1 Thursday, 14 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Milutinovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, everyone. Judge Nosworthy will not
7 be with us today or tomorrow. She is absent on other authorised Tribunal
8 business. Yesterday at the end of the proceedings objection was taken to
9 the use by Mr. Cepic of Exhibit P1100 on the basis that it had not been
10 intimated as an exhibit to which reference would be made in the course of
11 the cross-examination. The explanation for that is that it was
12 misdescribed as P110. Mr. Lukic in supporting this objection by -- in his
13 submission suggested that on occasions in the course of the evidence so
14 far, similar objections to documents he intended to use had been
15 sustained. In the Trial Chamber's researches since yesterday, we have
16 been unable to identify any such occasion; on the other hand, there are
17 examples at T 11275 and 18976 where objections of a similar nature were
18 repelled, where in one instance the document had only recently arrived and
19 in the other the Lukic Defence had not expected a development to occur --
20 a particular development to occur in the evidence.
21 We are satisfied that in any event justice demands that we allow
22 reference to this document, but it also does appear that the supporting
23 argument advanced may have been wrong. Since this sort of situation may
24 arise again, we would welcome the identification of any passages that may
25 support the argument that was advanced by Mr. Lukic yesterday, because in
1 another context it may be a more material point than we find it to be in
2 this case.
3 [The witness entered court]
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Mijatovic.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: The cross-examination by Mr. Cepic will continue in
7 a moment. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak the
8 truth continues to apply to your evidence today, as it did yesterday and
9 on the first day.
10 Mr. Cepic.
11 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 WITNESS: MIROSLAV MIJATOVIC [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, good afternoon.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. We talked yesterday about documents about legal regulations, about
18 the Law on Defence, about the Law on Internal Affairs. You mentioned at
19 one point the Law on the VJ and the Rules of Service of the VJ. You will
20 agree with me, won't you, that the Law on VJ and the Rules of Service of
21 the VJ do not apply to the Ministry of the Interior, do they?
22 A. That's right. I apologise, but there are certain parts about
23 graduates of secondary schools and the army and something about the MUP
24 about the Law on the VJ, so there are certain parts that I believe to
25 apply, as far as I remember.
1 Q. Let's try to be specific about this. You are one such case
2 because you are a graduate of the military academy, and you were sent by
3 the MUP for further education, right?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P985 brought up on
6 our screens. This is the Law on Defence.
7 Q. Colonel, sir, before this shows up on our screens, you testified
8 in chief about Article 17, a provision of Article 17 of that law.
9 MR. CEPIC: Article 17, please. Could we have zoom in, please,
10 the bottom of the page in B/C/S.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, you were unable at one point in
12 your testimony to provide a more specific interpretation about this part
13 that reads: "Organs and units of the MUP."
14 A. I don't know how I came across, but I did do my best to explain
15 that. I can repeat that, if you like.
16 Q. No, no, we've got that on the record already. Thank you.
17 Do you agree that the legislator should have used this law to try
18 to be more specific about what this expression means?
19 A. I'm no lawyer myself and it is not my place to go into the
20 specifics of this law --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: You're quite right, Mr. Mijatovic. You'll move on
22 to something else. That's a matter for us to deal with unless there's a
23 particular difficulty as a matter of fact that you want to draw to our
24 attention. The question of interpretation and how it might have approved
25 is a matter we will deal with as a matter of law. But if you want to
1 show -- if you want to point to evidence that there was a particular
2 problem in fact caused by the terminology, then you can lead evidence
3 about that.
4 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I will try to examine this
5 witness in that direction.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, as a high-ranking MUP officer, will you
7 agree with me that when MUP units are subordinated and there is the
8 commander who commands over combat actions, the specific tasks of the
9 engagement and assignments of the MUP units are not specified?
10 A. You mean in an order regarding resubordination?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. As far as I remember, I did look at one of those. I don't think
13 there are any specific tasks that are mentioned in those.
14 Q. Thank you. You agree that nothing is done by default when there
15 is resubordination. There must be a specific order for it, right?
16 A. I said that there must be an order.
17 Q. Thank you. You are telling us that you saw an order on
18 resubordination --
19 MR. LUKIC: I think that the answer of this -- this answer was
20 wrongly entered in the transcript. If the question would be repeated and
21 the answer as well, otherwise I would be leading.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: It's the question at line 15, Mr. Cepic. Would you
23 ask it again, please.
24 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, I'm asking you, and you answered - there
1 could be an error in the transcript - I'm repeating my question. Nothing
2 is done by default when there is resubordination, right?
3 A. When there is resubordination, it must be based on an order.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: It comes to the same thing again.
6 MR. LUKIC: But the other part of the question wasn't asked this
7 time. "There must be a specific order ..." And the witness said something
8 about that.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, twice he's said that there must be an order.
10 What do you say was added to that?
11 MR. LUKIC: I heard the witness saying there was an order, but ...
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Mijatovic, did you actually say in
13 response to that question the first time that there was an order?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I saw as I was being proofed
15 two orders I think, one from the 3rd Army commander and one from the
16 Pristina Corps commander.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: When did you first see these?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the proofing.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
20 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for your
21 assistance, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, do you know whether the MUP staff in Pristina made
23 any efforts or did anything for MUP forces to be resubordinated to the VJ?
24 A. What sort of efforts do you have in mind? I know that in relation
25 to 1999, or rather, 1998, both in 1999 and also when the air-strikes began
1 the police units that were involved in anti-terrorist activity in the same
2 way proceeded to work with VJ units, and as far as that was concerned
3 there were no problems, as far as I remember. I did say yesterday, did I,
4 because I think that was yesterday, wasn't it? I'm sorry about my pace.
5 That the problem about resubordination, subordination, or as the law says,
6 resubordination, was about all the other structures from the Ministry of
7 the Interior. That's where problems arose.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't know that that's an answer to the question,
9 Mr. Mijatovic. I think it would be helpful to all of us if you were to
10 address the particular question that was put just now which was:
11 "Do you know whether the MUP staff in Pristina made any efforts or
12 did anything for MUP forces to be resubordinated to the VJ?"
13 The answer to that must be yes or no.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's difficult to provide a yes or
15 no answer, Mr. President, because we're looking at units that were
16 involved in combat actions and under the Law on Defence these are
17 resubordinated. I don't think there was a problem with that, but there
18 was a problem with the other thing, combatting crime, administrative
19 affairs, that sort of thing. But the discussion was, as far as I
20 remember, General Obrad Stevanovic --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: But I don't think we have seen any order where MUP
22 were, in fact, resubordinated according to an order of -- within the
23 Ministry of the Interior to the VJ, and that's what Mr. Cepic is asking
24 you about, what efforts were actually made within your office to give
25 effect to resubordination. And we understand the distinction between
1 combat units or units being used in combat and the other operations of the
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I understand the question.
4 I thought the previous one was in relation to an order down the army
5 chain. I think Mr. Cepic asked me that question yesterday. I said that
6 from the level of the ministry we received no order on resubordination.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but his question is: What was done in the MUP
8 staff to enable MUP forces to be resubordinated to the VJ? And he was
9 referring to the MUP staff in Pristina, and that's the question, I have to
10 say, I think you can answer either yes or no. Was anything done or was
11 nothing done? The reason's another matter. The simple question at the
12 moment is whether anything was done within the MUP staff in Pristina to
13 give effect to resubordination of MUP forces to the VJ?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The MUP staff could not take
15 decisions like that. In Pristina there was also the assistant minister
16 General Stevanovic. As far as I know he was in touch with people from the
17 army and they discussed that; otherwise, the activities were proceeding
18 the same as back in 1998. It's just that now the orders, "zapovesti," by
19 the Pristina Corps now had the nature of an order with clear orders,
20 or, "naradjenje," for police units -- my apologies, those involved in
21 combat activities.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
23 Mr. Cepic.
24 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, I find your evidence quite
1 ambiguous and full of contradiction in some ways. You say one thing first
2 and then another the next minute. Let's see what you can tell us about
3 this. In May, at least as far as you know, what about the MUP's combat
4 units, were they carrying out any tasks of the VJ in May?
5 A. May 1999?
6 Q. Yes, that's precisely what I mean.
7 A. As far as I know, yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] P1993.
10 Q. Do you recognise this document, Colonel?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Very briefly, who seems to be attending this meeting?
13 A. Assistant minister General Obrad Stevanovic, General Lukic,
14 members of the staff, commanders of PJP detachments.
15 Q. At number 1, that's you, right?
16 A. Yes, members of the staff, I said so, that's me.
17 Q. You personally attended this meeting?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I see, okay, and all these are members of combat units, the ones
20 we see on the list, right?
21 A. There are territorial detachments, there are two, as well as
22 manoeuvre detachments.
23 Q. But they're all detachments, no SUP chiefs there, are there?
24 A. No, none.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have page 2 of this in
2 the Serbian and page 5 in the English.
3 Q. Lieutenant-Colonel Dragan Nikolic, do you remember that person?
4 Let's take him as an example, the 122nd Intervention Brigade?
5 A. The name rings a bell but I can't remember the person.
6 Q. It was a mechanised MUP brigade, right, the 122nd?
7 A. No.
8 Q. But it did have armour, didn't it?
9 A. I don't know what exactly the detachments had, but they did have
10 some armour, yes.
11 Q. BJBAT, BOV 3?
12 A. No, this is something that the mechanised brigade had and not the
14 Q. And which one was the mechanised one?
15 A. The 124th.
16 Q. Okay. Look at this, the 11th of May, deputy commander of the
17 122nd Intervention Brigade Lieutenant-Colonel Nikolic. Can you look at
18 the last bullet point, please, and read it: "Relations with the VJ."
19 A. "Relations with the VJ at the beginning was fraught with huge
20 problems, and after clarifications, the situation improved and now
21 cooperation is good."
22 Q. Thank you. All right. Let's go to page 3 of the Serbian and page
23 7 of the English. Will you please look at item 6, Dragan Obradovic, the
24 commander of the 86 Detachment of the PJP.
25 A. Can we zoom in, please, because I can't see this properly. Am I
1 supposed to read this?
2 Q. Yes, the first and second bullet points, please. The second one
3 is the one that matters. It starts: "The VJ ..."
4 A. "We had no problems with the VJ, but neither do we have
5 particularly good cooperation with them. We currently do not know where
6 they are or what they're doing."
7 Q. All right. What about the commander of the 85th Detachment,
8 Major Rade Repic? This is page 4 in the Serbian or B/C/S and pages 9 and
9 10 in the English. Can you see that, sir? It's the third bullet
10 point: "Cooperation with the VJ ..."
11 A. Item 9?
12 Q. "The commander of the 85th PJP Detachment, Major Rade Repic ..."
13 A. "The cooperation with the VJ is good, although at the beginning
14 there were attempts" -- there is something missing there, "but reason
15 prevailed and now there is cooperation without any particular problems."
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please now have page 15 in the
18 English. The Serbian reference is 6, page 6.
19 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, who in the MUP was superior, personally superior,
20 to these units?
21 A. You mean the PJP?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. As far as I know - and I do know that - up until I think 1997 --
24 Q. No, no, no, I'm talking about May 1999. Who from the MUP was the
25 superior of the PJP unit?
1 A. I was just about to say that.
2 Q. Can you please answer briefly.
3 A. I can't say with certainty because back in 1997 it was
4 General Obrad Stevanovic. In 1997, he was appointed assistant minister
5 and I don't know if he held on to his position as a commander of the PJP.
6 He wasn't replaced by anyone at the time, so I can only assume that he
7 continued in that position, but I don't know for sure.
8 Q. We see his words in front of us on the record. Look at item 4,
10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Can we please zoom in on item 4 in the
11 Serbian. [In English] Could we have in English also, please, count 4.
12 Q. [Interpretation] Would you please read it again, the first
13 sentence of item 4, this has to do with General Obrad Stevanovic?
14 A. "Stevanovic: Resubordination to VJ shall be in the spirit of
15 cooperation and good exchange of information in the interest of the
16 defence of the country and anti-terrorist struggle" --
17 Q. That's quite sufficient.
18 A. But the rest is important to with the proviso that we know who is
19 cooperating --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: If that's what counsel wants, that's what counsel
21 gets. Mr. Lukic will be able to re-examine you, if he wishes to do so, in
22 relation to that matter.
23 Mr. Cepic.
24 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Mijatovic, you will agree with me that
1 Mr. Obrad Stevanovic uses future tense, isn't that right? He says that it
2 should be.
3 A. Tell me about the date, is it 11th of May?
4 Q. I'm not asking you about the date, I'm asking you about the
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Isn't he using future tense in terms of saying they should?
8 A. No, no, no. That's not how it is.
9 Q. They are using future tense.
10 A. This is not future tense. They are saying there needs to be, it's
11 not future tense, at least in my interpretation.
12 Q. So they are saying that something needs to be done, and it is not
13 done; isn't that right?
14 A. No, not that way. They are saying that they need to continue with
16 Q. Very well. You're saying one thing and documents are saying
17 something else, and this is not the first example of such behaviour,
18 rather the sixth or seventh --
19 MR. LUKIC: I kindly as the counsel to ask the question, not to
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, sorry. Sorry, I didn't hear that.
22 MR. LUKIC: I would kindly ask my colleague to ask the question,
23 not to comment.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
25 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I was about to
1 do, to put a new question, Your Honours.
2 Q. Colonel, would you please --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: That often is the case, Mr. Cepic, but we can do
4 without the comments. It's really the second part of what you said in
5 lines 17 and 18 that it's a matter for you to submit to us later. So
6 let's stick to the questions.
7 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, item 5, just below this. Would you
9 please read the first bullet point.
10 A. "The police units are subordinated to the chief of SUP, heads of
11 PJP, and heads of police have to attend every meeting of the SUP
13 Q. Is this sentence clear to you, yes or no?
14 A. It is clear to me.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Mijatovic.
16 A. But this pertains --
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we see 5D1417, please.
19 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, since we do not have the translation of this
20 document, would you please read the title of this document, the heading.
21 A. "Deployment of PJP in the region on the 17th of April, 1999."
22 Q. Would you read 3, please.
23 A. "122nd Intervention Brigade," is that what you're referring to?
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. 7th Company, Bradas, Bojcina, Kasindol, Krpne.
1 Q. Thank you. Mr. Mijatovic, who is the commander of the 122nd
2 Intervention Brigade?
3 A. I think that we said earlier that it was Dragan Nikolic; however,
4 whenever units are sent out, the commander is specified because people are
5 sent out to rest and so on. So when a unit is established, the commander
6 always needs to be designated, and I wouldn't be able to tell you at any
7 point in time who was commander of what unit, company, and so on.
