1 Tuesday, 18 March 2008

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.

5 [The witness entered court]

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Ilic.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: The cross-examination by Mr. Hannis will continue

9 in a moment. Please bear in mind that the solemn declaration to speak

10 the truth which you gave at the beginning of your evidence continues to

11 apply throughout your evidence.

12 Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 WITNESS: VLADIMIR ILIC [Resumed]

15 [Witness answered through interpreter]

16 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]

17 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ilic. The first thing I want to ask you

18 about is the document that is our Exhibit Number P3121. With the usher's

19 help, I'll hand you a hard copy. This is the minutes of a meeting held

20 on 28 July 1998 at the MUP staff in Pristina. I know you didn't attend

21 this meeting, but I've got a couple of questions for you about some

22 things that were discussed there.

23 On the first page of the hard copy you have, and I think it's

24 page 3 in the e-court in B/C/S and in English, General Lukic is speaking,

25 he welcomes the minister, and about five sentences up in that first

1 paragraph under his name, he mentions that: "The second phase of the

2 global plan is being carried out in accordance with the established

3 schedule with ten detachments."

4 In Kosovo, in July of 1998, or any time during your deployment

5 there in 1998, did you hear a discussion of such a plan, the global plan

6 or the five-phase plan for combatting terrorism, anything like that? Did

7 you ever hear that term discussed?

8 A. I heard of that term during my preparation for this testimony. I

9 didn't hear of it at the time.

10 Q. Okay. Thank you. If you'll go to the second paragraph then, I

11 think it's the last few lines on the bottom of that page for you, General

12 Lukic apparently says: "In some police units, Nis, Leskovac, Pirot,

13 Kosovska Mitrovica, and Belgrade, there was some lack of readiness and

14 'reluctance' to be deployed and even refusal to carry out tasks, but this

15 situation has now been resolved."

16 Do you know what that's a reference to? Did you see anything

17 like that or experience anything like that?

18 A. I don't know what this actually refers to.

19 Q. Okay. And if you could turn over the page.

20 MR. HANNIS: In the English, we can stay on page 3.

21 Q. At the bottom of that paragraph, General Lukic says: "We need at

22 least 2.000 additional policemen, especially, if possible, volunteers

23 from the police reserve force."

24 And immediately following him, going onto the next page in

25 English, Minister Stojiljkovic says: "That's a change to the main plan."

1 General Lukic says: "Yes."

2 Were you aware of this call for additional volunteers at the end

3 of July 1998?

4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I would object to the question as it

5 misstates the document. If he's going to ask a question relating to a

6 document that this witness was not present for, he needs to stick exactly

7 to what is in the document. The document says volunteers from the

8 reserve portion of the police. It doesn't say anything about additional

9 volunteers.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: The question was adequately formulated on the

11 basis of the narrative Mr. Hannis gave, so you can answer that question,

12 Mr. Ilic.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In July and August, we did have

14 police reservists among our forces engaged in Kosovo as a part of our

15 detachment.

16 MR. HANNIS:

17 Q. And does this relate to the problem you mentioned yesterday about

18 policemen being brought in to serve in the PJP who had not undergone the

19 special training or selection process?

20 A. No. It was a different issue relating to 1999 and the close of

21 our engagement in Kosovo. It was towards the end of our presence in

22 Kosovo, and referring to the active police force. This text, however,

23 refers to the reserve police force.

24 Q. All right. If you could continue onto I think it's page number 6

25 in the hard copy you have.

1 MR. HANNIS: This is probably page number 8 in e-court for the

2 B/C/S, it's page number 7 in the English.

3 Q. I want to ask you about something that Captain Pesic is described

4 as having spoken about. Do you find the reference to him?

5 A. I see that.

6 Q. Okay. And he said: "We formed 240 reserve police stations." He

7 mentions weapons have been issued to 54.683 persons, and he describes how

8 those were distributed between from the MUP and from the VJ.

9 Did you have any dealings at all with reserve police during your

10 time in Kosovo in either 1998 or 1999?

11 A. Within the detachment, we did have a reserve police force from

12 Belgrade; it was in July and August, I believe. As regards reserve

13 police departments in Kosovo, we had no contact with them. I didn't even

14 know they existed. When being proofed for the testimony, they explained

15 to me what the term actually stands for.

16 Q. Okay. If you would look at the bottom of that page and the top

17 of the next page.

18 MR. HANNIS: And for us following in English, we need to go to

19 page 8.

20 Q. I want to ask you about something General Lukic says. He's

21 quoted as saying: "We are also arming citizens in towns, and plans for

22 defending towns have been drawn up. Chiefs of secretariats have the duty

23 to organize the defence of towns in agreement with the Yugoslav Army,

24 reserve police stations, and other bodies."

25 Did you, you or your PJP unit, have any role or any knowledge of

1 the citizens in towns being armed and plans for defending towns drawn up?

2 Did you know anything about that?

3 A. No. During the war, I wasn't in Pec itself. It strikes me as

4 illogical. Had there been such a plan, I should have been in town

5 defending the town; therefore, I had nothing to do with that.

6 Q. Okay. Let me ask you a couple questions from one other document

7 that you probably never saw before coming here, but it relates to some of

8 the things you told us about.

9 You recall, yesterday, I showed you a photograph and you

10 recognised Mr. Radosavljevic and some other people, including someone you

11 thought might be Salipur and who other people indicated was Salipur. Did

12 you ever -- do you recall hearing the term "Munja" used in connection

13 with Salipur?

14 A. Yes, I do remember that. It was a call-sign of one of the

15 companies from the 124th Intervention Brigade.

16 Q. Okay. I want to ask you about something that's in a -- in these

17 notes from meetings of the Joint Command in 1998, and I think you told us

18 yesterday you didn't know anything about the Joint Command in 1998 or

19 1999; is that right?

20 A. It is correct.

21 Q. I will tell you that, at page 31 of the English and page 23 of

22 the B/C/S in Exhibit P1468, these are the notes of a meeting on the

23 30th of July, 1998. General Djordjevic is apparently at the meeting and

24 speaks, and he mentions that: "The Munja lunch will be held in the

25 vicinity of Ovcarevo."

1 Do you know anything about that event on 30 July 1998?

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, the witness has already said he knows

4 nothing about any Joint Command. There's been no foundation as for

5 whether -- if Mr. Hannis is claiming that the witness was present for

6 this meeting, I have yet to hear any foundation for it. Therefore, I

7 believe that the question is just requesting out of thin air to ask for

8 speculation about something that is in some document of questionable --

9 of questionable source to have him comment on something that's in a

10 document.

11 That's pure speculation after the witness has said already in

12 direct and it in cross that he knows nothing about the existence of this

13 body, and there is no foundation that he was present for this event or

14 this meeting or whatever you want to call it.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: The witness has already indicated that he

16 recognises the name Munja. The question's perfectly appropriate.

17 Please continue, Mr. Hannis.

18 MR. HANNIS:

19 Q. Mr. Ilic, do I need to repeat my question or do you recall it?

20 A. I can see the text on the screen. You are asking me whether I

21 know something about a lunch at Ovcarevo with Munjas. I don't know

22 anything of the sort.

23 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, one other thing I want to ask you about

24 from these notes, Joint Command meetings - it is from page 77 in the

25 English, and it's page 69 in e-court for the B/C/S - is from a meeting of

1 the 27th of August, 1998. General Lukic is speaking, and he said: "This

2 morning about 320 MUP members and Combat Group 22 began moving towards

3 Klecka, encountering no resistance along the way."

4 Do you know who Combat Group 22 was?

5 A. No, I don't.

6 Q. And further down, under the same entry, General Lukic mentions

7 Stimlje-Dulje, and he says: "250 men from MUP pick up note."

8 And I think you told us yesterday that, on the 28th of August,

9 you were in the Dulje area, I think maybe specifically near Blace

10 village. Do you know what that's a reference to, "Stimlje-Dulje, 250 men

11 from MUP pick up note"?

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I suspect this is one we ought to get the witness

13 to read?

14 Mr. Ilic, the reference to Stimlje-Dulje in the document in front

15 of you, could you read aloud that line, please.

16 MR. LUKIC: That page in B/C/S is not on the screen.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh.

18 MR. HANNIS: It should be page 68 in the B/C/S; page 77 of the

19 English.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. That looks more like it now.

21 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry if I misspoke earlier.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: About halfway down the page, Mr. Ilic, you'll see

23 the line with "Stimlje" as the first word. Could you read that, please.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Stimlje-Dulje - 250 men MUP," and

25 I cannot read the two last words.

1 MR. HANNIS:

2 Q. How many men were in the group that you were deployed with on the

3 28th of August?

4 A. Between 70 and 80 policemen from my company.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, can you assist at all in what these

6 words are?

7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] It could be as translated; it

8 resembles that. It's difficult to interpret another person's

9 handwriting. It could be what it stands in the translation. Well, it

10 could also mean "took over elevations."

11 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

12 Mr. Hannis.

13 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

14 Q. I'm finished with that. I'll now move to my notes regarding your

15 answers to some questions yesterday. At page 34 of the transcript, you

16 mentioned -- I think this was in connection with the document, the order

17 signed by Colonel Kotur. And in an answer to a question about that, you

18 mentioned there were problems within the chain of command, "namely,

19 between my commander, Bosko Buha, and Colonel Kotur. Buha told me about

20 that. Because of that issue a few days later, after Bosko Buha had been

21 wounded, General Obrad Stevanovic arrived to deal with it."

22 Now, what kinds of problems was Buha having in the chain of

23 command with Colonel Kotur? Can you tell us about that?

24 A. Yes, I can. Colonel Kotur had wrong information on our

25 positions. The information he had was that we failed to reach the

1 position designated in an order; however, we did, and the issue was

2 resolved during an extremely brief meeting. After two minutes the

3 situation was clear when I explained at what positions we actually were.

4 Q. Was that the only problem you were aware of that led to

5 Stevanovic coming to deal with?

6 A. It was the only problem that I knew of.

7 Q. You mentioned that there was a meeting with General Stevanovic to

8 deal with that problem, and you said you attended the meeting as Buha's

9 deputy because he had been wounded a couple of days before. You said, in

10 addition to Stevanovic, there were other attendees, including commanders

11 of police stations participating in the action, as well as commanders of

12 the SAJ, commander of the 23rd Detachment, Josipovic, and several army

13 colonels.

14 Before this meeting, did you know who Kotur was? You had met

15 him, right, and you recognised him? You would know him if you saw him,

16 right?

17 A. That is right. But before I answer, it was interpreted that you

18 said that commanders of police stations who participated in the action

19 were in attendance, which is incorrect. Police detachment commanders who

20 were part of the action attended, as well as SAJ commanders; and on the

21 part of the army, all of those officers present were colonels, I believe.

22 I knew Colonel Kotur from the Klecka action. I could recognise

23 him; although, I cannot recall whether he was in attendance. In any

24 case, I recall that we had no conversation on -- at that meeting. That

25 is precisely why I cannot recall whether he was there or not.

1 Q. I have a few more questions about that meeting. How did this

2 meeting get set up? I mean, when was it held approximately?

3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, which question is Mr. Hannis staying

4 with because if it's the first one -- if the first one is part of his

5 question, I'm going to object because it calls for speculation.

6 MR. HANNIS:

7 Q. Well, right now, I'm just asking when was it held, approximately?

8 A. Approximately one or two days after Bosko Buha was wounded. I

9 think he was wounded in early June, on the 1st or the 2nd of June.

10 Q. And how did you come to attend this meeting? Who invited you or

11 told you to come?

12 A. I think the commander of the 23rd Detachment, Borisa Josipovic,

13 that I received further orders from after Bosko Buha had been wounded.

14 Q. Do you recall where the meeting took place?

15 A. Somewhere in the area of Decani.

16 Q. Who led the meeting? Who seemed to be in charge?

17 A. I believe General Obrad Stevanovic held the highest rank;

18 although, I cannot remember whether he led the meeting.

19 Q. And you told us before you don't recall if Kotur was there,

20 right?

21 A. Right.

22 Q. But Kotur must have been talked about in this meeting, right,

23 because wasn't the problem in the chain of command related directly to

24 him?

25 A. No. As far as I recall, the problem was not directly in relation

1 to Colonel Kotur. He led the action very well. We had no special issues

2 with him. The problem was misinformation. I don't know how, but Colonel

3 Kotur had wrong information on our positions. One of the army officers

4 at the meeting - I cannot recall who since I didn't know those army

5 officers - said that our detachment failed to carry out the task as

6 ordered since we were still at our initial positions five or six days

7 into the action.

8 I responded by saying that that is incorrect. And by using the

9 map where the map decision was, that is, the decision on the task, I

10 indicated what our precise position was. So the misunderstanding was

11 resolved.

12 Q. Do you recall if General Lukic attended this meeting?

13 A. I do. He did not.

14 Q. At page 38 yesterday, you were asked about whether --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move to that, Mr. Hannis.

16 MR. HANNIS: Yeah.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: In dealing with this yesterday, Mr. Ilic, you said

18 that: "There were problems within the chain of command, namely, between

19 my commander, Bosko Buha, and Colonel Kotur. My commander, Buha, told me

20 about that."

21 Now, that sounds like something else, different from the issue

22 you've just dealt with. What were these problems within the chain of

23 command?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The problem was in the chain of

25 informing.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, what was the nature of the problem

2 that Bosko Buha told you about?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the problem. I don't know

4 how they resolved that misunderstanding of theirs. I dealt with it by

5 way of a single sentence.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not following this, I'm afraid. You were told

7 about a problem - about problems - not a problem, but problems, within

8 the chain of command between these two. You were told by Buha.

9 Now, that sounds like something different from the misinformation

10 issue, which you were able to deal with in a moment, you say. So what

11 were the problems between Buha and Colonel Kotur? Please tell us what

12 these are. We are here to find out the whole truth.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am telling you the truth. There

14 was a problem between Colonel Kotur and Commander Bosko that was created

15 due to the poor information Colonel Kotur had. I don't know how it came

16 about that Colonel Kotur was misinformed. I don't know exactly how

17 intensive the misunderstanding between the two was, whether there was an

18 argument or not.

