1 Tuesday, 12 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone.

6 [The witness entered court]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: A minor transcript point to start the day on the

8 first line, 12th of February perhaps.

9 Good morning, Mr. Sakic.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Your cross-examination by the Prosecutor will now

12 continue. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak the

13 truth continues to apply to your evidence today, as it did yesterday.

14 Mr. Stamp.

15 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

16 WITNESS: CEDOMIR SAKIC [Resumed]

17 [Witness answered through interpreter]

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp: [Continued]

19 Q. Good morning, sir. The two vehicles that you travelled to Kosovo

20 in, the two Puh vehicles, you called them, were they marked or unmarked

21 police vehicles?

22 A. These vehicles were blue. They also had rotating lights on them

23 and it didn't say "police."

24 Q. Wasn't there a danger at that time in travelling in a convoy of

25 this nature? Weren't NATO planes in the air?

1 A. Yes, and that's why -- can I actually provide an explanation?

2 Q. Go ahead.

3 A. That is why we were careful in terms of keeping our distance

4 during this transport. When there were woods, we went closer; through

5 towns we went closer to each other; and on open roads we kept a longer

6 distance, a distance between vehicles, that is.

7 Q. Is it correct that on the occasion that Protic travelled to Kosovo

8 with you in the same vehicle, you're in a Toyota motor vehicle, unmarked

9 Toyota motor vehicle? I will give you the licence number shortly. In any

10 case you were in an unmarked Toyota vehicle; is that correct?

11 A. No. May I explain that as well?

12 Q. No. You have said you were not -- you didn't travel in an

13 unmarked Toyota vehicle. Did an unmarked Toyota vehicle accompany at any

14 time on any of these trips to Kosovo?

15 A. No.

16 Q. I'd like to ask you some questions briefly about these places that

17 you mentioned. When you went to Janjevo did you meet the police who were

18 there?

19 A. Mr. Prosecutor, we came to the centre of Janjevo, that's where the

20 patrol was waiting for us, and they took over. I didn't get out of the

21 vehicle at all. Protic told me that he was going with them. He said that

22 through the window. He said that he was going with them and that we

23 should wait for him there.

24 Q. Very well. I just --

25 A. I didn't talk to that patrol at all.

1 Q. Very well. I just wanted to know precisely, you didn't meet or

2 speak with him. So you do not know the names of those police officers who

3 went for those bodies or went with Protic to get those corpses?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And that shipment, so to speak, you escorted it to Petrovo Selo in

6 the northern part of Serbia?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In respect to the other shipments of dead bodies that you

9 escorted, you left Mr. Protic with the cargo on the road; is that your

10 evidence?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You were given an assignment to escort Protic and his cargo and

13 you ceased escorting them before they reached the destination on those

14 occasions?

15 A. That's right.

16 Q. When you got your instructions to escort the corpses and Protic,

17 were you told where you would escort them to?

18 A. No, Mr. Prosecutor. I was told that on that day I would be

19 working with Mr. Protic and that I would receive further instructions from

20 him.

21 Q. Well, now you're taking it a little bit further because I think

22 I'm now hearing that you were told that you received instructions from

23 him. So you are saying you were told to escort Protic and his cargo and

24 Protic told you when to stop escorting him? I didn't hear your answer.

25 A. As for all further instructions, we gave them all from Protic once

1 he took us over or we took him over.

2 Q. Very well --

3 A. My task was only to escort him from point A to point B and nothing

4 else.

5 Q. So on one occasion he took you to the place where the bodies were

6 deposited, that was Petrovo Selo?

7 A. Yes, but not to the place where they were deposited. They went

8 over the hill. I didn't go all the way with them. We only came to the

9 gate and I stayed there. They went up there on their own and I don't know

10 what happened up there.

11 Q. Very well.

12 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I wonder if we could, with your leave,

13 go into private session because I saw from the document that when this

14 aspect was dealt with in the court in Serbia they went into private

15 session because names of senior individuals were mentioned. I assume that

16 they had reason to do it there, and to be quite frank, they didn't

17 actually go into private session, they just referred to people by numbers,

18 but it's impossible to do that here. So I would ask if we could go into

19 private session briefly.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: This is because you're going to refer to particular

21 names?

22 MR. STAMP: Yes.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: And what basis do you have for saying that by

24 conducting the evidence in public they will be exposed to any danger?

25 MR. STAMP: I believe that -- and my conclusion is based on what

1 happened in the record I'm seeing of the interview in Serbia, that he

2 referred to certain persons by numbers on a photograph. Now, I don't know

3 if it was because of a security reason, but I do recall that Mr. Protic

4 had -- on at least one occasion was asked about this particular place, had

5 said one of the reasons why he was afraid to name names was because

6 persons would know that he named their names.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're saying that the issue is the safety and

8 security of Protic rather than the individual that may be named?

9 MR. STAMP: Not the individuals who are named. It's the safety

10 and security of this witness and Protic.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, do you object to that course of action?

13 MR. LUKIC: I would leave this to Your Honours.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: This is a situation where we are satisfied there is

15 enough information to justify going into private session for the security

16 of persons who feature in this trial. However, should any party consider,

17 having heard the evidence, that it's inappropriate that the evidence

18 remains private, then it's open to that party to make a motion to us to

19 make the record of the evidence public.

20 We'll now go into private session.

21 [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by later order of the Chamber]

22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in private session, Your Honours.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Mr. Stamp.

25 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. When you gave your statement to the police, this was in respect to

2 an investigation of the mass grave at Petrovo Selo, that's your statement

3 in 2006.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And that is what they were investigating, they were investigating

6 the other mass graves, they were investigating your other trips and they

7 were investigating General Lukic's connection, if any?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Now --

10 MR. LUKIC: I think this might create some confusion because I

11 think it's obvious through the statement we received from the Prosecutor

12 yesterday --

13 MR. STAMP: Counsel is about to give evidence and --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, it's clearly a matter that you could

15 deal with in re-examination.

16 Mr. Stamp.

17 MR. STAMP:

18 Q. You went up to Petrovo Selo to a police training-ground which was

19 in the vicinity of a park?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Who were the policemen that you saw there that were involved in

22 the reception of this consignment?

23 A. I think that I knew one of them by his nickname, Djera. I was

24 shown some photographs. I think I recognised a person who had the number

25 8 and I cannot recall whether there was some other photographs too.

1 Q. The -- were you told the name of the person with the number 8?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. What name was that?

4 A. I cannot remember. I cannot remember. They showed it to me, but

5 I think that they wrote something down there that they knew, that is.

6 Q. The chief -- or did you know the chief of the gendarmery in Kosovo

7 at that time, Guri Radosavljevic or Goran Radosavljevic?

8 A. I heard of him, but I didn't know him personally.

9 Q. Do you know whether he was one of the persons that you identified

10 as being there?

11 A. I did not see him. Maybe he was there, but I didn't recognise

12 him. Later on I saw him on television when he became a general, but I

13 cannot remember him being there.

14 Q. Arsenijevic, did you --

15 A. Arsenijevic Milenko, if that's who we're talking about, I didn't

16 see him, because I know him because he worked with me.

17 Q. Did you see the chief of the Kladovo secretariat of the interior,

18 a man by the name of Sperlic, there?

19 A. Sperlic is the name, I saw him, but not when we got there, only

20 after about 20 minutes.

21 MR. STAMP: Very well. I think we can come out of private

22 session.

23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, with your leave.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: It's obvious now that there was no need for this

1 private session, so at this time we would object to have this part of the

2 witness's evidence in private session.

3 [Open session]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: To hear further argument on that I'm afraid we

5 would need to return to private session.

6 MR. STAMP: I have no objections, then, to --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: You're content --

8 MR. STAMP: Yes.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- this should be made public.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. The evidence --

11 MR. STAMP: He didn't --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: The evidence will be made public.

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. On the occasion you went to Kosovska Mitrovica where you went to

15 the lumber shed you said -- you spoke about a captain of police telling

16 you about bodies. What was the name of that captain?

17 A. No, I don't know the name. I think he worked in the Kosovo

18 police. I don't know his name exactly.

19 Q. Well, as a lieutenant of police at the time, now that you have

20 discovered for sure that you are involved in shipping bodies and you

21 thought it important enough to make a report, a written report about it,

22 you didn't get the name of the person who told you; is that your evidence?

23 A. Mr. Prosecutor, at that time I didn't have time to learn all the

24 details because the truck had already been loaded and Protic was about to

25 leave.

1 Q. Yes, but this was one of the situations, according to your

2 evidence, in which you had to wait around while they loaded bodies onto

3 the truck, so that was naturally an occasion where you would have been

4 standing around or sitting around for enough period of time for a

5 lieutenant of police to find out some basic things like who are the people

6 there. You did not -- you can name nobody who was there; is that your

7 evidence?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Earlier in your evidence yesterday you told us that you made a

10 note in your notebook on some trip you went to that Sperlic had taken a

11 spade from a van and put it in the truck --

12 MR. LUKIC: I misspoke this name yesterday several times, it's not

13 Sperlic; it's Protic.

14 MR. STAMP: Sorry, sorry. Thank you very much, counsel.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And you said that with a straight face.

16 MR. STAMP:

17 Q. You noted that Sper -- sorry, withdrawn.

18 You noted that Protic put a spade in his truck and you didn't

19 note -- as a police officer you didn't note who were the people involved

20 and who told you that they were involved in shipping dead bodies?

21 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Protic took a spade, when we were driving to

22 Pristina, the first trip, not Kosovska Mitrovica, that's when he took the

23 spade because there were two jeeps there, American made. And from one of

24 these jeeps he took a spade and he put it into his truck, the one that he

25 was driving, I think it was a Scania truck. As for the second truck that

1 had been parked there, he took the tools, the jack, and so on, and other

2 things that I could not remember, and I informed my superior officer about

3 that in my written report. What he did, I don't know.

4 Q. Yes. And you also thought it fit at that time to write down those

5 things in your notebook?

6 A. Yes, so that I could write a report to my superior.

7 Q. But you wrote a report to your superior about being told by senior

8 policemen or a senior policeman that these were dead bodies you were

9 carrying, and yet you didn't write in your report who was giving you that

10 information -- or in your notebook? Anyway, I withdraw the question.

11 Let's -- weren't there at that place, at that place in southern

12 Kosovo, Mitrovica, more than one, several policemen from Serbia engaged in

13 bringing and loading bodies?

14 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I claim with full responsibility here in this

15 place that there was no higher-ranking officer there from the MUP of

16 Serbia except for the captain who was providing security there and there

17 were three persons -- no, four persons in civilian clothing and about five

18 or six policemen -- I mean I thought that those civilians were policemen

19 too.

20 Q. Is it possible that the five or six persons in civilian clothes

21 might have been policemen that you didn't know?

22 A. I don't know. How could I know?

23 Q. Very well.

24 A. Well, it wasn't five or six. There were five or six in uniform

25 and four or five in civilian clothing.

1 Q. In the first instance you testified about, how long did it take

2 you to travel to -- I think it was -- let me see, the utility square in

3 Pijaca -- public utility company at the square in Pijaca. From your

4 departure point in Serbia to the public utility square where the truck was

5 picked up, how long did it take you to travel?

6 A. Mr. Prosecutor, we had set out around 1400 hours from Belgrade.

7 We came to a town called Blace, that's where we spent the night, I and

8 Mr. Stosic at Mr. Protic's house, and the other men spent the night at the

9 hotel. Protic took them to a hotel that was nearby, only about 200 metres

10 away. On the following morning --

11 Q. Are you speaking now about the first time you went to Kosovo with

12 Mr. Protic?

13 A. The first one.

14 Q. And I'm just asking you now from the departure point in Serbia

15 when you set out --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- for Kosovo, how long did the travel last?

18 A. To Kosovo and back you mean?

19 Q. Just to the place where you picked up the bodies, the square at

20 Pijaca?

21 A. Maybe about six hours, five to six.

22 Q. What time did you leave the departure point to get to Pijaca?

23 A. From Belgrade? From Belgrade, we set out at 1400 hours.

24 Q. What time did you arrive at Pijaca?

25 A. As I've already said, we spent the night in the town of Blace, and

1 in the morning at 6.30 we set out and we came there at around 8.30, that's

2 in the morning.

3 Q. And what time did you arrive at Velika Plana?

4 A. I can't recall exactly, but I think it was in the afternoon, maybe

5 sometime after 5.00 or 6.00.

6 Q. How long did it take you to travel there from Pijaca?

7 A. At around 5.00, we were not in any hurry.

8 Q. You said at around 5.00. You mean you left for Velika Plana --

9 sorry. I'll ask the question again.

10 How long did it take you to travel to Velika Plana from Pijaca?

11 A. Five hours.

12 Q. Did you stop?

13 A. No, because we had stopped for maybe a minute or two, for the

14 excavators to move away at the bridges that had been torn down. That was

15 at the place called Rudare.

16 Q. And that was the only delay to Velika Plana at Rudare?

17 A. Yes, just for the trucks to pass. We stopped there for as long as

18 it took them to move away and to enable us to pass.

19 Q. How about Rilindja, when you picked up bodies or picked up the

20 truck at the Rilindja parking lot, how long did it take you to travel from

21 Rilindja to Velika Plana?

22 A. Well, something like that too.

23 Q. Five hours.

24 A. Around five hours.

25 Q. What time did you arrive at Rilindja?

1 A. At around 1300 hours.

2 Q. Rilindja, you said, is on the outskirts of Pristina or is it in

3 Pristina itself?

4 A. I think that it is closer to the Caglavica-Kosovo Polje road, to

5 the junction there, I think it's closer to that spot than to Pijaca. It's

6 closer to the gas station where we had taken the turn than to the place

7 where we had gone earlier where the market, pijaca, was. But I can't

8 really say now because Prota would tell us, Go there, go somewhere else,

9 but I was not really all that familiar with Pristina at all so he would

10 just tell us where to go.

11 Q. You're obeying Prota? You were obeying the instructions of Prota,

12 I take it?

13 A. Yes, that's okay. That's right, that's right, yes.

14 Q. What time did you arrive in Velika --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, before you ask that -- what is Pijaca,

16 is that a place?

17 MR. STAMP: Pijaca.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Pijaca?

19 MR. STAMP: Pijaca is a place he said yesterday.

20 MR. LUKIC: It's a market-place in any city.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, that's what I'm understanding from the -- I

22 don't think it's a village name or a place name, it's the market-place, as

23 I -- It's coming over as pijaca in the Serb, which is obviously the same

24 word as --

25 MR. STAMP: Okay.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: -- in several languages.

2 MR. STAMP: I thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. What time did you arrive at Velika Plana from Rilindja?

4 A. Well, in the afternoon at around 5.00, 5.30 p.m., something like

5 that.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: We now -- oh, yeah, that's clear. Thank you.

7 MR. STAMP: May I just have a moment to check the record.

8 Q. You said you arrived at Velika Plana at 8.30 in the morning.

9 Yesterday you said you spent about 10 minutes there for Mr. Protic to pick

10 up the truck, so we're talking about approximately 8.40 in the morning.

11 You said it took you about five hours to travel from there to Velika

12 Plana, but you also said that you arrived at Velika Plana at about 6.30 in

13 the afternoon.

14 A. [No interpretation].

15 Q. If you had left -- if you had spent only ten minutes in the place

16 where you picked up the truck and travelled five hours without delay to

17 Velika Plana, you would be at Velika Plana at about 1.30. According to

18 what you are telling us, there are about four hours which are not

19 accounted for. How do you account for those four hours?

