100127IT

Page 10329

1 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, sir.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Would you please read aloud the affirmation that

4 is shown to you now.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will

6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.

8 I believe Mr. Popovic has some questions for you.

9 WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 Examination by Mr. Popovic:

12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Gojovic.

13 A. Good morning.

14 Q. Mr. Gojovic, before I start my examination, I would like to ask

15 you, since we speak the same language, after hearing my question make a

16 pause to allow the interpreters to finish interpreting my question and

17 then to start interpreting your answer.

18 Please state your name.

19 A. My name is Radomir Gojovic.

20 Q. Could you please tell us your date of birth and place of birth.

21 A. I was born on the 1st of February, 1943, in the Sekiraca village

22 of the municipality of Kursumlija, the Republic of Serbia.

23 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gojovic, did you testify before this court in the

24 Milutinovic trial on the 2nd and 3rd of October --

25 A. Yes.

Page 10330

1 Q. -- in 2007? During the proofing session, did you have an

2 opportunity to read through what you testified about in the Milutinovic

3 trial?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. If I understood you correctly, you would like to make certain

6 corrections and to explain and clarify some of your answers recorded in

7 the transcripts of your testimony in the Milutinovic case. Now I would

8 like to allow you to do that. And for the benefit of my learned friends

9 and Their Honours, I would like to point out that in the Milutinovic

10 transcript on page 16764, line 25, and on page 16765, lines 1 to 4, what

11 is recorded there is the question of the Presiding [as interpreted] Judge

12 Nosworthy about whether there was an obligation on the part of citizens

13 to report a crime and the witness' answer to that question.

14 Now I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify your answer that you

15 provided then and to state it loud and clear here.

16 A. A misunderstanding occurred then, and I overlooked something, and

17 I would like to add to make it more precise and accurate. Each citizen,

18 if learning that a criminal offence has been committed, punishable by

19 death sentence, should report such an offence; failing that, he may be

20 punished by three years in prison. This is a federal law provision and

21 applies to military police officers, et cetera. So an official person

22 which learns ex officio that a criminal offence has been committed

23 punishable by five years in prison or more and fails to do so, then they

24 may be punished by three years in prison and more. Which means all

25 military officers when executing their duties has also the character of

Page 10331

1 an official person. I overlooked this provision because we were

2 discussing the Law on Military Officers, which regulates the question and

3 the issue of such relations and obligations. And I believe that now I've

4 clarified this matter.

5 Q. Thank you. After you've clarified this point, would you answer

6 all the questions from the transcript, would you answer them in the same

7 way that you did then during the Milutinovic trial?

8 A. Yes. There were no other reasons for me to say anything other

9 than what I said then.

10 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Gojovic.

11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this document,

12 65 ter 1664. This would be the transcript of Witness Gojovic's testimony

13 in the Milutinovic trial.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00496.

16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now I'm going to read out a

17 summary of the witness statement of Mr. Gojovic.

18 The witness is a lawyer who spent more than 40 years as member of

19 the Yugoslav Army, before retiring with -- holding the rank of major in

20 2001. In his professional career, witness was the presiding judge of the

21 military court in Belgrade from 1st of January, 1994, to the 16th of

22 April, 1999, when he was appointed chief of the administration of the

23 General Staff of -- the legal administration of the General Staff of the

24 VJ. He is going to testify about the efforts he invested in improving

25 the military legal system, inter alia, by within his remit providing all

Page 10332

1 the necessary logistic support to the military justice system, and he

2 requested and allowed the inclusion of the necessary professional

3 personnel into the military justice system of the FRY and contributed to

4 a normal functioning of the military justice system and the execution of

5 its legal obligations and duties.

6 The witness is going to discuss and explain the criminal

7 procedure from detection to conviction or the final judgement. He is

8 going to testify about the documents which the military handed out to all

9 members of the VJ and about the training that members of the VJ

10 undertook, particularly in respect of honouring international regulations

11 and conventions, regulated the conduct during war and the respect for

12 international humanitarian law. The witness is going to testify about

13 the position, autonomy, and independence of the organs of the military

14 justice system in relation to all the other organs, departments, and

15 services of the General Staff of the VJ.

16 In his testimony, he will particularly analyse information,

17 reports, and overviews and summaries prepared for the use of the General

18 Staff and for the VJ which contained reports about criminal offences

19 perpetrated by the members of the VJ in Kosovo. He's going to talk about

20 the number of criminal reports, the number of investigations conducted,

21 the number of indictments, and the number of judgements in such

22 proceedings.

23 The witness is going to analyse orders issued by the General

24 Staff of the VJ, who he -- which he personally drafted, which insisted on

25 the need to detect crime and emphasized the obligation of all members of

Page 10333

1 the VJ to respect the provisions of international humanitarian law. From

2 his personal experience, he's going to confirm that if crimes were

3 detected and reported, that they were all investigated and processed if

4 there were grounds for -- to initiate proceedings.

5 Thank you very much. That would be the summary of the witness'

6 statement.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Gojovic, were you a member of the VJ, and until what time if

10 you were?

11 A. I was member of the Yugoslav People's Army. I was an active

12 officer from July 1961, and after that I was member of the VJ until the

13 1st of April, 2001, when I retired. Before that, I graduated from the

14 military high school from 1959 to 1961.

15 Q. Thank you. Please tell me, when you retired, which rank did you

16 hold?

17 A. I was major-general in the legal department.

18 Q. Could you please explain your education.

19 A. I graduated from the military high school, and after that I

20 graduated from the grammar school and the law school in Sarajevo. Then I

21 passed the bar examination and the examination for major, and I spent my

22 whole career in the military justice system. In the meantime, I achieved

23 a master's degree in Belgrade at the criminal law department of the law

24 school in Belgrade.

25 Q. Could you please slow down when providing your answers.

Page 10334

1 Could you please briefly explain to us which posts you held

2 within the JNA and the VJ in your career.

3 A. After graduating from the military school, I stayed at that

4 school as a commander and teacher of the cadets. After that I commanded

5 a platoon until 1971. I was then promoted to the rank of lieutenant in

6 the legal department, and I took up a post at the military court in

7 Sarajevo. After trainership and after passing the bar exam, I was

8 appointed deputy military prosecutor in Sarajevo. I spent four years

9 there occupying that position. Then I was an investigative judge at the

10 military court in Sarajevo for another four years. After that I was

11 deputy military ombudsman and for another five years --

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat the answer -- the last

13 portion of his answer, please.

14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Could you please repeat the last section of --

16 A. The secretary of the military disciplinary tribunal and deputy of

17 the public prosecutor at the command of the 7th Army in Sarajevo. After

18 that I was president of a panel of judges for another three years at the

19 same military court in Sarajevo. After that, deputy prosecutor --

20 military prosecutor in Sarajevo for another two years. Then for another

21 three years, a military prosecutor in Sarajevo. After that, I was deputy

22 military prosecutor general of the JNA for two years. After that,

23 president of the military court in Belgrade from the 1st of January,

24 1994, until the 16th of April, 1999, more than four years. Then head of

25 the general legal department of the General Staff from the 16th of April,

Page 10335

1 1999, and then head of the legal department of the Ministry of Defence of

2 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

3 So that would be all the posts within the legal profession, both

4 as a clerk and as an officer or an official within that system.

5 Q. Thank you. After retiring in 2001, did you perform any tasks or

6 were you involved or engaged by the VJ, its General Staff, or the

7 Ministry of Defence?

8 A. Yes. After retiring, there was a need at the time to establish

9 co-operation between the Ministry of Defence and the VJ General Staff

10 with this Tribunal. There were some requests concerning the delivery of

11 documents and similar matters. And for that purpose, the minister of

12 defence, in co-operation with the Chief of the General Staff, established

13 a commission. It was labelled a Commission For the Co-Operation with The

14 Hague Tribunal. I was asked to accept the post of deputy chairman of

15 that commission as a professional, an expert, or a person who would

16 facilitate the work of that commission. That commission worked for a

17 period of three years. Later on, a different commission was established

18 with different members.

19 Q. You told us what the tasks of that commission was. Just briefly,

20 if you remember, how many members did the commission have, and could you

21 maybe name some of those permanent members. Very briefly, if you

22 remember; if not, we will just carry on.

23 A. As far as I can remember, the commission had seven permanent

24 members. The chairman of the commission was an active-duty general,

25 Lieutenant-General Zlatoje Terzic, who was at the head of the training

Page 10336

1 sector, military training sector. I was his deputy. And then there was

2 also a representative from each sector of the ministry or the General

3 Staff, so that there were a total of six or seven members. I was the

4 only one who was retired. Also, Lieutenant-General Geza Farkas was

5 retired. All the others were active-duty members of different ranks.

6 Q. Thank you. We will go back to 1999. If I understood you

7 correctly, on the 16th of April, 1999, you were appointed as chief of the

8 legal administration at the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia?