19 However, that was explained to me as being the basic problem, and

20 I believe that was one of the main reasons for the meeting at which

21 General Obrad Stevanovic was present. When I arrived at the meeting, I

22 saw that, indeed, it was the basic problem that existed between Colonel

23 Kotur and Commander Bosko.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, you had dealt with that issue, so what was it

25 that Stevanovic was there for?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He probably had a task in his own

2 assessment. He believed he needed to be present at the meeting. He

3 didn't know exactly what the problem was in the chain of command. I

4 don't know exactly, but I can presume that it was his assumption that the

5 problem was greater.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. You were at this meeting. So what was the

7 issue that Stevanovic was there to deal with, and how did he deal with

8 it?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat this very

10 clearly. Army officers were at that meeting and officer, or rather,

11 commanders of the PJP; and, among them, I was there too as Bosko Buha's

12 deputy. The army officers said at that meeting then that I, or rather,

13 that my detachment had not carried out our task in accordance with the

14 order initially given because we were still at our initial positions.

15 I said that that was not correct, and I said that we were at

16 different positions. That was all, as far as our problems are concerned

17 with the army, or rather, Colonel Kotur. I think that it wasn't actually

18 a problem; it was a misunderstanding, rather.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: So the meeting lasted two minutes?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The meeting lasted longer than

21 that; however, the problem was resolved within two minutes.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: So what was the rest of the meeting about?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After that, I think that Obrad

24 Stevanovic spoke. I can't remember exactly, but it had to do with the

25 further course of the action, the tasks during the course of the action,

1 nothing special. I can't remember any details. There was nothing in

2 particular.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I'll ask you again, Mr. Ilic. What was the rest

4 of the meeting about? This is a very senior person in the MUP attending

5 a meeting with other senior people, including army officers that you're

6 present at, a meeting at which you have to deal with a particular problem

7 which is resolved. The meeting continues after that with your most

8 senior man present. Please tell us what the rest of the meeting was

9 about.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember exactly what it

11 was that we talked about. I can just give you a general answer, that the

12 meeting as it continued pertained to, or rather, was geared towards moral

13 and psychological preparation of a kind. In terms of this action having

14 to be completed in accordance with the order, it had to be done

15 completely.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: So nobody discussed how we might have better

17 communications between the army and the MUP as a result of the issue

18 which you had been able to deal with? That was never discussed?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I think that that was not

20 discussed.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Mr. Ilic, yesterday, at page 38, you were asked a series of

24 questions by Mr. Ivetic about whether you undertook any action based on a

25 written order or a map decision that had been entitled "Joint Command for

1 Kosovo and Metohija," or signed by the MUP staff in Pristina, or on the

2 order of any chief of the secretariat of the interior. Your answer to

3 each of those three questions was no.

4 But you don't know, or in 1998 and 1999, you didn't know how

5 anyone higher in the chain of command other than either your immediate

6 superior one level up - and I think you told us on one occasion Buha told

7 you about an order that came from Kotur - but other than that, you didn't

8 know who was higher up in the chain that might have been generating the

9 orders that eventually came down to you; right?

10 A. For the most part, I didn't.

11 Q. Well, besides that one time when you -- when Buha told you about

12 Kotur being the one, were there any other times or parts where you did

13 know more about higher up the chain from where an order came?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Okay. Thank you.

16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I don't mind this question at all; but

17 when ends, it says "to who?" You know, he asked him about Bosko Buha,

18 and do you know from what level this order came, but to who? It is too

19 general for us to draw a conclusion. The witness is talking about his

20 own chain of command, if I understand Mr. Hannis correctly, and he says

21 that Bosko Buha issued orders to him.

22 Now, the Prosecutor is asking who gave orders to Bosko Buha. Is

23 that the question, or is he asking something else? I really do not

24 understand this; it's not clear to me. If he's asking who gave orders to

25 Bosko Buha, that's the way he should phrase the question.

1 This way, it's in very general terms; it's very broad. I really

2 don't know what kind of conclusions you can draw on the basis of this. I

3 beg your pardon, I really waited to hear all the answers before waiting

4 to say this.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: The question's been answered, Mr. Fila.

6 So we'll move onto something else, Mr. Hannis.

7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

8 Q. You were also asked by Mr. Ivetic, at page 40 yesterday: "Did

9 you during the course of the war in 1999 hear or otherwise find out about

10 massacres of Albanian civilians on the part of the police, specifically

11 in places such as Meja, Izbica, Djakovica, Mala Krusa, Bela Crkva, Suva

12 Reka, or Kotlina."

13 Then you said: "Excuse me. Did you ask me during the war?"

14 The question was: "Yes."

15 Your answer was: "No."

16 Did you have occasion after the war to hear anything about

17 massacres of Albanian civilians on the part of the police in any of those

18 locations I named?

19 A. What I said was that during the course of the war, I had not

20 heard of these massacres; however, the massacre in Podujevo is not

21 mentioned here, the one that I found out about a few days after it took

22 place. We know who the perpetrators were, and we knew what was done

23 about that. So as regards these massacres, I found out about them after

24 the war.

25 Q. And how did you find out about them after the war?

1 A. As for Meja, I think it was in 2002 or 2003 through the media;

2 Izbica, sometime in 2001, likewise; as for Djakovica, to this day, I

3 don't know of that massacre. Does that refer to Meja or Djakovica in

4 particular? I don't know that; Mala Krusa, this is the first time I hear

5 of it; Bela Crkva, too.

6 Q. How about Suva Reka or Kotlina?

7 A. As for Suva Reka, around 2001 or 2002; and Kotlina, this is the

8 first time I hear of it.

9 Q. And Suva Reka, in 2001 or 2002, did you hear about that through

10 the media or some other source?

11 A. Yes, through the media.

12 Q. Did you hear about Colonel Mitrovic being alleged to have been

13 involved in that incident in Suva Reka?

14 A. I learned about that when he was arrested.

15 MR. HANNIS: Finally, we have an exhibit, P1723, which is a

16 report from General Lazarevic in May of 1999.

17 Q. Let's see if I can hand you a copy of that. Were you aware of

18 the existence of any mixed MUP and VJ check-points in 1999 in Kosovo

19 during the war?

20 A. I was aware of the existence of these check-points. They stopped

21 me a few times, too, and they conducted checks, although I was wearing a

22 uniform and although I was in an official vehicle. As far as I can

23 remember, I was moving along the axis towards Podujevo; that's where I

24 was stopped. The army check-point was an independent one, a

25 self-contained one, so it was only the army at that check-point.

1 Q. Okay. I want to ask you a question about something General

2 Lazarevic says here, and it's the fifth bullet point down from the

3 overall paragraph at the beginning. He says: "The work of mixed

4 check-points of the MUP and the military police units is fraught with

5 problems ..." --

6 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Cepic.

8 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. With your

9 permission, I think that this witness cannot give relevant information in

10 relation to a document that was issued by a completely different

11 structure and at a completely different level. Thank you.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let's hear what the question is and see if

13 he can deal with it.

14 Mr. Hannis.

15 MR. HANNIS: Yes. Thank you.

16 Q. It says: "The work of these mixed check-points ... is fraught

17 with problems and salient issues since the MUP tolerates criminal

18 activities of its members against the Siptar civilian

19 population - murder, rape, looting, robbery, aggravated theft ..."

20 Did you experience any of that? Did you see MUP tolerating

21 crimes by its members against the Siptar civilian population?

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.

23 MR. IVETIC: I know it's a pointless objection, Your Honour, but

24 this was asked yesterday --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well don't make it --

1 MR. IVETIC: It was asked and answered yesterday.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. If someone answers a question in chief --

3 are you saying in chief?

4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, in chief.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, this doesn't stop your opponent

6 cross-examining on it.

7 Mr. Hannis, please.

8 MR. HANNIS:

9 Q. Do I need to repeat the question, Mr. Ilic?

10 A. There is no need for that. I don't know of the Ministry of the

11 Interior or any unit tolerating the commission of such crimes. As for my

12 own unit, I can say quite precisely that we prosecuted such cases. What

13 is stated here is the theft of motor vehicles in particular. We have an

14 officer who was charged with regard to that kind of crime.

15 Q. And remind me, again, how many men were in the unit that you

16 commanded in 1999, approximately?

17 A. They were not under my command; they were under the command of

18 Bosko Buha therefore. There were about 400 of them; however, this number

19 went down as the war was nearing its end due to the losses sustained by

20 the unit.

21 Q. Well, apart from being an assistant, weren't you a company

22 commander for part of that time?

23 A. Yes. I was a company commander, and I was assistant commander.

24 Q. And as a company commander, you had approximately 120 men under

25 you, right?

1 A. No, it was up to 80 men.

2 Q. Okay. Thank you.

3 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

5 Questioned by the Court:

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ilic, before you first went to Kosovo, you

7 knew the position then held by Mr. Lukic within the SUP in Belgrade?

8 A. Yes, I did.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: What was that position?

10 A. Assistant chief of the secretariat of the interior in Belgrade

11 for police affairs.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you on occasion meet him in the course of your

13 work?

14 A. Yes, I did.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: How frequently?

16 A. From 1993 until 1996, I was commander of a police station in

17 Belgrade. Then, roughly once a month, we had meetings in the secretariat

18 in Belgrade; and, at these meetings, General Lukic was present, too.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And then after 1996, between then and 1998, did

20 you meet him from time to time?

21 A. That was not the job I had then. It wasn't indispensable for me

22 from that position to attend these meetings; so, therefore, we did not

23 meet up. Sometimes perhaps in the corridors, but that is insignificant.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: How did you learn that he was being moved to a

25 post in Kosovo ?

1 A. I think that I found out from my own superior officer in my home

2 unit in Belgrade.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Did he tell you officially?

4 A. No, no. I don't think so, but I cannot remember exactly now.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Have I understood correctly that Mr. Lukic was the

6 assistant head of the department of which you were part within the

7 Belgrade SUP?

8 A. No. He was assistant chief of the secretariat in Belgrade, while

9 the unit where I worked, that is to say, the police administration, was

10 only an organizational entity of that secretariat; that is to say, that

11 that is much lower than the position he had.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but you described him as the

13 assistant chief of the secretariat of the interior in Belgrade for police

14 affairs. All I'm asking you is whether I've understood rightly that he

15 is somewhere towards the top of the pyramid of the department that you

16 are part of much further down?

17 A. Exactly, exactly. Your understanding is correct. He was the

18 number two man in the secretariat.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying there was no official

20 announcement to the staff of the secretariat that he was being moved to

21 Kosovo?

22 A. I'm not aware of any such thing, whether there was an official

23 announcement, but I can assume there was at one of these meetings that

24 were held at the secretariat.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: What did you understand was the role he was to

1 play in Kosovo?

2 A. I didn't give it any thought.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: That wasn't my question. My question was: What

4 did you understand, from being told by your own boss that he was moving,

5 what did you understand was the role he was to play?

6 A. No. He didn't say, I mean my commanding officer, that he was

7 transferred. He said that he was sent to Kosovo, but he didn't say

8 anything more than that to me in any greater detail.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: And you say to us that you had no interest in what

10 he would be doing in Kosovo, even when you were sent there yourself?

11 A. At that moment, I had a lot of other work and a lot of other

12 interests. Perhaps I was interested; but on the basis of that interest,

13 I could not form an opinion or a judgement as to what it was that he was

14 doing there.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: So, for all you knew, he was being put in charge

16 of all police affairs in Kosovo?

17 A. By the very logic of things, that is what one could infer.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Could I take it from that answer that he was

19 senior enough in the police to be posted at that point to be in charge of

20 all police affairs in Kosovo?

21 A. That is what one could conclude, but I don't know whether that

22 would be the correct conclusion to draw.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I appreciate that.

24 Re-examination, Mr. Ivetic?

25 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. I'll start with the questions

1 from the Bench.

2 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

3 Q. You mentioned Mr. Obrad Stevanovic in your testimony yesterday

4 and today. Do you have knowledge if Mr. Obrad Stevanovic was senior to

5 Mr. Lukic within the structure of the MUP?

6 A. I don't know.

7 Q. Well, do you know how frequently Mr. Stevanovic was present in

8 Kosovo during 1999?

9 A. I do apologise. The previous question, does it pertain to 1998

10 and 1999 or does it pertain to the period before 1998?

11 Q. Let's do two questions: During 1998 and 1999.

12 A. During 1998 and 1999, I don't know; but if you're asking me about

13 the period before 1998, then that is a different matter.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic, if it sets your mind at ease, I'm not

15 suggesting for a moment that Mr. Stevanovic was not senior to Mr. Lukic.

16 My questions were of an entirely different nature.

17 MR. IVETIC: I understand that, and my questions are --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: And, indeed, the answer to the question who is

19 more senior in the structure won't be gleaned from this witness.

20 MR. IVETIC: From this witness, correct, correct. That's why I

21 asked the other question.

22 Q. Do you know, during 1999, during the Kosovo war, how frequently

23 Mr. Obrad -- General Obrad Stevanovic was present on the terrain -- was

24 present in Kosovo and Metohija, if you know?

25 A. I saw him two or three times, I think.

1 [Defence counsel confer]

2 MR. IVETIC:

3 Q. And how about General Djordjevic, do you know if he was -- strike

4 that. Let's move onto my other questions.

5 Today, you talked about reservists that were in your formation in

6 1998, police reservists. What -- were these police reservists engaged in

7 regular duties in your Belgrade SUP before being sent to Kosovo?

8 A. No. These were citizens who were doing their own jobs. They

9 were civilians, that is to say, working in their own companies, different

10 organizations, and they were engaged in Kosovo as police reservists.

11 Q. Were they within the formation structure of the SUP Belgrade

12 under the plan for the active and reserve police within the SUP Belgrade?

