1 Thursday, 28 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE PARKER: Morning, sir. Would you -- the affirmation you
7 made to tell the truth still applies today, of course, and Mr. Popovic is
8 continuing his questions.
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examination by Mr. Popovic: [Continued]
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General, sir. We will continue
14 where we left off yesterday.
15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at document
16 D011-1274, please.
17 Q. In your binder this is tab 15. The number is D011-1274.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at page 2 in
19 both versions, this is 1275, and can we look at the following page in
20 both versions, please. Yes.
21 Q. General, we've seen that on the previous pages you're stating
22 what the situation is in the 1st and 2nd Army, then we look at 2.3 where
23 you're talking about the 3rd Army. And then in the first paragraph
24 you're saying:
25 "It was assessed that the volume and complexity of the tasks
1 faced by military judicial organs in this strategic group was too great a
2 load for the existing establishment, and after making adjustments and
3 overcoming initial difficulties the military judicial organs have become
4 fully operational."
5 Can you please tell us the following: The 3rd Army, exactly
6 which army is this, and can you please give us your comments on this
7 paragraph that we have just read?
8 A. The 3rd Army is the Nis Army which had its unit in the Kosovo and
9 Metohija area as well as courts that were distributed in the area of that
10 army. They were covering the Kosovo and Metohija associated territory.
11 Yesterday when I was talking about the numbers of judges per
12 establishment, this was actually something that was put down on paper.
13 But the actual number of judges that were out in the field was
14 insufficient. So the number of judges and prosecutors was increased,
15 particularly in the Pristina Corps, so professional and other technical
16 staff for logistics and security were added. So this is the assessment
17 and the note after completing this task, because I made this information
18 after I toured all the courts and on the basis of all the suggestions
19 made previously, suggesting that these establishment and logistical
20 questions had to be resolved in the best possible manner.
21 Q. The same paragraph, item 2 says:
22 "The first-instance organs attached to the command of the 3rd
23 Army, the Nis Corps and the Nis Military District, have proved extremely
24 efficient, unlike the judicial organs attached to the command of the
25 military district in Nis."
1 When one reads this paragraph we can see that the logic is not
2 quite right. I assume this is a slip or a mistake. So could you please
3 clarify what would need to be corrected in order for this to make sense
4 because the Nis military district is mentioned twice.
5 A. This is a typographical error in the last sentence because this
6 is the command of the military district in Pristina, actually, that is
7 being referred to.
8 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to move to paragraph 3 of this same
9 section, which states:
10 "Military judicial organs attached to the Pristina Corps command
11 have encountered in their work very complex criminal cases and then --
12 that deal with serious crimes (terrorism, murder, robbery, theft) which
13 require the prosecutors and judges to have a high degree of expertise and
15 Could you please clarify this position, primarily the fact that
16 the offences the judicial organs were deal with in that area also include
17 terrorism, and also what would be the competence to try acts of terrorism
18 of the -- of those organs and in what manner could this be prosecuted?
19 A. This is a summary of the situation, global situation. At that
20 time it was already noticed - this was in May - that there were a lot of
21 serious complex crimes in that area with a number of perpetrators. So
22 the military courts were authorised to act for all offences committed by
23 members of that unit on the one hand, and on the other hand --- there was
24 the KLA on the other hand. So these crimes were numbered according to
25 the gravity. These are acts committed by illegal Albanian armed
1 formations because the whole time they used the terrorist method of
2 fighting, which is very serious, unpredictable, can crop up anywhere.
3 Already at that time we did have several raids on military facilities and
4 members of the army. A number of times, even at the time, what happened
5 actually on three occasions witnesses who would come to the tribunal were
6 intercepted on their way back to their units, and they actually never
7 came back and their fate has not been discovered until this day. So this
8 is an issue that deserves analysis in any case. Then we have killings,
9 robberies, with serious consequences. We did have such cases too. This
10 did occur more and more and this was noted in the report, so it was
11 already reaching the prosecutor and the court. We are talking only about
12 these types of crimes and the forms that they appeared in, the way that
13 was presented to the court and the prosecutor and the information that
14 the prosecutors had submitted to the courts.
15 Q. Thank you. We said that this document was drafted on the 12th of
16 May. From the time the state of war was declared some time had passed.
17 Was it only now possible to draw conclusions, and were you only at that
18 time able to compile documents and information from all the courts in
19 order to be able to make any kind of summary as you did here?
20 A. It's logical that from the beginning of the aggression, from the
21 time the state of war was declared, the courts were not able to proceed
22 with cases immediately. This is one thing. Secondly, from the time an
23 offence was committed to the time that it was processed some time had
24 passed, reports were submitted, investigations were initiated, there was
25 detention, a period of that, and then the court would take up the case.
1 So that took up some time. This was of a processing nature, and then
2 this analysis was made after I visited all of those courts. So this
3 situation was already noted then, which needed to be assessed and pointed
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask to look at the
7 following pages in the B/C/S and English versions of this document.
8 Q. General, I'm going to ask you to look at item 3 or section 3,
9 which is titled: "Number of Cases." And you have just talked to us
10 about information that you received from the military judicial organs,
11 and so in this section 3 you cite the number of criminal reports, file
12 requests for the investigations, charges, sentences, persons accused.
13 Could you please tell us what this information is and what is the source
14 of the information that you quoted in paragraph 3.
15 THE INTERPRETER: The speakers are kindly asked to slow down.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This section when we analyse it and
17 we see that the number of the perpetrators of crimes has increased, this
18 of course had to be documented with certain data. Data was received
19 directly from the military prosecutor and from the courts when I went to
20 visit those places, and the supreme military court and supreme military
21 prosecutor monitored the situation daily in their organisational
22 entities. And here it is shown where it says that until then the
23 prosecutor received 7.800 -- 7.807 criminal reports and submitted
24 requests for investigations. It's not shown whether they actually
25 submitted requests to submitted charges.
1 MR. POPOVIC: [No interpretation]
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. He submitted 2.911 requests
3 for the investigation, and charged 3.897 persons. There's probably an
4 error in the numbers here. This is seen in the following sentence. So
5 3.897 criminal charges were submitted or indictments were issued against
6 such number of persons, and at that time the basic, lower courts
7 pronounced 997 judgements.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. And we have this number here ending with 2.393 criminal cases.
11 So this takes it to account the investigations completed and the cases
12 completed, so then you have the total number of cases completed by the
13 courts from their area of jurisdiction. So this indicates a fairly
14 efficient manner of working in such a short period of time, and we all
15 well know that the legal procedure must be ensured even in conditions of
17 Q. In order to avoid confusion about this number, about completed
18 2.393 criminal cases, yesterday you explained the investigating procedure
19 conducted pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure in the Republic of
20 Serbia and the FRY. Does this number of 2.393 cases include completed
21 investigations by the court, following which the prosecutor is able to
22 issue an indictment and further process the case?
23 A. The investigating judge, when he completes the investigation,
24 hands over the case to the prosecutor; and at that point in time, as far
25 as he's concerned, the case is completed.
1 Q. Thank you. It still then remains up to the prosecutor to
2 continue the case before the court, so this does not mean that the whole
3 case is absolutely finished but only that the investigative part
4 conducted by the court has been completed?
5 A. Yes, precisely.
6 Q. And the number of 997 judgements means that judgements were
7 passed and the first-instance proceedings was completed before the
8 military court?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at section 4:
12 "Basic Problems."
13 Q. And we're going to look at paragraph 2 where it says:
14 "There is a slight increase in more complex crime, with an
15 increasing number of perpetrators committing serious crimes, which
16 represents a threat to society and requires the greater engagement of
17 competent organs in order to uncover and prevent the same."
18 Before I asked you to comment on this particular paragraph, this
19 sentence "there is a slight increase in more complex crimes." Can you
20 please clarify what was meant with the term "complex, more complex
21 crimes." Once again, there is insistence on uncovering and preventing
22 crimes, so I would like your comments on that point as well.
23 A. When we're talking about this evaluation or assessment, more
24 complex crimes, what we're primarily talking about are serious, grave
25 crimes in which there are a number of perpetrators. The manner of
1 commission is such that it is very difficult to uncover such a crime and
2 prove it. So in that sense it is complex. Any case which by its
3 nature -- and the consequences of a particular criminal act results in
4 their complexity. As far as prosecuting such a crime is concerned, we
5 have information that has already reached the prosecutor, criminal
6 reports, information from those criminal reports, and information
7 acquired by the court. In the previous paragraph we forgot to indicate
8 these 205 on-site investigations conducted by the investigating judge.
9 The investigating judge, as he's obliged to do by law, went to a scene of
10 a crime. Once a prosecutor is informed about a crime being committed,
11 then the investigating judge is obliged, if the security situation
12 permits, to go to the scene of the crime and to conduct an on-site
13 investigation and make a report on that. All such investigation by the
14 investigating judge contain his assessment of exactly what happened, how
15 the crime was committed. So then we have this occurrence of a more
16 complex crime occurring with a number of perpetrators, and this makes our
17 work more difficult for the prosecutor and the police investigation
18 organs. So that is why this assessment is given here, that assessments
19 need to be made; this is sent to the units and unit commands that they
20 need to take measures of prevention to prevent such crimes. And if the
21 crimes are committed, then they need to take measures to have these
22 crimes uncovered as soon as possible, because wherever you have these
23 complex crimes with several perpetrators, these usually isolated groups
24 of individuals, it's very difficult to uncover such crimes because you
25 don't have senior officers everywhere and there are no organs monitoring
1 this everywhere in order to be able to uncover a serious crime. You
2 would only find out about that indirectly and then retroactively you are
3 trying to obtain this legally valid evidence.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to the following
6 page in the B/C/S and the English versions, please.
7 Q. General, please take a look at item 6, sub-item 3. The heading
8 is, Lower levels, and under 1 it says:
9 "All uniformed officers must immediately report to the competent
10 military prosecutor any crime and their perpetrators so that they can be
11 prosecuted, and any officer who do not adhere to this will be made
12 accountable and the strictest measures will be applied against them."
13 Again, I'm going to ask you to comment this paragraph and to
14 explain to us whether this continued insistence on detection, reporting
15 of the perpetrators, and the duties of officers, whether this was done.
16 A. This was the permanent attitude of the staff of the Supreme
17 Command. This is what we kept insisting on. This is a permanent task on
18 the one hand; on the other hand, it is my -- me, in my capacity as head
19 of the legal administration and not as a private individual insisted on
20 that. And it could be seen that wherever problems were identified and
21 analysed - and after all this chapter 6 is proposed measures, which means
22 that whenever a problem is identified I proposed measures to be
23 undertaken, both to prevent such occurrences on the one hand, and on the
24 other hand where certain things had happened to propose measures to
25 undertake to make sure that everybody take action within their remit to
1 remedy the situation. You see the different levels tasks for the Supreme
2 Command Staff, for strategic group staff, for units and organs at other
3 level and those list of steps to be done by everybody who would uncover
4 criminal offences. In 80 to 90 per cent of cases they did so, and there
5 can be no major objection to their conduct. So 80 to 90 per cent of the
6 crimes that did happen there was reported and detected by the lower-level
7 units' officers. Of course they couldn't do everything under the
8 circumstances, and we continued appealing -- not just appealing, ordering
9 them to report crimes. And in cases where somebody knew of criminal
10 offences and failed to report, then appropriate legal action should be
11 taken against such person because it is the duty of all military
12 personnel, officers and soldiers, to do so, particularly in cases of
13 criminal offences against the health, lives of persons, civilians,
14 prisoners of war, et cetera.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this into
17 document, please.
