1 Thursday, 13 March 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, everyone. Judge Nosworthy is
6 still unwell. We shall continue in her absence on the same basis as
7 yesterday and we shall continue with the cross-examination of
8 Mr. Vojnovic.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vojnovic, good afternoon.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: The cross-examination by Mr. Hannis will continue
13 in a moment. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak
14 the truth which you gave at the beginning of your evidence, that
15 continues to apply to that evidence today.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: MILOS VOJNOVIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Vojnovic. I realized there were two
22 additional questions I wanted to ask you about your written statement,
23 Exhibit 6D1532, and the first one relates to paragraph 38. In that you
24 mentioned refugee convoys were often bombed and you said: "I was in one
25 such convoy where many people were killed as a result."
1 What convoy were you in? You were in a refugee convoy?
2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I was returning from Djakovica going to Prizren
3 on that day, around 2.00 p.m. There were many people on the road,
4 vehicles, tractors, et cetera. Some 300 metres in front of me a tractor
5 was hit by a shell. There were some 30 people there including women and
6 children. There was -- the road between Djakovica and Prizren is some 60
7 kilometres long. There were other columns and there were more strikes,
8 but that was the one I saw.
9 Q. And how were you travelling? You weren't in the convoy then;
10 that's not a correct statement, right? You just saw it from a distance
11 of about 300 metres?
12 A. It wasn't one single long column. There were several groups of
13 people moving from Prizren to Djakovica, that is, they were going back.
14 I was in a vehicle and I saw it from the vehicle. I was trying to get
15 away as soon as possible as well. I wasn't alone. There were two
16 policemen with me or maybe the driver and one or two other policemen.
17 Q. And what kind of vehicle were you in? Were you in a police
19 A. No. It was the property of the police, but I think it was a
20 black civilian car, I think it was an Audi.
21 Q. And the second thing I wanted to ask you about in your statement,
22 Exhibit -- at paragraph 34 you say how the police took all measures to
23 protect lives and property and you didn't tolerate any illegal behaviour
24 regardless of ethnicity or position. And then there's a reference to
25 Exhibit 6D365 I guess as an example of this, and I would like to show you
1 Exhibit 6D365 and ask you a couple of questions about it. I can hand you
2 a hard copy because it's several pages, and this appears to be at least
3 in part a part of a criminal report regarding Vukajlo Vulic. The first
4 page is dated the 30th of March, 1999. Do you see that? Do you
5 recognise that document?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. [Microphone not activated].
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Hannis, please
9 MR. HANNIS:
10 Q. Do you remember the case that this refers to?
11 A. I do.
12 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated]
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MR. HANNIS: If you go to page 8 of the English for Your Honours
15 and we English speakers.
16 Q. It's page 5 of your document, sir, and it talks about reasonable
17 suspicion against Mr. Vulic and another individual as well as the third
18 accused Nebojsa Lalic and the fourth accused Zoran Radovic. Those last
19 two are described as policemen from the Prizren police station, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And from my reading of this document, I gather the essence of
22 this event was there were a couple of Albanian families who were trying
23 to leave Kosovo, they engaged the assistance of two non-policemen, who
24 then engaged the assistance of Mr. Lalic and Mr. Radovic, the policemen,
25 to help those Albanian families get out of Kosovo, right? Is that a fair
2 A. Yes, but the essence is that they wanted money for that favour.
3 Q. Right. And if you would go to page 9 in your copy, and in the
4 English it's the 14th page of this exhibit, and this is dated the 4th of
5 April, 1999, and it's a report regarding a severe violation of official
6 duties against Nebojsa Lalic. I note in the first paragraph there it
7 indicates that he had been with the MUP since June of 1992, he was a
8 sergeant first class, and that he had been sanctioned in the past.
9 Do you know what the previous sanction was for, Mr. Vojnovic?
10 A. I don't.
11 Q. Okay. Toward the -- the third paragraph under that report, it's
12 apparently a finding that he committed the following severe violations of
13 official duties, and it included behaviour damaging the reputation of the
14 service and illegal obtaining of personal or material gain. And if we
15 could scroll to the bottom of the B/C/S page and if we could go to the
16 next page in the English on the e-court, we'll see the writer of this
17 report is proposing that policeman Lalic be fined on a disciplinary
18 measure amounting to 20 per cent of his salary over a three-month period
19 and: "I propose the disciplinary measuring of lowering of rank for a
20 two-year period."
21 Now, you told us about your work on the MUP disciplinary court.
22 Is this -- is there any other sentence being recommended here? No loss
23 of job, no jail time, nothing like that, right?
24 A. That is not right. If I may, I'll explain.
25 Q. Please.
1 A. This was a report of a grave breach of official duty drafted on
2 the basis of the decree on internal affairs as the lex specialis current
3 legislation at the time. In addition to this, there was another report
4 submitted to the prosecutor's office against the same perpetrators,
5 whereby they could also receive a prison sentence. If there is an order
6 to conduct an investigation, according to the Law on Working Relations,
7 they -- their employment is terminated. This report was written under
8 one particular law, whereas the crime, the act, they committed is also
9 regulated by another piece of legislation; however, that did not fall
10 under my authority or the authority of the disciplinary court.
11 Q. Okay. But we see no reference in this document relating to event
12 about a referral to any other court, do we? At least I didn't read
13 anything in my English version.
14 A. No, we cannot see that. This report was drafted by his
15 commander. The criminal report was drafted by the inspector who
16 investigated the incident. We don't know whether a separate
17 investigation was initiated which could result in a separate request for
18 their employment to be terminated, and of course it should be followed by
19 a decision.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, in introducing this passage of
21 evidence you described this document as part of a criminal report.
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the first page --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: What in fact is it?
24 MR. HANNIS: The first page is listed as a criminal report, the
25 first page of this exhibit, and this page that I've been reading from now
1 is a separate document dated the 4th of April and it's described as a
2 report in accordance with paragraph 3, Article 9 of the decree on
3 internal affairs in a state of war.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: So do we get assistance on whether there were
5 criminal proceedings in the first part?
6 MR. HANNIS: No, I don't see it anywhere in this exhibit number
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 MR. HANNIS:
10 Q. Mr. Vojnovic, this event involved an amount of money of about
11 10.000 German marks was the bribe that was being offered by these
12 Albanian families who wanted to leave. At that time, in 1999, can you
13 tell us about how many dinars that was in Kosovo, do you recall?
14 A. I cannot recall, I can't speculate. I cannot tell you offhand.
15 Q. Let me try it another way. My sense is it's a fairly large sum
16 of money. How much would a sergeant first class in the MUP make in a
17 year in 1999 in Kosovo, any idea?
18 A. A lot of time has passed. 10.000 was probably the cost of a new
19 car, maybe the Zastava 101 car or more. I cannot recall at this moment
20 what my salary was at the time.
21 Q. Well, that was my next question. You don't remember how much you
22 got paid as chief of the SUP in Prizren in 1999, approximately?
23 A. I'm trying to think about it. Well, maybe around 200 German
24 marks more or less.
25 Q. Is that per month or per year?
1 A. Per month.
2 Q. Thank you. There's nothing in this exhibit either that refers to
3 what happened to the second policeman involved in this, Zoran Radovic.
4 Do you know whether he was disciplined or had any civil criminal
5 proceedings brought against him?
6 A. I truly don't know. I cannot recall whether they were both from
7 the police station in Prizren. Maybe he was working in another police
8 station and the cases may have been treated separately, although I truly
9 cannot recall.
10 Q. Okay. Well, I would tell you that at page 5 of the B/C/S and
11 page 8 of the English it indicates that Zoran Radovic also was a
12 policeman from the Prizren police station. The writer of this report,
13 the last page of the document, is -- I can't read the name, it's
14 Lieutenant Milos, it looks like Skekic?
15 A. Scekic.
16 Q. Well, even if I could read that, I wouldn't have been able to
17 pronounce it. Tell me, what's the difference or what's the relationship
18 between the Prizren police station and the Prizren SUP that you were the
19 head of?
20 A. The secretariat in Prizren had the authority and duty to perform
21 the tasks and authorities from the authority of the MUP in the entire
22 area of Prizren, which encompasses four municipalities: Orahovac, Suva
23 Reka, Prizren, and Dragas. The seat of the secretariat of internal
24 affairs of Prizren was in Prizren itself. As for the other
25 municipalities, Dragas, Orahovac, and Suva Reka, there were separate
1 units or the so-called territorial units and we called OUPs, departments
2 of internal affairs, and they were the ones in charge of MUP tasks in
3 their respective areas. In the seat of the secretariat there are
4 internal organizational units such as the crime police department, et
5 cetera, and within one of those there is the police station --
6 Q. Let me interrupt you there. Is that then what we have heard
7 referred to as the OUP, the O-U-P, as opposed to the SUP?
8 A. Yes, O-U-P.
9 Q. Thank you. Now I'm clear. And what was the relationship between
10 you and the commander of the police station, did he report to you? Did
11 he work for you? What was the relationship between you two?
12 A. I was about to complete my answer to make it clear. The police
13 station in Prizren fell under the police department in Prizren. The
14 police department is one of the internal organizational units of the
15 secretariat of internal affairs. That police station was at the level of
16 an OUP and it was comprised of uniformed policemen.
17 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you about something that I don't know
18 if you know about or not. In the notice, the Rule 65 ter notice we got
19 from the Defence lawyers advising us that you were going to be a witness
20 and what you were going to testify about, it mentioned that you might
21 speak about Crisis Staff in Prizren, but I don't recall you speaking of
22 that when you testified in direct. Was there a Crisis Staff in Prizren
23 in 1999?
24 A. After the municipal president kept insisting at the beginning of
25 the war, a Crisis Staff was formed in the municipality. I was a member
1 of the staff. After we met -- once when we actually established the
2 staff we never met again, there were no conditions in place for that.
3 Some people referred to it as Crisis Staff, but I believe it should have
4 been called an All People's Defence Staff under the Law on Territorial
6 Q. When did you meet the one time?
7 A. When the bombing started, when the state of war was declared.
8 Q. Prior to the start of the bombing and after your arrival in
9 January 1999, were you as the chief of the SUP involved in any defence
10 planning for the defence of the populated area of Prizren?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you have any dealings with the civil protection staff or the
13 civil defence people?
14 A. Officially were there no dealings, but we met on occasion.
15 Q. Okay. You weren't aware of instructions from July 1998 issued by
16 the Joint Command for the defence of populated areas, were you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. The civil defence people, what kind of uniforms did they wear?
19 A. As I said, I'm not well-acquainted with military terminology. I
20 keep mixing civil defence and civil protection. I know that civil
21 defence had blue suits, like overalls. As for civilian defence, they had
22 grey suits or uniforms.
23 Q. In both those answers you were translated as having referred to
24 civil defence, but you said one had blue suits like overalls and one had
25 grey suits. Which did the civil protection wear, the blue or the grey?
1 A. I think I meant to say civilian protection, the blue uniforms.
2 Q. And civil defence wore the grey?
3 A. To me it seems the same from this place. I cannot distinguish
4 between the two.
5 Q. Let me then go to a few of the documents remaining that I needed
6 to ask you about. When we finished yesterday we had been looking at
7 P1996. I think I had one or two more questions for you about that
8 document, and this is from the meeting at the MUP staff for Kosovo in
9 Pristina on the 7th of May, 1999. I can hand you the hard copy, that may
10 help. Thank you.
11 We spoke yesterday about the part of the meeting where you spoke
12 and mentioned speaking with the judges in your community, and if you
13 could turn to page 9 of the B/C/S, that's page 10 of the English. And I
14 will tell you that General Lukic is speaking. I think you were asked
15 about this. He mentioned that the number of 27 crimes of murder is not
16 realistic. You explained some possible reasons for that discrepancy, and
17 if you'll go down to the I think it's the fourth bullet point General
18 Lukic is saying: "You must not wait in cases of arson and murder; the
19 suspect must be handed over together with the criminal report to the
20 competent judge at once ..."
