1 Friday, 24 November 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Let the witness be brought into court, please.

6 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, before the witness is brought in, if I

7 may just address -- if I just may address time limitations issue.

8 [The witness entered court]

9 MR. LUKIC: As I spoke with my learned friend Bakrac today he has

10 at least another half an hour, 35 minutes for cross, and I'm afraid that

11 another hour won't be enough for the rest of us three Defences to finish

12 their cross. So we ask for your leniency on this issue today and to grant

13 at least another half an hour for the Defence cross in this case.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I was having regard earlier to the need to break to

15 set up arrangements for the next witness and was hoping that things would

16 fit together neatly. If that's not going to be possible, then it's not

17 going to be possible and we'll just have to proceed as best we can.

18 So we will recognise your need for cross-examination extension, as

19 long as it's plain that what's happening is relevant to the issues that

20 are material to the trial.

21 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Pesic.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Bonomy.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Your evidence will now continue. The

25 cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac will continue. Please remember that the

1 solemn declaration to speak the truth continues to apply to your evidence

2 today.

3 Mr. Bakrac.

4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not to use up too much

5 time. I just want to try to convince you - and you can see that from my

6 notes - that I revised my questions and deleted a lot of them, but still a

7 number remain outstanding that I have to ask. Your Honours, you can see

8 the deletions on this page.

9 WITNESS: ZLATOMIR PESIC [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac: [Continued]

12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Pesic, good afternoon. We will continue

13 where we left off last night. If I remember well, I asked you about the

14 forward command post in Djakovica and I would like to know -- or, rather,

15 you said in your statement that in April and May 1999 you were in

16 Djakovica at this forward command post. Is it correct that at that time

17 you did not see General Lazarevic in Djakovica?

18 A. In 1999?

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. Certainly not.

21 Q. Is it also correct that in view of the fact that the forward

22 command post existed there was no need for the corps commander to be at

23 the forward command post; that's why it was set up in the first place?

24 A. Certainly.

25 Q. Mr. Pesic, we will now move on to another subject concerning

1 command and the issuing of orders. We saw yesterday that beginning with

2 the 8th of April, 1999, the military district was resubordinated to the

3 Pristina Corps.

4 Can you tell me after the 8th of April, 1999, from whom did you

5 receive assignments, missions, decisions, orders, to whom were you

6 subordinated?

7 A. The commander of the Pristina Corps.

8 Q. You mean General Lazarevic?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did you ever receive from General Lazarevic either a verbal or

11 written order that would have been contrary to the law or the basic rules

12 of engagement of the Army of Yugoslavia in peacetime or in wartime?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Yesterday you were shown a Prosecution exhibit - to save time we

15 will not go back to it - it is that document, and for the record I'll tell

16 you the number, P1968. The letterhead says Joint Command for Kosovo and

17 Metohija. Did you ever during the war as the largest unit subordinated to

18 the Pristina Corps ever receive a document headed "Joint Command," an

19 order or any other enactment?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you. I just forgot to ask you very briefly, in paragraph 34

22 of your statement you spoke of a report that allegedly members of military

23 territorial unit in Istok had formed a camp for Albanian refugees, and you

24 stated that a commission had been established and that together with that

25 commission you went there to inspect. However, we don't know the outcome

1 of that because all you said was that details could be found in a book.

2 In order not to look for that book, just tell us what was the finding of

3 that commission? Was there a camp for Albanian refugees or no?

4 A. No, it was not a camp, there was no camp, very briefly.

5 Q. Were there any irregularities in the work of military territorial

6 units in that area?

7 A. It's precisely the military territorial unit in Istok that was

8 commended for their overall activity from the moment of mobilisation until

9 the moment when the commission interviewed the relevant persons from that

10 detachment and their superior command, which was the section in Pec.

11 Q. Speaking of the sector in Pec, I'll skip a couple of questions and

12 ask you to comment on an exhibit that is in the possession of the

13 Prosecution.

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we place in e-court 5D36.

15 Q. Do you see this document, Mr. Pesic?

16 A. The lettering is very small. Can we zoom in a bit.

17 Q. I would appreciate that too.

18 This is an order from the command of the military district of Pec

19 signed by Colonel, or rather, Lieutenant-Colonel Dusko Antic. And in

20 paragraph 1 we read the following: "All republican and municipal

21 authorities shall be placed under the command of the Pec VO on the

22 territory of Klina and Decani, among others."

23 A. I did not see this order of my superior because it's not even

24 regular practice for an order to be -- for an order written for

25 subordinates to be forwarded to the superior as well.

1 Q. Are you familiar with this reaction and was it the result of this

2 reaction that an order arrived nullifying this order? Do you know of this

3 response?

4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we place in e-court 5D37.

5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction in line 23, page 4, "I

6 did not see this order of my subordinate," not superior.

7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Do you see this order, another one from Dusko Antic, commander of

9 the military district of Pec, dated the 25th of April, 1999?

10 A. The same answer applies. It's not the practice to forward such

11 orders to the superior. He wrote this order on the basis of a superior

12 order in the first place.

13 Q. Do you agree that as soon as an irregularity was noticed by the

14 Pristina Corps, there was an immediate response and an order was written

15 to nullify the previous one?

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

17 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Hannis.

19 MR. HANNIS: I think that question misstates this document. This

20 appears to be the order from the military district command rather than

21 from the Pristina Corps.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I asked Mr. Pesic

24 earlier if -- because you see that at that time -- you see the date,

25 25th of April, 1999, the military district was subordinated to the

1 Pristina Corps. I asked him is it the case that as soon as the

2 Pristina Corps noticed this irregularity an order was issued to nullify

3 the previous one? And I believe the witness answered affirmatively that

4 this order did indeed arrive as a result, both from the Pristina Corps and

5 the military district.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the question hasn't been answered and the

7 objection is that this appears to be an order from the military district,

8 and indeed is pursuant to another order of the military district command.

9 And is not an order from the Pristina Corps. Now, what's your response to

10 that? That means that the question is not formulated in an appropriate

11 way.

12 It's your answer I'm looking for, Mr. Bakrac. What is your answer

13 to the point that is being made that this is not an order of the

14 Pristina Corps nor is it implementing an order of the Pristina Corps?

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I understood that.

16 The order -- I don't quite understand you. I asked the witness whether

17 this order whereby the commander of the military district of Pec nullifies

18 his previous order was a result of the reaction of the Pristina Corps and

19 the command of the military district to an irregularity that had been

20 observed in the previous order.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I don't know whether there's

23 something wrong with interpretation or translation --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: No, there isn't. First of all, I don't understand

25 what the irregularity is and it would be helpful to know that; and

1 secondly, you've now compiled what appears to be a multiple question,

2 relating to both the Pristina Corps and the military district of Pec.

3 So I have to say that I'm very confused about this and therefore I

4 will sustain the objection. You ought to formulate questions which are

5 clear and helpful.

6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am

7 struggling with the time limitations --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, may I make a remark about that.

9 Subject to this point, which may actually be additional

10 information, you've only asked one question so far that's added to my

11 knowledge of this case, and that question was whether this witness had

12 ever received any document headed "Joint Command." Nothing else you've

13 asked, with great respect, has added to our knowledge of the case.

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Mr. Pesic, I've shown you already these two orders. There's no

16 need to go back to them. Is it true that on the 30th of March, 1999, the

17 commander of the military sector of Pec issued an order that went beyond

18 his legal powers, whereby municipal authorities were placed under the

19 command of the military sector of Pec?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was this irregularity noticed and where, by whom?

22 A. In the corps and the command of the military sector, and he did

23 indeed react, the commander did react in this order 139-387/1 of the

24 25th of April, and then this commander in question issued another order

25 nullifying that previous one.

1 Q. Thank you. We'll move on. Would you agree with me that the

2 commander of the military district, that is you as the commander of the

3 military district, issued orders to your units but not regarding use of

4 troops in combat? I'm talking about the moment when the military sector

5 was resubordinated to the corps.

6 A. Certainly there were some orders that governed matters of life and

7 work of units, and there are such orders. But it was all in view of the

8 overall situation, not daily contacts with the corps command.

9 Q. Is it true that those orders of yours were a result of efforts and

10 insistence by the Pristina Corps command that the laws and

11 Geneva Conventions be abided by in the operation of the corps and its

12 subordinated units?

13 A. Certainly. It's possible that this order also came from the corps

14 via the 125th Brigade, who had Pec in their zone of responsibility.

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I ask the registrar to place 5D32

16 in e-court.

17 Q. Mr. Pesic, do you recognise this order signed by commander Colonel

18 Zlatomir Pesic? Is it your order? Do you recognise it?

19 A. Yes, it's an order of mine.

20 Q. Again, to save time, I'll summarise what's written here. It's in

21 evidence. Is it true that the point of this order is care and protection

22 for the civilian population in case of clashes with the KLA?

23 A. True. But it's possible that the military sector also got this

24 order through the command of the 125th Brigade.

25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I noticed in the

1 transcript that there is one reference missing in my question. I said in

2 case of clashes with the KLA and NATO bombing, NATO bombing was missed.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Bakrac.

