1 Thursday, 28 February 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, everyone. We continue this morning

6 with the evidence of Mr. Dujkovic.

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Dujkovic.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: You gave an undertaking at the beginning of your

11 evidence to speak the truth. That undertaking continues to apply to the

12 evidence today. We'll now continue with the examination by Mr. Lukic.

13 Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 WITNESS: PETAR DUJKOVIC [Resumed]

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning.

19 A. Good morning.

20 Q. Are your glasses all right? Is your headset on?

21 A. Of course.

22 Q. You told us yesterday about the return of citizens as part of the

23 re-admission procedure which was involuntary. That's when people were

24 forced to return to their country. Let me ask you something about the

25 voluntary return of citizens today. Take the case of a citizen who had

1 orderly documents previously, a passport or an ID card, previously would

2 he have been in any danger at all of not seeing his return to the country

3 approved?

4 A. No, not under the condition that he was a national of that

5 country.

6 Q. What about persons who were registered in any sort of different

7 type of record at all, nationals of Yugoslavia with no document in their

8 possession, would they have faced the danger of not seeing their return to

9 Yugoslavia approved?

10 A. No, no nationals of Yugoslavia would have run that risk.

11 Q. We discussed the decree on ID cards, the wartime decree,

12 yesterday. The following issue cropped up, did this have anything to do

13 with recruitment, with drafting people into the ranks of the army? Let me

14 ask you this: Was this decree on ID cards relevant for both men and

15 women, did it apply to both?

16 A. Yes, it applied to everybody who fell within the age group.

17 Q. And this applied throughout Serbia, right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. This 14-year limit, in the law that applies in Yugoslavia does

20 this have anything to do with a person's criminal liability or criminal

21 record?

22 A. I'm not an expert in criminal law, but I know that persons over 14

23 years of age can be made criminally responsible depending on their age,

24 needless to say.

25 Q. What about those under 14 years of age, under our law can these

1 persons be prosecuted?

2 A. No, they can't.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have Exhibit 6D1324

4 brought up. Thank you.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this exhibit something to do with the question

6 of the change in the age for ID cards?

7 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated].

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Your suggestion is that the selection of this age

9 has got something with the age of criminal responsibility?

10 MR. LUKIC: Because in that decision it says to enable police to

11 do its work easily so --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but how on -- how would that relate to the

13 fact that it was a temporary provision during the war and was abolished

14 immediately after the war?

15 MR. LUKIC: More crimes are expected during the war probably.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thanks.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, you have 6D1324 in front of you, don't you. This is

19 the letter that the National Council sent to counsel Dragan Ivetic.

20 A. I've got it.

21 Q. We looked at this yesterday, and we realized that Sadiku Sadija

22 appeared to not have been recorded in the files in Kosovska Mitrovica.

23 The question was raised of the files that burnt down or were destroyed.

24 Can you please read for us the first paragraph, I mean number 1, since

25 this has not been translated yet.

1 A. It reads Halimi Mahmut, father Bajram, probably, born on the 7th

2 of April, 1954, in Donje Zabare, Kosovska Mitrovica municipality.

3 Citizen's personal identification number 0704954922011, residing in

4 Kosovska Mitrovica, Boska Mitrovica street, number 258, in possession of

5 ID card number 92444 issued by the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP on the 22nd of

6 February, 1994, serial number SR08674237, having checked the files of

7 travel document and driving licences issued, it has been established that

8 this person does not have a travel document or indeed a driving licence.

9 No file on the issuance of this ID card has been preserved."

10 Q. Can you please read the last sentence because it has been

11 misrecorded?

12 A. "The file on ID issued has not been preserved."

13 Q. So this is about Kosovska Mitrovica, and as you explained the

14 files there were destroyed. In addition to that, does this not show that

15 information on this person had been preserved in a different form and

16 where could that --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, you can see the objection coming to the

18 leading nature of that question.

19 MR. LUKIC: I just wanted to ask if this witness knows which

20 database or which files could contain this data. Because it's obvious

21 from the document that it is found, the data can be found.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Even that's a leading question. The question

23 should be: What does this show about the way in which records on this

24 person have been retained or records have been made or kept; but to

25 contrast it with the other one and seek an explanation that's different is

1 a leading question.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dujkovic, you heard the Presiding Judge,

4 haven't you. What can you tell us about the specific files in which this

5 information was found?

6 A. If you look at this you can see that despite the fact that some of

7 the files had been destroyed numerous other files were preserved. It was

8 based on the existing files that any person was free to take advantage of

9 any of their entitlements through appropriate bodies.

10 Q. What about ID card information, what file would that be, given the

11 fact that some of them had been destroyed?

12 A. In addition to these files, a book, a register, is kept where

13 information is recorded on persons who had their ID issued to them. Based

14 on this book or register, information could be tracked down and new files

15 could be set up, based on which anyone could now be issued with a new ID

16 card.

17 Q. Thank you. Or rather, 6D1353. You have that document, haven't

18 you?

19 A. Yes, I've got it.

20 Q. No translation. We'll not be going, or rather, we'll not be using

21 it. Can you simply tell us what it's about.

22 A. This document -- rather, these minutes were taken by a joint

23 committee of experts following an agreement between the federal government

24 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the government of the Federal

25 Republic of Germany on the return and admission of Yugoslav and German

1 nationals who were under an obligation to leave the respective territories

2 of those countries. The committee of experts was established and was now

3 responsible for implementing this agreement. They would sometimes meet to

4 discuss any problems that arose in connection with the implementation of

5 that agreement, and this was one of those meetings. Minutes were drawn up

6 and delivered to all those working on the ground who were in any way

7 involved with this process for their information so that they might be

8 better able to adapt.

9 Q. What sort of return are we looking at here, is this a forced

10 repatriation or is this something people did of their own free will?

11 A. These are people who simply happened to be in this other country

12 and now refused to return to our country. All those people happened to be

13 our nationals, and many of them had no valid documents, travel documents,

14 ID cards, or otherwise on them.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the date of this document?

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. It's in paragraph 1.

18 A. Meeting held on the 30th and 31st of January, 1997, in Belgrade,

19 and these minutes were dispatched to people working out in the field

20 sometime in May 1998.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: And it relates to a mutual problem, the return of

22 Germans to Germany and the return of Yugoslavs to Yugoslavia?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, indeed, but there

24 were no Germans in our territory that any questions were being asked

25 about.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. So it was ascertained in relation to these persons that they ought

5 to return to the countries in which they had been residing. So were these

6 people re-admitted? Did Yugoslavia admit them back in?

7 A. Yes, in keeping with the protocol and the procedures that had been

8 established.

9 Q. For this purpose, did you need accurate files and records?

10 A. Yes, we had to make sure and only those who were ascertained to be

11 our nationals were re-admitted into the country.

12 Q. And what about the other countries, did they rely on the checks

13 that you performed at the time?

14 A. Yes, it was solely based on any checks and file inspections that

15 we performed that many persons were re-admitted.

16 Q. What about Serbia and Montenegro, were -- was this agreement

17 implemented separately in both of these republics?

18 A. Yes, that's true but the expert committee was at the level of the

19 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

20 Q. Do you remember if Yugoslavia had any agreements with any other

21 countries that had been signed were in effect by this time?

22 A. You mean 1997, right, because the developments were afoot at the

23 time and I know that this was the case with Germany and Switzerland. I'm

24 quite certain about that, I think also Sweden and Norway and negotiations

25 were underway with a number of other countries, but I can't tell you for

1 sure when these were completed.

2 Q. Do you know anything about any proceedings before any courts in

3 those countries to send these people back?

4 A. I know that there were bodies in those countries who dealt with

5 this problem of illegal immigrants. There were a number of asylum seekers

6 and they would then deal with any such applications. As for anything else

7 that may have been a problem or if there were any grievances and

8 complaints, I think such a party was free to address an appropriate court

9 of law but I'm not privy to any detail of these procedures and other

10 similar procedures.

11 Q. Thank you. Back to Serbia and Kosovo now. Did you read any

12 reports that were produced at border crossings?

13 A. I didn't often have the chance to read those reports because of

14 the way the administration was organized. These reports normally reached

15 the border-related affairs department.

16 Q. What about Kosovo, what were the crossings in Kosovo that people

17 used to leave the country?

18 A. Two border crossings for the most part, possibly a third, the

19 Djeneral Jankovic road across the border, there was a rail crossing also

20 called Djeneral Jankovic, but I'm not sure if that's what it was called;

21 and there was Vrbnica and Globocica facing Macedonia.

22 Q. Do you know why other border crossings were not used if there were

23 any?

24 A. As far as I know, as far as Cafa Prusit is concerned, the terrain

25 is very inaccessible there and there is very little border traffic there

1 anyway due to its geographic position. As far as I know, there weren't

2 any proper conditions for there to be any traffic there due to the

3 situation in the field.

4 Q. What do you mean situation in the field?

5 A. Well, the danger of aggression and activities of our Defence

6 forces, the police, army, et cetera.

7 Q. I asked you whether there were any orders to have documents taken

8 away; however, from the administration where you worked were the border

9 police stations ever ordered to seize motor vehicles?

10 A. No, no order was ever such received. I'm sorry, motor vehicles

11 are not within the jurisdiction of this administration.

12 Q. Were there situations when people from other lines of work of the

13 Ministry of the Interior were at border crossings?

14 A. Well, it would happen that sometimes people would come from the

15 administration of the crime police or from the territorial organ, people

16 who were in charge of this subject matter from time to time, members of

17 the State Security Service would come as well.

18 Q. Was there a single border crossing where the entire police station

19 was there even when the NATO aggression [as interpreted] took place?

20 A. Yes, this was at Djeneral Jankovic.

21 Q. What happened?

22 A. Well, during their trip, or rather, in agreement with NATO they

23 prepared for transport, for their trip, and together with the units they

24 moved along the road to Pristina. In a way, they provided security for

25 them, and then on one part of the road, I don't know exactly which one,

1 they were stopped by some other unit and the commander of this unit said

2 that this was not the same unit with which they had travelled from the

3 border. That is where they were disarmed and all their police equipment

4 was taken away, all their weapons, and also some TV crews recorded this,

5 filmed it, and it could even be viewed on different satellite channels

6 that could be viewed in Belgrade. We had the opportunity of seeing this

7 moment in particular. At that moment that was the only information we had

8 about what the fate was of our people at this border crossing because we

9 did not have any other communication with them. Only when the commander

10 arrived in Belgrade did he give us some more detailed information about

11 all this that I have been telling you about.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, I don't understand what this is about.

13 I'm sorry.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. We are talking about the time when the forces entered after the

16 signing of the Kumanovo agreement --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: The question that's been recorded is: Was there a

18 single border crossing where the entire police station was there, even

19 when the NATO aggression took place? That's rather different than the

20 situation after the Kumanovo agreement.

21 MR. LUKIC: I never used the word "aggression," but anyways --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: So this is to do with escorting NATO troops into

23 the country?

24 MR. LUKIC: No. They just --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we need to go over this again then because I

1 don't understand it.

2 MR. LUKIC: Okay. Thank you.

3 Q. [Interpretation] What period is this about?

4 A. This is the period after the Kumanovo Agreement was signed.

5 Q. What forces entered and from where?

6 A. In this specific case from the direction of Macedonia, the road

7 that crosses the Djeneral Jankovic border crossing. Forces entered, I

8 don't know exactly from which state, from which NATO member country they

9 were, I think they were American troops, and even the officer, the

10 commander of these units previously established contact with our commander

11 and he asked about a liaison officer from our side who was supposed to

12 meet us -- meet them there. He mentioned a name that our commander did

13 not know, and then this officer waited there for a while and then when

14 time became critical he agreed with this officer that they would have to

15 enter anyway, they prepared their equipment and weapons and practically

16 they did that, they handed over the border crossing to them, and then they

17 started moving into the interior in a convoy, they made a convoy out of

18 their vehicles.

19 Q. So part of NATO forces were moving with them?

20 A. Yes, they were moving down the road and they were allowed to move

21 only when they told them that it was safe to move and that's how they

22 moved to Pristina.

23 Q. Does that mean, did they hand over the border police station to

24 these forces when these forces entered the territory of Serbia?

25 A. Yes, the entire station and all its equipment, technical

1 equipment, of course, and this kind of a station cannot function without

2 such technical equipment.

3 Q. You say that they took their weapons and what else?

4 A. Weapons, possibly some of the records they could carry that are

5 very important. This is a reference to our internal records and their

6 personal belongings.

7 Q. If an offence or crime is revealed at a border crossing, who takes

8 over the case?

9 A. It depends on the complexity of the case involved. If the

10 policemen at the border crossing cannot deal with this on their own, then

11 they inform the line of work from the territorial SUP, and then they take

12 over the case and the persons who are believed to be the perpetrators.

13 Q. Within the staff of the Ministry of the Interior for Kosovo and

14 Metohija in Pristina, was there always a member of the administration for

15 foreign nationals?

