1 Tuesday, 2 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 MR. STAMP: May it please Your Honours, if I may just comment.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp.
7 MR. STAMP: Thank you. Yesterday I had indicated that I wanted
8 to cite an assertion I made or give citations for it. Having reviewed
9 the transcript, it seems that what is recorded in the transcript is not
10 what I intended to say, and not what I thought said. And I presume that
11 that the transcript is probably right. What I thought I said was that
12 the accused had said that he was in Kosovo in 1998 when he testified. I
13 think the transcript has me saying that this witness said that the
14 accused was in Kosovo in 1998. So the citations I have of the accused
15 saying he was in Kosovo, according to the transcript, that is not what
16 was put to the witness.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that very neat recovery. And I
18 think a brownie point for Mr. Popovic.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
22 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made to tell the truth still
24 Mr. Stamp, you are continuing.
25 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
1 WITNESS: MILOS PANTELIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]
4 Q. You were shown a few of the orders or dispatches signed by
5 General Djordjevic in which he mobilised and dispatched PJP detachments
6 in Kosovo. Perhaps we can have a look at one or two of them quickly.
7 You were shown P133. This is a dispatch of 28th of July, 1998.
8 And if you turn to the second page, you see it's signed by --
9 it's signed for the chief of the public security department
10 General Djordjevic, and you were also shown a couple of the documents in
11 which General Djordjevic mobilised and dispatched.
12 MR. STAMP: If we could go back to the first page of this
13 document, that would be good.
14 Q. You were also shown a couple of documents in which
15 General Djordjevic mobilised and dispatched these PJP units from various
16 SUPs in Serbia
17 Under what authority did he issue these orders? And specifically
18 if you look at the first line of this order, that these detachments are
19 to be mobilised and dispatched.
20 A. These are dispatches of the chief of the public security
21 department of the Ministry of the Interior which were sent to the
22 secretariats whereby the units were to be sent to carry out special
23 security tasks in the territory of Kosovo
24 Detachment is also mentioned. This is the detachment in which one of my
25 units was, this was the company size unit of approximately 100 people.
1 So with this dispatch, he addressed the secretariats so that they
2 prepared their units in order to send them to carry out special security
3 tasks. He sent this as chief of public security sector.
4 Q. Thank you. He sent this detachment mobilising, dispatching these
5 PJP units to carry out security tasks in Kosovo. I am sorry, I see the
6 transcript has something wrong.
7 He sent this dispatch by which he mobilised and dispatched PJP
8 units or carried out special tasks, special security tasks in Kosovo, and
9 he did so as chief of the public security department. Was there any law,
10 rule, or regulation by virtue of which he performed or issued this order?
11 A. This order was issued pursuant to the authorities given by the
12 Ministry of the Interior. This was not in line with any legislation.
13 This is not something that exists neither in the law nor in any other
15 Q. I see.
16 A. However --
17 Q. You said it was issued pursuant to the authorities given by the
18 minister of interior.
19 MR. STAMP: In which case could we look at P58.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe that we have a mistake in
22 the transcript concerning what Mr. Stamp said. I believe that Mr. Stamp
23 said it in the same way in which -- in which the witness said, that this
24 was the authority of the minister -- yes, yes, now it's okay in the
25 transcript, thank you.
1 MR. STAMP:
2 Q. This is the decision of 19th of February, 1992, setting out the
3 PJM -- sorry, it's a decision of the 1st of August, 1992 -- 1993, setting
4 out the PJM. You had indicated, just for clarification, Mr. Pantelic,
5 earlier, that there's a name change. The PJM became known as the PJP; is
6 that correct?
7 A. These units changed names but their purpose was not changed.
8 Q. Yes. And I think we see them referred here in this order or
9 referred to here in this order as a PJM. That is what later on became
10 known as a PJP?
11 A. That is correct.
12 MR. STAMP: If we could look at the second page of this in
13 English, and you could probably stay on the first page in B/C/S. We want
14 to see item 2.
15 Q. It says that bringing into readiness, mobilising, and engaging
16 the PJM on performing tasks described in paragraph 1 of this item shall
17 be done on orders from the minister and when approved by the minister,
18 also on orders from the chief of the public security department. So can
19 I take it then that General Djordjevic in issuing these orders, like the
20 last one we saw where he mobilised and dispatched these units to Kosovo
21 for security-related tasks, was done by virtue of this regulation?
22 A. Yes, it would appear so pursuant to this decision because here we
23 can see that putting units into readiness, their mobilisation and
24 engaging of PJMs was done exclusively on orders from the minister or on
25 orders from somebody authorised by the minister to do so, in this case
1 the chief of the public security department.
2 Q. Well, that is not precise what it says. It says either the
3 minister or on the authority of the minister, the chief of the public
4 security department. Do you see that?
5 A. Yes, I can see this very well under item 2, paragraph 2 within
6 item 2, and here it says on orders from the minister and when approved by
7 the minister, also on orders from the chief of the public security
8 department. This is what this decision reads. So the decision was
9 adopted by the minister and then operational and technical tasks are
10 actually carried out by the chief of the public security department.
11 Q. Very well. If we could move on. Did you have units in Kosovo in
12 mid-April 1999? If I may rephrase. Were there any PJP detachments from
13 your SUP
14 A. During the course of 1999 my units were permanently dispatched to
15 carry out special security tasks in the territory of the Autonomous
16 Province of Kosovo
17 mid-April any such units were there, but it is very probable that they
18 were. So I can't remember the exact dates, but I do know that my company
19 of the PJP was engaged in special security tasks, then there would be a
20 break, and after a short while they would go again. So this was done
21 continuously during the year of 1999.
22 Q. Your company belonged to which detachment?
23 A. I had several companies. These were the third companies of the
24 35th, 65th, and 85th Detachment. In the 85th Detachment, we mostly had
25 members of the reserve police forces, and they were seldomly used during
1 this period, I even believe they weren't used at all, but members of the
2 35th Detachment and of the 65th Detachment were used continuously.