18 JUDGE PARKER: What is the date of this document?
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] 12th of May, I'm -- 12th of May,
20 1999. This is what we established at the very beginning, since there was
21 a mistake in the translation into English. There was an annotation of
22 12th of September, 1999, in the upper right-hand corner, but I asked the
23 witness about that, and he confirmed the 12th of May, 1999, as being the
24 right date.
25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00506.
2 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Let's see D011-1263.
4 Q. General, sir, that would be tab 14 in your binder. As you can
5 see, this is a table entitled: "List of Convictions Per Category of
6 Person, Type of Criminal Offence, and Length of Sentences as of on the
7 15th of May, 1999."
8 First of all, given that we've seen the document just now was
9 dated the 12th of May, 1999, is there any connection between the previous
10 document and this list and this table? And after that, please, explain
11 to us the method of drawing up this table and what it indicates.
12 A. There are several other tables which supported the information
13 dated the 12th of May. The information was drafted on the 12th of May,
14 1999. After a couple of days these specific figures were collated and
15 sent on the 15th of May together with the information that we just saw
16 because there is an indication that there are tables as annexes to that
17 document. These tables contain the date the 15th of May because this is
18 when we got the information and the figures from the supreme military
19 court and the supreme prosecutor on the number of cases. You see the
20 number of convictions by type of crime and by sentence as handed down by
21 first-instance courts. And this is what is displayed here, to provide a
22 specific overview of the number of cases either pending or completed.
23 Q. Thank you. If we take a look at this list, we see that there are
24 certain types of criminal offences in certain columns together with
25 figures. Before we go through the criminal offences listed here, could
1 you please tell us which article of the penal code of the Federal
2 Republic of Yugoslavia or the penal code of the Republic of Serbia or
3 articles which were invoked by military prosecutors concerning violations
4 of international humanitarian law during the state of war in Kosovo in
6 A. See, there are criminal offences against the body and life,
7 murder, woundings, grave bodily harm. These are under the heading of
8 criminal offences against body and life, and -- or life and limb, and
9 by -- they're categorised by victim and the manner of perpetration. And
10 some of them are criminal offences violating international humanitarian
11 law in the state of war. This would be one and the same thing, but
12 prosecutors used the legal qualification of such criminal offence as a
13 criminal offence of murder because in the republican law this is a
14 capital offence, which means punishable by capital punishment, whereas in
15 the federal legislation there was no capital punishment, and this is why
16 they used this more grave qualification and -- but this was changed in --
17 later on and more lenient legal qualification was used.
18 Q. Let's make this matter easier to understand. What was the
19 criminal offence that you were discussing? Is it Article 47 of the
20 Serbian penal code, that would be murder?
21 A. Yes, that's Article 47, murder under the Serbian penal code,
22 which are punishable by death sentence.
23 Q. That includes murder of multiple victims?
24 A. Yes, multiple victims under difficult circumstances, as prevailed
25 in Kosovo and Metohija; and particularly if there were multiple
1 co-perpetrators, and that qualification included murder of two or more
3 Q. What was the penalty for that?
4 A. The alternative penalty was capital punishment or custodial
5 sentence of 15 years of prison or more --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Can I intervene, Mr. Popovic.
7 Are you saying, sir, that the offences in the category crimes
8 against life and limb were offences of murder, or did they merely include
9 the possibility of offences of murder?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a chapter in the penal code
11 entitled: "Crimes Against Life and Limb," including all types of murder,
12 all grave bodily harm, and other mis -- maltreatment of a person. This
13 falls within the same category, and in the war crime against civilians or
14 wounded persons or prisoners of war have the same elements. The victim
15 is a person, and this is why this -- they have the same characteristics
16 in terms of perpetration.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Assaults against another person of any type, they
18 would be within this category, would they?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I ask those questions because I notice that the
21 maximum sentences that seem to have been imposed are only in two cases
22 and in the range of two to five years. The sentences, most of them, were
23 in the range one to two years. They could hardly be killings, could
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was most probably for
1 mistreatment or grave bodily harm. Later on we have information on
2 convictions for murders. This is a view dated as at the 15th of May.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 Sorry, Mr. Popovic.
5 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. General, sir, let's continue where we left off. You explained to
7 us the punishment for criminal -- grave or more serious criminal offences
8 in the penal code of the Republic of Serbia, but in the penal code of the
9 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia there was a crime against civilians. What
10 article governed that, how -- what was the definition of that criminal
11 offence, and what was the punishment envisaged by law?
12 A. That would be war crime against civilians which is Article 142,
13 and it says, Whoever orders, concerning military officers, saying,
14 whoever orders contrary to the principles of international humanitarian
15 law for civilians to be murdered shall be responsible and those who
16 perpetrated the act and the punishment envisaged is 15 or 20 years.
17 When the capital punishment was abolished, this alternative
18 sentence of 20 years was introduced in the federal law. So if it's not
19 15 years, then the other possible punishment is 20 years, not 16, 17, or
20 18, but either 15 or 20 years.
21 Q. Thank you. And bearing in mind what we discussed yesterday in
22 terms of criminal proceedings pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, it
23 is at the discretion of the prosecutor whether to prosecute under Article
24 42 of the Serbian penal code or Article 142 of the penal code of the
25 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. What was your experience in terms of
1 which options the military prosecutors took in such cases?
2 A. In principle, prosecutors tend to use the more serious
3 qualifications for the simple reason that that leaves them room for
4 manoeuvre to adjust downwards. If they start out with more lenient
5 qualification with the same body of proof, they cannot then pre-qualify
6 that upwards. This is how the law is stated and this is why they used
7 the more serious qualifications from the outset. And then later on such
8 grave offences were tried by military courts later on. And at courts,
9 the courts re-qualified those criminal offences as war crimes and --
10 because it was more in favour for the perpetrators of criminal offences.
11 Q. Just a brief explanation concerning the question that you
12 received from the Bench. In your experience, investigation procedure and
13 trials for criminal offences against life and limb, primarily murder,
14 aggregated murder, crimes against civilians, how long did investigations
15 take and how long trials took?
16 A. These were complex criminal offences because of the method of
17 perpetration, and proceedings lasted longer than in the case of other
18 criminal offences because they needed or required expert witnesses,
19 expert analysis, because particularly where -- in cases where organs of
20 detection and investigation and prosecutors did not arrive at the crime
21 scene until much later when -- which then involved disinterment,
22 excavations, analysis, forensic work, which means that this took a long
23 time. It could not be done while the state of war prevailed in Kosovo.
24 But as soon as the state of war no longer was in force, such cases were
25 handed over to civilian courts, which then continued those proceedings.
1 And this is why in the tables we will not have many completed cases
2 because the military courts had temporal limitation of their jurisdiction
3 over those.
4 Q. Thank you. And now to finish with this topic, but bearing in
5 mind what we said yesterday. First of all, this table on the 15th of
6 May, 1999, we see the last day that was taken into account. But could
7 you tell us what was the first day for which this data pertained?
8 A. This data are from the beginning of the work of the courts until
9 the 15th of May.
10 Q. So was it on the -- did they start on the 24th of March, 1999,
11 when the state of war was declared?
12 A. Well, one cannot take it literally. Yes, the courts were
13 established on the 24th and the 25th of March, and the cases started
14 trickling down only somewhat later, after 15 or 20 days. So the day they
15 were established they did not have case files on their tables, on their
16 desks. Just taking into account that there were preliminary steps that
17 needed to be taken before the case was ready for trial. So formally
18 speaking the table pertains to the crimes between the 24th of March and
19 the 15th of May, so the offences carried out within that period of time.
20 Now as for the cases when they started arriving at the desks of
21 prosecutors and judges, it was somewhat later, after the 24th of March.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, to go back to this table - and again bearing in
23 mind what we said yesterday - we see here that where it says "category of
24 persons," it says "soldiers," and then "crimes against life and limb," we
25 see that there are certain figures there. Tell us, please, how long did
1 investigation and trials normally last for such grave offences if this
2 involved soldiers who were no longer soldiers, who had lost the status of
3 a military personnel and the indictment was not issued during that period
4 of time, what happened to such cases?
5 A. Yesterday we spoke about subject matter jurisdiction of military
6 courts, namely that they had jurisdiction to try certain perpetrators of
7 crimes. The majority of the personnel in any unit were conscripts who
8 were serving their regular military service plus those who had been
9 mobilised. Once they stop being military person, once they leave a unit,
10 and if they were perpetrators of a crime, the case would be sent to the
11 competent civilian court if they no longer were soldiers. The majority
12 of the cases had this fate, especially complex and grave crimes, in cases
13 where the person was no longer in the military, regardless of whether
14 that person was a private or an officer or a non-commissioned officer.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the following page of
17 this document, both in B/C/S and in English.
18 Q. So we see a document entitled: "List of Accused per Category of
19 Person and Type of Crime on 15 May 1999."
20 General, are you familiar with this list, who drafted it, and
21 just very briefly explain the figures.
22 A. Yes. This list accompanied the earlier document that we analysed
23 just now, and you will see that the figures in the previous document and
24 the previous table and then in this table are consistent with each other.
25 You see also the indictees here, the accused persons, because lists and
1 tables were made for those who were sentenced and for those who were
2 accused. So we can see here that the number of indictments was greater
3 than the number of cases that actually reached the courts. And the
4 methodology is the same. It was categorised based on crimes and based on
5 perpetrators, be it officers, non-commissioned officers, privates,
6 civilians in the army, civilians not in the army, and so on. So this is
7 an overview, based on which one can assess what the situation was.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page D011-1267 in
10 B/C/S and D011-1273 in English. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. So what I'm interested in this document is the last page and the
12 figures that we can see on the last page. You told us that this document
13 was a document accompanying the information dated the 12th of May that we
14 saw just now. Could you please briefly comment on these figures, and are
15 they completely identical as those that we saw in item 3 of the document
16 dated the 12th of May?
17 A. Yes. This is a summary overview of the entire table that shows
18 figures pursuant to the court data. First we had a general overview,
19 then we had a table categorising courts and armies, and then this one.
20 And all the figures are consistent, both in the tables and in the
21 information dated the 12th of May.
22 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, did you draft such tables in
23 peacetime? Was there any need to draft such tables in peacetime?
24 A. In peacetime military courts and prosecutors were not duty-bound
25 to make reports and similar overviews other than once a year. Normally
1 after the year was over, they would draft an annual report on the work of
2 military courts. That is to say, each military court and each military
3 prosecutor had to draft such annual reports. As for military -- as for
4 supreme military court and supreme prosecutor, they would compile those
5 reports and produce their own annual report.
6 Q. So the drafting of these overviews and tables, was it a
7 reflection of the fact that there was insistence on knowing what was
8 going on in the military judicial system and that it followed certain
9 orders and instructions?
10 A. These reports that the courts and legal administration drafted on
11 the work of military courts was not aimed at finding out what the courts
12 were doing, but rather for the commands of units to know what was the
13 situation with regard to the crime in their units so that they could take
14 appropriate measures. So this was just an X-ray of the crime situation
15 in units. Based on these analysis, commands would produce their own
16 analyses and then send it further to units with instructions to undertake
17 measures to prevent, mostly prevent, commission of crimes and also to
18 forward any information to prosecutor and courts. So this was primarily
19 intended for unit commands in order for them to act preventively so that
20 there would be no crimes committed. Once this was done, it was too late.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this
23 document into evidence.
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00507.
1 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1286.
2 Q. Which is tab 16 in your binder.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] To make it easier for my learned
4 friends, that's 953 on the Prosecutor's 65 ter list.
