1 Tuesday, 9 February 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. [French on English channel]
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
9 JUDGE PARKER: The affirmation you made to tell the truth still
10 applies, and Mr. Djordjevic is continuing his questions.
11 WITNESS: MILAN RADOICIC [Resumed]
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Djordjevic: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Radoicic. We are going to
15 continue from the point where we broke off yesterday. My next question
16 after everything you said yesterday, technically speaking, what was your
17 obligation on the basis of the position you then held in the office of
18 the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command, previously the General Staff?
19 A. Yesterday I described it in quite a bit of detail. Technically
20 speaking it meant being in charge of persons who on the basis of
21 establishment were working in the office of the Chief of General Staff in
22 peacetime, and in war time, the Chief of the Supreme Command staff. That
23 meant being in charge of the realisation of all expected and unexpected
25 Then the use of personnel and equipment and overall resources in
1 the implementation of these tasks. That would be it in the briefest
2 possible terms. If it is necessary for me to go beyond this technical
3 description --
4 Q. We heard about it yesterday. With regard to this technical
5 aspect of it, we have heard the general aspect, but I'm interested in a
6 specific aspect now. Yesterday you explained that you prepared a certain
7 number of documents, orders, notifications, et cetera. Let us now speak
8 about how mail was received in your office, what preceded the receipt of
9 mail, was it registered, and if so, how, and vice-versa. How did mail
10 from your office go to other units, state organs and so on? Generally
11 speaking, how did this communication develop, did the mail come and go
12 via courier or some other way? Could you please tell us how things went
13 in peacetime and how things went in war time.
14 A. Very well. In the technological process of organising the
15 receipt -- I mean, I will try to explain the details of this process. So
16 the receipt, review of all the characteristics of the mail concerned
17 because who would be dealing with that mail depended on what kind of mail
18 it was. In the office of the Chief of General Staff, or rather, the
19 Chief of Supreme Command staff, there was a chief of office of the head
20 of office of the Chief of General Staff. Now, that person checked the
21 mail and checked the propriety of the mail received. And I emphasise
23 One of the important characteristics involved is whether the
24 mail, as it had previously been reviewed before arriving at the office of
25 the chief of office, whether it had been subjected to the so-called
1 anti-sabotage inspection. If that had been the case, then the person
2 involved in this work was authorised to affix a stamp on that mail, a
3 square stamp saying "PDK," that meant that there were no elements in this
4 mail that could lead to any undesirable effects. PDK meaning
5 anti-sabotage control.
6 Once all of that had been dealt with, the chief of office was
7 duty-bound to hand that mail, all of that mail to the head of office or
8 the deputy head of office, as I was at the time. So that was our duty.
9 Of course, before taking the mail to the head of the office or to myself,
10 he had a log-book of mail received, so that came from the general
11 forwarding service, so they received and sent all mail that arrived,
12 either from Belgrade
13 countries. All mail that was being sent to the units and offices of the
14 Army of Yugoslavia
15 So once the person from the forwarding office would bring this
16 mail for the Chief of General Staff or chief of command staff in war
17 time, we did not receive all the mail, I emphasise that, but only for the
18 Chief of the Supreme Command staff. So that person from the forwarding
19 service had the duty on the basis of this log-book to hand over the mail
20 and then the head of office had to register all the mail he received in
21 the log-book of his office.
22 As I said a few moments ago, he had to review it after handing it
23 over to the head of office or to me as a deputy head of office. He
24 actually had to categorise the mail received and then to register who he
25 was forwarding it to further.
1 My job was on the basis of visible features on the mail
2 concerned -- there were -- there was also an open kind of mail, if I can
3 put it that way, telegrams. So I had to deal with whatever the mail was.
4 If it was urgent, then I had to deal with it urgently. If it was urgent
5 for the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, then it would immediately be
6 handed over to him. So that was the process of receiving mail in that
7 part of the staff of the Chief of General Staff.
8 If you are interested in further activities carried out by myself
9 and the head of staff, I can explain that too.
10 Q. When the Chief of the General Staff would receive mail from his
11 associates, primarily his own Chief of Staff or deputy Chief of Staff,
12 what measures were taken and what kind of obligations did you then have?
13 A. Immediately after receiving the mail and familiarising ourselves
14 with that mail that we then handed over to the Chief of General Staff, we
15 were either asked by him personally to stay at his office to see what
16 kind of mail or document this was so that action could be taken
17 immediately, quite literally on the basis of that mail, or if five or ten
18 minutes were required, not more than that, then we could wait in front of
19 his office and then he would call us back in, and he would give us orders
20 either in writing or orally about what should be done with that mail.
21 I repeat, if the mail was urgent, so throughout the aggression,
22 regardless whether it was day are or night, we received from him orders
23 either on the document itself, rather, the description of our duties in
24 terms of how we should act upon that mail on the basis of his having
25 looked into the content of that mail, or he would attach a piece of paper
1 to that mail saying what he had to say on the basis of the significance
2 of the mail concerned.
3 Then on the basis of his position stated on the document itself
4 or on this attached additional document, we knew very clearly what we
5 should do further. If the mail was a report or a request or whatever,
6 there were many different types of documents, so in that report it was
7 usually command reports or requests from subordinate commands. Then on
8 this attached document or on the margin of the document itself, he would
9 state his views, and then it was quite clear to us what should be done
10 further, whether it should be sent to one organ or several organs of the
11 Supreme Command staff or strategic groups, or perhaps we should be
12 addressing some of the state organs, the federal government or particular
13 ministry or several organs.
14 Each and every time he presented his position very clearly,
15 immediately, so the chief of the office and I were very rarely faced with
16 a dilemma as to what we should do with a document. Once we would be
17 given these tasks, then the head of office or I would process the
18 document technically, and our duty was to hand that over to the chief of
19 that office that was in charge of distributing that mail, or rather,
20 sending it to the appropriate organ or ministry concerned.
21 All of that was part of that process of receiving and
22 distributing mail, and it was based on instructions that had previously
23 been adopted, so it was very clear for all how mail could be traced. I
24 think that I've been quite clear.
25 Q. One of my questions was in what way did mail leave your office?
1 Was there just one way, or was there a number of ways depending, for
2 instance, on the secrecy, the importance, confidentiality?
3 A. Well, that was precisely my duty. I will try to be very brief,
4 but for laymen, it may look simple, although the entire procedure is very
5 complex. Anyway, I'll try to be brief.
6 Q. I'm sorry, but this is going to be very important for our later
7 understanding of certain things that you will be explaining in the
8 process of our Defence case, but please try to make it understandable for
10 A. If a document had to be delivered to one of the assistants of the
11 Chief of the Supreme Command staff or a representative of any of the
12 agencies that were located together with the Supreme Command staff in
13 this special facility, which was our base at the time, after technical
14 processing which meant formatting, retyping, in keeping with the position
15 stated by the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, that document would be
16 logged. That was compulsory. If it had a regular number 250-1, then
17 after our logging, it would become 250-2. That was done in the filing
19 If it was to be delivered within the same location, then it would
20 be simply handed in personally by our office manager or his deputy within
21 the premises of the Supreme Command staff. If it had to be delivered to
22 someone outside the base of the Supreme Command staff, then an authorised
23 representative of the central forwarding service would be called in and
24 they were located not in the same place as the Supreme Command staff, but
25 in the vicinity. That person would come to take over the mail because
1 the central forwarding service had well-established organisation, had the
2 technical means, and facilities to deliver mail throughout the territory
3 of Serbia
4 So that person from the forwarding service would receive the
5 mail, sign for receiving it in our log-book, and then that would be the
6 end of that part of the process. And I also have to emphasise that on
7 that document even there would be an indication of urgency such as very
8 urgent, or defence, strictly confidential, or military secret strictly
9 confidential. There was a place for that indication on the envelope and
10 the authorised person from the forwarding service would have a very clear
11 indication of what procedure was required.
12 Q. Now, after this explanation, I would like to know what kind of
13 log-books you had, what kind of registers, and how you archived your
15 A. Log-books are a prescribed type of document, and they exist even
16 today within the system of correspondence in the defence system, which
17 includes the army and the defence ministry. On the very forms that are
18 printed on each page, on the left page and the right page, and in the way
19 they are bound, they provide for a very precise and clear overview of the
20 entire procedure, any document goes through, be it a document of the
21 highest level of secrecy, state secret, or military secret. So that book
22 has the left side and the right side. On the left side you would see the
23 entire procedure of handling the document by the sender and the
24 addressee. On the right-hand side, however, you would see further action
25 taken upon the document.
1 So the author of this log-book designed this in a very purposeful
2 and practical way. It has proven to be a book that provides for security
3 and clarity. You can see immediately what was sent, what was received,
4 who it was received by, what it was done with it later. Every step in
5 the process of handling with all time indications for every step.
6 The log-book makes it easy even for a layman to understand, the
7 entire process of handling and distribution while proper concern is given
8 to secrecy.
9 Q. Now, in archiving, was there a possibility for a document to be
10 received by the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff without
11 being logged? And if that happened at all, when would that happen?
12 A. Again, I will try to be as brief as possible. All documentation
13 that the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command received was not received
14 exclusively from our office, but perhaps 90 per cent went through us
15 because he was well aware of the importance of the technical processing
16 of the documentation according to proper procedure.
17 However, in exceptional cases, one of his immediate associates or
18 assistants who were constantly in touch with him would bring directly to
19 him a document that had been received by their organ, and after
20 consultation with the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, the chief would
21 always make a decision what to do with it so that there would be no loose
22 ends. He would invite the chief of his office or me and tell us to log
23 the document as received, and that action would be taken in a way that he
24 would indicate either on the margins or on a separate piece of paper, as
25 I described earlier. Anyway, that circle had to be closed so that
1 everyone would know what to do with the document afterwards.
2 Q. What about archiving?
3 A. Archiving became topical only after the end of the aggression.
4 The Chief of the Supreme Command staff immediately after the aggression
5 ended issued to the entire army and all the related organs, all the
6 organs associated with the Supreme Command staff with a central order
7 that was very almost perfectly precise indicating what had to be done
8 with all the documentation that had been received or sent immediately,
9 all the correspondence from the beginning until the end of the
10 aggression. Everything was prescribed very clearly and every chief of
11 every organ had a clearly prescribed procedure to follow including
13 So everyone in this defence system knew what he had to do in the
14 process of preparing documents for archiving because this is a very
15 complex process, from initial review, initial inspection, to check
16 whether all the properties of the document meet the requirements, to
17 checking whether all the action necessary had been taken upon a document,
18 in that if this action had not been completed, then archiving had to be
19 postponed. Or perhaps, the document had to be deferred and archived with
20 an indication that action upon it had not been completed.
21 All these instructions were contained in this central order which
22 was very comprehensive but not so comprehensive to be completely
23 sufficient, but in any way, everyone knew what to do in order to carry
24 out this procedure properly, because it was a very serious and very
25 complex task.
1 Q. My last question in this set of questions --
2 A. Sorry, in that order, in addition to those people who had to deal
3 with the preparation, it was very clearly said and agreed what the
4 military archives had to do. They had a plan which told the archives at
5 what time they would be receiving a representative of which organ with
6 their documentation, and then that included inspection, whether the
7 documentation was properly processed and whether all the requirements for
8 receipt by the archives had been met.