3 MR. STAMP: Perhaps we could have a look at document 06063. This
4 is one that -- that's Prosecution 65 ter number 06063.
5 Q. On the first page at the bottom. This is a document listing the
6 deployment of PJP units on the 17th of April, 1999. The first page at
7 the bottom we see the units of the 35th Detachment, and if we go to the
8 second page in English, and I think we could stay on the same page in
9 B/C/S, we see the 3rd Company at Vaganica. Is that where your -- where
10 the unit from your SUP
11 A. If this is written so in this document, this is certainly
12 correct. So the 35th Detachment of the PJP consisted of police units
13 from Sabac, Valjevo, and Uzice. Their base was in Uzice. So if this is
14 what is written here that the 35th Detachment was deployed at the time,
15 this is most probably true. But I can't remember any details, and I do
16 not know of a place called Vaganica.
17 Q. Well, this is -- if we go back to page 1 in English. This is in
18 the Secretariat of Kosovska Mitrovica. Did you have units in that area?
19 A. The PJP's Special Police units of the secretariat from Valjevo
20 spent a longer period of time in the territory of the Secretariat of
21 Kosovska Mitrovica. In 1998 we had one person killed of the PJPs who
22 carried out security tasks of the protection of a hunting ammunition
23 factory in Srbica. Thereafter, during the course of 1999 on several
24 occasions, members of this detachment of PJP were present in the
25 territory which was under the jurisdiction of the secretariat from
2 On the 26th of March, while carrying out security tasks in that
3 territory, so I'm talking about the 26th of March, 1999, when entering
4 the village of Lajkovac, five members of my unit were killed and six of
5 them were heavily injured. On that occasion, they were carrying out the
6 tasks that were ordered to them by the Pristina staff and the Secretariat
7 of the Interior in Mitrovica. They controlled the terrain in the given
9 Q. I see. You had explained that to us yesterday. If we look at
10 item 2 on the Secretariat for Kosovska Mitrovica, and that is on the
11 second page in English, we see their deployments or deployment of the
12 units in the 85th detachment. Do you see where the 3rd -- or the areas
13 where the 3rd Company is deployed? Did you have any units deployed in
14 those areas?
15 A. I really cannot remember whether at the time any of my units were
16 sent down there because we never had a full detachment. It depended on
17 the security situation, so it was requested for particular secretariats,
18 and as I told you a short while ago, these were three secretariats, in
19 Uzice, Sabac, and Valjevo, to provide a certain number of men. This
20 doesn't necessarily mean that a full company from the secretariat in
21 Valjevo was deployed to the detachment. I honestly cannot remember the
22 dates and whether this was the case at the time.
23 Q. Very well.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I see that this
1 document is of more significant interest of Mr. Stamp, so I would first
2 of all like to hear what is this all about, possibly we first had to see
3 whether the witness could recognise this document, and there is no
4 introduction into the document, no signatures, so we do know where it
5 comes from. I do not mind the questions that my learned friend asked,
6 but I wonder whether we could establish what is this document all about.
7 JUDGE PARKER: As far as I know, this is not yet an exhibit, is
8 that so, Mr. Stamp?
9 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honours, I'm merely asking the witness
10 whether he knows whether the information on it is correct.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Are you intending on exhibiting the document at
12 some later time?
13 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Will you want it marked or identification at the
16 MR. STAMP: That had been my plan, that was my intention
17 depending on his answers, which the answers being as they are, that would
18 be the course of conduct I would pursue.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01545, marked
21 for identification.
22 MR. STAMP:
23 Q. You kept, I think it is your evidence, regular contact with your
24 men, your men who had been assigned to Kosovo by way of telephone calls.
25 Is that true?
1 A. Absolutely. I was in contact with them possibly every four to
2 five days depending on the situation, depending on the area in which they
3 were deployed, and depending on whether they could use any secured phone
4 lines to call me and inform me about their problems and possible
5 assistance that I could have provided.
6 Q. And this situation continued throughout the war?
7 A. I'm not sure what you mean throughout the war, but occasionally
8 it would happen that we couldn't talk to one another for ten days, but
9 what was important for me was that they were all alive and well, that
10 nobody was killed or injured, and that they held all the conditions
11 necessary to perform their tasks normally in the territory in which they
12 were employed to carry out security tasks.
13 Q. When I said during the war, I mean during the period of the NATO
14 intervention in 1999. Did you maintain contact with your units in Kosovo
15 during this period?
16 A. It's been a long time ago, but when I had an opportunity, I would
17 use it, so either the commanders of the units deployed in Kosovo got in
18 touch with me somehow, but as I said, this was not continuously. So we
19 spoke occasionally; I received information; and this was sufficient for
21 Q. I'll try to ask the question in a different way. During the war,
22 during the NATO intervention, did you have any contact at all with your
23 men in Kosovo?
24 A. During the NATO intervention, the contacts were very far apart,
25 but we still spoke. I can't remember how many times a month or a week,
1 but if I couldn't get in touch with any of them, then I would call the
2 staff in Pristina, and I would ask about them. And this was enough for
4 Q. So you could more readily get in touch with the staff in Pristina
5 than your units that were in the field outside of Pristina; is that a
6 fair statement?
7 A. I was in touch with the staff in Pristina occasionally until NATO
8 aircraft struck the facility where the staff had been housed. Later on
9 when it was dispatched to reserve positions, I basically had no contact
10 with them.
11 Q. About when was it that NATO struck their position?
12 A. I know when NATO attacked the territory of the municipality of
13 Valjevo. As for Kosovo, I know that it was bombed on a daily basis, and
14 that facility was probably struck at the outset. As for any dates, I
15 don't know those, and I can't say anything.