9 A. Yes. This is the legal administration in the General Staff.

10 There is a difference. When you say "in the General Staff" or "attached

11 to the General Staff." If it's in the staff, then it's a part of the

12 General Staff; if it's an organ that is attached to the General Staff,

13 it's an independent organ, but that has some connection to the General

14 Staff.

15 Q. How long did you stay at that post?

16 A. I stayed there until mid-2000, then I became the chief of the

17 legal administration at the Ministry of Defence because those two

18 administrations had merged. This was in order to stream-line our

19 operations.

20 Q. Can you explain a little more to us what the role and the

21 function of the legal administration is in the General Staff of the Army

22 of Yugoslavia when you took on that post.

23 A. Its main task was to be a professional organ that dealt with all

24 the legal matters for the needs of the General Staff, and the most

25 important thing other than that was to organise and secure the

Page 10337

1 functioning of military courts and military prosecutors during the war.

2 Q. When you took up your duties on the 16th of April, 1999, what

3 were the tasks that you were given, and what was the situation regarding

4 the military courts and prosecutors' offices that you encountered when

5 you took up your duties?

6 A. I would just before that like to say that with the declaration of

7 the state of war on the 24th of March, 1999, and pursuant to the plan,

8 the military courts and military prosecutors were activated in wartime.

9 This function does not exist in peacetime. During wartime, the structure

10 and the organisation of these bodies is quite different. So putting them

11 into effect was something that was done for the first time after World

12 War II, and in that sense there was a lack of experience and other

13 knowledge as to how they would work in practice. There was a lot of

14 theory, but of course, there is a lot of difference between theory and

15 practice, particularly in the middle of a state of war. I was the

16 president of the military army -- of the military court of the 1st Army.

17 So on the 16th of April, a couple of days before that, we were organising

18 and establishing these courts, getting them up to operate. So in the

19 situation of these newly formed courts, of which there were 23 or 24, and

20 of course there were the military prosecutors, the first difficulties and

21 discrepancies began to appear between practice and what was assumed in

22 theory. This was something that was noticed, of course. So there was a

23 need for someone who had enough experience and knowledge in the

24 profession to reorganise all of that in order to create a more favourable

25 environment. The superiors thought that I, because I was one of the rare

Page 10338

1 ones in the legal practice who had carried out all these duties, the

2 prosecutor, the presiding of the panel of judges, I worked in commands

3 outside of the courts, I worked in higher courts. So they believed that

4 I had a lot of experience throughout my professional duties, and so they

5 appointed me in order to improve the organisation and the functioning of

6 the courts. And this is a complex matter, it's something that is evident

7 here as well. In any kind of operation of the court there is a lot of

8 logistical support required in order to meet the specific and quite

9 considerable requirements that were set.

10 So these were the reasons that guided my superiors to appoint me

11 to this post.

12 Q. If I understood you correctly, you've given us a pretty

13 exhaustive answer, so let us summarise. You, as an experienced

14 professional in the legal field, were appointed to set up the legal

15 bodies?

16 A. Yes, the legal and military bodies.

17 Q. When we're talking about the legal administration, what would be

18 the relationship of the military administration within the General Staff

19 in relation to the military courts and the military prosecutors' offices?

20 A. I mentioned earlier that the legal administration is a

21 professional organ in the General Staff in relation to the military

22 courts and the military prosecutors who are independent and autonomous in

23 their work. The legal administration is a link as a professional organ

24 between the General Staff, their requirements in terms of uncovering and

25 processing the perpetrators of crimes, and the military courts and the

Page 10339

1 military prosecutors. So I was the link which on the one hand

2 communicated with those organs and on the other hand, because the

3 organisation is headed by a professional service of the General Staff,

4 the legal administration is entrusted with all the tasks that had to do

5 with the organisation and the formation of the wartime military tribunals

6 at military staffs and units. So this is a unit that provided logistical

7 personnel and professional support.

8 Q. Thank you. Still on this subject, let us now go back to the

9 peacetime period. How were the military courts organised in peacetime?

10 A. The military courts are organised in a completely different way

11 in peacetime. During that period there were three military courts, three

12 military prosecutors' offices at the first instance, and there was the

13 supreme military court and the supreme military prosecutor as the

14 institutions of second instance. The military court was seated in

15 Belgrade. The lower military prosecutors' offices were also located in

16 Belgrade as well as the higher court. There was also a lower military

17 court in Nis and Podgorica, and they had prosecutors' offices there as

18 well. They were appointed according to the territorial principles, so in

19 specific territories.

20 In wartime, these bodies are not formed according to the

21 territorial principle but according to the personnel principle. They

22 were attached to the unit commands. So they're only there in order to

23 prosecute members of a specific command; that is why we had many more of

24 them, 21 lower such courts and there were -- was one supreme military

25 court with its four departments. And I can talk about them more

Page 10340

1 specifically later. This is what the difference is. The lower military

2 courts in peacetime cover all the territories that -- all the units that

3 happen to be in that territory. So they prosecute the perpetrators of

4 crimes from units which are located in the territory they're responsible

5 for.

6 Q. All right. Can we now deal with this. You explained the

7 functional and the actual jurisdiction of the peacetime courts. What

8 changed with the proclamation of the state of war?

9 A. With the declaration of the state of war - because these are

10 completely different and more complex circumstances - the military

11 justice organ -- organisation was adapted to these newly created

12 circumstances, meaning that they are formed at the commands of specific

13 units so that they encompass all the units that are established in

14 wartime at a specific level. And the courts were then formed at the unit

15 commands, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armies had these bodies; then the naval

16 military command; the air force command also; the corps commands also had

17 these bodies as well as the command of one division because this was an

18 independent unit. So this is as far as the operational units are

19 concerned. Then these bodies were formed at the military district

20 commands too. Then the supreme military court was formed with its four

21 departments, the headquarters of this court were in Belgrade, and the

22 departments of the supreme military court were then at the army commands.

23 Parallel with that, you had the same situation as far as the military

24 prosecutor was concerned. The headquarters were in Belgrade at the

25 General Staff, and its departments were located at the army commands. I

Page 10341

1 mean, we can talk about the number of corps that there were, then the

2 number of military districts. So then the system of military courts were

3 adapted to the conditions so that they could be out there immediately in

4 the field and could do their work there.

5 Q. When we're talking about numbers, you said that there were three

6 military courts during peacetime?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. How many of them were during the war?

9 A. There were about 20 or 21 during the war. The lower courts and

10 then we had one court of higher instance that had four departments which

11 were dealing with appeals cases. And there was the same number of

12 prosecutors, military prosecutors, as well.

13 Q. Of course --

14 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Popovic?

15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have just one more

16 question that will round off this topic.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed.

18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 Q. General, let's clarify just one more thing. When you explain the

20 work of the military courts, you say that they are attached to the

21 command. Could you please explain what this word means, that they were

22 "attached." Does that mean that they were under the command of the

23 command that they were attached to or established, or does that mean

24 something else?

25 A. They are completely independent in their judicial and

Page 10342

1 prosecutorial work. When you say that they're attached, it just means,

2 it's a description saying that this command is obliged to provide

3 conditions for this body to work unimpeded, to carry out all its

4 requests, because it covers the territory also covered by that command.

5 So the command is obliged to provide premises, accommodation, security,

6 protection. This is what it means. In its actual peacetime, it is

7 completely independent and the logistics matters are covered by the

8 Ministry of Defence; but in wartime these technical matters are dealt

9 with by the command where they are located, logistics including

10 protection, premises, transport. They would make these requests to the

11 command because there is no other organ which would be able to provide

12 and fulfil these requests. And that is why this term is used "attached."

13 It is not in the command and is not part of the command, and the command

14 has no authority over this body in any kind of essential manner.

15 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you very much.

16 I think that we could go and take our break now.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Popovic.

18 We must break for half an hour for the tapes to be rewound, and

19 we will continue again at five minutes past 11.00. A court officer will

20 assist you during the break.

21 [The witness stands down]

22 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

23 --- On resuming at 11.08 a.m.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.

25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 10343

1 Q. General, a few more questions about the relationship and the

2 independence of military courts. You explained what it means to

3 establish military courts after the proclamation of the state of war,

4 which would then be attached to the commands. Can you please tell me

5 what the relationship of the military courts is vis-à-vis the General

6 Staff, what was that relationship?

7 A. The relationship was the same. There is a certain distance. The

8 General Staff is the highest command in the army in relationship to the

9 military justice organs, so you would have the supreme military court in

10 the same seat as the General Staff. But courts do not have direct

11 contacts relating to their jurisdiction other than matters that have to

12 do with the administration of these courts, and that was something that

13 our legal administration dealt with. This practically means that the

14 courts and the prosecutors were independent in making their decisions,

15 and they are obliged only to apply the laws and regulations in effect in

16 accordance with the law and the constitution.

17 Q. Thank you. This is perhaps just a confirmation of what you have

18 just said, but in order to be precise, could military commanders in any

19 way influence the work of the military courts; and based on your

20 experience, were there such cases, such instances?