20 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I think that you're mixing up the first and the

21 second trip.

22 Q. No, I'm not.

23 A. In the first trip we arrived there at -- down there at around

24 8.00, 8.30 in Pristina and then we went to Velika Plana, it took us five

25 hours. In the second trip we headed out on the same day from Belgrade and

1 then we reached to Rilindja on the same day and back to Velika Plana, it

2 took us about 10 or 11 hours.

3 Q. But, Mr. Protic [sic], the question I asked you was quite

4 specific. How long did it take you from the public utility company

5 pijaca, which I called Pijaca -- sorry, Mr. Sakic, so sorry. And you told

6 us five to six hours you arrived there around 6.30 --

7 A. That's right. That's right.

8 Q. You also told us yesterday that you spent about ten minutes to

9 pick up the truck on that occasion and you told us this morning that you

10 arrived there at 8.30 in the morning. I suggest to you that those four

11 missing hours was --

12 A. Yeah.

13 Q. -- the time Protic used in Pristina to make his call, to make his

14 phone call from a land-line. Do you agree or disagree with that?

15 A. Mr. Prosecutor, please allow me to explain. I stand behind my

16 words.

17 Q. Very well.

18 A. Mr. Protic did not use land-lines to phone, that's first thing.

19 Second thing, we never spent more than ten minutes in Pristina. And the

20 first trip we arrived -- we headed out for Pristina at 9.00 and -- or from

21 Pristina at 9.00 and we arrived at Velika Plana at 1.00 or maybe 2.00

22 p.m., and it took us maybe one more hour to get to Belgrade from there, a

23 hundred kilometres.

24 Q. I think now you realize the significance of it, I'm asking about

25 the timing, you are telling us something entirely different in what time

1 you arrived at Velika Plana.

2 While you were in --

3 MR. LUKIC: Objection. The witness explained to the Prosecutor

4 that he makes two trips. If he wants further clarification he can get it

5 from the witness but he cannot draw the conclusions. He can pose the

6 question.

7 MR. STAMP: I think that's a matter for the Court from the record,

8 if I may move --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: The objection is that you're making a statement

10 rather than asking a question, so please ask a question.

11 MR. STAMP: Very well.

12 Q. On these trips that you made to Pristina and environs of Pristina,

13 is it your evidence that Mr. Protic was within your line of vision at all

14 times?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Can you --

17 A. Except at the last trip where he went with the local police into

18 the mountains, but at all other times he was with me.

19 Q. I'm asking you about -- I'm just interested in Pristina, because

20 it is my suggestion to you that it was at Pristina that he left you for a

21 few moments to make a phone call from a land-line. Do you agree or

22 disagree with that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. It was insecure at that time, I think you would agree with me, for

25 people engaged in military activities or any activity that they would want

1 to keep secret to use cell phones to communicate, was it not, during the

2 war?

3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, Mr. Protic never did talk, except to give our

4 location, over the mobile phone. He would just answer the questions

5 giving our location, as far as I could hear. I couldn't of course hear

6 what was being said at the other side.

7 Q. Well, you will agree with me that for sensitive or secret

8 operations the policy was to use land-lines?

9 A. I don't know about that.

10 Q. Well, didn't you tell us that when Protic made a call or used a

11 cell phone, you told him that he was going to give away your location?

12 A. Yes -- no, in fact, I told him, Why are you revealing our

13 location?

14 Q. Yes. So -- and you knew at that time in Kosovo there were

15 specific land-lines dedicated for the use of the forces, the armed forces,

16 the police and the armed forces?

17 A. All I knew was that there existed a special telephone line and

18 just the usual telephone lines. I wasn't aware of any other kinds of

19 phone lines, but that applied to the whole of Serbia.

20 Q. You retired -- to move on quickly, you retired in 2000 --

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Wasn't that early retirement?

23 A. It was a disability pension.

24 Q. I see. What sort of disability you had?

25 A. Well, I had some problems. I had been in an accident, and a

1 fungus moved in my eye, and also in my knee, the patella in my knee, had

2 to be -- I had surgery in my knee and I could no longer perform the job

3 that I had been in before.

4 Q. Police lieutenant, I've seen you walk in here, I've seen you look

5 at stuff. Do you have a problem walking or do you have a problem with

6 your eyes?

7 A. I have problems with my right eye, and as far as my left eye is

8 concerned, because of the strain, I'm also losing sight in that eye too.

9 I can see up close but not at a distance.

10 Q. And you have two apartments. When did you get ownership of your

11 apartments?

12 A. No, no, I don't have two apartments. I have an apartment in

13 Belgrade, 62 square metres; and I have a house in the village of

14 Vladimirovac, that's in the Alibunar municipality.

15 Q. When did you get your apartment in Belgrade?

16 A. Sometime in 1990 or thereabouts.

17 Q. And that is where you were, you said, when you saw Proto,

18 Mr. Protic, in 2005, you were outside your apartment?

19 A. Yes. In Nikolaja Gogolja Street, the house number is 38A.

20 Q. Now, I understand from your evidence, and if necessary I'll read

21 to you, that after the war you saw him then in 2005 outside your street,

22 outside your house, and he said to you -- and you said, Proto, is that

23 you? And he said, Yes, it's me, and then started an outburst against

24 Lukic --

25 A. That's right.

1 Q. -- saying that other drivers had gotten apartments, Lukic didn't

2 give him any, and he was going to testify against Lukic. Now, why is it

3 that this man would make this outburst to you in these circumstances if he

4 did not know that you knew, you all knew, that all of you were mixed up in

5 this transport of bodies? Why would he say that to you if you didn't know

6 about Lukic?

7 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I need to give you a longish answer to that

8 question. When I asked him how could he blame a man, I'm not trying to

9 defend Lukic or anyone, I'm just here to tell the truth. So I asked him

10 how could he blame a man whose name he never mentioned. He told me the

11 following. During the war he was the tenth violin, and from the year

12 2000, the 5th October, he was the first violin. And he said that he had

13 asked him for an apartment twice and he had not given it to him.

14 Q. And that is your explanation for this outburst to you?

15 A. That's what I heard from him.

16 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, thank you very much. I have nothing

17 further for this witness.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sakic, what was the significance of the 5th of

19 October, 2000?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This date is significant because

21 the democratic forces won in the Republic of Serbia, and there was a

22 change in the government.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, re-examination?

24 MR. LUKIC: Very briefly, Your Honour. Thank you.

25 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

1 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sakic.

2 A. Good morning.

3 Q. In the cross-examination we heard that you were the ranking

4 officer at that trip. Were you able to influence the course of this trip

5 in your capacity as the escort?

6 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I was not in the position to

7 influence it because Mr. Protic was my superior de facto. This actually

8 went contrary to some of interpersonal relations because I was an officer

9 and he was a policeman. But let me add, he was a trusted person of the

10 person who had actually issued the orders.

11 Q. And is it also true or is it true, was he actually the person

12 responsible for the task and you were just the escort?

13 A. Yes. It was my task to provide security and escort to him.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Who do you say he was the trusted person of?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, whoever it was that issued the

16 task to him, because he knew where he was going and what he was doing, and

17 he would just show us where to go by switching on the indicator, you

18 should turn left here, right there, and so on.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sakic, that was a rather specific

20 statement: "He was a trusted person of the person who had actually issued

21 the orders ...", which sounded at first as if you knew who it was who

22 issued the orders. Who was that person?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who gave him the

24 orders, but he had his superior officers who issued his orders and I had

25 my superiors. Our units were separate units, and I was only providing

1 escort. But it appeared that whoever issued orders to him did not trust

2 me as the person who was in charge, who was in a position of -- in a

3 managerial position.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Until now I had understood that you acted as you

5 did because you had been instructed by your superior to do so.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My superior officer told me, You are

7 to provide security to Bozidar Protic today, and he will give you further

8 instructions.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: And who gave you your instructions?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commander of my unit, Colonel

11 Mladen Sipovac.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: And that was the case on each of the four

13 occasions?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All four times.

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sakic, what did you know about the previous

17 duties of Protic prior to your first trip with him?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew that he was a driver in the

19 joint affairs administration and I knew that there were another six or

20 seven drivers including Protic. I knew nothing more about him or them. I

21 only knew what I knew about him when I travelled with him and nothing

22 else.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you learn from him who he had driven in that

24 role, who of importance he had driven?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't know. Perhaps he would

1 drive occasionally all of the senior officers in MUP, but I didn't really

2 know about that. He mostly drove trucks.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: What did you know about his background in the

4 police that led you to the view that he was a trusted person of whoever

5 was giving directions on this occasion?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that his father was in

7 police -- at least he said something to that effect. So that's probably

8 why his superiors trusted him.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You travelled very close to him on four occasions

10 over significant distances when communications took place between him and

11 someone else, you stayed in his house, and you say that you still did not

12 get any information to help you identify who he had spoken to?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was twice in his house. I

14 stayed once overnight and on the second occasion I stayed outside of the

15 house, had coffee there. I don't know who he talked to. All I know is

16 that he said to me that he had talked on a mobile phone with Rodja.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: When did he say that to you?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He told me that in Pristina when we

19 arrived in Pristina on the first trip at the market-place, that pijaca,

20 because he was in the car behind me and I asked him. He avoided to

21 answer. He was probably looking for an opportunity where the two of us

22 would be alone.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this the first reference you've made in your

24 evidence yesterday and today to Rodja?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned him yesterday and I have

1 mentioned him today as well. In the first trip and in the second trip he

2 spoke twice on a mobile with somebody, and when I asked him about it, both

3 times he answered that that was Rodja and that that was how he

4 communicated with him.

5 MR. LUKIC: If I may be of the assistance, Your Honour --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: -- I'll give you the line. Usually he mentioned the

8 last name of this person but he -- and he would mention either the last

9 name or the full name of this person.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give me a reference?

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes, it's page 22.082, line 13, and on other places as

12 well.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yours has been updated; mine has not. And how many

14 pages into yesterday's evidence was that, roughly?

15 MR. LUKIC: Give us one second, please. Approximately the 58th

16 page.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's even the previous witness, I'm afraid,

18 Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. STAMP: I don't know if I might be of assistance.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

21 MR. STAMP: I think if you --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

23 MR. STAMP: -- did a WordWheel search for the word "behind," you

24 would find it.

25 MR. LUKIC: It's actually the 68th page, Your Honour, and it's

1 line 25 now in the un-updated version.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sakic, why is it that you do not think that the

3 person who trusted him was Djordjevic?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I didn't hear that

5 and I can't tell you something that I didn't hear, didn't see.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

7 Mr. Lukic.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. [Interpretation] My learned friend from the Prosecution asked you

10 whether you were interrogated about Petrovo Selo when you were questioned

11 at the police in Belgrade, and I will ask you this: On this occasion did

12 you explain, did you tell them about all of these four trips to Kosovo?

13 A. Just as I have explained to you today and yesterday, that's

14 exactly what I did there with them.

15 Q. According to your recollection, did you say to them exactly the

16 same thing you said to us today?

17 A. I think so.

18 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions for you.

19 A. You're welcome.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you also mention Djordjevic in your statement

21 to the police in Belgrade?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, without knowing that I would

23 come here to the Tribunal to testify.

24 [Trial Chamber confers]

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Sakic, that completes your evidence here.

1 Thank you for coming to give evidence. You may leave the courtroom with

2 the usher.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, your next witness.

6 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, our next witness is Mr. Miroslav

7 Mijatovic.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Mijatovic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to everyone in the

12 courtroom.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to

14 speak the truth by reading aloud the document now shown to you.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: You will now be examined by Mr. Lukic.

20 Mr. Lukic.

21 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, we have binders prepared for this witness

22 the same way for the last one with clear documents, so if we could get

23 some assistance from the usher and hand this to Mr. Mijatovic.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 WITNESS: MIROSLAV MIJATOVIC

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 Examination by Mr. Lukic:

3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Mijatovic.

4 A. Good morning.

5 Q. Can we commence?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. We have your written statement as part of your evidence and we

8 have your personal details and career details in that statement, but I

9 would still ask you to introduce yourself to us.

10 A. I am Miroslav Mijatovic, born on the 2nd of November, 1951, in the

11 village of Baijevac, Obrenovac municipality, and that municipality belongs

12 to the territory of the city of Belgrade.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 A. I started working at the police on the 1st of July, 1971, after

15 completing secondary police school which lasted for four years, and I

16 remained in the police force until I retired on the 31st of December,

17 2004.

18 Q. Thank you. In your statement, I'm just going to give this by way

19 of a brief introduction so that we can understand the rest of your

20 evidence, but the security situation in Kosovo and Metohija started

21 becoming more complex in 1981, Albanians started leaving police force in

22 1990, as a result of which there was a shortage of policemen in Kosovo and

23 Metohija. When did the situation in Kosovo and Metohija become extremely

24 complex?

25 A. Starting in 1991 until 1997, we can say that that was a lull. The

1 situation was somewhat calmer, but there was a danger of excessive

2 situations arising on a daily basis. And then in 1997 the incidents of

3 terrorism stepped up, became a daily occurrence basically. So that

4 starting from that, time based on the information I have, there were 134

5 terrorist attacks in which 39 people were killed. That was in 1997.

6 And then in 1998 there was an expansion in terrorism in Kosovo and

7 Metohija, and by way of illustration there were 2.010 terrorist attacks in

8 which 328 persons were killed, if I remember the figures correctly, give

9 or take two or three. Out of the 328 persons, 118 were policemen and

10 additional 16 were kidnapped, which means that in comparison with the

11 preceding seven years, the incidents of terrorist attacks increased by

12 50-fold, 1500 per cent and that was an increase -- and in terms of the

13 persons killed, the number increased nine-fold, which is 903 per cent, and

14 that briefly illustrates the situation in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and

15 explains the reasons for that situation.

16 Q. I'm not dissatisfied with your answer, I'm just waiting for the

17 interpretation to be completed and for the transcript as well, that's why

18 I'm making a pause.

19 A. All right.

20 Q. I'd like to ask you something about the composition of the staff,

21 that was a topic that interested both the Prosecution and the Chamber

22 yesterday. When was the last time you were sent to Kosovo and Metohija?

23 A. I was sent there last time in mid-July 1998.

24 Q. What were the tasks that you performed during your last stay in

25 Kosovo and Metohija?

1 A. I was deputy commander of the staff of the MUP of the Republic of

2 Serbia, deputy head of staff.

3 Q. When did your post terminate in Kosovo and Metohija?

4 A. On the 31st of May, 1999.

5 Q. Who signed the decision sending you to Kosovo and Metohija?

6 A. Chief of the public security sector, General Djordjevic.

7 Q. Under whose orders people came to the staff of MUP?

8 A. All members of the staff came there pursuant to the orders of the

9 senior officers of the ministry.

10 Q. As for the composition of the MUP staff in Kosovo and Metohija,

11 did it change in 1998 and 1999?

12 A. Yes. Members of the staff changed.

13 Q. Could head of the MUP staff affect that, influence that?

14 A. No, no influence whatsoever because the decisions on sending

15 people there were made either by the minister or heads of various sectors.

16 Q. Could anybody else from the staff affect or influence the

17 composition of the staff?

