1 Tuesday, 23 August 2005

2 [Provisional Release Hearing]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.32 p.m.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the registrar call the case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. This is Case Number

8 IT-05-87, the Prosecutor versus Nebojsa Pavkovic.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: May we have the appearances.

10 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. I'm Tom Hannis on behalf of

11 the Office of the Prosecutor. I'm assisted today by our case manager,

12 Ms. Susan Grogan.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.

14 And for the accused.

15 MR. ACKERMAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I am John Ackerman,

16 together with Aleksander Aleksic.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: We have scheduled this hearing to deal with

18 Mr. Pavkovic's motion for provisional release. We are particularly

19 concerned with the first prong of the test in Rule 65, whether if released

20 the accused will turn up for trial and in that regard we are also

21 interested in the guarantees being offered. Mr. Ackerman, do you have

22 witnesses to call?

23 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, we're going to call a witness, the

24 Ministry of Justice is here in the courtroom and I think you know him, I

25 think he's testified before, and he will testify with regard to the

1 guarantees, and I think that will be sufficient to put the matter before

2 you appropriately.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: So he will be your only witness?

4 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: So let Mr. Stojkovic take the stand.

6 MR. STOJKOVIC: [Interpretation] The government of the Republic of

7 Serbia has passed a decision giving guarantees for provisional release --

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to give evidence, I think it's

9 better that you give it from the normal place and make the declaration.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And, Mr. Ackerman, you lead the witness.

13 MR. ACKERMAN: That's what I was going to ask you, Your Honour, if

14 you prefer it that way.

15 WITNESS: ZORAN STOJKOVIC

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Examined by Mr. Ackerman:

18 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

19 A. Good afternoon.

20 Q. Would you tell the Judges your name, please.

21 A. I am Minister of justice in the government of the Republic of

22 Serbia. My name is Zoran Stojkovic.

23 Q. And were you asked to come here today to testify regarding the

24 guarantees issued by your government for the accused Nebojsa Pavkovic?

25 A. Yes. The government has accepted that obligation and has passed a

1 decision designating me as the person who will elaborate on the

2 government's guarantees.

3 Q. Let me ask you to do that now. I'd like you to tell the Chamber

4 the nature of those guarantees and the -- the conditions of those

5 guarantees and what the government will do to make sure they're properly

6 enforced.

7 A. In accordance with the law on cooperation with the Tribunal, the

8 government has issued guarantees in case of all persons who voluntarily

9 surrender to The Hague Tribunal. The guarantees are very clear. We

10 accept to issue guarantees. If General Pavkovic is released, we take it

11 upon ourselves to ensure his presence here at the Tribunal whenever the

12 Tribunal so requires. What is most important is that we accept all

13 conditions specified by the Tribunal, conditions for provisional release

14 of General Pavkovic. All of the conditions set by the Tribunal should

15 be -- shall be complied with by us.

16 Q. I have just two important questions that I do want to ask you.

17 Based upon your knowledge of General Pavkovic, do you have any

18 reason whatsoever to believe that he would not appear for trial when

19 ordered to do so by this Chamber?

20 A. In conversations with General Pavkovic, it was agreed that he

21 would appear, or rather, surrender to this Tribunal voluntarily. And I do

22 not think that in case that he is provisionally released he would fail to

23 appear here voluntarily. In case he does fail to appear here voluntarily,

24 our government will ensure his presence before the Tribunal. Therefore, I

25 do not expect any problems in that regard.

1 Q. Is your government prepared to enforce and carry out any

2 conditions regarding his release that might be ordered by this Chamber?

3 A. We have several similar cases where persons were provisionally

4 released and are living at liberty until their call to come back. We have

5 complied with all of the conditions set by the Tribunal and are regularly

6 informing and reporting back to the Tribunal.

7 In the seven cases that we have had so far, there have been no

8 problems in terms of compliance with the conditions. There are also

9 possibilities to check the apartment or visit the apartment of the accused

10 without prior notice, to contact them, to ensure that they receive prior

11 consent before they go on any trips in accordance with the conditions set

12 by the Tribunal. And so far, I don't think that we have failed to fulfil

13 any of our obligations in the previous seven cases.

14 In one of such cases after two years of provisional release and

15 two years of staying in the country, one of the accused voluntarily

16 returned back to The Hague when called to do so.

17 Q. So what you're telling us is your government would be perfectly

18 willing to go along with any conditions that this Chamber might set for

19 General Pavkovic?

20 A. Absolutely. That's right. All of that is stated in the

21 government's decision, and as I've stated earlier in previous cases we

22 have complied with all of the conditions and obligations, and we have

23 received no criticism so far.

24 Q. Based upon your knowledge, do you have any reason to believe that

25 General Pavkovic would be any kind of a -- of a threat or a danger to any

1 witness that might appear before this Tribunal or in any other respect at

2 all?

3 A. I don't think that there is any danger of that. According to the

4 information I have, General Pavkovic has already cooperated with the

5 Tribunal. During the time that he was at liberty, there have been no

6 problems or no issues arising with the victims or witnesses or any other

7 participants in the proceedings. So far, we have had no such problems.

8 And as I've said, he has spent quite a lot of time at liberty.

9 Q. You mentioned to the Chamber that you had -- you had talked with

10 General Pavkovic at the time he was going through the process of

11 surrendering voluntarily to the Tribunal. Is there any question in your

12 mind about whether his surrender to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal was

13 voluntary or not? Was that a voluntary surrender, from your knowledge?

14 A. I apologise, but I have to specify that I did not speak with

15 Mr. Pavkovic personally. I think that he was ill at the time. We had

16 contacts through his counsel. And at the time, the conditions set was to

17 ensure proper medical examination. I think that there was a serious

18 medical issue or a surgery. In that case, we accepted the conditions set

19 at the time. And as far as I know, there were no other contacts or

20 conversations based on which I could conclude that he did not wish to

21 surrender. No coercion existed in the case. He came here voluntarily

22 after he completed his medical examination at the military medical

23 academy. Following that, he came to The Hague.

