1 Monday, 12 March 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The accused Milutinovic not present]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller.

7 MS. MOELLER: Thank you. Good morning, Your Honours. Before the

8 witness is brought in, I would like to make a short submission on the

9 exhibits that I intend to use with this witness. As you may have seen,

10 it's a quite extensive list of exhibits and I do not tend to tender all of

11 them in the direct examination of course. The fact is that a number of

12 these exhibits were not on the 65 ter list that we filed because we got

13 them only afterwards. There are basically three groups of exhibits

14 concerned. One group are documents that the witness handed over to us

15 when we interviewed him in late August/early September last year; then

16 there is a group of exhibits which are documents that we received in

17 response to requests for assistance sent to Serbia and Montenegro, and

18 they came dribbling in until early this year, January/February this year;

19 and then there were two exhibits which I only saw last week because they

20 were exhibits which were chosen in the VJ archive mission last year, that

21 the translation was only coming back last week. And we disclosed the last

22 two exhibits last week.

23 The other two groups were disclosed at the time we received them,

24 meaning the first group of documents that the witness brought in were

25 disclosed in September when we -- when we informed the Defence that we

1 would seek to add this witness to the witness list and the RFA responses

2 were disclosed to the Defence I think in early January and the ones that

3 came later on. So there has been notice of these exhibits.

4 I would like to seek leave to add them to the exhibit list as we

5 go along through them while the witness testifies today.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: The list that's attached to your weekly

7 notification of the witnesses, does that contain all three categories of

8 documents?

9 MS. MOELLER: Yes, and it contains a fourth one, namely those

10 which were on the exhibit list because we were aware of them at the time.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, how do we tell which ones were on the original

12 list and which ones have been added? Is it clear when I look at this?

13 MS. MOELLER: No it is not clear from the list, but I can mention

14 it as I call up the exhibits and we can do it this way or I can also file

15 something later --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, let me find out what the response of the

17 Defence is to this and then we can deal with it.

18 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have a principled

21 objection to a group of documents. These are documents that were

22 disclosed to the Prosecution in August when the witness gave his

23 statement -- or actually, these were the documents we got from the witness

24 at that time. The Prosecutor submitted a request to place this witness on

25 the 65 ter list, as far as I can remember, on the 10th of November, 2006,

1 and with the request there was no request for additional documents to be

2 placed on the 65 ter list. So that is our principled objection to our --

3 to these documents.

4 As for documents that were given to the Prosecution later, our

5 Defence team feels that we have no objections to the documents regarding

6 the deadline and the manner that the Prosecution is suggesting, but we do

7 have another objection that relates to their relevance. And I would

8 perhaps later state the objections. I do not want to overly complicate

9 the situation at this time.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

11 No one else wishes to comment -- Mr. Aleksic.

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I agree

13 with my learned friend, Mr. Visnjic, but I would like to ask the Trial

14 Chamber to note before the testimony of this witness begins to -- that

15 exhibit 2672, I would like to draw your attention to that, it's the second

16 on the list, it's the statement of the witness that he gave at the same

17 time as he provided the statement to the Prosecution. However, this

18 witness, in his signed statement, which is the first on the list in the

19 last paragraph states that before providing the statement - this is

20 paragraph 58 - he says, a review of the laws of the work of war

21 prosecutions as well as the discipline and the duties of superior officers

22 in the army drafted on the 14th of August I consider to be an integral

23 part of this statement.

24 So if we look at this a little bit better, which was drafted by

25 the witness and which is an integral part of his statement, as he says, we

1 can see that actually this is his expert opinion and comments on specific

2 articles of specific laws. We agree that they are relevant, that they

3 were in force during the critical period, but this witness is a factual

4 witness; he's not an expert, even though he's our colleague and has passed

5 the bar exam. In some parts, he's providing his opinion about the role of

6 certain military organs and military officers, and I think before he

7 begins his testimony, we would like to say that this exhibit should not be

8 used during his examination-in-chief.

9 As for other documents --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]...

11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I can give you an example.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Give me an example from this one, please.

13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the last part

14 of this exhibit, the last subsection where he says, The duties,

15 obligations, of senior officers of the army in the pre-trial and trial

16 proceedings before those courts, and then in some paragraphs he says, The

17 law on military courts does not say in what manner should the basic

18 information be gathered. But then he gives his opinion, nevertheless,

19 that on the basis of the law, you can know the basic way in which a

20 military officer should react. A few paragraphs later he says -- he

21 doesn't speak directly about the duties, but he says that it is the duty

22 of a military officer to report a crime.

23 And then the last paragraph before the signature speaks about a

24 document which are instructions on the application of international laws

25 of war. He explains some articles, and then in the last paragraph he

1 says, This constitutes command responsibility and in a state of war the

2 responsibility of a military officer with other regulations is also in

3 force if he does not report the conduct of superiors to other organs. In

4 our law, there was no term "command responsibility" and there was no

5 specific crime of somebody being charged under command responsibility. So

6 I believe that this last paragraph is an opinion provided by the witness

7 and not his testimony on facts during the time that he was in Kosovo and

8 worked at the military prosecutor's office during the time-period that is

9 relevant under the indictment. Thank you.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

11 Mr. Cepic.

12 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. If you permit

13 me very briefly, we indicated -- well, there are over 105 exhibits in the

14 65 ter list, and we believe that a large part of the exhibits actually do

15 not correspond to the indictment. The descriptions -- actually, the

16 correspondence of the witness to different organs regarding certain

17 disciplinary proceedings against him are, in my opinion, quite irrelevant

18 for the matters that we are dealing with here. There are dozens of such

19 exhibits. There are other suggested exhibit for which the witness cannot

20 provide reliable grounds in view of the duties that he was performing at

21 that time. These are, in brief, the remarks that I have to the proposed

22 material, and I modestly propose that in the course of this witness's

23 testimony and when certain exhibits are put forward, I request that we be

24 given the opportunity to state our objections to each exhibit as it comes

25 up. Thank you.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the difficulty with that is that not every

2 exhibit's going to be referred to in the oral evidence.

3 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] If you permit, Your Honours, we did

4 make a selection of the exhibits, so I really don't know how my learned

5 friend, Ms. Moeller, is going to conduct the examination-in-chief. So it

6 will be difficult to state in advance what would need to be left out from

7 the exhibit list. But they could be the following numbers, if you permit

8 me, just one minute, please. P7628, article in the newspaper Danas

9 published in 2005; then 5267; 2729 --

10 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel need -- the counsel needs to read

11 the numbers a little bit more slowly, thank you.

12 MR. CEPIC: I have to repeat in English. Probably it would be

13 better and easier. P2768; P2767; P2729; P2740; P2746; P2783; P2699;

14 P2741; P2742; P2743; P2744; P2745; P2735; P2738; P2737; P2734; P2736;

15 P2733; P2732; P2730; P2713; P2765; P2700; P2698; P2751; P2755; P2763;

16 P2764; P2701; that would be in the main. Also, P846, this is OSCE report

17 monitoring and powers of domestic courts to deal with war crimes from

18 October of 2003. I think that this exhibit -- actually, this is the same

19 objection as is objection for As Seen, As Told. I hope that colleague of

20 mine will add something more about this objection. Thank you very much.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic, have you not had your opportunity? I

22 really don't like a ping-pong approach to submissions in court. You

23 really have an order that you should adopt and complete your submissions

24 when you're making them at one go. It's a very untidy process otherwise.

25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, but since

1 my learned friend Mr. Visnjic spoke before me and he spoke quite generally

2 and said that during the examination-in-chief we will use our opportunity,

3 I didn't say everything all at once; and then you asked my learned friend

4 Mr. Cepic to actually list the numbers. So I just have one thing to add.

5 This is P828, it's an internal document of a non-governmental

6 organisation, the Fund for Humanitarian Law, drafted by some lawyers. The

7 document is called "Violations of Human Rights or Violations in

8 Proceedings before Serbian Courts from 1998 to 2000." I think it's an

9 internal document and it's outside of the scope of the indictment that has

10 nothing to do with the events or with the accused here. So I believe that

11 the document is not relevant for use. Thank you.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was going to do it,

14 but in stages. So I don't know if I should also draw your attention -- if

15 you're already going down the list to draw your attention to the following

16 documents: P2725 and 2781 are the same documents. Document P2750 is

17 mentioned twice on the list. Documents P2730 and 2764 are exactly the

18 same on the list. Document P2818 is mentioned twice on the list, and it's

19 the same document as document P1918, which was introduced during the

20 testimony of Witness Vasiljevic on the 22nd of January, 2007. Document

21 P2754 is also mentioned twice on the list, and document P2744 is a

22 document that was supposed to be -- well, General Ojdanic is cited at the

23 bottom as the signee, but I am not sure whether he actually ever saw that

24 document or signed it. So the context is quite unclear to me and how is

25 it possible, if the Prosecutor can explain, that this document made it

1 into the file.

2 I would like to keep the right to possibly object to specific

3 documents if the Prosecution should introduce them during the

4 examination-in-chief as relating to our view that the witness cannot add

5 or make comments on specific topics, in our opinion. We do not want to do

6 that in advance. I don't want to complicate things too much by stating

7 the objections before the proper time.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, you always have the right to object to

9 a document in the context in which it may be presented, so you retain that

10 right, obviously.

11 Ms. Moeller, can you deal with the reference to Exhibit 828, which

12 is said to be a report which is outside the scope of the indictment and

13 not relevant to the accused compiled by the Fund for Humanitarian Law.

14 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour. This is one exhibit that was on

15 the exhibit list from the beginning and it is one document that we

16 referred to in our pre-trial brief, as far as I remember. The only

17 question I would have to the witness regarding this document is whether he

18 shares the assessment made by the OSCE on how the -- how war crime trials

19 were conducted or not conducted. Otherwise, this is also an exhibit that

20 would be ideal for tendering from the bar table, I think, and indeed there

21 are some exhibits on the list that we may also choose to try to tender

22 from the bar table, together with another number of documents relating to

23 this aspect of lack of punishment, where we intend to file a short motion

24 later this week regarding some other exhibits that are on the exhibit list

25 but that I cannot and will not go through with this witness but we will

1 seek to tender it from the bar table. This is the extent to which we deem

2 this particular report also relevant and of probative value.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: And on what basis would he be able to share the

4 assessment made by the OSCE?

5 MS. MOELLER: He has been living in the country and he has as a

6 professional military lawyer, of course, followed what happened to the

7 cases after he left Kosovo. And I think he can give his impression of how

8 many war crime trials have really been held ever in his country and what

9 are the major problems connected with it.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, these sound like matters of fact of which he

11 may have knowledge. But to comment on an assessment made on what sounds

12 like a much more far-reaching investigation than any he has conducted

13 sounds like asking him to express an expert opinion without proper

14 foundation.

15 MS. MOELLER: No, Your Honour, maybe I wasn't really clear. What

16 I tried to say is that the OSCE report refers to the fact that there were

17 only so-and-so ever many war crime trials ever led in this country, and I

18 would ask him whether according to his knowledge there are any others that

19 are not mentioned in this report.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: That is an entirely different question from the one

21 that you suggested, and therefore that I think would be an admissible

22 question, subject to -- obviously to any particular point made at the time

23 it's posed and the particular circumstances in which it is posed.

24 Mr. Cepic has given a very long list of documents that he says are

25 of questionable authenticity. How are we going to deal with them?

1 MS. MOELLER: Well, we -- we can -- we have, of course, the

2 information how we got into the possession of these documents, and as I

3 mentioned, some we received from the State of Serbia, some we received --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

5 MS. MOELLER: -- from the witness.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Do they fall into a category where you would be

7 making a submission for their admission from the bar table, in which case

8 they can be dealt with there; or are they documents which we have to deal

9 with in the course of the witness's evidence?

10 MS. MOELLER: The -- I submit it would be of use to deal with some

11 of them in the course of the witness's evidence because they are responses

12 that came in in regard to particular cases he mentions in his statement.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Well, one -- I didn't know that's what they

14 were, but one, for example, the very first one was a newspaper article and

15 you know our attitude to them. So I got the impression that perhaps were

16 documents in there which -- to which there might be a legitimate

17 challenge.

18 MS. MOELLER: Yes, yes. I selected -- I see your point, Your

19 Honours, and I was mindful of that. I selected one or two newspaper

20 articles where the witness was actually the author himself.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's entirely different, of course, yeah.

22 If -- so what's the position then if you lead your evidence and a document

23 in that list from Mr. Cepic is not specifically referred to, how do we

24 deal with its admissibility?

25 MS. MOELLER: Well, I would submit that the Defence, as Mr. -- my

1 learned colleague Mr. Visnjic said, has, of course, the opportunity to

2 challenge each document as I address it and --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm talking about the ones you don't address. How

4 do we deal with them if they happen also to be on Mr. Cepic's list?

5 MS. MOELLER: Well, Your Honour, if I don't address them, I will

6 not seek to tender them through this witness --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: I see.

8 MS. MOELLER: -- so there is no dispute between the parties.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. So you would seek to tender them by a

10 written submission if -- if you wanted to use them at all?

11 MS. MOELLER: Yes, but very few.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

13 MS. MOELLER: If I may just explain --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you need to. That's very helpful.

15 If we know that it's only the ones referred to in the oral evidence that

16 you seek to tender subject to making a written submission for others that

17 you choose to tender that way, then that's fine, it gives everybody an

18 opportunity to take exception to any one in particular as they're raised.

19 MS. MOELLER: Yes. And the reason, Your Honour, and the reason

20 why some are on the exhibit list is that, depending on the

21 cross-examination, it may become necessary that I seek to use some of them

22 in re-examination. That's why I put them all on so everyone's at notice,

23 but that is the situation.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: The -- number 846, then, the OSCE report which is

25 said to be like As Seen, As Told, now, I don't -- or is it part of As

1 Seen, As Told?

2 MS. MOELLER: No, Your Honours.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: No.

4 MS. MOELLER: It's a report that was done by a special project

5 group of the OSCE --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. We can deal with it when we come to it in

7 that case.

8 MS. MOELLER: Yes. Very well.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that leaves -- just one moment. And you've

10 very helpfully been told which items have been repeated, so there's just a

11 couple of matters we need to consider.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I take it, Ms. Moeller, you accept that the right

14 time to have applied to add the August exhibits would have been when you

15 applied to add the witness. I just want a yes or no to that.

16 MS. MOELLER: With all due respect, no, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. That's -- well, amplify the no, then.

18 MS. MOELLER: The witness at the time gave us a small amount of

19 documents which were little bits and pieces, and they didn't allow us to

20 have the full picture, which is why I sent a number of RFAs to get the

21 context documentation of that. And that we only got, as I said, a

22 dribbling in until January this year. So to put the documents of the

23 witness in context, I needed to have these other documents.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

25 MS. MOELLER: At the time it would have been too early to apply to

1 add them, in my view.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much. Well, we will allow the 65

3 ter list to be amended to include all the documents referred to, subject

4 to the situation where adding them is unnecessary in one instance because

5 the document is already introduced, that's 2818; and subject, obviously,

6 to deleting one of those where the same document has two separate exhibit

7 numbers; and subject also to the fact that some of them are twice in the

8 list but have the same number. I think there are two where there are two

9 numbers, and that must be clarified at some stage in a filing made.

10 Mr. Visnjic identified these for you.

11 The -- there have been a number of challenges made to either the

12 relevance or authenticity of documents, but it's clear that in -- where

13 there's a particular point to be made. That can be made in the course of

14 the evidence, since the opportunity will be there when the document is

15 identified for counsel to raise that objection.

16 In a general -- just one general comment on the relevancy of

17 certain documents mentioned by Mr. Cepic, it does seem to us that in

18 principle documents relating to disciplinary proceedings against the

19 witness himself would be relevant to a consideration of the witness's

20 credibility and reliability. So we're unlikely to be sympathetic to that

21 objection. That's not to say that you shouldn't raise it if you feel

22 there is a particular point to be made about particular documents. But in

23 general, documents about steps taken against a witness himself would

24 appear to be relevant to an assessment of the witness.

25 So far as the report itself is concerned, we accept that this

1 witness is a witness of fact. It may be, on certain occasions, difficult

2 to disentangle the fact of what might be arguably an expression of

3 opinion. I think we're capable as professional Judges of carrying out

4 that exercise and it didn't seem from Mr. Aleksic's submission that it was

5 a very extensive problem. So we're alert to the problem and assure you we

6 will attend to it as and when it arises.

7 I think that deals with the issues which have to be dealt with at

8 this stage, so we can now have the witness in court, please.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Dorovic.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: We have been dealing with a number of preliminary

13 issues, but these have now been attended to and we can proceed with your

14 evidence. Would you please make the solemn declaration to speak the truth

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

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

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

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.

