1 Tuesday, 13 March 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

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

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Two matters I want to deal with before we start --

6 in fact, I may be able to deal with three. The Trial Chamber has issued

7 its decision now on the witnesses Burns and Philips. It was filed late

8 yesterday. Not everyone may have a copy of it yet, but it will allow them

9 to be added to the list of witnesses and to give evidence. It does make

10 the point, however, that there remains the restriction on

11 cross-examination on matters which might support the Defence position. It

12 also says that once the Defence raise these matters with the Rule 70

13 provider, if there's any delay in them being dealt with, you will be

14 permitted to re-call the witness in the course of the Defence case. You

15 can read the detail for yourself.

16 The important thing for the moment, though, is this, that if you

17 do have points favourable to the Defence case which you wish to raise and

18 for which authority is necessary from the Rule 70 provider, we would urge

19 you to list these as soon as possible so that there remains the

20 possibility of them being addressed by the Rule 70 provider between now

21 and these witnesses giving evidence in the Prosecution case. And in the

22 opinion of the Trial Chamber, what you need to do is identify issues, not

23 lines of inquiry or lines of questioning that will be raised in court, but

24 the particular issue on which you consider the witness should be able to

25 give favourable evidence.

1 The second matter is that there is a motion filed by Mr. Fila and

2 Mr. Petrovic in relation to the evidence of Rugova. Now, Mr. Hannis, do

3 you have any particular position on this?

4 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, we're opposed to it. We think

5 it's simply out of time.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Your position isn't to say, Well, it's

7 okay --

8 MR. HANNIS: No.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: -- it doesn't matter to us?

10 MR. HANNIS: No. We're opposed. We asked for admission of all

11 that evidence, that was granted, and we think it should remain, and if

12 there were objections, they should have been raised at the time. We -- I

13 had intended to file something today or tomorrow, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I think you should hold off for the moment.

15 MR. HANNIS: Okay.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: The Trial Chamber will consider the position today

17 and we may be able to deal with this orally.

18 The final matter is that your motion, Mr. Hannis, for further

19 documents that relate to the evidence of Coo has been submitted, but

20 there's another one yet to come. Now, we need a deadline for that.

21 MR. HANNIS: Yes, Your Honour. Actually, in light of your remarks

22 on Friday I had spent some time with Mr. Coo this weekend and we were

23 actually having another go at his previous report, in light of your

24 remarks about conclusions and opinions and speculation. And I think what

25 we have now substantially removes all of that.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: So your intention, if I can read between the lines

2 there, is to present the remainder of the documents through him orally?

3 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I was intending to offer that as

4 a -- as a written statement.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but we need -- I mean, the statement didn't

6 deal with authenticity and reliability; it was proceeding on the basis

7 that these documents are here, here is what I make of them. And that

8 doesn't address, for example, the large number of media reports on which

9 undoubtedly evidence will be necessary to establish their authenticity.

10 MR. HANNIS: And --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: And I thought you were going to give us a written

12 filing to deal with the documents that you wanted to be part of his

13 evidence.

14 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I guess I anticipated doing that

15 with his new Coo-light report with those opinions and speculations

16 removed, have him testify about that report, about his provenance report,

17 where these documents come from and --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

19 MR. HANNIS: -- And why we think they're reliable.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is the report going to provide any more

21 guidance to the Defence on the provenance, authenticity, and reliability

22 of these documents, or have they got all they're going to get on that?

23 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I believe they have that in the

24 separate provenance report and the spreadsheet.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: So that leaves, then, the deadline for a separate

1 report. When is that going to be available?

2 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I was hoping that we could provide

3 that to you on Wednesday and I wanted to seek some guidance from you.

4 What we have done is gone through and blacked out everything, as we did

5 before. That is not how I propose to submit it in its final form but I

6 thought that might be helpful to the Court to see what's been removed and

7 where it's been removed and the amount that's been removed.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, then --

9 MR. HANNIS: I'm not sure which is better for you to work with.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: -- obviously, that can be done, but I have to say I

11 don't feel encouraged of that in view of the general view we have with how

12 riddled with comment the report is but you can't be faulted for trying, I

13 suppose, Mr. Hannis.

14 MR. HANNIS: All right, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: But Wednesday would be helpful, because if it's not

16 in satisfactory form and you're going to try yet again, you're running out

17 of time.

18 MR. HANNIS: I understand. I was of two minds about this when we

19 discussed it with Mr. Coo this weekend, but upon looking at the first

20 section that he did, I feel that we may have addressed Your Honour's

21 concerns.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I hope that you do.

23 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: We can now have the witness, please.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Dorovic.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: The solemn declaration to speak the truth which you

4 gave at the beginning of your evidence, naturally, continues to apply to

5 that evidence today. You will now be cross-examined by those Defence

6 counsel who wish to do so, and the first of these is Mr. Visnjic.

7 Mr. Visnjic.

8 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 WITNESS: LAKIC DOROVIC [Resumed]

10 [Witness answered through interpreter]

11 Cross-examination by Mr. Visnjic:

12 Q. Good morning, Mr. Dorovic. Mr. Dorovic, I'm going to put a few

13 questions to you. We are going to start with one of the topics that was

14 dealt with last in your examination-in-chief yesterday, and it has to do

15 with what you said about the National Council for Cooperation with the

16 Tribunal and the Commission of the Army of Yugoslavia. The period that

17 I'm going to talk about is actually the period between March and June

18 2003, and it starts with a letter of the Foreign Ministry of Serbia and

19 Montenegro dated the 4th of March, 2003, which is 2685, Prosecution

20 Exhibit 2685.

21 Mr. Dorovic, that is one of the documents that I assume you

22 submitted. My question in relation to this is the following: From this

23 information provided by the Foreign Ministry of Serbia and Montenegro, the

24 military commission was actually asked to give its opinion on the content

25 and modalities of cooperation with the Tribunal. Am I right?

1 A. You are.

2 Q. Thank you. The next document we have is Prosecution Exhibit 2684

3 dated the 12th of March, 2003. That is a letter of the Commission for

4 Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. That is precisely the opinion that

5 we have been discussing. Since this is a rather lengthy document, I am

6 going to deal with it in three parts. First of all, the commission says

7 that the OTP seeks total access to the total archives. Secondly, the

8 commission believes that the Prosecutor has to define the documentation

9 that they seek and the reasons compelling them to seek these documents as

10 relevant. And three, that this could imply a realistic possibility of

11 providing data that would be relevant to criminal trials and that would be

12 detrimental to national security.

13 Mr. Dorovic, would this be a correct summary of the document that

14 is before you in three points?

15 A. I don't think you're right.

16 Q. Where is my mistake?

17 A. You have too narrow a focus on the content. It cannot be dealt

18 with that way. The commission provided its positions which really cannot

19 be considered to be well-founded. In this segment, when you omit to

20 mention that the commission also provides its positions, in that segment

21 you are not being complete. So that is why I believe that you did not

22 properly present the content of this document.

23 Q. When you say "positions," can you indicate to me part of this

24 document that is before you which shows these positions.

25 A. Well, for example, in paragraph 3 there is reference to acts --

1 yes, I will try to speak properly. So I'm dealing with paragraph 3.

2 It --

3 Q. You said paragraph 3? What sentence are you referring to in

4 paragraph 3?

5 A. Paragraph 3, presenting the position of the commission, that

6 enabling the ICTY Prosecutor to have direct insight into all archived

7 material in order to select what is and what is not relevant to the

8 criminal proceedings, together with the physical access of the OTP staff

9 to military facilities in which the archived material is kept implies the

10 realistic possibility of data relevant to criminal proceedings leaking

11 out. Well, you see, this was discussed by other people in the ministry as

12 well. I'm talking about the analysis that was carried out in the ministry

13 itself. Everybody ruled out the possibility of doing this realistically,

14 of having data leaked out. I'll be very specific on this. Some of the

15 members of the commission who analysed --

16 Q. Mr. Dorovic, Mr. Dorovic, let me ask you specifically. Can you

17 indicate to me a single sentence in this document is this implies the

18 realistic possibility of leaks of confidential information that would be

19 detrimental to national interest. Is that is the problem with this

20 document?

21 A. I think it's other sentences as well. What I remember is that the

22 commission for the most part - for the most part, I emphasise - gave

23 negative positions with regard to all their proposals made by the OTP,

24 giving, in the briefest possible terms, the reasons that we in the

25 ministry consider to be quite unfounded.

1 Q. Mr. Dorovic --

2 A. If you wish to look at this document -- the sentence, rather.

3 Q. I am sorry for interrupting, but in this sentence, is there

4 anything troublesome? Forget about what it is that you remember now and

5 what you thought at the ministry. I'm asking you at this moment is there

6 anything troublesome as you look at the document now?

7 A. I am saying it was troublesome for us and unacceptable for us the

8 position that there is a realistic possibility of leaks of confidential

9 data. We did not see any such possibility.