16 Q. You said that when your PJP detachments went down to Kosovo, then
17 you had no further responsibility to monitor them and to maintain
18 disciplinary control of them. That responsibility resided in the
19 secretariats to which they were sent. Is that accurate?
20 A. As of the moment when PJP units were sent from the territory of
21 our secretariat where I was the chief, all my obligations towards those
22 PJP units ceased. What I had to do was to use the -- an inspector from
23 the department of police to have him organise their departure in keeping
24 with the dispatch I received from the police administration of the
25 Ministry of the Interior. I had to provide them with everything
1 requested in that dispatch, and as of the moment when they left the
2 territory of my secretariat, I no longer had any competencies.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this question it
5 was put to the witness that he said something he didn't actually say. He
6 said previously that he had no disciplinary oversight over those units.
7 Mr. Stamp referred to something of that sort, and I would perhaps like to
8 know what the reference is that he is relying upon, otherwise perhaps the
9 question should be withdrawn.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp.
11 MR. STAMP: I asked the witness if he said something, and he
12 explained what he meant. But it seemed that my friend doesn't understand
13 the question I asked.
14 Q. Mr. Pantelic, was this procedure, the one you just described,
15 where you lost any competency over the units that were sent, was that
16 something that was regulated by law or by the rules?
17 A. That issue was not regulated by any legal provisions. However,
18 it is regulated by a number of bylaws put into force by the minister of
19 the interior. Perhaps I should clarify the issue of disciplinary
20 measures. In cases of infringement of the disciplinary rules from the
21 disciplinary code committed in the territory of Kosovo
22 members of the PJP who had been sent to that area, their immediate
23 superior had to establish whether there was any disciplinary liability.
24 In such cases, he was charged with undertaking measures, preliminary
25 measures, after which he was supposed to forward the case file to the
1 home secretariat.
2 So the preliminary measures were under the competence of the
3 immediate superior, and once those who breached discipline returned to
4 their home secretariat, proceedings would be instituted against them.
5 Q. I see. So when it came to disciplinary matters at least, the
6 home secretariat did retain some competence?
7 A. The home secretariat had that sole competence in cases of
8 disciplinary liability. In such cases, the employee would be held
9 accountable upon his return to the home secretariat. Otherwise, the home
10 secretariat held no sway in any other matters.
11 MR. STAMP: Could we have a look at 0 -- that is 65 ter number
12 05234. This was a document that we -- was not on our initial
13 notification, but we notified the Defence as soon as there was testimony
14 that caused us to believe the witness might be able to comment on it.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in. This
16 actually confirms what I have just said. In the last paragraph it reads
17 that for the above-mentioned reasons, it is proposed that the person
18 concerned be temporarily removed from the ministry until the date
19 mentioned therein. So the chief of secretariat was instructed to
20 undertake disciplinary measures concerning this case. The person in
21 question was not suspended, but sent to his home unit and home
22 secretariat so as to have disciplinary measures imposed.
23 MR. STAMP:
24 Q. I see. There -- just to be accurate, this is the Chief of
25 Secretariat of Bor, SUP
1 disciplinary charges against a MUP employee for breaches committed in
2 Kosovo; that's correct?
3 A. It is correct, as we can read from the document. However, the
4 chief of secretariat, by that time in 1999 was probably not familiar with
5 how disciplinary proceedings were regulated at the time and where they
6 were supposed to take place.
7 Q. I am afraid I don't understand your last comment. Are you saying
8 that what SUP
9 A. I didn't say what he was doing was irregular. I'm just saying
10 that I don't know why he asked the minister of the interior of Serbia
11 an approval to be in charge of such a procedure. In the earlier
12 dispatches we saw, the whole situation was well regulated.
13 Q. At that time, the 23rd of March, 1999, would he not have to seek
14 the permission of the administration in Belgrade, the headquarters in
16 A. The chiefs of the SUP
17 suspend the employee pending the closure proceedings. So that person was
18 not sent away. He was simply returned to his home unit and to the home
19 secretariat from which he had been dispatched. The reason for which the
20 secretariat chief was inquiring of the Serbian MUP what to do, that is
21 something that I'm not very clear about.
22 Q. So you don't know whether or not at that time the SUP chief would
23 have to request permission from MUP headquarters to remove a MUP employee
24 from his employment?
25 A. As I've just said, I explained to you how I conducted military
1 procedures in the territory of my SUP
2 have the approval of the MUP of Serbia for such measures. Although, to
3 speak honestly, I did not have any disciplinary cases on my hands on
4 which I had to act. As far as I remember, though, no approval on the
5 part of the ministry would have been necessary for me to do that.
6 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I tender this document, 5234, and ask
7 that it be given an exhibit number.
8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit P01546.
10 MR. STAMP: And if we could move on. Could we look at P1207.
11 Q. I think you said yesterday that by this dispatch,
12 General Djordjevic issued regular tasks to various departments and
13 organisational units of the police. You see in the addressee section,
14 Mr. Pantelic, that one of the organisational unit was the "UKP, the Crime
15 Police Administration - here - to the chief."?
16 A. This is hardly legible. Yes, now I see it. It was sent to the
17 UKP by the sector chief. These are tasks passed down along certain
18 professional lines, and I have no information regarding this.
19 Q. The chief of the crime police was General Ilic?
20 A. Yes, General Ilic.
21 Q. So would you agree with me that at least for some purposes the
22 hierarchy remained in place, General Djordjevic could and did task
23 General Ilic?
24 A. All I can do is confirm what the dispatch says. It was sent to
25 the chief of administration. I don't know for what reasons and why. As
1 I have said, it was my impression that General Ilic was directly
2 subordinated to the minister of the interior, and I stand by that
4 Q. I suppose you have answered the question. For clarification, I
5 think you said that these were tasks passed down along the professional
6 lines, and I'm saying to you doesn't this demonstrate that
7 General Djordjevic could and did task General Ilic?
8 A. I said that he could issue orders only following the minister's
9 approval, strictly speaking. Following the rule book, the minister would
10 not be involved in this. As of 1987 [as interpreted] when assistant
11 ministers of the interior were appointed, each of them answered for a
12 certain aspect of work --
13 Q. But we have heard about the history. I just want to confine
14 ourselves to this document and what you have said about it in your
15 testimony. And on the basis of that, would it be fair to say that
16 General Djordjevic as chief of the public security sector could and did
17 issue tasks to General Ilic?
