1 Thursday, 2 July, 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. While the witness is being brought
6 in, could I mention that in the oral decision given yesterday, I referred
7 to the wrong two pages of the transcript. It should have been pages 3
8 and 4 to which access is granted. And could I add that to speed things
9 up and smooth the process, the Chamber has made available the relevant
10 documents to the Defence already. So there's no need for any further
11 compliance with the order.
12 [The witness takes the stand]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
15 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made to tell the truth still
16 applies. And now for a change, it's Mr. Djurdjic who has some questions
17 for you.
18 WITNESS: LJUBINKO CVETIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Cvetic.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. My name is Veljko Djurdjic. I'm a member of the Defence team of
24 the accused Vlastimir Djordjevic and here with me I have madam
25 Marie O'Leary and Mr. Popovic.
1 Mr. Cvetic, both of us will have a problem today because both of
2 us tend to speak rather quickly and to make things more difficult we both
3 use the same language. In order for us and the courtroom to be able to
4 understand everything and in order for the transcript to be correct, I
5 would kindly ask you and I will do this myself, please try to speak
6 slowly and try to wait for me to finish so that we do not overlap.
7 A. All right.
8 Q. First of all, I would like to correct some things from
9 yesterday's transcript where I believe that some things were entered
10 wrongly. First of all, could you please tell me, between mid-1998 and
11 until the moment when you left SUP
12 position of Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic?
13 A. He was assistant minister, that is, head of the public security
15 Q. Thank you. Another thing, at the staff meeting which was held, I
16 believe you said, on March the 8th, was there the Chief of the
17 General Staff of the Yugoslavia
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thank you. And yet another thing, but I can't really translate
20 the question of Mr. Stamp, but I want to ask the following: Could you
21 know on the 1st of July what kind of telegram were you going to receive
22 from the staff on the 10th of July?
23 A. I couldn't.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] All this is on page 6715 of the
1 transcript and it regards the Exhibit P1054 and P1052.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic, for your answers.
3 A. You are welcome.
4 Q. Now, would I like to start from some legislation, some general
5 acts that were in force in Ministry of the Interior in the
6 Republic of Serbia
7 whenever I ask anything, it refers to the period between mid-1998 and the
8 end of the war, and I will specify all the other time-periods.
9 A. When you are saying mid-1998, are you talking June 1998 until the
10 end of the period which I was present in the territory of
11 Kosovo and Metohija?
12 Q. Yes. And I will refer to any other time-periods. I will specify
14 A. Thank you.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the
16 Exhibit P66.
17 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is the Law on Internal Affairs. Page 1 in B/C/S
18 version and page 2 in the English version, Article 6, Mr. Cvetic.
19 Am I right to say that on the basis of this article, it was the
20 minister who decided on the formation of organisational units both in the
21 seat and he decided on the territories for which organisational units
22 were formed.
23 A. Yes, but could I please check that we are talking about the law
24 that was in effect at the time, but when you said that -- what you said
25 is absolutely correct, but could we just check that this is the relevant
1 act that was in effect that year because there were quite a lot of
2 amendments. So could I please see what is the number of the
3 Official Gazette because I know what the number of the Official Gazette
4 should be.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the
6 Court Officer scroll this up in order to check. No, please, down, just a
7 bit down. No, no, could you please take it down so scroll down just a
8 bit. Scroll down. Yes. And now if you could go to the left. Okay.
9 Thank you.
10 Q. So you can see that this is the Official Gazette of the
11 Republic of Serbia
12 A. All right.
13 Q. Can we proceed, Mr. Cvetic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you please comment on Article 7.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] If we could have Article 7 on the
18 A. "The minister shall determine the manner in which the
19 Ministry of the Interior performs its duties and issue instructions for
20 their performance." And yes, this is correct.
21 Q. Thank you. Am I right, Mr. Cvetic to say that upon the request
22 of the People's Assembly and the request of the president of the
23 republic, the minister reported on the work of the ministry and the
24 security situation in the republic?
25 A. You are absolutely right. Not only upon the request of the
1 president of the republic and the Assembly, but also upon the request of
2 the government of the Republic of Serbia
3 Q. Thank you. Yes, this is clear enough because the president, he
4 was a member of the government.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have page 5 in the
6 English version and page 2 in the B/C/S version.
7 Q. Mr. Cvetic, Article 18, 19, and 20, do they regulate the persons
8 that were authorised officials, and also the rights of the uniformed
9 members of the police?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. I'm particularly interested in Article 20 if you
12 could comment on it.
13 A. Article 20 stipulates as follows:
14 "An authorised official must perform duties relating to the
15 security of this republic, protection of the life and safety of citizens
16 and their property, prevention and detection of criminal offences and
17 apprehension of perpetrators, regardless whether or not he is on official
18 duty and whether or not he has been given such a task."
19 That is paragraph 1. And paragraph 2 says:
20 "An authorised official must form the tasks referred to in
21 paragraph 1 of this Article even when his personal safety is at risk."
22 And this is all correct. This is stipulated not only by law but
23 also by the regulation on public security service.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, a correction in the
25 transcript, line 5 on page 51 [sic], there should be "minister" instead
1 of "president."
2 Q. Mr. Cvetic, since we have these provisions, there is no read to
3 read them out, you can read them for yourself and possibly just comment
4 or make certain explanations.
5 A. Yes, but I cannot comment on the text of the law. I can simply
6 say whether it was applied or not. I'm not authorised to comment on any
8 Q. Well, this is exactly what I meant, whether you know if this was
9 applied in practice.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now please see Article 28
11 in B/C/S; this is page 3. And in the English version it's on page 9.
12 Q. Mr. Cvetic, these are the provision on the reserve forces, so
13 Articles 28 and 29, and I believe there is some misunderstanding here, so
14 I would like to clarify this. Could you please explain what reserve
15 forces really are in line with Articles 28 and 29 of this law?
16 A. This means that in line with the act on systematisation of jobs
17 at the Ministry of the Interior, we had a certain number of police forces
18 and this applied to peacetimes. However, given that at the level of the
19 republic the estimates of danger of risks were made, sometimes in certain
20 parts of the republic, or in the entire republic; the public security and
21 order could be at risk. There could be a risk of inter-ethical conflicts
22 or the risk of terrorist attacks.
23 For that reason, still at peacetime, the peacetime forces would
24 be inefficient and this is why estimates were made on the necessities
25 concerning reserve forces. So we had peacetime formation and we also had
1 a schematic of the organisation and systematisation for peacetime; but we
2 also had the schematic of organisation and systemisation for the period
3 of imminent threat of war, state of war, and other extraordinary
4 situations. So the peacetime formation of the police would be
5 replenished with certain number of people that belonged to the reserve
7 This replenishment was done through competent military
8 territorial organisations in the following way: The Secretariats were
9 submitting their requests to the competent military territorial body, and
10 they stipulated the number of persons and of which particular specialties
11 they needed in order to replenish their units. Once they replenished
12 their units with members of the reserve forces, the decision on the
13 engagement of these reserve forces was made by the minister.
14 Q. Thank you. The members of the reserve forces, until the moment
15 when they were engaged by the minister, were civilians carrying out their
16 regular civilian duties?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When engaged, these persons had had the same status as regular
19 police officers who were employed by MUP, so they were authorised
21 A. Yes, they had the same authorities as active members of the
23 Q. Thank you. Were they entitled to other things, such as health
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Mr. Cvetic, we seem to be proceeding too quickly.
2 So were they entitled to social -- to social entitlements, were
3 they entitled to health care, reimbursement of per diems and so on?
4 A. Yes, they had the same entitlements as members of the active
5 forces. They even could have increased credit for the years of service
6 and so some time in the future they could use this when their retirement
7 was to be calculated.
8 Q. Thank you. So I'll have to ask for that increased credit for my
9 years of service?
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, while you are contemplating that
11 joyful prospect, could I correct a transcript which records your
12 correction incorrectly. You mentioned much earlier that there was a
13 "president" recorded instead of "minister," in the transcript. That
14 should have been at page 5, line 1. Not as you are recorded as saying
15 line 5, page 21 -- 51. With a bit of luck between us, we will now have
16 the minister in the right place.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just to add, the issue of these
19 reserve forces, if we want to complete the legislative stipulation
20 concerning this, there is yet another instruction.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Witness, we will come to that later on because of
23 our procedure. But can we now explain, members of the police reserve
24 squads, am I right to say that these persons did not have the status of
25 authorised officials pursuant to the Law on the Internal Affairs?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Would I be right in saying that these people do not have the same
3 rights to salary, per diem, health insurance, and other insurance?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is it fair to say that those are people who pursue their regular
6 jobs, and in their place of residence carry out the defence of their
7 population centres?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is it correct that these people are not members of the
10 Ministry of the Interior?
11 A. Yes. Or rather, to be quite precise, they are not employed with
12 the Ministry of the Interior.
13 Q. Just one last question on this: When immobilisation call-up is
14 announced, do these people have to report to the units where they have a
15 wartime assignment?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show page 11 in
18 B/C/S. Sorry, page 4 in B/C/S and page 11 in English.
19 Q. Could you tell me something about this Article 33?
20 A. Yes. This provision of Article 33 of the Law on Internal Affairs
21 states that the employees of the Ministry of the Interior are obliged to
22 carry out all the orders of the minister except for those orders which
23 constitute a criminal offence.
24 This applies not only to the Ministry of the Interior. This
25 applies to all the ministries in the Republic of Serbia
1 governed by the law on the work of state authorities. That means that
2 employees in all the ministries are duty-bound to carry out all the
3 orders of their superiors apart from those which constitute crimes.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have page 5 in B/C/S
5 and page 16 in English.
6 Q. I'd like to know, Mr. Cvetic, about Articles 51, 52, and 53.
7 These are the basic provisions governing disciplinary liability and
8 disciplinary proceedings?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. They were later specified by the decree on disciplinary
11 proceedings and the wartime decree on the same?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, we need page 17 of the
14 English version.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me first explain
16 paragraph 1 of Article 56. An employee shall be removed from the
17 Ministry of the Interior if criminal proceedings have been instituted
18 against him for criminal charges stipulated in Article 34, paragraph 1,
19 item 1 of this law. So there is no other possibility. The person shall
20 be removed.