4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Mr. Pesic, let's move on. Do you remember the order of the

6 Pristina Corps issued in late April regulating the issue of stabilising

7 lines of defence and the accent was put on the defence of the lines,

8 relationship with the civilian population, and the undertaking of measures

9 against perpetrators of criminal offences amongst the ranks of the VJ?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the registrar to

12 put 5D35 on e-court.

13 Q. Could you look at the first and last pages. My question is: Does

14 this order comprise the topics I've just mentioned?

15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] And please let us see the last page

16 where we have the signature and the stamp.

17 Q. And it reads "Colonel Zlatomir Pesic."

18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: For Colonel Zlatomir

19 Pesic.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pesic.

23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the answer was yes,

24 that's the order.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could we please have 5D38 put on

2 e-court.

3 Q. Mr. Pesic, can you see this order dated the 30th of March, 1999,

4 signed by commander Colonel Zlatomir Pesic?

5 A. Yes, this is an order of mine.

6 Q. Does the first item read: "Fully abide by the regulations on the

7 application of the international laws of war within the VJ, the issue of

8 the administration of the federal secretariat for defence of 1998"?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. This handbook had been distributed to the members of the VJ?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Is it correct that item 3 reads: "Against those violating the

13 provisions of the international laws of war, their superiors are

14 duty-bound to initiate proceedings in order to apply sanctions prescribed

15 by the law"?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Let us try and rush through to try and conclude shortly.

18 The next question is --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.

20 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry to interrupt, Your Honour, is there an

21 English version available? I'm only seeing two B/C/S on my screen.

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I have a moment, Your Honours.

23 [Defence counsel confer]

24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The English translation has been

25 inserted in the system. I don't think whether this is a technical hitch,

1 but we do have the translation. We put it in the system and we notified

2 the OTP.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have a hard copy of the English version

4 available that you can give to Mr. Hannis just now?

5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, we received it yesterday, or this

6 morning, and during the break I'll try to provide a copy for Mr. Hannis.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Pesic, is it correct that with the military district there was

10 a military prosecutor as well as a military judge as part of the military

11 district? Excuse me, the military court. I apologise.

12 A. Yes, and it had its own prosecutor and judge.

13 Q. Was there a separate military court and prosecutor of the

14 Pristina Corps?

15 A. Yes, a separate one.

16 Q. Therefore, the military district of Pristina had their own

17 prosecutor and judge?

18 A. Yes, in wartime after mobilisation is carried out.

19 Q. Is it correct that the military prosecutor of the military

20 district of Pristina and its military district were subordinated to the

21 supreme military court in Belgrade and not to the military prosecutor and

22 the military court of the Pristina Corps?

23 A. I'm not certain whether they were subordinated to Belgrade, but in

24 any case they were subordinated to Nis. I'm not familiar with the

25 judicial hierarchy. As for the 3rd Army command where there was a court,

1 I know of that but nothing more than that.

2 Q. But the essence, the gist, of my question is whether the military

3 prosecutor and court of the military district were not subordinated to the

4 military court of the Pristina Corps?

5 A. They were not.

6 Q. Mr. Pesic, I'm about to complete my cross-examination but I would

7 like to know this first. Did you know that the military prosecutor

8 instituted proceedings in case of violations of law -- of the law against

9 certain members of units of the military district and do you know whether

10 this was seen through by the military courts of the district?

11 A. Both the prosecutor and the court were in operation as of day one.

12 They processed a number of cases during the bombings and they've also

13 completed a number of cases after the bombings ended.

14 Q. Can you agree with me that, be it yourself or the Pristina Corps,

15 whenever you found out there was a violation of some -- of members of the

16 units belonging to the military district that you instituted proceedings

17 against those people and that they were tried?

18 A. This is what I was trying to state, yes.

19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, he can answer whether he himself did it

20 but I don't know if he can answer for the Pristina Corps.

21 The question was: "Can you agree with me that, be it yourself or

22 the Pristina Corps, whenever you found out that there was a violation."

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I will rephrase my question, Your

25 Honour.

1 Q. Do you know whether the Pristina Corps required that measures be

2 taken against members of the units of the military district in terms of

3 instituting proceedings against such people for the crimes perpetrated?

4 A. Since the military district was subordinated to the Pristina Corps

5 there was a close cooperation of the security organs, and as part of that

6 cooperation they did that as well. There were such cases. But as to

7 whether these cases were forwarded to either the military prosecutor of

8 the district or of the Pristina Corps, I don't know precisely. But there

9 were such instances.

10 Q. Is it correct that the military prosecutor and court of the

11 military district were competent to try members of the military district

12 who had committed crimes and offences instead of the court of the

13 Pristina Corps?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. My last question will be this, and then I will ask the Bench to

16 try and identify four or five documents so as to be able to move more

17 quickly. Perhaps we can just ask the witness to identify the documents

18 and then I would like to conclude and I believe this would save us some

19 time.

20 Mr. Pesic, I have one last question on this topic. Is it

21 correct - and I would like to know that because of another witness who is

22 to come here and testify - that on the 30th of May, 1999, there was an

23 incident between the military prosecutor and his deputy, who were members

24 of the military district?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can you explain to us what it was all about.

2 A. I cannot tell you any details and a lot of time has elapsed. I

3 spoke to both of them. It was of a rather personal nature, I'd say.

4 The -- one or the other was ignorant of something that was discussed. I

5 don't know whether it was linked to a particular case or not. I believe

6 it concerned a certain person who had been appointed, but I don't know any

7 more about that.

8 Q. When you say a particular person, was this -- was this Djorovic?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. What do you mean by a peculiar person?

11 JUDGE BONOMY: That's an odd translation, I think. It concerned a

12 certain or a particular person. I don't think the witness was referring

13 to an unusual person, was he?

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I will try to go again. Lakic

15 Djorovic was the name.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, perhaps the counsel should

17 be asked to specify whether he means specific or peculiar person. It is

18 unclear from B/C/S.

19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. When you said an odd, a strange person, what do you mean?

21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, he didn't say odd or strange as far as I

22 see. It's translated as particular.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: There's nothing wrong with the question. The

24 witness should be able to deal with that.

25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I believe there

1 was a misinterpretation. We speak the same language and we understand

2 each other. I know what the witness had in mind. He didn't have in mind

3 a particular but a peculiar, an odd person but the witness can clarify.

4 MR. HANNIS: I would prefer the translation from the official

5 translator to that effect rather than Mr. Bakrac's translation.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, I think if you had just allowed the

7 witness to answer the last question that was asked the position would have

8 been clarified. Now, the ...

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you really can tell us anything useful

11 about this at all.

12 What the witness has said is that this was some personal dispute

13 between the two of them. Is that relevant to the case?

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect, I

15 believe it is. It concerns a witness who is to appear here on behalf of

16 the OTP and we are going to test his credibility. This witness cooperated

17 with that person, and I'm trying to gain some useful information from this

18 witness, if he's got anything to say about that.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Pesic, we better go back to square one.

20 Tell us what you know about this dispute between the prosecutor and his

21 deputy.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know very little, Mr. Bonomy. I

23 tried to familiarise myself with the case, and I spoke to both of them.

24 And that's why I said that these are difficult people who didn't know each

25 other. One of them had been there for some time, whereas Mr. Lakic was

1 sent from Nis. He was appointed to that position. They didn't know each

2 other, and they couldn't get on well. Somebody wanted to smoke at his

3 table. Somebody was a rowdy person. Somebody had an inclination to

4 drink.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, we need to get to the point, please.

6 If you know more about it, please put a direct question that's going to

7 make some progress.

8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Well, I don't seem

9 to have received much from this --

10 Q. When you say "prone to alcohol," what did you have in mind,

11 Djorovic Lakic, did he have a reputation of someone who drinks?

12 A. I believe so. And a judge from Nis came by the name of

13 Radosavljevic and he tried to deal with the case, and the person was

14 replaced and the business went on as usual.

15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pesic. I have one last question and then I wanted

16 to go through the exercise of identifying documents, so as to be able to

17 tender them.

18 Mr. Pesic, is it correct - and when you spoke about uniforms -

19 that the uniforms of the Pristina Corps units were, for the most part,

20 green camouflage M-89 or M-93, and there were a few of the

21 olive-green-grey type, the SMB type, which were M-77. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask the usher to put

25 Exhibit 5D34 on the screen, pages 1 and 2, where the signature is so as to

1 see whether the witness recognises it.

2 Q. Are you familiar with this document, Mr. Pesic?

3 A. I cannot see the top.

4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we see the first page, since I

5 believe you were able to see the signature.

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] The first page, please.

8 Q. Do you recognise the document? Is this a document of yours? Do

9 you recognise it?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. It's your document?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you.

14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I ask the registrar to put 5D39

15 in e-court.

16 Q. Do you recognise this document? It's signed deputy commander

17 Colonel Zivojin Djaklic? It's an order prohibiting theft, looting,

18 robbing.

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] May I ask Exhibit 5D41 to be placed

21 on e-court.

22 Q. Could you please look at page 1 of this document, then we'll move

23 on to the signature and the second page.