21 And then he goes on to say: "These sorts of problems have still
22 not been cleared up ..." and he names some municipalities, including
23 Prizren. What kind of problems had you had in Prizren with not turning
24 suspects and criminal reports over to the competent judges at once, do
25 you recall?
1 A. As far as I can recall at this moment, this was stressed as far
2 as I understood because the courts were being inactive, or rather, they
3 would simply release the suspects the same day, the judges there would.
4 There were no cases of arson in Prizren. I told you that during the war
5 only one house burned down. Whether General Lukic had other information
6 from the daily reports we sent to the MUP and the staff, I don't know,
7 but I cannot tell you precisely.
8 Q. Well, it doesn't look like General Lukic is complaining about the
9 judges; he's complaining that the cases aren't being turned over right
10 away. You don't recall any problems -- since you say there was only one
11 arson, you don't recall any problems with murder cases where the suspects
12 and the criminal reports were not being turned over promptly in Prizren
13 in 1999?
14 A. I don't remember any such cases. As a rule a person being handed
15 over to a judge has to have a criminal report filed against them.
16 Q. Well, was that the nature of the problem then, the criminal
17 reports were not being prepared quickly enough?
18 A. As I understand the item above this, that a small number of 27
19 crimes happened, I think this is lack of expeditiousness because more
20 inspections, on-site investigations were carried out than criminal
21 reports filed. So then the records did not tally, and of course there
22 was no time to compile a record and obtain all the other documentation
23 needed in the file on the same day.
24 Q. Okay. Let me have you go to the last page of this meeting on the
25 7th of May. I think you touched on this topic before. I think it's the
1 fourth bullet point up from the bottom of the page in your B/C/S, and
2 General -- I think this is General Lukic speaking as well, says: "I
3 especially mention that in the work of the OPG, the chief of SUP gives
4 his permission for certain actions and informs the head of staff about
6 Now, you were asked on direct examination by Mr. Lukic about your
7 understanding of this, and you answered a question about: Did the staff
8 command and use OPGs, and you said no.
9 But as the chief of SUP in Prizren, did you have an OPG or more
10 than one OPG in Prizren in 1999?
11 A. We had one.
12 Q. And I take it that sometime during 1999 before leaving in June,
13 they took part in some activities or actions against the terrorists,
15 A. They helped me in the carrying out of regular tasks and duties of
16 greater complexity than usual. For example, dealing with perpetrators of
17 aggravated crimes. They laid ambushes, they went to provide security
18 where needed and so on and so forth.
19 Q. Did they not participate in any anti-terrorist actions?
20 A. Yes, they did, as part of the PJP.
21 Q. Okay. And some of those included the joint actions with the
23 A. As I said, they were part of the PJP company and they went where
24 their company went. They were not the OPG then.
25 Q. And by that you are referring to the 5th Company, the 5th PJP
1 Company from Prizren?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you give permission for their involvement in those actions?
4 A. They were part of the PJP with the others. They didn't need
5 anyone's approval, or rather, they didn't need mine or my permission.
6 Q. So in 1999 did your OPG ever take part in any actions other than
7 as part of the 5th PJP Company? Did they ever take part in an action
8 where they were operating solely as an OPG?
9 A. Yes, in the carrying out of regular tasks and assignments. I've
10 already mentioned that. For example, if we had information that a person
11 of security-related interest was to pass along a certain passage or a
12 certain route or if a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued
13 was expected to come along because he was a criminal, then part of that
14 OPG was engaged or the entire OPG, but usually it was just part of it.
15 Q. And for those actions did you as SUP chief give your permission?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And did you inform General Lukic of those actions?
18 A. No, these were regular tasks and assignments. These tasks and
19 assignments, when it was assessed that there was no security risk for the
20 people, they would be carried by one or more patrols. So between the
21 patrols and the members of the OPG, the only difference was that the
22 members of the OPG were younger men and better trained.
23 Q. Well, if I could have you then go back to page 9 of this
24 document, and it's page 11 of the English, that leaves one question still
25 unanswered in my mind. From the bottom of the page, if you'll go up --
1 there are two lines, the next paragraph, and the paragraph above that.
2 Can you find a part that reads: "In the organization of work" -- and
3 this is on page 11 of the English near the middle.
4 "In the organization of work, the secretariat of the interior
5 must ensure that in Kosovo and Metohija the organization is such that all
6 OPJPs are subordinated to the chief of the secretariat."
7 And this is General Stevanovic speaking, by the way. But from
8 what you've told us before, that doesn't sound like that's what happened
9 in Prizren at any rate. Were the OPJPs subordinated to you?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Never during 1999 through the end of the war?
12 A. Only when there was a joint daily roster did they carry out
13 regular tasks and assignments with the regular policemen of the SUP, and
14 even then it was a PJP officer who was in charge of them.
15 Q. So why wasn't this statement from General Stevanovic followed or
16 complied with? Was there some later change in that statement or did you
17 just ignore it? Why wasn't it done?
18 A. I can't be precise now, but in the manner of describing -- of
19 carrying out tasks and assignments that I described, there were no
20 problems in practice, everybody did their job in compliance with the law.
21 Q. Well, that takes me to a point that I've put to some other
22 witnesses regarding the issue of subordination of the MUP to the VJ.
23 You're aware that there was an order issued along the military lines
24 about the MUP being subordinated to the VJ for purposes of combat
25 activities. You knew about that, right?
1 A. I never saw that, but I heard about that story.
2 Q. And we've heard evidence that it never actually got implemented
3 on the MUP side, but it really wasn't a problem on the ground, was it,
4 because you had good coordination between the MUP, the police, and the
5 army, at least in Prizren you had good cooperation with the army in those
6 joint activities against the terrorists, right?
7 A. We did well.
8 Q. In this document in the last paragraph there is a discussion
9 about wearing the police uniform and that the green uniform can only be
10 worn in anti-terrorist actions. You told us that you personally did not
11 wear a uniform. Who else in the SUP did not wear a uniform? Were you
12 the only one as the chief?
13 A. According to the rules on the internal organization and the job
14 descriptions within the ministry, inter alia people with P status wore
15 uniforms; people with OSL status did not wear uniforms; people with OD
16 status did not wear uniforms, and nobody else wore uniforms. So to
17 clarify. All those whose status was P, P, police, they wore a uniform --
18 well, it used to be M, milicija.
19 Q. Right. And the next-to-the-last point in this document was that
20 members of the reserve police station may not wear police uniforms, and
21 this must be prohibited immediately. This is from the meeting of 7 May.
22 To me that sounds like before the 7th of May there was a problem with
23 reserve police wearing police uniforms; isn't that right?
24 A. Members of the reserve force could wear uniforms only when they
25 were on the job; however, as I've already said on one occasion, there
1 were isolated cases of lack of discipline when individuals wore uniforms
2 when they were not on the job, and of course this was not permitted.
3 That's why this was highlighted here, to enforce discipline.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vojnovic, you referred to people with OSL
5 status and people with OD status not wearing uniforms. What do these
6 expressions mean, OSL and OD?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] OSL is authorised official persons,
8 these were in fact inspectors of the crime detection department, and
9 there were of course people with the same status in other departments but
10 far fewer. OD means certain duties, and they had the same status as the
11 OSL but not the same powers, not the same authorities.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: And what do you mean by "certain duties"?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for example, they work by day
14 and by night, in shifts, on Sundays, on workdays, but they are not
15 authorised to arrest people, to inspect people's identity papers, to
16 bring people in, and so on.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean they are not full policemen, they
18 have some auxiliary status?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As regards policemen -- well, they
20 weren't even auxiliary policemen. They couldn't inspect people's
21 identity papers or bring people in. They worked as analysts, for
22 example, and gave information to policemen. They had to work by day and
23 by night and in shifts because the analysis department where they had
24 data, for example, on people's criminal records, they couldn't shut down
25 on Sundays, they had to work around-the-clock. So to motivate these
1 people, they were given this status, OD, or certain duties.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
3 Mr. Hannis.
4 MR. HANNIS:
5 Q. Well, Mr. Vojnovic, I need to qualify that answer. You say they
6 couldn't do these things, they couldn't inspect people's identity papers
7 or bring people in, but I would suggest to you that if they're wearing
8 the uniform and they have a gun, they could do it even though they
9 weren't allowed to --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, these are people the witness said did
11 not wear uniforms.
12 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, I thought he was referring
13 to some of the reserve policemen who were wearing uniforms.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: That was a separate matter I think.
15 MR. HANNIS: Okay.
16 Q. Let me move on to a question you were asked yesterday by
17 Mr. Lukic. He asked you if you knew that around the 31st of March, 1999,
18 some -- here it's translated as 80 per cent but I think he was reading
19 from the indictment which is 80.000 Kosovar Albanians gathered in the
20 municipality of Suva Reka at Belanica, and the next day forces of Serbia
21 and Yugoslavia shelled the village and forced the displaced persons to
22 flee. You said you didn't have such information at your disposal.
23 Did you never hear about several thousand Kosovar Albanian
24 civilians in the vicinity of Belanica at the end of March 1999? Did you
25 know about that?
1 A. As regards Belanica, I don't know and I didn't know where that
2 village is, but on the main roads from the direction of Suva Reka or
3 Pristina in the direction of Prizren and from Djakovica via Orahovac
4 towards Prizren and then on towards the Albanian border there were many
5 thousands of refugees. I saw that myself. It wasn't impossible to see,
6 but that they were shelled by members of the army and the police, that's
7 something I really don't know and I didn't know that then either.
8 Q. Let me show you an exhibit, this is Exhibit Number P2002. I'll
9 hand you a hard copy. This is one you again may not have seen, it's an
10 analysis or report post-action from Colonel Delic of the 549th about
11 actions to destroy the Siptar terrorists in the general area of Malisevo
12 and Pagarusa in the period from 30 March to 3 April 1999. Now, if you
13 could go to page 2 in the B/C/S -- well -- yeah, I think I asked you the
14 other day about the involvement of the 5th PJP Company and the 37th PJP
15 Detachment. On page 2 in your B/C/S and page 3 of the English, if you
16 can find the portion for me right above the paragraph that says: "During
17 the second day of combat operations ..."
18 Do you find that?
19 A. In the course of the first day?
20 Q. No, during the second day. Do you find that reference?
21 A. I found it.
22 Q. Okay. Two paragraphs above that there's a reference to battle
23 group 5 of the 549th Motorised Brigade and the 37th PJP Detachment had
24 completely seized Dobrodeljane village and two lines below that there's a
25 reference to battle group 2 of the 243rd Motorised Brigade with a company
1 of the 37th PJP having completely seized Semetiste village. Were you
2 aware of those accomplishments of the 37th PJP Detachment?
3 A. This is a report for the period from the 30th of March to the 3rd
4 of April. Anti-terrorist activities were started by members of the army
5 and the MUP to the best of my recollection on the 25th. In the area
6 between Prizren, Orahovac, and Suva Reka, according to the assessment at
7 the time there was several thousand Siptar terrorists there, and of
8 course I knew that they had passed through that area and that practically
9 it was the territorial detachment of the PJP, this one, that remained
10 behind, but I really cannot recall anything about these particular
11 villages. I'm speaking about the entire territory.
12 Q. Okay. Let me have you then go on. Can you find the section that
13 starts with: "During the third day of combat operations the remaining
14 areas were mopped up, the 23rd PJP Detachment and battle group 6 of the
15 549th ..."
16 Do you find that? I think it's about five paragraphs up from the
17 bottom of that page.
18 A. I found it.
19 Q. And in the second half of that paragraph you see the part that
20 says: "Parts of the 15th Armoured Brigade took Kravasarija village,
21 battle group 2 of the 243rd seized the Kostrce feature and Mahala in the
22 general area of that village," and then "the forces of the 5th PJP
23 company and parts of the 15th Armoured Brigade were joined in Belanica
24 village, where they evacuated and cared for some 30.000 refugees."