18 A. No, nobody else whatsoever.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean that when you're deciding who's the

20 best man for the job down there you don't take account of the views of the

21 people on the ground?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no way we could decide on

23 that.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but are you saying that the --

25 those in Belgrade with responsibility for determining who should be in the

1 staff in Kosovo would not consult the top brass in the staff in Kosovo

2 before making an appointment?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to tell you

4 whether they consulted anyone. I know that they didn't.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I don't understand that answer in the

6 English translation. Could you give me it again, please.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. What I'm saying is whether

8 they had any need to consult anyone and whether they consulted anyone

9 else. All I know is that they did not consult me.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: No, but you're -- you're saying that it's not

11 possible for someone who is in the staff, in particular the head of the

12 staff, in Kosovo to have any influence on who's appointed there; and that

13 seems very strange to me just from a common-sense point of view, that you

14 would have such a system, you might send a man totally unsuited for the

15 terrorist environment down to deal with terrorism because you hadn't, as a

16 manager in Belgrade, checked up on what the particular issue of the moment

17 was. And is that -- are you saying that's how things operated, there was

18 no consultation?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling you once again, nobody

20 consulted me about who should be sent by the leaders of the ministry down

21 to Kosovo and Metohija. It was up to them to decide that. Now, as to

22 whether they consulted anyone else on that issue, I really don't know

23 about that. As for the staff, staff was unable to make a decision as to

24 who was going to be the member of the staff. None of the staff members

25 could do that.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand -- that's easy to understand, but it's

2 the idea that the head would have no influence at all on who might be

3 appointed to his staff. That seems strange.

4 However, let's proceed, Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 [Interpretation] Could we please have P1505 in e-court now. We

7 see this on our screens now, a decision on the establishment of a

8 ministerial staff for the suppression of terrorism, 16th of June, 1998, is

9 the date.

10 Q. It's a bit difficult to follow this on the screen so we have

11 prepared the document so that you could have it in front of you. So let's

12 go through this name by name and could you tell us who the members of the

13 staff were from this list -- or can you tell us in your day, let's deal

14 with it that way, who were members of the staff?

15 A. In my day, to the best of my recollection, because that's not

16 stated in the decision, in addition to General Sreten Lukic it was myself,

17 then it was Dusko Adamovic, Goran Radosavljevic, Novica Zdravkovic,

18 Desimir Slovic, Radovan Vucurevic. I don't know if I remembered everyone

19 but I think that's it -- oh, yes, Milan Dzankovic. Dobrasin Krdzic and

20 Mike Rajcic. I think I've mentioned all of them now.

21 Q. Thank you. Now I would just like to go back to some of them. Do

22 you know when Goran Radosavljevic was no longer on the staff?

23 A. As far as I know he was no longer on the staff from the same day

24 when I was no longer on the staff, namely, from the 31st of May, 1999.

25 Q. That is Exhibit 6D1045, not to open it again now. It is a

1 decision on the secession of the appointment of Goran Radosavljevic. Do

2 you know when Novica Zdravkovic was no longer on the staff?

3 A. I think sometime in mid-February 1999, I think it was the 15th of

4 February, around then.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Defence Exhibit 6D1047.

7 Q. Do you know when Radovan Vucurevic was no longer on the staff?

8 A. Yes, that was terminated on --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, we've now lost P1505. Was that your

10 intention, that we should be looking at something else? I thought you

11 were avoiding opening these other exhibits.

12 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, I'm avoiding opening the other documents.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So let's go back to P1505, thank you.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, Mr. Mijatovic, I interrupted your answer.

16 You were being asked when Radovan Vucurevic's appointment was terminated.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Radovan Vucurevic was no longer on

18 the staff from the 1st of April, 1999.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].

20 Q. What about Dusko Adamovic?

21 A. The first date -- the same date, the 1st of April, 1999.

22 Q. I'd just like to go back for a second once again. Radovan

23 Vucurevic, 6D1049, that's the decision on the termination of his

24 appointment and we don't need to have it open now.

25 We still have to deal with Desimir Slovic. When was he no longer

1 on the staff?

2 A. Also as of the 1st of April, 1999.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: What was his position?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were members of the staff.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: According to the document in front of us, though,

7 each member of the staff had a particular responsibility. What was the

8 responsibility of Slovic?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was involved in analytical

10 affairs on the staff.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: One of the names on the document in front of us is

12 Dinovic --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Djinovic.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, Djinovic. Who held his position in the time

15 you were there?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Djinovic was not on the staff when I

17 came there, and I do not remember in terms of decisions what duty he had

18 on the staff. I think that he was the deputy there, but I'm not sure.

19 There is a decision, as far as I can remember, on this but I'm not sure

20 right now. I think he was the deputy.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: When you were there, who was the assistant head for

22 interventions and operational planning?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, I see it now. I didn't pay

24 attention to it. Yes. Now I see it, that Radislav Djinovic was assistant

25 head for interventions and operational planning as of the 16th of June,

1 1998, that's the decision. However, when I got there, I didn't find him

2 there. I cannot say specifically who it was that replaced him because

3 work was done differently on the staff. There are other staff members

4 here mentioned in the decision who were not there at the time when I

5 arrived. I know that Adamovic was in charge of operational matters and

6 that Radosavljevic was involved in training and equipping units, and of

7 course Dusko helped with that, but Dusko was mainly in charge of

8 operational matters.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: So even the ones who are recorded on this list may

10 have been doing different jobs by the time you were appointed?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Individuals were not there

12 at all.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: But, for example, Radosavljevic here is said to be

14 the assistant head for police units, but you say he did a different job

15 related to training.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, sorry, I do apologise, he's

17 here towards the bottom here. I was looking at Djinovic. Oh, yes, yes,

18 but he did work on training and equipment.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

20 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, now I would like to talk about

22 people who were not members of the staff and who were nevertheless on the

23 list of persons who are listed here as members of the staff in this

24 decision. First of all I'd like to ask you about the following. We see

25 in this decision that the deputy head of staff is David Gajic, that is

1 what is written here. Was Mr. Gajic a member of the staff while you were

2 on the staff?

3 A. That's what this decision states; however, throughout my stay

4 there David Gajic was not a member of the staff at all, or rather, he did

5 not do any work within the staff.

6 Q. In relation to this --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, just a moment. The decision doesn't say

8 what the position was when Mr. Mijatovic arrived. He was not appointed,

9 according to the evidence so far, until mid-July 1998.

10 MR. LUKIC: I'm asking him during his tenure whether he ever --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but the answer's he's just given was -- your

12 question: Was Mr. Gajic a member when you were on the staff, and his

13 answer is: That's what this decision states, but it doesn't state. The

14 rest of the answer is fine for our purposes, but it's important the

15 witness understands that this is a decision that relates to a period a

16 month before he was appointed.

17 MR. LUKIC: Actually, it was my mistake, probably inartfully posed

18 the question. I will be more precise in future. May I continue?

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, please.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. In relation to the activities of Mr. Gajic, there is a Defence

22 Exhibit, 6D302, we are not going to call it up now. I would just like to

23 state that for the record. I would like to ask Mr. Mijatovic the

24 following: Who replaced Mr. Gajic in Kosovo?

25 A. I was sent to the staff of the Ministry of the Interior in

1 Pristina. I told you already, I think it was the 15th of July when I

2 arrived down there. I did not see Gajic on the staff, and I don't know

3 whether I was the one who replaced him. At any rate, I was appointed

4 deputy head of the staff, and he did not hand over any duty to me. I did

5 see him in Kosovo, but I don't know whether he ever did anything on the

6 staff.

7 Q. Thank you. Once again, my mistake. I meant who replaced

8 Mr. Gajic in terms of the office he held in the state security sector in

9 Kosovo.

10 A. Gajic was replaced by Milisav Vilotic.

11 Q. In relation to Mr. Vilotic, there is a Defence exhibit, 6D303, and

12 I would like to ask you, Mr. Mijatovic, whether Mr. Vilotic while you were

13 in Kosovo was a member of the MUP staff.

14 A. No.

15 Q. Here in this decision we see on page 1 the fourth person mentioned

16 as a member of the staff is Milorad Lukovic, better known as Legija. Was

17 Milorad Lukovic a member of the staff while you were on the staff?

18 A. No, he was not. Milorad Lukovic, Legija, was not a member of the

19 staff while I was on the staff. I did see him perhaps once or twice, I

20 cannot say for sure, when he came to attend some meetings that were

21 chaired by the minister, but that he was a member of the staff, no.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. LUKIC: I should move slightly to another topic, so is it the

24 appropriate time for the break, Your Honour?

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, we have to have a break at this

1 stage for a half an hour; while we have that break, would you please leave

2 the courtroom with the usher.

3 [The witness stands down]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall resume at 11.15.

5 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

6 --- On resuming at 11.16 a.m.

7 [The witness takes the stand]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, my colleague Mr. Ogrizovic from

11 our team reminded me that I omitted a procedural matter. Can you find the

12 written statement there that is 6D1492. Can you find it there? I think

13 it was outside the binder.

14 A. Yes, I found it, 6D1492.

15 Q. Is that your statement?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If you were to be asked the same questions today, would you say

18 the same things?

19 A. Yes, I would.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender Mr. Mijatovic's

22 statement, the one that is 6D1492.

23 Let's move on now.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, before you do, just give us a moment. The

25 copy I have, Mr. Lukic, has two page 4, and they are a little different.

1 The problem surrounds paragraphs 9 and 10 I think.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I know when I first received the

3 statement, the English version, I think it was paragraph 6 was in B/C/S.

4 I brought that to the attention of the Defence counsel and then I was

5 provided with a copy with paragraph 6 with the English translation. But

6 the English was one or two lines longer than the B/C/S, so I think that

7 changed the page sequence of the following documents. So that may be what

8 you're seeing.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: So if we take out the original page which had

10 paragraph 6 in B/C/S, then it should be okay, should it?

11 MR. HANNIS: Well, not necessarily.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't work.

13 MR. HANNIS: Because it doesn't match up, yeah.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. But the other paragraphs are identical, are

15 they, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11?

16 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I think it was only changing that B/C/S

17 paragraph to English. Everything else remained the same as far as I could

18 see.

19 MR. LUKIC: In e-court it's final version, so I think that it's

20 fine in the e-court.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: You take no objection to this statement,

22 Mr. Hannis?

23 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: We may have some difficulty, Mr. Lukic, with parts

25 of paragraph 28, the references to Racak, because the trouble with these

1 statements, although they're -- relate to the alleged bias of General DZ,

2 determining whether they amount to bias could involve determining the

3 rights and wrongs of what happened in Racak. But since there's no

4 objection, we will admit the statement as it is, but bear in mind that

5 that part in particular may have little relevance for the issues in the

6 case.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: I also in this copy, but it may be the position is

9 now different in the final version.

10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We'll admit the statement, Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. [Interpretation] We can continue, Mr. Mijatovic.

14 A. Yes, certainly.

15 Q. Would you be so kind and describe to us in a few sentences the

16 relationship between the state security sector and public security sector?

17 A. Both the public security and state security sectors at that time

18 existed within one single ministry, the ministry of the interior; however,

19 these two sectors, both in the functional and personnel sense and also in

20 the physical sense, were separated from each other. It was never the case

21 in the history of the service, for as long as I have been a member of the

22 service, that there was some kind of a relationship of subordination

23 between the two. No. The two of them did their work separately, and

24 there was this inter-sectoral cooperation, cooperation between these two

25 sectors in terms of providing assistance, exchange of information. If

1 something came to one sector and was actually within the jurisdiction of

2 another sector, then the matter would be referred to the other sector, so

3 there was this cooperation there.

4 Q. And in Kosovo?

5 A. I didn't hear a question, I just heard "Kosovo."

6 Q. In Kosovo, the premises in Pristina, the premises of the state

7 security sector, were they in the same office as the MUP staff, or rather,

8 the Pristina SUP?

9 A. No. The organizational units of the state security sector in

10 Pristina were located in a separate building.

11 Q. We saw that there was a lapse of one month between the time when

12 the decision was issued on the 16th of June, 1998, to establish a staff,

13 which is Exhibit P1505 and your arrival in Kosovo to the MUP staff. In

14 your work did you hear that within that month David Gajic took part in the

15 work of the MUP staff as a member of the staff?

16 A. No, I didn't hear that. And in my previous evidence before the

17 break I made a mistake in relation to Djinovic. I took Mr. Bonomy's

18 question to mean what was Djinovic's position in the previous staff before

19 the decision was made, in the staff headed by Colonel Aco Vesovic and

20 that's why I said that he was deputy and I didn't pay attention to the

21 actual question, but that's the essence of my answer.

22 Q. Where was the MUP staff located in 1998 and early 1999?

23 A. The MUP staff was located in the building of the secretariat of

24 the interior in Pristina and they used several offices in that building.

25 Q. When was the building of the Pristina SUP bombed?

1 A. According to my recollection, the building was bombed in the night

2 between the 28th and 29th of March, I'm not sure about the exact time, but

3 I think it was then.

4 Q. In 1999?

5 A. Yes, in 1999.

6 Q. Were any MUP staff members hurt at the time?

7 A. Yes. On that occasion Dusko Adamovic was wounded, as was

8 Vucurevic and Desimir Slovic. This is why these staff members were

9 replaced by new members so that they stopped being members of the staff on

10 the 1st of April, 1999.

11 Q. Were they replaced by other people?

12 A. Yes, the new people came.

13 Q. Who came to the MUP staff to replace Dusko Adamovic, Radovan

14 Vucurevic, and Desimir Slovic?

15 A. Milenko Arsenijevic came to replace Dusko Adamovic. Vucurevic was

16 replaced by Petar Bogdanovic. And Slovic was replaced by Vojislav Gucic.

17 Q. Was Tomislav Blagojevic wounded on that occasion as well?

18 A. Yes, slightly. And given that he had just arrived on the 15th of

19 February to replace Novica Zdravkovic and he was only slightly wounded, he

20 remained a member of the staff.

21 Q. Thank you. Was anybody else sent to Kosovo and Metohija from the

22 MUP seat without being a member of the staff?

23 A. Yes, I remember that. Gagic came, I think his first name was

24 Gvozden, Gvozden Gagic. He came from the criminal police administration,

25 he came from ministry seat in Belgrade to assist with the activities aimed

1 at suppressing the crimes, but he was not a member of the staff, he did

2 not have a decision appointing him a member of the staff, he just came

3 there.

4 Q. Let us now go back to the decision on establishing the staff on

5 the -- issued on the 16th of June, 1998. We see that after Milorad

6 Lukovic there is Zivko Trajkovic listed as a staff member. When you were

7 a member of the staff of MUP, was Mr. Trajkovic a member at the same

8 time.

9 A. No, he wasn't. When I came down there, I didn't find him in the

10 staff. As far as I know, he never did any work within the staff. I saw

11 him at two or three meetings in the premises of the secretariat of the

12 interior when meetings were held with all senior officers. So he was not

13 a member of the staff. I'm describing the factual situation, even though

14 here in the decision he's listed as having been a member.

15 Q. In your work as member of the staff, did you learn whether Milorad

16 Lukovic, Legija, and Zivko Trajkovic were members of the staff within that

17 one-month period of time between the issuance of the decision on

18 establishing the staff and your arrival in Kosovo?

19 A. No, I didn't hear about that, and I know that during the period of

20 time while I was there they were within their units.

21 Q. In this decision you are not listed as a member of the staff,

22 neither is Adamovic, Slovic, and later Arsenijevic, Bogdanovic, and

23 Gucic. The people I mentioned, including yourself, were you members of

24 the staff?