8 Q. You will agree with me that Nikolic was deputy commander and that
9 Colonel Dragan Zivaljevic was the commander?
10 A. Probably. As I have said to you, I can't remember the names
11 because people rotated. If it were the same people all the time, I would
12 have remembered their names, who were the commanders and so on, but people
13 changed. Whenever a unit was deployed a commander was designated for that
14 particular instance.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you who made that designation.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Senior staff -- senior officers in a
17 detachment. When units are established by way of the decision of the
18 minister, there was another document pertaining to establishment which
19 specified how units were established. There was an establishment
20 commander of a detachment. However, when a unit is sent out on a mission,
21 it's not always the commander who is in charge of it because he has to
22 rest as well. Therefore, instead of him, either his deputy or one of the
23 lower-level company commanders headed the unit. It frequently happened
24 that units were combined, which is to say that, for example, first three
25 companies would be sent and then another three companies would be sent out
1 to replace them. So the commanders were designated out of the entire
2 command structure.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Mijatovic, the 122nd Intervention Brigade, is
4 that smaller than a detachment?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that there was a split
6 there. The Belgrade detachment was split because they were active in two
7 different locations and then --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's stop there. They're split in two or in more
9 than two?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think just in two. So a part of
11 the 122nd remained --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Now you've told us that the commander Nikolic might
13 not be the commander when they're sent out on a particular occasion and
14 that that commander might be changed. Who would make the decision whether
15 to change Nikolic?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The decision would be made within
17 that detachment, 122nd Detachment, they would be deciding who would go
18 with the unit, not the staff. And I don't think the minister would do
19 that either, because when the minister issues a decision, then in the
20 decision it says that a unit needs to be sent, and they are the ones
21 deciding the rest, people from the detachment and from the secretariat.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: So a detachment is sent out and it's left to the
23 detachment to decide who will command them on this occasion; is that what
24 you're saying?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. If the commander cannot
1 go. Perhaps he was already there during a previous shift because people
2 rotated every month or every 40 days. So the establishment commander had
3 to have rest, and then they had to decide who would have the following
4 shift, whether deputy commander, and if deputy commander was not
5 available, then one of the company commanders. In the decision on sending
6 out a detachment, it is not specified by names who would lead; no, that
7 was normally decided at the level of a detachment. However, I do not
8 exclude the possibility that in some of the decisions it was specified,
9 but it wasn't the staff who did it.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: So the detachment itself decides who will command
11 it; is that what you're saying? It's yes or no. Don't go off on another
12 tour of the country. Just tell me yes or no whether I've understood your
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
16 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, I didn't understand part of your answer,
18 so would you please answer again. What is greater, a detachment or a
20 A. According to a military establishment --
21 Q. No, no, no, not the military. I'm asking you specifically with
22 regard to the MUP of Serbia. There is mention of detachments and
23 brigades. What is greater?
24 A. According to the military establishment, a brigade is larger;
25 however, I don't know the exact numbers of the 122nd Brigade. It is
1 possible that within the 22nd Detachment there was some additional people
2 there, and the ministry was the one deciding upon it, and I wouldn't be
3 able to tell you anything more about it.
4 Q. Was the 22nd Detachment within the composition of the 122nd
6 A. I repeat once again, 122nd Intervention Brigade, as far as I
7 remember, was created by splitting the 22nd Detachment because they were
8 active in two different locations, that was the need that existed most
9 likely at the time. And just one figure was added, figure one, in order
10 to see that they were part of the 22nd Detachment. This is why they were
11 named 122nd. Now, as to the numbers, whether they received additional
12 personnel because they needed them, I don't know. This was something that
13 was decided at the level of the ministry, and I can't tell you anything
14 about the numbers, who had more people, whether it was 122nd Brigade or
15 the 22nd Detachment.
16 Q. Thank you. Yesterday you testified, and on page 61 it was
17 recorded that there was no reporting going on between the MUP staff and
18 PJP detachments. Do you remember these words -- uttering these words?
19 A. I said that after anti-terrorist activities commanders of
20 detachments did not submit reports, did not report the staff -- did not
21 report to the staff; rather, they informed the relevant secretariats about
22 certain events concerning which secretariats had to undertake certain
23 measures or necessary measures. Now, as to whether they informed anybody
24 in the course of combat activities, I wouldn't know that because I wasn't
25 out on the ground, I wasn't following these activities.
1 Q. And similarly, the staff did not send to brigades or to
2 detachments any orders in the course of combat activities?
3 A. I don't remember that.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 5D1418. Could we see
6 page 2, please.
7 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, we don't have the English translation. Would you
8 please read the heading of this document, but before you start doing that
9 let me just put to you evidence of General Mandic, who claimed that in
10 late May 122nd Intervention Brigade did not resubordinate itself to him
11 for the purposes of carrying out a task. Did you know General Mandic?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Thank you. Would you please read the heading of this document.
14 A. Yes. "MUP of the Republic of Serbia, staff of the MUP, dispatch
15 number 139, 26th of May, 1999, Pristina" --
16 Q. To whom is it sent?
17 A. 122nd Intervention Brigade is sending this to
18 Commander Zivaljevic.
19 Q. Thank you. Now let's move on to the text.
20 A. "Civilian persons to be returned to their villages. If that is
21 not feasible, if that is not doable, we agree that they be deployed to
22 positions you proposed. All persons fit for combat to be put in custody
23 and turned over to the regional secretariat. In doing so, ensure that
24 police acts in accordance with the law."
25 Q. And signed by?
1 A. Staff.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 A. Anything that I can tell you about this?
4 Q. Just a second, please.
5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see the following page.
6 Q. Just tell me, please, before you start reading this document,
7 Lieutenant-Colonels Adamovic and Arsenijevic had both completed military
8 academy, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In 1999 Arsenijevic was in charge of operations in the staff,
12 A. Yes, he replaced Adamovic.
13 Q. Thank you. He was there dealing with operations?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you please read this heading.
16 A. "MUP of the Republic of Serbia, 122nd Intervention Brigade,
17 communique number 09/99, 26th of May, 1999, Podujevo."
18 Q. This is sent to whom?
19 A. To the Chief of Staff of PJP.
20 Q. Will you please read what it says.
21 A. But there was no such thing.
22 Q. Okay. Read the text.
23 A. The lines reached Bora 1 outside -- 88-88-78, rather 80-88-78;
24 positions taken, 87, 86, 109, 110, 111, 98, 97, 95, and on from there.
25 "We had several resistance points, the results so far are good,
1 one slightly grey 0, collection points for refugees are at the following
2 positions: 78 KA 90 and 111-90-91, among them about 150 fighters. Seek
3 further instructions and location for refugee collection points, and I
4 propose points 138 and 139.
5 "Commander of the 122nd Intervention Brigade,
6 Colonel Dragan Zivaljevic."
7 Q. Can we please look at the upper right corner of this document, the
8 handwritten portion, can the usher please move that slightly so we can see
9 that. Thank you.
10 In the upper right-hand corner, that's
11 Lieutenant-Colonel Arsenijevic's signature, right, Mr. Mijatovic?
12 A. I really couldn't say.
13 Q. What does it say, the handwritten bit?
14 A. General Lukic for familiarizing himself and taking a decision.
15 Q. Whose signature is that underneath?
16 A. Those are my initials.
17 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Mijatovic.
18 MR. CEPIC: Could we have one minute, please, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
20 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
21 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Mijatovic.
23 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I have no
24 further questions.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Cepic.
1 Mr. Mijatovic, you'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor,
2 Mr. Hannis.
3 Mr. Hannis.
4 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mijatovic. Could you tell us when you
7 first --
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. -- joined the Ministry of the Interior.
10 A. You mean when I started working there?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. The 1st of July, 1971.
13 Q. And with regard to your work, what were you doing between 1992 and
14 July of 1998 before you went to Kosovo?
15 A. From 1992?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. From 1992, as far as I remember, I was working in a department, I
18 was head of department within the police administration, as far as I
20 Q. And the whole time up until you went to Kosovo in July of 1998?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And where were you located during that time-period?
23 A. Before I went to Kosovo, is that what you mean?
24 Q. Yes, between 1992 and July of 1998.
25 A. In the ministry, in Belgrade.
1 Q. When were you first promoted to the rank of colonel?
2 A. I can't remember specifically whether it was in 1995 or 1996 when
3 ranks were introduced in the police, and then we had certain terms that we
4 had been using up to then, and then these positions were transformed into
5 ranks in relation to all police members. And that was when my position at
6 the time was transformed into the rank of colonel.
7 Q. Okay. And was that the rank you still held when you retired in
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recall the exact date on which you were sent to Kosovo in
11 July 1998?
12 A. Not exactly, but I think it was in the first half of July, on or
13 around the 15th, but while I was preparing for this testimony I was unable
14 to track down the specific decision, and I can't remember the date.
15 Q. So there is a written document reflecting that, but you weren't
16 able to find it?
17 A. Yes. Everybody who receives a mission like that gets a
18 personalized decision. We talked the last time about me terminating work
19 with the staff and being returned to one's original unit. The same applies
20 to when one is sent out to work to be or attached to a staff, there is
21 always a personalized decision on each of these appointments.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we take it that the position you held before
23 the ranks were introduced was at the same level as colonel?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One could put it that way. I no
25 longer remember exactly how positions were transformed into ranks, but I
1 continued to do the same job within the police administration and the same
2 applied to the previous situation where I held no rank, as to this new
3 situation now that we suddenly had ranks.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
5 MR. HANNIS:
6 Q. That's the kind of document that would be in your personnel file,
8 A. It should be, yes.
9 Q. Now, we've seen documents from the personnel file of David Gajic
10 and Milorad Lukovic and Mr. Vilotic. You don't have your personnel file
12 A. It's not in my possession, but I think it should be in the
13 ministry's -- the Ministry of the Interior.
14 Q. Who made the decision to send you to Kosovo in July 1998, if you
16 A. It could have been either the minister or the chief of the public
17 security sector, if you mean the decision on this appointment.
18 Q. So in terms of who signed the decision, it would have been either
19 Minister Stojiljkovic or the Assistant Minister Djordjevic, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. But do you know who -- who within the ministry made the initial
22 proposal that you would be the person sent to Kosovo for that position of
23 deputy head of staff, do you know that?
24 A. I don't know who took that specific decision or who made that
25 proposal, but that was what was done.
1 Q. Before the written decision was issued, did anybody in the
2 ministry come to you and say, Mr. Mijatovic, we're thinking of sending you
3 to Kosovo? Or did you just get the document out of the blue?
4 A. I was told by General Obrad Stevanovic.
5 Q. Do you know if General Lukic had requested you personally?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Now, we see you described as the deputy head of staff. How many
8 deputy heads of staff were there? Was there only one?
9 A. Only one.
10 Q. Okay. And you were in that position from the beginning of -- from
11 July 1998 until, what, the end of May 1999; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, from July 1998 until the end of May 1999.
13 Q. All right. Before I ask you questions about your testimony here,
14 I'd like to just address a few items in your written statement. Do you
15 have a hard copy of that, Colonel?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. The first one I want to ask you about is paragraph 13, and you're
18 talking about some summaries that were made of the number of members of
19 the police, et cetera, and a summary of the numerical strength and
20 deployment of those in Kosovo. Did you work on that document? That this
21 was being prepared in connection with the arrival of the OSCE-KVM mission.
22 A. I think this is something that Dusko Adamovic did based on
23 information that he had because he was in charge of keeping track the
24 numerical strength of units. I'm sure I looked at it back then, and I
25 think I forwarded this to KDOM, who at the beginning were in charge of the
1 business of the Kosovo Verification Mission. I forwarded this to them.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MR. HANNIS: Could we look at Exhibit P1224.
4 Q. And with the usher's help I can hand you a hard copy, Colonel. I
5 don't know if you've got it in your binder or not.
6 A. I don't think so -- probably it's there, but I can't quite ...
7 Q. Take a moment and tell me if you recognise that as something you'd
8 seen before.
9 A. Yes, I remember this table.
10 Q. And with regard to the text, if you could look at -- I think it's
11 on page 3 of the B/C/S and it's page 3 of the English, this is under item
12 number 1 that's talking about protection of settlements and territory,
13 right above item number 2. Do you find that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it makes reference that in the past period special police
16 activities were directed at 19 municipalities with 306 settled areas and
17 around 248.000 inhabitants. Do you have any disagreement with those
19 A. Affected by terrorist activity, so there's talk here of the 306
20 villages in 19 municipalities that were affected by terrorist activity.
21 That's what it says.
22 Q. Okay. Are you aware that those numbers were the same numbers that
23 were presented to Mr. Milosevic and several other high-ranking
24 politicians, police and military officials at a meeting of the body called
25 the Inter-Departmental Staff for Suppressing Terrorism in Kosovo and
2 A. I wasn't at this meeting myself, and I don't know what sort of
3 information was shared. As I was being proofed for my evidence, I did
4 look at this record, but I don't remember seeing these figures there.
5 Maybe they were there, I just don't remember seeing them.
6 Q. Okay. Let's just take a quick look, if we may, then at Exhibit
8 And, Colonel, this is the document that's described as the minutes
9 of that meeting on the 29th of October.
10 MR. HANNIS: And that's at page 5 of the English, Your Honours.
11 Q. And I can give you a hard copy, Colonel, and I'll direct you to
12 page 5 of the B/C/S where I've marked with a green marker this portion
13 where it reports that: "The operations encompassed 19 municipalities and
14 four towns ..."
15 Do you find it?
16 "And four towns with 248.239 residents or 15 per cent of the total
17 1.500.000 some residents in Kosovo and Metohija," do you see that?
18 A. Yes, yes, I do.
19 Q. Now, did General Lukic tell you about having attended this meeting
20 in Belgrade on the 29th of October, 1998?
21 A. I saw it in this record.
22 Q. Yes, when did you see it in the record?
23 A. As I was being proofed for my testimony.
24 Q. Yeah, but my question is: Did he tell you about it in 1998,
25 around the time he went to the meeting?
1 A. He may have. At the time it didn't matter that much to me and
2 that's probably why I don't remember the date. I know he occasionally
3 went to Belgrade, but I don't know exactly where to and what for.