19 We have your statement and an attached document which we've read.

20 We know that there are many other documents that will be referred to in

21 the course of the evidence. The procedure we follow here in these

22 circumstances is to go straight to an oral examination by counsel involved

23 in the case, and the first counsel to ask questions of you will be for the

24 Prosecution, and that is Ms. Moeller.

25 Ms. Moeller.

1 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 WITNESS: LAKIC DOROVIC

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 Examination by Ms. Moeller:

5 Q. Good morning, sir. Could you please state your full name for the

6 record.

7 A. Lakic Dorovic is my name.

8 Q. And what is your profession?

9 A. I have a degree in law and I was an officer in the law department

10 of the Army of Yugoslavia.

11 Q. And what is your rank in the Army of Yugoslavia?

12 A. I am a lieutenant-colonel.

13 Q. And in which position are you currently working?

14 A. I'm currently head of legal services within the operative forces

15 command. I am head of the so-called legal department or legal services.

16 Q. And how many years have you been working so far in the legal

17 services of the Army of Yugoslavia, approximately?

18 A. 25 years and three months.

19 Q. Sir, have you given a statement to representatives of the

20 Prosecution office of this Tribunal in August and September of last year?

21 A. Yes, I did.

22 Q. And when you came here last week, did you have the opportunity to

23 read back the statement that you gave then?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And did you inform us of some corrections that need to be made in

1 relation to your statement?

2 A. Yes, there were a few.

3 MS. MOELLER: Could the usher hand the statement to the witness,

4 please.

5 Your Honour, this is Exhibit 2671.

6 Q. And is it correct that you made a correction in relation to

7 paragraph 3 in relation to the word "public defence counsel" which is used

8 there?

9 A. I wanted this term to be precise, and I said that this was a

10 military defence counsel before military tribunal.

11 Q. Thank you. Now, did you also make a correction in relation to

12 paragraph 10 where you refer to some Albanian soldiers?

13 A. Yes. I said that these were not conscripts serving their

14 compulsory military service, but rather, soldiers belonging to the reserve

15 forces and those who would be sent to serve in the army as recruits in the

16 future.

17 Q. Okay. Then in relation to paragraph 17 of the statement, did you

18 advise us of the first name of this first Tijanic who was mentioned in

19 this paragraph and what is it?

20 A. Mr. Tijanic's name is Milovan. I provided that name in August and

21 September when I had my first interview with the investigators of the OTP.

22 I also provided them with his nickname. He is also known as Mica. And I

23 also specified that the military post was 9550 Pristina. On that

24 occasion, this was either lost in translation or something to that effect.

25 So on this occasion I just added this information. I said that this was

1 Milovan Tijanic, I said what unit he was a member of and what he did

2 during the war.

3 Q. Thank you. Now, in paragraph 24 you also had a clarification to

4 make, and I think it was concerning the sentence: "I then requested the

5 head of the Pec police, the commander of the Pec military sectors, and

6 others to be interviewed." What is the correction that you would like to

7 make?

8 A. This is the military district of Pec. The case in question

9 happened in that territory, in the territory of the Pec military district.

10 With my previous experience, I knew that a written request was much better

11 than an oral one. Whatever is being requested or is being issued as a

12 task either to the military police or the security organs should be in

13 writing, because there is always a written trail, a document. My

14 experience told me that --

15 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

16 A. That a telephone or a similar way was not so good. At that time

17 it was very difficult to establish telephone contacts.

18 Q. Sir, sir --

19 A. Here I wanted to specify that I asked from the authorities --

20 Q. Can you just clarify what was your request, because I think what

21 you requested is reflected wrongly in this English version, at least. Did

22 you request that these people you mentioned are interviewed or something

23 else?

24 A. Not only an interview that is conducted with the security organs

25 or the military police. A number of other investigative procedures had to

1 be carried out. Possible witnesses had to be approached; the superior

2 officers had to be interviewed, those who at the time controlled the

3 situation between Pec and Decani, in order to establish whether the

4 persons who were mentioned, and I'm referring to Stosic and Colonel

5 Miodrag Djordjevic whose names were mentioned in the statement. In other

6 words, it should have been verified whether they were at that place at the

7 time and, if they had been, what they were doing, what they were engaged

8 in. In that way the statements that I had in the file could have been

9 verified, and according to these statements, these two and the groups of

10 soldiers as well as a group of civilians, all of them together

11 participated in the expulsion of a group of Albanian civilians consisting

12 of some 700 persons --

13 Q. Thank you, thank you?

14 A. -- that they kept them --

15 Q. We will go in the details of this incident later.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm certainly not clear what change you want to

17 make to this.

18 MS. MOELLER: Yes. I understood - and maybe I can ask the witness

19 directly.

20 Q. In regard to this paragraph, did you want to make a change that

21 the request to the Pec police and the military commander was that they

22 investigate the allegations and not that they be interviewed?

23 A. An investigation cannot be carried out by a commander. An

24 investigation is carried out by the authorised organs, and in this

25 particular case the authorised organs were the investigative judge, who

1 didn't do anything. That is why I, as a prosecutor, pursuant to a war

2 decree and on the order of my superior, the supreme prosecutor, issued

3 those tasks, because it was obvious at the time that the security organs

4 did not want to do their job.

5 Q. Sir --

6 A. This is where I would like to be precise. I was the one who

7 provided those tasks myself in order to --

8 Q. I'm sorry. It's -- you're going in many details here, and I think

9 it is not easy to follow us. Could you say in one sentence maybe or two

10 what is wrongly said in this paragraph, if anything. Or is the paragraph

11 actually correctly in reflecting what you said?

12 A. Not just the interview is at stake if when you say "interview" you

13 mean a telephone conversation. What I wanted to state was that I issued

14 written tasks; I issued them in writing.

15 Q. Okay. Thank you.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: So what do you want us to do, delete that sentence?

17 MS. MOELLER: Well, I would -- I understood the witness now to say

18 it went beyond interviews comprising full investigation.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what matters is whether that sentence is

20 accurate or not. So should we take it out?

21 MS. MOELLER: You can -- we can take it out, Your Honours --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

23 MS. MOELLER: -- and take the evidence of today.

24 Q. Now, in paragraph 25, you refer to a certain Milos Spasojevic, and

25 in the last sentence it reads: "Spasojevic was in the military security

1 service before he became military prosecutor."

2 Do you have a clarification - and please be short if possible - to

3 this sentence?

4 A. I know for a fact that Milos Spasojevic was cooperating with the

5 military security. Before he joined the military prosecutor's office as

6 an associate of the service, he was engaged in different tasks, and

7 travelled to Kosovo together. I wanted to say that he was cooperating

8 with the military security service, that he travelled with me to Kosovo,

9 and that he started working as a military prosecutor. On the 22nd of May,

10 1999, he travelled to Kosovo; but before that, he cooperated with the

11 military security service.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 A. This is my clarification. I wanted to emphasise the

14 word "cooperating." He cooperated with the military security service.

15 Q. Thank you. Now, in paragraph 35 of your statement, you refer to a

16 grave-site discovered near Orahovac. And the statement refers to 37

17 bodies. Do you want to make a correction to the number of the bodies; and

18 which, if so?

19 A. The number is 47.

20 Q. Thank you. Now, the last paragraph number 48, the second-last

21 sentence refers to the extortion of 60.000 Deutschemarks. Did you want to

22 make a clarification who made this payment?

23 A. I wanted to say that the state, the Federal State of Yugoslavia,

24 imposed -- paid damages to two people whom Stojkovic had kidnapped. For a

25 while he kept them under very dark conditions, tied in chains in a cellar.

1 Then a proceedings had been staged in order to liberate these two

2 people. Their defence attorneys later on filed a suit for damages, and

3 the state eventually paid 60.000 German marks to these people. I wanted

4 to be clear and say that the -- this money was paid in damages as

5 compensation for the damage inflicted upon two persons by Stojkovic, who

6 was a security man at the time.

7 Q. Thank you.

8 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, I would also suggest to delete this

9 sentence and take this explanation instead.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what about the main part of the sentence: "I

11 had indicted him," is that wrong?

12 MS. MOELLER: No, Your Honour. Only as far as the money payment

13 is concerned.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. So after mistreating them it should be: "And

15 rendering the state liable to pay compensation of 60.000 Deutschemarks"?

16 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

18 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

19 Q. Now, sir, with these corrections and explanations that you gave

20 today in mind, do you attest today that the statement you gave in August

21 and September last year is true and correct to the best of your knowledge;

22 and would you say the same if you were asked questions -- all these

23 questions today?

24 A. Absolutely. Everything I stated, I stated as a person experienced

25 in these tasks. I was aware of the weight of each and every of the words

1 that I said. I spoke the truth, and if I'm given an opportunity, I can

2 elaborate on everything that is in my statement. I can provide some

3 specific proof to corroborate the truth of everything that I stated. If I

4 were asked the same questions today, my statement would be absolutely the

5 same.

6 Q. Thank you.

7 MS. MOELLER: Your Honour, I would seek to tender 2671.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Does the overview of regulations have a separate

9 number or is it --

10 MS. MOELLER: It has.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: And are you going on to deal with that?

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 MS. MOELLER:

15 Q. Sir, did you also give a statement on the work of military courts

16 and military prosecutors, according to the laws, in August last year?

17 A. Yes. I spoke to the prosecutors in the investigative department

18 in Belgrade, and I provided my statement on the 15th of August. And this

19 analysis was drafted after I had been given permission by the Government

20 of Yugoslavia that I could testify before the Tribunal. And in the

21 conclusion of the Government of Serbia, there were 15 issues on which I

22 was allowed to testify. The Prosecutor's office asked me to provide a

23 written analysis of the laws and regulations that were in effect between

24 1995 and 2004 and provide that analysis to the Prosecutor's office, which

25 I did eventually.

1 Q. Thank you.

2 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, I see Mr. Cepic on his feet.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

4 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I suppose

5 that my learned friend Moeller now wants to tell us something more about

6 document number P2672; however, the witness has mentioned his statement

7 given on the 15th of August, 2006. But the only statement that we have

8 was provided on the 30th and 31 August and 1 September 2006. The number

9 of that document is 2671. However, the analysis that the witness mentions

10 under 2672 is no statement at all. This is the analysis that has just

11 been explained. Likewise, this analysis is something that we contest,

12 because the witness was asked to provide an opinion about the proceedings

13 that were conducted between 1995 and 2004. This witness is a fact

14 witness; he is not an expert witness. That is why we contest this

15 analysis and its relevance for the case.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: That objection has already been raised by

17 Mr. Aleksic, and we have already given a ruling on it. And we will abide

18 by the ruling we've already made in relation to it.

19 As far as the statement is concerned, that's a statement to the

20 Office of the Prosecution in Belgrade, which is not relied upon here, as I

21 understand it. But if there's an issue of disclosure, that's a separate

22 matter.

23 MS. MOELLER: May I explain, Your Honours?

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

25 MS. MOELLER: This paper is the very statement we are talking

1 about; there is no separate statement. I called it a statement because it

2 is signed by the witness and it was given by him, and he gave this paper

3 to the Belgrade field office because -- before we met for the actual

4 interview.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: The only --

6 MS. MOELLER: -- and then we discussed it in this very interview.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: The only problem I have with that is it's dated the

8 14th of August.

9 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: But it is the same as what the witness says he gave

11 on the 15th of August?

12 MS. MOELLER: He drafted it and signed it on the 14th and he gave

13 it to the field office on the 15th of August.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MS. MOELLER: And when we took the actual statement, 2671, he, in

16 the last paragraph, paragraph 58, I think, he explicitly included his

17 statement on these matters in his very statement.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're tendering that statement?

19 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, very well. It is admitted on the basis we

21 indicated initially in response to Mr. Aleksic's objection.

22 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

23 Q. Sir, I would now like to address with you some aspects that you

24 deal with in the statement we just talked about, the statement on the

25 military courts and military prosecutors.

1 MS. MOELLER: And I am wondering, Your Honours, may I give the

2 statement to the witness so he can look at certain pages that I want him?

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this the August and September statement?

4 MS. MOELLER: No. This is the --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: The -- 2672?

6 MS. MOELLER: 2672.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, please.

8 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

9 Can the usher hand this, please. Thank you.

10 Q. In the Serbian version, I think it is page 8, sir, if you could

11 look at that. And the English version would be page 22 and the following,

12 which deals with the system during a state of war. Is it correct, sir,

13 that these particular rules would be applicable for the time starting with

14 the 24 of March, 1999, when a state of war was declared?

15 A. Yes, yes, and they were applied.

16 Q. And Article 74 of the ZBS --

17 MS. MOELLER: And for Your Honours' information, the ZBS is the

18 law on military courts and this is Exhibit P109 [sic], which we would also

19 seek to tender as a background to this statement.

20 Q. In Article 74 it was ruled where during such a state of war

21 military courts would be established. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, they were established and they began functioning. Actually,

23 the courts began with the declaration of the state of war before they were

24 already formed and organised in preparation and with the declaration of

25 the state of war they just then actually began with their work.

1 Q. And these military courts of first instance would be established,

2 at the commands of military districts, divisions, corps, armies, and other

3 places?

4 A. Yes, that is correct, but when they began working, the peacetime

5 military courts of the first instance stopped functioning. We know that

6 there were three in Belgrade, Nis, and Podgorica. Also, under the

7 regulations and the rules on the operation of wartime military courts,

8 when the wartime courts began functioning on the first day, then the

9 peacetime courts, the three that we know existed, all the cases that were

10 still open as well as the cases that had to be archived as well as the

11 complete documentation and all the items in the peacetime courts were

12 handed over and this was stressed and this is how it was also done in

13 practice to the military courts which were formed at the commands of the

14 military district.

15 I was a military prosecutor at the military tribunal in Belgrade,

16 and on the 29th [as interpreted] of March my previous chief, Colonel

17 Petkovic, who was the peacetime military prosecutor, handed over duty to

18 me; and he formally handed over to me all the cases and all the other

19 cases, the case files and the items that he had as the military prosecutor

20 in Belgrade.

21 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, if you allow me, just correction in

22 transcript, page 26, line 14, I think that witness said "24th of March"

23 not "29th of March."

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Cepic. That makes sense.

25 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.

1 MS. MOELLER:

2 Q. And while you were in Kosovo in Pristina, where -- at which

3 military -- sorry -- military prosecutor's office were you working there?

4 Where was this office established?

5 A. For purposes of stating the full truth, I will say that mostly we

6 worked in the civilian premises, thus we were -- I was -- as the military

7 prosecutor, I actually changed seven locations. My prosecutor's office

8 and the court before which I worked during the war changed locations seven

9 times. Specifically in Pristina, because I got there towards the end of

10 the war, on the 22nd of May, I --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, I don't think the question related to

12 which buildings you were in. The question was whether you were in -- when

13 you were in Kosovo you were established at the command of a military

14 district, a division, a corps, or an army. Could you tell us that,

15 please.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the command of the Pristina

17 Military District. That is the full name of the organ.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

19 Ms. Moeller.

20 MS. MOELLER:

21 Q. And who was the commander of the Pristina Military District at the

22 time?

23 A. I assume that you are thinking of the Pristina Military District.

24 It was Colonel Zlatomir Pesic at the time when I was there. I think that

25 actually he was there throughout the whole period of the war.

1 Q. And was there also a military prosecutor established at the

2 command of the 3rd Army?

3 A. Yes, there was a military prosecutor and a military court at the

4 3rd Army command, as well as at other armies. There was another court

5 that was operating in Kosovo and another prosecutor's office, and that is

6 the military court at the Pristina Corps command.

7 Q. And Article 74 also provides for the establishment of military

8 courts at corps level. Was there a military court and/or a military

9 prosecutor established at the command of the Pristina Corps?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what the witness has just said.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just explained that.

12 MS. MOELLER:

13 Q. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.

14 Now, Article 75 of the law on military courts deals with the

15 appointment of -- appointment or removal of judges, judge jurors, et

16 cetera, and it provides for the appointment by the president of the

17 republic on the recommendation of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme

18 Command. In 1999, who held the position of this Chief of Staff of the

19 Supreme Command?

20 A. First of all, if Your Honours permit me, I would like to be

21 specific about the following. The chief of the head -- the Chief of Staff

22 of the Supreme Command at the time was General Pavkovic. And according to

23 the regulations, there was a difference as for the authority to propose

24 candidates for judges. Candidates for judges were put forward by the

25 defence minister, while the prosecutors were put forward for appointment

1 to wartime duties to military tribunals, or rather, to the military

2 prosecutor's office by the Chief of Staff of the command, who was General

3 Pavkovic at the time.

4 Q. Thank you.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying that the system did not work the

6 same way as the regulation provided?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is an

8 exceptionally important question, and I have personal experience. I was

9 there and I can answer briefly that in fact that was at the beginning of

10 the work of our military courts the greatest, in my opinion, problem.