13 A. Yes, sometime in 1992/1993, around those years, successively.

14 [Defence counsel confer]

15 MR. IVETIC: No further re-examination for this witness, Your

16 Honour.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Just one other matter, Mr. Ilic. When you

20 returned to Belgrade from Kosovo, which we understand was on a number of

21 occasions, between June 1998 and June 1999 effectively, what position did

22 you then hold in Belgrade?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time, I was working with a

24 police brigade. Don't be confused by the name. Just because of the

25 122nd Intervention Brigade, I was working with the police brigade and I

1 was assistant commander there. That was my original unit; it was the

2 unit I belonged to at the time.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Between your shifts or stints in Kosovo, when you

4 were in Belgrade, were you resting simply or were you active in your

5 position as assistant commander of the brigade?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was active, except on long

7 weekends, and those would sometimes last for as long as five or six days.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: And what was the nature of the work done by that

9 brigade?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The focus of our work was on

11 securing public gatherings, especially football matches that were deemed

12 to be of high risk.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that brigade, therefore, also a PJP unit?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It is part of the 122nd

16 Intervention Brigade, part of that police brigade is. There is another

17 part that isn't: The Konjic [as interpreted] unit, dog handlers, and

18 units securing the headquarters of the police brigade itself.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.

20 MR. ZECEVIC: Just for the clarity, 24, line 25, "Konjic unit,"

21 it is not. It is the "unit of horses" actually, it's not the "Konjic

22 unit."

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Well, dog handling and horses?

24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yeah, that's right, which is -- but Konjic is a

25 city in Bosnia, that's why.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

2 I've now forgotten my next question, Mr. Zecevic. Just give me a

3 moment.

4 MR. ZECEVIC: Sorry.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean that from 1997, or perhaps 1996,

6 until the end of the war your whole working time was engaged in the PJP?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was with the PJP from the time it

8 was first set up in 1993.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But our understanding is that police officers or a

10 policeman may do a routine job in the SUP where they work and be only

11 part of the time part of the formation of the PJP. Is that a correct

12 understanding of the position of most?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is quite correct.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: But in your case, you were working with the PJP

15 both in Belgrade and in Kosovo, which suggests that 100 per cent of your

16 time was engaged with the PJP?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was sometime on the eve of the

18 war in 1998 that I started working with the police brigade. This unit

19 had a nature that was peculiar and different from all other PJPs. This

20 was the only permanent unit. All the other detachments were ad hoc, set

21 up as needed.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: That clarifies the position, Mr. Ilic. Thank you.

23 Mr. Ivetic.

24 MR. IVETIC: Arising out of that, just one or two questions.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

1 Further re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:

2 Q. Mr. Ilic, this PJP detachment in Belgrade that you were a part

3 of, you've already told us that the PJP, itself, was disbanded sometime

4 in, I think, 2001 or thereabouts. This police brigade in Belgrade, does

5 it still exist?

6 A. That's right, it still exists.

7 Q. And when you would return from Kosovo to work in the police

8 brigade in Belgrade, this police brigade in Belgrade, what specific tasks

9 in this police brigade in Belgrade did you undertake in between shifts in

10 Kosovo?

11 A. Securing football matches.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Does what you've just said mean that the brigade

13 is now part of the gendarmerie, since you indicated yesterday that the

14 PJP had been disbanded?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. Back in 2001,

16 the PJP was disbanded but not the brigade. As for the gendarmerie, it

17 was set up independently from the brigade. These are two unrelated

18 units.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: And just for the avoidance of any doubt, certainly

20 in my mind, prior to 2001, was that police brigade regarded as part of

21 the PJP?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was, part of it was.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Ilic. That completes your

25 evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give evidence. You

1 may now leave the courtroom with the usher.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 [The witness withdrew]

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, our next witness is Mr. Gvozden

6 Gagic.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, before he comes into court, there is one

8 matter that I think Mr. Hannis wants us to address.

9 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour, that procedural matter I spoke of

10 just before we recessed last evening; and, actually, Ms. Kravetz is here

11 to present a firmer version of the Prosecution's position than I did last

12 night.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 Ms. Kravetz.

15 MS. KRAVETZ: Thank you, Your Honour. This matter concerns an

16 outstanding application by the Lukic Defence to add exhibits to the

17 exhibit list for the third witness who is scheduled this week. This is

18 witness Mr. Paponjak. We were requested yesterday by the Legal Officer

19 of the Chamber via e-mail to indicate whether we intended to respond to

20 this motion, and we indicated we would respond orally given that the

21 witness is scheduled either to testify today or tomorrow.

22 Our position and our request to the Chamber is that this motion

23 to add exhibits be denied. The Defence is requesting that 65 exhibits be

24 added to their exhibit list to be tendered through this witness, and

25 they've indicated in this motion that these were exhibits that were

1 provided by the witness in the final preparation for his testimony.

2 These exhibits, in fact, were exhibits that were tendered through

3 this witness's testimony in the Milosevic Defence in May 2005. They have

4 been available and in possession of the Defence now for a number of

5 years, and also the transcript of this testimony has been in their

6 position for some years. This witness is not a new witness, he's been on

7 the Defence witness list since June of 2007, and the Defence have not

8 provided any valid reason why these 69 exhibits were not included in

9 their original exhibit list and are being added at this late stage.

10 I wish to indicate that, out of the 69 exhibits, 32 of them are

11 untranslated. In the Milosevic case, these exhibits were tendered and

12 marked for identification, and translations were requested. It is my

13 understanding that some of the translations were completed. We have no

14 way of tracking which ones have been translated because this was a

15 Defence request at the time, but we have not been provided with any

16 translations for these 32 exhibits. I don't know if the Defence has made

17 any attempts at obtaining these translations.

18 I also wish to add that this witness who's probably either going

19 to testify today or tomorrow has been scheduled as a 92 ter witness. We

20 were provided with his witness statement only yesterday, almost at the

21 end of the session, at 7.00 in the evening. The exhibits that the

22 Defence wishes to add are listed in the witness statement.

23 So, in addition to requesting that the motion be denied, we're

24 requesting that the paragraphs that refer to these statements -- to these

25 exhibits in the witness statement be removed, be stricken out.

1 Those are my submissions, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 Mr. Lukic, is that for you or for Mr. Ivetic?

4 MR. LUKIC: I think it's for me.

5 Regarding the exhibits, I think that they were all listed on

6 Thursday, and it's not the first time that the exhibits are listed in

7 this witness statement.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: That's something I don't understand. We're told

9 that there are 69 exhibits which you seek to have added to the 65 ter

10 list, which suggests that --

11 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: -- until that application is made, they're not

13 part of your case.

14 MR. LUKIC: That is true, it was not.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

16 MR. LUKIC: As we work on a day-by-day basis, we on Thursday

17 added these exhibits and actually tried to add these exhibits to our

18 list. These documents were really used during the Milosevic trial, so it

19 was not for the Prosecution -- the new knowledge about their existence.

20 So they were -- they knew the witness is coming, the evidence was used

21 during the Milosevic trial. So they were aware that those documents

22 would be used with this witness. It's nothing new for them, so I don't

23 think that it is any kind of ambush.

24 Regarding the translations, we tracked everything we could from

25 the Milosevic trial, and I think the documents that we found are also

1 included in both versions, B/C/S and English. So I don't think that -- I

2 don't see how the Prosecution can be surprised with these documents. And

3 regarding the translation, Mr. Ivetic I think has more data. Thank you.

4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, as you know, I've been --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, Mr. Ivetic.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue.

8 MR. IVETIC: As you know, I've been the part of the team that's

9 trying to deal with CLSS to get urgent treatment for translations that

10 are urgently required for upcoming witnesses. This statement once

11 obtained in the original B/C/S language, Serbian language, from the

12 witness was submitted to CLSS and was given a priority dead-line for

13 translation.

14 CLSS had advised us that the translation would be completed by

15 yesterday. Unfortunately, the translation did not come to us until late

16 in the afternoon on yesterday rather than the beginning of the business

17 day on yesterday. And as soon as we had the translation -- I mean, we

18 were not complaining about CLSS. We're just giving the facts that once

19 we got it back from CLSS, we sent it forward to the Prosecution.

20 As Your Honours are aware, CLSS has many, many other cases to

21 deal with and has many pending requests even from our team, let alone

22 other cases to deal with. This is a statement of some significant number

23 of pages that they did endeavour to get to us; and, unfortunately, they

24 did get it to us by the dead-line, but later in the day than both perhaps

25 they and we had hoped.

1 That is the reason why the translation of the statement was

2 disclosed to the Prosecution at the time that it was yesterday. That's

3 the only representation I can make with respect to that, that as soon as

4 it was available, it was presented to them. There was no holding back of

5 the statement on our part. It's purely a matter of the amount of work

6 that CLSS has to deal with.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: When was it presented to CLSS?

8 MR. IVETIC: Last week Friday, Your Honour, it was presented to

9 CLSS.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Now, what's the position about the 32

11 untranslated documents?

12 MR. LUKIC: Those documents are from Milosevic trial as well, so

13 we couldn't track the translations for these -- for those documents.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: So they have not even been presented for

15 translation?

16 [Defence counsel confer]

17 MR. LUKIC: You are right, Your Honour, no.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: At the end of last week, you indicated the

19 possibility of arranging for the attendance of other witnesses this week.

20 Are there any other witnesses apart from the one we're about to hear and

21 Paponjak for this week?

22 MR. LUKIC: We tried to bring more witnesses, but we are told

23 that they can come only on Wednesday night. So it would be -- would not

24 be possible for us to put anybody on the stand from Wednesday night to --

25 till Thursday morning.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

2 We'll proceed now to hear the other witness; and at one of the

3 breaks, we will give further consideration to what's been said and

4 indicate our decision.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours

7 [The witness entered court]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given this newly arisen

10 situation, while the witness is on his way, we have a talk scheduled for

11 Thursday afternoon between 2.00 and 3.00, and we would like to hold those

12 talks that morning, since it's quite obvious at this point that the Lukic

13 Defence will not be bringing any witnesses. We'll all be on our way by

14 Thursday afternoon, so this will be far easier for us. Please, if

15 possible, try to bear that in mind. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't rely on it, Mr. Fila, but we will bear it in

17 mind.

18 Mr. Gagic, would you please make the solemn declaration to speak

19 the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to you.

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

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

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. We have a problem, do we?

25 MS. GOPALAN: Sorry, Your Honours. Before we begin, I'd just

1 like to mention that two documents that are listed in the exhibit list

2 for this witness, that is, 6D612 and 6D613, are large documents and are

3 in B/C/S only. 6D612 is about 770 pages long and it's been marked for

4 identification; 6D613 is about 670 pages long. I'm just alerting the

5 Chamber to the fact that we have e-mailed the -- Mr. Lukic, the Defence,

6 to request any specific page references that they would be using if at

7 all with this witness. And just to let you know, we have not received a

8 substantive response yet, and, therefore, it will be problematic for me

9 to cross-examine this witness meaningfully on these documents if they are

10 used with him. Thanks.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Ms. Gopalan.

12 Mr. Lukic, can you assist on that?

13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. I think that we used this -- those

14 documents only as references, and we are not -- we won't be using them

15 during the cross -- actually, direct examination of this witness. Those

16 are two cases, Izbica and Pusto Selo cases. So there would be some

17 references during this testimony, but we won't be using the document.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Both are, as you say, marked for identification,

19 so they are -- or is it only one that's marked?

20 MS. GOPALAN: Yes, I think only one is marked.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Only 612?

22 MS. GOPALAN: Yes, that's right.

23 MR. LUKIC: And we have a problem because for us it's almost not

24 possible to have those translated. Those are two big documents. We'll

25 try to extract some pages in the future, but for now we haven't finished

1 that job yet. But most of these documents are photographs and some post

2 mortem exams.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll deal with 613 as and when it arises. As far

4 as 612 is concerned, already marked for identification, then any issue

5 over its final admission will have to be addressed when the translation

6 is presented. Meanwhile, if there are specific parts of either document

7 that you seek to cross-examine on, assuming 613 is at least marked for

8 identification, then you would have to do that today. If in the end it

9 turns out to be impossible for you to address parts of these documents

10 meaningfully, then when the translations are presented, no doubt you will

11 bring that to our attention before we have to decide one way or the other

12 whether to finally admit these documents.

13 Mr. Gagic, I think we've now dealt with the administrative

14 preliminaries. You will now be examined by Mr. Lukic.

15 Mr. Lukic.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 WITNESS: GVOZDEN GAGIC

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Examination by Mr. Lukic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Gagic.

21 A. Good morning.

22 Q. You have the binder in front of you, right?

23 A. I'm actually allowed to use it?

24 Q. Of course, you are.

25 A. Thank you.

1 Q. Will you please introduce yourself, tell us about your

2 background, tell us about your career briefly, please.

3 A. My name is Gvozden Gagic, born in 1954 in Serbia, I'm an ethnic

4 Serb, my religion is Orthodox. I reside in Belgrade. I completed my --

5 the primary and secondary education in Belgrade, then I did my regular

6 military term in Pristina. It took me 16 months to complete that. After

7 that, I began studying. I completed the high police school for the

8 interior, and then I also studied defectology.

9 After completing my studies, I got a job with the Ministry of the

10 Interior back in 1980. First, I worked in the Belgrade secretariat; and

11 then between 1996 -- or as of 1996, I started working with the Ministry

12 of the Interior of Serbia and I worked at the ministry HQ; the ministry

13 building itself, that's what I mean. So this would be a brief overview

14 of my career.

15 After that, I worked on crime prevention with the crime

16 prevention police; and until I retired in January 2006, I did all sorts

17 of different jobs. At the outset, I dealt with property-related crime

18 and junior delinquents. Between 2002 and my retirement, I dealt with

19 murder. I was the chief of the department that dealt with the

20 sex-related offences with the Belgrade SUP and the Ministry of the

21 Interior.

22 As of 2004, early in 2004, I became chief of the department for

23 discovering war crimes at the Ministry of the Interior secretariat in

24 Belgrade, it was a unit fighting organized crime; and in 2006 I

25 eventually retired once I had met all legal requirements for retiring.

1 Q. We have to make short breaks for the transcript.

2 You say that you were head of the department for preventing

3 murder and sex-related offences. Can you please name some crimes that

4 would belong to that group under the criminal code?

5 A. Most violent crimes, such as for murder, attempted murder, murder

6 causing public danger, causing general risks, grievous bodily harm,

7 slight bodily harm, and other crimes containing an element of violence;

8 but they are also related to other types of criminal offences, such as

9 those property-related that result in death, for example, robbery, and

10 the like. As for sex-related criminal offences, we're talking about

11 rape, attempted rape, indecent behaviour, committing rape of a minor,

12 cases of sexual abuse. This is the range of sex-related criminal

13 offences that I covered. For the most part, I investigated those.

