1 Tuesday, 11 September 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon. Unfortunately, today Judge Van den

7 Wyngaert is unable to sit. We expect that she will be able to sit

8 tomorrow. We will continue under Rule 15 bis today.

9 We understand that it would be preferable, given the condition of

10 the witness, if we had only one hour sessions rather than the normal

11 longer session to enable her to have some movement. That being so, I

12 mention it now so that particularly Ms. Residovic can be aware that we

13 will break after approximately an hour.

14 If I could remind the witness that the affirmation you made at the

15 beginning of your evidence still applies.

16 Yes, Ms. Residovic.

17 WITNESS: TATJANA GROSEVA [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Cross-examination by Ms. Residovic:

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Groseva. My name is

22 Edina Residovic and together with my colleague Guenael Mettraux, I appear

23 on behalf Mr. Ljube Boskoski.

24 Ms. Groseva, before I start asking you questions that I have

25 planned for you, I suppose that you understand the language that I'm

1 speaking and I also understand your language. However, my question needs

2 to be interpreted so that the Chamber and the other colleagues in the

3 courtroom are able to hear what I'm asking you and hear your answers, so

4 I'm asking you to start answering only when my question is already

5 interpreted. There is the way that we are of best assistance to the

6 Chamber.

7 Have you understood this?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Please answer it, because it needs to be recorded in the

10 transcript?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. In your statement you stated that you were born in Skopje and that

13 you live there. You have lived there for all your life. Is that so?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In Skopje, you graduated from the faculty of law. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Since 1992 until the present day you are an employee of the

19 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Actually, if I say that from the beginning of your professional

22 life you were employed in the republic Ministry of the Internal Affairs

23 and not in a department or a sector at the level of a municipality or the

24 city, that would also be correct. Is that so?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. You held a different offices in the ministry. You first worked as

2 analyst in the sector for analytics and research. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. After that, you were the head analyst for public law and order

5 within that same sector. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Only in 2002 you worked as a senior advisor for the normative

8 activities in the legal sector. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Again, from 1st of January, 2003, you were transferred to the

11 sector of analytics and you are the head of the department for analysis

12 and information. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Today you hold the office of the head of the entire sector, and

15 apart from the department for analysis and information there is also a

16 department for statistical researches and analysis. Is that information

17 correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So during the events at Ljuboten, in August 2001, you were the

20 head analyst for public law and order within the sector for analysis. Is

21 that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And at the time when the minister Hari Kostov appointed you a

24 member of the committee that you discussed yesterday with my learned

25 colleague the Prosecutor, you were the head of the department for analysis

1 and information. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You had the capacity of an authorised official in all these posts,

4 all these offices that you held from beginning of your employment at the

5 ministry until the present day?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Actually, the law on internal affairs stipulates who are the

8 officers in the ministry who hold the status of authorised official. Is

9 that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. According to that law, the authorised officials are primarily

12 members of the police and the operational officers, then officers who are

13 directly linked to the police and the operational officers, the minister,

14 minister's deputies, and other managerial staff. Would this be a brief

15 summary of what the law stipulates as authorised officials?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. However, although you were an authorised official for the entire

18 duration of your employment that does not mean that at all that you were

19 able to perform any -- just any duty that the Ministry of the Interior

20 carries out?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Actually, your tasks and the scope of the tasks were set forth in

23 the Rule Book of Organisation of the Ministry of Interior. Would that

24 conclusion be correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. That same rule book sets forth the scope of work for the sector of

2 analytics where you actually spent most of your career. And this act also

3 stipulates that your sector performs the analytics, research and

4 information tasks; maintains the information and statistical evidence;

5 produces analysis, reviews information and other materials; follows,

6 studies and analyses the security situation according to the data coming

7 from the public security; proposals are tabled for certain actions that

8 need to be carried within the ministry; the law enforcement is followed

9 and also other tasks are performed as stipulated by the law. Would this

10 be a summary of the tasks as stipulated in the Rule book and as you really

11 carry out actually in your work?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Is it correct, Ms. Groseva, that the sector for analytics, exists

14 also in another part of the Ministry of Interior within the state

15 security, and that sector performs the same or similar tasks as your

16 sector. Is that correct?

17 A. It is correct that such sector exists in the security and

18 counter-intelligence directorate, but whether these type of tasks are

19 carried out there, I could not say, since we do not cooperate with that

20 sector.

21 Q. All right. Thank you. But you surely know that their scope of

22 work is also regulated by a general act on the operation of the officers

23 of the security and counter-intelligence directorate. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In 2001, you had already nine years of working experience from the

1 moment that you started working at the ministry and at the moment you were

2 appointed as a member of the committee that the minister Hari Kostov

3 established, you had 11 years of working experience and you had actual

4 experience working in the analytics. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. As you stated just a moment ago, you were an authorised official

7 but you were not able to carry out just any task of the Ministry of

8 Interior. Thus, you could not perform the tasks of the operational

9 officers and you were not authorised as the operational officers in the

10 operative department to take statements that they are able to take in the

11 pre-trial procedure pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure. Is that

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. For instance, you could not go out to the street as an authorised

15 official and regulate the traffic. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So I repeat from what you stated before, the scope of work, the

18 duties and responsibilities were regulated with the general act of

19 organisation and operations of the Ministry of the Interior. Is that

20 correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Apart from the law and the general act, you also carried out the

23 operations in accordance with the orders given by your immediate superior.

24 Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. While you were just an analyst in the sector, you received order

2 from the head of the analytics department, and later from the head of the

3 sector, and now you receive orders from the director of public security

4 bureau. Is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Considering what you stated now, the tasks, the operational work

7 are regulated by acts. Is it correct, Ms. Groseva, that in the same way

8 the issue of responsibility of officers is regulated, and that that

9 responsibility is also set forth in the general acts of the ministry. Is

10 that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Firstly, the officer is accountable to his or her immediate

13 superior who performs the actual control over the work, gives tasks and

14 then receives reports about that task. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You're now a head of the sector for analytics in the Ministry of

17 the Interior; therefore, the officers of the analytics department are, in

18 a way, accountable to you. They receive their tasks from you. Is that

19 correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. However, although you are the head of the sector for analytics,

22 documentation and whatever the entire name of that sector is, you are

23 superior only to the officers who are employed at the level of the

24 republic, of the state, so who work in your analytics department. You are

25 their superior officer?

1 A. Yes. I'm head for the employees in the sector for analytics,

2 research and documentation.

3 Q. However, similar departments or units exist also in the sector for

4 internal affairs, sectors for internal affairs of the cities and

5 municipalities. Individuals who work in those units are directly

6 accountable to their heads for analytics and those heads are accountable

7 to the municipal head of internal affairs and in the city of Skopje

8 they're directly accountable to the assistant to the minister for the

9 sector of internal affairs for the city of Skopje. Am I understanding the

10 situation correctly?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So, you are not the direct superior to those officers and they are

13 not accountable to you directly. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you. As we said a while ago the minister is also an

16 authorised official as stipulated by law, but is it correct that the

17 minister, regardless of whether this is the minister of the moment, the

18 Minister Boskoski or Hari Kostov that was mentioned also, the minister has

19 mainly political role within the ministry. Is that understanding of mine

20 of the position of the minister correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The minister is usually a civilian and not necessarily a lawyer or

23 a police officer. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. As you -- as you're employed in the Ministry of Interior have

1 there other types of people, economists, sociologists and so on, other

2 people employed in this ministry. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The supervision line within the Ministry is such

5 that this line goes through the line of the uniformed police and

6 criminal police and on the other side, there's the line of state

7 security. Are these the management lines within the ministry?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The head of the bureau of public security, the director and the

10 head of the bureau of the state security. There's also a director. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Both directors are appointed by the government with the caveat

14 that of the ministry at the department of public security -- is being

15 controlled by the parliament of the Republic of Macedonia. Is that

16 correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Although the minister is a political person most of all, that the

19 minister is an authorised official, manages the ministry mainly by

20 bringing forth general acts for implementation of the law and performing

21 the activities of the ministry such as rule books, directions based upon

22 which the officers of the ministry act upon. Is this the manner through

23 which the minister manages the ministry?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If I say that also besides these types of management that the

1 minister only directly performs certain activities that is given to him by

2 the rule books of the organisation, mainly that -- with it is directly

3 connected a department for finances, for international cooperation,

4 personnel committee and so on. This -- are those bodies that are directly

5 connected to the minister and not to the director of the public or state

6 security. Is this -- are you familiar with this?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. With respect to the uniformed police and the units of the police,

9 until August 2001 the minister had direct authority only over the -- a

10 special unit Tiger and after that this unit also was included in the

11 structure of the uniformed police and in the common line of the uniformed

12 police. Are you familiar with this?

13 A. Yes, according to the new organisational set-up of the ministry.

14 Q. Since you were at one point working as a senior advisor in the

15 legal sector, is it true that the legal department develops the legal acts

16 that are passed by those people who are authorised to pass those acts. Is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And a decision or -- the document that was used to appoint you at

20 this position was prepared by the legal sector and the legal sector give

21 you -- gave you this document, appointment document.

22 I would like to ask that the witness be shown this decision. This

23 is -- it is the T -- P375, MFI, 285.5.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, 6379. Evidence --

25 exhibit 379, exhibit P379.

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is -- in order to find it

2 easier this is part of the document which is 65 ter 285.5. Ter. 65 ter

3 285.5.

4 I apologise, maybe you will find it easier if I give you the

5 number. ERN000-8906. ERN number 000-8906, and in the English one is ERN

6 000-8906-ET. In Macedonian, it's N000-8906.

7 Q. Okay, Ms. Groseva, until we find the document, this document

8 demonstrates that the decision that have been given to you, you received

9 it from the legal -- from the department for legal issues and normative

10 activities, it was signed by the head of the department,

11 Suzana Nikodijevik-Filipovska. Do you remember that this document was

12 shown to you? You have it now in front of you?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Therefore, you've been given this decision and what we have -- and

15 this was developed by the same, this decision was developed by the same

16 department and the minister had signed this decision. Is that correct?

17 This the way through which the minister signed it?

18 A. Yes. The decisions are drafted by the -- by the department for

19 legal and personnel issues and they are signed by the minister of

20 interior.

21 Q. Ms. Groseva, as the case is with this decision, is this department

22 based upon request of certain bodies, the personnel committee or the

23 criminalistic police or other bodies within the ministry drafts --

24 develops the drafts of other acts and decision, that the minister signs

25 after that?

