1 Monday, 4 February 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 May I remind you of the affirmation that you made at the beginning
8 of your evidence still applies.
9 Ms. Residovic.
10 WITNESS: SOFIJA GALEVA-PETROVSKA [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Re-examination by Ms. Residovic: [Continued].
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, good
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Galeva, do you remember that the Prosecutor,
16 on cross-examination, put several questions to you about the takeover
17 competencies of the Ljuboten case on the part of this Tribunal? Do you
18 remember that?
19 A. Yes, I remember.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] In transcript, this is 8840 and
22 Q. You answered several questions, and you confirmed that you were
23 aware of the fact that the Prosecutor had asked and was permitted a
24 transfer of the case into his competence. Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. As a lawyer, and as an employee of the Ministry of Interior, were
2 you aware of the fact that the Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal at any
3 given moment could have asked for this case to be transferred from
4 authority of the Republic of Macedonia?
5 A. Yes. I was aware that that was the regular proper procedure and
6 that such a possibility was provided for.
7 Q. Do you remember when it was that the Prosecutor of The Hague
8 Tribunal applied to the Trial Chamber of this Tribunal to defer that case?
9 A. As far as I remember, that took place sometime in September of
10 2002, when the case was deferred to the competence of the Tribunal.
11 Q. Mrs. Galeva, were you aware of the fact that some measures or some
12 information had been undertaken by the Prosecutor of the Republic of
13 Macedonia with regard to that application on the part of The Hague
14 Tribunal Prosecutor?
15 A. Yes, of course. I am aware that before the case was transferred
16 from Macedonia to the Tribunal, before it was deferred to the competence
17 of the Tribunal, the public prosecutor general of Macedonia had some
18 meetings; and, of course, there was written correspondence, applications
19 sent to the Tribunal, by which he requested that he be informed in writing
20 about everything.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown
23 Exhibit number 1D75, page 4 in the Macedonian version, bullet point 4.
24 And in the English version, it is page 5, bullet point 4.
25 Q. Mrs. Galeva, you will have the same text in the Macedonian
1 language before you.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please blow up on bullet
3 point 4. This is it. On page 5 of the English text.
4 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'm going to read to you bullet point 4, which reads
5 as follows: "The public prosecutor of the Republic of Macedonia was not
6 informed by any letter or decision of The Hague Tribunal that the
7 Macedonian authorities should cease all further investigations in relation
8 to these cases; and, as a result of that, in the Republic of Macedonia, in
9 accordance with the constitution, the Law on Criminal Procedure, the
10 criminal code and other laws, acts have been undertaken by the competent
11 organs. These acts been undertaken in relation to the known and unknown
12 perpetrators, which are revealed additionally during the proceedings."
13 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask for the
14 following page to be shown to the witness.
15 Q. And I would kindly ask you, Mrs. Galeva, to listen to bullet point
16 2, which reads as follows: "Meetings were held in order to help the OTP
17 i.e., the Prosecutor's office of The Hague Tribunal, in relation to the
18 pending obstacles which they had in relation to the investigation they
19 conduct and adequate result have been achieved after those meetings."
20 Mrs. Galeva, in the year 2002, when you worked in Mr. Boskoski's
21 office, were you familiar with this position of the Macedonian prosecutor
22 who insisted on proceeding with investigations and who, at the same time,
23 closely cooperated with The Hague Tribunal?
24 A. Yes, I am aware. I had heard about it in several meetings and
25 collegiums where I was present that the public prosecutor general expected
1 formal application to be submitted to him with regards to this procedure.
2 Q. Thank you. The prosecutor also asked you whether the interest of
3 Mr. Boskoski was in protecting the national interest of the Macedonian
4 people and the Macedonian police's reputation.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is on page 8808.
6 Q. Did you remember that the prosecutor asked you about that?
7 A. Yes, I remember.
8 Q. Do you remember that you stated that Mr. Boskoski showed a
9 particular interest in establishing the real truth about the Ljuboten
11 A. Yes. I said it already several times during my previous
12 statements that he was particularly interested in learning the real truth
13 about the Ljuboten case as soon as possible.
14 Q. In answering the Prosecutor's questions, you tried to clarify and
15 explain, if I may paraphrase, that it was in the best interests of
16 Mr. Boskoski to establish the real truth; and if it is established that
17 there are people who are responsible, including himself, that this should
18 be clarified; and if this was not the case, that all talks should talk
19 with that.
20 Did I understand your answer to the Prosecutor well? Is that the
21 gist of your answer to the Prosecutor's questions?
22 A. Yes. I remember my answer, and I remain at the statement that the
23 position of the minister was clear, the position of Mr. Ljube Boskoski,
24 that it is necessary to investigate the truth about this case as soon as
25 possible and to establish any involvement of -- on the part of police
1 officers or any individuals maybe in the events, as there was speculations
2 and rumours in the public, and if anything of the sort were established.
3 But not only on the basis of rumours but corroborated by facts, by
4 arguments, of course those persons should be held responsible and criminal
5 or misdemeanour reports to be submitted against them or that the person
6 should be disciplined within the ministry.
7 Q. Mrs. Galeva, the position that you have just repeated with regard
8 to Minister Boskoski's position, did that position have any impact on the
9 reputation of the police?
10 A. Of course, there was an impact on the reputation of the police and
11 that was one of the major efforts of Mr. Ljube Boskoski as the leader of
12 the police. Of course, the reputation of the police and of the Ministry
13 of Interior was very important for him, and this is why he wanted to
14 establish the truth, because it had a strong impact on the reputation of
15 the police and it was necessary to establish as soon as possible whether
16 that was truth or not. And if there were such people, then those people
17 should have been sanctioned and removed from the ministry.
18 So he persistently made efforts to find such participants, if any,
19 because it had an impact on the reputation of the ministry.
20 Q. Thank you. You will remember, Mrs. Galeva, the Prosecutor asked
21 you several questions, suggesting to you that Minister Boskoski had a
22 negative attitude to the Human Rights Watch and the Helsinki Committee.
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is on page 8837 and 8838.
24 Q. Do you remember that, that the Prosecutor asked you that?
25 A. Yes, I remember that question.
1 Q. Although you did provide a certain answer to the -- that kind of
2 questions, can you please repeat: Were you familiar with the minister's
3 position to the non-governmental organisations and toward this is
5 A. I can say what I had heard during my presence in the meetings and
6 attendance in the collegiums, and such collegiums were convened by
7 Mr. Ljube Boskoski as the then minister. He publicly presented his
8 position regarding the Tribunal, in the sense that we need to work to
9 cooperate and to support the Tribunal and that we should make available
10 all relevant information related to the event, to the Tribunal.
11 With regards to other international and other non-governmental
12 organisations, there were many, I can't really distinguish between
13 individual cases and give you the names of those, but can I tell you that
14 there was -- that he thought that it was not proper to present
15 misinformation to the public, if I may say so, because whatever
16 information were presented, they were presented offhand. They were
17 uncorroborated. They were unsubstantiated. Those were rumours only.
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the witness to
19 be shown P548, Exhibit number P548, please, page 2 of the document. This
20 is a public announcement by the Ministry of Interior.
21 I'm interested in the last paragraph on page 1 and the beginning
22 of the next page in the English version.
23 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I'm going to read to you one part of this
24 announcement by the Ministry of Interior, which says as follows:
25 "By conducting the exhumation with autopsy, the identity of the
1 five corpses and the cause of their death shall be determined, which shall
2 contribute towards eliminating all speculations which specific
3 representatives of the Human Rights Watch tried to present to the public
4 against the Ministry of Interior and OSCE, that the five persons of
5 Albanian ethnicity from village of Ljuboten are unnecessary victims of the
6 Macedonian security forces because allegedly they were not members of the
7 armed terrorist groups of the so-called ONA."
8 Mrs. Galeva, tell me, please, this way of expression that I've
9 just read out to you from the public announcement about some individuals
10 in the Human Rights Watch organisation, is it something that you could
11 hear from the minister when he was saying that some individuals are
12 presenting things that are unsubstantiated and that those things have to
13 be verified?
14 A. I believe that I clarified that already, what was the intention of
15 the minister in this respect.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And now can the witness please be
18 shown Exhibit number 1D202. The page is 1D6045. In the English version,
19 it is 6044.
20 Actually, it is the other way around. In the Macedonian, it is
21 1D6044; and in the English version, the page number is 1D6045. This is a
22 transcript of a public statement issued by Mr. Boskoski. The document
23 number is 1D202.
24 Q. In the third paragraph from the bottom in the Macedonian version,
25 it says as follows: "Ljube Boskoski: We respect the international
1 Tribunal, and we will do everything necessary to submit the crimes that
2 occurred in the Republic of Macedonia; and to this end, we have submitted
3 evidence. You know that the criminal reports were submitted against
4 approximately 20 individuals for serious crimes, crimes which are
5 persecuted in accordance with the international law, crimes which are
6 within the jurisdiction of The Hague Tribunal; so, of course, we will
8 Would this also confirm what was the position of Mr. Boskoski
9 towards the Tribunal?
10 A. Yes, absolutely.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the witness to
12 be shown Exhibit number P402; page 99 in the Macedonian version and page
13 N000-9704-ET-02 in the English version.
14 Q. Mrs. Galeva, I apologise for my bad pronunciation of the
15 Macedonian language, but I believe that all the time you have the text in
16 front of you and that you can follow.
17 A. No problem.
18 Q. In paragraph 2 -- first, let me tell you that this is --
19 MR. SAXON: Objection.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
21 MR. SAXON: Sorry for the interruption. It's the Prosecution's
22 recollection that, during cross-examination, the Prosecution asked the
23 witness about her -- her particular perception of the organisation known
24 as Human Rights Watch. It may have asked the witness - I simple can't
25 recall right now - whether Mr. Boskoski made any comments about Human
1 Rights Watch. It certainly did not ask any general or broader questions
2 about the feelings or level of cooperation or not of Mr. Boskoski with the
3 entire international community, nor do I believe this Tribunal.
4 So I think we're going really beyond the scope of
5 cross-examination here, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that my
8 learned friend's objection is correct because there was no reference or
9 direct reference to the international Tribunal, but several questions were
10 put to the witness about the international Tribunal in the sense that this
11 case was opened only to be referred to the Tribunal, and that before that,
12 there were no efforts whatsoever to submit the materials to the Tribunal.
