1 Wednesday, 19 May 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We will have the witness in now,
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
9 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation that's
11 shown to you on the card now.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, I believe, has some questions for
18 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
19 morning to everyone.
20 WITNESS: RADOMIR MILASINOVIC
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 Examination by Mr. Djurdjic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] And, Mr. Milasinovic, good morning. Before we
24 begin our work, I'm going to ask you, as we speak the same language, to
25 wait for me to finish my question and then for you to make a small pause
1 before you begin answering so that all the services could do their job
2 properly and, thus, we will also do our job more quickly and more
4 Sir, could you please tell us something about yourself, your CV.
5 A. I'm Radomir Milasinovic. I was born on the 17th of March, 1948,
6 in Gornja Bukovica [Realtime transcript read in error "Lukovica"],
7 municipality of Savnik, the Republic of Montenegro
8 Q. Just for the transcript, it's Gornja Bukovica with a B, not with
9 an L.
10 Could you please tell us what your qualifications are.
11 A. In 1971 I completed the faculty of political sciences at the
12 university of Belgrade
13 In 1978 I got my doctorate, doctor's degree, at the same faculty.
14 Q. I'm making this break just for your information in order for the
15 transcript to pick up everything that we are saying, and I am kindly
16 asking you to speak more slowly, please.
17 Could you please tell us something about your professional
19 A. My career began in 1972 when I got a job at the Ministry of the
20 Interior of the Republic of Serbia
21 then I moved to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Socialist Federal
22 Republic of Yugoslavia
23 investigations, analysis, and information from 1983 until 1988. From
24 1988 I was working as a professor at the faculty of criminal sciences of
25 the university in Zagreb
1 university of Ljubljana
2 where I taught international relations and security. And at the faculty
3 of criminal sciences I taught the subject of security and international
5 From 1972 I've been working at the institute for criminological
6 and sociological investigations until 2001, and then in 1982 I became the
7 professor of international public law at the university in Pristina.
8 From 2001 onwards, I am a tenured professor of the faculty of security of
9 the university of Belgrade
10 department for security and the head of the institute for security.
11 Q. Thank you. Mr. Milasinovic, page 3, line 5, it says from 1972
12 until 2001 that you worked there; is that correct? You mean from 1992?
13 A. Yes, from 1992, when I was elected professor at the Pristina
14 university for international public law, and I worked there until 2002.
15 Q. Thank you. Thank you. This is just a correction because you had
16 said 1972.
17 A. I also worked at the police academy for three and a half years,
18 and I taught criminology.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D011-5715.
21 Q. All right. And now we are looking at a short biography, your CV
22 actually that we just looked at.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we give the
24 witness a hard copy of the documents that we will be using for our
25 examination-in-chief so that we can proceed more efficiently?
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, indeed.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. This is document number 1 in your binder. This is your CV, and
4 you know very well what it is. You don't have to look at it anymore.
5 But I would like to ask you to tell us a little bit more about your
6 professional and academic and educational activities as well as your
7 studies of the organisation and the functioning of the security system.
8 A. In the federal and the republican MUPs of Serbia and Yugoslavia
9 I was the chief of the department for investigation, analysis,
10 information; I also worked on scientific research, analysis, and data
11 processing, and we dealt with a lot of matters that had to do with
12 organisation functioning and the overall work of the organ of the
13 internal affairs both from the public security and the state security
14 area. The federal minister appointed me as the chief inspector for
15 republican and provincial organs of internal affairs, where we reviewed
16 the organisation, the work, the overall functioning of all professional
17 lines and activities of the organs of internal affairs.
18 I also lectured foreign delegations, delegations from China
19 some other countries, from Asia
20 organisation and the functioning and the work of the organs of internal
21 affairs. And as far as my scientific research is concerned, at the
22 institute for criminology and sociology, I was also involved in projects
23 focusing on the problems in the work of the organs of internal affairs
24 and in their activities to uncover and suppress all activities
25 threatening the activities of the state, and particularly the place and
1 the role of the MUP organs in combatting the criminal activities inside
2 and outside of the country.