4 Q. You were General Lukic's number two man in the MUP staff in
5 October 1998, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And between July and the end of September 1998, you were aware
8 that in Kosovo there was a plan for combatting terrorism that was carried
9 out in several phases, right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if you looked at this document before during proofing, you
12 will remember that the people attending included President Milosevic,
13 President Milutinovic, Mr. Sainovic, the minister of the interior, the
14 Chief of Staff of the army, the most high-ranking politicians and VJ and
15 MUP personnel; and you're telling me that Mr. Lukic didn't tell you about
16 this meeting? Is that your evidence under oath?
17 A. What I'm saying is this: He may have told me that he had been at
18 that meeting, but I simply failed -- I had failed to remember before I
19 looked at the document. It has been ten years, nearly ten years, so I
20 really can't remember that; but the document shows that he was there.
21 Q. Okay. Could we go next to paragraph 16 of your statement, and in
22 that one you're talking about how members of the KVM were informed about
23 movements of the MUP or activity relating to the KLA. And that was part
24 of your job in late 1998 and early 1999, wasn't it? You were on the
1 A. I was selected by the Ministry of the Interior to maintain links
2 and contact with the leaders of the KVM in Pristina. At all levels there
3 was a MUP officer appointed to be in charge of maintaining liaison with
4 their centres from those that were at the municipal level to the HQ of the
5 secretariat, not just me, all these liaison officers at the secretariats
6 and municipalities, organizational units within municipalities maintained
7 contact with the verification mission and they were under an obligation to
8 report on matters such as these.
9 Q. But am I wrong, weren't you pretty much the highest-ranking MUP
10 member that was liaising with the KVM? I mean, other than General Lukic,
11 in Kosovo weren't you the next highest guy?
12 A. I was appointed for contact with the KVM. It wasn't
13 General Lukic, it was me.
14 Q. And there wasn't any higher-ranking MUP person involved in
15 liaising with the KVM in Kosovo than you, right?
16 A. I mean no.
17 Q. Okay. And you were still in that position right up until the time
18 they left, around the 20th of March or so, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. You say in this paragraph 16 that during that time the
21 police showed maximum restraint in taking any action against the KLA,
22 except when it was attacked and had to respond in self-defence.
23 Well, let me show you two VJ documents related to this issue and
24 I'll ask you a couple of questions about them.
25 MR. HANNIS: Could we first have P1998.
1 Q. And, Colonel, I don't think you have this in your binder so I can
2 give you a hard copy of it as well. Do you have the first one there,
3 Colonel, it's dated the 12th of March, 1999, from the 549th Motorised
4 Brigade? Do you see that one?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And this regards the routing of the Siptar terrorist forces in
7 Jeskovo village sector on 11 March 1999, in cooperation with the forces of
8 the Prizren MUP.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You'll see --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- under item number 2 at the bottom of page 1 in the B/C/S, it is
13 on page 2 of the English - do you see where it mentions the forces
14 involved and it says: "MUP forces engaged were the 5th PJP Company of
15 Prizren and the 37th PJP Detachment of Nis of a strength of about 300
17 Did you know about that action?
18 A. This was a local action in terms of its nature, the KVM, the
19 liaison officer from the secretariat was supposed to inform their centre
20 in Prizren.
21 Q. Okay. And you'll see there were some 611 VJ men involved, so this
22 action involving 911 VJ and MUP personnel, was that not something that was
23 brought to your attention, as the number one MUP liaison? You didn't know
24 about it?
25 A. Believe me, I can't remember in terms of specific locations, but
1 there must have been reasons for it if the action had been carried out;
2 and I'm sure that members of the verification mission were informed and
3 told to follow because as I told you this was an action at a local level.
4 Q. Yes, and in your statement you told us that the police showed
5 maximum restraint in taking any action against the KLA except when it was
6 attacked. There's nothing in this document to indicate that the MUP was
7 being attacked. This appears to be a planned operation that was carried
8 out on the initiative of the Serb forces.
9 A. Now that nine or ten years have passed, I can't remember all of
10 those details; but an action would not have been carried out without a
11 reason. There must have been a reason, especially for the presence of the
12 verification mission. So there must have been reasons, and the Prizren
13 SUP, and most likely the army commander, were duty-bound to inform the KV
14 centre in Prizren so that they could verify. Because it's impossible to
15 inform about this and then carry out this action in a manner that is not
16 obvious. This is not something that could have been concealed.
17 Q. Well, I take it from what you said, you didn't inform the KVM
18 about this action involving 300 MUP personnel, did you?
19 A. Well, as I have said, this was a local action and KV knew about
20 this action but was informed from the secretariat, from the Prizren
21 secretariat, because that's where this was taking place.
22 Q. And what's your source of information for saying that KV knew
23 about this action? By "KV," do you mean the Kosovo Verification Mission?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. How do you know they knew about it?
1 A. Well, it was the responsibility of the secretariat to inform them.
2 It was their responsibility to do so --
3 Q. I'm not asking you about whose responsibility it was. I'm asking
4 you how you claim to know that they knew about it. Do you have a document
5 reflecting that they were informed?
6 A. Well, I don't have it on me, but secretariats were informing
7 others about contacts with members of the mission. As for the specific
8 developments, this was nine years ago, I can no longer remember, but they
9 forwarded us information about contacts and developments.
10 Q. And didn't you receive any daily information from the local MUP
11 liaisons about what they were doing, or did you have no dealings with
13 A. We maintained contact through the secretariats. In principle this
14 was the chief of the secretariat who was in charge of that, the chief of
15 the OUP, or the commander of the police station, the highest-ranking
16 police officers and those in the secretariat were in charge with
17 maintaining contact with the KVM. We received regular daily reports from
18 the secretariat, and I think as far as contacts were concerned with the
19 KVM we had periodic information or periodic reports, and I believe this
20 must be in one of those. But believe me, I really can't remember right
22 Q. Well, would you agree with me that this is the kind of thing that
23 you as a highest-ranking MUP liaison should have been informed about?
24 Would you agree with that?
25 A. Again, the reports were submitted. It's probably in one of those
1 reports, but it was too long ago for me to remember and I don't have a
2 document to jog my memory. It's probably in one of the documents,
3 documents related to this trial, but I can't remember specifically. I'm
4 not even sure I've seen it.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying that the SUP in question was
6 bound to submit a report to the MUP staff relating to this?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were bound to state in their
8 daily report any developments relating to, as I said yesterday, because I
9 see that certain units, especially units participated, if there were any
10 developments that the secretariat had to do something about they would
11 have had to put that in their report and then probably --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: So is the answer: No, they were not bound to put
13 it in their report?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They did not submit detailed report
15 about an action to the staff, just about possible events which took place
16 during an action. So I'm sure that in some reports there was information,
17 both concerning the KVM and the activities; but now that so much time has
18 passed I just can't remember.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me approach it this way. If this took place
20 and the fact that it had was concealed from you, would you be happy about
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not claiming that it was
23 concealed. I can't claim that.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not my question. If it was concealed from
25 you and did happen, would you have been happy about that? Would that have
1 been acceptable to you in your position in the MUP staff?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They weren't supposed to conceal it.
3 I don't see the reason for concealing it. It is impossible to conceal
4 this because it is obvious that an activity is taking place.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: You're just not going to answer my question? Is
6 that your position?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I certainly want to answer, I'm just
8 trying to clarify.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: I have the impression you don't want to answer my
10 question because I've asked it twice, and I'll now ask it a third time.
11 If this event took place and the information was kept from you - just
12 accept that situation may have occurred - would you be -- would you find
13 that acceptable?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would not be acceptable.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Why does it take --
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It shouldn't take place.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, why does it take three attempts to get that
18 answer from you?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I probably didn't quite understand
20 the question.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Please bear in mind what was said to you yesterday
22 about the way in which you consider and address the questions that are put
23 to you.
24 Mr. Hannis.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
2 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Lukic on his feet.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, Mr. Mijatovic tried to explain the way of
5 information the flow of information --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, sit down, please. Mr. Mijatovic can
7 answer questions --
8 MR. LUKIC: He did but you didn't recognise his answer --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: If you want to clarify that with him in
10 re-examination --
11 MR. LUKIC: Okay --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: -- you will be able to do so.
13 MR. LUKIC: Second we have in the evidence that KVM was informed
14 about this mission, it's 5D112 and 5D111 --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic --
16 MR. LUKIC: -- presenting the evidence --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, just be quiet for a moment. Tell me
18 where the question was answered, and I missed the answer.
19 MR. LUKIC: Give me one moment. It's page 32, line 8, explaining
20 the way of -- the way of information inside SUPs and MUPs, that it's not
21 the way it works with the military, and he explained it yesterday, and he
22 explained it the day before. And in the police case we have to start
23 thinking in the police way, not to continue thinking in a military way.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: You see, as was often the case earlier in his
25 evidence, he has told us that what has to be reported is developments that
1 the secretariat had to do something about. They would have had to put
2 that in their report. Now, that was not an answer to the question. The
3 question could have been answered yes or no, and to clarify it, it was
4 asked twice more before he gave a simple answer to the question.
5 MR. LUKIC: It depends. If there is something to be reported --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic --
7 MR. LUKIC: -- then yes, if not, then no. So it can be yes and it
8 can be no, depending on the circumstances.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, the question was: Are you saying the
10 SUP in question was bound to submit a report to the MUP staff relating to
11 this --
12 MR. LUKIC: Exactly.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and the answer to that must be no.
14 MR. LUKIC: Can be yes and can be no.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: No, but if the answer is only if there are certain
16 developments that need --
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: -- attention -- now the answer is no.
19 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: There is no basic obligation to report this action
21 is how that appears. We now have a different answer from --
22 MR. LUKIC: If no --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a second. We now have a different answer from
24 him, that there is an obligation to report. He has said at the very end
25 of that the very opposite of what is in that answer as I read it.
1 MR. LUKIC: If somebody's killed, they have to report. If
2 nobody's killed, they don't have to report. It depends on the
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you want to take the solemn declaration now and
5 give evidence?
6 MR. LUKIC: I don't, but --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you confine yourself to making submissions on
8 this in due course --
9 MR. LUKIC: Okay.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and re-examining insofar as you think it
11 appropriate to re-examine.
12 MR. LUKIC: This is really going the wrong way because the
13 Prosecution is not following this case. In this case this action has been
14 reported in due course.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not the issue that we are dealing with,
16 Mr. Lukic. You do not seem to understand the point in issue, which is
17 about the responsibilities of the various organs involved here to report
18 to each other and let each other know the situation. Now, we're not --
19 I'm not suggesting to you that the routine in the police ought to be the
20 same or was, in fact, the same as in the army. All I'm trying to do is
21 discover what that routine actually was. Now, let us do that job and you
22 can re-examine to your heart's content in due course if you feel it has
23 not been properly explored.
24 Mr. Hannis, please continue.
25 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
1 Q. Colonel, if you could look at the second document, that's
2 number -- that's our Exhibit Number P1999. That's a similar document from
3 the 549th, this one dated the 18th of March regarding an action in the
4 Kabas village sector on the 17th of March, where the Siptar terrorist
5 forces were routed. And under item number 2 again you'll see the MUP
6 forces engaged were the 5th PJP company of Prizren and the 37th PJP
7 Detachment of Nis with about 350 men. And my first question to you about
8 that is: Is there anything to indicate that the MUP was attacked and
9 that's why they were responding in self-defence? Because as I read this
10 report from Colonel Delic, this was an anti-terrorist action that was
11 being carried out on the initiative of the VJ with the MUP. Do you have
12 any information to the contrary?
13 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Cepic on his feet.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
15 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, this
16 document that is being shown right now is the document of the Army of
17 Yugoslavia not of the MUP of Serbia, and if I am wrong please correct me,
18 but it is my impression that Mr. Hannis put the question as though this
19 document was that of the MUP of Serbia. Thank you.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think he did do that.
21 Please continue, Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: I don't know that I did. It certainly seems to speak
23 from itself as the 549th, Colonel Delic, we all know he was with the VJ.
24 Q. Colonel, did you have some kind of information that shortly prior
25 to the 17th of March, 1999, the MUP was being attacked by the terrorists
1 in that area?
2 A. I can't now pin-point where this location is, and I really can't
3 remember. It's been a long time and there were many locations where they
4 attacked, and I really can't remember whether this was reported and it
5 should have been, that there were attacks, that they were attacking
6 civilians, that there were victims and so on; but I really couldn't tell
7 you anything more about the details.
8 Q. Let's go to paragraph 20 of your statement and you're continuing
9 to talk about KVM. You say: "They were constantly trying to prevent the
10 police from performing their tasks. They thus declared a patrol which was
11 carrying out regular patrol duties to be a 'mobile check-point' and a
12 patrol which had halted a 'position' accusing us of violating the
13 agreement in this way."
14 MR. HANNIS: Could we have a look at Exhibit 1991.
15 Q. I've got a question about this issue for you, and if I could have
16 the assistance of the usher I'll give you a hard copy of P1991. If I
17 could get those other documents back from you. And if you look at the
18 first page, this is a record from the meeting of the ministry staff with
19 the minister of the interior, of the chiefs of the SUPs, the commanders of
20 the PJP on 21 December 1998. And you're listed as being at that meeting.
21 You recall this one, Colonel?
22 A. I can see, based on the minutes, that I was present.
23 Q. Do you have any independent recollection of this meeting, other
24 than seeing your name on the minutes?
25 A. I remember these meetings, but not the details of them. If I'm
1 listed on the list, that means that I did attend this meeting.
2 Q. And if you could go to page 4 in the B/C/S, and in English we're
3 at page 7. We'll see that you're speaking. You apparently addressed the
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you mention that there were certain omissions regarding
7 reporting, and you talk about the 27 observation points or posts that we
8 understand were allowed under the agreement. And just a little further
9 down you say:
10 "You should not use the term 'mobile check-points' in reports
11 because they don't exist, but rather use police patrol."
12 So the problem was those guys out in the field doing this work
13 were reporting themselves as mobile check-points and that was causing you
14 problems with the KVM, right?
15 A. Well, I think that this term was coined by the representatives of
16 KVM because they kept saying that they shouldn't organize mobile
17 check-points and so on, and I think that's where the mistake is because in
18 our plans and in the plans of police station we do not have such term,
19 mobile check-points, we just have a term patrol; and this term here is a
20 wrong one and they used it, and that is why attention was drawn to this
21 fact. I have never heard of a mobile police check-point ever since I came
22 to work in the police force until that point in time.
23 Q. Are you saying that MUP members who were reporting were not using
24 the term mobile check-points before this meeting in December 1998?
