing certain supplies and gaining
10 favours. He was alluding at getting some supplies for the army in terms
11 of food cans, et cetera. He said that these people should not enjoy any
12 favours, and that everyone was supposed to meet their obligations and pay
14 He said, however, that those individuals and companies which meet
15 their obligations towards the state in full should be favoured in turn.
16 He said that MUP organs were successful in the execution of their tasks.
17 Do you want me to slow down?
18 Q. Yes. I'd like to just direct you and focus a little bit more.
19 Did he speak about crimes that might or might not have been committed in
20 Kosovo during the war and about any disciplinary action in respect to
22 A. I was about to say that. When he praised the successful work of
23 the MUP, he said that there were only 13 cases of MUP members committing
24 crimes, and procedure was initiated accordingly in each of the cases. To
25 me, it sounded a bit strange having in mind the number of army members
1 who were involved in different proceedings.
2 Without going into any further detail, he stated something that
3 fell within the overall topic of the meeting. He said that everyone
4 should do their work without peeking or paying much heed to what others
5 were doing. Everyone was to do their job; and in his words, things would
6 be fine that way.
7 He said that he has no bias or negative attitude towards any army
8 moves, although, he said he knew of some previous practice that was
9 adopted prior to 1991 when the relationship between the army and MUP were
10 not all that great -- was not all that great.
11 That's what I can tell you concerning his contribution. After
12 him came General Djordjevic, and everyone who followed had briefer
13 contributions. At the beginning General Djordjevic said that in order
14 for both services to perform well, they should keep within their own
15 respective domains without dealing with the others' problems. It was a
16 follow-up of what the minister had said about everyone doing their own
18 Then he said that there were numerous possibilities to establish
19 a successful and quality cooperation between the services. For example,
20 he mentioned the area of training, then exchange of experience, resolving
21 the matters of status of those belonging to the army and MUP. Next was
22 joint supplies. He pointed out that MUP, much like before, was going to
23 continue implementing measures towards military personnel within their
24 scope of authority, and they would tread carefully.
25 He also said that one needs to steer clear of certain slogans
1 used during various demonstrations or gatherings. Some people were
2 shouting "Slobo, save us from the army," et cetera. Such things occurred
3 in certain incidences of unrest in the area of Leskovac. He said that
4 the image of the army being with the people and MUP being against it is
5 something that should be avoided. I think this reflects over 90 per cent
6 of his contribution.
7 General Stevanovic was next who was even briefer. He adopted a
8 more conciliatory approach. He said that one of the basic preconditions
9 for a successful performance of both services was good cooperation. He
10 also said that the MUP staff that was in Prolom Banja and was in charge
11 for the implementation of the Kosovo Agreement, that some good officers
12 of the VJ should also be allowed there.
13 He asked the Chief of the General Staff to see to it that their
14 members who had completed police academies should not be made to serve
15 the military term.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, page 15, line 2 --
18 actually 22 of the transcript. It should read, or rather, it shouldn't
19 be "Slobo, save us from the army," perhaps the witness can clarify.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said "army, save us."
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. General, if I may just ask you one or two things. You said you
24 found a number that the minister gave of 13 policemen strange. Could you
25 elaborate on that a little bit more? By the number of 13 policemen who
1 were in disciplinary proceedings or who were being -- or against whom
2 criminal proceedings had been brought was strange in your view. I think
3 you recall that, can you explain or elaborate on that, please.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I have to say yet again that the
6 witness did not mention any disciplinary proceedings, but criminal
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I said so.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. You said what you found, what he said about the 13 policemen was
11 strange. Could you tell us what exactly he said, and why did you find it
13 A. He stated that there were only 13 MUP members who had committed
14 crimes for which criminal proceedings were instituted against them. When
15 I expressed my view of finding that strange, I had in mind the time when
16 I was in Kosovo with General Gajic when on the 8th of June we reported to
17 the security administration. By that point we had registered 42 cases,
18 not 42 members of the army, but 42 cases in which numerous army members
19 had committed various crimes, and these two figures stood in disaccord.
20 Q. You also said that General Djordjevic said that the MUP, much
21 like before, was going to continue to implement measures in respect to
22 military personnel. Can you explain what you understood
23 General Djordjevic to mean by that?
24 A. I didn't say that General Djordjevic said that those measures
25 were to be -- to continue being implemented, but that they would
1 particularly carefully apply measures toward military personnel. I
2 didn't mean to say that they were going to increase the implementation of
3 those measures, but that they would be more cautious in implementing them
4 than before.
5 I knew what happened in the period prior to that back in 1991 and
6 1992 when MUP organs had more freedom and applied measures towards
7 military personnel more frequently, starting with checking military
8 vehicles in traffic, then asking for IDs from military personnel,
9 bringing military personnel to police stations.
10 In 1993 to 1997, we also had several cases when soldiers were
11 beaten up.
12 Q. I see.
13 A. Soldiers who were travelling on trains. I think in that respect
14 he wanted to say that they would pay more attention to the application of
15 those measures in order to avoid any excesses.
16 Q. I see. And he said also, that is General Djordjevic, that both
17 services should keep within their respectful or respective domains
18 without dealing with the others' problems. What did you understand him
19 to mean by that?
20 A. Before General Djordjevic, his minister, Vlajko Stojiljkovic,
21 said much the same thing. My interpretation was that they were
22 dissatisfied and sensitive to information that the security
23 administration and General Staff submitted directly to
24 President Milosevic concerning the murder cases in Kosovo. It was viewed
25 in that way probably because the information contained some data on the
1 activities of the MUP, concerning for example, Boca and the crime in
2 Podujevo. They were quite touchy on that topic, and did not like the
3 fact that we were reporting on their work.
4 The minister hinted on that as well as General Djordjevic, he
5 said, Let's each of us do our work; pay attention to what you do and not
6 the other one. And this was the basic precondition for a successful
8 Q. Thank you. If we could move back a little in time to the period
9 when yourself and now General Gajic went to Kosovo. I think that's
10 1st June and about seven days thereafter. What -- if you could describe
11 for us briefly, what were the reports that you received in respect to
12 crimes that had been committed in Kosovo while you were there on your
14 A. I've already mentioned that we had contacted 12 security officers
15 from various units starting with independent battalions up to the
16 Pristina Corps. It would be difficult for me to go through those cases
17 individually. Summarily, I can tell you that we registered 42 cases in
18 which military personnel in different ways broke the law as well as
19 procedure. Those crimes were mostly committed by individuals. There
20 were murders of three to four people; rapes of under-age girls; allowing
21 much freedom to volunteers to do away, for example, with 7 Albanians such
22 as the case in Gornja Klina involved, they eventually ended up in a well.
23 Then MUP members would break into houses, maltreat inhabitants, maltreat
24 some Roma citizens that they came across -- came upon.
25 There was also one specific case of a soldier manning a
1 check-point around Prizren. He was there together with a policeman. And
2 for no reason the soldier killed an elderly Albanian who even had
3 permission to enter Prizren. And all that happened following the
4 policeman's initiative who told him, Just kill him. Why are you asking
5 for his ID?
6 There were a number of such cases.
7 Objectively speaking, I can say that concerning the information
8 we verified and checked subsequently upon our return, most of such cases
9 were processed and a number of proceedings completed. Most of it took
10 place in April.
11 I was there in early June, and by that time there was only one
12 single case that had not been processed. It involved Colonel Stosic and
13 three volunteers from his unit that was up in Klina. That is what the
14 security organs stated on the situation in the various units. However,
15 some security organs also had information on what was going on in the
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] A correction. Page 19, line 17.
19 The witness did not say MUP members, but army members. He was talking
20 about the army.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 Mr. Stamp, I don't know whether you want to follow that up.
23 MR. STAMP: Yes.
24 Q. You spoke about persons who would break into houses, maltreat
25 inhabitants, and maltreat some Roma citizens that they came upon. Were
1 these MUP members or army members you were speaking of?
2 A. Army. It had to do with two soldiers in reference to the Roma.
3 Everything I've said so far had to do with army members.
4 Q. Because that was my next question. You said that cases were
5 processed and a number of proceedings completed. These are the cases
6 with army members you are talking about?
7 A. Yes. So far I only mentioned one MUP member at the joint
8 check-point near Prizren together with another soldier who killed the
9 elderly person.
10 Q. You said that your security organs also received information
11 about events in the field. Did they receive information about crimes
12 that were committed in the field?
13 A. When I was explaining what sources a security organ uses, I also
14 mentioned live sources, information gathering pertaining to the situation
15 in a unit that is under that particular security organ's
16 counter-intelligence surveillance. In the course of those duties, he
17 usually comes across information which may not be directly related to the
18 unit but are, nevertheless, interesting in terms of security. In that
19 regard, certain security organs stated information about things that were
20 taking place within the areas of responsibility of their units.