25 How do you know about how the 5th PJP Company participated in
1 evacuating some 30.000 refugees? Do you know anything about that?
2 A. I don't know anything about this particular case. The PJP was
3 usually not involved in these tasks. Problems of providing security for
4 the refugees was something that regular policemen dealt with. Where the
5 refugees were coming from, I really don't know, but I can tell you that
6 there was several thousand on the roads I've already mentioned. Whether
7 they came from the Prizren area or some other areas I can't say because I
8 don't know.
9 Q. Well, we've had some witnesses tell us that they were evacuated
10 by being directed to leave Kosovo and go to Albania. Did you know that?
11 A. I don't know who sent them there. I myself had an opportunity to
12 speak to those people in those convoys, and of course I tried to persuade
13 them to go back and there are instances where they did but most of them
14 didn't. When I asked them, of course I was wearing civilian clothes and
15 they didn't know I was the chief of the SUP, I asked them where they were
16 going and why; and usually they said they were afraid of the
17 air-strikes --
18 Q. You're not answering my question anymore, so let me move on to
19 another one. When did you first become aware that Colonel Mitrovic had
20 been arrested in connection with the killings of the Berisha family in
21 Suva Reka? When did you first find out about that?
22 A. I was still working, it might have been in 2005 or 2004, but just
23 after he was arrested I heard about it because I was working in the MUP
24 and I heard that from a colleague of mine.
25 Q. And prior to that date had you not heard anything about the
1 killing of a few dozen members of the Berisha family in Suva Reka in late
2 March 1999?
3 A. I didn't have that information.
4 Q. Well, I understand you say you didn't have that information. My
5 question was: Did you not hear about it? You never heard anything about
7 A. I didn't hear anything about that.
8 Q. And when you first heard about it in -- I guess it would have
9 been 2005 or 2004 when Mitrovic was arrested, did you make any inquiries
10 to try and find out what that was about because that was a pretty serious
11 crime that happened in your area of responsibility while you were SUP
12 chief? Did you do any checking?
13 A. I was interviewed about those circumstances and I made a
14 statement before the court for war crimes in Belgrade as a witness. Of
15 course I learned many facts at the time.
16 Q. Are you familiar of a nickname or a code-name that was associated
17 with Colonel Mitrovic, the term Cegar? Did you know about that?
18 A. Yes, I did hear about that. That was his code for the radio
19 communication, he was Cegar 1, that was his call-sign.
20 Q. And were his men sometimes referred to as Cegari, if that's the
21 right term in Serbian?
22 A. Well, I have to take up some of your time again. The entire unit
23 had the call-sign Cegar and he was at the head of that unit so his
24 call-sign was Cegar 1, and then the other officers were Cegar 2, Cegar 3,
25 and I don't know how many there were. These were official call-signs.
1 Q. Let me ask you about an Exhibit Number P3126. And I'm sorry, I
2 don't have this in B/C/S. This is an English translation of an article
3 that reportedly appeared in Tanjug on the 16th of May, 1999, and it
4 mentions that 15 interior ministry members of the Prizren district were
5 promoted into higher ranks, and it says Colonel Milos Vojnovic
6 congratulated the group of decorated and promoted policemen."
7 Do you recall that promotion ceremony on the 16th of May?
8 A. I remember, but I don't think that there was ceremony. We were
9 in a basement at the time.
10 Q. Okay. Do you recall who those 15 members were who got
11 promoted -- maybe not by name, but can you tell me what units they
12 belonged to? Were there any members of the 37th PJP Detachment or the
13 5th PJP Company?
14 A. They were commended and received awards and they were promoted by
15 the minister, and these were employees of the secretariat of the interior
16 in Prizren.
17 Q. Okay. Were any of them in the PJP?
18 A. Probably so, but I can't remember now.
19 Q. Did Mitrovic get promoted?
20 A. Mitrovic is not an employee of the secretariat in Prizren.
21 Q. Okay. But did he get promoted, do you know?
22 A. I really don't know, maybe he did. Maybe the minister promoted
23 him. Before that I was in Belgrade, I mean that's where I was given this
24 task, but I really don't know whether Mitrovic was promoted. I know that
25 after the end of the war that he was promoted -- no, not promoted, he was
1 commended, he was, I was, things like that.
2 Q. The last document I want to ask you about is Exhibit P1188. I'll
3 hand you a hard copy of it, and I may ask you to read some of it for me
4 because parts of our translation have been noted as being illegible
5 although the B/C/S copy seems to be quite legible. It's a two-sided
6 sheet. Can you look at the one that has number 94 handwritten and
7 circled on it. And this is a dispatch -- I think dispatch number 145
8 dated the 28th of May, 1999, is it to all SUPs in Kosovo and Metohija?
9 A. Yes, but to the chiefs of the crime police departments, so it
10 wasn't sent to the chiefs of SUPs.
11 Q. Okay. To the chiefs of the crime police in each of those seven
12 secretariats, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you read the first line because I have a question about
15 how it's translated.
16 A. "It is necessary that by the 29th of May, 1999, Saturday, by 1500
17 hours at the latest you come to the MUP staff in Pristina and to bring
18 for the period between the 4th of March and the 23rd of May information
19 about all the crimes committed in your" --
20 Q. Let me stop you. Thank you. And you'll see further down that
21 one of the bits of information it asks for is the total number of dead
22 bodies found and how they were registered. Do you see that in the last
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And on the back side of that document you'll see what appears to
1 be a dispatch of the same day to the same people and it's described as
2 correction to dispatch number 145. And in the last paragraph my
3 translation says: "Information on the number of unknown bodies found."
4 Is that what it says?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Well, what does it say? Are you on the side with the -- not the
7 84 --
8 A. I'm looking at the page where it says 84.
9 "Information about the total number of NN bodies found," and on
10 the other side it says: "Information on the total number of bodies or
11 corpses found."
12 Q. Okay. And does not NN mean unknown?
13 A. Well, it's hard for me to interpret this now. It is possible
14 that the author meant the corpses who had been unidentified, and perhaps
15 he also meant crimes that involved NN perpetrators. To be precise, I'm
16 referring to NN corpses, that is to say unidentified ones.
17 Q. Thank you. Mr. Vojnovic, then the last thing I wanted to ask you
18 about, you mentioned that -- you told us that you sometimes by nature I'm
19 such that I unintentionally forget things, figures, names, and so on.
20 How long has that been a problem for you?
21 A. I have a very good memory for things I'm interested in and when
22 it's fresh in my memory and when I acquainted myself with it in detail.
23 Of course I'm the kind of person that I -- that does make, I mean, well,
24 a selection. So of course it's harder for me to remember things I don't
25 know enough about, and then these names and years and what have you not.
1 I usually remember either the last name or the first name or nothing. I
2 came across quite a few people and I usually expected them to know me.
3 Q. Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, re-examination?
8 MR. LUKIC: I do have a short one, Your Honour.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. We're getting close to the end. I would like to ask you the
13 following: When you used members of the OPG, were they OPG at that
14 moment or were they regular policemen at the Prizren SUP?
15 A. Regular policemen at the Prizren SUP.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Just give me a moment on that, Mr. Lukic.
17 I don't know at the moment if this is important or not, but the
18 impression that was created earlier by your evidence was that the OPG
19 might be used for regular activities where there was a measure of
20 complexity, a difficult arrest or whatever. Is this distinction between
21 them working as OPG and working as regular policemen not a rather
22 artificial one?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but I did not quite
24 understand this word that was used, "umjetno," but they were called OPG,
25 operative pursuit groups; but when I led them they were regular policemen
1 of the Prizren SUP.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: You gave the impression yesterday that -- and
3 indeed today that the men you had who were trained in the OPG would be
4 used for complex arrests, for example, which suggests that they were
5 picked out from the regular policemen for that job. Now, is that a wrong
6 impression for us to form?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: So in other words, they were used by you because
9 of their specialist training?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Let's just try to explain this a bit further. Members of the
15 OPG, were they actually members of the PJP company of Prizren?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. How was it that they became PJP or OPG?
18 A. They were regular policemen from the secretariat in Prizren with
19 some additional training. When a PJP unit is mobilised, then they would
20 become members of that company of the special police unit in Prizren.
21 When I would use them on a particular assignment, say bringing in a
22 dangerous person, going to deal with an ambush, arresting a person and so
23 on, then we would call them OPG.
24 Q. P1998 was shown to you yesterday. This is an analysis of the
25 549th Motorised Brigade. You said that a man was arrested and the report
1 says that nine persons were killed. I would like to ask you the
2 following. Can you give us any details about the arrested person?
3 A. You have to be more specific, what details?
4 Q. Is the action in Jeskovo in the report says that there were nine
5 persons killed?
6 A. You mean how this arrest took place?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. It just so happens that I do remember that particular case
9 because during the course of the night after these activities were over,
10 that person left that village in the direction of the town of Prizren and
11 he came across a police patrol that was somewhere near the entrance into
12 town. He was wearing a track suit and he was suspicious because he, or
13 rather, he was a suspect because he had no documents on him, so they
14 brought him in and also he had a cordless phone on him, not a mobile
15 phone, a cordless phone. And then the next day their officers told me
16 that during this activity and during the night he was on a tree, so
17 that's probably why I remember. So that person was prosecuted.
18 Q. During his interviews while he was processed from an operative
19 point of view, was it established that he had taken part on the KLA side
20 in Jeskovo?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, such a leading question again in
23 re-examination produces a valueless answer.
24 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to avoid it in future. Thank you.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Is the police duty-bound to inform the army when
1 they arrest someone, as was the case in this particular case?
2 A. This was a citizen, a civilian. We, I mean the members of the
3 police, are only duty-bound to provide information to the army when it is
4 a military person, a soldier, who is in question, in this case we didn't
5 inform anyone.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it possible then that the army are talking
7 about somebody else when they say nine were killed and one was arrested?
8 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, the report from General
9 Delic says nine were killed, no one was arrested, no one was captured.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Ah, I'm sorry. Thank you.
11 Mr. Lukic.
12 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
13 Q. [Interpretation] In order to move on faster, I don't really want
14 to spend more time on this, in relation to this there are KVM reports,
15 5D112, 5D113, and 5D114 respectively where there is a reference to nine
16 persons who had been killed were wearing black uniforms and that the KLA
17 had emptied Jeskovo even before the fighting took place. Members of the
18 5th Company of the Prizren PJP, who are they responsible to from the
19 point of view of discipline?
20 A. The Prizren secretariat.
21 Q. To who are they responsible from a disciplinary point of view, I
22 mean the members of the 37th Detachment of the PJP?
23 A. To their own original secretariats.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up in e-court
1 Q. My colleague Mr. Hannis asked you about this document and he
2 asked you about disciplinary responsibility of those policemen who were
3 charged with taking money from Albanians in order to get them out of
4 Kosovo, and what was said to you was that we cannot see whether a
5 criminal report was filed in this case. Do you see the document in front
6 of you, I mean on the screen?
7 A. I did have it in front of me and of course you can see that a
8 criminal report had been filed.
9 Q. Please, just tell me what's on the first page.
10 A. Criminal report.
11 Q. Thank you. Can we just see the name that is referred to here on
12 this first page, who is this in this criminal report?
13 A. Vukajlo Vulic.
14 Q. And then if you look further down, in the English version it's
15 page 2. Could you please tell us what is the crime concerned, what is
16 the qualification? It's at the very bottom of the page.
17 A. For reasonable suspicion that crime was committed of settling for
18 disproportional profit from Article 182, paragraph 1 of the Republic of
19 Serbia Criminal Code.
20 Q. Thank you. Let us please look at the last page in Serbian and
21 the one-but-last page in English, this same document. Could it please be
22 zoomed in. Could you please read out the second paragraph which says:
23 "On the basis of the statement ..."