16 A. There was always a member of the line of work of the

17 administration, but in some situations it was an officer or a police

18 official who worked at the headquarters of the admission but it could have

19 been a police official who had been sent from another secretariat too.

20 Q. In 1998 and up until the end, do you know who these persons were?

21 A. I remember, for example, Dobrica Vesic was there, he's a police

22 official from the administration from the border police; then after that,

23 I cannot give you the exact dates, though, it was Mr. Vucurevic, Radovan

24 Vucurevic, he was the head of department of the border police in the Novi

25 Sad SUP; after that I think it was Petar Bogdanovic from the

1 administration.

2 Q. Did you have a special methodology of work with the staff?

3 A. The administration?

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. We had very few contacts with the staff. For the most part we

6 directly communicated with our own people within our own line of work,

7 that's far more efficient. I could only call Vucurevic or some other

8 official to help me, but that would considerably slow down the proceed.

9 Q. So where did work orders come to the border police stations?

10 A. They would come only from the administration.

11 Q. Who are they responsible to, these stations?

12 A. To the administration.

13 Q. Who did the border police stations cooperate with in their own

14 territory?

15 A. They cooperated with all the organs that were present there in

16 that territory along all the lines of work in the secretariat of the

17 interior and everybody else with whom it was necessary to cooperate on any

18 matter.

19 Q. An employee within your line of work who was on the staff, say

20 Mr. Vucurevic, was he within the chain of orders, "nalog," or not?

21 A. He could not issue any order, "nalog," to any line of work without

22 the knowledge of the administration.

23 Q. Thank you. Did you talk to the commander of the Vrbnica border

24 police station after the war?

25 A. After the withdrawal from Kosovo all of them reported to the

1 administration and I had occasion to talk to Mr. Ognjenovic, I think

2 that's his name, Ognjenovic, yes, I did talk to him.

3 Q. Do you remember anything characteristic in terms of what it was

4 that he told you then about what had happened at the border crossing?

5 A. What I found characteristic was that we got information then

6 that -- from the horse's mouth that the situation was very unpleasant,

7 that there were a lot of people, a lot of vehicles, that it was impossible

8 to carry out any checks over these persons. And what was very

9 characteristic in my memory was that these persons threw away their

10 personal documents, if they did have them on them. However, these persons

11 had not been searched. It is possible that they had kept some documents;

12 however, these details could not have been established.

13 Q. Did you go to Pristina on official business in 1999 and 2000?

14 A. In 1999 I was in Pristina on official business after the

15 withdrawal, after the Kumanovo Agreement. We had a service there that

16 carried out the work of the civilian administration for the needs of the

17 Ministry of the Interior, or rather, issuing personal documents to

18 citizens who wanted to resolve this matter there on the spot in Pristina.

19 Q. At that time who was the head of your administration when you went

20 down there?

21 A. I cannot recall exactly now. I went to Pristina twice after

22 that. I really cannot say what the date was. I don't know if Mr. Lukic

23 was already head of administration then or whether I was still in charge

24 of the administration, I don't know exactly when this happened. But I

25 just know that Mr. Misic, assistant minister, phoned me and said to me

1 that I should go there and report at this coordinating body, I think

2 that's what it was called -- Andjelkovic, Andjelkovic headed this body,

3 he's a politician, Andjelkovic. And the task was to view the

4 possibilities of having citizens issued with travel documents in Pristina,

5 and that this should be done in agreement with UNMIK.

6 So then I went with this Mr. Andjelkovic and I attended a meeting

7 with the representatives of UNMIK where these details were agreed upon and

8 where practically we did receive approval to the effect that we could

9 issue such documents. And then I simply looked at the technical

10 possibilities and some internal details as to how this could be carried

11 through, and that is what was agreed upon, that that is the way we would

12 act. Before that some documents had already been issued in terms of

13 registering vehicles, driver's licences, and so on and so forth, and from

14 that moment onwards travel documents were issued as well.

15 Q. Until when did that work in Pristina?

16 A. I don't know exactly up until which moment this worked. I know

17 that something changed. I think that by then I wasn't working at the

18 administration, but things changed when our employee who was responsible

19 for that there got killed, Mr. Aleksandar Petrovic, he was killed in a

20 terrorist action in Pristina. And after that there were some problems,

21 but I'm not aware of any details because by then I wasn't working at the

22 administration.

23 Q. Were documents issued at the same time to Albanians at the

24 relocated secretariats of the interior?

25 A. All persons who asked for documents to be issued to them, either

1 at these points in Pristina or elsewhere -- I mean, there were two other

2 points in Kosovo Polje and at Gracanica and also at the relocated

3 locations. I do not have information about the persons who were seeking

4 these documents, but everyone was entitled to exercise their own rights.

5 Q. After the relocation, after Petrovic was killed, was this taken

6 out of Kosovo and Metohija?

7 A. I'm not aware of these details.

8 Q. Oh, you're not. On the basis of what were these documents being

9 issued now?

10 A. These documents were being issued on the basis of details

11 contained in the records that could have been provided by the employees

12 who were working at the relocated locations. Requests were only received

13 in Pristina, and then they were processed at the relocated locations in

14 Nis and then the completed travel documents were returned and handed over

15 to the persons who had filed the requests.

16 Q. Do you know what the ethnic background was of these persons who

17 had personal documents issued to them, say, in Kosovo and Metohija after

18 the bombing?

19 A. Are you referring to the Pristina location?

20 Q. Pristina and you said there were two more.

21 A. Yes, yes. Well, for the most part I know quite reliably so that

22 most of them were ethnic Albanians, but I think that there were other

23 persons too. There were Serbs who lived down there as well and members of

24 other ethnic groups. So however, due to the actual numbers, since the

25 Albanian population was prevalent, most of these persons were Albanians

1 too.

2 Q. Did UNMIK issue its own passports at the same time?

3 A. Well, I don't know when UNMIK actually started issuing travel

4 documents. I didn't have an opportunity to actually learn something about

5 those documents. It may have been after I left the administration.

6 Q. Thank you. Do you know anything about the multi-ethnic police

7 force established after the end of the air-strikes in the south of Serbia

8 and could you please tell us something about that?

9 A. Yes, I know quite a lot about that because I was personally

10 involved in the project to develop this whole concept of the creation of

11 the multi-ethnic police force for Bujanovac, Presevo, and Medvedja

12 municipalities. And afterwards in the late stages of the development of

13 this project I ran the training of the multi-ethnic police force as a

14 co-manager together with the OSCE representatives.

15 Q. Who was at the head of the public security sector at that time?

16 A. It was Mr. Sreten Lukic.

17 Q. Did he approach this as something that was purely formal or did he

18 really devote all his efforts to it?

19 A. Well, I wouldn't say that he took this in a perfunctory manner

20 because he talked to me before he sent me down there and he underscored

21 the importance of this project. I saw him visit Bujanovac several times.

22 He visited the people working down there, the MUP representatives, and on

23 during the training upon his decision, the whole training was carried out,

24 the whole programme was approved by him, and during the training I think

25 that he attended all the graduation ceremonies because there were four

1 generations of people who graduated and he attended each and every

2 ceremony.

3 Q. And where did this training take place?

4 A. Well, the training for the people who were already in the police,

5 they underwent an abridged course, that was in the police stations in

6 Bujanovac, Presevo, and Medvedja, and for the new recruits it was in

7 Mitrovo Polje near Krusevac, somewhere between Krusevac and Kraljevo.

8 That was the location that was selected for the training of new recruits.

9 Q. And how did the OSCE evaluate this project?

10 A. Well, as far as I know the project received very positive marks

11 because this was the first time that Serbs and Albanians were able to work

12 together on the same job thanks to this project, and I think that the

13 situation in fact is -- this is still the case. So this project was very

14 successful.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit P1505 up

16 on the screen.

17 Q. I think we don't have it in our bundle. I will not be asking you

18 about the contents of this document. I will just ask you something about

19 the paragraph above the word "decision." We're trying to establish here

20 whether the MUP staff was an auxiliary body or an organizational unit of

21 the MUP. Did we go through those legal provisions in the course of the

22 proofing and what did we establish what powers did the -- whoever issued

23 this decision exercise, what legislation is this based on?

24 A. Yes, we went through it and we realized that the legal provisions

25 contained in the Ministry on the Internal Affairs empowers the minister,

1 that in the course of management of certain organs that he can issue

2 orders, instructions, and establish some bodies in order to facilitate the

3 performance of this function. But it does not form the basis for the

4 establishment of an internal organizational unit.

5 Q. Had he wanted to establish an organizational unit, would he have

6 had to use some other legal provisions, some other article from this law?

7 A. Yes, some other article, but I would have to now go through the

8 law to look for this article, perhaps Article 6.

9 Q. Do you know maybe this part of the law?

10 A. Well, I don't know which one. Could you please refer me to the

11 actual article.

12 Q. I will not now bother you with this. We will call a judge to

13 testify, so if necessary we will go back to this issue with him.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Now could we please have in e-court

15 Exhibit 6D130.

16 MR. STAMP: Perhaps I missed it, but could counsel indicate

17 whether or not this -- we were notified of this in accordance with the

18 decision of the Chamber.

19 MR. LUKIC: Notified about 6D130? It should be --

20 MR. STAMP: Yes, it is.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Sir, you now have this document in front of you. Who is sending

23 this dispatch, can we see this?

24 A. The Serbian MUP, the public security department. It is signed by

25 assistant to the minister, Stojan Misic.

1 Q. And who is this sent to?

2 A. It is sent to the federal MUP for their information, because this

3 pertains to the implementation of the federal law. I guess it's the Law

4 on Foreigners, foreign nationals, and all these SUPs in the field, from 1

5 to 33; and all the border police stations in the field, to their

6 commanders; to the MUP staff in Pristina, to the head; and to all

7 organizational units at the headquarters, the police administration, the

8 traffic police administration, the crime police administration, the

9 operations centre.

10 Q. And the orders, "nalog," who are they issued to, who was the

11 recipient of them?

12 A. Well, I just browsed through and I can see that all those orders

13 pertain to some action that has to be taken by the SUPs, the

14 organizational units of the Ministry of the Interior, and possibly of the

15 border police stations if they came to be in a situation where they would

16 have to actually implement some of that.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please now look at item 1.

18 Q. This pertains to the updating of the lists of foreigners with

19 permanent residence and foreigners with temporary residence permits and

20 all the other preparations so that they may be forcibly escorted to the

21 state border and deported from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or

22 escorted to a reception centre set up for this purpose. So we're starting

23 with the updating of the lists. Is it possible for the staff to do

24 anything pursuant to this dispatch?

25 A. Well, no, no. The staff can't do anything. They don't have those

1 lists.

2 Q. And who has those lists, the lists that we're talking about?

3 A. Here we're talking about foreigners who have residence in our

4 country, and every territorial organ or the internal organizational unit

5 that deals with the foreign nationals has to keep its records updated, the

6 records of the foreigners who have been allowed to stay in the country for

7 a longer period of time. I'm not talking about tourists. They merely

8 have to report and register that they are there, but now we're talking

9 about foreigners who were given residence permits valid for a longer

10 period of time for whatever reason.

11 Q. Were there any reception centres for foreign nationals in our

12 country before this period?

13 A. Yes, before this period there were such reception centres. There

14 is one in Padinska Skila, it's operational now too.

15 Q. Do you know whether other states have such reception centres for

16 foreign nationals?

17 A. Well, I don't know specifically anything about that, but it is

18 quite logical that every state should have such a reception centre because

19 it is quite conceivable that a foreigner who is there illegally cannot

20 leave the territory of that country until everything has been done to

21 enable him to do so, and then he has to stay somewhere. These are usually

22 semi-open facilities.

23 Q. We will move on to another document, but could you please just

24 memorise the number of this dispatch, it's 1352, is it not? The date is

25 the 27th of March, 1999.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at 6D1373.

2 Q. You see this document in front of you. The number is 1373.

3 A. Yes, yes, I can see it here.

4 Q. Who is sending this list?

5 A. Well, this is just a list, an updated list of foreign nationals

6 who have the permanent residence and who are temporarily resident in the

7 territory of the secretariat. So this organ complied with our dispatch,

8 the number is 1352. You can see the reference here in this document. So

9 this list was made and it is kept on their files. They don't have any

10 obligation to send it to anyone. I don't know whether they sent it to us

11 or not, but if they did, it was just for our information. But I believe

12 that they didn't send it. And you can see here for every person the

13 status, whether they have permanent residence or temporary residence,

14 whether they are married to a Yugoslav national or whatever the basis is

15 for their residence.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

18 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, I don't have any further questions for you. Thank

19 you for coming here and testifying. I think that some of my colleagues

20 may have some questions for you, and after that you will be cross-examined

21 by the Prosecutor.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Your Honours, I have a short cross-examination of this witness,

25 but before I start, as we have been hearing evidence and the issue of ID

1 card has been brought up. I thought maybe it would have been for the

2 benefit of the Judges to actually see the specimen of the ID. Well, due

3 to the fact that in this time constraint or short time that I had, I had

4 to use mine. So it is uploaded in the e-court and it will be, if you -- I

5 would offer that under seal until we have time to redact it and then --

6 because I'm interested only in the specimen of it. And then it will be

7 filed as a public document. I have talked to my learned friend

8 Mr. Hannis -- Mr. Stamp over there, and he doesn't object to this.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: It sounds as though that would be helpful,

10 Mr. Zecevic, and there are clearly understandable reasons for it being

11 under seal until another example can be found and uploaded. So we will

12 allow you to proceed on that basis.