25 A. Most likely. This is why a warning ensued for this term not to be
1 used because it doesn't exist in police.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, can you find a point to --
3 MR. HANNIS: This is a good point for me to take the break, Your
4 Honour. Thanks.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
6 We have to have a break again, Mr. Mijatovic, so could you leave
7 the courtroom with the usher and we'll resume shortly after five past
9 [The witness stands down]
10 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, while the witness is coming in, can I
13 make an oral application to have the updated translation of Exhibit P2805
14 substituted into e-court.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: What is P2805?
16 MR. HANNIS: An issue arose regarding the translation the other
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 MR. HANNIS: It is the minutes of the MUP staff meeting in
20 Pristina on 5 November 1998.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Has the updated translation been exhibited to all
23 MR. HANNIS: Yes, I'm informed that it has.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there any objection to that course of action?
25 Does anyone need more time to consider it?
1 Very well. We shall authorise that.
2 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Colonel, we were looking at Exhibit P1991, which is that meeting
4 on the 21st of December, 1998, that we just talked about mobile
5 check-points. If you could continue to the end of your remarks, I think
6 it's still -- or I think it's actually on perhaps B/C/S page 5, and I know
7 it's on page 8 of the English. The last thing that you spoke about to the
8 group was you said:
9 "After bringing anyone into a police station, physical force must
10 not be used and people must not be beaten or have injuries inflicted on
12 Why was it necessary to bring that to the group's attention on the
13 21st of December, 1998? Had that been a problem before this day?
14 A. I wouldn't say that it was a problem in terms of happening
15 frequently, but if this needed to be drawn attention to then it means
16 there must have been a case where this happened. I claim with full
17 responsibility that action was taken against people who did this, and I'm
18 saying this, that measures need to be taken to ensure that this doesn't
20 Q. My next question regarding your statement is paragraph 24, again
21 talking about KVM. You say:
22 "When asked why they had not immediately reported what had
23 happened to the nearest police station or liaison officer and established
24 the facts with them, as a rule they did not have any answer. In the same
25 way, they reported seeing police vehicles painted like theirs with KVM
1 markings, which is a blatant lie."
2 Now, in your earlier testimony you told us I think on more than
3 one occasion that you were not in the field. So how do you know it was a
4 lie regarding their reported sighting of police vehicles painted with KVM
5 markings? You weren't out there to observe that, were you?
6 A. I wasn't there out on the field and see vehicles. No, they
7 reported that and we asked that additional details be given to us, based
8 on which we could conduct a check, we could verify this. We knew neither
9 the make or license plate of the vehicle or anything else that would
10 indicate it was a police vehicle. So I don't know based on what they
11 concluded that this was a police vehicle when they didn't have any
12 supporting data. This is why I drew this conclusion.
13 Q. All right. Let's move on to paragraph 31 and 32 of your
14 statement. You talk about how after the time or during the time KVM spent
15 in Kosovo, the KLA strengthened its organization and consolidated itself.
16 In paragraph 32, you mention how members of the MUP had to put up with all
17 of this including the murder and wounding of their colleagues out of
18 respect for the agreement. On the other hand, the KLA did not accept any
20 You know, don't you, Colonel, that the KLA didn't sign the
21 agreement. They were not parties to this agreement between Yugoslavia and
22 the OSCE; you know that, right?
23 A. I am aware of that and that's precisely where the problem lies.
24 Because had they been a signatory then they would not have been allowed to
25 take up positions and block the roads that used to be controlled by
1 security forces or police. This is why I said this, that they had no
2 obligations according to the agreement and this is why they acted the way
3 they acted.
4 Q. I agree with you that that's probably a big part of the problem,
5 but your statement says the KLA did not accept any obligations. They
6 didn't have any obligations under the agreement, did they; yes or no?
7 A. Yes. It's true that they didn't have any obligations, and this is
8 why I say that they acted in this way.
9 Q. If I ask you for a yes or no answer, all I need is yes or no. Do
10 you understand that? Yes or no.
11 A. Yes, but I'm afraid that this is once again an ambiguous question,
12 and if I were to give a yes or no answer then it would be wrong. That's
13 why I'm trying to be clear so that my answer is not taken as a wrong.
14 Q. What was an ambiguous question? The one I just asked you about
15 whether you understood when I say, Yes or no, I just need yes or no. Is
16 that what you're calling an ambiguous question, yes or no?
17 A. Everything is a matter of interpretation.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Speaking for myself, Mr. Hannis, it is important to
19 observe that in paragraph 32 it doesn't say "did not accept any
20 obligations under the agreement," they just didn't accept any obligations
21 which is rather a different matter. But you are quite right that the
22 simple question that you put about whether they had any obligations under
23 the agreement is one that can be answered yes or no.
24 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: But the paragraph is not in any way misleading.
1 MR. HANNIS: Well, the -- Your Honour, I think if I may, the
2 sentence immediately prior to the one about the KLA was the members of the
3 MUP had to put up with this out of respect for the agreement, and I guess
4 that's how I read "agreement" into the second sentence.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
6 MR. HANNIS: But I take your point and I will move on.
7 Q. Colonel, paragraph 39 of your statement refers to a Pristina Corps
8 command document Exhibit P1434, and you mention the fact that there is a
9 reference to MUP forces command and you say at the very end of that
10 paragraph: "This document was certainly not written in the police."
11 Did anybody suggest to you that it was?
12 A. He didn't suggest to me that it was so, but in our police jargon
13 we do not use such a term as command of MUP forces because such a term
14 does not exist.
15 Q. Did you read the whole document or just that first paragraph?
16 A. Are you referring to this order?
17 Q. Yes, that whole --
18 A. I definitely read the heading and this part, but this is erroneous
19 terminology. We do not use such terminology. This is why I said so.
20 MR. HANNIS: I'll hand you a hard copy of the whole order. This is
21 P1434, and this is dated the 19th of September, 1998, from the Pristina
22 Corps command.
23 Q. You say in your statement that this document was written by
24 someone who understands neither the structure nor the work of the police.
25 Would you look at item 5.1, it's under task. I'm not sure which page it
1 is in B/C/S, I don't have it in front of me. It's page 7 of the English.
2 A. Page 4.
3 Q. Thank you. And the task for Battle Group 125-1 is to support
4 attack by the 3rd Detachment of the PJP, the JSO, and the Pec PJP Company.
5 And if you'll go on through, you'll see other tasks for other VJ groups
6 supporting specific MUP units, PJP detachments, PJP companies, the SAJ, so
7 would you agree with me whoever wrote this did know apparently something
8 about the units of the MUP that could be involved in combat operations?
9 A. Yes, but this does not include SAJ, it involves JSO.
10 Q. Yes, I agree, it does involve JSO, but I think you'll find a
11 reference to SAJ further on if you continue. Did you come across it?
12 A. Not in this paragraph.
13 Q. In paragraph 5.2, the second one talks about engaging Battle Group
14 15-2 to support attack by the 8th PJP Detachment, the Djakovica PJP
15 Company, and the SAJ. You see that?
16 A. Yes, that's towards the bottom. I see it now.
17 Q. I'd like to ask you next about paragraph 40 in your statement,
18 Exhibit P3049, and this is an order that is entitled: "Joint Command for
19 Kosovo and Metohija." I'll trade you documents now, if I may. You say in
20 your statement that you recognise this document as belonging to the
21 Pristina Corps. Can you explain for us how you know that. There does not
22 appear to be a reference to the Pristina Corps in either the heading or
23 the signature block.
24 A. Well, two things. The first one is that it says here military
25 secret on the document. As far as I know, it only exists within the Army
1 of Yugoslavia, a military secret. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think that
2 that's how it is. On the other hand, looking at the text of this order I
3 can see that it doesn't differ from the text in the previous order that we
4 have analysed in terms of terminology used and content of the entire
6 Q. And as I understand your testimony, you had not seen any orders
7 with Joint Command on them prior to coming here to prepare to testify in
8 this case, right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. During your proofing did you see one of the document --
11 A. No, I apologise. I apologise. I didn't see the document before
12 the proofing. I saw the document for the first time during the proofing.
13 That's what I wanted to say.
14 Q. Okay. That's what I understood. And during your proofing did you
15 see a Joint Command document with Joint Command in the heading but
16 actually signed by General Lazarevic? Did you see that one? We have one
17 in evidence, it's Exhibit P1967. Do you recall seeing that one?
18 A. Before the proofing?
19 Q. During the proofing.
20 A. Have I seen any other document with this heading and signed by
21 General Lazarevic; is that what you're asking?
22 Q. That's my question, yes.
23 A. I don't remember seeing a document signed by General Lazarevic,
24 but I did see some other orders with the heading saying Joint Command, but
25 I don't remember seeing them with the signature of General Lazarevic.
1 Q. All right --
2 A. I apologise, there's a noise in my -- there's noise in my
3 headphones --
4 Q. I'd like to show you Exhibit 6D798?
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, Mr. Hannis.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear anything due to the
7 noise. It's all right now.
8 MR. HANNIS:
9 Q. Is it okay now?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'd like to show you now one that I think you saw the other day,
12 it's Exhibit 6D798 -- or actually this is a short one. We'll look at it
13 in the screen. The minutes of a meeting on the 22nd of July, 1998, at the
14 Pristina MUP. Do you recall this one?
15 A. I think I've seen this during the proofing.
16 Q. Yes, and I think during your testimony the other day it was
17 brought to your attention. This was the one where there was a discussion
18 of -- well, on the agenda there is mention of item number 3, defining
19 tasks in the implementation of the global plan. Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And listed among the attendees are General Djordjevic and
22 Stevanovic, Lukic, yourself, all the chiefs of the SUP and all the
23 commanders of the PJP. Could you look at the second page of your document
24 because what we have -- we have a report from three of the SUP chiefs and
25 then the document suddenly ends. This does not appear to be a complete
1 document to me, does it to you?
2 A. Obviously not.
3 Q. Because we've seen some of these other meetings and usually all
4 the chiefs speak and oftentimes at the end of the minutes there is a
5 notation of the time that the meeting ended and either it's signed staff
6 or signed by an individual on the staff as the note-taker. Do you know
7 where the rest of the minutes for this meeting might be?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were you shown this document during your proofing?
10 A. Yes, I did -- I was shown.
11 Q. Did it strike you at the time that there was something missing
12 from it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, do you recall at the time on the 22nd of July what you knew
15 about this so-called global plan? Had it been discussed with you?
16 A. As far as I remember, I heard this from the general that a plan
17 had been adopted and that pursuant to that plan there was to be
18 anti-terrorist activity. No one from the ministry had been involved in
19 drafting the plan. I said that several days ago, and that's why there was
20 a bit of a problem with the forces that were supposed to be involved in
21 this anti-terrorist activity because a far greater scale of force had been
22 envisaged than the sort of force that was available to the MUP at the time
23 in terms of how dangerous and risky this sort of war was likely to prove.
24 So yes, I had heard about the plan before this meeting.
25 Q. Yeah, you told us about that yesterday I think or the day before,
1 that -- the concerns about the number of men that were going to be
2 required. It seems to me that that was something that was probably
3 discussed by General Lukic or General Stevanovic or General Djordjevic at
4 that meeting. Do you recall them talking about it during the meeting?
5 A. I don't know if they talked about it during the meeting, but I
6 know they were worried about how this whole thing would be carried out
7 since they knew that they were facing a shortage of manpower. You must
8 understand, it's difficult for me to think back ten years like that and
9 remember exactly who said what. It's possible that the officers said at
10 that meeting that we are facing that type of a problem it's just that I
11 can't remember specifically.
12 Q. And are you aware that on that same date apparently between the
13 hours of 1900 and 2330, General Lukic was attending a meeting of the Joint
14 Command for Kosovo and Metohija? Did you know that?
15 A. I knew that General Lukic was attending some meetings in the
16 evening. I heard at the time, I don't know when exactly -- there's this
17 term, Joint Command, which was a recurring term, but believe me I don't
18 know when I first learned about that or who told me. But as I've been
19 saying over the last few days, I never came face-to-face with this
20 command. I never got to know what it really meant, and that's why I never
21 interpreted those meetings to be meetings of the Joint Command.
22 Q. Okay. And if I tell you in those minutes at page 3 of the English
23 General Lukic is recorded as having said on the 22nd of July:
24 "A meeting was held with all the platoon commanders and then with
25 the MUP chiefs ..."
1 That's a meeting that's reflected in that exhibit you have in
2 front of you, isn't it, on the 22nd of July, where the global plan is on
3 the agenda?
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Leaving aside the issue of the fact
6 where we still seem to be talking about minutes, whereas we shouldn't be,
7 then at least the witness should be shown exactly what my learned friend
8 the Prosecutor is telling him about. This is some sort of semi-document
9 that we see on the screen in front of him and the question being asked is
10 different altogether. I think the witness should be given a chance to see
11 for himself whether that is the thing or not.
12 Can I have instructions from the Chamber, please, should I stop
13 mentioning this thing about minutes and records and notes whatever and
14 then Mr. Hannis can just fire away any which way he likes? I think I'm
15 beginning to boring myself slightly already, let alone how much I must be
16 boring the Chamber to death with this objection.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE BONOMY: There are two points in that submission, Mr. Fila.
19 One is the general question of the name or description of the document,
20 and I think we've dealt with that already and made it clear to you that
21 the fact that it's called minutes won't really weigh. So on that point,
22 yes, you can rest easy that you do not need to constantly remind us of
23 that obligation.
24 So far as the second point is concerned, which is in the -- in
25 this circumstance is it necessary to let the witness see the document,
1 well we don't think it is in this case, but obviously if that issue arises
2 again that's one you do have to draw to our attention. But where it's a
3 meeting that the witness did not himself attend, then it's sufficient if
4 Mr. Hannis quotes accurately from the record of the meeting and then says
5 to the witness: Does that not sound like a description of the meeting you
6 were at, and that's the question he's asking.
7 So can we proceed on that basis, Mr. Hannis.
8 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Don't feel bored any more.
9 MR. HANNIS: All right.
10 Q. The notes of the 22nd of July, 1998, meeting of the Joint Command
11 has General Lukic noted as saying, among other things: "A meeting was
12 held with all the platoon commanders and then with MUP chiefs ..."
13 That sounds like a description of the meeting in that exhibit in
14 front of you, 6D798, because that was with those people on the 22nd of
15 July, 1998. Would you agree with me?
16 A. It's the same day, as far as I can see.
17 Q. I know that, but would you agree with me that that's probably the
18 same meeting he's talking about?
19 A. The document we are talking about, this was in the evening and you
20 said this was done during the day.