24 Can you see that?
25 A. Oh, now I see it, yes.
1 "On the basis of the statements made by persons of Albanian
2 ethnic background, it can be concluded that policemen Nebojsa Lalic and
3 Zoran Radovic and civilian persons Veselin Cimbaljevic and Vukajlo Vulic
4 were supposed to receive as a reward 10.100 Deutschemarks for
5 transferring two Albanian -- the two Albanian families, that they
6 would -- and they would split the amount equally."
7 Q. So is this a crime committed or was it an attempt, they were
8 supposed to get?
9 A. It had not been completed, so it was an attempt.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, remind me, who were the criminal
12 proceedings against?
13 MR. LUKIC: Against -- I think the first page is this Vulic
14 Vukajlo, who is the last mentioned of these four.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: And also Radovic, was it?
16 MR. LUKIC: On the subsequent pages we can find all these names.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, but you looked at page 1 and 2 -- let me
18 see it. I need to go back and ...
19 MR. LUKIC: I don't have that document.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Vulic is a civilian.
21 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, two police officers and two civilians.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, we have Vulic on page 1. If you go on to
23 the English page 2, please --
24 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, if I may assist, Lalic is mentioned on
25 page 3 of the English. The second civilian is on page 4 of the English,
1 and the second policeman, Radovic, is named on page 6 of the English.
2 This is the criminal report, not criminal proceedings.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed. It purports, though, to relate to all
5 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
7 Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 [Interpretation] P1966, could it please be displayed now.
10 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I don't know if that's the correct
11 number, it's listed as 1966 in the transcript --
12 MR. LUKIC: 1996, probably I misspoke.
13 MR. HANNIS: Yeah.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is minutes of the meeting held
15 in the MUP staff, and we need page 9 in Serbian and page 11 in the
16 English. [In English] I can't find the reference now. I'll ask the
17 witness without the document. I can't find it right now.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Do you remember that at one point you were shown
19 a document where it was stated that Obrad Stevanovic had said ...
20 [Defence counsel confer]
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, now I see it. Could we
22 please have P1996 on the screens again, page 9. We need the third
23 paragraph from the bottom.
24 Q. You see what it says here: "In the organization of the
25 secretariat of the Ministry of the Interior in Kosovo and Metohija there
1 clearly has to be organization that would ensure that all detachments of
2 the PJPs must be subordinated to the chief of the secretariat."
3 Let me ask you, is there a single police regulation that says
5 A. No, I'm pretty familiar with all police regulations and there is
6 no such term used.
7 Q. So you were asked whether these detachments were subordinated to
8 you, and you explained how they were used. Tell us, what is your
9 understanding of this? What is your understanding of what this police
10 general says? What was it that he was trying to say by using this
11 military term? Do you understand him at all?
12 A. I understand.
13 Q. What did he want to say?
14 A. He wanted to say that I, in a military sense, command these
15 units; or in a police sense, I lead these units.
16 Q. Could you lead these units and did you lead the detachments of
17 the PJP that were in your territory?
18 A. No, no. This kind of leading, control, is a far broader concept.
19 I could not replace the commander, I could not dismiss him, I could not
20 punish him, I could not send him here or there.
21 Q. What were your powers then in relation to members of the PJP
22 detachment that was sent to your territory, tell us so that we can
23 understand what it was that you could do.
24 A. I provided logistics for them, we discussed regular tasks by way
25 of agreement, and I've already said that when the members of this
1 detachment were carrying out their regular tasks and work it was their
2 own officer in charge who was in charge of them. I provided
3 accommodation, fuel, health services, vehicle repairs, and so on.
4 Q. Within this regular work, did they do anything in the territory
5 of your SUP?
6 A. Of course they did. They patrolled and they were on the beat.
7 This was the basic activity, the basic form of activity, or rather,
8 police organization of work. They also worked at check-points, they held
9 the territory, and so on and so forth.
10 Q. Thank you. On page 20, line 16, you tried to say what the
11 refugees were telling you because you had personal contact with them.
12 What were the people who were leaving telling you? Why was it that they
13 were leaving?
14 A. Several times I went out to these columns and talked to the
15 people there. For the most part what was said was that they were afraid
16 of bombing, that practically they had been ordered by their political
17 leaders and that members of terrorist gangs were expelling them; and to
18 tell you the truth, there were some people who did not know what to say
19 to me, they didn't know why they were leaving, they were leaving and they
20 themselves did not know why. I personally talked to these people several
22 Q. Did you have a call-sign? We heard of -- about Mitrovic, of his
23 call-sign of Cegar. Did you have a call-sign?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. What was it?
1 A. Sara 1.
2 Q. Thank you for your answers. We have no further questions.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
4 Just one further matter, Mr. Vojnovic.
5 Questioned by the Court:
6 JUDGE BONOMY: You were asked just now about PJP detachment, and
7 the example is the 37th Detachment, carrying out regular duties such as
8 patrolling or manning check-points which are your responsibility as --
9 and the responsibility of your subordinates. If you decided on duties
10 for members of the PJP of that nature and they failed to do as they were
11 told, who would have authority to deal with them?
12 A. The secretariat from which the policemen had been sent from;
13 however, I would have to draw an official note on the conduct of that
14 particular member of the force.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 Anything arise from that for you, Mr. Lukic?
17 MR. LUKIC: Nothing from that, Your Honour. I just have to
18 inform you officially that redacted version is uploaded of the statement
19 of this witness.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall allow it to replace the original.
23 Mr. Vojnovic, thank you. That completes your evidence. You may
24 now leave the courtroom with the usher. Thank you for your assistance.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good-bye.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE BONOMY: And we shall now adjourn and resume at ten past
4 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, your next witness.
7 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, our next witness is Mr. Branislav
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
10 MR. LUKIC: And we just intend to introduce his statement and we
11 don't have any direct for this witness.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, good afternoon.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
17 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Please be seated.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll now be examined by Mr. Lukic.
24 Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 WITNESS: BRANISLAV DEBELJKOVIC
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Lukic:
4 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Debeljkovic.
5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. Do you have your statement before you, the one you signed?
7 A. I will take it out. I do have the statement now.
8 Q. Is this the statement you gave to Mr. Sreten Lukic's Defence
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. If you were to testify today, would you still repeat what you had
12 said in the statement?
13 A. Yes, I would.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we wish to tender
15 Mr. Debeljkovic's statement. The number should be 6D1533.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Any cross-examination by Defence counsel? No.
19 Mr. Debeljkovic, you'll now be cross-examined by the Prosecutor,
20 Ms. Kravetz.
21 Ms. Kravetz.
22 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Cross-examination by Ms. Kravetz:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Debeljkovic.
25 A. Good afternoon, Madam.
1 Q. I have very few questions for you today, so I think we'll be done
2 with your testimony soon. I want to begin by asking you some questions
3 about your statement. In paragraph 17 of your statement you speak about
4 the reporting of your activities as head of the crime police department,
5 and you tell us that you sent reports on all incidents, measures, and
6 actions that your department took to the crime police administration in
7 Belgrade, the operations centre, and also to the MUP staff in Pristina.
8 And I would like to ask you, with what frequency were these reports about
9 your activities and on the incidents that took place in your municipality
10 sent to the MUP staff in Pristina?
11 A. The crime police administration in Belgrade at the MUP seat was
12 my superior administration. The chief of the administration was my
14 Q. May I --
15 A. Concerning --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic --
17 MS. KRAVETZ:
18 Q. -- stop you there. It's a very simple question. You say you
19 sent reports on incidents that took place in your municipality to the MUP
20 staff in Pristina. And I just to know how regularly did you send these
21 reports, was it every month, every week, every day, with which frequency
22 did this happen?
23 A. Before answering, I have to say that when it comes to reporting
24 there was urgent reporting that was in existence as well as periodical
25 reporting concerning all events and occurrences, including crimes
1 committed in the territory of the SUP that I worked for, I informed the
2 crime police administration of those as well as the MUP staff in Pristina
3 so that they would be informed of those events. It happened frequently.
4 However, on occasion I did not inform the MUP staff in Pristina, but as
5 for the crime police administration at the seat of the MUP, they were
6 always informed of those matters.
7 Q. So would it be fair to say that these were regular reports that
8 you sent on incidents that took place, criminal incidents that took place
9 in your municipality? I'm talking specifically about the MUP staff.
10 A. Regular as well as periodical, both to the MUP staff and
11 administration. As for any regular reporting that was sent to the staff,
12 I don't remember that we were under any obligation to inform the staff
13 regularly. My obligation was to inform the crime police administration
14 in Belgrade, to inform them regularly, and then simultaneously we would
15 send a report to the staff; but it was simply because of the fact that I
16 had to send it to the administration in Belgrade and then the MUP staff
17 would be notified as well so that the staff as a body --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, we should say to you, that
19 doesn't really make much sense to us, you ought to know this. Reporting
20 is a formality and we've evidence in this case of reports being made to
21 the MUP staff in Pristina simultaneously with going to the headquarters.
22 Now, the impression you've left in my mind at the moment is that it was
23 up to you, you could decide to send it to the MUP staff or you could
24 decide not to bother; is that how it was?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question. It
1 wasn't dependent on me alone. There were certain occasions in which I
2 would receive an instructional dispatch from my administration concerning
3 a security issue. It often happened that such a dispatch would not reach
4 the MUP staff, it went directly to the SUP where I worked, or rather, to
5 the crime prevention department. After taking measures, I would reply.
6 The reply would be sent to the administration in Belgrade and sometimes
7 the MUP staff in Pristina would not be informed of that. It wasn't a
8 rule per se, but I just wanted to mention it. The staff was not in
9 direct line of communication between myself and the crime police
10 administration in Belgrade.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Why bother reporting to them at all then? We're
12 trying to understand when you would actually report to them.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the MUP staff?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, yes. The questions right from the beginning
15 of your cross-examination have been about the MUP staff, not about
16 anything else.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Dispatches went simultaneously to
18 the police administration and the MUP staff in Pristina concerning all
19 crimes committed in the territory of the secretariat as well as
20 concerning other security-related matters. The principal addressee was
21 the crime police administration in Belgrade.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. I'm not finished on this, but it's
23 back to you, Ms. Kravetz, and we'll see how you get on -- no, no, no,
24 let's see how you get on with it with it; and if necessary, we shall
25 return to the subject.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Now, you spoke about dispatches being sent to the SUP. Your SUP
3 chief, the SUP chief of Urosevac municipality, was required to report to
4 the MUP staff on a daily basis; correct?
5 A. I don't know that. It was within his sphere of activity.
6 Q. Sir, you tell us in your statement that you worked as the head of
7 the crime police department in Urosevac municipality, the SUP, for ten
8 years; correct?
9 A. I spent my entire career at the Urosevac SUP; from 1995 onwards I
10 was the chief of the crime police department, but, yes, one could say
11 that the period was about a decade at that post. Before that my posts
12 were of a lower rank.
13 Q. So you were with the MUP for, say, I suppose at least 20 years;
14 would that be correct, a MUP employee?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you're saying that despite the fact that you spent so many
17 years in the MUP staff -- in the MUP and particularly at the SUP in
18 Urosevac, you're not familiar with the reporting procedures of the SUP
19 and of the SUP chief in particular?
20 A. I am familiar with the reporting procedures of the SUP chief when
21 I was supposed to inform him, but as to what he was doing on his part I
22 am not familiar with that.
23 Q. So after having spent 20 years working at the SUP in Urosevac,
24 you're telling us you have no idea what were the tasks of the SUP chief
25 and what were his obligations toward his superiors; is that what you're
1 saying really?
2 A. You asked me whether the SUP chief was duty-bound to daily report
3 to the staff on certain events. Again, I can say that I don't know
4 whether the chief of SUP was under any obligation to do that regularly,
5 to inform the staff daily concerning certain events.