5 Q. General, we see information on the work of military judicial
6 organs during the state of war from -- it was dated 21st of June, 1999.
7 Are you familiar with this document? Do you know who drafted it?
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] And could we also see the next
9 page in both versions.
10 Q. Please go ahead.
11 A. I am familiar with this report. I drafted it. You can see at
12 the bottom my initials, and this is the final information or final report
13 after the state of war was over. It is a summarised report, using the
14 same methodology to present data on the situation with respect to crimes
15 committed in the military, categorising all types of crimes, listing the
16 number of criminal reports filed, number of investigations sentenced in
17 the first instance, sentenced in the second instance, on-site
18 investigations conducted by investigating judges, and percentage with
19 respect to crimes, from which chapter how many crimes were committed so
20 that you can see an overview of the types of crimes committed. And then
21 sentences, implementation of sentences, and so on.
22 At the end is a brief assessment of the work completed. So the
23 volume of information was large, and it had to be summarised in order to
24 produce this report, and this report also included tables with figures so
25 the methodology was the same. The types of crimes were listed, types
1 of -- categories of perpetrators, and so on.
2 Q. All right. Just a question concerning this report.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the paragraph
4 beginning with the words "according to the types of crimes perpetrators
5 of the crime of failure to respond to a call-up and evasion of military
6 service under Article 214 ... were the most numerous accounting for
7 around 70 per cent. Around 18 per cent were perpetrators of the crime of
8 wilful abandonment and desertion of the army under Article 217 ... the
9 remaining 12 per cent were perpetrators of other crimes."
10 Q. So it is immediately obvious that the largest percentage of
11 perpetrators committed crimes under Articles 214 and 217 of the Criminal
12 Code, but the remaining 12 per cent committed other crimes. Was this
13 figure arrived at on the basis of criminal reports filed?
14 A. In order to arrive at these percentages they used the number of
15 criminal reports filed. Whenever something is shown in percentages, then
16 the same basis is used for calculating the percentage. So these 12 per
17 cent, just like in previous cases, was calculated on the basis of 18.540
18 criminal reports filed. So we can see that the greatest number of
19 perpetrators committed a crime of failure to respond to the call-up, and
20 so on. This is a very large number, but bearing in mind that between
21 40.000 and -- 400.000 and 500.000 conscripts were mobilised, then you can
22 see that these percentages are not very illustrative. They can be tricky
23 to analyse.
24 Q. So 12 per cent out of 18.541 criminal reports are those who
25 perpetrated other crimes?
1 A. Yes, correct, other crimes that do not fall under Article 214 and
2 217 of the Criminal Code.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I tender this
5 document into evidence as well.
6 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00508.
8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1299.
9 Q. Which is your tab 17, General.
10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] And for my learned friends from
11 the Prosecution, I think that's 954 from the 65 ter list.
12 Q. General, we see here a letter from the military court in Nis
13 dated the 20th of August, 2001. It was sent to the supreme military
14 court in Belgrade. Are you familiar with this document? What are its
15 contents, and why was it drafted?
16 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document. This is a document that
17 was sent by the military court in Nis to the military court in Belgrade
18 at its request. The purpose of this report was, given that already at
19 that time the prosecutor of ICTY had demanded certain information from
20 Yugoslavia on commission of crimes that fall in the area of international
21 humanitarian law, the supreme military court found it necessary to obtain
22 that information since all of the cases processed by the courts during
23 the war that are related to the 3rd Army fell under the jurisdiction of
24 the military courts in Nis during wartime. So all of these criminal
25 cases after the state of war was declared over, the courts and
1 prosecutors were duty-bound to hand-over their cases to peacetime courts.
2 So all of those courts who had jurisdiction over the 3rd Army transferred
3 their cases to the military courts in Nis. The military courts in Nis
4 conducted analysis of these cases and drafted this report showing only
5 those criminal offences which fall under the category of violations of
6 international humanitarian law, which is to say all kinds of murder,
7 crimes against property, sexual abuse, and so on. So this covers only
8 those crimes which in their view could have been a violation of
9 international humanitarian law. And this document lists information
10 based on the chronological order of reports and minutes. And this is
11 authentic documentation.
12 Q. In order to speed up the proceedings, I'm just going to ask you
13 if this document is the basis for you to draft another document; and if
14 yes, can you please tell us exactly what it is about.
15 A. I would like to remind the Trial Chamber that at the time I was
16 the deputy of the chairman of the commission for co-operation with The
17 Hague Tribunal, and this document was sent to the commission or to the
18 General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, and on the basis of this review
19 I drafted another overview. And because it's treated here in a
20 chronological order, it wasn't really classified, it was done in the
21 order that the cases came to us, I made another overview where I sorted
22 all the crimes according to the categories and made a much more
23 acceptable and understandable overview which is authentic and tallies
24 with these -- this information here from the court in Nis.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask the Trial Chamber
2 to admit this document and then I would like to move to the next document
3 that we talked about.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00509.
6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have Defence document
8 Q. And this is tab 18, General, in your binder.
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] And for my colleagues from the
10 Prosecution, this is 65 ter 955.
11 Your Honours and my friends from the Prosecution, I'm going to
12 read the title, and this is the only document actually -- actually, the
13 only page of this document that is not translated. And the title of the
14 document is: "An Overview of Initiated Criminal Proceedings Against
15 Perpetrators of Crimes in the Kosovo and Metohija Area During the NATO
16 aggression from the 24th of March to the 10th of June, 1999."
17 This is the only page that was untranslated. The rest of the
18 document is translated into English.
19 Q. And this is why I'm going to ask you, Mr. Gojovic, whether this
20 is the document that you drafted and where you chronologically treated
21 all that was provided in the previous document to the General Staff. Now
22 you took all that information and put it together in categories for the
23 purposes of this commission?
24 A. Yes, that's what I did in order to provide a logical overview and
25 that anyone who has the overview in their hands would be able to follow
2 Q. General, sir, while you were preparing for this testimony did you
3 have the opportunity to look at this exhibit?
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. You told me then that you wanted to make certain corrections in
6 the document, so I would like to ask to see page T0 -- D011-1454, and
7 this is in the B/C/S version and D100-1523 [as interpreted] in the
8 English version. Yes, that's the page.
9 We see a summary review of criminal proceedings instigated
10 against persons who committed crimes in the area of Kosovo and Metohija
11 during the NATO aggression from the 24th of March to the 10th of June,
12 1999. Sir, could you please tell us what are exactly the corrections
13 that you wanted to make to this document?
14 A. Just to be precise, there was a typing error here. The table was
15 done on a regular typewriter and not on a computer, so it was very
16 difficult to correct it once it was all over. In the case talking about
17 aggravated theft and robbery with loss of life, in the column talking
18 about the number of victims, the information was not entered from another
19 table where the number of victims is stated, and that is number 6. So
20 that in relation to these crimes we need to add the actual number of
21 victims here in this column which is empty, this is column 6, because
22 later from this authentic table you can see that these perpetrators
23 committed six killings -- they committed the crime of killing six
24 civilians in one house. And this is in the column for serious cases,
25 grave instances of robbery and violence to --
1 Q. So just to be precise for the English version, this is the crime
2 from Article 169, and this is the fourth box from the bottom. And then
3 the first column from the top where it says "number of victims," so in
4 this box that corresponds to this grave incidents of robbery and violence
5 to retain stolen goods with murder, Article 169, paragraph 2, the number
6 6 should be as the number of victims. Anything else?
7 A. I saw this immediately. I didn't want to add this by hand. I
8 left it as it was, so I did immediately indicate that error. Later in
9 this crime grave incidents, crimes against civilians, four people were
10 sentenced after that, after this summary report was written, so then
11 number of victims in this column corresponding to that box we need to add
12 two -- I'm going to repeat for the sake of the interpreters.
13 In this case in the column of war crimes against the civilian
14 population, for this crime, four persons were charged and sentenced for
15 this act. So the victims were two civilians. So in the vertical number
16 of victims where the number of victims is eight, we need to add two more
17 victims, which would then make the total ten for this particular crime.
18 And then in the very last column where it says "total," so next to
19 that -- in that particular box we need to add four more victims. And
20 then this crime, war crimes against civilians, this is on the next -- on
21 the following page, we need to add the names of those four perpetrators
22 of those crimes.
23 Q. We will do that definitely. I would just like to make one more
24 correction. I think you didn't mention it. In the first column where
25 the number of victims is cited, if you add two for war crimes against the
1 civilian population and six for grave robberies and theft with loss of
2 life and then we have the number 37, in that case we would have 45
4 A. Yes, that would be the logical thing to do.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page D011. This is
7 1456 in the B/C/S version and D011-1526 in the English version.
8 Q. We see that this is an overview of the war crimes against
9 civilians from Article 142, paragraph 1, of the penal code of the FRY.
10 You spoke about those four persons that would need to be added to the
11 figures here.
12 A. Yes, these are the four persons that would need to be added to
13 this overview.
14 Q. I'm going to read the names and you can tell me whether those are
15 the persons involved.
16 A. If I remember, the case involved a major. His name was Zlatan
17 Mancic, then Captain First Class Rade Radojevic, military conscript
18 Danilo Tesic, and Seregi Misel.
19 Q. General, now that we're talking about these four perpetrators of
20 crimes, do you have information about the course of these proceedings;
21 and if you do, do you know what sentences were passed on these
23 A. From what I can remember, they were tried before the lower
24 military court in Nis. It was competent to try this particular case
25 because this was a military personnel subject to military courts. This
1 other person too was an active military officer. As far as I can
2 remember, this first one was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, the
3 second one to five years' imprisonment, and the military conscript was
4 sentenced to four years' imprisonment, and the last one, Misel, was
5 sentenced to three years, if I'm not mistaken. Then the prosecutor
6 appealed and the supreme military court passed down significantly higher
7 sentences. The first one was sentenced to 14 years, the second one to
8 seven years, five, and four years of imprisonment. I think that is what
9 I can remember.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. I don't know later what happened to these cases. I really don't
12 know what the final outcome was.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before I asked for
15 this document to be tendered into evidence, I would like to ask for us to
16 look at a case which I would also later ask to be tendered. I wanted to
17 show it to the General. It actually is an integral part of these tables
18 and overviews that the General drafted. So can we please look at
20 Q. General, this is number 19 in your binder. We can see tables
21 which are identical to the tables that we saw in the previous documents,
22 but the heading on this one is, "Rape," Article 103, paragraph 1 and 2 of
23 the penal code of the Republic of Serbia. And then we have the names and
24 last names of the perpetrators with a brief description of the crimes.
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the
1 following page.
2 Q. We can see now this is an overview of cases of "Attempted Rape,"
3 Article 103, paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 19. Can we now
4 look at the following page in both versions. Once again, "Attempted
5 Rape," Article 103, paragraphs 1 and 2.
6 General, my question to you is this: These two overviews that we
7 have seen in this document, are they an integral part of the previous
8 document which is a larger document? Are they part of the overview that
9 you made because these pages are marked with the numbers 14, 15, and 16.
10 This is how the documents were read into e-court, separately, and I'm
11 just asking you in order to be able to follow a certain logic later when
12 we use the document again in the course of this case.
13 A. This overview is an integral part of the previous overview, and
14 it was part of the whole document. It was in chronological order, pages
15 14, 15, and 16, so I'm surprised that it was taken out of the
16 chronological order and is being treated separately. I had arranged the
17 crimes according to their gravity, and that is how I dealt with them. So
18 this is an excerpt from pages 14 to 16.