13 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

14 I must say another thing. I'm sorry, of course we couldn't ...

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 MR. ZECEVIC: We couldn't provide the translation, but I believe

17 we can do it as the witness can read through it and it is very short.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

20 Could we have 1D775 on the e-court, please.

21 Cross-examination by Mr. Zecevic:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Dujkovic. Mr. Dujkovic, this

23 is the ID card, it is in fact my ID card, and now I would like us to go

24 through this ID card slowly to explain the form itself and I would like to

25 ask you to read very slowly so that everything can be interpreted into

1 English.

2 Mr. Dujkovic, please tell me what we see here in e-court, what is

3 this? Do you see the image in front of you?

4 A. No, I don't.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Can I -- I have it printed out, so maybe we could be

6 helped with the -- could you please give this to the witness.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see it now.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Thank you. So could you please explain to us very briefly each of

10 these photographs.

11 A. Well, the first photograph, that's the cover of the document. You

12 can see the coat of arms, that's the coat of arms of the SFRY, and you can

13 see the words "personal ID card" in Cyrillic.

14 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Could we go on to page 2, please.

15 Q. Just very slowly. Just look at the monitor in front of you. So

16 what does it say here in the upper left-hand corner, we can see the coat

17 of arms and what does it say beneath it?

18 A. Well, it is again the coat of arms of the Socialist Federal

19 Republic of Yugoslavia, and you can see the name of the state, and it says

20 underneath the Socialist Republic of Serbia.

21 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, could you please tell me, this is obviously the form

22 for a document that was valid in the former SFRY?

23 A. Yes, every republic of the former SFRY printed out this form in

24 the language that was in current usage in that particular republic.

25 Q. This personal ID card was issued in 1999, as we're about to see.

1 A. Indeed.

2 Q. Can you please explain why they were still using forms from the

3 SFRY at the time, and when was that changed, the header and the coat of

4 arms, if you remember? When was it changed to reflect the new name, the

5 FRY?

6 A. This was still in use because the law probably still applied on

7 the unified information database concerning IDs that had been adopted by

8 the then-SFRY. I can't really give you the exact date when this was

9 changed, when the regulation was amended, to reflect the new name.

10 Q. Thank you very much. Let us go now to the first line of this

11 document. We see a parenthesis there and what does it say?

12 A. It reads: "Municipality."

13 Q. Next one?

14 A. "Name."

15 Q. Next?

16 A. "Last name, name of parent, date of birth," and then under two

17 separate lines, "place of birth, municipality, province, republic." The

18 last thing is "blood type."

19 Q. Thank you. The other page that we see on the screen there's a

20 photograph there, as we can see, there's a stamp on it; and next to the

21 photograph there's some sort of a number, right?

22 A. Yes, this is the citizen's personal identification number.

23 Q. Can you explain about that number, please, briefly. What does it

24 comprise and what is it used for?

25 A. Each citizen is assigned a number like that at birth. This is

1 something that is determined in the birth register and rubber stamped by

2 the appropriate branch of the Ministry of the Interior, wherever the

3 person happens to reside. The first digit are used to indicate the date

4 of birth, the 30th of March, 1959, so there's the sequence there, the day,

5 the month, and the year. The remaining digits are a matter of internal

6 classification, I suppose this is something about the Republic of Serbia,

7 the number is 71, and then the remaining digits are all used for different

8 purposes and to signify a number of things.

9 Q. Okay. If my understanding is correct, the first seven digits

10 reflect the date, month, and year of birth of the person under this

11 number?

12 A. Yes, yes, that's right.

13 Q. Thank you. Just underneath those two lines, what does that mean?

14 A. Place of residence and address, validity or expiry date. On the

15 left the register number, the number from the book that we mentioned

16 during my evidence, where every application is recorded in chronological

17 order. On the right, the date the ID card was issued. The signature of

18 an authorised official and an official stamp.

19 Q. Sir, these numbers printed in red, what do they mean?

20 A. This is the serial number of the document, the printers give each

21 document a special number, the people at the print works, each new

22 document gets a new number like this.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Can I move on, Your Honours?

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

1 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have -- [Interpretation] Can we please turn

2 the page.

3 Q. Please comment, read what it says, what the page reflects, and

4 comment on what it means, what it's in reference to.

5 A. Here we see a number of other categories. Information is recorded

6 here regarding the address of the holder, any changes in address or

7 residence. For example, a person residing in Belgrade, they want to move

8 to a different city now and this change of address would have been

9 recorded in that next line there.

10 Q. We see something marked in pen there. Can you just read what it

11 says.

12 A. "Place and municipality of residence," that's what the reference is

13 to.

14 Q. That's the first line?

15 A. Yes, the second line is "street and street number" in this new

16 place of residence. On the left is the date this change was entered, and

17 on the right we see a stamp.

18 Q. And the signature of an authorised official, right?

19 A. Yes, needless to say.

20 Q. Thank you. What about the remaining five categories, they are

21 identical to those preceding them, right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So, for example, we see this address stated here, and someone

24 decides to move to a new address, this new address is recorded on the next

25 line, right?

1 A. Yes, that's right.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue, Mr. Zecevic.

5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 [Interpretation] Next page, please, page 4 in this case,

7 photograph number 4.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I see it.

9 MR. ZECEVIC:

10 Q. All right. On the left we see the same thing continued, change of

11 address, flat, street number, that sort of thing.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Those are the three boxes that we can see, categories that we can

14 see on the left, right?

15 A. Yes, that's right.

16 Q. Would you please be so kind as to read the remarks on the

17 right-hand page slowly, please.

18 A. "Remark: It is the right and duty of every citizen over 18 years

19 of age to have an ID card.

20 "Each person is entitled to no more than one ID card.

21 "The holder of an ID card is under an obligation to keep the ID

22 card on their person at all times and to produce it when necessary and

23 when required to do so by the -- an authorised official.

24 "It is prohibited to lend an ID card to any other person, to use

25 another person's ID card as one's own, or to misuse this document in any

1 other way.

2 "A person whose physical appearance changes to a significant

3 degree over time so that the person's appearance is no longer identical to

4 the one displayed on their ID photo or a person who has his or her name

5 changed is under an obligation within 15 days of the time such change

6 occurs to apply for a new ID.

7 "Any person misplacing or losing their ID card must immediately

8 and at the latest within 15 days report this to the municipal body of the

9 Ministry of the Interior and apply for a new ID card."

10 Q. Thank you. Mr. Dujkovic, these remarks or observations, they're

11 actually legal provisions, aren't they?

12 A. Yes, this is something that is actually stated in the law and

13 these are remarks telling persons what to do with their ID cards.

14 Q. Thank you very much for this explanation.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, I would move to something else but --

16 and I'm willing if Your Honours would like me to give an additional or

17 maybe ask the witness to give an additional explanation if you need one.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't know one is necessary.

19 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dujkovic, if I remember correctly you said

21 yesterday that you started working for the MUP or the SUP in 1980, right?

22 A. No, I've been with the police since 1971.

23 Q. Oh, right, 1971, my apologies. So you were with the police back

24 in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. While the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was still in

2 existence, were there any decree laws that were passed when a state of war

3 was declared?

4 A. Yes, I remember that and this had to do with wartime plans that

5 were produced or kept at various levels. As for my own police station of

6 which I later became commander of another such police station, so I was

7 personally in charge of keeping or producing these plans, and that's why I

8 know about this. One of the things that these plans included were decree

9 laws, but those were draft laws, before being adopted, and they were there

10 for the eventuality that they might have to be signed and put into

11 practice and they were there for us as guidance so that we would know what

12 to do just in case. Those decrees were, for the most part, there to

13 replace any laws that concerned the work of the Ministry of the Interior.

14 More specifically, those that concerned the work of any organizational

15 unit keeping or producing a plan like that.

16 Q. Can you remember what at least some of those were in reference to

17 or should I ask you a more specific question?

18 A. I can.

19 Q. Go ahead, please.

20 A. I know this because those were the regulations that I myself and

21 my police station were in charge of implementing. This was about border

22 checks along the border facing Hungary, Subotica specifically. Those were

23 decree laws, the first of those being in reference to the crossing of

24 state borders and monitoring any movement within the border belt. There

25 was another that was in reference to the movement and residence of the

1 foreign nationals. The third was in reference to travel documents

2 belonging to Yugoslavia's nationals, and there may have been other decrees

3 related to the laws that fell under our purview, but these three were the

4 most important.

5 Q. Was there another decree that was envisaged, a decree on ID cards

6 and change of address during a state of war in the former SFRY?

7 A. I'm sure there was such a decree, but I'm just not certain that

8 this decree was something that fell under my purview; but I know that a

9 regulation like that existed, I'm certain about that.

10 Q. Thank you very much. Do you happen to know, since you are a

11 lawyer by profession, which body it was that passed these decree laws?

12 A. I'm not quite sure whether it was the government or perhaps

13 another body such as the president or such-like.

14 Q. Well, I'm about to show you to dispel any doubt.

15 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P1623 brought up

16 in e-court. This is the Constitution of the SFRY and the relevant Article

17 is 317. Article 317, I apologise, I'm not sure about the page in e-court.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, the witness has said that he doesn't

19 know the answer to the question. It is a matter of law. Is it really

20 necessary to put a document to him when it's part of the process on which

21 you can make submissions anyway?

22 MR. ZECEVIC: No, Your Honour, it is not essential. I just wanted

23 to in all fairness to the witness because --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you see, what would be helpful to us would be

25 if he did have experience and could tell us what had actually happened.

1 But just to ask him to read the law and say what it means is not really a

2 very useful exercise.

3 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honour. I will move on.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dujkovic, do you know that the Kingdom of

5 Holland has a regulation saying that all persons over 14 years of age must

6 have an ID card?

7 A. I wasn't aware of that.

8 Q. What about that type of regulation in any other European country?

9 A. Well, I have no knowledge of that specifically, but I know that

10 the age limit varies from country to country.

11 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

12 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.

14 Mr. Bakrac.

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I'll try

16 and be briefer than Mr. Zecevic.

17 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Dujkovic. My name is Mihajlo

19 Bakrac, and I represent General Lazarevic.

20 A. Good morning to you, sir.

21 Q. You testified in chief with Mr. Lukic and you talked about the

22 fact that you were part of the re-admission procedure based on an

23 agreement between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Germany, right?

24 A. Right.

25 Q. We look at an exhibit dated 1997. What I want to know is whether

1 this re-admission procedure was in progress in 1998 and 1999 as well.

2 A. The procedure was formally still in progress and it went on for as

3 long as air traffic could go on. I can't specify the time, but it was

4 probably until just before the air-strikes against our country.

5 Q. What about up until that point in time, had you been in touch with

6 your German colleagues?

7 A. Yes, through the committee of experts, which was a permanent

8 body. This was something for the federal Ministry of the Interior to deal

9 with. We from the republican ministry seconded some of our members to aid

10 the work of that group.

11 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, I would like you to look at 5D1, it's a Defence

12 exhibit. We are now waiting for it to be brought up in e-court, and as

13 we're waiting let me tell you that these are extracts from official German

14 documents obtained, or rather, something that was obtained by the

15 International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Armament. This was

16 published in German daily Junge Welt on the 24th of April, 1994. There

17 are extracts here from seven decisions taken by federal courts in

18 Germany. I think you mentioned in chief that it was the administrative

19 courts that ruled such matters as those related to applications made by

20 asylum seekers. What I'd like you to do now is this.

21 Let us have a look at the opinion rendered by the Muenster Higher

22 Administrative Court on the 11th of March 1999.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

24 MR. STAMP: There is no foundation in the evidence so far that

25 entitles this witness to be commenting about judgements in a German

1 federal court.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: It seems to be the same point, Mr. Bakrac, as with

3 Mr. Zecevic. It's a matter of law and interpretation for us. This

4 document has, in fact, been admitted and you can address us about it. But

5 the witness has already told you that he doesn't have any personal

6 knowledge of these matters.

7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think that the

8 situation is similar to the one that Mr. Zecevic had. I just wanted to

9 ask the witness whether from his personal contacts with German colleagues,

10 because we did hear about that before I showed this document, that he had

11 personal contacts with them, whether these -- this information that he

12 received through his personal contacts correspond to one of these

13 positions. That was one of my questions.