10 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to return to your document, and that is

11 your response when you said "we in the ministry," that is the response of

12 the legal department of the ministry dated the 3rd of June, 2003,

13 Prosecution Exhibit 2675. In the opinion that you provided, on page 4 in

14 paragraph 6 in the Serbian version, in the English version, page 6, the

15 last paragraph, and page 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, you claimed that the

16 commission in a calculated and erroneous manner analysed and monitored the

17 rules by stating that the Prosecutor has to spell out his request and show

18 quite specifically what it is that they seek. And this ties the hands of

19 the Prosecutor. Am I right about this part?

20 A. I think that you actually interpreted the content of the text.

21 Yes, that is what I wrote and that is that part of the document.

22 Q. Paragraph --

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, are you talking about the witness

24 statement rather than the report? Because these pages on the report --

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] 2675 is the document I'm referring

1 to, Your Honour. I am sorry --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Ah.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] P2675. That is a document --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, yes.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] -- that the witness said yesterday

6 that he wrote himself. A different person signed it, but the witness said

7 that he is the person who wrote this document, so I would like to look at

8 the findings with him.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. At the end of page 5 of the same document and also on page 7 of

12 the English interpretation, again I'm just summarising this, that these

13 are arbitrary positions taken by the commission and as such, exceptionally

14 detrimental to the interests of Serbia and Montenegro in the segment of

15 cooperation with the Tribunal as a precondition for access to NATO and the

16 European Union. Have I properly summarised that part of the document?

17 A. Yes, that is the position.

18 Q. Thank you.

19 A. But not only mine. It is the collective position and it is the

20 position of the commission that preceded the analysis.

21 Q. But of course. You said that there were also some problems with

22 regard to signing this document, that the chief didn't dare sign it, and

23 ultimately it was signed by a person who was the acting chief. Did I

24 understand you correctly?

25 A. You understood perfectly. The chief said that all of that was

1 fine, that he personally thought so as well, but that he was afraid that

2 the generals would destroy the entire administration and that he dare not

3 sign this. And although he absolutely approved of every word and that

4 he'd be glad to sign it, so the entire legal department and the entire

5 ministry know about this.

6 Q. Was this the time when the commission had already been abolished;

7 am I right?

8 A. Mr. Visnjic, that commission works to the present day in a

9 different form --

10 Q. We'll get to that, but at that moment it had been abolished, the

11 commission?

12 A. No, I don't think you're right. I think it hadn't been

13 abolished. I think it had been working, and I think it never stopped

14 working. It's been working until the present day. It works now.

15 Q. So you claim that this commission was never abolished?

16 A. I am not aware of it having been abolished. I think that it works

17 today as well. I'm going to try to give you its present-day name. This

18 is what it's called now: The Ministry of Defence Secretariat of the

19 Ministry.

20 Q. Mr. Dorovic --

21 A. Department for Cooperation with the International Criminal

22 Tribunal and that is its third name. The core of the commission remained

23 the same throughout.

24 Q. Did you not write in paragraph 7: "Although the commission of the

25 GSSM was abolished" --

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have a look at page

2 7 in the English translation. So can we just look at the bottom of page 7

3 now, and it's page 5, Article 7 in the Serbian.

4 Q. Did you not write there that the commission had been dissolved?

5 A. It had never been dissolved, the commission.

6 Q. Can you read paragraph 7, the first sentence.

7 A. No, no, that is just in one of the documents. That's what it said

8 in just one of the documents, that it had been abolished and that it was

9 pointless to discuss this. So this is just by way of a comment,

10 differently put. The commission actually did exist, although formally

11 somebody had been claiming that it did not exist. Even today there are

12 people who will say that it does not exist.

13 Q. Well, you claimed that it did not exist formally, at least that's

14 what you wrote in paragraph 7?

15 A. Well, that is what the secretariat said, that it was pointless to

16 discuss all of this, because in actual fact, the commission no longer

17 existed, although we all knew that it existed. And I claim with full

18 responsibility even today that this commission does exist in a third form,

19 a new form, with new members attached to it. It works and functions even

20 today. It even --

21 Q. Let me interrupt you, Mr. Dorovic, and let us move on concerning

22 the same document. Let us go back to my preceding question. When you say

23 in this document that what is particularly detrimental to the total

24 interests of Serbia and Montenegro and particularly in the segment of

25 cooperation with the ICTY, as a precondition for accessing the EU and

1 NATO. Am I right, Mr. Dorovic, that this is a political position that is

2 being presented in a legal opinion?

3 A. You're absolutely right. This is what can be construed.

4 Q. And this takes me back to another document that you showed us

5 yesterday that the Prosecutor showed us yesterday in which you also

6 provide a legal opinion and also put forth certain political positions or

7 political interpretations. However, I'm going to ask you this: If we

8 summarise this document, in your view, the obligation of the state would

9 be this: To allow the OTP physical access to all the documents in the

10 premises of the Army of Yugoslavia and Montenegro, physical access to the

11 entire collections of documents. Am I right in saying this?

12 A. Yes, you may say so. The position of the working group with the

13 ministry was such that we in the ministry and the army when it comes to

14 the elucidation of the crimes that were committed and there were crimes

15 and knew that there were crimes that there should be no secret that might

16 rule access to such documents. In other words, we believed at the time

17 that we actually did not have a valid reason, at least when it came to the

18 protection of security of the state and the army which are the most

19 sensitive segments, and this is what experts said, the result and the

20 conclusion of the working group that I drafted, I accepted, I believe that

21 it was grounded, it is something that I've always believed, when it

22 came -- when it comes to crime, there should be no secret. We're talking

23 about the gravest of crimes and we've never had any valid reason not to

24 allow access to the documents calling upon the security of the state.

25 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I know that your answer will be negative, but still

1 I can't stop myself from asking you. Are you aware of the contents of all

2 the 17.000 documents that that commission had at its disposal at the time?

3 A. Of course not.

4 Q. Thank you. My next question is this: Do you believe that the

5 legal administration, if that is its position, might have had an insight

6 into the boundaries of the interests of security? Let's leave aside the

7 investigation of grave crimes. Do you think that the legal

8 administration, which you indicated a minute ago, that the legal

9 administration might be aware of the boundaries and the scope and limit of

10 the data that might be detrimental to the national interests of Serbia and

11 Montenegro?

12 A. Mr. Visnjic, Your Honours, maybe I would -- it would be good if I

13 said that this document from the very beginning to the very end was

14 adopted as the position of the Ministry of Defence. This document was

15 submitted to the secretariat, and I claim this with full responsibility.

16 The minister adopted this document, he signed it, and he sent it to other

17 organs in the state. And as far as your question is concerned as to

18 whether the commission is legally qualified to know that, I -- my answer

19 will have to be yes. Under the rule - and I believe that you're familiar

20 with the rule - the permission for providing data, if there is any fear

21 that this may lead to disclosing confidential information, the Ministry of

22 Defence and I, myself, in my career at least 30 times I've been in a

23 position to prepare decisions for the minister himself and the decisions

24 were made on requests for somebody to be exempted from keeping

25 confidentiality of documents. When the --

1 Q. I've asked you one thing. Is the legal administration authorised,

2 and you said it is the minister who's authorised.

3 A. The legal administration drafted regulations that regulated these

4 matters and at the end of the day it is the legal administration that have

5 always provided the last evaluation within the ministry before the

6 minister issues a final decision on the exemption from -- the waiver from

7 keeping confidential documents.

8 Q. Can the legal administration then prepare a framework for a

9 document?

10 A. If the legal administration provides an opinion, then the minister

11 takes into account that professional opinion, and it's up to him whether

12 he will sign or not. There are many things that he hasn't signed. There

13 have been such cases when we submitted the document for his signature, he

14 still did not sign, because he didn't want to sign.

15 MR. VISNJIC: There is some mistake in translation, but I will

16 leave it.

17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, would it mean anything to you if I

18 told you that on the 18th of June, 2003, the Trial Chamber of this

19 Tribunal in the third decision on Prosecution's motion according to Rule

20 54 issued an order and turned down the request by the Prosecution for

21 physical access to the collections of documents, deeming that such

22 physical access would be a search warrant as a matter of fact?

23 A. I would never make such a decision.

24 Q. Thank you.

25 A. I've had a number of occasions to prepare decisions for others.

1 Q. Thank you very much. Are you aware of the fact that in another

2 case a Trial Chamber of this Tribunal asked from a party in the

3 proceedings to state concrete, contestable issues in the questions for

4 which relevant documents were sought and also to state why the documents

5 were relevant for these issues and likewise, to state the number of

6 documents and the way they touch upon the contestable issues in the case?