21 The most interesting contribution was the report of the security
22 organ officer at the 52nd Artillery Rocket Brigade. It was
23 Lieutenant Serge -- I cannot recall his last name at this moment. He was
24 a young officer. He was based in Djakovica. He put forth some
25 information that was later on verified by the head of security at the
1 Pristina Corps once we returned there. It had to do with certain
2 criminal activities undertaken by certain members of operative pursuit
3 groups active in that area.
4 Q. What were the operative pursuit groups, if you could remind us,
6 A. I cannot -- it cannot be said that there was a single one.
7 Operative pursuit groups, as far as I could infer, OPGs, as they were
8 called, were later on organised at the level of municipalities. They
9 were supposed to perform a mopping-up operations to eliminate remaining
10 smaller groups of terrorists. So there was just one OPG, but more of
11 them, but --
12 Q. In 1999, the OPGs belonged to which organisation?
13 A. As far as I could define from Colonel Stojanovic's brief, he had
14 information that OPGs were managed by person whose code on the radio was
15 Reuben 3 and that they were present in Kosovo Polje. And since that -- I
16 think that this person was the subject of protective measure; maybe we
17 should go into private session.
18 MR. STAMP: Private session, please.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
20 MR. STAMP:
21 Q. Who was this person according to -- sorry.
22 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
17 MR. STAMP:
18 Q. Yes. Did they tell you what these groups were engaged in?
19 A. Those groups in essence were looters. They looted and robbed
20 Albanians. We were briefed that they wore leather pouches hung from
21 their necks where they collected money and objects of a value. They
22 would burst into Albanian houses of those Albanians that had not moved
23 out and tell them "Give us all your money and you may remain in your
24 house." But after collecting the money, they expelled them all the same.
25 Then during a funeral in Kosovska Mitrovica, they said that they
1 had kidnapped a two-year-old child and demanded a 3.000 Deutschemark
2 ransom, then they would go into flea markets, take all the goods being
3 marketed, and sought money to return the goods.
4 Then there was talk that the person mentioned in private session,
5 that he made agreements with a wealthy Albanians that he would protect
6 their assets in return for some money while they were absent from Kosovo.
7 So there were briefings on such activities. And there was a case
8 which was obvious, and the officer I mentioned saw himself, a corpse --
9 20 corpses at the Djakovica bus station who lie there for several days
10 without being buried, which was connected with the group that I was
11 talking about.
12 Q. Corpses of whom? Were they Albanians or Serbs?
13 A. Albanians pursuant to his words.
14 Q. If I remind you of a name of your operative from the
15 52nd Rocket Artillery Brigade, would we need to go into private session
16 for that?
17 A. It wasn't 53rd, but 52nd Brigade. His name is Serge. I'm not
18 sure whether his family name was Pavlovic or something else. I contacted
19 once --
20 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...is it Perovic?
21 A. That's correct. Perovic. Yes, that's correct, thank you.
22 Q. Did he tell you how these persons, the 20 corpses, how these
23 persons came to be killed, or how did they die?
24 A. No, no, there were no details shared about that. It was his
25 briefing. I took notes of that as a phenomenon going on in the field
1 within his area of responsibility that he was dealing with.
2 Q. Did he say when these corpses were seen there?
3 A. I cannot recall. I think the briefing covered everything that
4 had been going on in April, but I'm not sure. I cannot recall
6 Q. And can you recall if he indicated whether or not there was a
7 reason why the police would have left these corpses lying there over some
9 A. No. I recall that he mentioned that subsequently some Roma came
10 with some vehicles and loaded them up and removed them probably pursuant
11 to an order of the local police, but the corpses were there for a period
12 of time.
13 Because if we recall the Podujevo case, in that case as well, as
14 far as I know, the corpses were there in that courtyard for several days,
15 two or three days, only to be removed after such period of time.
16 Q. From your operative did you receive information on any events -
17 and we're just -- I'm talking about any reports with respect to crimes
18 now - that might have been committed in the Ibica [sic] area?
19 A. The interpreter mentioned a word Ibica, but I presume that you
20 meant Izbica.
21 Q. Yes, that's my error.
22 A. Yes. As far as I can recall, Colonel Stojanovic at the wrap-up
23 meeting in Pristina discussed the crime at Izbica. I think it went for
24 143 persons who were buried and later on disinterred and autopsied at the
25 Kosovska Mitrovica hospital. There is that case.
1 Q. Did you receive reports about the events at Mali Alas - and
2 forgive me, my pronunciation is a little bit off this morning.
3 A. Probably Mali
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Yes, yes.
6 Q. If you could tell us in a sentence what types of information did
7 you --
8 A. Let me tell you, those events were numerous. And when you
9 mention [indiscernible] then I recall that this place was discussed. But
10 I cannot recall whether 252 reserve armoured brigade members were in that
11 area or not, but I cannot provide you with any specific data. But I know
12 that in 2003 I testified more specifically about those things in the
14 Many years have passed in the meantime, and I know that the case
15 of Mali Alas was discussed and some other places, I remember some
16 officers, family names Stekovic [phoen], Captain Jekic who was
17 apprehended after the cessation of war activities. They were prosecuted
18 in the -- before the military court in Nis. Some ended up as psychiatric
19 cases in an institution. This is everything I can tell you about those
21 Q. Yes. Okay. What was the procedure that you followed - and when
22 I say "you," I mean the army as an institution - would follow, when you
23 had information about crimes that were committed by MUP personnel?
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] If I heard correctly, the witness
1 already testified about these things; 42 cases being prosecuted and one
2 of them only being investigated, the rest being completed. So we are
3 revisiting what the witness already discussed.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Stamp.
5 MR. STAMP:
6 Q. Yes. What is the normal procedure that you would follow if you
7 received information that MUP personnel had committed serious crimes?
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether it's a mis --
12 my learned friend misspoke, he repeats MUP, while the witness spoke about
13 the military personnel.
14 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour, the question is if there was
15 information, if there was information that MUP personnel had committed
16 crimes, what was the procedure that was to be followed.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, any person who
19 learned about a serious crime being committed which is prosecutable
20 ex officio must report that crime to the competent authorities or organs,
21 which may be either organs of the interior or justice system, meaning the
22 Prosecution service, or their superior within this unit or service.
23 So if a member of the military soldier or an officer learns about
24 a crime being committed and perpetrated by somebody who is not a soldier
25 or member of the military, he must report that to his superior officer or
1 the MUP organs in that territory or the Prosecution service who will then
2 deal with the matter together with the MUP.
3 This is a procedure; whoever learns of a crime, must report it.
4 And then subject matter, jurisdiction, and venue will be discussed to
5 determine who is going to take up the prosecution of that particular
7 Q. Now, you mentioned that you received information about the
8 Podujevo case committed by an SAJ
9 the OPGs. Did you receive other information about crimes that were
10 committed by MUP units?
11 A. It is categorically stated by you that crimes committed by MUP
12 units, well, it's more information that indicate that some people from
13 MUP may stand behind some crimes, but whether they were committed by MUP
14 or not is something for the judiciary to determine.
15 But there were indications in such cases that somebody from the
16 MUP had committed something. Well, there was one case towards the end of
17 my visit and tour of Kosovo at the wrap-up meeting in Pristina. I
18 believe it was on the 6th of June in the evening. Colonel Stojanovic
19 briefed us on a case which had happened, and I believe that I discussed
20 this in private session. So if I were to revisit that case, it's better
21 we go into private session.
22 MR. STAMP: Could we, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
24 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 MR. STAMP: If I may just have a moment to check one thing,
16 Your Honours.
17 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. Can we move on, General. What was the position in respect to the
20 subordination or resubordination of MUP units in the field during the
21 war? It's quite an open question, but I'll asking you, having regard to
22 the time, if you could explain to us briefly what you as a general
23 understand the situation to be, what happened in Kosovo at that time.
24 A. I'm often asked about things which fell outside my purview just
25 because I'm a general, but since I attended all the -- all manner of
1 military colleges and schools and since I commanded an operational unit
2 for a time, I am familiar with the regulations and the practice.
3 Regulations say that whenever combat operations are carried out,
4 all units, meaning Territorial Defence units while it existed, all
5 internal organs of the interior, and which included the organs of social
6 self-defence, all such organs within the area of combat operations are
7 resubordinated to the highest command in that area.
8 And since the state of war had been declared, we are talking
9 about 1999, the president of Yugoslavia
10 capacity as a supreme commander -- on resubordinating MUP units to VJ, to
11 the VJ. As far as I can tell you, and I know this from general -- from
12 discussions with General Ojdanic and from the brief of General Pavkovic
13 on the 16th of May at the preparatory meeting for our next day's meeting
14 with the President Milosevic, it was stated then that MUP organs disobey
15 the resubordination order and that there are many problems.