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. For the
20 reasons we have just heard I'm going to propose that the last two
21 exhibits, if possible, be tendered as one document in view of the fact
22 that this second document actually is an integral part of the previous
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic. Before they are received, the
25 Chamber was not able readily to follow the amendments and additions
1 suggested by the witness. The Chamber would like to explore how it would
2 be possible to get an amended, corrected version of the original table
3 either by yourself and counsel for the Prosecution looking at a prepared
4 amendment and being content that it reflects what was set out in the
5 transcript by the witness. If that doesn't prove possible, is there some
6 other means that occurs to you?
7 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we will
8 easily resolve this issue in the manner that you proposed because those
9 amendments followed from the fact that the General, who had authored this
10 document, compared and noticed when producing the document this
11 discrepancy and found out that not all the figures that should have been
12 introduced there were introduced. I'm sure that I will be able to do so
13 with my learned friend, and as Defence counsel I will pin-point to my
14 learned colleagues the crimes, perpetrators -- the perpetrators and the
15 victims not included in the summary overview and the table derived from
17 JUDGE PARKER: What we'll do then is to receive as one exhibit
18 these two documents in e-court, and we would authorise there to be added
19 to the exhibit the amended, complete version. And we would ask that if
20 there is any difficulty in preparing that amended, complete version, that
21 that be raised again with us in the course of next week. So it ought by
22 the end of next week be the position that there is an amended, completed
23 version incorporated into the exhibit in e-court. Is that a clear enough
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, absolutely.
1 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber will receive the two documents as one
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00510.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm about to broach
5 another topic here on the basis of a new document, so I do believe that
6 it would be a fitting moment to adjourn for the break. And during the
7 second session I believe that Defence will very quickly finish its
9 JUDGE PARKER: I'm heartened to hear that, Mr. Popovic. We
10 notice that both with this witness and the last witness two hours was
11 allowed in the schedule. We've been more in the category of two days for
12 the first witness and over a day for this. Thank you.
13 We will now adjourn and resume at 11.00.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
17 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Before the witness
20 enters the courtroom, during the break I took the opportunity to try to
21 find the simplest way to resolve the problem with the document as
22 instructed by the Bench, and I did it with my learned friends from the
23 OTP. I believe that we found the appropriate way. I'm going to go back
24 to that document and ask the witness to pin-point the page of the
25 document that was omitted from the table, to make the appropriate
1 markings, and to try to overcome that problem with the table as existing.
2 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we can express a view. We don't
3 quite understand the document yet nor what you have proposed, but we have
4 trust in you, Mr. Popovic, so we will look forward to this exercise
5 producing a solution for us. We want a document we can follow at the end
6 of the exercise.
7 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 This is exactly what we were trying to do. Let's re-visit the
9 previous document, that would be Exhibit D510. The page is D011-1464 in
10 the B/C/S version or D011-1536 in the English version.
11 Q. General, sir, we discussed the table and amendments that you
12 introduced into the previous document, that would be tab 18 in your
13 binder, and you said that there were certain corrections, that is, that
14 there's been an omission with respect to the number of victims of the
15 crime of aggravated theft with violence resulting in death from the
16 one -- from Article 169, paragraph 2, of the penal code of the Federal
17 Republic of Yugoslavia. To make matters clear to the Bench and the OTP,
18 could you please tell me whether the page that you see on the screen is
19 what you discussed and whether in the box, brief description of the
20 criminal offence, does it contain the number of the victims that were
21 affected by those crimes?
22 A. Yes, it lists the names and surnames of the victims. There's no
23 need for me to read them. And when we add them all up, the total is six.
24 And that piece of information is not introduced into the summary table in
25 the appropriate line. This figure is not shown there, and this is the
1 amendment that should logically follow.
2 Q. To make matters even clearer, let's go back to page 1454 in the
3 B/C/S version and page 1523 in the English version, and see that in the
4 fourth row from the bottom in the English version which makes mention of
5 Article 169 and the criminal offences perpetrated and that would be grave
6 instances of robbery with violence resulting in death, there is an empty
7 box, and you just indicated the page which bears records about six
8 victims. So this is the discrepancy between this table and the
9 information in the summary?
10 A. Yes, in the content of that.
11 Q. Yes. Thanks very much, General, sir. I hope that we've managed
12 up to a point to clarify the situation with respect to the amendments to
13 the summary overview that should be effected. If the Bench believe and
14 my learned friend from the OTP, that additional amendments should be made
15 to make matters perfectly clear, the Defence is willing to do so.
16 JUDGE PARKER: What we hope to achieve, Mr. Popovic, is a
17 document which fully and correctly sets out what the witness' table
18 sought to achieve; in other words, a document which includes and
19 incorporates the amendments and changes which he has spoken about orally
20 today. If that can be achieved, we would be grateful.
21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes. Absolutely, yes.
22 And we will make sure that in the shortest possible time the new summary
23 overview is delivered to the Bench with all the amendments that the
24 witness testified about and a new table mentioning war crimes against
25 civilians with the amendment containing the names of the perpetrators as
1 testified about today. I hope that we'll be able to do so and deliver to
2 the Bench and to the OTP next week such amended documents.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's take a look at D217.
5 Q. That would be tab 20, General. General, sir -- well, let's wait
6 for the English version to appear on the screen. Thank you.
7 This is an order by the Supreme Command Staff dated the 10th of
8 May, 1999. The question for you is whether you know about this document
9 and who drafted it.
10 A. I'm familiar with this document. I personally authored it, and I
11 initialled at the last page. And the chief of the Supreme Command Staff
12 signed this document, but it bears my initials.
13 Q. Thank you, General. Let's go briefly through this document.
14 Let's continue -- let's start with paragraph 1, saying -- I apologise.
15 So it reads:
16 "All commanders, unit commanders, and other superior officers
17 must undertake all (necessary) measures in their units to ensure that
18 every individual unit member adheres to the principles, rules, and
19 regulations of the international laws of war when conducting combat
20 operations and beyond combat operations."
21 Could you please comment paragraph 1 of this document, and what
22 are the reasons to draft such a document on the 10th of May, 1999.
23 A. The reason for drafting this document was that by the time when
24 it was authored on the basis of criminal offences that had occurred until
25 that time, the need arose to highlight that issue once again and to
1 address such a document to all unit commanders and superior commanders
2 and to remind them of their obligations under international humanitarian
3 law. And obligation was introduced into the defence act, and I tried to
4 adapt this to the circumstances to make it unequivocal, clear, and
5 binding to all commanding officers, which of course by law they were
6 bound to do anyway. But this is an instance where the most superior
7 command was instructed them and ordering them to be mindful of these
9 Q. Thank you. Let's go to paragraph 4. It reads:
10 "Any military officer who knows that there have been violations
11 of the principles, rules, and regulations of international laws of war
12 have been perpetrated and who does not initiate disciplinary or criminal
13 proceedings and such military officer shall be held personally
15 General, sir, is this another insistence on detecting --
16 preventing, detecting, and sanctioning violations of international
17 humanitarian law?
18 A. That's it exactly. In all legal systems the most difficult bit
19 is to detect and identify both criminal offence and the perpetrator,
20 because perpetrators try to destroy any traces or evidence of the
21 criminal offence they perpetrated. And this is why we emphasize the
22 personal responsibility of anybody who learned about such criminal
23 offences and failed to report them. And the emphasis here is on military
24 officers. This was another way to pressurise them to control their
25 subordinates. This is the only way that you can undertake appropriate
1 and effective measures down on the ground so that such occurrences do not
3 Q. Thank you. Let's turn the page on -- in both versions and take a
4 look at -- and let's take a look at paragraph 6.
5 Paragraph 6 reads:
6 "Go through the annex to this order regarding criminal liability
7 for war crimes and other serious violations of international laws of war
8 and crimes against humanity and international law with all members of
9 Yugoslav Army commands, staffs, units, and institutions."
10 First of all, I'm going to ask you this: Who are the addressees
11 of this order of Supreme Command Staff, who are the recipients?
12 A. This order was delivered to all commands that are subordinated
13 directly to the Chief of Staff Supreme Command. That would be commands
14 of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Army, as listed here, command of the air force
15 and anti-aircraft defence, the navy command, establishment units which
16 are immediately connected to the Supreme Command Staff, command of the
17 72nd Special Brigade, to the Guards Brigade, and to the 46th Motorised
18 Protection Brigade.
19 Q. Thank you. Please explain to us this wording "with all members
20 of Yugoslav Army command, staffs, units, and institutions," how was this
21 order forwarded further on? How did all the others learn about it? What
22 was the way that it was presented to them?
23 A. The appropriate way of distributing and disseminating orders
24 emanated from the General Staff of the Supreme Command Staff is for that
25 order to be sent to the immediately subordinated commands, and then those
1 in the list of addressees must prepare their own orders on the basis of
2 this order, which may not be more restrictive than this one. It can
3 be -- their orders can be only more expanded versions or more detailed
4 versions, and they have to deliver those to their subordinated commands.
5 So this order is supposed to percolate down to all levels of units, down
6 to company commanders, which would be the lowest level obliged to
7 disseminate this order.
8 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 6 that we read, in the second sentence
9 "go through the annex to this order." Was there an annex to this order?
10 That's my question to you.
11 A. There was an annex to this order.
12 Q. Thank you. We'll come to that.
13 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] This exhibit has already been
14 admitted, but when it was admitted the annex was not admitted, which is
15 an integral part of this decision. So I would like us to look at
16 D011-16112, please.
17 THE INTERPRETER: 1612, interpreter's correction.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And this is in tab 22 in your binder, sir. The document is
20 entitled: "Annex Regarding Criminal Liability For War Crimes and Other
21 Serious Violations of the International Laws of War and Crimes Against
22 Humanity and International Law."
23 Sir, is this a document that was an integral part of the order of
24 the Supreme Command Staff of the order of the 10th of May, 1999?
25 A. This is the annex to this order, and I felt that it was important
1 to attach the text of the law pertaining to those particular crimes so
2 that those who were reviewing the document would be able to see the
3 gravity of those crimes. So it was not sufficient just to abide by the
4 order, but also to be aware of these crimes which were specified in the
5 law and to be aware of the sentences that each of those crimes carried
6 for each perpetrator so that all the units would have the appropriate
7 attitude when encountering such occurrences.
8 Q. Can you just tell us briefly what the subtitles of the annex are.
9 Can we just briefly go through each of the items, and then we can move to
10 the next document.
11 A. The headings are those of the particular crimes that we're
12 dealing with, for example, the war crime of genocide, war crime against
13 the civilian population, war crime against wounded and ill persons, war
14 crimes against prisoners of war, then violations -- grave violations of
15 the rules and regulations of war - and they are specified, and finally
16 which are the crimes that are classified according to the law. And this
17 is for the purposes of informing in detail all the people in the units
18 and commands so that they would be able to adequately and seriously
19 conduct themselves during combat and not only in combat but generally in
20 war, not only when they were in combat.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to ask,
23 since the document is an integral part of D212 -- 217, that it be then
24 added to document D217. So for those two documents to be admitted
25 together because that is the annex to that original order, if this is
2 JUDGE PARKER: This document will be added to and incorporated as
3 part of Exhibit D217.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now we're going to be
5 looking at the last document. This will be document D006-0333.
6 Q. In your binder this is in tab 21. This is a summary report on
7 the work of military judicial organs and the General Staff of the Army of
8 Yugoslavia's legal administration during the war. It's dated the 6th of
9 September, 1999, and the signature is by Chief Colonel Radomir Gojovic.
10 Mr. Gojovic, it's quite superfluous for me to ask whether you are
11 the author of this document, and that is why I'm going to ask you this.
12 In the cover letter the first sentence states:
13 "On the basis of the received remarks ..."