25 A. Well, yes. The fact is that David Gajic, Lukovic, and Trajkovic

1 were not members of the staff. Formally they were but practically they

2 weren't. Formally speaking Adamovic, myself, Slovic, and others were not

3 members of the staff and practically we were. So if you were to take as

4 truth that Gajic, Trajkovic, and Lukic [as interpreted] were members of

5 the staff and we were not, then you would simultaneously accept two

6 untruths because, indeed, we were members of the staff and they were not.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Not Lukic but

8 Lukovic.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. On the second page, in the first paragraph, underneath the names

11 that are listed it is stated that members of the staff, of the extended

12 staff, will also include chiefs of the secretariats of internal affairs,

13 centres, and branches of the RDB in the territory of the autonomous

14 province of Kosovo. These persons, were any of them members of the staff?

15 A. No, they were in charge of their organizational units, the units

16 that they were responsible for. They would occasionally come to the

17 senior staff meeting, but within the staff they had no tasks.

18 Q. Can you explain to us -- can you tell us what your position is

19 about the following. In the personnel sense, did this decision reflect

20 the actual situation?

21 A. No, and you can see this on the basis of my evidence, my previous

22 evidence; partially yes and partially no.

23 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to ask you something about the

24 competencies of the staff. On the second page --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you do that, Mr. Lukic.

1 Have you any explanation for this unutterable mess that you've

2 just described?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally don't have an

4 explanation. I don't know why such a decision was issued, a decision that

5 was not implemented, when other people were sent. I have no answer to

6 this. It's -- it was up to the seniors at the ministry to decide this. I

7 can't even explain why these people are listed down here, because as I've

8 told you, not a single member of the state security sector could be in

9 control of the members of the public security sector and vice versa, so I

10 have no explanation. I don't understand why is it written down this way.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. [Interpretation] So, Mr. Mijatovic, let us now turn to the

14 competencies of this staff, and would you please focus on Roman II --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: My mistake again, sorry, there is one thing that

16 thus remains unclear. You said a moment ago, Mr. Mijatovic, that those

17 listed at the bottom as chiefs rather than by name were not members of the

18 staff, but they occasionally came to senior staff meetings. Does that

19 include the chiefs of the RDB department -- sorry, RDB branches?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I remember, chiefs of RDB

21 branches came to those meetings once or twice when minister was there or

22 one of his assistants sent by him to Kosovo and Metohija to hold meetings

23 with people, to convey whatever they had to convey. But otherwise, they

24 were not members of the staff.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

1 Sorry, Mr. Lukic, please continue.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

3 Q. [Interpretation] So Roman II, that's what we're dealing with. We

4 can see that in the decision on establishing the MUP staff, II, it says

5 that it is the task of the staff to plan, organize, and manage the

6 activities and use of the organizational units of the ministry as well as

7 the units that were sent and attached aimed at suppressing terrorism in

8 the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. I'm asking you this now: Did the

9 MUP staff plan the work of the organizational units of MUP in Kosovo and

10 Metohija, the following organizational units: SUP, OUP, and police

11 stations, these organizational units? Could you please explain to us what

12 is a SUP, what is an OUP, and what is a police station.

13 A. I understood your question. The staff never planned, never

14 organized, and never managed the work of the said organizational units for

15 the simple reason that they functioned on the basis of the rule -- rules

16 on organization of the units of the Ministry of the Interior.

17 Secretariats of the interior are territorial organizational units of the

18 ministry. As far as I remember, there were 33 of them, which means that

19 all of these 33 secretariats covered part of the territory of the Republic

20 of Serbia and all of them together covered the -- all of the territory of

21 the Republic of Serbia. So they were in charge of organizing the work,

22 planning it, managing it, and they were responsible to the minister for

23 their work, chiefs of secretariats.

24 Now when we're dealing with the departments of the interior, OUPs,

25 and police stations, these are organizational units which are based on the

1 territorial principle. They belong to the secretariat of the interior and

2 they covered individual municipalities. And in some municipalities you

3 had a department of the interior, and in smaller municipalities you had

4 just police stations.

5 Q. You've already answered my question whether the staff actually

6 organized and managed the work of those organizational units, and now I

7 would like to ask you whether the MUP staff planned anti-terrorist

8 actions.

9 A. No. The MUP staff did not plan any anti-terrorist actions, and as

10 far as I know, no such plans were ever made, in fact, at the MUP staff.

11 Q. And did the MUP staff in the actual fact organize and manage

12 anti-terrorist actions?

13 A. No, it did not plan them, it did not organize them, it did not

14 manage or control them.

15 Q. So the decision to establish the staff, in addition to not being

16 reflective of the actual personnel situation in the field, was it actually

17 ever implemented in practice, as indicated in II?

18 A. No. The staff never did engage in those kind of tasks, which

19 means that this part of this decision was never implemented.

20 Q. The provisions of this decision to establish the staff, pertaining

21 to the tasks of the staff with regard to the planning, directing, and

22 managing or controlling the actions designed to suppress terrorism, were

23 they derogated --

24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat the question.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This decision was passed on the

1 16th --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Hold on a moment.

3 We are being asked I think to repeat the question for the

4 interpreter, Mr. Lukic. Sorry about that.

5 Could you ask --

6 MR. LUKIC: I am on channel 0 so I don't hear the translators.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Ask the question again, please.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Let me start from the beginning, Mr. Mijatovic.

10 Were the provisions of this decision to establish the staff dated the 16th

11 of June, 1998, regarding the planning, directing, and managing the actions

12 aimed at suppressing terrorism derogated or abolished by another decision?

13 A. Well, this is precisely why this part of the decision was never

14 implemented, the part that related to the tasks of the staff, because the

15 decision was issued on the 16th of June, 1998, and a plan was adopted, a

16 plan for the suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija was adopted

17 at the state top and this is one of the main reasons why the staff did not

18 really organize or plan those actions. So the plan was adopted at the

19 highest level of the state. It was -- it had primacy over this decision

20 and that is why this decision was never implemented.

21 Q. And what forces did take part in addition -- in accordance with

22 this decision?

23 A. Well, in addition to the MUP forces, the Army of Yugoslavia

24 personnel were also involved in suppressing terrorism.

25 Q. And now I would like to ask for Prosecution Exhibit P2166 to be

1 placed on the screen instead of this exhibit.

2 As we can see, this -- these are the minutes of the meeting of the

3 inter-departmental staff for suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and

4 Metohija. The date is the 2nd of November, 1998.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we have page 3, please, on our

6 screens.

7 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, could you please read on this page the paragraph

8 that is underlined, it is underlined electronically.

9 A. The one that begins: "Pursuant to the decision ..."?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. "Pursuant to the decision adopted at the 5th Session of the

12 Supreme Defence Council on the 9th of June, 1998, the Law on the Yugoslav

13 Army, the Law on Defence, and the Rules of Service of the Yugoslav Army, a

14 plan to suppress terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija was drawn up which

15 provided for the engagement of units of the Serbian MUP and the Yugoslav

16 Army."

17 Q. Can it be seen from this document when a decision was made to

18 draft this plan for the suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija?

19 A. Yes, the decision was made on the 9th of June, 1998.

20 Q. According to this document, which body made the decision to draw

21 up this plan for the suppression of terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija?

22 A. This body is called the Supreme Defence Council.

23 Q. And did anyone from the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia sit on

24 this council?

25 A. No, no. As far as I know, no.

1 Q. And can we see pursuant to what regulations, what legislation,

2 this decision was made?

3 A. Yes, as I said, this decision was made pursuant to the Law on the

4 Yugoslav Army, the Law on Defence, and the Rules of Service of the

5 Yugoslav Army.

6 Q. And did this plan envisage the engagement of both the MUP units,

7 the Serbian MUP units, and the Army of Yugoslavia?

8 A. Yes, you can see that from the last few words.

9 Q. Do you know that several decisions to establish staff were made in

10 this period, a period of two months, two months and a half?

11 A. Yes, I did see two or three decisions in addition to the one dated

12 the 16th of June and the proofing session. This is why I got a little bit

13 mixed up while we were talking about Mr. Djinovic.

14 Q. And when was the final decision to establish the staff issued in

15 1998?

16 A. It was on the 16th of June, 1998, that's the decision that we were

17 talking about.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit 4D101 --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move, Mr. Lukic, do we have the plan to

20 suppress terrorism in Kosovo -- that -- we don't have it in writing but we

21 have this series of plans. Is that right?

22 MR. LUKIC: I think that we don't have the actual plan, but we

23 have some traces in other documents.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: And this meeting -- how many sets of minutes are

25 there for meetings of the inter-departmental staff?

1 MR. LUKIC: Only this one.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Only this -- this is the one that --

3 MR. LUKIC: This is what I think we have.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: And what I don't understand, Mr. Mijatovic, in all

5 of this is why a plan at the instance of the Supreme Defence Council would

6 lead to the non-implementation of a decision made subsequently to

7 establish a MUP staff for Kosovo. I know you said that was the reason,

8 but can you explain how this plan by the VJ could lead to the

9 non-implementation of the establishment of a staff in accordance with the

10 decision of the 16th of June.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I think that it is quite

12 simple to understand. The plan that we were talking about envisages that

13 both the MUP forces, MUP units, and the units of the Army of Yugoslavia

14 should engage in those tasks, and it would be logical to have the same

15 units in the same period of time engaged in the same tasks pursuant to two

16 different instruments or documents.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: But the one that we looked at earlier establishing

18 the ministerial staff is to do with the command structure of the MUP.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what decision are you

20 referring to, the 16th of June or an earlier one?

21 JUDGE BONOMY: No, the 16th of June. It deals with the command

22 structure of the MUP, and the MUP needed to have a command structure. So

23 why was it not implemented?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the decision to adopt a plan

25 for anti-terrorist struggle, or rather, to suppress terrorism in Kosovo,

1 it involved both the MUP and the army, was issued before this decision was

2 made on the 9th of June; and the plan followed this decision. So that's

3 why I'm saying that that plan superseded this decision, because it was

4 adopted at a much higher level than that of the Ministry of the Interior.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: And in what way did the plan deal with the command

6 structure of the MUP in Kosovo?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the basic plan that was

8 adopted pursuant to the decision of the state top?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as I said, this plan envisaged

11 the engagement of the police and the Army of Yugoslavia, and planning of

12 anti-terrorist actions on the basis of that plan, that would be to

13 operationalize this plan. So some smaller-scale actions were planned on

14 the basis of this large plan.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: And who was to command the MUP in all of this?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP units in those actions were

17 under command of their officers, such as the PJP detachments, the special

18 anti-terrorist unit; SAJ; the JSO. Of course, if they participated in

19 those actions at all.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, I have the impression from your earlier

21 answers that prior to the 16th of June there was also a MUP staff for

22 Kosovo. Is that a wrong impression?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, the MUP staff for Kosovo and

24 Metohija had been in existence since 1990, and even before that, as early

25 as in 1981 there were police units in Kosovo and Metohija but they were

1 organized on different lines at the federal level, up to 1990. And then

2 in 1990 when the break-up of Yugoslavia actually began, this was the time

3 when all those obligations related to Kosovo and Metohija fell to Serbia,

4 and that is why the first staff was established in 1990.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: So the result of not implementing the decision of

6 the 16th of June would be to leave in place the existing MUP staff?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The staff remained there, yes.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: So the command structure remained as before?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not with Gajic because I came

10 and so on, but if you're referring to the personnel.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

12 Mr. Lukic, you can perhaps get --

13 MR. LUKIC: Just get it from --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Some answers for us, yes.

15 MR. LUKIC: Thanks.

16 [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court Exhibit 4D101.

17 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, could you please read the first paragraph in this

18 document and tell us what kind of a document it is.

19 A. The implementation of the second stage of the plan to eliminate

20 terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija provides for the engagement of organs of

21 the Ministry of the Interior, the manoeuvre variant, and the necessary

22 units of the Pristina Corps from the BG, I assume that would be the combat

23 group, in the area. One copy of the plan (the directive and four maps)

24 was delivered to the chief of the first administration of the General

25 Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, Major-General Spasoje Smiljanic on the

1 15th of July, 1998. You have been briefed on the plan as a whole several

2 times, the last time at the briefing with the president of the Federal

3 Republic of Yugoslavia on the 21st of July, 1998, when the order was given

4 to commence the implementation of the plan. So this is a document from

5 the Pristina Corps command sent to the 3rd Army command, the date is the

6 23rd of July, 1998.

7 Q. What can we conclude on the basis of the first paragraph of this

8 document?

9 A. Well, if we read the first paragraph of this document, we can see

10 that the plan was drafted when it was drafted in the first half of July

11 1998 and that it was adopted and that it could be implemented after the

12 21st of July. And of course it lists the units that are to be involved in

13 those activities.

14 Q. On the basis of this document can we see whether this plan had

15 been approved by someone?

16 A. Yes, obviously it had been approved by the then-president. That

17 was on the 21st of July.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move to page 2. I

19 think we're still on page 1 in the English version.

20 Q. Could you please look at paragraph 3 and could you please read

21 it.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] No, I do apologise, that's paragraph

23 3.

24 Q. Could you please read from the second passage beginning with the

25 words: "Operations or activities ..." And could you please read what it

1 says under A.?

2 A. So that's 3 paragraph 3 and then I start with the word "dejstvo,"

3 operations. So from A: "The activities in the second stage of the plan

4 are based on the following facts" --

5 Q. Could you please read a little bit more slowly.

6 A. Yes. "That the plan for the engagement of the MUP forces and the

7 Army of Yugoslavia was considered on several occasions and accepted by the

8 president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the top leadership of

9 the Army of Yugoslavia and the MUP. While the plan was being considered,

10 the directive and the decision on the map, there were no serious

11 objections to the proposals that were tabled," if that's what you meant.

12 Q. Could you -- do you know who approved this plan and who was

13 present from the army and the MUP leaders?

14 A. Well, as you can see from this first paragraph, this was approved

15 by the then-president of the FRY in the presence of the highest leadership

16 of the Ministry of the Interior and the Army of Yugoslavia, so that would

17 be the Chief of the General Staff and the minister of the interior. They

18 are the highest top-ranking leaders.

19 Q. And was this plan implemented in practice?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. When did the deblockade of roads start -- and breaking the

22 strongholds of the KLA through a joint effort of the military and the MUP?

23 A. As far as I can remember, the first action started on the 25th of

24 July, 1998, that is when this activity started.

25 Q. Did anyone from the MUP of the Republic of Serbia take part in the

1 drafting of this plan, anyone from the MUP of Serbia?

2 A. As far as I know, no. And I remember that after this plan was

3 adopted our generals, or rather, police generals were - well, how should I

4 put this? - dissatisfied with that because the plan envisaged more forces

5 of the ministry than the ministry actually had available. When I'm

6 talking about forces, I'm talking about level of training, level of

7 equipment, because after all, this is difficult and risky work.

8 Q. What was the reason why the plan to combat terrorism was adopted?

9 A. Well, it was due to the situation at that point in time in the

10 territory of Kosovo and Metohija. The terrorist activities were on the

11 rise, the terrorists were practically covering about 50 per cent of the

12 territory. I cannot be very specific on this. I'm saying around 50 per

13 cent of the territory. They jeopardized practically all the major roads

14 leading through Kosovo, all the more important roads leading through

15 Kosovo. They were kidnapping people, stopping them, mistreating them,

16 killing people, wounding people, and so on and so forth. In a word, the

17 safety and security of citizens was jeopardized and their freedom of

18 movement, and I think that was the reason, because there is no other

19 reason why this plan was adopted.