14 Secondly, at the very beginning of this trial when this was

15 admitted into evidence, you suggested that we try to find some judgements

16 and the Defence did find four judgements. Roman numerals IV, V, VI, and

17 VII, they have PD [as interpreted] numbers and right now they are being

18 translated from German into English.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: The witness has said that the contacts were

20 maintained through the committee of experts. There is no indication, this

21 is Mr. Stamp's point, there is no indication of any foundation for the

22 witness referring to these German judgements. You would need to have

23 shown that he had some personal knowledge to which these could be

24 relevant. Now what is it you're saying he knows about this? There's no

25 indication that he has any practical experience of this.

1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I will try to clarify that now and

2 see whether the witness knows.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, when you talked to your German colleagues on this

6 expert committee, did you get any information about the reasons why

7 administrative courts refused requests for asylum placed by Albanians?

8 A. My knowledge is based on the work of these expert committees and

9 also the previous period when the agreements were being negotiated. The

10 basic problem then was whether it was safe for such persons to return to

11 our country, and also there were some technical financial problems as to

12 whether this could be carried through. The safety problem was dealt with

13 even in the initial stage, in particular during the implementation;

14 otherwise, these persons could not have been returned if either one of the

15 two parties believed that their safety would be jeopardized. I know that

16 proceedings were initiated for each and every individual to have asylum

17 granted or not. I do not know how many cases were approved, but I know

18 that over 90 per cent were not because at that time the figure that was

19 bandied about was 150.000 persons who were supposed to be sent back. And

20 these administrative proceedings probably had to do with an appeal or

21 something like that, I really don't know.

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is sufficient for

23 me by way of an explanation. I don't know if we need to elaborate on this

24 any further with this witness, and I kindly ask you for instructions with

25 regard to the four judgements that we have received. Can I refer to them

1 now and will they just be marked for identification until we receive a

2 translation or should we tender them into evidence through a separate

3 motion?

4 MR. STAMP: Your Honour --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: They seem to deal with something different from

6 what the witness is dealing with. The witness is dealing with the

7 situation on the ground, whether it's safe for persons to be returned from

8 Germany to Yugoslavia because they've been refused admission. The

9 judgements themselves, however, deal with the reason for denying -- I

10 assume they deal with the reason for denying asylum, and the witness knows

11 nothing about that from the answer he's just given.

12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, precisely in these

13 judgements refusing asylum we see that conditions have not been met

14 because there is the requirement that has been met, namely, that it is

15 safe for these persons to return and they will not be persecuted in the

16 original state, and I wanted to ask this witness about his contacts with

17 his German colleagues, namely, that asylum had been rejected because it

18 was not unsafe to return to the FRY.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp.

20 MR. STAMP: [Microphone not activated].

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: I'm so sorry. The last thing the witness said before

23 it scrolls off is in respect to these which he I think he supposes that

24 they're administrative proceedings to do with appeal or something like

25 that, I really don't know. That's the last thing he said about these

1 administrative hearings or judgements, he doesn't know what they're

2 about. So this is not the witness to be inquiring into decisions in a

3 foreign court or these particular decisions. He doesn't know anything

4 about their sense.

5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Just -- you've had adequate opportunity,

7 Mr. Bakrac, to explain.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: We agree that you should be permitted to ask the

10 question you wish to ask, in view of the basis for these decisions. The

11 issue of weight is quite a separate matter and the issue of the exact

12 interpretation of the judgements may be a separate matter also. But if

13 the witness is permitted to read something from these and explain whether

14 it's consistent with his personal knowledge of the circumstances, then

15 that seems to us to be a relevant exercise of cross-examination. So

16 please proceed, Mr. Bakrac.

17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: How much longer will your cross-examination be?

19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am just going to

20 select one judgement very briefly, one sentence. If you allow me, I will

21 read it out, and that would be my last question, namely, whether this

22 corresponds to the experience he had while working on this commission. It

23 is the judgement under Roman numeral VII, PD1238 [as interpreted] is its

24 number, but this is a separate matter. The 11th of March, 1999, the

25 opinion of the higher court in Muenster, ethnic Albanians in Kosovo have

1 neither been nor are now exposed to local or country-wide group

2 persecution in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

3 Q. Does this position of the administrative court in Muenster

4 correspond to your own experience in direct contacts and talks with your

5 German colleagues and experience on the ground?

6 A. Yes, that was the only condition on which such an agreement could

7 have been reached and implemented, that their return would be safe and

8 that they were not persecuted, but that they were in second or third

9 countries for some other reasons and that is when they sought asylum. In

10 our jargon we called them false asylum seekers.

11 Q. You said that the re-admission process lasted all the way up until

12 the 24th of March, 1999, when the bombing started and while there were

13 still flights. So did the Germans return these people and were they

14 returned?

15 A. Yes, every day on all flights, on all Yugoslav airlines primarily,

16 thousands of them were returned and big groups were returned to Belgrade

17 airport, Pristina airport, and they were taken to their homes.

18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no

19 further questions and before the break, if you allow me, could I please

20 ask you to instruct me as to what I'm supposed to do about these four

21 judgements. I can have them marked for identification until the

22 translation and completed, and I believe that will be within about ten

23 days. That is what I was told. I can give you four numbers for these

24 documents.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I have misunderstood. I thought the whole

1 document had been admitted.

2 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, PD1 [as

4 interpreted] -- and there are four judgements --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: What -- 5D11 -- that's the whole document?

6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's a free-standing

7 document containing the excerpts from seven judgements. When this

8 document was originally introduced, your suggestion was that if we could

9 find these judgements in their entirety, that that would be useful for the

10 Trial Chamber. Finally we did manage somehow to find four judgements out

11 of the seven existing ones, and those are the ones that pertain to IV, V,

12 VI, and VII respectively those paragraphs of this document.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Their number is 5D1368 did you say?

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, 5D1235, 5D1236,

15 5D1237, and 5D1238. I just used one of them when putting a question to

16 this witness.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we will give you a decision on that when we

18 return after the break.

19 Mr. Dujkovic, we need a break at this stage, that will be for 20

20 minutes. Could you leave the courtroom with the usher, please, while we

21 have the break, and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, we will mark for identification the one

1 of these judgements that was referred to and put to the witness, that's

2 5D1235. Is that correct?

3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, 5D1238 was the one

4 that was shown.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall mark that one for identification and we

6 shall refuse to admit the others as unnecessary. So you will have to have

7 that one translated.

8 [The witness takes the stand]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, I just want to inform Your Honours

11 that corrected statement of this witness is now entered into the system.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We shall allow it to be substituted for

13 the existing English version -- sorry, the existing version of both. In

14 fact, there was a page missing from one of them, I think the English

15 version as well. So your updated one will cure both points.

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dujkovic, you'll now be cross-examined by the

20 Prosecutor, Mr. Stamp.

21 Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Stamp:

24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dujkovic. Firstly I would like to just quickly

25 have a look at some of the documents that are referred to in your

1 statement and clear up one or two things. In paragraph 13 of your

2 statement you refer to 6D459. Could we have it in e-court, please. And

3 you have a copy there I assume. You said that it is seen here that

4 Urosevac SUP directly informed the MUP without informing the staff. Can

5 you just indicate to me in which part of the document it is indicated that

6 it was being sent to the MUP?

7 A. I apologise. Could you please repeat the number, 6D459, I have

8 the criminal report filed against a customs service official.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, I think it's 549.

10 MR. STAMP: 6D459.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, the witness's own statement is 6D1499.

12 MR. STAMP: Yes. And I'm referring to the document that he

13 mentions in paragraph 13 thereof, 6D459.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, yes. Thank you.

15 MR. STAMP:

16 Q. Now, it seems to be in that document that it is sent from the

17 Urosevac SUP to the public prosecutor, but you seem to make a point that

18 it is sent directly to the MUP without going to the staff. I just wanted

19 you to tell us where on the document, I seem to have missed that, it is

20 indicated that it is sent to the MUP from the Urosevac SUP.

21 MR. LUKIC: The witness should be shown page number 6.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, we need 6D459 on the screen, please, page

23 number 6 in B/C/S.

24 MR. STAMP:

25 Q. Can you tell us where?

1 A. One of the documents under this number is a dispatch sent by the

2 Urosevac SUP, the crime police department, to the Serbian MUP to the

3 administration of the crime police, that's the way I read it and that's

4 what we can see here on the screen. The number is not indicated here.

5 The communications service fixes the number when the dispatch is actually

6 sent, but of course the case itself has its own KU number, reference

7 number.

8 Q. What page of your document is that?

9 A. I am talking about this part of the document that we can see on

10 the screen, and I have it here, it's page 6.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Which page has the identification of the persons or

12 offices to whom the document is sent?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's page number 6.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the point, Mr. Stamp?

15 MR. STAMP: I just wanted to find out where it is that it was sent

16 to --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the page we were on looked as though it was

18 being sent to the administration in Belgrade.

19 MR. STAMP: I think that there's a problem with the translation --

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise, but the page in

21 English is not the same. This is part of the criminal report. Perhaps

22 it's some other page in the English version.

23 MR. STAMP:

24 Q. Very well. I could move on. I think the translation --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, let's get this dealt with.

1 What is the problem here?

2 MR. STAMP: I think the witness is showing us something that

3 exists in the Serbian version which is not in the English version.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's get the same page in English until we

5 see what ...

6 Well, these two pages are not the same.

7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

8 MR. STAMP:

9 Q. In any case --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you're right, Mr. Stamp. We will have to

11 move on. Apparently there are three different entries in e-court, and

12 that's what's causing the difficulty.

13 Mr. Lukic, there seems to be an abundance of material under this

14 number that goes beyond the subject matter of the one on the left of the

15 screen, but we'll try to find the right one and then Mr. Stamp can return

16 to it later.

17 So continue with something else, Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. In paragraph 14 you referred to a document in which -- which

20 relates to a post office worker being arrested for ex -- well, for taking

21 money unlawfully from Albanians in respect to exit taxes. Was it a normal

22 practice for Albanians to charge -- to be charged exit taxes to leave

23 Albania during the armed NATO intervention? For Kosovar Albanians to be

24 charged exit taxes to leave Kosovo during the NATO intervention, was that

25 a regular practice?

1 A. No, this was not levied only on Albanians; it was levied on all

2 persons and it had nothing to do with the aggression. I don't have the

3 document here in front of me, but I suppose that those were exit taxes

4 that were introduced by the state and these were introduced a number of

5 years before this period. Every person that was supposed -- that wanted

6 to travel abroad had to pay a certain tax or a fee to the state, and this

7 had nothing to do with the actual territory, the ethnic background of the

8 traveller, or the actual state of affairs in the state at that time, state

9 of war or whatever. And here it is indicated, it shows from -- this

10 actually shows that the state authorities protected each and every citizen

11 regardless of their ethnic background.

12 Q. Can you just focus on the question I'm asking you. The Albanians,

13 the Kosovar Albanians who left, the document is 6D460, I should indicate,

14 the Kosovar Albanians who left left Kosovo during the NATO intervention in

15 1999, was it the norm that they were charged exit taxes at the border?

16 A. If you're referring to the Kosovo Albanians who left in the

17 extraordinary circumstances and without any particular control, they were

18 not subject to any controls and they did not have to pay any taxes or

19 fees.

20 Q. Thank you. And if we could move to paragraph 20 of your

21 statement, and it refers to Exhibit 6D475.

22 MR. STAMP: Could that be brought up on e-court, please.

23 Q. This is a dispatch of the 13th of June, 1999. You say it was

24 signed by Obrad Stevanovic on behalf of the staff. Did you actually see a

25 signed copy of this document?

1 MR. STAMP: Could we move to the second page of the -- of both of

2 them, please.

3 Q. The copy we have in B/C/S here doesn't seem to be signed. Did you

4 actually see in preparation for this statement a signed copy of this

5 document?

6 A. No, I saw this version that is on our screens now.

7 Q. Okay. So it's a mistake here when you say that the dispatch was

8 signed by Obrad Stevanovic?

9 A. Well, this was probably printed out on the computer, it was

10 probably saved on the computer, and the signed version was sent to the

11 communications service so that it could then be sent on to other

12 addressees.

13 Q. Very well, it seems to be speculative. And the last thing I want

14 to ask you about is at paragraph 22 of your statement where you refer to

15 Exhibit 6D464, do you have that document in front of you? The point you

16 make here is that the staff was not informed about this criminal report.

17 Is this the record of what is, in fact, a misdemeanour, disciplinary

18 report?

19 A. Well, it says here: "Approval to file a misdemeanour report."

20 Q. And therefore, your point would be having regard to this document

21 is that the staff was not informed in relation to filing misdemeanour

22 reports against police officers?

23 A. Well, both misdemeanour and criminal reports.

24 Q. Where a criminal report for a serious charge, like murder, arson

25 on someone's dwelling, is filed against a police officer in Kosovo for

1 example, wouldn't that be something that would be managed by the SUP for

2 the municipality in which the crime is revealed or investigated?