21 And the second paragraph says, An employee may be removed from
22 the ministry when criminal proceedings have been instituted against him
23 for criminal charges that are subject to prosecution ex officio, or when
24 disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against him for serious
25 violation of work obligations and duties.
1 So it is up to the superior in this case to decide whether to
2 remove the offender or not. Whereas in the first paragraph, it says
3 explicitly that the person has to be removed.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Now, let me go back a little. When it is established that an
6 employee of the Ministry of the Interior is guilty of a serious crime, am
7 I right that this has nothing to do with remand in police custody that is
8 decided in pre-indictment proceedings at the SUP or with the remand in
9 custody in pre-trial proceedings?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Now, Article 72.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Which is page 6 in B/C/S and 21 in
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm very familiar with this
16 Q. This stipulates the basis for sending an employee of the MUP to
17 other organisational units?
18 A. Yes. But here in this provision, the reason, the basis for
19 sending -- for seconding an employee of the MUP elsewhere has to be
20 explicitly explained, otherwise in some cases it is up to the minister or
21 chief of section whether to do this with certain employees -- not do
23 What I am trying to say? A person who is sent to perform
24 security jobs in Kosovo and Metohija, in the decision to send that
25 person, it must be stated exactly for which period this is done, and the
1 lawmaker says that this period may be at least 30 days but no more than
2 one year. More than one year would be contrary to the law.
3 There was some decisions when this is specified and other
4 decisions where it is not specified.
5 Q. Yes. But every individual decision to send a person elsewhere
6 could be appealed to the minister of the interior; correct?
7 A. Yes, but that's a different procedure. What -- how this
8 complaint is handled, we need to explain this until the end. Usually
9 when a decision is appealed, the appeal is unsuccessful.
10 Q. Well, every decision can be appealed?
11 A. Yes, but every decision could be appealed to the minister within
12 eight days.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have P357.
14 Q. This is the real -- clean version of the rules of the internal --
15 on the internal organisation of the Ministry of Interior that was in
16 effect at the time. Do you agree it's the right one?
17 A. Yes, although there were amendments later.
18 Q. Yes, including in end 1999. You have already explained
19 Article 2. Article 3 is local jurisdiction of Secretariats; we won't go
20 through that.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let's move to Article 5, that's
22 page 6. In fact, 8 in B/C/S; 8 in English it says.
23 Q. Anyway, I'm interested in Article 5. Could you comment on
24 Article 5. I would like you to explain this bit, OUPs, Departments of
25 Internal Affairs and Secretariats do their work immediately in the
1 territory where they are based?
2 A. Yes. A Secretariat of Internal Affairs is established as an
3 internal organisational unit to the Ministry of the Interior to handle
4 Internal Affairs for a certain number of municipalities. Territorially
5 speaking, these were usually districts.
6 Let's take a specific example. The SUP Kosovska Mitrovica was
7 organised to handle Internal Affairs in the district of
8 Kosovska Mitrovica. That was true of all the other districts and SUPs.
9 Each Secretariat had smaller organisational units that were
10 called departments of Internal Affairs, and police stations in
11 municipalities. What would this depend on? On the size of the territory
12 and the complexity of the security situation. If a municipality is
13 smaller and suffers from no major security problems, such municipalities
14 would have police stations. But police stations were organisationally
15 linked, belonged to the Secretariat.
16 Q. Could we now look at Article 6.
17 A. Yes, and it's all correct.
18 Q. So the minister of the interior was authorised to make decisions
19 to set up specialised and Special Police units, operations groups, and
20 other specialised units?
21 A. Yes. The minister could do it himself, or he could authorise
22 another person to do it; but the authorised person could not do it
23 without the minister's consent.
24 Q. So even if this is done but an authorised person, the minister is
1 A. Absolutely. Because the person was acting on the authority of
2 the minister.
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at Article 7.
4 We have the right page in English, but in B/C/S I believe it's the next
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see well on this monitor,
7 but I can suppose what it's about because I'm familiar with this subject.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we make it a bit larger.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. This article governs sectors and administrations in the ministry?
12 A. Yes. And their responsibilities.
13 Q. Is it fair to say that since there are two sectors, public
14 security and state security, the only person above both is the minister?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it correct that members of one sector may not issue
17 assignments to members of the other sector?
18 A. No, these sectors are completely separate. These are completely
19 separate services with different methods of work.
20 Q. Is it correct that only the minister by his own decision can
21 create a body involving members of both sectors and identify their
22 assignments and methods of work?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When you said that in 1998 an intersectorial body of the MUP was
25 formed, and you were talking about that in relation to Adem Jashari, am I
1 right in saying that this decision was made by the minister?
2 A. The creation of an intersectorial body is the responsibility of
3 the minister, and the minister appointed chief of the state security
4 sector at the head of this body and his deputy was chief of the public
5 security sector, Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic. And the chief of the state
6 security sector was Jovica Stanisic.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel now repeat the numbers, please.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have page 9 in
9 English and look at Article 9.
10 Q. You should be an expert for this article.
11 A. No, I could not call myself an expert, but I was working with
12 this for a long time.
13 Q. Explain this Article 9, please. Especially how it worked in
14 practice; practice is what I'm interested in.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we zoom in a bit. I am
16 sorry, I have not made a hard copy. And Mr. Stamp won't give me a hard
17 copy, I suppose.
18 Q. It's not long; you can answer. We are waiting for you.
19 A. Oh, I was waiting for your okay. Every sector in the ministry,
20 every organisational unit in the ministry, was preparing, even during
21 peacetime, to act in the event of immediate threat of war, state of war,
22 and other contingencies. Every sector, every organisational unit, and
23 every administration prepared its plan of defence.
24 This plan of defence contained the following: A security
25 evaluation, plan of readiness, plan of mobilisation, plan of employment
1 of forces and resources, plan of defence of population, plan of security
2 measures, and plan of organisation of communications security, and plan
3 of measures of alert. This was done so that when immediate threat of war
4 is proclaimed, the units can immediately start putting into effect these
5 plans, and, of course, special assignments are also involved in emergency
7 To proclaim the state of immediate threat of war and the state of
8 war was the exclusive right of the National Assembly, but every segment
9 of the defence system made these plans of defence.
10 Q. At the seat of the ministry, was there a particular
11 administration which had a particular unit dealing with this?
12 A. At the seat of the ministry, there was a section for defence
14 Q. What about every SUP
15 A. In every SUP
16 called inspector for defence planning, defence preparations. And this
17 was part of the police department which is a smaller unit.
18 Q. Did these contingency plans arise from the defence plan?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have a look at
21 Article 10. This is all right in the English version, the page is all
23 Q. Let me just repeat my last question: Were these contingency
24 plans made pursuant to the federal Law on Defence?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now take a look at
3 Article 10.
4 A. Could I please add, not only law but there was a range of bylaws
5 as well, different instructions, orders, methodological instructions, so
6 there were quite a lot of regulations that belonged to bylaws. They were
7 different acts and different coordination that needed to be made between
8 military territorial commands and different other bodies of authority.
9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Cvetic, could you now take a look at Article 10,
11 A. Yes, and this is all correct, and this was applied in practice.
12 Q. Am I right to say that this article which regulates the authority
13 of the chief of the sector or chief of Secretariat, that they could set
14 up permanent or ad hoc staffs, and it further on stipulates the
15 conditions under which this could be done?
16 A. Yes, but in practice, chief of Secretariats had no need to set up
17 staffs, though the lawmaker provided for this possibility. The
18 Secretariats usually set up commissions or Working Groups to analyse
19 certain situations or decide on measures and actives.
20 Q. Thank you. Could you please focus your attention on paragraph 2
21 now which talks about composition, tasks, dead-lines, powers, and other
22 conditions contained in paragraph 1 of this article. So within the scope
23 of their activity or the order received from the minister, these could be
24 decided on by the chief of the sector. And it goes on and says so they
25 have to include all this in a document and inform minister immediately?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. Later on we will in practice come back to this article on a
3 number of occasions.
4 A. This was not merely practice. This is the way in which it was
5 stipulated by law. In other ministries they had similar practice.
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now take a look at
8 Article 12, please. It's on the same page in B/C/S version, and in the
9 English version this is on the next page.
10 Q. Mr. Cvetic, could you please tell us what this article actually
11 meant in practice? What does it mean that Secretariats shall carry out
12 all tasks in the sphere of the ministry as established in these rules and
13 that they are responsible for the security situation in the area for
14 which they have been established?
15 A. They were responsible for the security situation, for public law
16 and order situation pertaining to crime, traffic, also fire-fighting,
17 aliens, and also the situation pertaining to the -- to people exercising
18 their rights in front of various bodies of the ministry.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. But I'm talking about only one segment of the security, so I'm
21 only talking about public security here.
22 Q. Yes, obviously these are the rules on the internal organisation
23 of the public security sector, and earlier on I believe it was stipulated
24 that the state security was to be stipulated in another set of rules. Am
25 I right to say that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Mr. Cvetic, could you please tell us what were the internal
3 organisational units of the SUP
4 were there? I'm not talking about OUPs and police stations, I'm talking
5 about the seat of SUP
6 A. The internal organisational units of the SUP of
7 Kosovska Mitrovica at its seat were at follows: The police department,
8 the Crime Police Department, the department for aliens and passports, the
9 fire-fighting police department, and department for general and joined
10 affairs, and also we had a traffic police section. Within the police
11 department, we also had a police station.
12 Q. Thank you. In order to save some time, let me ask you the
13 following: Apart from carrying out duties pertaining to the
14 Internal Affairs in accordance with the law and the rules, what was your
15 relationship towards the local administration, local authorities
16 district, and so on?
17 A. As a chief of the Secretariat, I was in contact with the head of
18 the district and presidents of municipalities. And at these meetings and
19 in our mutual conducts, we obviously analysed the security situation in
20 the region. And presidents of municipality shared some security related
21 problems with me, those that they had in their respective territories.