1 A. Yes, in the legal department, the legal department develops the

2 by-laws, decisions that the minister signs.

3 Q. The issue of the working relationship and the responsibilities of

4 the officers are -- have also been set forth in a certain general act and

5 in the ministry, besides the laws, we are talking about the collective

6 agreement of the Ministry of the Interior, that have been co-signed with

7 the union. However, --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. However, besides these things that have been regulated with the

10 collective agreement and the way that people are taken in the Ministry of

11 Interior, can we say that there are certain other acts that can be used to

12 regulate the conditions and the procedure through which people are

13 employed, for example the conditions and the procedure through which

14 employees are -- get their jobs in the special forces. In the ministry,

15 the special cases in the ministry it is also possible to pass an act that

16 determines the procedure, the conditions and the bodies that are hiring

17 these officers. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The minister on behalf of the ministry signs a decision for hiring

20 of the employees after the procedure that has been followed or the

21 procedure that has been developed by the rule book?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Therefore, the minister never -- neither before the

24 Minister Boskoski nor after him, the minister therefore does not sign the

25 decision for the -- employment -- employment relations not on his on

1 behalf only but on behalf of the ministry. Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. If somebody claims in front of this Court that the minister

4 was -- that the members, for example of the Lions, were signing their

5 employment document with the minister that would be not true. Is that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. The collective agreement regulated the issues of the

9 responsibility of the officers and the situations in which disciplinary

10 procedure can be started or the responsibility -- the procedure through

11 which the responsibility of the officer would be determined. That's the

12 way with the collective agreement. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. This responsibility of the officers can be material or

15 disciplinary. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. The collective agreement also determines the bodies that can

18 initiate such a procedure as well as the procedure that needs to be

19 implemented in order to determine the responsibility of the officer. Is

20 that correct?

21 A. The whole procedure that needs to be implemented, it is defined in

22 the collective agreement.

23 Q. That procedure can be started only -- initiated against a

24 non-person. In other words, we cannot have this kind of disciplinary

25 procedure against a group of people or unknown perpetrators, et cetera?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. This procedure also must be implemented within a certain

3 time-frame, otherwise this -- the terms of limitation might expire after

4 which the disciplinary procedure might not be continued. Is that correct?

5 ?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You are familiar that the terms -- the statute of limitations of

8 the disciplinary procedures are -- they expire and if there is a certain

9 disciplinary infraction noted after the expiration of the statute of

10 limitation, this procedure could not are started against this person. Is

11 that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. However, the disciplinary procedure is implemented by a permanent

14 committee which is the disciplinary committee, and the mandate is usually

15 determined by the mandate of the minister or with the selection of the

16 minister or in some other manner but it has the composition that has been

17 determined for many years. This is not a temporary committee; this is a

18 standing committee.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. However, besides this temporary -- besides the standing committees

21 which is the disciplinary within the ministry, there are other committees

22 that have been created for very specific issues or ad hoc committees. Is

23 that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And depending on the purpose for which the committee had been

1 established, the committee can be set up by the minister or another

2 manager, and who issues the decision within which the composition, the

3 task and other issues relating to this committee are set up?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The committees that have been established in such a manner, they

6 cannot replace the authority of the bodies that have been indicated in the

7 rule book for the organisation and the work of the Ministry of Interior

8 nor can they be taken on by -- the task and responsibilities of other

9 bodies; for example, the courts, the prosecutors and so on. Is that

10 correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The committee that you have discussed yesterday with my learned

13 colleague, the committee that has been established by the minister

14 Hari Kostov was one of these ad hoc committees. Therefore, established

15 with a very specific task.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. All members of the committee, as you, were authorised officials.

18 Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. However, just like you, those other members of the committee did

21 not have the authority of the authorised officials from the -- from the

22 operative part of the criminalistic police that are working in the

23 pre-trial procedure according to the Law on Pre-trial Procedure in your

24 country. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Otherwise, to digress a little bit, according to the Law on

2 Criminal Procedure of the Ministry of Interior, the police or the members

3 of the Ministry of Interior cannot interrogate the citizens in the

4 function of the witness that can be only done by the judge, according to

5 the legal system. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The police, within the pre-trial procedure, collects the

8 information from the citizens based upon which it develops Official Notes.

9 Is that correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Those information that the -- collected by the police from the

12 citizens, that information can be either within the -- they can be in the

13 form of an Official Note or minutes, because this procedure is not

14 precisely defined in terms of what the -- the methods through which the

15 police has to note down and write down the information it collects from

16 the citizens. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Can you -- would you agree with me, Ms. Groseva, that based upon

19 the form through which the information has been collected from the

20 citizens, that information or statement that has been collected by the

21 police from a citizen, regardless of whether it is based upon suspicion of

22 this person provides some other information, this information or statement

23 cannot be used in the criminal procedure. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Actually, this information -- it serves the police -- so it can

1 corroborate other information, collect other evidence and prepare the

2 criminal -- criminal report?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. This criminal report if -- if the investigative judge has the

5 responsibility to select this information, and in case the decision -- is

6 based upon such -- based upon such information, this decision would be

7 overturned. Is this correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Is it correct that when I say that all -- all these interviews,

10 statements, informations that you have collected within your committee and

11 created within it, could not be treated as statements that police collects

12 in the pre-trial procedure, especially because they do not have any legal

13 standing in the criminal -- in the criminal procedure?

14 A. As I have said yesterday, the sole task of the committee was to

15 collect information for what was it that happened in the village of

16 Ljuboten. We only collected information. We did not undertake

17 investigation. This was no kind of procedure. Simply, the interviews

18 with the colleagues were for the purpose of collecting information.

19 Q. And my question was that these -- this was only information that

20 were requested only by the minister and they were to be given to the

21 minister.

22 A. This information were only aimed to inform the minister in terms

23 of what is it that the committee has done. Therefore, the purpose of

24 the -- of the information that we have produced at the end was to inform

25 the minister in terms of the activities undertaken by the committee.

1 Q. And I fully agree that you explained this really well yesterday.

2 But I had -- my question was an additional one and it is: Regardless of

3 the fact that did you this job for the minister, this information that

4 have you collected from the people, not material evidence but information

5 that you have collected, had this information been made available to the

6 court, this information could not serve as a lawful and valid basis for a

7 court to act? Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Now could we see P379, MFI,

10 Exhibit P379 which is 65 ter document 285.5, which is in Macedonian

11 N000-8907; the English version is N000-8907-ET. Page 1, please.

12 Q. Ms. Groseva, you can see the decision on the screen. It was shown

13 yesterday to you by my learned friend about the creation of the

14 commission. It is dated the 7th of March --

15 A. Yes.

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see page 2 of this

17 decision, which is N000-8908 in Macedonian. And in English, it's

18 N000-8907-N000-8908-ET, page 2. Page 2 in English, page 2 of this

19 decision.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We see it on the screen.

22 Your Honours, I have just been told that on page 18, line 14 my

23 question was translated as follows. This information could not serve as a

24 good basis for the Court. That's not what I said. What I said was that

25 this information cannot be used --

1 Q. Or, rather, would you please tell us, madam, whether these

2 documents of yours could be used in court as evidence at all?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Thank you. I couldn't recollect exactly my words so that's why I

5 repeated the question to the witness.

6 On page 2 which you have before you and since I'm using the

7 Prosecution exhibits, I would like to ask my learned friends whether they

8 have, by any chance, a hard copy of these documents so that it could be

9 given to the witness. It might be of assistance to the witness. If they

10 do not have the it, then I would ask the witness to look at the document

11 on the screen.

12 In item 2 of this decision, the tasks of your commission are set

13 out quite specifically. And if I were to analyse this, I would say that

14 the first task was to analyse all material, all documents in relation to

15 the events in the area of the village of Ljuboten in August of 2001. Was

16 that your first task?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Then the following task --

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much to my learned

20 friend.

21 Q. Following that, you were given a task to establish the composition

22 and the power or resources of the units which took over action in the

23 period of time that followed, including the identity of each member of

24 these units.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Your third task was to establish the causes and circumstances of

2 the death of the victims and the damage that ensued. Was that your third

3 task? And then additional task was to -- to establish the truth

4 surrounding these events and then you also had to inquire into the

5 authority concerning the use of the units and the consequences of the

6 operation which was carried out?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then this decision also specified the deadline, in item 3 it

9 was specified that you were to complete your tasks by the 2nd of March

10 2003, item 3. Is that right?

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction the 2nd of May, 2003.

12 A. Yes.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. And then following that, it is stated that it was your task to

15 establish responsibility for the operation that was carried out in the

16 area of the village of Ljuboten in August 2001. Correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In the previous paragraph it was also said that you should bear in

19 mind the conclusions of the forensic medicine institute concerning the

20 circumstances following the events of August 2001?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. This decision did not establish the method of operation of the

23 commission. Correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. This task, from item 2, paragraph 6, about establishing

1 responsibility for the operation that was carried out, is the task that

2 you, as commission, in accordance with the law and the rules of the

3 ministry, --

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

5 A. No.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I was asked by the interpreters to

7 repeat my question.

8 Q. Did you, as commission, have legal authority, in accordance with

9 the law and the rules to establish responsibility, be it financial or

10 disciplinary responsibility?

11 A. No. As we clarified before, the disciplinary responsibility is

12 investigated by a special committee within the Ministry of the Interior.

13 Q. What about criminal responsibility?

14 A. For the criminal responsibility, there is a specialised unit to

15 investigate it. There are authorised officials employed there who are

16 carrying out the investigations to ascertain the criminal responsibility

17 and they work in cooperation with the courts.

18 Q. And this department can carry out only the actions specified in

19 the law on pre-trial procedure and to supply the responsible prosecutor

20 with its conclusions. Correct?

21 A. This is correct, yes.

22 Q. And it is only pursuant to the request of the prosecutor that the

23 criminal responsibility of a person can be established by a court.

24 Correct?

25 A. That is it correct, yes.

1 THE INTERPRETER: Could speakers please not overlap.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. So when you were given this task it was simply impossible to carry

4 out this task legally speaking, from the legal point of view. Correct?

5 A. We started working in the area where we believed we could complete

6 our mission and that is, I will say again, to gather information about

7 what has happened at Ljuboten village.