9 Q. Last time you mentioned -- many times you mentioned rules and you
10 said these things were prescribed and this was a time-tested process. My
11 question is, was there a bylaw or a rule book on office management in
12 those situations, not only in terms of archiving, but also in terms of
13 log-book and office administration?
14 A. When I say the army and the defence system, I mean the Ministry
15 of Defence itself as an agency of the state and the entire state system,
16 and they prescribed every aspect of the functioning of the defence
17 system. How, where, and when, those were the pillars of the state. At
18 that time in Yugoslavia
19 as everywhere in the civilised world, the system of defence closely
20 monitored all these procedures, so the Army of Yugoslavia did not
21 function all by itself. They followed the general administrative
22 proceedings as prescribed and they applied to all state organs.
23 Everything that was written in the law on state administration and the
24 bylaws concerning office administration, and that was applicable to the
25 defence system was applied.
1 These were not any idiosyncratic special rules, apart from the
2 rules concerning dead-lines because our documents were sometimes marked
3 military secret, and they had a limitation on safekeeping that had to be
4 observed by the archives. All the rules on administration and handling
5 were the same as for civilian authorities. There were the same laws,
6 bylaws, and decisions of the defence authorities, various determinations
7 and orders, all these regulated the office administration in the army and
9 Q. You also mentioned weekly and monthly plans at the office of the
10 Chief of the Supreme Command staff. During the war, what did that mean?
11 A. In view of the complexity of our work in peacetime and war time,
12 and when I say "our work," I mean the whole system of the armed forces,
13 in view of all that complexity much earlier when the first plans began to
14 be used in our system of work in the army planning became a very
15 important function because the implementation of every task could be
16 optimised by planning.
17 We tried to place everything within a planned framework and thus
18 we created weekly and monthly plans. There was an annual plan that lay
19 as a basis for these. These plans were discussed and adopted at the
20 sessions of the collegium of the chief of office -- sorry, the Chief of
21 the General Staff in peacetime and Supreme Command staff in war time, and
22 during the war we also tried to work in a planned manner, not
23 chaotically, and as we made weekly and monthly plans, but also daily
24 plans because our duties multiplied to such an extent that it would have
25 been impossible to work without a plan. But we tried to reflect all our
1 weekly and monthly duties in these plans to facilitate their realisation.
2 Q. In war time, was there an establishment body that was hired in
3 the Supreme Command staff?
4 A. The entire defence system envisaged that in case of a state of
5 war or a state of emergency partial or complete, there was the highest
6 organ of the state managing the entire system of the state, and it was
7 called the Supreme Defence Council. That was the highest body at the top
8 of that pyramid conditionally speaking. The Supreme Defence Council.
9 And the first body in the defence system subordinated to that
10 highest body was the Supreme Command staff. I suppose you know about the
11 Supreme Defence Council?
12 Q. Certainly, certainly. But I want to ask you, during the war in
13 1999, what kind of communication was there between your office and this
14 body, the Supreme Defence Council?
15 A. Everything about that communication was prescribed and regulated,
16 and it worked like this: The Chief of the Supreme Command staff, because
17 the Chief of Staff always had his own office in peacetime and war time,
18 and in war time it was called the office of the Chief of the Supreme
19 Command staff.
20 In war time also, the president had his military office. That
21 office was headed by the head of the military office, and the Chief of
22 the Supreme Command staff also had his head of office. So if there were
23 some assignments or duties that emanated from a position taken by the
24 president or the Chief of the Supreme Command staff, and if they had
25 decided that communication should be relegated to the interoffice level,
1 then we would do so, we would organise communication between the
2 president's military office and the office of the Chief of the Supreme
3 Command staff.
4 Q. Thank you. Tell me, the Supreme Command staff, during the war,
5 was it in the territory of Kosovo
6 the time?
7 A. The actual seat of the Supreme Command staff was at the command
8 post of the Supreme Command staff in war time, and that meant in the
10 the Supreme Command staff implied that it would function throughout the
11 territory as required by all the tasks placed before it.
12 Q. Thank you. The head of staff of the Chief of Supreme Command
13 staff was who?
14 A. Colonel Milan Vlajkovic.
15 Q. You were deputy?
16 A. Yes, I was deputy head of office.
17 Q. Tell me, to what extent, if any, did the scope of his
18 responsibilities differ from yours?
19 A. Well, our scope of responsibility differed in terms of the actual
20 responsibility involved. Colonel Vlajkovic was the person with top
21 responsibility, and he had the highest degree of authority in terms of
22 the unimpeded functioning of the entire office. That was in his hands.
23 According to internal regulations that stipulated the rules governing
24 everyone's work within that office, he had the obligation and duty to
25 convey certain duties to his deputy.
1 So the responsibilities of the deputy differed to a small degree
2 from the responsibilities that he had. That was the rules in peacetime
3 and in war time. But if you remember, I said yesterday that our tasks
4 and responsibilities grew at such a rate that the two of us really did
5 not look into all of that, who had more powers in which particular field.
6 We simply tried to share the workload. We acted with full responsibility
7 anyway and we thought we should share the workload.
8 Q. Tell me, ex officio or in some other way, did you attend meetings
9 of the Supreme Command staff, and if so, what role did you play in that
11 A. I did have the authority to attend if the head of office was away
12 on official business, then it was my right and duty, of course, to attend
13 these sessions. Our overall activities, I mean, mine and Colonel
14 Vlajkovic's, meant that it was only once or twice that Colonel Vlajkovic
15 was prevented from personally attending that session or such a session,
16 so once or twice I attended sessions of the collegium.
17 Some people call them briefings, other people call them sessions,
18 but officially the name was sessions of the collegium of the Chief of the
19 Supreme Command staff. They were held every day. Sometimes when what
20 was happening in the territory of the entire country required it, then
21 even two daily sessions were held. At any rate, they were held once a
22 day usually in the afternoon or in the early evening. I underline that
23 because after these sessions people got very busy. They had to act on
24 the basis of the tasks issued at those sessions.
25 When I participated in these sessions, or rather, when I attended
1 them, it was my duty, just like Colonel Vlajkovic's, to have minutes
2 written up and to record in brief terms what happened at the session so
3 that after the session we could technically process together with the
4 other organs of the Supreme Command staff the tasks that were invariably
5 set at these sessions. Of course, it was the Chief of the Supreme
6 Command staff that issued these tasks. He received proposals from
7 different organs but at the end of the session, he was the one who would
8 draw the appropriate conclusions and set the tasks.
9 Q. If I understand you correctly, the -- it was the head of staff
10 who was particularly duty-bound to attend these sessions?
11 A. Yes, yes. Ex officio, it was the head of staff, the chief of
12 office, rather, of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff who was
13 supposed to attend these meetings.
14 Q. During the aggression against the FRY, did you know the accused
15 police General Vlastimir Djordjevic?
16 A. As a citizen and as a person who was within the defence system, I
17 just know of him from the media and from official reports. However, I
18 did not know General Djordjevic personally.
19 Q. Tell me, did you ever have a document leave your office and go to
20 Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic, or rather, to the position that he held then,
21 head of public security either personally or, as I said, simply to his
22 office, to the particular office holder that he was at the time?
23 A. I personally never had occasion to see any such document or to
24 personally take part in the processing of such a document, or did the
25 chief of office ever inform me of the existence of any such document.
1 Q. Mr. Vlastimir Djordjevic then held the office of the head of
2 public security of the MUP of Serbia, and did you ever receive any
3 official mail from him at the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command
4 staff during the war?
5 A. No, I'm not aware of any such thing, and I personally have never
6 seen or received any such thing.
7 Q. My last question within this particular set is whether you
8 personally had any knowledge during the NATO aggression against the
9 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia about the alleged ethnic cleansing or
10 persecution of Siptars, or rather, Kosovo Albanians by our organs? When
11 I say "organs," I'm referring either to the military or the police or
12 both the army and the police, and if so, could you please explain that to
14 A. I had no such knowledge.
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Before I move on to my next set
17 of questions, I would like to ask the Trial Chamber to allow the usher to
18 give the witness a binder with written exhibits that will be shown to him
19 in order to facilitate the proceedings because very often the copies are
20 not perfectly clear when displayed on the monitor. This is what we did
21 in previous cases as well.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Mr. Radoicic, could you please look at document number 2.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Otherwise, could we have on our
1 screens document D008-1213. I beg your pardon, D008-1053. In the binder
2 it is number 2.
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the witness.
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, number 1.
5 Q. Mr. Radoicic, could you please look at this document and explain
6 to us, or rather, could you first tell us whether you know of this
7 document, whether you've ever seen it. And if that is the case, could
8 you explain to us within your answer what kind of document this is?
9 A. I've seen this document several times. The first time when the
10 document itself was created, that is to say, at the time when its
11 processing was completed within my duties as an authorised official in
12 the office of the Chief of Staff. And the second time was when before
13 this same court there was another defence case going on and then now
14 again, so I'm saying, yes, I know this document.
15 Q. Can we have your comments today with regard to this document?
16 A. Well, this is a document, of course this is a copy, is called
17 "Archive List" and as such, it constituted a document, or rather, a form
18 that military archives provided to all responsible persons within
19 responsible organs of the Supreme Command staff who had the duty on the
20 basis of the order I mentioned a few moments ago and the process of
21 preparing documentation for military archives.
22 So this is a form that was and still is called the archive list.
23 It has different sections, and when a party was submitting such a
24 request, then they had certain obligations and then the party receiving
25 it had certain obligations too. Should I go on?
1 Q. Could you please stop at this point. From the OTP we received a
2 document also called "Archive List," D008-1713 is the number of that
4 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I would like to
5 tender this document, I mean, the one that we've just seen. The one that
6 we've just seen I'd like to tender.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Is this a document with any particular relevance
8 to this case, or is it being tendered simply as an example?
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. The question that
10 will follow after the question that I will put now will pertain to both
11 archive lists, so perhaps we can wait for that to happen and then I'm
12 going to tender both documents.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Maybe it would be wiser if we
15 did it that way so that it would be clear to the Trial Chamber what the
16 intention of the Defence is.
17 Q. So, please have a look at this document. It seems to me that the
18 number of the document is identical, if I'm not mistaken. In your binder
19 that is number 9 probably. No, sorry, 7. It should be 7.
20 A. There is no number 9. Very well.
21 Q. 7. Or if you cannot find it, just look at the screen.
22 A. It's not on the screen, it's still the archive list.
23 Q. No, no, it's a different document, that's why I'm asking you.
24 This is a document provided to us by the OTP.
25 A. The document that is on the screen is number 1 in the binder.
1 Number 7 is the log-book here in the binder. I've just found it. It's
2 number 6. 6.
3 Q. 6.
4 A. I've just found it, number 6.
5 Q. Yes. Please compare the two documents.
6 A. It is hard for me to carry out an appropriate comparison. In
7 this binder under number 1 in the upper left-hand corner I can barely see
8 the degree confidentiality and the date. I can perhaps make an
9 assumption as to the date on the basis of some of this other information
10 that is barely legible. And now this other document that was shown to me
11 that is number 6 in the binder, it is very clear that it is document
12 400-6. The date is the 10th of August, 1999. However, in this document
13 I cannot see what the content is. Now, was that done intentionally?
14 There's this column, Title and brief description of contents of archive
15 unit. Was this redacted on purpose when it was copied? Quite simply we
16 cannot know what is written there.