20 Q. Do you remember the visit paid by Ambassador Holbrooke and what

21 were the consequences of that?

22 A. Yes, I remember. I don't know the exact time, but I remember that

23 before that, Mr. Holbrooke was in Kosovo and Metohija in Junik where he

24 had his picture taken with armed members of the so-called KLA, which

25 bolstered them because they thought that this was the support of the US

1 administration. And immediately the ranks increased and as did their

2 armament levels and their terrorist activities. Another situation

3 contributed to that, too, and that is the situation from 1997, the

4 situation in the Republic of Albania, that is to say a neighbouring state,

5 when military barracks were robbed and when masses of weapons were taken

6 from there and a lot of that ended up in Kosovo and Metohija. So in

7 addition to an increase in ranks, there was a higher level of armament on

8 the part of the members of the so-called KLA. And then through their

9 activities, they contributed to this kind of situation in terms of

10 security in Kosovo and Metohija, safety and security, which, in fact,

11 endangered the state itself in that part of the territory.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just to go back slightly to what you were actually

13 dealing with in this document on the screen, which I appreciate is a VJ

14 document and not a MUP document. It says that during the consideration of

15 the plan there were no serious objections to the proposals and that it was

16 considered and accepted several times by the president and the highest

17 leadership of the army and the MUP. You're saying that that's wrong?

18 Have I understood you correctly?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not present at that meeting,

20 or rather, I did not attend any meetings or did I hear that any of the

21 members of the ministry took part when this plan was drafted. At that

22 meeting that was held in the office of the president of the country when

23 the plan was being adopted, I don't know if anyone objected and if so what

24 the objections were. But I know that police generals were dissatisfied

25 with this plan, as I've already said, because a high level of forces of

1 the Ministry of the Interior was envisaged for participation in this plan

2 and the ministry did not have a sufficient number of trained and equipped

3 personnel for such activities.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Were you one of those dissatisfied with the plan?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't even a general and I was

6 talking about generals, I do apologise, but on the other hand I didn't see

7 the plan, I've never seen the plan.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Who were the generals who were dissatisfied with

9 the plan?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was General Djordjevic,

11 Stevanovic, Lukic, when they saw what the plan said, what all the units

12 engaged were supposed to be, they were not satisfied.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: And what was done about it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The plan was operationalized through

15 specific actions and the units of the Army of Yugoslavia took part in it

16 as well as units of the police.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: I meant what was done to express the

18 dissatisfaction and to have the plan changed so that it was acceptable?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot talk about that. I just

20 heard from their conversations that they did not take part in the

21 elaboration of the plan, and that is why that kind of a number of

22 personnel was planned, that the MUP practically didn't have. I really

23 don't know. The plan had already been adopted at the president's -- the

24 president of the republic, and I personally think that after that, there

25 could be no changes.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't understand. If you don't have enough men,

2 do you not actually report back to those responsible for the planning that

3 you don't have enough men to implement it?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know what number -- I

5 mean, I don't know what the number was of personnel engaged on the basis

6 of that plan. I don't know if they meant the number of overall forces.

7 For example, if these activities are supposed to involve 10.000 policemen

8 and say the MUP had 5, then only those forces could be engaged because the

9 remaining 5 or simply not there, and then later on probably through the

10 planning of activity this was borne in mind and somehow some kind of a

11 compromise was reached there, or rather, those forces that we had

12 available were used in the planning and they could not plan using other

13 forces that we did not have.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 Mr. Lukic, I'm reluctant to become involved in extensive

16 questioning of any witness in the course of counsel's examination of that

17 witness, but this witness is making very sweeping statements that when you

18 explore below the surface, he really doesn't seem entirely qualified to

19 make them. So it's important that he, as far as possible, gives us

20 evidence from his own personal knowledge.

21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, did you ever hear in the MUP staff

23 that the plan for combatting terrorism was submitted to the staff in

24 Kosovo and Metohija?

25 A. No, I never heard of that. I never saw it, and I personally think

1 it was never submitted.

2 Q. Did the staff receive any documents from the Army of Yugoslavia in

3 relation to anti-terrorist actions; and if so, in which period?

4 A. Yes, they did, and 1998 [Realtime transcript read in error "NATO"]

5 it wasn't until the end of September, that anti-terrorist activities were

6 carried out and we did receive excerpts from the army, excerpts from maps

7 including axes of activity of the police units that were planned for

8 participation in that action.

9 Q. What about 1999?

10 A. In 1999, until the order on resubordination was received, these

11 excerpts were received and once this order on resubordination was

12 received, we received excerpts from maps and the textual parts, or rather,

13 the orders.

14 Q. Now I'd like to ask you something about the role of the staff of

15 the Ministry of the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija. In planning --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: A very odd comment in the English transcript in

17 line 23 of page 57. Can someone remind me what was actually said there?

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It is LiveNote, it was not

19 said in the interpretation. It's a misprint.

20 MR. LUKIC: Maybe I should ask that question again, Your Honour.

21 It's really complicated.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps the interpreter can give us the answer

23 again from recollection.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Unfortunately not, the witness would have to

25 repeat exactly what he said.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you should clarify that, Mr. Lukic. It

2 doesn't make any sense, that answer.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. We'll have to repeat. I'll have to repeat the question, you'll

5 have to repeat the answer. The MUP staff in Kosovo, did they receive from

6 the Army of Yugoslavia some documents related to anti-terrorist actions?

7 And I think that we were talking about 1998.

8 A. I said that in 1998 for every anti-terrorist action that had been

9 planned, the staff received excerpts from maps where there were markings

10 or we received photocopies. That is to say, forces that were taking part

11 in the actions, or rather, police units that were taking part in these

12 actions. The staff would send this to the units that were planned to

13 carry out these actions so that they would action in accordance with them.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, the beginning of 1999 until the decision on

15 subordination, what did the staff receive?

16 A. From the moment when the bombing started, when the war started,

17 that is, until the order on subordination was received - I'm using the

18 term "subordination" because that's what the law says - a period had

19 already elapsed in wartime until this order was not adopted. So we did

20 what we did in 1998, we received excerpts. And after the order on

21 subordination was received, in addition to these excerpts from maps, we

22 got the textual part of tasks in the form of orders.

23 Q. I think it is all right now. I've moved on to another topic and I

24 said that I would ask you about the role of the MUP staff in planning

25 anti-terrorist actions. What did the role of the staff consist of then in

1 the planning of specific anti-terrorist actions?

2 A. For the most part, the role of the staff was to submit to the

3 Pristina Corps elements, or rather, data about MUP units in the area that

4 could have been planned for this particular activity.

5 Q. Before the first anti-terrorist action was carried out, was a

6 joint meeting held between the officers of the Army of Yugoslavia and the

7 officers of the MUP and do you remember roughly when this happened, if so,

8 if such a meeting did take place at all?

9 A. Yes, I cannot remember the exact date. Perhaps it was two or

10 three days before this first action started, a meeting was held of all the

11 officers of both the army and the police, I'm referring to commanders of

12 units, that is, in order to familiarize them with the general guide-lines

13 from the adopted plan on combatting terrorism in order for them to be

14 introduced to the elements of this first task and so that people who did

15 not know one another and who were supposed to act in the same area would

16 meet, that is to say officers of the army and officers of the police were

17 present at this meeting.

18 Q. Can you just be a bit more specific. You said a few days before

19 the first action. Can you give us the month and year?

20 A. It was the month of July, say between the 21st and the 25th. Now,

21 I cannot say whether it was the 22nd or the 23rd of July, 1998.

22 Q. Who was present at this meeting?

23 A. I've already said, officers of the Army of Yugoslavia and of the

24 police, and I think that the chiefs of the secretariats were there, too,

25 but I'm not sure about that. I cannot remember. However, commanders of

1 units of the army and of the police who were active in the area and of

2 course the representatives of the staff and of the corps.

3 Q. Did any civilians attend the meeting?

4 A. As far as I can remember, no, and there was no need for any such

5 thing.

6 Q. Where was this meeting held?

7 A. This meeting was held in a meeting room at the SUP building in

8 Pristina. This was a meeting room and it was big enough to accommodate

9 all these attendees, there were quite a few there. There was no other

10 area that would be appropriate.

11 Q. As for this first anti-terrorist action, were there several such

12 joint meetings?

13 A. I don't remember them. I don't think there were any, except for

14 this first one.

15 Q. Now I'd like to ask you about reporting of PJPs to the staff.

16 What about the commanders of detachments? And when I'm saying "you," I

17 mean the MUP staff. Did they, the commanders of the PJP detachments, did

18 they submit reports to you after the actions were completed?

19 A. No. The commanders of the special police units did not submit any

20 reports to the staff; however, they were duty-bound, like any authorised

21 officials, because all of this consisted of authorised officers, so like

22 any other authorised officers, after such activities, if there were any

23 elements on account of which the territorial secretariats would have to

24 take action, they were duty-bound to report to them so they could take

25 action, for example, carry out an investigation, put out a fire, something

1 like that.

2 Q. Now that we're dealing with this issue I'd like to ask you this.

3 Can you tell us something more about what it is that the PJP units were

4 supposed to inform the SUPs, what were those events that were of interest

5 from a security point of view that they were supposed to report on?

6 A. For example, if any corpses were found or any crimes committed, if

7 there were any fires, as I have said, if it involved civilians, if the

8 civilians were on the move and they needed accommodation, if they needed

9 accommodation, food, water, if civilians needed any kind of assistance, if

10 anything concerned the life of people in that territory and anything that

11 fell under the jurisdiction of the secretariat according to the law, they

12 were supposed to inform on all of these matters because secretariats,

13 according to the legislation, acted on their own without waiting for

14 instructions. Not just secretariats, but any other authorised official

15 had the duty to act in accordance with the regulations. This is why they

16 were authorised officials. They did not have to wait for somebody to

17 order them to do something. And in order for the secretariat to take

18 action, they had to have information, they had to have knowledge about

19 what had happened. In that context if members of PJP units had any

20 information, then, yes, they had duty to inform the secretariat in order

21 for the secretariat to take action accordingly.

22 Q. Did the MUP staff exert any influence over the course of any

23 anti-terrorist action?

24 A. The MUP staff did not exert any influence nor could it affect

25 course of anti-terrorist activities because the units acted on the basis

1 of a plan that had been prepared for a particular action, and officers who

2 were in charge of those units were responsible for implementation of the

3 plan. Activities were carried out in the field, the units were controlled

4 by radio equipment that the MUP staff could not monitor because we used

5 different frequencies. So the MUP staff could not follow the course of

6 any action or affect it.

7 Q. Do you know how and in what way commanders of PJP units informed

8 about the course of anti-terrorist actions?

9 A. No, I don't know this. I was not out in the field, I did not take

10 part in any action, and I don't know how that transpired, who was

11 informed, how that unfolded.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you going as far as to say that the MUP for

13 these anti-actions took orders from the VJ?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The police units which participated

15 in specific anti-terrorist actions received documents from the army, which

16 means that the MUP staff did not draft a single map, a single order, a

17 single task relating to these anti-terrorist activities.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps you could answer my question. Are you

19 saying that the MUP units involved took orders from the VJ?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the ground, each officer was in

21 charge of his own units in those actions. Now, as to whether somebody

22 combined this from some post, whether there was an officer who was in

23 charge of both units, I don't know, I wasn't out on the ground.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 Q. [Interpretation] Just to clarify something, Mr. Mijatovic. Was it

2 policemen who commanded police units?

3 A. Yes. Detachment commanders commanded their detachments.

4 Q. After the 28th of March, rather, the night between the 28th and

5 29th of March, 1999, when the SUP Pristina building was hit, were there

6 any technical capabilities for anyone to contact you via radio equipment

7 from the ground, from the field? When I say "you," I'm referring to the

8 staff.

9 A. Yes, I understood that. When the building of the secretariat of

10 the interior in Pristina was hit, the antenna system and relay system were

11 destroyed. I'm not a technical person and I don't know much about this,

12 but the equipment that is used for sending out signals was destroyed, so

13 practically we were cut off from the people who were on the ground.

14 Q. You made a gesture with your hand. Where were those antennas

15 located?

16 A. They were on the building of the Pristina SUP, which had been

17 bombed, and this is how these antenna systems came to be destroyed.

18 Q. After the decision was issued, the plan for anti-terrorist combat

19 which was in July of 1998, did any of the MUP seniors come to Kosovo and

20 Metohija?

21 A. Yes, Generals Vlastimir Djordjevic and Obrad Stevanovic came.

22 They held a meeting at the staff and they informed senior officers about

23 that and that we needed to participate in those activities.

24 Q. You say that they informed about that, what did you have in mind?

25 A. The plan.

1 Q. These two senior officers of the MUP, how long did they stay there

2 in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998?

3 A. They stayed until the end of September throughout the time that

4 anti-terrorist activities were carried out, but I couldn't claim to you

5 with certainty that both of them were present all the time. But in

6 principle, one of them would be present because they had to go and visit

7 their families and maybe they had to go for other reasons to Belgrade, but

8 in principle one of them was always present down there.

9 Q. What about 1999, what was the situation like then regarding these

10 two generals?

11 A. Well, in 1999 too, but I think that General Obrad Stevanovic spent

12 more time there than General Djordjevic, but both of them were present.

13 Q. Did the two of them frequently go out in the field?

14 A. They did go out in the field, but who they went to see, what were

15 their tasks, what were their intentions, I don't know. I never asked them

16 that and they never told me about that.

17 Q. Did Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic come to Kosovo and Metohija?

18 A. Yes, the minister came as well. I wouldn't be able to say how

19 many times he came, but he did come and I think that whenever he came he

20 invariably held meetings with police officers, senior officers in Kosovo

21 and Metohija, he would provide his assessments, guide-lines. I wouldn't

22 be able to give you any more details, but I'm sure that there are minutes

23 from those meetings.

24 Q. That's quite enough at this time. Thank you.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you not meet him when he came to Kosovo?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I told you that meetings were

2 held with senior officers, and naturally members of the staff were present

3 there as well.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: And did that include you?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was present. I wouldn't be able

6 to claim that I attended every single meeting, but I did attend them.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Now I would like to turn to a different matter,

10 Mr. Mijatovic, I would like to ask you something about the relationship

11 between the MUP staff and organizational units in Kosovo, that is to say

12 secretariats of the interior, departments of interior, and police

13 stations. Could you now briefly describe to us some of the tasks

14 performed by the secretariats of the interior in general, including those

15 in Kosovo and Metohija.

16 A. The competencies of the secretariats of the interior as

17 territorial units of the Ministry of the Interior were identical,

18 regardless of whether they were located in Kosovo and Metohija or in some

19 other part of Serbia. They carried out tasks and assignments in their

20 territory aimed at suppressing crime, control and regulation of traffic,

21 maintaining law and order, putting out fires, since they had fire units in

22 their composition. They also carried out some administrative work for the

23 needs of the citizens. They issued IDs, driving licences, licence plates,

24 and so on, also passports.

25 Q. Did the secretariats of the interior have any plans based on which

1 they worked?