11 What happened, unfortunately, was that appointments were given to people

12 nobody ever assumed could be placed at such high functions.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: You misunderstand my question. The -- Article 75,

14 as I read it, relates only to presidents, judges, and judge jurors of

15 military courts; it does not refer to prosecutors. And the rule says that

16 the person who recommends to the president their appointment is the Chief

17 of Staff of the Supreme Command. Now, you've just told us that in fact

18 the appointment of judges was recommended by the minister of defence

19 and -- but you went on to say that the appointment of prosecutors was

20 recommended by the Chief of Staff.

21 Now, that seems to be different from what the regulation provides

22 for, and that's all I wanted to be clear about. I don't want to hear of

23 examples where you think the wrong people were put in post or anything

24 like that. I just want to know whether the official system actually

25 worked differently from the way in which the regulation is set out.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were different jurisdictions

2 in putting forward candidates in peacetime. There is a difference from

3 that and the same activity in wartime.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: We're only -- at the moment we're only dealing with

5 a state of war. We are dealing with Article 75. You've got it in front

6 of you, so try to concentrate your answer on that particular time.

7 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, may I assist maybe and ask some

8 questions about the specific rule regarding military prosecutors, which is

9 also in his paper?

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

11 MS. MOELLER: And it is English version page 34.

12 Q. And in the Serbian version, sir, if you could look at page 13, I

13 think it is. There is a reference to Article 37 of the ZVT, which is the

14 law on military prosecutors which we have in the same exhibit number as

15 the law on military courts, Exhibit 1309. And Article 37 also refers to

16 the appointment but now of first-instance military prosecutors, sir. And

17 looking at that, is that the same -- more or less the same rule as for

18 military judges?

19 A. Based on the regulations from the laws, if you read them you can

20 see that in either case the jurisdiction is set in wartime. The Chief of

21 Staff of the Supreme Command is the one who puts forward candidates for

22 appointment. The decision is made by the minister, but the judges are

23 covered in Article 74 of the law and Article 37 of the law on military

24 prosecutors. And that's natural because these are different laws and

25 different state organs, so it is the duty of the Chief of Staff of the

1 Supreme Command to put forward command -- to put forward candidates, and

2 the decision in either of those cases is made by the president of the

3 republic.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: So why did you earlier point to a difference

5 between the appointment of judges and the appointment of prosecutors?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was talking about the difference

7 in jurisdiction for appointment -- actually, for putting forward

8 candidates in peacetime and in wartime.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you saying that the recommendation for

10 appointment in peacetime is made by the minister of defence?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In peacetime it was the minister of

12 defence who put forward candidates for appointment to duties, both of the

13 president and judges in peacetime military courts. And also candidates

14 for appointment or for election of prosecutors and deputy military

15 prosecutors in peacetime.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Ms. Moeller.

18 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honours.

19 Q. Now, you deal in your paper also -- in your statement also with

20 disciplinary responsibility, and in the English version on pages 43 and

21 again with these responsibilities during a state of war. It is page 16, I

22 think in the Serbian version. And is it correct that these disciplinary

23 responsibilities are regulated in the Law on the Army of Yugoslavia, the

24 said VJ?

25 MS. MOELLER: Which is Exhibit 984, Your Honours, and I think

1 that's already admitted.

2 Q. Is it correct that the disciplinary responsibility of servicemen

3 is regulated in this Law on the Army of Yugoslavia, sir?

4 A. It would be quite precise if we were to say that it's regulated in

5 the provisions of Article 159 to 186 DJ of the law with all the

6 amendments. So during the war, the disciplinary system was regulated by

7 those regulations of the law on the military as well as the rules on

8 military discipline, which were drafted by the president of the republic

9 according to the explanation provided in one of the provisions of the Law

10 on the Military. So the regulations of the military -- Law on Military

11 and the regulations, all of this was published in the Official Gazette.

12 And without being immodest, I would like to say that I was one of

13 the draftees of those regulations as well as the Law on the Military. So

14 those two regulations governed the disciplinary proceeding system in

15 peacetime and wartime. The Law on the Military and the Rules on Military

16 Discipline both contain separate sections, regulations on work and

17 disciplinary responsibility in wartime. And you can say that the same

18 regulations can be applied, that it's only the proceedings that are

19 shorter and the deadlines to undertake certain measures are also shorter,

20 in view of the natural --

21 Q. Can you clarify for us -- you referred to Article 159 to 186 DJ.

22 What does that mean? Which law is that?

23 A. The Law on the Army of Yugoslavia, and these specific points

24 marked with letters are regulations from an addition to the Law on the

25 Military regulating differently, up to a point, the responsibility of

1 reserve military officers. So there is nothing different, really, in

2 these regulations pertaining to military personnel in peacetime or

3 wartime.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't know how that fits in. Maybe you're

5 going to clarify it, but your reference, I assume, was going to be to

6 Article 204.

7 MS. MOELLER: Yes, that would be my next question, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is that -- yeah. But where do we see any

9 reference to 159 to 186? Is it earlier or -- oh, yes, I think it is

10 earlier. Yeah, there's very detailed references.

11 MS. MOELLER: Yes, there are detailed references.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: So really guiding us to page 43 was a bit premature

13 perhaps. There are earlier parts.

14 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Anyway, it's now clear. Thank you very much.

16 MS. MOELLER: I was going right to the discipline and wartime --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

18 MS. MOELLER: -- whereas details are set out in the peacetime

19 part. Okay.

20 Q. Sir, we were talking about disciplinary responsibility. What

21 about responsibility of servicemen for serious crimes. Where would that

22 be ruled? Where would that be established, in which laws?

23 A. In our country there is no separate military criminal law; there

24 is general criminal law. And military personnel and civilians serving in

25 the military in criminal proceedings are responsible according to the

1 Rules of Criminal Procedure under the Law on Criminal Procedure, which

2 applies to all the other persons in the proceedings. There is no special

3 criminal material law; there is just one general law which applies to

4 all. It's just a question of organisation, jurisdiction, and there are

5 only four provisions in the Law on Military Courts which regulate in a

6 specific way the proceedings and the jurisdiction. Everything else is

7 under the general regulations of the criminal law of the SFRY at that time

8 and the Law on Criminal Procedure.

9 An exceptionally important article is Article 52 on the Law on

10 Military Courts and it's specific also. You could say that, in essence,

11 Article 7 of the Law on Military Prosecutors is similar to this Article

12 52. They both provide for the following: The jurisdiction of the police

13 in proceedings before civilian courts in the military legal system is

14 handed over to military security and military police, and that's how it

15 was until the beginning of 2002 when finally, because of pressure of the

16 professional public within the military laws and other civilian courts in

17 the country, it was decided that our state, too, the secret police should

18 be excluded from the pre-trial proceedings. At that point, our courts,

19 from the aspect of the law, were given a free hand in that stage of the

20 criminal proceedings to be able to work in accordance with the law to give

21 assignments to the military police, which actually, from that point on --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if I could interrupt, please. Let's

23 concentrate on the period that we're most interested in.

24 MS. MOELLER: Mm-hmm.

25 Q. And to take us to the aspects you just talked about, the

1 cooperation of various organs in the pre-trial -- in the investigation and

2 pre-trial phase, you also dealt with the responsibility of superior

3 officers in your statement. That is pages 59 onwards in the English

4 version. And you say that military officers and superior officers have a

5 significant role in the pre-trial phase and they have significant duties

6 and powers.

7 On page 60 in the English version you refer to the organs of

8 military security and military police, and there is a reference to Article

9 52, item 3, of the Law on Military Courts. In -- sorry. In the following

10 pages you set out, then, the difficult -- the different obligations that

11 exist regarding the arresting of perpetrators, duties during proceedings,

12 and so on.

13 Now, I understand these are the legal duties. How did this work

14 de facto?

15 A. Unfortunately, my experience tells me that it was not applied.

16 When I worked as a military prosecutor during the war, as a military

17 prosecutor in wartime, in Belgrade and in Kosovo, and before that as the

18 deputy military prosecutor, and generally as an expert associate at the

19 supreme military court, I responsibly state that I am not aware, I had no

20 single case in which the military officer used the authority given to him

21 by law in respect of a perpetrator of a specific criminal act, even though

22 I know that there were many cases in which he not only could have but was

23 also obliged to do so under the law.

24 For example, the company commander is responsible and should -- if

25 he finds a perpetrator in the middle of committing an act, he's obliged to

1 arrest him, and in that sense he's equal to an authorised person from the

2 police or the military police, so civilian police or military police. And

3 I responsibly state that in my practice that authority was not used once.

4 So the authorised military officers mostly did not do something like that.

5 Unfortunately, they handed that duty over to members of the military

6 security organs, and I must stress that military officers complied mostly

7 with all the tasks handed over to them directly by the prosecutors. If it

8 went past the military security organs, then they did comply, and that is

9 my experience.

10 Q. Can I ask you for a clarification. In your statement you say --

11 MS. MOELLER: And that is page 60, Your Honours.

12 Q. "It is stipulated in Article 61, paragraph 1 of the law on

13 military courts that a superior officer is required to take steps to

14 prevent the perpetrator of the crime that is being prosecuted ex officio

15 from going into hiding or escaping."

16 I am not quite clear, what does it mean the perpetrator that is

17 being prosecuted ex officio in this context?

18 A. I assume that in other legislations also no crimes are prosecuted

19 ex officio. In our law there are such crimes which are either subject to

20 private lawsuit such as defamation or similar crimes. On the other hand,

21 there are, however, such criminal acts that are detrimental to society,

22 and we're talking about most of the crimes under the criminal law of

23 Yugoslavia, and such criminal acts are prosecuted ex officio. All acts of

24 crime described in chapter 20 against the Army of Yugoslavia are acts that

25 are prosecuted ex officio. All acts against constitution and security of

1 the state are also prosecuted ex officio. All crimes that might be of

2 some interest because of their gravity are prosecuted ex officio.

3 Q. So serious crimes like murder or crimes against international law

4 would be falling in this category of ex officio prosecutable crimes?

5 A. Absolutely, yes, of course.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's a very broad, leading question about

7 crimes under international law which are not necessarily crimes within

8 other domestic jurisdictions. Are you telling us that that was the

9 position in the former Yugoslavia?

10 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour, and there is a specific law which

11 I will come to in a minute which deals with particular obligations of

12 military commanders in respect to these crimes.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. I was particularly concerned by the

14 leading nature of that question, but if it's well-justified, that's

15 different.

16 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

17 Maybe we can move on to this particular aspect right away so we

18 can clarify that.

19 Q. On page 66 of your paper in the English version, you refer to

20 regulations on the application of the rules of the international laws of

21 war in the armed forces.

22 MR. CEPIC: Just a page in B/C/S?

23 MS. MOELLER: I'm sorry, I see Mr. Cepic on --

24 MR. CEPIC: I apologise. Could we have a page number in B/C/S,

25 please. Thank you.

1 MS. MOELLER: Maybe the witness can help because I don't have

2 the --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 25, the last chapter in the document

4 on page 25.

5 MS. MOELLER:

6 Q. Thank you, sir. You say these regulations entered into force on

7 10 June 1988. Were they still in force in 1999?

8 A. They're still in force. Together with my then-chief I worked on

9 the drafting of the instructions and the rules applying to international

10 laws, and we distributed these regulations to all units. This is a very

11 well-drafted booklet which was printed in quite a large number of copies.

12 And there is also an instruction on the implementation of the rules and an

13 instruction outlying all the obligations. They're still in force. They

14 were passed in 1999, but they are still being --

15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's correction: 1998.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And they are still in force.

17 Article --

18 MS. MOELLER: I'm sorry.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I thought it was 1988 and the interpreter is

20 telling us 1998. Is that correct?

21 MS. MOELLER:

22 Q. Can you clarify, please, sir. In your paper it says "1988."

23 A. 1988, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

25 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

1 Q. And you refer on page 67 English version to item 21 which deals

2 with the responsibility for the actions of subordinates. Would it be --

3 is that a more specific rule regarding responsibility of superior officers

4 for these particular crimes than the general rule we looked at before or

5 how is the relationship between the two?

6 A. Item 21 of the regulations on the application of the international

7 laws of war in the armed forces of the SFRY prescribes what is today known

8 as command responsibility in both the theory and practice of those.

9 Dealing with responsibility of the superior officer, in the law we have a

10 very specific definition of a higher officer and a superior officer. The

11 notion of a superior officer is defined by other regulations, and here

12 what is defined is their criminal liability in case they don't take

13 certain measures if they know that their subordinate or subordinated

14 officer is preparing criminal act and if they admit to carry out --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, we can read what it says. Can I ask

16 you, however, one particular question. You told us that there was no

17 separate military criminal law from general criminal law and that there

18 were only four provisions in the Law on Military Courts, which regulate in

19 a specific way the proceedings and the jurisdiction. Now, is this one of

20 these four exceptions that you were talking of?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, unfortunately not. The four

22 exceptions, i.e., special provisions, deal with other things, one of them

23 is the --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't need the details of them at the moment. So

25 does that mean that this provision we're now looking at is an example of

1 where there is a separate military criminal law, separate from the general

2 criminal law?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is not how I

4 understand this law. I regard it as complementary to our overall

5 legislation and I consider it an integral part of our legislation. This

6 provision is a complementary part of our criminal law, and in this

7 provision, officers are reminded of their obligations arising from the

8 Geneva Conventions, of their obligation to protect the victims of war, of

9 the need to act by the rules of war, and they warn them about their

10 criminal liability in case they are meant to undertake certain specific

11 measures in certain specific situations in conditions of war.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

13 Ms. Moeller.

14 MS. MOELLER:

15 Q. This item 21, you say it's a rule regarding responsibility of an

16 officer who violates his duties set out in this paragraph. Do these

17 regulations contain any -- anything on the applicable sentences like a

18 minimum or maximum sentence or anything alike, or where would that be

19 regulated?

20 A. In this item, no minimum or maximum sentence or any sentence at

21 all is mentioned. The only thing that is determined is the -- is

22 responsibility in case an officer omits to undertake certain measures.

23 This instruction doesn't specify the type of sentence or how such sentence

24 might be imposed. This is provided for by the general criminal law, and

25 in that particular law there is some concrete acts of crime. For example,

1 if we're talking about a crime against civilian population or murder of

2 prisoners, this is regulated in the criminal law. This particular

3 instruction, in my view, cannot be taken as a particular criminal law or a

4 particular regulation. It is just an addition to other laws and

5 regulations in the criminal law.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller, is this a convenient time to interrupt

7 you?

8 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour, it is. Thank you.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, we have to have a break at this

10 stage. Could you please go with the usher, who will show you where you

11 can wait during this break.

12 [The witness stands down].

13 JUDGE BONOMY: We will resume at 11.15.

14 --- Recess taken at 10.45 a.m.

15 --- On resuming at 11.17 a.m.

16 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, while the witness is brought in, I

17 would like to point out a correction in the transcript that needs to be

18 made regarding an exhibit number. It's on page 25, line 16, the exhibit

19 number is noted there as P109. The correct number would be 1309.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 [The witness takes the stand]

22 MS. MOELLER: And in addition, the exhibit number of the rules on

23 the application of international laws we dealt with before the break is

24 Exhibit Number P998.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Is the number you gave P66 -- oh, no, that's --

1 no. Sorry. That's wrong. That's the page number. So P998. Thank you.

2 Please continue.

3 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honours.

4 Q. Sir, before the break we left off talking about some regulations

5 in the general criminal law, and I see in your statement that there are

6 also -- that you address there two articles in the criminal code which

7 also refer to violations of reporting duties of officials, and this is

8 page 65 and 66 of the English version. And it should be in the Serb

9 version just before the section on the Rules of International Law that we

10 talked about before the break. You refer to Article 113 of the criminal

11 code which deals with a violation of an official of a reporting a crime,

12 and again this applies to crimes prosecutable ex officio only. Is that

13 correct?

14 A. In Article 113 -- actually, my comment was that an official person

15 under that article is every person, including military officers, who are

16 criminally liable should they fail to report a crime for which a

17 prescribed sentence is more than five years' prison term.

18 Q. What kind of crimes would that be with that kind of more severe

19 sentence, if you can give an example?

20 A. In any case, those are serious crimes that pose threat to the

21 society and with grave consequences. Those are mostly all crimes against

22 the security and constitution of the state. Those would be all crimes

23 pertaining to the category of war crimes or crimes against the civilian

24 population, unlawful killings, and so on and so forth. In other words,

25 all such acts that can be considered a serious with minimum penalty of

1 five years. By and large, in war one can talk about all qualified types

2 of a crime against the Army of Yugoslavia.