6 Q. Were any reports sent by the SUP chief to the MUP staff, I'm not
7 only talking about daily reports. Just did you ever while you were there
8 at the SUP did you ever see any reports being prepared and signed by
9 your -- by the SUP chief addressed to the MUP staff?
10 A. I did not.
11 Q. Never? Bozidar Filic was the chief of the SUP in Urosevac during
12 the period you worked there, correct, in -- from April -- mid-April 1999
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. He recently testified before this court and told the court that
16 he was, or at least that's how he understood it, required to report daily
17 to the MUP staff. Are you contradicting his evidence here in court?
18 A. Your Honours, I have to tell you the following. When we were in
19 the MUP building before the air-strikes, the chief of SUP had his office,
20 his duties, his tasks --
21 Q. Sir I'm going to stop you there. I'm asking a very, very precise
22 question. I'm telling you we just had your former chief testify here,
23 who told us that he had this duty to report regularly to the MUP staff
24 and I'm just asking you whether you accept his testimony as being true
25 and correct.
1 MR. LUKIC: I'm sorry --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, please.
4 Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: I think the gentleman said "I don't know." Now he
6 was asked --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me deal with this.
8 I think the way that this question ought to be put, Ms. Kravetz,
9 is to ask the witness whether he has any basis for contradicting that
10 evidence. It's not for him to tell us whether to accept it or not.
11 MS. KRAVETZ: Very well, Your Honour.
12 Q. Sir, do you have any basis for contradicting the testimony that
13 Mr. Filic gave just some days ago here in this court?
14 A. I cannot either confirm or deny that part of his testimony.
15 First of all, we were physically separated, we were not in the building
16 of our SUP, we were in different locations for security reasons because
17 of the bombardment. He was in one part of the town and my service was in
18 another, and then another service was in the third part of the town and
19 so on and so forth. As of the 15th of April we seldom met. Even had we
20 been in the same building of the SUP, I really could not have known what
21 the chief of the SUP was doing. My scope of activity was crime,
22 prevention of crime, and that's what I was dealing with. A great many
23 people that I headed worked on that, and the issues we worked on were
24 voluminous, time-consuming. I had no time to worry about who or what the
25 chief of the SUP was informing and reporting. I don't know if you catch
1 my drift, but that's the truth, the only truth I can tell you. I cannot
2 speculate or assume, I can neither confirm nor deny.
3 Q. Very well, sir. You tell us in your statement - and this is at
4 paragraph 29 - that in 1998 you went several times to the MUP staff,
5 delivered general information about crimes. What was the purpose of you
6 handing over this information to the MUP staff?
7 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you said 1999; is that correct?
8 MS. KRAVETZ: No, 1998.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, it is 1998.
10 MS. KRAVETZ: It's in his --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, sorry.
12 MS. KRAVETZ: -- statement.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I went to the building where,
14 among other things, the staff was located. I remember I took there
15 certain documents with crime statistics, probably so that the staff could
16 monitor what the situation was with crime. It was not of any interest of
17 mine what they were doing with that further. Often with the assistant
18 head of the staff, I had telephone conversations. Sometimes he would
19 call me, on other occasions I would call him. He wanted to know what the
20 situation in the field was, how we were doing, what the statistics were
21 of crimes and unidentified perpetrators, et cetera. He wanted to know if
22 there was prevalence of any particular type of crime in which they could
23 assist professionally if needed. We also discussed technical issues.
24 Usually it would take place during the morning. It wasn't daily, it
25 wasn't an obligation of mine to give him a call every morning I come into
1 the office, but frequently I talked to the assistant in charge of crime.
2 MS. KRAVETZ:
3 Q. And who was that at the time?
4 A. During the war it was Tomislav Blagojevic; before him, it was
5 Novica Zdravkovic. I spoke to him more. The pattern of communication I
6 described was with the -- with him. Even before him there was a Simic.
7 I also frequently spoke with him. He would also come over to the SUP
8 building where he would spend an hour or two discussing the situation in
9 the field and he would share information on other SUPs, say, the one of
10 Gnjilane and how they dealt with certain problems, et cetera. This is
11 what we would usually discuss. I would also report to him what crimes
12 occurred in the previous period, how many thefts, whether there was
13 pick-pocketing, aggravated thefts, and what was particularly interesting
14 for him to hear was to know whether there were any crimes involving use
15 of fire-arms, more serious offences. We simply exchanged information. I
16 believe people were elected to the staff for their professionalism and
17 experience, and they could provide data and instruction to work more
18 efficiently in preventing crime.
19 Q. Do you know --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, can you think of any particular
21 benefit that you derived from the MUP staff by providing this information
22 or because other SUPs provided it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to professional
24 assistance, I cannot recall a situation in which the assistant in charge
25 of crime assisted me particularly or significantly helping me to shed
1 light on a certain crime, but the exchange of opinions must have been
2 useful for work.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Kravetz.
4 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. You spoke about Tomislav Blagojevic and you said before him the
6 person you spoke to was Novica Zdravkovic. Do you know what was the --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- position that these gentlemen had at the MUP staff? What
9 position did they occupy?
10 A. As far as I know, they were assistant heads of the staff in crime
11 prevention. This is what I can recall off the cuff.
12 Q. And you told us you had these contacts -- I mean, you went there
13 in 1998. Did you or anyone from your department continue to provide --
14 have this sort of contact and provide this sort of information to the MUP
15 staff in 1999?
16 A. As the issues were growing in complexity and as there was an
17 increase in terrorist activities, our contacts ... well, I didn't go to
18 the staff itself, especially once the air-strikes began I saw no staff
19 member. I wasn't visited by any of them and I didn't go to Pristina to
20 take any information there or for any other reason. Our communication
21 with the staff was made very difficult because the telephone lines were
22 cut off and it was dangerous to use the roads to Pristina. All those
23 things resulted in our contacts becoming more and more infrequent. I
24 even recall a situation at the beginning of the bombardment --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I don't think there were any
2 contacts once the bombardment began. I didn't contact any particular
3 officer from the staff concerning crime and crime prevention, since that
4 was my only reason to contact the staff.
5 MS. KRAVETZ:
6 Q. I'm going to ask you to focus on my questions and give me very
7 brief answers so we can proceed efficiently today. Well, you have told
8 us you didn't have any personal contacts, but you have already said that
9 you did send information in about criminal activity in Urosevac to the
10 MUP staff in 1999. That is correct, no?
11 A. I did send information. Information was sent to the staff.
12 Q. Now, you say in your statement, and you may have already
13 responded to this but I'll ask it, you say that the main task of the MUP
14 staff with regard to your department was to provide specialised
15 assistance. What exactly do you mean by special -- or assistance of
16 specialised nature? It's at paragraph 18 of your statement.
17 A. I hear the interpreter say "specialised nature;" however, I'm not
18 familiar with that. What I said was professional assistance, something
19 that had to do with my profession, that is, crime prevention.
20 Specialised is not the right term --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that is not what I was trying to
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, could you read the last sentence
25 of paragraph 18 aloud, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The main task of the MUP staff
2 concerning the OKP was to provide assistance, namely, to provide
3 professional or expert assistance."
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Ms. Kravetz.
6 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes, I believe it's been incorrectly translated
7 twice in this statement because it appears as "specialised assistance"
8 also in paragraph 29.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: It can mean exactly the same thing, but the
10 witness has had a chance to clarify it.
11 MS. KRAVETZ: To correct it. Thank you.
12 Q. I'm going to move away from your statement, sir, and ask you
13 about a document which I don't know if it could be provided to the
14 witness. We're moving onto a different topic now. This is Exhibit
15 6D502. Are you familiar with this document, sir?
16 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this document.
17 Q. This is a report that you drafted and signed dated 6th June 2003,
18 which refers to an incident that took place in the village of Kotlina on
19 24th March of 1999; correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. The first question I have regarding this document is: Why did
22 you prepare this official note four years after the incident took place?
23 Is there any reason for you having to prepare this note on this incident?
24 A. This official note was drawn up almost four years after this
25 event, and the purpose of this note is to gather all the information
1 about all the important events that took place during the air-strikes and
2 a year before that, in the preceding year. So not just this particular
3 event, but all security-related events and phenomena were depicted in
4 certain documents. And this had to do with collecting documentation with
5 a view to establishing a Kosovo and Metohija dossier for the needs of all
6 users interested in this topic, including this honourable Tribunal, for
7 the needs of this Tribunal and every user who will deal with these
8 issues. That's part of that material. If we did not have appropriate
9 documentation concerning a particular topic because records had been left
10 behind in our SUPs where we worked --
11 Q. May I stop you there. I'm just asking about this -- I'm sorry.
12 I'm just asking about this particular report that you prepared in 2003.
13 Who requested you to prepare this report or instructed you to prepare it?
14 A. I remember well when the chief of the SUP called me that I was
15 part of a team which will gather and sought the information concerning
16 events during the air-strikes and the period preceding the air-strikes
17 and after our withdrawal from Kosovo and Metohija. I was in charge. I
18 didn't get any written order or certificate showing that I was the team
19 leader, but they said, Well, you're the highest-ranking person in the
20 team, so you will be in charge, you will have an analyst, and whoever you
21 think will provide you with assistance in your work, that was an ongoing
22 task. And I worked on it maybe for three years, certainly for two years.
23 And we looked through cases, we searched, we sorted, and this note is
24 part of that work. I wasn't there in Kotlina. This was based on
25 interviews with those who could provide information and on some
1 documentation which I most probably had. I know I had a report on the
2 forensic investigation, criminal investigation, of the site. I know that
3 there was an investigating judge, his name was Milicevic, Ljiljana
4 Milicevic, and the prosecutor -- yes, it says Judge Ljiljana Milicevic
5 and the prosecutor Bozidar Radic --
6 Q. May I stop you there and we'll take this a point at a time. You
7 said that you were called by the SUP chief who requested you to prepare
8 these reports and you said that you prepared it on the basis of
9 interviews you conducted with those who could provide information on this
10 incident and documentation that you had available. Do you recall with
11 whom you spoke, whom you interviewed, with regard to this specific
12 incident that took place in the village of Kotlina in March 1999?
13 A. I came across certain documentation to do with this event and I
14 drew up this note based on that. I didn't have to talk to anyone because
15 I couldn't find any participants in this event, any eye-witnesses. I had
16 a report from the forensic technician who was on the crime scene, maybe
17 some other notes or records, and I drew up this official note based on
18 the documentation I had.
19 Q. Had you heard of this incident prior to reading all this
20 documentation that you have spoken about, prior to being tasked with
21 preparing this note, have you heard of -- are you familiar with this
23 A. Yes, I heard about this incident because the forensic
24 technicians, whose superior I was, had been on the crime scene and I
25 remember when this event took place, I remember the time when it
1 happened, I remember knowing that it had happened and that my forensic
2 technicians went to the crime scene and that there they found a tunnel
3 linking two apertures, some sort of dugout, I don't know what to call it,
5 Q. Who informed you about this event when it took place, do you
7 A. I can't recall that anyone informed me, or rather, I can't
8 remember who told me about it, who informed me because of the lapse of
9 time. And when it comes to forensic technicians, the system of work is
10 such that I don't always have to be informed for the technicians to go
11 for an on-site investigation. They have their roster. When a need
12 arises, the duty service knows who to call on and there's a list of
13 judges on duty and a list of prosecutors on duty. So it's not a problem
14 to put together a team for an on-site investigation. This happened on
15 the day the air-strikes started, and the normal methods of work could no
16 longer always be respected in that period, especially when the
17 air-strikes began.
18 Q. Did you find about this incident after the investigation took
19 place or prior to the investigation taking place, this on-site
21 A. After the investigation.
22 Q. And do you know why an on-site investigation was conducted into
23 this specific incident, at whose request was that, do you know why?