22 But presidents of municipalities and head of the district were
23 not authorised to issue any specific tasks to the chief of the
24 Secretariat. However, they could ask from the chief of the Secretariat
25 to engage certain units, to secure certain facilities or certain roads;
1 but the procedure for doing that was very clearly stipulated.
2 Q. Thank you. It seems to me that in certain occasions when the
3 conditions were met, when there were occurrences that were interesting
4 for a specific territory, you were obliged to inform the chief of the
5 specific district or president of the municipality about this?
6 A. Yes. They received this on a daily basis, this information, the
7 head of the district and presidents of the municipalities, they received
8 it -- the head of district received it were SUP and presidents of
9 municipalities received that from OUPs or police stations in their
10 respective municipalities.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have the Exhibit P69.
13 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is the law on state administration. Article 43.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] In English this is on page 2, and
15 in B/C/S this is on page 4.
16 Q. Mr. Witness --
17 A. I apologise, I can't see this.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] We have both versions in English.
19 Could we please have B/C/S version on one side.
20 Q. But let me read out Article 43 for you, it stipulates as follows:
21 "The minister shall exercise the rights and duties specified in
22 the constitution and the law and shall be in charge of the work of his
23 ministry in conformity with this law."
24 A. This is absolutely true, and this applied to all the ministries
25 in the Republic of Serbia
1 Q. Thank you. Am I right to say that Article 44 specifies that the
2 minister was to organise and ensure the lawful and effective performance
3 of tasks and that he was to decide on the rights, duties, and
4 responsibilities of employees?
5 A. Yes, that is correct.
6 Q. And this is the basis for the adoption of the rules on
7 disciplinary responsibility, disciplinary procedures, and some other
8 rules which could be only adopted by the minister in MUP for example?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. In Article 44, paragraph 2, it also specifies that
11 the minister was responsible for carrying out the function that he has
12 been entrusted and for the work of the ministry?
13 A. I can't see that on my monitor.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have the following
15 page in B/C/S.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Since minister was a member
17 of the government, he answered to the government.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Thank you. Now, could you please take a look at Article 46. Am
20 I right to say that this article stipulates, or rather, regulates the
21 status of assistant ministers; and in the second paragraph, it stipulates
22 who shall appoint the minister?
23 A. Yes, this was done by the government following the proposal of
24 the minister.
25 Q. Another thing, the minister was to determine in which particular
1 areas his assistants were to assist him?
2 A. The minister decided which particular assistants were going to
3 help him in which areas of his responsibilities, and he proposed these
4 ministers to the government, and the government could appoint them.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. Usually these were the key areas, key sectors, and the assistant
7 ministers were appointed for the most significant sectors. As a rule,
8 not always, but this was up to the estimate and up to the decision of
9 each single minister.
10 Q. Thank you. But it seems to me that the decision of the
11 government on the appointment of the assistant ministers did not specify
12 for which particular sector or area the assistant minister was to be
13 tasked. This was up to the decision of the minister which was taken
14 later on?
15 A. I can't really answer that. I can't really say anything about
16 these decisions.
17 Q. Okay. I believe there's just another article that I find
18 interesting here, it is Article 69 of this law.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] In B/C/S this is on page 6.
20 Q. Actually, this is a general article about all the units of the
21 administration saying that the decision was to be made about individual
22 appointments, so I believe that this is an article that's relevant for
23 different acts that were adopted at MUP.
24 A. Yes, and if any other law -- unless any specific law relevant for
25 the particular area stipulated otherwise.
1 Q. All right. It seems to me that on page 21, line 19, it says --
2 it should be "assistant minister."
3 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, as we don't have paragraph 69 in
4 English and since it is a very short paragraph, perhaps the witness could
5 be asked to read it slowly so that whatever he is commenting on could be
6 on the record.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. A good idea.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Mr. Witness, can you now see Article 69?
10 A. "The decision shall be used to decide on individual
11 administrative and other individual issues in line with the law and other
13 What does this mean? In administrative procedure and in line
14 with the law, the administrative procedure was to be carried out in line
15 with the law on administrative procedure which is a different law from
16 this one.
17 Here it is simply a possibilities provided to use decision to
18 decide on individual administrative matters and other individual matters
19 but in line with the law, and this is the law on administrative procedure
20 or other regulations. And the administrative procedure in the Republic
21 of Serbia
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have 1049. P1049.
24 Q. Witness, let's go back to criminal liability in the MUP and the
25 relevant decree. You told us yesterday that when a member of the MUP
1 commits a crime, the administration and his chief are informed. Did it
2 ever happen to you that you did not get approval to prosecute a member of
3 the MUP who was guilty of a serious offence?
4 A. It only happened in the case of less serious offences.
5 Q. I was only asking about the serious offence. On what basis did
6 you ask for approval from the chief of sector?
7 A. Well, this is a good question. Until 1992, chiefs of
8 Secretariats could do this independently. In 1992, when the public
9 security sector got Radovan Stojicic for the chief, employees of the
10 Secretariats, chiefs of Secretariats, became treated as people on
11 assignment, and they had no independence in decision-making.
12 Prior to 1992, chiefs of Secretariats were appointed by the
13 minister with the approval of the government, and they had certain
14 latitude of independence. And in 1992, when Mr. Radovan Stojicic became
15 chief of that sector, he made a decision called decision on assignments,
16 and chiefs of Secretariats became assigned employees just like any other
17 employees. And chiefs of Secretariats were no longer able to take any
18 action. They could not even move a person from one job within the
19 Secretariat to another job. They could not start any sort of proceedings
20 before they asked chief of sector for approval.
21 This approval was later given by heads of administrations.
22 Chiefs of Secretariats at the time were not allowed to inform the media
23 about any incidents, security incidents, in their territory before they
24 got approval from the chief of sector.
25 This was ordered by a dispatch that Mr. Stojicic sent to all
1 Secretariats. And this is why we had to seek approval from sector chief
2 or from heads of administration.
3 Q. Let me get this right. He was deputy minister, Mr. Stojicic;
5 A. Yes, he was deputy minister and sector chief.
6 Q. But -- and in the absence of the minister, he stood in for the
7 minister and had all the minister's powers?
8 A. Yes, in the minister's absence, he exercised all the minister's
9 powers and responsibilities.
10 Q. And normally the deputy minister and the -- the
11 deputy [as interpreted] minister does not have any other authority except
12 the authority delegated to him by the minister?
13 A. The situation is a bit different when he is at the same time
14 sector chief.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] In says in the transcript "deputy
16 minister." It should be "assistant minister." Lines 23 and 24.
17 Q. Mr. Cvetic, we do have to slow down a bit, both of us, because we
18 waste more time on correcting the record than we save time by speaking
20 In practice, for serious violations of work obligations, did it
21 ever happen to you that you did not get approval to continue proceedings?
22 A. Not in relation to serious violations.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, during the war, a decree on Internal Affairs in
24 the state of war was adopted, and you acted pursuant to that decree?
25 A. I believe it was adopted sometime in early April, if I remember
1 correctly. I had to act under that decree for a very short time. I was
2 chief of SUP
3 everything that had to do with the work of the SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica
4 was no longer of great interest to me, and I believe the reason is
6 Q. During the war with this decree, the rules on disciplinary
7 accountability changed and the chiefs of SUPs were authorised to start
8 and conduct first instance proceedings, disciplinary proceedings?
9 A. Yes, but this decree was adopted on the 7th or the 8th of April,
10 and by the time it got handed down to the SUPs, I did not have much time
11 to deal with it.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have D101.
13 Q. Mr. Cvetic, I think we've mentioned this a moment ago. This is
14 the instruction on the performance of Internal Affairs for reserve forces
15 of the ministry?
16 A. Yes, these instructions were signed -- this directive was signed
17 by the minister himself.
18 Q. But is it also true that in addition to this directive, the
19 minister also issued orders to call up and engage reserve personnel
20 biannually, I believe?
21 A. Well, reserve personnel could not be called up at all until the
22 relevant order by the minister was issued.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have D103.
24 Q. Mr. Cvetic, is this the order you just mentioned? This one is
25 dated 25 December, 1998.
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have P52, please.
3 Q. Mr. Cvetic, could you explain to us the significance of this
4 instruction in the practical work of law enforcement officials?
5 A. Of course. Every police station in the territory of the
6 Republic of Serbia
7 could be of the first category or other. Thus, the police station
8 commander would suggest to divide the territory of the station into
9 sectors. This proposal goes to the competent administration of the
10 ministry. When the competent administration issues its approval,
11 approves the proposal, then these sectors are identified on the territory
12 of the police station.
13 In order to carry out police work in a certain sector, a
14 directive or instructions were needed. And this is precisely
15 instructions on the organisation and implementation of law enforcement
16 activities in the security sector. Various law enforcement activities in
17 the security sector are identified, and it is also specified what should
18 be in the file, in the dossier of the security sector.
19 Every sector had its own dossier, and this dossier was prepared
20 by the leader of the security sector. So every security sector had a
21 leader appointed to it, and this leader was followed by a certain number
22 of policemen. They constantly monitored the security situation in their
23 sector and informed the police station commander. The police station
24 commander would then identify further necessary activities.
25 Q. Thank you. While we are talking about this, could you tell us
1 what is considered to be regular police work, regular security work, and
2 what would be special or extraordinary security work?
3 A. Well, regular security work would be in peacetime, no major
4 disorders, no major demonstrations or inter-ethnic clashes, no
5 particularly grave crimes with elements of violence. In different
6 conditions, if all these indicators are higher, then those would be
7 extraordinary circumstances.
8 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now have D1004-1902.
9 Q. Mr. Cvetic, you will soon see on the screen the instruction on
10 information and reporting. Unfortunately, we don't have a translation.
11 We still haven't received it.
12 Could you tell us how informing and reporting was regulated in
13 the Ministry of the Interior?
14 A. Yes. This was adopted in 1994 by the minister, and this governs
15 internal sharing of information within the Ministry of Interior. And as
16 far as internal -- sorry, external informing is concerned, it is
17 specified what kind of information can be given by chiefs of SUP to
18 outside parties, other agencies, and the media.