24 Q. So would it be fair to say to your knowledge that that period of

25 time between the time he may have become aware of an indictment by this

1 Tribunal and his actual surrender was a time that he was undergoing

2 medical treatment. Was that what you were advised?

3 A. He was undergoing a treatment. To be quite clear, had we had

4 any -- any notion that this was not a voluntary surrender we would not

5 have given any guarantees, because voluntary surrender is a precondition

6 for giving any guarantees. In the previous period, there was an issue --

7 there was a problem because for a while it was believed that he ought to

8 stand trial in our country and it was also believed that it would be

9 dangerous to transfer him to the Tribunal. That was before our time.

10 When our government came to power, all of that was set aside and the new

11 proceedings were initiated.

12 MR. ACKERMAN: I think that's all I have.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

14 JUDGE KWON: I'm interested in the evidence the minister said

15 where voluntary surrender is precondition for giving any guarantees. Do

16 you have any provisions in the rules or statute? If you could elaborate

17 on that matter, please.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I think this is regulated

19 by Article 46, but don't quote me on this; I would have to verify it.

20 This is referred to in the conclusion, in the text of the conclusion.

21 Article 36 of the law on cooperation with the international tribunal,

22 which regulates the cases where the person surrenders voluntarily, it is

23 further specified that in those cases the government will issue

24 guarantees.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: And on the issue of guarantees, if they are

1 satisfied that the surrender is voluntary?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, if the accused surrenders

3 voluntarily.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: I wasn't aware of that at all, of that provision.

5 Because otherwise without that condition the government would not be able

6 to issue guarantees.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stojkovic, you said that the circumstances in

8 which Mr. Pavkovic would be tried remained in doubt until your government

9 came to power. When was the date of that change of power?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that it was sometime in

11 March of 2004. Following that for a while we were awaiting for the new

12 council for cooperation for the Tribunal to be set, and after that there

13 was a conclusion reached that certain persons ought not to be extradited

14 for fear it would endanger the national security. But after that the

15 position was changed and some 15 people surrendered voluntarily.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I take it by that answer that by March of 2004,

17 both you as the government and Mr. Pavkovic as the accused were aware of

18 the existence of this indictment?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but the government --

20 the current government was elected in March of 2004.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Sorry, did I not say that? So can I take it

22 that by March 2004 you, as a government, and Mr. Pavkovic, as the accused,

23 were both aware of the existence of the indictment?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. However, we inherited a

25 conclusion reached by the previous government. In addition to that, we

1 need six or seven months to organise new agencies at the level of Serbia

2 and Montenegro and also to set up the new council for cooperation because

3 that was the body entitled to contact the Tribunal. And following that,

4 we set aside the conclusion reached by the previous government and then

5 proceeded to comply with our obligations.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: And what was the conclusion reached by the previous

7 government?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The army passed a decision

9 concerning Generals Pavkovic and Lazarevic, stating that their extradition

10 could endanger the national security. And a similar one was reached

11 concerning General Lukic by the following government.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Was that decision formally announced so that it was

13 common public knowledge? Or was it a state secret?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To tell you the truth, concerning

15 the decision passed by the previous government it was published. And as

16 for the other one, I really couldn't tell you. I'm not sure of it. I had

17 occasion to see the opinion issued by the General Staff. Because this had

18 to do with two members of the army and a member of police. So in each of

19 these cases, the responsible agency was different.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Minister, when did the issue of his ill health

22 arise?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we passed the decision to set

24 aside the decision of the previous government, we started analysing the

25 documentation and started negotiations. We received certain

1 documentation, and once the negotiations started we accepted the

2 conditions and the obligation to organise proper medical examination at

3 the military medical academy. I believe that all pertinent documentation

4 was forwarded to the Tribunal. I think that this had to do with a surgery

5 to receive [as interpreted] a cancerous growth in one of the organs.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Hannis.

7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 Cross-examined by Mr. Hannis:

9 Q. Minister, you mentioned at page 3, line 21, you mentioned that

10 there were discussions with Pavkovic. You've told us since that you were

11 not personally involved in those discussions. Is that correct?

12 A. I've said so in order to avoid any miscommunication. I spoke to

13 the counsel, to Defence counsel of Mr. Pavkovic.

14 Q. What was the name of the Defence counsel that you spoke with?

15 A. I don't think that it is this gentleman sitting here, but somebody

16 taller and slimmer. I think his name is Mr. Visnjic, but I can verify

17 that. I know that he came to our office and brought with him medical

18 documentation.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour --

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- that you fit that description.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He was a member of the military who

22 worked for the Prosecution and then switched and opened a private

23 practice.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, I can clarify that for Your Honours if you'd

25 like me to.

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, who was the counsel?

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Ljubisa Zivadinovic.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct, Ljubisa

4 Zivadinovic. I know that this is how he described himself to me, that he

5 was a former military prosecutor who opened up a private attorney

6 practice.

7 MR. HANNIS:

8 Q. And you said discussions were had with Pavkovic in which it was

9 agreed that he would appear, or rather would surrender voluntarily. How

10 many discussions were had? How many times did you speak with his

11 attorney?

12 A. I think three or four, not with him but rather with the attorney.

13 Q. Correct. Do you recall the first time you had a discussion with

14 his attorney, approximately?

15 A. Probably three to four months prior to surrender. That was when

16 the first contact took place, when we received medical documentation.

17 Q. If I tell you he appeared here in The Hague on about I think

18 April 25th of this year, are you saying that first discussion was three or

19 four months prior to the 25th of April, 2005?

20 A. I apologise. Perhaps it was in February or March. This is as

21 precise as I can be, but don't hold me to it because I'm not very good

22 with dates.

23 Q. Do you recall the last time you were here and testified in

24 relation to a release hearing for the accused Milutinovic, Ojdanic, and

25 Sainovic? Do you recall that occasion?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you recall me at that time asking you some questions about your

3 knowledge of where Mr. Pavkovic was, because he was still a fugitive at

4 that time?