17 It's only on page 7 that we can see. So on pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
18 6 respectively of this archive list that you showed me now at this later
19 stage, it is only number -- page number 7 starting with number 79 that
20 has a title and brief description of the contents of the document. Here
21 it is. That is the difference that I managed to notice.
22 So in my view, it is not equally visible and you cannot see --
23 Q. On the basis of the stamp what can you conclude?
24 A. Well, I see the stamp of the -- which one do you mean?
25 Q. This one at the top in the right-hand corner?
1 A. In the left-hand corner is the logging stamp or seal, as it
2 should be called, of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff. And in the
3 right-hand corner is something that is printed as part of the format. It
4 looks like a seal, but it isn't. The receiving party in this case, the
5 military archive, assigns a reference number under which the document was
6 received, the date of receipt, and in these appropriate boxes they write
7 how many documents and how many sheets in total are contained.
8 On the document you've shown me, all this information is visible
9 in the first copy you've shown me and in the second one. The difference
10 between the previous one and the current one, as far as this part is
11 concerned, on the first page, is that on the previous one, there is a
12 stamp of the military archive in the right-hand top corner, whereas on
13 this one there is no such stamp. Why it is missing, I really don't know.
14 These are briefly my observations.
15 Q. Could we now --
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic, we are not able to grasp what is
17 being explained. Are the two documents that are on our screen the two
18 documents being compared by the witness, or does he have some other
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I'm comparing a Defence exhibit
21 with a Prosecution exhibit contained in their notification. I just want
22 to know if these are the same archive lists bearing the differences the
23 witness indicated in view of the reference numbers on the stamp, on the
24 right-hand side, or these are perhaps different documents. The witness
25 just explained what is on the stamps, both the left and the right one,
1 and he noted that one column on one of these is pasted over. So we are
2 trying to establish whether this is indeed the same document with the
3 appearance slightly changed because on the Prosecution copy one part is
4 not visible, maybe because the paper was placed on top of the document
5 during photocopying. I just wanted to clarify this because I believe --
6 you see the inventory number, 21606 --
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic, could you just stop and listen.
8 We have on our screens two documents. One is an original. It may be a
9 copy of an original. The other is a typed English translation. Now, the
10 witness seems to be talking about some different document from the one we
11 have on the screen.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now I understand, Your Honour,
13 what the confusion is about. Here on the screen we have a document, the
14 original, and the English translation. What was shown to the witness
15 previously was a -- I will give you the number of the proposed exhibit
16 and I'll ask the usher to place it on the screen. D008-1053 in Serbian
17 next to the document D008-1017, also in Serbian or B/C/S, so we can
18 compare these two original pages.
19 That was my question. You see the B/C/S on the right-hand side,
20 it says "Archive List," but this is document D008-1053, and on the
21 left-hand side, we have a document proposed by the OTP and the number
22 is - just a moment - D008-1713. So these are two documents. Now, we see
23 the reference stamp on both. We see the contents of the third column on
24 one of them but not on the other. That's what I wanted to ask the
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have one more difference to point
2 out. One of these has the military archive stamp, and the other doesn't.
3 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Which one has it?
5 A. The one you called D008-1053. In the right-hand top corner where
6 it says inventory number, it also has the military archive stamp. And
7 the one on the left-hand side, it has the stamp of the office, but not --
8 no, no, please, let me draw your attention to this. Both documents
9 normally in the left top corner say the same thing, the Supreme Command
10 staff, et cetera, although legibility is not equally good. However, the
11 document on the right has the same inventory number, but one of them has
12 a round stamp of the military archives in the right top corner, and the
13 one, the other one you showed me, D008-1713 does not have that stamp in
14 the right top corner. So to me as a connoisseur of this business, it is
15 quite clear that it is the same document but from two different points of
16 processing. From two different times, two different stages.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe this is enough. I
18 will move to my next question. Could we now place on the screen
19 D008-1017, both the B/C/S and the English versions.
20 Q. I think in your binder it's number 2.
21 A. It's not on the screen.
22 Q. We are waiting. Here it is. You see it on the screen now?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What kind of document is this?
25 A. I've seen this one before, this is the third time I'm seeing it.
1 This is a letter from the retired army general, Mr. Dragoljub Ojdanic,
2 that he addressed to the chief of office personally, chief of the office
3 of the Federal Defence Ministry, and at that time yours truly was
4 occupying that position. May I continue?
5 He addressed this letter to me with a kind of urgent appeal and
6 he is pressing me to receive documents that he had requested earlier.
7 And in this letter, in addition to the urgency of the request, he also
8 expresses his personal dissatisfaction over my attitude to his request
9 addressed earlier referring to the same issue.
10 I received this. It was officially logged at the office of the
11 federal defence minister in March 2002, which happens to be my 51st
12 birthday, and I was frankly surprised by his comments addressed to me
13 personally. At first, I thought he was sending me a card, and I was
14 really surprised by some of his even insulting remarks, but he was
15 expressing some justified dissatisfaction because he had expected a
16 quicker response.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Now, so that we can understand
18 why this letter was addressed to you, let's have on the screen P888.
19 Q. In your binder, it's number 3, I think. All right. You see the
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is that the document preceding this letter by General Ojdanic
23 written on your 51st birthday, as you said? First of all, do you know
24 this document?
25 A. Not contemporaneously, but I know about it from my evidence in
1 Milutinovic when I was shown the document. I know it from that time, and
2 this is the second time I see it. But during my tenure and on this date,
3 I didn't see it.
4 Q. Can you comment?
5 A. I can comment --
6 Q. From the technical viewpoint?
7 A. Looking at the technical features, I can't understand. Normally
8 documents that are marked military secret, state defence, and strictly
9 confidential always have to be numbered because it's either a state
10 secret, very important, or military secret strictly confidential, also
11 very important, which must have an indication of how many copies were
12 made and are distributed under specific numbers to a limited number of
13 persons. This number is missing. That's my first comment on the
14 technical aspect.
15 Second, I can't understand --
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the second page
17 before the witness continues.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On page 2, I don't see that the
19 creator of this document and the sender of this document indicated, as he
20 should have, to whom it was delivered and what action was taken further.
21 If it's addressed -- well, I believe that people who are familiar with
22 this technique know very well the difference between addressing something
23 and delivering something. Those are two different things. The sender
24 did address the letter. It could have been addressed to me or to the
25 United Nations or I don't know who, but the address is there. Here at
1 the end it doesn't say delivered to.
2 Q. At the bottom to the left we see some kind of stamp.
3 A. Where to the left?
4 Q. Well, below the signature of the commander, colonel-general, I
5 don't know which.
6 A. In my document under tab number 3 there's no such thing. Anyway,
7 it doesn't say to whom it was delivered. Just let me finish. If it's
8 delivered to just one person, it has to say "delivered to" at the top,
9 and the second line would read "files" or "archives" otherwise we
10 couldn't trace it. It is prescribed by the rules that the sender has to
11 indicate to whom his correspondence was delivered. Nobody cares to whom
12 he addressed it. Copy number 1 to one institution, copy number 2 to
13 another institution, et cetera. This sender could have also sent -- have
14 sent this to the Supreme Defence Council for their information, but it's
15 not indicated. Nothing is indicated.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go back to page 1,
18 Q. We see something in the right-hand corner on the monitor. We
19 need to see clearly the number in the right top corner, it begins with a
20 7, but there's something else. Now we see it. What does this number 72
21 mean? Do you have any idea?
22 A. I have no clue. At the office of the Supreme Command staff, such
23 handling of documents is not allowed. So this must have come from
24 somebody in the military archives or somebody who handled the document
25 or, I don't know, I can only guess.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now we have the same
2 problem that we had as we did with the archive list. This same document,
3 except that now the document has some other markings on it as well, was
4 received from the OTP. So could we please have the first page of the
5 document submitted by the OTP, that is 3D10-0057. Could we have the
6 first page of the original of that document, the B/C/S version, placed
7 right next to the B/C/S version of this document that we now have on the
8 screen. 6038 is the 65 ter number. Could you lower it a bit?
9 Q. Please have a look at this now. Is it the same text? Is it the
10 same organ?
11 A. Do you have it in the binder, or is it only on the screen?
12 Q. I think that it should be under number 4 in your binder. So
13 first tell me whether you can recognise the text as being the same or not
14 as was the case with the archive list a few moments ago?
15 A. As far as I can see on the screen, it is one in the same text.
16 The same form of processing. This does not have the number of copies in
17 which it was made. Before you asked me about number 72, but as opposed
18 to that, this document has number 248, and I also have no idea where it
19 came from.
20 Q. What about this seal?
21 A. It has a stamp that I cannot see, but I can only assume --
22 Q. Please have a look.
23 A. I can only see some letters, so I'm just making an assumption.
24 If it's the military archive, then I see OJ, and I can see the coat of
25 arms. But the copy of this document is almost useless. We see something
1 that resembles the stamp of the military archive though.
2 Q. What is this down here that we see starting with a Y and then it
3 says Y0252272? What's that?
4 A. This is the first time I see it. It is not characteristic of any
5 kind of action that is taken at the office of the office of the Chief of
6 the Supreme Command staff.
7 Q. Yes, that was my question.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So could we have both pages
9 right next to one another.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Could I be reminded which document has which
11 exhibit number?
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side, Your
13 Honour, is 3D10-0057. And the one on the left-hand side is P888. On the
14 left is P88 -- it's part of the Defence notification, and the one on the
15 right-hand side is part of the Prosecution notification.
16 JUDGE PARKER: The number you are giving, could I point out,
17 Mr. Djordjevic, 3D10-0057 is the number in the Milutinovic case. In this
18 case, the same document is 65 ter 6038.
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] 6038. I've already said that
20 once, I'm sorry. But once I saw with regard to this document it is -- I
21 see that the transcript does not reflect what I said. It is 5888 [as
22 interpreted] so it's three 8s. Could both be scrolled up.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Is that preceded by a 5 or a P?
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] P, a P.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Please look at the document on the right. 6038 is its 65 ter
3 number. We see that there is one extra stamp on the left-hand side. Can
4 you give us your comment on that?
5 A. You won't mind, but I keep distinguishing between a stamp as in
6 "pecat" and a stamp as in "stambilj."
7 Q. I'm sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about that kind of thing.
8 I do apologise.
9 A. I guess that this is a professional deformity on my part, so I
10 make a fine distinction between the two. So this stamp says the Federal
11 Republic of Yugoslavia
12 chief, Strictly Confidential Number 248-2, the 26th of May, 1999. What I
13 truly cannot understand is how come two documents can circulate whereas
14 one does have a marking to the effect that someone had received it, and
15 the other one does not have that marking? So this stamp of the office of
16 the Chief of the Supreme Command staff could be placed subsequently, but
17 I'm saying I see these two together for the first time, how is it
18 possible for the same a document to be circulating in two different
19 versions in terms of processing? I mean, there can be a stamp here that
20 it's was received at the Hague Tribunal as well, for instance.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please not overlap.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There can be different kinds of
23 processing, but I've already said that I did not see these two this way
24 before, so I do not understand how come this happened.