7 A. Is this a question, Mr. Visnjic?

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, you have to remember that that is a

9 very unusual procedure here because states are expected to cooperate, and

10 it's only in the event of a real genuine issue on cooperation -- over

11 documents that this happens. It's not a question of documents only ever

12 being handed over by a state because there's an application under Rule 54

13 bis. The Tribunal just couldn't function if that was how documents were

14 meant to be regulated in their transmission to the Tribunal.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not talking about

16 legal qualifications here; I'm just saying that the witness in this

17 document that he drafted actually states that the previous positions that

18 were confirmed by some decisions of this Tribunal are tendentious and that

19 they were done in order to keep some documentation secret. And I'm just

20 saying that the Trial Chambers of this Tribunal have confirmed such

21 decisions, nothing else, and that in the document which he deems that it

22 is tendentious, and the document number is 2684, P2684, that this document

23 as a matter of fact contains a series of normal approaches that every

24 serious organisation adopts in cooperating with another serious

25 organisation.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: The two examples of decisions that you gave, are

2 they both decisions in relation to applications for documents from Serbia

3 and Montenegro?

4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first example

5 refers to a decision dated 18 June 2003. This is the: [In English]

6 Motion for Orders Pursuant to Rule 54 Bis Against Serbia and Montenegro.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And is the other one also against Serbia and

8 Montenegro?

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] And the other one is a decision in

10 our proceedings against NATO and other members of NATO dated 23 March

11 2005.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that one certainly relates to documents where

13 there are particular issues relating to intelligence, as you know, and

14 that's rather different from the question whether the archive in general

15 should be opened up to the ICTY Prosecutor. Anyway, please continue.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

17 Q. Mr. Dorovic, who was the minister of defence at the time when you

18 drafted this document, in June 2003? Let me remind you, was it Boris

19 Tadic at the time?

20 A. I believe so. Pavle had been killed, and after him it was General

21 Ojdanic --

22 Q. So Boris Tadic. We agree, don't we? And he is now the president

23 of the state and the -- he commands the Army of Yugoslavia?

24 A. Yes, according to the newly adopted constitution.

25 Q. In paragraph 51 you're saying that in the military commission

1 documents are still being destroyed, that it is being done unofficially

2 with the help of the centre for cooperation with the ICTY with the

3 Ministry of Defence?

4 A. This is exactly what I said.

5 Q. Thank you. Do you have any reason to show why Boris Tadic, as the

6 then-minister of defence, would be interested in covering up or falsifying

7 documents?

8 A. If that is your question, Mr. Visnjic, let me put it this way. I

9 have never said nor did I ever think that Mr. Tadic, as the president of

10 state, would be organising this, but I would like to say quite openly

11 something else. It is the ministry that is doing it, the current minister

12 is -- who does it. This is my position. This is my experience. At the

13 time, it was the associates of Mr. Tadic. Some of them were general who

14 had been re-activated and re-instated. Let me give you some concrete

15 examples. I was ordered to discard some documents --

16 Q. You are going to provide concrete examples when the Prosecution

17 asks you provide them with those. Let me ask you this: Did you inform

18 anybody? Did you file a criminal report? Did you start any proceedings

19 with regards to concealing and destroying documents?

20 A. Yes, I spoke to everybody who -- who had to be spoken to, first

21 and foremost the legal administration and then Mr. Kovac as the chief of

22 department. This was on the 6th of department -- 6th of February, 2002.

23 Q. So you've told us who it was. We will come to that later. Did

24 you also file a report to --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.

1 The end of the answer when you were interrupted before the last

2 answer was: "I was ordered to discard some documents." Now, tell us

3 about the circumstances in which that happened.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For example, the county court from

5 Split called witnesses. We had witnesses. I organised a meeting with

6 them, and we could send them over there, but then from the General

7 Staff -- actually, from the secretariat it was ordered to us to prepare

8 information that the access to witness was not possible. That's one

9 example.

10 Another example, I worked with two people on the request of the

11 Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the request was to return money

12 and valuables to some people in Slavonia, more specifically near Vukovar.

13 We knew --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. -- sorry, Mr. Dorovic, the -- this trial isn't

15 about cooperation with Split and it's not about cooperation or otherwise

16 with Slavonia. I was more interested in an example which I thought you

17 were going to give of being ordered to discard documents that might be

18 relevant to the ICTY. Now, is there no such example?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely these documents were

20 requested about some money that had been seized in the vicinity of Vukovar

21 and whether this had been done by this particular group, the group of

22 military security that was operational on the ground over there. We were

23 supposed to submit --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: We're not dealing with Vukovar either,

25 Mr. Dorovic.

1 So let's move on, Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

3 Q. Mr. Dorovic, if somebody committed a crime of the sort you are

4 describing - I'm asking you as an expert and somebody who works with the

5 Ministry of Defence - would it be something that would be prosecuted by

6 the military prosecutor, if this is done by a serviceman should it be the

7 military prosecutor who should have a prosecute that?

8 A. As a prosecutor I insisted on that; that is why I was removed from

9 my position.

10 Q. We will come to that. I'm just asking you for your opinion.

11 A. The destruction of official documents is a crime.

12 Q. Didn't you say yesterday that -- that a person whom you hold in

13 very high esteem, Nikola Petkovic, was the supreme military prosecutor at

14 the time these things happened? Am I right?

15 A. Yes, this is what I said, and that's correct.

16 Q. Am I right in saying that Nikola Petkovic is one of the

17 individuals for whom you claim that he is an excellent legal expert and

18 that he can't be influenced by others?

19 A. I did not say that he couldn't be influenced by others.

20 Unfortunately, he was prevented from doing his job and I believe that you

21 know it very well.

22 Q. I don't, no.

23 A. I know and everybody in the army knows that it is a general piece

24 of knowledge that his hands were tied and that he was prevented from doing

25 his job properly.

1 Q. And this was done by the security service, the military security

2 service, am I right, if you say that his hands were tied by somebody?

3 A. It sounds a bit cynical, at least to me, but I will say yes, they

4 were the ones who tied his hands. Either him or I could not work in any

5 serious proceedings. Mr. Visnjic, I can tell you about mine and

6 Petkovic's joint experience in elucidating some very serious crimes.

7 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I would like to hear something about your experience

8 when I ask you about your experience, and as for Petkovic, we will call

9 him and he will talk about his experience.

10 A. I'm talking about my experience from the time when he was my boss

11 and he gave me tasks and then explained to me that he had given them to me

12 because an assumption was that if I, as a stubborn person that I am, come

13 to a certain result with his support and we had some concrete cases in

14 which he said lucky we are doing this to no avail, we cannot prosecute,

15 they did it, they don't allow us to investigate.

16 Q. Very well. Thank you. Mr. Dorovic, on several occasions in

17 newspapers you provided comments on Milosevic's trial. Am I right?

18 A. No, you are not right. The only article is relative to General

19 Radomir Gojovic, my former boss, a person who humiliated and maltreated

20 me. He almost ruined me. And here from the Tribunal's courtroom he

21 smeared me and he belittled my name.

22 Q. I only asked you a question. I'm not right. This is the one and

23 only article and the number of the Exhibit is P2673.

24 Therefore, you were in conflict with Mr. Gojkovic, even before

25 this article was published, because of some court proceedings. Now I

1 should like you to read paragraph 1.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please enlarge the left

3 middle partly of the article a bit down, please. Yes, just beneath this

4 headline "permanently unworthy."

5 Q. Can you read the first paragraph beneath that headline, since it's

6 your article.

7 A. Of course.

8 "General Gojovic has in the course of long-standing and" -- let

9 me repeat.

10 "In the course of his long-lasting and diligent work within the

11 illegal commission of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia for the

12 Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, General Gojovic reviewed, and who

13 knows what else he did, to many of the 17.000 documents that the

14 commission had in their unlawful possession. Therefore, Gojovic's

15 testimony as well as possible future testimonies of the other members of

16 this unlawful commission must be evaluated from that point of view as

17 well. Therefore, Gojovic does not speak about matters of personal

18 knowledge, rather he interprets documents that are of an otherwise

19 suspicious content made by other persons. Therefore, Gojovic appears less

20 as a real witness and more as a partial quasi expert witness."

21 Q. Yesterday you spoke about and interpreted documents drafted by

22 other persons?

23 A. Yes, I did. I analysed them with the permission of the Court.

24 Yes, I did, some of the documents.

25 Q. Were you not, therefore, in relation to these documents not a real

1 witness but as some sort of an expert witness? And I will not use the

2 terms you used in your article.

3 A. Mr. Visnjic, I was given this role by the Court. I was asked to

4 comment on certain documents and I did that. It is my personal conviction

5 that as a lawyer, I am able to provide comments. Generally speaking, I do

6 have a certain position about all these documents and I gave my position

7 with the permission of the Court.