21 Q. And in the evening he's talking about having had a meeting with
22 the MUP chiefs and the platoon commanders; isn't that the meeting that's
23 in the document in front of you. That was held on the 22nd of July, I
24 assume sometime before 7.00 at night, right?
25 A. Yes, yes. I do apologise. I failed to understand the first time
2 Q. All right. Now, I'm finished with your statement. Let me ask you
3 about some of --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move on there, Mr. Hannis.
5 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Just one thing. You did say a short time ago,
7 Mr. Mijatovic, that you had heard the expression Joint Command at the
8 time, but you couldn't recollect the source of the information. What are
9 the possibilities? From whom could you possibly have heard of the Joint
10 Command at that time?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say for sure. I really
12 can't say for sure. I don't know who took the minutes from these
13 meetings. I cannot really identify the handwriting. There are minutes
14 from a meeting that I attended, I looked at others too. I can't tell
15 despite this, and I see whoever was in charge would put the header there,
16 Joint Command. I can only make assumptions about this, but I can't
17 remember precisely who it was. I can't point my finger at a person and
18 say that was him.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: This next comment is simply an indication -- a
20 statement of the obvious, it doesn't suggest any conclusion whatsoever.
21 But one obvious possibility is General Lukic because you're in regular
22 contact with him and there are suggestions in this case that he went to
23 meetings which could be connected with this concept of the Joint Command.
24 Now, who else might fall into that category apart from him? And by that I
25 mean people that you would be in touch with.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To be quite frank, I don't remember
2 General Lukic ever told me that he was off to a meeting of the Joint
3 Command, but I did see people from the military every now and then and
4 someone may have used the term, the simple reason being we carried out
5 those actions together. And I think I said yesterday the military
6 terminology is what it is, they call everything a command. For example,
7 this document a while ago, the MUP force command, I think there was a
8 reference to that. So the ministry staff was sometimes referred to as a
9 command, it was a matter of terminology for them. I think it's possible
10 that precisely on account of this cooperation that we had on
11 anti-terrorist activity they made this link between the Pristina Corps
12 command and instead of the staff of the MUP a Joint Command and then like
13 that one thing leads to another. And in that context perhaps I might have
14 heard someone in a conversation refer to, this is a Joint Command, but
15 then again I have to point out the following: I never learned of the
16 existence of this body and there was nothing to indicate that such a body
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Who was your closest or most frequent contact in
19 the military?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 1998 I used to see
21 General Pavkovic, I used to see Djakovic, I had a schoolmate from the
22 academy, my time at the academy, who was also a corps commander,
23 unfortunately his name escapes me right now, I think he was a signalsman,
24 and some other officers too. I can't remember all of them right now. I
25 think there was a man named Colonel Starcevic, and then before him there
1 was Bojevic, but that was earlier on. I used to know him because his
2 brother was a professor of mine back at the academy. It was like that,
3 there was several people that I would come across.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Mr. Hannis.
6 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
7 Q. Colonel, I would now like to ask you a few questions about Exhibit
8 P1505. This is a document you looked at when you were testifying before.
9 This is that 16th June 1998 decision of the minister of the interior
10 establishing a staff for the MUP in Kosovo and Metohija. Do you have a
11 copy of that or do you -- are you okay to work off the screen?
12 A. I think I have it in the binder, but it's a short document so I
13 think the screen will do.
14 Q. Okay. One of the questions that you were asked about was whether
15 or not the head of the staff could affect any decision about the members
16 of the staff, and at page 22165 in our transcript you said:
17 "No, no influence whatsoever because the decisions on sending
18 people there were made either by the minister or heads of various
20 I'm not sure where you'll find it on the B/C/S, but it's on page 1
21 of the English, and it's right before item number 2. I think you'll have
22 to go to page 2 of the B/C/S. You will recall we talked a little bit -- I
23 think Judge Bonomy asked you about the section that talked about the
24 expanded staff shall also include chiefs of the secretariats for internal
25 affairs and centres and branches of the RDB, but the next sentence you'll
1 see it says:
2 "Other members of the ministry may be appointed to the staff on
3 request of the head of the staff."
4 Doesn't that indicate that General Lukic as head of the staff
5 could have some influence on the make-up of the staff because he could
6 make requests about personnel under this decision? Isn't that what that
8 A. I think we spoke about that. Was he in a position to affect a
9 decision. The decision would have been taken by the minister or whoever
10 the minister authorised to take that decision. Certainly, though I don't
11 think this would have been in anybody's way, anybody can make a request or
12 a proposal but not everybody can take a decision, that's one thing.
13 Secondly, was he consulted in relation to anyone in particular because,
14 for example, the request might turn out to be this, to send a man down the
15 line of criminality.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: This is a direct quote from
17 the witness.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But not in terms of the concrete
19 personality because that was my understanding of the question. Because
20 requests and proposals are not decisions, they're not part of a decision.
21 MR. HANNIS:
22 Q. Well, pursuant to the decision, the only person listed as being
23 able to make a request is the head of the staff, right? That's what it
25 A. On behalf of the staff, yes. At staff meetings, within the staff,
1 there would be a problem that would show up and then it would turn out
2 that somebody else would have to be sent and then there's a request, I
3 need a man like this or that, send someone, they decide who to send, they
4 take a decision, and they send him.
5 Q. Well, I don't know where you get on behalf of the staff. It just
6 says: "Other members of the ministry may be appointed to the staff on
7 request of the head of the staff."
8 Doesn't that mean that General Lukic, for whatever reason, whether
9 it's on behalf of the head of the staff or whether it's just because he
10 wants somebody, he is the one who can make the request, right?
11 A. Well, it says here that he can make a request. It doesn't mean
12 that it will be granted, but requests can be made.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: It also doesn't explicitly say that he can request
14 particular people. It's a question of interpretation.
15 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
16 Q. And does it mean that he can ask to have the current people
17 replaced? What do you know about that?
18 A. He asked for -- to be replaced and I talked about my previous
19 testimony, the three members of the staff who were injured and the
20 assessment was they should be sent back home and that other people should
21 be appointed. I can't remember whether that was dealt with on the phone
22 or whether there was a document or something. Anyway, these three people
23 over there should have been known that these three people were to be
24 replaced, and sure enough General Lukic must have requested that someone
25 else be sent out in their stead. And that's precisely what was done,
1 Arsenijevic, Petar Bogdanovic, and Joca Gucic came instead of the three
2 who were sent back.
3 Q. Yesterday you went through the -- yesterday or the day before you
4 went through this list Exhibit P1505, and I think there are 13 names on
5 that list. You named ten people who you said were on the staff, this is
6 at page 22167, and of the ones that you named six of them, by my count,
7 are on the list in P1505, that is General Lukic and then six others, Goran
8 Radosavljevic, Novica Zdravkovic, Radovan Vucurevic, I think Rajcic,
9 Krdzic --
10 A. Krdzic.
11 Q. Krdzic --
12 A. I think Cankovic, probably.
13 Q. And Milan Cankovic, correct. So are you saying those other six
14 somehow between the 16th of June, 1998, and early July, the first half of
15 July when you arrived, they had been -- those other six had been removed
16 from the staff?
17 A. At the time I didn't know whether they, as they were in the
18 decision, but did they over that month - my apologies, I have some throat
19 problems. I don't know if at all during that month before my arrival they
20 had been doing anything at the staff or not. I hadn't hear that they had
21 been doing anything, and when I came there, I didn't find them there.
22 Q. Any time you need a break because of your throat, let us know.
23 A. No, no, I'm just apologising because I do have problems every now
24 and again so I have to cough, unfortunately.
25 Q. If they -- I take it that if they had been removed from the staff
1 there would be some sort of document reflecting that, wouldn't there?
2 A. I don't know. There is simply no document showing that I was
3 member of the staff, Adamovic, Slovic as far as I remember. I never saw a
4 document like that, not that I can remember.
5 Q. The document appointing you did not reflect that you were to be a
6 member of the staff?
7 A. Not that. The decision on the establishment of the staff with a
8 list of its members doesn't exist. On the 16th of June the last decision
9 was adopted, and I myself arrived in July, after that decision had been
10 passed. Therefore, you won't find my name in any of those decisions.
11 Q. No, but I guess --
12 A. I'm sorry, I really can't say why.
13 Q. I guess I'm confused about the document that sent you to Kosovo.
14 Did that say that you were going to Kosovo to be the deputy head of the
16 A. Yesterday or possibly two days ago I was talking about that. The
17 decision on that appointment must have existed. I don't own a copy, I
18 don't have one at all, I don't know where it is. As I was being proofed,
19 I didn't come across this among the documents; therefore, I can't say what
20 exactly it says. But I'm positive that the decision can be found
21 somewhere in my file, the file with my name on it in the Ministry of the
22 Interior. So the decision on the appointment is there but there is no
23 decision on the establishment of the staff, such as the one on the 16th of
24 June, 1998, with a list of the people who actually made up the staff. I
25 didn't see a decision like that, with Adamovic, Slovic, and myself.
1 Q. But that is how it should have worked, right? Should there not
2 have been a written document reflecting that you, Adamovic, Slovic, and
3 was the other one Arsenijevic?
4 A. Arsenijevic came later, he came in 1999. Adamovic, Slovic, and I.
5 Q. But is it the way it worked that there would have been a document
6 appointing each of those individuals to the staff, or do you know how it
8 A. Again, I didn't see that kind of decision. Means it not there.
9 Should this have been the case? Not my call. This is something for the
10 top level of the ministry, the minister, or one of the heads of sectors.
11 Q. So you're the deputy head of staff. How do you know who the other
12 staff members are? Does one of these guys walk in the room and say, Hi,
13 I'm one of the new guys on the staff or didn't you receive some kind of
14 document reflecting that?
15 A. I think already that's not like that. We had our rooms, we had a
16 schedule, you knew who was working in which room. I saw those people on a
17 daily basis, and I knew that they were staff members. That's all I can
18 say, but I don't have a document showing that; that much is certain.
19 Q. Okay. And did you not have during your time there as deputy head
20 of the staff any kind of organizational chart that you kept in your office
21 showing who was on the staff and what their various positions and
22 responsibilities were? You must have had a phone list or something,
23 didn't you?
24 A. We knew who the staff members were. That we have all the phone
25 numbers for everyone, maybe there was some sort of a directory being used
1 at the time, it's just that I can't remember right now.
2 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I should intervene here to just help you in
3 recalling that when you leave a position and you go to another position
4 there's a movement order, and that movement order you have then to show to
5 people from whom you will get the salary. But things cannot be done just
6 verbally because you have to draw a salary, you have to take a position.
7 Now, think of that, wouldn't there be a written order, and didn't you get
8 one and how would there be a movement without a written order? How would
9 you know where you were going and the other people who were your
10 recipients, how would they know that you have come and joined? It's
11 leaving a charge, what they call relinquishing a charge and taking over a
12 charge. I mean, this is what usually happens. I don't know, it may be
13 strange here.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, again I have this
15 impression that we are talking at cross-purposes. It's a shame that we're
16 not speaking the same language. I'm sure it would be much easier for us
17 to understand each other. I was saying that we all had personalized
18 decisions on our appointments to the staff. So that's one part of the
19 business. Each and every one of us who were sent to the staff in Kosovo
20 and Metohija would get a personalized decision. Miroslav Mijatovic is
21 hereby being appointed to the staff, day being such and such, and that was
22 the decision that we followed. Mr. Prosecutor, as far as I understand the
23 question, is asking me this, he's asking me about the format of this
24 decision to establish this staff such as the one dated the 16th of June,
25 1998, which states precisely who the leader of the staff was, who the
1 assistant was, and all the names you can find there. Right.
2 We arrived there and those people weren't at the staff, such as
3 Lukovic, Trajkovic, and I can't remember all of them right now,
4 David Gajic. So this means they weren't functioning at the staff at the
5 time we arrived. I'm not sure if I'm coming across. It's true we are not
6 on that list, that decision, on the establishment of the staff. It's not
7 us, it's them who is on the list, but it wasn't them who were there. It
8 was us, and we were doing the work. That's why I said the other day. If
9 you accept the fact that the members of the staff were Gajic, Lukovic
10 and Trajkovic because that's what the decision states and then on the
11 other hand, Mijatovic, Adamovic, and Slovic were not members of the staff
12 and then you accept that and, in fact, they were, and then at the same
13 time you have two untruths which you take to be the truth. I'm not sure
14 if I'm coming across with any degree of clarity at all but that is
15 certainly is my intention.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Later on, though, in 1999 there were replacements
17 including the appointment of Arsenijevic, and Mr. Hannis is anxious to
18 know how you would know that they had actually been appointed to the
19 positions that they then occupied.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He had a personalized decision on
21 this appointment.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: So nothing would be sent to you in writing
23 confirming his appointment?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, apart from the
25 decision itself.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see that sort of a
3 document, as far as the staff was concerned.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
5 MR. HANNIS:
6 Q. Did you and Adamovic and the others whose names don't appear on
7 this list arrive all at the same time, you, Adamovic, Slovic, or did you
8 come at different dates?
9 A. I think that we arrived -- no, I came separately as far as I can
10 remember. Adamovic was already down there. Slovic, I think that he
11 arrived a bit later, but to tell you the truth I don't know. It was all
12 at about the same time. I just don't remember any more details.
13 Q. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say I'm the minister who
14 issued this decision or I'm his Chief of Staff and some problem comes up
15 where I need to get ahold of the assistant head for analysis, who on this
16 list is Rasko Milenkovic. Now, from what you tell me he was not on the
17 staff when you arrived in July of 1998, right?
18 A. Well, I think that he was there for a couple of days. I can't put
19 a face to the name. The name seems familiar, but I can't remember the
20 face --
21 Q. Okay --
22 A. -- and that's why I can't be certain whether Slovic arrived.
23 Q. Okay. How about Milorad Lukovic then, you told us he was not on
24 the staff, right?
25 A. He wasn't. He was there on the list just as Lukovic and
1 Trajkovic, but he didn't perform any tasks at the staff while I was there.
2 Q. Yeah, he may have not performed any tasks, but does that preclude
3 him from being a member of the staff. He may be on the staff to receive
4 information or convey information, but he might not have any tasks. Isn't
5 that possible?
6 A. No, no. He didn't sit in the premises used by the staff at all.
7 Q. All right. So if I'm the minister or the deputy or the Chief of
8 Staff and I'm trying to get ahold of the assistant head of staff for
9 special operations in Pristina MUP staff, I'm going to rely on this list,
10 aren't I? How am I going to know who's holding that job if you tell me
11 this list was incorrect. Was the ministry notified in some way when all
12 these changes were made?