14 Can you please explain what this was about and then we can get
15 into more detailed discussion of the document.
16 A. The legal administration was obliged, just like any other
17 organisational unit of the General Staff and the other units, to draft a
18 report about the overall work of each of its organisational units or the
19 legal administration during the state of war. And this material was then
20 placed into -- it was actually then compiled into one file which
21 represented a study of that overall period during the war in order that
22 certain conclusions could be drawn to it -- from it. So this report then
23 was submitted to the section, and they had some remarks as to the
24 methodology of the report because they had some certain guide-lines about
25 what each of these analysis should contain. So then they gave some
1 remarks to certain elements, how they needed to be covered. So then this
2 report was then compiled in accordance with that methodology the document
3 was compiled, and it was placed in the General Staff archives which
4 General Staff then used in order to deal with the issue of the work and
5 operation of military tribunals and courts during the state of war. It
6 was used for general analysis.
7 Q. Thank you. The document contains a lot of information that was
8 already covered and we talked about in previous reports, so this is why
9 I'm not going to dwell on that particular aspect of the document. Can we
10 look at page D006-0336 or 0357 in the English version, the previous page
11 referred to the B/C/S version.
12 The fifth section -- actually in paragraph section 4 --
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly ask to look at
14 this paragraph on the screen.
15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Is this in some way the conclusion on the work of the military
17 judicial organs?
18 A. Yes, this is the conclusion because we needed to show here as
19 much as possible in an objective way the situation that we had found
20 ourselves in and the war -- military courts were put into operation for
21 the first time since the end of World War II in the -- because since then
22 there had been no war on the territory of the Socialist Federal Republic
23 of Yugoslavia, so now the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in war with
24 the forces of the NATO Pact.
25 Q. It seems --
1 A. And terrorist actions in Kosovo and for the first time pursuant
2 to the criteria as soon as the state of war is declared pursuant to the
3 constitution, then all the potential of the state for defence of
4 independence, autonomy, and territorial integrity are placed into
5 operation including the judicial organs or, rather, military courts are
6 being formed during the war.
7 Q. Thank you. I see that the interpreters have asked to have the
8 part of the text that I read on the screen so that it could be in the
9 transcript. General, so you already answered that question. There is no
10 need for you to repeat your answer. The sentence that I read is the
11 fifth paragraph in order in section 4, "osposobljenost," and it says:
12 "In spite of these shortcomings and the fact that this was the
13 first time that military judicial organs were mobilised in wartime, they
14 were organised and equipped to function in a state of war relatively
16 This is paragraph 3 on the page we are currently looking at.
17 Yes, I think that's what it is. In any case, thank you for that answer.
18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at section 8,
19 and this would be page 0339 in the B/C/S or 0360 in the English version.
20 Yes, that's the correct page.
21 Q. We were talking about the independence of the military judicial
22 organs, and it seems to be a precondition for the military courts to
23 function in the proper way. In this particular section, section (d),
24 subheading "with regard to working conditions," in the second paragraph
25 it says:
1 "Some commands interfered unacceptably in the work of courts and
2 the adoption of decisions by making requests concerning the type and
3 length of sentences that should be pronounced by courts ..." and then in
4 parenthesis "(one order even instructed the court about the length of
5 sentences - the command of the Novi Sad Corps).
6 "By undertaking measures mentioned in earlier items on time, the
7 problems were resolved, and all judicial organs entirely fulfilled their
8 legally defined functions ..."
9 First of all, I would like to ask you to comment on this, even
10 though you mentioned yesterday in your testimony something that refers to
11 what is said in the paragraph that I have just read, how such situations
12 were resolved and how the independence of military courts was preserved
13 during the state of war.
14 A. I could be precise here without any dilemmas military courts are
15 completely independent in the -- in their decisions. Everyone knows
16 that, and they are quite capable of using properly this independence of
17 theirs. There was this quite ridiculous incident when the Novi Sad Corps
18 issued this order. One senior officer who had submitted the criminal
19 reports in the cover letter instructed that this should be punished in
20 the strictest possible manner and proposed the sentences. When the
21 prosecutor and the court received this, they reacted immediately, not in
22 the sense that they would succumb to that; no, there was no question of
23 that. But just as an occurrence they immediately informed the supreme
24 prosecutor and the president of the supreme military court --
25 Q. Yes, slow down, please.
1 A. Yes, very well. And this president of the court, this judge, we
2 know each other because we used to work together, he called me on the
3 telephone and then he mentioned: Oh, can you imagine what is happening
4 and mention that this would -- that we would need to put a stop to that.
5 So he reacted immediately and then when attention was drawn to this, to
6 that particular senior officer, he apologised. He didn't really think
7 that it was such a serious matter, what he wrote in that cover letter
8 regarding expressing his opinion in terms of the sentence. There was
9 another such case from a person who had submitted the criminal report.
10 So this sort of went together with that, and this incident actually drew
11 our attention to the occurrence so that we could put it in the analysis
12 and through training and study and review of this material we would be
13 able to train the senior officers that in no circumstances whatsoever,
14 including a situation of war, should they express their own opinion as to
15 any kind of work of the court. So this was one incident that happened,
16 and it was with great pleasure actually that I included it in my analysis
17 in order to be able to draw attention to that.
18 Q. Thank you very much.
19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to look at the
20 last page of this document.
21 Q. And I am going to ask you, General, to look at the last paragraph
22 on the last page of this document, and I would like to ask you --
23 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm afraid that this is not the
24 right document. The page is D006-0341 in the B/C/S. In English it's
25 D006-0362. Yes, that's the correct page. Thank you.
1 Q. General, can you please read out the last paragraph.
2 A. On page 8?
3 Q. Yes, that's right. It begins with the word "however."
4 A. Yes, this is one of the final conclusions from the analysis and
6 "However, due to timely measures undertaken by the legal
7 administration of the VJ General Staff, adequate assignments, the
8 expansion of the wartime manning table and reorganisation of some courts,
9 as well as the issuing of various orders, instructions, and manuals, the
10 above-mentioned difficulties were gradually remedied. This allowed
11 military judicial organs, despite the initial and subsequent difficulties
12 in their work in complex conditions, to carry out fully and very
13 successfully with maximum engagement and effort, all of their tasks and
14 to fulfil their functions as defined by the constitution and law" --
15 Q. Thank you. Can you then, on the basis of this, draw a general
16 conclusion as to the situation in the forces during the state of war?
17 A. That's exactly it. First of all, we had to pin-point certain
18 problems at the early stages, those who prepared manning tables and the
19 establishment had not been right in their assessments in terms of the
20 complexity of the tasks at hand. This was identified and such problems
21 were removed in mid-stride, and all the conditions were created in very
22 short period of time, in two months. Quite a lot of effort and energy
23 was invested into that, and the appropriate results were gained within
24 the remit of the -- that justice system.
25 Q. Thank you very much, General, sir.
1 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] By this we conclude our
2 examination-in-chief of this witness, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.
4 Are you wanting to tender this summary?
5 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It seems to have been put into e-court along with
9 a number of other documents.
10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that is an integral -- well,
11 integral parts of this document are also some other documents, summary
12 report on the work of the legal administration of the General Staff of
13 the VJ, but since the witness authored the document and confirmed that,
14 and since I did not have a need to go through all those other overviews
15 because he testified that this was just a summary of what had already
16 been published in earlier reports that we had occasion to see in the
17 previous documents, I just wanted to highlight what was important in
18 those documents, and I would like to move for this document to be
19 tendered into evidence.
20 JUDGE PARKER: You would like this one document out of that batch
21 to become an exhibit?
22 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] That's correct.
23 JUDGE PARKER: That will take a little time to achieve, but I'm
24 sure we will manage it --
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
1 interrupting you. I believe that the whole document with the annexes can
2 be admitted because they are an integral part of the report that we
3 discussed, I and the witness. I explained the reason why I did not go
4 through the whole report, to save time, and because of the fact that
5 we've already heard quite a lot of testimony about that previously.
6 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive the document.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00511.
8 JUDGE PARKER: And before we move on, perhaps you could assist me
9 in one further matter. At a number of points in your evidence you have
10 referred to the General Staff and at others to the Supreme Command Staff.
11 It may be a matter of English translation, but are you seeing those as
12 two distinct bodies or as different names for the one body?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It goes two labels for the one and
14 the same thing. The General Staff is an institution that heads the army
15 in peacetime, and pursuant to the Yugoslav Army Act, it functions under
16 the same label in wartime as well. From earlier times there was this
17 wording Staff of the Supreme Command or Supreme Command Staff. It had
18 circulated from earlier times dating back to the times of the SFRY, while
19 Comrade Tito was the supreme commander. But later on it was renamed
20 General Staff. It goes for the same level of command but different names
21 are used depending on which document you're reading.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
23 Ms. Gopalan.
24 Cross-examination by Ms. Gopalan:
25 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Gojovic. I have some questions for you today
1 about your testimony over the last two days. You've had a chance to
2 review a number of documents that you have prepared, and I'd like to
3 begin with some questions about these documents. Let's start with the
4 last document that was tendered, which was D511.
5 MS. GOPALAN: If we could call that up on e-court, please. And
6 could we please go to page 6, heading 8 in the English and the B/C/S,
8 Q. While we're waiting for the correct section to be called up on
9 e-court, Mr. Gojovic, as I understand it this document updates an earlier
10 document that you prepared, and this is D508, which gives similar
11 conclusions. And I will take you to the relevant section in a moment.
12 MS. GOPALAN: Could we go to the next page of the English,
13 please, and I'd like the same page in the e-court for the B/C/S, and
14 that's on the screen.
15 Q. I'd like you to look at the paragraph beginning:
16 "By type of criminal act the largest number of perpetrators
17 committed the criminal act of failure to respond to call-up ..."
18 Do you see that paragraph?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. So in this document that you prepared in September 1999, the
21 percentage of perpetrators relating to violations of Article 214 is 70
22 per cent and another 18 per cent related to violations of Article 217; is
23 that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. And that gives us a total of 88 per cent of perpetrators for
1 offences relating to the VJ?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And the remaining 12 per cent, perpetrators of other criminal
4 acts, that would be perpetrators of criminal acts such as crimes against
5 life and limb, which you described earlier; correct?
6 A. Yes, and all the other criminal offences, yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And to confirm, this report updates your earlier report of
8 July -- of June 1999, which provides the same figures; so this is the
9 final version?
10 A. The June version was the final version, but it provides the basis
11 for this report, this analysis. If you allow me, may I point out that
12 the only figure which is higher here than in the previous one is the one
13 which is amended by the prosecutor. It says here 19708 some new criminal
14 reports had been received, other figures are identical. So there is this
15 discrepancy, 19.000 in this one and 18.000 in the previous report.
16 Q. And aside from this discrepancy, you would agree with me that in
17 terms of percentages of the figures that we just went through, the
18 reports are identical?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MS. GOPALAN: I'd like to call up 65 ter 1182.
22 Q. Mr. Gojovic, a document will be appearing on your screen shortly,
23 and this is a report on criminal proceedings before military courts of
24 the command of the PrK, and it's dated the 15th of May, 1999. And I have
25 some questions for you about the types of offences listed in this
1 document. It's not a document that is in your binder, I don't think so;
2 it's a document that's appearing on the screen. Do you see it there,
3 Information on the situation and movement of criminals among professional
4 military personnel?
5 A. Whose document is this?
6 Q. If you go to the top of the page, it is a document prepared by
7 the command of the Pristina Corps.