8 Q. I understand that, but wasn't that the case, in fact, with

9 Mr. Gojovic as well, who was asked to provide comments on some documents?

10 A. I believe I was referring to something quite different here. He

11 gave his comments on the documents from a third party. My comments before

12 this Tribunal were of a different nature. I spoke of documents being

13 modified back home, and that's quite a different matter. If you believe,

14 however, that I am a quasi expert witness --

15 Q. No, no. I believe that Petkovic was not a quasi expert witness

16 and I believe that you wrote this because you have been at loggerheads

17 with him for years over a different proceedings, and I believe that the

18 persons you come into conflict, you tend to demean them in any possible

19 way you can.

20 A. Sir, that is not true. Just as I am keen to commend persons and

21 give them credit, well and one of them of course is Petkovic, whose hands

22 were tied. You will remember that I spoke about many other of my superior

23 officers favourably. Every person among them who spoke their mind were

24 driven away. I had occasion to meet many brave, honest people who were

25 driven out of the army for speaking out. It wasn't by chance that the bar

1 association excluded Gojovic from their membership, and this wasn't done

2 pursuant to a request coming from me but from other quarters.

3 Q. Let us not go into other matters concerning Mr. Gojovic, who is a

4 lawyer and you very well know that. He wasn't expelled from the bar

5 association and you know that. He wasn't disbarred.

6 A. No, I do know for a fact that he was disbarred. There is a

7 decision to that effect.

8 Q. You know very well, Mr. Dorovic, that Mr. Gojovic is a lawyer and

9 that the decision you are referring to was rescinded in the second

10 instance.

11 A. No -- well, I don't know about that. I only know that he was

12 disbarred.

13 Q. But you don't know about the further developments concerning that

14 matter?

15 A. No. I hear about that for the first time now. It's news to me.

16 Q. Very well. Let me ask you about one section of this document.

17 No. I'll move on. Please, tell me, Dopudja, the person who signed the

18 earlier document on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, was he your

19 superior ever? Am I right?

20 A. No, never.

21 Q. But he signed the document you drafted; am I right?

22 A. Absolutely. You can see that on the document, it bears his

23 signature, but this is the document of the legal administration or

24 department and the ministry. I merely drafted the document and it was

25 accepted. It was quite unfortunate that he had to do that. It would have

1 been proper for the chief to have done that, and I told you that he didn't

2 muster up the courage to do that.

3 Q. And this person, Dopudja, Lieutenant-Colonel Dusko Dopudja, you

4 said that he was also the person cooperating with the security organ of

5 Serbia?

6 A. Well, everybody knows about that. He was brought over from Ruma

7 for that purpose precisely.

8 Q. Am I right in saying that you made the same claims in relation to

9 a person called Mihaljovic?

10 A. Milovan Mihaljovic.

11 Q. Right.

12 A. Well, I made such claims but he himself professed as much.

13 Q. I put to you that you wrote a series of representations,

14 petitions, and criminal reports against persons you came into conflict

15 with, where you referred to them as a rabbit in uniform, security

16 officers, cowards?

17 A. Yes, I do recognise there Colonel Mihaljovic and Dopudja.

18 Besides, those were the terms that they used to refer to themselves.

19 Q. Thank you.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can we have P2735 called up, please,

21 page 1 in the Serbian version, page 2 in the English version.

22 Q. This is your letter, Mr. Dorovic, to the federal defence minister

23 dating from September 2001. I'm waiting for the document to appear on the

24 screen.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Page 1 of the Serbian text, the

1 bottom half of it, and in the English, page 2.

2 Q. Let us not read the entire text. I will only read the bottom part

3 under D where it says: "The gravest violations of procedure carried out

4 by Colonel Domindza in order to frighten the rabbit in the uniform was in

5 order to make him --

6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter couldn't catch up with the

7 witness -- with the counsel, couldn't find the portion.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

9 Q. I want to ask you, Colonel Mihailov was your superior, wasn't he?

10 ?

11 A. He was the acting chief of department for regulations, but he was

12 never appointed.

13 Q. Was Colonel Mihajlovic your superior at any point in your career?

14 A. Formally, never.

15 Q. And de facto?

16 A. Yes, in some specific situations because in the army you always

17 have a superior/subordinate relationship.

18 Q. Thank you. You mentioned the name of Zivadinovic and you said

19 that person was called Zivadinovski. Here you call Colonel Mihaljovic as

20 Mihailov. Are you calling them Zivadinovski and Mihailov as a disparaging

21 term?

22 A. What is the drift of your question?

23 Q. I am just reading what you're saying.

24 A. That's the way it was typed. Mihaljovic is Mihaljovic and

25 Zivadinovski was indeed Zivadinovski. As long as I know him, he's always

1 been Mihaljovic, and everybody in the army will tell you that Zivadinovski

2 is called Zivadinovski.

3 Q. So you believe, in fact, that his name was misprinted here as

4 Mihaljovic, should be Mihaljovic?

5 A. Yes, Milovan Mihaljovic.

6 Q. And why do you repeat the same mistake on the next page, where you

7 mention him again as saying that they should re-consider their decisions?

8 A. Well, I don't know. That's the way it was printed.

9 Q. And when you say Colonel Domindza, does that in fact refer to

10 Colonel Dopudja?

11 A. Yes, yes, it does.

12 Q. So why are you calling him Domindza?

13 A. I don't know. It was a typo.

14 Q. Mr. Dorovic, this letter was sent to the defence minister. I

15 believe that in this letter you deliberately changed Colonel Dopudja's

16 name into this disparaging name of Domindza and you deliberately changed

17 Colonel Mihaljovic's name into Colonel Mihailov and you are deliberately

18 slinging offences at these persons, especially when you refer to them as

19 "Zuler." What does a "Zuler" mean, Mr. Dorovic?

20 A. Well, I'll tell you frankly. There is a biography concerning

21 General Gojovic.

22 Q. Leave that aside. What does Zuler mean?

23 A. It means -- it's a term for a non-commissioned officer.

24 Q. What does Domindza mean?

25 A. I don't know.

1 Q. If we knock off "d-o" what would the rest of the word mean?

2 A. You mean in gypsy language?

3 Q. Yes. If you know that's it's a gypsy-like term, then you know

4 what it means.

5 A. Well, yes.

6 Q. And we will both agree that it's a harshly derogatory term?

7 A. Well, it could be.

8 Q. And it's the same type of word that was sent by your deputy and

9 then you drove him away in Pristina. Is that right?

10 A. No, that's not right.

11 Q. What is not right, that it's not the same word or that you did

12 not, in fact, punch him in the head?

13 A. No, none of that is true. He did not address me -- address me

14 with this word; rather, he kept on offending me throughout the afternoon.

15 Q. Well -- very well, if you claim that you did not, in fact, utter

16 the word, we have that in the transcript and we shall see.

17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Page 27, line 6, instead of: "Then

18 you drove him away in Pristina," it should say that: "You punched him in

19 the head in Pristina" -- "kicked him in the head," rather.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not true. After six

21 hearings, they dropped their charges. It's a lie.

22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation].

23 Q. Believe me, Mr. Dorovic, we will be discussing this matter later.

24 This Colonel Mihailov or Mihaljovic, who you say you did not refer to in

25 derogatory terms, apart from saying that he cowered down like a frightened

1 rabbit, when you needed him to appear as a witness in your case --

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up Exhibit

3 P2701, page 8 in the Serbian version.

4 Q. Mr. Dorovic, for your information, this is your request for an

5 investigation, for an inquiry, against Milovic, Miladinovic, and Gojovic,

6 and in the list of witnesses you were tendering, the last witness on the

7 list is Milovan Mihaljovic, honourable judge of the supreme military

8 court. Mr. Dorovic, is that the same person you referred to in your

9 earlier text as rabbit, cooperating with the security service?

10 A. It's the same person, but when I said "honourable," I, in fact,

11 meant dishonourable, because such a person should not be a civil servant,

12 let alone a judge.

13 Q. Well, you should [as interpreted] mince your words. When you say

14 say honourable, you should then mean honourable; dishonourable should mean

15 dishonourable.

16 A. I know what I mean when I write something down.

17 Q. I'm just waiting for interpretation.

18 Mr. Dorovic, how can you call a person you consider dishonourable

19 as a witness?

20 A. In order for him to explain his dirty role, in order for everyone

21 else to see how full of blemishes he is. Besides, why did he leave the

22 service? Why didn't he stay? All of us know what Milovan Mihaljovic is,

23 in fact.

24 Q. Let us go over to paragraphs 13 to 16. We are moving on to

25 matters that might be connected with this case. Mr. Dorovic, in

1 paragraphs 13 through 16 of your statement there is mention of the case

2 involving Australians who were arrested. This is one of the cases you

3 said you had worked on at the time you were a prosecutor in Belgrade. Am

4 I right?

5 A. I have to say that I refused to be involved in that case. I spoke

6 about the case only in view of the pressures put upon me to falsely accuse

7 my subordinate.