24 A. Can we zoom in a little?

25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, could we please zoom in a

1 little.

2 Q. Can you see better now?

3 A. Can we move on -- scroll down, rather.

4 Q. These are reports concerning the work of the military court. We

5 don't have time to go into detail.

6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 2.

7 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, may I inquire, is there an English

8 version available of this one? I don't seem to have one.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.

10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Correct. Yes, Your Honour. There is

11 an English version. Everything has been translated and placed on e-court.

12 It must be a technical problem. I'll note it down and try to resolve it

13 during the break.

14 MR. HANNIS: I see it now, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: It's now on the screen.

16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Pesic, please look at the signature and the stamp. Is it your

18 document?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Thank you.

21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can I now have 5D42 placed in

22 e-court.

23 Q. Mr. Pesic, can you see the first page of this document dated

24 18th May 1991 [as interpreted]?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Again, it's about the measures to be taken --

2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] There's an error in the transcript

3 on -- in line 25. We see 1991 instead of 1999.

4 Q. Can we move on to page 2, Mr. Pesic?

5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we see page 2, please.

6 Q. Do you see the signature and the stamp? Is it your document?

7 A. Yes, it was signed by my deputy.

8 Q. Which deputy?

9 A. Colonel Djaklic.

10 Q. And the last document I want to show you in conclusion is 5D43.

11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can it please be shown on e-court.

12 Can you zoom in a little, please.

13 Q. Do you see the first page? Do you recognise it?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. In para 4 --

16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] If we can scroll down a little.

17 Q. -- do we see precisely a reference to the conflict between the

18 prosecutor, the military prosecutor, Lieutenant-Colonel Lakic Djorovic,

19 and the deputy of the military prosecutor, para 4. Is it written here

20 that the incident was caused by the said prosecutor Lakic Djorovic?

21 A. Yes.

22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we see then page 2.

23 Q. Is it your signature?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no further

1 questions. And I don't know whether it is technically necessary for me to

2 repeat the numbers of these exhibits before I tender them because the

3 witness authenticated them.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: These are exhibits which are documents of the

5 witness which appear to be relevant -- or of his department which appear

6 to be relevant to issues in the case and therefore will be exhibited in

7 their entirety.

8 I have one question arising out of the last document and that is:

9 What was the result of the investigation into the fight between the

10 prosecutor and his deputy?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, Lakic was replaced by another

12 man.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lukic.

14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Pesic. My name is Branko

17 Lukic. I appear before this Tribunal on behalf of General Lukic. I would

18 be grateful if you could help me clarify certain points.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we first see P1326 on e-court.

20 Q. And while we're waiting for this to be placed on the screen, it's

21 a set of photographs depicting uniforms. And I'll have a couple of

22 questions.

23 By way of introduction, I would say that you said yesterday that

24 the army had uniforms marked as M-77, M-80, M-90, M-91, and we heard today

25 that there were also uniforms M-89 and M-93. On this photograph which is

1 a Prosecution exhibit, do you recognise military uniforms, Mr. Pesic?

2 A. The photographs are blurry, but on picture 7 -- sorry, 9, I

3 recognise military uniforms.

4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we enlarge this picture starting

5 with 1, please, moving on to 2 and so on. And we need to see the numbers.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The photographs are not very clear,

8 and picture number 9 is the only one that seems to me to depict members of

9 the army.

10 Q. So these uniforms that you enumerated M-77, M-80, M-90, M-91,

11 M-89, M-93 are not to be seen among the uniforms depicted on this set of

12 photographs?

13 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I object to that form of the question.

14 He's indicated the pictures are blurry, so that doesn't necessarily mean

15 that the uniforms aren't depicted there. He's just saying the pictures

16 are blurry.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: That's a question the witness could answer. He

18 could have given the answer that you've just given, Mr. Hannis. There was

19 nothing wrong with that question.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Mr. Pesic, we received this set of photographs from the

22 Prosecution and it was said they would be used during your examination.

23 Were they shown to you during proofing?

24 A. No.

25 Q. What about photographs 1 and 2? Can you make out whether the

1 uniforms shown there are consistent with military uniforms.

2 A. Apparently they remind me of military photographs. I can't see

3 clearly, that's about picture 1. And on picture 2 what we see could be

4 the grey-olive-green or it could be bluish.

5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we quickly show pictures 3, 4,

6 and 5.

7 Q. Number 3?

8 A. No.

9 Q. 4?

10 A. No.

11 Q. We'll see 5 very soon. Number 5?

12 A. Possibly it could be one of them, 89 or 93, but I'm not sure.

13 Q. Thank you. What about number 6?

14 A. No.

15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Can we see number 7, please.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Number 8?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Number 9? You said already this was a military uniform.

21 A. More than any of the others.

22 Q. And what about 10?

23 A. I can't see 10.

24 Q. Just a moment. This is 10.

25 A. I've never had occasion to see this type of uniform.

1 Q. Very well. That's the KLA uniform.

2 A. Yes, I see the insignia.

3 Q. But in any case on this set of photographs, not all uniforms you

4 designated as uniforms worn by the Army of Yugoslavia are shown?

5 A. Correct.

6 Q. We are in a bit of a hurry, as you know. We've heard that the

7 Pristina Military District consisted of five military sectors. How many

8 military territorial detachments were there? Because we have two

9 diverging numbers.

10 A. 24 detachments and one artillery battalion of the anti-aircraft

11 defence.

12 Q. Thank you. What about the Pristina Military District? How many

13 members did it have in end March 1999?

14 A. When?

15 Q. End March 1999. Does the figure 4.000 sound right?

16 A. No.

17 Q. How many were there?

18 A. Again, I don't quite understand the question because the

19 detachments were mobilised one after the other in succession, and I have

20 documentation showing when I mobilised the first two and then the next

21 ones, up to six or eight before the beginning of the aggression.

22 Q. What was the maximum strength in the course of 1999?

23 A. In the entire establishment, over 12.000 men.

24 Q. I'd like to ask you now something about Lieutenant-General

25 Bojovic. What was his unit called? Was it the administration for

1 defence, the one that he commanded?

2 A. From what I know, before he was appointed commander of the

3 Pristina Corps, General Bojovic was commander of the provincial staff of

4 the Territorial Defence. That's what I know. At that time I was outside

5 of the province of Kosovo. I was in the 3rd Army in Vranje or Leskovac.

6 Q. What was Petar Ilic the head of?

7 A. He headed one of the bodies of the Ministry of Defence.

8 Q. Was this body called defence administration?

9 A. Yes, I believe it was defence administration. The provincial

10 administration of the Ministry of Defence. I don't think it's difficult

11 to find a document verifying the exact name of the institution; it existed

12 for a long time.

13 Q. Concerning your agencies, that is the military district, the

14 military territorial sectors, or detachments, were they ever in any way

15 subordinated to the MUP?

16 A. From what I know, never.

17 Q. I know sometimes questions sound peculiar, but in paragraph 68 of

18 the indictment we read that your body, among others, was subordinated to

19 the MUP. Therefore, I would ask you to bear with me even when I'm asking

20 questions that sound peculiar to you.

21 What happened military territorial detachments, did they exist in

22 the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija?

23 A. Mostly. I've already said. I told you, even the smallest

24 municipality had one of the detachments, that is, a reduced detachment.

25 At least a company of B classification, B category.

1 Q. I wanted to ask you about some municipalities, if you can recall

2 any details pertaining that them. In Djakovica, what was your formation

3 there and who commanded it?

4 A. In Djakovica there was a detachment, one detachment, which had not

5 been brought up to strength. It comprised only two companies. The

6 commander was an active-duty officer, lieutenant.

7 Q. If you cannot recall that's fine. How about Suva Reka?

8 A. There was a detachment in Suva Reka.

9 Q. In Pristina, how many military territorial detachments?

10 A. One territorial detachment, the 115th, then the artillery

11 battalion of the anti-aircraft defence, and one reconnaissance sabotage

12 department, then -- detachment, then a communications company and an

13 engineering company.

14 Q. Kosovo Polje, what formation?

15 A. I'm trying to put this in proper context in terms of time. There

16 was the 115th and the reconnaissance sabotage one at a certain point, as

17 well as the anti-aircraft artillery battalion. But at a certain point

18 they were issued other tasks and they moved on.

19 Q. How about Klina?

20 A. One detachment comprising two companies.

21 Q. Istok?

22 A. One detachment.

23 Q. In Kacanik?

24 A. No detachments, or rather, the detachment in Urosevac pulled out

25 the people from Kacanik and used them and the Urosevac people.

1 Q. What about Vitina?

2 A. There was a Vitina detachment and they all have -- each of the

3 detachments had their own designator.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, designation in terms

5 of establishment.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Can you recall what was the manning strength, the number of

8 conscripts in the registry of the Pristina Military District, total

9 number?

10 A. I believe you asked me that one. The entire military district, as

11 I said, if brought up to full strength, but it varied nevertheless because

12 we had to relieve some and then mobilise some others, but in any case the

13 figure was around or slightly over 12.000.

14 Q. This is as concerns the military territorial detachments, but I

15 may have been imprecise. I wanted to know the total number of conscripts

16 for all units.