21 A. A military commander by the very nature of their duties and

22 functions and in view of the fact that their powers are also regulated by

23 laws, had no authority pursuant to any law or regulation to influence the

24 work of the court or the military prosecutors. Their only duty was to

25 report the perpetrators of crimes to the prosecutor, and at the request

Page 10344

1 of the prosecutor to obtain evidence, documents, and so on. That's where

2 their work ended. They had no legal authority or possibility to exert

3 any influence, so they did not do that. They could voice some desires,

4 requests for faster processing of a specific perpetrator of a crime; they

5 could perhaps point to this, but nothing more than that.

6 Q. Thank you. This seems to be an answer that deals more with the

7 legal aspects of the matter. Based on your experience and since in 1999

8 you were involved with military courts and prosecutors' offices, did you

9 notice that anyone from the structures and the organs of the Army of

10 Yugoslavia exerted any kind of influence or attempted to exert such an

11 influence on the military courts?

12 A. I have been in the military judicial branch for over 30 years.

13 I've been carrying out many duties, and I have never come across such a

14 case and did not come across any such instances during the war. There

15 was one kind of incident at a lower level. This happened in Novi Sad,

16 where one military senior officer submitted charges for some conscripts

17 that did not respond to the call-up, and in order to prevent such

18 behaviour he ordered his subordinates to take measures and to submit a

19 report. And in that document he asked for severe punishment. When the

20 prosecutor received that, they immediately informed the president of the

21 supreme military court that such excesses should be prevented. On the

22 part of the command the courts were acting pursuant to their conscience.

23 So any kind of such behaviour was ridiculous. I mean, it was probably a

24 senior officer without much experience. So this is the only instance in

25 my career that spanned 30 or 40 years, where I came across such a

Page 10345

1 situation.

2 Q. Thank you. What you just described I think is mentioned in one

3 of the documents that we will look at a bit later --

4 A. Yes, it is mentioned in one overall analysis document that was

5 drafted in order to study what experience the military courts had in

6 their work.

7 Q. Thank you. You as head of legal administration within the

8 General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, did you attempt to influence the

9 work of the military courts or military prosecutors during that period of

10 time, 1999?

11 A. No, I did not influence their work. I exerted no influence over

12 their work. My duty was to assist them in doing their work without any

13 hindrance. So I provided any assistance that I could as a colleague,

14 assistance and support on all matters without influencing their work. I

15 never attempted to influence anybody's work, either during peacetime or

16 during wartime, as a president of the court or in any other capacity,

17 because the essence of the work of judges and prosecutors is such that

18 they need to work independently. That is the role in any legal system.

19 Q. Thank you. Now let us go back to the 16th of April, 1999. You

20 take new office on that day -- you took new office. Did you observe any

21 problems at the time; and if so, which were those problems that you came

22 across at the very beginning of your new position as head of legal

23 administration within the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia?

24 A. Based on my previous experience, I knew that whenever one assumes

25 new office, takes new position, and comes into a new working environment,

Page 10346

1 they -- and they want to be responsible in their work, they need to first

2 take stock of the situation in that institution. As a professional with

3 a long-standing experience, I knew the duties and obligations of every

4 prosecutor and on every court; and I knew that there were always some

5 deficiencies, first of all in organisational sense and also in legal

6 technical sense. When I say "organisational," I mean that, yes, there

7 was a certain organigram that was followed in setting up any institution,

8 but how does one go about organise the work of any court? It can only be

9 done by a person who is very well familiar with exact duties of the

10 court. So it's not just a machine that you need to plug in.

11 And as for the legal specialist kind of work, there were some

12 issues there too. In order for somebody to work in a court, they need to

13 have a law degree and take a bar exam and also have an officer's rank.

14 There were situations in practice that clerks who assigned people to the

15 post of a judge had to make sure that all those requirements are met, but

16 they didn't necessarily always make sure that they had the necessary

17 experience. So, for example, we had situation where somebody used to

18 work in a bank as a lawyer and had a bar exam and had an officer's rank

19 and was appointed to the post of a judge without any necessary

20 experience. So naturally such people could not do their work properly

21 because in wartime one has no time to learn how to work as a judge.

22 So those were some of the problems and they resulted from the

23 fact that some of the clerks who worked in those posts did not have the

24 necessary skills or knowledge. I immediately saw this as a problem. I

25 commenced with reorganisation of personnel, and I demanded that people be

Page 10347

1 appointed to the post of a judge only with previous judicial experience

2 or experience as a judge in other courts. And if they lacked the

3 necessary experience of an officer, I proposed that such people be

4 promoted in an extraordinary procedure because there was a possibility to

5 do that under the law. And in this way, we were able to appoint proper

6 judges, professionals who were up to the task. That was one of the first

7 steps because without the necessary staff one could not do the job under

8 those difficult conditions.

9 Now, when it comes for technical problems, meaning typists,

10 computers, technical, logistical assistance, yes, a lot of work needed to

11 be done there, there were a lot of problems there, because the commands

12 did not have the necessary knowledge or experience to know what needs to

13 be done. They had never come across such tasks before. And yes, there

14 were difficulties there, and not only the General Staff but also the

15 lower-level commands had a lot of understanding and provided a lot of

16 support for us in that regard. I introduced professional transcript

17 court reporters, and we hired typists who had proper mental and physical

18 capabilities to perform under those difficult circumstances, wartime and

19 so on.

20 Q. Now, in view of everything you have told us so far, in wartime it

21 is -- speed can be a problem and obviously speed is of the essence here.

22 Now, in rectifying these deficiencies, were you able to do it speedily,

23 and were you able to correct everything in a satisfactory manner?

24 A. Realising what problems and difficulties existed -- and I was

25 able to do that within a couple of days through my contact with the

Page 10348

1 president of the Supreme Court and the prosecutor because we were all in

2 the same location and via contacts with prosecutors and judges out there

3 in the field, and later on I was able to tour these locations as well.

4 So having done all that work, I was able to come up with a proposal and

5 it was done overnight and submitted to the General Staff. And it was

6 immediately that same evening submitted to the General Staff. They

7 looked at it at 7.00 p.m. one evening, and on the following day in the

8 morning I was told that a decision was taken to resolve this. And then I

9 went further on, had contacts with prosecutors, and got in touch with the

10 Ministry of Justice to implement this, to promote the people that were

11 qualified, so that they could take up their posts. So yes, it was done

12 rather quickly, and the same approach was taken with regard to technical,

13 logistical problems. There were contacts with the military police as

14 well and they got in touch with the people out in the field because you

15 know that was wartime, and courts needed to have security detail and the

16 necessary capabilities in that sense. You know, they needed to secure

17 the detention facilities and so on.

18 So when it comes to my proposal and the request that I sent to

19 the General Staff, all of it was resolved in less than 24 hours. The

20 courts and the prosecutors worked around-the-clock, except for the time

21 when they slept, which was some four to five hours; the rest of their

22 time was devoted to work.

23 Q. Thank you for your exhaustive answer. We just need a sort of a

24 conclusion here. Do you think that you received full support and

25 assistance from the General Staff that was available and possible at that

Page 10349

1 point in time?

2 A. Yes, absolutely.

3 Q. Thank you. We spoke about the independence of courts. Now, tell

4 me, please, as far as you're concerned, were you independent in your

5 work? Were you able to make decisions independently, on your own, could

6 you make proposals about how your administration needs to function, what

7 improvements need to be made in the judicial system, and so on, within

8 your scope of authorities of course?

9 A. Whatever was within my competence, whatever I could decide upon

10 as chief of the administration, I did without any interference from

11 anybody else. And as for my proposals that General Staff or some other

12 organ had to rule upon, it was done immediately, without any hesitation.

13 I did my best to make sure that my proposals were proper, rational,

14 competent. I had enough knowledge and experience to make sure that I

15 didn't request something that objectively could not be done. All my

16 superiors, all superior officers acknowledged this and made sure that my

17 requests were met as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

18 Q. General, do you believe that while you held office as chief of

19 legal administration, military courts, military prosecutor's office, and

20 military judicial system in general in the territory of FRY and Serbia

21 functioned properly and met their mandate under the law?

22 A. In the given conditions and circumstances and in accordance with

23 the optimum of their mental and physical abilities, the judicial system

24 performed their work at an exceptionally high level. Whatever was not

25 possible to do given the objective circumstances, they didn't do it; but

Page 10350

1 whatever was up to them to carry out, they did it. And looking at the

2 number of cases that were processed and looking at the quality of work,

3 one is bound to give very high marks to their work.

4 Q. Thank you. Now can we please turn to some more specific issues,

5 issues that are of interest to everybody in this courtroom, and that is

6 the manner in which the legal system of Serbia and Yugoslavia treated

7 crimes against civilians and what was their attitude towards abiding by

8 international conventions and provisions of the international laws of

9 war? By putting this question, I first of all want you to tell us what

10 laws regulated this area and what is it that military courts and military

11 prosecutors relied upon in their work and as part of the laws in effect

12 in Serbia and Yugoslavia at the time.