14 Q. Thank you. What exactly was your job in March 1999 when the NATO

15 air-strikes began?

16 A. I headed the department that -- for sex-related crime, and that

17 was with the general crime section of Serbia's MUP.

18 Q. It seems that there was an overlap. Can you please repeat the

19 name of that.

20 A. Department for fighting the murder and sex-related criminal

21 offences, general crime section, crime police administration of Serbia's

22 MUP.

23 Q. So who headed the crime police administration of Serbia's MUP at

24 the time?

25 A. At the time and after, it was General Dragan Ilic.

1 MR. LUKIC: Is this -- it is a convenient time for me, Your

2 Honour, if it is for you.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Gagic, we have a break at this time every day.

4 I know you've just started your evidence, but we have to have this break

5 so that everyone can return refreshed. While we have it, would you

6 please leave the courtroom with the usher and we'll see you in about 20

7 minutes.

8 [The witness stands down]

9 JUDGE BONOMY: We shall resume at ten minutes to 11.00.

10 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.

12 [The witness takes the stand]

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gagic, may we continue?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Your glasses ready?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Did you go to Kosovo and Metohija before the air-strikes?

20 A. Before the air-strikes, I seldom went to Kosovo and Metohija.

21 Between 1997 and the air-strikes, I was in Kosovo only twice, two days at

22 a time.

23 Q. Let us move onto the period after the air-strikes commenced.

24 Were there any problems in the work of the UKP, that is, the department

25 of the crime police, in Kosovo and Metohija, as well as in the area of

1 Serbia as a whole?

2 A. Yes. There were problems with the air-strikes. Initial problems

3 arose caused by the bombings. Neither were the services completely ready

4 to work in wartime conditions, or at least in the conditions that were

5 imposed on us, nor did people have any such experience that could be put

6 to good use in terms of analogy. Therefore, at the very outset, serious

7 issues arose.

8 Q. Concerning the difficulties in the work of the UKP, was there a

9 decision made or a regulation put in place in order to resolve those

10 issues?

11 A. Yes. After the air-strikes began and after the first calls began

12 arriving from the department of the crime police, indicating that they

13 were not able to deal with the situation fully, the administration sent

14 an instructional dispatch sent to all secretariats including those in

15 Kosovo and Metohija. I'm trying to say that all secretariats in Serbia

16 proper and in Kosovo and Metohija received that.

17 After that, working groups were set up that toured the

18 organizations in the field trying to interpret that dispatch to the local

19 personnel, so as to enable them to proceed further.

20 Q. Concerning the implementation of the dispatch, did you -- were

21 you sent to Kosovo and Metohija as well?

22 A. I was, and I was tasked to visit all secretariats in Kosovo and

23 Metohija, to meet various chiefs of secretariats, chiefs of UKPs, and

24 crime police department chiefs, to explain the dispatch to them, and to

25 listen to any problems they might be encountering. The goal was to have

1 a uniform approach all over Serbia when proceeding further in the

2 production of regulation and documents following the work of various

3 bodies of the police.

4 Q. Before you went to Kosovo and Metohija, did you go to any parts

5 of Serbia proper with the same goal?

6 A. Before going to Kosovo and Metohija, I visited three secretariats

7 in Serbia itself; the one in Cacak, in Prokuplje, and in Jagodina. I

8 went there alone; whereas, to Kosovo and Metohija, I went with one of the

9 chiefs of the forensics department, so as to be able to provide better

10 instruction in terms of forensic work.

11 Q. Who was the person from the forensics department?

12 A. Zoran Radonjic.

13 Q. Who ordered you to go to Kosovo and Metohija?

14 A. The order was received from General Dragan Ilic.

15 Q. What was your task as a matter of fact?

16 A. My task was, first and foremost, to ensure that there is uniform

17 conduct in the implementation of the dispatch. All cases had to be

18 registered and all security-related events needed to be reported on,

19 including this new occurrence of NATO aeroplanes dropping bombs. Also,

20 uniform reports were supposed to be submitted, not as template forms but

21 rather in the sense of contents of those reports, as well as any further

22 actions taken following such reports including prosecution when the

23 conditions were such.

24 Q. You mentioned this new occurrence, the NATO bombardment. Can you

25 give us any other example of new types of incidents?

1 A. What we were able to observe and what we took measures against in

2 terms of prevention was the fact that many citizens in large towns were

3 in shelters. By that fact alone their property remained unguarded and it

4 could easily be targeted. During air-raids, most of the citizens were

5 inside the shelters.

6 On top of that, people were amassing goods, including dangerous

7 material such as oil, gas; that is to say, flammable substances that

8 could endanger the life and health of large numbers of groups, especially

9 if we are talking about apartment blocks and so on and so forth. Of

10 course, there were other occurrences as well. We can go into detail a

11 bit later if you wish.

12 Q. What was contained in the instructional dispatch of the 29th of

13 March, 1999?

14 A. The instructional dispatch contained something that we had

15 noticed before that, and that is that various secretariats and

16 departments of crime police reported in different forms and they were

17 sending reports to the ministry that differed amongst themselves. On

18 occasion, they would write criminal reports or they would submit

19 independent, separate reports. Sometimes, they would send official

20 notes.

21 There was a point at which people could no longer handle that

22 material. That was one of the main reasons to ask for that uniform

23 approach, and that the only difference should be the contents relating to

24 a particular event rather than the presentation of those events. All

25 elements needed for further activity in relation to those cases needed to

1 be ensured, so that prosecutors could use that to prosecute and to turn

2 that material into criminal reports.

3 We asked that all -- that reports be drafted concerning incidents

4 which had to do with the NATO air-strikes. These were the so-called

5 P4 --

6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: PU forms.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- which were to accompany

8 forensics reports and on-site investigation reports.

9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. What does the "PU" stand for --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

12 Ms. Gopalan.

13 MS. GOPALAN: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honours, but the

14 witness has mentioned an instructional dispatch of the 29th of March,

15 1999. I wonder if we could have an exhibit number for the document he's

16 referring to.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

18 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid we don't have that document with us, Your

19 Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Anything else you want to say on it, Ms. Gopalan?

21 MS. GOPALAN: No, thank you.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue, Mr. Lukic.

23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

24 Q. Mr. Gagic, what was ordered to authorised police officials to do?

25 A. Authorised police officials, when undertaking measures, had to

1 submit reports, as well as all other forms or documents, as they had been

2 doing previously.

3 Q. I have to interrupt you. Except for those forms and the red

4 tape, what else were they supposed to be doing?

5 A. They were ordered to carry out on-site investigations always, of

6 course provided that there is sufficient security for them in the field.

7 They were ordered to inform prosecutors about all events. There was an

8 additional request which had to do with a new way of conducting analyses.

9 Q. In addition to the prosecutor, were they supposed to inform

10 anyone else?

11 A. They had to inform the prosecutor about any particular event, and

12 an investigative judge was supposed to attend the scene; however, they

13 could delegate that to the organs of the Ministry of the Interior for

14 several reasons, of course in keeping with the Law on Criminal Procedure.

15 Q. Did you have to adjust the forms to the newly created situation?

16 A. In the initial phase, we were not adjusting or formatting the

17 templates or forms in the sense of the necessary elements that had to be

18 filled out. It was a piece of paper resembling the reports you

19 frequently encounter here concerning security-related events. Later on,

20 because there was an interruption in the chain of informing, a novelty

21 was introduced. Do you want me to explain it right away?

22 Q. Yes, please do.

23 A. Since there was an interruption in the chain of informing and in

24 communication, most buildings were bombed including the Pristina SUP

25 building containing the switchboard for most of Kosovo and Metohija.

1 Because of that, we could not continually monitor the situation and do

2 any statistics of those security-related events from the area of crime.

3 Before the introduction of the information system, and I mean to say an

4 IT system, we had a classical information system. Those who submitted

5 criminal reports were obliged to fill out the statistical forms or lists.

6 There were three types of lists: One was called KD1 pertaining

7 to crimes, which should contain a description of the crime according to a

8 strictly-prescribed set-up; the second is KD2 relating to perpetrators;

9 and the third is the PU list, that is, a list of events which in

10 themselves need not to be crimes but may be in cases of fires, et cetera.

11 Q. Thank you. Did you hold any meetings in Kosovo and Metohija; and

12 if so, with who?

13 A. In Kosovo and Metohija, I had meetings with the chiefs of crime

14 police, as well as with chiefs concerning general crime and forensics.

15 Sometimes, I wanted to meet them in the field or in Pristina or

16 elsewhere; and, sometimes, I visited them in their offices. I preferred

17 visiting them and holding meetings at their SUP seats, rather than

18 forcing them to come to see me for security reasons.

19 Q. Concerning that, did you have any meetings at the MUP staff?

20 A. I did; however, I was using the MUP staff as a facility to hold

21 meetings. At those meetings, there were no MUP staff members until I

22 became a member of the staff. In the initial phase, no one from the MUP

23 staff attended those meetings. I simply used their premises to hold

24 those meetings.

25 Q. And how long did you stay in Kosovo and Metohija that time?

1 A. That first time, I spent three days there. I visited all the

2 secretariats, I gave instructions, I heard what they had to say, I

3 recorded the problems, and when I returned to my organizational unit, I

4 reported about the situation as it was on the ground and the activities

5 that I undertook.

6 Q. In terms of your line of work in the MUP staff, who worked there?

7 A. In my line of work at that time, that is to say, from when the

8 NATO bombing started, Tomislav Blagojevic was there. He's from Krusevac.

9 And when the staff was established, he was sent by the appropriate

10 officers in the relevant period of time to be the assistant for crime for

11 that line of work.

12 Q. Do you know who was there in the MUP staff in your line of work

13 before him?

14 A. Novica Zdravkovic was.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in e-court

16 P1889.

17 Q. You have the exhibit before you, don't you?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What's the date on this document?

20 A. The 30th of May, 1999.

21 Q. About who?

22 A. This is a decision made by the then-head of the sector, Vlastimir

23 Djordjevic, and it has to do with the decision concerning

24 Lieutenant-Colonel Tomislav Blagojevic, who would no longer be working at

25 the MUP in this line of work.

1 Q. Can we see when Tomislav Blagojevic was sent to the MUP staff?

2 A. We see that he was sent on the 15th of February, 1999.

3 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Blagojevic was injured in Kosovo and

4 Metohija?

5 A. Mr. Blagojevic happened to be in the MUP building when it was

6 bombed, and he sustained light injuries on that occasion; however, the

7 fact that he happened to be in the building that time affected his

8 activity.

9 Q. Did Mr. Blagojevic go out into the field after he was injured

10 after the NATO bombing?

11 A. Well, as far as I know, he went out into the field rarely. I can

12 say that he practically did not; however, his work in the MUP staff in

13 terms of following crime developments was not really linked to going out

14 into the field.

15 Q. We see this decision in e-court, and do we see who it was that

16 sent Mr. Blagojevic there and who actually passed this decision?

17 A. I already mentioned Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic,

18 assistant minister, head of the sector public security.

19 Q. In relation to this first visit, who did you report to, in

20 relation to this first order, "nalog," on account of which you came to

21 Kosovo and Metohija?

22 A. I reported to General Ilic, who had given me the order in the

23 first place.

24 Q. After that, did you get yet another order to go to Kosovo and

25 Metohija; and if so, when and from who?

1 A. Throughout the period of the NATO bombing, I often went to Kosovo

2 and Metohija, always on orders from my superior, General Ilic or one of

3 his assistants or one of the chiefs of departments, but mainly it was

4 from Dragan Ilic.

5 The next time I went to Kosovo, this had to do with activities

6 regarding Pusto Selo, activities related to finding a large number of

7 unidentified bodies in the area of Pusto Selo, which is in the region of

8 Prizren.

9 Q. Do you know how this first information was obtained concerning

10 the existence of this grave in Pusto Selo?

11 A. The first information came on the basis of satellite imagery that

12 was broadcast. We had not known about the existence of this kind of

13 grave. Later on, we established it wasn't a mass grave in the classical

14 sense of the word mass grave. This had to do with a burial of a larger

15 number of bodies, but we do not know who it was who had buried the

16 bodies.

17 Q. Who ordered the exhumation and the post mortems of these bodies?

18 A. It was ordered by the investigating judge of the court that had

19 jurisdiction. It is on his orders that the entire exhumation was

20 conducted by the crime police department, and additional work was done by

21 the workers of the public company from the area of Prizren.

22 Q. What was your specific role on that occasion?

23 A. Well, since it had to do with a significant number of mortal

24 remains, and in view of the fact that the security situation was a highly

25 complex one, the post mortem had to be carried out as quickly as

1 possible. On that occasion, three institutes were engaged, or rather,

2 four institutes if I include the institute in Pristina; that is to say,

3 the forensic medicine institutes. These are institutions that do not

4 belong to the police system. These are medical institutions. It was the

5 forensic medicine institute in Belgrade, the forensic medicine institute

6 in Novi Sad, the forensic medicine institute in Nis, and the forensic

7 medicine institute in Pristina which was the host institute as well.

8 My job was to ensure all necessary logistics for the forensic

9 specialists and physicians, so that they could carry out their work

10 quickly, but of course not to the detriment of quality. On the contrary,

11 they had to work professionally at a high standard but as fast as

12 possible. So I was the logistics man; and in addition to the fact that I

13 provided accommodation and food for them, I also brought in a certain

14 number of bodies from Prizren, which is pretty far away to Pristina, so

15 that they could work at full capacity in a single day, so that there

16 wouldn't be any halts in their work. So I fully met that requirement as

17 well.

18 Q. In your opinion, was everything done in accordance with the ZKP

19 of the SFRY that was in force at that time?

20 A. Absolutely. The ZKP hadn't changed significantly in this

21 respect. All legal requirements were observed and all other rules that

22 are not envisaged by the ZKP, and these are the rules of burial and the

23 like, which was part of the work of the public company involved. So

24 everything was done in accordance with the ZKP and other laws and bylaws.