8 Q. Very well. Zoran Jovanovski, Major-General, was the president of

9 this commission and at the time he was under-secretary in the Ministry of

10 Interior. Correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. When asked by my learned friend you said that you attended the

13 meetings of this commission, that you took notes and that later on, based

14 on those notes, you drafted proposal -- proposal of information from the

15 members of the commission, and following any remarks received, you

16 forwarded this information to the minister. Did I understand your task

17 within the commission correctly?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Given that this decision did not regulate the method of work of

20 this commission, would you please tell us who was the one to determine the

21 method of work of the commission?

22 A. In those ad hoc committees, to use your term, there is always a

23 representative of the sector for analytics, research and documenting

24 participating as a member. And it is an unwritten rule. So this is the

25 practice in our work. The representative of the analytics department is

1 in charge of -- just of drafting the information.

2 Q. And in accordance with this established practice, you interpreted

3 your duties within the commission and acted in accordance with that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Even though you were appointed as a full member of the commission?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And yesterday you said that you did not attend the first meeting

8 of the commission, if I understood you well?

9 A. Yes. Because I had a business trip to the Republic of Croatia.

10 Q. Did the commission operate at that time without a representative

11 of the sector for analytics?

12 A. No. There was another representative of the analytics sector in

13 attendance.

14 Q. So that person was there as member of the commission, even though

15 that person was not appointed to the commission by the minister. Correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Yesterday, on page 4 --

18 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... Ms. Residovic,

19 is that a convenient time?

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Thank you very much,

21 Your Honour.

22 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the break then and resume in 20

23 minutes' time, at 20 minutes to 4.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 3.19 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 3.41 p.m.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Residovic.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

3 Q. Before the break, Ms. Groseva, I mentioned that yesterday, and it

4 is on page 4712, you have mentioned that in the committee the standard

5 procedure -- the committee was working under standard procedure. Do you

6 recall saying that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I would like to ask you, Ms. Groseva, just to check whether I have

9 understood you well. What is the standard procedure that the committee

10 uses; namely, is it correct that -- that you have invited certain

11 individuals at the meetings of the committee using two avenues. The

12 members of the employees of the Ministry of Interior, you would call them

13 on the phone and those individuals that were not members of the ministry,

14 that is civilians, you were subpoenaed -- you sent subpoenas?

15 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, summons.

16 A. Yes.

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Those individuals that were invited with summons, i.e., civilians,

19 you have warned them when you were invited them that they had the right to

20 call an attorney with them, as well as what the consequences would -- what

21 the consequences would have been in case they did not respond to this

22 summons. That is, you have pointed them out that according to Article

23 142.3, that they will be brought in by force. Was this the manner through

24 which you called the civilians to attend?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. My learned friend showed -- has shown you the invitation that was

2 given to Johan Tarculovski, and that is the manner through which you have

3 invited this individual. Do you remember this?

4 A. Yes.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters wish to indicate that there is a

6 noise of typing coming and it bothers us. Thank you.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. After this, in this procedure, as I -- if I understood well, I

9 would like to corroborate this, would the members of the committee, other

10 members of the committee led the interview, you were -- and you were the

11 person who took the minutes of the work. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. This standard procedure was such that after the interview the

14 person that was otherwise an officer of the Ministry of Interior, that

15 person created his or her own Official Note, and in case this person was

16 not a member of the Ministry of Interior, then there were minutes --

17 minutes were developed after the interview with this person. Was this the

18 next step in the standard procedure of your commission?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Based upon the -- I just want to note that the witness about this

21 on page 4717 and page 4736 of the transcript.

22 And according -- you mentioned that within this procedure that

23 based upon your own notes, you were responsible to develop -- to write the

24 draft of the information. Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And as you have mentioned yourself, you were submitting this

2 information to the members of the committee?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Please tell me: If on the meetings of this committee -- if not

5 all members of the committee had been present, whether this information

6 that you wrote was submitted only to those who had been present at that

7 interview or also to those members who were not present at the moment?

8 A. Only to those who were present at the meeting.

9 Q. You were shown the information of May 6th about the meeting at

10 which you were not present -- at which you had not been present. This

11 information was not given to you. You could have only seen that

12 information after it was entered and registered in your department of

13 analytics. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. You have also said that on May 28th, at the meeting of the

16 committee, the president, General Jovanovski, was not present. Please

17 tell me: The information that was shown to you yesterday, whether it had

18 been submitted to the General Jovanovski?

19 A. Yes. In order to inform him as the president of the committee.

20 Q. In your statement, you have stated that your own notes -- you did

21 not keep your own notes because they were not an official document and

22 they had been consequently destroyed. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The Official Notes that were handwritten by those individuals that

25 were interviewed, as well as the minutes of those individuals, you did not

1 destroy. They were part of the information and the materials of the

2 committee. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Upon the approval of the information by the committee, this

5 information would have become a document. It was subsequently submitted

6 to the minister and was registered in your department. Is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Therefore, the way I have explained my understanding, that the

9 standard procedure which you attempted to explain yesterday, this is the

10 manner through which you use -- to which you worked from the moment the

11 committee was set up until November 25. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You -- because you have already mentioned that the committee had

14 the task to collect the information for the minister, the minister was the

15 person that had individual responsibility to decide what to do with this

16 information. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. In the decision made by the committee, we were able to see that

19 the committee -- it was -- consisted of -- was diverse, it had both in

20 terms of ethnic background and in terms of professional background. Is

21 that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. As far as I understood well, there were two Albanians, one Bosnian

24 and the rest of the committee members were Macedonian.

25 A. I'm sorry, but I have never looked at the committee that way.

1 They are all my colleagues.

2 Q. Hamdi, last name unclear, Baftijari was Albanian. Five,

3 Besim Ramicevic is Bosnian -- is Bosniak, Muslim?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Article -- number 6, the person under number 6, Sefset Surlaj was

6 also Bosniak?

7 THE INTERPRETER: Albanian. Interpreter's correction, Albanian.

8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. You had the decision of the committee in front of you. I would

10 like you to follow this so we can follow along. ERN N000-8907, and the

11 English is just ET, page 1. It is Exhibit P379, MFI.

12 Based upon the professional responsibilities within the Ministry

13 of Interior, this committee was also very diverse. We can look all the

14 members from the ministry who were part of it. The Major-General, the

15 under-secretary in the police department was the chairman. The second

16 member was from the -- from the forensic sector of the crime police

17 department.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. The third person was also from the crime police department?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. The fourth member, as well as the president, was from the police

22 department?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The fifth was the chief of the section for violent crimes, sex

25 crimes, traffic crimes, juvenile delinquency and socio-pathological

1 phenomenon, the sector for general crimes. And the sixth person was the

2 senior inspector in the unit for professional standards. Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Of course, you were representing the department for analytics?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Given this composition of the committee, would you agree with me

7 when I say that the minister could have relied that -- could have believed

8 that the committee would do its job properly, and that the minister could

9 rely on the information that you gave to him?

10 A. The members of this committee were colleagues who had many years

11 of experience, each of them in their own respective profession which, of

12 course, guaranteed a quality performance of the job.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would now like to show the

15 Exhibit P73 to the witness.

16 Q. You were well-known that Minister Boskoski on August 13th, 2001,

17 right after the events that took place in Ljuboten set up the committee.

18 Are you familiar with this?

19 A. Only from what I've read from the media to this day. But not at

20 the moment then.

21 Q. Are you saying that during the work of your committee in 2003, you

22 did not have the decision for setting up the committee set up by

23 Mr. Boskoski?

24 A. No.

25 Q. You also did not have at your disposal the report on the

1 information produced by this committee?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Please tell me, yes what? Did you have that information or not?

4 A. I -- we did not have the report from this committee. I apologise.

5 Q. In front of you now, you have the decision for establishing a

6 committee. And I will not ask you about the decision itself or the tasks

7 because you were not aware of this decision.

8 However, do you know Goran Mitevski, or do you know what his

9 position was in 2001?

10 A. Yes, director of the bureau for public security.

11 Q. And you also know that he was a police officer for many years,

12 that he was a distinguished professional, and that he is a trustworthy

13 person. Is that how you accepted your director at that moment or do you

14 have another opinion of him?

15 A. From the cooperation from the director, he is a distinguished

16 professional. He is an expert in his work.

17 Q. Do you know Risto Galevski and do you know what kind of job --

18 what kind of job did he have in -- at that time?

19 A. The General Risto Galevski was the head of the department for

20 police, and we had an ongoing cooperation with him.

21 Q. Would you agree with me when I say that in 2001 had -- about 20

22 years of experience in the police, that he was very distinguished, that he

23 had an enormous professional experience and that he was honest person?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. This opinion of Goran Mitevski and Risto Galevski, you had no

1 reason to change your opinion of them. Is that correct?

2 A. No.

3 Q. The way you gave the answer sounds like you gave the -- different

4 answers, therefore I'm going to repeat my question. And my question is:

5 Whether you have ever changed your opinion of Goran Mitevski and

6 Risto Galevski changed over the past few years. Please -- and give me an

7 answer with a whole sentence.

8 A. No. My opinion for Mr. Mitevski and Mr. Galevski, they are

9 exceptional professionals, and experts in their area of expertise.

10 Q. Thank you very much. Do you know Zivko Petrovski?

11 A. Yes. He was head of the department for analytics briefly where I

12 was working.

13 Q. Are you aware that in 2001, he was the head of the department of

14 criminal police?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. In the same way that Minister Kostov could rely on you as

17 professional individuals who do their job properly, professionally and in

18 the best manner possible, would you agree with me if I said that by

19 selecting the most responsible individuals in the Ministry of Interior,

20 distinguished professionals, that Minister Boskoski wanted to collect the

21 best possible information at that moment, the best possible information

22 available at that moment?

23 A. Yes. And in my opinion, he would not have been able to find

24 better professionals at that moment.

25 Q. And considering that they were heads of -- of the entire structure

1 of the Ministry of Interior, they had available, they had an opportunity

2 to gather information and to communicate with all structures of the

3 Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes. When one has in mind the offices they held and the duties

5 they performed at the moment.

6 Q. Thank you. The information that such person would draft, the

7 information note would be a reliable basis for a minister,

8 Minister Boskoski or any other minister. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes. Considering that they are professionals with long years of

10 service, experts in their area and professionals.

11 Q. When we reviewed the tasks for your committee, and I would like to

12 ask to see again the page 2 of this document. That is N000-8908,

13 Macedonian, and the English is the same number with the ET appended. That

14 is the Exhibit P379, MFI.

15 One of the tasks was for you to gather all the materials, all the

16 documents. Could you agree with me, Ms. Groseva, that you did not have

17 then available the documents that the forensics department of the police

18 compiled in August of 2001?