13 A. Any state should have its own ordered judicial system. The

14 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a state, a newly formed state after the

15 preceding state, the SFRY, created all the laws and regulations also that

16 dealt with international humanitarian law. They also covered this matter

17 in the constitution. I think it was Article 16 of the FRY constitution

18 which stated that all international agreements, which are ratified and

19 published pursuant to the constitution as well as all generally accepted

20 rules of international law, comprise an integral part of a country's

21 internal order. I mean, this is a constitutional article that deals with

22 this matter, which is also covered by the Geneva Convention and is also

23 one of the tenets of the legal order of the Federal Republic of

24 Yugoslavia. So the Criminal Code devotes Section 16 to this matter,

25 which provides for punishment for all of these crimes which are covered

Page 10351

1 by international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes against

2 civilian populations, against prisoners of war, wounded persons, and so

3 on and so forth. So these crimes are regulated, and punishments for them

4 are laid down. There's also a Law on Defence, which in Article 19 I

5 think regulates cases when members of the Army of Yugoslavia who take

6 part in combat are duty-bound in all circumstances to abide by the rules

7 of international laws of war and other laws regulating the treatment of

8 prisoners, wounded persons, and that cover protection of the civilian

9 population. So on the basis of all of these laws and regulations dealing

10 with this subject, certain instructions are also provided for members of

11 the army, and they include everyone starting from just regular soldiers

12 all the way up to the command, how each individual taking part in combat

13 should behave and how they should adhere to these international norms.

14 In case they fail to respect them, they are subject to the appropriate

15 punishment as laid down in the law. This is precisely why military

16 courts were formed at the level of each unit. So this was put into

17 practice covering the organisational normative, operational, and all

18 other aspects, so that this particular subject matter would be covered

19 enabling the normal functioning and the respect for the laws laid down by

20 international agreements.

21 Q. Thank you. We heard about the legislative framework, which was

22 in place for the application of international humanitarian law. Please

23 tell us, in your work did you insist on a certain type of conduct on the

24 part of the military officers in the field in terms of uncovering

25 possible criminal offences and submission of information on such?

Page 10352

1 A. Let me emphasize apart from the legislative framework that at the

2 level of the General Staff a summary was produced of all international

3 humanitarian law provisions and rules of war and produced for each member

4 of the VJ at different levels, the combatants, officers, at different

5 levels; how to conduct themselves in war. Of course, the war colleges

6 teach attendees on such matters. There were also courses at different

7 commands and units provided for the staff. So we did conduct some

8 training at command levels. What your question hints at is as follows:

9 Apart from all the instructions and the regulations and the aide-memoirs

10 and the brochures sent to unit commands, I produced a memory-jogger which

11 summarises all legal proceedings in practice, starting from the duties of

12 military officers, what they should do if his subordinates were to

13 perpetrate a criminal offence, all the way to military courts. So I

14 summarised the duties of the military officers; then investigation and

15 detection organs, which means military police; then who receives any

16 criminal reports; and then there was an explanation of what does -- what

17 the military prosecutor does, what the military court does, and appeal

18 proceedings. This was put in one place, in one brochure, which could be

19 used by any individual to take action with respect to the criminal

20 offence, the perpetrator of such criminal offence in respect of evidence,

21 and the procedure to -- how to treat the detainee. And this was also

22 done in the process of preparation so that everybody had that brochure

23 with them so that they shouldn't wonder whether they could do something

24 or could not, whether they should do something or not. I provided with

25 this summary of procedural mechanisms.

Page 10353

1 Q. Thank you. Mr. General, let's go through some documents, and for

2 that purpose I will give you a binder of documents.

3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to seek assistance

4 from the usher. This is our standard procedure. We produced a binder of

5 documents to facilitate the process. We just put down the numbers of

6 documents that we are going to work on. It's not annotated in any way

7 other than by giving -- being separated by tabs. So if you allow me, I

8 would like to provide that binder to the witness.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

10 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Q. General, each time I'm going to announce documents to be seen in

12 e-court, I will refer to the number of each tab. So this would be your

13 guidance to find the relevant documents. Let's see, please, document

14 D011-0912. That would be tab 2 in your binder, General.

15 This is a document entitled: "Regulations of the Application of

16 International Laws of War in the Armed Forces of the SFRY." General, my

17 first question to you is: Are you familiar with this document?

18 A. Yes, it is, I'm familiar with it.

19 Q. Before I ask you about its contents, let's take a look at the

20 bottom of this page. It can be seen in the Serbian version, and it can

21 be seen in the English version if we were to scroll down. The year

22 printed there is 1988. My question to you is: Those rules on the

23 application of international laws of war in the armed forces of the SFRY

24 were in force in 1999?

25 A. Yes.

Page 10354

1 Q. Could you please tell us something more about this document. It

2 is a voluminous document. We're not going to go into details. Briefly,

3 whatever you can say about it, do so, please.

4 A. This is a large volume containing the most salient provisions of

5 international humanitarian and international laws of war and all other

6 rules and customs of war as envisaged by international conventions,

7 treaties, in a detailed but very user-friendly way. It contains an

8 instruction prepared by the federal secretariat for national defence on

9 the basis of an order of the president of the Presidency of SFRY, who

10 authorised the federal secretary to prepare such an instruction, and this

11 was done. This addition was adapted to the domestic legal order. It had

12 existed beforehand. It still applies, but of course there are different

13 provisions within laws and the constitution who govern such issues. This

14 contains Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian law. The

15 contents have not been changed because no other international conventions

16 have been brought into force to modify or amend the erstwhile

17 conventions. It was in force then and this volume was used for training,

18 for educating our officers at war schools, at military schools, and of

19 course it was in force in the VJ, and it was part of the internal legal

20 order of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and then in the

21 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and today in Serbia.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this document

24 into evidence, please.

25 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

Page 10355

1 Ms. Gopalan.

2 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, if I may, I believe this document may

3 already be in evidence as a Prosecution exhibit, P1342. Perhaps this can

4 be checked just to avoid duplication of documents in the record.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

6 We will leave the matter of its admission, Mr. Popovic, until

7 that can be resolved. Perhaps you can look at it over the next break if

8 necessary.

9 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honours. Thank

10 you. And I would like to thank my learned colleague. We will check the

11 documents already admitted. Thank you.

12 Now let's see D011-1132.

13 Q. That would be tab 3 in your binder, General.

14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

15 Q. On the screen you can see this document entitled: "Rules of

16 Conduct For Soldiers." Please tell us, first of all, whether you are

17 familiar with this document and after that what you can briefly tell us

18 about what it constituted, who the target audience was, and who received

19 it.

20 A. I'm familiar with this document. The staff of the Supreme

21 Command prepared it, and it contains the most important rules for conduct

22 for combatants, and "combatant" is an international law term. This was

23 delivered to each and every soldier, and it summarises the duties and the

24 rule of conduct for combatants in combat. For instance, there are rules

25 of combat briefly: Fight only against soldiers, attack only military

Page 10356

1 targets, treat people, et cetera, et cetera, this -- these are the rules

2 derived from the rules of combat.

3 Then we have treatment of wounded enemy soldiers, what treatment

4 they should be given. Then treatment of prisoners of war and treatment

5 of civilians, in keeping with international humanitarian law. We can see

6 four pages here. It is a pocket-sized volume. It was printed on

7 plastified paper, which means it's water and humidity resistant, and each

8 soldier received one copy. Whenever they were called up, this was part

9 of the equipment they were given, together with a helmet, a rifle, a

10 first aid kit, and this was part and parcel of the regular issue

11 equipment. Each soldier was familiar with this document. They had a

12 copy in their pocket, in keeping with what we saw on the previous

13 document and in keeping with the legislative framework that we described

14 previously.

15 Q. This would be an abbreviated instruction for each soldier on how

16 they should behave?

17 A. Yes. A summary of rules of conduct in combat adapted to their

18 needs, and each soldier could read and conduct themselves in keeping with

19 what they read.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this into

22 evidence, please.

23 JUDGE PARKER: This appears to be a 2005 edition, Mr. Popovic.

24 Is there any change between the time relevant to us, 1999 and 2005?

25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I will ask this of the witness and

Page 10357

1 we are going to determine that.

2 Q. General, could you please tell us, in 1999 this document, the

3 "Rules of Conduct For Soldiers," did they contain the same contents back

4 then?

5 A. Yes, it was identical. It was prepared for the soldiers then and

6 this is nothing new. This is already -- always happened, and the only

7 changes were in the technology of print, the materials they were printed

8 on, I mean water-resistant paper, and each soldier had a copy in their

9 kit, and this is what was delivered to the soldier conscripts when the

10 call-up occurred in 1999.

11 Q. Thank you very much, General.

12 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] And now I'd like to move to tender

13 this document into evidence.

14 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00497.

16 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's see document D011-1137.

17 Q. That would be tab 4, General. In Serbian D011-1145 page in the

18 Serbian version, and in the English version -- yes, the one we see. In

19 the B/C/S D011-1145. Thank you.

20 General, here you can see this document which is entitled:

21 "Handbook for VJ Members Engaged in Areas Affected by Sabotage and

22 Terrorist Activities."

23 First of all, are you familiar with this document?

24 A. I am familiar with it.

25 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell us what is the nature of this

Page 10358

1 document and why it was produced at all.