17 A. All conscripts for Kosovo, well, I don't know. But it is in the

18 documentation. We have the able-bodied men, the conscripts, but I can't

19 tell you any figures. And my deputy was in charge of that in particular.

20 It was the assistant for the military service. He had his own lists, and

21 I cannot give you an estimate. I was a new person in the command.

22 Q. Well, I tried to see if you can recollect. Thank you in any case.

23 Yesterday we talked about different age of conscripts. What about

24 reservists? Were they sent to both -- to the police and the army

25 irrespective of their age? Was there a distinction made or not in terms

1 of age as to who would go where?

2 A. We never sent them to the police. We only sent them to serve

3 their military term.

4 Q. But the reservists who were sent to the police and to the army,

5 were they of the same age?

6 A. To my knowledge, there was a possibility of choice. In peacetime

7 the military district commands and the MUP would hand-pick people if they

8 wanted to.

9 Q. Based on their specialty and not on their age, I presume?

10 A. Well, yes, their specialty was the deciding factor. As for their

11 age, well, they wanted to have younger men but it depended on their

12 agreement.

13 Q. On both parties, I presume?

14 A. Yes, and we tried to deal with everything that way.

15 Q. My learned friend Mr. Bakrac asked you about a document, and I

16 believe something remains unclear for the Court as well. I will try to

17 clarify this further. It is 5D36. It concerns the municipality of Pec,

18 and we've established that there was something wrong with the document.

19 When going through it, we see that on the 30th of March, 1999, the

20 military sector of Pec command in item 1 orders that all republican and

21 municipal authorities be put under the command of the military sector Pec

22 in the territories of municipalities of Pec, Istok, Klina, and Decani. Is

23 this the irregularity we referred to? Because one of the republican

24 organs is the MUP as well.

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Was it because of this attempt to resubordinate units of the MUP?

2 What caused discontent within the MUP and there was resistance on their

3 part for the units to be resubordinated in this way. Are you familiar

4 with that?

5 A. I believe that the commander of the Pec military sector had a good

6 intention in mind here, since he was partly familiar with the Law on All

7 People's Defence. He thought he was the most senior commander in the area

8 and that he could regulate life and work in wartime, life and work of

9 units, forgetting that there was within the area of responsibility of the

10 125th Brigade.

11 In Pec, according to the peacetime plans, the unit there was the

12 rank of battalion or artillery battalion. It is possible, provided that

13 unit was elsewhere on orders, on a certain task - although I cannot claim

14 that, it could have been ordered by the command of the 125th - then it is

15 possible that the commander of the military sector was right to draft

16 this, because the Law on All People's Defence states that the command of

17 battalion can order or regulate by orders all matters pertaining to life

18 and work of the unit.

19 In keeping with that, the commander of detachment in Istok, who

20 was reserve captain Toplica, issued his order regulating the life and work

21 within the municipality of Istok because the highest-ranking unit was a

22 battalion, and you can find this in the Law on All People's Defence.

23 Q. Therefore, the same situation was in the municipality of Istok,

24 something similar was put in place?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And we saw subsequently, after almost a month, that order was

2 nullified. We saw that on the 25th of April it was ordered that this

3 particular order be declared null and void by the same Mr. Antic?

4 A. Yes. But in the meantime another unit, the rank of brigade,

5 arrived in that territory. I remember Colonel Cirkovic who took over

6 command of that area.

7 Q. And that was after the 18th of April when the order on

8 resubordination was issued?

9 A. I can't say, but it was at that time when we were trying to deal

10 with this, and by that time the command of the brigade had regulated the

11 life and work within that territory.

12 Q. To go back to the uniforms, there's something I missed as for the

13 military territorial detachments. What type of insignia did such units

14 have on their uniforms?

15 A. We had no particular insignia. We wore the uniforms that were

16 there at the time, M-77, -89, -93.

17 Q. These were all military uniforms. What did you wear on your arms?

18 A. There was no insignia.

19 Q. What about any hats or so?

20 A. We wore berets.

21 Q. Thank you. How were your units billeted? Were they within

22 barracks or did they spend the night at home, and did the same go for all

23 of the locations or not?

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, Mr. Pesic.

25 The relevance of this to your case, Mr. Lukic?

1 MR. LUKIC: I'm afraid that I would like to hear the answer from

2 this witness, then it would be easy to explain.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I thought your concern was about the police. Are

4 you telling me that this is relevant to the police position?

5 MR. LUKIC: Police, but if you look to the indictment this segment

6 is of our concern as well.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, help me, in what way you see this as a

8 question that's relevant to your case?

9 MR. LUKIC: When explaining Mr. Lukic's function on Kosovo and

10 Metohija and his right to command various units under Kosovo.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: This is -- you're saying that military units could

12 be commanded by him?

13 MR. LUKIC: Partially, according to the indictment.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: What was the paragraph you referred to earlier?

15 68, wasn't it?

16 I understood you to have already had an answer from the witness

17 that the MUP were never subordinated to the military territorial

18 districts.

19 MR. LUKIC: Or, vice versa, that they were not subordinated

20 to MUP.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, sorry, the opposite, yes, that the military

22 was never subordinated to the MUP. And is that not the end of the

23 matter? And therefore do you have an interest in the question you've now

24 asked?

25 MR. LUKIC: I really do.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I trust you to have a relevant basis.

2 Continue. I have to say I find it difficult to see that at the moment.

3 MR. LUKIC: I'll try to show it afterwards, Your Honour.

4 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Pesic, can you tell us whether your people

5 were billeted in barracks or whether they went home overnight.

6 A. They were not billeted in any barracks, not a single unit in

7 Kosovo, because the barracks had been abandoned before the bombings. At

8 first, such units provided security in the barracks because, as I said,

9 they were supposed to secure buildings and important facilities of state

10 importance. But once the barracks had been abandoned, they were given or

11 assigned different locations. When I toured them, I would find them in

12 the areas I knew they were in, based on the reports of commanders. And I

13 usually went to the detachments myself.

14 Q. Therefore, they were deployed outside of settlements?

15 A. Outside or on the outskirts in order to try and protect themselves

16 from air-raids.

17 MR. ZECEVIC: [Previous translation continues] ...

18 transcript 31, 8, it says: "But once the barracks had been abandoned."

19 Actually, the witness said when the barracks started being bombed. It can

20 be clarified with the witness. 31, 8, page 31, 8.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: [Microphone not activated].

22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. If you look at 31, 4 and 5, you'll see the

24 barracks had been abandoned before the bombings.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Microphone not activated].

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

2 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour, but 31, number 8 -- well, I was

3 just -- I just made the comment according to what the witness had said. I

4 understand it comes from the meaning of the whole passage.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

6 Mr. Pesic, did you say that the barracks had been bombed?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 Mr. Lukic.

10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you should be conscious of the need to

12 pause after the answer before you ask your next question.

13 MR. LUKIC: I have to be conscious of so many things, so that's

14 why I'm maybe not handling everything properly.

15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Pesic, when describing the tasks of your

16 units, which, inter alia, included control of territory, can you tell us

17 what territory they controlled and how was it decided, based on what?

18 What territory would be controlled by your units?

19 A. Based on decisions of commanders of the military sectors. The

20 presence of a given unit within a certain municipality comprising several

21 villages would be done in such a way that the commander of the military

22 sector would issue an order to the commander of the detachment. He would

23 assign a specific area, mentioning which villages and property should be

24 secured.

25 Q. Thank you. You say they manned check-points as well. Were your

1 units indeed at check-points?

2 A. No. Only the military police company was engaged in that. They

3 were commanded by myself and they were in the town of Pristina itself.

4 They cooperated with other organs of the MUP and the military police of

5 the 15th Brigade.

6 Q. Thank you. As for traffic regulation, you mentioned that as one

7 of the tasks. I don't know whether it came about.

8 A. No, not directly. They were at check-points in cooperation with

9 the organs of the MUP and the command of the 15th Brigade within which AOR

10 Pristina was.

11 Q. I'm trying abbreviate this to the extent possible.

12 Yesterday my colleague Mr. O'Sullivan asked you about a meeting

13 attended by Mr. Milutinovic, and we had occasion to see that you

14 remembered the meeting but not all the details, so I'll try to refresh

15 your memory a little.

16 Would you agree with me that it was a brief visit and a brief

17 address by the president of Serbia of about 45 minutes to a certain number

18 of members of both sectors of the Army of Yugoslavia after the rest of the

19 schedule had been dealt with and before the lunch, and that everything

20 took place in the building of the MUP?

21 A. Yes, it was very brief. I don't think there was a single question

22 from the audience.

23 Q. Maybe it doesn't matter, but let us try. You said you were in the

24 fourth row and that there were about 20 people; however, we have

25 information that there were 79 people. To avoid confusion later, can you

1 remember the number?

2 A. When General Pavkovic and I came, there was a smaller number of

3 people present and I believe most of them were members of the MUP,

4 officers of the MUP.