8 A. Yes, I can see that.
9 Q. Okay. And I'd like you to just have a glance through the types
10 of offences listed in this document. For example, paragraph 1 refers to
11 violations of Article 217, and that's the article that we just saw in the
12 previous two documents; correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. And if we go to the next page in both languages, and if you
15 scroll through the different headings. For example, paragraph 2 refers
16 to the crime of theft; paragraph 3, the crime of aggravated robbery. Are
17 you able to follow?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. Yes. And paragraph 4, crime of failing or refusing to obey
20 orders; 5, crime of seizing vehicles; 6, crime of abuse of position; 7,
21 embezzlement; 8, failure to fulfil duties; 9, unauthorised departure; and
22 10, failing to take steps to protect the combat unit. And I'll let you
23 scroll down the rest which are in the following page, number 11 to 23
24 onwards. Now, if you look through these various headings and the
25 numbers, that is, the names of the perpetrators listed under these
1 different headings, you will find that there's only one reference to the
2 crime of murder, and that is in item 20. Is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. From the information here, the other cases listed mainly concern
5 crimes against the VJ, for example, desertion, refusal to obey orders,
6 and a limited number of cases concerning theft and robbery. Do you
8 A. I agree, yes.
9 Q. So the information in this document is consistent with the
10 information you provided in the earlier two documents that we saw, to the
11 extent that a large number of the crimes that were prosecuted by the
12 military courts related to crimes committed against the VJ, for example,
13 desertion, failing to obey orders; is that correct?
14 A. The information that I expressed are based on the information
15 received by the court. The information reported by the corps command is
16 based on the criminal reports that they filed. Each criminal report --
17 it's not necessarily that every criminal report has been accepted by the
18 military prosecutor. So it's logical that a large number of such
19 criminal offences being more easily detectable are the most numerous and
20 are subject to criminal reports. More serious criminal offences are more
21 difficult to detect because the perpetrators try to be furtive about it,
22 destroy evidence, et cetera. But this number of criminal reports does
23 not necessarily correspond to the number of indictments and criminal
24 proceedings, but this expresses the obligation of the corps command.
25 They have to press charges or send criminal reports, and it is up to the
1 military prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute or not, of course, and
2 for all those --
3 Q. Mr. Gojovic, if I may just clarify your point. So based on what
4 you're saying, these are reports that were provided up to the courts.
5 Now, it appears to me based on this information here that a large number
6 of the reports related to crimes committed against the VJ, for example,
7 desertion, failure to obey orders. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document into
11 evidence, please.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01520.
14 MS. GOPALAN:
15 Q. Now, I'd like to take you to another document that you were
16 involved in, Mr. Gojovic, and that is D510, and this is the overview of
17 initiated criminal proceedings. I believe that's tab 18 in your binder.
18 And if we could go to the summary table which is on page 2 of the English
19 and page 3 of the B/C/S. Now, just to remind ourselves, Mr. Gojovic,
20 this report was prepared when you were the deputy chairman of the
21 commission of co-operation with the -- with this Tribunal?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And when was this report prepared?
24 A. In 2001, because when the authentic report was received from the
25 courts, it was drafted on the basis of those preceding documents. We
1 have a date of it being received. Let me just find it. The supreme
2 military court received it on the 21st of August, 2001, and this would be
3 the 8th of May, 2003 -- well, this one was drafted in 2001, sometime in
5 Q. Okay. And if we could have a look at some of these figures in
6 the table. I know that you have made some corrections, and I will
7 incorporate those into my questions. Now, what we see here is a summary
8 of the criminal proceedings in Kosovo and Metohija during the period of
9 the war, is that correct, in the military courts?
10 A. This overview provides only criminal offences and perpetrators
11 which could be covered under the heading "Violations of International
12 Humanitarian Law," only those, not the other ones. And this shows only
13 that portion.
14 Q. Thank you. Let's start with the first heading on the first
15 column, which is, "War Crimes Against Civilians." So sometime in 2001
16 the figure for the number of victims of war crimes against civilians is
17 eight, is that correct, that's what the table says?
18 A. That's correct, but that's only the period while military --
19 wartime military courts were in place and worked, and there were some
20 amendments that we just did in this courtroom which in 2001 saw
21 judgements. So that would be the 24th of March to the 10th of June,
22 1999. This pertains only to that period. But later detections and
23 proceedings are not included in this table. There was a number of such
24 proceedings, but I did not have any obligations with respect to that so I
25 did not include that.
1 Q. Thank you. We'll come to the later proceedings in a moment, but
2 for now in terms of the information that was available in 2001 we see
3 that there were eight victims of war crimes against civilians?
4 A. No, it's only the -- row for these criminal offences, but there
5 are 46 as the total number of victims, where victims were civilians but
6 victims of different criminal offences. There are other criminal
7 offences resulting in death, which means that we have to add up to 48 --
8 Q. Mr. Gojovic, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I will come to the
9 rest of the offences in a moment. At present, I just want to confirm the
10 numbers of victims for war crimes against civilians. And based on the
11 table before us, I believe that's eight.
12 A. Eight, yes, that's not contentious.
13 Q. And how about the number of cases that were referred to another
14 court, also for war crimes, is -- does that still remain at the number
16 A. Yes, that figure remained at the time, yes.
17 Q. Now, I'd like to look at the columns relating to murder --
18 JUDGE PARKER: Could I interrupt to ask, does that mean that of
19 the eight cases in which criminal proceedings were instituted in the
20 military courts, six were transferred to the civil courts; or does it
21 mean that there were 14 cases all together, eight in the military courts
22 and six in the civil courts?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This must be another
24 misunderstanding. The first column indicates the number of victims, the
25 result of criminal offences. Six persons are prosecuted under the column
1 case referred to the jurisdiction of another court, meaning the competent
2 civilian court which held jurisdiction. Therefore, during the state of
3 war proceedings were instituted against six persons for war crimes
4 against civilians. They were not finished before military courts, but
5 during the investigation stage they were deferred to another court.
6 That's the number of cases, and the number of victims is in the first
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much.
9 Sorry for interrupting, Ms. Gopalan.
10 MS. GOPALAN:
11 Q. Now, in this table we see that there -- in 2001 there were no
12 judgements issued for war crimes against civilians. I see that the
13 column for judgement is blank, but you mentioned during the course of
14 your testimony today that there was a judgement given; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, it was handed down later on in 2002 or 2003. I'm not sure,
16 handed down by the military court. There were judgements by civilian
18 Q. And in terms of the sentences for this judgement - and I think
19 we're referring to the Misel case, you mentioned the figure of 14 years,
20 but that was not the final sentence; is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And we see here under the columns for murder that there were no
23 judgements given in 2001. Are you aware of any subsequent judgements?
24 A. If you could in your questions refer to the following -- well,
25 this is the state of affairs at the 20th of June, 1999. This is when
1 wartime military courts ceased operating, and this is the overview as at
2 that date. Let's not deal with 2001 to avoid confusion, but otherwise
3 this figure is correct.
4 Q. As I understand it, this document was prepared in 2001?
5 A. The document was drafted in 2001 based on the information related
6 to this particular time-period. We did not draft a report relating to
7 other periods.
8 Q. So following the end of the war, did you have any information on
9 judgements relating to murder?
10 A. After the end of the war, peacetime military courts took over all
11 the other cases, but where perpetrators lost the status of a member of
12 the military they were tried by civilian courts, not military courts.
13 And we did not collect information from the civilian courts because
14 military organs do not have this method of communicating with civilian
16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic. We'll come back to that in a moment.
17 Now, before we leave this document, I just wanted to confirm the figure
18 that you gave for the total number of victims. I believe there's been an
19 increase in the figure, and you gave -- did you give the figure of 46 as
20 the total number of victims?
21 A. Yes, we have additional six persons, so 37 plus eight is 45.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, another question I have about this document
23 relates to involuntary manslaughter. We see there -- and that's the
24 seventh column from the top. We see there that three judgements were
25 issued for involuntary manslaughter by June 1999; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And now in your report, this is the summary page, but the rest of
3 the report contains further details of these crimes. And I'd like to
4 take you to the section on involuntary manslaughter which is on pages 14
5 to 15 of the B/C/S and the English.
6 A. 14 and 15 is not included here. That would be the excerpt on the
8 Q. In that case, perhaps you could have a look at the screen,
9 Mr. Gojovic, and we could have the B/C/S --
10 A. I'll find it here.
11 Q. It should be the full section, not the section relating to rapes.
12 And it's numbered page 14 at the bottom.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have it here, I don't have
15 it here.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I can help, 14,
17 15, and 16 in the B/C/S version were admitted, these are rapes and
18 attempted rapes, so that the pages 11, 12, and 13 in the B/C/S version
19 are probably what my learned friend is actually trying to discuss. 14 is
20 rape, and we can see that on the screen. So 11, 12, and 13 would be
21 probably the corresponding pages in the B/C/S version.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pages 11, 12, and 13 are missing in
23 the review -- overview.
24 MS. GOPALAN:
25 Q. Let's have a look at the pages on the screen, Mr. Gojovic.
1 JUDGE PARKER: They are different pages.
2 MS. GOPALAN: Yeah. I will resolve this issue in terms of the
3 page numbering and come back to this section.
4 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
5 JUDGE PARKER: I am told that pages 11, 12, and 13 are not part
6 of the e-court document for some reason. So we have, apparently, an
7 incomplete document in e-court.
8 MS. GOPALAN: Perhaps I could show these pages to Mr. Gojovic and
9 request that it's tendered as the remaining portion of the document.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. But before we pass from it, may I ask
11 Mr. Popovic, is it the case then that we don't have this complete
12 document as an exhibit?
13 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] You're absolutely correct,
14 Your Honour. From what I see, pages 11, 12, and 13 of the document are
15 missing, but we can very easily resolve this. I don't know if the
16 witness has the original document with him, which would contain all those
17 pages, so if Madam Gopalan would like to use the pages in English, he
18 could use his document and follow from there. I think it was probably
19 some kind of error when the document was being uploaded into e-court. I
20 didn't pay attention to those pages. I didn't really need them for my
21 examination-in-chief, so I didn't pay attention. Probably that's how the
22 error occurred.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Can I ask you to verify that we have a
24 complete exhibit, and if necessary authority is given for any omitted
25 pages to be added so that the exhibit is complete.
1 Ms. Gopalan.
2 MS. GOPALAN:
3 Q. Mr. Gojovic, in the binder that you have, are you able to locate
4 these sections relating to involuntary manslaughter? No?
5 MS. GOPALAN: Well, if Mr. Gojovic doesn't --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me explain. I don't have the
7 document with me. I have my original at the hotel, where these pages do
8 exist. I notice that these pages are not here, but this information in
9 the review is correct. The pages are missing. I do have those pages in
10 the document, the complete document, at my hotel, the manuscript. I
11 could provide that to the Defence later, and then you can use that to
12 complete the document. If an explanation is necessary, I can give an
13 explanation what the Prosecutor is asking --
14 MS. GOPALAN:
15 Q. Mr. Gojovic, I suggest what we do is to wait for the correct
16 pages to be uploaded on to e-court during the break, and I will pick up
17 this issue after the break.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, although it's not clear to me that the
19 missing pages are readily available.
20 Are they available to you, Mr. Popovic?
21 They appear to be at the hotel, whichever hotel that is, I do not
23 MS. GOPALAN: We can also -- yes, we can also check our records,
24 Your Honours, because the 65 ter number was a Prosecution exhibit. So we
25 may well have the relevant pages.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We will continue. The position is not
2 satisfactory. We will do what we can to get back into complete order.