2 A. Yes. Each organizational unit of the Ministry of the Interior

3 drafts its own plans in order to organize the work and assignments and

4 tasks from their competencies. This is something that is done at the

5 level of the Ministry of the Interior, that is to say at the highest level

6 there are yearly plans produced as well as monthly plans and the

7 secretariats did this for themselves.

8 Q. Let me tell you -- ask you this: Did the staff --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the question.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, again you're being asked to repeat the

11 question, please.

12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 Q. [Interpretation] I will repeat my question, Mr. Mijatovic. I

14 probably spoke too fast. Did the staff adopt work-plans for the

15 secretariats of the interior or for departments of the interior or for

16 police stations in Kosovo and Metohija?

17 A. No, it did not. The staff couldn't do that. There was no grounds

18 for the staff to do that. As I told you, secretariats drafted these plans

19 on their own, chief of the secretariat followed the implementation of the

20 plans with his associates. He would take measures if the plan was not

21 properly implemented, and ultimately the chief of the secretariat was

22 responsible to the minister of the interior for the work of his

23 secretariat.

24 Q. Did the staff control and approve the plans for regular work tasks

25 adopted by the MUP organizational units?

1 A. No. The staff did not receive those plans at all, nor did the

2 staff have any knowledge of those plans or implement their, or rather,

3 control their implementation.

4 Q. Did the MUP staff in any way control and direct the work of the

5 organizational units in Kosovo and Metohija, the MUP organizational units?

6 A. No, no. This was done by the officers who headed those

7 organizational units.

8 Q. Who directed the work of the border police posts?

9 A. The posts of the border police were, territorially speaking,

10 located in the Republic of Serbia, not only in Kosovo but in other areas

11 as well, that is to say not only in Kosovo and Vojvodina, but also in the

12 central part of Serbia. And territorially they were within the territory

13 covered by the secretariat. However, in the organizational sense they

14 were directly linked to the administration of the border police which was

15 located in the seat of the Ministry of the Interior, and for their work

16 they were responsible and they received orders from the chief of their

17 administration.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit 6D266 in

19 e-court.

20 Q. You have the document in front of you, Mr. Mijatovic, don't you?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. So could we begin right away. Could you tell us who sent this

23 document and who are the addressees?

24 A. This document was sent by the chief of the public security

25 department, General Djordjevic. The date is the 1st of July, 1998, and

1 the addressees are a certain number of secretariats, the ministry staff in

2 Pristina, the border police stations, not all of them, but just those

3 which are located in Kosovo and Metohija and in Presevo and in Prohor

4 Pcinjski, so this is outside the territory of Kosovo and Metohija in the

5 central part of Serbia, the police administration at the MUP headquarters

6 in Belgrade, the crime police administration, the traffic police

7 administration, the border police administration, and the operations

8 centre at the seat or headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior.

9 Q. And does this document actually contains orders for their work,

10 are they being ordered what to do?

11 A. Yes, these are the orders for work since this was the period and

12 the time when weapons were being smuggled and ammunition was being

13 smuggled into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and the efforts --

14 efforts were being made to prevent that, so the orders were to that

15 effect. The secretariats or the police personnel in the field were

16 supposed to do that even without receiving specific orders, but this was

17 yet another order to increase their effectiveness in this regard.

18 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, but I have to interrupt this direct

19 examination to clarify one thing, and I think that interpreters have to

20 help us. Every time when we hear word "nalog" which is something

21 different from "naredjenje" we are getting the same translation, order,

22 and I think that we should have a distinction in between these two terms,

23 because "nalog" is something what's specific for MUP and "naredjenje" is

24 something more specific for the army. And I don't know right now --

25 because now I have confusion with the testimony of Mr. Mijatovic.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you indicate what the distinction is?

2 MR. LUKIC: The distinction is the consequence of the mode of work

3 these two institutions, military works, strictly based on orders; police

4 works based on the law, laws and sublaws. So here we have something -- we

5 have orders in the police sometimes as well, different kinds, and we would

6 be dealing with that during our case, but we have to have distinction in

7 between "order" and this other term.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: The witness in relation to this document is saying

9 that it includes orders to prevent the importation of weapons, something

10 that the police would do automatically, but this was to reinforce that

11 duty. Now, would you say it wasn't an order to that effect?

12 MR. LUKIC: No.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: What would you say it was?

14 MR. LUKIC: In English I really -- I'm not sure that I know the

15 exact term. That's why I'm addressing --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: You're likely to be leading a witness who bears to

17 be an expert in the affairs of the MUP; is that correct?

18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, but we'll have the whole mess by

19 that time in the transcript.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

21 MR. LUKIC: It can't be cured at the end of the case.

22 Could be maybe direction or instruction; more direction, I think.

23 Instructions we have separate instructions, but direction would be more

24 line like the meaning of this term.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Probably still comes to: You'll do as you're told.

1 MR. LUKIC: But it's different from an order.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, we will seek some guide --

3 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, definitely it's binding. I'm not telling that

4 the other category is not binding.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: We will seek guidance from CLSS and I shall let you

6 know if there is any way of dealing with this other than to hear

7 submissions in due course, but it will probably be tomorrow before I can

8 tell you. I think you should proceed on the basis that you've alerted us

9 to it and we will take steps to ensure that there is no prejudice caused

10 to you by the interpretation of these words in the same way.

11 MR. LUKIC: And I think it's a good time for our break, Your

12 Honour.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

14 We have to break at this stage again, Mr. Mijatovic, that will be

15 for an hour for lunch. Could you again leave the courtroom, please, with

16 the usher and we will see you again at quarter to 2.00.

17 [The witness stands down]

18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.48 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 1.50 p.m.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Lukic, you've worn one of our number

21 down. It would be obvious to anyone observing here this morning that

22 Judge Kamenova was unwell and she's really not able to continue this

23 afternoon. Hopefully she will be back tomorrow, but we will meanwhile

24 continue in her absence since we consider that it is in the interests of

25 justice to do that.

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: I should also record that I believe you had a

3 discussion with the interpreters at the lunch break. Did you work out a

4 solution?

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, the interpreters suggested that we

6 should use the other order with Serbian word in brackets.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: The Mr. Ivetic approach to difficulties of

8 translation. I think that's a reasonable course to follow, and you've

9 placed on record earlier today the reason for doing that, so we will be

10 particularly alert to any problem that may emerge from this when we come

11 to look at all the evidence.

12 Would you please continue.

13 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, can we continue?

15 Mr. Mijatovic, can we continue?

16 A. Yes, yes.

17 Q. Please don't fall asleep on me now.

18 A. No, no.

19 Q. So we're now talking about the relationship between the MUP staff

20 and the MUP organizational units in Kosovo and Metohija and we're looking

21 at 6D266, Exhibit 6D266. I would just like to ask you a couple of brief

22 questions. Can we see from this document that the border police stations

23 are receiving separate reports separate from the secretariats of the

24 interior in whose territory they are actually situated?

25 A. Yes, this is quite obvious. This telegram is addressed to the

1 border police stations in addition to the secretariats in the same

2 territory, which shows that the border police stations are not operating

3 within the secretariat. On the other hand, this document is also sent to

4 the border police administration so that it can be kept in the loop as to

5 the tasks that its stations have received because this is sent from --

6 this is sent by the sector chief.

7 Q. Thank you. Who issued orders, "nalog," to the secretariats of the

8 interior in Kosovo and Metohija?

9 A. The secretariats, not only in Kosovo and Metohija, but throughout

10 Serbia, received their orders from the Ministry of the Interior and from

11 the administrators of the departmental units, I mean the administration

12 for the traffic police, the administration for the general police service,

13 and so on.

14 Q. The chain of issuing orders, "nalogs," and the reporting chain

15 from the Ministry of the Interior and secretariat of the interior linking

16 the two, did it remain unchanged regardless of the existence of the staff?

17 A. No, or rather, no. This chain of management was not changed for a

18 very simple reason. The staff was not an organizational unit of the

19 ministry, and the existence of the staff did not disrupt this chain of

20 management. So the staff is not an organizational unit, and as such it is

21 not superior to or subordinate to any other unit except for the ministry.

22 Q. Just for the record, 6D266 is one of the documents talking about

23 that but also some other documents, 6D129, 6D1352, 6D1353, and that would

24 be enough for now.

25 The orders, "nalogs," that the administrations in the seat of the

1 ministry issued to the secretariats of the interior in Kosovo and

2 Metohija, were they at the same time sent to the staff?

3 A. Yes. The MUP staff did receive those too.

4 Q. Why was the MUP staff informed at the same time as these other

5 units?

6 A. As I've already explained, the orders, "nalogs," went straight to

7 the secretariats and they had to comply with those orders regardless of

8 what the staff had to say, and they were sent to the staff in order to

9 keep the staff in the loop, to keep it informed. And any assistance

10 needed to be rendered -- but the secretariats acted -- they bypassed the

11 staff in their operation. The staff could not change the order in any

12 way, the "naredba," order, it could not be changed in any way by the

13 staff.

14 Q. And whose orders, "nalogs," were executed by lower-level units

15 such as the departments of the interior and the police stations?

16 A. They carried out the orders, "nalogs," of the secretariat headed

17 by the secretariat chief. And as a rule, the ministry did not issue

18 direct orders to the OUPs and the stations, but it sent them to the

19 secretariats and they relay them to those lower-level units.

20 Q. And when regular tasks are carried out, how is management or

21 control exercised, this line along which the orders, or "nalogs," are

22 being handed down?

23 A. Well, as you can see from what I told you, it is a vertical line,

24 from the ministry to the secretariat, from the secretariat to the OUP, and

25 down to the police station, and from the MUP to the staff. The staff

1 could, possibly on the orders of somebody from the ministry to relay some

2 order, "nalog," to the secretariats, or possibly it may have updated some

3 task or some obligation. When I say "update," let me clarify this term.

4 Unlike in the military where tasks are carried out on the

5 orders, "naredjenje," a soldier waits for an order, "naredjenje," to carry

6 out his task. A police officer is an authorised official who has the

7 power and the obligation to carry out certain actions under the law. He

8 does not have to wait, he must not wait for the order to do something. He

9 must do whatever is necessary under the law.

10 When I said that the staff could update some obligations, what I

11 meant was that the staff could remind the secretariat in question if note

12 was taken of the fact that some things were not done as they should have

13 been done, the staff could remind the secretariat to increase, to step up

14 its activities or to carry out its duties if the secretariat was

15 duty-bound to do it. But it could not take any decisions on its own

16 initiative and it could not issue any orders, "nalog," because it was not

17 superior to the secretariat. It could propose, suggest, recommend.

18 Q. You said that the staff could not issue any orders, "nalog," to

19 the secretariats. And let me now ask you whether the MUP staff or its

20 chief or head could organize the work of the secretariats of the interior?

21 A. No, no. I think that we've already said that, no, it was not

22 possible.

23 Q. And did MUP staff or its head, could they deal with any personnel

24 issues in the secretariats who would be appointed and who would be removed

25 from office in the secretariat or other organizational units?

1 A. No, no, it did not have any powers to that effect.

2 Q. Did the MUP staff or its head -- or was it able to impose any

3 sanctions for the failure on the part of the secretariats of the interior

4 or lower-level organizational units to carry out their tasks?

5 A. No, it did not have those powers. The chief of the secretariat

6 had this kind of power.

7 Q. The MUP staff or its head, were they responsible to the minister

8 for the work of the secretariats of the interior?

9 A. No. It could not plan, it could not organize, it could not manage

10 the work of the secretariats, it could not control whether they're doing

11 their work properly, so it could not be responsible for their work to the

12 minister.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, you gave us a series of documents there

14 related to 6D266, one of them was 6D1353, is that number correct, because

15 it seems to be a document dealing with the repatriation of German

16 citizens.

17 MR. LUKIC: Just one second.

18 [Defence counsel confer]

19 MR. LUKIC: It's obviously my mistake, Your Honours, so we should

20 strike that document from the list.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

22 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, you've explained to us what

24 couldn't be done, yet in practice did it happen that the MUP staff or its

25 head did take some measures related to the planning, organization, or

1 management of the organizational units of the MUP in Kosovo and Metohija?

2 A. No, never, as far as I know, and he was not in a position to do so

3 because the regulations for the functioning of the ministry simply did not

4 allow that.

5 Q. The MUP staff or its head, did they have any authority in terms of

6 rewards, assignment, dismissal in terms of member of units in Kosovo and

7 Metohija?

8 A. Again my answer is no.

9 Q. What would the line of orders, "nalogs," be like if the organs of

10 the Ministry of the Interior were to receive their orders?

11 A. It would be like what the secretariats do. As I said, the MUP

12 order the secretariats, the secretariats order their OUPs and police

13 stations. Had that chain been disrupted or placed in a different way,

14 then the MUP as I've already said, they would not directly give orders to

15 the OUPs or police stations, they would not be giving orders to the

16 secretariats either, I'm trying to speak a little slower for

17 interpretation, they would give order, "nalog," to the staff, then the

18 staff to the secretariats and the secretariats to their OUPs and police

19 stations. So there wouldn't be a double chain, there would just be one

20 chain.

21 Q. I believe you've already answered, but because of my own line of

22 questioning I'll ask you again. The MUP staff, was it an organizational

23 unit of the MUP?

24 A. No, and it cannot be because the rules do not envisage that.

25 Q. What organizational units does the MUP have?

1 A. They're organizational units of the ministry within every sector,

2 I can talk about the public security sector. Within the public security

3 sector in the seat of the ministry there are so-called internal

4 organizational units that are within the seat of the ministry itself.

5 Every organizational unit has a certain line of work, for example --

6 Q. Just a moment, please, what are the names of these organizational

7 units?

8 A. That's what I wanted to say but I don't want to encumber the

9 interpreters too much. They are called --

10 MR. LUKIC: The transcript is frozen.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: The witness has stopped speaking as well.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stopped because Mr. Lukic

13 signalled to me that I should stop. It was my impression that there was

14 something wrong.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. We stopped at the question of organizational units within the

17 MUP.

18 A. Yes, I've already said that within the seat of the ministry there

19 are the so-called internal organizational units, and every one of them

20 manages a particular line of work. For instance -- oh, yes, and for the

21 most part, those are administrations. For instance, the police

22 administration, the traffic police administration, the crime police -- the

23 crime investigation police administration, the administration for

24 analytical affairs, the computer science administration, the

25 communications administration, the joint services administration, and so

1 on, not to go into all of that, and then also there is the duty operations

2 centre. That is what has to do with the seat of the ministry itself.

3 Earlier on I spoke about the fact that secretariats are

4 territorial organizational units of the Ministry of the Interior covering

5 certain parts of a particular territory. According to the same principle,

6 a secretariat has those lines of work too. They are either departments or

7 divisions. So the situation is the same as I said within the seat of the

8 ministry. Again, there is the traffic police, crime investigation,

9 analytical affairs, joint services, I cannot remember exactly, IT, and so

10 on and so forth. So it is what I said about the ministry itself, too, the

11 seat of the ministry, that is.

12 Q. What about the MUP staff in Kosovo and Metohija, what kind of a

13 body is that?

14 A. As I've already said, the staff does not belong to the group that

15 I mentioned a while ago, it's not an organizational unit. The staff was a

16 temporary, an auxiliary, body of the Ministry of the Interior.

17 Q. The indictment charges that the MUP staff is a small-scale

18 ministry, or it was either in the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief, I can't

19 say exactly right now. Before the changes, before the provincial SUP was

20 abolished, how big was the staff of the provincial SUP in Kosovo and

21 Metohija?

22 A. To be quite frank, I don't even know how many people were employed

23 at the seat of the ministry.