3 Q. Thank you. And then you move on in your paper on the same page it

4 is Article 235 of the -- I understand the criminal code. And this is in

5 the chapter that refers particularly to offences against the Yugoslav

6 Army. Is that correct?

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely so. Precisely so. The

9 essence of this crime of nonreporting to the organs of prosecution is the

10 omission of a superior officer to inform the command. The provision

11 speaks of a crime that calls for measures to be taken immediately. In

12 practice, a question arose about such an obligation with regard to the

13 existence of crimes. This provision takes into account only the omission

14 or failure to report on the event that has taken place, an event that

15 requires the command to take certain measures. These are acts pertaining

16 to the chapter listing acts against the Army of Yugoslavia. The protected

17 person is the Army of Yugoslavia; therefore, the omission in question is

18 the omission to report an event that was harmful or detrimental for the

19 army.

20 There are other crimes in the law, and there is also an obligation

21 in the Law on Criminal Procedure which prescribes an obligation of every

22 citizen, including every member of the army, to report crimes. There are

23 also such provisions in general laws on criminal procedure and criminal

24 law which specify that an omission to report a crime for which the penalty

25 prescribed is longer than five years in prison constitutes a crime. In

1 any case, in the Army of Yugoslavia --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: You must tailor these answers, Ms. Moeller, to some

3 extent.

4 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Judge Nosworthy has a question for you.

6 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Yes. I wanted to know does responsibility not

7 ensue in the case of a crime punishable with imprisonment for a period of

8 less than five years? What would happen in that case? Was there a total

9 want of responsibility?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we are talking about a commander

11 who is not a member of the military police or the security organs, their

12 obligation to report the --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, just listen to the question you've

14 been asked. You've told us about Article 113, which requires anybody to

15 report any offence punishable -- the commission of any offence punishable

16 by five years' imprisonment. Now, what if it's an offence that doesn't

17 carry that sentence, less than five years' imprisonment? Article 113

18 wouldn't apply, so what rule would apply?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If we're talking about a crime that

20 is prosecuted ex officio, then this provision specify an obligation to

21 report every crime that is prosecuted ex officio. And let me just

22 emphasise, these are also crimes that carry an imprisonment term of less

23 than five years. A reporting obligation exists, and it is prescribed --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: In that case, the translation's wrong. Because it

25 requires two conditions to be satisfied; it's prosecutable ex officio and

1 punishable by five years' imprisonment. One has to wonder, Ms. Moeller,

2 if we couldn't -- if we wouldn't be better reading the laws for ourselves

3 than getting an explanation that might not actually reflect the true

4 position.

5 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour. I'll move on. I'm --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what is the position? We need to go to the

7 B/C/S version and find out if both of these conditions require to be

8 satisfied. Can we do that?

9 MS. MOELLER: Um --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have in front -- does Mr. -- he has the

11 report in front of him.

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, would you read the paragraph dealing

14 with this. It starts: "An official which pursuant to Article 113,

15 paragraph 4, also means a serviceman who does not report ..."

16 Could you read word for word what that paragraph says.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have the text of the

18 criminal code of the SRJ at hand.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Read what you have written. This is your document

20 that you compiled. Read aloud to us in B/C/S the paragraph that

21 starts: "An official which pursuant to Article 113, paragraph 4 of the

22 criminal code ..." Just read your records to us, please.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "An official pursuant to Article

24 113" --

25 THE INTERPRETER: If the witness could read slowly so the

1 interpreters could interpret really precisely.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Of the criminal code of the

3 SFRY/FRY also means a serviceman who does not report a criminal offence

4 that is prosecuted ex officio and which is punishable by five years'

5 imprisonment or a longer sentence" --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, just stop there. [Microphone not activated].

7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: You said: "A criminal offence which is prosecuted

9 ex officio and which is punishable by five years' imprisonment," which

10 suggests that it needs to be prosecuted -- prosecutable ex officio and

11 carry a sentence of more than five years' imprisonment. And a moment ago

12 you told us that it's only one of these conditions that needs to be

13 satisfied. It's prosecutable ex officio or punishable by more than five

14 years' imprisonment. Now, which is the accurate version?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have already

16 specified that every citizen, including a serviceman, is duty-bound to

17 report every criminal offence; however, a serviceman, as an official, if

18 they omit to report a crime prosecutable ex officio, that's one condition.

19 And the second condition that a prescribed sentence is more than five

20 years, then such a serviceman will be criminally responsible. In the

21 first case it is a responsibility which does not carry criminal

22 responsibility; however, the second case does carry criminal

23 responsibility.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm totally confused now. I don't

25 understand.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: We think you understand, and further we understand

3 and further examination on this will not assist us. We'll read the

4 documents in due course. Please proceed to something else.

5 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Q. Sir, looking at the legal framework that you set out in your

7 statement as a whole, did this legal framework allow for the efficient

8 investigation and prosecution of crimes committed by servicemen? And if

9 you can give a short answer, and I'm just talking about the legal

10 framework as such at this point.

11 A. The provisions of the law in themselves provided the necessary

12 conditions; however, in practice it didn't happen simply because even

13 graver criminal acts were not reported --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop there. You were only asked the first

15 part of that question -- I think I need to explain to you what happens in

16 our procedure that you don't seem to understand. And I'm sorry that I

17 perhaps didn't explain it at the beginning.

18 The counsel will ask you questions, and they are -- these

19 questions are deliberately framed so that you should concentrate your

20 answer on the question that's asked. Now, the question that you were just

21 asked is a good example. You were only asked if the legal framework was a

22 satisfactory framework for dealing with offences, and the answer to that

23 is: Yes. It's one word, according to what you've just said. And you

24 weren't asked to tell us about how it worked -- you were not asked to tell

25 us how it worked in practice.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: So that -- if you can concentrate on the particular

3 questions, we'll make a lot more progress. Thank you.

4 Ms. Moeller.

5 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. And, sir, continuing with that, this very framework that you said

7 was efficient, would it have allowed for the investigation and prosecution

8 of crimes committed by army members in Kosovo in 1999, if there were any

9 such crimes? And again, it would be a yes or a no answer, please.

10 A. Yes, absolutely, yes.

11 Q. I now would like to move on to your --

12 MR. CEPIC: [Microphone not activated] -- about leading questions,

13 and I think that the previous two questions from my learned friend,

14 Ms. Moeller, I think that the last two questions were leading questions.

15 So just to underline that, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I disagree with you, I'm afraid, Mr. Cepic.

17 We'll just continue --

18 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: -- on the basis that these are -- there's nothing

20 wrong with these questions in this context.

21 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. I'm now moving on to Exhibit P2671, the other statement you gave.

23 MS. MOELLER: And can we call up Exhibit P2780, please.

24 Q. In your statement you say that you were a military prosecutor at

25 the command of the Military District Pristina from 20 May to 5 June 1999.

1 Can you look at that document and tell us, is that the document that

2 appointed you to this position?

3 A. Yes, that is the document.

4 MS. MOELLER: And can we call up Exhibit P2773, please.

5 Q. And before you were appointed to this position in Pristina you

6 stated that you were a military prosecutor at the command of the military

7 district in Belgrade from 24 March to 20 May 1999.

8 MS. MOELLER: And can we go to page 3 of the next document,

9 please.

10 Q. Can you explain what this document is.

11 A. This is my evaluation, military wartime evaluation, official

12 evaluation.

13 Q. And on the bottom of this page, this evaluation says that you were

14 transferred to the 3rd Army Pristina Corps on the basis of your personal

15 request. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes. That was my third request. I actually asked to be relieved

17 of duty.

18 Q. And why did you ask to be transferred?

19 A. I was exposed to pressure, considerable pressure, from the

20 security organs who were supposed to act in accordance with my requests.

21 They had my hands tied and prevented me from performing my legal duties.

22 I asked for protection from my superiors, the supreme military prosecutor;

23 it did not materialise. They said that even they were exposed to even

24 more powerful pressures and other things. They understood my request to

25 be relieved of duty, and then they explained how it would be good to go to

1 Kosovo, for me to go to Kosovo. At a meeting that was held in early

2 May --

3 Q. [Previous translation continues]... Tell us here. Thank you,

4 sir. In your statement in the paragraphs 10 to 23, you describe certain

5 events, and if you could have a short look at these paragraphs. Did all

6 these events occur while you were based at the military district of

7 Belgrade?

8 A. I don't know what you are referring to.

9 Q. I am referring to the events that are described in paragraphs 10

10 to 23.

11 A. Yes, yes. These are events from the time when I was the military

12 prosecutor at the Belgrade Military District command.

13 Q. Okay. Now I would like to talk with you about some of the

14 specific incidents you mention that took place while you were in your post

15 in Pristina. And paragraph 24 you talk about a certain Stosic person.

16 MS. MOELLER: And I would like to call up exhibit P2758, please.

17 Q. In this paragraph you refer to having seen Stosic being mentioned

18 in the statements of some VJ reservists. Did you have these statements in

19 your own hands while you were in Pristina?

20 A. Yes, I received them from the military prosecutor at the Pristina

21 Corps command, Major Spasojevic, in a case in which he asked for certain

22 investigative asked, he asked the investigative judge. And that judge

23 disagreed with the request, believing that they were not authorised to

24 act, but that the case was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the court

25 where I was the prosecutor. So that is when I got not only those

1 statements but other documents --

2 Q. Yes. Let us --

3 A. -- in which Stosic was discussed.

4 Q. Let us stay with these documents now. The information that is

5 contained in paragraph 24, is that the information that you became aware

6 of through these statements?

7 A. Two of the reservists mentioned Stosic by name and Colonel Miodrag

8 Djordjevic. Only Stosic is mentioned here. However, the others also

9 talked about other people. So the two reserves -- the two reservists

10 identified these two, Stosic and Djordjevic.

11 Q. Okay. And the events you set out in this paragraph, were these

12 the events described in the statements? And please listen to the question

13 and only shortly answer.

14 A. This was a question?

15 Q. Yes. The question was: Would you describe as the events -- these

16 events, were they contained in these two VJ statements or where did you

17 get this information from?

18 A. I had these -- this information as part of the case that I had at

19 my prosecutor's office, criminal, legal case with a certain specific

20 number. And in that case there were statements of these two with other

21 exhibits. So that is what I'm talking about in that part of my statement.

22 Q. Okay. Now, could you have a look at the document which is on the

23 screen, and the last paragraph states that no documents have been found

24 regarding -- in the Ministry of Defence regarding this particular case.

25 Can you explain what happened to this -- these statements that you saw and

1 the case file that you just referred to right now.

2 A. If it's true what they're informing about, that somebody hid or

3 destroyed a file, a case file, there is a register, there is a criminal,

4 legal case file, there are people, some of whom are prosecutors in the Nis

5 District Court. One of them is a judge in a district court. There are

6 people who worked, not just myself, worked as a prosecutor and who issued

7 specific tasks. There is a case file. There is a register. So if this

8 is correct that somebody hid or destroyed Stosic's case files, then I can

9 explain in detail to the Trial Chamber how the security organ chief,

10 Nesic, tried to force me to hand over all these documents to him with the

11 explanation that the other prosecutor will take that case --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: We have all that --

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- Spasojevic --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: We have that in your statement already. Thank you.

15 MS. MOELLER: Can we call up Exhibit P829, please. This is a

16 letter, I have to explain, that was sent to the OSCE mission by the

17 Ministry of Defence of Serbia and Montenegro, and we seized it from the

18 OSCE together with the report that we talked about earlier today, Your

19 Honours. And there is mentioned a list of instigated and completed

20 criminal proceedings attached to this letter and this is the next exhibit,

21 Exhibit P830, which I would now call up.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

23 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you permit me, I

24 cannot find this exhibit on the 65 ter list. Perhaps it's my mistake, but

25 I am trying my best to find it. Thank you.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller, is it there?

2 MS. MOELLER: I thought it was, Your Honour. Let me have a look,

3 Your Honour. It is on page 15, the third from the bottom and the letter

4 is the fourth from the bottom.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: They're certainly there in the English version,

6 Mr. Cepic.

7 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I allowed for the possibility that it

8 was my mistake. It's possible that the translation is wrong. Thank you.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You may continue.

10 MS. MOELLER: Do we have Exhibit 830? Can we please have it on

11 the screen.

12 Your Honour, with your leave, I would also have a bundle of the

13 Serbian version that I could hand to the witness to make it a bit easier

14 for him to follow.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: If you think it will help, yes, please.

16 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

17 Q. On page 1 of this exhibit, on this list that the supreme military

18 prosecutor provided on 9 April 2002, as the title says, there is a

19 mentioning of a certain Slobodan Stosic under 1(A). Could you have a look

20 at that, please, and it's Exhibit 830. Do you see it?

21 A. Yes, I see it. I found it.

22 Q. To your knowledge, is that the same person that you mention in --

23 who you mention in your statement?

24 A. I cannot say that in terms of the unit where he was serving. It

25 says that he was serving in military district 1365, Raska. I know that

1 Lieutenant-Colonel Stosic that I had the opportunity to prosecute as a

2 prosecutor on several occasions actually was a member of the security

3 administration engaged on special assignments. I met him for the first

4 time already before the war. It was the gravest criminal charge that I

5 had encountered as a prosecutor in my career, and I remembered Stosic who

6 was a captain at the time from then.

7 Q. Okay. Please, let's stay -- try to stay focused still. The event

8 mentioned in this paragraph, the village of Gornja Klina Srbica

9 municipalities, would that be, to your knowledge, also a different event

10 from the event you speak about in your statement with regard to Stosic?

11 A. If the place where the event is correct here, then it's another

12 event. It's true that the time of the event is April. If I recollect

13 this properly, what I had as a prosecutor in Pristina was sometime towards

14 the end of April 1999, but not Klina, not Srbica, and I categorically

15 state, I know that well, many others know that who are still trying cases

16 and prosecuting today, know that this event has to do with a grave

17 containing 47 bodies near Orahovac --

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. -- Orahovac-Srbica-Klina, these are different locations.

20 Q. Okay. Thank you.

21 A. If Your Honours permit me, I would just like to say also that I

22 had the opportunity to meet Stosic in other cases or encountered his name

23 in other events that took place at other locations, and I said in the

24 statement when I spoke about Stosic and Djordjevic - and we're talking

25 about the expulsion of a group of 700 near Decani and the grave near

1 Orahovac, those were two things that I was referring to.

2 Q. I would now like to move on to paragraph 29 of the statement where

3 you refer --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you do that --

5 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: -- is it clear in this statement that there is

7 involvement -- alleged involvement of Stosic in relation to the bodies in

8 Orahovac?

9 MS. MOELLER: No, Your Honour, this paragraph 35 deals with the

10 mass grave in Orahovac and --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, what is the link you are making

12 between Stosic and the 47 bodies exhumed in Orahovac?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since I knew who

14 Slobodan Stosic was and since I know that there were charges about him

15 committing other things before this which came from the supreme military

16 prosecutor, when I found information about Stosic and Djordjevic from

17 those two reservists, I immediately thought that it was the same person.

18 And I'm going to say that since this is a major thing, I called my bosses

19 at that instant and asked General Obrencevic to check whether it was the

20 same person and he told me at once, Yes, Dorovic, it's that same person.

21 We know about this and we're going to order you from here what you will do

22 next with that case.

23 As for the grave --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: You're only now -- you see, I wonder if you really

25 were listening to my question. I want to know the link that you make

1 between him and the grave in Orahovac, and you haven't even begun to deal

2 with that yet. We don't have unlimited time in this court, unfortunately,

3 because of the massive amount of material we have to deal with. So it

4 would help us if you would concentrate on the questions you are being

5 asked. So what is the link you suspect between Stosic and the mass grave

6 in Orahovac?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the statements of the

8 reservists, Stosic organised at that place as well liquidations, group

9 liquidations, and then also the removal of bodies. So they said that he,

10 Stosic, just like Colonel Djordjevic, did the same things in other places.

11 I intended to take Stosic as an organiser of those liquidations. If you

12 permit me, Your Honours, actually, it's about a larger number of --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: No. Just stop there. That -- I just wanted to

14 know what the link was. I don't think it's in this written statement and

15 I'm just -- I'm trying to make sure we don't miss anything as we go along.

16 I mean, the suggestion is that this would have been dealt with in

17 paragraph 35. Is that right, Ms. Moeller?

18 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour. There is a reference to many

19 official notes that he received in this file. I don't know whether

20 this --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: But what he's saying is that in the statements of

22 the two reservists there was reference to this.

23 Anyway, move on to the matter you are going to deal with.

24 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

25 Q. Sir, in paragraph 29 of your statement you refer to an incident

1 where a certain person named Nesic threatened you and asked you to

2 withdraw indictments against two servicemen, Ristevski and Stefanovic.

3 MS. MOELLER: Can we call up Exhibit P2754, please.

4 Q. I would like you to look at the -- at the third paragraph - it is

5 in the English version on the first page - which starts with: "I also

6 informed him about other forms." Can you explain what that document is

7 shortly, if possible, please.

8 A. There is not enough time. I would like to say that on the first

9 evening as soon as I arrived I was put under pressure by my -- Major

10 Nesic. From that moment until my departure from Kosovo, I was

11 continuously --

12 Q. Let me stop you here. Try to listen to the question. Did you

13 sign -- did you write this document?