8 Q. You say that in the month of May of 1999, the top leadership

9 decided that these two persons from Australia who were, according to you,

10 in fact, arrested in May to present them as special representatives of

11 NATO forces who were infiltrated in order to assassinate Milosevic?

12 A. Yes. That was what General Obrencevic told me, because he wanted

13 me to falsely accuse Milovan Mihaljovic.

14 Q. Very well. Do you know that these two Australians were arrested

15 in late March 1999 on the border crossing with Croatia?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up P -- 3D526.

17 Your Honour, could the content of this document please be

18 interpreted only in terms of the date and the time-period that is

19 described here. Please do not look at its content as to whether they were

20 spies or not, because I believe that this is fully irrelevant as far as

21 this case is concerned.

22 Q. So we have this information that two Australian citizens were

23 arrested in March 1999. Mr. Dorovic, do you know --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, how we treat it will depend on the

25 questions asked, and it may be that you are opening up a line for

1 re-examination. I don't know. But we can't necessarily prevent that.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no, I'm just drawing

3 your attention to the fact that I am not trying to prove anything through

4 this document which is not the object of my cross-examination, but of

5 course it's up to the Prosecutor what they are going to do with this

6 document.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Do you know that as far back as mid-April the Australian Embassy

10 was informed about this and that the case was publicised in the world in

11 the same period?

12 A. I really don't know. I really don't know whether we're talking

13 about the same persons. I bear in mind the name of a man whose name I

14 wrote down as told to me by General Obrencevic. If you wish, in my war

15 diary I can find the date when I was given this order. I was asked to do

16 this in May, and I have the name of this one journalist written down.

17 Unfortunately, I don't speak English. I don't even know how to pronounce

18 their names properly. I just know that this man is John Peter or Pater or

19 whatever you pronounce his name and there's this third name. I pronounce

20 it as Schnitzel, Schnatzel, something like that, but I have it written

21 down in my war diary in the English language. I was asked only to falsely

22 accuse Milovan Radovanovic my deputy. I never actually had this case. It

23 was brought to me so that I would be forced to bring these false charges;

24 I refused. Everything I said is actually by way of an explanation as to

25 how I was being coerced into doing something. So that is the third reason

1 why I --

2 Q. Mr. Dorovic, Mr. Dorovic, let me put short questions and you

3 give me short answers.

4 A. Fine.

5 Q. So you're telling me now that they were not Australians and there

6 was not two of them, there was one of them.

7 A. Please don't. I am saying that these were two persons, that one

8 person's name is what I told you just now and the other person's name, I

9 don't know. I am saying that they were held in different locations,

10 several places, and I'm saying that another prosecutor dealt with this

11 case and the court did, too and that I was just asked to falsely accuse my

12 deputy of having betrayed information --

13 Q. Again I have to interrupt you. You told me now that in actual

14 fact, there were two persons involved?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And they were Australians?

17 A. That's what I wrote down and that is what General Obrencevic said

18 to me.

19 Q. Thank you. If I tell you that there are no two other Australians

20 arrested in Serbia in I don't know how many years, except for these two

21 men, can we agree then that it's probably those two persons who are

22 mentioned here in this statement that we're talking about?

23 A. If that is really the case, then there is no other option. It

24 would have been to be these people.

25 Q. If I tell you now that the Australian Embassy in mid-April was

1 informed about this case and that in April Serbian Radio Television -- let

2 me just refer you to the actual page. The end of this page and the

3 beginning of the next page. So state television broadcast that Major

4 Steve Pratt was involved in this agent network and that it was cut off,

5 and if I tell you that Malcolm Fraser at the end of April - and Malcolm

6 Fraser was the former Australian Prime Minister - and he visited these two

7 persons who were detained and he informed the world public about the

8 details of the charges brought against them, and this is on page 2 of this

9 document, paragraphs 4 and 5. And if I tell you that the document that

10 I'm reading all of this from was made public, that is 3D526, on the 29th

11 of April, 1999.

12 Mr. Dorovic, who could decide to construe this kind of thing,

13 after all of this to make a claim that in mid-May somebody would think of

14 accusing them as NATO special agents who were infiltrated in order to

15 assassinate Milosevic?

16 A. Mr. Visnjic, I don't understand what it is that you are talking

17 about. I don't know about any of these names. I can explain to you what

18 it was that I had been saying. I was asked to perjure myself, to give

19 false testimony. My then-deputy -- about him, that I had betrayed

20 information --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, we know the story as you've given it

22 already, but your statement says: "One day in May 1999 the military

23 security arrested two journalists from Australia."

24 And Mr. Visnjic is -- has invited you to concentrate on the timing

25 and is showing you a document which indicates that this was already public

1 in April, and he's asking you to explain why you said they were arrested

2 in May. That's all.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because in May, sometime between the

4 1st and the 10th of May, I was told that this had to do with two

5 Australian journalists and that my deputy had disclosed information as to

6 where it was that he -- that they were. And that on the 10th of May, my

7 deputy was arrested and I was asked to present in writing that he had had

8 documents, and then the conclusion would be drawn that he could have

9 betrayed these documents, or rather, this information. And I said that in

10 our office of the prosecutor we did not have --

11 JUDGE BONOMY: We've got all that. Do you now accept that you may

12 be wrong when you say that it was in May that the military security

13 arrested the journalists?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that in May -- well,

15 obviously I made a mistake in the dates. But I was asked to do all of

16 this in May; that is what I was talking about.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: We understand that. And if you concentrate on

18 things like that, explaining when you were asked that and that that really

19 may be a different time from the arrest, we'll make some progress. Please

20 don't fight the battles you fought earlier by setting everything out in

21 writing for us. Concentrate on the questions you're being asked and

22 answer these specific questions; that's how we'll make progress here.

23 Mr. Visnjic.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I will try to be more specific. Do you know that

1 before this Tribunal in this case General Vasiljevic testified --

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] The page reference is 8901,

3 Your Honours --

4 Q. And that General Vasiljevic said that there were no secret prisons

5 that these persons were in Ustanicka Street in Belgrade, that the security

6 service did not bring any pressure to bear on the judicial organs,

7 especially not in relation to this case, and that no efforts were made to

8 link them up with any kind of attempt to assassinate anyone. Quite

9 simply, they were charged and later convicted of espionage. Do you know

10 about that, Mr. Dorovic?

11 A. This is the first time I hear of this. I was in Ustanicka if you

12 are referring to Ustanicka 29, the facility there --

13 Q. No, Mr. Dorovic, I asked you whether you know that Vasiljevic

14 testified before this Tribunal and said that; yes or no?

15 A. No, I don't know about it. This is the first time I hear of

16 this.

17 Q. Now, in your statement you say that your deputy, Radovanovic,

18 allegedly disclosed a secret to Dragoljub Stankovic. Am I right?

19 A. That is what General Obrencevic claimed, and I was asked to

20 falsely -- accused --

21 Q. I'm just asking you if I am right on this, yes or no.

22 A. Well, you know what, you take things out of context.

23 Q. I'm just leading you --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Just answer the question you're asked. We'll

25 decide about the context; you will not run this court. Do you understand

1 that? You may be used to running courts elsewhere, but in this court you

2 will please follow the procedure that we follow. Answer the specific

3 questions you're being asked, please.

4 Mr. Visnjic.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Yes or no, am I right if I say that it is your claim that

7 Radovancevic [as interpreted] allegedly disclosed secrets to Stankovic?

8 A. I don't --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Please don't answer that question.

10 Mr. Visnjic, it really is a silly question to ask, isn't it?

11 MR. VISNJIC: Yes.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: You're asking for trouble because the answer is in

13 the document.

14 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, okay.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Dorovic, let's try to deal with it this way. Is Dragoljub

18 Stankovic the same person who is now deputy prosecutor for war crimes in

19 Serbia?

20 A. I don't know what position he holds now, Dragoljub Stankovic.

21 Q. But he did work in the office of the prosecutor?

22 A. At that time, before the war, I was told that he was Radovanovic's

23 deputy. I actually first met Radovanovic as one of my deputies on the

24 24th of March. I did not know either one of them.

25 Q. All right. Do you know that -- well, if you didn't know then

1 perhaps Radovanovic told you this. Do you know that Stankovic and

2 Radovanovic were very close? Perhaps they were even the best of friends?

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I need 3D537, please.

4 Q. Do you know about that?

5 A. I really don't know about that. I really had no occasion to --

6 Q. At the time when you gave this statement, and that was September

7 2006, Radovanovic was no longer alive.

8 A. I know, I know, I saw the obituary. I knew that he died

9 therefore.