16 For instance, when the Joint Commission to investigate the
17 responsibility for the bodies in the field; then-General Lukic did not
18 want to follow that request. Then there was a talk about the
19 check-points where military police was occupying. MUP personnel didn't
20 want to stop at such check-points and vice-versa. There were many such
21 cases. And for that reason, at the joint meeting of the 9th of July, it
22 was emphasised by MUP personnel that we should mind our own business and
23 that they would be minding their own business. I know from practice that
24 this order on resubordination was not abided by.
25 And General Ojdanic, when we attending those discussion with
1 President Milosevic together with me, he complained that his order is not
2 being implemented on the ground, that there are problems inter alia about
3 this. And President Milosevic in response said, I know about that, well,
4 first of all, we wrote this order because we want the MUP of Montenegro
5 to cooperate. Because at the time authorities obstructed or offered
6 resistance in terms of war operations, but since I travelled to
8 with all the VJ units that were in that area.
9 I mentioned this already, and I'm going to repeat it. When
10 General Ojdanic was being prepared for his arrival to The Hague, he
11 showed me a work -- his working notebook where he encircled in red the
12 Milosevic's words about this not being because of problems with the MUP
13 of Serbia
14 From the documents that I could see and that was shown to me in
15 this trial and in the previous trials, I can tell you and I can see that
16 in the military documents there were also tasks issued to MUP units in
17 the daily and other orders. And combat cooperation was done through such
18 orders. The problems most probably arose outside of combat operations.
19 To be frank, there must have been misunderstanding at local
20 levels in terms of each local police station being resubordinated to a
21 brigade commander, because MUP had some public security tasks that they
22 had to perform; but resubordination does not effect their public security
23 tasks but their resubordination and action in combat operations.
24 I never heard of a case where a brigade would issue orders
25 concerning a combat operation where a MUP unit would disobey such an
1 order. And this would be my brief overview of this issue.
2 Q. Thank you. Firstly, quickly, do you recall when this meeting
3 with President Milosevic occurred, the meeting in which he spoke about
4 the MUP of Montenegro
5 A. I think -- well, I know when we were at Milosevic's place,
6 General Ojdanic and I, this is the first half of June in Belgrade in
8 MR. STAMP: Could we look at document 01459. Sorry, I think we
9 should look at 01460, first. Could you scroll down so we can see the
10 whole document.
11 Q. Can you, in a sentence or two because of the time, identify this
12 document, and if you can, can you tell us what was its purpose?
13 A. This is what I discussed. Mention is made of Article 17 of the
14 Defence Act where the chief of the supreme command staff informs
15 strategic group commanders that units of MUP are being subordinated to
16 them in their areas of activity. It was dispatched, and it refers to the
17 order on the resubordination, as I said. And it says here:
18 "Pursuant to an order from the president of the
19 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."
20 This is exactly what I was discussing a minute ago.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, could this be given an exhibit number?
23 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
24 MR. STAMP: And could we --
25 THE REGISTRAR: It that will be assigned P00887, Your Honours.
1 MR. STAMP: I was moving on to another document, but I just noted
2 the time, Your Honours. I wonder if it's convenient.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We'll have our first break now and resume at
5 [The witness stands down]
6 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
8 [The witness takes the stand]
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Stamp.
10 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 General, I'd like you to have a look at another document.
12 MR. STAMP: Could we bring up 65 ter number 01459.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Concerning this document, well, so
15 as not to rush too much forward, perhaps I'll allow my colleague to
16 proceed and then I will ask for the floor a bit later.
17 MR. STAMP: Yes. Can you move to the next page in both English
18 and B/C/S.
19 Q. You see the signature there, General?
20 A. Just a moment. Yes. I see it.
21 Q. Do you know who it is?
22 A. I recognise this signature because of its characteristics. I
23 believe it is General Nebojsa Pavkovic's.
24 MR. STAMP: If we could go back to the front of the document.
25 First page.
1 Q. This document is addressed to the Supreme Command staff, that is
2 the Chief of Staff in person, that being General Ojdanic, and it says,
3 item 1:
4 "The resubordination of the MUP forces of -- forces of the Army
5 of Yugoslavia
6 for several reasons..."
7 Do you know, General, about whether or not the command of a
8 3rd Army made a report of this nature, and can you comment on that
9 statement in paragraph 1?
10 A. Yes. I know that this document was drafted and sent around this
11 date, the date being the 25th of May. It was a follow-up to our meeting
12 at the General Staff on the 16th and 17th -- the 16th May and 17th May
13 meeting with Milosevic. General Pavkovic in his report pointed out
14 certain relevant problems in terms of cooperation with the MUP.
15 What is characteristic for this is that in the the previous
16 period, he did not submit any report, although he was supposed to once
17 the order was issued on resubordination. He was, in a way, criticized by
18 the Chief of the General Staff on the 16th of May. Therefore, he
19 followed it up by summarising all the problems and forwarding the
21 We commented upon this at the General Staff. He specified the
22 specific problems in the field, and he was asking the Chief of the
23 General Staff to raise the issue of why the MUP was not being
24 resubordinated in keeping with the law. Whereas they had daily meetings
25 with the Joint Command, which, in my view, was supposed to deal with
1 precisely those problems in the field.
2 I may be mistaken in my interpretation and the feel I have of
3 this, but I think he is simply trying to blame or put the responsibility
4 on another person's shoulders. I believe you are quite familiar with
5 everything that has been taking place.
6 Q. When you say "... put the responsibility on another person's
7 shoulders," you mean the responsibility for what and on whose shoulders?
8 A. He was asking the Chief of the General Staff to deal with the
9 problem of the MUP not being resubordinated in Kosovo. Although this was
10 within his competence, it was his problem and he had persons of
11 authority, such as Mr. Sainovic, to share those problems with and to
12 raise those problems at meetings with MUP organs so that they could
13 resolve that in direct communication.
14 Instead of that, he merely reported it to the Chief of the
15 General Staff asking him to deal with it from Belgrade.
16 Q. Can you just read in your mind paragraph number 3.
17 MR. STAMP: If we could scroll up on both copies. Scroll down I
18 mean, sorry.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have commented on this in a way
20 when we were talking about the problems in terms of cooperation. It has
21 to do with the check-points manned by the MUP. They simply did not
22 control everyone leaving or coming in. There are also -- there's also
23 implied smuggling, crime; and at the joint meeting of the 9th of July
24 with the MUP organs, they said, You mind your own business and we'll mind
25 our own.
1 This was probably the consequence of the statement in item 3.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. And if you could look at item 4 on the next page. Just if you
4 could read this and comment on it.
5 A. Yes. This has to do with the accusations that the army was to
6 blame for the 800 corpses that need to be taken care of. When Pavkovic
7 established his commission, which in turn established the -- what the
8 situation was in terms of areas of responsibility and scopes of work, it
9 was established that 271 corpses were there because of army activity,
10 whereas the rest was because of the MUP.
11 But generally speaking, I believe it would have been better for
12 him to site a specific example rather than referring to the general
13 situation. In any case, this was to be resolved at the level of the
14 3rd Army and the Kosovo staff, where the persons from MUP who were
15 answerable to Sainovic and others, including Lazarevic, were. Those
16 issues were supposed to be raised at that level at their meetings. All
17 of this is just subsequent reporting.
18 He says that in the daily reports he included some of that
19 information. I didn't receive those reports, but I believe that it was
20 not put adequately in the reports. Had he used the same wording he used
21 now, General Pavkovic would have known of it earlier.
22 In order to make a general conclusion about this document, I
23 think he is merely trying to blame someone else for not reporting in a
24 timely fashion. All this followed the meeting of the 16th of May when
25 General Ojdanic first learned of the problems in Kosovo.
1 Q. Thank you. If we could move on quickly, General, to another
3 MR. STAMP: Oh, Your Honours, could this be received in evidence
4 and given an exhibit number.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honours, we
7 deny -- we question the authenticity of this document. Given the
8 practice that was adopted, we suggest that it be MFI'd. We will put
9 forth evidence in order to try and prove that this is not an authentic
10 document. I will also have some questions of the witness since he
11 expressed his view of this document. A graphology expertise was done
12 concerning this document, and we will have our own expert as well. There
13 are several things that I intend to do later. I'm merely asking for the
14 time being that because of this authenticity objection, this document not
15 be admitted but only marked for identification.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification, Mr. Stamp.