13 And in that sense, an attempt has been made to say that
14 Mrs. Galeva's work and tasks were, in that sense, an indication of
15 Mr. Boskoski's attitude towards the Tribunal; and, especially, Mr. Saxon
16 said, on page 8811, he asked the witness: "Mrs. Galeva what did
17 Mr. Boskoski tell you about this Tribunal?"
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Please carry on, Ms. Residovic.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 Q. Mrs. Galeva, now you have before you the text that I'm interested
23 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to see the following
24 page, page 99, please.
25 Maybe it has been downloaded differently so the following page
1 cannot seen. Now we have it, yes. This is exactly what I need, and I
2 would kindly ask you to do the same in the English version. Can we see
3 the next page in the English version as well, so that the two pages
4 actually correspond in their contents.
5 Q. In paragraph 2 on the page that you have before you, it says as
6 follows: "On one occasion, I was thanked for the good collaboration and
7 the abundant material we had delivered to The Hague Tribunal.
8 "My interlocutor emphasised that he knew Macedonia was going
9 through very difficult times and that The Hague Tribunal had not opened
10 any proceedings at all. But, in terms of human rights violations, he
11 added, one of the ambiguous cases was Ljuboten and that case would need to
12 be investigated.
13 "I replied that the Macedonian authorities stood at the Tribunal's
14 disposal and would provide all the facts available to help clarify this
15 case, which certain individuals were exploiting with the aim of having me
16 directly indicted."
17 This position presented in the book, "My Fight for Macedonia,"
18 does it also confirm what you have just testified about as to what you
19 could hear from Mr. Boskoski as his end position towards the Tribunal?
20 A. Yes. Among other things, this is one of the proofs for his
21 efforts, as well as the cooperation with the ICTY, to discover everything
22 related to the Ljuboten case.
23 Q. The Prosecutor also asked you about your conversation with Judge
24 Nikolovski. Do you remember that the Prosecutor asked you that?
25 A. Yes, I remember.
1 Q. Do you also remember that both on examination-in-chief and later
2 on, you stated that the judge told you, on that occasion, that all the
3 cases had to be referred to this Tribunal?
4 A. Yes, I remember.
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm now going to call for Exhibit
6 P55.18 to be shown to the witness.
7 Q. Mrs. Galeva, you have before you a document issued by the Basic
8 Court Skopje II, which was signed by Investigative Judge Dragan
9 Nikolovski. You can see his signature there. Is that the same judge that
10 you talked to?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm now going to read the text to you; it is not long. This
13 letter was sent to Mr. Lopez-Terres, and it says:
14 "Dear Mr. Lopez-Terres, I have so far asked on two occasions by
15 fax that you confirm in writing that, after the conducted analysis, the
16 expert examination of the material seized by the Tribunal, this entire
17 material will be delivered to me along with the results of the analysis.
18 "In view of the fact that you only confirmed that I will be given
19 the analysis results and it was not explicitly confirmed that the material
20 will be delivered to me, I ask that you do so by fax or that you enable
21 me, as investigative judge, to be present during the analysis of the
22 material which is to be conducted at the Netherlands Forensic Institute in
24 "Due to the fact that in accordance with the provisions of our
25 code of criminal procedure, the investigative judge determines the expert
1 examination (the analysis) with a written order. He is present at the
2 expert examination and directs the expert examination.
3 "Taking into account that you greed that all expenses arising from
4 such analysis will be borne by The Hague Tribunal, I ask that you confirm
5 that my expenses regarding my stay in the Netherlands will be covered, as
6 well as the expenses in relation to obtaining a Dutch Visa and the
7 travelling expenses.
8 "Should I be granted this, I need to be duly notified of the date
9 when the expert examination is scheduled."
10 Do you remember, Mrs. Galeva, that in your conversation with Judge
11 Nikolovski, he mentioned this request of his which was based on the laws
12 and regulations of the Republic of Macedonia and that he sent to The Hague
14 A. Yes. Of course, I remember that conversation. It was said that
15 even during the procedure of exhumation and autopsy, Mr. Tucker, in a way,
16 made a promise that he will send parts of the report of the analysis, as
17 well as the materials taken for this expert forensic examination. If
18 direct presence of our investigating judge or judges during the procedure
19 in the institute in the Netherlands is impossible.
20 Since that was not done, then, of course, the investigating judge,
21 Mr. Dragan Nikolovski, submitted a written motion to have the materials
22 received or to receive the report that he hadn't received despite that
23 promise made.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And now I would like the witness
1 to be shown 1D201. This is a letter which Judge Nikolovski received in
2 reply from Mr. Lopez, the head of investigations.
3 I'm going to read on page 1, starting with paragraph 3 in the
4 Macedonian version, which reads:
5 "In view of the decision of Madam Del Ponte to exercise the
6 primacy of the Tribunal in these matters, it is anticipated that all
7 further investigations into these five matters will cease.
8 "However, that will not include current inquiries that are in
9 progress in relation to these investigations (for example, in respect of
10 the Ljuboten investigation, the forensic analysis and subsequent reports,
11 the autopsy reports on the identity of the deceased, and the cause of
12 death, et cetera).
13 "Finally, I refer to your request concerning the return of the
14 ballistic material, subject of the same Ljuboten investigation, to the
15 Skopje II Court. In consequence of Madam Prosecutor's decision, all the
16 ballistic material will be retained by the ICTY until this office ends its
18 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now go to page 2, both in
19 the Macedonian and the English versions.
20 I will continue reading in the meantime:
21 "The ballistic material will be forwarded to the Forensic
22 Institute, Rijswijk, Netherlands, for analysis as planned. During the
23 analysis of this material, no member of this institution will be present.
24 Under the circumstances, there is no necessity for your presence during
25 the process."
1 Q. In the course of your conversation with Mr. Nikolovski, the
2 investigating judge, were you informed, Mrs. Galeva, that the judge was
3 not allowed to continue participating in the proceedings as is envisaged
4 under the law of the Republic of Macedonia?
5 A. Yes, that was mentioned as well.
6 Q. Thank you. The judge also --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The Prosecutor
8 Q. -- the Prosecutor also asked you questions about Ljube Krstevski.
9 The question was whether you asked from the minister to order Krstevski
10 to cooperate with you and whether he -- you also asked the
11 minister for Goran Mitevski to cooperate with you.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This has been reported on pages
13 8819 and 8821.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember that I was asked that
15 question, and you already have my reply.
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation].
17 Q. While you were employed in Minister Boskoski's office, did you
18 ever hear the minister issue orders to the heads of departments in the
19 Ministry of Interior -- in municipalities.
20 A. No, not all. The procedure in the Ministry of Interior was to
21 work on the basis of collegium convened by the minister, Mr. Ljube
22 Boskoski, and that collegium could be held in a broader or more narrow
23 basis depending on the cases processed or the facts discussed, which means
24 that the hierarchical structure was strictly followed, line of hierarchy
25 that exists in the ministry.
1 And in no way, was he able to circumvent the directors as his
2 direct subordinates. He was only able to issue instructions to the
3 directors, and then the directors organised their work within their
4 sphere; and they would then delegate to the heads as the hierarchy
5 follows. They would issue instructions to them.
6 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Galeva.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this completes my
8 re-examination of this witness.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Ms. Residovic.
10 Mrs. Galeva, may I thank you. The questioning of you has now
11 concluded. Your presence here in The Hague and the assistance you have
12 been able to give to the Chamber is appreciated.
13 You will now, of course, be able to return to Macedonia, and the
14 court officer will show you out. Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber understands that there is a procedural
18 matter which I think you wish to raise, Mr. Mettraux.
19 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct Your Honour, and we're grateful for
20 the time.
21 On the 25th of January of this year, Your Honour will recall that
22 we filed a motion pursuant to Rule 66(B) and Rule 54, whereby we had are
23 sought to obtain an order from the Chamber for the Prosecution to disclose
24 a number of documents, or rather, categories of documents which the
25 Defence believed came within the terms of Rule 66(B).
1 On Thursday last week, the Chamber rejected the Defence
2 application on basis that the Defence had failed to establish the
3 materiality of the categories of materials sought as requested by the
5 Today, the Defence would wish to renew its application pursuant to
6 Rule 54 and 66(B). However, in relation to a separate category of
7 material, or at least a category of material, Your Honour, which we submit
8 should permit the Chamber to grant the order sought.
9 Today, the Defence is seeking a similar order pursuant to the same
10 rule in relation, however, to a narrower group of documents; namely, a
11 document or a list, group of documents which have been identified by the
12 Office of the Prosecutor, collected by the Office of the Prosecutor, and
13 kept by the Office of the Prosecutor as going to the credit, the
14 Prosecution says, of the Defence witnesses.
15 Before embarking on the submissions in relation to this
16 application, Your Honour, we would simply first like to refer to a
17 decision of this Trial Chamber of the 13th of September of 2007. It was
18 an oral decision of Your Honours, and I will briefly remind you it related
19 to the record of a meeting between the Prosecutor of this Tribunal and a
20 number of state officials of the government of Macedonia, including
21 Mr. Boskoski.
22 At the time, the Defence will made an application to have access
23 this document. And Mr. Saxon had taken the position on behalf of the
24 Prosecutor that, having reviewed the material, he taken the view that the
25 material was not of the sort that would fall between the rules of
1 procedure and, therefore, did not need to be disclosed. And the Chamber,
2 on that basis, decided that the material did not need to be disclosed.
3 Your Honour --
4 JUDGE PARKER: Before you proceed, Mr. Mettraux, is this a motion
5 on notice to the Prosecution?
6 MR. METTRAUX: Yes. We have sent a notification, I believe, on
7 Thursday or Friday morning, I apologise, and, again, yesterday, to the
8 effect that we would renew the application.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Mr. Saxon.
10 MR. SAXON: Well, I suppose, Your Honour, it depends on what you
11 mean by notice. We saw -- there was an e-mail that was cc'd to the
12 Prosecutor. I can't recite it by heart, but we were informed that an
13 application would be made. First, we were informed it would be related to
14 66(A)(ii) and 66(B). Then last evening, I believe, there was a second
15 e-mail, informing the Chamber's legal officer that the Defence wished to
16 make an application pursuant to Rule 66(B).
17 That was the length and breath and depth of the notice provided to
18 the Prosecution; nothing about the content of the motion or what it
19 pertained specifically.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Well, perhaps, Your Honour, if we can clarify this
21 matter, the only issue which we have raised with the Prosecution in
22 relation to 66(B) to that point in exchange of letter relates to the very
23 material which we are now seeking to obtain pursuant to that Rule.
24 Concerning Rule 66(A)(ii), as Mr. Saxon indicated, our original
25 e-mail referred to that Rule as well. In the meantime, the Prosecution
1 has provided us a letter which responded to that particular aspect of our
2 inquiry; namely, whether there were any the statements of witnesses of the
3 Prosecutor which were outstanding.
4 Mr. Saxon, very properly over the weekend, disclosed to the
5 Defence one particular record of interview of one particular Prosecution
6 witness who had not previously been disclosed to the Defence, and Mr.