14 A. Yes, I did, and I personally delivered it to three addresses.

15 Q. And to whom was this document delivered?

16 A. To the commander; my deputy Blagojevic, who helped in the drafting

17 and typing of the document and specified in here as the person who drafted

18 the document. I was the one who dictated the document. I --

19 Q. Yes.

20 A. -- and I delivered it to the commander, to the security organ.

21 Q. And the third one?

22 A. And the third one to Colonel Radosavljevic.

23 Q. And who was he again?

24 A. My superior.

25 Q. Okay.

1 A. He was my superior, the military prosecutor in the department with

2 the command of the 3rd Army.

3 Q. And --

4 A. I requested protection from them as well as from General

5 Obrencevic.

6 Q. Okay. And that was on the 30th of May. Is that correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. And the year is 1999 in the Serb version, is it?

9 A. Yes.

10 MS. MOELLER: Just, there is a mistake in the English translation,

11 Your Honours, it says 1990, just to point that out.

12 Q. Looking at the third paragraph, is that the incident that you set

13 out there which read -- which you described in your statement in paragraph

14 29?

15 A. This is exactly what I had in mind, but there were other

16 situations which are not contained in this paragraph of my statement.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. -- and here I'm talking about that threat as well.

19 Q. Let me --

20 A. To the threat --

21 Q. Please --

22 A. -- that was issued in front of 60 or so people.

23 Q. Please let us --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Could I be clear on who the three people were to

25 whom this was sent. Just tell us in simple language the three people you

1 sent this to.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The commander of the military

3 district, Colonel Pesic; the security organ of the military district in

4 Pristina, Lieutenant-Colonel Cvijovic; the third copy was delivered to

5 Colonel Radosavljevic at the first occasion. He was my superior officer

6 while I was in Kosovo; he was my immediate superior.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 Ms. Moeller.

9 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

10 Q. And after you sent this information to these three persons about

11 threats that were made against you in relation to your work, what

12 happened? Was anything done to improve the situation for you?

13 A. Unfortunately, there were just promises and encouragements that I

14 should be brave, that I was sent over there because I was brave, and this

15 is what it was expected from me to find ways to operate. However,

16 immediately after this, upon General Obrencevic's order I called a

17 meeting. The collegium of the military prosecutor that decides on the

18 issues that have to do with the regulations of the work of the military

19 prosecutor's office, General Obrencevic, to my astonishment, insisted on

20 things being very formal and I needed practical assistance in acting in a

21 very specific case. Nesic asked my deputies -- actually, he was

22 designated as a person who had organised theft --

23 Q. Sir --

24 A. -- in companies --

25 Q. Sir, please. This already brings us into another area. Once

1 again, I would really ask you to focus on my concrete question and limit

2 your response, because as the honourable Judges have expressed several

3 times, we only have limited time and a lot of material to go through. So

4 please try to focus on my concrete questions here.

5 MS. MOELLER: Can we call up Exhibit P2760, please.

6 Q. In paragraph 31 of your statement, you state that you did not have

7 a chance to conduct the investigation any further after that. So what was

8 the last state of the case against Ristevski and the other person when you

9 last saw it in Kosovo? Were there only crime reports? Was there an

10 indictment? What was the procedural state at that time?

11 A. On the 22nd of May, when I arrived, the indictments had already

12 been issued and it was signed by my predecessor. I learned about the

13 indictment because Nesic came and asked from me to give up on criminal

14 proceedings on that very moment. He came into my office with three

15 soldiers armed to their teeth, and he told me, This very moment I ask you

16 to -- there are numbers of these indictments and --

17 Q. [Previous translation continues]... in your statement. The

18 Judges have read your statement, and we know these details. So my

19 question was about the status and you said there were indictments that

20 were already signed by your predecessor. Right.

21 So I would now ask you to look at page 3.

22 A. They were accepted by the court. Two indictments were issued and

23 accepted for proceedings by the court.

24 Q. Thank you. Now, please look at page 4 of the exhibit that is now

25 on the screen, and that was a request sent by the Office of the Prosecutor

1 inquiring into this very case against Ristevski and the other person,

2 Stefanovic. The third paragraph from the top says that: "The Ministry of

3 Defence found no information that a criminal procedure was launched and

4 led against the person named about the issues contained in our request,"

5 which are the issues you described in your statement.

6 Do you know what happened to the indictments after you saw them in

7 Pristina?

8 A. I don't know what happened. I left Kosovo on the 4th of June, and

9 if this is true, then somebody must have destroyed them or concealed

10 them. These indictments are something that the court was familiar with --

11 actually, they were registered in the court, they were registered in the

12 prosecutor's office, so many people knew about them.

13 In that case, the ministry untruthfully informed -- I don't know

14 why; I can't go into that. I know that the indictments exist. I know

15 their numbers. I know when they were issued. I know what crimes the

16 persons were charged with. So I really don't know how --

17 Q. Thank you.

18 A. -- how come the ministry provided such information because this

19 information is simply not true.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller, in a situation like this, do you also

21 tender for admission the RFA itself?

22 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour. We would tender it as a complete

23 package, so it's actually understandable --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: So does P2760 include the RFA?

25 MS. MOELLER: Yes, it includes the RFA and the response. All

1 exhibits relating to RFAs include the full package.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

3 MS. MOELLER:

4 Q. Now I would like to move on --

5 MS. MOELLER: I'm sorry, I see Mr. Visnjic -- no? Okay.

6 May I continue, Your Honour?

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, certainly.

8 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

9 Q. Sir, one more question regarding paragraph 30 in your statement

10 before we move on. You mentioned there a certain person named Vujisic.

11 Who was that or who is that?

12 A. Vukojica Vujisic was the previous chief of the organ in the

13 Pristina Corps, the security organ that is --

14 Q. Thank you.

15 A. -- according to Nesic's information.

16 Q. Don't go into the details of what is in the statement, please. I

17 just wanted to clarify who he is because this is not contained in the

18 statement.

19 I would now move on to paragraph 35 which deals with the

20 grave-site in Orahovac which we already discussed shortly today.

21 MS. MOELLER: If we could call up Exhibit 2761.

22 Q. You say in your statement that you had to hand over this file to

23 the military prosecutor Spasojevic; correct?

24 A. Correct. The Supreme Military Prosecutor General Obrencevic

25 ordered me to do so, and the same order came from my immediate superior,

1 Colonel Radosavljevic.

2 Q. And if we now could look at page 4 of the exhibit which is now

3 displayed. The second paragraph refers to forwarding of a file on 2nd

4 June 1999 from the prosecutor within the command of the Pristina Military

5 District to the office within the command of the Pristina Corps.

6 Do I understand correctly that this is exactly what you described

7 in paragraph 36 of your statement, that this was this transfer of this

8 file?

9 A. Yes, this is exactly that, the transfer of the case file to

10 Prosecutor Spasojevic, from the command of the Pristina Corps.

11 Q. Mm-hmm. Now --

12 A. This is where I explained that I'm doing it on the orders of

13 others against my will, because at the time and still today I believe that

14 this was within my authority --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: We have all that in your statement. Please treat

16 us as knowing what it is we want from you. Allow us to control what's

17 happening in this courtroom, please. You may be used to a different

18 system, but I think I've explained to you a number of times that you are

19 here to answer specific questions because we already have bundles of

20 material from you. Now, please listen to these questions and confine your

21 answers to what you are asked.

22 Ms. Moeller.

23 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Now, there is another sentence in this paragraph, in this

25 document, a bit down -- it's actually the last sentence in this very

1 paragraph, which says that: "The Ministry of Defence informed that it is

2 not in possession of the documentation...." of this case, and according to

3 what you say in paragraph 35, there was quite an extensive documentation.

4 You refer to notes and reports and other things that were in the file.

5 You say it contained 150 documents. My question to you would be: Where

6 would this file be?

7 A. Unfortunately, I don't know. I really don't know. The case file

8 existed. I had studied 150 documents in the case file. The case file had

9 been given to me by Lieutenant-Colonel Spasojevic. I consulted my

10 superiors. They ordered me to return it. I don't know what happened to

11 this case file.

12 Q. Thank you.

13 A. I'm just trying to say that this was all registered with the

14 court, with the prosecutor's office. I really don't know what happened to

15 the case file in question.

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. Another case you referred to is dealt with in

17 paragraph 34 of your statement, and it concerns a network of people who

18 were looting Kosovo Albanian shops and enterprises and transporting the

19 goods to Serbia.

20 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, we don't -- we may call up the

21 exhibit, but I may inform you beforehand that Exhibit P2796 is a request

22 that we sent in this regard to Serbia on the 14th of September, and we

23 sent a reminder on the 18th of January this year, and there is no response

24 we received. We would tender it on this basis and apply to submit any

25 response we receive as we receive it.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

2 MS. MOELLER:

3 Q. Then in paragraph 32 of your statement you refer to the time when

4 you arrived in Pristina as a military prosecutor on 22nd May, and you

5 refer to some stolen items that you saw in a Serbian house there and other

6 things. In paragraph 36 of your statement you refer to the prosecutor who

7 arrived with you, Spasojevic, driving a confiscated car while in

8 Pristina. My question is: Were you ever offered any confiscated cars

9 after you arrived in Pristina?

10 A. I was threatened that if I did not accept at least one of the

11 three that I was offered, together with all of its accompanying documents,

12 this would be a precise answer. And they also told me if I didn't want

13 them I could give them to anybody else I wanted to. And I would like to

14 say that my deputies, all of them drove Siptar cars. I had a problem

15 because I had forbidden them to drive them, and I told them, A prosecutor

16 cannot be allowed to drive a stolen car. Spasojevic drove one. I told

17 him that this was not nice, and later on I even filed a criminal report

18 specifying all these things.

19 Q. Yes --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: This may be a translation problem, but you started

21 that answer by saying: "I was threatened that if I did not accept at

22 least one ..." but you did not tell us the nature of the threat.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, one of the three, yes.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: What were you threatened would happen if you did

25 not accept at least one?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We arrived on the 22nd in the

2 evening --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Just tell me what the threat was.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He told me that he didn't need a

5 prosecutor of that sort, and he also told me that I would be chased away

6 or killed. Nesic told me that in front of four people in my office. He

7 told me he did not need a prosecutor like that, and at dawn I was given

8 the documents for all these vehicles. And Nesic told me, Take this --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- don't play with your life.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller.

12 MS. MOELLER:

13 Q. Clarifying this a little bit, you talked about confiscated cars

14 and then you called them stolen cars, and you also referred to some

15 documents that came with the cars. What was the procedure how these cars

16 were actually taken from Kosovo Albanians? And I mean de facto.

17 A. One of my deputies, the current judge of the district court, on

18 several occasions said that he had expelled a neighbour of his to

19 Istanbul. He took his car and he said on several occasions that this was

20 the best car that could be found in Pristina.

21 Major Markovic, the secretary to the commander, claimed that he

22 maybe had even a better car that he had also taken from an expelled

23 Siptar. All of them, to the last, all of my deputies, drove not just one

24 but several such cars. Some of them even had up to four confiscated

25 Siptar cars. I'm claiming that they drove them to Serbia and kept some of

1 them. The current judge and the then-prosecutor also kept a car. I can

2 give you the number of the registration plate, the number of chassis, and

3 all other people know these things as well.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, was Nesic the commander of the

5 security organ of the Pristina Corps?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, at the time when I was there.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

8 Ms. Moeller.

9 MS. MOELLER:

10 Q. In times of war, is there a legal opportunity to confiscate

11 vehicles and other items if the army needs such?

12 A. In certain situations, according to the Rules of the International

13 Law, if such vehicles may be of use to the units engaged in legal military

14 activities, then the answer would be yes. However, these vehicles were

15 not taken in such situations. In Pristina, the only thing that existed

16 were unit commands. These vehicles were taken away from the Albanians

17 that had been expelled.

18 Q. Thank you. You already explained that.

19 A. -- the property that was left mind was just confiscated.

20 Q. And if a vehicle would have or would be confiscated under the

21 laws, which -- are there laws that regulate what happens with such

22 vehicles once the army does not need them any longer?

23 A. They should be returned, but the term "confiscated" is not very

24 precise. The term that I would use would be "stolen by force" or "taken

25 away" --

1 Q. No. Please listen. I'm talking about --

2 A. -- or "seized by force."

3 Q. -- the legal procedure. Is there a law that regulates the rights

4 or the claims that the owner of such a vehicle would have? Is that

5 regulated by any law?

6 A. Of course.

7 Q. And do you know which law that is?

8 A. First of all, in civil law -- this is a law on obligations that

9 imposes the requirement on the person to compensate the aggrieved person,

10 and if the perpetrator is not known, then the state is obliged to

11 compensate the person who suffered consequences. There is also the

12 criminal code that talks about the confiscation of property -- actually,

13 about property that were obtained through a criminal act or intended for

14 a -- the perpetration of a criminal act. If arms were used to seize such

15 property, then we're talking about an aggravated robbery and such property

16 has to be returned.

17 Q. Okay. Thank you.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder if you really -- I wonder if you really

19 mean to say "confiscation of property" or whether this is an

20 interpretational problem.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in our law previously

22 existed a penalty called "confiscation from the convicted person." When I

23 am talking about seizure, I don't mean to say "confiscation" because

24 confiscation is something that follows a decision by a state body, by an

25 authorised state body. In this case here we should use the word "seized"

1 property rather than "confiscated" property from the citizens of one's

2 state in one part of that state under the state of war or even before the

3 state of war was proclaimed in the second part of 1998 when --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

5 Ms. Moeller.

6 MS. MOELLER:

7 Q. You already mentioned that you filed a criminal report about these

8 issues at some stage.

9 MS. MOELLER: Could we call up Exhibit P2725, please.

10 [Trial Chamber confers]

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller.

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

13 Q. Could you look at the first paragraph -- or first of all, could

14 you tell us, are you the author of this document?

15 A. Yes, I am. I was the one who filed this report to the supreme

16 military prosecutor, because I knew that it would have been pointless to

17 send to those people down there. I wanted to be certain that this would

18 be taken into consideration.

19 Q. And in the ...

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 MS. MOELLER:

22 Q. And in the first paragraph you refer to 15 case files which deal

23 with -- with -- also with vehicles that were taken away, is that correct,

24 and then you give -- in the second paragraph you give some examples, do

25 you?

1 A. Yes, that is correct. That's how it's written.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that if the

4 Prosecutor read it correctly I think it's 17 criminal and legal cases, not

5 15.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

7 MS. MOELLER: Yes, it mentions 17 in the first and then 15 which

8 refer to particular items.

9 Q. In any event, sir, you give a lot of information on these issues

10 on seized cars, but also you mention other cases. On page 3 in the

11 English version there is again a mentioning of the Ristevski and

12 Stefanovic case which we discussed earlier today in court.

13 A. Yes, those are the two indictments, and that's where their numbers

14 are written, too. And I've already tried to explain to Their Honours, and

15 they disappeared.

16 Q. So --

17 A. I assume that the security organs, or rather, this was personally

18 handled by Nesic.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. They were seized and most probably destroyed, since later there is

21 no information that these indictments were actually proceeded upon.

22 Q. So let me interrupt you --

23 A. If the court permits --

24 Q. -- please, because I want to ask you something specific. This

25 criminal report concerns these 17 cases that you refer to in your

1 statement as having been stolen or disappeared from the court in Pristina.

2 Do I understand that correctly?

3 A. Yes, precisely. Disappeared. It would be precise to say that

4 Nesic with his group literally seized them and took them away. Theft is

5 one thing. It's when most frequently this is done in the absence of the

6 owner or the official persons, but here it was literally done by force, by

7 using threats. Before that, he had requested for us to withdraw the

8 indictment, to suspend the criminal prosecution; and then later he took

9 those two indictments and 17 investigation cases.

10 Q. Okay. It was 70 [sic] files altogether, was it, because now it --

11 I understand --

12 A. 70 [as interpreted].

13 Q. Okay. Now, I would like --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we be assured we don't have a translation

15 difficulty here, either.

16 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question of the

18 Prosecutor and the response mentioned 17, 17.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

20 MS. MOELLER: I would -- thank you.

21 Q. I would like to move on now to paragraph 40 and onwards in your

22 statement relating to the same issue, namely the cars that were taken by

23 the army while in Kosovo. In paragraph 43 of your statement you refer to

24 a note that you drafted in preparation for a meeting that you were ordered

25 to attend on behalf of your superiors?

1 MS. MOELLER: Can we call up Exhibit 2751, please.

2 Q. Can you have a look at that document. Is that the note that you

3 refer to in paragraph 43 of your statement.