24 Q. Roughly?

25 A. Well, it involved many, many more people than the staff did.

1 Q. Tens? Hundreds of people?

2 A. I'm sorry, I'm waiting for the interpretation to finish. As we

3 could see, the staff involved about ten people as members. I take the

4 liberty of saying that the provincial SUP must have had several hundred

5 employees, perhaps even a thousand. You should take this with a grain of

6 salt, but it is certain that it was many times more than the member -- the

7 number of members of staff -- the number of members of staff of the MUP

8 staff of the ministry.

9 Q. What pertains to the decision -- what could it do in relation to

10 decisions made by the MUP?

11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court

12 Exhibit 6D690.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I think I've missed something in this, Mr. Lukic,

14 which you can maybe remind me of. We've just had a reference to the

15 provincial SUP. Have we had that referred to already?

16 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated].

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Lukic, please.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: No, today in this area.

19 MR. LUKIC: This is the first time.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: So how does that fit into this structure or is that

21 coming?

22 MR. LUKIC: We just -- I just wanted to show the number of people

23 working in one or another organ that we exactly wanted to show that there

24 is no comparison.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

1 MR. LUKIC: Sorry, I cannot see you because of this pole.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Your good fortune again.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, we see in front of us this document. Could you

5 tell us what kind of a document this is and who is sending it and who is

6 it being sent to?

7 A. We're talking about 6D690?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. This is a document that the staff of the Ministry of the Interior

10 in Pristina sent and I signed it on behalf of General Lukic probably

11 because at that moment he was not there or he was busy with other things,

12 I don't think it really matters right now. It has to do with sending the

13 agreement that the FRY signed with the OSCE mission, or rather, with the

14 OSCE in relation to the establishment of a verification mission in Kosovo

15 and Metohija. It was sent so that the secretariats could initially

16 familiarise themselves with the agreement, and also they should learn what

17 should be done in this connection.

18 Q. On this document and on many others that were sent by the MUP

19 staff, we see that it says in the number 12A number 223-83. We would be

20 interested in the part where it says 12A. Did an organizational unit of

21 the MUP have a letter by way of designation in addition to a number in

22 order to show its affiliation, or was this A characteristic of the MUP

23 staff?

24 A. Every internal organizational unit of the Ministry of the Interior

25 in the seat, that is to say in Belgrade, had its own initial number for

1 the documents that it sent out, and on that basis one could tell inter

2 alia whose document this was. In this case number 12 belonged to the

3 police administration at the seat of the ministry. Since the staff in

4 Pristina, the MUP staff in Pristina, did not have its own number in terms

5 of this initial number, this registration number, it was assigned this

6 number and that's why this A was added in order to make a distinction, to

7 know that these were documents from the staff. Because that also says

8 that the MUP staff in Pristina was not an organizational unit of the

9 ministry according to the Rules on Organization.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Which entity in the ministry would normally have

11 dealt with this? Is police administration the name of that section?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The police administration had

13 this number and they used it for their own documents that they sent. Now,

14 who decided on the actual numbers, believe me, I don't know, and on the

15 basis of what regulation. There is probably a regulation to that effect,

16 but I assume that other services dealt with that. I really don't know.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what I was asking you. I was asking you

18 under which department in headquarters in Belgrade the subject of the

19 verification mission fell.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand the question.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you've told us that the MUP staff has no

22 organizational role in the command structure. So along comes a new

23 development and the introduction of the KVM, and this memo here is telling

24 the SUPs about that. Now, who or which -- which department of the MUP in

25 Belgrade would normally have dealt with this in the absence of the MUP

1 staff for Kosovo?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that I've understood the

3 question. As for the text of the agreement, we got that from the

4 leadership of the ministry and I assume that it was the minister's office

5 or cabinet because I cannot remember exactly who it was that sent this

6 document to us, giving us the task to send it further on to the

7 secretariats so that they would be made aware of it and that they would

8 act accordingly.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You see, I'm still struggling, as I'm sure you

10 realize, to understand where this MUP staff fits in and what the point of

11 having it at all is if it's got no organizational role within the system.

12 I'm trying to understand why this document should be issued by the MUP

13 staff for Kosovo and should not come from Belgrade.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean why this went through the

15 staff?

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this is not the first case

18 that orders, "nalog," for issued through the staff -- well, there would be

19 a problem, for instance, and General Lukic would talk to the minister or I

20 would talk to some of the top people over there, we would present the

21 problem, and they would, for instance, say do this and that, send a

22 document to the secretariats so that they should act in such and such a

23 way. The staff would do that then on behalf of the leadership of the

24 ministry. That is what was done in this case because -- because the

25 ministry did not send this directly to the secretariats.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Rather -- yes?

3 JUDGE BONOMY: That means, surely, that there must be a document

4 from the ministry sending it to the MUP staff for Kosovo.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably, probably there was, but I

6 cannot remember that and I don't have anything like that here.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But I -- I beg your pardon, may I

9 just add one more thing? One should not rule out the possibility that

10 somebody brought that there without an accompanying letter, the text of

11 the agreement, brought it to the staff with the task of the staff being to

12 send this further on to the secretariats.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: My worry at the moment, Mr. Mijatovic, is that the

14 MUP staff for Kosovo is a body with a very fuzzy shape that I'm trying to

15 focus more clearly in my mind's eye, and at the moment I just don't see

16 where it fits in, unfortunately.

17 Mr. Lukic.

18 MR. LUKIC: I hope we are getting there, Your Honour. I think

19 that Mr. Mijatovic by the end of his testimony will be able to explain.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Well, I shall be patient.

21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, what were the names of the top

23 people in MUP in organizational units? What were the typical names? What

24 was the name of the first person within the police or within the

25 secretariat of the interior?

1 A. Yes, I understand your question. Those are chiefs, chief of the

2 criminal investigation, police, chief of the secretariat, and so on, so as

3 not to list all of them.

4 Q. We see that the name of the first person in the staff, the title

5 of the first person in the staff is different and we use the term "head of

6 the staff." What can we conclude based on that, if anything?

7 A. The head of the staff, the title itself, indicates that this

8 person heads a staff, not secretariats, but a staff because if the head of

9 staff also headed secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija then perhaps that

10 person would be known as head of police in Kosovo and Metohija or head of

11 organizational units of the ministry in Kosovo and Metohija or something

12 similar to that.

13 Q. Could you describe the process of reporting within the Ministry of

14 the Interior, how did that function?

15 A. The reporting functioned in the following way. First of all, let

16 me say that the reporting was done on the basis of the instructions on

17 reporting that were in power for the entire Ministry of the Interior, and

18 reporting or informing followed an opposite path then, command and

19 control. The police stations and departments of the interior within their

20 territories informed the secretariats, and then secretariats in turn

21 informed the Ministry of the Interior directly.

22 In parallel, reports were also sent by them to the staff in

23 Pristina. Based on those reports coming from the secretariat, the

24 analytical officer within the staff would produce a resume of all these

25 reports coming from the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija and draft

1 a single report which the staff would then send to the Ministry of the

2 Interior in order to have a better survey of what was going on because all

3 of these -- all of these pieces of information pertained to certain

4 categories, either traffic accidents or crimes and so on.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see in e-court 6D1323.

6 Q. This document hasn't been translated, as we can see in e-court, so

7 I would kindly ask you, Mr. Mijatovic, to tell us what type of a document

8 this is.

9 A. This is the document I just mentioned, and it pertains to a

10 reporting within the Ministry of the Interior. It is known as instruction

11 on informing and reporting.

12 Q. Was it on the basis of this document that reporting was done in

13 the Ministry of the Interior?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. If you remember, what kind of reports are made pursuant to this

16 instruction? What kind of reports SUPs produce?

17 A. I understood your question. I was just waiting for the

18 interpreters.

19 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour. May I inquire when we might

20 expect a translation of this because if we're going to go into detail with

21 him about the contents of this document, I need an English translation to

22 cross-examine with.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. LUKIC: We had a prioritize our documents sent for the

25 translation, and I think that this one is scheduled to be translated with

1 our expert witness. So I will not -- I don't have to --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: We can deal with it then with the expert --

3 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, but I'll just ask Mr. Mijatovic about his

4 knowledge. I'm not going to use this document. I just wanted to draw the

5 attention of Your Honours to be aware of the existence of such a document.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. Proceed without the document.

7 MR. LUKIC: Thanks a lot.

8 Q. [Interpretation] Could you tell us without referring to this

9 document, to the instruction, what do you know, what kind of reports exist

10 within the MUP?

11 A. There are so-called daily reports, daily reporting, meaning that

12 reports are sent on a daily basis. Then there is a so-called urgent

13 reporting, depending on the events. And then there is also occasional

14 reporting or a reporting done in a certain period of time. When I say

15 this, I'm referring to monthly and yearly reports that secretariats are

16 duty-bound to send to the senior officials of the Ministry of the

17 Interior.

18 Q. Do you remember when was this duty introduced for the secretariats

19 of the interior to send daily and special reports to the MUP staff?

20 A. Yes. These special reports have to do with urgent reporting or

21 some events of significance that needed to be reported on in a special

22 way. As for the duty of the staff, or rather, the duty of the

23 secretariats in Kosovo and Metohija to report to the staff, this was

24 introduced in 1990 when the first staff was established.

25 Q. Were the secretariats of the interior duty-bound to send periodic

1 reports to the staff in Kosovo and Metohija?

2 A. No, they did not have such duty and the staff did not receive

3 monthly or yearly reports on the work of secretariats.

4 Q. Who did the secretariats of the interior send daily and urgent

5 reports to?

6 A. As I have told you, they sent daily reports both to the ministry

7 and to the staff in parallel, as well as urgent reports whenever there was

8 an event that required urgent reporting.

9 Q. When you say "in parallel," you mean simultaneously?

10 A. Yes, simultaneously, it's an identical report, an identical report

11 is sent to the ministry and to the staff. There was no difference in the

12 content there.

13 Q. How did these reports sent by the secretariat of ministry go to

14 the staff and, or rather, how were they sent to the staff before the

15 bombing started and afterwards?

16 A. Before the bombing started, these reports were mostly sent via

17 communications equipment, that is to say by fax or by dispatch; and later

18 on when NATO bombing started, when these lines were disrupted, the only

19 way to send daily reports was by courier. Naturally, depending on the

20 events, sometimes we were unable to receive daily reports from all

21 secretariats, but whenever couriers managed to come in they would bring

22 all the reports for all the preceding days. So sometimes we did not have

23 information about something that happened in the preceding period of time

24 because sometimes these reports by secretariats were our only source of

25 information about some events.

1 Q. The reports sent by the staff to the ministry seat in Belgrade

2 were signed by whom?

3 A. These reports were mostly signed by General Lukic; if he was

4 absent, I would sign them; and if I wasn't present either, then some other

5 members of the staff would sign it, whoever was present when the analytics

6 officer completed the report. There was no need for them to wait for one

7 of us to come back.

8 Q. How would you describe the reports you received from SUPs in terms

9 of their clarity and comprehensibility?

10 A. Well, the analyst would receive these reports and he would review

11 them. Sometimes they would reach me, but the analytical never complained

12 to me that he did not understand the reports or was unable to review them

13 because something was not clear. So I think that everything was fine in

14 these reports and there was no need for us to intervene in any way.

15 Q. Did the MUP staff in Kosovo and Metohija have people via which it

16 would directly gather information on the ground?

17 A. No. Based on the composition of the staff you could see that

18 there was some dozen people there, two of which, Krdzic and Rajcic, were

19 employees of the secretariat in Pristina and they carried out their

20 regular work at the secretariat but would also occasionally do some work

21 for the staff. So the number of persons there was insufficient in order

22 to enable us to deal with these matters.

23 Q. Do you know whether the analysts at the staff concealed or dropped

24 some information from the staff reports that were sent to Belgrade?

25 A. I'm sure that the analyst didn't do that. I can't claim that we

1 checked every single report sent to Belgrade. We didn't check whether he

2 included all of the elements. We mostly tried to put all the essential

3 elements in those reports because we didn't want to burden them with

4 details, but had he wanted to change anything in the report, had he wanted

5 to omit something, it would have been impossible for him to do that,

6 precisely because the same reports were sent to the Ministry of the

7 Interior in Belgrade.

8 Q. Now I would like to ask you something about your presence at the

9 meetings outside of the MUP staff in Kosovo.

10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see P1468, please. Could

11 we now turn to page 142 in the Serbian version and 157 in the English

12 version.

13 Q. Have you found it, Mr. Mijatovic?

14 A. Yes, yes.

15 Q. What date is this?

16 A. 22nd of October, 1998.

17 Q. Do you remember attending this meeting?

18 A. I remember attending one meeting, since we can see in the minutes

19 that I was there I guess that's the meeting that I attended. I couldn't

20 tell you anything else.

21 Q. What was the nature of the meeting?

22 A. Nothing specific. They reported on some things, those who were in

23 attendance. I wouldn't be able to tell you even who attended the

24 meeting -- oh, it says here that Mr. Minic, Andjelkovic, and Lukic were

25 not present, and then we can see the people who contributed something at

1 the meeting, and based on what they said you can see that this was just a

2 matter of providing information, just that, briefing.

3 Q. Now could we turn to the content of this note here. It says here

4 that Mr. Andjelkovic was not present, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Yet, at the very same meeting, in the Serbian version that would

7 be the next page, it is recorded that Mr. Andjelkovic participated in the

8 debate. Could you explain this illogical thing in the minutes?

9 A. Well, I simply don't know, I cannot recall whether Andjelkovic was

10 there or was not there. It says here that he was absent but also that he

11 participated in the debate. So I couldn't really say anything about it.

12 It was a long time ago and I can't really recall -- I can't be expected to

13 recall who was present at that particular meeting.

14 Q. We've had problems trying to decipher the handwriting, but could

15 you please be so kind and read what it says below your name and just above

16 Mr. Andjelkovic's name, so that would be the intervention that is ascribed

17 to you. So could you please read it but do it slowly so that the

18 interpreters and everybody else in the courtroom is able to follow.

19 A. "Our units entered" --

20 Q. I think that there is something further up there just below

21 Colonel Mijatovic.

22 A. Yes, I do apologise, you're right. "On the 22nd" --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Before we go on, can we have the English version of

24 this on the screen.

25 MR. LUKIC: I said that it should be --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: 157.

2 MR. LUKIC: Yes, that's right.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

4 MR. LUKIC: That's it.

5 Q. [Interpretation] So could you please start now.

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 "On the 22nd of October, 1998, there" --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

9 Mr. Fila.

10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I don't understand why some people here

11 are obsessed with Mr. Sainovic, but I -- or rather, I do understand it,

12 but I don't see why his name should be on the screen while we're talking

13 about something else. Maybe somebody else needs it, but I don't. So

14 could you please go further down in the text.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: He happens to be on that page, Mr. Fila, and it's

16 of no significance that it's there while we read something else, so let's

17 please continue.

18 Please continue, Mr. Andjelkovic -- Mr. Mijatovic.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Could you please start reading now.

21 A. "On the 22nd of October, 1998, there were several" -- I think it

22 says "provocations but," the word is not finished here but I think it

23 says "but no harm was caused to any of our personnel. Our units entered

24 the S, village, of Glodjane," I suppose, "and the village of Jablanica

25 without any major problems. During the day the police entered," it's

1 really difficult to decipher the place names here, but these are obviously

2 some place names, "and the police from Podujevo was in the village of,"

3 again we have some names of some villages, "and there were no problems."