7 Saxon also indicated in this letter that, to his knowledge, there were no
8 other statement or records of interview pertaining to any witness that
9 needed to be disclosed. On that basis, there was no need, and there is no
10 need, for us today to make any application pursuant to Rule 66(A)(ii).
11 As far as the application made pursuant to Rule 66(B), Your
12 Honour, we have, as I indicated, mentioned it twice to the Prosecution
13 that we would make that application, and the only exchange of letter which
14 we ever had with the Prosecution in relation to this matter relates to the
15 very material for which the application is now being made.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Could you again, please, for me, summarize or
17 identify the material that is the subject of this present application.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, Your Honour. The Defence, originally, I
19 believe, on the 24th of January of this year, made a request to the
20 Prosecution which was relevantly brought in scope to obtain material which
21 the Prosecution had collected and received in the course of additional or
22 further investigation which they had carried out notably since the time of
23 the end of the Prosecution case.
24 We had identified particular documents and types of material, and
25 Mr. Saxon complied with all of our requests but for a particular type of
1 material, where Mr. Saxon indicated to the Defence that the Prosecution
2 would not disclose to the Defence certain documents which had now come in
3 their possession and which related to the credit, the Prosecution says, of
4 our witnesses based, again the Prosecution says, on a decision of this
5 Chamber of, I believe, the 12th of April of last year, which related to
6 the notification of intent to use certain material.
7 So, perhaps to summarize, Your Honour, the material which we are
8 now being denied is material that has been identified by the Prosecution
9 as being relevant to the credit of our witness and, we say, material to
10 the preparation of our case.
11 The reasoning of the Prosecution - and I will be corrected by
12 Mr. Saxon, but this position has been reiterated in several letters to the
13 Defence - is to the effect that the original decision of Your Honours of
14 the 12th of April of 2007 was to the effect that the party would be under
15 no duty to disclose to the other side material that would go to the credit
16 of a particular witness.
17 We understand Your Honours' ruling in quite a different way, in
18 the sense that it did not, in any way, narrow down the disclosure
19 obligation of the Prosecution in particular, but permitted or provided an
20 exception to the duty that was otherwise placed on the party to notify the
21 other side of the material which they intend to use.
22 The Prosecution --
23 JUDGE PARKER: The issue arrises are you not, in truth, merely,
24 seeking to reargue that which has been the subject of our very recent
1 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, what we believe is the case is,
2 and what we would seek from the Chamber, is to do what the Chamber did in
3 relation to the application which we had originally made in relation to
4 the record of this particular meeting, which is simply to rely on the
5 Prosecution own assessment of the materiality of the material which they
6 have in their possession, to find, in effect, that this material being
7 relevant to the credit of the witnesses must be disclosed pursuant to Rule
9 We submit, Your Honour --
10 JUDGE PARKER: Is your answer yes?
11 MR. METTRAUX: Our answer, Your Honour, would be in part; the "in
12 part" being that we believe that we have now made an effort to narrow down
13 the material, which should permit the Chamber to make the order and to
14 come within the term of Rule 66(B)(ii). The Defence is in no position,
15 Your Honour, to identify that material other than relying on the statement
16 made by Mr. Saxon, to the effect that he possessed such material.
17 We do submit that Rule 66(B)(ii) should provide in those
18 circumstances for a way for the Defence to obtain that material with a
19 view to A, we submit, decide whether or not to call a witness; if indeed
20 the Prosecution has in its possession material which would show that a
21 witness is, indeed, not credible or otherwise not reliable, we submit that
22 the disclosure of that material would permit the Defence to make an
23 informed decision as to whether to call a particular witness --
24 JUDGE PARKER: Well, if could you pause there for a moment,
25 please, Mr. Mettraux.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber has difficulty, Mr. Mettraux, in seeing
3 that it would be appropriate to allow you to what we see to be reopen what
4 has been decided. You're dealing with some of the same subject matter.
5 You now want to package it a little differently and put it forward
6 specifically; but it, in the Chamber's view, is, in truth, to reargue what
7 has been decided and dealt. So I am afraid we cannot hear you further.
8 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Your Honour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: The next witness is one you would be leading,
10 Ms. Residovic?
11 Before the witness is called, the Chamber is interested in timing
12 today. If the witness came in now, it would only be for a relatively
13 short time, and then we would have the first break. We understand from a
14 memorandum received from you that have you a concern later this week that
15 there should be some change in the normal format because of the needs of
16 the next witness.
17 It concerns the Chamber that there -- it could be worth
18 experimenting this week with our format of listings and the times that we
19 have breaks. And I'm just very quickly trying to see the consequences of
20 us breaking now, rather than in a short time after this witness commences.
21 I think it would make little different today, and it may be of
22 some advantage for the rest of the week if we look toward finishing just a
23 little earlier each evening; and to that end, had our first break now,
24 then resumed and had two full sessions with this witness. We will then
25 see tomorrow and Wednesday whether an earlier finish has any significant
1 effect on our progress. I think it may not, given the present witness and
2 the witness to come.
3 So would it be convenient to you to have our first break now?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I believe that
5 this is very convenient for us. Thank you very much. Our memorandum, as
6 you are aware, was related to another witness.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will resume at 20 minutes to 4.00.
8 --- Recess taken at 3.12 p.m.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 --- On resuming at 3.43 p.m.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, sir. Would you please read allowed
12 the affirmation on the card that is given to you now.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Please sit down.
16 Ms. Residovic.
17 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 WITNESS: IGNO STOJKOV
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Examination by Mrs. Residovic:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Stojkov. We have already met
22 before, but nevertheless I will introduce the Defence team of
23 Mr. Boskoski. I'm Edina Residovic, and together with Mr. Mettraux, I
24 appear for Mr. Boskoski before this Trial Chamber.
25 Before I start putting questions to you, I would first kindly ask
1 you to state your name and family name for the record.
2 A. Igno Stojkov.
3 Q. Mr. Stojkov, I will kindly ask you this: When you hear my
4 question, please wait for the question to be interpreted and only then
5 start giving your answer. This is it very important because you probably
6 understand me as well as I you, but my question and your answers have to
7 be also heard and understood by the Trial Chamber and by my learned
8 friends in the courtroom.
9 Did you understand me?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me where and when were you born, Mr. Stojkov.
12 A. 29th April 1968, in Kavadarci in the Republic of Macedonia.
13 Q. What is your educational background?
14 A. High school education.
15 Q. Where and when did you graduate from high school?
16 A. Economic secondary school in Skopje, and I'm now finishing my
17 studies at the faculty of forestry.
18 Q. Mr. Stojkov, when did you start working? When were you first
20 A. In 1991, at the Ministry of Interior.
21 Q. In other words, your professional life started with the Ministry
22 of Interior. Did I understand you well?
23 A. Yes. My first employment was at the Ministry of Interior.
24 Q. And, today, where are you currently employed?
25 A. I'm still at the Ministry of Interior.
1 Q. Can you just briefly give us an overview of the jobs that you have
2 held at the Ministry of Interior since 1991.
3 A. Upon my employment in 1991 at the ministry, for a certain period
4 of time, I was an apprentice; then, in 1992, I completed my
5 apprenticeship; and until 1995, I was an operative at the unit for special
6 tasks. In 1995 until 1998, I was junior inspector at the special task
7 unit; then from 1998 till 2000, inspector, head in the sector of
8 operative reconnaissance.
9 Q. Mr. Stojkov, working as an independent inspector with the internal
10 affairs department in Gazi Baba, were you only involved in the
11 white-collar crimes and crimes against property or were you also involved
12 in other cases?
13 A. In 2000, I was transferred in June as inspector for property
14 crimes. But in the police station, or, that is to say, in the unit for
15 internal affairs in Gazi Baba, since there was only one inspector on
16 homicide, in some cases I was also engaged or I was assisting in cases of
18 Q. You have given us an overview of your jobs and tasks up to 2001.
19 After that, did you have any other jobs; and if you did, could you please
20 tell us briefly what jobs those were?
21 A. In September 2001, I was assigned as assistance to the working
22 group for documenting the events and war crimes committed on the territory
23 of the Republic of Macedonia during the armed conflict.
24 Q. How long did you stay in those jobs; can you remember?
25 A. I believe it was until the beginning of 2003. Afterwards, I came
1 back to work as inspector on motor vehicles in the unit of internal
2 affairs in Avtokomanda. And in 2003, I sent an application to be
3 transferred to the unit for illicit trade of drugs and arms where I was
4 redeployed in December 2003.
5 Q. And now, Mr. Stojkov, what is your job at the moment?
6 A. As of 2003, to the 1st of August of this year -- or rather, 2007,
7 I was independent inspector at the unit for illicit drugs and arms
8 trafficking at the sector for illicit drug and arms trade. And as of the
9 1st of August, 2007, up until now, I'm independent inspector, head of an
10 operative group at the special mobile police unit for fight against crime.
11 Q. The unit that you are currently affiliated with, how long has it
12 existed within the Ministry of Interior; can you remember?
13 A. I believe this unit was set up sometime in 2004.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojkov. You have given us a lot of detail of the
15 jobs that you have held at the Ministry of Interior. In the course of
16 your employment, have you had any special trainings or did you attend any
17 courses in order to be able to perform the duties that you were charged
19 A. Yes. In 1999, I took part in a training seminar organised by the
20 federal German police forces for following and dealing in cases with
21 illicit drug trafficking.
22 In 2000, I also attended a training seminar organised by the
23 British police for international control and transport of arms and drugs
24 and narcotics.
25 In 2004, I was called by the American Secret Service on a training
1 seminar dealing with weapons of mass destruction.
2 And in 2005, the American Radiology Institute invited me to take
3 part in a training seminar for radioactive weapons.
4 In 2006, we had a joint seminar with the French unit for fight
5 against narcotics.
6 And in 2007, in Cairo, I stayed a longer while for a training in a
7 training seminar against global terrorism organised by the Egyptian police
8 forces, and I believe it was Europol.
9 Q. As you have just told us, you have underwent permanent police
10 training all this time. Tell me, Mr. Stojkov, why is it important that
11 you as a policeman undergo certain training and exercises of this kind?
12 A. With gaining its independence and the formation of the Macedonian
13 police, it was very important at the onset to start with the reforms of
14 the police and to have further training of people who were employed there.