19 Q. Is it about informing and reporting on security incidents to be
20 submitted to certain identified beneficiaries?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is it right that unlike the army the police reports incidents and
23 phenomena, whereas the army reports on activities?
24 A. Well, you see, you can put it that way, conditionally speaking,
25 even among theoreticians there are various interpretations of this.
1 Q. We won't go into that.
2 A. Conditionally speaking, you could say that this was a difference.
3 Q. Could you tell us, informed by the practice, what did daily
4 reporting mean?
5 A. Every Secretariat of Internal Affairs in the territory of Serbia
6 would register, record everything, current incidents and phenomena in the
7 field of security for the past 24 hours. This would have to do with law
8 and order, general crime, economic crimes, violent crime, organised
9 crime, traffic safety, and other areas related to security.
10 All the police departments and police stations would submit these
11 reports to the duty service at the seat of the ministry. The chief of
12 the duty service would record all this in the log-book of daily
13 incidents. From this log-book of daily incidents, the most important
14 incidents are extracted to be included in the summary of the most
15 important incidents, and this daily report is submitted to the operation
17 If an incident is extremely important and needs to be reported
18 immediately, that incident would not wait to be entered into this daily
19 bulletin. Instead, a dispatch is sent immediately to the competent
20 administration in the ministry. And later on when the time comes, it
21 also becomes part of the daily bulletin.
22 Q. So the daily bulletin shows everything important that happened in
23 the territory of the SUP
24 A. No, only the most important things. Lots of things happen every
1 Q. You worked in conformity with this instruction; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So you submitted daily reports also to the MUP staff in Pristina?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I got some linguistic suggestions. When you say "events" it is
6 being interpreted into English as "incident" and my associates suggest
7 that it should be "event."
8 JUDGE PARKER: The witness will say what he believes should be
9 said. The official interpreters will interpret it as they think it
10 appropriate. If you want to dispute a particular interpretation, you
11 should raise it, and we will go through the process of reviewing the
12 tape. But off the cuff suggestions for changing the words is not really
13 going to be a practical way, Mr. Djurdjic, of dealing with this. I hope
14 that will guide you.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I did
16 not know about that rule. Because when I speak to a witness in Serbian,
17 I understand what he is saying.
18 Q. We have been talking about reporting to the MUP staff. Did you
19 also submit these reports to them?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you submit to them any other reports other than this daily
22 bulletin that you submitted to the MUP?
23 A. Chiefs of Secretariats had to report to the head of the MUP staff
24 every morning, and to inform him of all current events and incidents that
25 were not covered by the bulletin.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let us perhaps mark this document
2 for identification pending translation.
3 JUDGE PARKER: You've mentioned a number, Exhibit D1004, I think,
4 when introducing this document. Is that a 65 ter number?
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received as an exhibit.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit D232, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE PARKER: I should have said marked for identification
9 pending translation, of course.
10 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe
11 it's time for the break.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, we will have the first break and resume
13 at 11.00.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Could I
20 please have the Exhibit 1036.
21 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is a decision whereby you were sent to the
23 Kosovska Mitrovica Secretariat as of 1st of January, 1997. Am I right to
24 say that this decision was made by Mr. Radovan Stojicic who was chief of
25 the sector at the time?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Am I right to say that he made this decision with his authority
3 of an assistant minister?
4 A. Yes. And chief of sector as well.
5 Q. I'm interested in the following paragraph where it says: "
6 While performing the aforementioned tasks ..."
7 And then here we have the entitlements that you had, salary and
8 so on?
9 A. Yes, this was pursuant to the law up to 50 per cent of the
10 monthly pay and so on.
11 Q. Okay. And how were your per diems paid out, through which body?
12 A. Through the Secretariat in Mitrovica, and 50 per cent through the
13 Secretariat in Kragujevac.
14 Q. Thank you. Are you talking about the salary?
15 A. Salary, and 50 per cent in Kragujevac and per diems in Mitrovica.
16 Q. Thank you. Once again I'll have to correct something in the
17 transcript. This decision was made by the deputy minister, who at the
18 time was chief of public security sector Mr. Radovan Stojicic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And everything else I previously asked, your answer would have
21 been the same?
22 A. Yes.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Did you mean deputy minister or assistant
24 minister? I see it's translated here as "deputy minister," that's what
25 you mean? Just keeping you consistent, Mr. Djurdjic.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Djurdjic, thank you. Well,
2 this is exactly what I asked, Mr. Stojicic was deputy minister and chief
3 of the sector at the time when this decision was made. Later on we will
4 show a different decision.
5 Could we please see the Exhibit P77.
6 Q. Mr. Witness, now we'll see this in the English as well, all
7 right. This is the decision on the termination of your tasks and duties
8 dated 15th of April, 1999. Was this decision made by the authority of
9 the minister? Is it stated here?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. At the very end of this decision, can you see that this decision
12 was made by the assistant minister chief of sector?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Could you now tell us what is the difference between the
15 assistant minister and the deputy minister in this particular function?
16 A. The deputy minister stood in for the minister at the time when he
17 was absent and he had all the rights and obligations of minister.
18 Whereas an assistant minister did not have these rights and obligations.
19 He was only charged with one specific sector within the ministry.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see the Exhibit P78.
22 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is a decision dated April the 15th on
23 Lieutenant-Colonel Vucina Janicijevic being appointed chief of
24 Secretariat in Kosovska Mitrovica; am I right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Am I right to say that this decision was made by
2 Minister Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. At the time when all of this was happening, so when you receive
5 the decision stating that you have completed your tasks and
6 Mr. Vucinjevic [as interpreted] was appointed, do you remember that this
7 decision on the fact that you were terminated at this position was made
8 at the level of the ministry?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the
12 Exhibit P75.
13 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is the decision on the assignment of
14 Mr. Bosko Petric to perform duties and tasks of chief of Secretariat in
15 Pristina, and it was made by the minister; am I right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the
19 Exhibit P79.
20 Q. Mr. Cvetic, am I right to say that the decision of the
21 15th of April, 1999, on the termination of the tasks in Pristina was made
22 by the assistant minister chief of public security sector at the time,
23 Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, upon the authority or authorisation of the
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So on the basis of these documents, am I right to say that
2 whenever such a decision was made by an assistant minister, it was made
3 upon the authorisation of the minister?
4 A. In these cases, yes.
5 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, we mentioned Momcilo Stojanovic. Could
6 you please repeat, as far as you know, what was his position with his
7 staff in Pristina?
8 A. In late October, early November 1998, he came to the MUP staff in
9 Pristina. In early 1999, given that in the previous year the
10 Ministry of the Interior had a plan of housing, construction of housing
11 facilities in Kosovo and Metohija in order to resolve the housing
12 situation of the employees of the ministry. According to that plan, in
13 the territory of SUP
14 constructed with between 30 and 50 apartments. So he came to SUP in
15 Kosovska Mitrovica to talk to the contractors in relation to the
16 construction of this building. And on basis of this, I can assume that
17 he was in charge of these housing issues.
18 Q. Thank you. Did you hear that he was sent there also in order to
19 arrange the business premises that were used for human resources purposes
20 and some other personnel functions?
21 A. Well, one could conclude that since he carried out the tasks
22 pertaining to housing, so these were investments, so possibly he was also
23 in charge of maintenance of facilities in which different organs of the
24 police in Kosovo and Metohija were situated.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the
2 Exhibit D99.
3 Q. I believe you haven't seen this decision before.
4 A. No. This is the very first time I can see this decision.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the second page
6 of this decision.
7 Q. Mr. Cvetic, do you recognise this signature of the minister?
8 A. Yes, this is his signature.
9 Q. Thank you. Could you please take a look at item 3 of this
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. In order not to come back, under items 3 and 4 we can see what
13 were the tasks that he was supposed to assist in?
14 A. Yes. This is what the decision states, but I answered previously
15 what was it that he dealt with when he came to the
16 Secretariat in Kosovska Mitrovica. I wasn't aware of this decision.
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to page 1.
19 Q. Am I right to say that under this item 1,
20 General Momcilo Stojanovic was assigned as a member of the staff to fight
21 terrorism in the territory of autonomous province of Kosovo
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And here it says:
24 "Pursuant to the decision to establish the ministry staff for the
25 prevention of terrorism DT 01 ..." number and so on?
1 A. Yes, that is correct, but while I was in the territory of
2 Kosovo and Metohija, I did not see this decision; I did not even know
3 that this particular staff was established.
4 Q. All right. But then these tasks under 1 also include the task
5 that you mention, housing; and item 2 mention other tasks as well?
6 A. Yes, indeed, because these are similar tasks. They all pertain
7 to investment, regular maintenance, and investment into new facilities.
8 This is all rather similar.
9 Q. Thank you. Since you worked in this organisation for years, in
10 this particular decision nothing -- there's no mention of salary which is
11 normally included in decisions of this type?
12 A. No, but these persons mentioned in this decision most probably
13 had a decision on being sent somewhere which encompassed provisions on
14 salary, so possibly it wasn't necessary to repeat the same provisions
16 Q. Okay. Thank you. This date, there, is 2nd of October, 1998; is
17 that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now see the
20 Exhibit P1044.
21 Q. Witness, you saw this decision yesterday. It was shown to you.
22 It's dated 5 October, 1998
23 sector, Vlastimir Djordjevic. It's the decision to send
24 General Momcilo Stojanovic to perform a security job in the autonomous
25 province of Kosovo-Metohija on the the authority of the minister?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you agree with me that the salary stipulated in this decision
3 and this decision was in fact made to be submitted to the financial
4 services section so that these benefits can be received, the financial
5 services section always receives such decision?
6 A. Yes, and this decision, that kind of decisions, are always
7 submitted also to the personnel services.
8 Q. But in the previous decision we did not have this salary
10 A. It wasn't necessary because the decision to send someone already
11 included provisions about salary.
12 Q. Yes. But the decision of the minister was dated 2nd of October,
13 and this one is dated the 5th October?