4 Q. I would like to stop here for a moment. We're talking about the

5 22nd of October, 1998; is that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Were there any anti-terrorist actions going on at that time in

8 light of the fact --

9 A. No, no, the agreement was signed on the 16th of October, and from

10 the time it was signed until the war started there were no anti-terrorist

11 actions planned for that period.

12 Q. So do you know what kind of police units we're talking about,

13 police units entering some villages?

14 A. Well, I don't know who made the minutes, I really don't know who

15 was -- the drafter was, if it was somebody from the military then it

16 doesn't really surprise me because in the army you often talk about units,

17 commands, and so on and so forth. So even if we're talking about a dozen

18 people or so, they would call it a unit, and in our parlance that would be

19 a patrol, a reinforced patrol. So obviously the police entered the

20 villages. So these are not units of any sort, these are not actions.

21 These were just their -- they were just police doing their regular job.

22 Q. Could you please go on reading now. Just a moment.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Just for the record, the record again

24 it says "minutes" where it should read "notes," that's 93, line 17.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Fila, that happened on this occasion to be

1 Mr. Lukic's choice of language I think, and he may have his own reasons

2 for thinking that that's what they are. As I've said before, it's for us

3 ultimately to look at all the evidence and decide what exactly they are.

4 Please continue, Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. [Interpretation] I may have misspoken. Could you please go on and

7 read the next passage from the notes.

8 A. "Today a one or a strong, necessary" -- well, it's really

9 difficult to read this handwriting, "a group, a patrol group" --

10 Q. Group.

11 A. "Group arrived from Finland to check the situation in Kosovo and

12 Metohija for the purpose of the exhumation of the bodies."

13 Q. I would like to stop you there. In this period of time, the 22nd

14 of October, 1998, to the best of your recollection, was there any

15 discussion about the arrival of a Finnish expert group that was supposed

16 to exhume the bodies, do you recall?

17 A. Well, I can't remember whether it was at that time, but as far as

18 I can remember, later on, yes, there was some discussion about the arrival

19 of such a team, but that was after the incident in Racak, the incident in

20 the village of Racak. And as for this period of time, I really can't say

21 anything. I simply don't remember.

22 Q. Could you please just finish reading until the end of this passage

23 but do it slowly.

24 A. "They were ordered to go" --

25 Q. "To be given ..."

1 A. "To be given cases that are being processed."

2 Q. Could you please stop here. Does this wording actually mean that

3 they were ordered that they be given something?

4 A. Well, that's what it says. "They were ordered that they be

5 given ..."

6 Q. Could you please read it to the end now?

7 A. "As regards the flags, the secretariats were ordered," the word

8 is "nalog," "to place the Republic of Serbia flags on the MUP

9 check-points.

10 Q. Do those flags have anything to do with the forensic experts from

11 Finland?

12 A. Well, no, no, none whatsoever.

13 Q. Thank you. We can see that on page where we see the date, in

14 Serbian that would be page 142, 157 in the English version, there right at

15 the top you can see: Session or meeting of the ZK for KiM. You've

16 explained to us what the nature of this meeting was. Now I would like to

17 ask you the following. At that time, did you know the term "Joint

18 Command"? Had you heard of it at any point?

19 A. I did hear that term being mentioned, but when I attended this

20 meeting I did not understand it to be a meeting of the Joint Command. And

21 I did not consider myself to be attending a meeting of any kind of

22 command, in fact, because everybody said whatever it was that they had to

23 say and then we all went our separate ways. There were no obligations, no

24 tasks of any kind. I wasn't able to see who was in charge, who were just

25 bit players. I was not a member of any command, but I just presented my

1 report. That's the only thing I have to say.

2 Q. Thank you. So to the best of your recollection, that was the only

3 time that you attended a meeting of this sort?

4 A. Well, I really don't recall having attended any other meeting

5 apart from this one.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And you don't appear to remember anything that

7 happened at this one; is that the position?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I was asked whether I had

9 attended any other meetings apart from this one.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but did you attend this one?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't remember. I know that

12 I attended one meeting, I don't know whether it was this one because I

13 can't recall the date, but I guess I did attend it because it is recorded

14 here in the notebook. I'm sure that I attended one meeting.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: You can't remember any of this subject matter that

16 we've been looking at so far, can you?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what you mean, what

18 subject matter you mean. I said what I had to say, what I was aware of.

19 I don't know whether you mean those meetings or something else.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I would like to know what it is you remember

21 anyone, including yourself, saying at the meeting that you attended.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, well it's recorded in the notes

23 or the minutes. It is difficult for me to actually read it, to see who

24 said what. The handwriting is really hard to decipher.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but you're recorded as having

1 reported on a monitoring group from Finland coming to investigate the

2 situation in Kosovo and to exhume bodies, and you apparently don't

3 remember that. Is that correct?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't remember really

5 because I know that the Finnish team was there after the incident in Racak

6 because they were dealing with the events in Racak, but I don't recall for

7 the previous period --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: You know that this has got nothing with Racak, it's

9 before that. And there's a reference to the Minister Andjelkovic talking

10 about setting up mixed local police in Kijevo. Do you remember that

11 subject?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't recall that topic at that

13 meeting, but I do recall about the local police.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Lukic, speaking

15 for myself, the witness doesn't remember being at this meeting. Perhaps

16 it will become clearer, but at the moment that's how I understand it. He

17 hasn't identified anything that he remembers occurring at the meeting.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you recognise the handwriting?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. I will not be asking you any more questions regarding the notes.

24 I will ask you something about the Joint Command. The MUP staff in Kosovo

25 and Metohija, did it ever receive any orders, "nalog," from a body called

1 the Joint Command?

2 A. No.

3 Q. And the MUP staff, did it have any obligations vis-a-vis a body

4 that would be called the Joint Command?

5 A. Well, as far as I know, no.

6 Q. And what were the regulations for the work of the organizational

7 units of the Ministry of the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija? We've

8 already discussed that --

9 A. We've already discussed that. That was done by the rules of the

10 Ministry of the Interior.

11 Q. In your opinion, in 1998 and 1999 was it possible for a body that

12 would be outside of the structure of the MUP and the Army of Yugoslavia to

13 assume command or control of the units within those two bodies?

14 A. Well, I don't know that this was done and in my opinion it

15 couldn't have been done because it would have disrupted the chain of

16 command that is based on rules. I can't see how a new body could be

17 established to disrupt this chain of command and control.

18 Q. During the course of your work, were you ever aware of the

19 existence of a Joint Command?

20 A. No, precisely for these reasons. I did not see a single

21 order, "nalog," or did I know of any obligation in terms of providing

22 return information to a command like that, no.

23 Q. In your view what would a command have to have at least?

24 A. First of all, somebody would have to establish this command. The

25 command would have to have a person in charge, regardless of whether it's

1 called a commander or whatever. It would have to -- this commander would

2 have to have his deputies, assistants, his co-workers, they would have to

3 have their command post premises that they would use, a system of

4 communications, telephones through which they would communicate, security

5 in particular at that time in Kosovo and Metohija. Assignments would have

6 to be issued by that command and there would have to be feedback

7 information as to what had been done. I am not aware of any such thing.

8 Quite simply I never felt anything like that.

9 Q. I have to ask a very banal question. Did you know a telephone

10 number that would be linked to a Joint Command?

11 A. At the same time, I do not remember any single number, but I know

12 that on our list of telephones, because we did have a list of telephones

13 that we communicated with in the ministry and down there in Kosovo, but we

14 quite certainly did not have the telephone number of a Joint Command.

15 Q. Now I'd like to ask for 6D1323 to be called up in e-court once

16 again, and I will just ask Mr. Mijatovic to read out a particular point to

17 us from this rule -- instructions, actually.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, this is the one you objected to. It

19 seems that one point is going to be asked about.

20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I guess I will wait and see what the

21 question is and see if I want to raise something about it later.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]

25 Q. [Interpretation] First of all I would like to ask you,

1 Mr. Mijatovic, whether it is natural for there to be coordinating

2 activities among different state organs at different levels.

3 A. I find that to be quite natural and that was what was done at all

4 levels. It is natural for ministries of the interior to communicate, or

5 rather, the Ministry of the Interior and the General Staff of the Army of

6 Yugoslavia. It is natural that they all together communicate with other

7 ministers from the government, with the Speaker of the Assembly and so on

8 and so forth, and also at lower levels, it is only natural, in Kosovska

9 Mitrovica, Prizren, never mind, it is only natural that the chief of SUP

10 should communicate with the commander of the brigade, with the president

11 of the municipality, the head of the district to exchange information and

12 so on and so forth. I do apologise, it seems to me that I am speaking a

13 bit too fast.

14 So I find that to be quite natural. After all, I don't know how

15 they would function if they were only confined to their own shell, if they

16 would clam up, I find that to be unnatural.

17 Q. [Microphone not activated].

18 I'm sorry, 6D1323 is what we are dealing with now, and could we

19 look at page 2.9. Since this document has not been translated, I kindly

20 ask you to read this paragraph slowly.

21 A. May I start?

22 "The chief of the secretariat of the interior, in addition to

23 urgent information mentioned in items 7 and 8 of these instructions shall

24 also ensure urgent information of organs of municipalities and cities and

25 chiefs of districts about events and occurrences mentioned in points 55

1 through 62, 73 through 75, and 104 through 107 of the list of information

2 and reporting."

3 Q. Thank you. Could you please read the next subparagraph of this

4 same paragraph?

5 A. "Urgent information mentioned in paragraph 1 of this item provides

6 for the sending of urgent information to the Assembly of the municipality

7 or city and the chief of the district at the same time when it is being

8 sent to the organizational unit in the seat of the ministry that is in

9 charge."

10 Q. I believe that we don't need the rest. Thank you.

11 A. Very well.

12 Q. So the chiefs of the SUPs, that is to say the secretariat of the

13 interior, are they duty-bound to provide information to the civilian

14 authorities as well?

15 A. Yes. We see here that in addition to it being necessary, they

16 also have the obligation to do that.

17 Q. And what about the minister of the interior, for instance, the

18 republican minister, is it his duty to report to the Assembly of the

19 republic?

20 A. Yes, that is his duty according to the law.

21 MR. LUKIC: Maybe we should ask Mr. Hannis if there's any

22 objections.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Let sleeping dogs lie, Mr. Lukic.

24 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, if we're going to go any more,

25 I'll re-raise my objection.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I anticipate that, but I think your silence spoke

2 volumes there. Thank you.

3 Mr. Lukic.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Now we are going to leave this document aside and we're going to

6 move on to what the situation was like on the eve of the war. Could you

7 please focus on that particular period. What were the comments being made

8 in February 1999 in the environment that you lived and worked in in

9 relation to the Rambouillet negotiations?

10 A. Well, not only in the environment where I was at the time, but

11 generally speaking in Serbia, as far as I know from my contacts with

12 friends and relatives, in view of how the negotiations in Rambouillet were

13 progressing, in all likelihood the negotiations did not seem to be

14 successful and probably an attack would be launched against our country.

15 Q. The MUP of the Republic of Serbia, did it take all necessary

16 measures before and after the negotiations in Rambouillet for the signed

17 agreements with the OSCE to be observed fully?

18 A. Yes, I'm aware of that. There were quite a few meetings, quite a

19 few documents were being sent out into the field in order to have maximum

20 measures taken so that the agreement could be observed fully. Because we

21 knew, although we had all assessed that this agreement was rather

22 unfavourable to our country, but it was there and the state leadership

23 wanted to avoid having the country bombed. That is why, as far as I know,

24 from all levels maximum efforts were made to observe the agreement, even

25 suffering certain consequences during that time. Nevertheless, everything

1 was done. However, as we all know, this did not yield any results and

2 ultimately we were bombed.

3 Q. At that time what kind of a danger came from Macedonia?

4 A. From Macedonia there was the danger of the land forces of NATO

5 entering Kosovo and Metohija.

6 Q. Due to this kind of situation, did anyone from the MUP leadership

7 go to Kosovo and Metohija?

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court

9 P1990.

10 Q. Please look at pages 2 to 4. In English 2 to 6. Did you manage?

11 A. Yes, in principle.

12 Q. Would you please tell us what kind of a document this is?

13 A. These are the minutes from the meeting held at the MUP staff in

14 Pristina on the 17th of March, 1999, with the senior staff attended by the

15 minister and his closest associates. When I refer to the senior staff,

16 I'm referring both to public security and state security, including chiefs

17 of both sectors.

18 Q. In principle, what did the minister convey to police members

19 gathered there?

20 A. Well, in principle, as always, he provided the assessment of the

21 work, provided guide-lines for future work, for upcoming tasks, this is

22 something that was mostly done during all meetings. And naturally he said

23 that should the country be attacked, it will defend itself using all

24 forces available to it so that we had to be ready for that.

25 Q. Now would you please turn to page 1, fifth line from above on page

1 1, under the name of General Sreten Lukic it says as follows: "The staff

2 planned to carry this out when this is ordered, three sweeping actions

3 aimed at getting rid of the terrorists in Dragobilje, Drenica, for that

4 task we prepared 4.000 policemen from operational pursuit group and about

5 900 from reserve forces" --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you gave us the wrong page for that

7 reference, Mr. Lukic. You said page 1.

8 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S, sorry. It's page 2 in English.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Ah, right. Thanks. 4.000 and around -- 4.000

10 policemen and then 70 from the operative --

11 MR. LUKIC: It's in the --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but 70 from the operative pursuit group,

13 which hasn't been reflected in the transcript.

14 MR. LUKIC: I read it, yeah, okay. Thank you.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Your question?

16 MR. LUKIC: My question is:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, does this discuss creation of

18 plans or something else?

19 A. As I have said in my evidence earlier, the MUP staff in Pristina

20 did not draft any plans for any anti-terrorist action whatsoever. This

21 pertained to three locations, and this activity was planned by the

22 Pristina Corps. In order for them to plan this, they had to receive from

23 the staff the information on the units participating in this action; and

24 based on that, General Lukic informed the minister about the three actions

25 which were certainly not planned by the staff. As far as I remember,

1 these three actions were not carried out until the beginning of the

2 bombing.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: This minute is the 17th of February; is that

4 correct, Mr. Lukic?

5 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: For some reason I wrote March down, it may say

7 March somewhere, but it is February.

8 MR. LUKIC: May I continue?

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 [Interpretation] Could we now see in e-court Exhibit 6D269.

12 Q. For the next set of questions you would need to look at the entire

13 document.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] But I think we ran out of time.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We can interrupt at this stage.

16 Mr. Mijatovic, we have to terminate our proceedings for the day at

17 this point. That means that you have to return tomorrow to continue with

18 your evidence; that will be at 9.00 tomorrow morning in this courtroom.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. I've understood.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I expect you may not complete your evidence

21 tomorrow but also have to return on Thursday. Between now and your

22 completing giving evidence here, it is vitally important that you have no

23 communication with anyone at all about any aspect of the evidence in this

24 case, either your evidence or that of any other person in the case. You

25 can talk to whoever you like about whatever you like except the evidence

1 in this case. Now, please bear that in mind and now leave the courtroom

2 with the usher and we'll see you again tomorrow at 9.00.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Good-bye.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.30 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 13th day of

7 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25