5 A. I don't have any information indicating that he was a fugitive.

6 I'm telling you now that I did not see him after he went to The Hague.

7 All I'm saying is how it transpired, what kind of contacts took place, and

8 what kind of conditions was set for the government, namely that medical

9 examination take place and that his family be allowed to visit him in

10 The Hague. That's as far as I was involved. This was discussed in the

11 contacts that I had. I think that it was Mr. Loncar, my colleague, who

12 escorted General Pavkovic to The Hague.

13 Q. Minister, when you were here previously and we were addressing the

14 matter of guarantees for those other accused, I asked you about what

15 efforts your government had taken to arrest Mr. Pavkovic for whom a

16 warrant had been issued sometime previously. And you indicated that you

17 were not aware of where he was. You've just testified that you were

18 speaking with his attorney in February or March of this year.

19 A. Yes. As I have told you, the attorney brought the documents

20 indicating that Mr. Pavkovic was ill, that he needed treatment, asking

21 that he be allowed to undergo an examination and so on. But at the time,

22 I did not know where Pavkovic was because I had no contact with him.

23 Q. Did those medical documents reflect the name of a doctor or a

24 clinic or a hospital at which that information had been obtained?

25 A. Some documents pertain to a type of surgery, and the other

1 documents had to do with a gland. That's as far as I can remember. There

2 are two types of documents. I still have them in my office and I can

3 check and get back to you.

4 Q. Was anyone else involved in these discussions between you and

5 Mr. Zivadinovic, pardon my pronunciation, anyone else other than you and

6 General Pavkovic's attorney? Just the two of you?

7 A. Mr. Zivadinovic would come to the ministry and he and I would have

8 conversations, just the two of us.

9 Q. Was there any record made of those discussions? Notes taken, a

10 transcript made, a tape-recording made?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Were there any documents created as a result of the agreement that

13 was reached between you and Mr. Zivadinovic?

14 A. No. The agreement was as I have described to you. We ensured

15 that General Pavkovic is allowed to go to the military medical academy to

16 be examined, and following that he went to The Hague escorted by Minister

17 Loncar. I was not involved in that.

18 Q. All right. Mr. Ackerman phrased his questions to you in terms of

19 your knowledge of the accused Mr. Pavkovic. What exactly is the basis of

20 your knowledge? Do you know him personally? Do you know the general?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Have you ever met him before?

23 A. No.

24 Q. So what is the basis of your knowledge of him? Is it based on

25 public statements to the media, information provided to you by internal

1 reports? What is your basis of knowledge about Mr. Pavkovic?

2 A. I apologise, but let me be as specific as possible. I saw

3 Mr. Pavkovic on one occasion when he was a candidate running for the

4 president of Serbia. He came to submit his documents, and I was a member

5 of the Republican Commission for Elections. And on that occasion we

6 exchanged greetings; that's the extent of our contact. As for the rest,

7 all I know is from the press.

8 Q. And you're aware since the -- well, let me tell you this: The

9 indictment against him was made public in late October 2003. Would you

10 disagree with that?

11 A. I think that it was then. I cannot be certain of that because at

12 the time I was not a member of the government, and I'm not aware of all

13 the details.

14 Q. Is it fair to say that -- would it be fair to characterise the

15 general as not being media shy, and as a matter of fact, he's made a

16 number of appearances between October of 2003 and his appearance here in

17 April of this year discussing his position about coming to The Hague.

18 Correct?

19 A. I think there is a minor misunderstanding there. All kinds of

20 things appeared in the media, all kinds of things. The first time when I

21 talked to Mr. Pavkovic's attorney, shortly after that I stated that I

22 would like to talk to Mr. Pavkovic myself to verify whether it was true

23 what was published in the media. And it turned out that a lot of that was

24 not true.

25 Q. Well, how -- how do you mean "a lot of that" -- what do you mean

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 specifically "a lot of that," and how do you know it turned out it was not

2 true? So what exactly are you referring to?

3 A. Had you been able to read all kinds of articles and to see all

4 kinds of statements given by so-called friends, you would see for yourself

5 that there were all kinds of stories there. Therefore, after the first

6 contacts were made when we realised that he was willing to go to The Hague

7 voluntarily, I stated that I would like to see General Pavkovic personally

8 to hear from him what his position was.

9 Q. And did you get that opportunity?

10 A. No. Because as I said in the second stage of this process I was

11 not involved; it was my colleague who escorted General Pavkovic to

12 The Hague.

13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I have one packet of documents that I

14 would like to have marked as an exhibit. I want to show the witness a few

15 of those entries and ask him some questions about that, if I could do that

16 now.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may.

18 MR. HANNIS: Thank you. And while that's being handed around, let

19 me explain what this is, Your Honours. These are -- these are entries

20 that were taken off the web site on the Internet for a media in Serbia

21 called B92. There are both B/C/S and English versions of stories about

22 Mr. Pavkovic. It's apparent that the B/C/S version and the English

23 version are not identical. It appears that the English blurb is a

24 summary, perhaps, at best. But what I want to do is read some of the

25 quotations that are attributed to Mr. Pavkovic and ask this witness about

1 them. If we could show him the document. Does it have a number for

2 purposes of this hearing? I don't know what your procedure is, Your

3 Honours.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Are these different from the schedule that you

5 submitted in the opposition to the motion?

6 MR. HANNIS: Some are the same, some are different, Your Honour.

7 Q. And Mr. Stojkovic, this has a -- your copy should have a page

8 number in the bottom right-hand corner in the circle, and the first one I

9 would like to take you to is page 46 --

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ackerman is on his feet.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry, Your Honours, I didn't know he was

12 prepared to go forward.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Minister, just wait a minute.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: I simply to state I guess in the form of an

15 objection that it's my view that to the extent any of these articles

16 represent statements made by General Pavkovic previously that he under no

17 conditions would come to The Hague, that those are irrelevant to any issue

18 that's going on here today because he did in fact come to The Hague. So

19 obviously they were not correct and not true. He in fact did volunteer

20 and come here. So they are no evidence that he won't come back.