3 I published a number of works in scientific research magazines on
4 my work. I participated in all congresses and consultations,
5 domestically and internationally, which dealt with the work of the organs
6 of internal affairs. I also edited some publications issued by the
7 organs of the Republic of Serbia
8 and educational programmes at the police academy, the faculty for
9 security, and the academy for security and diplomacy. I also did peer
10 reviews of textbooks from these institutions and also reviewed some
11 scientific research papers. And as chief of the department for security,
12 I am very involved and up-to-date on all topics that have to do with
13 security management, conflict resolution, theory of conflicts, the
14 aetiology and occurrences of endangering security and so on and so forth.
15 Q. Yes.
16 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
17 document into evidence, Your Honours, please.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
19 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00931, Your Honours.
20 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D009-0959,
22 Q. Mr. Milasinovic, the document is in tab 2 in your binder. We're
23 now looking at your expert report, sir. We can all see that, and its
24 titled: "The position and role of the chief of the public security
25 department in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia
1 anti-terrorist activities in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999."
2 Would you be able to tell us a little bit more about your expert
4 A. The Defence of General Vlastimir Djordjevic asked me to write an
5 expert report on the position and the role of the chief of the public
6 security department in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of
8 especially looking at anti-terrorist activities in Kosovo, especially
9 focusing on that. Also, I was given the task in the broader context of
10 explaining this function.
11 Q. Thank you. Are you able to tell us, how did you deal with these
13 A. On the basis of positive legal regulations and documents that I
14 had at my disposal and using my empirical knowledge, I approached the
15 drafting of this analysis with the idea of attempting to explain the most
16 relevant issues relating to the organisation and the functioning of the
17 organs of internal affairs, the place, and the role of the public
18 security department, and the particular place and role of the chief of
19 the public security department in the context of anti-terrorist
20 activities in the Ministry of Internal Affairs as it related to Kosovo
21 and Metohija in the period of 1998 and 1999.
22 Q. Thank you. Are you able to tell us about the structure of your
23 report and the methodology that you used?
24 A. As for the structure, first of all, I explained the jurisdiction
25 and the way the ministry is organised, their tasks, the management by the
1 ministry, then the status of the members of the MUP personnel with
2 special headings that deal with each of these issues. And in the end, I
3 gave my opinion or my findings dictated by the data that I had at my
5 As for the methodology, I used the general methodology and also
6 some specialised methodology which is usually used in scientific research
7 work. I used not only the methods used in social sciences, but also in
8 exact sciences. And I focused mostly on the method of analysis of the
9 context and also comparative analysis of the contents.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us, would you change anything in
11 your report?
12 A. No, I wouldn't change anything in the report.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this
15 document into evidence, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic, this appears to be a document which
17 in the end reaches opinions or findings of the witness about matters
18 which are directly in issue between the parties in this case and which
19 are the subject of detailed evidence and upon which the Chamber in the
20 end will have to reach its findings. As a matter of general expression,
21 the witness appears to have studied the same documents or by and large
22 the same documents that have been placed in evidence before the Chamber;
23 and based upon those and based upon what he says is his empirical
24 knowledge, he then reaches conclusions on some of the most central and
25 critical facts.
1 Now, is there not a problem with this document insofar as it does
2 that? Because what it is doing is directly encroaching on the task of
3 the Chamber.
4 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I do agree with
5 what you've said; however, the expert's task was not to adjudicate,
6 rather to provide his opinion based on the documentation presented to
7 him. He did not go into the examination of the numerous evidence we
8 have; that is the task of the Chamber. Based on what I understood, the
9 expert provided his opinion on the basis of the documents he reviewed and
10 the legislation and decrees. He analysed the jurisdiction, organisation,
11 and tasks of the MUP, placing within it the role of the chief of the
12 security department and analysed the role based also on the activities
13 performed by the chief in 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo. There can be no
14 expert report without an opinion of the expert being expressed within it.