3 MS. GOPALAN:
4 Q. I'd now like to move on to another document, and this is D509. I
5 believe this document is in your binder, Mr. Gojovic, and it's tab 17.
6 And I have some questions about a case that is listed in this document,
7 and that is the Slobodan Stosic case, and that's in page 56 of the
8 English, item 7; and page 52 of the B/C/S, also item 7.
9 A. I didn't understand what page that particular piece of
10 information is in my documents.
11 Q. It's on page 52 of the B/C/S. Perhaps you could have a look at
12 the screen if you're having trouble locating it.
13 MS. GOPALAN: It appears that the -- this document has not been
14 uploaded completely as well.
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE PARKER: It is the e-court page number which we need,
17 Ms. Gopalan.
18 MS. GOPALAN: It's page 52 of the B/C/S and page 56 of the
20 JUDGE PARKER: That's not the e-court number. That's the page of
21 the original document.
22 MS. GOPALAN: So we found the English, which is page 56. Yes,
23 that is the one. And we want the corresponding page in B/C/S.
24 Is that page available in the B/C/S? It's the section headed
25 "Report 9" if that's any help.
1 JUDGE PARKER: The court staff are having to go through the whole
2 document page by page in an attempt to find what it is you're referring
4 MS. GOPALAN: I'm sorry, Your Honours. Perhaps there was an
5 issue with the uploading because I had checked the e-court pages for the
7 JUDGE PARKER: What we will do is take the second break a little
8 early -- you have a number, Mr. Popovic?
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. If we're talking about
10 Slobodan Stosic, that is page D011-1343 in the B/C/S. I think that's the
11 correct page.
12 MS. GOPALAN: And I think that it's page 45.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.
14 MS. GOPALAN: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, I found it.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Now your questions, Ms. Gopalan.
17 MS. GOPALAN:
18 Q. We see here Slobodan Stosic who is a lieutenant-colonel. He is
19 being charged -- this is in the third column, Article 142. Am I correct
20 that that is the Article relating to war crimes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And there are a number of names listed below Mr. Stosic. I
23 believe these were his subordinates who were involved in the killing of
24 the five Albanians that is listed in the third column; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, if we go to the second-last column relating to this case, we
2 see that proceedings against Stosic were discontinued and -- let's begin
3 with Stosic's proceedings. Do you know why they were discontinued?
4 A. I will explain. The proceedings were not adjourned. They were
5 discontinued, they were stayed. When one adjourns or discontinues, you
6 can always continue with it, meaning that the case is not continue -- is
7 not completed. But in this case it was stayed, and it was not
8 re-instituted again because it was established that Stosic was not the
9 perpetrator of a crime but the others who were charged in order to place
10 themselves in a better position said that they had received an order for
11 him and then they took the people out and did what they did. And in
12 order to justify their actions, they said that they had been issued this
13 order by Stosic. This is why the prosecutor did not prosecute Stosic and
14 the others were prosecuted, and I think that then this case was completed
15 under the jurisdiction of the civilian court. So that this initial
16 information is not as it actually was. Stosic is not in the data that I
17 included, because by that time already the proceedings against him were
18 stayed. But the others of course were subject to criminal proceedings.
19 Q. Now, when you mentioned the data that you prepared and Stosic not
20 being included in that, could you give us more detail on the type of
21 crime his subordinates were charged with. I believe the document you
22 just referred to contains further details.
23 A. I do have a brief summary here. I can read it, if you permit me.
24 Q. Yes, please.
25 A. It says:
1 "Oto Palinkas, Miodrag Miskovic, Bozidar Sudarski, Dragan
2 Milosavljevic, killed five persons of Albanian ethnicity, whose identity
3 was not established. They were previously captured in an action by the
4 unit and detained. After being taken out of detention they were brought
5 and placed in front of a wall of our house where automatic fire was
6 opened from weapons. They were killed and thrown into a well where
7 petrol was then poured and set on fire."
8 This is a brief description of this particular crime and when it
9 was established that they were responsible they said that they were told
10 to do this by Lieutenant-Colonel Stosic. Proceedings were instigated
11 against him, and then later it was established that he did not issue such
12 an order to them but that they did this of their own accord. And later
13 it was established that this particular group committed several similar
15 Q. Now, speaking of these several similar crimes, could we go to
16 P964, please, which is a Prosecution exhibit.
17 Now, we see here that this is a report of the supreme military
18 prosecutor, and it's dated the 9th of April, 2002. And paragraph 1
19 relates to the Stosic case. And as you mentioned, there are a number of
20 different cases that involve this lieutenant-colonel. The first incident
21 is the one that we spoke about just now that you mentioned. Now, you
22 also see in the preceding pages that this group was also involved in
23 other criminal activities, and the details are there. Do you agree with
25 A. I had the opportunity to look at this report by the supreme
1 military prosecutor. It's based on the same data that was available to
2 me, and basically from what I could see, it was always this group Oto
3 Palinkos, Bozidar Sudarski, whereby they committed some crimes and always
4 in their defence they attempted to imply or state that this was done as a
5 consequence of Stosic's suggestions. I guess they were in his unit so
6 they would mention him. As far as I'm concerned -- as far as I remember,
7 in this period that I analysed, no further proceedings were conducted
8 against Stosic, and I think on the basis of this we can also see that
9 there were some proceedings conducted against him and then it was
10 established that he actually was not involved in these events.
11 Q. Now, if we add up the number of victims mentioned here in these
12 three different incidences, we get the figure of around 28 victims, six
13 in the first paragraph, two in the second, and another 20 in the third
14 paragraph. Now, it would seem that although Stosic was suspected to have
15 been involved in the killings of this number of civilians, no proceedings
16 were taken to the completion with him due to lack of evidence. Is that
18 A. This is legal term, insufficient evidence, because if you were to
19 say that there was sufficient evidence there would be grounds to suspect
20 that he was involved. However, there is no evidence at all of his
21 involvement. It was only the perpetrators who did actually commit mass
22 crimes, serial mass crimes, asserted that, and it would have been easy
23 for them to place the blame on their superior officer. I don't know
24 Stosic, but I think a man would have to be crazy to issue such an order.
25 No officer in his right -- in a right state of mind would issue such an
1 order. The fact is, though, that all of this was happening with members
2 of his unit. So he also had to be included in the investigation to
3 determine what was it that he knew and because it was his duty to prevent
4 it what steps he took. Had the prosecutor had any evidence, he would
5 probably have initiated proceedings against him, but he -- I mean, he
6 would have no reason not to proceed if there was enough evidence pointing
7 to Stosic.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... of the proceedings against
9 Stosic's subordinates, do you know?
10 A. All I know is that they were convicted and later the -- the
11 sentence was quashed on appeal, and then I don't know what happened. The
12 first-instance proceedings, they were sentenced to quite severe
13 sentences; and then the Supreme Court of Serbia quashed the case, and it
14 was returned for re-trial. I don't know what happened. It was not
15 really part of my duties to follow what happened with that particular
16 case later.
17 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic.
18 MS. GOPALAN: I believe it's time for our break now,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the second break and resume at five
21 minutes past 1.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 12.36 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 1.07 p.m.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Gopalan.
1 MS. GOPALAN:
2 Q. Mr. Gojovic, during your testimony yesterday, you provided a
3 clarification on the obligation on the part of a citizen to report a
4 crime, and this is in page 10330 of the transcript. Now, you referred to
5 a federal law provision, and you said that: "An official person which
6 learns ex officio that a criminal offence has been committed punishable
7 by five years in prison or more and fails to do so, then they may be
8 punished by three years in prison and more." What I'm interested in is
9 the types of offences that would fall within this federal law provision.
10 Would murder be included?
11 A. Yes. The law would include murder. The law dealt with crimes
12 that were subject to sentences of five years of imprisonment or more. It
13 was up to the official to report such a crime. If the crime was not
14 reported by a senior officer, they, themselves, would then be subject to
15 a sentence of up to three years' imprisonment.
16 Q. Would looting be included?
17 A. Murder, looting, subject to a sentence of five years or more are
18 all included in that particular law.
19 Q. How about burning of civilian property?
20 A. Serious punishment or sentences are also envisioned for such
21 crimes. Burning of property during wartime would be a type of war crime
22 because it would be inflicting harm on the civilian population.
23 Q. Now, you were also asked some questions about the obligation to
24 report on the part of a VJ officer, and I'd like to ask you about this
25 obligation to report when the MUP officer sees a crime being committed --
1 I'd like to rephrase the question -- when the VJ officer sees a crime
2 being committed by the MUP. Now, based on your answers yesterday, the
3 obligation arises that the VJ officer reports this crime to the
4 appropriate authorities; is that correct?
5 A. Yes. An officer is obliged to report, just like any other
6 citizen, and in particular because of his function as an official to
7 report any crime. In practice and based on our experiences from these
8 cases, the bulk or majority of the cases, 80 per cent of them, were
9 reported by military officers, not just for simple crimes, but also
10 murders. We have a lot of cases that were initiated against unidentified
11 persons. The victims of those crime number up to 600. Most of these
12 crimes were reported by military officers.
13 Q. Now, just coming back to your answer on crimes that were covered
14 by the war crimes provision, what would the crime of expelling someone
15 from their home fall under, which provision would it be covered under?
16 A. Expulsion's quite a narrow term, expulsion from one's house or
17 home, it's covered by Article 122. It includes also being expelled from
18 one's state, one's country, not only transfer from one location to
19 another that would be affected by war. This -- both of these crimes
20 would constitute a crime against the civilian population pursuant to
21 Article 142.
22 Q. Now, in the schedule that you prepared for us which set out the
23 list of cases that were processed under Article 142, that was D510, how
24 many cases were listed for expulsion? And while you're looking at that,
25 I'd just like to clarify whether you were actually referring to Article
1 122 in the transcript. Is that a separate article you had in mind, or
2 has it been incorrectly recorded?
3 A. I really wouldn't want to speculate on exactly which article of
4 the law that was. I could make a mistake, but the gist of it is that it
5 would be a crime from this set of laws against -- on crimes against
6 international humanitarian law. Article 142 is quite substantial and
7 lengthy, and it would encompass expulsion, as you refer to it,
8 displacement of the population from their place of residence and their
9 expulsion from their country of residence.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, concerning what my
12 learned friend tried to correct, this whole and entire answer does not
13 correspond to what the witness said in the Serbian language. I may
14 accept that I'm about to address this in my re-direct, but to clarify the
15 whole thing, I would like my learned friend to ask this question again so
16 that the answer would be properly put into transcript. Because what we
17 read in the transcript does not correspond with what the witness said in
19 JUDGE PARKER: I leave it to you, Ms. Gopalan, whether you wish
20 to go back over that or move on.
21 MS. GOPALAN: I'm satisfied with the answer, Your Honours. I'll
22 leave it to my learned colleague to deal with it later if he chooses to.
23 Q. Now, in response to my question on the number of expulsions that
24 were listed in the schedule that you prepared, how many are contained in
25 the schedule?
1 A. These criminal offences which were subject to proceedings and
2 from the description of the criminal offence which the prosecutor
3 prosecuted do not include the act of expulsion because the prosecutor
4 found that there was no intention to expel them across the border because
5 it is impossible pursuant to effective laws of Yugoslavia to expel one's
6 own citizens. This would be legally unacceptable formulation, and it's
7 true that some segments of the population of all ethnic background in
8 Kosovo and Metohija left their places of residence because of combat
9 activity. This is a relatively small area with quite substantial
10 military effect on both sides. And naturally, the civilian population
11 moved away from such fighting.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic. I'll now move on to another document,
13 and this is 65 ter 845. If we could go to the second page of the
14 document. Mr. Gojovic, are you able to see this document on your screen?