25 Q. What does "ZKP" mean? And please tell us what state is involved.

1 I think that there is a mistake.

2 A. The ZKP is the Law on Criminal Procedure.

3 Q. Is it the SFRY or the FRY?

4 A. At that time it was the law of the SFRY, or rather, no, the FRY.

5 Because republics did not have this law, it was the law of the FRY. That

6 was the time of the FRY, so it was the law of the FRY, too.

7 Q. Do you know what kind of reports were compiled in relation to

8 Pusto Selo?

9 A. Two types of report were filed in relation to Pusto Selo. One

10 type of report was of the individual type. It had to do with each and

11 every corpse and had been exhumed. These reports were signed by the

12 expert team that had carried out the post mortems, so that is the post

13 mortem record. And, finally, at the end of the activity concerned, a

14 single report was filed that was signed by all the participants in this

15 process. It was a compilation of all the activities that took place

16 during the course of those six days at the institute of forensic medicine

17 in Pristina.

18 Q. On that occasion, did you see a document of the Army of

19 Yugoslavia that had to do with clean-up, "asanacija," and could you tell

20 us something about that term, "clean-up," "sanitization."

21 A. As for this term, "asanacija," I first came across it on that

22 occasion when we were involved in these activities pertaining to Pusto

23 Selo, because this is not a term that is used in police jargon or in

24 police rules; that is to say, in bylaws regulating the work of the police

25 and the laws regulating the work of the police. Indeed, this came as a

1 novelty to me.

2 Since this new term had appeared, and I did not know exactly what

3 it meant and what it involved, first I took measures with a view to

4 familiarizing myself with the term of "asanacija," what it meant during a

5 war; and then I also had occasion to see a document, an order, "naredba,"

6 that had been issued by the army in relation to "asanacija,"

7 sanitization, by the army.

8 Q. What's the term that's used in the police or what are the terms

9 used in relation to finding corpses?

10 A. There is no special term that is used within the police in terms

11 of finding a single corpse or several corpses. Quite simply, this is an

12 on-site investigation according to the ZKP. The territory is called the

13 scene. So all these terms that are used in crime investigation are

14 well-known ones, and there are no special terms, let alone "asanacija."

15 Q. Who carries out activities that have to do with finding corpses

16 on the ground?

17 A. In relation to finding corpses on the ground, there is

18 exhumation, or rather, there are investigations that are taken in

19 accordance with the order issued by the investigating police by

20 authorised officers of the crime police. As a rule, a crime police

21 inspector heads the team involved, and the on-site investigation is

22 carried out by a senior crime technician. This rule can be changed as

23 well.

24 So the on-site investigation can be carried out in the absence of

25 an investigating judge if he duly authorises the organ of the interior.

1 Before the on-site investigation, the territorial prosecutor in charge is

2 informed about the activities that would be carried out on his territory;

3 and as a rule, the prosecutor is out on the scene in the case of serious

4 crimes.

5 Q. In addition to the court and the police that you've already

6 mentioned, are other structures involved, too, on the ground?

7 A. Yes, yes. Public services of local self government are involved

8 in these activities on the ground. Their task is to secure access to the

9 scene of the occurrence, especially if it is inaccessible. Firefighters

10 can be used if necessary, or rather, if it is necessary to clear the

11 ground, to do away with obstacles if any. But, usually, it is public

12 services that are used for that.

13 However, usually, there aren't many people employed in such

14 services within the local government. So if it is necessary to have more

15 people involved in order to make it possible to reach the scene of the

16 crime as soon as possible, fire-fighting units can be engaged as well.

17 Q. At that time, that is to say, during the course of the war, were

18 civilian and military judicial authorities active?

19 A. Yes. Throughout the NATO aggression and throughout the period of

20 war, both civilian and military organs functioned. I am not familiar

21 with the level of cooperation between these authorities, and I am not

22 aware of their internal jurisdictions, their internal divisions, too, and

23 other subdivisions, but I know that they functioned along parallel lines,

24 both types of authorities.

25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up in e-court

1 now 6D116. This has to do with 6D613, however, that's a document that

2 has not been translated and that is a lengthy document, but we will just

3 be using this shorter document that I first mentioned.

4 Q. I just wanted to ask you, while you were in Kosovo and Metohija

5 in May 1999, did you receive any information about the existence of

6 another mass grave?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] So, yes, now we have it in English,

9 too.

10 Q. Yes, please go on.

11 A. Yes. Towards the end of May and the beginning of July, or

12 rather, at the end of May, again satellite imagery showed a mass grave in

13 the area of Kosovska Mitrovica, in the municipality of Srbica, in the

14 village of Izbica. We hadn't known about this mass grave either. Also,

15 it was not a mass grave in the sense in which that term is used. It was

16 the burial site of several bodies at a particular locality that the

17 competent authorities had not been aware of before that, so that is why

18 it was probably termed as it was.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Whose satellite imagery was used to find this?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were commercial satellites

21 covering the area. This had to do with the NATO air-strikes, and this

22 type of satellite imagery was also being used by foreign TV crews. We

23 used those images, and those images were shown in our media as well.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: So how were you alerted to this site in Izbica?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The moment word was received about

1 this, it was the task of the crime police and the regular police to use

2 these criteria. Should I go on?

3 JUDGE BONOMY: No. Who was it that told you about this site?

4 Which organization?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly which

6 organization, but I think the image was shown on BBC. I can't be

7 positive; however, it may have been CNN. I got my assignment from

8 General Ilic, and the assignment was to establish the facts and

9 circumstances and to take the same sort of steps that I had taken in

10 Pusto Selo, to get a medical team in and that sort of thing.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: You've answered my question.

12 Mr. Lukic.

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

14 Q. Will you please just read paragraph 2, which starts: "On the 2nd

15 of June 1999 ..."

16 A. "On the 2nd of June, 1999, based on a written order of the

17 court, KRA number 107/99, members of the forensic and PD department of

18 the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP carried out forensic activities necessary to

19 document the scene, mark and transport the bodies, and to observe the

20 external description of the bodies."

21 Q. Were you preparing to be involved in the Izbica case?

22 A. Yes. Having remembered the Pusto Selo experience and how the

23 mechanism that we had devised at the time functioned really well, I

24 started my own preparations in terms of assembling a team of forensic

25 experts. The assignment to find the actual grave was received by people

1 from the Suva Reka -- from the Kosovska Mitrovica SUP department of the

2 crime police.

3 Q. Who were you informed by about this?

4 A. The first step I took in order to prepare and to pave the way for

5 the forensic experts was to go and see Dr. Slavisa Dobricanin, who was

6 the director of the forensic medicine institute in Pristina. I wanted to

7 see if there was a realistic opportunity to conduct autopsies of these

8 bodies at their institute.

9 We talked about this, and the next day Professor Dobricanin

10 informed me that he had been informed by the Kosovska Mitrovica

11 investigating judge that there would be no post mortem at the forensic

12 medicine institute in Pristina, rather, there would be an external

13 examination of the bodies on the site itself, and that this would be done

14 by forensic experts from the military medical academy in Belgrade.

15 This also spelled the end of my own involvement because I then

16 went on to inform General Ilic about this. I came across the Izbica case

17 at a later stage in the course of my activities, but we'll probably be

18 discussing this more at a later stage.

19 Q. What about the military medical academy, did you ever receive an

20 autopsy report about Izbica?

21 A. Due to the nature of my later work, and this was something that I

22 failed to mention in my introduction today when I introduced myself, I

23 found myself needing documents of this kind. This was a job that I did

24 outside the Ministry of the Interior, and this was work that I did for

25 Serbia's government. I didn't receive the documents at the time. I have

1 never received those documents, as a matter of fact, from the VMAs, the

2 military medical academies, forensic institute. I don't know what the

3 reasons might be for that. I can't say I exerted any pressure on them to

4 deliver those documents because I had assumed that maybe the trial itself

5 was to blame for this.

6 Q. You spoke about this kind of procedures followed by the police

7 when bodies are found, dead bodies. What about the standard procedure

8 when bodies are found? Can this be done by a committee, for example, set

9 up by officers from the VJ and the MUP?

10 A. No, it can't.

11 Q. What about you during your time in Kosovo and Metohija, did you

12 hold meetings with people from the VJ to discuss what the military liked

13 to term "asanacija," clearing up or cleaning up human remains?

14 A. I certainly had no formal meetings about this, about what they

15 call "asanacija," not a single one, not with the VJ or any other bodies

16 for that matter. There was something, however, that could possibly come

17 under this heading, and I mean the use of this military term.

18 I was in touch once with an officer of the VJ, and this had to do

19 with the information suggesting that quite a large number of bodies had

20 been found. It later turned out that this information was not entirely

21 consistent with the situation that I found when I arrived at the scene.

22 Q. What was the name of that VJ officer that you talked to?

23 A. Hasan Cizmic.

24 Q. Corovic?

25 A. Yes, yes, you're right. I apologise, Hasan Corovic.

1 Q. Thank you. Did Mr. Corbic complain to you in a way about the

2 police trying to shift the blame to the VJ?

3 A. That wasn't something that we talked about. I wasn't adamant

4 myself that those issues should be discussed. My only specific mission

5 was to verify this particular piece of information about Glogovac, the

6 Glogovac area, and there being quite a large number of human remains

7 there.

8 I ascertained at one point that this information was partly true,

9 and then I got in touch with this gentleman who was in charge of the

10 clean-up, or the "asanacija," as the military say. We agreed that he

11 would be taking additional steps about this, and that's where my

12 involvement ended. Danica Marinkovic, the investigating judge, was there

13 for the final part of our talk.

14 Q. Let's try to get the name right. This must be the third time.

15 The first time it was our mistake, and the second time it was

16 misrecorded. What was the name of this gentleman from the VJ?

17 A. Hasan Corbic.

18 Q. It's fine now. Did you perhaps hear at the time that there were

19 proposals to set up a joint committee of the VJ and the police?

20 A. No, I heard no such thing.

21 Q. A hypothetical question: Say, for example, a joint committee of

22 the VJ and the police, the MUP, was set up, could it possibly take over

23 the powers of the investigating judge in all the other bodies normally

24 involved in a procedure like this?

25 A. First of all, under the law, no such committee could possibly

1 have been established. Secondly, given the extent of the area to be

2 covered by such a committee and given the number of different events that

3 it would be covering, the committee would have had to comprise several

4 hundred persons; and given who was involved at the time, no such

5 committee could possibly have been set up.

6 A body could perhaps have been set up in order to monitor the

7 situation in terms of passing on information of what was going on, but

8 certainly not a committee in charge of conducting the entire procedure

9 from the time the bodies were found to the post mortem. Something like

10 that would have been entirely inconceivable.

11 Q. Could a committee like that have taken over the -- have assumed

12 the powers of an investigating judge?

13 A. No, not under the law that applied at the time, unless there was

14 an investigating judge, of course, who was a member of that committee.

15 Q. We heard that at the staff there were persons who shared your

16 line of work, and we heard who those persons were. What was their role,

17 the role, for example, of Mr. Zdravkovic or that of Mr. Blagojevic?

18 A. I can only talk about Mr. Blagojevic's role because the situation

19 was quite peculiar. Mr. Zdravkovic worked under peacetime conditions, as

20 it were; therefore, I can't vouch for anything I might say about him.

21 But about Mr. Blagojevic, for as long as the war went on, his

22 role - the state of war, I mean - his role was to collect intelligence by

23 cooperating with the crime police department or chiefs in charge of

24 certain types of crime, general crime, white-collar crime. They were to

25 discuss their respective situations in their areas regarding crime. He

1 was also to send reports to the crime police on a daily, weekly, and

2 monthly basis. He was an operative, and most of his work had to do with

3 the area in which the HQ was located. He didn't go out much. He

4 certainly went to no on-site investigations or anything like that.

5 Q. What about the staff or someone from the staff, did they have the

6 power to order you anything?

7 A. No.

8 Q. During your time in Kosovo and Metohija and until the 1st of

9 June, 1999, did you have any responsibility towards the leader of that

10 staff, Sreten Lukic?

11 A. Not towards Sreten Lukic, not towards any other member of that

12 staff, no responsibility whatsoever. The only commitment that I did have

13 in my own line of work was to report to whichever official was in charge

14 of crime. When I say "commitment," this isn't something that I'd been

15 specifically ordered to do; I mean, to get in touch with them. Sometimes

16 I was in Kosovo without necessarily talking to that officer. It wasn't

17 from Pristina; it was from a different place.

18 When I say "commitment," what I mean is a commitment in terms of

19 exchanging information with this person or another member of the staff,

20 information concerning the security situation along roads that I was

21 expected to be travelling, in order to avoid any danger to my own life or

22 those of other passengers and in order to ensure that my task would be

23 carried out in a timely manner.

24 Q. What about Blagojevic, did he have the power to order anything to

25 the UKPs of the SUPs in Kosovo and Metohija?

1 A. No. He couldn't order any tasks to be executed. He could only

2 pass along orders that he had received from the UKP in Belgrade, in a

3 purely technical sense. The MUP headquarters in Belgrade had no

4 communications. For the most part or throughout most of the period we

5 are talking about, it had no direct communication with the SUPs because

6 the communications systems had been damaged or disrupted.

7 Q. Are you aware of the fact that General Dragan Ilic held meetings

8 in Kosovo and Metohija during the air-strikes?

9 A. Yes. I know that General Ilic visited Kosovo and Metohija during

10 the air-strikes. There was this one time he was spending some time in

11 Kosovo and Metohija, and we saw a lot of each other during that period.

12 I know he was meeting chiefs of the UKP and I assume chiefs of the

13 secretariat.

14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have Exhibit D1596 [as

15 interpreted] -- P1996.

16 Q. Mr. Gagic, this is a record, rather, minutes of a meeting held of

17 the MUP staff dated the 7th of May, 1999. Do you know that accompanying

18 General Ilic in Kosovo and Metohija were also chief of the KTC Aleksic

19 and sector chief, Sinisa Spanovic, in the first days of May?

20 A. Yes, yes. I know about that and I saw them at the time.

21 Q. Page 1 clearly shows that at number 2, right, of this document,

22 right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you please explain what "KTC" stands for? That's the first

25 thing?