15 Of course, the fact that the expert report is admitted into evidence does
16 not necessarily mean that the opinion based -- expressed therein will be
17 accepted as evidence. This is something that will be in the hands of the
18 Trial Chamber. The expert report will either assist the Trial Chamber in
19 their examination of the evidence or will not; in other words, the
20 Chamber will either accept the conclusions presented by the expert or
21 not. The idea was that within the legislative and regulatory framework
22 in the documents we have in the case file, the witness should provide his
23 opinion without going into what is the role of the Trial Chamber. He
24 didn't go into witness statements or anything like that, and I do agree
25 with what the -- Your Honour has said, that this is in fact more of a
1 presentation in the light of the regulatory aspect.
2 JUDGE PARKER: There are two issues perhaps, and your submissions
3 may have rolled them together as one, that is, whether the Chamber will
4 be assisted by somebody from his very impressive formal education and his
5 experience in understanding and assessing the regulatory framework which
6 governed the operation of the ministry.
7 As distinct from that, there is the question of whether the
8 witness, in following that task, has gone what we might say a step too
9 far for legal purposes and has come to findings which are findings which
10 are for this Chamber to make.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may have made the
12 mistake of proceeding from the idea of an expert report as it is
13 envisaged under the Yugoslav jurisdiction. An expert report is on the
14 same plain with all the other types of evidence, and it is up to the
15 Trial Chamber to decide whether to attach any value to it or not.
16 Now, pursuant to your decision rendered in relation to a
17 submission from the OTP, my understanding was that you did point to some
18 of the problematic issues existing in Mr. Milasinovic's report that the
19 Trial Chamber would be mindful of in rendering its adjudication. Because
20 in para 4 of that same decision, the Trial Chamber ruled that the expert
21 should appear as a witness and that he would be testifying based on his
22 report. If you believe that the expert's report encroaches upon the work
23 of the Trial Chamber, I am prepared to withdraw the expert witness, since
24 we do have a great deal of other evidence already in the case file.
25 JUDGE PARKER: While that may be very tempting, it's not
1 something we would want. On the contrary, we think we may well be very
2 much assisted by what somebody with the knowledge and experience of the
3 witness has to say. What I am saying is that this report not only
4 canvasses the material and helps to open it up to understanding, but goes
5 on to reach final conclusions or his words were "opinions or findings."
6 And I just mention that to indicate that it's in that area where as a
7 matter of legal procedure things may have gone too far.
8 Now, I don't want to waste time today. We would prefer to hear
9 the witness, but it may be that we should reflect upon this issue, and it
10 may be that parts of the report have the difficulty that I mentioned that
11 other parts do not, so that it could be that we could receive most or
12 some of the report. You will understand that the essence of our decision
13 was that there were a number of issues concerning the proposed evidence
14 of the witness, which meant that it was much more practical and proper
15 for the witness to give evidence orally so that some of these issues
16 could be ventilated and debated as the thing progressed.
17 What I'd suggest is that you proceed with your examination of the
18 witness. We would consider in due course whether the report in its
19 present form should be received or not, and in that regard we would value
20 also receiving any submissions that Mr. Stamp may wish to make, he may
21 prefer to make that during some later stage of the evidence of the
22 evidence rather than right now. I leave that to his consideration
23 because we don't want to interrupt your flow and waste time with the
24 witness here on this legal question that we're posing to you.
25 So can you proceed on that basis and understand that it may be
1 that there are one or two answers that are given orally by the witness
2 which we will come to see in the same category as this -- these pages
3 that are recalled the findings or opinions of the witness, and we may
4 deal with those specifically.
5 Is that guidance enough to assist you and to enable us to get on
6 with the evidence of the witness, Mr. Djurdjic?
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
8 reiterate that the mistake is mine because the structure of the report is
9 one that is used in my jurisdiction in Serbia. The report does indeed
10 have opinions and findings at the end, but they need not necessarily be
11 admitted with the rest of the report. We have an analysis which is an
12 objective presentation, and this should suffice for the Trial Chamber to
13 draw its legal findings. My questions will not be related to the
14 findings or will not elicit findings from the witness, but rather his
15 knowledge on the workings of the MUP in this period of time. And I will
16 not be asking for his legal opinion.