2 A. This document, this handbook, is an expanded version and modified

3 version of the preceding document. It was used in 1998 and delivered to

4 soldiers because at that time in the area of Kosovo and Metohija armed

5 conflict had broken out. Before that sabotage and terrorist activities

6 were at play there and this is the legal qualification of what those

7 were, and there were also illegal paramilitary formations and units who

8 engaged in terrorist activities. And that phenomenon was spreading and

9 prompted by that, the General Staff produced a handbook for the soldiers

10 for that purpose. At that time we had regular army unit soldiers doing

11 their national service without any reserve units, without conscripts, and

12 this is a volume which gives an overview of how to conduct themselves

13 because the methods of work of sabotage and terrorist groups, which were

14 smaller groups, dispersed throughout the territory, were engaged in

15 establishing ambushes, and this was a much more complex situation that

16 those young soldiers found themselves in and officers, so that we

17 provided them with some instructions how to behave. You can see that

18 instead of prisoners of war we have people who have been arrested, which

19 means that this follows from the qualification of armed insurgency. And

20 this is -- but we wanted them to be treated within the legislative

21 framework which is applicable to combatant within -- engaged in an

22 internal armed conflict. And this is why we used that -- those terms in

23 the area of Kosovo and Metohija, similar to what we saw before but

24 modified for the purposes of the day. Mind you, at that time we had not

25 proclaimed the state of war. This was a state of emergency, and such

Page 10359

1 instructions were necessary for the soldiers who are engaged in

2 activities against such insurgent groups, and this is the gist and the

3 purpose of this handbook prepared for members of the VJ of the time.

4 Q. When we're talking about the time-period, could you be a little

5 more specific, please. We can see that the document has July 1998 as the

6 date, is that correct? Does this apply to the period of 1998 then and

7 early 1999?

8 A. This applies to the period of 1998 until the state of war was

9 declared on the 24th of March, 1999. Once the state of war was declared,

10 this second part comes into effect, and those who had it kept it with

11 them. It's not superfluous. These documents augment each other; they do

12 not exclude each other.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask for this document

15 to be admitted into evidence, please.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00498.

18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could I please look at document

19 D011-1155.

20 Q. It's document 5 in your binder, General. This is a document that

21 we only have in Serbian at the moment. It has been submitted to CLSS for

22 translation. I am not going to spend a lot of time on this document.

23 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a summary of

24 the Geneva Conventions of the 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional

25 Protocols. I'm just briefly going to go through the document.

Page 10360

1 Q. General, are you familiar with this document, and just briefly

2 can you tell us what it contains even though the title speaks for itself?

3 And could you tell us who this document was intended for?

4 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document. It was at all the unit

5 commands since the establishment of the JNA. Here it's just been adapted

6 and refreshed in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red

7 Cross during a seminar conducted on the protocol in 1996 or 1997. This

8 is when this summary was drafted. It existed earlier, and it was

9 distributed to the unit commands in their libraries and in the equipment

10 of the unit command. It was a part of that. The top command of the unit

11 had that among its document. These are the Geneva Conventions of the

12 12th of August, 1949, and the Additional Protocols, and this was

13 something that the then-Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had as

14 part of its documents and it was then also in the possession of the Army

15 of Yugoslavia. And all the parties were informed about it and knew that

16 it existed. This was something that was of importance during a state of

17 war.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

20 tender this document, and we will provide the translation as soon as

21 possible.

22 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received, and you are authorised to add

23 the translation to the exhibit.

24 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00499.

25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

Page 10361

1 Can we look at document D011-1170.

2 Q. This is document -- the sixth document in sequence, General. I'm

3 going to look at page D011-1184. In the English version, it's D011-1186.

4 General, can we now look at the document which is called the

5 "Fundamentals of the Law of War," and this is a summary for senior

6 officers, rules of conduct in combat, and training programme. Can you

7 please tell us if you are familiar with this document and for whom was

8 this document intended?

9 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document. It existed in different

10 forms from a while back in the army. This is a modified amended document

11 in co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross

12 following a seminar on the topic. The document is a summary for senior

13 officers, rules of conduct in combat, training programme. It's a little

14 bit expanded. We looked at the part that had to do with soldiers, then

15 we had something that applied to the commands, and now we are looking at

16 a document intended for officers. Each officer had a summary in his war

17 kit, combat kit, the same as any fighter is supplied with certain

18 equipment and documents from the military section, other instructions.

19 So a part of those instructions would be this summary, for them to have

20 it handy, not only to apply it but also to go through training with

21 soldiers during the war, to keep reminding the soldiers and to conduct

22 checks whether the soldiers were familiar with all of these rules and

23 instructions that each soldier is required to know to be able to remind

24 themselves of the duties and obligations of officers.

25 The summary here is a little more detailed than what is provided

Page 10362

1 for the soldiers. Officers' duties are a little bit broader and their

2 knowledge of international military law should also be broader. This is

3 also a pocket-sized handbook, something that a person can always have

4 with them, something that can be consulted and looked at at all times.

5 It's not something that is just kept at the command post. This is

6 nothing new. It's something that all the officers were issued, also in

7 the former JNA. This is just an updated version.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

9 document into evidence, please.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00500.

12 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 Can we now look at document D011-1202.

14 Q. And this is document number 8 in your binder, General. You can

15 see that this is the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of

16 Yugoslavia dated the 13th of February, 1998. It's a decree on the

17 organisation and work of the military prosecutor during the state of war.

18 My question is: Are you aware, are you familiar with this decree, first

19 of all; and second, was it in force during 1999 or from the moment that

20 the state of war was declared?

21 A. Yes, I am familiar with this decree. It was adopted by the

22 federal government, and it regulates the organisation and the work of the

23 military prosecutor during the state of war. So the organisation and the

24 manner of operation of the military prosecutor is regulated, and on the

25 basis of this decree, the organisational aspect is covered for the work

Page 10363

1 of the military prosecutor within the new organisational and

2 establishment structure that we talked about at the beginning. The

3 decree is based on the Law on Military Prosecutors with some adjustments

4 to the new circumstances and the fact that they were supposed to operate

5 during a state of war. This was done, this decree was applied in the

6 course of 1999 after the state of war was declared, and the prosecutors'

7 offices were deployed in the state of war.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document 011 --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please be asked to repeat the

10 numbers.

11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] It's 1204 in the B/C/S and 1208 in

12 English.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Are you tendering the decree on the prosecutor?

14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the same

15 document. On the following page of the same document we have also

16 standing orders which actually comprise one and the same document, and

17 they're both published in the same Official Gazette which contains two

18 things: The first is the decree on the organisation of the work of the

19 military prosecutor during the state of war; and the second one is the

20 work of military courts during the state of war. My idea was to tender

21 them as a single document, but if you would prefer to have them tendered

22 as separate exhibits, we can also do that.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Proceed as you propose, Mr. Popovic.

24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Q. General, we can see before us the rules of procedure on the work

Page 10364

1 of military courts during the state of war. It's the same

2 Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of the 13th of

3 June, 1998. My question is: Are you familiar with this -- these rules

4 of procedure, and were they applied in 1999?

5 A. Yes, I am familiar of these rules of procedure, and precisely on

6 the basis of these rules of procedure the military tribunals were

7 mobilised and organised after the state of war was declared, and they

8 served as the military or judicial basis for the work of the judges.

9 They were guided by these rules of procedure, and they worked and

10 operated pursuant to these rules during the state of war. From the day

11 that state of war was declared until the state of war no longer applied,

12 these were the work procedures of the military courts.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Now I'm going to ask to have this document

14 tendered into evidence, please.

15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Exhibit D00501.

17 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at document D011-1219.

18 Q. And this is document number 10 in your binder, General. Thank

19 you. This is the Official Gazette of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

20 of the 4th of April, 1999. At the bottom of the page 1, in B/C/S you can

21 see that this is a decree on the application of the Law on Criminal

22 Procedure during the state of war. General, my question to you is this:

23 Are you familiar with this decree; and if yes, what were the reasons for

24 its adoption, what was amended vis-à-vis to the Law on Criminal Procedure

25 that was in effect during peacetime?

Page 10365

1 A. I am familiar with this decree on the application of the Law on

2 Criminal Procedure during the state of war. I would just like to

3 emphasize that all of these decrees are decree laws. All the decrees are

4 actually decree laws, and in this decree the procedure was somewhat

5 modified in order to secure the effective operation of the courts. This

6 applied to all the courts, including the military courts. The purpose of

7 these amendments was to shorten some process dead-lines in order to gain

8 time and to be able to shorten some dead-lines. This is one of the main

9 amendments. There was also something new that was introduced which does

10 not actually exist in the Law on Criminal Procedure in our laws. So the

11 investigating judge or the court would conduct an investigation here;

12 however, the option is given for the prosecutor to be able to conduct the

13 investigation, which is the practice in some Anglo-Saxon systems. So the

14 prosecutor is hereby empowered to conduct investigations in order to have

15 a more efficient procedure. This is the main amendment. There are some

16 other minor details, but we don't really need to discuss them too. These

17 would be dead-lines to appeal to the higher court, and so on, issuing

18 charges, charges for crimes subject to ten-year prison sentence for --

19 otherwise the prosecutor is permitted to issue --

20 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask the witness to slow

21 down.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor here is not required

23 to have the permission of the investigating judge to issue charges

24 without conducting an investigation first. The objective was to

25 stream-line the criminal proceedings during wartime. That is the essence

Page 10366

1 of these amendments.