3 A. Yes, the SUP has authority over that or jurisdiction, but they

4 have to report any such events to the ministry.

5 Q. Well, are you aware of meetings convened before and during the

6 NATO intervention by General Lukic on behalf of the staff for Kosovo and

7 Metohija in which leaders of the SUP, chiefs of the SUPs, made reports

8 about investigations of crimes?

9 A. I think I inspected some documents during the proofing, documents

10 that pertained to meetings of the staff.

11 Q. Listen to me again. I'm not talking about documents now. Maybe

12 you should close your folder. I'm just asking you now: Are you aware

13 that meetings were convened by General Lukic on behalf of the MUP staff

14 for Kosovo and Metohija where SUP chiefs from Kosovo and Metohija attended

15 and gave reports about crime in their municipalities?

16 A. At the time I was not aware of what the staff was actually doing

17 and how the reporting went and how those meetings or briefings were held.

18 Q. At the time were you aware of the official documents, official

19 decisions, setting up the ministry staff for Kosovo and Metohija and

20 appointing the members of it?

21 A. Well, I just know that the staff was established and I know some

22 of the members, in particular those in whose appointment I was involved;

23 but as for the decision, the specific decision, this is not something that

24 I had the opportunity to see.

25 Q. Well, did you see these decisions where your subordinate

1 Mr. Vucurevic was appointed to the staff?

2 A. No, I did not, but I do know that he received a decision regarding

3 his appointment, and I know that because I myself wrote the

4 recommendation. And he could not have been sent there without this

5 decision.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Why was it necessary to send Mr. Vucurevic,

7 Mr. Dujkovic?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Vucurevic was a member of the

9 staff and he was to monitor the situation in the field regarding the --

10 any problems that pertained to the work of the administration.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Why would that not be dealt with in the ordinary

12 way?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because of the complex security

14 situation in the field, there was this need for a person to be there to

15 assist and facilitate the execution of the tasks.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Someone from your administration, though, would be

17 based in the SUP Pristina office, would they not?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, at the Pristina SUP there were

19 the police officers who were in the Pristina SUP and they did tasks that

20 pertained to the border and foreigners.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Vucurevic was previously based in Nis -- sorry,

22 Novi Sad --

23 MR. STAMP: Novi Sad --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: -- yes, Novi Sad.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Vucurevic was chief of the

1 section in the Novi Sad SUP.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Now, was there not a similar section in the

3 Pristina SUP?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, the very same section

5 existed in the Pristina SUP, but Mr. Vucurevic was tasked with dealing

6 with this issue in the area broader than that covered by the Pristina SUP,

7 in the area of the whole of the province.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Stamp.

10 MR. STAMP:

11 Q. So his role, he was tasked with facilitating, to quote you, the

12 execution of tasks in the whole of Kosovo?

13 A. Yes, within the purview of the administration.

14 Q. And he was tasked with facilitating the MUP staff that he was

15 appointed to?

16 A. Well, he had his specific tasks related to the purview of the

17 border police administration, and he primarily had to deal with those

18 issues, issues that anyone from the administration going to that area

19 would be dealing with. But I don't know what other tasks he had in the

20 staff at that time.

21 MR. STAMP: So if we could look at P1505.

22 Q. I think you were shown this document earlier.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it suitable to go back to 459 or do you want to

1 do that --

2 MR. STAMP: Perhaps we could --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Do we have that now, Mr. Haider?

4 I'm sorry, Mr. Stamp, it hasn't been resolved. Please continue.

5 MR. STAMP:

6 Q. If we look at 1505, this is an order of the Minister Stojiljkovic,

7 and you will see there it includes Major Radovan Vucurevic as a member of

8 the staff. Do you see that?

9 A. No, I don't see that in the Serbian version.

10 MR. STAMP: Could you scroll up.

11 MR. LUKIC: It is on the second page.

12 MR. STAMP: Yes.

13 Q. Don't you have a copy of that document with you?

14 MR. LUKIC: He doesn't.

15 MR. STAMP: Very well.

16 Q. On the second page you see that Major Vucurevic is appointed by

17 the ministry to be a member of that staff.

18 A. Yes, you can see the name of Radovan Vucurevic there.

19 Q. And if you go down to item 2 you will see that the minister orders

20 or decides: "The staff is tasked with planning, organizing, and managing

21 the activities and use of the organizational units of the ministry."

22 So you will agree with me that Major Vucurevic, his role on the

23 staff was to facilitate the staff as far as the border units and his area

24 of operations were concerned?

25 A. It was his role to facilitate the work of the administration along

1 this line of work in this area. And he did not have a management

2 function. He could not manage the work of the organizational units

3 dealing with those issues, and he could not have managed or ran the work

4 of the police stations, the border police stations, in this territory.

5 Q. I'm not saying that he ran the work of the border police stations

6 on a daily basis. Let me ask you this: You knew the Minister

7 Stojiljkovic, was he a person who in your experience made formal, written

8 decisions with specific orders that were not intended to be carried out?

9 A. Well, you probably meant Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, and I heard

10 the name Stojkovic in my earphones.

11 Q. Yes, Minister Stojiljkovic. Based on your experience as a senior

12 official of the ministry, was he the sort of minister who made orders in

13 that type of idle way or does specifically designating roles without an

14 intention that they be carried out?

15 A. Well, I really cannot say what his intentions were or what

16 decisions the minister issued, but every decision, as a rule, had to be

17 carried out if it was lawful. A decision tantamount to an order to commit

18 a crime must not be complied with or executed.

19 Q. Mr. Vucurevic said that you telephoned him and told him that he

20 was being transferred to Kosovo; is that correct?

21 A. Mr. Vucurevic was sent temporarily to Kosovo pursuant to a

22 decision of the public security sector head, and this was done pursuant to

23 a written recommendation by the administration chief.

24 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, I asked you if you telephoned him and told him that

25 he had been assigned to Kosovo. That's what he came and said. Is that

1 true?

2 A. Well, if that's what he said, then it must be accurate because

3 usually first you have a telephone or oral conversation that precedes the

4 formal appointment. I probably must have phoned him to see whether he was

5 available to go there, whether he had any personal or family reasons not

6 to go there.

7 Q. So having regard to this order of the minister that you said would

8 be carried out unless it was illegal, what was Major Vucurevic being sent

9 to do as a member of the staff? What were you sending him to Kosovo to do

10 as a member of this staff?

11 A. Well, there was always a representative of the administration in

12 the staff at all times, so this was not only the case for this composition

13 of the staff when Vucurevic was there. But if I may be allowed to note

14 one thing as far as the names that are listed here, I'm not sure whether

15 that was really true, or rather, some of the names are unfamiliar to me.

16 That may be some kind of an extended composition. But regardless of all

17 that, Vucurevic's task was to facilitate the work of the administration

18 with his work, to coordinate the work of the organizational units in

19 Kosovo. And he may have been issued a specific task or a special task

20 from the administration. But as far as I can recall, he was specifically

21 tasked with liaising with the international humanitarian and other

22 organizations that were present in that area in great numbers.

23 Q. Did you receive reports from Vucurevic as to his work on the

24 staff?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Having contacted him by telephone and sent him to Kosovo, did you

2 speak with him during his tenure in Kosovo about his work on the staff?

3 A. I may have spoken with him, but I can't say when or for what

4 reason. Mostly whenever he needed to see someone from the administration

5 he would call up some line of work. This was more on a professional basis

6 to deal with a specific problem. Orders, orders as in, "nalog," and

7 instructions would go directly to the administration and its

8 organizational units.

9 Q. Incidentally, was he sent to Kosovo as some sort of punishment?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Before I move on can we look at -- quickly at 6D770 --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you do that, who was -- who did he

13 replace, Mr. Dujkovic?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He replaced Dobrica Vesic.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. STAMP: Could we look quickly at 6D770.

17 Q. That's another document you referred to in your statement which I

18 had intended to ask about. It's a document from the head of the staff - I

19 see you have it there in front of you - Major General Lukic to the chiefs

20 of the secretariat of the interior in Kosovo and Metohija. And you see

21 him in this document issuing tasks. Do you know under what authority as

22 chief of the Pristina -- of the staff for Kosovo and Metohija he could

23 issue tasks and instructions to the MUP chiefs of secretariats?

24 MR. LUKIC: I have to intervene.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

1 MR. LUKIC: Because --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, should we ask the witness to leave before

3 you --

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dujkovic, there is an objection being taken

6 which we have to determine; while we do that, could you leave the

7 courtroom, please.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: The witness said that he didn't know how the MUP staff

11 functioned at that time, and if he's asked about it everything should be

12 presented to him. The source for this is visible at paragraph 1 of this

13 dispatch where it says: "In accordance with dispatch of chief of the

14 public security sector," so if it's ordered by the chief of the public

15 security sector it's obvious that he has to --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you see, what you're saying actually amounts

17 to evidence and he's an experienced official who should be able to read

18 this document and give the answer you've -- explanation you've given.

19 MR. LUKIC: Then we have to give him time to read the document,

20 not ask him to --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you could also deal with it in

22 re-examination. It's for Mr. Stamp to decide how to deal with it. But an

23 experienced official like him should be able to read the entry into this

24 that leads up the various tasks fairly simply. But Mr. Stamp will bear in

25 mind what you've said and deal with the -- his questions. But there is no

1 reason why the witness should not be capable of dealing with the issue

2 that you identified.

3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: So let's have him back, please.

5 [The witness takes the stand]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: We've dealt with that matter, Mr. Dujkovic. We can

7 now proceed.

8 Mr. Stamp.

9 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. Yes. There's a document that is referred to in your statement,

11 and I take it that you had an opportunity to review the document when you

12 were giving your statement, and in that document you see General Lukic

13 issuing tasks to the chiefs of the SUPs for Kosovo. Do you know under

14 what authority he could issue a task to the chiefs of the SUPs in Kosovo?

15 A. The local bodies are reminded of their legal commitment in this

16 document. The regulations that they have a commitment to are listed in

17 this document, and that should be -- should have been clear even without

18 this document. What I'm trying to say is what I said a while ago,

19 representatives of the appropriate lines of work should facilitate the

20 performance of the MUP in the area given the complex nature of the

21 situation.

22 Q. Do you know under what authority he issues these instructions?

23 A. There could only have been a decision in terms of authority, a

24 decision by the minister or whoever dispatched him, chief of the public

25 security sector or --

1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last part of

2 the witness's answer.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you repeat the very last part of your answer,

4 please, the interpret missed. After you referred to the chief of the

5 public security sector.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned him in a context,

7 because I'm not certain at the time who passed the decision to dispatch

8 Mr. Lukic on these missions, whether it was the minister or the chief of

9 the sector; about the Chiefs of Staff, I know that it was the chief of the

10 public security sector.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 Mr. Stamp.

13 MR. STAMP: Thank you.

14 Q. And couldn't that decision not be the same one you were shown,

15 P1505, signed by Minister Stojiljkovic, which clearly empowers him to

16 manage the affairs of the various police units in Kosovo?

17 A. I know that in practice it wasn't the case that someone took over

18 those organizational units from the staff. In my line of work we were

19 directly in touch with all the organizational units in local SUPs in terms

20 of business to do with the border and foreign nationals and the rest.

21 Q. Very well. You said you knew Mr. Ognjenovic in your line of work

22 in the border police. Do you recall speaking to him?

23 A. Yes, this was the commander of the police station, and this police

24 station was part of the administration.

25 Q. Now, you said you spoke with him after the war. Do you

1 remember -- please, look this way or at the Judges. You said you spoke

2 with him after the war. Do you recall speaking with him during the war in

3 respect to the flow of refugees through his border post?

4 A. I don't remember that I spoke to him as this flood of refugees

5 occurred. It was after the war that I spoke to him, after the arrival at

6 and departure from Belgrade.

7 Q. He said that on the 27th of March when the first big group of

8 refugees arrived at his border post at Vranica [sic] he called his

9 headquarters in Belgrade to ask what he was to do about them. Were you

10 aware of that call?

11 A. I was aware of the fact this was going on at Vrbnica border

12 crossing, and I know that a decision had been taken to allow those people

13 to cross into a neighbouring territory, but I don't remember the commander

14 calling me personally. Possibly it was one of the other officials from

15 his department.

16 Q. Yes. He also said that he sent a report about it, and that report

17 you have here, it's P3086. Now, this is a report that he sent about the

18 first big group of refugees that he saw in his experience and he sent it

19 up to the headquarters. Could you have a look at it, please, and tell me

20 if you recall seeing that at the time.

21 A. No, I was not able to see this document at the time because my

22 administration was at various locations in Belgrade, and each

23 administration dealt independently with problems such as these and took

24 their own decisions whenever it was impossible to get in touch with me

25 because this was at a time of air-raid alerts and for the most part we

1 were not in our offices. I can't remember seeing this document

2 specifically, but I'm aware of this particular development.