10 Q. Mr. Dorovic, we talked to Dragoljub Stankovic, who is currently

11 the deputy prosecutor for war crimes of the Republic of Serbia. And in

12 his statement, which is 3D537, on page 1, paragraph 4, says the

13 following: "I am surprised and this is the first time I hear that the

14 late Radovanovic had such problems with the military prosecutor. I'm sure

15 that he would have told me immediately about it during the bombing. On

16 the assumption that he was afraid about this for some reason, he certainly

17 would have told me about it after the bombing campaign, because afterwards

18 we continued being the same kind of friends."

19 Mr. Dorovic, in your statement you said that Radovanovic knew

20 about these proceedings that had been initiated against him and that he

21 thanked you for the fact that you didn't want to testify against him.

22 A. Everybody in my office knows about that, in the prosecutor's

23 office, or everybody in the military court knows about that. Radovanovic

24 knows about that, too, because on the day of the celebration in front of

25 about 60 people he took my right hand and he said that his fate and the

1 fate of his family is in my hands. He cried and he asked me to help him.

2 At that moment, the security organs took me away --

3 Q. We'll get to that. We'll get to the security organs.

4 Mr. Dorovic, I'm proceeding --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: In fairness, Mr. Visnjic, what you were getting

6 there was an explanation of how the witness can tell that he -- that

7 Radovanovic knew exactly what was going on. Anyway, it probably was

8 enough, but it was an answer that was specifically related to the

9 question, in this instance.

10 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, I'll just refer to two other parts

12 in Dragoljub Stankovic's statement. The scenario written in the statement

13 is one that I recognise as identical to what happened to Radovanovic --

14 the late Radovanovic last year, he's referring to 2006, when he was

15 accused of disclosing official secrets. Unfortunately, he could not take

16 the proceedings, and he died on account of that.

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot find the reference in

18 the document.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. And the last sentence: "Therefore," --

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] It is on the second page in the

22 English text.

23 Q. "It is not only what Dorovic said is incorrect, but it is not

24 clear at all why he is linking me to this. In my opinion, this is a

25 totally fabricated thing. I repeat that Radovanovic and I were friends

1 and this was a generally known fact in Belgrade, and it is only in that

2 context that I could have been mentioned."

3 Mr. Dorovic, do you allow for this possibility, that you confused

4 what had happened and that you put prosecutor Radovanovic in the context

5 of something that had not actually happened in 1999?

6 A. Mr. Visnjic, that question is offensive, as a matter of fact. I

7 repeat to you that 60 persons saw this dirty scenario in which I was

8 expected to immediately sign a statement to the effect that I had given

9 documents to Radovanovic and that he had most probably handed them over

10 to someone. This third party was supposed to be Stankovic, and it is

11 General Obrencevic who asked me to do that. General Gojkovic asked me to

12 do that.

13 Q. Mr. Dorovic, you are ruling out that possible, right, that is a

14 sufficient answer. Thank you. Now we are going back to the security

15 organs who were bringing this pressure to bear on --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Again, the fact that they were friendly,

17 Mr. Visnjic, surely makes it even more likely that this might happen.

18 We're talking about an instruction to frame somebody because he had

19 dealings with someone else. And if it turns out that that someone else

20 was a friend, does that not make it more likely?

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there are two possible

22 options: Either that it really happened and Stankovic would have to know

23 about it; or that an attempt was made to frame him, which is a completely

24 different option. And now I'm going to explore that a bit.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that not -- is that not the witness's evidence,

1 that this was all a fiction? He was being instructed to prosecute

2 something that didn't happen.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. The witness did

4 not rule out that possibility at all, that this had not happened. As to

5 whether it had happened and whether this fiction or this false accusation

6 could be fabricated at that moment, and that moment is mid-May 1999, I

7 leave that for you to assess in relation to the previous documents when I

8 set the time foundation as to when things were happening.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Just -- whether Radovanovic actually told Stankovic

10 anything or gave him information, or whether he didn't, does it make any

11 difference to -- or is it going to help us on the question of whether this

12 witness was asked to proceed on a false allegation about handing over the

13 case to him?

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] If the allegation was false, then

15 this is an entirely different topic. If the allegation was true and the

16 witness was asked to testify against a colleague, he could not have been

17 the judge of that at the moment. He was working on the second-hand

18 information. The witness did not -- was not in a position to know whether

19 the allegation was false or true.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am convinced that it was a false

21 allegation. It was fabricated. The situation was fabricated just for him

22 to be arrested --

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] If the situation had been

24 constructed, Stankovic should have been in the loop.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] However, let's go back to something

2 else. Let's move forward.

3 Q. Mr. Dorovic, you are saying that a group of people threatened

4 you. You called them members of the security.

5 A. Yes, they were in the security administration in the security

6 department of the 1st Army. Sukla -- Sinisa Kutlaca -- Kracun was for the

7 security administration, Bratislav, Bratso, Stamenkovic was the -- from

8 the security administration.

9 Q. Let's go back to something.

10 A. Zigic Branko Djokanovic [as interpreted] -- 16 people, and I

11 repeat 60 people were there. They knew of all of that.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: This is chaos. You have to slow down. You're both

13 speaking the same language. It has to be interpreted, therefore there

14 must be a pause between the question and the answer. So please slow down

15 generally.

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Mr. Dorovic, if I'm asking you whether a group threatened you,

18 your answer should be yes or no and then I'll go on asking you

19 questions.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Now, you have told us that in that group, and in the statement you

22 also stated that in that group was a person whom you identified as

23 Lieutenant-Colonel Kracun; am I right?

24 A. Yes, you are. He was there. That's what I said.

25 Q. Thank you. My next question is this --

1 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 3D527,

2 please.

3 Q. Do you know that the person whom you identified as

4 Lieutenant-Colonel Kracun is not an active officer but a civilian person

5 serving with the Army of Yugoslavia and he could not be a

6 lieutenant-colonel as such? Are you aware of that fact?

7 A. In my view, he was lieutenant-colonel. I was with him. He was a

8 colonel; that's how he introduced himself to me and that's what everybody

9 addressed him as.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to page 2 of this exhibit

11 in English.

12 Q. Do you know that this person never worked as a security organ,

13 either in the Ministry of Defence or in the General Staff?

14 A. That is not true. Everybody knows Kracun.

15 Q. Thank you. Do you know that in the statement that we took from

16 him - and the exhibit number is 3D527 - Kracun claims that the Australians

17 were detained in a military investigation prison? ?

18 A. No, I don't know that. I've already told you that.

19 Q. However, you know that they were detained in several such

20 prisons?

21 A. This is what General Obrencevic told me.

22 Q. Thank you. Do you know that this person denies ever having

23 contacted you or putting pressure on you on these grounds?

24 A. No, I don't know that. He lies if he says that.

25 Q. You still claim that all that was happening happened in the first

1 half of May, around the 10th of May?

2 A. On the 10th of May, the day of the military judiciary celebration

3 day.

4 Q. This person, Kracun, whom you know as a lieutenant-colonel or

5 colonel, you think that he may be tied to the case of the alleged

6 blackmail of Albanians regarding their possible service in the army?

7 A. No, I'm not tying him up with that. I am claiming that he was

8 together with the others whom I named. They were all in civilian clothes,

9 and these persons that I've already mentioned today were there.

10 Q. Do we agree that with regard to this case of blackmailing Albanian

11 recruits or military conscripts, as you called them --

12 A. Yes, conscripts.

13 Q. -- could it be true that Branko Zigic, as the chief of the

14 security service of the command of the Belgrade army district, should know

15 before you that there was such an organised blackmail by virtue of his

16 position?

17 A. Yes, this would only be natural.

18 Q. Is it true that by virtue of the matter you could not be aware of

19 this because the security service should submit --

20 A. I don't understand.

21 Q. So we agree that the security service, according to the rules,

22 should be aware of the case before it reaches your hand?

23 A. So much more so because they were the ones who organised

24 everything with their associates, and some of them did that. Some of

25 them were involved. I don't know whether you're referring to anybody

1 specific.

2 Q. I'm referring to the service, Zigic, and his position.

3 A. This is what the case was. This is the case with a written trail,

4 with documents which say that certain members of the military security

5 were in that network. I was asked to arrest Lieutenant-Colonel Rackovic

6 and Lieutenant-Colonel Aleksic. And in that network -- in that network

7 there were also some security organs and a problem started at the time.

8 Q. We have a problem with the interpretation --

9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, which paragraph of the statement does

10 this relate to?

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the case of

12 blackmailing Albanian -- 10, paragraph 10.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: And what is your problem with the interpretation?

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted the gentleman to slow

15 down; that's why I said we had problems with interpretation, that the

16 interpreters could not follow.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Mr. Dorovic, now you have provided us with the names Rackovic and

20 Aleksic?

21 A. Rackovic, the military department Novi Belgrade, and Aleksic from

22 the military department in Zemun. And if I remember it well, the same

23 departments.