2 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this

5 document.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00502.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1226,

9 please.

10 Q. Which is your tab 11, General. This is the Official Military

11 Gazette dated the 20th of March, 1995. This is the Law on the Military

12 Prosecutor. My question to you is: Was this law in force in 1998 and in

13 1999, given the amendments and the decree on the military prosecutor in

14 wartime, but first of all let me ask you: Are you familiar with this

15 document and then can you please comment on it if you are?

16 A. Yes, I'm definitely familiar with the Law on the Military

17 Prosecutor. It provides the organisation, the functioning, and the

18 competencies of the military prosecutor. It was also in force, and it

19 was applied in the course of 1999 during the state of war. The previous

20 decrees that we saw that brought some amendments, they were simply a

21 supplement to this basic law. So the basic competencies are regulated by

22 this law and then there was some additional decrees providing some

23 broader powers for the military prosecutor in order to enable him to work

24 more efficiently. So these are two documents that complement each other.

25 This basic law was not set aside when these additional decrees

Page 10367

1 were passed, and these additional decrees provided for additional powers

2 for the prosecutor during wartime.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have this tendered into

5 evidence, please.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00503.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see D011-1241.

9 Q. Which is your tab 12, General. General, you spoke about your

10 role as chief of the legal administration within the General Staff of the

11 Army of Yugoslavia. You told us about the problems, the difficulties

12 that you faced from the moment you took office. Now before us we have a

13 document entitled: "List of Establishment Posts and Military Judicial

14 Organs." Would you first tell us whether you're familiar with this

15 document; and if so, do you know who drafted it? And then please explain

16 to us the number of establishment posts and how that relates to the

17 personnel and personnel decisions made in various units. The question is

18 a bit long but we can take it step by step.

19 A. I understood your question. We have this list of establishment

20 posts in military judicial organs according to the wartime establishment.

21 This is a definite list after all the amendments. I redacted and went

22 over this document, which shows the military courts. We have the name of

23 commands and then the names of corps and so on. So we have first Novi

24 Sad corps and then the number of judges, one plus five means one is the

25 president of the court and then there are five judges. And then in the

Page 10368

1 next column we have number of prosecutors, one plus three. Number one is

2 the prosecutor and then each prosecutor has three deputies. Then we have

3 Drina division, which for judges has one plus four and for prosecutor has

4 one plus two, and then we have the other formations, Kragujevac Corps,

5 Belgrade Corps, Podgorica Corps, and so on. These are corps whose name

6 is linked to various cities, Uzice Corps, Nis Corps, where they have one

7 plus six judges and then one plus three prosecutors. And then in

8 Pristina Corps we see a greater number of judges, or rather, Nis Corps

9 had a greater number of judges, and that reflects the amount of work they

10 had. And as for Pristina Corps, they had the greatest number of judges

11 because that court had the greatest amount of work in the territory -- in

12 the jurisdiction of that court most of the fighting went on, most of the

13 combat, and that reflects the combat with NATO alliance not with Albanian

14 formations.

15 Then we have the first-instance court Military District Belgrade

16 court, and then the one in Novi Sad, Kragujevac, Podgorica, Uzice, Nis,

17 and Pristina, all of them had an identical number of judges, one plus

18 seven, and then the number of prosecutors differed, one plus five, one

19 plus four, and so on.

20 And then the last row are the courts within the army districts,

21 the 1st Army, 2nd Army, 3rd Army districts, and then air force and

22 anti-aircraft defence district and then the navy military district. And

23 then the number of judges, the number of prosecutors for them. And in

24 order to make sure that it is clear to everybody, I need to say that the

25 courts within the army commands had jurisdiction only for the members of

Page 10369

1 the army as a formation, not units that are subordinated to that army.

2 And the military courts within the military districts have jurisdiction

3 for the personnel of the military district. So you can see that the

4 fewest number of judges is in -- is within the courts that are attached

5 to army districts.

6 Q. Thank you, General.

7 A. Let me just add this, that these are all first-instance courts,

8 and then the second-instance court is the supreme military court and then

9 the supreme military prosecutor, and the supreme military court had three

10 departments within the army commands.

11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now see D011-1245 in the

12 B/C/S and 1249 in the English version.

13 Q. General, on this page we see some data written by hand. Do you

14 know who wrote this; and if so, can you please explain what these figures

15 represent. First we have numerical strength and then we have the

16 heading, Judges -- Judges who are jurors, and then who was promoted into

17 the rank of reserve second lieutenant. Are you familiar with this?

18 A. Yes, I am familiar with this. This is the summary of the

19 previous list. I simply wrote this down here to have it summarised in a

20 different form. We have the number of judges here. There was a total of

21 155 judges. There were 92 prosecutors, which is a total of 247. Why did

22 I add judges and prosecutors up here even though they're two separate

23 organisational units? I did it for the simple reason so that we could

24 see how many professionals we had, people who had a law degree, who had

25 passed bar exam, and who had previous experience as either judges or

Page 10370

1 prosecutors so that they could be qualified to work in military courts

2 during wartime. This is why I added this up, because this is an

3 impressive figure. And then underneath we have a heading, Judges-Jurors.

4 Both in wartime and in peacetime according to the Law on Criminal

5 Procedure, in addition to professional judges each chamber dealing with

6 criminal cases had to also have judges-jurors. There always had to be an

7 odd number of judges in each chamber, and each chamber had to have

8 judges-jurors. We have figures here reflecting that a total of 525

9 judge-jurors were appointed for the needs of all of these courts.

10 Judge-jurors could be either non-commissioned officers or officers,

11 depending on who was on trial. If an officer was tried, then at least

12 one member of the chamber had to be a non-commissioned officer; and if an

13 officer was put on trial, then at least one judge-juror had to be an

14 officer of an approximately same rank. And then the third heading deals

15 with those who were promoted into the rank of reserve second lieutenant,

16 a total of 125 persons were so promoted. And I told you that

17 reorganisation was conducted in the organisation of courts and

18 prosecutor's office 125 persons were promoted into the rank of reserve

19 second lieutenant in order to fulfil the requirement that existed under

20 the law, that only persons with a certain rank could be appointed as

21 judges or prosecutors. In peacetime the Army of Yugoslavia did not have

22 such a high number of professional officers with the experience of judge

23 or a prosecutor who could serve as such in wartime.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document into

Page 10371

1 evidence.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Did you mean to tender the previous one?

3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is all one

4 document. The previous one has been admitted, and then this document has

5 a total of three pages if I'm not mistaken -- no, four pages. We looked

6 at the first, second, and fourth page.

7 JUDGE PARKER: That's fine.

8 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] It's the same document.

9 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00504.

11 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think this is a

12 good time for a break because we're moving on to a totally different

13 subject.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Very well. We will have the second break now and

15 resume at 1.00.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

18 --- On resuming at 1.03 p.m.

19 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to

20 avail myself of this opportunity before the witness comes in to say that

21 my learned friend Gopalan was right, and the document that we moved to

22 tender is already in evidence under P1342. So there's no need to

23 re-admit it.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that.

25 And thank you, Ms. Gopalan, for drawing it to our attention.

Page 10372

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Popovic.

3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. General, I'm duty-bound to ask you this. We were discussing

5 military courts, military prosecutors' offices, et cetera. Could you

6 please tell us, what was the situation concerning defence counsel in 1999

7 after the declaration of the state of war? Was everybody indicted

8 offered possibility to have their own defence counsel ex officio if they

9 could not procure their own defence counsel otherwise or their

10 court-appointed defence counsel available to them?

11 A. With respect to defence, it's an integral part of a justice

12 system, including military justice system, both in peacetime and in

13 wartime. This was resolved in the following manner. I, in co-operation

14 with the president of the supreme military court, sought from each

15 regional chamber or bar association to provide each court a list of

16 attorneys who would be available to each particular court so that the

17 court could retain their services at any time when necessary if there is

18 a suspect or an indictee requiring their services. So each court had

19 available a substantial or sufficient number of defence counsel, and they

20 were engaged and they had this task as priority. There were, therefore,

21 no problems in respect of this. Of course each indictee could choose

22 from a list to give power of attorney to such defence counsel.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Now let's see D011-1617, please.

25 Q. That would be tab 13, General. You can see on the screen a cover

Page 10373

1 letter referring to a guide-lines that were compiled on the operation,

2 procedure, authorization, and responsibilities of the military judiciary

3 and other organs with regard to the detection of crimes, their

4 perpetrators, initiating criminal proceedings, and adjudicating. The

5 document is dated 22nd of May, 1999.