17 JUDGE PARKER: We overlapped. What I said was: And that's where
18 we will be assisted. So please carry on, Mr. Djurdjic, unless Mr. Stamp
19 wants to put something at this stage.
20 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honour, I won't interrupt.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, yes.
22 Please, Mr. Djurdjic.
23 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Professor, can you tell us what kind of work is done by the
25 internal affairs?
1 A. The work related to the security of the Republic of Serbia
2 fall under the state security sector as well as work on uncovering all
3 manner of activities which aim to undermine and disrupt the
4 constitutional order of the country, criminal offences, border
5 activities, protection of life and property of citizens and their
6 security. All of these tasks fall within the remit of the Ministry of
7 the Interior.
8 Q. Thank you. Can you give us the basic classification of the
9 affairs performed by the MUP?
10 A. The main basic division of work is to the public security sector
11 and the state security sector.
12 Q. Thank you. In the relevant period, that's to say 1998 and 1999,
13 who had the competence of dealing with the internal affairs in the
14 Republic of Serbia
15 A. It was the Ministry of the Interior which had that competence in
16 that period of time in Serbia
17 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us what exactly is the Ministry of the
18 Interior of Serbia
19 A. The MUP of Serbia is a government agency performing tasks
20 conferred upon it by the parliament, the government, and the president of
21 the republic, and of course, it performs activities falling within its
23 Q. In the relevant period, who was it who headed the MUP of Serbia?
24 A. It was the minister of the interior of Serbia.
25 Q. Thank you. Who selected the minister of the interior, who
1 elected him?
2 A. The minister was elected -- or is elected by the National
3 Assembly of the Republic of Serbia
4 government, and it represents the ministry and submits reports on the
5 ministry's work to the parliament and the government. The minister is
6 also charged with implementing laws and seeing to it that all the bylaws
7 relate governing the work and role of the MUP staff issued, and of course
8 his term of office is concurrent with that of the government.
9 Q. You said that the minister is an elected official in the
11 A. He is the only elected official of the ministry.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 What are the MUP minister's rights and obligations?
14 A. His rights and obligations include the following: He represents
15 the Ministry of the Interior, issues bylaws of general and specialised
16 nature governing the work of the MUP, organises the work of the MUP,
17 issues rules governing the work of the various organisational units
18 within the MUP, is responsible for the work of the MUP staff, and as the
19 only elected official of the MUP, he has the power to issue regulations
20 governing the organisation of the MUP bodies and to implement
22 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up P66.
23 Q. Which is tab 3 in the batch of documents you have.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my colleague,
25 Madam O'Leary, instructs me that perhaps we should ask for the expert
1 report to be MFI
2 say, we would be doing that at the end of the expert's testimony. What
3 am I to do? And of course I have to listen and hear out what my
4 colleague, Madam O'Leary, has to say.
5 JUDGE PARKER: The document you have indicated or you have moved
6 to be admitted into evidence, that motion is still alive. The Chamber
7 has said rather than rule on it now, we will hear at some time Mr. Stamp
8 and then reflect on that question, whether we will admit it, admit the
9 whole of it or perhaps not some part of it or what, that's to be
10 resolved. But it's there. We have it, and you have moved that it will
11 be admitted into evidence. You're greatly assisted by Ms. O'Leary, as
12 usual, but on this occasion, I would suggest that you can leave things as
13 they are.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. This piece of evidence is Law on Internal Affairs. Professor, I
16 should like to ask you this: Bearing in mind Article 6 of this law, in
17 what way was the MUP internally organised?
18 A. Pursuant to rules governing the internal organisation of MUP,
19 namely, rules governing the internal organisation of the public security
20 sector and rules governing the internal organisation of the state
21 security sector.
22 Q. Thank you. Tell me, these rules governing internal organisation
23 of the MUP, who issued them?