25 I have to add one more thing that is very noticeable. Perhaps if
1 somebody else has this kind of a professional deformity in terms of a
2 high degree of perception in this respect, the first document had the
3 signature of the sending party, and then in the left-hand part there was
4 a signature with a stamp, the command of the 3rd Army with the coat of
5 arms of Yugoslavia
6 stamp has a different position as it were and a different slant in terms
7 of how it was stamped? And it also doesn't say how many copies were
8 made. So it's either someone who is not very well versed or someone who
9 is not responsible or someone who is not authorised to act. I don't know
10 what to call that person. If this was done only two copies, then it is
11 possible to have these two differences, or rather two places stamped in a
12 different way, but if it was done only in one single copy, if there's
13 just one original, then how can a photocopy be made and differ from the
14 original? Because we see these details here on the screen, and I can see
15 it in my binder. It is quite obvious, it is glaringly obvious that these
16 are documents that within a certain period of time were handled
17 subsequently by certain persons with a certain intention. Probably today
18 for some reason one can go to a particular place and ask to have this
19 kind of seal affixed.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would this be a
21 convenient moment to take a break?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you one more thing.
23 The signature is not --
24 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I cannot tender documents
25 because I have a number of questions left before I tender this document
1 because I would like the Trial Chamber to understand what I'm saying.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Is it the proposition of the Defence that the
3 contents of this -- these two documents differ, or merely that there are
4 the differences that have been explained so far by the witness?
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The contents are absolutely
6 identical. However, the differences are in the accompanying stamps or
7 seals, "pecat" or "stambilj" as the witness says because I really am not
8 knowledgeable enough to make that kind of a fine distinction in terms of
9 stamps, but there are differences in terms of registrations and numbers,
10 and we'll go back to the archive list as well so that I can explain to
11 the witness why I asked to have an explanation of what this archive list
12 was and then I'm going to tender both.
13 You saw that the archive lists are the same, they have the same
14 numbers, however one has an extra stamp and then some numbers differ, and
15 I think that ultimately it is going to be perfectly clear to one and all
16 once we reach the end.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, may I make another important
18 observation in this regard?
19 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Please go ahead.
21 A. If we are talking about the date, I see that here on the stamp it
22 says the 26th of May, and the document was processed on the 25th of May.
23 So if we are talking about urgency, if the Chief of the Supreme Command
24 staff should be familiarised with this urgently, then the document had to
25 say "urgent," "very urgent," or if this cannot be sent as a telegram by
1 teleprinter, if it had to be sent by courier, then it would have to say
2 "urgent" or "very urgent" on the document itself. Very urgent meant that
3 if the territory so permitted, it would be done within the course of the
4 same day, and urgent meant by tomorrow at the latest.
5 And it would have to state that it's compulsory sent by courier.
6 So in order for this document to reach the Supreme Command staff from the
7 command to the 3rd Army within such a short period of time it had to be
8 sent by courier or by teleprinter. There was no third option. It
9 doesn't say how urgent it is and also it was not sent by telegram.
10 Q. How come you know it wasn't sent by telegram?
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the answer.
12 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Your Honour, I could
13 break at this point because the next point --
14 JUDGE PARKER: The last answer was not heard, the last answer of
15 the witness, because you and the witness are overlapping in your haste.
16 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] I so apologise. I was quiet
17 while he was giving his answer.
18 Q. So let us repeat it. You said that the document, the document
19 that you explained, or rather, the last thing that you said, could you
20 repeat it once again, and I shall wait patiently.
21 A. Subsequently I asked you to give an important remark in my view,
22 something that I noticed subsequently as I looked at it, namely, if the
23 document was processed on the 25th of May, and this is the first time
24 that I see that it was received on the 26th of May, I see on that stamp.
25 So if we are talking about such a brief period of time, this kind of
1 important document in terms of its content could have been sent in
2 addition to the shortcoming that I referred to originally, it doesn't say
3 in how many copies it was made. It also has no marking as to whether
4 it's urgent or very urgent. Then further on, I explained if it's very
5 urgent then it had to be dispatched within the same day, and if the idea
6 was to have it received within the course of the same day then it had to
7 be marked that it should be sent by courier. To this day, there is a
8 stamp, an auxiliary stamp precisely for these purposes in all military
9 units and in all organs of the Ministry of Defence and of the army, this
10 stamp is placed on a document and on it it says "urgent" or "very
11 urgent." And underneath that it says "deliver by courier."
12 On this document, which in terms of its importance and in terms
13 of the speed, according to which it should be delivered, there is no
14 marking as to whether it's urgent, very urgent, or whether it should be
15 delivered by courier, and it is certain that it was not delivered by
16 telegram or as a telegram because the document does not contain the
17 characteristics of a telegram.
18 Perhaps I did not quite identically put it as I did the first
19 time, but that is it.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at 5 minutes past 11.00.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
25 MS. PETERSEN: Your Honours, I would like to address something
1 before the witness comes in, if that would be all right with you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Petersen, yes.
3 MS. PETERSEN: Because there's a little confusion with some of
4 the documents that are being discussed with this witness, I thought it
5 might be helpful if I give the Court a little contextual information and
6 it may make some of the testimony make more sense.
7 With regard to two exhibits, which it may be helpful if the Court
8 just had. I have hard copies of them that you can have before you when I
9 say this so you know what I'm referring to. With regard to Defence 65
10 ter 638, and Defence 65 ter 644, if the usher could just bring that to
11 the Court.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Are these documents which have been put to this
14 MS. PETERSEN: Yes, these were the two archive lists that the
15 witness was comparing.
16 JUDGE PARKER: The numbers you just quoted are not the ones that
17 seem to have been used at the time.
18 MS. PETERSEN: Yes, I'm using the 65 ter number. I think the
19 Defence is using a document ID number which I do not necessarily have all
20 of their document ID numbers. 638 is D008-1053, and 644 is D008-1713.
21 These are basically -- they are two copies of an archive list from this
22 witness's office to the archives, to the military archives, and this
23 first copy, which is Defence 65 ter 638, which looks like this, if Your
24 Honours can see, this one, this was presented by the Ojdanic Defence in
25 Milutinovic, and they obtained it from the government of Serbia
1 a copy obtained from the archives, and it's an excerpt of this list. So
2 because it's a copy, it has this stamp from the archives here that it's a
3 copy from the archives, and it's a shorter excerpt. And later the
4 Ojdanic Defence requested a full colour copy of the original, and so
5 that's what this other list that the witness was comparing, that is what
6 65 ter 644 is. The Ojdanic Defence then got this colorful copy of the
7 list, so it doesn't have the copy stamp up here, and it's longer. It's
8 not an excerpt and the archives, or someone, redacted out some of the
9 content because apparently they didn't want that to be given.
10 So that is the source of these two documents there. The same
11 thing, they are just -- one is an excerpt form and a copy and the other
12 in full form and not a copy.
13 And the other two documents that were being compared are P888,
14 this 25th May letter from 1999, and 65 ter 06038, which is the same 25th
15 of May letter, but it has on the back page a stamp from the office of the
16 Chief of the Supreme Command staff, and it also has another stamp on the
17 front. And P888 was received by the Prosecution in the Milutinovic case
18 from the government of Serbia
19 That one was received by the Ojdanic Defence, and they were asked on the
20 record where they got that document, and they said that they received it
21 from the National Council for Co-operation. So these are documents that
22 those received from different sources. Possibly that can give the
23 Chamber some context so when you hear these documents referred to you
24 will have that background information.
25 I believe with the archives which I spoke of first, it seems that
1 this witness may not be aware of that so he may not be able to speak to
2 it. However, this information about the source of these was contained in
3 the Milutinovic testimony of Mladenovski, who I believe is on the
4 Defence's list of witness, so if the Chamber has further questions he may
5 be someone that you can address. So hopefully that can be of assistance.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Q. Mr. Radoicic, let's pick up where we left off. We still have the
11 document on our screens, the one that we have been discussing previously.
12 My next question is, since we already heard from you that during war
13 operations you had not had an opportunity to see such a document,
14 assuming that this kind of document has reached the office of the Chief
15 of General Staff or the Supreme Command, what was the presumed procedure
16 and what would follow thereafter? Let's say that this is our working
17 assumption just as I gave it to you.
18 A. In my earlier statement, I described in general terms the
19 procedure applicable to all documents, and what kind of methodology was
20 implemented by the chief of supreme staff and his office. This kind of
21 document or report, first of all, if it had arrived from the area of
22 responsibility of the 3rd Army, or rather, its forward command post, as
23 it is stated in the letter, received special treatment for the reason
24 that in this area, all the combat operations were at their highest. And
25 in comparison to all other documents and reports, arriving from the area
1 of the responsibility of the 3rd Army were given, I have to say extremely
2 pronounced importance and was given highest priority in processing them.
3 So if this kind of report would reach the location where the
4 Supreme Command staff was, and especially if it was addressed to the
5 Chief of Staff of Supreme Command, then the responsible personnel from
6 the chief's office would deliver this document to him directly in the
7 fastest possible way. When I say "in the fastest possible way," means
8 that if the Chief of Staff at the moment when he is in receipt of such an
9 important document, was somewhere outside the very headquarters of the
10 Supreme Command, then this important document would deserve to be
11 delivered to him as soon as possible and literally we will resort to a
12 procedure of urgent delivery to his hands directly wherever he is.
13 If he was in the seat of the Supreme Command, he would receive it
14 immediately. However, if he was outside of the seat of the Supreme
15 Command staff, he would also receive it within the shortest possible
16 term. I'm positive, and I say with full responsibility that he, the
17 chief of supreme staff immediately after being informed about such
18 important issues contained in these documents would write his
19 instructions on the document itself indicating who and when is obliged to
20 continue to act upon this document. From the content of this document,
21 one can see that this kind of document would definitely warrant, based on
22 his assessment, immediate distribution of the document to the members of
23 the staff of Supreme Command, and I'm sure certain state organs as well
24 because this has to do with the resubordination of MUP units as it is
25 stated in the document.
1 Q. I have to ask you this: In view of the time that you spent
2 alongside the Chief of Supreme Command and Colonel Vlajkovic, who was
3 chief of office of the Chief of the Supreme Command, and you said that
4 you spent quite a lot of time with him, do you remember that there was
5 information to the effect that you acted on the content that is contained
6 in this document, and would you remember such an occurrence?
7 A. I would definitely remember that. As far as I can remember
8 concerning this particular document, I did not take any action because I
9 didn't have a chance to see it while the aggression was in progress. But
10 let me ask you, and first of all, I would ask the Trial Chamber to tell
11 them that during the break I - I felt some kind of anxiety, first of all
12 because I have given a solemn declaration, and throughout my career I
13 only made one oath and that is when I joined the army in which I pledged
14 that I was going to abide by everything contained in that oath.
15 When I appeared before this court for the first time, I also gave
16 a solemn declaration to speak the truth, and as a lawyer, I am personally
17 interested in committing to do everything as long as I live for things to
18 be proven and preserved. I'm really upset, maybe you can feel it in my
19 voice, that there are two types of documents in circulation that the
20 processing methodology of these documents give rise to a high degree of
21 anxiety in me, and I wonder if something happened with these documents in
22 terms of the tampering or being abused. So for the sake of truth or
23 untruth, some people are incarcerated and some other people are free.