19 A. Which documents are you referring?

20 Q. For instance, analysis of the weapons found at the scene, then the

21 paraffin glove test, and any other documents existing at the forensics

22 department of the police. Did you obtain those documents?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Did you obtain, did you have available the documents that the

25 operations department of the forensics police department of the Cair

1 department within the sector for internal affairs, Skopje, compiled in

2 August 2001, aiming to gather data about the casualties, about the deaths,

3 about the perpetrators? Did you have these documents available?

4 A. When the committee started working, we had no documents. Apart

5 from -- this is now my recollection, long time has passed. Documents from

6 the forensics medicine institute were available or it was so mentioned but

7 those documents were not reviewed by the committee. It was known that

8 there were such materials available from the forensics medicine institute,

9 but these materials were not reviewed, and the committee did not have any

10 other type of materials.

11 Q. So if I understand you correctly, you did not have access to the

12 documents that the Ministry of Interior gathered upon the request of the

13 court and communicated to the court, and you did not have available any of

14 the documents that the court had available?

15 A. No.

16 Q. You were not given any materials of the international

17 organisations that were in Skopje at that time, in 2001, or had compiled

18 any information related to the Ljuboten events. Is that correct as well?

19 A. No such materials were made available to us.

20 Q. The office of the ICTY Prosecutor that was, at that time, located

21 in Skopje, also never submitted to you any information or the -- or

22 documents that it had available at that time?

23 A. Yes, we never received any information.

24 Q. As far as I understood, you had the task to communicate the

25 information that you produced or the information that you would receive to

1 the minister. You, as a committee, had no powers or authority to

2 communicate the information to third parties outside of the Ministry of

3 Interior, be it local or international organisations. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes. I repeat: The information were intended just to inform the

5 minister about the work of the committee.

6 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the information produced on

7 6th of May, and that is Exhibit P379, MFI, 65 ter 285.24. That is

8 N000-8956, that is the first page of the information note, while the

9 English version is at N000-8957-ET, first page.

10 This is the first information note from the meeting that you did

11 not attend. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And as far as I understood the procedure, in accordance with it,

14 you had invited, as we can see from the document, Gjorgji Mitrov,

15 Zivko Gacovski, Johan Tarculovski, and Goce Ralevski to come meet with you

16 on that date. Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Borce Vasilevski was invited as well, but he did not respond to

19 the invitation. Is that correct?

20 A. I did not attend the meeting but this is what is written in the

21 information.

22 Q. Would you agree with me that Gjorgji Mitrov, Zivko Gacovski,

23 Johan Tarculovski, at the time were employed by the MUP and they that were

24 invited to attend on the phone?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Based on what you said, Goce Ralevski who was a civilian and

2 worked in Sobranje [phoen] was supposed to have received a summons?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. However, there is no evidence of any summons within the documents

5 of the police. Correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Even though three workers of the MUP were interviewed, it was

8 shown to you that the Official Note was written only by Johan Tarculovski,

9 in his own hand. Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So even though Mitrov and Gacovski were both members of the MUP or

12 Ministry of Interior, this first meeting did not follow the procedure you

13 described and these persons never produced their own handwritten notes.

14 Correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Goce Ralevski as a civilian was not only not invited to attend in

17 the way that you described, but also no record was produced about what he

18 had said. So in relation to him, the routine procedure as you described

19 it was not followed either at this meeting held on the 6th of May.

20 Correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. The information you produced inevitably had to contain all of the

23 facts that you had heard or that the persons wrote in their own Official

24 Notes. Correct?

25 A. The information that I had produced provided a summary, an

1 overview of what has been said by the colleagues. Therefore, in some

2 cases, you can see different wording, different terms used in the

3 information note from what is written in the Official Note that the

4 colleague had submitted.

5 However, I will say again that the information note had a single

6 purpose, to inform the minister on what the committee was doing. And on

7 the basis of that information, nobody undertook any activities and no

8 procedure was carried out further. That was the information with a

9 purpose to just inform the minister about the activity of the committee,

10 so it is not necessary that part of the conversation with a colleague is

11 interpreted verbatim and so fully corresponds with the note compiled by

12 that colleague.

13 Q. You did not send to the minister these handwritten notes, rather,

14 you only sent information to him. Correct?

15 A. It is correct, yes.

16 Q. In this information or report produced by your colleagues on page

17 2, Johan Tarculovski allegedly said before the members of the commission,

18 and you yourself were not in attendance there, that Ljube Boskoski

19 personally called him in and ordered him to shed light on the case because

20 it was suspected that Xhavid Asani had been in Ljuboten. Do you remember

21 that this was stated in this report or information?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. You were shown handwritten notes written on that same day or on

24 the following day by your colleague, Johan Tarculovski, who, at the time,

25 was an inspector?

1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now be shown P379 MFI

2 N000-8922. The English version is N000-8922-ET-01.

3 Q. You can see here that up in the corner it says in the English text

4 the 3rd of March, 2003, whereas this interview took place at the meeting

5 of the commission held on the 5th of May. So obviously this is a mistake

6 in translation, because you did not even exist as a commission on the 3rd

7 of March, 2003, correct?

8 A. It is correct.

9 Q. Further, you can see here in this Official Note written personally

10 by Johan Tarculovski and signed by him in his own hand, that he wrote as

11 follows: There was intelligence from the villagers that Xhavid Asani was

12 in the village and several houses and so on.

13 So in the text written by your colleague, the then inspector

14 Tarculovski, Ljube Boskoski is not mentioned at all. Correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you agree with me that when your colleague wrote this

17 information for the minister he in fact gave him in the very least,

18 incomplete information, because had it been true that Tarculovski said

19 this about Boskoski at the meeting, there should also be there text to the

20 effect that not only he did not say this, but something quite contrary was

21 included in the handwritten text?

22 A. It is correct that there are discrepancies between what is

23 presented in the information note and what is presented in the Official

24 Note.

25 Q. But the minister didn't know that, because he did not receive the

1 Official Note. Correct?

2 A. That is correct. However, I'm looking for the precise word. This

3 is not of decisive importance because the minister is only informed about

4 any, and I repeat, any measures that should possibly be taken. The normal

5 course would be to complete the entire set of documents and to submit the

6 complete set of documents to the minister or to anyone else, to present

7 the complete documents available.

8 Q. However, would you agree with me that had the minister received

9 information only from the one side and not from the other, that

10 Tarculovski mentioned Boskoski and that on the second occasion it was said

11 that he received information from the villagers, then that would imply

12 that the minister was not informed about the information available to the

13 commission?

14 A. I can say that this is not the case with Mr. Johan only. There

15 are other statements; if you read them, there are discrepancies there as

16 well. So the purpose was to inform the minister what persons have been

17 interviewed, what was the course of the interview, what information had

18 been received, but I can agree with you that still this is not data of

19 minor importance. This is essential data that the committee should have

20 clarified so that it is known --

21 Q. In your first report, Minister Boskoski was mentioned without any

22 reason, even though Tarculovski in his handwritten document did not state

23 this at all.

24 A. This should have been clarified. This was a discrepancy,

25 contradictory notion between the Official Note and the data mentioned in

1 the information note so that we arrive at the understanding where the

2 omission was made.

3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the speakers to wait

4 for the interpretation to be finished.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. It seems that

6 there's a mistake in your answer, when you wanted to clarify something.

7 It is stated here that there is a discrepancy in the date. Would you

8 please slowly repeat your answer, because there was no mention of the date

9 in your answer, rather, you mentioned an important fact that needs to be

10 included in the transcript.

11 Q. So would you please tell us: Is it true that the information

12 supplied to the minister did not contain an important fact which differed

13 from what was stated in the report and which was included in the

14 handwritten document of Johan Tarculovski?

15 A. It is correct that there are -- that there is a discrepancy

16 regarding part of the statement of Mr. Tarculovski, from what you read in

17 the information that has been officially submitted to the minister and his

18 Official Note which has been - as far as I know - produced immediately

19 after his interview. Considering the fact that the data, the fact is

20 important, the committee should have undertook activities to clarify this

21 fact, to see what is at the root of this discrepancy, is it the officer

22 who produced the note, or was it Mr. Tarculovski when writing his Official

23 Note, because his statement was given before all -- many members of the

24 committee.

25 Q. And you were not in attendance so you cannot confirm what he has

1 stated or not?

2 A. No.

3 Q. My learned friend showed to you yesterday the document that was

4 disclosed to the Defence, which is information or report dated the 28th of

5 May, 2003. Do you remember that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. The president of the commission did not attend this meeting, and

8 you did not interview anyone on that occasion. Correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. At the time you were told that there were some documents that had

11 been furnished to the commission. Correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And on page 1, it is stated, first of all, that in the reply to

14 the cable sent to the security sector, Skopje, a report was sent that in

15 the stated period of time in the village of Ljuboten, members of active

16 and reserve forces from the SVR Skopje, police stations Cair and Mirkovci,

17 were deployed at the check-points Chinese wall, Straiste and Busalak and

18 that these check-points had been operational previously as well.

19 Further, it was stated that on the 12th of August, 2001 at around

20 1600 hours, in order to block a road, the village of Ljuboten -- or

21 rather, in order to block the road between the village of Ljuboten and

22 Cair from the -- or, rather, two platoons were established by the Skopje

23 SVR; one of the platoons belonged to the SVR of Skopje, and the other

24 platoon belonged to the rapid intervention unit called the Lions, and that

25 their task was to ensure safe passage of the citizens leaving the village

1 of Ljuboten on their way to Skopje.

2 Do you remember that this was written in your information or

3 report?

4 A. This information was produced on the basis of answers received

5 from several services or units within the Ministry of Interior, and upon

6 the request of the committee to send a cable to them so that they reply on

7 the 12th of August, where were the police members deployed, police members

8 belonging to each of those organisational units.

9 What you are reading now is the reply from the sector for internal

10 affairs, SVR Skopje, as far as I can understand.

11 Q. In the same report or information you stated that had you received

12 a piece of information or some kind of a report from the commander of the

13 unit for terrorist activities. Correct?

14 A. Yes. That the unit Lions was not established then.

15 Q. And the unit for anti-terrorist activities is actually something

16 that used to be known as rapid intervention unit. Correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the speakers not to

19 overlap.

20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. So it was known as the rapid intervention battalion, known as

22 Lions, or lavovi. And you have already told us that the commander of that

23 unit informed you that the Lions had not been in Ljuboten because on the

24 12th of August, they did not exist at all. Correct?