15 We knew -- or rather, later, as an employee, I was involved in
16 certain activities, and I knew that Macedonia was part of the transitional
17 countries on the Balkan drug route and other illicit activities, so many
18 of my colleagues and I were included in these police reforms, or rather,
19 further training and specialisation seminars from other countries.
20 Q. Mr. Stojkov, just one more question concerning your professional
21 background and your capability to perform the policing work.
22 As a worker and as an employee of the Ministry of Interior, have
23 you ever received any awards? Has your work of been recognised or
24 criticised matter?
25 A. As I already said, I'm an employee of the ministry as of 1991,
1 from the very onset of the Macedonian police; that is to say, I am 16
2 years now an active police officer. Up until now I have never been
3 reprimanded in any kind. I have been often acknowledged and I have
4 received awards, as one can see from my professional dossier.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will base my
7 questions on documents; therefore, I would kindly ask the usher to provide
8 the Trial Chamber, the witness, and my learned friends from the
9 Prosecution with my binder of documents that I will be using during my
11 Q. Mr. Stojkov, when you described your assignments in the Ministry
12 of Interior, I noticed that since, or rather, from September 2001 up until
13 the beginning of 2003, you were a member of the working gorup for
14 documenting war crimes. Would that be correct?
15 A. Yes, this is correct.
16 Q. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber how you were assigned
17 to this work?
18 A. In September 2001, after the conflict, we had some days of rest
19 and I used these free days. When we came back to work, we had a working
20 meeting. I was still at the police station, or rather, the unit in Gazi
21 Baba as inspector for motor vehicles.
22 When I came to this meeting, one of my colleagues, who, during my
23 absence, was assigned to assist the working group which later I joined,
24 explained to my superior that he has just had a son and that he was not
25 able to carry out the tasks assigned to him in a more professional manner.
1 He asked that he be replaced.
2 The superior approved this but told him to find a colleague who
3 would replace him. Since I, as well as other colleagues, were present at
4 that meeting, this colleague of mine asked me to replace him, which I
6 Q. Having accepted your colleague's request, what was your immediate
7 superior's reaction to that?
8 A. I, of course, asked him what the matter at hand was and how we
9 were to go to work, how we would carry out our work. And my superior told
10 me that, in addition to regular obligations, we would have to assist our
11 colleagues in that working group in collecting materials and documents;
12 that I would be given more concrete information there; that this was
13 temporary; and while assistance was needed, I would be working there, too.
14 Q. Mr. Stojkov, at that time, did you know that some other colleagues
15 of yours also offered different types of assistance to the working group
16 for documenting war crimes?
17 A. I believe that the next day, when I went to the offices of the SVR
18 Skopje in the crime unit, I saw other colleagues from police stations,
19 among which was Canka Meglenova, a colleague of mine.
20 Q. As you have just told us, since your engagement was temporary, can
21 you tell us how long did your engagement last upon your superior's order?
22 A. I believe from the middle of September until -- I can't recall
23 precisely, but I remember that in October I was appointed as part of the
24 working group. So it would be until the middle of December [as
25 interpreted], approximately one month.
1 Q. You have just told us that later on you were appointed as a fully
2 fledged member of the working group. But while you were still temporarily
3 assigned in providing assistance to the working group, did you learn about
4 the nature of that working group and when it had been established?
5 A. During the first days when we met, there were also other
6 colleagues there. We were interested, of course, to know what our tasks
7 would be. Zoran Pavlovski was among the others present, who was then
8 senior inspector at the homicide unit, and Tomislav [as interpreted]
9 Stojanovski. He explained there was a working group established somewhere
10 or sometime in May, that there were other colleagues who were permanent
11 members of that group, and that they would give us concrete tasks. They
12 would tell us the assistance we would need to provide them in the course
13 of our work there.
14 Q. Did you have any information as to how long had the group existed?
15 A. I believe I already said that it was set up in the course of May
16 2001. I came in September 2001.
17 Q. I will kindly ask you, Mr. Stojkov, to look at the document which
18 is after tab 1 in your binder.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit number 1D115. The
20 Macedonian page is 1D4328; whereas, the English page is 1D4330.
21 Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Stojkov, did you ever see this document
23 A. I have not seen this document, but this is probably the document
24 which, in the month of May, establishes this group.
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the second page
1 of this document together, which is 1D4331 in English and 1D4329 in
3 Q. Under bullet point 2, you can see the description of the goals or
4 the tasks of this working group. According to this description, the
5 working group is tasked with gathering evidence on military crimes
6 committed on the territory of the Republic of Macedonia.
7 Would this description reflect the information that you received
8 from your colleagues when you joined the working group?
9 A. Yes. On that first working meeting, we were told that the members
10 of the working group should be assisted in the area of gathering documents
11 and documenting events connected with -- events reported as committed – I
12 mean as war crimes that occurred after the conflict.
13 Q. If I understand you properly, you have just told us that having
14 been tasked with the duties, it went to Skopje, to the sector for the
15 internal affairs of the Ministry of Interior. What was there?
16 A. The place where we went, this was the homicide unit. This was
17 where our first working meeting was with the other colleagues.
18 Q. Mr. Stojkov, at that place, at the Skopje sector of internal
19 affairs, did the working group continue working there, or did you have an
20 office elsewhere?
21 A. When I started working first as assistant and then as a member of
22 this working group, we used the offices from the unit of homicide; that is
23 to say, the office of Mr. Zoran Pavlovski.
24 Q. Under bullet point 3 -- or rather, bullet point 2, paragraph 26
25 the decision from the month of May, it says that the working group will be
1 would be stationed in Kumanovo. Did you know when and why had been
2 transferred to Skopje?
3 A. Later on, when I was appointed as member of this working group,
4 and even before that, I could see that in the unit for internal affairs
5 Kumanovo, some documents are coming to us, some cases, Official Notes,
6 official documents were coming to us. And I know that in SVR Kumanovo,
7 one of the inspectors still was working as a member of the working group,
8 even though a lot of documents came there.
9 Q. Mr. Stojkov, please, could you now look at the document after tab
10 2, which is exhibit number 1D116.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] The Macedonian page number is
12 1D4324, and the English page number is 1D4326.
13 Q. In the upper left corner of this document, you will see that the
14 document was issued by the Ministry of Interior on the 9th of October,
16 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Please go to the second page of
17 this document.
18 Q. You will see that the document was signed by Mr. Ljube Boskoski,
19 Minister of the Interior.
20 Tell me, please, Mr. Stojkov, do you recognise this document?
21 A. Yes. This is decision appointing me and my colleague, Canka
22 Meglenova, as permanent members of this working group.
23 Q. What does it imply for the permanent members of the group? What's
24 the meaning of that, being a permanent member?
25 A. This means, since we were both operative employees, that we take
1 the operative work necessary to collect, gather the materials from police
2 stations, from police bodies, where a possible act related to war crimes
3 have been called in.
4 Q. Mr. Stojkov, when you were telling us about your superior in Gazi
5 Baba, telling you that you would be assisting the working group, you said
6 that at the time you were engaged on other tasks.
7 Mr. Stojkov, from the moment you were appointed a permanent member
8 of the working group, what was your main task or assignment?
9 A. My main task was once an application was received that a war crime
10 might have been committed, that a crime might have been committed related
11 to war crimes, then we would carry out investigation whether such an act
12 has been committed; and if so, to document the same event.
13 Q. Could be explain to the Court on the basis of what you, the
14 working group, and you yourself operated?
15 A. When I arrived, first as inspector assisting the members of the
16 working group and later as its member, we received material containing a
17 chronological overview with dates and days, events that were called in by
18 injured parties and citizens or by other relatives or friends if the case
19 had been of kidnapped individuals or deceased individuals.
20 Q. Could you please explain where did the injured parties or their
21 families and friends report those cases or these events that concerned
22 them and you would then assess whether they constituted crimes.
23 A. As a rule, not only the crimes that we worked on, which were
24 suspected of being part of war crimes, but all crimes and all injured
25 parties in the country on any which basis, first has to call in this event
1 in the responsible police station or at the Ministry of Interior with the
3 On rare occasions, it happens that this is reported to a different
4 police station or a different municipality if the person reporting this
5 crime is from another town.
6 Q. Considering that those reports were filed by the injured parties
7 off their relatives at the police station or at the department of internal
8 affairs, tell me, please, to what extent that you, as members of the
9 working group, relied on those bodies that were receiving the criminal
10 reports from the injured parties?
11 A. These are police stations or units for internal affairs which are
12 bound by law. When someone feels injured or wishes to report a crime,
13 they're bound by law to undertake measures. If it's the injured party, it
14 is necessary they have to carry out an interview. They have to register a
15 report of this kind has been submitted. Whether this be done by the
16 person or their relatives, it is their obligation by law to document this.
17 Q. So my question was, and if I understood you well, you stated that,
18 of course, you did rely upon those bodies. Is this how I can understand
19 what you just clarified?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In the sector for internal affairs, Skopje, where your office was
22 located, were there also bodies that rendered assistance to your working
23 group, or were there individuals in those bodies who had the duty to
24 render certain assistance to you?
25 A. In the sector for internal affairs, Skopje, of course we could not
1 carry out all tasks by ourselves. Most often and most assistance was
2 given to us by the homicide unit; and since we were in the office of
3 Mr. Zoran Pavlovski, who was a senior homicide inspector at the time, most
4 frequently and most often we were assisted by him.
5 Also, each time we went on the site of event, if there was need of
6 police officers of inspectors from the police station or of the unit where
7 we were working, if we needed help, we requested it. But most often, we
8 resorted to the people from the homicide unit and the people from
9 criminalistics, forensic unit.
10 Q. Considering the tasks you performed there and the issues regarding
11 which you had the duty to collect evidence, was the assistance rendered by
12 those departments for homicides and the police forensics, was it more
13 important than the assistance that any other bodies within the ministry
14 would render?
15 A. No. Most assistance came from the homicide unit and, as I said,
16 from the forensic unit. Without their assistance -- they came with us if
17 we needed to document an event, if we needed to document an event, photo
18 documentation, forensic biological evidence, something which we're --
19 something that I and my colleagues from the group were not skilled to do.
20 We are not skilled to do such forensics.
21 I recall, when I came to the working group, we were working on a
22 case of a three-year-old girl being shot in the back, in the spine. Her
23 father was shot in the left side of the head and the shoulder, with
24 shrapnel. Their vehicle was, in fact, attacked, I believe, near the
25 village of Brvenica near Tetovo.
1 When we received written information of this event having occurred
2 and that the girl and father are in hospital, we asked for our colleagues
3 from the forensic unit and from the homicide unit, Mr. Zoran Pavlovski.