4 A. Yes, it's -- has my handwritten remark on that -- of that day.

5 Yes, that is my official note.

6 Q. And did you deliver this note to the participants of the meeting?

7 A. Pursuant to the approval of the supreme military court, General

8 Milos Gojkovic, he previously initialled in the upper right-hand corner,

9 he approved it personally. When I came to attend the meeting at the

10 General Staff, since I was a representative of the military system, legal

11 system, and I was representing military prosecutor's office, in accordance

12 with the order of the presiding judge of the court, I distributed this

13 note to all the participants. I think there was about 30 of them. They

14 were mostly all representatives of organisational unit of the General

15 Staff and the defence ministry.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MS. MOELLER: Now I would like to look at Exhibit 2752.

18 Q. And this is a table, now we have it in English as well,

19 called: "Overview of confiscated and seized motor vehicles." And

20 where -- where does this table come from?

21 A. It's a table of -- it's a table that I was given by General

22 Obrencevic and General Gojkovic, and they had it at two previously held

23 meetings. However, we received the same table at the meeting held at the

24 transport and traffic administration of the General Staff. It was a

25 meeting conducted by General Uzelac, and he personally ordered these

1 tables to be distributed to all the participants, but I already had a copy

2 on my arrival at the meeting.

3 Q. And can you explain in the left column in English it says: "1st

4 Army, 2nd Army, 3rd Army." If you look at the numbers, the total numbers,

5 at the very right-hand side, that number of 1.333 total cars, would that

6 be the number of confiscated and/or seized motor vehicles from Kosovo or

7 what does it mean?

8 A. Yes, it can be taken like that, although it says the 3rd Army, the

9 3rd Army was deployed in -- throughout a large part of Serbia. But in

10 view of the topic of the meeting and of everything else, I assert that

11 these were vehicles from Kosovo, even though in the table it's indicated

12 that is a overview of confiscated vehicles in the 3rd Army. The 3rd Army

13 was outside of Kosovo; only one part of it, the Pristina Corps, was there,

14 units that were part of the defence --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, would you look at the heading of this

16 document, and could you read the heading, please, to us.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Serbian it says: "Of confiscated

18 and seized motor vehicles," "zaplenjenih." I already said that

19 confiscation can imply a decision of the state body, state organ. I

20 personally believe that a decision on confiscation is reached at a lower

21 level than the command level. I am not aware of anyone really issuing an

22 instruction for vehicles to be confiscated and taken out of Kosovo. But

23 it's a fact that this was done and it's a fact that we noted at that

24 meeting.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Remind us what in law would be a justification for

1 confiscating a vehicle.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said that the use of

3 units, according to Rules of International Law, there are situations when

4 it is permitted in the field to confiscate a vehicle and to use it.

5 That's it. But in other situations --

6 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I'm having trouble with. I would not,

7 in ordinary English use of language, regard that as confiscating a

8 vehicle; I would regard it as requisitioning a vehicle for military

9 purposes, and the word "confiscation" is causing me difficulty. Can you

10 assist?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Bonomy, I think

12 the most appropriate term would be "use for military purposes." Since I

13 worked for a long time in the section that drafted regulations, we would

14 define special-purpose use of a vehicle. But this is not in question

15 here. When it was done for that purpose, then it would be adequate to

16 say "use for military purposes." But this is not that kind of use, that

17 kind of situation.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, in that case, what is this situation?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that in Serbian

20 the most adequate word, if we used one word to indicate this, it would be

21 the word "theft," "seizure."

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Why would the VJ compile a document of property

23 that they said had been stolen?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because at that time there was a

25 problem about what to do with such a large number of vehicles which were

1 being brought there in the name of Serbia and the army by security organs,

2 mostly the military police. Mr. President, Your Honours, this is just a

3 small part, perhaps only a percentage --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: This overview relates to, I assume, the whole of

5 the then-FRY?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, not at all. I'm going to

7 state that those vehicles had disappeared also, all trace was lost of

8 them. Those vehicles were no longer --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: But I'm assuming that the document you have in

10 front of you relates to the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

11 not just to Kosovo.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So why would -- give me an example of the

14 circumstances in which the 1st Army could have seized, other than for

15 military purposes, 92 private motor cars.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I can give you a

17 thousand actual examples that I worked on of security organs from the 1st

18 Army, for example, from the Novi Sad Corps, organising --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I'll be happy with one.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 10.000 vehicles were transferred in

21 an organised manner from Vogosca near Sarajevo to Serbia. If the Court

22 wishes, I have documents and I'm going to send them, if you wish, to the

23 Trial Chamber attesting to an organised chain operating to obtain those

24 vehicles. This is organised theft and the seizure of expensive cars. I

25 worked on a case of the theft of such cars such as Alfa Romeos and other

1 expensive vehicles in the area of Dalmatia and then also Knin and then

2 around Banja Luka.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I hope that perhaps later in

4 cross-examination this may become clearer than it is at the moment.

5 We need to break now for lunch. We will break for about an hour.

6 Again, Mr. Dorovic, if you would please go with the usher; he will show

7 you where to go while we have this break.

8 [The witness stands down].

9 JUDGE BONOMY: We will resume at 1.45.

10 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.50 p.m.

11 --- On resuming at 1.51 p.m.

12 [The witness takes the stand].

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, Ms. Moeller will continue with her

14 examination.

15 Ms. Moeller.

16 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

17 Can we call up Exhibit 2750, please.

18 Q. Sir, do you see the document?

19 A. Yes, I see it.

20 Q. Who drafted this document?

21 A. I drafted the document.

22 Q. And please --

23 A. It was signed by the court president.

24 Q. Yes. And please wait for my question from now on again. Can you

25 explain what this document is.

1 A. This is the opinion of the supreme military court, since it was

2 drafted after several meetings, on the topic of how to treat the seized or

3 stolen vehicles, which at one point happened to be at the General Staff.

4 So this is the position of the military -- the supreme military court and

5 the supreme military prosecutor, I would like to emphasise, because in the

6 debate which preceded this document and this opinion, the prosecutor and

7 the supreme military court discussed the topic together. And I tried to

8 evade this duty, but my generals actually forced me to prepare this

9 document with the explanation that --

10 Q. Yes, please let me interrupt you there. If you look at the second

11 paragraph from the bottom on the first page in the English version it

12 says: "We deem that there is no actually -- no actual need for this issue

13 to be regulated by any special bylaw, not even in the form of an order."

14 Why was it necessary for the president of the military -- sorry --

15 for the president of the supreme military court to issue such an opinion?

16 What was he requested?

17 A. Because he was exposed to pressure from the General Staff to,

18 through me, for the courts to help in the drafting of a document. They

19 wanted to call it decision on how to deal with seized vehicles, but at the

20 initial stage of the work the General Staff wanted this decision to be

21 signed by the Chief of the General Staff and then later they wanted it

22 also to be signed by the minister of defence. The judiciary, after

23 analysing the question, concluded that all questions that had to do with

24 how to proceed on the question of these vehicles are regulated by the

25 regulations in force, and in earlier meetings as well as in the official

1 notes -- note which I drafted too and which was presented to everyone who

2 participated in the meetings - there were about 30 of them from the

3 ministry and the General Staff - were told that these questions were

4 regulated. If the vehicles were subject to criminal proceedings, then

5 this was regulated by the Law on Criminal Procedure and the criminal code

6 and would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis how a particular

7 vehicle happened to come into the possession of the army.

8 Since it was known that the vehicles were stolen and brought

9 there, and since we in the judiciary knew well that all this was done by

10 the organs of the military security and the police, I'm talking about

11 1.913 vehicles which were shown on the table. And we knew that it was

12 just a fraction of what was brought from Kosovo, in fact, and from other

13 areas, especially we insisted on it being no need -- there being no need

14 to adopt a separate document. And the judiciary on this matter was aware

15 of the political timing and the political climate in the country. So

16 there's no need to refer to that here and all the reactions that could be

17 prompted by the publication of such a document in which the army would

18 practically make public something like that. But actually, in practice it

19 turned out that the Chief of the General Staff --

20 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

21 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I have a clarification to seek. Now, things were

22 regulated through this -- through this order in a general way, but what

23 does -- how does it apply to vehicles which were not case property, I mean

24 those which were not property of any criminal law -- of any criminal case

25 pending? What happened to those, in reality? Were these taken away by

1 the army or were these sold or were these distributed or what really

2 happened? Because you have to unshroud that also for our understanding

3 what those regulation is. Because these are, after all, forcibly taken

4 and there can't be any regulation on a forcible taking of a property of a

5 citizen. How would you kindly explain that, what happened, what

6 regulation? Can you elucidate that, please. Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Gladly, and I am familiar with that,

8 yes. In the work in the General Staff they pointed out that even the

9 president of the court was driving a stolen Mercedes which was a

10 paradoxical thing in itself, and in any event, at that time we from the

11 judiciary mostly used the stolen vehicles to drive around in. So in the

12 note or in the material, if we analyse it more carefully, it is discussed

13 at one point, and this was specially analysed in the meetings, that the

14 vehicles, until further notice, even though it is known that they were

15 stolen, would still be used.

16 I am well aware that some of those vehicles are being used to this

17 very day. Sometimes when I have to go on official travel, I am actually

18 being driven in a stolen vehicle that has been brought from somewhere.

19 There are such vehicles that were brought from different places. It

20 turned out in the end that the General Staff actually wanted to keep the

21 vehicles, and that is why they insisted with us that we should deal with

22 the vehicles in the way that is already regulated in documents in 1991,

23 dating from 1991. These are documents in whose drafting I participated

24 myself with the chief of the administrative department of the defence

25 ministry, then the federal secretary, and later the defence ministry of

1 the SFRY, which started to fall apart actually --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... Long enough

3 answer for us. Thank you. We must have shorter answers from you, please.

4 Ms. Moeller.

5 MS. MOELLER:

6 Q. May I just clarify. These orders and rules that you just referred

7 to regarding 1991, are these the ones you refer to in Article 45 of your

8 statement? You were just speaking about rules that were from earlier

9 years. Are these the ones that are set out in Article 45 of your

10 statement so it is explained there?

11 A. Yes, those are the documents.

12 Q. Okay. And do I stand -- understand correctly that these rules

13 were established in relation to seized items at that time? And just yes

14 or no, please.

15 A. Both documents originate from 1991, and the army used them

16 whenever official records were made about the use of these vehicles in the

17 army. They also implied records. However, lots of time has elapsed --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop. You were asked to answer that

19 question yes or no. So is the answer yes or no?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The regulations were in effect at

21 the time and they could have been applied at the time. Both were in

22 effect at the time.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: The question related to 1991, I assume.

24 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: And the question was: In 1991, when these rules

1 were established, did they relate to items which had actually been seized

2 at that time, yes or no?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's easy, you know, isn't it? Thank you.

5 Ms. Moeller.

6 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honour.

7 And just for clarification to Your Honours, the document P2750

8 that we looked at is referred to in paragraph 46 of the witness statement.

9 You can see the number is mentioned in paragraph 46 and this document

10 carries the same number, so it's that very document.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 MS. MOELLER:

13 Q. Now I would like to move on to paragraph 47 in your statement

14 concerning an event in relation to Natasa Kandic. Can you tell us who

15 Natasa Kandic is?

16 A. Natasa Kandic is the director of an NGO called Fund for

17 Humanitarian Law. The first time I heard of her was at the time when they

18 tried to force me to issue criminal proceedings against her for a text

19 that had been published in August 2000. I refused to do that and then --

20 Q. Yes, please wait. We take this step by step.

21 MS. MOELLER: Exhibit Number 2746, can we call that up, please.

22 Q. Can you see on the screen the document? Is this the article that

23 was -- that triggered this whole incident that is described in Article

24 47 -- sorry, paragraph 47 of your statement?

25 A. Yes, and what you see here is --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- in ball-point pen --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: You've answered the question. If Ms. Moeller wants

4 you to deal with more, she will ask you more. All right.

5 Ms. Moeller.

6 MS. MOELLER:

7 Q. In the Serbian version that you look at now there are some marks

8 in the text, some underlining and other things; do you know who did that?

9 A. I did that when I analysed the text on the order of my superiors.

10 Q. Mm-hmm.

11 MS. MOELLER: Now, can we call up Exhibit 2783, please.

12 Q. Okay. Do you see the document? In the first paragraph it refers

13 to the text of an interview with Natasa Kandic published in the Danas

14 newspaper. This is the article we just looked at. And it says: "For the

15 purpose of submitting misdemeanour and criminal reports against her."

16 This is a document that is signed by Colonel Ljubisa Zivadinovic. Who was

17 he at the time?

18 A. I'm not sure that at the time that his name was Zivadinovic. I

19 believe that his name was he was Zivadinovski, but it is one and the same

20 person. He was the chief of the law administration in the General Staff

21 of the Army of Yugoslavia.

22 Q. And this document was sent where, to whom?

23 A. As you can see in the heading, it was sent to the federal ministry

24 of defence, to the chief of legal administration. At the time this was

25 General Radomir Gojovic, who had just been transferred from the General

1 Staff to the ministry. And what you see here marked in handwriting above

2 the title and to the right in the right-hand side corner is the signature

3 as General Gojovic as the chief of administration. He says that this

4 should be studied, that a decision should be brought urgently, and that he

5 is giving this task to Colonel Dopudja.

6 Q. That is in the handwriting which we see on the original in the

7 right-hand corner, as you say.

8 MS. MOELLER: Now next I would like to look at Exhibit P2745.

9 Q. In paragraph 47 you state that you were then asked by Gojovic to

10 write a crime report against Ms. Kandic. Is that correct?

11 A. He asked me that within two hours I should issue a crime report

12 and after that a misdemeanour report. He asked for two reports, yes.

13 Q. Mm-hmm. Okay. And then in your statement you say you refused to

14 do that and you wrote an official note. Now, looking at the document on

15 the screen, is that a copy of the official note that you wrote?

16 A. I would like to note that I said I believe we had, I was referring

17 to the legal administration and the ministry and this is what I did, yes,

18 but this is just a copy because with the chief's permission I produced my

19 opinion in handwriting, and this is just a transcript of what I had

20 written. And this is indeed my position where the correction --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that I'm not talking in singular

23 but in plural.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: The answer to your question was yes.

25 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: In case there's any doubt.

2 MS. MOELLER:

3 Q. You said your original note was in handwriting and that is a typed

4 copy of it. Who typed it up, to your knowledge?

5 A. Colonel Dusko Dopudja who actually investigated my responsibility

6 when I refused to issue the two requested reports.

7 Q. And you already started to explain something. Can you look at

8 page 2, at least in the English version it is paragraph number 4. Is that

9 how your handwritten note read as well or is there any difference?

10 A. I've already specified the difference in item 4. I was using

11 plural, referring to all of us in the legal administration of the

12 department. As for the rest, everything is exactly as I had written it

13 down.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we have paragraph 4 in English, please, on the

15 screen.

16 MS. MOELLER: It's page 2.

17 Q. So the text reads: "I believe that I have more important and

18 better things to do ..." And is that how your handwritten note read or how

19 did it read? Just this part of the paper.

20 A. Yes. It read: "I believe that we had," not just I myself but the

21 entire administration within the ministry.

22 Q. Okay. Now, the next document is Exhibit P7 -- sorry, 2743. This

23 is a decision. Do you recognise this decision?

24 A. Yes. This was shown to me on the day when the disciplinary

25 proceedings were launched against me.

1 Q. Mm-hmm. And it is signed by Major-General Gojovic. You already

2 explained who he was at the time, I think.

3 A. My superior, my boss. He was the chief of the legal

4 administration.

5 Q. Mm-hmm. The next exhibit is Exhibit 2742. This is a disciplinary

6 investigation report, and it is signed by a Lieutenant-Colonel Dusko

7 Dopudja. Is that the person who was ordered to conduct the investigation

8 in these disciplinary proceedings?

9 A. Yes, and he did carry out the investigative procedure and also

10 presented the results of the investigation that had been carried out.

11 And he also proposed that in addition to the disciplinary

12 proceedings, criminal charges were brought against me, in other words,

13 that I was to be held responsible in both terms for having failed to issue

14 a disciplinary report, although his personal opinion was that the

15 disciplinary charges should not have been brought. However, General

16 Gojovic told us that this was the conclusion of the collegium of the

17 General Staff that met in August 2000 to discuss the alleged attacks in

18 the media on the army on account of the army's behaviour in Kosovo.

19 Q. And these recommendations that you should also be prosecuted in

20 criminal proceedings, is that dealt with on page 2 in the last paragraph?

21 Can you have a look at that. Is that the section you referred to?

22 A. This is in the last paragraph or the last sentence --

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. -- in his report.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 MS. MOELLER: Now, the next Exhibit Number 2741, please.

2 Q. This is a document signed by Radomir Gojovic again, and it is

3 forwarding your disciplinary case file to the Federal Ministry of Defence,

4 I understand. Is that correct?

5 A. If when you say "disciplinary case file," you imply a disciplinary

6 case, a case in disciplinary proceedings, then the answer is yes.