1 A. "KTC" means criminal technician centre. This is a seat of the

2 criminal technician centre in Belgrade, and they are in the MUP building.

3 They carry out on-site investigations. There is a centre that deals with

4 forensic investigations. It's also a centre that deals with the

5 technical aspect of any investigation. They collect and secure evidence,

6 any evidence found, and they also do DNA analysis. They started that

7 recently.

8 They don't deal with operative technology, meaning interception

9 devices or anything like that. These are the SOCOs. They deal with

10 analysing crime scenes and taking all the technical steps normally taken

11 during an investigation or an inspection of a crime scene.

12 Q. [Microphone not activated]

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sinisa Spanovic was chief of the

15 search sector.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. I'm sorry, my question was not recorded since I forgot to switch

18 my microphone on. The question was: What was Mr. Spanovic's job? Then

19 you answered the question. Thank you.

20 What was the job of this department?

21 A. The search department searches for perpetrators of crimes

22 irrespective of whether a search was initiated by the police or by any of

23 the courts. They also search for objects as well as persons.

24 Q. Let us please go to page 8. I wanted to ask you this: Did you

25 know that the chief of the administration of crime police, General Ilic,

1 held meetings with chiefs of crime police departments in Kosovo and

2 Metohija in early May?

3 A. Yes, I know that. I know that the chief of the UKP, General

4 Ilic, held a meeting in early May with chiefs of the crime police; that

5 is, chiefs of the various UKPs. However, I did not attend the meeting.

6 Q. Can we see that from the first bullet point when Major-General

7 Ilic Dragan is addressing the meeting on the 5th of May?

8 A. Yes. On the 5th of May at the SUP seat, a meeting was held with

9 the chiefs in Kosovo and Metohija providing further guide-lines for the

10 work of the crime police.

11 Q. Did you attend the meeting described by General Ilic here?

12 A. I did not attend.

13 Q. What can be seen from the bullet point number 2? What

14 information did General Ilic pass on at this MUP staff meeting?

15 A. The tasks were clearly defined with the assessment of the MUP

16 that measures were undertaken; however, insufficient efficiency was

17 achieved in prosecuting all types of perpetrators in the area of K and M.

18 Simply put, it would mean that all measures were undertaken, as well as

19 additional activities that we had to apply because of the newly created

20 situation, in order to improve the work and methods used; however, but

21 that we were still dissatisfied with the results in Kosovo and Metohija.

22 There were many reasons for that, most of which were objective.

23 Q. Bullet points 4 and 7, please, read that to yourself.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did General Ilic devise the plan to sanitize the terrain?

1 A. From this document, one would conclude so; however, I did not see

2 the plan. In certain aspects, it resembles "asanacija," but I am unable

3 to provide any further explanation of the two terms.

4 Q. Did General Ilic tour the SUPs in Kosovo and Metohija in May

5 1999?

6 A. Yes. He visited all SUPs in Kosovo.

7 Q. Do you know whether the staff created any plans to sanitize the

8 terrain?

9 A. I'm not familiar with any such documents. Had it been in

10 existence, I probably would have known about it because later I became a

11 member of the staff.

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Please bring up 6D1054 in e-court.

13 Q. You have that in your binder if it's ease why are for you to have

14 a hard copy.

15 A. I find it easy enough to read from the screen.

16 Q. However, I'm kindly asking you to find that hard copy because

17 we'll have to move onto page 2. What kind of a document is this?

18 A. The title is, "Order for official travel," and that's precisely

19 what it is.

20 Q. Who was the order issued to?

21 A. It was issued to General Dragan Ilic, chief of the UKP of the

22 Republic of Serbia on the 23rd of May, 1999. He was supposed to travel

23 on that day to Pristina. It was issued by an authorised superior, this

24 being Vlastimir Djordjevic, the sector chief in terms of hierarchy.

25 Q. On page 2 that is on the screen, can you tell us from between

1 what dates General Ilic stayed in Kosovo? Can we see that?

2 A. In the upper left-hand corner, we can see the figures the 23rd of

3 May at 700 hours; and just below, it says the 1st of June at 2000 hours.

4 The first date is the day and hour of departure, and the second one is

5 day and time of return. From the rest of the text, one concludes that

6 Dragan Ilic spent ten days in Kosovo and Metohija. Per diem, at the

7 time, was 96 dinars --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: All right, all right. We can read these details.

9 Come on, Mr. Lukic, let's control the witness and deal with things we

10 need to deal with. All he needed to tell us about this was whether it

11 looked genuine or not, then we can read the rest for ourselves.

12 It's an expenses claim, for goodness sake.

13 MR. LUKIC: For our case, it's crucial to prove that this

14 gentleman spent ten days at that time in Kosovo and Metohija.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, all we have is his expenses claim. Bring

16 him to tell us, if you want, but that's his expenses claim. That's as

17 far as it goes. That's all the witness is doing, reading out his

18 expenses claim.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Gagic, do you know whether Dragan Ilic was, indeed, in Kosovo

21 and Metohija at the time?

22 A. I do know that he was in Kosovo; however, we did not meet.

23 Q. Thank you. Do you know what tasks he performed on that occasion?

24 A. No.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: How do you know he was there?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I do because I had

2 conversations with the chiefs of crime police with whom I had contacts

3 before that and after that. Indirectly, I found out he was there.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 MR. LUKIC: Give me one second, please.

6 [Interpretation] Could we please have Exhibit P1811 brought up on

7 the screen.

8 Q. While we're waiting for the exhibit, I wanted to ask you this:

9 Were you sent to Kosovo and Metohija as a MUP staff member; and if so,

10 when?

11 A. I was sent to Kosovo and Metohija to be a member of the staff as

12 of the 1st of January -- excuse me, the 1st of June, 1999, following a

13 decision dated the 31st of May, 1999, signed by Minister Vlajko

14 Stojiljkovic.

15 Q. While you were in Kosovo and Metohija, before you became a staff

16 member during 1999, did you ever see Radoslav Djinovic at the MUP staff?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Is it Radoslav?

19 A. Yes, Radoslav.

20 Q. Do you know him otherwise?

21 A. Yes, I know him well. We worked together before the Kosovo

22 events and all the way up to my retirement. We had intensive contacts.

23 Q. Let us go back to the period when you were a member of the staff.

24 What was the focus of your engagement and the engagement of the staff

25 after you became its member?

1 A. I spent only a brief period of time as a member of the staff in

2 its -- in that current composition. The period lasted for only 20 days.

3 Ten days after the new composition of the staff was introduced, the

4 Military Technical Agreement was signed, preceded by a UN security

5 resolution number 1244.

6 My focal tasks were to organize the withdrawal from Kosovo and

7 Metohija as envisaged by the technical military agreement. At a certain

8 point, all workers of the Ministry of the Interior, as well as the army,

9 were supposed to leave Kosovo and Metohija. Mostly, I dealt with

10 organizational preparation, and we began being active since it was the

11 time of Izbica when I worked on the preparation; and, after that, the

12 Izbica situation was no longer dealt with.

13 Q. You mean it was dealt with by someone else?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Let us please have a look at 6D475

16 next.

17 Q. Do you have that before you?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. At that time, prior to the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Serb forces

20 from Kosovo, were you sent to any towns in Kosovo and Metohija?

21 A. Yes. I was sent, following a meeting in Pristina, where we were

22 briefed and told that in the area of Pec, the security situation is

23 becoming more complex, especially after the Military Technical Agreement

24 had been signed and the resolution put into force, to Pec to see what it

25 was all about and what the degree of complexity is.

1 I was there to try, based on my knowledge and experience, to

2 suggest measures to improve the situation in terms of security, and I was

3 provided -- supposed to provide feedback.

4 Q. Thank you. On this document, in the heading, it says: "The

5 staff of the ministry," the date is the 13th of June, 1999. Whose name

6 can be found in the signature block?

7 A. Assistant Minister Lieutenant-General Obrad Stevanovic.

8 Q. At the time, you were a member of the staff?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What about Mr. Stevanovic?

11 A. As far as I know, he was not.

12 Q. We'll get to that later using the MUP staff address for

13 documents. Do you know of any other instances when documents or

14 dispatches are being or were being sent from the staff by people who were

15 not members to the staff; however, in the heading, we still had ministry

16 staff?

17 A. Yes, I know of such instances.

18 Q. Upon your return from Kosovo and Metohija, what body was formed?

19 A. After return from Kosovo and Metohija in mid-July 1999, two

20 bodies were formed: One was called commission for the implementation or

21 application of the Military Technical Agreement; and the second one was

22 the seat of the staff of KiM, in short APKiM. Its seat was in

23 Kursumlija. The former body met occasionally only; whereas, logistics

24 was located in different places. In the work of the commission,

25 representatives of several different institutions took part.

1 Q. Who was appointed the head of staff that you mention here?

2 A. The head of the staff was the then-Colonel Dragan Bozovic; he

3 passed away.

4 Q. Did you have a role on this staff?

5 A. At the beginning, I was the one and only assistant, and later on

6 I was one of the assistants. My line of work was crime investigation

7 because crime went up during the course of a few months.

8 Q. Did this staff deal with missing persons?

9 A. Yes. Just a moment, please.

10 Q. Was any other body dealing with missing persons?

11 A. Yes. The secretariats that were dislocated in different

12 localities in Serbia, and this staff was doing that, too. In addition to

13 that, all other secretariats had the obligation to receive records and to

14 take eye-witness statements or family member statements, and then this

15 would be sent by the secretariat to the staff and, of course, to UNMIK.

16 Q. At the time, did you cooperate with UNMIK in terms of dealing

17 with missing persons?

18 A. This commission for the implementation of the Military Technical

19 Agreement had several components. One of the important ones was a

20 subcommission that dealt with the question of missing persons only. On

21 it were representatives of UNMIK. I was there, or rather, the

22 representatives of the Serbian side, and of the ICRC, the International

23 Committee of the Red Cross.

24 Q. When you went from -- to Kosovo and Metohija from time to time,

25 and after you became a member of the staff, did you have any knowledge

1 about alleged crimes, those alleged in the indictment and especially

2 murders? We have looked at the indictment.

3 A. No. I didn't have any knowledge about that. I only knew what

4 was being done in relation to Pusto Selo and Izbica. I did not have any

5 other knowledge.

6 Q. Do you know, for example, about the people who were buried in

7 Izbica? Did they die in fighting or was their death due to crimes

8 committed against them?

9 A. I told you I never got any records from Izbica, but now I'm not

10 dealing with investigations and things like that. I'm not dealing with

11 the prosecution of war crimes. I am in a different line of work, so that

12 is not that meaningful for me now. I cannot talk about what the injuries

13 sustained were, and I cannot claim that if somebody was injured by a

14 fire-arm that this necessarily means a crime. It doesn't rule out that

15 possibility, but anyway that is for forensic experts to say.

16 Q. Did you know anything about the transport of bodies from Kosovo

17 and Metohija to Serbia proper?

18 A. No.

19 Q. When was it that you first heard of this?

20 A. The first time I heard of this was when it was published in the

21 media; and, also, the Ministry of the Interior acted in order to reveal

22 these facts to find the locations, to carry out exhumations,

23 identification of corpses, corpse inspections, and so on. Then, later

24 on, when mortal remains were handed over, then I participated in that

25 personally.

1 Q. In your opinion, the public security sector, did it take all

2 measures and was their intention serious to find out everything in

3 relation to the bodies that had been found?

4 A. As for the public security sector and the police in general, and

5 as a matter of fact all other organs not only of the police, indeed all

6 necessary measures were taken in order to deal with this professionally,

7 efficiently, fast, and in a humane way. Also, about 800 bodies were

8 found in these locations and 760 were identified. This kind of

9 percentage was never recorded in any war conflict at international level.

10 So the quality of work was professional, at a high level, and timely as

11 well.

12 Q. Did you take part in the work of the operative team for

13 cooperation with The Hague Tribunal?

14 A. Yes. After the Law on Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal was

15 passed, and after the ministries that were duty-bound to cooperate with

16 The Hague Tribunal were designated, every ministry set up a working body

17 of its own. We called ours the operative team for cooperation with The

18 Hague Tribunal, and I took part in its work from the very outset. I did

19 not work there until the end because actually this body never became

20 defunct formally, but it did stop working probably because there was no

21 further need for this.

22 Q. Who was the head of this?

23 A. The head of the operative team was Dragan Furdulovic, the

24 then-head of the division for the investigation of war crimes in the MUP

25 of Serbia; and, at the moment, when I became head of this division and

1 when Dragan Furdulovic was transferred elsewhere, I launched several

2 initiatives to change the head of the operative team because, objectively

3 speaking, he could no longer deal with this work. But the head of team

4 was never changed and, therefore, the body became defunct.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

6 MS. GOPALAN: Just to note, Your Honours, that the witness's

7 involvement in the operative team for the cooperation with The Hague

8 Tribunal I don't believe is listed in his 65 ter summary as an area that

9 he would testify to.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: We are checking this, Your Honour.

13 But I can move on anyway.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MR. LUKIC: I think that it's an appropriate time for our break.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: You have much longer?

17 MR. LUKIC: No, not actually. Probably another -- less than half

18 an hour.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. We'll break now.

20 Mr. Gagic, we have to have another break, for half an hour this

21 time. Please leave the courtroom with the usher.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE BONOMY: And we shall resume at ten minutes to 1.00.

24 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

25 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.

1 [The witness takes the stand]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

3 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gagic, can we?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Please give me answers that are as brief as possible so that we

7 finish as soon as possible. Do you remember interviewing Bozidar Protic?

8 A. Yes. I do remember that I conducted an interview with Bozidar

9 Protic in relation to his testimony, when he was summoned to testify

10 before the Hague Tribunal. Before that, he had already been interviewed

11 in the MUP concerning his knowledge about mass graves.

12 Q. Did Protic tell you, officially or unofficially, that when he

13 went to Kosovo and Metohija, in order to transport the corpses, he made

14 telephone contact with someone in Pristina who he then thought was Sreten

15 Lukic?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Gopalan.

19 MS. GOPALAN: Your Honours, just to note, again, that

20 Mr. Protic's testimony is not mentioned in the 65 ter summary.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: I see that. Are you taking any point about that?