24 Q. In your statement under item 10 you say that a person called

25 Strunjas from the General Staff was at the head of that network?

1 A. It is not just any Strunjas.

2 Q. Am I right?

3 A. Yes, you're absolutely right.

4 Q. Do you know his name?

5 A. I don't know, unfortunately.

6 Q. We'll come to that Strunjas anyway but before that I would like to

7 show you what Branko Zigic has to say?

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Exhibit Number 3D528, please.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: You've done it earlier than this, counsel. Why do

10 you need to show the exhibit number of the statement and show the

11 statement? Why don't you just ask the relevant question that arises from

12 it?

13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour.

14 I have already asked questions based on the statement actually --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is there a question or not?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Just bear in mind for a moment, please?

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Please be patient.

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Mr. Dorovic, we have tried to conduct an investigation, and the

21 only Strunjas that exists in the General Staff is a certain Colonel

22 Djordjije Strunjas. Exhibit Number 3D528 testifies to that. This person

23 obviously doesn't know anything about that, and during the war he was in

24 Montenegro. He was in the command of the navy and he was affiliated with

25 the staff duties.

1 A. I left for Kosovo later on myself.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: These names are spelled quite differently --

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: What is the correct?

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Djordjije Strunjas, S-t-r-u-n-j-a-s,

6 Exhibit Number 3D529. And again I spell the name, S-t-r-u-n-j-a-s. And

7 the second one we mentioned is Branko Zigic. This is spelled correctly,

8 and the exhibit number is 3D528. I would like to call up 3D529.

9 Q. Mr. Dorovic, you actually don't know the name of this man,

10 Strunjas, who according to you was the organiser of this large network?

11 A. I know that he was a colonel from the General Staff and that

12 together with him was a certain Colonel Stojkovic from the administration

13 of the defence of the city of Belgrade. I was given a task from

14 General Obrencevic to personally carry out an investigation. I was

15 assigned four police officers. I went personally to the military

16 department in Novi Belgrade, and then to Zemun. And my specific task was

17 to interview Colonels Rackovic and Aleksic from these two respective

18 military departments. After that, when I returned and when I reported to

19 General Obrencevic, I was ordered to -- to talk to Branko Zigic,

20 Colonel Zigic, and he told me that the best thing for me would be to

21 forget all about this case or otherwise something bad would happen to

22 me.

23 Q. And in this group that was surrounding this case, you say that

24 Kracun was also part of that and you say that he was a colonel?

25 A. What I am saying is that they came to see me on that occasion.

1 All the organs of security - that's what we called them - all the

2 officers, there would be three in every military department. I remember

3 Pavlovic.

4 Q. I'm asking you about Kracun. Was he there?

5 A. Yes, Kracun was there in civilian clothes.

6 Q. And what was his position or function? He was a security organ in

7 the military department?

8 A. What I am saying all this time and I have repeated it today that

9 Kracun was from the security administration. I don't know how many times

10 I have to repeat this.

11 Q. You say in your statement that Kracun was from the General Staff

12 and the Ministry of Defence.

13 A. He can't be from both things. He was from the security

14 administration of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Defence.

15 That's what I said, and Sinisa Kutlaca was from the department --

16 Q. I'm reading your statement, paragraph 15, which says: "I left my

17 office and was met by members of the security organs of the General Staff,

18 Lieutenant Kutlaca, Lieutenant-Colonel Kracun, and Lieutenant-Colonel

19 Stamekovic," are these your words?

20 A. Yes, those are my words.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: A lot of that evidence was about the Albanian

22 blackmail case. And then you asked a question: In this group that was

23 surrounding this case you say that Kracun was also part of that. Do we

24 link this to the case of Radovanovic?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] A link should be made in the sense

1 that the witness just summarily mentions names of the persons that --

2 whose names occurred to him at the time with every case. Later on we will

3 present evidence about Kracun's position --

4 MS. MOELLER: Your Honour --

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] -- and whether he could at all be

6 involved in this case of blackmail.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but what I'm not understanding

8 is whether Kracun was involved in any way in the case relating to the

9 Albanian blackmail.

10 Ms. Moeller.

11 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, may I clarify that and also comment.

12 This comment that the witness just arbitrarily puts names, I object to

13 that. In paragraph 11 which deals with the blackmailing event, he

14 mentions Colonel Kracun, and in --

15 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Okay.

16 MS. MOELLER: -- paragraph 15 of the statement --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, thank you.

18 MS. MOELLER: -- which relates to the other event, he also

19 mentions him.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I appreciate the -- I was confining my attention,

21 regrettably, to paragraph 10 and hadn't moved on to 11, but I see that the

22 names are there, in fact. Thank you very much.

23 Mr. Visnjic.

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

25 Q. And finally, Mr. Dorovic, let me tell you what Colonel Strunjas

1 said in his statement. He said that he's surprised and that he is

2 prepared to face everybody that Dorovic mentions and who were allegedly

3 part of the blackmailing network. And he says that what you say about him

4 is simply not true. I move on to another topic that you describe. This

5 is the case Tijanic, this is one of the cases you worked on. In paragraph

6 20 you say --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you -- you can do that after the break.

8 Mr. Visnjic, what you've just done is just quite unnecessary and

9 inappropriate. We're not here to hear the statements of your witnesses

10 through your mouths at this stage. I have to question why you do this.

11 Is it for some sort of publicity reason? Because it's certainly not an

12 appropriate part of the process that we are going through here. So we'll

13 have a break.

14 We need to break at this stage, as we did yesterday, Mr. Dorovic.

15 The usher will show you where to go, and we will resume at 11.15.

16 [The witness stands down]

17 --- Recess taken at 10.44 a.m.

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

19 [The witness takes the stand]

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, please continue.

21 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, or rather --

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 3D530 called up,

24 please.

25 Q. Mr. Dorovic, could you please refresh your memories concerning

1 the Tijanic case. In paragraph 20 of your statement you state that the

2 investigation in this case was handed over to the investigating magistrate

3 Katanic. You had cooperation with the investigating magistrate during the

4 war, didn't you?

5 A. Yes. He was one of the investigating magistrates there.

6 Q. Was your cooperation good?

7 A. Well, I'm not sure I would put it that way. He was a junior

8 colleague only starting in his clear, and this was the only case I had

9 personal dealings with him.

10 Q. You see, in your statement you claim that General --

11 A. Milos Gojkovic.

12 Q. Yes, Milos Gojkovic put pressure to bear on him.

13 A. Yes,. President of the Supreme Court, he ordered him to abort his

14 investigation.

15 Q. Katanic was indeed in charge of this case, Mr. Dorovic, and I'm

16 just putting this to you now. I don't want to go into any further

17 details. He says that, in fact, detention was ordered in that case and

18 that in the beginning, the case seemed to be handled -- or rather,"seemed

19 to be serious and this is in paragraph 5 of his statement, that after

20 certain investigation measures were taken, in my view, these were -- this

21 was a person with strictly restricted psychological abilities, and he's

22 referring to Mr. Tijanic, and nobody seems to have noticed this fact."

23 And finally he says that: Because of the poor state in which the

24 case was, upon the request of the defence the detention was cancelled and

25 the case was aborted. Is this something that is consistent with your

1 memory?

2 A. I went to Kosovo later on and I wasn't really kept abreast of the

3 matter later on. I know how the case was started, and I know that it was

4 a very difficult case for me involving, I should say, hundreds of

5 documents in evidence with great amounts of receipts concerning

6 confiscated items. I know that I was asked to review all the documents

7 immediately, and it was Nikola Petkovic himself who helped me,

8 professionally speaking, in my work. I worked based on his verbal

9 instructions, and as problems emerged according to the orders -- I worked

10 according to the orders of General Obrencevic. I tried to resist pressure

11 and I hoped that I was doing my job properly. At any rate, this was a

12 case dealt by the court and --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, what is your basis for saying that

14 Gojkovic ordered him to carry out the investigation in such a way as to

15 terminate it?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this because General

17 Gojkovic, the president of the supreme military court, and General

18 Obrencevic, military prosecutor -- the chief military prosecutor, came to

19 see me personally to try and convince me to drop charges as military

20 prosecutor. I refused to do that. This meeting was witnessed by other

21 persons. I remember that there was Major Djakonovic from the police

22 force. He was given a police unit to secure the building, and Colonel

23 Branko Zigic was there.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: We have all that in your statement. My question is

25 a specific one. What is your basis for saying that Gojkovic ordered

1 Katanic to carry out the investigation in such a way as to terminate it?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fact that General Gojkovic,

3 later on when I returned from the war in Kosovo, told me, Well, you see,

4 this is the way big-headed people fare and because of my actions I fared

5 the way I did. I have to tell you that it's the generals who make

6 decisions. He ordered Aleksander Tijanic -- or rather Katanic, the -- the

7 investigating magistrate, to do that. Milos Gojkovic told me so

8 personally in the presence of others and the Judge Katanic told me that as

9 well --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now we're getting closer to the answer to the

11 question. Why can't you just concentrate on the question? Are you now

12 saying that Gojkovic told you that he told Katanic to carry out the

13 investigation in such a way as to terminate it?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] General Gojkovic told me that in the

15 presence of others, and Aleksandar Katanic also told me that he was

16 categorically asked to terminate the case and that's what he did.