24 As a human being and as a lawyer I think it is my duty to do my
25 best not to deprive someone of their freedom by addressing all these
1 issues responsibly. So by looking at this document, it seems that
2 somebody has received this document but only subsequently, and somebody
3 is trying to prove something with that, then the truth must be completely
4 different. And I would really like to emphasise that this gives me rise
5 for concern and anxiety that the truth is being treated in this and that
7 Q. Thank you. Can we please continue.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have again Defence
9 Exhibit Number D008-1053.
10 Q. That's number 1 in your binder, Mr. Radoicic. We have both
11 versions in B/C/S and English, and could you please show us the last page
12 of this document where we have the seal and two signatures. Can the
13 witness please tell us who signed this archive list.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And if you can please zoom in on
15 the signature and the seal. Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We see only one signature on the
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Okay. Who signed it?
20 A. This is my signature because I was the only authorised person to
21 do that. That's why you have this note on the left that I personally
22 put, and it says, P over O which stands for by authority of the chief of
23 office, Colonel Vlajkovic Milovan, who gave me this authority, and that
24 was my working task in processing the documents for the military archive,
25 and, therefore, I signed this document. And only the seal could be put
1 on my signature and the signature of Mr. Vlajkovic. Other persons were
2 not entitled to that.
3 Q. Can we please now look to the left and see who has compiled this
5 A. We see here that this list was compiled by Miodrag Jankovic, but
6 his signature both on the screen and on the hard copy is almost
7 invisible. You can see just two or three lines, no more than that.
8 Therefore, I cannot say definitely whether it was him who signed this
10 Q. Thank you. Can we please look at the document itself. We have
11 that there were some corrections and additions made in this document, in
12 the original. Can you comment on that?
13 A. Unfortunately I don't have the original here, all I have are some
14 rather illegible copies, but as far as I can discern, in column 7 it
15 says, Received on behalf of the military archive warrant officer 1st
16 Class Dusan Mladenovski and this is probably his signature, so this is no
17 one from the office who signed this but rather this warrant officer from
18 the military archive.
19 Q. But this column that has a register number, who added these
20 things in writing?
21 A. If we look at page 8, these are corrections probably made by this
22 warrant officer or the responsible person from the archive, that is what
23 he did at the moment when he received the documents. So during the
24 hand-over they literally checked all the numbers and all the elements
25 relating to the documents that were being handed over, and this warrant
1 officer Mladenovski probably for the reasons known only to him, probably
2 by complying with some regulations, he made some additions.
3 In one place on this page, page 8, I see that actually he made
4 more than one correction, but it is very legible, as if this were a
5 financial document. He did cross out certain entries, but you can still
6 see what was stricken out. So he did it properly, and one can see what
7 was before and what was added subsequently.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at the
10 previous page, and that's page 7 in the original.
11 Q. Please take a look at entry 82, what does it say?
12 A. It says:
13 "Official Note of the meeting between the Chief of Supreme
14 Command staff and the chief of administration for the preparation of the
15 republican organs for defence in the Republic of Serbia
16 Ministry of Defence."
17 Do I have to repeat it slowly?
18 Q. Yes, please do.
19 A. "Official Note of the meeting between the Chief of Supreme
20 Command staff and the chief of administration for the preparation of the
21 republican organs for defence in the Republic of Serbia
22 Ministry of Defence."
23 Q. Thank you.
24 A. May I clarify?
25 Q. Yes, you may.
1 A. Apart from Yugoslav Army there were other organs who were
2 responsible for Defence under the Law on Defence. I hope that you know
3 that we had two laws. The Law on Defence as the broadest legal
4 instrument that governed all defence issues in the then Yugoslavia, and
5 the Law on the Army which governed only the issues relating to the army.
6 Since in addition to army there were other organs responsible for the
7 tasks and obligations relating to the defence system, there were a few of
8 them, and amongst them was an organ which was called, Administration for
9 the preparation of the republican organ in Serbia, and the same organ
10 existed in Montenegro
11 Federal Ministry of Defence.
12 In peacetime the Chief of General Staff didn't have any
13 jurisdiction over the activities of these two organs. However, during
14 war since the whole functioning and the regulation of the whole defence
15 system is unified, and as I said at the very beginning, involving units
16 and organs of the Yugoslav Army and that of Ministry of Defence, all of
17 them were in war time under a unified command which was called the
18 Supreme Command.
19 So for that reason, the Chief of Supreme Command had the right
20 and the authority to regulate certain activities of these organs as well
21 in the given circumstances. For that reason, probably this Official Note
22 was drafted, and it was necessary to draft it because they definitely
23 discussed certain tasks that these administration organs were obliged to
24 carry out. For example, to take care of the functioning of
25 transportation, traffic, railway transportation, communication system,
1 et cetera.
2 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] So for us to understand
3 everything that has been done so far, can I please have next to this page
4 7 B/C/S version of 65 ter 6038.
5 Q. We shall see that in this original there is something written
6 that is closely related to what we have been discussing so far.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can you -- yes,
8 that's right, we need to see the stamp and the seal.
9 Q. We can see here in this document in the upper right corner the
10 number 248, and we have a seal for which you assume that this is the
11 archive seal, but if we look on the left side under item 82 in this
12 archive list, we see number 248-1, and underneath somebody wrote 248-2.
13 Then in the next column we see that somebody crossed some numbers by hand
14 and added new numbers.
15 Since you signed this document, did you enter these corrections
16 and what is -- what do these corrections signify?
17 A. Earlier when I was explaining this document to you I said that I
18 put my signature on this document after the responsible person from the
19 office of the Chief of General Staff compiled this list and confirmed
20 that it was ready for hand-over. That means that it contained all the
21 entries, numbers, description, register numbers, and all these boxes that
22 needed to be filled. But this was not done by us as the ones who were
23 handing over the document. All these documents were done at the moment
24 when the hand-over took place.
25 So present during the hand-over was the responsible person from
1 the handing over party, and also the responsible person from the
2 receiving party, in this case, the archive. The only person authorised
3 to carry out these corrections was the representative, or rather, the
4 authorise person from the archive. We were never allowed to enter any
5 corrections ourselves. So all these corrections that you see in this
6 document were done actually, I suppose, by this warrant officer
7 Mladenovski as a recipient responsible person.
8 While I'm answering your question, I'm looking at these
9 correction that is entered under number 82, I can't help but notice that
10 the handwriting under 82 of this correction is not identical, or at least
11 it doesn't look identical to me, to the handwriting of the only person
12 authorised to make corrections, that is the person from the archive. It
13 seems to me that this was written by someone else who I don't think was
15 Q. What does this 248-1 and 248-2 mean in this entry number 82?
16 A. Well, nothing is striked. It was just added in this column log
17 number below 248-1, it was just added, 248-2. And in the columns number
18 of documents and number of sheets, corrections were indeed made 2 and 5
19 were written instead of 1 and 3 respectively. That means there were two
20 documents instead of one and five sheets instead of three.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Let's go back to page 1 and to
22 the stamp. I just -- we just need to change the left side. D008-1023.
23 Sorry, 1053. We need to see the first page. Let's see the stamp on the
25 Q. It says here, Number of document 277, and sheets 735. That's in
1 the stamp. Now if this correction was made and rubricated too, does that
2 mean that the number documents would have to match if we add up the
3 documents and sheets, should the final result be as written here, 277
4 documents containing a total of 735 sheets? Should that be so?
5 A. That's what I understood you were saying, but I told both you and
6 in the previous Defence case, this is not a stamp, it's part of the
7 formatting, and these boxes are envisaged and printed there to be filled
8 in. As to your question, you are absolutely correct. From what I can
9 see, the handwriting of this authorised official from the military
10 archive indicates that there were 277 documents, no correction added; 735
11 sheets, no correction added. And it's quite certain that at the end
12 after receipt, you should have counted the documents and the sheets and
13 written the correct number. It's up to that authorised official. He
14 should do this in a responsible manner. Anything else would be forgery,
15 it would amount to forgery and tampering.
16 Q. Now, next to this -- my last question about the relationship
17 between these two documents, does the document on the right, 248, we see
18 that it completely correlates with the archive list, does that number
19 have anything to do with this first document, and in what cases would a
20 number be placed on the document as an addition under the rules?
21 A. This number added subsequently, 248-2 with a basic number 248-1,
22 this number 248-2 is the number of some follow-up document that should be
23 related to the basic document.
24 Q. Would there be an obligation to state what document it is about?
25 A. Perfectly correct.
1 Q. We see only one document indicated?
2 A. Yes, that person indicates two documents but does not specify
3 what the other document is. You had an opportunity to see what the
4 log-book looks like. 248 is the basic number, and everything that
5 follows, which is called subnumber, dash 1, dash 2, dash 3 or 4 must be
6 correlated with a basic number. So if 248-1 is the basic document and
7 refers to the minutes from this meeting, all the follow-up documents,
8 dash 2, dash 3, et cetera should relate to that document that those
10 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] After this, the Defence will
11 tender, and I give my thanks to my learned friend from the Prosecution
12 who took the trouble to give us additional information about the sources
13 of these documents, I will tender, as I said, D008-1053, which is the
14 archive list we've just seen, but also the other one, D008-1713, also
15 archive list which we established would be the same document but
16 redacted, some of the information is concealed. And we also tender 65
17 ter 6038. It's the number given by the Prosecution, and the exhibit
18 number is P888, but it's related to the previous three exhibits, and
19 that's why I want the previous three documents to be admitted as well.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Exhibit, the one which is D008-1053 will be
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit D00583.
23 JUDGE PARKER: And the other archive list, D008-1713 will be
25 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00584, Your Honour.
1 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] And the relationship of these
2 two documents with P888, we have another document 65 ter 6038. It's
3 identical to --
4 JUDGE PARKER: 65 ter 6038 will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00585, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
7 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have got to tender
8 D008-1017. That's a request or an application by the already retired
9 Chief of the Supreme Command staff to this witness, and it's P888. And
10 we also tender D008-1017, the letter by General Ojdanic sent to the
11 federal Defence ministry, to the attention of the witness.
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00586, Your Honours.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we now call up
15 D008-1109. D008-1059.
16 Q. In your binder it's number 5, Mr. Radoicic. Would you tell us
17 what this is?
18 A. It's the log-book, and it's bound in such a way that sheets
19 cannot be taken out. Otherwise it would be punched and have a special
20 guarantee string running through it. It's written on the cover that it's
21 the log-book, but this is the first page.
22 Q. What is that book for?
23 A. You enter or register or more precisely file all the documents
24 that deserve to be registered in the log-book of the agency keeping the
25 log-book in keeping with its purpose. This is the log-book of the chief
1 of office of the Chief of Staff of the military command, and it's marked
2 to indicate that there is only one book which means that it contains the
3 proper record of all the documents that were designated by the rules as
4 deserving to be entered into this book.