7 Q. Mm-hmm. Now, without going in too many details, can you shortly

8 explain to us what became out of this disciplinary case against you in

9 regards to the Natasa Kandic article.

10 A. In formal terms I believe that the case is still pending. That is

11 why I was forced to at least a dozen times send requests that a formal

12 decision should be brought and for the case to be closed. Because as soon

13 as a disciplinary procedure is started, it has to come to an end; however,

14 they have not been willing to finalise the case. They did not want to

15 bring a decision from the Ministry of Defence. They came and they told me

16 that the disciplinary proceedings were over, and then I asked them to

17 delete that from my file, because if the case is still in the file, it

18 might turn out that I had committed a breach of discipline or a crime. If

19 you fail to obey orders in the army, it's considered a grave breach of

20 discipline which might have repercussions on my career. But they would

21 never issue such a decision. I even had to go to court, take them to

22 court.

23 But after the threats of the security organs, I was forced to

24 write an article and I actually drafted in the editor's office of the

25 paper called Blic after my meeting with Colonel Kovac from the Ministry of

1 Defence and his men, because I had realised from that moment on, I'm

2 facing major threats and major danger because at that meeting I pointed

3 out to some grave breaches of discipline and crimes.

4 Q. [Previous translation continues]... and call up this exhibit. We

5 have this article. It's Exhibit 2699, the article in the Blic newspaper.

6 If we could go to page 4, please, in the English.

7 Do you see the document on the screen? Is that what you just

8 referred to, the article that you wrote yourself, which was then published

9 in the Blic newspaper?

10 A. Yes, that's the article that I have just referred to.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: It's an open letter, apparently. On what date was

12 this written?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is an issue covering the period

14 between 30 April and the 2nd of May. So this was published on the 30th of

15 April, but it covered a longer period of time in 2002.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 MS. MOELLER:

18 Q. And now we are in 2006 [sic]. Is there any -- has there been any

19 decision on this whole issue in the positive or the negative since --

20 since it arose?

21 A. No. The commander called me and told me not to do a letter

22 because the case would still be on my file. And when I -- well, I have

23 recently issued a comment with regard to the obligations of the military

24 in respect of the Tribunal in The Hague, he again issued a decision that I

25 should be prosecuted for the breach of discipline. I don't think it will

1 be done, but I'm -- I still intend to write another open letter, and I

2 told him so, and he told me that if I did that, I would be fired from

3 service and that I shouldn't do that and before I came here he told me

4 that I should give it a second thought and if I did go that I better not

5 come back. I am proud that I have the professional knowledge and I am

6 proud of what I have done in my professional career, and especially the

7 order that I have just issued recently --

8 Q. Okay. Let's not --

9 A. -- and all of my superiors have only had the highest praise for my

10 professional work.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Who is the superior to whom you're referring now?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Colonel Aleksandar Zivkovic.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The acting commander of the

15 operative forces, who is the commander of special forces and who was the

16 commander of a battalion of the military police.

17 MS. MOELLER:

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. He asked another commander of the military police to carry out

20 that investigation. I don't think that they intend to carry out that

21 investigation, that it will ever come to anything.

22 Q. Sir, you just referred to the fact that your work was praised by

23 your superiors.

24 MS. MOELLER: Could we go to Exhibit 2771, please.

25 Q. Do you recognise this document? Is that your work evaluation for

1 the period from 1995 to 1998?

2 A. Yes. This pertains to the time when I was deputy military

3 prosecutor in Belgrade --

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. -- I had taken over from him on the first day of war.

6 MS. MOELLER: And can we go to page 3, please, in the English

7 version.

8 Q. It says on this -- in the second column from the

9 bottom: "Conclusion of numerical grade: Excellent." Was that the

10 overall assessment of your work? Do I understand that correctly?

11 A. I always received a collective grade of excellent, and the only

12 aspect of my work that falls short of excellent is my behaviour, because

13 my behaviour differed from the others because I did not obey orders when I

14 was asked to do something against the law. The person who evaluated my

15 work is a person under whom I worked for a number of years and whose work

16 we have analysed here today.

17 Q. Mm-hmm.

18 MS. MOELLER: And if we could look shortly at Exhibit P2774 --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you do that, this is what happens. I'm now

20 curious to know who that person was.

21 MS. MOELLER: Sure, Your Honours.

22 Q. Sir, could you say who that person was you refer to.

23 A. Colonel Nikola Petkovic, who was the military prosecutor in

24 Belgrade at the time, at the moment when he issued this evaluation of my

25 work. And he also participated in writing the last war evaluation and he

1 was the chief military prosecutor until the moment the military

2 prosecutor's office stopped existing. I hold this person in very high

3 esteem as a human being and as an officer.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: You said: "Whose work we have analysed here

5 today." Can you remind me what we were analysing about his work.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said that I and

7 Colonel Petkovic drafted the laws that we have analysed today, the laws on

8 Military Court, the military prosecutor, and bylaws necessary to implement

9 those laws. So not the person but our joint work and we have analysed

10 this work today here.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

12 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honours.

13 Q. Exhibit 2774, do you recognise this document? Is that the

14 evaluation for your work from March 2000 to March 2004?

15 A. This dates from an earlier period when I was in the legal

16 administration. It was the president of the supreme military court,

17 General Gojkovic, who wrote this evaluation for me.

18 Q. And on page 2 your evaluation grade is stated as very good.

19 A. Oh, no. I'm sorry. This has also originated in the legal

20 administration, but at the time when I was returned. This was Mr. Miodrag

21 Spasojevic who was brought over from the state security of Serbia and

22 became employed in the legal administration. He was a reserve military

23 person who was posted to a place reserved for generals.

24 Q. Okay. And last -- the second-last sentence before the stamp on

25 page 2, if you could look at that, you already referred to that your

1 personal behaviour was sometimes criticised. Is that what you refer to?

2 The text refers to that you ignored subordination inter alia. Is that

3 what you addressed earlier on today?

4 A. This is precisely what I had in mind. Mr. Spasojevic asked me to

5 submit false reports, to assist him in destroying documentation. I should

6 very much like to speak about this very specifically in what situations

7 and concerning which documents Spasojevic wanted me to help him. This was

8 normally the case when we were supposed to send documents or when we were

9 supposed to respond to the court summonses from Split or to the court

10 summonses in the country where colonels and generals had to appear before

11 court proceedings as witnesses. This is something that they wanted to

12 avoid at all costs. Spasojevic tried to force me, as a person who had

13 experience in the field, to write reports that we had no such

14 documentation, that it had been destroyed in the war. I refused to do

15 that, even in writing, because I was afraid that what I was forced to do

16 might incur criminal responsibility.

17 Q. And this reporting period is also the reporting period in which

18 the incident with the Natasa Kandic article happened, is it -- is it so?

19 A. Yes, that's the reporting period.

20 Q. Now, moving on to paragraph 51 of your statement, you talk about a

21 commission that was formed in the VJ General Staff.

22 MS. MOELLER: Can we call up Exhibit P2675, please, and we need

23 page 6, please.

24 Q. Do you have the document in front of you, sir, 2675? It should be

25 in the bundle.

1 A. Yes, I do. I drafted the document upon the order from the chief

2 of the administration. The representative has signed this. Since I was

3 there at the time, Dusko Dopudja was never a representative of the chief

4 and I can vouch for that. It is quite unfortunate that the chief of the

5 administration dared not sign this because he was afraid of being driven

6 out of the army; that's why he compelled this unfortunate representative

7 to sign it, and he's merely a figurehead there. I drafted the record at

8 the time.

9 Q. And let us please look at some text which is under VI, in the

10 English it's on page 6. The Commission for Cooperation with The Hague

11 Tribunal which is mentioned in this paragraph, is this the same commission

12 you mentioned in your statement in paragraph 51?

13 A. Yes, that's the commission. I should like to specify this as

14 well. This is something I said at the time as well but it wasn't written

15 down. This is the commission charged with archiving documents in the

16 month of January of 2005. This commission consists of 23 generals --

17 Q. And before you go on, could you give us some members of the

18 commission.

19 A. General Terzic is the president of the commission. I know that

20 the immediate superior, General Milos Gojovic is the president of the

21 military court and then General Svetozar Obrencevic. I see a document

22 here bearing his initials and I know he drafted it, then the general --

23 the chief of the legal administration of the General Staff and then of the

24 legal administration of the Ministry of Defence General Gojovic.

25 Next, if I remember well, this is the person who was charged in

1 the security organ for ensuring the security of the work of the

2 commission, I think it's Vasilovic, I'm not sure, though. And a group of

3 other generals whose names I might even find in my official notes. At any

4 rate, these are the names I can think of at the moment.

5 Q. And in paragraph 51 of your statement you say that this commission

6 was formed by Pavkovic. Is that General Pavkovic?

7 A. General Pavkovic, yes --

8 Q. And how do you know that?

9 A. -- that was contained in the material we had.

10 Because I had material showing that the commission was set up by

11 the Chief of the General Staff. The name of the commission states that it

12 is the commission of the General Staff.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. The material involved is quite voluminous and we received it from

15 the foreign ministry. Annexed to it was a set of materials --

16 Q. Please, I want to ask you specific questions regarding this

17 document. This document is a document which was -- you say you drafted

18 and it is from the legal administration in the Ministry of Defence; yes?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. And this document deals with which issue, if you can explain very

21 shortly and pointedly?

22 A. From the ministry's secretariat, we received material that the

23 ministry had in turn received from the foreign ministry. One of the

24 documents contained in the material was the request by this Tribunal,

25 ICTY, or that's to say by the Office of the Prosecutor, to gain -- or to

1 be given access to the military archives of the Yugoslav Army, which also

2 included the archives of the Ministry of Defence. Certain measures were

3 taken in order for our state and the army to preserve their reputation and

4 security, and this of course in the context of granting access to the

5 archives. The commission was sternly opposed to such a request by the

6 ICTY because it was their main task to destroy any such material, and they

7 energetically worked toward that. There was mention of some 17.000

8 documents that the commission had --

9 Q. [Previous translation continues]... The commission, did it submit

10 its opinion on this request by the ICTY regarding access to the VJ

11 archives, a written opinion?

12 A. Yes --

13 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

14 A. -- and it exists.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 MS. MOELLER: And I have Exhibit 2684 which is this document, Your

17 Honours. I don't want to ask any particular questions regarding this

18 document, but it is the underlying document to the one we are dealing with

19 at the moment.

20 Q. Now, staying with the document we are looking at, on page 7 of the

21 English version, the second-last paragraph - and I hope you can see it in

22 the Serb version - reads that: "We," meaning the Ministry of Defence

23 here, legal administration, "consider all the positions of the commission

24 to be legally unfounded and arbitrary and as such also particularly

25 harmful for the general interests of Serbia and Montenegro, especially

1 with regard to cooperation with the Tribunal."

2 One paragraph up in this document it is stated that: "In the

3 position of the commission there is a note of cynicism and disparaging of

4 the chief prosecutor," and you already elaborated a little bit on what in

5 your opinion that the aim of this commission was. And very short, not

6 going into details, and as you drafted, as you said, this document, could

7 you explain again what this commission was set up for, basically.

8 A. The commission was set up and organised. All the employees of the

9 ministry were instructed that they should provide any support to the

10 commission that they can and help it in its work. Even later on, as the

11 commission continued working, those of us in the legal administration knew

12 that the commission was, in fact, working toward either concealing these

13 documents or refusing access to them to whoever sought them. It even went

14 as far as forging or tampering with documents, changing their contents.

15 There was a team in our administration who was charged with such

16 activities. The commission was set up with that purpose, and it also

17 worked along those lines in reality - let me put it directly - in

18 concealing these documents, and if the documents could not be concealed,

19 they worked on forging, i.e., modifying the contents of these documents.

20 MS. MOELLER: I see Mr. Cepic is on his feet.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

22 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, if I

23 understood my learned friend, Ms. Moeller, on page 95, line 6, she said

24 that the witness participated in the drafting of the document; however, I

25 didn't hear the witness confirm this. And as we can see, the initials

1 next to the signature on page 2 in the B/C/S version do not include the

2 initials of the witness sitting in the dock here. Therefore, I neither

3 heard the witness confirm this nor could I find any evidence showing that

4 he, in fact, drafted the document on the document itself. Thank you.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller, has that already been answered or --

6 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, I'm trying to find it in the

7 transcript. To my recollection, that was the first comment he made on

8 this document --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I thought, too.

10 MS. MOELLER: -- when it came up.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I inquire as to the document

12 referred to?

13 JUDGE BONOMY: If you look at page --

14 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour, I have found it.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: If you look at page 92, line 2; is that it?

16 MS. MOELLER: Yes, I think so, Your Honours. We just found it,

17 too.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that good enough for you, Mr. Cepic?

19 MR. CEPIC: [Microphone not activated]

20 JUDGE BONOMY: If you remember the bit of evidence about the wrong

21 person signing it and being compelled to sign it.

22 MR. CEPIC: I'm not sure. I have to underline that I'm not sure,

23 but I think that we spoke about some other exhibit, 2675.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: That's the one we're looking at, I think.

25 MR. CEPIC: No, no, no at this moment we have been looking at

1 Exhibit Number P2684.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that's passed and we're back to 2675, as I

3 understand it.

4 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: We made a brief departure into 2684, but we are

6 back dealing with 2675.

7 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

9 Ms. Moeller.

10 MS. MOELLER: I'd like to move on.

11 Can we call up Exhibit 2830, please.

12 Q. Can you see the document, sir?

13 A. Yes, I do.

14 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic.

16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. I keep springing to my

17 feet all the time. However, as far as I remember, document 2830 is not

18 contained in the 65 ter list. We're thankful to the Prosecutor for

19 including it in the list, but I have to point out that it is not in the

20 above-mentioned list. Thank you.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller.

22 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, it is. There was a mistake in the

23 initial notification where we put the same exhibit number twice and that

24 was this document. But we sent a corrigendum one day later on 9 March

25 where I -- where the column regarding this document was put in and the

1 correct ERN numbers and the correct P number was given in notice to the

2 Defence and Your Honours because we recognised this mistake as soon as

3 notification was filed, unfortunately not before.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Cepic says it's not there, so ...

5 MS. MOELLER: Well, the document is there in any event. The title

6 is there. We only had wrong ERN numbers and we had a wrong P e-court

7 number in the original notification, which was filed on 8 March. And then

8 on 9 March we filed the corrigendum, which contains the P number and the

9 ERNs in a correct version.

10 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I went carefully through the 65 ter

11 list, and in the list that I have there is no P2830. I was going through

12 the list according to the P numbers. Thank you.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you'll see that it was -- that there was a

14 correction made on the 9th of March. But do I get the impression that

15 you're happy to see this document, in any event?

16 MR. CEPIC: [Interpretation] I'm very satisfied with the document,

17 but I'm afraid that this witness cannot provide a reliable and valid

18 explanation or comment to that document. Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that remains to be determined.

20 Ms. Moeller.

21 MS. MOELLER: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Q. Sir, could you look at the document. It's from the command of the

23 Pristina Corps from 2nd of May. During that time you were not yet in

24 Pristina, were you?

25 A. No, I wasn't. I was in Belgrade as a prosecutor at the time.

1 Q. Nevertheless, from your experience with reports and documents

2 alike, can you have a look at the third paragraph on the -- on the first

3 page where it lists the largest number of reports in relation to

4 particular crimes, and then it lists murder, aggravated theft, and

5 others. And I would like you to comment on that, if you can.

6 A. This piece of information is very interesting. I personally know

7 that right away, as early as at the end of March, there were many cases of

8 murder, mass-scale murders and individual murders; therefore, it is true

9 that there were murders. I state with full responsibility that before me

10 as a prosecutor on the 22nd of May, that's to say near the end of the war,

11 if we disregard the fact that we had already started working for Stosic

12 and if we disregard the matters that could be considered as criminal

13 reports, we started working on these mass graves.

14 The question arose of where the criminal reports were, why weren't

15 they there. Let me explain this closely. 1.040 criminal reports

16 disappeared, vanished, from my prosecutor's office. I personally

17 believe - and my bosses at the time held the same opinion - that these

18 criminal reports, or rather, statements concerning these murders were

19 concealed by security organs. In fact, they made a selection in the

20 following manner. In my prosecutor's office, which was competent for all

21 the crimes committed by civilians or any crimes involving military

22 personnel --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Please stop. This -- I don't find this helpful at

24 all. I can't see any relevance of this to the document in front of me at

25 the moment.

1 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: So could you take this in a way that is going to

3 make it relevant to what we are considering.

4 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

5 Q. Murder is noted as one of the offences committed and reported in

6 the largest numbers. In relation to crime reports and investigations you

7 saw once you arrived in Pristina later that month, if there were that many

8 murders, were they then investigated and reported on? Did you see all

9 these many reports? Were there reports like that or not?