15 A. Yes, I can see it, although it's poorly legible, but I know what
16 it's all about.
17 Q. And if we scroll down to the bottom of the page, I believe -- and
18 the next page in the English, I believe this is a document that you sent?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you sent it in your capacity of being the deputy chairman of
21 the commission for co-operation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And we can see here that this document relates to charges of rape
24 and sexual assaults in 1998 and 1999. And going through this document we
25 see that, just focusing on 1999, that there were a total of seven
1 perpetrators who were involved in proceedings related to rape and sexual
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that is the sum total for the period of 1999?
5 A. Yes, for the period of 1999 this is shown in this overview in the
6 descriptive part and in the summary overview, and these are -- this
7 information from the previously discussed materials and documents.
8 Q. And do you know how many of these related to proceedings during
9 just the period of the war, so ending on the 10th of June, 1999, and not
10 going beyond that?
11 A. This refers exclusively to that period, during the state of war.
12 It doesn't include information preceding that period or subsequent to
13 that period.
14 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this document into
15 evidence, please.
16 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01521.
18 MS. GOPALAN:
19 Q. Going back to a document we were looking at before the break,
20 that's D510, and this is the summary that you prepared, the overview.
21 Hopefully we've got the right reference pages this time. If we could go
22 to page 7 of both the English and the B/C/S. And I'd like to ask you
23 some questions about the case of Petrovic. Now, we see here on this
24 table that Dragisa Petrovic was a major. Have you found the relevant
25 page, Mr. Gojovic?
1 A. No, you must have told me the wrong page number.
2 Q. Could you have a look on the screen perhaps.
3 A. That would be page 4 in my binder. I found it, yes.
4 Q. Thank you. And you see there it's a page headed "Murder,
5 Multiple, Article 47, paragraph 2," and so on. Yes?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, there's some detail here in relation to the crime itself,
8 but I'd just like to confirm that Article 47 is part of the Serbian
9 Criminal Code; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Now, the detailed description of the crime is that Petrovic
12 ordered three individuals to liquidate Feriz and Rukija Krasniqi, an
13 elderly man and woman who had not left the village, and they did this by
14 shooting with their automatic rifles. Now in your earlier testimony you
15 provided further information, and you testified that the woman who was
16 shot was bedridden. Is that correct? That information is not contained
17 in the summary, but it just provides further detail to the nature of the
19 A. This is a summary. This is not a detailed description. This is
20 the briefest possible summary because of this very small box, but in the
21 indictment and in the judgement you could find more detailed description.
22 This was not necessarily here in this box. I also indicated that such
23 situations did occur. There was such an incident, possibly the one that
24 you mentioned, but there's nothing disputable about this case.
25 Q. Thank you, sir. And these were two elderly people, and you
1 testified about this incident in the Milutinovic testimony. And do you
2 recall that the convictions for these murders were nine years for the
3 major and seven years for the subordinates?
4 A. Yes, that's correct. These are the sentences handed down in the
5 first-instance proceedings. I cannot tell you because I don't know what
6 happened later. I know that the first-instance judgement was as you just
7 mentioned it.
8 Q. And in the first-instance judgement, this was the sentence for
9 the murder of two elderly people, one of whom was bedridden; correct?
10 A. That's correct. As I said, this was not disputed.
11 Q. Thank you. I'd now move on to another section in this report,
12 and that's page 65 on the B/C/S and page 73 of the English.
13 A. I apologise. Can you repeat the B/C/S page.
14 Q. It is the e-court page 65 on the B/C/S, and I will give you the
15 paper -- page in a moment. I believe it's page 68 of your binder.
16 Sorry, the B/C/S is 65 on e-court and 68 in the witness' binder.
17 A. Yes, I found it.
18 Q. And is the English page 73? Now, while the document is being
19 called up, you'll see here that this refers -- item 1 refers to an
20 incident near the village of Izbica, and it says here that an
21 investigation was initiated on the 29th of May, 1999. And this incident
22 was classified as a murder. Could you tell us why it was classified as a
24 A. According to the initial information, it concerns 144
25 grave-sites, freshly dug graves of persons unknown. This is the
1 information that the military prosecutor received from a military officer
2 of a unit from Krusevac on the 29th of May, 1999, and he registered it
3 under this criminal offence because it's qualified as severe case of
4 murder under the Republic of Serbia penal code, which envisages more
5 severe punishment including the death penalty, which was still valid for
6 the republican law. And I discussed this circumstance where the
7 prosecutor was duty-bound by law to include in his draft version the most
8 severe qualification of a criminal offence, and this is why he took the
9 appropriate action and qualified this criminal offence as such.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Gojovic, let me just stop you there. You mentioned that
11 the crime was qualified or classified as a murder because that envisages
12 a more severe punishment, which is the death penalty. Could you tell us
13 when this extreme or the more severe punishment was applied, if at all?
14 When was the last time it was applied?
15 A. It was applied very rarely. As far as I can remember between
16 1980 and 1985 was the last capital punishment carried out, in that
18 Q. So you would agree with me that in 1999, considering the death
19 penalty to be a punishment was just a theoretical possibility?
20 A. Not only a theoretical, but also practical. However, the
21 jurisprudence was such that the courts almost never opted for that
22 because pursuant to the federal law capital punishment was abolished.
23 And the FRY's penal code was adjusted to the European Convention
24 abolishing death penalty in most countries. Those countries which
25 retained death penalties were considered as retrograde. The republican
1 penal code maintained that capital punishment, but the federal law was
2 amended to abide by European Conventions. And criminal offences against
3 international humanitarian law were governed by federal penal code, which
4 did not envisage capital punishment --
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic --
6 A. -- at the time the republican penal code did still envisage that,
7 but it has been amended in the meantime.
8 Q. Now, there's mention here about a request made for gathering
9 intelligence in relation to this Izbica incident. Could you tell us what
10 the outcome was of this investigation?
11 A. Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act, if the perpetrator of a
12 crime or perpetrators, most probably perpetrators in this case, if
13 they're unknown, then the prosecutor has an option --
14 Q. Mr. Gojovic --
15 A. -- to continue collecting all --
16 Q. -- I apologise for having to interrupt you, but unfortunately
17 we're somewhat short on time. So perhaps I can rephrase my question so
18 you're able to answer more briefly. What I would like to know is the
19 outcome of this investigation. Were criminal proceedings initiated? For
20 example, was there ever a judgement issued in relation to the Izbica
21 incident? That's what I'm interested in: What was the outcome?
22 A. These proceedings are not completed. It's within the
23 jurisdiction of the district prosecutor and the war crimes prosecutor.
24 It's still pending. It hasn't been brought to trial, and they're trying
25 to identify the perpetrators, but it's within the remit now of the
1 district attorney or district prosecutor.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Gojovic, we've had evidence in this case that the
3 remains of some of the bodies found in Izbica were later found in mass
4 graves in Petrovo Selo in Serbia proper. Did you know that -- do you
5 know that?
6 A. From which site? I did not understand this.
7 Q. The bodies that were found in Izbica, the Izbica site, so the
8 incident that we're talking about now.
9 A. Yes. I do not know anything about that because I did not follow
10 the situation. Later on I heard it and read in the press that personal
11 identification documents were found somewhere else, but it wasn't very
12 intelligible to me because pursuant to all the information here, the
13 graves were marked and those remains were interred pursuant to rules of
14 the International Committee of the Red Cross and other legal provisions.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic. Now, you are someone who has a lot of
16 experience working in the army and the military judicial system. You may
17 not be aware of the precise circumstances in which the remains were found
18 in mass graves later on, but let me ask you this: If bodies or remains
19 of bodies from Izbica were found in mass graves elsewhere, you would
20 agree with me, won't you, that no proper investigation was conducted into
21 this massacre in the first place?
22 A. To the best of my knowledge, some investigation was done of the
23 mortal remains. Disinterment was attempted, autopsies carried out, but
24 what happened later on I don't know. It's possible that -- that may have
25 happened, but it's unacceptable from any aspect, both criminal law
1 aspects or other aspects. I don't know what the reasons were after the
2 detection of such crime for the remains to be relocated. I don't know
3 who -- what guided those who relocated them because it has -- serves no
4 practical purposes. The criminal offence had been registered, procedures
5 been initiated. There's no rational explanation for moving those mortal
7 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gojovic. I have no further questions for you.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Ms. Gopalan.
9 Mr. Popovic.
10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Very
12 Re-examination by Mr. Popovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gojovic, when we talk about the summary
14 overview of the initiated criminal proceedings against perpetrators of
15 crimes that we had occasion to see and where you stated together with the
16 amendments that there were 45 victims, are we talking about perpetrators
17 of criminal offences which -- who are named, known, whose residence is
18 known and who became subject to criminal proceedings?
19 A. Yes. In the summary overview and in the tables, those refer to
20 victims, crimes, and perpetrators, where we know the name and surname of
21 the perpetrator and what he/she is charged with, and the consequences of
22 such criminal offence and the victims.
23 Q. Thank you. Let's take a look at D510. That would be page
24 011-1514 in B/C/S and 011-1552 -- 92 in the English version. Thank you.
25 General, sir, that would be page 67.
1 Summary review of persons unknown who committed multiple murders,
2 Article 47, paragraph 2, item 6, of the penal code of the Republic of
3 Serbia in the area of KiM during the NATO aggression in Yugoslavia from
4 March 24th to June 10th, 1999. Is this a summary review of perpetrators
5 unknown, and is the number of victims 598?
6 A. Yes, that's summary review of crimes committed by unknown
7 perpetrators. Criminal proceedings are conducted against persons
8 unknown. There were 11 cases, 598 victims, maybe an additional three
9 victims should -- are recorded somewhere else. So this is the
10 conservative figure, the lowest possible figure, of 598 victims.
11 Q. Thank you. Since we are hard-pressed for time my question would
12 be: Concerning all those 598 victims, was the proper legal procedure
14 A. Yes, for all those cases the military prosecutor initiated
15 proceedings either directly through organs of detection and investigation
16 or through investigating judges. Five cases were deferred to competent
17 public prosecutor, five have been subject to gathering of intelligence
18 reports. These statute of limitations for these crimes do not expire.
19 Q. What about the Izbica case, was the investigating judge -- did he
20 do his part?
21 A. Yes, he did, pursuant to law within his duties. The crime scene
22 investigation was conducted there.
23 Q. Thank you very much. Witness, asked by my learned colleague on
24 expulsion from home. What would that criminal offence be? Your
25 answer -- in the case of your answer, the transcript does not correspond
1 to what you said in Serbian. So I'm asking you again. Expulsion from
2 home, what kind of a criminal offence would that be, and what is
3 envisaged by Article 140?
4 A. Expulsion from home does not constitute a criminal offence except
5 for arrogant behaviour. It is not sanctioned by law. But what the
6 Prosecutor's question is hinting at is expulsion from the territory of
7 the country, and this is what was aimed at. At the local level there was
8 displacement of persons, people moved away from conflict and combat
9 areas, and this is something which is envisaged by rules and laws anyway,
10 to move them from harm.
11 Q. Thank you very much.
12 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions in my
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE PARKER: You'll be pleased to know, sir, that that
17 concludes the questioning for you. The Chamber would like to thank you
18 for your attendance here in The Hague and for the assistance you've been
19 able to give us in looking at this range of matters, particularly as many
20 of the legal aspects are not ones with which we normally deal. We thank
21 you. You may of course return to your normal activities and a court
22 officer will assist you from the court.
23 This seems a very convenient time, Mr. Popovic. We will resume
24 tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of
3 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.