18 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00888, MFI,
19 Your Honours.
20 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honours. May I ask if I could be
21 granted leave to file written submissions on this, because -- or to --
22 the -- what the Defence plans to do in their case, should they have
23 one --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Could I say, Mr. Stamp, that at this moment --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 JUDGE PARKER: -- there has not been, in the view of the Chamber,
2 a sufficient identification of, or recognition of, the document by the
3 witness to justify it being received in evidence.
4 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE PARKER: That is the point at which the Chamber is.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. General, you said that you recognised Mr. -- General Pavkovic's
8 signature. In what circumstances had you seen Mr. Pavkovic -- or
9 General Pavkovic's signature before?
10 A. On several occasions. The last time was when I received the
11 decision on cessation of my army service, and I've known his signature
12 for a number of years, although you cannot see the whole of it on this
13 document because of the stamp. Perhaps we can go back to the first page
14 so that I could see the registration number of the document.
15 Can I see it in Serbian, please? Yes. Very well. We should
16 first check whether this document was drafted and sent as its stated
17 here. It should be in the register log-book of the 3rd Army. If I could
18 recall correctly, the first three digits, 872, correspond to the number
19 of the log of the 3rd Army 1999. The next two digit figures, 94, and
20 then slash 1 and 2. So there is a 1 and a 2. We don't see here what is
21 the number of this copy, although, that would be missing in most
22 documents anyhow.
23 If it is an original, then there is no number. Also, there's no
24 stamp confirming receipt at the General Staff. Therefore, one would
25 conclude that this does not come from the archives of the General Staff,
1 but from the archives of the 3rd Army. The only thing missing on the
2 document is that. But first I would need to know whether it came from
3 the archives of the General Staff. If it is, then the receipt stamp
4 should have been affixed whereas it doesn't appear to have one.
5 It can also happen that this is the original kept at the archives
6 of the 3rd Army. We would first need to know that in order to clarify
7 it. As regards the signature, it absolutely resembles the one I know.
8 I also know that this problem was discussed because he was
9 reporting a few days after the meeting of the 16th of May. He is now
10 belatedly discussing the problems that had been discussed at the meeting
11 covering his back. That's what I can tell you.
12 Q. If we go back to the second page to look at the part where he
13 signed, is there anything you can say about the stamp?
14 A. I don't think this signature is in dispute. This is
15 General Pavkovic's signature, and this is the stamp of the army command.
16 He drafted the document, the initials; NP is Nebojsa Pavkovic. He
17 drafted it. Although I don't know the initials of the person who typed
19 Q. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Why do you speak now, Mr. Djurdjic?
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, even though you
22 decided that this document be MFI
23 continued putting questions about this document. Why am I objecting? I
24 have to tell you this. There is a counterfeit copy materially and
25 legally speaking. We believe that this document was not created on the
1 25th of May, but rather after the war, that is the issue number one.
2 Number two, it is not in the archives of the VJ, where it should be.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, you are giving evidence now. We are
4 approaching this simply on the basis of whether it can be admitted into
5 evidence at this stage of the trial. If it is admitted in evidence, if
6 that occurred, you would still be at perfect and full liberty to prove
7 that it was not a genuine document. The fact that it's admitted into
8 evidence doesn't remove that capacity from you at all.
9 At the moment on the evidence that was given, especially in view
10 of your comment that you wanted to cross-examine on the document, the
11 Chamber has taken the view that it would be marked for identification.
12 The Chamber could revisit that decision and mark it as an exhibit at the
13 end of the evidence of this witness, or later in the trial if some other
14 evidence comes along.
15 So at the moment, you are dealing with something marked for
16 identification. Mr. Stamp is trying to further his support of the
17 document being received, if I understand what Mr. Stamp is doing
19 MR. STAMP: That is correct, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: And he is at liberty to do that just as you will
21 be able to cross-examine on the document if you wish to during the
22 evidence of the present witness. But at the moment, it is marked for
23 identification. No more, no less.
24 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours. And I'm grateful for the
25 exposition on the difference between admissibility and weight and
1 probative value. Thank you, I think I'll move on from this document for
2 the time being.
3 Q. General, you said earlier, that from documents that you could see
4 and that were shown to you in this trial and in previous trials, you can
5 see that in the military documents there are tasks issued to MUP units.
6 In respect to that statement, I'd like to ask you -- or I'll just put it
7 to you. You received from the Prosecution over the weekend since you
8 have been here a binder of documents for review, did you?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. And did you review the documents you received in the binders?
11 A. I reviewed all of them with much attention.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I wish to proceed to go through some
14 military documents, and I'd like to hand him the binders, because there
15 are quite a significant number of them, and it would be much more
16 practical for him to have the binders.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
18 MR. STAMP: If we could start by looking at one of these
19 documents. Look at item number 4, and this is 65 ter number 02828.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What number?
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. Tab 4 in your binder. If you could look at the front -- or, you
24 have studied these documents. You see on the front of the document
25 numbers and various stamps on the front of the document?
1 A. Yes. Since there are many documents here, some date from 1998
2 while I was not in active duty, but this is irrelevant for the 1999
3 period. I would like to say a couple of things. I've perused these
4 documents, and the first thing I want to say is that I'm not a court
5 expert, therefore I cannot confirm the authenticity of each and every of
6 these documents.
7 As a military officer holding even command posts for many years,
8 I've tried to see them from different angles. First of all, the
9 registration number of each of those documents kept in the command of the
10 Pristina Corps in the registration log-book 445 for 1999. So all the
11 documents emanating from the Pristina Corps bear -- the first number is
12 455, and dash 1 means that this is the first combat document of the
13 Pristina Corps in 1999. 455 means that documents registered as combat
14 documents under that number.
15 The second thing I tried to use is the form of the document as it
16 was drafted from the professional point of view, and in all documents,
17 all documents in terms of staff skills, they were correct; they were
18 drafted by a trained military professional who most probably graduated
19 from a high military school. It contains all the requisite elements.
20 And I can state to you that this is a typical military document
21 accordance with the bests of practice.
22 I'm now explaining my method of reviewing all of those documents.
23 In some of them I encountered on information about events that I'm
24 familiar with. For instance, 3rd Army's daily report for the
25 General Staff were at one point discussing the morale in the army. It is
1 explained that a certain number of reserve officers from the 7th Brigade,
2 they left their positions. I know about this event dated 22nd of June
3 because at that time I was in Krusevac trying to resolve the issue of the
4 flight of those soldiers, and I can confirm that this document is
5 authentic because it refers to an event that I personally took part in.
6 So the Prosecutor can ask me questions about each of those documents.
7 I have not found any elements to engender doubt in my mind of any
8 document being falsified, forged, because each of them can be checked and
9 verified in the registration log-book.
10 So the first document that we see is characteristic by the
11 registration number that it bears, 455-1. It's dated 16th of February,
12 the very beginning of the year. The dash -- the numbers to the right of
13 the dash would reach 180 towards the end of the year. So this would be
14 my general remark encompassing all of those documents. Now you have any
15 specific questions, I'm ready to field them.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let's correct the transcript there
18 was something misspoken about the date for the 7th Brigade that he
19 discussed. I suggest that witness should repeat about the date that he
20 thought he was there.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] the second part of May, I believe
22 that it was the 22nd of May. It was immediately preceding my arrival to
23 Kosovo on the 1st of June.
24 MR. STAMP:
25 Q. Can you explain again, please, what the 455 would refer to.
1 Because I'm not sure if you are saying it would refer to the year or
2 would it refer to an activity or a subject matter?
3 A. For each year, commands of brigades and higher would keep their
4 registration log-book. For each year. It begins with the first of
5 January of the current year, ending with the 31st of December of that
6 year. This is the registration log-book of the Pristina Corps for 1999.
7 And 455 denotes combat documents. All the documents I saw are combat
8 documents. So this first digit denotes a problem. And then --
9 Q. Can you just explain what it denotes?
10 A. I don't mean a problem which arose and has to be resolved, but a
11 status, a state of affairs. So 455 denotes combat documents. And all
12 combat documents will be registered under -- into the registration
13 log-book under the sign of 455 and then dash 1, 2, 3, 4, is the number
14 and the sequence number. This is the first document of the
15 Pristina Corps for that year bearing the notation 455, and all combat
16 documents during that year will be marked 455.
17 In the 3rd Army, if I'm not mistaken, that corresponding marking
18 is 878, dash, and then the number.
19 Q. Would the number 455 designate all combat or a particular
20 activity or protocol of activity for a particular type of combat?
21 A. No. This professionally is -- are deemed combat documents.
22 Decisions, orders, dispatches concern combat activities, et cetera,
23 et cetera. Let me help you here. For instance, if supplies had to be
24 procured of blankets for soldiers, it would not be registered under 455,
25 but would be registered under logistics, and that would be 132, dash, the
1 number of the document in sequence. This marking 455 denotes combat
2 documents and everybody knows what combat documents are. Decisions,
3 orders, reports, anything that refers to combat activities.
