Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 14252

 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,

 6     please.

 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

17     you.

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

Page 14253

 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

 3     efficiently.

 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.  I passed my masters at the same faculty in 1975.

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

18     career.

19        A.   My career began in 1972 when I got a job at the Ministry of the

20     Interior of the Republic of Serbia.  I worked there for three years, and

21     then I moved to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Socialist Federal

22     Republic of Yugoslavia.  I worked as the chief of the department for

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.  At the same time, I also lectured at the

Page 14254

 1     university of Ljubljana as a form of co-operation between universities

 2     where I taught international relations and security.  And at the faculty

 3     of criminal sciences I taught the subject of security and international

 4     relations.

 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, and from 2004 I became the head of the

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?

Page 14255

 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 and

19     some other countries, from Asia and Africa, on the topic of the

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

Page 14256

 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, accrediting all the scientific research

 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,

21     please.

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 in

Page 14257

 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

 3     report.

 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

 7     Serbia in anti-terrorist activities in the period of 1998 and 1999,

 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

12     issues?

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

Page 14258

 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

 4     disposal.

 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.

Page 14259

 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

Page 14260

 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

Page 14261

 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

Page 14262

 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?

Page 14263

 1        A.   The work related to the security of the Republic of Serbia which

 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

22     competence.

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

Page 14264

 1     elected him?

 2        A.   The minister was elected -- or is elected by the National

 3     Assembly of the Republic of Serbia.  The minister is a member of the

 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

10     ministry?

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

21     regulations.

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

Page 14265

 1     report to be MFI'd at this stage.  But as I understood what you had to

 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

Page 14266

 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

10     Serbia was in this affair.

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

Page 14267

 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.

Page 14268

 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

17     groups.

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.  The secretariats

23     had their internal affairs departments and police units in the various

24     municipalities.

25        Q.   Did there exist subunits within the secretariats?

Page 14269

 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

 4     sector?

 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

20     Interior.

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

Page 14270

 1     department.

 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

Page 14271

 1     the SUPs in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and to carry out more

 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

Page 14272

 1     decision on the composition of the staff and leaders for the staff that

 2     is supposed to cover the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.  It was

 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,

12     please.

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

17     decision.

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,

Page 14273

 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

 8     terrorism.

 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

20     territory?

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 and was not responsible to the

Page 14274

 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

10     decision.

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 and Metohija using the

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

Page 14275

 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

 4     Operacije.

 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

Page 14276

 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.

Page 14277

 1             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed my

 2     examination-in-chief.

 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

Page 14278

 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.

Page 14279

 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.