5 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up something
6 that's already been exhibited. But before that, I tender this document.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe I are forgot to say one
8 important thing, namely, on this page we also see the stamp of the
9 military archives, which I suppose means that the military archives must
10 have received all the documentation logged here because they affixed a
11 stamp. Or perhaps the military archive was duty-bound to place this
12 log-book at somebody's disposal, if they were so required.
13 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. May I tender this
14 document now.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00587, Your Honours.
17 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up D008-1729.
18 Q. In your binder it's number 7. Is it the same document?
19 A. At face value I would say it's the same document. I mean, the
20 same page because it's not a document, it's a page. Except that the one
21 you are showing me now does not bear the stamp of the military archive,
22 whereas the other one did. And one thing escapes me, what does this
23 number 1 mean? This 1 was written there by someone for reasons only they
24 knew, because to me to put it informally it looks like scribbling. So
25 somebody with no authority scrawled this 1. An unauthorised person.
1 Q. Would it be allowed to make subsequent corrections?
2 A. This log-book was treated in the same way as financial documents,
3 meaning that it was not allowed to take out any sheets or tear anything
4 out. And any correction wherever would have had to be marked as a
5 correction. Who could have made corrections and at what time? If the
6 correction was made while the log-book was still operational, running,
7 that correction would have to be explained, and the explanation would
8 have to be indicated in a proper rubric or column, that is, in one of the
9 vertical or horizontal boxes, if there was any room to make a correction
10 there under the same number. If there was no room, then an Official Note
11 could be written up describing what was done and for what reasons, for
12 what justified reasons, and that correction would have to be reflected in
13 that Official Note, and the Official Note would have to be attached to
14 the page where it -- to which it pertained. And it would then not be
15 allowed to separate that Official Note from the page in question. It
16 would certainly not be allowed to use this white paint you call corrector
17 or fix-it.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] May I tender this document as
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I emphasised, I don't know if
21 you were paying attention, it would certainly not allowed to make these
22 corrections on the part of the sender. Now, later when it was already in
23 the hands of the archive, I don't know what approach they took and what
24 actions they were allowed to take.
25 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We have another witness who will
1 be speaking about that, I'm only interested in the part that concerns you
2 and the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff.
3 So this document D008-1729 is hereby tendered.
4 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D00588, Your Honour.
6 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please go back to
7 D008-587 [as interpreter]. That's document that has already been
8 admitted, the previous document. Could we please have a look at page 54,
9 I believe it's the second page in terms of what was submitted. D008-7059
10 was the number actually. Just a moment, please. It's the second page,
11 isn't it? So could we have page 54.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel please be asked to speak into the
13 microphone. Thank you.
14 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] D587 for the transcript. I see
15 that it has not been recorded correctly. Could you please zoom in on
17 Q. What can you tell us about this? Obviously it is P888, that's
18 already been admitted into evidence under that number. So you see 248,
19 so it's the log-book of the Chief of General Staff, his office. It says
20 number 2 --
21 A. Sorry, what number is that in the binder?
22 Q. We haven't got it in the binder. You can look on your screen.
23 It can be seen very clearly.
24 A. Well, I have to say that a few moments ago I had on my screen the
25 original of the page with the original colour of the ink and stamp and
1 now I see this other thing where it says 248. I can barely discern, so
2 there's a difference between me saying I can see or I can barely discern.
3 So is this, to strictly confidential S.POV, the 26th of May, 1999, and as
4 far as I can discern in the column where it's 15th of May, 1999, it says,
5 SMO dash -- I'm barely discerning what is says there, I can barely barely
6 discern this, I think it says [B/C/S spoken] administration. But I don't
7 know what the rest says. As opposed to that first entry, the other one
8 on the 26th of May, 11 days later that is, says KDA 3rd commander, IKM,
9 and it says that the sending party sent it 872-94/1-2. I mean, it says
10 here slash 1-2, but that does not look like what documents should be
11 marked like with all propriety. So I can see this second entry very
12 clearly, I mean, the handwriting, but not the first one. And I don't
13 understand why not.
14 And also, this basic number where there is a reference to the
15 sending party, namely the Ministry of Defence, it says, Command of the
16 3rd Army.
17 Q. Is there any logic there?
18 A. From the point of view of everything that I have tried to explain
19 to you so far, with regard to the prescribed procedure and the powers and
20 authority in keeping records and registers, this does not look like
21 proper record keeping. If I can take the liberty of saying this, it
22 looks like something that was subsequently entered. It either has to do
23 with someone's ill intentions or ignorance. I believe that the
24 responsible person who was in charge of doing this could or should never
25 have done any such thing.
1 Q. We have the right person to ask about that?
2 A. I must say that I personally within the discharge of my regular
3 duties in war and in peace supervised everything single day and provided
4 guide-lines, that was part of my job, to the work of the office at the
5 office of the Chief of General Staff in peacetime and also in war time,
6 and it could never happen that -- I mean, there would hardly be a day
7 that would go by, I mean, I'm not talking about working hours I'm talking
8 about days because often we worked all day, so hardly a day would go by
9 without me looking at books. This kind of thing would not have happened
10 without me knowing about it.
11 Q. Tell me once again, you saw the first document, we cannot even
12 see what it says.
13 A. Just allow me to say one more thing. So what was done under this
14 basic number two completely different documents from two different fields
15 were put together.
16 Q. Can that be done?
17 A. That is unlawful.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] The last topic that I would like
19 to deal with is P1505. Could I please have it on the screen.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to admit to you that this
21 was really unskillfully done. I mean, no matter how hard some person
22 tried --
23 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] P1505, please. Thank you.
24 Could we have the English version as well. Thank you.
25 Q. In your binder it's number 8, Colonel.
1 A. Very well.
2 Q. This is a document, please have a look. I would like to clarify
3 this matter. I don't want it to remain undiscussed, and we do know of
4 its existence in evidence. So again we are talking about resubordination
5 of MUP units. Again we are talking about the command of the 3rd Army,
6 again with your talking about General Nebojsa Pavkovic, you will see that
7 when we look at page 2 of the document, however, what you have before you
8 is a hard copy so you are already seeing this, but could you please give
9 us your comment on page 1.
10 A. Well, there is scope for making comments in terms of the quality
11 and technical aspect involved, and also the content involved and also the
12 structure of the content as far as I can see as I glance at it
13 diagonally. There is scope for both types of comments, technical and
14 substantial. With regard to page 2 of this document as well.
15 So first of all, it says on page 2, a telegram can be sent. So
16 my first technical observation is that if this was sent as a telegram,
17 then it had to have as an integral part a copy of the technical
18 processing of this document. Although it is marked as a telegram, it is
19 a document, or rather, what is marked here is the intention of the
20 sending party to send this as a telegram.
21 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we just interrupt you for a
22 moment, and can we just show page 2 now for the benefit of our colleagues
23 from the OTP. So please wait for a moment for page 2 to appear on the
24 monitor. Not everything can be seen now so could you please adjust the
25 page accordingly. Very well.
1 Q. Continue, Mr. Radoicic, please.
2 A. Well, now that we have page 2 here as well, first of all, we
3 cannot see that it's page 2.
4 Q. What do you mean?
5 A. Well, it's not marked that it is page 2 in relation to page 1, so
6 this in its own right can be a page that continues on to another text.
7 It doesn't say that it's page 2 of this document at all. That's my first
9 Secondly, if an authorised official like the Chief of Staff, and
10 over here there is a mistake, it doesn't say Chief of Staff, instead of a
11 B, there is a V, so maybe it's a typo. There should be a signature by
12 the said person here because he was authorised by the commander that it
13 says here that this can be sent as a telegram. So the assumption is that
14 say the commander dictated to him over the telephone, but he is
15 authorised to act further on in accordance with this document that it can
16 be sent as a telegram as it says here, so if he did send it, he had to
17 sign it because the commander who had issued the order, or whatever page
18 1 says, is absent, so in his absence it is this person who is authorised
19 to sign the document for him so that the document can be sent as a
20 telegram, so the commander, I mean or rather the person processing the
21 document had to say commander, Colonel-General Nebojsa Pavkovic S.R.
22 that means on behalf of, for, signed for, so this other page -- this page
23 does not have S.R., and it doesn't have the signature of this other
24 person who is authorised to order the teleprinter operator to send this
25 as a telegram. What I started saying a moment ago when you interrupted
1 me was that there is no evidence of this document being sent as a
2 telegram. This is typed out on a computer. When a document is being
3 sent as a telegram you probably had occasion to see what it looks like,
4 what it looks like when you are sending a document by a telegraph. So it
5 does not contain any proof of that here. There should be a signature of
6 the authorised official here that it was sent as a document. Had it been
7 sent as a telegram, it would have to say who it was delivered to, so the
8 teleprinter operator on the basis of the regulations regulating the work
9 of teleprinter operators, state that once a telegram is sent on the -- or
10 rather, I'm sorry, in the lower left-hand corner he has to leave a stamp,
11 the teleprinter operator, when he received it, when he sent it, and when
12 the receiving party received it. So there is no trace of all of these
13 actions that are prescribed. Without that, this document is just a piece
14 of paper, although it does have up here a seal that I can barely see.
15 While I tried to explain at first in terms of how documents
16 should be treated when they are state secrets, military secrets, strictly
17 confidential, et cetera, it doesn't say what number it is. This is a
18 strictly confidential document. I glanced at its content, and it
19 certainly could have had a higher degree of confidentiality because it
20 involves a large number of organs in the defence system and also state
21 organs as well, so it doesn't say how many copies, it doesn't say,
22 therefore, which particular number this copy is, the one that we see now,
23 and in relation to the breadth of the issue that is being dealt with by
24 the author of this text because if it were the sending party then it
25 would be marked as a document that is being sent, and there is not a
1 single marking that this was sent let alone received elsewhere.
2 So the author, the creator of this text did not deal with that.
3 There is no number as to what copy this is. So if he had the intention
4 to send this, instead of sending it to the Chief of Staff at the Supreme
5 Command, he is sending it to the sector for KoV. So I don't understand
6 what his reasons were to address it to the sector of the KoV.
7 Q. What is important is whether you remember since you held the
8 position you held at the Supreme Command staff, do you remember this
9 document? Did you see this document during the war, the document you are
10 looking at now, either as a telegram or in this form?
11 A. Let me tell you, in the briefest possible term, I had no occasion
12 to see this, I did not see it. I deeply believe that this kind of
13 document was never received. As I've already said, it has no markings in
14 that sense that it had been received and I mean, it hasn't even been
15 marked by their teleprinter operator, let alone that it was received at
16 the Chief of Staff at his office, I must point out paragraph 8 is so
17 important that this must -- this would have to reach the Chief of General
18 Staff or had it reached the Chief of General Staff, he would have to
19 inform the head of the VSO about it. There is a reference here to a
20 certain Levic and then also to Djindjic and Vesna Pesic and Velimir Ilic,
21 Veli Ilic. So these are systems -- persons outside the defence system,
22 so it is certain that if the Chief of General Staff had received it this,
23 the president of the Supreme Defence Council would have to receive that.