24 A. [No interpretation]
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the witness because
1 the speakers overlapped. Can he please repeat it.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And who issued these rules?
4 A. The minister of the interior.
5 JUDGE PARKER: There was one answer not heard, Mr. Djurdjic,
6 because you moved on, and your voice overlapped with the witness.
7 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Let me have a look.
8 Q. You said that the minister issued the rules. You also started
9 telling us what the competence of the Government of the Republic of
11 A. Yes, to give its consent.
12 Q. Please pause before answering my question, otherwise not
13 everything will be reflected in the transcript.
14 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up P357.
15 Q. Which is tab 5 in your binder. These are rules governing the
16 internal organisation of the MUP. This is the consolidated text of the
17 31st of December, 1996.
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1997.
19 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Professor, do these rules apply to all the organisational units
21 of the MUP?
22 A. No, not to all the organisational units of the MUP. The rules
23 apply to the protection of security and uncovering anti-constitutional
24 activities. The rules also state that specialised rules would be issued
25 governing the work of the state security sector; in other words, these
1 rules apply only to the public security sector.
2 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we call up Article 1.
3 Q. Which is page 3 in English and 2 in your version -- or rather,
4 page 3. What you just said, is it laid out in Article 1?
5 A. Article 1 of the rules governing the internal organisation of the
6 MUP dated the 5th of April, 1996, and it came into effect -- yes, those
7 are the rules.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up P1349, which is
10 in evidence.
11 Q. It's tab 8 in your binder, but you will see it on your screen.
12 There's no need for you to look at it there. These are rules governing
13 the internal organisation of the state security sector?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. A moment ago we heard that the other rules governed only the
16 internal organisation of the public security sector. Did there exist
17 rules governing the organisation of both sectors in the same manner in
18 this period of time?
19 A. No, there did not exist rules applying to both these sectors of
20 the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
21 Q. Thank you. And in what way were these two sectors linked in
22 organisational terms?
23 A. Well, solely via the MUP minister because there did not exist an
24 organisational body which would have been the intermediary between the
25 minister and these two sectors.
1 Q. Thank you. Let's go back to D357, rules governing the internal
2 organisation of the MUP. This is tab 5. Which organisational units have
3 been set out in these rules?
4 A. The public security sector units were laid out here, namely, the
5 ones located in the head office of the public security sector of the MUP
6 as well as the territorial units outside of the headquarters or the head
7 office of the MUP.
8 Q. Thank you. Can we now call up -- or rather, turn to page 9 of
9 the English version, Article 13 that is.
10 Can you tell us which organisational units of the ministry were
11 located in the headquarters?
12 A. The ten administrations and the operations centre were located in
13 the headquarters, which had within their competence crime prevention,
14 protection of life --
15 Q. Thank you, thank you. We can read this.
16 A. And the administrations consisted of departments, sectors, and
18 Q. Thank you. Tell us, which territorial units were there?
19 A. These were 33 secretariats of the internal affairs, and seven of
20 those were located in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija,
21 seven of those in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and the remainder
22 in the rest of the territory of the Republic of Serbia
23 had their internal affairs departments and police units in the various
25 Q. Did there exist subunits within the secretariats?
1 A. Yes. These organisational units were administrations which had
2 their departments, sectors, and groups.
3 Q. Thank you. We also had organisational units outside of the
5 A. That was the MUP high school, MUP associate degree school, the
6 MUP institute, and department for expert work and research.
7 Q. Thank you. These organisational units were set out in the rules
8 governing the internal organisation of the MUP, as we can see. In
9 addition to these organisational units, did the rules also envisage the
10 possibility for other special units, organisational units and groups, to
11 be set up?
12 A. The rules does indeed provide for the possibility of setting up
13 special units.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 Can we turn to page 6 in both versions, and I'm talking about the
16 rules governing internal organisation. This is Article 6. Can you tell
17 us who had the power of setting up these special, "Posebne," and
18 "Specijalne" units in the MUP?