21 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's anticipatory.

22 MR. ACKERMAN: I think they're irrelevant for that reason.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's see what the article says.

24 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, many of these are statements to

25 the fact. I have an argument about why I think they are relevant to your

1 decision today. So I don't know if you want me to address that argument

2 first or ask him about these and make my argument later.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ask him about them and then we will hear the

4 argument afterwards.

5 MR. HANNIS: Okay.

6 Q. I would like you to go to page 46, if you have that in front of

7 you. There are handwritten numerals in the lower right-hand corner of the

8 pages.

9 And for the interpreters, the top half of this page is the B/C/S

10 version of this story dated the 9th of November, 2003, a couple of weeks

11 after the indictment became public. The English version is

12 titled "Pavkovic: 'I have no reason to surrender.'". And reading from

13 the second paragraph it says: "I have no reason to surrender. I am a

14 soldier, and our regulations state that a soldier never surrenders.'

15 Pavkovic said late last night in an interview with Jagodina Television

16 Palma Plus."

17 You didn't happen to see that interview, Mr. Stojkovic?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Next if you would go to page 43, this is a report that purports to

20 come from SRNA, S-R-N-A, on the 13th of March, 2004, and it quotes

21 Mr. Pavkovic as saying: " 'There can be no talk of me surrendering to

22 The Hague Tribunal. I won't even discuss it.' Pavkovic is quoted as

23 saying in today's Glas Javnosti."

24 Can you tell us what SRNA is, S-R-N-A?

25 A. I think this is the news agency of Republika Srpska.

1 Q. Next if you would go to page 42, and this purports to be from

2 Beta. Do you know what Beta is?

3 A. Yes. It's a news agency from Belgrade.

4 Q. And this is dated the 18th of April, 2004. I'm reading from the

5 first two paragraphs in the English: "Nebojsa Pavkovic said today that he

6 is determined not to appear before The Hague Tribunal and will not allow

7 himself to be extradited.

8 " 'If they extradite the three generals, and I don't include

9 myself out because I will not allow that to happen, this government will

10 be signing its own death warrant,' he told Podgorica Daily Publika.'"

11 Did you see that interview or read that story at that time?

12 A. I didn't, and I had no opportunity to discuss that with General

13 Pavkovic. But I must say that all of the three generals mentioned as

14 purported by the articles claim they wouldn't come here, but they're here

15 and they are under the competence of this Court.

16 Q. Thank you. If you would go to page 39. This is from B92 dated

17 the 21st of June, 2004. Reading from the English it says: "Pavkovic said

18 today that he will not turn himself into The Hague where he is wanted for

19 war crimes.

20 "Pavkovic said that he will only appear before Serbian courts to

21 answer any charges associated with the Tribunal.

22 "Pavkovic said he had an 'unofficial' talk with Serbia and

23 Montenegro Defence Minister Prvoslav Davinic."

24 Are you aware that the general had apparently had some sort of

25 official discussions with the defence minister?

1 A. No.

2 Q. That article goes on to say that: "Davinic said that he

3 understood Pavkovic's reason for not wanting to turn himself in and would

4 try to work something out in order to have him appear before a Serbian

5 court."

6 Do you know, apart from your discussions with General Pavkovic's

7 lawyer, you don't know whether or not General Pavkovic and his lawyer were

8 having discussions with other government officials or private individuals

9 about circumstances under which he would come to appear before this

10 Tribunal, do you?

11 A. No. Let me clarify. Minister Davinic is the minister of defence

12 of Serbia and Montenegro and not of the Republic of Serbia. So he wasn't

13 a part of this government and I'm not familiar with those details.

14 Q. Thank you. I have one more in this vein. If you could go to

15 page 35. This also is from B92 dated the 3rd of July, 2004. The English

16 is titled "Pavkovic makes threats." And reading from the English it

17 says: "Nebojsa Pavkovic responded today to the news of his indictment,

18 which arrived from The Hague yesterday by threatening members of the

19 Serbian government.

20 "Pavkovic said that he will have his revenge towards every person

21 who would be potentially responsible for extraditing him and three other

22 generals to The Hague.

23 "No one other than me can make decision regarding my life. I can

24 only advise them that, no matter what they decided to do, I will see my

25 revenge."

1 Were you aware of this threat by Mr. Pavkovic concerning any

2 potential extradition of him to The Hague?

3 A. I can say that I am not familiar with the threat since I'm one of

4 the members of the government who made -- who issued a document that the

5 general would not be extradited to the Tribunal. And to speak honestly, I

6 feel no fear.

7 Q. Okay. Now, I have two others that are related to another

8 matter --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I just clarify that.

10 MR. HANNIS: Yes.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I didn't understand the last answer. Do you

12 understand it, Mr. Hannis?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question was whether I was

14 familiar with the threat, and I said no, although I am a member of the

15 government who participated in that, but we never received any threat and

16 I do not have any sense of fear. I am here in The Hague as were the

17 others, without protection.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: The transcript says that you were one of the

19 members of the government who issued a document that the general would not

20 be extradited to the Tribunal. Is that a mistake?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We set aside the previous document.

22 The government of which I am a member issued a decision putting aside the

23 earlier government's conclusion that there will be no extraditions. This

24 is what I meant, although I am a member of the government which put aside

25 the previous decision and we said that, yes, people can be extradited to

1 The Hague. And we never received a single threat, and I do not have a

2 sense of fear.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, my colleagues here advise me that

4 what you saw on the screen that Judge Bonomy was speaking about was an

5 interpretation error and it wasn't exactly what the witness had said.

6 MR. HANNIS:

7 Q. Minister, I would now like to take you to page 18 of that

8 document. This is a story from the 30th of March of 2005, and apparently

9 was carried on B92, but also by SENSE, Beta, and Blic. I would like, if

10 you could read -- if you could read the first five paragraphs at the top

11 of that page.

12 MR. HANNIS: Because, Your Honours, the English version of this

13 story is much reduced, and I had a sight translation by an interpreter. I

14 think this would be of assistance. And I think the easiest way to do is

15 ask the minister if he could read that for us and we'll get the

16 interpretation from the interpreters.