6 General, are you familiar with this document?

7 A. I'm familiar with this document. This is a supporting document

8 on the basis of which assistant Chief of the General Staff forwarded

9 this -- these guide-lines to the addressees pursuant to the title of this

10 document and as specified here. And an instruction was issued that such

11 guide-lines should be disseminated and that officers in units should get

12 familiar with those guide-lines.

13 Q. Thank you. I believe that you spoke briefly in your testimony

14 about this document, but let me ask you: What were the reasons to draft

15 such a document and, first of all, do you know who authored this

16 document?

17 A. I did it. I authored it. Having regard to a long-term

18 experience, professional experience, in my practice I used to brief all

19 those who are duty-bound in terms of criminal -- in situations where

20 criminal offences are perpetrated to do so something, and they were the

21 public for my summaries, where I would provide a summary overview of the

22 authorisations, powers, and duties if criminal offences perpetrated by

23 officers. It spans all the segments of criminal procedure. It would

24 contain relevant provisions from laws on military courts, et cetera.

25 Q. Thank you. But before we go into the contents of this document,

Page 10374

1 let me ask you this: You told us that these guide-lines were to be

2 distributed to all members of the VJ, and this was stated in the cover

3 letter. Could you please tell us how this is done, how would such a

4 document be disseminated to units, and how would they or their members be

5 made familiar with it?

6 A. Well, units get familiar with this in the following manner: It

7 is corroborated by a cover letter signed by assistant chief of the VJ

8 staff to give it authority down the chain of commands. It is distributed

9 to the units subordinated to the General Staff, and when commands of

10 those units receive it, then they produce the necessary number of copies

11 for each unit subordinated to them, and then they forward it under the

12 same cover letter, issuing a task for not only officers, but also

13 non-commissioned officers and soldiers to be made aware of that document.

14 And they do it in the appropriate way because officers maintained daily

15 contact with their subordinated units. And among other tasks, this was

16 another task that they had to carry out in practice.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's turn to the next page of

19 this document in both versions, the B/C/S and English.

20 Q. General, let's focus on certain portions of this document. First

21 of all, under item 1, the heading, Superior Military Officer is followed

22 by a subheading A, sub-item A, measures to be undertaken, and it says:

23 "If a crime has been committed in this unit, every superior

24 military officer shall undertake measures to prevent the concealment or

25 escape of the perpetrator of the crime for which prosecution is

Page 10375

1 officially mandated."

2 Would such instructions be the guide-lines of two military

3 officers how to go about when a crime has been perpetrated and what to do

4 with the perpetrators?

5 A. Of course this is one of the basic instructions to any officer,

6 not only in wartime but also in peace, and this is a legal wording from

7 the laws on military officers in other bylaws, specifying the duties of a

8 military officer whenever a criminal offence is perpetrated in his unit

9 and if such crime is prosecutable ex officio. Such military officer is

10 the most responsible person because this has been done in his unit or, to

11 put it in a proverbial way, this is something which happens in his home,

12 in his house. So the superior officer is responsible for everything, and

13 as such he must undertake such measures because he's the immediate

14 superior officer at that moment out in that unit.

15 Q. Thank you. I don't want to sound superfluous, but if a criminal

16 report is not submitted, can any proceedings be initiated?

17 A. If there's no criminal report, then the military prosecutor can

18 find out in another way about the same event and not only the prosecutors

19 but also detection and investigation organs, such as military security

20 detachments, military police units. They apply their own methods, and if

21 a superior officer fails to bring criminal -- file a criminal report,

22 they may detect and file charges through their methods, particularly if

23 such criminal offences are perpetrated under cover of the night. What we

24 are reading here is -- concerns criminal offences which are perpetrated

25 in public. But for both types of criminal offences, criminal reports

Page 10376

1 must be filed.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go to page 2 or to the next

4 page in both the B/C/S and English.

5 Q. General, please tell us, to the best of your knowledge, was there

6 any criminal report submitted to the military prosecutor's office which

7 was not acted upon, and were there such cases where the appropriate

8 action was not taken in response to such a criminal report?

9 A. I'm fully familiar with the state of affairs and the number of

10 criminal reports filed with military prosecutors. They are registered in

11 certain registers. These are permanent documents which can be checked.

12 And the prosecutor's legal obligation is to undertake certain procedural

13 steps on the basis of such a criminal report within his remit. If he

14 failed to do so, he would be violating the law. There's no possibility

15 for prosecutors to contravene the law. Of course in wartime conditions,

16 it was more difficult to work and military prosecutors did everything

17 they could within their objective circumstances. They acted upon

18 criminal reports. Criminal reports were recorded, registered. Steps

19 were taken to obtain evidence and documents. Prosecutors do that through

20 organs of the interior, meaning military police on the one hand and on

21 the other hand, by filing a request to conduct an investigation to the

22 competent investigating judge who heads the investigation, collects the

23 data and evidence in co-operation with the prosecutor. So no case which

24 has been brought to the attention of the prosecutor has not been

25 registered and acted upon depending on the character of the criminal

Page 10377

1 offence and the possibility to obtain evidence. So procedure is taken

2 and for the case to be brought to trial, or otherwise depending on the

3 decision of the military prosecutor within his powers.

4 Q. Concerning some of the previous documents, you said that there

5 were a number of judges of general jurisdiction, not military judges were

6 involved at military courts because of the declaration of the state of

7 war. Would such guide-lines be addressed primarily to that public, to

8 that group of people, who performed their tasks and duties of military

9 prosecutors and military judges?

10 A. Of course this -- these guide-lines were prepared just because I

11 had my personal experience in terms of explaining what are the powers and

12 authorities of superior officers, procedure with respect to detention,

13 arrest, what military police and military security should do, then we

14 have a chapter on prosecutors and their competencies, and then the

15 courts. Well, one may ask question: What kind of guide-lines are to be

16 issued to prosecutors and judges because they are professionals? It's

17 true, they were professionals, they knew their judge, but judges who are

18 appointed to military courts who had no previous experience of military

19 subordination, chain of command, command and control, relations in terms

20 of superior officer/subordinate officer, and what was their place in the

21 organisational and establishment scheme, this -- these guide-lines helped

22 them to find their bearings within this structure all at once within a

23 single document so that in procedural sense they could better communicate

24 and work. This was just a reminder for them to have everything in one

25 place so they don't have to leaf through different laws and regulations.

Page 10378

1 These were -- they were the first audience. The second audience was the

2 command staffs so that they knew what was their relationship with the

3 military court or with a view to make the work easier and more effective

4 under such wartime circumstances.

5 Q. Thank you very much.

6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I move to tender this into

7 evidence, please.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Before that happens, perhaps you could help me, if

9 you could. Suppose there was a report or an indication that there had

10 been a theft, a stealing of a citizen's property by a member of the army

11 during the performance of the duty of that army member, was there some

12 provision which regulated whether it would be the army military courts

13 and investigators that dealt with the matter or the ordinary civilian

14 courts and investigative authorities?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a case where a criminal offence

16 has been perpetrated, as you describe it, perpetrated by a member of the

17 military, then exclusive jurisdiction lies with the military prosecutor

18 to indict and for the military courts to try. If a civilian were to be

19 the perpetrator from outside the ranks of the military, in that case a

20 civilian court will have jurisdiction and civilian prosecutor. But if a

21 military officer detected such criminal offence, he may notify Ministry

22 of the Interior or the competent civilian prosecutor to act upon such

23 report. But military courts were -- had jurisdiction over members of the

24 military, of soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers. But in a

25 case where co-perpetrators are civilians together with military

Page 10379

1 personnel, then military courts held jurisdiction. There have been such

2 cases but very rare, but that possibility is not excluded in -- by no

3 means.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And in that context, officers of the

5 Ministry of Interior, police, were they civilians, or were they members

6 of the military for the purposes of this distinction?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Members of the Ministry of the

8 Internal Affairs were under the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, not

9 the military courts. They are not considered to be military personnel,

10 even though they are in formations of a military character. The civilian

11 court would be authorised to deal with them.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And the position you've described, did

13 that apply to all offences, that is, that the military courts had the

14 competence to deal with offences by members of the military?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Law on Military Courts

16 regulates the jurisdiction of military courts for specific crimes. They

17 are laid down in the law, if they are committed by civilians. That falls

18 under the jurisdiction of the military court. These would be crimes such

19 as those that are directed against military facilities, military

20 personnel. For example, if somebody would attack a military officer

21 while they were performing their duties, the military court would be

22 authorised to deal with that. Also issues having to do with the defence

23 capacity, also activities directed against military facilities, also

24 crimes of espionage of military personnel or facilities. So the law does

25 list the type of crimes for which a military court would be responsible

Page 10380

1 no matter who the perpetrator was, but that is a very, very narrow area.