10 A. I've already said this, and I repeat that under full

11 responsibility, no, we didn't have any. And I'm speaking of my

12 prosecutor's office and of the court I appeared before.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: So no murder reports; is that what you're saying?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We had something I regarded as a

15 report and we acted upon it. This was a report involving a grave-site.

16 We had a report concerning the expulsion and attack against a group near

17 Decani. However, in addition to the proceedings instigated against

18 Stosic, we had no other criminal proceedings that would have originated

19 from our prosecutor's office.

20 MS. MOELLER: Now I would like to look at page 3 in the English

21 version of this document.

22 Q. And there is a reference to instances of concealment or late

23 reporting of criminal offences in the units. You already mentioned

24 several times today, you gave various examples of concealment of crimes

25 that were committed. Now, in this document there is some mentioning of

1 something like that, and the crimes that are listed in this paragraph in

2 relation to which that was discovered was theft, taking a motor vehicle,

3 looting, arson, and the like. There is no -- there is no mention of

4 murder or anything more severe than the crimes that are set out here in

5 this paragraph. What would you -- what would your comment be on that, if

6 any?

7 A. This document was drafted at the command of the Pristina Corps. I

8 belonged to a different command, although we had direct dealings and

9 instances of cooperation in several -- on several occasions. I can draw

10 the conclusion that the situation was quite like this one in our office.

11 As a prosecutor, I myself had more than 90 per cent of cases where people

12 would evade court summons or -- these were members of the VJ.

13 In my office, aside from the grave-site and the Stosic cases, we

14 had no such situations. I know that the prosecutor at the Pristina

15 Corps -- I know this because I had meetings with prosecutor Spasojevic on

16 several occasions, I know that they had several cases involving

17 unidentified perpetrators. These were crimes against the civilian

18 population. That's according to what he told me. They also had several

19 cases after mass-scale murders. Based on this knowledge, the document we

20 have here should reflect these cases. It should also be stated at what

21 stage these cases are. I don't really know whether the cases were perhaps

22 brought to a close, but you can't deduce that on the basis of the document

23 here. I don't know what happened to these cases and I don't know if I can

24 speak about the analysis contained here.

25 Q. Mm-hmm. Thank you. Moving on to Exhibit 2818. This is a

1 document of the Pristina Corps command, and it's dated 25th of May, 1999.

2 Is that around the time you arrived in Pristina, is that?

3 A. Yes, I was in Pristina at that time.

4 Q. Mm-hmm.

5 MS. MOELLER: And if we could go to page 3, please.

6 Q. And for you, sir, it's under point 2.3, the part on the 3rd Army.

7 MS. MOELLER: Sorry, could we go to page 4, it's one page further.

8 Q. In the paragraph which is just above the next headline which

9 reads: "In the navy" --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: It's disappeared I think from -- no, sorry. Are

11 you back to a different paragraph? I thought it was to be paragraph --

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes, it starts on the previous page, Your Honour,

13 but the particular paragraph --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: I see. Thank you.

15 MS. MOELLER: -- is on this page.

16 Q. The paragraph that reads: "The judicial bodies in the Pristina

17 Military District command." This is where you were based, is it, the

18 military district command?

19 A. Yes, I was the prosecutor at that command.

20 Q. And this paragraph says: "They have somewhat less problems than

21 some of the other organs mentioned in this section of the document,

22 because the criminal proceedings and majority referred to crimes of not

23 responding to call-up and avoiding the military service."

24 What do you say to this assessment from your own experience?

25 A. I pointed out just earlier that over 90 per cent of what was done

1 was for crimes from the army, and one of the two were evading duty and

2 nonresponding to mobilisation. And these are particular things and they

3 are quite easy to prove. So this note or this remark, in my view, is very

4 wrong.

5 I was sent to Kosovo just like Spasojevic, but now I'm only

6 talking about this prosecution at the district -- military district

7 command, just as General Gojovic said at this large meeting. It's a

8 well-known meeting where a direct analysis was done with the military

9 prosecutors and the military judges about the situation in the district

10 until that moment. That was with the beginning of May 1999. And it was

11 said that the situation in the judiciary organs of the prosecution and the

12 chambers was catastrophic and that we should go there to try to improve

13 things a bit better and then we were also instructed how to conduct

14 proceeding. It was a kind of training how to respond to pressures and

15 resist pressures from the security organs and how to force them to comply

16 with our requests. So this conclusion does not stand. The situation was

17 exceptionally difficult.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, was Spasojevic your deputy in

20 Pristina?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Spasojevic is the

22 military prosecutor at the Pristina Corps command.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

24 Ms. Moeller.

25 MS. MOELLER: Thank you.

1 Q. Now, in your statement in paragraphs 52 and the following, you

2 refer to a number of exhibits that -- or a number of documents that were

3 shown to you when you gave the statement, documents that were received in

4 another case in this Tribunal through a Defence witness for

5 Mr. Milosevic.

6 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, I do not intend to go with the witness

7 through these documents because I think he has commented in his written

8 statement on them. I would just like to give you the cross-reference to

9 the exhibit number. The document in paragraph 52 of the statement is

10 Exhibit 953; the document referred to in paragraph 53 of the statement is

11 P2826; the document referred to in paragraph 54 of the statement is

12 Exhibit P2825; and the document referred to in paragraphs 55 and 56 is

13 Exhibit P2 -- I'm sorry, Exhibit P954.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

15 MS. MOELLER:

16 Q. A last exhibit I would like you to look at is Exhibit 846 --

17 MS. MOELLER: The OSCE report that we talked earlier about, Your

18 Honours, this morning.

19 And if I may hand a paper copy to the witness, maybe.

20 Q. Sir, did you have a chance to have a look at this report when you

21 came here last week?

22 A. Yes, I read it, analysed it. There are some cases there that I

23 know about from before. It's true that some cases that are mentioned and

24 analysed here are cases that I came across for the first time, but --

25 Q. [Previous translation continues]...

1 A. -- I knew about some of the cases described here from before.

2 Q. And from your experience, both as a legal professional and as a

3 citizen living in your country during the time until this report was

4 issued, which was in October 2003, do you know of any other war crime

5 trials held in your country for crimes committed in Kosovo other than

6 these that are mentioned in this report? And that means of course until

7 the time of October 2003.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know how far

10 this question will take us, because the witness said that this is a

11 document that he has seen here for the first time. So I don't see the

12 point actually if my learned friend insists on getting an answer from him,

13 but I don't really see any point in introducing this document through this

14 witness. That is a question that she could have put to the witness

15 without the document.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that can hardly be said, Mr. Visnjic, no.

17 The witness will answer the question.

18 MS. MOELLER:

19 Q. Sir, do you recall the question?

20 A. Yes, yes, I do. I do recall the answer -- the question.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the army at the time when I was

23 working as a prosecutor in Belgrade, and then in the supreme military

24 court after that, I had the opportunity to deal with the case of the

25 massacre in Kragujevac [as interpreted], which was ascribed to an

1 Albanian. That case is something that I and my bosses actually used to

2 conclude that it's an unclear case. I want to be quite explicit. I think

3 the proceedings are rigged --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: It's not mentioned -- is it not mentioned in that

5 report?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not mentioned here. I

7 wanted to say -- I've already said it, but I wanted to mention it as an

8 example that some other cases I know about that are not mentioned here and

9 which I had the opportunity to work on, and I can give the number of the

10 case. I can also mention the protagonists of the security organs who took

11 part in the setting up or the rigging of the procedure. So if the Court

12 allows me, I can perhaps be given the opportunity to find it.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on a second.

14 Mr. Visnjic.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first an objection to

16 the transcript. The witness had said Mladenovac, not Kragujevac.

17 Secondly, I think the witness should talk about the monitoring empowering

18 of the domestic courts to deal with war crimes. As far as I know

19 Mladenovac has nothing to do with war crimes if he is saying that this

20 case does involve war crimes and if that is something that my colleague,

21 Ms. Moeller, asked.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Were you referring to Mladenovac or Kragujevac?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mladenovac, yes, that is well

24 noticed.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the date of that event?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot give you a specific answer,

2 but I have official documents here. I worked on that case --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: What --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I want to be precise, but roughly

5 it's from the time when I was working at the Belgrade prosecutor's office

6 and it refers to the time when in Yugoslavia -- big Yugoslavia the war

7 already was underway and this material talks about not only cases during

8 wartime in Kosovo. You will see some other cases throughout Yugoslavia

9 are mentioned here, too. So I wanted to say that I knew some of these

10 other cases.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, just --

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Kosovo regarding war crimes --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you intend to pursue this, Ms. Moeller?

14 MS. MOELLER: No, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

16 MS. MOELLER:

17 Q. Just in relation to the trials, trials conducted that are

18 mentioned here in this report for war crimes in Kosovo, do you have a

19 reason to believe, according to your personal experience as a lawyer or as

20 a citizen in this country, that this report of the OSCE could be

21 incomplete or not?

22 A. I believe that it is true, but to a point. The reasons for

23 proceedings to be conducted in such a way or for it to have been processed

24 in such a way, my personal experience indicates that there is no way, even

25 in the foreseeable future, to resolve in the proper way the cases in order

1 to get to the actual truth. There were even fewer proper conditions for

2 an objective determination of the truth --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not the question you've been asked. The

4 question you've been asked is whether you know of any other actual

5 prosecutions undertaken by the authorities for war crimes committed in

6 Kosovo which are not contained in that report.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is missing here the case of

8 the grave that I was investigating, the grave-site near Orahovac. It's

9 not in the report.

10 MS. MOELLER: I think I have to clarify again.

11 Q. This is a report about war crime trials held, trials held, not

12 about investigations or prosecutions. It's only about the trials that

13 were actually held and all the questions are in relation to such trials.

14 And my question was - and maybe that's the misunderstanding here between

15 us - do you know of any other trials that would have been held until

16 October 2003 that are not mentioned in this paper here?

17 A. I know that Stosic and five from the group that he led were tried.

18 I didn't notice here any mention of the outcome of that trial.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. There was a trial against Zoran Ristevski, against Stefanovic,

21 Nesic was also supposed to be processed. I had submitted a request for

22 that. They are not mentioned here. This is not referred to here. I

23 don't know if this was not analysed or they were not known about. These

24 are some cases that I --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Just hold on.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- know about which during the

2 war --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: What was the outcome of the trial of Ristevski?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nesic, the chief of the security

5 organ, literally took the documents and he destroyed the documents about

6 Ristevski and -- I mean --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... Please, you're

8 being asked if you know of any trials which actually did take place which

9 are not in the document. You're not being asked about things that were

10 covered up or hidden. You're being asked what trials do you know of that

11 did actually take place which are not mentioned in that document. And

12 you've given one example. You say that there was a trial of Stosic and

13 it's not in the document, and I'd like you to tell us the sentence that

14 was imposed in that case.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Stosic was acquitted -- actually,

16 the proceedings were suspended because the prosecutor had given up --

17 declined to prosecute further. I don't know whether it was for lack of

18 evidence, but I believe personally that there were other reasons. I

19 believe that there was an abundance of proof and that it should not have

20 been suspended. I know that now after the Supreme Court of Serbia

21 returned the case for the second time. Three of them are going to be

22 tried now. I don't know if the trial will be in Kraljevo or Valjevo. It

23 will be in one of the district courts, one of the two district courts.

24 And as for two accused, again unfortunately, it seems that the

25 prosecutor's office has declined to prosecute.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, do you --

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that's what I know.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know of any other examples of trials which

4 have actually taken place which are not referred to in the document? And

5 if you have to read it again, we don't have time for that, I'm afraid.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

7 MS. MOELLER: Okay.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot recall any other specific

9 case at this point in time except for the one.

10 MS. MOELLER: Okay.

11 Q. Sir, you have mentioned in your statement at several points that

12 you -- due to your outspokenness and activities, you were threatened on

13 several occasions. Before you came here to testify, did you receive any

14 threats?

15 A. I'm receiving threats continuously since 1999, and in the

16 beginning I thought that it was only individuals who were -- felt

17 personally threatened because of my work and the submitted charges and

18 that they were trying to intimidate me. But as time went on, the threats

19 were more and more serious and I understood more and more the gravity of

20 those threats.

21 And ultimately, I had the experience that not far from the

22 building where I live a person who I believe did that in accordance with

23 instructions of the military security service intercepted me and said he

24 was going to rip both of my arms off from the elbows. And it happened

25 that my brother, by accident, had lost fingers on both of his hands. I at

1 that time definitely understood that there is a serious danger and that

2 there are people who consider me to be a traitor of the Serbian cause, and

3 at the command I had the opportunity that while I was on duty I worked

4 with people who talked proudly about how they expelled Siptars and what

5 sorts of things they did to them. And then when they found out that I was

6 a prosecutor and so on, then they told me that for me the best thing would

7 be to pick up and leave the army and to return to Montenegro.

8 I experienced that when the two republics split apart. My

9 superior, Colonel Sokolovic, openly called me to tell me that probably

10 after all that I have done, I should not be thinking of staying in the

11 service and that the best thing would be -- the wisest thing would be for

12 me to leave. I asked for protection from the president of the republic.

13 I sought protection also from the defence minister. My written requests

14 were channelled to go directly via the commander. The commander did not

15 want to pass them on --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... Forever or is

17 there going to be an end to it?

18 MS. MOELLER: Yes, there is going to be an end.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: I want to know when was the occasion when you were

20 threatened with ripping both of your arms from the elbows.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I explained that to The Hague

22 investigators. This was --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Tell me the date of it, please.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in December. I think it was

25 on the 10th of December, 2006, when I arrived from Kragujevac, where I am

1 on duty now.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And now recently, actually, last

4 weekend, last weekend when I was supposed to prepare to travel here, the

5 same person in the same car at the same place, but the car didn't have any

6 licence plates this time, repeated the same threats. Again, they wouldn't

7 give me a plane ticket to get here. On the day when I was supposed to

8 pick up my plane ticket, the commander told me that I'm going to lose my

9 job if I previously do not receive the permission from the defence

10 minister. So I then had to seek written permission to be allowed to come

11 here.

12 Shortly before I boarded the plane, the official who is checking

13 the passports and checking the visas asked me cynically so that others

14 could hear who were around, Whose passport is this? It was strange since

15 he could see it was a Serbian passport. I said, well, you see it is a

16 Serbian passport. He said, Well, I thought it was a Dutch passport.

17 Perhaps it would have been better.

18 MS. MOELLER:

19 Q. Sir, my last question is: Against this background why did you

20 decide to testify here in open session and without any protective

21 measures, please?

22 A. Because I personally believe that it is better like this, that my

23 chances are better and that they will not dare to attack me if it is known

24 here that I testified. The Serbian press has written in detail in several

25 daily newspapers that I have already been testifying in The Hague for four

1 days. There are newspaper articles about it already. All of my command,

2 110 officers, read my request to seek protection and they know I am

3 testifying here. They cannot extend protection to me, those who will

4 either do what -- who would actually implement their threats. I asked for

5 protection from those who are supposed to protect me. The military police

6 who is conducting proceedings against me because my comment --

7 Q. Thank you, sir.

8 MS. MOELLER: That would complete my questions, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Ms. Moeller, it doesn't appear to me that

10 P846, the OSCE report, is admitted -- would be admitted as a substantive

11 document on the strength of the questions asked. So if you intend to seek

12 to rely on that report, it's going to have to be presented to us with a

13 written filing covering all the usual criteria of authenticity, relevance,

14 probative value, et cetera.

15 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honours, I will do that. Thank you.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, that brings our proceedings today to

17 an end, but that only completes the examination by the Prosecution. There

18 will be cross-examination by a number of Defence counsel for the various

19 accused; that will have to be tomorrow. It's important that between now

20 and then you do not discuss any of your evidence, either what you've given

21 or the evidence you may yet give, with anyone at all. You can, obviously,

22 talk about whatever you like with whoever you like, as long as you do not

23 under any circumstances discuss the evidence in the case.

24 Now, could you please leave the courtroom with the usher and

25 return here to re-commence evidence at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow.

1 [The witness stands down]

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan, the order of that

3 cross-examination?

4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, the order will be: General Ojdanic,

5 General Pavkovic, General Lazarevic, General Lukic, Mr. Sainovic, and

6 Mr. Milutinovic.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And do you have any rough estimate of its length?

8 Mr. Visnjic.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can tell you that we

10 have a lot of material in respect to this witness, and as the matters

11 stand at present, we will need several hours. What I'm concerned about is

12 his extensive answers and also the way in which he arrives at certain

13 conclusions. I will have to examine him extensively, which is not my

14 habit of doing, and I will be dealing with matters that are more or less

15 relevant to the indictment but are nevertheless contained in his

16 statement. For this reason, I got cannot give you a precise estimate at

17 this time, but if at any stage we find that we should go beyond the time

18 the Prosecution had during their examination-in-chief, we will inform you

19 thereof in time.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

21 We shall resume at 9.00 tomorrow.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.31 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 13th day of

24 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

25