4 We first went to the hospital where our colleagues from forensics did
5 their job. I know that they received from the doctors the bullet that was
6 taken from the wounded girl and the pieces of shrapnel from the father.
7 The next day my colleagues from forensics carried out a ballistic
8 and other examination of the vehicle, which means that without them --
9 they conducted the on-site investigation. Without them and their work, we
10 could not have information about this event.
11 Q. Thank you very much. Mr. Stojkov, you stated and repeated that
12 you worked in the working group on the basis of reports by the inured
13 parties, their families, or friends. Tell me, please, Mr. Stojkov,
14 whether the national affiliations, ethnic affiliations of the victim had
15 any impact on any operation?
16 A. Surely not. Professionalism, in the way of work, for us it was
17 not important whether the case was reported -- the reported case was about
18 a Macedonian, Albanian, Turk, or other. We had cases of injured parties,
19 regardless of -- of it be physical injuries or murder or there was a
20 property damage, their house had been burned down, and so forth. It was
21 not important to us that the ethnic affiliation, the ethnicity of the
22 injured party was.
23 Q. I would like to ask you now, Mr. Stojkov, to explain your manner
24 of work in a way. When you would learn in any way on the basis of lists
25 of reports that you had reports coming from injured parties of -- or if
1 you learned in a different way that some injured party or a relative had
2 reported an event, what would do you then? Could you explain this to us.
3 A. Form the time when I joined the working group, I said that we
4 received an overview of events that have happened, where there is
5 suspicion of an act being committed related to war crimes.
6 This overview is compiled on the basis of reports of injured
7 parties or their families. This was done in a chronological basis with
8 various data. There were some incomplete information; only the name and
9 the place where the person came from. Sometime there is was no last name,
10 no date of birth. There were other cases of complete information also.
11 On the daily working meetings that we had, we would agree that we
12 would start working on a particular case, about a particular person or
13 event, and we -- our starting point was the police station from where the
14 report originated.
15 Q. And if the police station was your first contact point or the
16 place where the report was filed, what would you do there? What would you
17 try to learn there?
18 A. At the police station, there were -- there are all initial
19 documents about a certain event or an injured party. If the person was
20 received by a police officer, inspector, or duty officer, the latter were
21 obliged to carry out an interview with that person. In the case of kidnap
22 persons, his family came -- come to report this, and the officers have to
23 take basic information in this regard; how long the person has been
24 missing, how do they know that this person is kidnapped, do they suspect
25 that the person is being kidnapped.
1 These are basic Official Notes related to reports such as these,
2 basic information about the person who is reporting the crime, friends,
3 family. Our initial data base started from the police station.
4 Q. Since there were several of you in the group, when you would go to
5 a police station, how would you proceed? Would you go on an individual
6 basis or was there any other way in which you organised your visits to
7 police stations or to the location within the ministry where the crime was
9 A. When we worked on the territory of the city of Skopje, most often
10 my colleague and I -- my colleague, Canka Meglenova, and I, or I together
11 with Zoran Pavlovski. In cases where we needed homicide assistance,
12 sometimes all three of us went. If this was a bigger case that included
13 more than one person or cases that required the presence of all three of
14 us, in the cases outside of Skopje, most often in Tetovo area, I went with
15 Apostol Stojanovski, who was then main inspector in the homicide unit in
16 the Ministry of Interior.
17 Q. When you would gather those basic information from the police
18 station and the information that they probably had obtained performing
19 their duties as prescribed by the law, what would be the further course,
20 the further task of your working group?
21 A. Once we would receive the basic information, we would collect all
22 official documents. We were the ones that collected them. We made copies
23 of all existing document, which we thought we would need at that moment.
24 The second part of our group consisted with contact with police
25 forensics, because in concrete cases there were records of photographs of
1 on-site inspections. And if there was material of this kind, we received
2 this material from them. We collected this material, and I opened up
3 files for most of such cases, files in which I put all materials that we
5 We open a file. Official Notes and other written materials are
6 put in there; photo documentation or records from on-site inspections from
7 police forensics.
8 Q. As members of the working group, did you try or was it within your
9 sphere of competence to have an interview with the injured party, if the
10 injured party was living of course and available, and with other
11 individuals who would know something about the injured party and the
12 family thereof?
13 A. As I already said, that's the third part of the work we did; the
14 first being gathering information from police stations and internal
15 affairs units, then work with police forensics.
16 The third part of our work was in the case of finding the injured
17 party, be it a kidnapped person or a maltreated person. We're not taking
18 about in this case about a killed person. If we establish contacts with
19 the families of some of the deceased or with other persons who are aware
20 of this case, this is what we would do: We go and find such people,
21 conduct interviews with them. With some we are unable to do so because
22 people did not want to talk to us, both in the cases of Macedonians and
23 Albanians and others.
24 This was still a period of traces of the military conflict, and
25 many of the people were still afraid. They did not want to talk with us.
1 We -- it was a matter of their own free will. If they wanted to, they
2 would talk to us. Our job was to find them and to ask them to talk to us.
3 If we did and if we received information from them, then we documented
4 this, and this was kept a secret. We kept this under a complete secret
5 because we did not want to compromise these people.
6 Q. Tell me, Mr. Stojkov, you stated that you organised case files on
7 every individual or case. Where did you keep these case files,
8 considering the degree of confidentiality that you just spoke about?
9 A. As I said, there was a case file for each case. We entered all
10 documents, photographs from the persons, other materials, all documents,
11 photographs, everything that we had related to that case. These case
12 files were kept in binders which were in a metal safe box located in our
14 I should also mention that the materials were copied in -- two
15 copies were made of these materials. This was the case with all
16 materials. One should be sent to our analytic service, and then again,
17 through that, to the public prosecutor's office. We kept the materials in
18 our office, in a metal safe box in our office that was also locked.
19 Q. Can you remember, Mr,. Stojkov, during that at the time when you
20 were working in the working group, how many cases roughly you processed or
21 how many cases you had?
22 A. I can't remember the exact figure, since after we would finish
23 with a given number of cases, five, ten, or if they were interrelated, if
24 they were about a group of kidnapped persons, persons who were kidnapped
25 on the same date from the same place, we had a case file on every
2 So we collated those old case files; and accompanied by an
3 Official Note, we sent them to the analytics department when they were
4 further processed. So maybe we had someone hundred, 200 case files. I
5 can't say precisely, because I know that some of the casings were not
6 closed. The events were registered but we were unable to close those
8 Q. I forgot to ask you something else. Was there a head or a
9 coordinator who coordinated the work of the working group?
10 A. There was no head. There was a coordinator.
11 Q. Who was that while you were there?
12 A. Well, from the outset when I came from September and later in
13 October when I became a permanent member, coordinator was Mr. Apostol
14 Stojanovski, who was the chief inspector the homicide department in the
16 Q. Did this working group work separately on separate cases or did
17 you have common meetings at which you discussed your joint work?
18 A. Considering the work that -- of the group that operated in Skopje,
19 which consisted of me, Mrs. Canka Meglenova, Mr. Zoran Pavlovski who spent
20 a lot of time with us, and Mr. Apostol Stojanovski, we had meetings.
21 Maybe not every day, but every other day or every third day, we had
22 meetings to agree which cases we were processing, which cases were closed,
23 which should be sent to the analytics, et cetera.
24 Q. Did you notice that the superiors in the ministry, did they want
25 to know what you were doing?
1 A. The initial contacts between us from the working group with the
2 others, with the analytics department and with our superior officers, went
3 through Mr. Apostol Stojanovski. However, since beside being a part of
4 the working group, he also worked on the department of homicide across the
5 entire territory of Macedonia, very frequently I would stand in for him at
6 some of the meetings which we had the director, Mr. Goran Mitevski.
7 Q. What was Mr. Mitevski's attitude towards the work of your working
8 group? Did he support you, did he encourage you, or did he let you do
9 things the way you deemed fit?
10 A. I can speak about all the meetings that I attended, brief
11 meetings, where the director wanted, demanded to see what we did, how far
12 things went. I know that he was very interested in everything we did. We
13 had contacts at least once a week over the telephone or one of us would go
14 for a brief meeting with him, presenting some of the documents that were
15 near completion.
16 He told us that it was very important for the ministry to have all
17 these cases registered, reported, fully documented. He also told us that
18 we enjoyed the full support from the then Minister of Interior, that with
19 regards to assistance from other service, equipment, police forensics, and
20 everything; that if we needed anything, it would be made available to us;
21 that we needed to perform our work with utmost professionalism.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojkov. And now I would like to move on to
23 another topic, and I would kindly ask you to tell me what you know about
24 that topic.
25 You have told you that you based your work on the reports of the
1 aggrieved persons or the persons who were their family members or knew the
2 aggrieved persons.
3 When you joined the group, and after that, did you know whether
4 anybody from the village of Ljuboten, as an aggrieved person, reported an
5 incident or a circumstance, under which an alleged event might have taken
6 place and under which he might have been an aggrieved person?
7 A. In the overview that we received, there were no reports speaking
8 about aggrieved parties. I'm speaking about persons with bodily injuries
9 or ill-treatment or the houses of home were burned down. There was no
10 information that any police organ had received any such reports.
11 Q. Although in the overview of the reported filed by either aggrieved
12 persons or on their behalf, you did not have a single person from the
13 village of Ljuboten.
14 Tell me, did the working group, however, at one point in time
15 started working on the events in Ljuboten and around it?
16 A. I do not remember the period exactly, but I know that it was
17 immediately after the under-secretary in the Ministry of Interior was
18 dismissed. I know that there was a change of office, and Mr. Spasen
19 Sofeski, I believe, came to work as under-secretary of the forensics
20 police, of crime police.
21 In a working meeting, Mr. Apostol Stojanovski came. We were in
22 the office, we were working, and we were organizing some of the documents
23 and case files. Mr. Apostol told us -- he spoke to me directly
24 incidentally, and he told me: "Please open a new case file. We will need
25 to deal with the Ljuboten event."
1 Q. At the request of the coordinator of your group, did you react in
2 any way?
3 A. I reacted personally regarding the entire situation. I told him
4 that, in the overview, there was no report that there were injured parties
5 related to Ljuboten case, and that this deviates from all the standard
6 measures and activities that our working group was carrying out. This
7 would be completely outside of the context of our operation.
8 I don't remember precisely, but I believe Apostol said that this
9 was an order, or maybe not order, a task given by our superiors and that
10 we needed to process that case.