4 Resubordination of units, relocation and transfer of units, et cetera.
5 Q. Did you also look at the stamps on the front and the end of the
7 A. Yes, I did. You received those documents from the
8 Army of Yugoslavia
9 stamp, reception stamp, it has thereby verified that these are authentic
10 and put in the archive. They wouldn't have been put in the archive had
11 they not been authentic. They were archived most probably together with
12 the registration log.
13 So if we were to go through each and every document and then
14 engender discussion between the Prosecution and Defence whether it's
15 authentic or not, this is why I provided you with this initial overview.
16 The proof that they are not forged or falsified is the -- reflected in
17 this reception stamp by the archive which then avers that these are
18 authentic military documents in the military archive.
19 Q. Okay. I'm going to go through these documents. And having
20 regard to the examination of these documents, the fact that you have seen
21 certain indicia that you have mentioned on the documents, the way that
22 they are written, I would just like you to tell us as whether, a
23 professional military officer, these documents -- if there's any doubt in
24 your mind about the authenticity of these documents on the basis of what
25 you have reviewed.
1 At tab 1 we have 65 ter number 01427.
2 A. Did you mean the document number 1?
3 Q. The document -- when I say tab, I mean the number. The tab is
4 the numbering in the binder. So you pay attention to the numbering in
5 the binder and just mentioning another number for the purpose of the
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 MR. STAMP: I'm sorry. Your Honours, could 02808 be marked for
9 identity, the one before the Court.
10 JUDGE PARKER: The document dated the 16th of February?
11 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, the Chamber in view of the evidence
13 about this document and generally is minded to receive it as an exhibit.
14 Before we do so, do you want to put any submission?
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I jump to my feet
16 before anything is admitted, but since I did not raise to my feet which
17 means I have no objection to it being admitted. If I have an objection,
18 I will make sure that you hear it.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Well, in advance of your motion, the Chamber is
20 prepared to receive it as an exhibit. Are you content with that,
21 Mr. Stamp? Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00889, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's been admitted.
1 I know it is going to be admitted, but this serve the purpose of
2 recognising the form of the document. It dates from a period before the
3 witness was reinstated.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I am allowed, it's irrelevant
5 whether it dates from 1998 or 1999, whether it's from May when I was
6 reinstated. Even when I was reinstated, I did not have any direct
7 contact with this document because it was not part of my immediate
9 If you were to have to identify each of those documents, you
10 would have to summon each of the officers who can verify. Some of them
11 are in the Detention Unit. And nobody else can tell you about the
12 authenticity. But I'm telling you this, if this bears the military
13 archives' stamp, this means that after the cessation of war activities,
14 those documents were archived. And there's no talk about doubts as to
15 their veracity and authenticity.
16 Even when I was reinstated, documents in May or June, if they are
17 shown to me, I cannot tell you whether what in them is right because they
18 were not part of my purview.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. The order of the Chamber is
20 the document is received as an exhibit.
21 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
22 Q. If we could move quickly to document at your tab 1, and it's
23 65 ter number 01427. Did you review that document?
24 A. Number 1, you mean?
25 Q. Number 1, yes, go back to number 1, please.
1 A. Yes, I did read all of them, and I said so.
2 Q. Yes. I know you had said that all of them in your view were
3 authentic. But could you tell us, did this one appear to you to also be
5 A. It doesn't seem to me to be authentic. I say it's authentic by
6 all the markings that I recognise. There is another number from the
7 registration log, but it dates from another year, 1998. Combative
8 documents were registered in the registration log under the number 873.
9 In 1999, the denotation for a combat document was 455. So you have this
10 marking -- new marking for each year.
11 The signature of General Pavkovic is here visible as well.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. STAMP: Your Honours. Could that document be received in
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00890, Your Honours.
17 MR. STAMP:
18 Q. If you could move on to your tab 2, General - and this is -- I
19 think this is P767. This one is already in evidence, I believe.
20 Having reviewed the document, did it have the indicia of being an
21 authentic document, and, General, there are a lot of documents, I don't
22 think it would be responsible for me to ask the Court to sit down while
23 you go through them now. I assume that you had been through them before.
24 So if you could just give me an answer based on what you have
25 done before I would be grateful, so we could move quickly. I'm sorry if
1 I interrupted what you were doing.
2 A. There is a difference pertaining to this document compared to the
3 previous two documents, is that it bears the Joint Command for
4 Kosovo and Metohija; and we see that it bears the same 455 number, which
5 was on the documents of the Pristina Corps in the previous cases. And at
6 the end of the document, it is stated Joint Command. What it went for.
7 In the previous trials I explained the Joint Command as
8 identified as such did not have its own staff, it's organs, or its
9 separate registration log. Whatever was decided there, General Lazarevic
10 subsequently, together with his staff and his officers, would formulate
11 and draft it into a typical military document. And since the
12 Joint Command did not have its own registration log, the combat documents
13 generated by the Joint Command were registered as if they were documents
14 of the command of the Pristina Corps. And this is why it bears sign 455,
15 and I'm repeating the same story all over again.
16 Q. Thanks. Does it have the indicia of authenticity that you
17 described before?
18 A. Yes, this is what I state.
19 Q. Thanks. Tab 3, and this is 04139. Does this also have the
20 indicia of authenticity that you described before?
21 A. Yes. As I said, this is the other number for 1998, and this is
22 880. This is a command of the Pristina Corps document, and it bears the
23 stamp of the military archives.
24 Q. And if you look at the end, you can see that this is one that was
25 signed by General Pavkovic; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I tender 04139 and ask that it be given
3 an exhibit number.
4 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00891, Your Honours.
6 MR. STAMP:
7 Q. Could you move on to your tab 5.
8 MR. STAMP: And this is 02067. That's the 65 ter number.
9 Q. Does this document also have the indicia of authenticity that you
10 described? In other words, do you have any reason to doubt its
12 A. I don't. This was drafted by the command of the 549th Brigade
13 currently commanded by Brigadier Delic. As you can see, the brigade was
14 headquartered in Prizren at the time; and it bears the stamp of the
15 brigade, General Delic's signature is there. And is registered as 1966-2
16 in his registration log, which is a completely different number, but
17 which is characteristic for the register log of 549th Brigade. I have no
18 reason to doubt that his signature is his. The stamps are adequate, and
19 this is all I can say about this.
20 MR. STAMP: Could 02067 be given an exhibit number, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00892, Your Honours.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Tab 6, if you could move on General. This is 02071. Is there
25 any reason to doubt that this is an authentic order?
1 A. No. This is another type of document. This is a dispatch
2 through coded communication sent by the commander of the Pristina Corps.
3 But respective of it being dispatch, it is raised as a combat document
4 under 455. But dash 34 means that it is the 34th in order because it's
5 in March. And number 1 was in February. And as early as in March we
6 have the 34th such document registered.
7 Q. Tab 7 --
8 MR. STAMP: Could that document be received in evidence,
9 Your Honour.
10 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
11 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00893, Your Honours.
12 Q. This is -- tab 7 is 02072.
13 A. I've seen it. And in 549th Brigade what is characteristic is
14 that the stamp from the registration log is applied at the end of the
15 document and not at the beginning of the document. But this is
16 irrelevant. So 1966 is the same number as in the previous document that
17 we saw pertaining to General Delic. By its form and everything else and
18 by the stamps affixed to it, I -- my assessment is that this is an
19 authentic document.
20 MR. STAMP: Could that be received.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00894, Your Honours.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. Tab 8.
25 A. Is the same. This is a short order on resubordination of the
1 scout and sabotage division. It denotes the code or the teleprinter
2 station. Everything corresponds to the forms that I mentioned, the
3 numbers; the number markings correspond to what I said. There's nothing
4 to report.
5 MR. STAMP: I should indicate on the record, Your Honours, that
6 this document was one that we were applying to add to the list. So
7 subject to the decision of the Court, could that be marked for
9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm still waiting for it to come on my screen.
10 MR. STAMP: The 65 ter number is 00531.
11 JUDGE PARKER: This will be marked for identification pending our
12 decision on the Rule 65 list.
13 THE REGISTRAR: And that, Your Honours, will be assigned
14 P00895, MFI
15 MR. STAMP:
16 Q. Tab 9 is 04276.
17 A. This is an order of the commander of the military district of
18 Pristina and its own registration number, the round stamp. In this
19 order, he issues orders to military sectors and military territorial
20 detachments, bears the signature. I had no occasion to see his signature
21 beforehand; but since it bears the military archives stamp, I assess it
22 is authentic.