5 Q. Our information is 13.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Pesic, was it the visit or the address that

7 lasted 45 minutes?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that was about that long,

9 not long. When I sat down I was trying to say there were not many people

10 around, and later on I didn't turn around to see how many more people came

11 in later. Of course when the president came we rose, and it was my

12 impression that there were not many people there.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Let me try again. Was it the visit that lasted 45

14 minutes or was it the address by Mr. Milutinovic that lasted 45 minutes?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I can't give you a

16 precise answer. I believe counsel is right when he says it was short. It

17 was just a short briefing, and there were no -- there was no discussion,

18 no question and answer session.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: No answer there then, Mr. Lukic. Carry on, please.

20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Just another thing, Mr. Pesic. Prosecution Exhibit P1737, we

22 don't need to see it on the screen. It's the Law on Internal Affairs.

23 Since I don't know whether what you said was indeed recorded, I'll try to

24 refresh your memory. Article 28 speaks about the reserve force of the

25 police. Article 28 says: "The minister may summon members of the reserve

1 force to perform certain peacetime tasks from the purview of the ministry,

2 especially to be engaged in activity related to risks to the safety of the

3 republic, restoring public law and order, and in cases of natural

4 disasters. Persons from the reserve force shall be engaged by the

5 minister in tasks from para 1 of this article for as long as safety

6 reasons justify this."

7 Let me ask you first, in 1998 and 1999, were there any

8 safety-related reasons or security-related reasons that would justify the

9 use of the reserve force of the police?

10 A. Certainly, yes.

11 Q. So the use of the reserve force of the police -- I'm sorry. I'm

12 getting confused with military terms versus police terms.

13 The use of reserve units, reserve personnel, of the police was

14 justified and existed in Kosovo in 1998/1999?

15 A. As far as 1998 is concerned, I don't know much. I was engaged in

16 other work; and concerning 1999, I know that part of the personnel was

17 indeed mobilised to meet the requirements of the MUP.

18 Q. Thank you, Mr. Pesic, for answering my questions. I have no

19 further questions.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila.

21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. President, it's time for me

22 to repay my debt incurred when I -- when I dealt with another witness too

23 long. Now I'm not going to ask any questions.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 Mr. Visnjic.

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have

2 questions, but I don't know whether it's time for the break.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: How long are you likely to --

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Shall I just begin? Certainly more

5 than 15 minutes but not longer than half an hour.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in that case we will break now and we will

7 resume at five past 4.00.

8 Mr. Pesic, we have to break now. Please go with the usher while

9 we have our break and we will see you in 20 minutes.

10 [The witness stands down]

11 --- Recess taken at 3.43 p.m.

12 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.

13 [The witness takes the stand]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Cross-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

17 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Colonel Pesic. My name is

18 Tomislav Visnjic, attorney-at-law, representing General Ojdanic. I will

19 have a few brief questions for you.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] First of all, I'd kindly ask

21 for 5D35 to be shown to the witness, page 2, paragraph 4.

22 Q. Colonel, this question of mine will concern some of your previous

23 answers and the orders issued by Colonel Antic on behalf of the military

24 sector of Pec.

25 Is it correct that by your order you prohibited any issuing of

1 orders by commanders of the units of the military district pertaining to

2 the functioning of the organs of authorities or the so-called Crisis

3 Staffs?

4 A. I hear of these Crisis Staffs for the first time. As for the

5 first part of your question, it is unclear to me.

6 Q. It is paragraph 4, Colonel, of your are document dated the 20th of

7 April, 1999, called measures to stabilise defence, page 2, paragraph 4.

8 It regulates the authorities of the commanders of military units and

9 military -- of the military sector.

10 A. Now I understand.

11 Q. Concerning your answer when -- answers when questioned by

12 Mr. Lukic and Bakrac, can we agree that what the commanders of the

13 military district units tried to regulate pertained to the life and work

14 of the particular unit and not on the life and work of entire

15 municipalities or territories?

16 A. They are no longer within their -- the area of their competence

17 because they had been resubordinated to the military command, and as of

18 that moment the military commander in charge was responsible for all of

19 it.

20 Q. Let us have a look at another exhibit, it is 3D429, a regular

21 combat report. Can we go together through this combat report dated the

22 11th of April, 1999, so as to try and explain to the Bench what took place

23 in one single day in Kosovo.

24 First of all, these regular combat reports, were they being put

25 together as summary reports of the reports you had received from your

1 subordinated units? And at that moment they may have already been

2 resubordinated to the units of the corps but nevertheless sent their

3 reports to you as well.

4 A. Certainly. Based on the reports received, we would compile our

5 own reports sent to the command of the corps. If we learned something

6 after we've drafted a particular report, then such information is included

7 in the next one. Unless there were some extreme or extraordinary

8 situations or circumstances which may be addressed separately.

9 Q. Thank you. If we look at item 1, for the most part it explains or

10 describes the bombing of NATO aircraft -- or performed by NATO aircraft.

11 I wanted us to look at line 6 in Serbian, and it says the targets were the

12 towns of Djakovica, Pec, and Prizren, extensive damage was close to

13 private houses. Djakovica, Pec, and Prizren have a majority Albanian

14 population. Am I correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And this part of the report was compiled best on the reports you

17 had received from your territorial units, from these towns?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I wanted to ask you to look at paragraph 3 -- or paragraph 3 of

20 item 1. It says: "Several bombs fell on the Goles repeater and on the

21 Merdare pass. These attacks by NATO aircraft and cruise missiles may have

22 caused casualties but this was difficult to establish due to continuous

23 activities of the enemy during the day."

24 Colonel, you often encountered such situations in which certain VJ

25 units and authorities had difficulty in exercising their powers due to

1 NATO air-strikes in the field?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Is it -- is it because of that --

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and witness please pause

5 between question and answer.

6 Could Mr. Visnjic please repeat his question.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, please repeat that question.

8 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Am I correct, Colonel, if I say that due to the

10 danger of being bombed it was impossible to carry out on-site

11 investigations and to establish what the real situation was in the field

12 very often?

13 A. I don't have much knowledge from the field, apart from the reports

14 I received. For one to be able to have a full picture, one had to move

15 about, and I agree with you when you say that it was difficult to gain

16 information and to forward that information to your superior as regards

17 the situation in the field.

18 Q. Colonel, please take a look at the next paragraph.

19 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry, it's still first page on e-court.

20 Q. [Interpretation] The next paragraph where a border incident

21 occurred in the area of Kosare when some 1.000 terrorists with some

22 artillery support attempted an attack from Albania.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Are we on the wrong page?

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] We are, Your Honour. It is page 1,

25 the fourth paragraph from the top.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we have page 1 in the English, please, also.

2 Mr. Visnjic.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Colonel, does this description describe a large offensive

5 initiated by the KLA from Albania in early April, trying to break out to

6 the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

7 A. This is based on information of the territorial sector of Pec

8 together with the command of the 125th Brigade.

9 Q. And you have no reason to dispute or question what is stated here?

10 A. No, I don't. And I forwarded this as such.

11 Q. Thank you. At the bottom of page 1, it is said that during the

12 day a Red Cross warehouse was handed over as well as a service Opel,

13 Sicani, and they were handed over to the command of the 202nd Logistics

14 Base. Colonel, was this standard procedure to hand over property?

15 A. The Red Cross facility was secured by the engineering company

16 which had been subordinated to me, and as much the facility was on the

17 list of the provincial civilian protection staff. A part of the goods

18 there was distributed to various bodies, including the police and the

19 army.

20 As for the Opel service station called Sicani --

21 Q. Colonel, it is in your statement. I'm not trying to repeat what

22 you've already said. I'm just asking you whether this was the standard

23 procedure for you to hand this over to the 202 logistics base.

24 A. Certainly, it was based on orders of the commander of the

25 Pristina Corps.

1 Q. Thank you. The next page, page 2 --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you go to the next page, Mr. Visnjic.

3 Mr. Pesic, would you please read for me the first sentence of the

4 paragraph number 1 in the report. Read it aloud, please.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Aggressor NATO aircraft, during the

6 night between the 10th and 11th of April, 1999" --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Is it common in a report of this nature

8 to use an expression like "aggressor NATO aircraft" in an official

9 military report?

10 MR. VISNJIC: Is it a question for witness or for me?

11 JUDGE BONOMY: No, it's the witness I'm asking. Thank you.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is normal for a daily report like

13 this one to be drafted by the team on duty at the operations centre. That

14 team is in charge of collecting data from the field. And it was up to the

15 two people who were there who drafted this report to use this term. This

16 is how they decided to term the NATO bombing.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: The report in the end of the day, though, is your

18 report. Is that correct?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly, but I wasn't the one who

20 would draft it. It would be drafted by the duty officer, and either I or

21 my assistant would read it through and then forward it.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Rather than go to another page, Mr. Visnjic, who

23 actually signed this?

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It was signed by Colonel Pesic on

25 page 3.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: So my question, I repeat, Colonel Pesic: Is that

2 normal language for a report of this nature?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, at that moment I can

4 assure you that was the term used by the duty officer who wrote the

5 report. Of course I did not dictate it --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: You have already told me that. Please answer the

7 question I'm asking you, and if you can't answer it just tell me. Is it

8 normal language for a report of this nature?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our peacetime practice we have a

10 term that we used to begin with, such as the enemy when speaking of the

11 enemy. In this case, the officer used this term and I didn't pay much

12 attention. It didn't strike me -- although I might even agree with it.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: That's really not my question and it's a pity that

14 you're determined not to answer the question I've put to you, but we need

15 to make progress.