11 Q. Mr. Stojkov, in answering my questions, you have told us that you
12 did not have any prejudices or any position as to whether you would be
13 dealing with the aggrieved persons who were Macedonians, Albanians, or
15 Now what has prompted this reaction of yours? Was it because the
16 alleged victims were Albanians, or was it something else, something to the
17 effect that you have just explained?
18 A. I live in the settlement Radisani, which is very close to the
19 Ljuboten village, and I can tell that you I have very good friends there
20 until the present day. I'm referring to my Albanian friends, so my ethnic
21 affiliations does not have anything to do with this. For me, a case is a
22 case, whether the aggrieved parties are Macedonians or Albanians.
23 You know what? I was processing a case where an Albanian was an
24 injured party in the village of Aracinovo. A senior citizen came to the
25 police station Avtokomanda and reported that, in his house, there was a
1 warehouse. He was involved in trade, and some of the merchandise was
2 stolen. I believe it was car or tractor batteries and spare parts for
3 tractors because that person had a shop.
4 After the case was reported, we investigated. We were looking for
5 information, and we found the perpetrators. The perpetrators were
6 Macedonians. Those individuals were brought in. Their homes were
7 searched. The stolen goods were found; and through the competent police
8 station, a criminal report was filed, which was then forwarded to the
9 competent public prosecutor's office, that later took its own course of
11 So that I believe the division that some people, during that time
12 possibly made, had no impact in our working group. It was not present
14 For us, a case was a case. I can't make any distinction between
15 an Albanian or a Macedonian child.
16 Q. Mr. Stojkov, tell me, please, after this reaction of yours and
17 after had you seen that there were no reports by the aggrieved persons,
18 what did your working group decide with regard to the Ljuboten case?
19 A. Well, Mr. Pavlovski made a suggestion that we establish a normal
20 procedure from the following day onwards; to go visit the police stations
21 in the area of which the Ljuboten case took place and where we should
22 start processing it as in the other cases; to try and find some documents,
23 materials; to see what happened; whether there were aggrieved persons;
24 whether were there any reports; whether there was any damage caused. So
25 on the next day, we started processing the Ljuboten case.
1 Q. In light of the fact that for every new case, as you've told us,
2 you put together a file, did something similar happen with this new task
3 that you were given to investigate and what happened? Were there any
4 aggrieved persons coming from Ljuboten and in relation to the events
5 surrounding Ljuboten?
6 A. Well, immediately after we open a case file, we are opening a case
7 file. I opened this case file. I wrote in my own hand "Ljuboten." Some
8 of the files were typed on a computer; some were done on a typewriter.
9 In the morning when we out, I just took a binder and I wrote there
10 "Ljuboten" in my own hand. And we, with Mr. Pavlovski, took the official
11 car and visited the police station Mirkovci. This is where we wanted to
12 start our investigation.
13 Q. If understand you properly, you said that you had visited the
14 police station at which the incident had been reported or where the
15 incident had happened. Why did you go to the Mirkovci station on this
17 A. Mirkovci is an auxiliary station attached to the OVR Cair. OVR
18 Cair consists of Cair police station, Mirkovci police station, and the
19 department for operations, inspectorate, et cetera.
20 I believe that we had some information that some persons from
21 within that event were brought in into the Mirkovci police station, or
22 they were brought to the Mirkovci police station. We decided to start
23 from there; and, of course, our plan was to visit the Cair police station
24 as well and all the other places that we needed to visit.
25 Q. When you arrived at the Mirkovci police station, who did you find
1 there? Did you have any conversations at the police station in Mirkovci
2 with anybody about the task which had brought you to the Mirkovci police
3 station in the first place?
4 A. Well, in the police station, as I said already, Mr. Pavlovski and
5 I went there with our official jeep, Lada, and we parked it in the yard of
6 the police station. Several police officers wearing uniforms were in
7 front of the station. Some of them were still wearing camouflage
8 uniforms, and we went into the police station. And immediately when you
9 go inside the station, on your right-hand side, there is an office which
10 is the reception desk. The duty police officer is there.
11 We introduced ourselves to the duty police officers as the rules
12 require, and he introduced himself to us. I don't remember his name. I
13 know that he is not of Macedonian ethnicity. And we told him that we
14 wanted to discuss issues with the some of the superior officers from that
15 police station, and he retorted that, at that moment, only the deputy
16 commander of that police station was present there. We asked him to
17 announce us, since we had some interview to carry out with him.
18 The deputy commander received us as at his office. I can't
19 remember the name or the family name. I know that it ended with I-C. I
20 remember this because, again, it is not a Macedonian family name. It
21 ended with I-C. I don't know. And the deputy commander was also wearing
22 camouflage uniform. And after we went in, after we sat down, after we
23 completed the preliminaries, the introduction, we explained the reason for
24 our visit and what issues interested us.
25 Q. Mr. Stojkov, before you continue describing what happened at the
1 police station, I have noticed that, on several occasions, you have
2 emphasised that the policemen and the commander wore camouflage uniforms.
3 Can you tell me, approximately, when it was when you were tasked with the
4 Ljuboten case and when you went to the Mirkovci police station?
5 A. Of course, it was in 2002, but what period. I told you that I
6 believe it was after the arrival of Mr. -- of the new under-secretary,
7 Mr. Spasen Sofeski. It was during that period. I can't remember the
8 exact month.
9 Q. Why did you notice that? Why was it important for you that the
10 policemen and the deputy commander wore camouflage uniforms? What about
11 other commanders at other police stations, for example, in Skopje? How
12 did they come to work? Did they also wear camouflage uniforms?
13 A. Well, regarding other commanders, in the context that we had, I
14 don't think they wore camouflage uniform. But the Mirkovci police station
15 is -- first of all, it is competent for the part of territory gravitating
16 towards Kosovo border.
17 And during that period of time, there was still data coming that
18 uniformed persons with weapons were observed, that some goods were
19 transferred across the state border to Kosovo -- or from Kosovo, and that
20 was -- there is a mountainous area. I believe there were still reasons,
21 or maybe the colleagues were moving in that part towards the border and
22 this is why they were wearing camouflage uniforms.
23 Q. Thank you very much for the explanation.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic, would that be a convenient time?
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE PARKER: We're moving with a view to finishing this evening
2 just a little after 6.30.
3 So we'll adjourn now and resume at 5.25.
4 --- Recess taken at 4.56 p.m.
5 --- On resuming at 5.36 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Could I mention that if you are feeling unwell,
7 just indicate that to us, and we will take a measure to bring the
8 proceedings to an end for the day. We understand you're not feeling
9 entirely as well as you would like.
10 We will keep this session short as much as we can.
11 Ms. Residovic.
12 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Q. You were saying that when you arrived at the Mirkovci police
14 station that you talked to a superior there. Can you please tell the
15 Trial Chamber, if you can remember, what did you talk about and what did
16 he inform you of?
17 A. We talked to the deputy commander. We informed him the reasons
18 why -- of the reasons why we were there, who we are, why we are here, that
19 we are interested in all events regarding the Ljuboten events, and what
20 happened concretely on that day and several days before and afterwards.
21 The deputy explained to us that, on the day of the Ljuboten event,
22 he was on site, that he was not in the police station, but that some of
23 the police officers had been at the police stations at that time and could
24 provide some more concrete information.
25 We asked him whether there was official materials about some
1 events on that day, whether something was in written form, and whether we
2 could look at it; and if something was of interest to us, whether we could
3 take it with us. The deputy explained - my apologies - that the overall
4 material was transferred to analytics in Cair, which then transfers it to
5 SVR in Cair, and that he doesn't believe that other than matters in the
6 daily log-book, other materials would not be found.
7 After we left the deputy, as I already said, we saw some police
8 officers --
9 Q. One moment, Mr. Stojkov. Allow me to interrupt you. You said
10 that the deputy commander was not at the police station on the day, but
11 did you talk to him and did you learn from him whether he had any
12 knowledge as to what was going on at the station, or maybe he did not
13 learn subsequently about that, at all?
14 A. We asked him, as I said, and he said he was not in the police
15 station; but whether it was that evening or the next day when he came, he
16 saw that there were people brought in, and that a larger amount of weapons
17 and ammunition was brought in. And this is why, in effect, we requested
18 the documents to see who and what persons were brought in, what weapons
19 were brought in, what has happened to these people, and this is why we
20 requested the documents.
21 Q. Thank you. I have interrupted you when you started talking about
22 you coming to the station and seeing several policemen there.
23 Did you and your colleague, Zoran, talk to these people; and if
24 you did, what did you talk about?
25 A. We first asked -- we explained the time-period we were interested
1 about. We saw him -- we saw them in the hallways of the police station,
2 and we asked them whether in these days or on the day of the Ljuboten
3 event was working -- whether he was in the police station or whether they
4 were at the points that were covered by the police station Mirkovci.
5 I remember that one of my -- one of the colleagues that day had
6 been at one of the points, and one was a duty officer or a deputy duty
7 officer. I believe Dragan was his name. He told me that on that day
8 there were a lot of events. There was a lot of going on, that he
9 documented all of this. There were Official Notes to that extent.
10 We wanted to have a official interview with them; but, as I
11 already said, all of our interviews or we took all of the statements on a
12 voluntary basis only if the person would agree to speak with us, since we
13 were not authorised to impose or instruct anyone to give us statements.
14 Q. Mr. Stojkov, when you received the information from the deputy
15 commander, who told you that the documents were in Cair and from the
16 policeman who told that you he had personally written numerous documents,
17 what did you do?
18 A. We agreed to go to the police station Cair the next day. However,
19 the next day, my colleague, Pavlovski, was charged with other tasks, so I
20 called my colleague, Canka Meglenova. And we agreed that after stopping
21 at the police forensics first to get some material we needed to get from
22 there, we would go visit the police station Cair.
23 Q. And can you remember when you arrived at Cair, approximately?
24 A. I cannot remember the exact time, perhaps it was around 10.00 or
1 Q. And when you arrived in Cair, did you talk to anyone, or let me
2 put it this way: What happened when you arrived at the Cair police
4 A. Once we arrived, the standard procedure; we called, we entered the
5 room of the officers on duty, we requested to meet with some of the
6 superiors of the OVR Cair, whether the head or the commander of the police
7 station. We were told that the head of OVR Cair was present, Mr. Ljube
8 Krstevski, and that he would receive us.
9 Q. Where did Mr. Krstevski receive you?
10 A. In his office. His secretary came out, she greeted us in the
11 hallway, and took us to his office.