25 A. Correct.

1 Q. We had a witness testify before this Court, Risto Galevski. In

2 your own words, he is an outstanding professional, and at that time he was

3 the head of the unit of uniformed policemen, the entire department of

4 uniformed police.

5 Would you agree with me that he is a person who knew which units

6 were part of the Ministry of Interior and that he also knew whether the

7 Lions existed or not?

8 A. Considering his long years of service, yes.

9 Q. And if General Risto Galevski, before this Court testified that

10 the Lions had not been in Ljuboten for the simple reason that in August of

11 2001 they did not exist, then we could rely on his words. Correct?

12 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honour.

13 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

14 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honour.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Motoike.

16 MS. MOTOIKE: Apologies. But it's to this particular question I

17 would object as I don't believe this witness could speak to this

18 particular issue.

19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The witness has already answered

20 this question, Your Honours. Had she been unable to answer, she would not

21 have answered.

22 However, I can see now that the answer was not recorded.

23 JUDGE PARKER: And it should not be.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Are you aware who is Goran Georgievski?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Thank you. So if you do not know him, I will not show to you what

3 Goran Georgievski stated to the OTP investigators.

4 You had contradictory information from the commander of, as you

5 say SVR Skopje as well, and you did not attempt to clarify which of the

6 information was correct. Is that so?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In this information of 28th of May, you indicated that you were

9 informed that there is some information about the events at Ljuboten

10 village according to which - allegedly - some persons arrived to the Cair

11 police station to demand to be issued weapons. Do you recall having

12 written this in your information?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. But is it also correct that this information was never submitted

15 to the committee and you never saw this information personally?

16 A. That kind of information was submitted to the commission.

17 Q. However, it is not included in the documents of the commission.

18 Correct?

19 A. These things that were submitted here to the Court, I don't know.

20 Q. Do you know who produced that information?

21 A. I cannot tell you that.

22 Q. Very well. Thank you.

23 When answering my learned friend's questions, you said that you

24 also produced the report or information on the 25th of November, 2003.

25 Correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness now be shown

3 Exhibit P379, MFI, 65 ter document 285.6, N000-8909; that's the Macedonian

4 version. And then the English version is N000-8944.

5 Q. Do you remember this report or information being shown to you?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You said that that document included information about the

8 interviews held between the 12th and 20th of November, 2003. Correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Prior to that, or, rather, on the first day of your work, on the

11 12th of November, you interviewed Johan Tarculovski again.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. On this occasion, just like in his Official Note,

14 Johan Tarculovski did not mention in any way Minister Boskoski in relation

15 to the events in Ljuboten. Correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You have before you the report or information 871 drafted on the

18 25th of November, 2003. If we look at this information, on page

19 N000-8991, the Macedonian version, and N000-8946, then we could see that

20 the commission --

21 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is now page 3 of this

22 document.

23 Q. -- namely, that the commission talked with the employees of the

24 ministry Vladimir Cagorovic, Ljube Krstevski and Vanco Ginovski. Correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Prior to that you said that on the 12th you also interviewed

2 Zoran Jovanovski, known as Bucuk. Correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Following that in your information, it is stated that you

5 interviewed Ljupco Bliznakovski also on the 20th of November, which can be

6 seen on page 6 of this information.

7 It seems that the ERN numbers and pages are not correct.

8 Therefore, you said there that you interviewed

9 Ljupco Bliznakovski, Pero Stojanovski and Trajce Kuzmanovski. Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. On the last page, you stated that you also interviewed

12 Radojko Lozanovski and Miodrag Stojanovski. Correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Since there is no English text, we

15 cannot see the page that I mentioned, because these are voluminous

16 documents. It says on my copy that is N000-8949, and page 6 of this

17 document; and then the one we see in Macedonian is page 3 on the document.

18 This one we can see in Macedonian on the screen right now is page 3 of the

19 information in the English version.

20 Your Honours, perhaps is not essential for us to see it on the

21 screen. I'm reading from the document which is Exhibit P379, and if the

22 witness is in the position to answer, then she should do so, because it is

23 obvious that we are experiencing some problems with calling them on the

24 screen. And since they don't have the appropriate numbers in e-court,

25 they are difficult to locate.

1 And perhaps it would be a good time for the break, if we are going

2 to respect what you said at the beginning.

3 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... We will have a

4 break now and resume at five past 5.00, and hopefully matters will be in

5 order by then.

6 --- Recess taken at 4.43 p.m.

7 --- On resuming at 5.09 p.m.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Ms. Residovic.

10 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

11 Q. Ms. Groseva, you still have in front of you the information on

12 25th of November, 2003. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And I would like to ask now that the screen displays page 3 in the

15 Macedonian version N000-8991, while the English is N000-8946. And as you

16 stated a while ago, it can be seen here that on the 19th of November,

17 2003, you questioned Vladimir Cagorovic, Ljube Krstevski and

18 Vanco Ginovski. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Before that on the previous page it was just noted that on the

21 12th, Johan Tarculovski and Zoran Jovanovski, Bucuk, were questioned. Is

22 that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. I would like to ask you now to look at the page 12 in the

25 Macedonian. That is N000-8915, while the English is N000-8949.

1 And here, in the second paragraph, in Macedonian, and the first

2 paragraph in the English version, read that on the 28th of November, 2003,

3 you questioned Ljupco Bliznakovski and Pero Stojanovski. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The last paragraph at the English page and that is at the

6 following page in Macedonian, N000-8916, reads that you also interviewed

7 Trajce Kuzmanovski. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. In the last page of the information, and that is Macedonian

10 N000-8917 and English N000-8950, read that you interviewed

11 Radojko Lozanovski and Miodrag Stojanovski. Is that correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. So between the 12th and the 25th, you interviewed

14 Miodrag Stojanovski, Radojko Lozanovski, Ljube Krstevski, Vanco Ginovski

15 Vladimir Cagorovic, Zoran Jovanovski, Bucuk, Ljupco Bliznakovski,

16 Pero Stojanovski, and Trajce Kuzmanovski. Are these all the persons that

17 you interviewed during that period?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Among those individuals - Ljupco Bliznakovski, Pero Stojanovski

20 and Radojko Lozanovski - although they were officers of the Ministry of

21 the Interior, they did not produce Official Notes in accordance with your

22 standard procedure. Do you agree with this?

23 A. I could not confirm this. Maybe their Official Notes are

24 contained in the dossier of the committee, in the files of the committee,

25 however, they were not requested or maybe they were not submitted. But it

1 is also possible that they had not produced such notes. I really could

2 not answer this question, neither in affirmative nor in negative.

3 Q. Zoran Jovanovski, Bucuk, and Trajce Kuzmanovski were not members

4 of the MOI?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And they needed written summons. However, there is no evidence

7 that they were invited through such written summons and there are no

8 minutes compiled on their interview. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. When I asked you previously, you answered that you did

11 not have the authority to communicate the information to other parties

12 outside of the Ministry of Interior. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes. Can I clarify this briefly?

14 So in the Ministry of Interior, there is a procedure.

15 Q. Please go ahead.

16 A. The information submitted to the minister of the interior, if

17 there is a need to submit to external users or parties outside of the

18 Ministry of Interior, such information are then redrafted, meaning that we

19 use initials instead of persons' names. Not all issues are presented in

20 such informations, so there is a procedure in which way the leadership of

21 the Ministry of Interior is informed and also there is a procedure for

22 communicating such information outside of the Ministry of Interior.

23 Q. In your statement in paragraph 7, you stated that you communicated

24 the information also to Besim Ramicevic, who was the liaison officer for

25 the Prosecutor of the ICTY. Do you remember having said this?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Considering what you stated previously, tell me, were you

3 authorised for this by the minister or did you do this because you

4 believed he should be communicated such information?

5 A. The information were communicated to Besim Ramicevic who was the

6 liaison officer upon his request. So an official request was submitted to

7 the analytics department that for the needs of the ICTY, he needs certain

8 information to be submitted to him.

9 However, the feedback on how he forwarded those information,

10 whether he had forwarded just the originals or whether he had redrafted

11 those, I did not receive such feedback. So that is a communication

12 between two employees of the Ministry of Interior.

13 Q. You, the analytics department, could be requested information by

14 other heads in the ministry and you had the duty to submit information to

15 them as well.

16 A. It is correct.

17 Q. So communicating information to Ramicevic, the liaison officer,

18 you considered to be not your duty in your capacity of the committee

19 member, but, rather, in your capacity of the head of the analytics sector.

20 Is that correct?

21 A. Yes. There was no discussion in the committee meetings about

22 communicating information produced by the committee. That was rather, a

23 communication between two services, two units within the Ministry of

24 Interior.

25 Q. And considering that you believed that this was internal

1 communication, you did not inform the committee about that fact, that you

2 communicated all the information to Besim Ramicevic who was the liaison

3 officer with the ICTY. Is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask that we look

6 now at the Exhibit P251, MFI, which bears the Macedonian number N000-6433,

7 while the English page is numbered N000-6433-N000-6435-ET.

8 Q. The information notes that the Ministry of Interior communicated

9 and it was signed -- the last page of it was signed by Besim Ramicevic was

10 shown to you yesterday by my learned friend, the Prosecutor. Do you

11 recall this?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. That information is written on the 16th of June, 2003. Is

14 that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And it was submitted to the office of the ICTY in Skopje, handed

17 personally to Mr. Andrzej Cidlik. Is that correct?

18 A. I don't know how was it submitted. I did not produce this.

19 Q. My question is whether it is written here --

20 A. Yes, yes, I apologise.

21 Q. The subject of this information is: Report on activities to date

22 concerning the investigation into events in the village of Ljuboten. Is

23 that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Among other things, if we look now at the page 2 of this document,

1 and that is Macedonian N000-6434, and English N000-6433-N000-6435-ET, you

2 see here then on the second page, in the Macedonian version in the last

3 paragraph, while in the English version that is the third paragraph from

4 the bottom, that it reads here that Johan Tarculovski had stated that he

5 had been an inspector in the sector for security and that the minister

6 Ljube Boskoski, personally called him and gave him orders to resolve the

7 situation related to the presence of suspect Xhavid Asani at Ljuboten

8 village. Do you see this written here?