16 Mr. Visnjic.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I'll ask you something about this paragraph 1, Mr. Pesic.

19 Is it customary - and I believe there is a manual on writing

20 reports or a similar document of the Army of Yugoslavia - that para 1

21 always describes the activity of the enemy. Am I right?

22 A. In reports, yes.

23 Q. Would I also be right if I said that in almost all reports - I

24 mean combat reports - paragraph 1 described air-strikes by the NATO air

25 force and activities of the KLA forces?

1 A. Yes, that was customary. That was the focus of the report.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: You may have misunderstood the question,

3 Mr. Visnjic. It's the use of the word "aggressor" that concerned me, not

4 whether there was a reference to NATO. And I just wondered if that's a

5 normal way of describing the attacking force in this type of military

6 report. It's a tendentious comment, and I wonder if that was normal.

7 It's like other expressions we keep seeing in these reports and it's used

8 constantly by counsel here for reasons I find difficult to understand,

9 "the so-called KLA." It seems to be a Balkan tendency to be determined

10 to put in some sort of word that is -- shows a certain bias unnecessarily

11 in the context certainly in which we are dealing with the matter here.

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know if it

13 would surprise you, but if we go into detail of these documents you'll

14 find that NATO air force is usually referred to as aggressors, and we'll

15 find a lot of documents referring to the aggression of NATO member states

16 against Yugoslavia.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] My colleague Mr. Fila adds that

19 there is even a resolution of the Security Council.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but it's a pity you haven't taken the solemn

21 declaration to speak the truth, Mr. Visnjic, but you've given me the

22 answer I expected I would have got straight away from the witness. But as

23 it turned out, it was a laborious and non-productive exercise.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Let's move on to page 2, then, Colonel.

1 My colleague Mr. Bakrac showed you a couple of orders which

2 prohibit theft, looting, robbery, and other criminal offences related to

3 property. In paragraph 2, it is said that only on that day 23 persons

4 were detained, taken into custody for misappropriating property. Is this

5 one of the reports that you received almost daily, showing that security

6 agencies were performing their job and taking into custody offenders?

7 A. Of course. This is a military police company that only in

8 Pristina in only one day, as on the previous day when the last report was

9 written, and this could be a report covering two days, was doing its job

10 and informing the superior command.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Did --

12 MR. VISNJIC: Sorry.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you -- can you recollect whether on any

14 occasion during the first half of 1999, when you were writing reports of

15 this nature - or perhaps these are confined to the period after the 23rd

16 of March - but can you recall whether in any you were able to report that

17 any persons had been detained by the military police in connection with

18 allegations of the commission of what might be described as war crimes?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, you mean after the

20 beginning of the aggression or until that time?

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, from the 23rd of March.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the 23rd of March. I can't

23 remember specific examples, but I can claim - speaking about detachments -

24 that I did not encounter such cases at all. And we had no trials

25 involving such cases before our courts. We had no one in our units

1 charged with war crimes.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 Mr. Visnjic.

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. But you had criminal reports for theft, murder, and similar

6 criminal acts?

7 A. Thefts, yes. I don't know about murders. I don't know of any

8 member of a detachment tried for murder.

9 Q. Thank you. Another question related to paragraph 3. Was a

10 reference to a request to investigate four members of the OSCE

11 verification mission suspected of the crime of espionage.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Yes.

14 A. It was a case where a security agency of the military district was

15 involved in cooperation with the chief of security of the corps, and

16 that's why it's covered in the report. I think it is a well-known case,

17 though, the trial, but it was a high-profile case, although I don't want

18 to go into it.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] May I ask 3D431 shown to the

20 witness. 3D431.

21 Q. Mr. Pesic, or rather, Colonel, I'd like to ask you this:

22 Yesterday in your testimony you said that the Albanian -- in fact, that

23 you tried to keep one group of Albanians and persuade them to return. As

24 you noticed Albanian civilians leaving, did you also see them returning to

25 their residences once the danger was gone, danger from air-strikes or

1 combat activity?

2 A. No, I did not.

3 Q. Could you please then look at this document, 3D431, last paragraph

4 on the first page. The last paragraph on page 1, does it refer to the

5 part of report you received from your territorial units?

6 A. Yes, I wanted to apologise. This is what occurred often. I was

7 there that day. I was present and saw many things, many of those people.

8 Touring the Podujevo detachment, which was securing the water facility in

9 Pristina, I had contact with those people who spent some time in an area a

10 few kilometres away from where the military territorial detachment of

11 Podujevo was, and on that occasion we talked to them. And these people

12 were returning in groups to their villages.

13 Q. Thank you. I'll ask you again about paragraph 1 of this document

14 in which it is mentioned that NATO aviation attacked a refugee camp in

15 Djakovica, and it is mentioned here that the camp was destroyed completely

16 and that there were casualties among the refugees. There were wounded and

17 killed.

18 A. This was based on the military sector report.

19 Q. The one from Djakovica?

20 A. Yes -- no, no, from Prizren, the Prizren military sector.

21 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 4 of the same page, it is stated that in

22 the Suva Reka municipal territory a shell was fired from a recoilless gun.

23 This is what BST should stand for, if I'm not mistaken, and it is of

24 82-millimetre calibre?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Whereupon one MUP member was killed and another two seriously

2 wounded?

3 A. Yes, this was also based on the report of the commander of the

4 military sector of Prizren, and apart of the unit was within the

5 Pristina Corps.

6 Q. I wanted to ask you this, since it doesn't seem to be clear from

7 the report, but I believe it is presumed that the KLA used that recoilless

8 gun.

9 A. That's the way I understood it.

10 Q. Thank you. On page 2 of this document in paragraph 5, it is

11 stated that there was a combat action taken against the KLA and,

12 inter alia, a war diary was found, a war diary of a KLA battalion

13 commander.

14 My question is this: Do you know where that document could be

15 found nowadays?

16 A. Since the military district command was subordinated to the

17 Pristina Corps, the chief of security was supposed to report to the chief

18 of security of the Pristina Corps. And anything that was seized or found

19 should have been turned over to the security chief of the Pristina Corps.

20 Q. Therefore, we might be able to find it in the archives of the

21 Pristina Corps or in the security administration?

22 A. Certainly. The security organ of the Pristina Corps, they should

23 have record of it.

24 Q. And item 6 of the same page, there is a mention of the

25 difficulties encountered in communicating with your units and that that is

1 why you used couriers for the most part. This is what you've already

2 described in your statement and in your testimony here before the

3 Tribunal.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please show 3D432 to the

7 witness.

8 Q. Colonel, it is an order of yours dated the 29th of April, 1999,

9 concerning a ban on the existence of paramilitary formations. The text

10 speaks for itself; therefore, could you just confirm to us whether you

11 issued this order.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Thank you. Colonel, I'll have a few questions about a previous

14 period that you also touch upon in your statement. As I understood from

15 your statement, from 1997 [as interpreted] on you were commander of the

16 artillery battalion within the 549th Brigade. Am I correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Your commander at the time was Dragoljub Ojdanic. Am I correct?

19 A. Yes, he was a colonel then.

20 Q. At that time, how often did you used to see Colonel Ojdanic?

21 A. At least once a month for a briefing or to submit reports. On

22 some occasions, several times a month, but once at least.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] A correction for the transcript. It

24 is 1987 rather than 1997.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: I had just noted: Quick rise to the top,

1 Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. In your brigade at the time, were there any Albanians serving

4 their military terms or were there any Albanian officers?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. To your knowledge, these Albanian officers or soldiers, were they

7 discriminated against in any way for being Albanian?

8 A. No, in no way.

9 Q. From your knowledge and from the extent you knew Colonel Ojdanic

10 at the time and his style of command, do you think he would have tolerated

11 any sort of discrimination based on ethnic grounds against ethnic

12 Albanians?

13 MR. HANNIS: Objection, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Hannis.

15 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, that's an inappropriate question. What

16 sort of answer do you expect anybody to give to that sort of question?

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, you've had a clear answer that there

19 was no discrimination. You then have posed an entirely hypothetical

20 question that we do not think will add anything useful for our purposes,

21 and therefore we will sustain this objection.

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree and I accept

23 that completely. I have no further questions of this witness.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 Mr. Hannis.

1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Re-examination by Mr. Hannis:

3 Q. Colonel, I have some questions for you on re-direct examination.

4 Yesterday Mr. Bakrac was asking you some questions, and one of the

5 questions was about conscripts who were not mobilised and whether they had

6 been issued uniforms before. Let me find the precise question, the

7 precise wording of that question. It was at page 7247, line 16. Yes,

8 Mr. Bakrac asked you: "Is it also correct that those who had not been

9 mobilised were those conscripts who had had their uniforms and equipment

10 from an earlier period?"