24 Q. Who would work on these documents?
25 A. Either the office or one of the organs of the Supreme Defence
1 Council because there's so many questions here, look at 10, shortage of
2 ammunition, the assistant chief of the -- the assistant commander for
3 logistics would have to deal with this. And also say communications,
4 again by the appropriate assistant commander in that field. Then number
5 8, paragraph number 8, this would certainly call for action on the part
6 of the information administration, the security administration, one of
7 the assistant commanders and also the position of the Chief of General
8 Staff would have to be sent to the president of the Supreme Defence
9 Council, either through the military office or the president of the
10 Supreme Defence Council would be aware of this, or at regular meetings,
11 the Chief of the Supreme Command staff himself would at a meeting of the
12 Supreme Defence Council make the president aware of that. So that would
13 be say paragraph number 6 local electronic media. Again the
14 administration for communications, then another paragraph, the
15 appropriate administration that was supposed to regulate matters related
16 to conscripts who were mobilised, then also other matters related to the
17 Supreme Defence Council, was it the president of the Supreme Defence
18 Council or the president of Serbia
19 of conduct by representatives of the MUP. Then number 2, privileged
20 position of the members of the MUP under quotations marks. So 1, 2, 3.
21 Important questions are being raised here with regard to the activity of
22 the MUP. So this is such a comprehensive document that the Chief of
23 General Staff would have to have an extraordinary meeting of his
24 collegium to deal with all these important matters. And of course, he
25 would also urgently familiarise the head of the Supreme Defence Council
1 about that.
2 Q. Had that been done, what you discussed just now, could it have
3 happened without you having no knowledge of it whatsoever?
4 A. I'm stating to you with full responsibility that I had no
5 opportunity to see any such thing, and I do not remember seeing any such
6 thing. There is not a single piece of information that would jog my
7 memory in the sense of my having seen this earlier on.
8 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would thus
9 conclude my direct questions for the witness, and I would like to thank
10 you Mr. Radoicic for having devoted his time to us so that we would all
11 work in the interest of justice. Thank you.
12 Let me not forget, can I tender this document. Oh, no, actually
13 it has been admitted. Sorry.
14 Cross-examination by Ms. Petersen:
15 Q. Sir, I just want to make sure --
16 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Petersen, yes.
17 MS. PETERSEN: Sorry, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, I just would like to make sure I understand a few things
19 about the position you had during the period of the NATO bombing. In
20 paragraph 3 of your statement you say that you prepared almost all
21 documents sent to the military office of the president of the FRY. Who
22 would these document have been from, and I don't need an extensive -- was
23 it just documents from your office, or was it from other organs?
24 A. When I said that we, I'm referring to the entire office, not only
25 to myself personally, when we wrote to the military office of the
1 president of the Republic of Yugoslavia
2 president of the Supreme Defence Council, that could have been only, and
3 I'm emphasising this through my words and my tone of voice, it could have
4 only been on the basis of the positions taken by the Chief of the Supreme
5 Command staff.
6 And when the Chief of the Supreme Command staff would decide that
7 the president of the Supreme Defence Council should be made aware of
8 certain information, then it could only be sent that way with the
9 signature of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff. If he personally
10 was the author of a particular document and stated his position, and if
11 he would sign that document and then he would give me, that is me and
12 the -- and Colonel Vlajkovic I'm saying we in that sense.
13 Q. Sir, I'm only asking if the documents that you prepared were from
14 the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command or if other organs, you
15 were preparing documents from other organs. That's all I need to know.
16 A. I cannot go into the entire history of the creation of these
17 documents for the following reasons: The Chief of the Supreme Command
18 staff was made aware of certain things in different ways, in writing or
19 orally. So all organs that had an obligation towards the Chief of the
20 Supreme Command staff sent written information to him or informed him
21 orally. As for the military office of the president of the Supreme
22 Defence Council, it's only the Chief of the Supreme Command staff who
23 could directly address him, not someone else. Not anyone else for that
25 Q. Thank you, sir. You stated that after the evening briefings, you
1 worked with the chief of the office to process and distribute tasks. I
2 just want to understand what you mean by that. Do you mean that when the
3 tasks would come from the evening briefing you would process them into
4 written tasks and distribute those to the people who were to do the
5 tasks? Were these tasks in writing, that's my question?
6 A. If you are only interested specifically in whether they were in
7 writing, then the answer is yes, but I can also explain to you the
8 technology involved in these tasks, but that really depends on your
10 Q. Just to clarify your answers, they were in writing and then those
11 written tasks were distributed to the people who were to do them; would
12 that be accurate?
13 A. You have understood that very well. These tasks were written up,
14 logged, registered in log-books, in books of records, and submitted in a
15 proper way to all organs who were supposed to act on the basis of those
16 tasks during the course of that day. Of course this procedure of sending
17 and receiving was also recorded from the organ who was sending it to the
18 organ receiving it. So a document always had a closed circle. A
19 document could not start moving without its entire movement being
20 recorded. It's not that it would start in some way and then no one could
21 see how it was finalised. That simply could not happen. One of my
22 obligations was not to allow through my own work or through my
23 supervision of -- over the work of others that this be in any other way.
24 Q. Thank you, sir. And I believe you stated today that you attended
25 the evening briefings yourself one or two times; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you attend any other meetings with General Ojdanic?
3 A. There were such meetings and discussions. When I say "meetings,"
4 that means involving two or more persons. There were also talks with one
5 person only and on such occasions, he would ask me or Colonel Vlajkovic
6 to come in order to take notes or to leave a written record of that
7 conversation if it so merited.
8 Q. So of the meetings that General Ojdanic had in the office where
9 people would come in to meet with him or out of the office where he would
10 go out to meet with other people, would you usually go with him, or was
11 this something that you only did sometimes?
12 A. I or Colonel Vlajkovic went with him on those occasions and to
13 those places when he deemed it necessary. We did not go regularly. He
14 knew that we were busy enough as it was in the implementation of the
15 other tasks that we had, he highly respected the time involved for
16 carrying out these tasks and the obligations we all had. He didn't
17 really mind about that kind of thing. He was really very caring in that
18 respect. It was just important that a person who would be a note-taker
19 would accompany him.
20 MS. PETERSEN: All right. I think it's time for the break, Your
22 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the second break now. Resume at
24 [The witness stands down]
25 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 1.01 p.m.
2 [The witness takes the stand]
3 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Petersen.
4 MS. PETERSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Sir, if someone else attended a meeting with General Ojdanic as a
6 note-taker, was it part of your job responsibility when those notes came
7 back to review all those notes?
8 A. Among other duties, it was also the duty of the office of the
9 Chief of the Supreme Command to look at such documents, and he would
10 mandatorily indicate his position on such documents or he would invite us
11 personally to tell us his position and what to do with the document. How
12 to dispose of it or whether to archive it if no further action was
13 required. But it would certainly have to be logged.
14 Q. Are you talking about documents or the notes? I'm asking you
15 about the notes taken by a note-taker at a meeting.
16 A. Every meeting had its form and if notes were taken, notes are
17 also official, at least in our understanding and jargon so notes were
18 also an official document. And the very copy book in which the
19 authorised person wrote down bullet points or took notes about the
20 activity concerned, was an official document. The copy book itself was
21 an official document. And if a separate sheet of paper was used, that
22 separate sheet of paper was also an official document. So notes were
23 also a document.
24 Q. And did you personally review all those notes?
25 A. If I was the person who was entrusted with that, yes, but it
1 would be either the chief of the office or myself.
2 Q. Okay. So did you -- I'm trying to find out if you did or not.
3 Did you regularly do that, or was that not something that you regularly
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Thank you, sir. Now, you explained in your -- when
7 you were being questioned earlier that when documents came into your
8 office, they got logged.
9 MS. PETERSEN: If we could look at 65 ter 645. Okay. I'm sorry,
10 I guess I failed to note that this has already been admitted. It's 588.
12 Q. Sir, is this the log of your office where you logged -- where the
13 office logged all of the documents that are received?
14 A. I have said already in my evidence that this is the first page
15 after the cover of something that should be a log-book, is supposed to be
16 a log-book. So I don't know if this is log-book. This is just the first
17 sheet in what is supposed to be a log-book and in the form that I see on
18 the screen --
19 MS. PETERSEN: If we could just look at one more page, perhaps
20 that would help.
21 Q. So, sir, is this the log-book for all the documents that were
22 received in the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff?
23 A. What I can see are two pages of one sheet in this log-book. And
24 what we see on the screen is a copy of the original of that book, in
25 fact, a scan of these pages, and if we could just zoom in a bit.
1 Perfect. Maybe zoom out a little now. So this is a scan of the
2 original, and on these pages we see what the Defence counsel asked me
3 about a moment ago. This document 248 --
4 Q. Okay. And for now I just wanted to confirm, so we are clear,
5 that this the log-book. We'll come back to this in a bit, and I'll ask
6 you a little more about it, but right now I just wanted to confirm that's
7 what that was. If we could now --
8 A. Sorry, I just have to intervene --
9 Q. Sir, sir, we'll come back to this, and just for the sake of time,
10 we don't need to -- you gave a very good explanation in your other
11 testimony and so I have some specific questions later, but for now if we
12 could just move to D584.
13 A. But I would really like to be given an chance to say that I want.
14 Q. Sir, the only question put to you is whether this was the
15 log-book of your office. That's all.
16 A. No, you asked me if it is the log-book. You asked me if it was
17 that log-book, and that's what I wanted to say. These are pages from the
18 log-book, but I am -- can't say that those are the pages of that
19 log-book. They are pages in a log-book of the kind that is kept at the
20 office. I don't know which pages they are or whether it's that log-book,
21 the cover of which you've shown me. Those are two separate things, and
22 that's why I thought I should point it out.
23 Q. Well, sir, is this a log of documents received in the office of
24 the Chief of the Supreme Command staff?
25 A. What? Which? What we see on the screen now?
1 Q. No, the document we were looking at before that you were still
2 giving an answer about.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now looking at this document, this is, and you
5 spoke about this before, this is the archive list of documents from the
6 office of the Chief of the Supreme Command staff that were taken over to
7 the military archives. Sir, were all of the documents that came into
8 your office archived, or were some not?
9 A. All documents, if you remember from my previous evidence, all
10 documents action upon which was completed from the period to which the
11 order for the archiving of documentation during the aggression pertained,
12 all documents upon which action was completed were thereupon archived.
13 Q. All right. I'm just --
14 A. I hope you understand when I say completed. If I need to explain
15 why, please go ahead.
16 Q. Well, let me ask you this: If we look in column 4 - and if we
17 could scroll up the exhibit a little - I've noticed that it appears that
18 numbers are skipped, if we were to look at -- this pattern follows on
19 other pages also, but here if you notice it goes from 135 to 137 and
20 without going on I would represent to you if you look at other pages,
21 it's the same thing, not every number is included in the log number, so I
22 just was wondering, does that mean that certain documents were not
23 archived, or can you explain why some numbers are skipped?
24 A. That follows up on where I stopped in my previous answer.
25 Documents were turned over only if action upon them was completed. And
1 in that basic order where the Chief of the Supreme Command staff
2 prescribed to perfection which documents had to be turned over to the
3 archives, it was stated that those documents upon which action is
4 completed should be prepared and turned over to the archives. And those
5 documents upon which action was spending. If for, some instances they
6 concerned material damage incurred during the NATO aggression and the
7 amount of damage had to be established and claims had to be settled,
8 these documents were not turned over because action was still pending,
9 and some of these have still not been completed. And those documents
10 were not turned over to the military archive. And those documents that
11 were not archived were the subject of reports prepared by every
12 organisational unit in the Supreme Command staff. And that's how you get
13 the sequence of number skipping a few.