19 A. And the rules, it was the power vested with the Ministry of the
21 Q. Thank you. This Article 6 of the rules on the internal
22 organisation of the MUP also cover the state security department?
23 A. No, because the state security department was organised pursuant
24 to a different book of rules and its organisational units were covered by
25 a different rule. This rule exclusively applied to the public security
2 Q. Thank you. We can see that in Article 10 of the rules, and this
3 is on page 8 of the English version, there is the possibility of
4 educating and -- of forming permanent and temporary staffs and working
5 groups. Can you please tell us which departments this applies to and
6 what are the specifics?
7 A. The minister of the interior, according to the rules, had the
8 possibility of forming special staffs or organisational units, groups,
9 commissions, and so on, which he could -- which could be set up by the
10 chief of the public security department and the chiefs of the
11 secretariats for internal affairs from the public security department.
12 These are the chiefs of the SUPs belonging to the public security
13 department according to the territorial form of organisation.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at D100, please.
16 Q. This should be a document in tab 9 in your binder, sir. We are
17 seeing the decision on the forming of the staff of the ministry in
18 Pristina dated the 15th of May, 1998, adopted by the assistant minister,
19 the chief of the public security department, Vlastimir Djordjevic. Can
20 you give us a brief analysis of this decision, please.
21 A. This staff was formed pursuant to a decision by the department of
22 the public security department pursuant to Article 10 of the rules of the
23 internal organisation, and the staff is formed in order to plan,
24 organise, direct, and co-ordinate the work of the secretariat of the
25 interior in the police -- in the border police stations, or rather, in
1 the SUPs in the territory of Kosovo
2 complex and important duties that relate to suppressing civil unrest,
3 terrorist acts, and so on and so forth.
4 Q. And these duties are part of what?
5 A. They are part of the duties of the public security department.
6 All members of this staff are from the public security department, and
7 they also comprise chief of the SUPs in Kosovo and Metohija.
8 Q. Thank you. Who is heading the staff?
9 A. The staff is headed by the chief of the public security
10 department, but he is always obliged to act pursuant to instructions of
11 the minister. And if he does form a staff, he's duty-bound to
12 immediately inform the minister of the interior about the establishment
13 of such a staff. The staff was responsible to the chief of the public
14 security department for its work.
15 Q. Thank you. Who was at the head of the staff which was formed by
16 the chief of the public security department?
17 A. The staff was headed by the chief of staff.
18 Q. Thank you. And how was the reporting established pursuant to
19 this decision?
20 A. This decision lays down that the Ministry of the Interior or the
21 public security department would have to be informed about all matters
22 pertaining to the area of work of the staff.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at now P760.
25 Q. And that is document in tab 10 in your binders. This is a
1 decision on the composition of the staff and leaders for the staff that
2 is supposed to cover the territory of Kosovo
3 formed -- issued by the RJB chief, Vlastimir Djordjevic, on the 11th of
4 June, 1998. Can you please briefly talk about the characteristics of
5 this document.
6 A. This document states the personnel composition of the broader and
7 the inner staff, and they are from the ranks of the public security
8 department. The staff is being formed by the chief of the public
9 security department --
10 Q. All right. Thank you. You've already told us that.
11 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at Exhibit P57,
13 Q. And this is in tab 11 in your binder, sir. This is a decision of
14 the 16th of June, 1998, on the forming of the staff of the ministry for
15 suppression of terrorism issued by the minister, Vlajko Stojiljkovic.
16 Could you please tell us what the legal basis is for the issuance of this
18 A. The legal basis for this decision is Article 7 of the Law on
19 Internal Affairs, which allows for the possibility of organising the
20 activities of the organs of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia
21 Q. Thank you. And in view of the organisation provided for by the
22 rules which refer to the public security and the state security
23 departments, was there a possibility that this staff for the suppression
24 of terrorism be formed in a different way?