17 A. What do you mean exactly? The attorney-at-law, Nebojsa Pavkovic

18 states: We only received a message that he will prolong the weekend. I

19 received from him only a message that he stayed longer over the weekend

20 with his friend. This is what attorney-at-law Mr. Zivadinovic said to

21 B92. He cannot precisely state where Pavkovic is, but he claims that he

22 did not leave the country.

23 Q. Will you continue on, please, for four more paragraphs..

24 THE INTERPRETER: Will the witness please read at a slower pace.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Minister, did you hear that, the interpreter is

1 asking you to read more slowly.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Zivadinovic is almost certain that

3 his client will not appear before trial for the attempted murder of

4 Mr. Stambolic although custody was sought for not appearing before the

5 Tribunal. But in the message it is also mentioned that he will not appear

6 at the trial for Stambolic and Draskovic because he believes this is an

7 overture for him to be arrested and deported to The Hague."

8 MR. HANNIS:

9 Q. Please continue.

10 A. "Mr. Nebojsa Pavkovic himself stated that although seriously ill,

11 he said that he wouldn't leave to The Hague. And in his interview to the

12 Daily Telegraph stated that his innocence cannot be proven in The Hague

13 and that he knows all the generals who left for the Hague and that he is

14 not convinced that that would be a completely voluntary surrender."

15 These are the three paragraphs you mentioned?

16 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. I would like you to read a couple more, if you

17 would please. Could you continue on.

18 A. "Minister of Justice, Mr. Stojkovic, said that when it comes to

19 Mr. Pavkovic he has very little time left to surrender, and unless he does

20 that the Republic of Serbia will implement the law."

21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the last sentence.

22 The witness is reading much too fast.

23 A. He expressed his expectation that custody will be enforced for

24 him.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Read a little more slowly for the benefit of the

1 interpreter.

2 MR. HANNIS:

3 Q. Sir, if you can go back to the third line in that paragraph, I

4 think that's where you got too fast for us. A sentence that begins with

5 "Stojkovic."

6 A. "Stojkovic stated for B92 that Pavkovic's refusal to appear before

7 the special court would -- that it would present a mock trial. The police

8 acted upon the request of the court so that they would carry out their

9 duties. So Stojkovic, he was convinced that the police would establish

10 Pavkovic's whereabouts and that he would be taken into custody."

11 Q. Can I ask you a question because I had a note from my

12 interpretation that you're quoted as saying that in your opinion by his

13 refusal to appear before the special court Pavkovic was "almost mocking

14 this court."

15 Is that an accurate translation of that term that is in quotes

16 there? [B/C/S spoken]?

17 A. Yes, those are my words.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. May I add something to your question? I said there is little time

20 left for him to surrender and he did surrender right after.

21 Q. Well, that's true. It was the preference of your government to

22 somehow achieve voluntary surrenders rather than having to ever actually

23 arrest any of these indictees, correct? It was certainly the preference

24 if, indeed, not the policy.

25 A. It did bring about results. Until that time, the whereabouts of

1 24 people were unknown. The law prescribed two possibilities: Either a

2 voluntary surrender or the arrest. We offered the possibility of

3 voluntary surrendering and that they would receive the benefits offered by

4 the government. Some of them did make use of that and the others are

5 still on the run.

6 Q. Please don't get me wrong. We're grateful for what has been

7 achieved in the presence of this accused here. But my concern is about

8 the nature of this "voluntary surrender."

9 You mentioned the special court there. What special court were

10 you referring to?

11 A. It is not a special court. This is what the journalists call it,

12 but it's a separate department with the district court of Belgrade.

13 Q. For the prosecution of war crimes?

14 A. No, organised crime.

15 Q. And the case that this related to was a case involving the murder

16 of Ivan Stambolic and an attempted murder of Vuk Draskovic. Correct?

17 A. It pertains to those cases, but I'm not familiar with the details

18 themselves. I know that the trials were severed.

19 Q. And what did you -- what were you aware of -- you make a reference

20 to Mr. Pavkovic's refusal to appear before that court. Do you know when

21 that came about and how that came about?

22 A. There was a comment for him -- of him not appearing before the

23 court, and later an explanation was offered that it was due to illness.

24 And I am not familiar with other comments. I wasn't a participant of the

25 process. You know more details probably and what the reason was for not

1 appearing. But as for the comments that are mentioned, I did give this

2 statement.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: In -- Mr. Stojkovic, in what capacity was General

4 Pavkovic expected to appear in the special court in Belgrade?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell you what I read from the

6 media because I'm not familiar with the case. It pertains to an event

7 that took place in Budva, and under someone's order a military helicopter

8 was provided for the transport of certain persons. This is what I know

9 about it.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but was he a witness? Was he an accused

11 person? What was his capacity in the court proceeding?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know his capacity. I

13 believe he was one of the co-accused, but as to he was aiding or something

14 else, I don't know.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MR. HANNIS:

17 Q. In relation to that, minister, if you would go to page 8 -- well,

18 actually, I guess it's page 7 and 8 for you.

19 MR. HANNIS: And, Your Honours, I want to read one sentence from

20 paragraph -- from page 8 in the English.

21 Q. This is from B92, the 18th of July, 2005, the bottom line on

22 page 8 in English says: "Two other defendants in the case, former

23 Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and former Yugoslav army Chief of

24 Staff, Nebojsa Pavkovic, were not sentenced because they are present in

25 custody at The Hague Tribunal."

1 That indicates that they are both accused in that case. Do you

2 have any reason to dispute that?

3 A. No. But what is stated here is according to our law. It is the

4 process of extraditing a person to The Hague, or whether that person is

5 being surrendered voluntarily, then the process is set into motion

6 awaiting a decision of this Tribunal.