3 Q. Well, this document -- this official note signed by Lieutenant

4 Ognjenovic says that this group of Albanians, mostly women and elderly,

5 reported that their ID cards had been taken from them and kept at the

6 Prizren SUP. Did anyone make you in your leadership capacity aware of

7 what the chief of this border station was reporting?

8 A. All I know about this particular development is that there was a

9 large group of persons women, children, and elderly who were trying to

10 leave the territory because of the danger they were facing back in their

11 respective places of residence on account of the ongoing war. That was

12 the reason they stated the decision was taken to allow them to leave as

13 long as the neighbouring country of course agreed to take them in.

14 Q. But you are not answering my question directly. Did it come to

15 your knowledge or were you told that the chief of the police station

16 reported that his information was that the IDs and documents of these 94

17 elderly and women, elderly persons and women, were taken away by the SUP

18 police?

19 A. I knew nothing to the effect that their ID documents had been

20 seized by members of the SUP.

21 Q. The person at the headquarters in Belgrade who received this

22 document, what would have been their duty, what ought they to have done in

23 respect to a report that a SUP was taking away ID cards from that number

24 of civilians?

25 A. Any person receiving, a person receiving a report like this after

1 the fact, additionally because their report could not have been dispatched

2 at the time of this event, and this person would have been under an

3 obligation to pass this along to the relevant office within the

4 administration, somebody would have verified this information and would

5 have established the reason why the ID card which could not have been

6 taken from any person, unless obviously this was a case of forgery or

7 something like that. No document can just be taken away like that.

8 Q. Okay. I'll come back to your answer. Look at the top of that

9 document.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stamp, can you find a suitable time to

11 interrupt, please. If you feel you have to finish this, finish it; but if

12 you can interrupt it, please do.

13 MR. STAMP: One question.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, please.

15 MR. STAMP:

16 Q. Look at the top of the document here.

17 MR. STAMP: If we could scroll to the top of the B/C/S and to the

18 top of the English, please.

19 Q. You see something indicating that there is a print as to the time

20 and date it was sent by fax from phone number 7445 March 27, 1999, at 3.48

21 p.m. Do you see that?

22 A. Yes. I see that the fax number is 7145. That machine was used to

23 send this document, but I can't see the number of the recipient. I see

24 the date and the time, though, 27th of March, 3.48.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MR. STAMP: I think, Your Honours, with your leave.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

3 As far as administration is concerned, and it's only for that

4 reason, have you any estimate of how long you will be with the witness?

5 MR. STAMP: Half-hour to 45 minutes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: So not even the full session?

7 MR. STAMP: I will attempt to leave enough time for re-examination

8 if necessary.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

10 We have to adjourn now, Mr. Dujkovic, until 2.30. Could you leave

11 the courtroom with the usher and we will see you again at 2.30.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.49 a.m.

14 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.

15 [The witness takes the stand]

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Dujkovic.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: We can now continue with the cross-examination by

19 Mr. Stamp.

20 Mr. Stamp.

21 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Q. When we left off, Mr. Dujkovic, we were looking at a document sent

23 to you by Mr. Ognjenovic, and I think you agreed that it was sent just

24 about contemporaneously with the events that it described. So is it then

25 your evidence that notwithstanding that, nothing was done from your

1 department in respect to the allegation that the SUP of Prizren had taken

2 away these people's ID cards?

3 A. Regarding this, you say that this document was sent to me --

4 Q. No --

5 A. -- it wasn't. I'd never even seen it before.

6 Q. No, I'm saying it was sent -- I'm saying the evidence is from

7 Mr. Ognjenovic, that it was sent to the headquarters in Belgrade, that is

8 to your headquarters in Belgrade. All I'm saying is that you said that

9 the document was dealing with events that had occurred long before, and I

10 showed you that the document was sent just about the same time as the

11 events. All I'm asking is: Having regarding to that, now that you see it

12 was sent to Belgrade just about the same time as the events, can you not

13 recall whether or not your department did anything about those allegations

14 in the document?

15 A. I can't recall that we did anything about that in the sense of

16 verifying these allegations that ID cards had been seized. Based on this

17 document I cannot tell that it was ever sent to Belgrade because the

18 number here is entirely different, the number is 7145 and there is no such

19 number existing in Belgrade.

20 Q. The witness Ognjenovic said that it was sent to his headquarters

21 in Belgrade, that is to your office in Belgrade. Is there any reason not

22 to believe him?

23 A. I certainly believe what he says and I believe that that's what he

24 did; however, our administration was not based in one place but rather at

25 various locations across Belgrade and I can't remember specifically where

1 that section of the administration that was in charge of that located at

2 the time or indeed whether they received this and how. The ministry

3 building itself had been evacuated because of bomb threats or air-strike

4 threats.

5 Q. Very well. If I may move on, you knew at the time Branislav

6 Mitrovic, did you?

7 A. Yes, he was the commander of one of our stations.

8 Q. He was a commander of a station or was he during the NATO

9 intervention the chief of the department of border affairs?

10 A. No. During the air-strikes he was commander of a border police

11 station.

12 Q. Yes, yes. He later became chief of the department for border

13 affairs, did he?

14 A. After the air-strikes and when Mr. Lukic took over the

15 administration.

16 Q. Do you remember which police station he was chief of during the

17 air-strikes?

18 A. At Kladovo.

19 Q. And that's close to the border with Romania?

20 A. Yes, it actually straddles the border with Romania, but it's on

21 the right-hand bank of the River Danube. It covered a border crossing

22 there and another road crossing the border near the hydro-electric plant.

23 Q. Mr. Dujkovic, he gave a statement in 2001 in which he said that on

24 or about the 6th of April, 1999, he was summoned by the Kladovo OUP chief

25 to a location where a truck with corpses of many people, Albanians, was

1 being pulled out of the Danube. And he and other members of the MUP had

2 to get involved in organizing the retrieval of the truck and the movement

3 of the bodies. And in that statement he said that he telephoned you about

4 it, and you told him to give the police who were moving the bodies

5 whatever assistance he could.

6 Do you recall that phone call from Mr. Mitrovic?

7 A. I remember what happened, and I know that he informed me about it,

8 he informed me about the fact that a lorry had been found on the banks of

9 the Danube near Kladovo and I can't remember the exact whereabouts. He

10 said some dead bodies had been found, and I realized immediately that this

11 was a lorry that had swerved off the road and ended up by the roadside,

12 since this is a road that runs roughly parallel to the riverbank.

13 Q. And did he tell you how many dead bodies were in that truck?

14 A. No, there was no reference to dead bodies. He just said that the

15 site was secured and that local SUP people were now there. He said some

16 people had been killed and he said this was some sort of a refrigerated

17 lorry carrying goods, that was my understanding at the time, some sort of

18 goods.

19 Q. Just a minute.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I think we should have that answer revised by CLSS,

21 that's the answer at line 16 at page 3 [sic].

22 MR. STAMP:

23 Q. You now say that he did not tell you about dead bodies being found

24 in the lorry?

25 A. No, he didn't tell me. I only found out about the dead bodies

1 from the press in 2001, that was the first time. He told me about what

2 had happened and that his assistance was required -- not specifically, but

3 if necessary. And I did what we usually do when one of our neighbouring

4 bodies needs assistance, especially since this was a border police station

5 which as part of its standard-issue equipment also had a rather large

6 vessel, a boat in this case.

7 Q. Why would police station chief Mitrovic tell you that this lorry

8 contained goods when, in fact, it contained dead bodies? Because you're

9 now saying that he would have lied to you about the contents of the

10 lorry. Why would he have lied to you about that?

11 A. I talked to him at the time, and at no time before 2001 had I been

12 aware of the fact that there had been dead bodies inside that lorry, he

13 didn't tell me.

14 Q. Well, the question is because he --

15 MR. STAMP: And perhaps I should indicate to the Court that the

16 document is P584, but I'm not sure if it came in under seal.

17 Q. He said quite specifically in this document that he contributed

18 some of his people, that is, some of your people in this process of

19 retrieving the bodies, and he did so after you told him to cooperate and

20 to help. On what basis would he not tell you that there were bodies or --

21 well, maybe we should define what we mean by goods. You said that he told

22 you that there were goods in the lorry. What sort of goods did he tell

23 you was in the lorry?

24 A. If I remember the conversation correctly, he said there was a

25 lorry involved that had driven off the road, flown off the road. There

1 were people who had been killed, purportedly in a serious traffic accident

2 or something like that, it's normally down to the local SUP to secure the

3 scene of accident, to provide assistance, and when I said "assistance," I

4 believed what what was implied at the time was technical assistance

5 because this involved water, it involved a river, that's why. Otherwise,

6 I have no idea whether there was any assistance at a later stage that was

7 provided because I never learned any more about this particular incident.

8 Q. So you were not apprised by him as to what the goods were that

9 were in the lorry?

10 A. He did not share any detail of this with me. He never mentioned

11 dead bodies.

12 Q. Now getting back to what I asked you, do you know of any reason

13 why one of your police station chiefs would concoct this story and tell

14 you in that phone call?

15 A. I can't give you any reason, but not all type of information is

16 shared over the phone, especially not at the time. There were probably

17 mobile phones involved, we were not where we were supposed to be, not at

18 our original seat, because our building had been destroyed in the

19 air-strikes. This sort of information is actually not conveyed in any

20 great detail. A brief account is more common, otherwise he would have had

21 every responsibility to assist his colleagues in any way and that was a

22 well-known thing.

23 Q. Yes, but I mean in his statement he says that the refrigerator

24 lorry was full of flesh, there were corpses, and he returned to the

25 police -- to the site where the lorry was, and the border police - that

1 is, your staff - remained at the scene. Now, is that a detail that you'd

2 expect him to fail to tell you?

3 A. I really don't know what he did there at the time, specifically I

4 know he briefly informed me about what had happened, that an event had

5 taken place, that appropriate authorities were there on the ground, and

6 that he was in a position to assist if necessary. At the time he -- or

7 they probably didn't even know specifically what had occurred or what this

8 was about. I knew there was a vehicle, I knew there was a body of water

9 nearby, and I knew that there were --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: In the B/C/S original the

11 witness is using the word "mrtvi," which means dead people or dead bodies.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- And that assistance was required.

13 MR. STAMP:

14 Q. And you never heard about it until it became splashed in the press

15 in 2001, I think that's your evidence. Did any of the investigators in

16 the working group that sought to investigate these bodies in 2001

17 interview you?

18 A. I was not aware of any working group and no one interviewed me

19 about this. First I hear of it in terms of me knowing anything about any

20 bodies being in that lorry.

21 Q. Very well. If we can go on. Yesterday - and this is at page

22 23346 of the transcript - you said, and you said you were making

23 assumptions and it was a speculation, but you said that in respect to the

24 people who left or who left Kosovo, the Kosovar Albanians who left Kosovo

25 in -- during the NATO intervention in 1999, there would have had to be an

1 agreement put in place between Serbia or the FRY and the countries to

2 which they went to facilitate their return. While you were in the

3 ministry, do you know any such attempts to agree or work out a framework

4 for their return prior to the arrival of UNMIK in Kosovo in latter part of

5 1999?

6 A. That possibility was not something that was being considered at

7 the time, since no conditions were in place for anything like that.

8 Q. And in respect to Sadija Sadiku, you were shown a document 6D1324

9 which said that there was no record of her in Serbia, of her existence in

10 Serbia. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If it was established

11 that she was, in fact, issued with a birth certificate by the Serbian

12 authorities or the authorities of the FRY, how is it possible that now

13 they could issue a document indicating that in all of these records her

14 name is not found?

15 MR. LUKIC: I have to object at this point.

16 Do we have this birth certificate?

17 JUDGE BONOMY: This was said to be a hypothetical question,

18 Mr. Lukic. It's not directly related to the individual yet, so on that

19 basis it seems appropriate to ask the question, see where it's going, and

20 you can object again if it raises a matter that you think ought to be

21 objected to.

22 MR. STAMP:

23 Q. Do you remember the question?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. Can you answer it?

1 A. The document says that no such person is to be found in the MUP

2 files, the birth registers are not part of the MUP files, that's a birth

3 register office and that's a different ministry. You asked me about a

4 birth certificate being issued and can this person obtain the document and

5 go back to their place of birth. No, it's all about citizenship. This

6 person must be a national. The fact of birth does not imply citizenship.

7 A person can, for example, have his or her citizenship revoked somewhere

8 in the meantime and maybe citizenship was never awarded to begin with at

9 birth since citizenship can be awarded on a number of different bases. So

10 this fact of citizenship is the only criterion in this case.