25 A. There was no legal possibility of forming it in a different way,
1 and this is why the minister cited Article 7 of the Law on Internal
2 Affairs because in the regulations governing the work of the public and
3 state security department there is no article which would provide the
4 opportunity to form an intra-department staff, in view of the fact that
5 these are two different departments, and this would be an area -- or the
6 staff that would be an inter-departmental one because the staff was
7 dealing with this particular issue, and that is the suppression of
9 Q. Thank you. What are the characteristics of this decision issued
10 by the minister?
11 A. This decision is based on very characteristic legal grounds, and
12 then the composition of the inner and the broader staff includes members
13 of the public security department and the state security department, both
14 in its narrower and broader composition. Its broader composition that
15 included the chiefs of the secretariats of internal affairs and the
16 chiefs of the centres of the state security department in -- centres in
17 Kosovo and Metohija.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 A. And of course the activities exclusively related to the KiM
21 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us how the decision defines the
22 responsibility of the staff leader and the reporting back?
23 A. The responsibility is defined in such a way that the Chief of
24 Staff was directly responsible to the Ministry [as interpreted] of
25 Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia
1 public and state security department chiefs. And as far as informing and
2 reporting back is concerned, the minister of internal affairs was
3 supposed to be directly reported to, the minister of the internal affairs
4 of the Republic of Serbia
5 Q. Thank you.
6 Line 20 I would just like a correction, it says the ministry and
7 it actually should state the minister.
8 A. Yes, the minister.
9 Q. Can you please tell us how the tasks are defined in this
11 A. The decision defines the tasks in such a way that the staff
12 manages, organises, engages, directs, and executes, or rather, plans
13 anti-terrorist actions in the territory of Kosovo
14 regular forces as well as attached and formed units that both deal with
15 anti-terrorist activities in Kosovo and Metohija.
16 Q. Thank you. In the decision it says that they are supposed to
17 plan, organise, and control the work and the engagement of the
18 organisational units of the ministry in the KiM. Can you please tell us
19 which organisational units are those of the ministry in the KiM?
20 A. Those organisational units were the secretariats of internal
21 affairs and the centres, seven SUPs, and centres -- there were three
22 centres of the public security department, there were particular units --
23 Q. Just one moment. You said three centres of which department?
24 A. The state security department.
25 Q. Thank you. And now can you please tell us -- tell us, which are
1 the attached units or the sent units, what are those units?
2 A. These are special units, Posebna Jedenice Policije, SAJ,
3 Specijalne Antiteroristicke Jedinice, and the JSO, Jedinica za Specijalne
5 Q. Thank you. And which department did the JSO belong to?
6 A. The JSO belonged to the state security department and the SAJ
7 belonged to the public security department.
8 Q. Thank you. You said that this staff was an inter-departmental
9 one by its nature?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you please tell us then that whether the chief of the staff
12 for the suppression of terrorism could have been responsible both to the
13 minister and the chiefs of the departments?
14 A. The chief of the staff was responsible solely to the minister and
15 not to the public and state security departments, this was not possible.
16 Because the decision specified that the chief of the HQ would be
17 responsible for his work exclusively to the minister of the internal
18 affairs of the republic. And this arises from the fact that the chiefs
19 of the public and the state security departments could not issue
20 assignments and tasks to each other. And since there was no body between
21 the ministry, the minister, and the public security department, this was
22 laid down in this way in the decision in -- on the forming of the
23 ministry staff for the suppression of terrorism for the relevant period.
24 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us what the differences are
25 between the decision on the forming of the staff of the MUP in the KiM of
1 the 15th of May and the 12th [as interpreted] of June, 1998, which was
2 issued by the chief of the public security department and the decision on
3 the formation of the staff for the suppression of terrorism on the 16th
4 of June, which was adopted by -- which was issued by the minister of
5 internal affairs.