7 Q. All right. In relation to that then I have another question. If

8 you could go to page 6 of that document. This is -- this is an article

9 purportedly from Beta and B92 on the 9th of May, 2005. Now, I'll read

10 from the English and ask you a question: "The council of the specialised

11 sector of the Belgrade district court has shot down the proposal submitted

12 by Nebojsa Pavkovic's attorney to keep his client out of confinement.

13 "Pavkovic is wanted by the Belgrade district court in relation to

14 the murder trial of Ivan Stambolic and the attempted murder of Vuk

15 Draskovic, but is currently incarcerated and awaiting trial at The Hague

16 Tribunal.

17 "Since his attorney Ljubisa Zivadinovic's request was denied by

18 the Belgrade district court, if Pavkovic is freed from The Hague before

19 his trial begins and returns to Belgrade, he will be imprisoned upon his

20 return as well."

21 Is that -- to your knowledge, is that an accurate statement of the

22 law in a situation as regards Mr. Pavkovic and that pending case in

23 Belgrade? If he is released here, will he be detained there

24 A. I am not in a position to comment that. Under our law if a person

25 is extradited to The Hague Tribunal their process is interrupted, awaiting

1 the ending of a procedure before The Hague Tribunal. So I don't think one

2 can be put into custody on two different legal bases. Perhaps only after

3 this -- these proceedings here.

4 Q. So are you saying then if he is released here and he goes back to

5 Belgrade, the authorities in Belgrade will not be able to put him in

6 custody or to hold that trial against him until this case is resolved?

7 A. Yes. Because they will be awaiting the final resolution.

8 Otherwise, what would be the point when this Tribunal does have the

9 primacy.

10 As I have told you, the law is clear. The previous proceedings

11 have to be stayed until the proceedings here is finalised because this

12 person is under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, whether the personal

13 surrendered voluntarily or extradited. This Tribunal has primacy.

14 Perhaps it would be better to address this question to the Defence

15 counsel; they are more familiar with it.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. The last thing I want to ask you about relates

17 to the Prosecution's concern about the voluntariness of the surrender and

18 future appearance for trial here. At page 5 of the document you have

19 before you -- and, I'm sorry, it's only in English, so I'll have to read

20 it for you. If you listen carefully and then I'll have a question for

21 you. This purports to be from B92, Beta, and the London Sunday Times

22 dated the 20th of June. According to the London Sunday Times: "Hague

23 fugitive Ratko Mladic will turn himself over to The Hague Tribunal on

24 July 11th if he gets $5 million.

25 "The Daily writes in detail about secret discussions with Mladic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 and states that Mladic has reached an agreement to be paid $5 million to

2 surrender on the day that the ten-year commemoration of the Srebrenica

3 genocide.

4 "The Sunday Times writes that sources close to those people who

5 are negotiating with Mladic said that he wants this money for his family

6 and body guards" --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Hannis, would you please slow down.

8 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry.

9 Q. The article states: "That those behind the negotiations are

10 Serbian oligarchs working from behind the scenes who acquired fortunes

11 during the Milosevic regime and who wish to speed up the speed of Serbia

12 and Montenegro process of European integration.

13 "This circle of people used the same method, but a smaller amount

14 of money, for getting General Nebojsa Pavkovic to surrender himself to

15 The Hague,' the Daily writes."

16 My question, sir, is: Do you understand the concern that if

17 Mr. Pavkovic's surrender was as a result of receiving a large quantity of

18 cash that we as Prosecutors would have concerns about his appearance after

19 release because for someone who has said for a year before arriving here

20 that he would never come, if he's released and goes back home to a

21 suitcase full of money, he may take that money and go somewhere where we

22 can't find him and he indeed won't return. You understand that concern,

23 don't you?

24 A. I'm surprised that you take for granted what is written by B92. I

25 have to tell you that what they wrote here is not true. Had it been true,

1 we would have had General Mladic in our custody before the Srebrenica

2 commemoration. This is not true. Maybe you should call the B92 people

3 and ask them where they got this information. I truly cannot comment upon

4 this because it is not true.

5 Q. Well, first I should say the story is apparently attributed to the

6 London Sunday Times. And secondly, with regard to your statement, you

7 said if this were true you would have Mladic here before now, you mean if

8 he got $5 million he would have been here?

9 A. No. What I'm saying: Had this been true, what is stated in --

10 by B92, that he received five million, he probably would have been in the

11 custody of this Tribunal before the 11th July, and that is not true. The

12 only information that our government has is that all services are working

13 very diligently at locating General Mladic.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. HANNIS: I have no further questions for the witness.

16 Q. Thank you, Minister.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination, Mr. Ackerman?

18 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have just one question based upon

19 that last bit.

20 Re-examined by Mr. Ackerman:

21 Q. Sir, do you have any indication at all from any source that

22 General Pavkovic received any money as a consideration for surrendering to

23 this Tribunal?

24 A. No.

25 Q. That's all. Thank you.

1 A. The only matter that I wish to raise is that I came here to

2 elaborate on the guarantees. One of our guarantees is that whether the

3 accused wants to appear here again or not, we will ensure that he does

4 appear here. This is our guarantee. So far, we have complied with all of

5 our obligations, and even when the accused wanted to go for treatment to

6 Montenegro we ensured that the prior consent of this Tribunal is obtained.

7 Therefore, we will not fail to ensure anybody's presence here before this

8 Tribunal.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: What you're saying, then, Minister, is that it's

10 not a matter of his will. Your government will ensure that he appears in

11 any event?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no doubt that they will come

13 here voluntarily. However, even if they should fail to appear here

14 voluntarily, we will ensure their presence. This is the obligation we

15 undertake, that we will comply with all of your orders. So far, we have.

16 There have been 12 orders so far and we have abided by all of them.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: In another proceeding in which you appeared, I

18 recollect that the point was made that the issue of the -- of your

19 government arresting a person for breach of a provisional release

20 condition has not yet arisen in fact.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first case when you requested

22 that a person provisionally released appear here, that was the case of Mr.