14 A. Yes, but it's practically the same thing.
15 Q. So you agree that this decision dated the 5th is in fact a
16 follow-up of the 2nd of October decision?
17 A. Yes, basically.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have D38.
19 Q. Mr. Cvetic, is it the decision to send Colonel Dusan Gavranic to
20 perform to the job of chief of SUP
21 17, 1998, and the decision was made by Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Mr. Cvetic, do you know perhaps Dragan Bozovic?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we see Exhibit P259.
1 Q. Mr. Cvetic, do you recognise the signature of
2 Vlajko Stojiljkovic, and do you recognise this format?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is it the case that by this decision, the minister sends
5 Colonel Dragan Bozovic to the MUP staff in Pristina to a security related
7 A. Yes, we see that from the heading. From the preamble.
8 Q. Is it the case that under Roman numeral III, it is envisaged that
9 for his work, Colonel Bozovic shall be accountable to the head of the MUP
11 A. Yes. This is written in paragraph 3 of this decision.
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see P82, please.
13 Q. Mr. Cvetic, is it the case that this decision, adopted by the
14 assistant minister public security sector chief, Vlastimir Djordjevic, is
15 a decision to send Colonel Miroslav Mijatovic -- sorry, it's the decision
16 to terminate Colonel Miroslav Mijatovic as department chief in the police
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did the Assistant Minister Djordjevic take this decision on the
20 authority of the minister?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see P80.
24 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is a decision to terminate the assignment of
25 Colonel Milenko Arsenijevic also taken by Vlastimir Djordjevic, assistant
1 minister, on the 1st of April, 1999. Is it also taken on the authority
2 of the minister?
3 A. You are not right because this is not on the termination. It is
4 the decision to send.
5 Q. All right. Thank you.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have P144.
7 Q. Just for the record, Mr. Cvetic, the previous decision, P80, to
8 send Milenko Arsenijevic was taken by public [Realtime transcript read in
9 error "state"] security sector chief assistant minister, Vlastimir
11 A. No, no. You said state security sector, and it's public security
13 Q. On the authority of the Ministry of the Interior on the
14 1st of April, 1999?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now we see a decision to terminate captain Milan Cankovic on the
17 position of special security related tasks taken on the 30th of May,
18 1999. It's again taken by the assistant minister sector chief,
19 Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic, on the authority of the minister?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. You did see Mr. Milan Cankovic at the staff during your tenure?
22 A. Yes, I saw him, and we spoke on the phone.
23 Q. Do you know that he was chief of communications?
24 A. Where?
25 Q. At the staff?
1 A. Assistant Chief of Staff for radio communications.
2 Q. That's what you know?
3 A. And I believe that's contained in the decision to establish the
4 staff which we can see because that material is available.
5 Q. Mr. Cvetic, we'll come to that. But let me ask you: If
6 General Djordjevic sent Mr. Cankovic there by virtue of the decision you
7 spoke about from June 1999, that was his original authority; right? His
8 inherent powers?
9 A. No, it was the decision to set up the staff.
10 Q. And that was in accordance with the rules?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, why does the minister take the decision to terminate the
14 A. Well, you see, the chief of sector is able to take all decisions
15 on the authority of the minister, including decisions to send and
16 decisions to terminate; and the minister can do the same. That means,
17 what I'm trying to say is this: The minister of the interior is at the
18 head of the ministry, and he controls the work of the ministry in its
19 entirety. And he is accountable and responsible for the overall state of
20 affairs in the ministry. The minister of the interior is therefore the
21 most responsible persons for all the affairs of the ministry. For
22 certain areas of work, he can authorise other persons to decide in his
24 Q. You are completely right, but now we are on the ground. If the
25 chief of the public security sector was authorised to take the decision
1 to set up the staff under the rules of internal organisation, was he
2 really authorised? Did he have the power?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's the power he has under the rules?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Why would he then take the decision to terminate Milan Cankovic
7 on the authority of the minister?
8 A. Well, he, chief of sector, or the minister, in order to pull out
9 a person from Kosovo and Metohija, they have to issue a decision. A
10 decision can be withdrawn only if a decision existed to send somebody.
11 Q. I don't know if you understood my question. If the chief of
12 sector had powers inherent in his office it to send someone, why did he
13 need the authority of the minister to withdraw the person?
14 A. I don't know what happened in the case of this Cankovic.
15 Q. Let us then see --
16 A. I don't know these things, and I cannot claim anything with any
17 certainty. I can only speak about specific situations. I don't know
18 whether he had blanco authority.
19 Q. We are not talking about blanco authority.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let's see D100.
21 Q. Mr. Cvetic, if we look at the preamble of this decision, what
22 legal grounds are cited here?
23 A. It says:
24 "Pursuant to Article 10 of The Rules on the Internal
1 Q. So based on that, the chief of sector is authorised to form
3 A. Yes. Staffs, commissions, and other working bodies, but this
4 does not include this staff, or may include that particular staff. It
5 all depends on interpretation.
6 Q. So did he form the staff under this decision, this decision to
7 set up the staff in Pristina?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And we see the missions of that staff formulated?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Under (a) that is to suppress terrorism and armed insurgency?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then we see the following points, (b), (c), (d), et cetera?
14 A. Yes. In sub-item (a), the provision should be read in the
15 context of the task from para 2 because it's the task of the staff to
16 plan, organise, and guide. Each word carries a particular meaning. And
17 to coordinate the work of Secretariats and stations of border police in
18 the territory of Kosova-Metohija in performing for complex and important
19 duties and assignments that involve column(a) the suppression of,
20 [indiscernible], disorder, terrorism, and armed insurgence.
21 Q. You are right; I'm not interpreting this. I'm just saying that
22 these tasks are identified for the staff.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, let us turn the page in
25 Q. Let's look at para 5. To whom, according to this paragraph, was
1 the head of staff answerable?
2 A. For his own work and the work of the staff, the head of staff is
3 answerable to the chief of the public security sector.
4 Q. And he is answerable for the status of public security, public is
5 very important?
6 A. Well, he could not be answerable for any other situation, even if
7 someone wanted him to be because he is heading the public security
9 Q. Now look at para 6.
10 A. Yes. "The staff leader shall inform" -- "shall report to the
11 chief of the public security sector any significant security incidents,
12 the measures undertaken, and the results of those measures."
13 This should be actually expanded to say "significant events in
14 the area of public security." That would be more precise. But since the
15 chief of the public security sector is concerned, he can only be
16 answerable for the situation in public security sector.
17 Q. [No interpretation]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat this.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Para
21 organisational units of the ministry in Kosovo and Metohija?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And the relevant decision on appointments will be made in due
25 A. Yes, and that decision was made on the 11th of June, 1998
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see P760.
2 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is a decision on the appointment of members of
3 the staff. I believe it was made on 11th of June, 1998. We will see
4 that later on on the next page. But, Mr. Cvetic, was this decision also
5 made pursuant to Article 10 of the rules?
6 A. Yes. In the preamble of this decision, we can see that it was
7 made pursuant to Article 10 of the rules on the internal organisation of
8 the ministry.
9 Q. Thank you. Under item 1, would this decision
10 Major-General Sreten Lukic was appointed staff leader; is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Under item 2 Lieutenant-Colonel Radoslav Dinovic, assistant chief
13 of the SUP
14 that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was Radoslav Dinovic really deputy leader of the staff from this
17 moment onwards?
18 A. Radoslav Dinovic came as deputy leader of the staff in 1997 in
19 June of 1997 when Colonel Mijatovic was withdrawn from the position of
20 the leader of the staff and assistant chief of traffic police
21 administration Colonel Aco Vasovic was appointed leader of the staff. At
22 that time, Mr. Radoslav Dinovic was appointed deputy leader and we would
23 normally call him deputy Chief of Staff.
24 Q. Okay. That was before, but with this decision we can see the
25 relevant time is 1998?
1 A. Yes, he was still chief -- deputy Chief of Staff, but he remained
2 in that position for a very brief period of time.
3 Q. Goran Radosavljevic was appointed assistant leader of the staff
4 for interventions; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Major Zarko Brakovic was appointed assistant staff leader for
7 police affairs?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In the second half of 1998 and while you were there, was he
10 indeed an assistant leader of the staff?
11 A. Well, in reality he carried out three different tasks; he had
12 three areas of responsibility. He was at the staff an assistant leader
13 of the staff for police affairs, in SUP Pristina he was head of the
14 police department, and he was also commander of the -- of a PJP
15 detachment and later commander of 124th Detachment.
16 Q. Okay. But I'm just asking about members of the staff. So could
17 you see him at all the meetings of the staff when the staff members were
18 present including the SUP
19 A. Very rarely did it happen for the staff meeting to take place
20 with all the members that are listed in this decision. Normally it will
21 just be some members of the staff that are relevant for the specific
22 topic discussed that were present at the meeting. So Zarko Brakovic
23 attending the meetings depending on the contents discussed.
24 Q. All right. But can you believe me that Mr. Brakovic told us that
25 he never received this decision and that he was not a member of the staff
1 starting with this date and until the end of the war?
2 A. As far as I can remember, he was in the staff. And as I told
3 you, he carried out three duties. He had three groups of
4 responsibilities. So he was head of the police department, commander of
5 a detachment, and member of the staff. So he can always tell you that at
6 a given moment of time, he did not carry out one duty but another one.
7 Q. Thank you. But I believe the witnesses tell us the truth when
8 they come before this court?
9 A. Obviously everything that I'm saying here I'm saying on the basis
10 of the information that I had.
11 Q. Undoubtedly, Mr. Cvetic.
12 Major Miodrag Rsumovic was supposed to be a coordinator for
13 white-collar crime. Could you see him in the period from mid-1998 until
14 the end of the period that you spent there?
15 A. I saw him until mid-1998, but when we started with anti-terrorist
16 actions and onwards, I couldn't see him attending any of the staff
17 meetings because white-collar crime was not a topic discussed by the
18 staff, but we rather discussed the issues pertaining to anti-terrorist
19 operations. So his attendance was not required.