18 A. I think I've answered. In any case, this dispatch --
19 Q. Just a simple question.
20 A. It is my answer that following a minister's approval, he could
21 issue any type of dispatch.
22 Q. Okay. So that is a hierarchy. The minister is superior to
23 General Djordjevic; General Djordjevic is superior to General Ilic;
24 General Ilic is superior to the UKP chiefs in the SUPs. There is a
25 hierarchy. Is that correct?
1 A. The hierarchy, as you describe it, is correct only in the first
2 part of your question. General Ilic was not subordinated to the
3 territorial units. His tasks were to exercise direct co-ordination and
4 control of work following which he could undertake certain measures in
5 the criminal or crime area.
6 Q. There must have been an error. I wasn't suggesting that
7 General Ilic was subordinated to the territorial units. Very well.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.
9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. A
10 correction for the transcript. Page 15, line 8, it is 1987, whereas I
11 believe the witness said 1997. I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Stamp, but
12 having realised that he is finished with this topic, I made use of this
13 opportunity to point that out.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 MR. STAMP: Could we move on and have a look quickly at P356.
16 Q. This is a dispatch from General Djordjevic of the 18th of
17 February, 1999, that you spoke about yesterday.
18 MR. STAMP: And if we could move straight to item 7.
19 Q. You were saying, Mr. Pantelic -- or let me put it this way. Your
20 understanding, is it that when he referred to volunteers, it meant that
21 volunteers were to be directed towards your appropriate military
22 territorial unit?
23 A. Yes, to the appropriate military territorial unit. Under the
24 existing Law on the Interior, no volunteers can be engaged in the
25 execution of any security-related tasks. They could -- such people could
1 only have come from the reserve force of the police.
2 Q. And are you also saying that when he was referring to the
3 paramilitary units and their members, he meant the suppression of
4 paramilitary units and their members because they were inclined to
5 include criminal elements?
6 A. I don't think one needs to generalise. For the most part, units
7 did contain criminal elements, but there were different units as well.
8 Specifically in my area, there were no paramilitary units. I didn't
9 register a single one, and I didn't notify the minister of the interior
10 of the existence of any such units.
11 MR. STAMP: If we could go back to the first page of that
12 document just to get the reference number or the dispatch number.
13 Dispatch number 312, dated 18th of February, 1999.
14 Now if we could move to P702.
15 Q. And I just want to remind you of what you said yesterday about
16 paramilitaries. It's at 12079, line 7:
17 "I believe the law on people's Defence did not regulate
18 paramilitary units. Usually these were people who came from the rank of
19 criminals, and we tried in every way we could to eliminate them partaking
20 in any kind of volunteer units."
21 So please remember your testimony. You will see in this
22 document, this is a dispatch of the 24th of March, 1999. We'll see later
23 that it is from the minister, that is Mr. Djordjevic's superior, and you
24 see in the first paragraph it says or refers to "our dispatch number 312
25 of the 18th of February, 1999," that's the previous dispatch you just
1 saw. Just read that first paragraph, please. Not aloud, just read it so
2 you understand it.
3 A. I am sorry, I can't read that.
4 MR. STAMP: Very well, if it could be expanded, and I'll read it
5 to you in any case.
6 Q. It says:
7 "Since the 23rd of March" ...
8 A. I have read it.
9 MR. STAMP: And if we could go back to the English, and go to
10 page 3 of the English and ... I am sorry, I think we want page 2 of the
11 English. Now, I don't have a copy in front of me. I think we need
12 page 1 then. I'm so sorry. Yes, item 5 of page 1.
13 Q. Here, the minister on the eve of the war is telling us, "you
14 shall" -- and I quote:
15 "You shall register all volunteer and paramilitary units and
16 their members and keep them under control in case you might need to
17 engage them."
18 Do you know that it was the intention of the minister and
19 General Djordjevic to illegally engage volunteers into the MUP?
20 A. Pursuant to the then law on the Internal Affairs, no volunteers
21 could be engaged in units that were under the command of the Ministry of
22 the Interior on any of the their organisational units. What is written
23 here in this dispatch that they should be kept under control and what the
24 exact intention of the minister were regarding this particular dispatch,
25 I cannot comment on that. As I said a short while ago, in my territory,
1 in the territory under my jurisdiction, there were no such units and
2 there was no need to keep them under control or to inform the ministry
3 about them.
4 Q. The question asked you about the purpose of the minister and
5 General Djordjevic in respect to the volunteers. I take it your answer
6 is, you don't know, having seen this. Can I ask you in respect to the
7 paramilitaries, did you know or were you aware that it was the intention
8 of the minister and General Djordjevic to engage paramilitary units,
9 people who usually came from the ranks of criminals, to quote your words,
10 into the MUP?
11 A. I am not sure how I could comment on this. This is the first
12 time that I have learned that there was any intention to engage such
13 units as members of the Ministry of the Interior. We never discussed
14 this at any of the meetings or during any of the conversations with the
15 generals and representatives of different professional lines at the
16 Ministry of the Interior.
17 Q. Were you aware of a meeting attended by General Djordjevic, the
18 minister, General Lukic, and the leaders of the police from Kosovo and
19 Metohija on the 17th of February, 1999?
20 A. I don't know what that meeting could have been all about, but
21 probably by the nature of things, I was not supposed to know about it.