9 A. Yes, yes.

10 Q. Actually, this part, this information that was sent to the ICTY

11 office is based only on the first information of the 6th of May, the

12 meeting that did you not attend, so you don't know what Johan Tarculovski

13 actually stated. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. This information does not state that Johan Tarculovski wrote in

16 his own hand the information where he did not mention Ljube Boskoski at

17 all, where he actually mentioned completely different sources of

18 information about Xhavid Asani. Is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you agree with me that in this way, a completely unverified and

21 completely incomplete information was sent outside of the ministry, not

22 what the committee had available at that time?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. In this statement, if we look at it again, if we look

25 at the information, now at the page 3, and that is N000-6435, and the

1 English version is N000-6433-N000-6435-ET. It mentions here in the last

2 paragraph in the English version, and in the second paragraph of this

3 Macedonian version information, it mentions the individual

4 Ljube Krstevski, head of the OVR Cair, who had ordered that the issuance

5 of weapons is not allowed; but that on the following date, on the 11th of

6 August, 2001, he informed the administrator of this station via mobile

7 phone that upon the order of a superior officer from the MOI, he should

8 issue weapons and equipment to persons who are present there.

9 Do you remember that when we were looking at your information of

10 25th of November we ascertained - actually, you confirmed - that you had

11 interviewed Ljube Krstevski and Radojko Lozanovski who is that

12 administrator, only in the period between the 12th and the 25th of

13 November. So do you agree that it was only then that you received certain

14 information from these individuals?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if you remember --

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] If we could look again that

18 information, and I will try to find the part which states what

19 Ljube Krstevski stated. That is the page -- Macedonian page is N000-8912,

20 and the English is N000-8946. It is a part of Exhibit P379, MFI.

21 Q. And if you managed to find this page of the information, you see

22 there that Ljube Krstevski allegedly said to your committee that he

23 received such order from Ljupco Bliznakovski and it reads precisely: "On

24 the 11th of August, around 2200 hours by the deputy Stojanovski Pero and

25 Bliznakovski Ljupco, I received an order together with the army

1 representative Major Despodov to go to the village of Ljuboten and

2 establish contact with Johan and the others."

3 Do you agree with me, again, that the information that was sent to

4 the office of the International Tribunal in Skopje about what

5 Ljube Krstevski allegedly stated, persons -- person who had not been

6 interviewed by the committee by that time is again a crude mistake in

7 presenting the information obtained by the committee?

8 A. In this note, this note is signed by Mr. Ramicevic on behalf of

9 the Ministry of Interior. But the fact is that the committee materials

10 were used, and with regards to this part where he mentions the head

11 Ljube Krstevski, I am really unable to say where the data came from, whether

12 he had received the data through operative channels, because at that time

13 he could not have had information from the committee about an interview

14 with the head Ljube Krstevski because there has not been such interview at

15 that time, and I really could not answer where the information came from,

16 where he had received this information from.

17 Q. At any rate, from what you answered previously, Besim Ramicevic,

18 was not authorised by the committee to communicate the information

19 anywhere outside the ministry. Is that correct?

20 A. The committee never discussed communicating information outside of

21 the ministry.

22 Q. And Besim Ramicevic as a member of the committee never informed

23 you that he communicated all the information from the committee to the

24 office of the ICTY?

25 A. I had information that information are communicated, but when I

1 was visited by the ICTY for the first time, it was then that I saw that

2 the original documents were submitted, the original information note. I

3 thought that the information was redrafted, processed, not submitted the

4 original, the entire information, the information note in the entirety. I

5 only saw it when I was visited -- when I was interviewed for the first

6 time.

7 Q. And you saw then that absolutely unverified information were sent,

8 that you could not ascertain later within the committee, also about

9 Ljube Boskoski. Is that correct?

10 A. Yes, it is correct.

11 Q. Thank you. And you stated - this is also written in the committee

12 decision - that Besim Ramicevic is head of the department for violent

13 crime. Is that correct?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Did Besim Ramicevic ever inform you as a committee member about

16 the activities that he himself and his department undertook within the

17 ministry in 2001?

18 A. Which activities? I do not understand.

19 Q. Activities at Ljuboten village.

20 A. No.

21 Q. Did Besim Ramicevic ever inform you as a committee member that the

22 ministry made a proposal after the on-site investigation failed and after

23 it was impossible to ascertain what has happened at the village, did he

24 inform that you the initiative -- that the ministry made a motion to the

25 prosecutor's office and to the court in Skopje to perform exhumation of

1 the bodies in the village?

2 A. Maybe that was discussed, but any such document that such

3 initiative has been made, the committee hasn't seen. But maybe in the

4 discussions between them, between the committee members that was

5 mentioned, but in the preparatory work, in the agreeing what the committee

6 will do. But the documents, official materials, we have not seen.

7 Q. Did Besim Ramicevic ever inform you that he, on behalf of the

8 ministry, attended the meetings with the prosecutor, the judge, forensic

9 medicine experts, discussing with them how to conduct exhumation and

10 post-mortem and that he produced a written document on this topic?

11 A. I will give you the same answer. Maybe he had verbally mentioned

12 something you and gave certain proposals, but we have not -- but he had

13 failed to submit anything in a written form to the committee.

14 Q. I understood you well. You had no documents whatsoever concerning

15 the measures that had been taken in order to clarify and look into the

16 situation in the events in the village of Ljuboten in 2001. Correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Given the discrepancies that exist in the information that was put

19 to you, discrepancies between what one person said - we looked into what

20 Johan Tarculovski said - and we saw that there were three different

21 versions of that. Given that that was the state of affairs, did you

22 attempt at any point in time to verify further these facts?

23 A. As a committee?

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. According to our practice, this is something that would have been

1 done at the very end of the task.

2 Q. We could also see there that there was a statement by, say,

3 Gjorgji Mitrov and by Zivko Gacovski, who describe completely differently

4 the issuance of weapons. That was another fact that in your view did not

5 need to be further verified and so on. You simply wrote down who said

6 what. Correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. In Ljube Krstevski's statement you also wrote down that he

9 received orders from Bliznakovski and Stojanovski; whereas what they

10 themselves stated was completely contrary to what Ljube Krstevski said.

11 This is yet another piece of information that you never verified. You

12 simply wrote down who said what. Correct?

13 A. Yes. Because as I had clarified earlier our task was just to

14 collect information. We were not conducting an investigation.

15 Q. So in your information, in your reports, there were several

16 versions and essentially you never reached any conclusion. Correct?

17 A. That is correct.

18 Q. And it was clear to you, wasn't it, that the persons you

19 interviewed did not have an obligation to speak the truth before your

20 commission. Correct?

21 A. We did not conduct an investigation. We just had an interview

22 with them.

23 Q. This is why you never cautioned any of these persons about their

24 rights, that they could have, be it as witnesses or suspects, because,

25 simply, you were not authorised to caution them on their rights. Correct?

1 A. It is correct.

2 Q. And it is for those reasons that your commission never attempted

3 to carry out the last task in that decision, to establish the

4 responsibility. Correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So even though you worked for eight months rather than for two

7 months as you were initially instructed in the decision, you never

8 established responsibility of anyone who could have killed somebody in the

9 village.

10 A. We did not have the authority to nominate somebody as a suspect or

11 to investigate. Our goal was to gather information in order to find out

12 what is it that happened in Ljuboten. So we had no intention to make

13 somebody a formal suspect. As a committee, we had no authority like that.

14 Q. You never even received information about somebody killing

15 somebody. Correct?

16 A. No, we didn't.

17 Q. You also did not receive any piece of information about somebody

18 setting a house on fire.

19 A. Based upon the statements that we got from our colleagues, no.

20 Q. When it comes to mistreatment of persons, you only had information

21 provided by Krstevski that 15 members of the army mistreated some persons.

22 You had no other information about this. Correct?

23 A. It is correct.

24 Q. And if this information were true, then police could not institute

25 any proceedings against members of the army. Correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Some of the persons interviewed provided information that on the

3 Radishan road, which was blocked, the police went there to assist and to

4 separate civilians from the villagers of Ljuboten and to prevent further

5 unfavourable developments. I simply summarized what some of the

6 interviewed persons said. Do you remember that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. So even had you been an authorised official who was authorised to

9 make an inquiry into this, you still would not have been able to institute

10 any disciplinary action against civilians or members who were not employed

11 by the Ministry of Interior. Correct?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. In the work you conducted, you did not gather a single fact which

14 could imply that a specific person from the ministry went beyond their

15 authorities.

16 A. Based upon what we received as information, as data, such

17 information were not presented to us in any of the interviews with our

18 colleagues.

19 Q. Thank you very much. I have just one more question concerning

20 this and then I will turn briefly to some other topics concerning your

21 professional duties.

22 If I were to tell you that at the time there were certain people

23 and certain forces who wanted to -- to frame Minister Boskoski at any

24 cost, what would you say to that?

25 A. I wouldn't know what to tell you, what to answer you.

1 Q. That's a very honest answer. Thank you.

2 However, after there was a change in the government,

3 great purges were carried out in the Ministry, and many persons

4 close to Boskoski were removed from office. Are you familiar

5 with this?

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. My question is: Are you familiar with this?

8 A. No, I'm not familiar with that.

9 Q. All right. Thank you. Now have I just a few more questions

10 concerning your work.

11 Is it true that you within the analytics department tried to

12 preserve the document in accordance with the regulations that regulate

13 this to the extent possible?

14 A. The sector for analytics, according to the rules, we

15 archive and document -- of documentation from the area of public

16 security.

17 Q. However, would you agree with me that in 2001, during the crisis,

18 it was very difficult to fulfil this task.

19 A. Yes. The situation in 2001 was extraordinary.

20 Q. And it could be said that all of you worked around the clock?

21 A. That is correct.

22 Q. And in order to preserve your documentation, if what I was told

23 was true, you had to do the following. From the area of Tetovo which was

24 particularly at risk, you had to remove some documentation in order to

25 preserve it. Correct?

1 A. Yes, that is true. They were brought in the archive of the

2 Ministry of Interior.

3 Q. However, due to numerous events, frequently, the information was

4 not communicated in the normal procedure, but, rather was conveyed by

5 phone. Correct?

6 A. All the forwarding of information in the ministry is done

7 according to Rule book that concerns this. But, however, you said

8 yourself in 2001 you were working under in a situation with an armed

9 conflict was present. The way we disseminated information then was in

10 such a way that we all deviated from these rules. Therefore, we would

11 inform people over the phone. Sometimes we would do it orally. The

12 written information was sometimes late, but the circumstances under which

13 we worked were such at that time.