12 Q. And what did you tell Mr. Krstevski.
13 A. We introduced ours first; although, we had known each other from
14 before. We told him that we were members of the working group and that we
15 were interested in the events around Ljuboten; first whether there were
16 reported aggrieved persons, and then we requested to see whether there
17 were documents or notes from this event, prior to the event, or after the
19 Q. Can you remember what Mr. Krstevski told you? How did he respond?
20 A. We were very well received by him in his office; and half
21 jokingly, he said that we should have been there that day to see the chaos
22 that happened that day. Then we started talking more seriously about the
23 event itself, the reasons for this event, and this whole situation.
24 Mr. Krstevski said that this whole event was preceded by a mine
25 explosion of a military vehicle with soldiers being killed; then how local
1 inhabitants of the village of Ljubanci and others that gravitate around
2 the village of Ljuboten were upset because soldiers from the army of the
3 Republic of Macedonia were killed that came from Ljubanci; that movement
4 was noted of uniformed persons with weapons in black uniforms with emblems
5 of the NLA in the region above the village of Ljuboten, in the village
6 itself; and that on that day, on the day of the event itself, there were
7 major problems with the population from the Macedonian villages and from
8 people from the settlements that came that day.
9 He also said that there were a lot of people that were brought
10 there and detained in police station Cair and Mirkovci, and also that a
11 lot of weapons were also found.
12 Q. Mr. Stojkov, how long did you talk to Mr. Krstevski? Did he
13 provide you with all the details, or did he just choose and pick some of
14 the details that you have just mentioned?
15 A. Our conversation lasted about half an hour to 40 minutes. This
16 was a conversation in fragments. We skipped from one topic to another
17 about how things happened. Then we talked about the events after the
18 event itself; what happened to the persons that were brought in, whether
19 and where they were transferred or took over from other police stations,
20 from the prosecutor from the courts that reports were written and
22 At this time, this segments did not mean much to us; later how
23 they attempted to enter the village and that allegedly there were people
24 killed. But all of this was done in segments. We requested that we be
25 allowed -- first, we asked if there was written documents on this matter,
1 and Ljube said that all events were registered and that there is a
2 document for each event, after which we requested to see these documents.
3 And we explained that, if necessary, we would ask him to secure or to
4 allow us to take copies with us.
5 Q. Mr. Stojkov, in light of the fact that you arrived there to look
6 at the documentation, as you've told us, did Mr. Krstevski allow to you do
7 that and where did that -- did that take place, if it was ever allowed?
8 A. Even as the conversation was ongoing, Krstevski called one of the
9 people responsible in the analysis unit in Cair. We were told that we
10 were free to go there and to look at any materials we may deem necessary,
11 to make copies of them, and to take them with us, which we did.
12 Q. When you arrived, did you ask only for the documents describing
13 the events in the village, or did you also ask for documents describing
14 events outside the village at police check-points? How broad was the
15 scope of your interest at the moment when you spoke to Mr. Krstevski?
16 A. There were some rumours in the public that, allegedly, the small
17 number of police officers, who were there in that region at that time in
18 the roads around Ljuboten, that they maltreated people at check-points,
19 that they beat them up, they physically harassed them.
20 This was one of the points that we were working on, and this is
21 why we asked whether something like this had happened, that that there was
22 a complaint or a statement, whether someone had requested to clarify a
23 situation of this kind with the police officers.
24 The head responded that up until then, nobody had requested,
25 nobody had reported of any grievances, nor had anyone submitted a
1 complaint about the police officers or their behaviour. There was no such
2 report from the citizens or the villagers of Ljuboten to the official
3 police services.
4 Q. Mr. Stojkov, when you spoke to Mr. Krstevski, did he ever tell you
5 whether you were the first who had shown interest in the event or whether
6 there were people who had come before from the Ministry of Interior, the
7 courts, the prosecutor's offices, to ask for similar information?
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Dobbyn.
9 MR. DOBBYN: [Microphone not activated]
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Prosecutor, please.
11 JUDGE PARKER: We didn't catch any of that on the transcript,
12 Mr. Dobbyn.
13 MR. DOBBYN: I apologise, Your Honour.
14 I'm just saying I do apologise for the interruption, but I feel
15 that this is quite an important issue here, and the question does appear
16 to be quite leading. I would ask that it be rephrased.
17 JUDGE PARKER: A little late now, Mr. Dobbyn, yes.
18 But I'm sure Ms. Residovic will take care in future.
19 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, and I will certainly
20 make sure that my questions to the witness are not leading.
21 Q. Tell me, please -- or let me put it this way: During the course
22 of your fragmentary conversation, as you put it, with the head of the
23 police station, did you also discuss any other acts on behalf of other
24 people with regard to these events?
25 A. If you mean police procedures regarding the people who were
1 brought in and detained, we talked about the fact that they were listed
2 and recorded in police documents. Those who requested medical attention
3 received medical attention. Those that needed expertise to be conducted,
4 papillary lines were taken. Traces were found from use of weapons, the
5 paraffin glove.
6 All of this was reported to the responsible bodies, the duty
7 centre, the public prosecutor's office, investigating judge, and that
8 criminal reports were issued against some persons, if this is what you had
9 in mind when you said "procedures."
10 Q. Very well. We'll go back to the same question maybe a little
12 For the time being, I would like to thank you for the explanation
13 provided thus far.
14 Now, tell me, did you finally get hold of the documents that had
15 brought you to the OVR Cair in the first place?
16 A. After Mr. Krstevski called his colleagues at analytic unit, we
17 stayed a little while longer in his office because we knew that there were
18 people -- that there were dead bodies in the village. We knew that on the
19 next day, or on the 14th, attempts were made to make an organised entry
20 into the village of Ljuboten in order to carry an on-site investigation
21 and forensic investigation that would allow the prosecutors and
22 investigating judges to see the site.
23 I know that contacts were made with a Member of Parliament of
24 Albanian ethnicity, Fatmir Etemi. Through the media, we already had some
25 information about all of this. So we asked Mr. Krstevski, in light of the
1 fact that he was also included in these events and these activities, what
2 and how had been done in this respect.
3 He told us and he explained in short that two attempts were made
4 to enter the village, that contacts were made with Mr. Etemi, that the
5 security situation did not allow entry into the village, and that forensic
6 teams, medical teams, judges, prosecutors were on standby and were ready
7 to enter but that they did not do so.
8 Q. Mr. Stojkov, my question may not have been exactly precise. What
9 you have just told us now is something that you already told us before.
10 What I would like to know is this: When you finished talking to
11 Mr. Krstevski 30 or 45 minutes later, did Mr. Krstevski allow you to enter
12 the analytics department?
13 A. Yes. We were allowed to do that and we went there.
14 Q. What were you looking for there? Did you have a period in mind,
15 or did you have a random look at all the documents?
16 A. Of course, we told our colleagues who were working there that we
17 needed the documents from the period around August 2001; but, as a rule,
18 we first asked to see the book with Official Notes and the book with
19 operations information, in order to find there the numbers, and on the
20 basis of the identifying elements to find the case files that we were
21 looking for, and then take them out. So we did not need to take all the
22 case files from that sector, and this was allowed.
23 Q. And did you receive the operations book and the Official Notes
24 book that you asked for; and if you received them, did you find anything
25 in them?
1 A. The books were given to us to inspect them; but in reviewing them,
2 I could not find what I was interested in at the moment and neither could
3 my colleague. So we asked to see all written documents from that period.
4 Q. What was given to you? What did the documents consist of, the
5 ones that you inspected?
6 A. We asked to see all telegrams, information documents, Official
7 Notes from the period few days before the Ljuboten event and maybe a week
8 later than the Ljuboten event.
9 Q. What was the form of all these documents? What did they look
11 A. As I said, those were telegrams, information notes, and the
12 Official Notes. They were placed in binders, and we found them. Our
13 colleagues, actually, from the analytics helped us. They gave us the
14 binders. We sat down with my colleague and we were turning pages, reading
15 the documents one by one. And with regard to documents that we considered
16 useful for our work, we would mark those. And after we marked those
17 documents that we felt we would need - I apologise - we asked that they
18 are copied for us, that copies of those are made for us.
19 Q. Did your colleagues make copies of the documents that you marked
20 for copying?
21 A. Yes. All documents that we marked were copied, the documents we
22 marked, the documents that we felt we would need.
23 Q. Since you had already spoken to people at the Mirkovci police
24 station and since you had already spoken to Mr. Krstevski, when you were
25 inspecting the documents in the analytics department, could you find any
1 documents that would corroborate the words of the previous interlocutors?
2 A. From both conversations, the one in the Mirkovci police station,
3 the conversation with my colleagues there, and also the conversation with
4 Mr. Krstevski, the information that we received orally were then found in
5 the written materials. There were Official Notes, telegrams, information
7 Q. In addition to having spoken to Mr. Krstevski and having inspected
8 documents at the analytics department, did you have any other
9 conversations with anybody else at the OVR Cair?
10 A. We encountered some of the police officers at Cair as well. I
11 don't remember, maybe they were inspectors, and we asked to see whether
12 some of them were among the ones who participated or were deployed at
13 Ljuboten during those days.
14 We had conversations, but none of them wanted to give an official
15 statement, you understand, and I was not authorised to order them, that
16 they need to have interview with me. But during the unofficial
17 conversations, I know that they told me that on that day, in front of the
18 Cair police station, there were several hundreds of people gathered who
19 protested, who wanted to go towards the part of Ljuboten village through
20 Radisani; and that the colleagues, who were not many at that time there,
21 had a great deal of problems, because the population of Macedonian
22 ethnicity from the village of Radisani and lower from Radisani, in the
23 part towards Butel settlement, in a way, apprehended the people from
24 Ljuboten village, attacked them, were beating them.
25 So the police officers needed really to recapture those people, to
1 take them literally from their hands, to prevent any greater harm, and
2 those people were taken to the police station.
3 Q. Mr. Stojkov, you've told us that you had arrived with a task to
4 learn something about the allegedly aggrieved persons as a result of these
5 incidents. Did you ever speak to Mr. Krstevski or anybody else, whether
6 they, within the purview of their legal competencies, had they had any
7 contacts with the possibly aggrieved from the village or elsewhere that
8 might have some explanation for them?
9 A. I know that they had contacts with people from the villages;
10 however, they had nothing specific. Nobody was willing to report any
11 specific case. They knew -- I mean, they learned that there were dead
12 people and that they were buried. They made attempts to contact people
13 from the village, village inhabitants. However, everybody refused to have
14 any cooperation, since they were fearing something and they were reluctant
15 to cooperate with the police.
16 Q. Mr. Stojkov, what you have just related to us, the story of
17 Mr. Krstevski and a number of your colleagues, about people attacking
18 villagers and the police trying to save them, did you find all that
19 plausible, the stories that your colleagues shared with you?