22 MS. GOPALAN: Yes, I am, to the extent that I would not have had

23 the opportunity to prepare to cross-examine the witness on this area of

24 evidence.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you give me an indication of what you might

1 have done, because we've recently had this very issue explored in some

2 very detail.

3 MS. GOPALAN: That may be the case, Your Honour. But in terms of

4 specific steps I would have taken, if I had advanced notification, for

5 example, would have been listing exhibits that relate to Mr. Protic, to

6 have familiarized myself with his testimony given during the Prosecution

7 case. While the issue might have been addressed with other witnesses in

8 the course of this trial during the Defence case, I would have certainly

9 have reviewed the material in detail if I had advance notice.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Why was notice not given, Mr. Lukic?

12 MR. LUKIC: I saw that the Exhibit Number P586 is on the list of

13 the Prosecutor and that's Protic's statement given to this group.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But the issue at the moment is why there's

15 no reference to this in your 65 ter summary.

16 MR. LUKIC: The reason just yesterday or the day before in the

17 conversation with this witness, and I'm finished with this topic. I'm

18 not going to dwell on it anymore.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 Just give us a moment.

21 [Trial Chamber confers]

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, this could have caused real difficulty,

23 but because the witness is likely to be here tomorrow and because the

24 subject is so well-known and has been explored recently, and, therefore,

25 the Prosecution are in a position to prepare themselves for tomorrow we

1 will not insist on disregarding that evidence. At the same time, we

2 would encourage you to be clear in these 65 ter lists, even to the point

3 of seeking revisal to the notice in relation to a witness where a

4 particular issue is going to be addressed that's clearly of importance in

5 the trial.

6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 Q. [Interpretation] Could you please tell us, just in a few words,

8 about the bodies that you took part in after the signing of the Military

9 Technical Agreement?

10 A. As I've already mentioned, I worked in this commission for the

11 implementation of the Military Technical Agreement, where I cooperated

12 with KFOR and UNMIK. After that, I actively participated in the work of

13 the coordination centre for Kosovo and Metohija, where I led the bureau

14 for missing persons. I also worked on the commission of the state union

15 of Serbia and Montenegro for missing persons pertaining to the entire

16 territory of the former Yugoslavia. For three years, I was also chairman

17 of that commission. Now that is the commission of the Republic of Serbia

18 for missing persons, and I am an advisor to the chairman of that

19 commission, Veljko Odalovic.

20 Q. Were you and organizations that you cooperated with interested in

21 working on uncovering crimes committed in the relevant period of time?

22 A. The activity of these organizations and the degree of their

23 interest was very low. I state that with full responsibility because

24 from the very moment I started cooperating with these organizations, I am

25 primarily referring to KFOR and UNMIK, we lost a lot of time over legal

1 and administrative rules that we were trying to adopt rather than dealing

2 with the subject matter itself.

3 What is characteristic and atypical is that KFOR made a one-sided

4 decision to exclude the safety of citizens in Kosovo and Metohija from

5 the province of work of this commission. Quite simply, they wanted to

6 disband that part of the team for cooperation, so he did not want -- they

7 did not want UNMIK or us to take part in the further work of this body.

8 At our initiative after this decision taken by KFOR, we were

9 compelled to speed things up and to set up a new body to cooperate with

10 UNMIK. That was the committee for police cooperation on the basis of a

11 protocol on cooperation that was signed, and it was based on that. It is

12 in function to the present day, but not entirely because the subject I

13 deal with, missing persons, was transferred to this commission for

14 missing persons that I spoke of earlier.

15 Also, with regard to the uncovering of crimes, UNMIK and KFOR

16 expressed no interest whatsoever in what was going on before they

17 arrived. However, their interest was low, so I think that we managed

18 only on one occasion, in the case of the killing of the family Stolic

19 from Obilic, we managed to set up a joint team that worked on the

20 uncovering of this crime, this murder. Thanks to our crime policemen,

21 evidence was found in terms of the commission of this crime.

22 Regrettably, the perpetrators have not been prosecuted yet.

23 The same situation occurred in relation to the documentation that

24 we submitted to them, and this has to do with a case that we call the

25 severed heads. A group of Albanians can be seen in a photograph, and

1 they are holding in their hands severed heads.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

3 Ms. Gopalan.

4 MS. GOPALAN: My apologies for interrupting again, Your Honours.

5 Just to note that the work of the commission for missing people was not

6 mentioned in the 65 ter summary. I didn't mention it earlier on in

7 the -- during the witness's testimony because it seemed to me that the

8 question could have been answered in a yes and no manner. This is at

9 line 72, 10. However, the witness has been speaking about this

10 commission for quite a while now, and, therefore, I just wanted to draw

11 the Court's attention to this.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic, there's no sign of this in your 65 ter

13 summary either.

14 MR. LUKIC: I will move on then.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Working within their UKP, which is

18 something that we gave notice about, did you take part in the arrest of a

19 group that was colloquially referred to as the Skorpions; and if so,

20 when?

21 A. As head of the department for the uncovering of war crimes, in

22 2005, I took part in the arrest of the group called Skorpions. I am duty

23 bound to say that this is a group that committed crimes in

24 Bosnia-Hercegovina. This is a well-known group, the Skorpions. The case

25 is that of Treskavica, the killing of several civilians in relation to

1 Srebrenica. In relation to --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop there. You were asked if you had

3 taken part in the arrest; and if so, when. I don't think it's of

4 relevance to our case that there was an arrest in Bosnia. If you were

5 involved in arresting them in relation to Kosovo, please tell us about

6 that.

7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to ask you about this.

8 Q. The persons arrested on account of crimes committed in the area

9 of Srebrenica, were they the persons who committed the crimes in

10 Podujevo?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Which was the unit that was in Podujevo, the members of which

13 committed murders in 1999?

14 A. That was the SAJ reserve unit, colloquially known as the

15 Skorpions.

16 Q. Thank you very much.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have P1188.

18 Q. You have the document in front of you, don't you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What's this dispatch about? There are two, as a matter of fact,

21 right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. This is an amendment to a previous dispatch. One is a dispatch

24 and the other one is an amendment or a modification of the previous one.

25 The chief of crime police of Kosovo secretariat is here being called to a

1 meeting in order to bring documents, and the documents are specified in

2 this dispatch and other forms of consultation as well.

3 Who drew this up?

4 A. I did.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this still on the subject of the Skorpions?

6 MR. LUKIC: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we haven't the answer to whether this

8 witness was involved in arresting them or not, and when. We've lost

9 sight of that, have we?

10 MR. LUKIC: But you instructed us to leave the subject if it's --

11 this arrest is not connected with Kosovo.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry. So he wasn't involved in Kosovo?

13 MR. LUKIC: No.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: That's fine. Thank you.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. You drew up this dispatch. Why are you sending this dispatch to

17 anyone?

18 A. This was a perfectly regular way to communicate with the chiefs

19 of the crime police whenever we needed to meet or agree any further

20 activities.

21 Q. What's the amendment about?

22 A. The previous dispatch, at the second-to-last item, talks about

23 the overall number of bodies found, how they were recorded, gender, age,

24 that sort of thing. The amendment was about documents being forwarded in

25 relation to unidentified identicals. That being the only amendment, it

1 wasn't necessary to forward documents about all the bodies found, but

2 rather those unidentified alone.

3 Q. What does the header say and what does the date seem to be?

4 A. MUP of the Republic of Serbia, MUP staff, the 28th of May, 1999,

5 Pristina.

6 Q. What about the signature line?

7 A. This is not the original copy and the signature reads,

8 "Distributed from the staff," but normally you find the signature of

9 whichever operator produced the electronic copy. The original contains

10 the signature of the head of staff, Sreten Lukic.

11 Q. Were you at the time a member of the staff?

12 A. No, I wasn't.

13 Q. Why are you sending this dispatch from the staff? We see the MUP

14 staff in the signature line. You claim that Sreten Lukic's signature was

15 on the document as well.

16 A. Just a small correction. We see my signature on the document,

17 but the typed-up version read Sreten Lukic, just as the header was made,

18 and then the head of staff was actually Sreten Lukic. But the signature

19 is mine, and it has the word "for" right in front of it because I used

20 both. I'm sending a dispatch, although I'm no staff member, no member of

21 the staff at the time, because this was a way of communicating.

22 Say, for example, I'm somewhere in Kosovo, I'm in a position

23 where I need to send someone a document, any kind of document, somewhere

24 in Kosovo and Metohija to do with my line of work, my line of work being

25 the work of the crime police. I have to use the number that belongs to

1 my administration, and I have to send this dispatch from the seat of the

2 ministry. Since I am out in the field, I use the staff instead. It is

3 on behalf of the staff that I call this meeting, but I hold this meeting

4 on behalf of the crime police administration.

5 Q. If we look at the document we see that there is a reference and

6 it reads: "Pursuant to PU and KU ..."

7 Are these the forms that we discussed earlier on and that you

8 modified?

9 A. Yes. These are the forms that I established and I modified the

10 forms. I tailored them to suit the needs of this war situation. I

11 envisaged all the categories, perpetrators being active-duty military

12 officers or member of the police and that sort of thing, because the

13 earlier forms had none of that. So, as I said, these are the very forms

14 that I had ordered to be made.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we see the signature? At the moment I'm not,

16 I'm afraid, following this.

17 MR. LUKIC: This is a dispatch, so there is no signature on this

18 type of document.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: So what's the reference, then, to signature that

20 you've just been asking?

21 MR. LUKIC: The witness just expanded his answer, telling us that

22 there was a document on which he is aware about existing -- existence of

23 his signature, but we don't have it.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: There is an answer: "The original contains the

25 signature of the head of staff, Sreten Lukic."

1 MR. LUKIC: I asked whether there was, but I was corrected by the

2 witness that there was his signature on that; only the name was of the

3 Sreten Lukic, typed.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Clarify this a little. You said, and I don't know what was

7 recorded, when you signed documents, you would put a word right in front

8 of the signature?

9 A. Yes, "for" or "on behalf," and I used both in the case of this

10 particular dispatch. As far as I remember, I used the word "for."

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean you were signing it on behalf of

12 Mr. Lukic?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. I still don't understand then, I'm afraid.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I signed this dispatch in my own

16 name; however, I'm dispatching it from the staff for the sake of

17 completeness in terms of procedure because I'm now in Kosovo. I should

18 go to Belgrade to send this dispatch, again it must be sent to Pristina

19 to the staff, and then be distributed to the secretariats.

20 I am taking a shortcut here. I am in the staff; from there, I

21 send it to chiefs of the UKP across the secretariats; I sign the dispatch

22 in front of the name and surname that is already typed up in the

23 document, just as the header is.

24 It is at the bottom of the, page in this and other documents,

25 that you find the signatory, the head of staff, and then I put my

1 signature there, so that whoever receives a dispatch knows I was the one

2 who sent it from the staff and that I was the one calling the meeting.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

4 Mr. Lukic.

5 MR. LUKIC: I just have to make one correction. The page numbers

6 are mixed up now, but I think it's page 73, line 18. There is an answer

7 of this witness recorded as my question.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: For some reason, my transcript's now back on

9 single numbers-

10 MR. LUKIC: Same with us, so that's page number 1, then, line 18:

11 "This is an amendment to the previous dispatch." It's the answer of this

12 witness.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So the answer is both 17 and 18 to 22?

14 MR. LUKIC: Yes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. These standardised forms that you asked to be delivered in this

18 dispatch, when did you forward them to the UKPs across Kosovo?

19 A. It was sometime in early May, between the 5th and the 10th of

20 May. I gave them a generous dead-line to enter all the different kinds

21 of information, to process any information that they had by the 25th of

22 May, and that was the period to be covered and that was the period that

23 we were interested in.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have 6D874 brought up

25 in e-court.

1 Q. That is the last document in your binder, sir. Are you familiar

2 with this document?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What does the header say?

5 A. Again, ministry staff.

6 Q. And the date?

7 A. The 6th of May, 1999.

8 Q. How did you find out about this letter?

9 A. I found out about this circular because, to some extent, I was

10 myself involved in the sense of me being the person who put it together

11 along with Spanovic. Then we gave it to General Ilic, who then entered

12 certain corrections, changed a number of terms that were used in the

13 original. There were a few corrections to be made. Then, in my

14 presence, he signed it and had it distributed to all the parties

15 involved.

16 Q. [Microphone not activated]

17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Whose name do we see typed up at the end of this document?

20 A. As in the previous case, and this was a general rule, head of

21 staff Major Sreten Lukic, and it was subsequently signed by whoever

22 happened to be sending the circular out. Any recipients would know that

23 this is the person informing them and this is the person who is sharing

24 information with them. So the situation is perfectly identical. It's

25 just that the header that was used was the header of the MUP staff. The

1 fact is that General Ilic was in Kosovo at the time, and this was to keep

2 him from going back to Belgrade just because of a single document and

3 then going back to Kosovo, because this was the mechanism that was in

4 place at the time.

5 Q. Just a minute, please.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we go to the end of the document, please, in

7 both English and B/C/S, please. Thank you.

8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. If we look at the Serbian, there is no signature. This is the

10 copy we're looking at. At the time the document was produced, did you

11 see General Ilic's signature?

12 A. Yes, yes. That's what I said a while ago. He entered certain

13 corrections, he signed the document, and then he had it distributed.

14 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Gagic.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] For the time being this concludes my

16 examination.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

18 Mr. Fila.

19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will deal with a

20 particular issue. I started with Veljko Odalovic, he was my witness, and

21 I'm going to press on with Mr. Gagic now. You know, at 3.4 of the

22 indictment, killings, paragraph 75 at 2 is the only reference to the 300

23 persons. I think this is an issue that has been greatly neglected in the

24 work before this Chamber, and I hope to have an opportunity to shed some

25 light on this matter with the assistance of Mr. Gagic. The most

1 dangerous category is when someone who went missing. We who went through

2 the war know exactly what this means. It was very difficult in Kosovo,

3 and it was very difficult for us to ascertain those who were missing were

4 dead. There were a few cases where they survived and were eventually

5 found.