14 However, for every event we disseminated the information and the

15 relevant materials were forwarded.

16 Q. It could happen that some verbal information was not recorded so

17 there was really nothing for you to preserve. Correct?

18 A. That was possible. Especially in the crisis days.

19 Q. For example, if an investigative judge noted down that the

20 operations centre on duty informed him back on the 12th in the afternoon

21 that there were dead bodies in Ljuboten, then the ministry carried out its

22 task regardless of whether the information on this was recorded and

23 preserved in the ministry or not.

24 A. The task was completed, but I'm pretty sure there was written

25 information about it. I say this with the confidence of 15 years working

1 in the department of analytics. And I'm sure that those -- that that

2 information is available in the Ministry of Interior.

3 Q. For example, even if somebody dutifully noted down that piece of

4 information, it could have also happened that during that period of time

5 you used a special paper for cables that used to fade away very fast and,

6 basically, was illegible after a year. Correct?

7 A. True, that was a very serious problem but those were the

8 circumstances under which we had to operate. After a year, the only thing

9 we were left was a white sheet of paper.

10 Q. And, naturally, you destroyed such sheets of paper because they

11 were useless.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Naturally, your work depended on the skills and qualifications of

14 people who worked in police stations and departments of internal affairs.

15 Correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. It could have also happened that they failed to convey a certain

18 piece of information. In that case, it would have been impossible for you

19 to establish whether something had happened or not.

20 A. I will reiterate. Those were extraordinary circumstances. It was

21 difficult to inform people, considering the situation because part of the

22 people, employees from the analytics department had to go in the field

23 when a case -- when the situation required that. However, we kept

24 disseminating information and I'm sure the failure to find a document does

25 not mean that that document does not exist. That document can be in a

1 completely different file because, unfortunately, the Ministry of Interior

2 does not archive the documents electronically; we do not scan our

3 documents or put them on microfiche. This is something that we do

4 manually. And it is expected that in such a huge number of materials for

5 something to be misplaced, to be put in a different file place other than

6 the one that is proper.

7 Q. Now that have you mentioned this. It is true that it's only in

8 the last year or two during your term as head that the documentation is

9 archived in a proper way, and this is why it is very difficult to

10 establish whether a document is misplaced or lost completely, because this

11 was not done in a proper way previously.

12 A. It's true. This is a very serious problem and I will tell you

13 this, you can understand it any way you want. I had been -- I was an

14 analyst myself and I have misplaced documents. There are piles and piles

15 of materials and it just happens that every now and then that the -- I

16 couldn't file the file in the -- the document in the proper file and then

17 it turns up somewhere else. Now we are going through this archive and

18 reorganising it.

19 Q. Now I have just a few more questions relating to your work.

20 All the basic information stemming from people in the field, from

21 policemen on duty in police stations and so on, are forwarded to the

22 department of the internal affairs?

23 A. Correct.

24 Q. And this same information is sent to the department for analytics,

25 within that same department of internal affairs. Correct?

1 A. Correct.

2 Q. This department includes all the most important events in its

3 report or information which is then further sent to Skopje, to the sector

4 for analytics. Correct?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. The Skopje sector has several departments, and it produces a

7 document called information on a daily basis or on a basis of different

8 topics where they condense the most important events based on the

9 information that they had received and they sent this condensed

10 information to you, to the sector for analytics. Correct?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. Just as you in MVR receive information from the territory of the

13 entire state, you then draft a report on weekly events or daily events,

14 depending on what the situation is and then this information produced to

15 you is sent to senior officials within the security field or to ministers

16 and so on, or perhaps to the under-secretary for police, depending who is

17 competent for the information that you compiled. Correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. Now, please tell me, these cables, Official Notes and so on, is it

20 delivered to the minister on a daily basis, all of that?

21 A. Not all telegrams and information from the regional offices are

22 submitted to the ministry; and to the minister, I can say that they're

23 almost never forwarded because the minister receives processed information

24 that are made available to him with them. His day starts with a daily

25 bulletin about the security issues and activities on the territory of

1 Republic of Macedonia and the sector for analytics and research submits

2 this information. They're not telegrams, they're not Official Notes from

3 the regional organisational units.

4 Q. And that's how it was before Mr. Boskoski. This is it how the

5 minister used to be informed when Mr. Boskoski was in the office and this

6 is how the ministers are informed nowadays. Correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Now each minister, the ministers before Boskoski, then

9 Mr. Boskoski and then ministers after Mr. Boskoski, relied on the

10 information received from the entire ministry via different specialist

11 channels. Correct?

12 A. That is correct. Because I have to do my job responsibly and

13 professionally. Mistakes happen but in the communication with the

14 minister, we point out our mistakes, we correct them, but 90 per cent of

15 the cases everything is done professionally and in an expert manner.

16 Q. Now, finally, if the minister needed to request some information

17 from the ministry, say, somebody from outside the ministry requested the

18 minister to inform him about something or to deliver some documents, would

19 it be proper for the minister to send this request to his under-secretary

20 for police, his under-secretary for crime police, and his official or head

21 of the sector for analytics asking them to reply to this request so that

22 he, in turn, could forward this information to the party requesting it?

23 A. I would just like to correct you by saying that it was submitted

24 to the director of public security and the director of public security was

25 forwarded to the sector of analytics because the whole communication and

1 correspondence with other ministries, with the government are realised

2 through the sector for analytics and research or -- or also with

3 international organisation. We do this communication through the sector

4 for analytics and research.

5 Q. So the minister could never sit himself and write an information

6 or go to the field to investigate something?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Thank you very much,, Ms. Groseva.

9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have completed the

10 cross-examination of this witness.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Ms. Residovic.

12 I think it might be a convenient time to take the next break now

13 and we would resume at 25 minutes past 6.00.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE PARKER: I'm reminded that it could be useful,

16 Mr. Apostolski, to inquire how long you anticipate being.

17 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I hope to finish

18 the cross-examination of this witness today.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Does that include re-examination? Give it some

20 serious thought during the break, Mr. Apostolski. Thank you.

21 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

22 --- Recess taken at 6.01 p.m.

23 --- On resuming at 6.26 p.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Apostolski.

25 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Good evening.

1 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:

2 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, witness Tatjana Groseva, my name is

3 Antonio Apostolski, and together with Jasmina Zivkovic we defend

4 Mr. Johan Tarculovski.

5 You were the member of the committee that investigated the

6 circumstances and the factual situation about the activities of the

7 village of Ljuboten on the period of August of 2001. Is that correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Besides you, there were six other members of the committee, so

10 that brings a total of seven members of the committee. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Could you tell me what was the minimum number of people necessary

13 in order for the committee to start working?

14 A. There was not such a number. In case somebody was absent, the

15 reasons for that person's absence were identified.

16 Q. You mentioned that you were not present at the first meeting. Is

17 it correct that -- that Mr. Emilio Frisic did not attend any of the

18 committee's meetings?

19 A. As I already said, in case if somebody was not present and I

20 thought you were able to see that in the information where it had been

21 stated that -- an issue of information the people absent are listed

22 together with the reasons for their absence.

23 Q. Is it correct that in the interview with Johan Tarculovski, he was

24 not informed of his right to -- to remain silent and not answer any of

25 these questions?

1 A. Are we talking about the meeting of the committee at which I was

2 present?

3 Q. For both.

4 A. At which I was not present, I cannot tell you about those at which

5 I was not present, but I think is an important fact and that would have

6 been listed in the information. However, I was not present at this

7 meeting. At the second interrogation of Mr. Tarculovski, besides -- apart

8 from telling him that he has the right to have his own attorney, no

9 other -- he was not informed of any of his other rights.

10 Q. Is it correct that Johan Tarculovski had not been cautioned and

11 warned that these statements -- that the statements that he makes there

12 will not -- could be used in any of the meetings, in any future trial and

13 court procedures in Macedonia?

14 A. That is correct. But I will report that we were not conducting an

15 investigation, we're just gathering information.

16 Q. Is it true that Johan Tarculovski was not warned that his

17 statement will be used in any procedure in -- in a disciplinary procedure

18 against him or any other person?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You did not warn him that those statements could be used in an

21 administrative procedure against him or another person. Is that correct?

22 A. I repeat: Apart from informing him of the right for attorney, no

23 other rights were told -- we did not tell Mr. Tarculovski of any other

24 rights.

25 Q. Is it true that according to the Law on Criminal Procedure in the

1 Republic of Macedonia that is any statements given in a police station in

2 front of the police cannot be used in the court procedure afterwards?

3 A. I do not work in that area. But from what I hear, I think that is

4 true. But I do not work in this field.

5 Q. Is it true that you did not warn him about the rights that --

6 from -- that -- that are important from Article 3, 4, and 210 from the Law

7 on Criminal Procedure and for which rights you are responsible to inform

8 him?

9 A. We did not inform anybody of their rights nor were -- had they

10 been warned about this Article that you just read.

11 Q. Thank you very much. Is it true that the committee did not use

12 the provisions from the Law on Criminal Procedure?

13 A. The committee was established -- I don't want to speak without

14 having that in front of me, but there are certain provisions according to

15 which the committee was established.

16 Q. Is it true that you did not use the Law on Criminal Procedure in

17 the course of this procedure in the work of this committee?

18 A. We were -- we did not conduct an investigation to implement these

19 provisions. This was just an interview.

20 Q. Is it true that in the course of the work the committee did not

21 use the provisions from the administrative procedure of the Republic of

22 Macedonia?

23 A. I will give you the same answer.

24 Q. Is it true that in the work -- during the work, the committee did

25 not abide by the disciplinary procedure within the Ministry of Interior?

1 A. We had not identified any kind of responsibility in order to start

2 the disciplinary procedure and it is not our authority to do so. There is

3 a separate committee that recognises and identifies somebody's

4 disciplinary responsibility.

5 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

6 Article 156 of the Law on Criminal Procedure. That is P number 88,

7 exhibit 88, N001-9063, Macedonian version, and N001-9177-037, English

8 version.

9 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask the speakers to

10 pause between question and answer. There is interpretation going on in

11 several languages.

12 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

13 Q. This is it Article 156. Do you see it on the display in front of

14 you?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Is it true that in Article 156 it says that in the undertaking of

17 investigative activity, the Ministry of Interior acts according to the

18 relevant provisions for the Law on Investigative Activities?