13 A. Well, nobody else could have produced those changes except for the
14 minister, and it's obvious that he did not issue the second decision of
15 the similar content listing Adamovic, myself, and Slovic as replacements
16 for some of the other people. So it was a problem that minister didn't do
17 it, but I can't really comment on it. I don't know why he didn't do it.
18 Q. Well, related to that then let's take a look at Exhibit P1811.
19 With the usher's help, I'll give you a hard copy of this one. And before
20 you go away from P1505, will you note the number on that is DT01 number
21 1580/98, you agree with me, in the upper left corner of the front page,
22 that's the registry number on that document?
23 A. If you're referring to the previous document, I don't have it on
24 my screen.
25 Q. Well, I'll show it to you if you need to, but I'll ask you to take
1 my word for it and trust that somebody on the otherwise would jump up if I
2 was incorrect. Do you see this one from 31 May 1999, this is a
3 decision --
4 A. I apologise, I didn't even hear what you said. I wanted to see
5 what you said, but I didn't really follow. I apologise.
6 Q. Okay. The document you were just looking at previously, the 16th
7 of June, 1998, has a registry number of DT01 number 1580/98, but right now
8 we're looking at the 31 May 1999 decision by Minister Stojiljkovic
9 establishing a MUP staff for the suppression of terrorism. Have you seen
10 this document before?
11 A. During the proofing.
12 Q. That was the first time you ever saw it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. And if you'll go to the -- and it names General Lukic and
15 the other members and, as you know, you're not -- your name is not listed
16 on this one. But if you go to the last page, item number 6 says this
17 decision shall enter into force on the 1st of June, 1999, and then it goes
18 on to say:
19 "This decision supersedes the decision on the establishment of the
20 ministry's staff for the suppression of terrorism, DT01 number 1580/98 of
21 16 June 1998."
22 Reading that it seems to me that the ministry didn't find any need
23 to enter a decision changing the staff that it had established on 16 June
24 1998, right? There's no intervening document. Isn't that right?
25 A. I don't think I understood this sufficiently because the decision
1 on the 31st of May was automatically superseded by the decision on the
2 16th of June, and I did not know whether the minister had to inform
3 somebody specifically about this. I really don't know that.
4 Q. Maybe there's a translation problem, but it was the decision of
5 the 16th of June, 1998, that was superseded by this decision of the 31st
6 of May, 1999, right?
7 A. Yes, yes, that's what it says there in the decision.
8 Q. And the reason I'm asking a question is an outsider who's not
9 familiar with how the MUP works and the rules of administration and
10 personnel are, et cetera. It looks like there was nothing from the
11 minister's level about a change in the make-up of the staff between June
12 16th, 1998, and May 31st, 1999, because surely that would have been
13 mentioned in this document and those other changes would have been
14 superseded as well, right?
15 A. I think that you're right. Given that we were at the staff, this
16 decision of the 16th of June should have been amended in order to include
17 us who were not there, and then that would have been superseded by the
18 decision on the 31st of May but that wasn't done. And such a decision
19 never was issued, and I don't know why not. And had it existed then the
20 decision on the 31st of May would have listed that it was superseding this
21 intermediary decision, based on which we can see there are these two
22 decisions, the one from June 1998 and May 1999 and no one in between.
23 This is my interpretation, and I really can't explain this any better.
24 Q. Okay. The MUP staff for Pristina, you and General Lukic and all
25 the others you have told us about, where were you physically located in
1 Pristina from July 1998 through May of 1999 -- well, let's go between July
2 1998 and the beginning of the war, 24th of March, 1999, where were you
3 physically located?
4 A. Physically we were located in Pristina, in the building of the
5 secretariat of the interior of Pristina. I can't remember how many
6 storeys there are in that building, but as far as I can remember we were
7 on the third floor of one of that wings of that body -- building where we
8 had six or seven offices, and we were there throughout the time until the
9 beginning of the bombing.
10 Q. Okay. And so you were in the same building as the Pristina SUP;
11 is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. We've heard that Mr. Joksic and Mr. Gajic, David Gajic, and later
14 on Mr. Vilotic were members of the RDB. Were they housed in the same
15 building with you between July 1998 and March 24th, 1999?
16 A. It is true that they are members of the state security sector and
17 that they were located in a separate building which was very close. It
18 was a building right next to the secretariat, but it was a separate
19 building. State security centre from Pristina was based in that building,
20 and just as we were a staff in the building of the Pristina SUP, they,
21 since they had been sent from Belgrade, were using the premises of their
22 organizational unit in Pristina.
23 Q. Okay. And after the MUP/SUP building in Pristina was bombed,
24 where were you located for the duration of the war? And when I say "you,"
25 I mean the MUP staff.
1 A. Yes, I understood the question. We changed our offices frequently
2 because this situation was such that bombing was taking place daily and
3 for our safety we had to frequently change our locations.
4 Q. Mr. Joksic --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please speak into the microphone,
6 Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: My apologies.
8 Q. Mr. Joksic told us that during the war he was with General Lukic,
9 I think almost every day - I'm trying to find the exact quote - at page
10 22006, line 14 he said: "I spent the entire war virtually together with
11 General Lukic."
12 Is that correct? Was he and anyone else from the DB --
13 A. Joksic was frequently there.
14 Q. With regard to Zivko Trajkovic, you said: Although he was listed
15 as a member, you say he wasn't. When you came down there you didn't find
16 him. You saw him at two or three meetings. But then you say, so he was
17 not a member of the staff. How do you come to that conclusion? How do
18 you know he was not a member of the staff? He's on the list in that 16
19 June document. You say he came to two or three meetings in the premises.
20 Why do you say he was not a member?
21 A. I say that he wasn't a member because I didn't see him daily, like
22 other staff members in the premises of the staff. He didn't have his
23 office at the staff. He didn't perform any tasks within the staff, that
24 is to say he was physically not present in the premises of the staff
25 except when meetings were held in the premises of the SUP Pristina, that
1 is to say where the staff was. Meetings with the senior officers of the
2 police from Kosovo and Metohija, including heads of secretariats and units
3 that had been dispatched there. Zivko Trajkovic throughout that time was
4 in the unit which he led, and that was a special anti-terrorist unit of
5 the ministry from Belgrade.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. That's the main reason why I said this -- in fact, it's a fact.
8 Q. You say it's a fact because you say so? Is that stated in your
9 rules of how the Ministry of the Interior works or in the administrative
10 rules? Where does it say that?
11 A. What I'm saying is not written anywhere. It's a fact that that's
12 how it was, that was the factual situation. He wasn't present in the
13 premises of the staff. He did not perform any tasks at the staff, he did
14 not have an office there. He was in his unit. That was the actual state
15 of affairs. It is also a fact that his name is listed down as a member of
16 the staff in the decision. I'm not denying that, but I'm saying that
17 factually he wasn't a member of the staff, he wasn't there, and formally
18 he was.
19 Q. Okay. You recall, I think it was Judge Bonomy who asked you about
20 this previously, that in this decision of the 16th of June, 1998, where it
21 talks about the staff it says:
22 "The expanded staff shall also include chiefs of the secretariats
23 for internal affairs, centres and branches of the RDB."
24 Now, did you understand the difference between the staff and the
25 expanded staff?
1 A. The staff operated with some dozen people, that was the actual
2 staff. It is a fact that the decision says that chiefs of secretariats of
3 the interior and heads of the sectors and departments who functioned as
4 members of the secretariat in the same city comprised the expanded staff.
5 That's what it says. But I don't remember that a single meeting was held
6 with an expanded staff. We had meetings with senior officers, usually
7 when people would come from Belgrade, either the assistant minister
8 Obrad Stevanovic or the minister. So these people did not take part in
9 the work of the staff just as Trajkovic, Lukovic, and Gajic didn't. The
10 decision says one thing, but that's not how it functioned in reality. We
11 said that General Lukic couldn't and nobody from the public security
12 sector could supervise the work of somebody from the state security sector
13 and vice versa. So chiefs -- he wasn't able to supervise the work of the
14 chiefs of the State Security Service, sector, or its departments.
15 Q. But the minister can delegate task or work to members of both the
16 RDB and the RJB, right? He has authority over both?
17 A. I'm telling you what happened in practice. For as long as the
18 public security sector existed --
19 Q. Let me stop you. You're not answering my question. Doesn't the
20 minister have authority over both the RDB and the RJB? He does, doesn't
22 A. Yes, at that time he did but no longer now.
23 Q. Okay. But in the summer of 1998 there was a serious problem in
24 Kosovo that the MUP was trying to deal with in terms of the terrorism, and
25 doesn't it make sense for the minister to create a staff that includes
1 people from both the RDB and the RJB to try and deal with this? Because
2 the minister can't come down to Kosovo every day to try to deal with these
3 problems. So in a sense, this is him delegating and creating this staff
4 to contain members of both the RJB and the RDB to try and deal with the
5 problem. Isn't that why this staff has people from both the DB and the
6 JB? That makes sense, doesn't it?
7 A. Yes, and that's precisely what the minister did, but the staff did
8 not function in that composition from July onwards, not in that
10 Q. Okay. I don't know if you have the document in front of you, but
11 under item number 2 it said:
12 "The staff is tasked with planning, organizing, and managing the
13 activities and use of the organizational units of the ministry, both the
14 sent and attached units."
15 Can you explain to me what the sent and attached units are? Who
16 are they? What are they in June/July of 1998?
17 A. I apologise, could you repeat which paragraph? I didn't remember.
18 Q. It's paragraph number 2. Do you find that?
19 A. Roman II on page 2?
20 Q. It's not Roman numerical in my English, but it may be. I'm sorry,
21 we're looking for P1505. You may have the wrong one on the screen. I can
22 hand you the hard copy, Colonel, if that will assist. Do you find it?
23 It's right below that passage of other members of the ministry may be
24 appointed on request of the head?
25 A. Yes, I've found it.
1 Q. Okay. First of all, can you explain to me what the sent and
2 attached units refers to.
3 A. To tell you the truth, I know what the sent units are. As for the
4 attached, I really don't know because they were secretariats with their
5 personnel. Now, the units that were attached, I really don't know unless
6 this refers to something that I'm not familiar with. And they are being
7 sent down there to suppress terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija.
8 Q. Well, the answer I read in English was you said: "I know what the
9 sent units are." Can you tell us who they are?
10 A. Those are the PJP detachments.
11 Q. And what about JSO?
12 A. JSO is a unit of the state security sector, one unit of the state
13 security sector.
14 Q. I understand that. Is that an organizational unit of the
16 A. Yes, it is an organizational unit of the Ministry of the Interior.
17 Q. Is the SAJ an organizational unit of the Ministry of the Interior?
18 A. Yes. SAJ comes within public security sector.
19 Q. Okay. But it is an organizational unit of the ministry, right?
20 A. Well, yes.
21 Q. And what about the PJP, are the PJP --
22 A. PJP is a unit on the basis of gathering, the difference being that
23 special anti-terrorist unit has its permanent composition. As for PJP, it
24 is established ad hoc, which is to say when a minister or a person
25 authorised by a minister issues a decision for them to be established,
1 assembled, and sent to perform a task. PJP is composed out of secretariat
2 of the interior who have territorial competency, that is to say regular
3 police force. When they are not engaged in carrying out regular tasks and
4 obligations, members of PJP units carry out their regular police tasks
5 within their own secretariats. Somebody is a head of a patrol, somebody
6 is a head of a sector, a chief of a police station, and something like
7 that. So they go back to their regular jobs when they are not engaged in
9 Q. When they are engaged in PJP, is the PJP a PJP detachment, is that
10 considered an organizational unit of the ministry?
11 A. I wouldn't be able to be quite specific, but it seems to me that
12 in the decision on establishing this decision this is set forth. I can't
13 claim this with full certainty because I haven't seen such decisions for a
14 while, but I think that they are considered an organizational unit when
15 they are carrying out their PJP tasks, when they are being mobilised.
16 Q. Okay. And the staff task is to plan, organize, and manage the
17 activities and use of those units. And below that it says:
18 "Also the staff is tasked with planning, organizing, directing,
19 and coordinating the activities of the organizational units of the
20 ministry in carrying out complex security operations."
21 And these joint operations with the VJ against the KLA, these
22 anti-terrorist actions, would you not classify those as complex security
24 A. First of all, please allow me to make a correction. As far as I
25 can remember now, speaking of organizational units, I think that PJPs are
1 not organizational units, but I think they are commanders -- once a unit
2 is established or assembled, I think its commander has a status of an
3 authorised officer. I think that it is not considered on organizational
4 unit within the ministry structure. Because when you see an organogramme
5 of the ministry, there are no PJPs there, they are not considered
6 organizational units, but their commanders do have a status of a senior
7 officer. If I remember the decision well.
8 Now, would you please repeat your question since I gave more
9 thought to this other issue.
10 Q. May I suggest that we take our break now and I will ask the
11 question after.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well, Mr. Hannis. We shall do that.
13 A break again, Mr. Mijatovic, for half an hour. Could you again
14 please leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll see you again at 6.00.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
18 [The witness takes the stand]
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
20 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Judge.
21 Q. Colonel, the question I wanted to ask you before we took the break
22 was whether or not you would agree with me that these joint actions that
23 the MUP and the VJ took against the KLA in late July 1998 through the end
24 of September 1998, would you not classify those as "complex security
25 operations," in that they oftentimes involved several units from both the
1 VJ and the MUP and sometimes hundreds of men and large, heavy weapons?
2 Doesn't that qualify as complex security action?
3 A. Well, yes, it does, but the paragraph states that it was planned
4 for the staff to plan and lead the work of the border units of the
5 ministry but not the VJ, that's what it means, and this was about police
6 activity alone.
7 Q. Yes, but it also talks about coordinating the use of those units,
8 and that's exactly what General Lukic was doing when he went to those
9 Joint Command meetings, isn't it?
10 A. Well, I don't know what the general did at those meetings, but
11 this is -- I mean, it was planned that he should lead and organize the
12 work, but only of the units of the ministry and not the army as well.
13 Because involved in these anti-terrorist activities were both the army
14 units and the police units jointly, but not in these complex security
15 tasks because these were carried out by units of the Ministry of the
16 Interior alone.
17 Q. And is it your evidence that the MUP staff had no role in that, in
18 coordinating that activity, in planning or organizing or directing those
19 organizational units?