14 Only by comparing log-books and identifying the numbers missing
15 can you understand the substance of my comment.
16 Q. Okay. Thank you, sir. So if we were to look through this,
17 through the pages of this, we've seen, as you can see on this first page,
18 there are handwritten amendments to this archive list, and I think you
19 stated in your direct examination that these were not made in your
20 office. So would you agree that it appears that at the archive unit,
21 errors were discovered and corrected by hand on this list?
22 A. The person in charge at the military archive made these
23 modifications and additions with certain justified reasons. I could not
24 arrogate the right to give you an objective comment of all these reasons
25 that were guiding that person, but I know for sure that this authorised
1 person from the military archive would not allow themselves to make an
2 addition or modification without any justified reason, including the Law
3 on the State Military Archive of which -- on which I'm not an expert, as
4 well as reasons that the military archive found in the same order,
5 because that order did not apply only to the Supreme Command staff but it
6 also specified the obligations concerning appropriate procedure for
7 receipt of documents by the state military archive.
8 This is all I can tell you in answer to this question. But that
9 these additions were made by someone other than the authorised official,
10 that should not happen. So I believe that somebody did this in a
11 perfectly appropriate way because he left visible marks.
12 Q. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd like to now move on to the
13 letters between you and General Ojdanic.
14 MS. PETERSEN: If we could first look at D586, please.
15 Q. Now, in this letter General Ojdanic asks you to look into whether
16 the office of the chief of the office of -- the chief of the office of
17 the Chief of the General Staff, if you had received these two letters or
18 documents from General Pavkovic, the 25th of May document and the 4th of
19 June document. And in this letter he refers to you, if we look at the
20 second paragraph of the text of the letter, he says:
21 "I urgently remind you to fulfill your official obligation to me,
22 which in no way a private one, in your capacity as chief of the office of
23 the Chief of General Staff of the VJ."
24 Now, during the time of the NATO bombing, that wasn't correct,
25 right, you were the deputy chief of office; correct?
1 A. Very well. This appeal from him without this reference to the
2 second paragraph is completely justified.
3 Q. Sir --
4 A. But in the second paragraph if we look at the entire
5 chronology --
6 Q. Sir, I'm only -- all I want to know is if this is inaccurate that
7 he referred to you as the chief of the office when you were, in fact, the
8 deputy chief of office? Is that right, that you were not the chief of
9 office as he referred to you in this letter?
10 A. Well, I have to tell you that he personally recognised his own
11 mistake. It was an honest mistake because at that time I was deputy
12 chief and not the chief. You're right.
13 Q. Okay. Now, if we look at your letter in response to him, which
14 is -- I don't believe this has been used yet.
15 MS. PETERSEN: It's 65 ter D -- 65 ter 633, it's D008-1015.
16 Q. If we look at the third paragraph of the text of your letter, you
18 "With regard to your second letter, your reminder which I
19 received on 11 March 2002
20 above (because I was not chief of office at the time) that any such
21 report was ever sent to the Chief of General Staff of the VJ."
22 It seems that you are saying in the letter that you don't know
23 whether that report was received because you weren't chief of office; is
24 that what you're saying in the letter? And we'll look at the next
25 sentence also, but were you saying you didn't have personal knowledge
1 because you were not chief of the office?
2 A. Maybe I did not put this in the best way. Among other things, I
3 did not know anything about this also for the reasons indicated in that
5 Q. And if we look at the next sentence it says:
6 "In addition, a check shows that such documents have not been
7 recorded in the register of the office of the VJ, Chief of the General
9 Correct? That's what you've put in that letter?
10 A. Yes, correct. I can explain further, if necessary.
11 Q. Well, are you stating that it wasn't in the log, that you asked
12 someone to check and they checked the registry and it wasn't in that log
13 that we've seen?
14 A. Precisely.
15 MS. PETERSEN: Now, if we go to D585, which is this letter in
16 question that we are talking about here.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Are you wanting this tendered?
18 MS. PETERSEN: Yes, Your Honour, can I please tender that letter.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P01528, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
22 MS. PETERSEN: Thank you.
23 Q. And if we look at the second page of this down at the bottom of
24 the page, on the left-hand bottom corner, is that a stamp that shows that
25 something is received by your office?
1 A. Yes, it's a stamp from the Supreme Command staff, office of the
2 chief. So it's the stamp of the office of the Chief of the Supreme
3 Command staff, but I cannot confirm that it was received. What I can see
4 is an authentic stamp of the office of the Chief of the Supreme Command
5 staff. Whether the handwriting and the rest are really those of the
6 authorised official, I cannot know because this does not verify delivery
7 by someone.
8 Q. What does it mean? Does it mean -- I was understanding that it
9 meant that it was received by your office, but is that an incorrect
11 A. No, it's not an incorrect understanding. I know that there is a
12 prescribed procedure and if it were followed, this document should not
13 be -- have been treated in this way. However, the stamp could have been
14 affixed later. I cannot exclude that possibility.
15 Q. And setting aside at this moment whether it's possible someone
16 could have done it later, this is the stamp of your office, though; is
17 that correct?
18 A. I've told you, it looks to me like it is. This is a copy of a
19 copy, but this corresponds to the form of the stamp of the office of the
20 Chief of the Supreme Command staff.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. I can only say that it looks like it.
23 Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
24 MS. PETERSEN: And if we look back at Exhibit D584. No, I'm
25 sorry, I need the registry, D587. And if we could go to the second page.
1 Oh, I wanted the one that is the original. It should be -- it was 645.
2 I'm sorry, 588. And if we can just zoom in a little bit, and we don't
3 need the English. I think we're a little more concerned about what the
4 original -- the scan of the original looks like here. If we could just
5 look at the line closely that says -- for the document that says 248.
6 Q. Now, setting aside, I realise, sir, that you have certain
7 questions about this line, but on its face does this line in the log-book
8 log that this document was received, if we compare the number of the
10 A. Could you please repeat that question.
11 Q. Well, we don't need to look back at the other document, but I'd
12 submit to you that the letter we've been speaking about is Strictly
13 Confidential Number 872941-2, and if we look at this line 248, does this
14 appear to log that a document with that strictly confidential number was
15 received by your office on the 26th of May, 1999?
16 A. On the face of it, it looks like it was logged, and that means
17 received. But it also looks to me like something written subsequently,
18 at a later date, not only subsequently, but incorrectly or
19 inappropriately. Obviously with some ulterior motive, the person made
20 this entry subsequently, at a later stage, because the basic document,
21 248-1, relates to the administration for the preparation of defence
22 organs. And it's incomparable, these are unrelated things and even a
23 layman would not have made such a notorious mistake to place a document
24 that has to do with the army and a strategic group in the same column of
25 something that relates to organs of the Ministry of Defence. And me as a
1 stick in the mud professional, it is obvious even from the ink that this
2 was added later. Everything is written in italics in this second line
3 and much more legible than the first line.
4 The document with dash 2 is from a completely different opera.
5 It's like putting fruit and vegetables in the shop window of a jewellery
6 store. These things do not go together, but it all depends on the
7 intentions of whoever wrote this, and they could have had bad intentions.
8 Q. Okay, sir --
9 A. This could not have been done like this in my office.
10 Q. Now, sir, if you look at the first line in 247 and compare the
11 handwriting where it appears that the same thing has been written in
12 column, I believe that's column 4, doesn't the handwriting in 247 look to
13 be the same handwriting as in 248?
14 A. I did not say it was not the same handwriting. It's evident that
15 the author is the same. The handwriting is either similar or the same.
16 I didn't say it was a different handwriting.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
18 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] We are now going into something
19 that looks like graphological expertise, and neither the witness nor my
20 learned friend are experts in the field. So I think I am justified to
22 JUDGE PARKER: I remember several passages of his evidence in
23 chief, Mr. Djordjevic, in which he expressed views where the handwriting
24 was of a particular person or not. We are well aware that this witness
25 doesn't claim to be a handwriting expert, but his evidence is given on
1 that basis.
2 Thank you, Ms. Petersen.
3 MS. PETERSEN: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. And, sir, I guess you've stated that it appears that the entry
5 for 248-2 was written in later, but it would have been written in later
6 than the line above it because that document was received on the 15th of
7 May; correct?
8 A. Either you were not interpreted correctly or perhaps you
9 misspoke. Chronologically viewed, the date 15 May is earlier than 26
10 May, so the 26th of May could not have come before.
11 Q. I was asking -- you stated that the handwriting for the entry for
12 the document 248-2, which has a date of the 26th of May, you said that it
13 was written later. I am assuming you meant later than the document one
14 line above it. And my question to you was, it would be written later,
15 correct, because the date for that document above it was earlier?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. You stated in your examination-in-chief that you
18 were never aware of General Ojdanic - I hope I'm saying this right -
19 being part of any plans for ethnic cleansing. And I think in your
20 statement at paragraph 14 you stated that you don't know of any plans for
21 ethnic cleansing of Albanians in that paragraph also, or you've never
22 seen General Ojdanic in your presence urge anyone to commit war crimes.
23 But, sir, we have established today that you did not accompany General
24 Ojdanic for many of his meetings, correct?
25 A. You just asked two questions. Which one am I supposed to answer?
1 Two or more questions.
2 Q. Sir, the question to you is, we've established that you didn't
3 accompany General Ojdanic to many of his meetings, correct?
4 A. I've answered that. It's correct.
5 Q. So you only would have known of such plans if they were included
6 in a written task or written notes that were then archived in these
7 books, in these logs; is that correct? These notebooks?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. If there were plans to do such a thing, do you agree it probably
10 would not be written down in official documents and tasks?
11 A. I didn't hear the interpretation, but I understood.
12 Q. I'm sorry, would you like me to repeat it?
13 A. I couldn't say. You can ask that question rightly only of the
14 person who was the author of such activities. I cannot make any
15 assumptions. I was only involved in processing documentation in keeping
16 with the verbal instructions I received.
17 MS. PETERSEN: Thank you very much. And I don't have any more
18 questions for this witness. Thank you.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Djordjevic.
20 MR. DJORDJEVIC: [Interpretation] It's Djordjevic actually, for
21 the interpreter. I do not have any redirect examination.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I believe I did do my best at
23 addressing you correctly.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE PARKER: You will be pleased to know that that concludes
1 the questions for you. The Chamber would want to thank you for your
2 attendance here in The Hague
3 you have been able to give to us. You may, of course, return to your
4 normal activities now. And a Court Officer will show you out. Thank
5 you, sir.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE PARKER: There seems no point in commencing a further
9 witness at this hour, unless you have an urgent need to do so. Is there
10 any matter that needs to be raised by either party?
11 MS. KRAVETZ: Your Honour, I had announced that I had a matter to
12 raise but given the time, I would prefer to raise it first thing tomorrow
13 morning before we commence with the next witness.
14 JUDGE PARKER: If you can remind us of that tomorrow morning,
15 Ms. Kravetz, we'll --
16 MS. KRAVETZ: No problem, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m.
19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day of
20 February, 2010,at 9.00 a.m.