11 Q. Yes, you are going a little bit beyond what I was asking about.

12 Your answer suggests that the records of the birth registry would not be

13 used or would not be transferred to the records of the MUP, that is what

14 it suggests. But I thought you said yesterday that when someone is born

15 they have to be registered, and that office registers it and the document

16 has to be sent to the MUP in Belgrade in order for, among other things, a

17 national ID number. I'm not sure if I have the expression correct, but

18 the 13-digit number to be issued. I think that's what you said

19 yesterday. So I will ask you the question again.

20 Having regarding to what you said yesterday --

21 A. That's right.

22 Q. -- if this person, or if there is a birth certificate for this

23 person, how can you explain that document which says that she does not

24 come up in any of the records of the MUP?

25 MR. LUKIC: Is this question concrete enough to see that birth

1 certificate?

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a birth certificate?

3 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honours but he --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: We're still in the hypothetical situation?

5 MR. STAMP: Yes, Your Honour --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

7 MR. STAMP: -- but he --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: -- the question's not a hypothetical one.

9 MR. STAMP: If there is a birth certificate --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but how can you explain that document which

11 says she doesn't come up, so you're saying: How do you explain this

12 document if she doesn't have a birth certificate. Now --

13 MR. STAMP: If she does have a birth certificate.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: If she does, yes. Well, you would need to have

15 some basis for saying she had one before there would be any point in that

16 question.

17 MR. STAMP: Well, the good-faith basis I have for asking this

18 question is this: We have contact with the witness and we are trying to

19 procure her birth certificate. But I don't think we would want to procure

20 the birth certificate and then -- I don't know if we would want to call

21 for this witness to return to ask him about it. So I would submit that

22 the appropriate way to put it to the witness and to give the witness an

23 opportunity to comment on it is to ask the hypothetical, because I don't

24 have the birth certificate in my hands. But I expect to have it after the

25 witness is passed.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying that the witness says she has a

2 birth certificate?

3 MR. STAMP: The witness said that she had one so we are trying

4 to --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: That she had one.

6 Mr. Lukic.

7 MR. LUKIC: I still think that without having that birth

8 certificate this witness cannot comment in this manner.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: We are satisfied that the explanation given

12 justifies asking the question, but we do note that if nothing is produced

13 to substantiate the existence at one time of a birth certificate then it

14 is difficult to see how this could weigh in any manner in our decision.

15 However, in light of the possibility that the situation could change we

16 will allow the question to be asked.

17 Mr. Stamp.

18 MR. STAMP: Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Q. If this person did, in fact, at one time have a birth certificate

20 issued by the appropriate organs of the FRY, how would you explain that

21 response, saying that she is not recorded anywhere?

22 A. There are a number of different possibilities. For example, the

23 following situation, the relevant body failed to submit to the SUP

24 information on this person's birth since she does not have a birth

25 register number -- insufficient information was provided in order to

1 ascertain that this person was actually recorded. Should be required for

2 this is the citizen's personal identification number and then this

3 person's data would have been recorded, but I think the same files were

4 looked at and nothing was found.

5 Q. In any case, this person and persons in her position would have --

6 would face serious impediments in trying to return to Kosovo, would she

7 not?

8 A. I believe that such cases were rare. This is probably an

9 administrative error or perhaps a different kind of problem, maybe

10 incomplete information. Any person who was in the files in as far as they

11 were Yugoslav citizens were allowed to go back.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, the person involved has been a witness

13 in this case, and therefore there must have been some other -- there must

14 have been a reason for you leading this evidence other than some technical

15 point about registration or is it wrong to think that there must be some

16 other reason?

17 MR. LUKIC: That we wanted to impeach this witness because she

18 claimed that her documents were taken away from her and we wanted to prove

19 that she had never had any documents. Maybe she was not from Kosovo at

20 all.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand. Thank you.

22 Mr. Stamp.

23 MR. STAMP:

24 Q. I have here -- and I'm moving on to the German decisions or the

25 decisions from the German courts that you commented about. And I have

1 here a document which I took down off the internet and I would like to

2 read a couple sentences from it and ask you if that is your experience.

3 This is a Human Rights Watch World report --

4 MR. LUKIC: We would just object but not strongly because we

5 received this document only today. But since Mr. Bakrac presented his

6 documents, we just want to --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And he's remaining silent, so ...

8 Mr. Stamp, has this been uploaded?

9 MR. STAMP: No, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: So there's no number for it yet?

11 MR. STAMP: No number.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Okay.

13 Well, please proceed.

14 MR. STAMP:

15 Q. In this report the Human Rights Watch organization says: "Most

16 western European states heeded the United Nations High Commission for

17 Refugees' plea to halt expulsions of rejected Kosovo Albanian asylum

18 seekers; however, Germany and Switzerland refused to ban expulsions for

19 the first five months of the conflict. Together they expelled hundreds to

20 Kosovo."

21 Firstly, you indicated that your understanding was like 150.000

22 people were sent to Kosovo. Is it not a matter of hundreds? Does this

23 refresh your recollection that over this period of time there were

24 hundreds?

25 A. What I said was that in the 1990s in western European countries,

1 according the estimates of those countries there were, roughly speaking, a

2 total of 150.000 people from Serbia, most of them from Kosovo, who were

3 staying in those countries illegally, although from our point of view the

4 departure of these persons may have been perfectly legal. These for the

5 most part were false asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

6 Q. It -- the report goes on to say in respect to these people who

7 were sent back to Kosovo: "Where upon return many were detained and

8 interrogated and some were severely beaten, according to interviews with

9 Human Rights Watch."

10 Wasn't that the fate of many --

11 MR. LUKIC: We would, Your Honour, object at this point because we

12 established during these proceedings that data allegedly collected by

13 Human Rights Watch --

14 MR. STAMP: No, just --

15 MR. LUKIC: [Indiscernible].

16 MR. STAMP: May I just --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Just let Mr. Lukic finish.

18 MR. LUKIC: So we objected when Mr. Abrahams was here and

19 testified that actually they didn't interview people, they claimed that

20 they interviewed them, and we object to any kind of conclusions drawn from

21 the allegedly taken by the Human Rights Watch.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

23 Mr. Stamp.

24 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I'm -- he's the person responsible for

25 the police involved in receiving these people. There is an allegation

1 here that contrary to what some court may have found in order to expel the

2 people back to Kosovo, when they returned they were detained,

3 interrogated, and some severely beaten. Now, he should be entitled to

4 comment on it. That's all I'm asking --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed. The objection taken by Mr. Lukic is

6 misconceived. There is a clear difference between the Trial Chamber

7 admitting documents in the course of the Prosecution case as evidence in

8 support of that case and the situation of documents used in

9 cross-examination which we've repeatedly explained can only be admitted to

10 the extent -- at this stage in the Prosecution case can only -- sorry, at

11 this stage in the trial can only be admitted in support of the Prosecution

12 case to the extent that they are actually accepted by a witness. So

13 there's no question here at this moment and at this stage in the course of

14 this cross-examination of this being admitted independently and

15 free-standing to contradict anything that the witness might say.

16 Mr. Stamp, please continue.

17 MR. STAMP: Well -- thank you, Your Honours.

18 I wonder having regard to the objection being voiced in the

19 presence of the witness if there's any point in asking the question.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I think there is point in this instance, Mr. Stamp.

21 MR. STAMP:

22 Q. Is that an accurate reflection of what occurred to many of these

23 people who were sent back to Kosovo, that they were detained,

24 interrogated, and many severely beaten?

25 A. In relation to the return of these persons to Serbia, negotiations

1 were held for several years with the appropriate authorities of the said

2 states. Particular attention was paid to the fact that solid guarantees

3 should be provided that nothing would happen to these persons. If a

4 person had committed a crime and was therefore on the run, then perhaps it

5 could have been -- this person could have been handed over to the

6 appropriate authorities; but everything we were doing was supervised by

7 the representatives of these states. They could be at the airports of

8 Belgrade and Pristina themselves, and we organized transport for these

9 persons to their places of residence. To be more specific, if we could

10 not get to their actual place of residence, these persons would get 50

11 German marks in order to get a ride to their homes.

12 The commission that was mentioned yesterday or today, I'm sorry,

13 at any rate reacted to any case, even an individual case, of mistreatment

14 of persons, even if it was just because they returned from Germany. Since

15 I was in charge of this particular work, I state with full responsibility

16 that persons were not mistreated because they were returned from Germany.

17 Whether somebody had some problems after that, that I cannot speak of.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Through your discussions with the members of the

19 expert committee, did you learn of money being given by the German

20 government to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to assist

21 in the returning of Kosovo Albanian refugees?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know about any

23 money that the German government gave to the UN High Commissioner for

24 Refugees, but I know that governments financed this project and that our

25 government got a donation in order to have this project carried through.

1 We got computers and other equipment so that we could process applications

2 more quickly. I apologise. Also all the transport costs from the German

3 airports to our airport and police escorts included, all of that was paid

4 for by the German government.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Were you aware of other governments refusing to

6 return Albanian asylum seekers?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not aware of that. I know that

8 negotiations were carried out with more than ten states and that these

9 negotiations had reached different stages. It was not our request that

10 these persons should be returned, it was the request of the governments of

11 those countries. They wanted to rid themselves of these persons who did

12 not have a basis for receiving protection because their basic human rights

13 and freedoms had not been jeopardized at their homes and their lives were

14 not under threat at their homes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying you're not aware of any country

16 halting the expulsion of Kosovo Albanian asylum seekers? Is that your

17 evidence?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry. What I hear in the

19 interpretation is the word "expulsion." This is an organized return of

20 persons to their homes through a coordinated action by the appropriate

21 organs of two countries. I am not aware of any country doing something

22 like that -- well, quite simply a country that was not interested in doing

23 this did not negotiate with us and did not address us.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 Mr. Stamp.

1 MR. STAMP:

2 Q. Well, may I put it this way: Were you aware that there were other

3 countries in Europe who refused to send back Kosovar Albanians because

4 they were dissatisfied with the human rights situation in Kosovo?

5 A. I'm not aware of that because as far as I know our government did

6 not send requests to have these persons returned. It was these other

7 states that took the initiative. We cannot know of any such thing unless

8 there is an initiative launched by the other country.

9 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours. I have nothing

10 further.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll give that document an IC number --

12 MR. STAMP: Your Honours, I'm sorry, I should have indicated that

13 it was uploaded.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, it is. Well, the only part that's of any

15 relevance to the case to put the questions in context is the third

16 paragraph.

17 MR. STAMP: Just for the record, it was uploaded as P3114.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

19 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Stamp, I -- if you know the names

20 of some of those countries you can suggest those to the witness who

21 refused to send the persons you mentioned, in case you know the names of

22 those countries. Do you?

23 MR. STAMP: I believe I do, but I could suggest one that is not

24 correct. But what I will suggest is this:

25 Q. That apart from Switzerland and Germany, is it not true that all

1 or most of, if not all, of the countries in the EU refused to send back

2 Kosovar Albanians to Serbia? Are you aware of that?

3 A. I just know that bilateral agreements were concluded with a great

4 many countries on the return of these persons, and while I worked at the

5 administration an agreement was actually carried through with only two

6 countries, Germany and Switzerland. Today I know that an agreement had

7 been signed with the European Union. So probably all the bilateral

8 agreements were included in this agreement with the European Union, that

9 is to say all member states of the EU. There is an agreement on

10 re-admission.

11 Q. When was this bilateral agreement with the EU signed?

12 A. Maybe this year or last year.

13 Q. But, Mr. Dujkovic, we're talking about the period up to March

14 1999, which is what counsel asked you about, and what I'm putting to you

15 is that apart from Switzerland and Germany, most, if not all, of the

16 countries of the EU refused to send Kosovar Albanians back to Serbia.

17 Isn't that your knowledge?

18 A. No, I don't know of some country deciding not to return these

19 persons. I just know that we carried this agreement through with two

20 countries.

21 Q. Very well.

22 MR. STAMP: Thank you very much, Your Honours.

23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer].

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp.

25 Questioned by the Court:

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dujkovic, yesterday you were telling us where

2 the border crossings or border police stations were that might be

3 relevant, and you were translated in English as saying that: "There was an

4 extra border police station near Pristina."

5 Now, were you referring there simply to the airport or were you

6 referring to something else?

7 A. Your Honour, I was referring to the airport as a border crossing.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Who was it that provided the border police service

9 between Montenegro and Albania and Bosnia?

10 A. Your Honour, with Montenegro at that time we did not have a border

11 service because there were no border crossings. As for the border

12 crossings towards Albania, policemen from the border police stations

13 worked there, those that belonged to the Ministry of the Interior, or to

14 be more precise to the administration of the border police --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you misunderstand my question. I'm

16 interested in people crossing from Montenegro into either Albania or

17 Bosnia, which organization provided the border police service for these

18 crossings?

19 A. If I understood you correctly, you're asking me about Montenegro,

20 who provided this in Montenegro? I don't know about Montenegro.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: You don't know anything about that?