20 Before that period, I saw him in person and he personally would
21 come to the SUP
22 fighting white-collar crime at SUP
23 I saw him.
24 Q. Thank you. Novica Zdravkovic was appointed coordinator of
25 general crime. Did you see him?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you also see Major Radovan Vucurevic who by this decision
3 appointed assistant leader of the staff for border police aliens?
4 A. I heard about him, but I do not know him in person.
5 Q. Thank you, we'll come to that later.
6 Milan Cankovic was appointed assistant leader of the staff for
7 radio communication?
8 A. Yes, I said that already.
9 Q. [No interpretation]
10 THE INTERPRETER: If the counsel could kindly repeat the last
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in the second half of 1998 I
13 can't claim with certainty that he was present at the meetings, but he
14 was present at the meetings before that time. Because the issues
15 discussed in the second half of June 1998 until the end September 1998
16 during the time of anti-terrorist actions, different persons attending
17 the meetings because different issues were discussed.
18 JUDGE PARKER: You are leaping too far ahead. You will notice at
19 about line 15 that your whole question was missed. You were asked to
20 repeat the question. We've got the answer. We don't know the question.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
22 THE INTERPRETER: [Microphone not activated]
23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, I see your microphone is switched on
24 but the interpreter didn't hear what you said. I am afraid you'll have
25 to start again.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I -- this is the
2 second time that I have to repeat this question. I apologise. Okay, we
3 have to repeat this.
4 Q. Mr. Cvetic, I'm reading from this decision, and then I'm asking
5 whether the persons mentioned in this decision were seen by you in the
6 period between the -- after the second half of 1998 at the staff. We all
7 know what is written in the decision; this is not contested. I'm just
8 asking whether you saw Milos Deretic in the second half of 1998 until the
9 period when you left Kosovska Mitrovica at the end of April 1999?
10 A. What do you mean "at the staff"?
11 Q. I'm asking at the meetings held in the staff?
12 A. Sometimes he was there, sometimes he wasn't. Depending on the
13 issues that were discussed at the meetings, there are minutes which -- of
14 these meetings which list all the attendees of these meetings.
15 Usually there were chiefs of Secretariats but not always.
16 Obviously commanders of PJPs, but not all always. The SAJ commanders,
17 but again not always. And some other persons from the ministry or from
18 the staff.
19 The meetings were attended by those persons that were charged
20 with the current issues, the issues that were discussed by the particular
21 meeting so that were included in the agenda of that meeting. And the
22 staff as such did not have a single rumour facility where all the members
23 of the staff would be present. Rather, they carried out their regular
24 duties, and when needed, they would be invited to come for a meeting. It
25 was only the staff leader and his deputy who actually sat there, who had
1 their positions there.
2 Q. Thank you. Mr. Cvetic, could you believe me that Milos Deretic,
3 when he was a witness here, he told us that he never received this
4 decision and that he was not a member of the staff pursuant to this
5 decision in the period between mid-1998 and the end of 1999?
6 A. Well, I'm saying that pursuant to this decision, he was; but I'm
7 not saying that he was presents at the meetings of the staff after this
8 particular time.
9 Q. Okay. Then maybe it was a misunderstanding.
10 A. But he was sometimes at the meetings of the staff possibly before
11 this period. I know that I saw him there, but possibly not in line with
12 this particular decision.
13 Q. Thank you. That is exactly what I'm trying to clarify. The next
14 person is Miroslav Krajcic an assistant in charge of quarter master?
15 A. Yes, and he was also -- he also had the duty at the SUP in
17 Q. Gojko Celebic who was assistant leader of the staff for
19 A. I heard about him, but I do not know him in person.
20 Q. Dobrasin Krdzic who was in charge of medical issues?
21 A. Again, I know about him.
22 Q. And also we have another person, Rasko Milenkovic, who was in
23 charge of surveillance analysis or assistant leader of the staff for
24 surveillance analysis?
25 A. I heard about him, but I can't remember his face.
1 Q. Thank you. Item 2 of this decision states that the members of
2 the expanded staff were going to be the heads of Secretariats of -- in
3 the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija?
4 A. That is correct, this is what is stipulated under item 2.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. But I have to provide an explanation here.
7 Q. Go ahead.
8 A. These heads of Secretariats were members of the expanded staff,
9 but they did not have any individual duties in the staff, because members
10 of the staff normally have to have specific duties so their respective
11 areas of responsibility and it needs to be clarified who they answer to.
12 Q. Thank you. I can agree with you, but here it is simply mentioned
13 that you were members of the expanded staff.
14 A. Yes, well, if the Chamber can allow me to make a parallel: It is
15 similar to the former constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
16 which stated that any citizen who, with a weapon or otherwise, could
17 contribute to the defence from the aggressor was considered to be a
18 member of the armed force, well this stipulation in reality meant nothing
19 at all because it wasn't specific enough.
20 So this is something very similar.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we kindly see the
23 Exhibit P57.
24 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is a decision that you didn't see prior to
25 yesterday, although the Prosecution knew about it, even the last time you
1 witnessed here, and the Defence team also knew about this the last time
2 you witnessed here.
3 A. Nobody ever asked any questions concerning this decision.
4 Q. Well, this is why I'm going to do it right now. You said that
5 undoubtedly this was a decision made by Mr. Vlajko Stojiljkovic?
6 A. Can I see the last page.
7 Q. Well, this is what you said yesterday.
8 A. Yes, but there are so many different decision, so could I just
9 see the signature. Yes, Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, and I can
10 recognise this signature.
11 Q. Thank you. Okay. Let us then start from the end of this
12 document in order to save some time. In item 6 is it true that the
13 minister decided that the decisions to establish a staff of
14 21st of April, 15th of May, and 11th of June ceased to be in effect?
15 A. Yes, but this makes no sense because this is not in
16 correspondence to the actual situation on the ground.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1 now.
19 Q. Am I right to say that this decision was made on the
20 June the 16th, 1998
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Am I right to say that within this decision,
23 Sreten Lukic was also appointed leader of the staff?
24 A. Yes, but leader of the staff for suppression of terrorism.
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. I'm pointing this out because he was leader of the MUP staff in
2 Pristina. And while he was in Pristina, all the time he was leader of
3 the MUP staff. And while I was SUP
4 of the MUP staff in Pristina, and not to the meetings of the staff for
5 the suppression of terrorism.
6 So the logical question can be raised, how come that chief of
7 Secretariats and commanders could attend meetings of the MUP staff in
8 Pristina if that staff was already abolished?
9 Q. So you think that it was abolished? Well let us proceed.
10 A. Well, you showed that to me. You showed me the decision whereby
11 that staff was abolished.
12 Q. Well, we will not draw any conclusions. It is up to the Chamber
13 to draw the conclusions. But according to this decision, was David Gajic
14 appointed deputy leader of the staff?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And was Radoslav Dinovic appointed assistant leader of the staff?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And he was in charge of interventions and operational planning?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And under the previous decision, Radoslav Dinovic was an
21 assistant leader of the staff?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Milorad Lukovic was an assistant head of special operations?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Am I right to say that he was employed by state security section?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now we have as the chief of JSO [as interpreted], Mr. Trajkovic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Special anti-terrorist units --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry SAJ
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. -- there was a decision taken in June 1999. We did not have this
8 position until then?
9 A. No, we had an appointment for interventions.
10 Q. This is an appointment for special anti-terrorist units?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, we have Major Goran Radosavljevic as assistant head of
13 Special Police units?
14 A. He was in the previous staff for interventions.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers stop overlapping, please.
16 They are speaking at the same time the witness is answering before the
17 question has finished. We cannot follow in this way.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Now, we Mr. Lukovic he is in both decisions concerning mechanised
20 units, but he is now assistant?
21 A. I don't have the second page, but I know that he was -- I know
22 the person, and I know he was in charge of the work you mentioned.
23 Q. Yes, but as a coordinator? Assistant chief of staff for
24 mechanised units in the first decision as well?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Then we have Novica Zdravkovic; he is now in charge of criminal
2 investigations and operations?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And he was coordinator for general crime earlier?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now we have Radovan Vucurevic, border affairs and foreign
7 nationals. He was also on the previous decision?
8 A. I don't know him. I heard of him.
9 Q. Then we have Milorad Rajicic; he was in both appointments, the
10 first and the second one. And he is assistant.
11 And then we have Milan Cankovic, chief of communications, he was
12 also on the previous decision?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And then we have Dobrasin Krdzic as chief of medical corps in
15 both decisions?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you see that Milos Deretic, Gojko Celebic, Zarko Brakovic, and
18 Miodrag Rsumovic are missing from this decision?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 A. But this could be interpreted in another way. What you ask me,
22 the answer is yes.
23 Q. But let me put another question: Does this decision include
24 people from both public security and state security?
25 A. There's only one person from state security. And now I see the
1 expanded staff also includes head of centres from state security.
2 Q. This decision involving members of both sectors, this decision
3 could only be taken by the minister of the interior?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Am I right that in para 2 of this decision, please look at it,
6 the minister stipulated that the task of the staff is to plan, organise,
7 guide, and employ organisational units of the ministry, and also the
8 seconded and attached units to suppress terrorism in the province of
10 A. That's written in this decision.
11 Q. And in the next paragraph of para 2, the staff plans, organises,
12 and guides the work of organisational units in performing more complex
13 security tasks?
14 A. Secretariats are meant here.
15 Q. Now, in para 3, what did the minister envisage?
16 A. That the head of staff should be answerable to the minister for
17 the state of affairs in their purview, and to report to the minister on
18 all the activities, measures taken, and the outcome.
19 Q. And the minister did not make this available to you?
20 A. No.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at page 3.
22 Q. Mr. Cvetic -- I said para 3, right? Can you tell me, to whom was
23 this decision delivered? What does it say?
24 A. The decision says that the decision was sent to the head, the
25 deputy, and members of the staff as well as the minister's office.
1 Q. Thank you. In your work, regardless of this decision, nothing
2 changed, did it?
3 A. No, it didn't.
4 Q. But the relations between the staff and the head and the superior
5 have changed with this decision on intersectorial activities?