6 A. The differences are in the very legal basis on which they were
7 issued. The formation of the staff for the suppression of terrorism and
8 the staff that was organised by the chief of the public security
9 department are different by the nature of their work. The basis for one
10 is Article 10 of the rules on the organisation of the public security
11 department, and the other one has its legal basis in Article 7. And then
12 there are also differences in the composition of the department. The
13 public security department comprises of members from the public security
14 department, and the inter-departmental staff includes both public and
15 state security department officials. The responsibilities are also
16 linked in this way. The staff for the suppression of terrorism is
17 responsible to the minister, and the staff of the public security
18 department is responsible for its work to the chief of the public
19 security department.
20 Q. Thank you. I made a mistake, so can we make a correction on page
21 24 of the transcript, line 21. It should say of the 11th of June, 1998
22 and not the 12th of June, 1998.
23 A. The 12th --
24 Q. No, no, no, it's not for you, this particular thing.
25 Witness, thank you for answering my questions.
1 MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed my
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Djurdjic.
4 Mr. Stamp, it's a little early, but would it be more convenient
5 to have the first break now and commence and leave you an uninterrupted
6 session, or would you like to carry on now?
7 MR. STAMP: I was going to ask in the break if the
8 cross-examination could commence tomorrow. I must confess that I have
9 some difficulty with proceeding now, today, for a variety of personal
10 reasons, but I saw on the Defence notification -- on the Defence
11 notification that they had put down four hours. And I had --
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djurdjic is becoming much more responsive to
13 the needs of the Chamber, and we hope you too will follow his example.
14 MR. STAMP: Indeed --
15 JUDGE PARKER: But nevertheless, you would like not to continue
16 today, but to continue tomorrow?
17 MR. STAMP: Indeed, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: How long would you anticipate taking?
19 MR. STAMP: I don't think I will go beyond two sessions.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is asked to agree to adjourn today,
22 with a view to the evidence of the witness concluding tomorrow, after
23 Mr. Stamp has cross-examined for no more than two sessions, leaving the
24 remaining session for any re-examination by Mr. Djurdjic and for any
25 inquiries or questions of the Chamber. There are apparently personal
1 reasons which cause Mr. Stamp to make this request.
2 The Chamber bears in mind, of course, the convenience and
3 concerns of both parties and of the witness. Clearly, in the anticipated
4 timetable the witness may have been here until Friday; fortunately, it
5 appears that the -- both parties are agreed that less time is needed to
6 deal with the evidence of the witness than had been anticipated.
7 Mr. Djurdjic, instead of taking the whole of the day today, has finished
8 in less than one session, which is impressive. But of course that's to
9 do with the fact that the witness's evidence is clear, as we have heard
10 it so far, and he has set out the foundation for his reasons and
11 conclusions, both orally and in the written document, which we are to
12 consider in due course admitting into evidence.
13 Those circumstances suggest that it would not be disruptive of
14 the programme of the witness, nor of the due speed with which his
15 evidence is received, if we were to agree to Mr. Stamp's request on the
16 basis that he will have just two sessions tomorrow in which to conclude
17 his cross-examination and that the third session tomorrow will be one in
18 which Mr. Djurdjic could re-examine and the Chamber question, if
19 necessary. That ought to mean that the witness's evidence is concluded
20 tomorrow before the normal time of 1.45 in the day so that the witness
21 will be free to leave actually earlier than could have been anticipated
22 and the whole of the evidence of this witness will have been heard.
23 On that basis, Mr. Stamp, if you're happy with those clearly
24 defined time-limits of two sessions --
25 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour, I'm obliged to the Court.
1 JUDGE PARKER: -- we will agree to the adjournment of today and
2 we will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
3 I see, Professor, that you've been following what has been
4 discussed, and as we anticipated, this will not inconvenience you but it
5 will mean, I expect, that you can be confident of your evidence finishing
6 tomorrow, which may be to your advantage. And you will have the balance
7 of this morning to your own time. So we will on that basis adjourn now,
8 with a view to the trial continuing at 9.00 tomorrow morning. There will
9 be no more than the first two sessions devoted to the cross-examination
10 by Mr. Stamp tomorrow.
11 On that basis, we adjourn now to resume tomorrow at 9.00.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.20 a.m.
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of
14 May, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.