6 What I'm trying to say is Mr. Gagic told us about who was

7 involved on behalf of the state, UNMIK and the Kosovo group Albanians who

8 deal with this, Odalovic from this side. And what I'm trying to say also

9 a number of NGOs contributed greatly to this process, the Humanitarian

10 Rights Foundation, the Natasa Kandic people and others, and the situation

11 we have today is much, much better fortunately. I'm sorry for talking

12 about this at such great length. I am --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, the reference you've given, paragraph

14 75?

15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] (H), (H).

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Please continue.

18 Cross-examination by Mr. Fila:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gagic, I gave quite a speech; but for that

20 reason, I don't need to keep you for so long.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Fila please be asked to speak into

22 the microphone. Thank you.

23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]

24 Q. What appears to be the situation today in March 2008, how many

25 missing persons from the two ethnic groups and then later on moving onto

1 something else?

2 A. We have a consolidated list, a verified list, that was accepted

3 by both the Albanian side and us, and international organizations as

4 well, and I mean the ICRC. The figure given there is 1-9-7-2, 1.972

5 persons, about 1.500 Albanians, and the rest were Serbs.

6 Q. Can I, therefore, conclude that this list is a work in progress

7 in a manner of speaking because you're trying to get the facts straight

8 one way or the other and to finalise this process?

9 A. Yes. By all means, this is a dynamic list. It waxes and wanes,

10 in a manner of speaking, from time to time, and it is looked at anew each

11 three months. I have a list here from June last year, and the figure was

12 over 2.000. If necessary, I can refer to the list or I can hand it over

13 to the Chamber or to you.

14 Q. I'd rather bide my time and see if Odalovic can hand it over, to

15 me at the end of this trial and see how definitive a list that is, and

16 then I will hand over to the Chamber.

17 Tell me this, Count (H) of the indictment, the Prosecutor claims

18 that 300 people went missing in Meja, seven of them having been found

19 killed. This is something that you did in Batajnica - yeah right, that's

20 what I think - and some others, too. Do you know anything about the 300

21 persons from Meja who went missing?

22 A. I only encountered this in 2001. I wasn't aware of it at the

23 time during my time in Kosovo. It was at a later stage that I came

24 across this when I dealt with the documents for the register of missing

25 persons.

1 Q. Can you tell us about the fate of 300 persons, if you can.

2 A. I am sorry. About this, there is nothing I can say about the

3 fate of 300 persons because in order to ascertain that, I would need to

4 have records. I would need to have access to UNMIK records. Based on

5 this, it's very difficult for me to say how many persons UNMIK actually

6 identified, how many bodies they identified in Kosovo, how many bodies

7 they handed over to their families.

8 As far as our side is concerned, I conducted no analysis, not

9 based on those criteria. I did not study individual cases. It was based

10 on territorial distinctions that I conducted analysis. For your

11 information, most of those missing were from the Djakovica area.

12 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That's all from me, Your Honour.

13 Perhaps you want to delve deeper into this, but I have nothing further to

14 add.

15 Q. I thank you and all of those who assisted you in reaching those

16 figures and conclusions.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Fila.

18 Mr. Cepic.

19 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:

21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gagic, good afternoon. My name is Djuro

22 Cepic, and I appear on behalf of Mr. Lazarevic. I have but a few

23 questions.

24 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] For the first question, could we

25 please see P1989 on the screen.

1 Q. While we're waiting for it, Mr. Gagic, I wanted to tell you what

2 the topic will be, and that is a discrepancy in terms. You mentioned

3 General Ilic who mentioned the word "saniranje," of the terrain, as

4 opposed to the term "asanacija."

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: "Saniranje" can be

6 conditionally interpreted as "restoring the terrain."

7 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. We have before us the minutes of a meeting at the MUP staff dated

9 the 4th of April, 1999.

10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Could we please go to page 4 in both

11 versions. The third, not the fourth.

12 [In English] Third page, please, also in English, please.

13 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, if you look at the bottom of the page.

14 We can see, among other bullet points of item 2, the fourth one refers to

15 "asanacija" of the battle-field.

16 Can you tell me something about the difference between the terms

17 "saniranje," of the terrain, or "asanacija," of the battle-field. Is it

18 the same or different?

19 A. Since I had to learn what "asanacija" means, since I mentioned it

20 in my previous testimony, I can tell you that "saniranje" is one thing

21 and "asanacija" another. I cannot equate the two activities, since in

22 the first military term there is a mention of a battle-field. The second

23 term refers to terrain. For the MUP, we meant the terrain of the entire

24 Kosovo; whereas, in military terms, a battle-field is limited.

25 Q. Technically speaking, on the 4th of April, already there is

1 "asanacija" mentioned. You described some of your activities during that

2 time. You will agree that the term "asanacija" was used by the MUP at

3 the beginning of the state of war, was it not?

4 A. It is possible at the beginning of the war. If it was used

5 indeed, it was used in officer communication, in communication between

6 officers who had completed the military academy, who knew of the term.

7 It was not used by other MUP members since it was a term we were not

8 familiar with. I didn't know of it until the end of April, for example.

9 Q. Concerning the difference between "saniranje," of a territory,

10 and "asanacija," for example, when a human corpse, is found is the

11 procedure always the same? First we need an order of an investigative

12 judge and all the other activities you specified. Is it in both

13 situations like that?

14 A. Yes. The Law on Criminal Procedure is applied in both cases. In

15 military terminology and tasks, we have the military investigative judge

16 of course. When the military organs are dealing with it, they -- their

17 own investigative judge appears as opposed to the civilian district court

18 who have geographical jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, over the

19 territory where the remains had been found.

20 Q. To go back to Izbica, we saw that some activities were undertaken

21 in order to shed light on the events, and that was done by the district

22 court in Kosovska Mitrovica. You will agree with me that in keeping with

23 the Law on Criminal Procedure, that court and all other courts is

24 independent in terms of their decision as to who will do the expert

25 analysis?

1 A. Yes. It is completely up to them what institution or institute

2 they will turn to.

3 Q. You will agree with me that that freedom on their part existed in

4 1999 as it exists today. A competent judge, on his orders, chooses any

5 and all relevant bodies that are to undertake any activities?

6 A. [No interpretation]

7 Q. Can you tell me, what was the answer to your last question?

8 A. The answer is yes, the competent judge is completely free to

9 choose the institution or body to carry out autopsies or any other

10 activities pertaining to the mortal remains that had been found.

11 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Gagic, I am pausing for the transcript.

12 You will agree with me as well, I believe, that the expert

13 carrying out that analysis is duty-bound to forward his findings and

14 reports only to the judge who had issued an order for him to do so?

15 A. Yes. That is the expert's obligation when he completes his

16 analysis, including additional analyses. Such reports, as a rule, are

17 not drafted immediately, but after a short while because there might be

18 additional analyses in terms of toxins and so on and so forth. It can

19 take up to a month.

20 Q. The focal point in studying the file any further is the competent

21 court, and the MUP or any other bodies can act only following a request

22 made by the judge or the prosecutor?

23 A. The prosecutor is the main person in charge, and the police can

24 independently undertake certain activities of their own; whereas, for

25 some other activities, they have to have an agreement on the part of the

1 prosecutor or the judge if it involves investigations.

2 Q. The last question: Concerning those severed heads, it resounded

3 throughout the Serbian public. Can you tell us what specifically it

4 entailed?

5 A. I took part from beginning to end of that issue. There was a

6 photograph, and an expert assessed it is a true original. There are

7 eight Albanians in the photograph, some in uniform, some without, holding

8 severed heads in their hands. Next to them was a bag containing other

9 heads, most likely. That photograph was taken during the conflict in

10 Kosovo and Metohija. It was published in the media.

11 After that, I initiated measures in order to ascertain the

12 identity of persons in the photograph, as well as the identity of those

13 severed heads. Out of the eight people in the photograph, five were

14 identified. The deceased were not identified; although, there are

15 certain indicators as to their identity.

16 We handed over the entire file towards the end of 2004 to UNMIK;

17 and then, again, through the war crimes prosecutor of Serbia, we handed

18 that material over to Mr. Hartman who was the prosecutor of this

19 Tribunal --

20 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In Kosovo.

21 The witness will have to repeat the end of his answer.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you repeat the very end of your answer,

23 please. There was some confusion after the reference to Mr. Hartman.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The case file was handed over to

25 Mr. Hartman, since the identifiers had been -- the perpetrators had been

1 identified and the photograph was assessed to be the original. The

2 perpetrators were not brought in, they were in the processed; although, I

3 know that one of them still works for the Kosovo police force and another

4 person works for the Kosovo protection force.

5 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. These are all former KLA members?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Thank you.

9 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave, our

10 Defence team, in keeping with the law -- the request to supplement the

11 exhibit list, submitted that motion. I don't know whether Mr. Hannis

12 objected to that, and I don't know whether that objection still stands.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not following you, Mr. Cepic.

14 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I will try to be as specific as

15 possible. We submitted a request in line with Rule 65 ter. We asked for

16 two photographs with severed heads to be admitted into evidence. These

17 are the photographs that Mr. Gagic has explained just now. At that

18 point, the Prosecutor objected to the admission of these photographs. So

19 my question is primarily addressed to Mr. Hannis, whether he still

20 objects to having them perhaps admitted into evidence or having them

21 placed -- this photograph placed on the list of exhibits.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. What was the Trial Chamber's

23 decision?

24 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Our proposal was refused.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: So that's where matters rest. Photographs add

1 nothing to the information we've just been given, Mr. Cepic. There's no

2 need to review or revisit that situation. Thank you.

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

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Gagic, we will have to terminate our

5 proceedings for the day shortly, and your evidence will resume tomorrow,

6 that will be at 9.00 tomorrow morning in this courtroom. Meanwhile,

7 between now and then, it is vital that you have no communication with

8 anyone at all about any aspect of the evidence in this case, not just

9 your evidence, anybody's evidence in this case. So please bear that in

10 mind and now please leave the courtroom with the usher.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 [The witness stands down]

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I will now deal with the debate we had earlier in

14 relation to the 65 ter exhibit list and the Rule 92 ter statement

15 relating to the evidence of Radovan Paponjak.

16 On the 13th of March, the Lukic Defence asked the Chamber to add

17 69 exhibits to the Rule 65 ter list on the basis that Paponjak had

18 brought these documents with him to The Hague and that -- and thus the

19 Lukic Defence had been unaware of them. The Lukic Defence has also moved

20 under Rule 92 ter for the admission of part of the evidence of the

21 witness by way of written statement. The Prosecution object to the

22 amendment of the exhibit list on the basis that the Lukic Defence should

23 have known about these documents because they featured in the Milosevic

24 case, and moreover 32 of the 69 documents are not translated. The

25 Prosecution also object to the late intimation of the Rule 92 ter

1 statement; however, rather than ask for it all to be rejected, it only

2 asks the Chamber to disregard those portions of the statement that

3 discuss these documents.

4 In response to that, the Lukic Defence say that the documents

5 were known to the Prosecution for the very reason that they were tendered

6 in the Milosevic case. The Lukic Defence also argue that they tracked as

7 many of the documents as it could and disclosed the ones that were

8 translated to the Prosecution, but have not submitted the untranslated

9 ones for translation yet. And, finally, they submit that the Rule 92 ter

10 statement was submitted to CLSS last week for translation and was

11 disclosed to the Prosecution as soon as possible, which was yesterday

12 afternoon.

13 In passing, I remark that we are all extremely grateful to CLSS

14 for producing a translation of such a lengthy statement so quickly.

15 And, Mr. Lukic, you are fortunate that that has happened.

16 The Chamber notes that the documents at issue here relate to

17 alleged activities of the KLA in 1998 throughout Kosovo, and therefore

18 they have a certain relevance and probative value; however, the Chamber

19 must decide whether to exercise its discretion to add them to the list

20 under the specific circumstances which apply. We've taken a lenient

21 approach throughout the case to the amendment of 65 ter lists in order to

22 avoid prejudice to the accused or procedural unfairness to the other

23 parties. The Chamber also notes that the Prosecution has not taken a

24 firm line to these types of motions by indicating on numerous occasions

25 that it would not respond even when the documents have not been

1 translated.

2 However, the fact that documents were used in the Milosevic case

3 does not remove the obligation of the Lukic Defence to provide adequate

4 notice of the documents it intends to rely upon in presenting the

5 evidence of any witness. The Chamber is of the view that the documents

6 should have been disclosed far earlier in the case by the Lukic

7 Defence -- should have been discovered far earlier in the case by the

8 Lukic Defence in order to place the Prosecution as well as the other

9 parties on adequate notice of them. This is even more important with the

10 untranslated documents, which have not even been submitted for

11 translation. The Chamber will, therefore, not allow amendment of the 65

12 ter list to include the 69 documents referred to.

13 So far as the witness statement is concerned, although the

14 guide-line we established, a 48-hour notice has not been complied with

15 and no request has been made by the Lukic Defence for late intimation and

16 thus admission of the statement. We will nevertheless allow that

17 statement to be presented as part of the witness's evidence, but only to

18 the extent that it relates to matters which are not affected by the need

19 to amend the 65 ter list. We will thus order that the corresponding

20 portions of the Rule 92 ter statement relating to these exhibits should

21 be removed. We will then admit the remainder. So a revised copy of that

22 statement will be required for tomorrow.

23 The Chamber's determination, therefore, is that the motion to

24 amend the exhibit list is denied, but without prejudice to any further

25 application that might be made in relation to these documents or

1 particular documents from among them. The Rule 92 ter statement in its

2 current form is inadmissible, but once all references in the statements

3 to the documents that have been denied, addition to the 65 ter list, and

4 a new version has been submitted, the Chamber shall decide its admission

5 status but anticipates admitting that redacted version. The parts which

6 require to be removed are paragraph 13 from the words: "This is

7 supported ..." to the end; paragraphs 14 to 15; paragraph 16 from the

8 words, "Exhibit 6D1954" to the end; paragraph 17, 22 to 25, and 32.

9 References to 6D614 which has featured frequently in the case may

10 remain in the statement and the Chamber will issue a comprehensive order

11 on this document in due course as we have previously indicated.

12 That completes our sitting for today, and we shall resume

13 tomorrow at 9.00.

14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,

15 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 19th day of

16 March, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25