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P67.
8 Q. Mr. Cvetic, just repeat your last answer.
9 A. I answered "yes" because that follows from the material that has
10 been shown to me.
11 Q. Now we are on P67. Mr. Cvetic, have you got the gist of page 1?
12 A. Yes, but at that time I wasn't --
13 Q. I know you were not. Let's go on. This is dated
14 31st of May, 1999. It's the decision to establish the ministry staff for
15 the suppression of terrorism. And in para 1 we see the full title, The
16 Staff for the Suppression of Terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija based in
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And again Sreten Lukic, now lieutenant-general is appointed head
20 of staff?
21 A. I believe he got this decision as of 13th of May, 1999.
22 Q. And we see Mr. Milenko Arsenijevic here, even during your tenure,
23 he was member of the staff for awhile, Colonel Milenko Arsenijevic?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we move to page 2.
1 Q. Blagoje Pesic was on the earlier staff as well; right?
2 A. Captain Pesic was in charge of reserve police squads at the staff
3 in Pristina.
4 Q. Witness, by virtue of this decision dated 31st of May,
5 Sreten Lukic is again appointed head of staff for the suppression of
6 terrorism in Pristina?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, we see on page 2, in this decision the minister appoints
9 Miroslav Deretic chief of communications; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Is it the case that members of the expanded staff under this
12 decision and the previous decision include heads of centres of RDB, the
13 state security sector?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. This decision is also a decision on an intersectorial staff;
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise to the interpreters.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So do I.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. The task of the staff under Roman numeral II is the same as in
22 the decision of the 16th of June, 1998?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The accountability and responsibility of heads of staff is
25 formulated in the same way, their responsibilities for the work of the
1 staff that is?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we now move to the last
4 page, page 3.
5 Q. By virtue of this decision dated 31st of May, 1999, did the
6 minister render null and void the decision to establish the staff for the
7 suppression of terrorism, DT 01 number so and so of the
8 16th of June, 1998?
9 A. Yes, that's what we see here.
10 Q. This decision was sent to the head of staff, the deputy, the
11 assistants, members of the staff, and the minister's office?
12 A. That's also written.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic. Just one more point.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 1 in B/C/S,
16 Q. Mr. Cvetic, was this decision taken by the minister of the
17 interior pursuant to Article 7 of the Law on the Interior?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if I am allowed to
20 give the witness a hard copy to look up the legal basis for the decision.
21 Can we have P57.
22 MR. STAMP: I saw that it was marked and highlighted and that is
23 why I was indicating no, but if it is to look up the legal basis, I have
24 no objection to him being shown it.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, if it's for that one purpose, the
1 witness may see your document. But otherwise, it is heavily marked, and
2 he shouldn't have it during your cross-examination.
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] He just needs to look up if it's
4 indeed Article 7 in the preamble.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is Article 7, and on the
6 basis of that Article 7, the minister was entitled to take this decision.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Cvetic.
8 Q. Mr. Cvetic, in view of your previous position, I want to go
9 together with you through various dispatches, some sent by the minister,
10 some sent through the public security sector down to your
12 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see for that purpose,
13 D004-1572, please.
14 Q. Mr. Cvetic, do you remember this dispatch from
15 Minister Stojiljkovic?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Could you tell us, what was the political and security situation
18 at the time when you received this dispatch?
19 A. The situation was difficult and very complex. Terrorist attacks
20 had escalated in the entire territory of Kosovo
21 policemen had been killed or seriously or lightly injured. There were
22 attacks on the army, Serbs, Albanians loyal to the state of Serbia
23 There had been numerous attacks on the installations of the army and the
24 Ministry of Interior. Roads were unsafe or completely unpassable for
25 traffic. One could not move safely across the territory of Kosovo
1 especially not at night. All movement on the territory of Kosovo
2 practically restricted.
3 So the situation was indeed very complex. The territory of
4 Kosovo was no longer under the control of the authorities of Serbia
5 is the Ministry of the Interior. Parts of the territory had been
6 captured by the terrorists, and the terrorists controlled various
7 population centres. By that time, they had already started taking hold
8 of individual businesses and enterprises.
9 Q. I see that in this dispatch, you are informed that the
10 Kosovo Diplomatic Mission would start to work soon in keeping with the
11 Milosevic-Yeltsin Agreement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I think that's the time when the Pristina-Pec road was cut off.
14 Was it at that time or later?
15 A. I think it was later in July. But the road what was unsafe even
16 at this time. Traffic was made very very difficult.
17 Q. What was the situation with roads in the territory of the SUP
18 Kosovska Mitrovica?
19 A. Very hard. It was the hardest in the territory of Srbica
20 belongs to the area of Drenica, so that the road from Srbica via Rakos,
21 Rudnik, and Padaliste to Pec, or rather, Istok and Pec, was frequently
22 blocked and unsafe. On that a road, a large number of terrorist attacks
23 were launched against the police, against public transportation, and
24 there were kidnappings of passengers. For a while, that road was
25 completely blocked.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cvetic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
3 tender this document.
4 JUDGE PARKER: What is its date?
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] 17th of June, 1998. But my
6 infallible assistant, Ms. Marie O'Leary, wants to remind me of something.
7 That we tender only pages 2 and 3 because page 1 is ...
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
10 document into evidence.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D233, Your Honours.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Just one thing, please. Could I
14 have page 2 because this is a dispatch, and attached is a joint statement
15 by President Milosevic and Mr. Yeltsin, and the statement of the
16 prime minister, which is referred to in the dispatch.
17 JUDGE PARKER: You are looking at me, Mr. Djurdjic. What are you
18 wanting me to do?
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for to you receive
20 this document.
21 JUDGE PARKER: It's been received as Exhibit D233.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have time for
23 another document. 65 ter 04079.
24 Q. Do you remember this dispatch, Mr. Cvetic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I forgot to ask you a moment ago, the first dispatch we
2 discussed, it was sent by the minister to the MUP staff and to the SUPs
3 in Pristina, Gnjilane, Urosevac, Kosovska Mitrovica, Djakovica, Pec, to
5 A. Yes, to SUP
6 Q. And this document we're looking at now, it was sent to all the
7 SUPs in Serbia and all these other addressees?
8 A. Yes. In the state security and the public security sector.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 3 in B/C/S.
10 Q. This is signed Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is it correct that this Dispatch 2 mentions the
13 diplomatic mission that is about to start working?
14 A. Yes, and the international humanitarian organisations.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D234, Your Honours.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it may be time for
19 the break.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will have the second break, and we
21 resume at 1.00.
22 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- On resuming at 1.02 p.m.
25 [The witness takes the stand]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
3 Q. Mr. Cvetic, it seems that by time we are getting more and more
4 tired, but we are nonetheless talking more and more quickly, so please
5 let us try to slow down so that everybody can follow our conversation.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the document 200
7 -- sorry, D001-2922.
8 Q. Mr. Cvetic, can you recognise the format of this document, and is
9 this the signature of Mr. Stojiljkovic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this was sent to the staff, MUP staff in Pristina,
12 but after this date, you received this agreement on the
13 OSCE Verification Mission; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
16 document into evidence.
17 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D235, Your Honours.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we kindly see the
20 Exhibit D208.
21 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is the decision on the formation of the MUP
22 collegium of 4th of December, 1998. In order not to waste time, we will
23 see the signature later on, and you will be able to confirm whether you
24 can recognise the signature or not.
25 Here we can see that the decision was made to set up a collegium,
1 and we have a list of persons that were going to be the members of this
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Cvetic, under item 1 we can see
5 Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic, assistant minister and chief of
6 public security department; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Item 2, Colonel-General Radomir Markovic, assistant minister and
9 chief of state security department; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And under three, Major-General Nikola Curcic who was assistant
12 minister and deputy chef of RDB and director of the security institute,
13 so all three functions?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And under 4, Lieutenant-General Obrad Stevanovic, assistant
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So at this moment on 4th of December, we can see that some
19 persons held different functions and some others held only one, i.e.,
20 they were assistant ministers?
21 A. Yes, this is what this decision stipulates.
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we kindly see page 2 of this
24 Q. Here we can see additional two members: chief of the crime
25 police, Dragan Ilic, and chief of SUP of the Internal Affairs in
1 Belgrade, Mr. Duric; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Under item 3, we can see who was to attend these collegium,
4 Mr. Krstic as chief of the analysis administration, who was supposed to
5 take minutes, and also Captain Pantovic?
6 A. Yes, Danilo Pantovic; that is correct.
7 Q. And upon an invitation by the minister, other persons could
8 attend, whoever he wanted to invite?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you recognise the signature of Mr. Stojiljkovic?
11 A. I cannot see it on my screen. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] This document has already been
14 admitted into evidence, so we can proceed.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Do you know the exhibit number, Mr. Djurdjic?
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. D208.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for the
19 document D002-0343.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may, Your Honours, to
21 supplement what I was saying. Even earlier there was a collegium of the
22 minister of the interior; so in this decision, I cannot see that the
23 previous decision was terminated so that the effect of the previous
24 decision on the collegium of the minister was terminated for this one.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you. Mr. Cvetic, can you see this dispatch, and can you
2 recognise it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Later on, when we turn the leaf you will be able to see the
5 signature, so it was dispatch sent by the minister to the MUP staff in
6 Pristina and all the SUPs in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija; is
7 that correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the following page of
10 this document.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this is the signature of
12 Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation].
14 Q. Mr. Cvetic, am I right to say that with this dispatch, the
15 minister informed members of MUP in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija
16 that if attacked, they could undertake measures to defend themselves, if
17 attacked by terrorists?
18 A. So the minister didn't need to inform them about this because the
19 Law on the Interior stipulated the authorities of authorised officials;
20 and if an authorised official was to be attacked, then the authorised
21 official was supposed to react to this attack, so this was the task of
22 any authorised official as stipulated by law. However, when we are
23 talking about terrorist activities, individual police officers were not
24 allowed to undertake any measures regardless of the legislative
25 provisions, without an approval of the MUP staff or the ministry to
1 undertake certain anti-terrorist actions.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please tender
3 this document into evidence.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D236, Your Honours.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have D004-1579.