22 Q. Well, if you recall the first document on this topic you were
23 shown, that is, General Djordjevic's dispatch of the 18th of February,
24 1999, it included the matters that were discussed at the meeting of the
25 17th of February. Did you know about this?
1 A. I can't recall that dispatch unless I'm reminded of it, but what
2 happened away from the territory of my secretariat, I had very little
3 knowledge on that, and I will gladly share with you those things that I
4 do remember.
5 Q. Yes, I understand that, but I'm mostly interested right now in
6 matters relating to Kosovo.
7 If we could move on. The Law on Internal Affairs remained in
8 force during the NATO intervention, did to not?
9 A. Yes. It remained in force and also the decree on the
10 Internal Affairs during a state of war was implemented. The one that was
11 adopted by the federal government, and if there were any colliding
12 provisions, then the decree was implemented.
13 Q. If we could just take things in chronological order or step by
14 step. There was also in force a decree on disciplinary responsibility.
15 MR. STAMP: This is P1049. Perhaps the witness could have a look
16 at it just to orient himself.
17 Q. This decree on disciplinary responsibility in the Ministry of the
18 Interior, that was also in force during the NATO intervention, was it?
19 A. Yes, this decree simply precised the provisions of the Law on
20 Internal Affairs.
21 MR. STAMP: Could we look at Article 8 of that decree.
22 Paragraph 2 of Article 8.
23 Q. This is in respect to proceedings for serious breaches, and in
24 paragraph 2 indicates that "... for serious breaches which constitute a
25 crime, disciplinary investigator shall interview the employee witnesses
1 and expert witnesses, collect the evidence, and investigate ex-officio
2 all circumstance of significance for the full determination of
3 responsibility." That was the -- or one of the operational provisions,
4 was it?
5 A. Absolutely.
6 Q. And the Article 9 provides that: "The immediate supervisor shall
7 report any serious breaches to the responsible officer."
8 And just so that we can be sure where we are, could we look at
9 Article 4 for who is the responsible officer. Chief of the secretariat,
10 chief of the administration, or other appropriate organisational unit at
11 the headquarters of the ministry. Those are the persons who would
12 institute the disciplinary proceedings?
13 A. Disciplinary proceedings were launched following a report which
14 was filed by the immediately superior officer. We have to distinguish
15 between two things. First of all a disciplinary report and a
16 disciplinary proceedings and issuing of disciplinary measures. In the
17 previous articles that we saw a short while ago, it was stipulated that
18 in case of a disciplinary offence which constituted a crime, you also had
19 a disciplinary investigator involved who would carry on the proceedings.
20 So if you had a major breach of working discipline without a
21 crime, then the proceedings would have been different, but always the
22 immediately superior person would file a report, that report would reach
23 the chief of the secretariat, and he would forward it to the disciplinary
24 court which decided on the case in the first instance.
25 And in this article which you presented to me, you can see that
1 it was possible to appeal, so both parties could appeal that court
2 decision. So the person against whom the disciplinary measure was
3 pronounced, and also the chief who filed this report, but it is important
4 to make this distinction, regardless of the fact whether there were
5 disciplinary proceedings and also criminal proceedings or not.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, we have just described the -- how criminal
7 proceedings would be instituted for serious breaches that constituted a
8 crime. Weren't the powers of the security organs, the MUP, expanded
9 during the war? In other words, weren't SUP chiefs or the responsible
10 officer that we see here given expanded powers to investigate crimes and
11 arrest and detain persons?
12 A. Here we have two issues. The decree on the Internal Affairs
13 during a state of war also regulated disciplinary responsibility of
14 employees, and it provided for more expanded powers, so following the
15 authorisation of the head of the unit given to the chiefs of territorial
16 organisational units, they could carry out proceedings for serious
17 breaches of discipline during a state of war, and they could also
18 pronounce appropriate measures.
19 The second issue is related to the law on the application of
20 criminal proceedings during a state of war. According to that law, on
21 the application of criminal proceedings, certain powers were also given
22 to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior so that during the state of
23 war, they could carry out some investigative activities without a
24 prosecutor. But they were obliged to report about any such investigative
25 activities that were undertaken, to report to the prosecutor in the
1 shortest possible period of time. So these were interviews with
2 witnesses, opening of letters, and similar actions.
3 Q. Yes, let's look at it quickly.
4 MR. STAMP: P200, please. This is a decree on implementation of
5 criminal procedure during the war. And if we could look at Article 6,
6 paragraphs 3 and 4.
7 Q. This, I think, confirms what you were saying. Paragraph 3
8 provides that:
9 "The organ of the interior may in urgent cases carry out
10 investigative activities even without the decision of the public or state
12 In other words, MUP officials could institute investigations and
13 were not hampered by the presence or absence of investigative judges or
14 prosecutors where urgency of the situation required it.
15 A. This is precisely what it means, but you have to understand the
16 conditions under which we worked. The bombs fell throughout the day.
17 There were many casualties. And prosecutors and investigative judges
18 were continuously carrying out crime scene investigations because of
19 different accidents. So under such circumstances, the organs of the
20 interior could not function. Possibly in certain areas they could, but
21 in certain areas they would not be able to function if they were to wait
22 for the prosecutor and investigative judge. Then all the traces would
23 have been lost, and it would be difficult to establish whether this was a
24 crime or a smaller offence, whether this was a general crime offence or
25 disruption of law and order, and so on.
1 So the organs of the interior had to be as efficient as possible
2 and for those reasons, as far as I know, such powers were given to them.
3 However, I can claim with full responsibility that in the territory that
4 was under jurisdiction of my secretariat, these powers were never abused.
5 Q. Yes --
6 A. And --
7 Q. Thanks. I am not claiming that you or anybody working under your
8 supervision abused powers. I'm just asking the operation or the intended
9 operation of the law. If could you look at paragraph 8 or Article 8 of
10 this. It also gives organs of the interior powers to detain persons.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And, in other words, the responsible officers of the interior
13 could or were empowered to launch their own investigations if they had
14 information about crimes being committed, and arrest and detain suspects?