24 A. Like every investigation, this one was conducted to collect
25 evidence and to document the event in order to detect the perpetrators of
1 the crime. However --
2 Q. Sir, who had reported this incident or to whom was it reported?
3 Was it reported to your SUP, this incident that took place in Kotlina?
4 A. No, I'm not aware of that. I really don't know.
5 Q. So how is it that the investigating judge and the prosecutor, the
6 municipal public prosecutor, come to know about the occurrence of this
7 event in Kotlina? Someone must have reported it, no?
8 A. Of course. As I've already said, in the SUPs there's
9 around-the-clock duty service and in the office of that service there's a
10 roster of duty forensic technicians, duty judges, and duty public
11 prosecutors displayed in a visible place. And the duty service is
12 usually the first to learn of an event and inform the inspector who's on
13 duty. He then forms a team and they go on site. I don't have to be
14 there or even know about it because it's done ex officio. The law
15 prescribes their going on the spot, so they don't have to come to me and
16 ask for my permission. It's their regular work, their normal task. So
17 that's what they do. I don't recall anyone informing me personally of
18 that event. I learned about it subsequently.
19 Q. And how did the duty service, the one you have spoken about at
20 the SUP, come to know about this incident taking place?
21 A. The duty service has radio communications, that's how we
22 maintained contact. There's a radio station in the duty service
23 monitoring what's happening on the ground so that most probably - and
24 this is an assumption on my part - a policeman or an officer on the
25 ground reported the problem to the duty service and told the duty service
1 what needed to be done and most probably the duty service took
2 appropriate measures, setting up this investigation team to go to the
3 crime scene because --
4 Q. May I stop you there --
5 A. -- I was superior to the technicians.
6 Q. Yes, I understand that. So you're saying that someone who was on
7 the ground must have called via radio to the duty service to report about
8 the killing of these individuals in Kotlina?
9 A. I didn't hear that radio conversation. I just said it was one of
10 the possibilities, one of the ways something could be reported, so that's
11 most probably how it was done, but I did not hear anything like that --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: We understand that, Mr. Debeljkovic. Please
13 listen to the questions you're being asked and just confine your answer
14 to the question. You've gone over the same point several times now.
15 Ms. Kravetz.
16 MS. KRAVETZ: Yes. I just have very few questions left.
17 Q. Is a record normally kept when the duty service receives a call,
18 for example, in this case receives a call from someone on the ground
19 reporting that there's been an incident of this nature, a killing, is a
20 record normally kept by the duty service?
21 A. In every duty service, including that of the Urosevac SUP, there
22 is a book, a ledger, called the log of daily events. And all the events,
23 reports by citizens, who reported what when, the hour, the minute when
24 something was reported. Now, whether they entered this event into that
25 ledger, I'm not sure. I don't know, but I know that's how duty services
1 normally function.
2 Q. And so when you prepared this official note that you said had
3 been requested to be used by multiple persons, including this Court, you
4 did not check to see if it had been recorded in this log-book that you're
5 speaking about to see how this information arrived to the SUP? You did
6 not seek to find out how it was that this incident had come to the
7 knowledge of the SUP?
8 A. When I wrote this I had before me, most probably, a report on the
9 on-site investigation by the forensic technicians, and as for the
10 log-book I don't know whether it was left in the building where we were
11 or whether it was relocated, I'm not aware of that. But at the time I
12 was writing this I felt it was unnecessary. I had no idea at what level
13 this official note would be used. I compiled it based on the information
14 I had from the documentation available. That's why it's so brief. I
15 couldn't describe things in detail because it was based on the forensic
16 technician's report and maybe an official note, if I found one,
17 concerning the event.
18 Q. Okay. Very well. Thank you, sir.
19 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this
21 Questioned by the Court:
22 JUDGE BONOMY: If you found an official note written at the time,
23 what would be the point in writing another one?
24 A. There was a request that we draw up this official note. I said I
25 may have written it up based on notes. I know I certainly used the
1 report by the forensic technicians. I am a hundred per cent sure of
2 that, but as for a note, I'm not sure. Most probably there wasn't one
3 because we used this form three or four years later.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you write many of these in 2003?
5 A. Quite a few in 2003, yes.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: And in relation to some other incidents, did you
7 find official notes reporting what had happened?
8 A. This concerns a large number of cases. There were entire case
9 files we dealt with, but there were also cases where there were no
10 documents available to us. Of course where we had complete
11 documentation, I didn't have to draw up an official note like this one.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm now having difficulty understanding what your
13 task was.
14 A. After withdrawing from the territory of Kosovo we no longer had
15 appropriate premises suitable for the normal work of the service after
16 pulling out from Kosovo and Metohija, that is. We had a house in
17 Leskovac that was the Urosevac SUP and there was a room with a huge pile
18 of paper of documents piled on the floor, all that had to be sorted,
19 filed away, dossiers had to be formed. Physically you had to put this in
20 binders in order for this documentation to be usable. That was the main
21 task I dealt with, to put the documentation in order, the documentation
22 we had.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I have clearly misunderstood this entirely
24 because you started your evidence on this by saying it was for the
25 purpose of preparing the Kosovo and Metohija dossier for all interested,
1 including this Tribunal, and that's not the job you've just described to
3 A. Nobody told me at the time that this would be used by the
4 International Tribunal, nobody used those words to me, but now that I see
5 that Madam Prosecutor has this note I understood that it was done for the
6 needs of various institutions including this Tribunal here. But at the
7 time nobody told me that, nobody said, You're doing this for the
8 International Tribunal. I was simply called upon to collect and classify
9 this documentation, to sort it out, and to do it as expeditiously and as
10 well as possible, that someone could make use of it later on.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me read your original answer.
12 "This official note was drawn up almost four years after this
13 event, and the purpose of this note is to gather all the information
14 about all the important events that took place during the air-strikes and
15 a year before that in the preceding year, so not just this particular
16 event but all security-related events and phenomena were depicted in
17 certain documents and this had to do with collecting documentation with a
18 view to establishing a Kosovo and Metohija dossier for the needs of all
19 users interested in this topic, including this honourable Tribunal, for
20 the needs of this Tribunal and every user who will deal with these
22 Now, that's a different answer from the one you've just given me
23 about putting your Urosevac SUP documents in order in Leskovac so that
24 you could get on with your work. So which was it?
25 A. Sorting the documentation in Leskovac which was in a state of
1 chaos for the needs of certain users, if need be, in the future.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Now --
3 A. That's the truth.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Now I'll go back to the question that really
5 interested me, which was whether in some of these instances there already
6 was an official note; and if there was, what did you do in relation to
7 compiling the Kosovo and Metohija dossier?
8 A. The name dossier for Kosovo and Metohija is something I heard
9 only later. When I was doing this, I was not aware that this was to be
10 the dossier for Kosovo and Metohija. I heard that later. That's why I
11 mentioned that expression. I worked on collecting and sorting our
12 existing documentation in the secretariat of the interior of Urosevac in
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let me take you right back to the beginning
15 then and ask you: Why did you write this particular one which we looked
16 at four years after the event?
17 A. Well, let me describe briefly what happened on that day to the
18 best of my knowledge.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue when you're ready.
20 MR. LUKIC: I think the witness said something differently and
21 he's waiting for your next answer. Maybe you should put your question
22 again and he could answer your question.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: I will repeat my question. Let me take you back
24 to the beginning of the discussion of this whole topic and ask you this:
25 Why did you write this particular official note four years after the
2 A. The note, in view of the fact that in the documentation there was
3 no note concerning this event, well, what was requested was on the basis
4 of the documentation that I have a certain note be compiled containing
5 the information that was available in order for it to be an integral part
6 of that dossier concerning that event.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Which dossier?
8 A. Well, this case, I mean this subject, what happened in Kotlina on
9 the 24th of March, although I was not on the site itself, well, I was
10 asked to compile this kind of note on the basis of the existing material,
11 which is what I did basically, including the basic information about the
12 event concerned because I didn't have any other information. For the
13 note I used the note compiled by the crime technicians on the scene
14 itself, on the site itself, and I am their superior officer.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: You said that you did a large number of these.
16 Now, in some instances was there already an official note in existence?
17 A. I don't think so. I cannot remember -- well, I certainly
18 wouldn't have written a note after the event had there being something
19 like this.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, re-examination?
21 MR. LUKIC: Just on this topic, Your Honour, I would like to have
22 6D501 at the e-court.
23 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, this exhibit, 6D501, actually has
24 already been admitted into evidence I believe as a 3D document, it's
25 3D74, which was used with one of our witnesses who testified on this
1 incident. I believe that only the first two pages are different, but the
2 rest of the document -- my learned colleagues from the Defence can
3 correct me on this one, but I believe it's the same document.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Which one do you wish to use, Mr. Lukic?
6 MR. LUKIC: If there is a difference in two pages, then it's not
7 the same document, but I can use whichever is in colour because I'd like
8 to have one in colour.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think you should proceed with your own.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] 6D501, that's a document that you have in your
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So you do have it, yes. You said to us that there was no
16 official note and that you used criminal technical documentation. Is
17 that precisely what is contained in this exhibit, 6D501?
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see page 3 in
20 Q. Do you have page 3 in front of you in the report of the crime
22 A. Yes, I do. Yes, yes, I have it.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 3 in the English
24 version as well, please. [In English] Can we have page 3 in English,
25 please. Can we see the next page in English, please.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Debeljkovic, what is the date of this
3 A. The 24th of March, 1999. The report on the forensic
4 investigation of the crime scene.
5 Q. Is that the document -- the date when the document was compiled?
6 A. Yes, this is the date when the document was compiled.
7 Q. Is this the document that was compiled by your subordinate
9 A. Yes, precisely, Radic Milorad, crime technician, I am his
10 superior officer.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please see the next page in
12 Serbian and in English.
13 Q. On the next page we have bullet points and a text. What is
14 represented on this list?
15 A. What is represented is what was found on the site, in terms of
16 equipment, weaponry, corpses, and so on.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have page 8 in
18 Serbian and 9 in English I think.
19 Q. It's better to see it on the screen because it's in colour.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, is this the same incident as earlier we
21 had some sort of -- or a dispute about whether a feature on the ground
22 was a well?
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: And I see the use of the expression "well" in this
25 official report on the previous page. It may be more Mr. Visnjic that
1 was interested in that than you at the time but --
2 MR. LUKIC: It said "hideout in the shape of a well."
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, thanks. Anyway, we're on to the photographs
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Debeljkovic, on the second photograph, do
7 you see a body that is reclining and also in the third photograph outside
8 the well?
9 A. Yes, I see that.
10 Q. To the best of your knowledge were these photographs taken at the
11 time when this report was compiled by the crime technicians?
12 A. Yes, the photographs were taken at the time when the report was
14 Q. We heard here some testimony that the bodies were found in the
15 well, or rather, in this hideout resembling a well and that this hideout
16 was closed and blown up by explosives. In the documentation, did you
17 find something to the effect that the well or the hideout in the shape of
18 a well was open at the time? Please let us look at the page that is four
19 pages after this page. Just a moment, please.
20 We have gone four pages ahead and now we have to go eight pages
21 back. Page 11, please, in the Serbian version. They are photographs, so
22 really we don't need the English translation. Page 11 in Serbian,
24 Did you see these photographs when you compiled this report?
25 A. Yes, I did see these photographs.
1 Q. In your view, is it obvious that these hideouts that were in the
2 shape of a well were open at the time?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Who carried out the on-site investigation --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.
6 Ms. Kravetz.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I don't know what is the basis of this
8 question. The witness has already said he didn't take part in this
9 investigation, I don't know how he can give -- I'm late with the
10 objection, I know.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: And it's a leading question. The witness wasn't
12 left to give us an answer from his own mouth, so the value is very
14 MS. KRAVETZ: I was just going to add that, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, please continue.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you know who took these photographs?
18 A. The crime technicians of the Urosevac SUP, Milorad Radic,
19 specifically, this has jogged by memory. But it is possible that there
20 was someone else there, some other crime technicians, that he wasn't
21 there on his own but I cannot remember exactly now. However, according
22 to his signature I see that Milorad Radic was there.