23 MR. STAMP: Could that be received, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be assigned P00896, Your Honours.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. Could we move on to tab 10, 04299.
3 A. This is a preparatory order dated 28th of March. One of the
4 early command -- combat activities, the beginning of the aggression.
5 This is a warning order instructing those military units to await further
6 orders. I have no doubt about -- reasons to doubt the authenticity. It
7 bears the military archives stamp, and that is it about it.
8 MR. STAMP: Could 04299 be received.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00897, Your Honours.
11 MR. STAMP:
12 Q. Go to tab 11. And this is 65 ter number 02000.
13 A. I cannot read this document. It is illegible. I wasn't able to
14 see the heading. I can only see the stamp which should be the command of
15 the 549th Brigade. It corresponds to their typical registration log
16 number, but I cannot see the contents at all.
17 Q. But based on the stamp and the --
18 A. Yes. We can see the two last stamps showing also General Delic
19 's signature who was colonel at the time. Judging by the stamps, it was
20 probably an order of his, although I don't know what the contents is. I
21 see in item 4 that it says "I decide" which would be a standard item in
22 any order. I think it falls within the same category as with the
23 previous documents.
24 MR. STAMP: Could 02000 be given an exhibit number, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00898, Your Honours.
2 MR. STAMP:
3 Q. Could you move on to tab 12, 04309.
4 A. I have the same comment. I have no reason to doubt whether this
5 document is true or not.
6 MR. STAMP: Could 04309 also be received, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00899, Your Honours.
9 MR. STAMP:
10 Q. If we move to tab 13. This is 05325.
11 A. Yes. This is the command group of the Pristina Corps having its
12 separate registration log for combat documents. They all bear the
13 number 12. As for this document, it is the 277th document in their log.
14 This is a new number, although it is from the Pristina Corps. This was a
15 separate group which had its own registration log. This would be a
16 standard type on the tasks of the military territorial detachment of
17 Djakovica. I believe it is in keeping with the general principles that
18 were used.
19 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, this is one of the documents that we
20 had applied to be added. So I respectfully ask that it be given -- it be
21 marked for identity subject to the decision of the Chamber.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked pending decision.
23 THE REGISTRAR: And that will be assigned P00900 MFI,
24 Your Honours.
25 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I wonder if I could, with the leave of
1 the Court, make a suggestion. We've had the testimony from the witness
2 in respect to all of the documents that he has seen. I must confess that
3 I've never found myself in a situation where in terms of documents of
4 this nature, which are in fact something like business records that are
5 produced in the course of someone's duty, we have to go through them, and
6 there are quite a few. And you know, they have significant points here
7 and there. I don't know if it's really a responsible thing to do to be
8 going through all of these documents in court and using court time for
9 that purpose. I'm wondering if there's a better way to do it.
10 If perhaps we could --
11 JUDGE PARKER: How many more do you have?
12 MR. STAMP: About 60.
13 JUDGE PARKER: How many?
14 MR. STAMP: About 60 more, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Six zero?
16 MR. STAMP: Six zero. Most of these documents previously were
17 agreed upon or were subject to motions, but it was because we have not
18 been having discussions why we have to go through the motions here. But
19 the general has testified about examining them, and I was suggesting that
20 if perhaps we could have a discussion with the Defence now, we could
21 determine which documents we need for him to deal with in court using
22 court time and the other documents we could just submit to the court.
23 I have to confess, I've never gone through documents like these
24 before a court and used so much time before, so I don't know if it's
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, do you -- are you presently in a
2 position to say whether you object to any of these 60 documents, roughly,
3 number 60?
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I tried discussing
5 this with Mr. Stamp over the break, I told him, Well, just put in 100
6 documents, we'll put in another hundred that so we can conclude with
8 In any case, if we adopted the principle, this puts me in an
9 awkward position because I haven't put all the documents to the witness
10 that we would seek to tender through this witness; but in principle, I
11 don't believe I will object to any of these documents in terms of
12 authenticity save for the document we have already discussed and that I'm
13 going to discuss with the witness.
14 We believe these documents are all acceptable and the witness
15 said why and how he can confirm that. I would just ask for one thing,
16 that the Prosecutor forwards a list of those documents. We will forward
17 our own. And once we agree on those, which I believe we will, since most
18 or all of these documents are from the previous cases and were exhibited,
19 then we could assign them numbers.
20 We had this instance of a 92 ter document, and we agreed upon it
21 with the Prosecutor. And then Mr. Stamp can only go through those
22 documents that he wants to put to the witness in court, and we have no
23 problem with that.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic. The -- it looks as
25 though, Mr. Stamp, your position is now being eased a great deal by
1 Mr. Djurdjic. What is needed is a list of the documents that remain that
2 you wish to tender to be provided first to Mr. Djurdjic. He may identify
3 some as subject to objection, unlikely, or he may identify further
4 documents that he would like tendered so that there can be a combined
5 package of documents.
6 In that list would you please identify any documents which are
7 subject to the Rule 65 ter motion so that we don't by oversight admit
8 them if they are subject to that difficulty.
9 Now, that can occur in the course of the evidence of this
10 witness. The way things are progressing, I would suggest that it be the
11 subject of discussion and decision by tomorrow morning. That ought to be
12 possible. And we can then have the whole remaining agreed group
13 tendered, and they will be received and allotted numbers.
14 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours. May I just make one inquiry. I
15 see Your Honour has indicated that Mr. Djurdjic may identify further
16 documents that he would like to be tendered. Your Honours, I would not
17 be in a position to agree to the Defence documents unless he lays a
18 foundation with the witness. Not all of them I could -- well, not all of
19 them I could agree to, and the situation is slightly different. He, I
20 think, would need to --
21 JUDGE PARKER: You discuss that with Mr. Djurdjic and see where
22 you come to.
23 MR. STAMP: Very well.
24 JUDGE PARKER: But if there can be no agreement, we will have to
25 sit here and go through 60 documents.
1 MR. STAMP: Indeed.
2 JUDGE PARKER: So keep that in mind.
3 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I think that this
4 is the appropriate way to go. I was really think about time of the Court
5 more than anything else. There are just two documents I'd like to pay
6 attention to just for the time being, and one of them is P889, and that
7 is your tab 4.
8 Q. And I think you said that this is the first document in respect
9 to the combat activity with the 455 registration number. And this is an
10 order of the Pristina Corps command that you described. If we could now
11 move on to document in your tab 67, and it's 01966.
12 MR. STAMP: And if you could bring that up on the screen so we
13 could have a look at it.
14 Q. This is a Joint Command order.
15 A. Is it document 67?
16 Q. It's document 67, yes, in your tab.
17 A. I may need a moment to get to it. Yes.
18 Q. Does that also bear the indicia of authenticity? Do you have any
19 reason to doubt its authenticity?
20 A. Yes, following the same criteria, I have discussed. This is a
21 document of the Joint Command, but logged under the Pristina Corps
22 number. It was probably drafted by the staff of the Pristina Corps
23 since, professionally speaking, this is a well drafted document.
24 MR. STAMP: I should just point out for the record, Your Honours,
25 this document is D107. The Defence had previously --
1 JUDGE PARKER: 107 or 104?
2 MR. STAMP: 104.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
5 Q. And if we could look at the end of this document. The last part
6 of this document, I think we will see --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 MR. STAMP:
9 Q. That it's unsigned. And --
10 A. No Joint Command document is signed, not one. I've never seen
11 such a document to be signed. It says at the beginning "Joint Command,"
12 then the registration log number is the same indicating the command of
13 the Pristina Corps. I claim that this document as all other
14 Joint Command [Realtime transcript read in error, "Pristina Corps"]
15 documents were drafted by the staff of the Pristina Corps because it is
16 evident that professional expert personnel drafted these as textbook
18 As regards the last item, 13, you are probably interested in the
19 following: Concerning preparation for combat, before the start --
20 Q. General --
21 A. -- and during the combat operations, coordinated action needs to
22 be put in place.
23 Q. Thank you, you had answered my question. I was just interested
24 in your comments on the Joint Command order not being signed, and I'm
25 grateful for those comments.
1 A. You did mention the last item, so I thought you were asking me
2 for a comment.
3 Q. Okay.
4 MR. STAMP: Your Honours --
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No objection. Just a correction.
7 Page 58, line 7 and 8, instead of the "Pristina Corps" it should read
8 "Joint Command."
9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm not quite sure where you are saying that
10 should be.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] My associate wrote down
12 page 58, lines 7 and 8. In the transcript we have the "Pristina Corps."