23 Gruban, he came here voluntarily. Therefore, there was no need for us to

24 intervene to ensure his presence here. That was the case.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Minister, that concludes your testimony. So you

2 may go back to the other seat.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 [The witness stands down]

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ackerman, there was an issue about the health

6 of the accused and that his ill health prevented him from surrendering

7 earlier. What is your submission on that? What's your position on that?

8 Because that issue hasn't been -- hasn't been raised -- hasn't been dealt

9 with. The minister I think alluded to it.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, the understanding that I have, and I'm

11 quite certain it's accurate and I'll tell you in a minute that we can

12 clear this up if you wish, the general was diagnosed with cancer. And I

13 can tell you from my own personal experience in that regard that when you

14 are diagnosed with cancer everything else in your life becomes relatively

15 unimportant. And it's my understanding that it was his -- that he took

16 the position at that time that: I've got to get this cancer operated on

17 and under control before I surrender and go to The Hague. And he followed

18 the advice of medical people. And as soon as the surgery was over and he

19 had apparently recovered enough from that surgery that he felt comfortable

20 in voluntarily surrendering he did so. I can tell you that he's had a

21 very recent examination here regarding that cancer, and that the surgery

22 was successful and that he has now apparently regained his health. Those

23 of us who have gone through this know that's never a permanent thing; you

24 have to go five years before they'll say that you're actually free of

25 cancer. But certainly that's the situation he is in right now.

1 Now, if Your Honours would like to hear --

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: You did have a doctor on your witness list.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: We did have, and I think it was Your Honour's order

4 that that persuaded me that that wasn't a matter of major interest. We're

5 not asking that he be released because of his medical condition. But what

6 I can do --

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: But the question is how his medical condition

8 impacted on the voluntary surrender.

9 MR. ACKERMAN: I understand that's your question now, Your Honour.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: What I can do now is I can put on the witness stand

12 the lawyer, Zivadinovic, to testify about the medical condition because he

13 was in contact with General Pavkovic about that throughout this whole

14 period June of 2007 to February 2005 -- 2004 to February 2005, but I would

15 want some assurance from the Court that he would be protected from

16 inquiries and protected communications with General Pavkovic regarding

17 matters other than medical. I wouldn't want the Prosecutor going into all

18 of the conversations that he might have had with General Pavkovic about

19 the indictment and the -- General Pavkovic's reaction to it. Because I

20 don't want to get in a position where we are waiving the attorney/client

21 privilege between the two of them. So that's my concern. But he could

22 come and tell you more about the medical condition because he was present

23 and knows about it.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman, it's not part of your case as you

25 make it in the motion anyway, is it? You don't say in your motion that

1 one reason for the failure of Mr. Pavkovic to surrender earlier was his

2 condition of health, and you haven't taken the basic step of getting a

3 medical report to confirm or to explain it to us. So I had rather thought

4 it wasn't part of your case at all.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: It certainly was not part of the motion that I

6 filed. And you're right, I have no report to support that. What I have

7 to offer at this point is what I've told you that I have to offer, nothing

8 more.

9 I think the basic issue, Your Honour, is not -- is really not

10 that. But whether he in fact voluntarily surrendered to this Tribunal,

11 which he did. It may be that he should have surrendered earlier, but you

12 could say that about a lot of people who have finally turned around and

13 surrendered to this Tribunal who have now been provisionally released.

14 Many did not surrender at all and have been provisionally released, so

15 even though it's an issue, I don't think it is a major one. It may be to

16 you, though, and if it is then it is a major one. But I think it's not

17 based upon the history of provisional release here.

18 [Trial Chamber confers]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have any further submissions,

20 Mr. Ackerman?

21 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, Your Honour, I would just like to --

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for

23 Mr. Ackerman.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: I would like to make a brief submission to you.

25 The Prosecutor went through all of these articles about the statements

1 that the general had made regarding his views about surrendering to the

2 Tribunal, and those took place over a fairly extended period of time. And

3 as you know from the witness, there was a period of -- part of that time

4 was a time when he was a candidate for president, so some of that speech

5 is more political than anything. And as we know today, it really has no

6 relationship to reality since he in fact did voluntarily surrender.

7 Your Honours might know that we had a 65 ter conference in this

8 case this morning, and just by way of analogy if I had announced at that

9 65 ter conference that I had no intention of attending this Status

10 Conference this afternoon and then had walked in and attended it, it would

11 have been clear that I had changed my mind. And it certainly wouldn't be

12 evidence that I won't be here for the Status Conference on Thursday. And

13 that's the kind of reasoning that the Prosecution is trying to use with

14 regard to these matters. He did voluntarily surrender, and those prior

15 statements are simply no evidence that he won't return when asked to

16 return.

17 The other thing that should give Your Honours a great deal of

18 confidence is that the history of the government of Serbia in overseeing

19 these voluntary -- these provisional releases and ensuring that people

20 come back to the Tribunal when they are supposed to is unblemished. They

21 have carried out, as far as I know, every condition that this Tribunal has

22 put upon anyone who was released.

23 There are some intensely practical reasons that I would suggest to

24 you that favour provisional release. I know it is in the interest of Your

25 Honours that this case proceed to trial as quickly as possible since it

1 has been joined with cases that are very, very old. And the process of

2 trial preparation in a case of this nature requires counsel to spend an

3 enormous amount of time with the accused. I know Your Honours are aware

4 of the magnitude of the evidence involved in this case. The regulations

5 of the registrar for financial reasons will only allow one counsel to come

6 to The Hague to visit an accused one time a month. And so that really,

7 really impacts upon the amount of time we can spend sitting with General

8 Pavkovic and going through the evidence that it's necessary for us to

9 discuss with him. That preparation process would be speeded up

10 dramatically and enhanced dramatically if he is in Belgrade where we have

11 constant contact with him and can go through that preparation process much

12 faster. I would suggest it could speed the preparation up as much as four

13 months of preparation time.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Am I misunderstanding the situation or are you

15 referring exclusively to travelling costs?

16 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm not sure what you mean by --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you say that regulations allow for only one

18 journey or one occasion per month when counsel can come to The Hague.