15 A. I wouldn't define it with precisely those words. Members of the
16 Ministry of the Interior even previously had the powers, even before this
17 decree came into force, to arrest persons, interview them, and detain
18 them for a period of up to three days. So with this decree, the powers
19 were simply extended in terms of the time-limit, so now they could detain
20 them for up to 30 days, but it was in nobody's interest to detain
21 suspects for such a long period.
22 If I remember it well, somewhere in this law you can see that
23 they were obliged to immediately send them to carry out their sentences,
24 their penalties in the responsible detention institution.
25 Q. Thank you. And the next law you mention which is of interest to
1 us was the decree in respect to disciplinary measures.
2 MR. STAMP: If we could look at P1050. This is a 9th of April,
3 1999, letter by General Djordjevic. I said the next law I mention was
4 the decree in respect to disciplinary measures; I meant the decree on
5 Internal Affairs, which this dispatch from General Djordjevic deals with.
6 Can we look at page 2 in English. And I think it's also page 2
7 in the B/C/S. Top of the page in both documents.
8 Q. Now, just for the purposes of the record, can you read aloud, so
9 we could have an independent translation, the paragraph that states that
10 the chief of the department of public security has authorised the heads.
11 Do you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you read that aloud, please.
14 A. "The chief of public security sector has authorised the heads of
15 organisational units to impose prescribed measures and punishment for
16 major violations of employment obligations and duties. And this
17 authorisation is enclosed herewith."
18 Q. I ask you to read this because yesterday I think you said that he
19 authorised the heads of the territorial units, but this, I think you will
20 agree with me, referred to the heads of the organisational units.
21 A. I'm not sure that you understood this well. What I said
22 yesterday was true. He authorised the heads of organisational units.
23 The organisational units existed at the level of the Ministry of the
24 Interior, but there were also organisational territorial units, and these
25 were the secretariats. So the organisational units existed both at the
1 seat of the ministry and in the territory of the entire republic. So all
2 the heads were authorised starting from chiefs of administrations to
3 chiefs of secretariats which are territorial organisational units.
4 Q. Thank you. It must be my mistake. I thought yesterday you were
5 limiting this authorisation to the territorial units.
6 So he was authorising organisational units including the crime
7 police headed by General Ilic?
8 A. It says those in charge of organisational units, he had in mind
9 the chiefs of all administrations within the Ministry of the Interior.
10 Dragan Ilic, yes, absolutely.
11 Q. Isn't it fair to say from the authorisation here that
12 General Djordjevic was entitled to grant to the organisational units that
13 he was a professional police officer most responsible for the enforcement
14 of discipline in the MUP during the war?
15 A. The document we are looking at stemming from the decree on
16 Internal Affairs during a state of war provided certain authority to the
17 organs of the interior, and it had to be abided by. Someone signing this
18 dispatch, and later on we see a similar dispatch, signed by the chief of
19 joint affairs administration of the ministry, which was also forwarded to
20 all organisational units - I think we discussed that yesterday - is more
21 precise in terms of what the chief of the sector signed in this document.
22 By virtue of this decree, the chief of the sector had to address such a
23 document to all organisational units.
24 Q. But wouldn't you agree with me that by virtue of the decree, it
25 was invested in the chief of the public security sector the power and the
1 right to authorise the heads of organisational units to impose the
2 sentences? He was invested with that power, was he not?
3 A. Such an authorisation could have only come from the minister. As
4 to who he delegated the powers to see that implemented, that's no longer
5 an issue of mine.
6 Q. But you were given this document to comment upon earlier on when
7 you testified in chief, and you commented upon it on the basis that you
8 received it and you are aware of its meaning and purpose. It says
9 clearly here that:
10 "For serious violations of obligations and duty, the chief of the
11 ministry department or a person he authorises, shall impose measures and
12 punishments as proposed by the immediate superior." And that's
14 Then General Djordjevic goes on and issues his authorisation:
15 "The chief of the department of public security has authorised
16 the heads of organisational units to impose prescribed measures and
17 sentences ..."
18 Wouldn't you agree with me that General Djordjevic had the right
19 and the power to authorise the heads of the organisational units both in
22 A. As I said a moment ago, this was delegated pursuant to a decision
23 by the minister. Chief Djordjevic addressed the organisational units
24 forwarding to them the decision of the Government of Serbia. I can tell
25 you once again that this decree was practically not implemented during
1 the state of war. You won't find even two or three secretariats in which
2 at the time it was being implemented. I don't think there's any
3 reason --
4 Q. Mr. Pantelic, you are going way beyond the question I'm asking
5 you because -- and more. You are telling us thing that even you said you
6 didn't know. You don't know what is going on in Kosovo, you said that.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is it not fair to say that if you take the minister out of this
9 equation, and the minister is, I think we can agree with each other, the
10 person in charge of the ministry. Wouldn't you agree with me that
11 General Djordjevic was the highest professional officer in the MUP
12 charged with and responsible for the enforcement of discipline in the
14 A. According to this dispatch as it reads, I could agree with you
15 you. However, he delegated that responsibility to the chiefs of other
16 organisational units.
17 Q. Very well.
18 MR. STAMP: Your Honour, I think I have two more minutes, five
19 more minutes, but perhaps --
20 JUDGE PARKER: After the break, Mr. Stamp.
21 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the break now and resume at
23 20 minutes past 4.00.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- Recess taken at 3.52 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.21 p.m.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Stamp.
4 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Q. Mr. Pantelic, you said when you were here last time, or
6 yesterday, that to speak of a plan to expel the Kosovo Albanians was
7 absurd. I'd like to show you a video, just a small clip and ask you to
8 comment on it.