13 It should actually be the "Joint Command."
14 I may be mistaken, I apologise if I'm not correct.
15 JUDGE PARKER: The sentence I think you are referring to is: It
16 says at the beginning Joint Command, then the registration log number is
17 the same indicating the command of the Pristina Corps. Next sentence:
18 "I claim that this document as all other Joint Command documents
19 were drafted by the staff of the Pristina Corps ..."
20 Yes. That is actually lines 11 and 12 in our form. We've got it
21 now identified where it should be, and I think the witness was referring
22 to the Joint Command. Thank you. Thank you for that.
23 Now, Mr. Stamp.
24 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours, having regard to
25 the time, I propose to close the examination-in-chief, with your leave,
1 Your Honours, subject to discussions on the documents. But I was
2 wondering if we could take the break 10 minutes early so I could just
3 have a quick review of what has gone on so far.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. I think it would be practical to give
5 you the break to prepare, Mr. Djurdjic. So we will have the second break
6 now, resuming at 10 minutes to 1.00, and that will give us a final
7 session of 55 minutes. Subject then to what you have indicated, you will
8 close your case when we resume.
9 MR. STAMP: Not so early with closing on the case, Your Honours.
10 Close the examination in the chief of this witness.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I'm living in hope, Mr. Stamp.
12 MR. STAMP: Very well, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Have you had any reason to change your mind,
19 Mr. Stamp?
20 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: You close your questions, your examination.
22 MR. STAMP: Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. During
25 our discussions with the Prosecution concerning the proposal concerning
1 the exhibits, I hope we will not waste time going through all the
2 documents which are suggested to be tendered, but highlight only those we
3 wish to elaborate upon.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
5 Q. Good morning, Witness.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. We have Marie O'Leary; together with me, lead counsel; and
8 Alexander Popovic, a member of the Defence team defending
9 General Djordjevic. Before I start with my first question, please tell
10 me, would I have been vetted by your counter-intelligence personnel?
11 A. We do not vet people who are not members of the military, and if
12 there are no indications necessitating such vetting.
13 Q. Thank you. I've read all your statements and everything
14 concerning you, so I'm going to focus only on matters which have not been
15 broached, and we'll follow up on some of your answers during yesterday
16 and today.
17 What I'm interested in, in 1961 when you finished your academy
18 and you performed troop duties at which level were those duties?
19 A. First I was a platoon commander in a training company. There I
20 spent one year. After that I commanded a platoon in the NCO school for
21 two years. These were my troop command duties. It is a practice for
22 security officers not to be admitted after graduation. First they have
23 to perform some troop duties before they may be candidates for security
25 Q. Please make a pause between my question and your answer, because
1 we are speaking the same language. And for interpretation purposes, I'll
2 try to wait for your answers to finish.
3 Am I mistaken in believing that you were connected with ABKO or
4 atomic biological chemical and radiological weapons?
5 A. It was not your mistake, I specialised the arm of anti-nuclear
6 biological, chemical, and radiological. This was my specialization.
7 Q. Thank you. For you to the promoted to the rank of general in
8 1988 to 1990 you had to be a commander of a motorised brigade in the
9 7th Army to qualify for the rank of a general, is that correct, or was
10 the procedure different?
11 A. This was not so. I was commander of the 4th Motorised Division
12 in Sarajevo
13 But in 1973, I changed my military specialty and was transferred from the
14 arm of ABKO into infantry. And then I specialised in the military
15 academy, military arm of infantry and motorised units.
16 Q. Thank you. But you were in Sarajevo
17 there is no mistake about that?
18 A. That's correct, no mistake.
19 Q. Thank you. Since you are an expert in counter-intelligence
20 activities, I would like to hear from you what tasks you performed within
21 the VJ up to the point where you occupied the highest positions.
22 A. In security organs, I held duties from clerk to head of
23 department at all levels. I climbed the ladder from security officer in
24 an independent battalion up to head of security of a division and of
25 an -- at an army level, then head of counter-intelligence department in
1 the security administration, deputy head of security administration and
2 then head of security administration. I've gone up that ladder.
3 Q. Could you elaborate upon the reasons for you being decorated with
4 the medal of valour?
5 A. During commanding the operative action shield or Stit aimed as
6 detecting the import of arms into Croatia
7 organisation of the HDZ in Croatia
8 Q. Thank you. From 1981 -- 1981 to 1989, please tell us what were
9 the main issues or matters that counter-intelligence within the JNA dealt
11 A. 1981 in terms of the work of security services was characteristic
12 by the emergence of organised enemy destructive demonstrations and riots
13 in Pristina. That state of affairs reflected on the security situation
14 in the JNA because we had many conscripts coming from Kosovo who had
15 previously enrolled in illegal organisations and who were tasked with
16 organising illegal groups within the ranks of the JNA to expand their
17 activities and to prepare and carry out terrorist actions.
18 If I may expound on that to describe the general situation as it
19 was. The first illegal group in the army was detected towards the end of
20 1980. In the 7th Army when I was -- the Sarajevo army to be more
21 precise, while I was assistant head of department for
22 counter-intelligence. In the period between 1981 and 1986, we detected a
23 total of 214 illegal groups within the JNA, if I remember correctly. And
24 there were 1.000 to 1200 convicted persons in different periods. They
25 organised for the food in barracks to be poisoned. This was detected
1 early and prevented. There were tens of incidents of theft of military
2 weapons, attempts to escape abroad together with weapons. In the
4 From the 3rd of September, 1987, there was an illegal group of
5 Albanians in the Paracin barracks; they carried out a terrorist attack
6 they killed 4 soldiers and wounded another 6 soldiers while asleep.
7 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to 1981, please. Do you remember what
8 were the basic demands that the Albanian separatist organisations put
9 forth at the time?
10 A. Until the 17th of February, 1982, there were four major illegal
11 organisations in Kosovo. The leadership of those organisations was
12 mainly abroad in Switzerland
13 their programs, were very similar. The main thesis was Kosovo republic.
14 The differences was in the nuances. There were Marxist-Leninist options,
15 some were democratic options.
16 Until the 7th of February, 1982, as I said, the military service
17 that I worked in at the time in the Sarajevo
18 become head of security. At the beginning of 1984, that service detected
19 that those four organisations merged into a single organisation which
20 bore the hallmarks of a movement. And the title of that movement, the
21 name was, Movement for Kosovo as a republic within the Yugoslavia
22 Leadership comprised four members from the so-called old guard of
23 Albanian dissident, four members were the young guard. Those who had
24 emigrated from Kosovo abroad after 1981.
25 What is characteristic is that it had committees throughout
3 another group in the vicinity of Bar in Montenegro. They formed a
4 military committee within the JNA. It numbered 10 members, we detected
5 them in a coded action Zlatar. They were tried in the -- before the
6 military court in Sarajevo
7 Q. We will go back to that operation and that trial, but please do
8 explain what "Kosovo republic" means as a demand which appeared in 1981?
9 A. Kosovo republic was a slogan that was supposed to rally the
10 Albanians around. And the intent was that it -- Kosovo should be given a
11 status of republic at any cost, including armed battles. When we
12 discussed with the apprehended -- this with the apprehended members of
13 that organisation, they were convinced that the autonomous province had
14 all the prerequisites and authorities of a republic. The only thing they
15 lacked was a minister of foreign affairs.
16 Their structures and organs were an integral part of the then
17 Yugoslav structures, they also had something akin to a Supreme Command
18 within the existing structures. The young people laboured under the
19 illusion that something would be changed if they were labelled Kosovo.
20 From Albania
21 were to become a republic, that it could secede from Yugoslavia and the
22 ultimate goal was to merge Kosovo into Albania.
23 Q. Thank you. Mr. General, am I right when I say that that slogan
24 meant the territorial disintegration of the territory of Serbia
25 establishment of a new state because only republics in the former
2 hallmarks of states?
3 A. The problem was not in them getting elements of a statehood. The
4 present set-up had hallmarks of statehood. For instance, the head of the
5 provincial state security service, he practically was not subordinated to
6 the head of Serbian state security but to the federal SUP, S-U-P
7 Secretariat for Internal Affairs. The same way that representatives of
8 autonomous provinces had a place at the table in the federal Presidency.
9 As I explained, this was only the first stage. The goal was not
10 to get a status of a republic within the Yugoslavia, the ultimate goal
11 was to secede from Yugoslavia
12 Albanian security and intelligence services had a great role because they
13 fed those slogans and supported the work of such legal groups from
15 Q. Let's discuss this Zlatar Operation and the role of Albanian
16 ethnic officers in the JNA in that -- those activities.