19 MR. ACKERMAN: That's true.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that right?

21 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: If -- what's the difference if the accused is in

23 Serbia? You would have to travel there presumably.

24 MR. ACKERMAN: Our co-counsel, Your Honour, and the rest of the

25 staff is in Belgrade, so it can all be done with e-mail and by them

1 meeting with him, and it would be dramatically simpler. It wouldn't

2 require me to travel there with anywhere near the frequency I might need

3 to travel here.

4 It still is kind of up in the air, I think, certainly from the

5 undercurrents at least at the 65 ter conference I attended this morning,

6 as to when it might be possible for this trial to start, but I know there

7 is some urgency regarding that matter.

8 The other thing that I would like to just point out to Your

9 Honours, I'm surprised the Prosecutor raised this issue that -- contained

10 in this article about Ratko Mladic, but on its face it's absolutely

11 untrue. I mean, it's just one of those crazy articles that show up now

12 and then. It says that Mladic had made a deal to get $5 million, he was

13 going to get the money and he was going to surrender on July 11th. Well,

14 that didn't happen, so obviously that wasn't true. And there's no

15 evidence before you, and I tell you there can't be, as far as I know, any

16 evidence before you that General Pavkovic received any money as a -- as a

17 motivation to voluntarily surrender to this Tribunal. So I think any

18 argument that that has anything to do with your decision is spurious at

19 best.

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't believe that's an issue for us.

21 MR. ACKERMAN: All right. Thank you, Your Honour.

22 And I think -- I think you can rely on the government of Serbia to

23 carry out what has been promised to you by the minister of justice today,

24 and that is to get Mr. Pavkovic here, whether he wants to come here or

25 not. And I don't think you need to worry yourselves about that. He will

1 be here.

2 The final thing that I want to share with you is just an

3 understanding that I have as a result of some inquiries I made. I saw

4 this article -- it was handed to me at the 65 ter conference this morning,

5 these documents you have before you this afternoon, about the allegation

6 that the general would be arrested immediately upon his return to Belgrade

7 if he is released by this Tribunal. I immediately made inquiries into

8 that, and I am informed that for the very reason the minister told you,

9 because of the primacy of this Tribunal, that there is an order staying

10 the proceedings in Belgrade until such time as the proceedings in this

11 court are completely concluded. And that's my understanding. And if

12 necessary, Your Honours can advise me and I can probably provide you with

13 a copy of that order if you need it.

14 Thank you very much for your time.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

16 Anything in reply, Mr. Hannis?

17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, just briefly.

18 I think Mr. Ackerman's analogy to having said at the 65 ter

19 meeting this morning that he was not going to come and then two hours

20 showing up is an imperfect analogy to the situation here. We have this

21 accused who over a period of approximately 18 months has said repeatedly

22 and increasingly vehemently that he was not going to come here. I can see

23 it, he's here, he came.

24 But I question why that happened. How did that 180-degree sea

25 change come about? What motivated him? I can understand all kinds of

1 things happening in a human life that causes a person to reverse their

2 position 180 degrees. But I think a more appropriate analogy is to a

3 biblical reference to Sol who persecuted the Christians for many months,

4 many years and then suddenly becomes one of the most strong Christians.

5 Well, he was struck by a bolt of lightening and went blind.

6 We have no explanation from the Defence why this 180-degree

7 change. And in the absence of that we have a concern about whether or not

8 that surrender was truly voluntary and whether or not he has changed his

9 mind about appearing and continuing to appear before this Tribunal.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Irrespective of that, what do you say to what the

11 minister has said, which is that the government has guaranteed and the

12 government will see to it that he turns up?

13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I would -- perhaps I'm a jaded cynical

14 Prosecutor. I would have more confidence in that if there had been a

15 better history from his government in the beginning in terms of arresting

16 individuals. I appreciate that's difficult to overcome; that's just a

17 matter of history, that wasn't that way. But that reluctance -- and when

18 he was here the last time, it appeared that the -- certainly the

19 preference, if not the policy, of that government was to do everything

20 they possibly could to get people to appear, but they were not going to

21 arrest them. So far they have managed to get everybody to appear, but --

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: How did Gruban appear for the 11 bis? Gruban

23 appeared voluntarily. Yes, voluntarily.

24 MR. HANNIS: Yes. As far as I know, we have not had occasion to

25 test whether or not an arrest will actually be made, and that's our

1 concern. Also I think it was the minister himself in relation to what

2 Mr. Pavkovic had done by not appearing before the special division court

3 proceedings in the case involving the murder of Stambolic and the

4 attempted murdered of Vuk Draskovic, I think it was the minister who was

5 quoted as saying he thought what Pavkovic had done by not appearing before

6 that court was making a mockery of that court.

7 Your Honour, in my jurisdiction one of the strong considerations

8 for a court considering provisional release of someone is whether there is

9 any prior history of failure to appear. There is one prior failure to

10 appear by Mr. Pavkovic in that other court. Now, the reason may be he was

11 afraid that if they showed up there he was going to be arrested and

12 brought to The Hague. But nonetheless, that's a prior failure to appear

13 and we think it's a factor you should consider.

14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Any other submissions or any other

15 points to be raised?

16 Mr. Caric, you're here for the government and I did not note that.

17 So for the record, it should be noted that you're here for the

18 government along with ...

19 MR. CARIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm here together with

20 Mr. Martinovic who is a representative of the Council of Ministers. We

21 have no matters to raise or to add to what was said by Minister Stojkovic.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Caric.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, may I -- I'm sorry. May I simply make

24 it clear that we are -- we are not conceding that what is reported in the

25 press as the statements of General Pavkovic are accurate statements; in

1 fact, it is our position that they are not. If you'll look, for instance,

2 you will see that some of them are other people being quoted saying that

3 General Pavkovic said that. And I think in many cases, in fact in all

4 cases they are not completely accurate. And these are newspaper articles

5 and we know about newspaper articles. Thank you.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: That concludes the hearing. We are adjourned.

7 --- Whereupon the Provisional Release Hearing

8 adjourned at 3.58 p.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25