11 Now, maybe it's my misunderstanding, but I took the

12 term "conscript" to mean someone who had never done military service

13 before and was being called up to do their military service. Am I

14 mistaken about that?

15 A. You are.

16 Q. Explain that to me then. What does "conscript" refer to?

17 A. I have already dealt with that topic. The military obligation

18 lasts from the moment one reaches 18 until 55. It begins with the duty to

19 do military service and then continues into the obligation to be available

20 to the reserve force. I have been asked that by Defence counsel, and I

21 believe that I answered yes.

22 There were certain conscripts who had a wartime assignment but

23 were never mobilised and still kept their uniforms with them because they

24 had never been invited to return the uniform to supplies. They were

25 replaced by younger men in an effort to rejuvenate units, and I believe

1 that there was a question to that effect which I answered. So it was

2 possible to find a uniform in the possession of a person who is a military

3 conscript without a current assignment to a particular unit. The unit

4 could and was supposed to invite him one day to come and return the

5 uniform to supplies.

6 Q. My question is: Would someone receive a military uniform without

7 having first done their obligation to serve in the military?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. Okay. Then it's my misunderstanding about the use of the

10 term, of "conscript" versus "reservist." All right. Someone would not

11 have a uniform at home unless they had already done their obligatory

12 military service. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Thank you. And in connection with that question, Mr. Bakrac then

15 asked you whether these conscripts were those who had been issued with

16 uniforms before as reservists before the war. They had it at home, and on

17 page 7248, line 7, he said: "Did you have occasion to see such not

18 mobilised members wearing uniforms?"

19 Your answer was: "It was not unusual to see people, men, wearing

20 parts of uniforms and not complete uniforms."

21 Judge Bonomy asked you a question on the next page about these

22 persons, and Mr. Visnjic helped inform us at page 7249 that you had

23 indicated that those persons you saw with partial uniforms were mostly or

24 mainly unarmed. Did you see any of these individuals wearing partial

25 uniforms carrying military weapons?

1 A. No, certainly not, because such a person would have been

2 immediately noticed by all the competent authorities, the military police

3 and the civilian police if they had both inappropriate clothing and a

4 weapon. In that case, measures would be taken.

5 Q. So are most of the ones you're talking about single individuals or

6 groups of two or three individuals wearing partial uniforms?

7 A. I spoke of specific cases, and I stressed that sometimes it would

8 be for lack of other clothing that certain parts of uniform, a military

9 uniform, would be worn, a uniform that should one day be returned to their

10 unit once they were invited to do so.

11 Q. Just by looking at somebody who had a partial uniform, is there

12 any way you could know whether or not they had been mobilised?

13 A. Please, nowadays you can find on our bazaars military uniforms for

14 sale, even today. Throughout Serbia you can buy a uniform at a market and

15 even back then there were army surplus sale points where uniforms and

16 parts of uniforms were available to be bought, and that's how people could

17 get hold of a uniform, not only by having a prior wartime assignment.

18 Q. Didn't you indicate, though, that you were having a problem

19 furnishing full uniforms to the -- to the individuals that you were

20 mobilising? Wasn't there a shortage of uniforms?

21 A. Certainly. But certain types of uniform found their way to the

22 market. They could have been bought. Among our men, some did not have

23 uniforms. We were lacking new models of uniform. I said specifically

24 that I took the opportunity when I failed to set up a unit made up of

25 Albanians to distribute 400 new uniforms to other men, replacing the old

1 uniforms that reservists wore until then.

2 Q. I'm not sure you answered my previous question, though, about

3 whether just by looking at an individual who's wearing a partial uniform,

4 there's no way possible, is there, you can tell whether that person has

5 been mobilised or not?

6 A. You could not really tell if the man was wearing just parts of the

7 uniform. Some men wore it for patriotic reasons, while others wore it

8 because they had nothing else to put on.

9 Q. Thank you. At page 7252 you were asked a question by Mr. Bakrac

10 about the -- the army's ability to commandeer vehicles for use during a

11 time of war. Was there a legal obligation to return those vehicles?

12 A. Certainly. Vehicles were subject to returning in the same

13 condition in which they were received. Under regulations it was a

14 commission that received such vehicles that again, according to

15 regulations, the commission was supposed to return the vehicle with a full

16 tank and with all possible damage repaired.

17 Q. Colonel, to your knowledge was that requirement complied with in

18 Kosovo after the end of the conflict?

19 A. I have no insight into such a large number of units, corps, or the

20 units of the military district. Part of the vehicles were relocated

21 outside Kosovo precisely to meet the requirements of units.

22 Q. Did you have a car that you drove during the conflict that was

23 commandeered for the military use?

24 A. Yes, and that car was returned to the owner who had duly issued

25 papers certifying that his vehicle had been commandeered by the army.

1 Q. What kind of car was that?

2 A. It was a BMW, the owner was Cerim, I can't remember the last name,

3 from Kosovska Kamenica, and he had all the regular papers certifying that

4 the vehicle had been commandeered and later returned after the war was

5 over.

6 Q. Thank you. Today Mr. Bakrac was asking you some questions and one

7 of them that he asked you about related to an event in Istok where there

8 had been an allegation that some sort of detention facility had been set

9 up for Albanian civilians. You indicated that an investigation was done

10 that showed that did not exist. And in your statement at paragraph 35 you

11 make reference to this being documented in a publication called the

12 application of rules of the international law on armed conflicts in

13 connection with the Yugoslav army and Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and

14 1999?

15 MR. HANNIS: This is an exhibit, Your Honours, in e-court,

16 Exhibit P1011.

17 Q. And one I thing I wanted to ask you in connection with that,

18 because you were a part of the investigating commission; correct, Colonel?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And in the course of the investigation you learned there had been

21 a group of Albanians, Kosovar Albanian civilians, who had left Istok and

22 gone in the direction of Djakovica. On the way they had been intercepted

23 by a group of what they called special forces, Serbs in uniforms wearing

24 hats who took their vehicles and their money and jewellery and told them

25 to go back and they had returned to Istok. Did that commission do any

1 investigation to try and identify who those special forces were who had

2 robbed those civilians on their way to and from Istok?

3 A. I have no further information as to the outcome of that report and

4 the measures taken, if any. I believe the commission did its work very

5 properly and submitted a report.

6 Q. What investigation did the commission do about -- about that

7 report of being robbed by the special forces?

8 A. We interviewed all the relevant people in Istok and concluded that

9 there are no facts supporting the allegation that there had been a camp.

10 Albanian civilians commended members of the army, or rather, the

11 detachment. They praised them, and they told us that the people who had

12 robbed them were not wearing either the uniform that I was wearing or the

13 uniform worn by the police member of that commission. After a couple of

14 days, the report was drafted and the chairman of the commission, Colonel

15 Djakovic, forwarded that report and I don't know what became of it.

16 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bakrac then asked you about certain orders that

17 you had issued. One of your orders related to governing the "life and

18 work of the units." What authorisation did you have as head of the

19 military district to issue orders to military territorial detachments once

20 they had been resubordinated to the VJ or to the Pristina Corps?

21 A. I didn't even issue orders to them at the time when they were

22 resubordinated; at least not as to how they would be used. I did inspect

23 higher-ranking detachments to see what the situation was, just to show

24 that I care and to see if they needed any assistance or if the unit they

25 were resubordinated to needed any assistance.

1 Q. However, isn't it a fact that once they were resubordinated to the

2 Pristina Corps, the VJ had authority over them on all matters related to

3 that new status?

4 A. Precisely. They precisely executed the orders of the commanders

5 to whom they were subordinated.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MR. HANNIS: Could we look briefly at 5D35.

8 Q. In today's transcript at page 9, line 12, Mr. Bakrac was showing

9 you a number of exhibits. There was one here. He was moving very quickly

10 and I was having a hard time following, but in paragraph 2 there's a

11 provision -- yes.

12 Colonel, can you see paragraph 2, and it's the -- under number 2

13 it's actually the third paragraph. In English it's translated

14 as: "Prevent any form of misconduct towards civilians, e.g., banning

15 their return to populated places, especially by individuals, squad

16 commanders, platoon commanders, et cetera."

17 Prior to the issuance of this order, had you received reports or

18 had any information that that kind of thing was happened; that is, that

19 squad commanders or platoon commanders were engaging in misconduct toward

20 civilians?

21 A. Orders would be issued either on the basis of reports received

22 from the superior command or on the basis of our own information, and that

23 is how orders would be issued to subordinated units. They were usually

24 spurred by reports that such things had happened somewhere. Sometimes an

25 order would be issued as a lesson practically saying that something like

1 that should never happen again; sometimes it would be in the form of an

2 order.

3 Q. Thank you. At page 11, line 9, you told us that the military

4 district had its own military court with a judge and prosecutor. How many

5 cases approximately, if you know, did that military district military

6 court investigate?

7 A. I think there were 34 cases and some happened -- or, rather, we

8 received some reports after the end of air-strikes, after we withdrew from

9 the territory of Kosovo. So that figure of 34 cases stands. Maybe there

10 were a couple of more cases. Some were turned over to the Pristina Corps,

11 but I'm not really very familiar with this matter. Because this court was

12 disbanded once the units were demobilised and pulled out when the

13 Pristina Corps pulled out of Kosovo. And the cases were transferred to

14 the court in Nis and the 3rd Army, and we had proper documentation for

15 that.