23 Q. Who carried out the on-site investigation, do you know?
24 A. Oh, yes, Ljiljana Milicevic, investigating judge, I read that
25 just now and I think that Radic Bozidar, public prosecutor was there, as
1 well. For security reasons it was very difficult to carry out a proper
2 on-site investigation at that particular site.
3 Q. Thank you. Where would the record of an on-site investigation be
4 if there is one?
5 A. The investigating judge would have it.
6 Q. Thank you. The note that you compiled in 2003, would that be
7 evidence in a court of law?
8 A. I don't think that that note would be any kind of evidence in a
9 court of law, that's just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. It is the
10 forensic report concerning the site itself that is court evidence and
11 court material, perhaps some other documentation if it exists.
12 Q. Thank you, Mr. Debeljkovic. I have no further questions. Thank
13 you for having testified.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, can you remember where you got
15 the information that this was a joint action by the VJ and the MUP?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember. Perhaps I did
17 read it somewhere.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Debeljkovic, that completes your evidence.
20 Thank you for coming here to give evidence. You may now leave the
21 courtroom with the usher.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.
25 MR. LUKIC: We have a timing problem now, but we don't have any
1 witnesses for this week. We anticipated that the cross of the
2 Prosecution for our last two witnesses would take much longer. One of
3 our witnesses is coming tomorrow, but we cannot bring him to the court.
4 So I'm afraid that before Monday we cannot put anybody on the stand.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: I take it you can feel from all around you the
6 disappointment, nay, the anger, I think, at this news.
7 There are a number of matters we can actually raise with you
8 which we will do after we've had this break, by "with you," I mean with
9 all the parties here. But I will give you an outline of what these might
10 be so that you can give consideration to them.
11 We need to know, Mr. Lukic, about Mr. Lukic himself giving
12 evidence and about bar table motions. I will say something about the
13 outcome of the discussion we had last week about final briefs. We wish
14 to ask the Prosecution about their position in relation to the relevancy
15 of the interview of one accused who does not give evidence to the case
16 against any other accused in view of the representations that were made
17 earlier in the trial and in light of the Appeal Chamber's decision which
18 is not consistent with these representations.
19 We shall now just very briefly go into private session.
20 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Any discussion of the last-mentioned item will be
8 in private session when we resume, and we will resume at 6.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.03 p.m.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, the first issue for us to try to deal
12 with is the use of the remainder of the time that's available for your
13 Defence, and crucial to that is the decision whether Mr. Lukic intends to
14 give evidence or not.
15 MR. LUKIC: We just got the rough estimate of our remaining time,
16 and it seems that it's around 25 hours; and in light of that, even if we
17 have much more, it would not be possible for us to put Mr. Lukic to
19 JUDGE BONOMY: The Chamber wouldn't accept that as a proper basis
20 for you to approach this and to try and somehow or other indicate that
21 the matter is not your decision. It's a matter for your client and you
22 to make a decision whether he intends to give evidence or not. Others
23 have made that decision, they've been faced with a far tougher dead-line
24 in every case than you, and it doesn't seem to us an appropriate approach
25 for you to take to suggest that somehow or other your client is being
1 compelled not to give evidence --
2 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and reject that suggestion.
4 MR. LUKIC: I'm telling you that I decided not to put Mr. Lukic
5 to testify because of this schedule, that's my decision, and because we
6 have to cover many more municipalities in Kosovo. So we have to bring at
7 least 20 more witnesses to testify. We'll try to summarize it and to
8 have written statements as much as possible to achieve -- to finish our
9 defence in this time-limit. But at this point I can tell you that it may
10 be that we'll ask Your Honours to give us a few more hours, but we are
11 not clear yet how much are we going to ask.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: You should have realized from what has happened so
13 far in the case that, albeit there is a system of recording very
14 accurately the use of time, that -- and then producing monthly a clear
15 statement of the position for the sake of transparency, contrary to the
16 motion you made to us so far about the matter, we have taken a flexible
17 approach to the ultimate assessment of the time available to each
18 individual party, and there's no question of you being cut off as of the
19 minute your 80 hours expire. On the other hand, whether or not that
20 flexibility extends to any particular period will depend on the
21 circumstances we face because we have to be fair to all the parties
22 involved here, not just a straightforward battle between you and the
24 You'll find on any view of time in this case that by the time
25 you've presented your defence, you will have used more time than the
1 combined defences of Pavkovic and Lazarevic, just as a rough indication
2 of I think a useful rule-of-thumb comparison of the way in which we are
3 trying to look at this.
4 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: And we do appreciate your answering our question
6 so that we can endeavour to manage the remaining time as best we can.
7 Immediately the thing that jumps out immediately is that for next week
8 you estimate using six hours out of 18, and --
9 MR. LUKIC: We are working on that --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- that would result in the same situation as has
11 occurred this week.
12 MR. LUKIC: We are working on bringing more witnesses the next
13 week, Your Honour. We have four working days next week.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I should also say to you just to ensure there's
15 absolutely no doubt in your mind about how much thought we've given to
16 this issue, that it was important to know the position of your client in
17 relation to giving evidence prior to this forthcoming break because we're
18 conscious of the fact that we allowed breaks in relation to both
19 Mr. Ojdanic, who ultimately decided not to give evidence, and
20 Mr. Lazarevic before they actually took the stand. And we would have
21 taken account of the propriety of doing that also should Mr. Lukic have
22 decided that he intended to give evidence.
23 However, that problem's gone and you can obviously plan to make
24 use of your time to present as much evidence as possible from other
25 witnesses, and hopefully to use the other facilities available to get
1 material before us in writing. We've endeavoured to be as open to the
2 reception of written material as we possibly can as long as that bears to
3 be authentic and of probative value.
4 MR. LUKIC: In connection with that, Your Honour, if I can ask
5 your guidance on one issue.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, please.
7 MR. LUKIC: We presented a lot of documents through the written
8 statement of Mr. Debeljkovic. Is it enough or we have to put it in a bar
9 table because we think that his statement covers these documents.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Kravetz, can you help us on that one?
11 MS. KRAVETZ: Regarding the documents that are admitted -- that
12 are in -- listed in the statement, my understanding is that only those
13 that are translated would be admitted specifically and those that are not
14 translated should be tendered through a bar table motion. Isn't that the
15 position that was taken earlier?
16 JUDGE BONOMY: If the untranslated ones are dealt with
17 specifically in the report -- in the statement, we would tend to mark
18 them for identification with other non-translated documents to approach
19 them the same way.
20 MS. KRAVETZ: Well, there are two different issues, one regarding
21 the specific Exhibit 6D614, my understanding was that there would be a
22 witness who would come to testify on that; and that the parts that are
23 being admitted now with the different witnesses are only the portions
24 that are specifically identified in the statements, not the whole
1 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I think we've said the whole of that exhibit
2 will be marked for identification, and the only bits that will be
3 relevant will be those which are presented in some way either by a
4 witness referring to them or in a bar table motion. But to ensure that
5 nothing was overlooked, we thought the best plan was to mark every one of
6 these portions for identification and deal with them all together.
7 MS. KRAVETZ: Okay.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, where the witness speaks to particular parts
9 of that, then you can take it that's the decision, and unless you
10 challenge the authenticity, say, of some on a basis that you think would
11 entitle us or require us to reject it at this stage, then that's the
12 approach we would take to any part of 6D614.
13 MS. KRAVETZ: Okay. Very well, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't know if it would help you also to say that
15 in relation to Mrs. Marinkovic, that we will issue an order to obtain
16 clarification in relation to a number of exhibits that -- well, a number
17 of documents, rather, that she referred to which do not appear to have
18 exhibit numbers or be uploaded, and in that order we will make clear also
19 which of the documents she referred to appear to be exhibits in the case
20 already or are admitted through her evidence.
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 With regard to this witness statement, the one who just
23 testified, I do have an issue with regard to the untranslated portions of
24 6D614 and the untranslated exhibits in this statement and there are eight
25 of them in total. I didn't raise this issue when the statement was
1 tendered simply because it was my understanding that with a previous
2 witness the position taken by the Chamber was that the untranslated
3 documents which are not referred to in testimony that come through --
4 that are listed in a statement will later have to be the object of a bar
5 table motion.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Which witness was that?
7 MS. KRAVETZ: I would have to look back through the transcript,
8 but it was my understanding that was the position. So ...
9 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
10 JUDGE BONOMY: The only recollection I have of documents being
11 rejected is in relation to untranslated documents, but it was a batch
12 that Mr. Lukic referred to as being similar to other -- another one that
13 had been referred to. But I don't think we have refused to admit any
14 which were mentioned in some significant way, in some specific way,
15 rather, in a 92 ter statement. You can take it that they will, generally
16 speaking, be marked for identification; however, if you wish us now to
17 address that issue in relation to specific ones in this statement, then
18 we'll go through them with you.
19 MS. KRAVETZ: The problem I had with this specific statement, and
20 maybe it was just my misunderstanding, that's why I didn't raise it at
21 the appropriate time, was that some of the exhibits which are listed in
22 this witness statement are quite lengthy. I mean, there's one 6D347 I
23 think it was -- can I get my list, it's just right here.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Indiscernible] --
25 MR. IVETIC: 357 I think is the exhibit.
1 MS. KRAVETZ: 347, 6D347, which is quite lengthy --
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Paragraph?
3 MS. KRAVETZ: It's at paragraph 62 of the statement. It's a
4 40-page document which is untranslated. It wasn't dealt with during
5 testimony, as the witness was not questioned in direct. And this is an
6 exhibit -- it's one of the several examples in this witness statement
7 which is quite lengthy -- it's an exhibit regarding which I would
8 probably have had questions had I had an English copy and maybe Your
9 Honours would have also had questions regarding this and other
10 untranslated exhibits in this --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that the only one, though, that you're making
12 this submission in relation to or are there others?
13 MS. KRAVETZ: There are others. 6D349 which is a 26-page
14 exhibit, it's at paragraph 63 of the statement; there is 6D356, it's at
15 paragraph 22, it's a 16-page document; 6D950, an 11-page document, it's
16 at paragraph 40; 6D353, at paragraph 60. There are a couple of others.
17 They're smaller documents. I can provide the whole list, if necessary,
18 of all the untranslated ones.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: I think the way to deal with this is for you to
20 give Mr. Lukic a list of these. When the translation is tendered you
21 have an opportunity to oppose the admission of the document. I know it
22 hardly ever arises, but if you tell him the ones you're concerned about,
23 it will enable him in the motion for admission of the translation to
24 identify specifically what in the document is being relied upon in
25 support of the statement in the witness's statement. I assume he's not
1 relying on the 40 pages of the first one that you referred to, 6D347, and
2 would be able to point to what matters; indeed, I hope that in some, if
3 not all of these cases he's identified a limited number of pages to be
4 translated rather than have all of them translated. There may be
5 circumstances where all are necessary, but it would be good to think that
6 not all are necessary and that the motion for the translation to be
7 admitted will enable you to make the point specifically.
8 Now, if we decided to reject any of these at that stage, it would
9 still be open to the Lukic Defence to retender with another bar table
10 motion in a more expansive form, but hopefully they can avoid that by
11 saying specifically in answer to the point that you're making what it is
12 that they wish this to demonstrate or support. All right. So can I
13 leave you to deal with it --
14 MS. KRAVETZ: Very well, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: -- and they will meanwhile all be marked for
16 identification if not translated.
17 MS. KRAVETZ: I should point out that Mr. Hannis had the same
18 issue with regard to his previous witness, Mr. Vojnovic, in his
19 statement, so --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: He should do the same.