9 MR. STAMP: This is P1510, Your Honours, that we notified a
10 little bit late because of what the witness said in chief.
11 [Video-clip played]
12 MR. STAMP:
13 Q. So you would agree with me that it's not quite so absurd to
14 suggest. Or may I ask you this question, did you know that Mr. Seselj
15 made this speech shortly before the NATO intervention?
16 A. Mr. Seselj said many things. I don't recall these words
17 specifically, but I do know that he frequently appeared in the media
18 saying things which one wouldn't say are shared by all Serbs.
19 Q. Was he a member of the government at that time?
20 A. I think for a while he was a government official, but I don't
21 recall what year it was.
22 Q. Was there a deputy prime minister during 1999?
23 A. I can't say exactly.
24 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing
25 further to ask.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.
2 Mr. Popovic.
3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Briefly
4 before I embark upon my redirect which will last five minutes at the
5 most, I just wanted to point out this fact, the last video-clip we saw
6 was the fourth document shown to this witness which he had no occasion to
7 see during his proofing with the Defence. This is the fourth document
8 that was disclosed to the Defence in the course of this witness's
9 testimony. I don't think the Prosecutor showed more than seven or eight
10 documents during this witness's cross, out of which basically half of
11 that number were given to us during his testimony. I didn't want to
12 raise this issue before so as not to interrupt the testimony, but I think
13 this type of conduct on the part of the Prosecutor points to the
14 existence of a pattern. These were no longer individual instances.
15 I will now resume my redirect.
16 MR. Pantelic --
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic, before you pass quickly off the
18 point, part of the problem with this particular witness is that his
19 evidence was given viva voce. It was not given on the basis of a
20 prepared statement. For that reason, it is, I would suggest to you, not
21 easy to anticipate all that the witness may say in the course of his
23 I think you need to bear that in mind because if you think over
24 the evidence of the previous witnesses, it has not been a common
25 occurrence for a document to be used in cross-examination without proper
1 prior notification. There have been instances, those instances have, I
2 think, been less than was the case of the Defence when cross-examining
3 Prosecution witnesses. But this witness has this great difference that
4 much of his evidence is something that the Prosecution may not anticipate
5 in its particulars. Therefore, when it is heard what the witness says
6 about a particular matter or event, the need to use a document may
8 Now, I make that point so that you can put this into perspective.
9 That doesn't mean to say that we will not be alert to the need for
10 documents to be notified in the ordinary course, and if there is a
11 pattern of failure to observe that, the Chamber will certainly act. But
12 this occasion may not justify your comment that this is a pattern. Carry
13 on, please.
14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour. It is
15 precisely for this reason that I desisted from interjecting earlier. I
16 take your instructions into account fully.
17 Re-examination by Mr. Popovic:
18 Q. Mr. Pantelic, did Mr. Djordjevic or could Mr. Djordjevic make a
19 decision on the dispatching of Special Police units to the territory of
20 Kosovo and Metohija without a previous decision on engagement issued by
21 the minister of the interior?
22 A. To be as brief as possible, it was not possible.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see P1546 again.
25 Q. Mr. Pantelic, you have already been shown this document. It is a
1 notification from the Bor SUP
2 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please zoom in.
3 Q. I wanted to ask you to have a look at the last paragraph. It
5 "For the above-mentioned reasons, we propose to temporarily
6 remove the sergeant in question from the ministry until the end of
7 disciplinary proceedings, effective as of 23 March 1999."
8 Based on what we can read here, can we conclude that there was a
9 disciplinary procedure instituted against this person?
10 A. The decision that is made by the person in charge of the
11 organisational unit in organisational terms has nothing to do with the
12 initiation of a disciplinary procedure. In other words, one can have
13 simultaneously a disciplinary procedure underway as well as a suspension
14 of the worker in question.
15 Q. Thank you. So is this asking for an approval to have someone
17 A. Yes, such an approval is sought.
18 Q. Does this have anything to do with a disciplinary procedure and
19 have any disciplinary measures been taken by that time?
20 A. This is not related to the first issue.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we next please have P356.
23 Q. Mr. Pantelic, you had occasion to see a document in which the
24 minister in a way by dispatch sent instructions on the treatment of the
25 volunteers and paramilitary formations. This is a document dated
1 18 February 1999
2 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's look at item 7 which is on
3 the next page in both versions.
4 Q. Have a look at item 7. Does Mr. Djordjevic refer any engagement
5 of volunteers and paramilitary forces in that item?
6 A. It only states here that there should be checks carried out of
7 volunteers and paramilitary units. There is no mention of any
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
13 Questioned by the Court:
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sir, I have some questions for you. You were
15 just asked by counsel if it was possible to dispatch Special Police units
16 to Kosovo without the previous decision or engagement -- or an engagement
17 issued by the minister of the interior himself. And then you asked to be
18 as brief as possible; it was not possible. I appreciate that you wanted
19 to be very short, but could you explain that. What was the reason why
20 this was not possible?
21 A. First we should deal with legal regulation concerning the Law on
22 Ministries, and Law on State Administration, as well as the Law on the
23 Interior, which are the three principal pieces of legislation governing
24 our work. The only authority lies with the minister of the interior. He
25 is the person empowered to implement those three pieces of legislation.
1 He is a person elected into that position by the Serbian Assembly. All
2 other people were appointed.
3 The minister, however, can delegate certain of his powers to
4 other people. This doesn't need to be specifically a chief of one of the
5 sectors. It can be any of the assistant ministers or chiefs of
6 administrations. So in the context of your question concerning the
7 deployment of PJP units to carry out special security-related tasks in
8 the autonomous province of Kosovo, that decision had to be made by the
9 minister in keeping with the laws I just enumerated.
10 As for all the logistics sending away and reception of those
11 units, these were the tasks to be delegated to any number of persons
12 starting with the various chiefs of administrations, as well as deputy
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To avoid any misunderstandings, are you saying
15 that every decision made by any member of the Ministry of the Interior
16 must have been approved by the minister personally before this decision
17 was issued?