22 A. Well, I have some general knowledge about this that in Montenegro,

23 like in Serbia --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: No --

25 A. Well, I know the regulations.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. It just seemed to me that -- slightly odd,

2 but perhaps not, that the border is controlled by the republican Ministry

3 of the Interior and not the Federal Ministry of the Interior. And I

4 wondered if it was the same situation in Montenegro.

5 A. Over the past 40 years, every republic was responsible for

6 checking border crossings and for providing in-depth security of the state

7 border. And on the line of the border itself security for the border was

8 provided by the border service of the Army of Yugoslavia that was a

9 federal institution.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you can understand an outsider's confusion

11 when part of the system for doing a similar and closely related job is

12 federal and another part is republican. And I just want to know if that

13 was universal and that seems to be what you're saying. What I'd like to

14 know, though, is whether you know for sure that in the year -- the years

15 between 1993 -- I suppose 1992 and 1999 that the system in Montenegro was

16 the same as the system in Serbia?

17 A. I know for sure that the border units of the Army of Yugoslavia

18 were securing the state border towards Albania, in Montenegro too, but not

19 towards Kosovo and towards Serbia, only towards Albania. Later probably

20 it was Croatia too, or rather, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. I

21 don't know exactly whether over there they have the republican institution

22 checking border crossings. In some republics it's even done at a lower

23 level, so I'm not sure.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: In the fairly senior position you held, I assume

25 that you were expected to understand where the MUP staff for Kosovo fitted

1 into the administration of the Republic of Serbia. Is that a fair

2 assumption?

3 A. Yes, it is correct.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: So where did it fit in and what was its purpose?

5 A. I only knew of Radovan Vucurevic on the staff as a representative

6 of this line of work. I as a leading person in the administration that I

7 headed at the time, I did not have any other direct contacts with the

8 staff members or with the head of the staff. I resolved all problems

9 directly, perhaps with the involvement of Mr. Vucurevic.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: So as far as you were concerned then, could you

11 simply ignore its existence, it had absolutely no relevance to your life

12 and work?

13 A. Well, I think that our representative on the staff, Mr. Vucurevic,

14 was useful in that position because he enabled us to have him take direct

15 part in resolving some more complex subjects.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, perhaps he needed to be told that more

17 because he had no idea why he was there. You've talked in very eloquent

18 language about the job, but what was he actually doing?

19 A. We had no need to involve Mr. Vucurevic very often because we

20 resolved all problems directly with the leaders of the regional SUPs or

21 with our station commanders. Mr. Vucurevic only got this one specific

22 task, to be an "officer" or even without quotation marks, liaison officer

23 with the representatives of international humanitarian organizations. Our

24 representative from the administration had direct contact with the

25 representatives of the international organizations. This was Radovan

1 Vucurevic, who was a member of the staff.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 Mr. Lukic, re-exam -- Mr. Fila.

4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I do apologise for taking up time this

5 afternoon, but there is something that remains unclear from Mr. Stamp's

6 questions and Judge Chowhan asked about this too. Is Mr. Stamp perhaps

7 referring to the Albanians that we were looking for through Interpol and

8 then they would not hand them over to us as crime suspects? But that the

9 Serbs was looking for Serbs or Albanians who went to work abroad without

10 papers, that did not happen, so perhaps that's the problem. At this

11 moment we are talking about the re-admission of 180.000 Roma, Kurds, and I

12 don't know who else who are supposed to return to our country because it

13 is from our territory that they entered the European Union. Take my word

14 for it, 180.000 persons. The ministry is dealing with this.

15 If this matters to the Trial Chamber, if they want to establish

16 that, I really have to tell you that as a state we did not even ask them

17 to return Serbs to the country, let alone others, Albanians, et cetera.

18 As for the police, yes, crime suspects and people like that, yes. If this

19 really matters for this particular case, then it really should be cleared

20 up. That would be all and I thank you for the time and I apologise again.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: No need to apologise unless you waste our time.

22 The -- there are two points arising from that, one is that the witness I

23 think has already dealt with the question of why the knowledge he has

24 relates to Germany and Switzerland with whom these negotiations took

25 place. And secondly, you realize that the issue has only concerned us

1 because it was raised by Mr. Bakrac and we are doing our best to make sure

2 that both sides have an adequate opportunity to present what little

3 material they appear to have on the issue.

4 Mr. Lukic, re-examination?

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. Hopefully we'll finish until the

6 end of the day.

7 Re-examination by Mr. Lukic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dujkovic, I'll have a few more questions for

9 you. First I would like to ask you to look at document 6D475.

10 A. I'm sorry, would you repeat the number?

11 Q. 6D475.

12 A. Fine.

13 Q. You talked about this document in paragraph 20 of your written

14 statement, and today my colleague Mr. Stamp asked you about this. And on

15 the last page of this document it says Obrad Stevanovic. You said that it

16 was signed by Obrad Stevanovic. I'm going to ask you the following now,

17 or rather, what was said then was that this was your speculation,

18 speculation on your part. Did this document have to be signed in order to

19 be sent or could it have been sent like this, unsigned?

20 A. It had to be signed in his own hand.

21 Q. The next document that I'm interested in is --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: That would suggest there's something wrong with the

23 English translation because the wording of that suggests that someone else

24 could sign it for him. The word "for" is there.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, in his own hand.

1 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, the English translation is actually wrong. It

2 just say: "Assistant minister Lieutenant-General Obrad Stevanovic."

3 There is no "for" in Serbian language.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, now, it may not actually matter to the point

5 Mr. Stamp was making, because his point I think related to whether it was

6 within Stevanovic's authority to be giving -- to be dealing with this.

7 And at the time it didn't seem to me to matter whether it said "for" or

8 not, but we will note what you say about the translation. Thank you.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Now I see where the confusion probably

10 lies in the questions.

11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dujkovic, could you please open 6D464. Have

12 you found it? Mr. Stamp asked you whether the MUP staff had received

13 reports about crimes and other issues relevant for the security, other

14 incidents, whether they received those reports from the SUPs. But is this

15 document about reporting or about asking permission?

16 A. Well, this is actually all about seeking approval for instituting

17 proceedings against the police officer, because proceedings could not be

18 instituted against the police officer before a report to that effect was

19 sent to his line of work.

20 Q. Is this different from ordinary reporting?

21 A. No, this is seeking approval, so this is different indeed from

22 merely reporting about events.

23 Q. And this approval for filing a criminal report, could it have been

24 sought from the MUP staff for Kosovo and Metohija?

25 A. No, the staff did not have any jurisdiction over that.

1 Q. And the approval for the filing of a criminal report, could it

2 have been sought from the MUP staff for Kosovo and Metohija?

3 A. No.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have on e-court

5 Exhibit 6D770.

6 Q. First let me ask you, did you know how the MUP staff for Kosovo

7 and Metohija actually operated in its entirety?

8 A. Well, I was partly aware of it to the best of my knowledge.

9 Q. And the chief of the public security sector, could he have ordered

10 the MUP staff members to do some tasks?

11 A. Yes, he could.

12 Q. In this document, in the first paragraph, it says: "Pursuant to

13 the Law on Domicile and Place of Residence of Citizens, the rules on forms

14 and manner of keeping records on domicile and place of residence of

15 citizens, decree on domicile and place of residence of citizens during a

16 state of war, and the dispatch of the public security department or

17 sector, the following action must be taken."

18 Any further action by the MUP staff in this case, would it be

19 based on the dispatch from the public security sector and the legislation

20 listed above --

21 MR. STAMP: Your Honours --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, that just is a leading question that --

23 the answer to now which now wouldn't help us at all.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Micropohone not activated].

25 Q. [Interpretation] So on what basis did the MUP staff actually act

1 in this case?

2 A. The -- in this case the MUP staff invoked the dispatch from the

3 chief of the sector, and I think that this dispatch had already been sent

4 to all the organs in the territory of Serbia including Kosovo at this

5 moment.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: What can you tell us about that dispatch, please?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know that off the top

8 of my head, but I can perhaps make some assumptions. If I could perhaps

9 be shown this dispatch.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, do we have it?

11 MR. LUKIC: No, we don't, we don't have it, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: You see, a dispatch -- I mean, a dispatch

13 presumably could contain a number of different things.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the tasks that are

15 listed in this memo from the staff, the staff would not receive orders to

16 do that. The MUP would issue orders to the SUPs directly, to its

17 subordinate organs directly, and the MUP staff would merely be informed

18 about it.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's you putting the cart before the horse,

20 if I may say. Would the MUP issue orders to the SUPs in a dispatch?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would be issued -- those

22 orders would be issued in the dispatch, but the MUP would -- MUP staff

23 would receive information. Since this is in my line of work, it would

24 never happen that an order would be issued to the MUP staff to take

25 certain measures.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand what you're saying, but what I want to

2 be clear about is this: If you were referring to an instruction sent by

3 the MUP to SUP chiefs directly, would you describe that as a dispatch when

4 you were writing something about it?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, a dispatch is one form of

6 communication, using the communication equipment that is fairly quick, the

7 teleprinter, this is what we call a dispatch. You can also send it using

8 couriers.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, there's been some evidence which I can't

11 remember the detail of at this point about the appropriate language to

12 describe an instruction or direction given by the Ministry of the Interior

13 to a chief of a SUP. What was the word that was appropriate for such a

14 direction or instruction?

15 MR. LUKIC: "Nalog."

16 JUDGE BONOMY: It is "nalog"? And the word "zapovest" is not

17 used?

18 MR. LUKIC: "Zapovest," could be but it's different.

19 "Zapovest" -- actually "naradjenje" -- not, "zapovest" in police we have

20 "naradjenje" --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: "Naradjenje," yeah.

22 MR. LUKIC: -- order and "nalog" order.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're saying that it would be appropriate where

24 directions - and you've heard the language we've been discussing just now,

25 when directions were being given by the MUP to chiefs of SUPs, it would be

1 appropriate when referring to that to talk about a dispatch; that's your

2 evidence, is it?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this kind of order, "nalog,"

4 can be sent in a dispatch.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Lukic, it would obviously assist our

6 understanding of all of this if that dispatch can be produced.

7 MR. LUKIC: Mr. Fila just pushed me to work hard and find that

8 one.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, well that's the real answer to -- not

10 necessarily the real answer --

11 MR. LUKIC: We don't have it --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: -- but it would advance our knowledge of the

13 situation.

14 MR. LUKIC: We don't have it in our documents, but we'll try to

15 find it somewhere in MUP of Serbia.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Of course you have no obligation to find it. All

17 I'm suggesting to you is that it may assist us, and that of course applies

18 to the Prosecution as well if they can lay their hands on it, then it

19 would assist us.

20 Please continue.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. When we find this document, or rather, until we find this document

23 I will try to now use abuse your knowledge. What is a dispatch, is this

24 kind of document or is this just a manner in which documents are

25 communicated?

1 A. Well, this is the kind of document that is sent using teleprinters

2 or in a telegram, this kind of equipment.

3 Q. Before that is a written document drafted and it is then typed

4 into the teleprinter?

5 A. Yes, whoever is sending a dispatch, first drafts the document,

6 signs the document, and then this is sent to the communications service,

7 which sends it on. The signed copy is kept in the file in order to prove

8 that the -- whoever drafted and sent the initial document complied with

9 the procedure.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 Thank you, Mr. Dujkovic. I have no further questions for you.

12 Thank you for coming here to testify.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dujkovic, that completes your evidence. Thank

15 you for coming to the Tribunal here to give evidence. You can now leave

16 the courtroom with the usher.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Lukic --

20 MR. STAMP: May I --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, Mr. Stamp.

22 MR. STAMP: -- before we move on, just indicate to the Court, it's

23 probably not the right time, but for what it's worth, counsel did say that

24 the witness Sadiku said that her identification card or her identification

25 documents were taken away. That is not precisely correct. The witness

1 said speaking of a group of people that she was with that their

2 identification card, referring to the group, identification cards,

3 passports, whatever we had on us, that's what she said, were taken away.

4 Just for clarification.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Stamp. That's always a matter for

6 interpretation in due course.

7 Mr. Lukic, you have one more witness allocated for this week?

8 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But the indications are you won't finish that

10 witness in one day unless you've revised your prognosis.

11 MR. LUKIC: My colleague Ivetic is working with the judge and I

12 really don't know what his time schedule --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: All I was going to say is if ten minutes today will

14 help you, then we'll start; if it would make no difference, then we'll

15 finish.

16 MR. LUKIC: It wouldn't make any difference, I guess.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I hope you're right.

18 Does that mean, though, that you really don't know the situation?

19 MR. LUKIC: We also cannot calculate if other Defence teams have

20 some --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but your estimate's three hours --

22 MR. LUKIC: Three hours --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: -- in a four-hour day which suggests it's unlikely,

24 no matter what the other --

25 MR. LUKIC: Highly unlikely.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we'll ...

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we're happy to adjourn now if that is

4 convenient to you, Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Which means that we will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in

7 this court.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.51 p.m.,

9 to be reconvened on Friday, the 29th day of

10 February, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25