21 MS. KRAVETZ: Very well, Your Honour. Thank you, for your
23 JUDGE BONOMY: The other matter for you, Mr. Lukic or Mr. Ivetic,
24 is the issue of bar table motions. We're anxious to see life on that
25 front. We did get an indication that there soon would be signs of life,
1 and it's going to help everybody if the course Mr. Ivetic proposed is
2 followed, which was to put them in in smaller numbers.
3 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, we are waiting for some kind of
4 break, probably we can use tomorrow and this weekend to deal with that.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, well to get started would be a great help to
7 That allows me to turn now ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: That allows me to turn to the question of the
10 final briefs. The Trial Chamber's not prepared to allow three months for
11 the preparation and submission of final briefs, but we are prepared to
12 give an indication at this stage of the period that is likely to be
13 available, subject to a final decision being made when dates are clearer.
14 At the moment it's impossible to be absolutely precise. In principle, we
15 will allow a minimum of six weeks from the completion of all the evidence
16 in the case, including the Chamber witnesses and any rebuttal and
17 rejoinder. The -- we will require the final briefs to be submitted
18 simultaneously. No firm order is being made because what exactly is a
19 reasonable decision will depend on the circumstances at the time we make
20 that decision. For example, the break at the end of April and beginning
21 of May is likely to fall after all Defence cases have been completed, but
22 with the possibility of Chamber evidence and rebuttal, perhaps even some
23 of the expert evidence. If so, that is time which would be available in
24 substantial part for the preparation of final briefs. If there are, as
25 there were at the end of the Prosecution case, some occasions when we
1 must adjourn to await the attendance of any witness, it may be
2 appropriate to take that into account.
3 Now, these are only indications, and when we come to make the
4 decision if we think further submissions are necessary, we will invite
5 them. But you can take it that you will have what we consider is at
6 least a period of six weeks from the effective conclusion of all the
7 evidence in the case.
8 Mr. Stamp, I raised the question of the position of the
9 Prosecution on the relevance of the interview of one accused who does not
10 give evidence to the case against any other accused. The Prosecution
11 have made statements in the course of the case about their position on
12 that which are not entirely consistent with the latest Appeal Chamber
13 jurisprudence on the matter. Are you -- now, we are not intending to
14 determine this issue here. What we want to find out first of all is what
15 your position on it is. Whether your position holds the day or not is
16 quite another matter and that may be something that has to be addressed
17 in the final briefs, in fact. But at this stage we would like to know
18 where you stand.
19 MR. STAMP: We stand, if I may put it this way, with the Court of
20 Appeal. Our position then was based on our perception of what the law
21 was at that time, and that also apparently was the perception of the
22 Prlic Trial Chamber. The law now has been clarified and enunciated quite
23 clearly by the Court of Appeal and we accept that as the law and we'll
24 submit that that is the approach the Court should take unless a party
25 could show real and concrete prejudice if that approach is taken.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: The position you took, though, was not identical
2 to the position taken by the Prlic Trial Chamber.
3 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated]
4 I'm so sorry. The position we took was that the statements were
5 admissible fully against accused -- all of the accused except those parts
6 which went to the acts and conduct of that accused.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Or mens rea was the position originally
9 MR. STAMP: You are right, or the mental state.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: And the decision of the Appeals Chamber, I think,
11 is that it's admissible in principle without limitation but there are of
12 course questions over the need for supporting evidence before it can be
13 used for certain purposes.
14 Now, Mr. O'Sullivan's position the last time this arose as a bone
15 of contention was that you were bound by the undertaking that Mr. Hannis
16 gave as to how this would be used. That's a matter that will have to be
17 addressed in the final briefs in due course, and you raise yourself an
18 issue that might be material to that, and that is the issue of any
19 prejudice that has been caused by the way in which the Prosecution have
20 presented their position.
21 In addition, there is I think for all parties to consider the
22 question whether anyone can be bound by an erroneous concession in law
23 which does not cause actual prejudice to his opponent in a criminal
24 trial. Now, these are only some of the issues that arise from this, but
25 we thought it right to have it out at this stage to ensure that everyone
1 is aware of what must be addressed in the final briefs.
2 Can we now go into private session, please.
3 [Private session]
11 Pages 24297-24299 redacted. Private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: We're grateful to everyone for dealing with these
4 various matters at such short notice, and we will now adjourn until
5 Monday at 2.15 --
6 Sorry, Mr. O'Sullivan.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, there's a -- I think that if it's not
8 dealt with now it should be dealt with in our submission shortly, and
9 that is the question of the statements of the co-accused, the Appeals
10 Chamber decision, and the position the Prosecution has taken. Now, I can
11 make submissions on that now if you like or I can do it later, but I
12 would strong urge the -- I would strongly disagree with the position the
13 Prosecution is taking today and I would urge the Court to hear us on this
14 before final submission, before final submission.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Why do you say that?
16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Because then we're really groping in the dark on
17 how we address the issue. That should be done before, we say. Our
18 position is you've ruled on it. The Appeals Chamber gave the Chamber
19 discretion, you've exercised your discretion. We designed and presented
20 our Defence cases based on that ruling. You can't undo that. You can't
21 go back to that.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Where is the ruling, Mr. O'Sullivan?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It was done in May during the 98 bis
24 submissions, clearly.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we took a view on how to treat the material
1 in the interests of the accused at that stage.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Absolutely.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: But we didn't make a determination that the
4 Prosecution position would prevail, and indeed we disagreed at that stage
5 with the Prosecution's characterization of certain of the evidence as not
6 going to acts and conduct or mental state of the accused.
7 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: For example, the question of evidence about the
9 existence of a Joint Command. We took the view that there must be an
10 argument about whether what one person says about the Joint Command goes
11 to acts and conduct, and therefore was not admissible as we viewed the
12 matter at that stage in light of the Prosecution's concession against the
13 other accused.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 I don't think you'll find any ruling in the 98 bis decision about
16 this as a final matter.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, the situation, therefore, is quite -- it's
18 quite ambiguous to us. It's very unclear --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Of course it is, and the law has been clarified,
20 we are told, in the course of the trial.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In our submission, the law was -- it was always
22 open to the Trial Chamber.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry?
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It was always open to the Trial Chamber to rule
25 the way you did or the way the Appeals Chamber did. It's a matter of
1 discretion for the Trial Chamber under our Rules. The position was taken
2 in pleadings by the Prosecutor, pre-trial, last June, before the trial
3 started, their initial position was they would only show those statements
4 in court if the accused testified; that was their starting point. They
5 clarified it in their reply, pre-trial, saying that it would only be
6 admissible against the individual accused, not against the co-accused for
7 mens rea or actus reus. When submissions were made at 98 bis, you gave
8 direction, if you don't want to call that a ruling, you gave a clear
9 direction and you pre-empted the Prosecution from pursuing the arguments
10 on 98 bis and we defended ourselves on that assumption. So you exercised
11 your discretion, Your Honour, and that is all the Appeals Chamber has
12 said you need to do. It's been briefed, litigated, and we say ruled
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, my recollection, Mr. O'Sullivan, is
15 different from yours, that the Chamber did not make a ruling or, indeed,
16 any explicit statement relating to the use of the statements of the
17 accused against other co-accused. We had discussion about it, we invited
18 submissions --
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, I can direct you to the transcript if you
20 like, Your Honour, the references.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: 12608, where you said to the Prosecutor:
23 "You've chosen to put all the accused together, it's by your acts that
24 you prevent an accused being able to call another accused as a witness
25 and cross-examine him."
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: And you give the illustration of Perisic as a
3 distinction. And that was the second time the matter arose during 98 bis
4 submissions, and the Prosecutor conceded on page 12763 that their
5 position was the one set out in their reply of --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you have an even stronger comment at
7 12597 --
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's correct.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- but these aren't determinations, these are
10 expressions of view in argument, Mr. O'Sullivan. There's a difference
11 between that and a determination by the Bench.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, I'm not -- that -- I would say that's a
13 distinction without a difference as far as the accused are concerned
14 because we proceeded the case to answer was designed and presented based
15 on what transpired in the 98 bis.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that may be a basis on which you may argue
17 that you've got prejudice but -- as a result, but your professional
18 submission is that you would have conducted your case differently?
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That certainly would have been the
21 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no. Is your professional submission that
22 you would have conducted your defence differently?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, I would have considered that matter.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you see, you'll need to tell us -- you will
25 need to obviously tell us how you would have done that and so on if
1 that's the position you want to take.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, that's -- with respect, that's quite
3 unfair to the Defence to have gone into this process of our Defence cases
4 in the light of comments, you say not a ruling, comments from the
5 Bench --
6 JUDGE BONOMY: They are, and that's why this becomes so important
7 that if you say that you are gambling on the Judge's comments in debate
8 being ultimately his decision and that you would therefore have conducted
9 your case differently had these comments not been made, then, you know,
10 that's a very particular submission that you would have to substantiate.
11 Because you will not find anywhere a determination that these statements
12 are not admissible against any other accused. That's a decision yet to
13 be made, and indeed in the light of all the circumstances may yet be the
14 decision, for all I know, once we've considered everything to be said.
15 But we will hear what others have to say for the moment on whether we
16 should consider submissions at an earlier stage than final briefs.
17 Any other Defence counsel wish to make a submission on that?
18 Mr. Ackerman.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: I'll do so and try to be very brief, Your Honour.
20 The way the situation appears to me exists is the Prosecution said, We
21 believe this is the law and the way these should be treated; the Defence
22 said, We agree; and the Chamber proceeded as if that were the case. That
23 is a -- that may not be a decision by the Chamber in writing or orally
24 even, but it's a decision by indecision, if nothing else. It told us
25 that that was the law of the case and the law that we were to apply as we
1 went through the Defence case. And that's what we did, we relied upon
3 Now, just to give you an example of what might have been done had
4 we thought it was coming to this stage, there were a number of witnesses
5 that sat on that witness-stand that could have given evidence regarding
6 things that are contained in the statements of other accused in this
7 case. So we could have put those to them, we could have said, Sreten
8 Lukic says in his statement blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, do you have any
9 knowledge about that? We didn't put any of those kinds of questions
10 because of the situation that existed as to what we thought the law was.
11 Now, there's a proposition that I don't think it exists anywhere but the
12 United States but I think it does --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman, we can argue forever about this
14 because the Chamber, for example, has at no time in the course of this
15 trial followed what the Prosecution said. So if you think that there's
16 some compact or contract between you and the Prosecution that has become
17 binding in some way, it certainly wasn't followed in the course of the 98
18 bis judgement. We did not use, to my knowledge and my recollection, any
19 aspect of one accused's statement against another in 98 bis. You can
20 search through the judgement albeit orally as much as you like, you will
21 not find that.
22 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree with that, absolutely.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: So you then have to identify what is it that we
24 agreed the law was. Did we agree with the Prosecution view? I don't
25 think you'll find that anywhere.
1 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, I'm --
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Did we somehow or other make a different decision,
3 I don't think you'll find that anywhere. However, the only issue at the
4 moment is do you wish the matter -- do you wish us to consider whether we
5 should hear argument on this before final briefs or do you wish the
6 matter left until the final briefs.
7 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it's absolutely crucial to get heard
8 before the final briefs because it can have a major effect on how the
9 final briefs are written, that's what I think, and I think it ought to be
10 done rather quickly because it may have an effect on how we conduct the
11 rest of this case in many ways.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you may also wish to reflect that this
13 matter has been raised since the Appeals Chamber made its decision and
14 nobody responded to the raising of it by the Bench itself. This isn't
15 the first time it's been discussed since the decision was made.
16 Mr. Stamp, do you have any view on whether we should hear
17 argument earlier than final briefs on this?
18 MR. STAMP: As far as I am concerned, we are in the hands of the
19 Court. We are prepared to present any arguments the Court would require
20 of us.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
22 Well, we shall adjourn now and resume at 2.15 on Monday, and we
23 shall indicate as soon as possible whether we think it appropriate to
24 consider this issue further before the stage of final briefs.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Monday, the 17th day of
2 March, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.