20 A. No. The staff was not planning, organizing, or directing
21 organizational units of the ministry in Kosovo and Metohija. They did
22 that themselves because, as I've been saying, the staff did not have those
23 powers since the plan to combat terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija had been
25 Q. Well, if I understand what you have been saying for the last few
1 days, you're saying that the MUP staff didn't do any of those things it
2 was tasked to do in this exhibit from the 16th of June, 1998; is that
3 right, it did none of those things?
4 A. That's precisely what I'm talking about the plan, when the plan
5 was adopted this solution was revoked. When the plan to combat terrorism
6 was adopted.
7 Q. Where does it say it was revoked? There's still a necessity to
8 coordinate activities with the VJ, and isn't that what MUP staff was
9 supposed to do? Or are you saying that was left entirely to the low-level
10 units on the ground to kind of do for themselves. Is that what you're
11 trying to tell us?
12 A. What I was talking about was the method, the working method, based
13 on this global plan or basic plan there are a number of different names
14 that are used. I didn't see it, I don't know what exactly the name was.
15 It was based on this that the Pristina Corps produced documents based on
16 which they acted, and these documents were forwarded to units because they
17 were in reference to those units. And the police units that were involved
18 in these tasks and the VJ units that were involved in these tasks on the
19 ground were coordinating these activities and acting on them. The staff
20 did not produce those plans, did not organize or run these activities.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, I don't know if I have misunderstood
22 this, but if you look at the answer at line 7 on page 74, the witness
23 makes a distinction between anti-terrorist activities and complex security
24 tasks, and there are these two separate sections to paragraph 2 of the
25 decision. And your question was suggesting that the joint actions of the
1 VJ and the MUP were complex security operations. And I take it you
2 haven't missed the distinction the witness is making in distinguishing
3 between those which were entirely MUP tasks, he says, and the
4 anti-terrorist or suppression of terrorism activity which was joint
6 MR. HANNIS: Well, I understood him earlier to be making a
7 distinction, but as I understood his evidence basically the independent
8 actions taken by the MUP were really small-scale actions. I thought
9 that's what he said in his testimony or his answers to Mr. Cepic. And --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: I will ask a question --
11 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: -- hopefully will clarify this.
13 Mr. Mijatovic, you have been recorded in English as saying:
14 "In these complex security tasks, these were carried out by units
15 of the Ministry of the Interior alone."
16 Now, is that an accurate translation of what you said?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's in reference to pure
18 police tasks.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Now, can you describe for me or give me an
20 example of a complex security task?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A complex security task for the
22 secretariat would be this, for example, a small-scale anti-terrorist
23 action which it pursues according to its own plan. That's what we talked
24 about when we talked about combatting terrorism. This wasn't just about
25 combat, it was about other activities too, and eventually there might be a
1 need for some small-scale anti--terrorist operation, a low-intensity one
2 but for the secretariat this is a complex security task because it is
3 outside of what is normally considered its purview or its regular tasks.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: You may or may not understand my difficulty in
5 comprehending that distinction, that something simple should be described
6 officially as complex.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure how I should put this.
8 Regular business is no problem for the secretariat but if, for example,
9 say a group of dangerous criminals must be arrested and what this calls
10 for is the involvement of two secretariats, then coordination between the
11 two secretariats is also called for, this calls for more people, and this
12 is a complex security task, but the army is not involved in this.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me try to be more specific then. Can you
14 actually give an example that you remember taking place in fact? And try
15 to ignore the comments that may be coming from your left and answer it
16 from your own recollection.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't recollect a single
18 task where this was required and where the staff needed to plan something
19 like this. I really don't remember a single one. I don't even recollect
20 that the staff ever organized such an action.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS:
23 Q. In your preparation for testifying here, you did see some of those
24 Joint Command orders from March and April of 1999, didn't you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And you saw the size and complexity of those actions, did you not,
2 that they involved sometimes elements of multiple VJ brigades, PJP,
3 sometimes even PJP, JSO, and the SAJ, hundreds if not thousands of men.
4 Wouldn't you say that those were complex security actions?
5 A. But that was done based on that plan that we talked about, the
6 plan from 1998.
7 Q. Well, the plan didn't work itself. It needed people to make it
8 happen and it must have needed somebody from the MUP to be involved in
9 making it happen, or are you saying it was entirely done by the VJ?
10 A. No, no. You can tell by looking at it that there were police
11 units and VJ units, but it was done at a local level, as far as I
12 remember. And the order that you were showing me, those orders were
13 something that was done by the army and the police too were involved.
14 They weren't large-scale actions, but these were carried out wherever
15 required as part of combatting terrorism and as part of this basic plan
16 because the plan said that the VJ and the police would be carrying out
17 such activities together.
18 Q. Did you not see that some of those actions involved territories
19 covering a geographical area that involved more than one SUP, right?
20 A. Yes, but we're talking about the activities of the army and the
21 police, meaning this paragraph 2 in item 2 -- what I'm saying is this. If
22 the police were to do this alone, that's what this is about, it's about
23 police business, what the police do on their own, now I'm talking about
24 the first paragraph from II, whenever the army and the police worked
25 together this would always be based on the plan that had been adopted
1 sometime early in July in 1998.
2 Q. Yes, but who from the MUP helped make that plan work? There must
3 have been some personnel from the MUP to help make that plan from July
4 1998 work. How would the VJ know which units from the MUP were available?
5 Didn't that take some coordination with somebody in the MUP?
6 A. I think I spoke about that too over the course of my testimony.
7 The plan was adopted and the minister with his associates was there. This
8 meant that the plan was adopted and was to be acted upon, was to be put
9 into practice. After that, the assistant minister, General Stevanovic,
10 came and the sector chief, General Djordjevic, and there was this meeting
11 with the officers where General Djordjevic informed the police leaders in
12 Kosovo and Metohija that such and such a plan had been adopted and that
13 the police units would now be joining those activities. In practical
14 terms, that was his approval and also his order for the units to start
15 launching anti-terrorist activities together with members of the VJ.
16 Q. Okay. I think I recall you do -- you did say something about this
17 yesterday, but I'm not sure you answered the question I'm trying to get
18 at. At page 22326 when Mr. Cepic was asking you some questions, I
19 believe, you mentioned:
20 "Adamovic was in charge of operational affairs, he participated in
21 providing information, or rather, he provided information for the planning
22 of anti-terrorist activities to the Pristina Corps. He knew where the
23 units were, he followed that, he followed the problems they had, and so on
24 and so forth."
25 So is not Adamovic, a member of the staff, one of the persons who
1 was coordinating complex security actions with the VJ pursuant to the plan
2 that you have been talking about, right?
3 A. Yes. This is something that was done by
4 Lieutenant-Colonel Dusko Adamovic. He provided an information for each
5 and every action that was to be planned by the Pristina Corps. He would
6 call them, he would see what units could be involved, and then
7 Dusko Adamovic provided that kind of information.
8 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Fila on his feet.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid we're not
10 headed in the right direction. On the screen we see a MUP document and
11 there is not a shred of the army's presence there. This is about police,
12 and I think he's explained about five times already, these are complex
13 security tasks but of the MUP, of the police. And then the Prosecutor is
14 reading this back to him in order to link this up with the army. If he's
15 asking him about the joint actions taken by the MUP and the army, then
16 this is not the document that we should be using. We should put this
17 document away, but he's explained this at least ten times so far both to
18 you, Your Honours, and to the Prosecutor, that this no longer applied once
19 the plan in Belgrade had been adopted. That's what he's saying. It's for
20 you to judge, but now this is being read back to him, complex security
21 tasks, and when this is something that we apply to the army the least we
22 can say is that it is beyond measure, it's immoderate. And when he's
23 explaining about complex security tasks when the MUP has a large-scale
24 action, the MUP, the MUP alone, is arresting a group of terrorists, that's
25 what he's talking about, that's what he's trying to explain.
1 So I'm afraid that we're talking at cross-purposes here, and I
2 don't think this will end well.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: The problem with that objection I think is that
4 even confining the second part of paragraph 2 to MUP activities that do
5 not involve the VJ at all, the witness says that the MUP staff had nothing
6 to do with these. It still didn't plan, organize, direct, or coordinate
7 these activities; they were entirely for the local SUPs to deal with. So
8 the controversy is a wider one than simply whether the VJ were involved or
9 not. I understand your concern because the questioning is repetitive, but
10 it is a difficult area, and we may be assisted by it. It may be
11 appropriate to observe that certainly if the -- as long as the -- the
12 translation is entirely accurate, one difference between these two -- one
13 other difference between these two parts of paragraph 2 is that the second
14 part seems to be confined to regular units within Kosovo, whereas the
15 first one seems to contemplate units that are not in Kosovo but come into
17 However, I and my colleagues appreciate your difficulty,
18 Mr. Hannis, in trying to fully understand this and we will not disallow
19 the approach that you're taking. We will allow you to continue with this
20 line so far as you think it will be helpful to us.
21 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll try.
22 And for my learned friend across the way, I promise I'll try and
23 put up the Joint Command notes before I'm finished.
24 Q. Mr. Mijatovic, you mentioned that Adamovic was the one who had
25 this duty, and you were asked further:
1 "How does he decide which detachment is supposed to take part in
2 this action?"
3 And your answer at page 22328 was:
4 "Well, he's not the one who decides. He's the one who provides
5 information what units are there in the area and which units can be used."
6 My question about that is: If Adamovic doesn't decide which MUP
7 units will be used, who does? Does he just provide a list of names of
8 units that are in the area and available to the VJ, and then the VJ says,
9 I'll take number 1, and number 3, and number 5? How did that work?
10 A. What I was saying is this: Depending on the area in which an
11 anti-terrorist activity was being carried out, he provided information as
12 to which MUP units were in the area so that they might be reckoned with
13 and become part of the plan. There was no need to take any decisions -
14 just by way of an example. The 37th Detachment, if they happened to be in
15 the area where an army brigade was supposed to carry out some activities
16 with them, it was logical that it should carry out these activities and
17 not that another unit was brought from another area. That was my
18 explanation. There was no special need to have any decisions because the
19 unit was there, was in the area, and that unit would now be involved.
20 Because the decision had been taken for units to get involved.
21 Q. Yeah, but I guess maybe, in fairness to you, I haven't clearly
22 understood this. Did it work then that the VJ first told Adamovic, I need
23 300 men; and then Adamovic said, These 300 are available. Is that how it
25 A. In principle, yes. They didn't say later on it has to be this or
1 that detachment, but they said Dusko Adamovic says we have this or that
2 unit in the area that can get involved and they go on in planning.
3 Q. Several times you've answered questions by saying in principle,
4 yes; but I want to know in reality, is that how it worked?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So he first got the information from the VJ about how many men
7 they needed, and then he said which units were available; and then the VJ
8 incorporated those units into the plan. Am I still following you
10 A. Do they tell him how many men are needed, I don't know. They ask
11 which unit can get involved, and then Dusko says this unit is in the area,
12 therefore that unit can get involved, you can expect that unit to get
13 involved. Whether manpower was discussed or not, that is not something I
15 JUDGE BONOMY: You said a moment ago that you agreed with
16 Mr. Hannis that Adamovic says, We have this or that unit in the area that
17 can get involved and they go on in planning.
18 Now, once the units to be involved are identified, who goes on
19 with the planning?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The planning is done by the Pristina
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
23 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
24 Q. If, for example, the VJ needed 200 men and Adamovic knew he had
25 600 available in the area, would he not be the one who would decide which
1 200 he was going to say to the army were available or would he advise them
2 of all 600, say, from three different units and let the army choose or do
3 you know?
4 A. I don't know about the details, how they went about this. I
5 wasn't involved. Probably Dusko Adamovic would be better-placed to
6 explain that. These are details I was not familiar with and there was no
7 need for me to be familiar with this because this was something Dusko was
9 Q. As a general principle would you agree with me that in a
10 hypothetical situation like that, that the MUP would be in a better
11 position to know which ones were best choices. For example, Adamovic
12 would know better out of those three groups of 200 each which ones were
13 rested, which ones were more experienced, which ones had just finished
14 being involved in another action, et cetera, right? He would know better
15 than VJ about that?
16 A. Well, as far as police units were concerned, certainly he knew
17 better; how, I don't know, I can't discuss that, I can't discuss any
18 details. How did he know that. Did he keep his own records, did he talk
19 to the detachment commanders as to who could be involved, I really don't
21 Q. You mentioned in connection with some of these joint actions with
22 the VJ that the extracts of the maps were sent by the Pristina Corps.
23 Now, who were they sent to in the MUP? Did it go to the MUP staff or to a
24 particular individual? You may have told us that yesterday, but I missed
25 it in my notes.
1 A. The map extracts for anti-terrorist activities in which the VJ and
2 the police were involved jointly were something that normally arrived at
3 the staff, and the staff would send it along to whichever units were
4 involved in these activities.
5 Q. Okay. We saw in some instances that the JSO and the SAJ were
6 engaged in some of the joint actions. Who forwarded those excerpts to the
7 JSO? Was that you or somebody else on the staff?
8 A. No, not as far as I remember. It certainly wasn't me, but the
9 same principle was applied as far as I know. They would receive maps at
10 the staff -- maps arrived for them at the staff, and then this would be
11 forwarded along with the units of the public security, depending on where
12 the unit was, and then a courier would be there or someone from the PJP
13 and he would be given these documents so that he might bring it to them
14 since he was passing by the staff, so the same route, in one word.
15 Q. Same answer for the SAJ?
16 A. Yes, unless SAJ commander sent his own courier or came by himself.
17 I think it was done on the same principle. It's possible that he came
18 on his own personally, but Dusko Adamovic would be best placed to answer
20 JUDGE BONOMY: What's the answer in relation to the JSO?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have said, as far as I remember
22 the maps were sent to the staff and then a courier from the unit from the
23 public security who went there for the purposes or for the needs of his
24 own unit would carry this. This was just a courier service. They would
25 do a favour to us, as far as I can remember. But Dusko Adamovic would be
1 better placed to tell you that because he was directly involved in this.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
3 MR. HANNIS:
4 Q. So isn't that an example of at least Dusko Adamovic on the staff
5 coordinating these activities? Because he's at least passing on the
6 orders received from the VJ and making sure they get to the appropriate
7 organizational units, the JSO or the SAJ?
8 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Cepic on his feet.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.
10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, I
11 understood the witness to say that it was just excerpts from the maps of
12 the Army of Yugoslavia, not orders, as Mr. Hannis is quoting.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, after the war started it was orders -- sorry,
14 after the resubordination order it was orders; until then, it was only
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS:
18 Q. That's correct. I think I may have started out talking about the
19 maps, but I'm talking about throughout 1998 and 1999 whether it was just
20 maps or whether it was both maps and orders. Wouldn't you agree with me
21 that by doing that Mr. Adamovic, for the staff, is helping coordinate?