7 Q. Could you briefly comment on this. This is a dispatch that was
8 sent to all the chiefs of SUPs in the territory of Serbia and also to the
9 staff in Pristina and border police stations.
10 A. Yes, this was simply a relayed decision of the government of the
11 Republic of Serbia as to what was supposed to happen after the
12 declaration of the state of the imminent threat of war.
13 Q. And the date is 24th of March, 1999?
14 A. Yes. This is when the aggression started.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please tender this document
16 into evidence.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D237, Your Honours.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we please see the
20 Exhibit D002-354.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we possibly enlarge this.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. This is a dispatch dated 25th of March, 1999, sent by the
25 minister to all SUPs and to the staff and to the organisational units of
1 the public security sector in the seat. Do you remember this?
2 A. Well, this copy is rather illegible, so I can't really comment on
3 it unless I can see it in a hard copy version, so I would kindly ask to
4 see it in a hard copy version.
5 Q. Well, I underlined certain parts of the text, so I'm not sure
6 that it will be appropriate.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could you please
8 advise me on that. I didn't write anything, but I did highlight certain
9 parts of the text.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Any objection, Mr. Stamp?
11 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Pass it over, Mr. Djurdjic.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Stamp.
14 JUDGE PARKER: I take it there is not yet a translation?
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No, the translation is pending.
16 We gave very many documents to be translated. A majority of those have
17 been translated already, but there is a small number that is still
18 pending translation.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can remember this dispatch.
21 It followed the proclamation of the state of war, and it concerned the
22 measures that had to be undertaken following the proclamation of the
23 state of war.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please mark
25 this document for identification in order to be included into evidence
1 once we have the translation.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
3 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D238 marked for identification,
4 Your Honours.
5 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. [Microphone not
6 activated] Could I please have the document D004-1592.
7 Q. Witness, do you remember -- actually, you can't remember, you
8 haven't seen it yet.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see the second
10 page of this document.
11 Q. Witness, this is a dispatch of the MUP staff sent to all the SUPs
12 and do you remember -- and also detachment commanders. Do you remember
13 this dispatch dated 15th of July, 1998?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you please tell us, what was the situation like at the time
16 when you received this dispatch?
17 A. Are you talking about the security situation? Well, the
18 situation was similar to the one I described previously.
19 Q. Thank you. At this time, was there already danger that certain,
20 sort of, imminent danger -- that certain populated areas could be taken
21 over by the forces of the KLA?
22 A. Yes. I said that certain companies were already taken over and
23 obviously they attempted to put certain inhabited areas under their
24 control as well.
25 But I would like to say the following: This is a dispatch of the
1 staff of the ministry. So the staff of the ministry existed on
2 July the 15th because previously we can see a document proving that there
3 was a decision from June of that year which abolished this staff.
4 So as chief of SUP
5 Pristina and at this time, the MUP staff in Pristina was in operation.
6 It wasn't abolished.
7 Q. Thank you. Under item 3, what is the instruction of the staff?
8 A. "During the operations, fire exclusively at targets outside
9 populated places or where it is known reliably that there are no
11 Q. So the instruction of the staff was to take care about the
13 A. Generally speaking, yes. This was a general position, to take
14 care about the civilians, but on the ground, there were also some
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could I please have this document
18 tendered into evidence.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D239, Your Honours.
21 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Cvetic, these anti-terrorist activities, were they prescribed
23 by this dispatch?
24 A. Well, these were the preparations for the anti-terrorist
25 activities. The anti-terrorist activities initiated on July the 25th, so
1 this was the face of preparations.
2 Q. Thank you. But under item 1 it says, In the period from the 14th
3 to the 20th of July, plan, organise, and carry out active combat
4 operations from a distance against terrorist forces?
5 A. Well, yes.
6 Q. All right. So item 1 stipulates as follows: In the period from
7 the 14th to the 20th of July, plan, organise, and carry out combat
8 operations against terrorist forces?
9 A. Yes, this is what item 1 stipulates, but anti-terrorist
10 activities commenced on 25th of July.
11 Q. Those were planned activities, but from the 14th until the 27th,
12 these activities are to be carried out?
13 A. Yes, that's what it says. But who, with what resources and
14 objectives, that's not written. This is just the general formulation.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] D109, please.
16 Q. Look at paragraph 3, please. How did it work in practice?
17 A. Yes, it worked like this: Since personnel from Secretariats of
18 Internal Affairs was deployed in Kosovo and Metohija within PJP units and
19 other special units, in the event that a police officer was killed, we,
20 chiefs of SUPs were obliged to report to the Secretariats from whose
21 territory this personnel came.
22 Q. Is it the case that the anti-terrorist operations were not
23 planned, organised, and carried out from the 16th of June until the
24 1st of May, 1999, while you were there?
25 A. That was exclusively in the jurisdiction of the MUP staff. The
1 Secretariats didn't do this job, but, of course, they provided certain
3 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] D108, please.
4 Q. Mr. Cvetic, I'd like to know about this dispatch that you now see
5 on the screen, and that the staff sent to all the SUPs and chiefs of SUPs
6 and unit commanders in Kosovska Mitrovica. Did you have this
8 A. No, as chief of SUP
9 Q. In criminal investigations, did you act pursuant to the orders
10 given here?
11 A. Yes. We applied this to all the persons who needed to be
12 investigated and interviewed.
13 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] 65 ter 04124.
14 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is again a dispatch from the staff addressed to
15 all SUPs in Kosovo. Is this a format you recognise?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have any knowledge or did you take any action pursuant to
18 paragraph 1 concerning the issuing of documents?
19 A. I remember that members of the Siptar ethnic community, as stated
20 in this dispatch, did not carry personal identification documents. I'm
21 not aware that these documents were destroyed. That I do not know, but I
22 do know they did not carry IDs.
23 Q. Regarding this filling in and destruction of bunkers and trenches
24 in the territory of Kosovska Mitrovica, do you know that the work was
25 done? Did the SUP
1 A. This is a dispatch dated 9 August, 1998. And in the territory
2 covered by SUP
3 were cleared from terrorists and later backfilled by construction
4 machines. We did engage construction machinery to build protective
5 shelters and other things that PJP units needed.
6 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can I please tender this document.
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D240, Your Honours.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] D001-2923.
10 Q. Mr. Cvetic, do you recognise this format?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The staff addresses the minister requesting that means of
13 communication be supplied?
14 A. Correct.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I'll tender this document into
17 JUDGE PARKER: Do we have the correct document? It's a newspaper
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's not a newspaper
20 order. It's a letter from the staff to the ministry asking that these
21 newspapers be supplied to ensure adequate daily information.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sure it will be central to our decision,
23 Mr. Djurdjic. It will be received.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D241, Your Honours.
25 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have D004-1599. Can we
1 have page 2, please.
2 Q. Mr. Cvetic, this is another dispatch from the staff dated
3 16 September, 1998, to detachment -- to the chiefs of SUP and detachment
4 commanders. Did you receive this dispatch?
5 A. Yes. And this issue raised here was often emphasised at staff
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
8 document now.
9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
10 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D242, Your Honours.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] D004-1603, please. Page 2.
12 Q. I see here that this went to Djakovica. Is this again a format
13 you recognise?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you remember this dispatch perhaps?
16 A. Of course I do.
17 Q. Anything particular you want to add?
18 A. Nothing particular, but we acted in accordance with this dispatch
19 and put up check-points.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
21 document too.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D243, Your Honours.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] D004-1607, please. Page 2.
25 Q. This is a dispatch from the staff sent to chiefs of SUPs in KiM,
1 29 September, 1998, do you remember it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Cvetic, I'd like you to cast your mind back to this period
4 and illegal possession of weapons. You told us yesterday that according
5 to the law on weapons and ammunition there was a ban in place on the
6 possession of long arms by civilians and there were no licenses issued
7 for that type of weapons?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. This calls for voluntary surrender of such weapons from missing
10 in Amnesty. How was this carried out in Kosovska Mitrovica?
11 A. You see, even earlier it was emphasised at staff meetings that in
12 certain villages, especially after 1996 and 1997 after the well known
13 events in Albanian, large quantities of weapons from armouries in Albania
14 had been smuggled into the territory of Kosovo. And many villages,
15 especially in the Decane district, Drenica district, and Shala district
16 had that sort of weapons.
17 At that time, a corridor was established across the Junik
18 mountains, Djakovica, Decane, Glodjane, and Jablanica, Drenica,
19 Cicavica, leading to Bajgora; that is, along the Kosovo border from south
20 to the north.
21 At staff meetings, and this dispatch orders the same, it was
22 ordered that Secretariats should look into the situation in their own
23 areas and see how many such weapons had been smuggled in from Albania.
24 Those were Chinese-made weapons, usually automatic rifles, semi-automatic
25 rifles, hand-held launchers, and RPGs.
1 In order to Amnesty the citizens and free them of criminal
2 liability, it was agreed at that time to call on the citizens to
3 surrender such weapons voluntarily at the level of villages and at the
4 area of Mahalas. They could simply leave their weapons at a designated
5 site without leaving their names or any personal information on the
6 condition that the weapon had not been involved in any crime.
7 In Kosovska Mitrovica, we did not do a lot of work. In fact, we
8 did not perform too well in this area; but some other Secretariats did,
9 especially those in the border area.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have this document
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
14 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D244, Your Honours.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Now, D004-1825, please. We'll get
16 page 1.
17 Q. I think you've already answered my question on this document.
18 It's dated 2nd October, a dispatch from the staff to SUP chiefs in
19 Kosovo. They inform you of the Amnesty.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to have
21 this document admitted with your leave.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Is there a translation?
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know. I'm sorry.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D245 marked for identification,
25 Your Honours.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think
2 we have come to the time for adjournment for today.
3 JUDGE PARKER: You are well over halfway, are you, Mr. Djurdjic?
4 We will adjourn now. We resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Friday, the 3rd day of
7 July, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.