20 A. Of course, I did believe the stories, primarily because they are
21 my colleagues. They are authorised officers; and pursuant to the law,
22 they need to safeguard the law and order. And, secondly, I personally had
23 the opportunity to see what took place in front of the Cair police station
24 on that date, and in the area around village of Radisani. So I personally
25 saw some things that happened.
1 Q. When did you see that something was happening around the police
2 station and Radisan village?
3 A. Well, on the Sunday, 12th of August, 2001, I was working on the
4 territory of my police station, Gazi Baba, and my task was to secure the
5 facilities of vital importance on the territory of Gazi Baba police
6 station, together with my colleagues.
7 Around noon, through my radio station, well, there were
8 allegations or rumours before that also; but around noon, I heard that
9 something was taking place near village of Radisani. Because I live in
10 the Radisani settlement, that is not far from the Radisani village and
11 this is where my family live, I immediately went home.
12 Q. When you say that you went home from Gazi Baba, how could you know
13 what was happening in front of the Cair police station?
14 A. The only road towards the Radisani settlement and the village of
15 Radisani, as well as the villages of Ljubanci, Ljuboten, and other
16 settlements and villages gravitating towards this area, passes by the Cair
17 police station.
18 On that date, when I started towards my home since I was fearing
19 for my family, of course, and when I came in front of the Cair police
20 station, I can't give you the exact time. It was 12.00 noon or 1.00 p.m.
21 or early, I can't remember, and there were several hundred of people
22 outside. They were shouting, they were protesting, and they were
23 demanding something. They had Macedonian flags; that I remember.
24 Also, there was a huge convoy of cars moving towards the village
25 of Radisani and the Radisani settlement, and I saw all this and I was in a
1 hurry to get home.
2 Q. Mr. Stojkov, you are a policeman. Did you stop even for a moment;
3 and if you didn't, why didn't you?
4 A. I did not stop in front of the police station, since I think that
5 there were police officers inside the station who were able -- well, I saw
6 several police officers who would most probably be deployed. I don't know
7 whether they kept people at a distance. But, sincerely, I was concerned
8 about my family because I didn't know what was taking place. So I was in
9 a hurry to get home, since my children were then very young.
10 Q. On that day, did you leave your house to go somewhere? Did you
11 see anything else in addition to what you saw on the way home?
12 A. When I reached my home, I saw that my family was very agitated,
13 and I believe that I needed to stay with them. However, from the upper
14 floor of my house, from the upper balcony, you can see a section of the
15 road towards Ljuboten and the upper part of the Radisani village. And at
16 one point in time, I noticed a larger group of people moving towards the
17 village of Ljuboten, towards the village of Radisani.
18 Maybe there were cars there, too, but the location of the road is
19 such that I saw people moving. I was not able to see cars. And from the
20 lower part of village of Radisani, I saw another group of citizens, larger
21 group of citizens, moving towards -- moving from the village towards the
22 road, Ljubotenski Pat. And, suddenly, that group moving from Ljuboten, I
23 suppose those were the Ljuboten inhabitants, suddenly they moved down
24 across the fields, across the land there, to the village of Radisani.
25 Q. Very well. If I understand you well, you have given us one of the
1 reasons why you trusted your colleagues who had told you that the
2 civilians had attacked the villagers. Is that what you were saying when
3 you were sharing with us your personal views of the day?
4 A. Well, since I stayed at home on that day with my family, the next
5 day I went to work again, of course, but I had sometime to meet some of my
6 colleagues who told me that there were situations. I later read about
7 those in the documents, that there were situations that citizens of
8 Macedonian ethnicity were stopping and attacking people of Albanian
9 ethnicity from the village of Ljuboten and that police officers needed to
10 intervene to save those people.
11 So, of course, I trusted them, because I saw that happening with
12 my own eyes. From both sides, a larger group of people were coming,
13 people coming down from Ljuboten to the village of Radisani and also
14 people from Butel moving towards the village of Radisani and the
15 settlement of Radisani.
16 Q. Thank you, again, for your explanation. Now let's go back to what
17 you did as a member of the working group, and especially to what you and
18 your colleague, Canka, saw on that day, what you chose and copied in the
19 analytics department of the OVR Cair.
20 Could we please look at some documents together. I will kindly
21 ask you to tell me whether you can remember if you saw some of the
22 documents before or whether you even copied some of them on the day at the
23 OVR Cair.
24 Could you please look at the document which is after tab 3?
25 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit P396.
1 Q. Before that, tell me, did you know who Slavko Ivanovski was?
2 A. To be honest, I didn't know. I didn't know who was the commander,
3 I didn't know who was the deputy commander of Mirkovci police station. I
4 didn't know.
5 Q. Please look at the telegram. If I understood you well, among the
6 documents at the analytics department, you also saw telegrams, did you
8 A. Yes. Yes. I also saw telegrams and I know the text of these
9 telegrams. This is an official vehicle of the ARM where the soldiers were
10 killed. I know the text of this. I don't think we took telegrams as
11 part -- as documents in our case file, but I'm aware of this text. I know
12 this text, which means that I have seen it.
13 Q. Thank you. Could you please look at the document after tab 4.
14 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is exhibit P158.
15 Q. It is an Official Note of the Mirkovci police station, and its
16 number is 1179.
17 A. This is the same text of the telegram. There is a possibility
18 that we took this document with us because it is an Official Note. It is
19 the text dealing with the ARM vehicle when eight Macedonian soldiers were
21 Q. Before we continue looking at documents together, when you spoke
22 to Mr. Krstevski, did you ever talk about the action that took place on
23 the 12th of August in his area of responsibility? Did you ever mention
24 that? Did he make any references to that? Did you show any interest at
25 all in learning about that action?
1 A. No. As I said, this was a fragmented conversation. We skipped
2 from one topic to another, but we began our conversation with the
3 situation of the death of the eight Macedonian soldiers. I think that, in
4 our discussions, we were told that military action has been taken, because
5 we had a case of dead soldiers. Later, I also saw that the military
6 positions were attacked by uniformed persons in the area of Ljuboten, as
7 well as the police check-points, of course; if this was the extent of your
9 Q. Very well. Thank you. Could you please look at the document
10 after tab 5.
11 This is another telegram by the Mirkovci police station. Can you
12 recall having seen a document of this kind?
13 A. As I already said, we did not take telegrams with us. They have
14 different significance or different weight in our documents, but I know
15 this text, and I know of it. If there is a telegram, surely, in the
16 documents, there is also an Official Note to that extent. If there is
17 such an Official Note, then we took it with us, but the text is known to
19 Q. Very well. Could you please look at the document after tab 6,
20 which is Exhibit P150.
21 As you've just told us, you also looked at the Official Notes. Do
22 you remember having seen or copied this Note?
23 A. As I said, since I know the text, I know of this. But whether we
24 took all of the documents with us or whether we left this one, I cannot
25 really respond, because I cannot remember.
1 Q. Very well. Thank you. Please look at the document after tab 7,
2 which is Exhibit 1D145.
3 Although you told us already that you did not take any telegrams,
4 if you look at the contents of this particular one, does this jog your
5 memory as to what it contains?
6 A. I cannot recall now. There are some concrete information about
7 those Zendelovksi family. I know that I had read material that prior to
8 the Ljuboten event, there was movement of uniformed and armed persons. I
9 believe I mentioned this earlier. Perhaps I had seen it; perhaps I had
10 not seep it, this telegram. I know that we saw materials informing of
11 movement of uniformed persons with weapons in the area of the village of
13 Q. Thank you. And now look at the document after tab 8, which is
14 Exhibit P151.
15 A. This is an Official Note based on the telegram that was submitted.
16 It is the same text in question. Most probably, it is possible that we
17 made a copy of this and took it with us. This is an Official Note from
18 police station Mirkovci.
19 Q. Mr. Stojkov, please, this is an Official Note, and we've seen
20 others as well. Tell me, please, who is it normally who drafts an
21 Official Note of this kind?
22 A. We have the name and last name of the person who did so. Official
23 Notes are prepared by all authorised officials depending on the activities
24 undertaken: Duty officer, police officer, deputy duty officer. According
25 to the name which can I see here, I'm thinking whether this is the person
1 who was on duty when we were in police station Mirkovci. I cannot be
2 certain of this; however, it is possible that this is that very person.
3 However, I cannot say with certainty.
4 Official Notes are otherwise prepared or drafted by the police
5 officer all the way up to superiors and heads of certain units and
6 services. All of them draft Official Notes about various activities and
8 Q. Would you please look at the document after tab 9.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit P114.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is one of the reports --.
11 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Just a moment. I don't think we have the report on the screen
13 yet. Could you please hold on just for a moment.
14 Please proceed.
15 A. This is a report about events registered and measures undertaken.
16 I know that, during my visit to the analytics unit, I saw several reports.
17 I know with certainty that I took them with me. I made copies of them,
18 and I took them with me because these reports provide a chronological
19 overview of the events and participants therein. This is why I can say
20 with certainty that I took these documents with me.
21 Q. Thank you. And now let's go to the document after tab 10, which
22 is an Official Note dated 11 August 2001; again, issued by the police
23 station of Mirkovci.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit P159.
25 Q. Could you please tell me whether you had any recollection with
1 regard to the document that is just before you.
2 A. I can't remember this document concretely, but I know I said
3 earlier that the army positions were attacked. Most probably, the army
4 had also acted or responded to these attacks. Here, in the text, it is
5 stated that ARM acted with infantry weapons in the direction of the
6 village of Ljubanci, and this is information provided by a police officer.
7 Q. Thank you. And now let look at the document after tab 11.
8 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is Exhibit P23, under seal.
9 This is Official Note number 1131.
10 Q. Mr. Stojkov, do you remember having seen or having noticed or even
11 having copied the Official Notes with similar contents or maybe even this
12 particular one.
13 A. This Official Note is known to me in principle. In all cases
14 where we encountered Official Notes with persons, identity of persons and
15 any other additional information about these persons were taken by us.
16 This is a characteristic one because we have here listed and confiscated
17 weapons, and these are the persons who were brought into the police
18 station Mirkovci along with their weapons.
19 Q. Why would these people be of any interest to you?
20 A. Once the event was over, we, as a working group, were charged to
21 work on this. The understanding was that we were to find these persons,
22 contact these persons, and to see, if possible, to establish contact with
23 them, to see whether they can report or say something to us about their
25 On the other hand, I remember that part of them were brought in
1 with weapons.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic, is that a convenient time?
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Well, we will adjourn now for the day and we resume
6 tomorrow at 2.15.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.34 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day of
10 February, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.