22 A. Well, as I have said, Adamovic was the one who provided
23 information and forwarded documents to the units. If this is what you
24 mean by coordination, then yes.
25 Q. Did Adamovic include anything else when he forwarded the maps and
1 later on after late April the orders? Did he include anything else with
2 those that came from the MUP staff? For example, a note enclosed, Please
3 find the map and the order from the VJ for action next Tuesday? Or did he
4 simply forward what he received from the VJ?
5 A. He would simply forward to the police units taking part in these
6 activities whatever he had received from the Army of Yugoslavia. So the
7 staff did not produce any additional documents.
8 Q. For some of the other questions about this you told me
9 Mr. Adamovic would be the best one to ask about it. How is it that you
10 know that he did not include anything else with the maps and the orders?
11 A. As far as I know, he didn't because he wasn't able to.
12 Q. Why not?
13 A. Well, I don't know what he could have included. He didn't plan,
14 he didn't write any orders, he didn't draw any maps, he didn't do anything
15 additionally. I know that much. I apologise. He could have sent out
16 some other mail, for example, a document that was forwarded to the
17 secretariats or unit commanders on a different matter. But as for some
18 particular action, when it comes to maps or orders, no, there was nothing
19 additional there.
20 Q. Okay. Thank you. I want to ask you now about some of the
21 meetings that we have documents for, and the first one I'd like you to
22 look at is Exhibit Number P2805, which is regarding a meeting on the 11th
23 of -- I'm sorry, on the 5th of November, 1998. I can give you a hard
24 copy, Colonel. And let's have look at page 2 in both the English, and I
25 guess it's page 3 in the B/C/S. You see that the cover page for the
1 minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 1998 starting at 1415 hours. Do
2 you find that, Colonel?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. And I see your name in the list of people attending. The first
5 name we see is President Milutinovic and then the Minister Stojiljkovic,
6 General Djordjevic and Markovic and Sreten Lukic. Some of the civilians
7 that we've heard associated with the Joint Command, Mr. Sainovic,
8 Mr. Minic, Mr. Andjelkovic, Mr. Matkovic, General Pavkovic, and so on,
9 including 13 representatives of the Pristina Corps.
10 Do you remember attending this meeting?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you'll see that Mr. -- or General Lukic presided over the
13 meeting and then turned the floor over to President Milutinovic, who
14 spoke. On that page can you see where President Milutinovic starts
15 speaking? Now we're on page 3 of the English.
16 A. I have it on page 1.
17 Q. Yes. Your page is different from ours. Can you go about to the
18 seventh line down right after the reference to an announcement by the
19 Republic of Serbia on the 27th of October. He's talking about that
20 agreement between Holbrooke and Milosevic, and you see it says:
21 "He added that on 29 October 1998 a meeting with the president,"
22 Milosevic that would be, "was held regarding the situation within the army
23 and the police."
24 Do you see that?
25 A. He also said that on the 29th of October, is that what you mean?
1 Yes, I've found that.
2 Q. Okay. And do you recall him mentioning that meeting on the 29th
3 of October or that meeting between the army and the police and
4 President Milosevic?
5 A. Well, you know what? I see this stated in the minutes, but if you
6 expect me to remember who said all those years ago, I wouldn't be able to
7 do that. It is stated in the minutes that he said that.
8 Q. Okay. Okay. If you could go further on, I think you have to go
9 to the next page, and it's about the next page of the B/C/S and it's about
10 four or five lines down from the top. On English we need to go to the
11 bottom of -- about two-thirds of the way down on page 3.
12 Are you there, Colonel? One of the things that Mr. --
13 A. I think so. If that sentence begins with: "For the Army of
14 Yugoslavia ..." If that's what you had in mind.
15 Q. Yes. My translation here reads: "Everything remains the same for
16 the Yugoslav Army and police Joint Command. VJ units are not withdrawing
17 and police forces are only reduced only by the part that has already been
18 withdrawn ..."
19 Do you see that reference to Joint Command by
20 President Milutinovic?
21 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
22 Q. And that doesn't refresh your memory about hearing the term Joint
23 Command used in 1998 in your presence?
24 A. Well, as I have said, I can't remember every word that somebody
25 uttered, and I told you that I had heard of that term before
1 President Milutinovic came to Kosovo and Metohija. But for me that simply
2 meant nothing special because I wasn't aware of the existence of that
3 command, I never felt its presence, its existence. I didn't see tasks
4 issued by it. I simply didn't feel that it existed in any way, and I have
5 already said so.
6 Q. Okay. If we could have up now Exhibit P2166 again, please.
7 I'll trade you, Colonel, and give you a hard copy of this. You
8 saw that document while preparing for your testimony, right?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. This is that Inter-departmental Staff meeting that I think I even
11 mentioned with you earlier. Without going through the pages I will tell
12 you that Mr. Milosevic at page 1; General Pavkovic at page 1 of your
13 B/C/S, page 2 of the English; General Lukic, page 7, English, page 8 of
14 the B/C/S; Mr. Minic page 9, English, page 10, B/C/S; General Perisic page
15 12 of both English and B/C/S; President Milutinovic at page 12 of both;
16 and Mr. Sainovic at page 13 of both English and B/C/S refer specifically
17 to the Joint Command. And all these guys are talking about the Joint
18 Command. It's mentioned at that meeting you attended. General Lukic was
19 going to Joint Command meetings and you tell us you didn't really feel the
20 presence of any such body. Is that still your evidence?
21 A. Yes, I still stand by that. I reiterate, the MUP staff was never
22 given any single task by that Joint Command nor was any member of the
23 Ministry of the Interior in that situation. None of them ever received
24 any task with a heading Joint Command nor did they orally receive a task
25 from some Joint Command nor was there any obligation to inform some Joint
1 Command --
2 Q. How can you say that when you don't know about the Joint Command?
3 Do you know that General Stevanovic and General Djordjevic also attended
4 Joint Command meetings in 1998? Did you know that?
5 A. I knew that in addition to General Lukic they participated in
6 those meetings, but I wasn't aware, I didn't know that those were meetings
7 of the Joint Command. Nothing indicated that, nor did I ever hear from
8 them, We are going to a meeting of the Joint Command. Nor did they, upon
9 their return, say, At the Joint Command we were told that we have such and
10 such task. And as for what is stated here in these minutes, as I have
11 told you, yes, I have heard of this term being used, but I never felt this
12 Joint Command, I didn't know that it existed.
13 Q. I stopped you, though, because you were going on and saying nobody
14 from the MUP ever got a task from the Joint Command. If you don't know
15 about the meetings, you don't know who attended, you don't know what was
16 said there, you can't say that, can you?
17 A. I don't know what was discussed in those meetings. I know and I
18 saw in these notes that Obrad Stevanovic and Djordjevic and military
19 generals and people from the politics attended these meetings. But as I
20 have said, I didn't know that those were meetings of the Joint Command
21 because I never heard anybody say, I'm going to a meeting of the Joint
22 Command. No. They normally went to meetings of various structures that
23 coordinated these activities. That's why I'm saying that I was never
24 aware that that was Joint Command. And I do not deny that in the
25 notes ...
1 Q. I'm sorry, did you finish?
2 A. And I do not deny that in the notes that I have seen, in the
3 heading it says ZK for Joint Command, but I wasn't aware that they went to
4 the meetings of the Joint Command. I simply didn't know that it existed.
5 Q. Okay. You saw Exhibit P1468, the notes of meetings of the Joint
6 Command between 22nd July 1998 and the end of October 1998? Did you see
7 that document in preparing for your testimony today?
8 A. I saw it, and I have it here. I just didn't read all of that. I
9 just took a brief look because I simply had no time to read all of this
10 and I can't really tell you that I am aware of every document and its
12 Q. I understand. I don't expect you to know everything that was in
13 those notes. I will tell you that my rough count of the meetings recorded
14 there, there are either 69 or 70 meetings between the 22nd of July and
15 30th of October, according to that document; and it appears that at least
16 at 58 of those meetings, General Lukic was in attendance. You didn't know
17 that? You didn't know he was going to these meetings every other day or
19 A. No. I didn't say that he did not attend those meetings. I don't
20 know how many there were in total. I know that there were meetings
21 between representatives of various state organs, that is to say police,
22 army, and people from various state structures, politics, state security,
23 and so on. I know that those meetings were held, but I don't know that it
24 was called Joint Command, that it represented Joint Command. To me it
25 resembled coordination. I attended a meeting where people briefed on
1 whatever they had to say and there were no conclusions or tasks emanating
2 from that; simply, everybody did what they had to do, and it wasn't my
3 impression, it wasn't my impression that this was Joint Command.
4 Q. Okay. Are you aware that General Lukic participated in a recorded
5 interview with the OTP prior to the beginning of this case?
6 A. You mean in Kosovo and Metohija with the OTP?
7 Q. Frankly, I'm not even sure of the location. I think it was. It
8 was after the war. Have you seen the transcript of his interview with the
9 OTP in preparing for your testimony?
10 A. I apologise. Since we previously talked about the meetings of the
11 Joint Command and then you linked this with the interview with the OTP, I
12 simply thought that it referred to something that took place in Kosovo and
13 Metohija. I apologise. My misunderstanding.
14 During the proofing I partially looked over that statement. I
15 didn't have time to read everything, but I saw it partially, yes.
16 Q. And did you see enough -- and for the record that's Exhibit P948.
17 Did you have occasion to see enough of it to see that he told the
18 OTP investigators that he was attending Joint Command meetings in 1998 and
19 in 1999? Did you read enough of it to see that?
20 A. It seems to me that I have read somewhere that he said the
21 so-called Joint Command. I'm not sure, but I don't know about him being
22 adamant that there was a Joint Command. Let me reiterate that I didn't
23 know that Joint Command existed, nor did he ever at the time say to me
24 that he was going to a meeting of the Joint Command or that we had
25 received a task from the Joint Command. So there was no way for me to
1 know about it.
2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, to save time I would indicate for the
3 record that there are references to this matter at pages 48 to 50, 84 to
4 85, 97 to 105, 109 to 113, 120 to 122, 146 to 148, and 160 to 163.
5 Q. So even having seen that to the extent that you did, that doesn't
6 change your opinion about whether or not there was a body that existed in
7 Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and/or in 1999 that was called the Joint
8 Command, regardless of what its competencies were? Just talk about the
9 name of it, are you still saying there wasn't any such body?
10 A. My position is that I do not know that this body existed. Now, as
11 to why somebody called it this, I don't know. It's not clear to me. Let
12 me repeat that I have never at the staff seen an order or a task received
13 from the Joint Command nor did we ever receive any of their reports on any
14 issues, at least I'm not aware of that. This is why I'm saying that I
15 never felt its existence. They didn't have offices, they didn't have
16 telephones, they didn't have anything that would indicate to me that there
17 existed such a thing as a Joint Command.
18 Q. You didn't see a document showing that they had a radio call-sign
19 or code-name?
20 A. You're referring to the Joint Command?
21 Q. I am.
22 A. I don't recall that.
23 Q. Okay. You would agree with me, however, that General Lukic is in
24 a better position than you to know whether or not there was a Joint
25 Command in existence and meeting in Kosovo in 1998 and/or in 1999, right?
1 A. He knew what type of meetings he attended. I don't know whether
2 he understood that it was a Joint Command at the time or not; that's up to
3 him. But I know that he never told us about any Joint Command.
4 Q. Okay. You saw from those notes that there was one meeting that
5 you were present for even though you tell us at the time you weren't aware
6 it was a Joint Command meeting, right? You talked about that earlier with
7 Mr. Branko Lukic, the lawyer for General Lukic. You remember that?
8 A. I was at the meeting, yes, and you can see that in the notes.
9 Q. If I could hand you that page, it's page 141 of the B/C/S and page
10 157 in the English of Exhibit P1468. I just want to try and clear up
11 something in connection with that. You mentioned in that meeting about a
12 five-man monitoring group arriving from Finland today to investigate the
13 situation in Kosovo and Metohija and to exhume bodies.
14 And I think when you answered a question about that before you
15 mentioned Racak because you were aware that there was some Finnish
16 forensic team involved with that, but you know Racak was in January of
17 1999 so that cannot be what you're referring to here, right?
18 A. I said that I remember that after Racak experts came in in
19 relation to this event, and I saw in the minutes, but I can't remember,
20 that this team came. I can't deny that this team came. I can't remember
21 that though, and I can see in the minutes that their arrival was reported,
22 but I can't remember that they came and why they came. But obviously I
23 wouldn't report about their arrival if they had not arrived. I just
24 simply can't remember.
25 Q. Okay. Let me quickly show you one other document. This is 6D197.
1 This is a MUP dispatch dated the 12th of October, 1998. Have you seen
2 this before?
3 A. I don't have that. No, no, what I have is 10th of December. I
4 don't know if it's a mistake.
5 Q. Okay.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: It's also 10th December on the screen, Mr. Hannis.
7 MR. HANNIS: All right.
8 Q. Do you -- had you seen this document before?
9 A. I don't remember that. I don't think I did.
10 Q. Okay. Were you aware of an incident involving an alleged massacre
11 of civilians in Gornje Obrinje around the end of September 1998? That was
12 a high-profile incident that got a lot of media attention. Do you
13 remember that?
14 A. As far as I remember, I read in some document while I was proofed
15 about corpses in a number of locations, and if I remember well
16 Gornje Obrinje was mentioned. In certain locations investigations were
17 conducted, but as far as I remember, it wasn't possible to do that in
18 Obrinje due to security reasons because there were a lot of members of the
19 so-called KLA there. The area around had been mined, and if I remember
20 well, one MUP vehicle had driven over a mine and five policemen were
21 killed. I'm not sure, but I think this pertains to Gornje Obrinje and
22 this information came in from the media about there being corpses and so
23 on and the SUP wanted to go and do whatever needed to be done, but they
24 just simply couldn't.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: This sounds like a lengthy business or are you
1 going to deal with it quite quickly?
2 MR. HANNIS: No, I think I'm going to break here, if I may, Your
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Again, Mr. -- Have you a way to go?
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I think if I can organize I can be done
6 in an hour and a half tomorrow.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Back tomorrow again then, Mr. Mijatovic. Could you
8 now please leave the courtroom with the usher, and we will see you again
9 at 9.00 tomorrow morning in this courtroom.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 [The witness stands down].
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Friday, the 15th day of
14 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.