19 A. Correct.

20 Q. Is that -- does that mean in the course of the work and in the

21 conducting of any kind of activities, the Ministry of the Interior needs

22 to abide by the Law on Criminal Procedure?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is it true, and we had the opportunity to see yesterday the

25 summons that you gave -- gave to Mr. Johan Tarculovski, since you said

1 that you have issued summons to all civilians, that it is -- that the

2 summons were issued according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, because on

3 the receipt it says that -- that the party was warned according to the

4 provisions of certain Article 156 that if the person does not show up

5 voluntarily that person will taken in by force?

6 A. I cannot answer this question, because the issuing of the summons

7 and the whole procedure was realised by other members of the committee, so

8 I cannot answer anything about this part of the question.

9 Q. I would like to -- that the witness be shown 56 TR, 6285 -- 2885.8

10 [as interpreted].

11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would like to ask again the

12 speakers to pause between question and answer for the interpretation and

13 for the transcript.

14 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] 65 ter -- it's in front of us.

15 Q. You can see the receipt in front of you. That is the same receipt

16 that my colleagues from the Prosecution showed you yesterday.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Is it true that here we can see at the last paragraph just above

19 the signatures, that it says: "I was warned of the consequences pursuant

20 to Article 142, paragraph 3 of the Law on Criminal Procedure."

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Does this mean that the committee invited people to -- to an

23 interview according to the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure?

24 A. I cannot really give you an answer on this because the instruction

25 that this be issued and the way in this receipts were issued were done by

1 other members of the committee. This document was given to me in order to

2 include it in the file so as to prove that this person was invited

3 according to the procedure.

4 Q. But as a colleague, a lawyer, can you confirm to me that this

5 receipt is -- has the legal part, caution according to the Law on Criminal

6 Procedure?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Does this mean that you had to work according to the Law on

9 Criminal Procedure?

10 A. In the introduction of the decision -- the introduction to the

11 decision lists our task and what is it that we have to do. I clarify that

12 we were on the working on the part concerning the collecting of the

13 information for the purpose of finding, determining what is it that was

14 happening in the village of Ljuboten. And we did not undertake any other

15 activities.

16 Q. Since you are a MOI employee with a long career, could you answer

17 me this: Is it true that on the basis of the information gathered, the

18 MOI compiles a criminal report where it indicates the evidence that they

19 have learned or obtained?

20 A. I work in the analytics department for 15 years, but I have seen a

21 criminal report in the course of my work, and as a lawyer I can say that

22 it contains facts and evidence.

23 Q. So my conclusion is correct, that the MOI compiles the criminal

24 report where it indicates the evidence that it has found and it submits

25 this to the public prosecutor's office, basic public prosecutor's office.

1 Is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Is it correct that the criminal report does not contain the

4 contents of the statements that certain citizens have given in the course

5 of information gathering?

6 A. I think that our colleagues do not enclose the statements.

7 Q. Yes, this is provided in Article 142, paragraph 6 of the Law on

8 Criminal Procedure for the purposes of the transcript. And this is

9 Exhibit P88.

10 Is it so, because the court could not use the statements given to

11 the police as evidence, that is pursuant to Article 149 of the Law on

12 criminal procedure?

13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure about the Article

14 number.

15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be shown

16 ERN N001-9177-019, English version, and ERN N001-9039, Macedonian version,

17 Exhibit P88.

18 Q. Do you see the Article 79 in front of you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Does this refresh your memory, in relation to the previous

21 question I've asked you?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that since the court cannot use

24 statements given to the police as evidence, they are not entered into the

25 criminal report. Is that correct?

1 A. I will answer again. I think so, from what I've seen of criminal

2 reports, considering that I do not produce criminal reports. But from

3 what I have seen, these statements are not enclosed as evidence.

4 Q. Very well. Thank you. I have asked you before what was the

5 quorum, the minimum number of attendees necessary for the committee to

6 work? Could you tell me considering that the committee had seven members,

7 what was the majority with which the committee made its decisions?

8 A. There was not a quorum pre-determined or any majority since the

9 only decisions adopted by the committee were the decisions related which

10 persons -- related to which persons to invite for interviews.

11 Q. I would like to ask you, you had produced several reports. Was it

12 necessary for all committee members to be in agreement so that the reports

13 are initialed and developed?

14 A. I have clarified the procedure. After I would draft the

15 information, I would submit it to the members who were in attendance.

16 When I receive agreement in feedback, I then communicated to the Minister

17 of the Interior.

18 Q. Is it correct that you had no final document on the operation of

19 the committee?

20 A. We had final information from which -- information from the final

21 meeting, information from the final meeting.

22 Q. Is it correct that this is the information dated 25th of November,

23 2003?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Is it correct that the committee did not fulfil the tasks for

1 which it was established?

2 A. I could not answer this, because the -- it was planned for the

3 committee to meet one more time, and all members of the committee were

4 supposed to take a joint position regarding all the tasks that were set

5 forth in the decision for the establishment of the committee. So

6 regarding each of the items in the decision, a joint position of the

7 committee should have been established and written, because a valid

8 document is only that which is signed by all committee members.

9 Q. Is it correct that the committee did not establish the capacity

10 and the number of members of the unit which was active in Ljuboten in

11 August 2001?

12 A. I will say it again. We had no meeting where we would all sit

13 down, where all members of the committee would review all tasks set forth

14 in the decision from the first one until the last one and then indicate

15 what actions have we take and what we had ascertained.

16 Q. Does it mean that the committee failed to complete the task for

17 which it was established. Is that correct?

18 A. The committee ask not produce a final report where it would

19 present the results of its work.

20 Q. Very well. Thank you.

21 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further

22 questions of this witness, so I will give the time to my learned friend

23 from the Prosecution as it was agreed between us before.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.

25 Ms. Motoike.

1 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honours.

2 Re-examination by Ms. Motoike:

3 Q. Ms. Groseva, today at page 37 of the transcript, you were asked

4 about an Official Note by Mr. Tarculovski referenced in the 6th of May,

5 2003 report. Can I ask you: What was the purpose of having these persons

6 who were interviewed by the commission prepare Official Notes?

7 A. The purpose of the Official Note is to have a record, that the

8 person has been in attendance before the committee and to make record of

9 the statement that the person gave.

10 Q. So were these Official Notes, in particular the ones that we

11 looked at yesterday, were these Official Notes attached to the

12 informations that were eventually submitted to the Ministry of Interior?

13 A. No.

14 Q. And why -- why not?

15 A. Because the minister of the interior is informed through the

16 information, the document entitled information. That information contains

17 the data on the interviews that were held. The additional documents are

18 never attached to the information. The documents on the basis of which

19 the information is produced are never attached to the actual information.

20 Q. Okay. You were also asked today about a fact - this is it page 40

21 of the transcript - that was not mentioned in the report dated 6th of May,

22 2003. And I understand this report was generated by your colleague.

23 Would these informations then include the important parts of informations

24 dated to the commission that may not have been included in Official Notes

25 produced by the actual person interviewed?

1 A. I apologise, but I was not able to understand your question from

2 the interpretation I heard. Perhaps you should speak a bit more slowly so

3 the interpreters are able to interpret what you are say.

4 Q. My apologies. I will make the question a little bit briefer. That

5 might make it easier.

6 The informations that were produced, did they include just the

7 important parts of these statements obtained by the committee?

8 A. Yes. So these are not stenographic notes, so that everything is

9 taken verbatim. These are parts of the statements that the colleagues

10 gave in the course of the interviews we had with them.

11 Q. And as a note-taker, were there instances where you would take

12 notes based on the statements being made and sometimes those notes did not

13 actually reflect what was indicated in the Official Note produced by the

14 person?

15 A. I did note discrepancies between what was said and what was

16 presented later in the Official Note.

17 Q. If I could just please display for the witness an exhibit already

18 admitted as P00088, which was already displayed a few minutes ago.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's clarification. In line 79.2, I

20 did notice discrepancies, instead of I did note discrepancies.

21 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you. And I apologise, it's the page bearing

22 ERN N001-9194 in English.

23 It's N001-9194 in English. It would be page 18. And it should be

24 around page 18 of the Macedonian as well. Thank you.

25 Q. Ms. Groseva, what's appearing on the screen here is some articles

1 from the Code of Criminal Procedure for Macedonia and I would just like to

2 draw your attention to the top there to Article 75, actually, it's in the

3 middle of the Macedonian. Subdivision one says: "For each act in the

4 criminal procedure, a minutes will be constructed at the time when the act

5 is being conducted. And if it is not possible, then immediately after."

6 And then in Article 76, just at the bottom of the Macedonian

7 version. Subdivision two says: "The minutes should contain crucial data

8 on the duration and contents of the initiated act in the minutes in form

9 of reporting only the crucial content of the given statements and

10 announcements are notified."

11 Do you see that, Ms. Groseva?

12 A. No, I apologise. Which article did you say?

13 Q. I'm sorry. I was referring to Article 57, initially, and then

14 Article 76 we would have to turn the page in Macedonian. My apologies.

15 The very top.

16 I read to you subdivision two which indicates: "That the minutes

17 should contain crucial data on the duration and the contents of the

18 initiated act in the minutes in form of reporting only the crucial content

19 of the given statements and announcements are notified."

20 Do you now see that, Ms. Groseva?

21 A. Yes, I see it.

22 Q. These two procedures that are outlined in these two articles,

23 then, are similar to the procedures that your committee actually utilised

24 in generating the information. Would that be correct?

25 A. No. I think that in -- you read well in the previous article that

1 this is criminal procedure. Article 76, 75.

2 Q. My question was just whether or not the procedures are similar to

3 those utilised by yourself in taking the minutes?

4 A. There are no similarities in the procedures. We were just working

5 on collecting the information. We were not conducting an illegal

6 procedure.

7 Q. The -- I guess, I'm using maybe the wrong word and I'm not saying

8 procedures. What I'm saying is, during your interviews with these persons

9 were the -- were similar minutes taken that I have just read to you like

10 those set forth in Article 76?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. Do you know if this particular report dated June -- 6 May

13 2003, was circulated to others in the commission?

14 A. Are we talking about the first minutes?

15 Q. I'm talking about the 6th of May, 2003, the report generated by

16 your colleague --

17 A. At which I was not present. I do not know. I don't know -- I

18 found that minutes in the file on the work of the committee.

19 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, I have a few more questions, and I see

20 the time.

21 JUDGE PARKER: I think, regrettably, we must adjourn now. I'm

22 sorry, but it will be necessary, and we will continue at 2.15 tomorrow.

23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.57 p.m.,

24 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 12th day of

25 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.