2 JUDGE PARKER: In the more usual case where the allegation is

3 that a member of the defence force has committed a crime - and you've

4 indicated that it is the military court and authorities that had

5 jurisdiction in that case - does that -- was that the law for all

6 offences, or was there some listing of particular offences?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All offences committed by a member

8 of the military are subject to processing by a military court for as long

9 as that person has that status. In these specific cases during the state

10 of war, a large number of soldiers or members of the military after the

11 state of war ends no longer are considered to be military personnel. And

12 in that case, the military court is no longer authorised unless the

13 process has already been initiated before the military court. If it's

14 still in the investigation phase, then the authorised civilian court

15 would deal with that case, and these cases would be handed over to the

16 authorised civilian court and prosecutor, except for those crimes which

17 fall specially under the jurisdiction of the military court, and we

18 mentioned those crimes a little bit earlier. And also for ongoing

19 proceedings that had been initiated before the military court, they would

20 be completed by the military court.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that assistance.

22 Now, the guide-lines will be received, Mr. Popovic.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00505.

24 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was following the

25 interpretation of what the witness said in answer to your question, and I

Page 10381

1 fear that that is not entirely translated correctly. So now I am going

2 to go through each stage of the proceedings in order to clarify the

3 situation completely. Who becomes authorised at a particular moment.

4 We're talking about the civilian courts even though proceedings were

5 initiated before a military court.

6 Q. Sir, let's start from the time the proceedings are initiated.

7 How can a procedure be initiated pursuant to the rules of the Law on

8 Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Serbia or rather the Federal

9 Republic of Serbia at that point in time -- the Federal Republic of

10 Yugoslavia.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Any authorised prosecutor,

13 regardless of whether he's a military or civilian prosecutor, would

14 initiate criminal charges from his area of responsibility on the basis of

15 a criminal report submitted to them. It could be an individual, it could

16 be an organ of the interior, organs of the military police, or some

17 institution or facility. Well, this is that official channel. If the

18 charges are not submitted but one only hears of it, let's say the

19 prosecutor, then he's duty-bound to initiate the procedure and to obtain

20 other evidence and material in order to be able to initiate proceedings.

21 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Thank you. What I would just like to ask you is to be as precise

23 as possible so that we could clarify how these proceedings evolve. After

24 receiving a criminal report, what are then the steps undertaken by the

25 authorised -- by the competent body?

Page 10382

1 A. When a prosecutor receives the document, it would be a document

2 describing the nature of the charges and also specifying whether the

3 perpetrator is known or not known. With the criminal report, the person

4 submitting the report is obliged to present certain evidence that they

5 have at their disposal or that they obtained or to indicate where such

6 evidence could be found. On that basis, then the prosecutor would make

7 his decisions, if there was sufficient grounds to issue an indictment, if

8 its minor offence providing for an imprisonment of up to five years in

9 peacetime or in wartime, then the prosecutor can issue an indictment for

10 a specific offence against a specific perpetrator.

11 If there is insufficient such evidence, the prosecutor then would

12 issue a request for an investigation to be carried out and would submit

13 that request to the investigating judge, who then based on his

14 jurisdiction and competence - which is much broader - would then proceed

15 to obtain evidence and to conduct an investigation. Then this judge

16 would then go out into the field, carry out on-site investigation, engage

17 the professional and expert services in order to assist him in this work.

18 They're also obliged to provide all the available evidence and material

19 to the said investigating judge. Once the judge receives all of these

20 documents and once he believes that there are sufficient elements and

21 relevant evidence for the prosecutor to be able to make a decision, he

22 would then return the case to the prosecutor for him to decide whether he

23 would issue an indictment or not in the event that the evidence is

24 insufficient that this particular person did commit such an offence.

25 Q. All right. Let us stop here for a moment. First of all, what is

Page 10383

1 the dead-line provided for under the Law on Criminal Procedure within

2 which the investigative judge is required to complete his investigation?

3 A. In peacetime, this dead-line is six months; in wartime, the

4 dead-line is much shorter. But some investigations cannot actually be

5 completed within that time-period, but these are exceptional cases. And

6 in that case the investigating judge is able to obtain the requisite

7 evidence within the six months, unless the investigation is very

8 complicated and they are unable to carry out all these things within that

9 time.

10 Q. From the time when the prosecutor submits a request for an

11 investigation to be carried out until the time the investigation is

12 completed - and you have mentioned that this can be a period of up to six

13 months - the perpetrator of the crime who was a member of the Army of

14 Yugoslavia at the time when he committed the crime or the offence in that

15 period ceases to be a member of the Army of Yugoslavia, which court would

16 in that case be competent to try him for the offence committed during the

17 war?

18 A. In the event that the criminal procedure is not completed before

19 the military court, either during the investigation phase or the

20 sentencing or judgement phase or that the indictment did not go into

21 effect, then that case would be handed down to the competent court which

22 had territorial jurisdiction. This would be territorial local

23 jurisdiction. In specific case, since we are in a situation where the

24 war is no longer going on, most of the offences that happened in the

25 relevant period did occur in Kosovo and Metohija, and in that period the

Page 10384

1 courts with jurisdiction in Kosovo and Metohija were transferred to a

2 different territory, then these cases were handed to judges depending on

3 the place where the offence was committed. In case that this was not

4 possible, the Law on Criminal Procedure provides for the possibility of

5 procedure according to the permanent place of residence of the

6 perpetrator if this is known. A large number of offences were

7 unfortunately committed by perpetrators who at the time the procedure was

8 initiated, their place of residence was unknown. And the court,

9 regardless of whether it was a military or a civilian court, was still

10 obliged to continue compiling and collecting evidence until the

11 perpetrator was discovered and processed or until the statute of

12 limitations for that particular crime expires.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] I hope that we have managed to

15 clarify the course of the proceedings.

16 Your Honours, I would like to move to quite a broad topic now.

17 All right -- I mean, I will begin anyway.

18 Can we please see document D011-1274.

19 Q. General, this is in tab 15 in your binder. General, you can see

20 in front of you information about the work of judicial organs during the

21 time of war. Just briefly, are you familiar with the document, and do

22 you know who drafted the document?

23 A. I am familiar with the document. I actually drafted this

24 information about the work of judicial organs in wartime.

25 Q. Thank you. Before we begin an analysis of this document, I'm

Page 10385

1 just going to ask you this: I see in the English version, in the upper

2 right-hand corner it says, 12th of September, 1999. General, sir, when

3 was this document compiled, and I would like to look at the last page of

4 the B/C/S version. This is page 2179 -- 1279 and 1285 in the English

5 version. This is the page. Thank you. And we can see here that the

6 date is the 12th of May, 1999. General, is this the date when the

7 document was compiled?

8 A. Yes, that's the date. This information I wrote on the 12th of

9 May, 1999, and this mistake that was there, this is somebody who actually

10 when this document was being presented to the prosecutor put the

11 numbering there by mistake. This error is something that I intervened

12 about in the Milutinovic case for this to be corrected, and I believe

13 that that's when it was corrected. So this is information from the 12th

14 of May, 1999.

15 Q. Thank you very much. I'm now going to ask that we go back to the

16 first page of the document. This is page 1275 in B/C/S and 1281 in the

17 English version. General, let us look at paragraph 1 where it says,

18 Formation. In the middle of the first paragraph of that section the

19 sentence begins:

20 "A total of 24 military courts and 24 military prosecutors'

21 offices have been set up in military districts, corps, corps commands,

22 and the commands of strategic groups. A decree issued by the SFRY

23 president appointed 88 prosecutors, 149 judges, and 421 judge-jurors,

24 while 245 lawyers were promoted to the rank of reserve officer in the

25 legal service."

Page 10386

1 If I'm not mistaken, this is information that you mentioned in a

2 previous document of yours, and it's just summarised here?

3 A. That is correct. This data was given as of on May 12th. That

4 was the status on May 12th. The numbers here are a little different

5 because after this date some things were also done, and this information,

6 which I drafted after I had toured all the courts and prosecutors'

7 offices that existed -- these 20 basic courts and prosecutors' offices

8 and departments in the commands of the army districts, I also went to see

9 the Supreme Court and the prosecutor's office. I actually went to those

10 locations. I informed myself about the -- their manner of work. And on

11 the basis of what I saw and on the basis of reports I received from them,

12 I drafted this information about the situation and the work of judicial

13 organs. I also passed this information on -- the object of this

14 information was to provide the General Staff with all the key information

15 that I believed they needed to be informed about.

16 Q. My next question is to whom -- for whom was this information

17 intended? I think that we cannot see that specifically from your answer,

18 so could you please tell us.

19 A. The information was primarily intended for the Supreme Command

20 Staff, for their information. They were monitoring the situation and

21 were interested in knowing what it was. So this was an overview. As of

22 this date some excerpts from this information were passed through other

23 reports to their subordinates, to the 2nd and 3rd Army because -- and the

24 navy because I had provided a brief overview of each of those sections

25 and each of those courts. And of course I suggested certain measures

Page 10387

1 that needed to be taken.

2 Q. Thank you. Can we now look at the next page in the B/C/S and the

3 English version.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Popovic, I'm afraid we've reached our time.

5 Can you hold yourself in patience until tomorrow?

6 MR. POPOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely.

7 JUDGE PARKER: We have to adjourn now because another Chamber

8 will occupy the courtroom.

9 We must adjourn now and continue tomorrow morning at 9.00.

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 28th day of

12 January, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.