18 A. Such issues were regulated on the rules of work and functioning
19 of the Ministry of the Interior. Those rules specifically enumerate the
20 authority and scope of authority of persons in the seat of the ministry.
21 If, according to the rules, a sector chief was in charge of particular
22 issues, as a rule, the minister did not have to delegate all of his
23 authority to that chief.
24 The issues specified in the rules of the work of the ministry
25 could be applied by the minister in a way he saw fit. He could convey
1 specific aspects of his authority to another person.
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
3 Another question, I would like to take you back to yesterday,
4 your testimony of yesterday. You told us that the previous -- the former
5 minister, Sokolovic, head deputy minister, he was at the same time the
6 head of the public security. Who was the deputy of Mr. Stojiljkovic,
7 Minister Stojiljkovic?
8 A. As I said yesterday, it's not that the minister had assistants or
9 deputies, he had an assistant [as interpreted] minister who at the same
10 time was the chief of the public security sector. However, the principle
11 in place was different. Although, all laws and bylaws remained in power,
12 it depended much on the minister. At the time the minister delegated
13 many of his aspects of authority to the sector and along other
14 professional lines in the Ministry of the Interior.
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to stop you here. Perhaps you
16 misunderstood my question. I wanted to know who stood in for the
17 minister himself? Who was really his deputy of the Minister
18 Stojiljkovic? I'm not talking about assistant ministers.
19 A. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you asking me
20 about a deputy to Minister Stojiljkovic?
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Exactly.
22 A. Minister Stojiljkovic did not have a deputy. He had only
23 assistant ministers and chiefs of sectors, as well as chiefs in charge of
24 specific professional aspects or lines of work.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much. My last question, I would
1 like to know about the specific task, what was the duty of Stojan Misic
2 in April 1999 and the MUP. Which was his position?
3 A. Stojan Misic was the assistant minister of the interior directly
4 in charge of those professional aspects which had to do with border
5 affair, administrative affairs, resident aliens, state borders, weapons,
6 fire-fighting department, analyses and IT, as well as communications.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: And what was the position of Mr. Zekovic at that
8 time in April 1999?
9 A. Mr. Petar Zekovic was the chief the administration; he was also
10 an assistant minister, at the same time in charge of the administration
11 for general affairs. As such, he was in charge of providing
12 accommodation and food supplies for all the employees of the Ministry of
13 the Interior.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
15 And Mr. Djordjevic?
16 A. Mr. Djordjevic was assistant minister and the chief of the public
17 security sector.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Were all the three assistant ministers on the
19 same level, or were there any differences?
20 A. In the previous period there had been less assistants than there
21 are now. In essence an assistant minister is an assistant minister. If
22 a certain assistant is tasked with certain aspects of work, he is
23 answerable solely to the minister. Otherwise, it would have been
24 illogical for chiefs of administrations to be ...
25 Well, we had chiefs of administrations which were answerable for
1 their aspects of work. So as for the role of assistant ministers ...
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The last sentence was not complete.
3 A. I tried to say as follows: Why would there have been assistants
4 if there had already been chiefs of administrations in the Ministry of
5 the Interior. Petar Zekovic had already been an administration chief,
6 and at the same time he was assistant minister. Stojan Misic was also an
7 administration chief as well as assistant minister. The fact that he was
8 an assistant minister, it gave him a certain position. And now at the
9 top of the ministry there was a problem, since he was assistant minister
10 in the exercise of control and co-ordination of the lines of work he was
11 in charge with, was directly answerable to the minister.
12 I'm trying to say this, there is a great difference between the
13 rules of systematisation of the ministry and what was taking place in
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was one of the three assistant ministers we were
16 talking about subordinate or superior to one of the other of these three
17 assistant ministers?
18 A. In my opinion when assistants are concerned, they were all of the
19 same rank. In my opinion I say. As the chief of a territorial
20 organisational unit, that is to say the chief of the secretariat, I was
21 immediately answerable to the chief of the public security sector. As
22 for any relationships in the ministry itself, that's what needs to be
23 pondered upon.
24 It is my opinion that if we are discussing assistant ministers,
25 they are all directly linked to the minister himself.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: My last question. Did you ever work in the
2 Ministry of the Interior?
3 A. I am not sure whether you are referring to the seat of the
4 ministry. I never worked at the seat of the ministry. I started my
5 career at the Secretariat of the Interior in Valjevo, and I retired
6 following my own request on 30th of December 1991. I have a degree in
7 law, and this is why I was interested in the job systematisation.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you, I was not asking for that, but only if
9 you personally have been employed in the ministry itself and not in the
11 A. No, I never worked in the seat of the ministry as I just said. I
12 only worked in the territorial organisational unit.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
14 A. Thank you.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
17 Just one correction in page 35, line 1, in his answer the witness said
18 that the minister had a deputy who was at the same time chief of the
19 public security sector. So not the assistant but the deputy, and this is
20 what may have caused some confusion.
21 JUDGE PARKER: I think that was clarified as the questioning
23 That concludes the questioning for you. The Chamber would like
24 to thank you for your attendance here and for the assistance you've been
25 able to give. You are, of course, now free to return to your normal
1 activities, and a Court Officer will show you out. Thank you once again.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic.
5 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, our next witness will
6 be addressed by Mr. Djurdjic. This is witness 6D2, if I'm not mistaken.
7 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated] I take it, Mr. Djurdjic,
8 to go into private session?
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this witness is fully
10 covered by protective measures, so if we could kindly move into a private
12 [In english] Closed session.
13 JUDGE PARKER: We'll actually go into closed session,
14 Mr. Djurdjic.
15 [Closed session]
11 Pages 12180-12211 redacted. Closed session.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 3rd day of
25 March, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.