16 Q. Thank you. In a related question to that, is my understanding

17 correct that once a military person is demobilised, if they have a case

18 pending in military court that case gets transferred to the civilian

19 court. Is that correct?

20 A. I'm not sure, but I think the military court follows up. I'm not

21 quite certain about this. It could have been transferred to a military

22 court or maybe a civilian court in the relevant region. I'm not really

23 familiar with that matter.

24 Q. You told us that the Pristina Corps also had its own military

25 court with the prosecutor and judge. Once the military territorial

1 detachment was resubordinated to the Pristina Corps, isn't it a fact that

2 they were responsible for discipline of those individuals in the event

3 that they were found to be suspected of any criminal activity, and it

4 would have been the Pristina military court that would have been

5 investigated and prosecuted those cases?

6 A. Well, I think that by doing so we would have deprived the military

7 court belonging to that military district of its functions because it

8 continued to work, although it was -- the military district was

9 subordinated to the Pristina Corps. And I know that there was a good

10 cooperation between the two courts.

11 Q. But you're not sure how that works, are you? Whether such a

12 person would be subject to the military court of the military district or

13 of the Pristina Corps, once they had been resubordinated?

14 A. I can hardly give you a precise answer. I think that reservists

15 from the military district were tried before the court of the military

16 district.

17 Q. Thank you, Colonel. We'll take that up later with other

18 witnesses.

19 You were shown a series of documents, 5D39, 5D41, 5D42, which I

20 believe were all regular combat reports. Do you recall those?

21 A. Certainly.

22 Q. And those were done on a daily basis, once a day?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And did you do that then or was that done for your signature once

25 a day, every day, from the beginning of the conflict on the 24th of March,

1 1999?

2 A. In practice and by the rules, it's the operations officer who was

3 supposed to do that by collecting reports from the duty officer who has

4 all the incoming information. He aggregates the information, writes a

5 report, and submits it to me, my deputy, or whoever happens to be in

6 charge at the command, and that persons signs it. That's how it goes.

7 Q. And that's done daily?

8 A. That's standard practice and our obligation.

9 Q. Thank you. Mr. Lukic then questioned you, and on page 23, line 24

10 of today's transcript you mentioned that the maximum strength in the

11 entire establishment of your military district was over 12.000 men. Is

12 that 12.000 men at any one time, any one day, or do you mean over the

13 entire course of the conflict?

14 A. What I said is that the number varied. We had the establishment

15 and units were supposed to be brought up to establishment. However, we

16 had casualties, losses, and people leaving, men who were demobbed, and

17 personnel who was relieved to serve in other duties that we referred to

18 previously in normal life. And in view of all that, the number varied,

19 both on the level of the military sector and the military district.

20 Q. Would 12.000 then be the highest it every was on a particular day

21 during the conflict?

22 A. Throughout that period -- well, at a certain point I remember that

23 the figure was 12.700.

24 Q. Okay. Thank you. You -- at page 25, line 1, and following you

25 were asked some questions about the military territorial detachments. Of

1 the 24, how many of those were resubordinated to the Pristina Corps of the

2 VJ between 24 March and 20 June 1999?

3 A. Almost all of them -- well, by way of an order, military sectors

4 were resubordinated together with all of their military detachments. At a

5 certain point, the anti-aircraft artillery battalion was also

6 resubordinated to the 37th Brigade, and I commanded them. And then the

7 reconnaissance detachment was resubordinated as well to the same

8 37th Brigade. As I said, almost all of them. But my communications

9 company and the staff units were never resubordinated, and this includes

10 the military police company as well and the engineers company being a

11 non-combat unit.

12 MR. HANNIS: I'd like to look at 5D36 and page 2 of the English I

13 think page 2 of the B/C/S.

14 Q. Colonel, while we're waiting for that to come up, when these

15 military territorial detachments were resubordinated to the army, at that

16 time did they receive any insignia to wear on their uniforms, or did they

17 continue to have no insignia?

18 A. I don't even know of army members wearing any special insignia on

19 their uniform, and the same goes for members of detachments. They had no

20 particular insignia.

21 Q. Did they have a standard VJ patch on their uniform, or was it just

22 simply a green uniform with no patches or badges of any kind?

23 A. I don't know of any patches or anything that may have been applied

24 on their uniforms, apart from the military police. They had their own

25 badge and various markings, including the patch they wore on the left

1 upper arm.

2 Q. And what about on their berets? Did they have any kind of

3 insignia, badge, or emblem?

4 A. Yes. They had an insignia of the VJ on their berets.

5 Q. Thank you. In this document on the screen in front of you now

6 under paragraph 2, item number J -- I'm just looking for your help with an

7 abbreviation. Under J, it says: "For looking after persons displaced by

8 activities of STG."

9 Can you tell me what that abbreviation is, what it refers to? Are

10 you finding that paragraph? It's under the name of Tomislav Lanicevic is

11 underlined in that paragraph. That one, yes. Do you see where the little

12 magnifying glass was? We'll try and enlarge that for you.

13 A. Siptar terrorist groups.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, finally Mr. Visnjic asked you a few questions at

15 the end, and he showed you an exhibit; I think he said it was

16 Exhibit 3D432. It was a 29 April 1999 order that you issued about a ban

17 on paramilitaries.

18 Why was this order issued on this date, the 29th of April, 1999?

19 Had you received information prior to that, that there were paramilitaries

20 operating in your area of responsibility, that is, in Kosovo?

21 A. Personally during all of my inspections I never came cross any

22 paramilitary unit. This order was based on a previous order of the

23 3rd Army command, and it was forwarded down to the units.

24 Q. And your order directs the subordinate military sectors to report

25 any such information. Did you receive any reports back in connection with

1 this order?

2 A. I must have, because I was duty-bound to report up based on this

3 order. Therefore, based on my inspection and the reports of the units, I

4 had no knowledge of any paramilitary formations.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 MR. HANNIS: I have no other questions, Your Honour.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Pesic, that completes your evidence. Thank you

9 for coming to the Tribunal to give that evidence. You are now free to

10 leave.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 [The witness withdrew]

13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, the next witness is K84. Is that

15 correct?

16 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour. I understand we have to

17 adjust for his --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll need a break for that --

19 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: -- but before we have the break --

21 Yes, Mr. Lukic.

22 MR. LUKIC: If you want, you may finish and I can --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry?

24 MR. LUKIC: If you want you can finish before me, because I have

25 something in relation of this witness.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let me hear what you have to say.

2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. We received supplemental information sheet

3 from the OTP and we found it unacceptable. For example, I can give you an

4 example. This supplemental sheet changes his statement in a way that's --

5 that it's not acceptable. It's not correction; it's changing. For

6 example in paragraph --

7 MS. CARTER: Respectfully, Your Honour --

8 MR. LUKIC: In paragraph 83, it's completely different --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Hold on, Mr. Lukic.

10 Why are you interrupting, Ms. Carter?

11 MS. CARTER: I'm interrupting, Your Honour, because this witness

12 is subject to protective measures. I anticipate when he starts reading

13 out aspects of what his previous statements were going to be, it will tend

14 to identify this witness. So I would ask if we're going to have this

15 discussion we would have it in private session.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was your witness

17 and not Mr. --

18 Mr. Lukic, is that a risk that --

19 MR. LUKIC: No, I don't think so.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: -- will arise?

21 MR. LUKIC: No.

22 If you have in front of you this supplemental sheet.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't have the supplemental sheet, so I'm --

24 MR. LUKIC: Okay.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 MR. LUKIC: Then, if we need closed session, maybe we can deal

2 with this after the break when we are in the closed session, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we won't be in closed session until it's

4 necessary. But what I'm being told is that the Prosecution are alert to

5 what you're about to raise and they're fearful that that might in some way

6 undermine the protective measures. So we will, to ensure that that does

7 not happen, go into private session for the purpose of this discussion.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7329-7334 redacted.Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 [Open session]

19 THE REGISTRAR: We are if in open session, Your Honours.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: While the court was in private session, a decision

21 was made to hear the evidence of the witness K86 in closed session.

22 In relation to the last witness, Mr. Pesic, the Prosecution made

23 clear in re-examination that paragraph 35 of his statement refers to a

24 document which is Exhibit 1011. It's not clear from what happened there,

25 Mr. Hannis, the extent to which you consider that that ought to be an

1 exhibit in the case.

2 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't think it's necessary to be an

3 exhibit in the case. I don't think it's necessary at this point in time.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's a long and complicated document.

5 MR. HANNIS: It is, Your Honour. And this incident that this

6 witness talks about is only one small portion of that.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: So it's exhibited purely for the purpose of making

8 sense of the question which you asked?

9 MR. HANNIS: Correct.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Very well. We will adjourn now and resume at ten past 6.00, and

12 we will be in closed session.

13 --- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 6.11 p.m.

15 [Closed session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7337-7356 redacted.Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

10 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day of

11 November, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25