17 A. The Zlatar counter-intelligence operation detected the entire
18 leadership of that organisation abroad and in the country. As I've said
19 already, by that time, there was an illegal committee that had been
20 formed within the JNA, comprising ten members. Through operative work
21 and through a source who was an Albanian officer - and I must say that it
22 wasn't Serbs who discovered the organisation, but this particular
23 Albanian - through those sources, 127 members of that organisation were
24 detected from Montenegro
25 For one to be made a member of the organisation, one needed to
1 give an oath as well as collect a certain amount of live ammunition
2 whilst simultaneously working on purchasing illegal weapons. Their
3 activities were cut off at the moment when they began planning concrete
4 terrorist actions. They wanted to plant explosives in the town hall in
5 Djakovica as well as to bring down the power supply lines between Obilic
6 and Skopje
7 security operatives of the provincial service in Kosovo. In order to
8 stop those activities, and having discovered a part in the army, we
9 carried out arrests of 127 members.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 126.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And through follow-up operations,
12 there was a total of 400 persons arrested throughout Yugoslavia. Some
13 people from the illegal JNA committee later on participated in the Siptar
14 terrorist actions in 1998.
15 One of the people I recall off the cuff is Maljoku, Naim. He
16 used to be kept on first class in the JNA, and in Kosovo he was tasked
17 with a particular zone. Then Ahmed Krasniqi who was a JNA major and also
18 a member of that illegal organisation, he held a command function in
19 Kosovo. And as far as I know, Albanians liquidated him in Tirana towards
20 the end.
21 They had two factions, one was more extremist and believed that
22 only an armed struggle could result in anything. And the other faction
23 was around the prime minister, or deputy prime minister of the government
24 in exile, Mr. Bukoshi. To a certain extent, he was more democratic; and
25 they were trying to persuade the international community that Albanians
1 are in danger in Kosovo.
2 As far as I know, the extremist wing won. And when the armed
3 rebellion occurred -- then the armed rebellion occurred in Kosovo in
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm about to ask the
7 witness about some people, hence I'd suggest that we go into private
9 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
10 [Private session]
11 Page 2781-5785 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. We
5 could have returned into open session long ago.
6 Q. General, it seems to highlight 1987 as a characteristic year for
7 the work of Albanians separatist organisations. Could you please share
8 with us those characteristics, how they worked, what was done about it.
9 A. In 1987, after certain political changes that had occurred in the
10 then Yugoslavia
11 as part of a political crime were pardoned.
12 Q. Let's correct -- I asked about 1989. What was the first year
13 that you mentioned?
14 A. 1988. I started with one year earlier which was the year of the
15 pardon. And the most extreme persons in terms of enemy activity, they
16 were no longer in prison. For instance, in a non-commissioned officer
17 who had been convicted for espionage. Risvanovic Norif [phoen] was
18 pardoned and walked out of the prison in Slovenia.
19 Those convicts from the Zlatar Operation who served their prison
20 sentences in Foca and other places also went out of prison,
21 Yasare Jafim [phoen], Ramadani, all of them, I'm not going to list all of
22 them. They were set free, and they continued with their activities.
23 So those activities continued. But the situation objectively
24 speaking was different at the time. We detected at the time attempts to
25 illegally import weapons of HDZ organising their paramilitary ranks. So
1 looking back in terms of military security, the activities in Kosovo were
2 put on the back burner. Although we did monitor the situation, new
3 methods emerged, and the new method was as follows: They wanted to
4 appear in the media to receive international support. They bluffed
5 around, you may remember, the incident with the poisoning of children.
6 For instance, in a mixed school only Albanian children were
7 allegedly poisoned. Then the miners at Trepca were manipulated and led
8 to remain in their mine shafts and start issuing demands. They are using
9 the greater political freedoms of the times and basic elements of
10 multi-party activities to continue and prepare their activities for what
11 was to follow.
12 What played into their hands and what would ultimately lead to
13 their armed rebellion in Kosovo was the disintegration of the situation
14 in Albania
15 military depots being plundered, security forces were withdrawn from the
16 border, and military materiel and weapons were amassed along the
17 Bojana river; and towards the Macedonia
18 transferred across the border. And this illegal organisation we had
19 never ceased operating only changed the leadership now could obtain
20 something they had not been able to obtain beforehand and that is all the
21 weapons they needed.
22 Q. Thank you. Now let me go back to discuss the international
23 context. From 1978 and the incidents at Opsala [phoen], if you remember
24 it; this is what I'd like to ask you about. The second, they drew
25 political changes in 1989 in Europe
1 Albanian cessationist movement?
2 A. Well, now we are discussing strategy, but I'm not familiar with
3 that. I remember this event in Opsala. It was an assessment on methods
4 to undermine communism. And one of the key points identified in that
5 methodology was that one should work on highlighting ethnic
6 characteristics and to introduce divisions along ethnic lines and this is
7 why the separatist republics received support.
8 As far as the wider international context when Enver Hoxha left
9 and the communist regime collapses, this was another change, the fall of
10 the Berlin
11 rebellion in Romania
12 together what ultimately happened in our part of Europe.
13 Q. Thank you. General, now, I'd like to ask you, what was the
14 legislative framework for the operation of military security when it
15 concerned terrorism and paramilitary formations?
16 A. Well, there were problems in understanding the proper position
17 and place of military security. I've encountered misunderstandings and
18 even conflicts at the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992 with the head
19 of the state security sector Jovica Stanisic. He did not like the wide
20 purview of military security outside the barracks perimeters.
21 His thesis was as follows: Military security should confine
22 themselves to barracks. What were the legislative instruments? The
23 protection of the military which is conducted by the security service in
24 terms of counter-intelligence, this can be done from within, within
25 barracks and command posts, but also the military security service was
1 tasked with protecting the military from attacks from without. So to
2 fight all persons who act against the military beat civilian, or military
3 personnel, or a foreigner.
4 And this is why we took measures against centres outside the
5 country. Of course, such activities and actions were all coordinated
6 with state security so we do not overlap or rework, but we exchanged
7 information about such activities.
8 So the Stit Operation or the shield operation detection of
9 illegal arms imports from Hungary
10 persons outside the military who were parts of the
11 Ministry of the Interior, but the arms were supposed to be targeting
12 their military.
13 Q. Thank you. Can't go too deep into it. But I'd like to hear what
14 were the authorities or powers of the Chief of General Staff in
15 suppressing paramilitary and terrorist organisations in relation to the
16 work of the military security service?
17 A. Those are two separate things. First, the powers of the Chiefs
18 of General Staff with respect to that service. Since he manages the
19 army, he can use the army. But the use of army must be sanctioned by the
20 Supreme Defence Council. If state of affairs or emergency state is
22 But the Chief of General Staff did not have the competence to
23 suppress the activity of his own military security outside the barracks
24 or outside the military if activities were aimed against the military. I
25 had to make this distinction so there's no misunderstanding about that.
1 Q. Was Chief of General Staff competent to order the disarmament of
2 paramilitary or terrorist organisations if the military security had
3 detected such groups that may be jeopardizing the territorial integrity
4 of the country?
5 A. No. He cannot raise the army, so to speak. We know who has the
6 power to do so, and this is the source of the conflict in 1998. When
7 President Milosevic ordered the commander of the 3rd Army to raise the
8 troops, although the order on emergency state had not been issued as
9 General Perisic had advocated. Although all the conditions for issuing
10 such an order existed, General Perisic nor General Samardzic
11 [Realtime transcript read in error "Simatovic"] who was then the
12 commander of the 3rd Army, because Pavkovic was commander of the 3rd
13 Pristina Corps, did not object to the use of the army, but they objected
14 to the army being used without prior proclamation of a state of
15 emergency. And this is what the lack of consensus lie.
16 I'm saying this to say that Perisic was not a diver or Pavkovic
17 was a hawk. No, they had the same ideas about using the military in
18 Kosovo, but they wanted for the legal preconditions to be met, which
19 meant that the Supreme Defence Council had to proclaim the state of
20 emergency beforehand.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell me your assessment of the
22 KLA --
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] But just a moment. Can we correct
24 page 77, line 17. And what is supposed to be entered is
25 "General Samardzic" instead of "Simatovic."
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very direct and simple. It was a
2 paramilitary organisation, which through its methods of operations has
3 characteristics of terrorist. And they carried out criminal offences of
4 armed rebellion. These are the main characteristics of the KLA. It's
5 another matter that some prominent political personalities from the west
6 legitimised them through contacting them and photos of Holbrooke sitting
7 down with them and them sitting in their uniforms. This was paradoxical.
8 There was political interests behind maintaining such a force in
9 Kosovo to maintain this political situation.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise for interrupting you,
12 Your Honours, I believe that we've reached the end of today's
14 JUDGE PARKER: That is so, Mr. Djurdjic.
15 We must now adjourn again for today, resuming tomorrow morning at
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of
19 June, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.