17 Investigating Judge Katanic told me that as well. They can say whatever

18 they want. I'm saying you what I know, and my prosecutors knew that as

19 well, because we had a great amount of work --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, just answer my questions, please, and

21 we'll maybe make some progress. Who were the people present when Gojkovic

22 told you this?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My deputies were. There was some

24 administration staff there as well. There was the president of the court.

25 I believe there was some others still, but I can vouch for these because

1 all of us, especially the court, were very disappointed. But we were told

2 that the Supreme Court ordered this and we complied --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think I am going to be prepared to tell you

4 again just to answer the questions I'm asking you and then we will make

5 progress. Now, what was the name of the president of the court?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Captain First Class Korolija.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: And the deputies, what were their names?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My deputies were Brano, Branislav,

9 Turkovic, he was one of the deputies, Milan Radovanovic, Lepetic -- Branko

10 Lepetic, Nemanja Vukotic, he was my deputy for a while and then spent some

11 time in the navy and then came back --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm only interested to know the names of the

13 deputies who were present when Gojkovic told you that he had ordered the

14 termination of this investigation.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the three persons I mentioned,

16 I know about them for a fact, because they assisted me in my work.

17 Svetislav Postic was also there. He was from the prosecutor's office that

18 was our superior, the president of the court and Katanic. Because we

19 tried to persuade Postic as representative of the supreme military

20 prosecutor's office that we should not discredit ourselves by such

21 conduct. We can't arrest a person and then release him if we know that he

22 had concealed a great amount of assets.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Have you difficulty understanding the concept of

24 answering the particular question that I ask you? Does that cause you a

25 particular problem?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thought that I had answered the

2 question. I listed the names of the persons who were present. I didn't

3 mention --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: You've answered it in a way that causes confusion,

5 because we have four assistants and you say that three were present. So

6 could you tell us who the three deputies were who were present when this

7 was said.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already mentioned them, Milan

9 Radovanovic, Branko Lepetic, and Nemanja Vukotic.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: And therefore, Turkovic was not --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Branislav, Brano, Turkovic, he was

12 also present. He had specific tasks to deal with in obtaining documents

13 from security organs.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, after your ruling, I

16 will only refer the entire Chamber to the statement by Katanic, 3D530,

17 which I previously referred to.

18 Q. Mr. Dorovic --

19 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I am told by my colleague

20 Cepic that it is confirmed that Katanic was present at this meeting that

21 the witness mentioned a while ago when pressure was brought to bear upon

22 him.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: We've got that, but he's not a deputy prosecutor at

24 that stage. That's -- I was interested in the names of the three deputy

25 prosecutors that were there and it's still not been clearly answered. But

1 never mind, let's move on.

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

3 Q. Mr. Dorovic, we are nearing the time when you left for Kosovo.

4 We will now be dealing with the Stosic case.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please call up Prosecution

6 Exhibit 2754.

7 Q. Now that we are discussing the Stosic case, Mr. Dorovic, we will

8 agree that case was processed to the stage it was and in your view,

9 certain criminal offences committed by that person were covered up and you

10 were being pressed into that by the security organs. Am I right in

11 presenting the gist of your evidence?

12 A. None of the matters I had been engaged in were, in fact,

13 materialised in that case.

14 Q. I agree.

15 And we agree that in your statement in paragraph 24 and yesterday

16 in your evidence here, Nesic threatened you and asked that you terminate

17 the investigation against that person?

18 A. That's right, and that's the first time I met Nesic.

19 Q. Very well. Now that I look at Prosecution Exhibit 2754, and

20 that's the 30th of May, 1999, there you indeed mention Nesic, and that's

21 at page 1 in both B/C/S and English versions, and you say that Nesic

22 threatened you only in relation to the proceedings against two military

23 officers and these are, according to my documentation, Stefanovic and

24 Ristevski?

25 A. You're right, I mention only them.

1 Q. There you don't mention Stosic?

2 A. No, I don't.

3 Q. And we will agree that this was on the 30th of May, 1999?

4 A. As far as this document is concerned, yes.

5 Q. Now that we have the document, let me ask you this: You're in

6 Pristina, you have difficulties and you're being -- or rather, pressure is

7 being put on you and the way I read the document, you sent a threatening

8 or a warning letter to the commander of the military district of Pristina

9 where you say that, among other things, you will ask to be relieved of

10 your duty unless you are given a different vehicle, a vehicle whose front

11 door can be closed. So you're not saying in this letter that you will be

12 resigning because of the difficulties because of the 1.040 documents that

13 are missing; you're merely mentioning the Lada Niva 1.300 vehicle, the

14 front door of which cannot be closed. Am I reading this right?

15 A. Yes. That's the way it was written.

16 Q. I will show you a different document now, which is your statement,

17 P2708, page 3 and page 4 in Serbian -- or rather, pages 3 and 4 in Serbian

18 and page 5 in English. This is a document concerning the criminal

19 proceedings instituted against you, and I will read the part concerning

20 the problems involving Nesic.

21 You say: "I've already explained how I was received down there in

22 Pristina, that I -- I experienced problems from Major Nesic, who asked me

23 to withdraw the indictment against Stefanovic and Ristevski and I had been

24 constantly exposed to threats on this account."

25 Mr. Dorovic, I went through the entire document and I can tell

1 you that in this document you don't mention Stosic either.

2 A. Not even before this Tribunal from which I expect protection am I

3 able to speak freely about Stosic; I was warned that I should not do that.

4 May I only be given the chance to explain what I was, in fact, required to

5 do in the Stosic case. I dare not mention Stosic beyond what I think -- I

6 shouldn't because I was cautioned about the fact that some of Stosic's

7 activity falls under state secret obligations, and that's why I should not

8 tell anything more about Stosic, as I was not given the waiver by my

9 government to do that.

10 Now, if the Tribunal and you, Mr. Visnjic, want me to speak about

11 that, I will go beyond that boundary in the hope that the Tribunal will

12 protect me from the threats that were extended to me, especially in

13 relation to Stosic. I mentioned Stosic in my statement --

14 Q. Please pause there.

15 A. I can even explain here the situations in which I was supposed to

16 intercede for Stosic.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not following this, Mr. Dorovic. [Microphone

18 not activated]

19 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not following this, Mr. Dorovic. The issue at

21 the moment is why certain documents are written in a certain way. These

22 were written in 1999. They're nothing to do with -- at the moment with

23 the situation today. Now, the question really is why there's no mention

24 of Stosic in the document which you've just been shown. Then we'll deal

25 with the other matter in a moment.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I asked from the chief

2 military prosecutor and his associates to be allowed to take over the case

3 against Stosic. I wasn't allowed to do that. I was told that I should

4 forget about all my dealings concerning the Stosic case right away. That

5 is why I did not dare mention this before that other court and those other

6 proceedings in Nis. However, there are written documents that I submitted

7 to the chief military prosecutor and that I submitted to General Gojkovic

8 upon my return from Kosovo. These documents are in possession of Colonel

9 Nikola Petkovic, and may be made available to the Tribunal.

10 Even though I knew that he was a member of the security service

11 from the security administration itself, in fact, I did say that on the

12 6th of February, 2002, in the presence of two of his associates. I did

13 say that openly. I suppose that these are records of my -- of my

14 examination in the proceedings in Nis. I didn't dare mention that matter

15 there, but I mentioned it instead to those others.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Now, we'll go briefly into private session.

18 [Private session]

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 11577-11578 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 [Open session]

13 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.

15 MS. MOELLER: So the waiver contains a number of maybe eight to 10

16 or 15 concrete issues that the witness is then granted permission to speak

17 about to us and testify about to us. This witness is particularly

18 concerned if he goes outside of these categories in any way that he may

19 suffer consequences because of the position he is in in his system, and I

20 think that is the cause of his concern.

21 And there was another issue. When he came here he expected to be

22 returning, actually, earlier than he can now. And he requested that we

23 furnish a documentation of him being needed here because he was also

24 afraid that he may be held responsible for being absent without granted

25 leave.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not the point.

2 MS. MOELLER: So he is just concerned about his position when he

3 returns that he can't be attacked on any of these formalities, basically,

4 which we consider them.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: But there is so much material here about Stosic.

6 Are you telling me there's something there to restrict the extent to which

7 he can tell us about that?

8 MS. MOELLER: No, I think it only relates to the -- to the

9 previous events previous to Kosovo because there is a long story --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: That makes sense. That's got nothing to do with

11 this case.

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes, exactly, and maybe the witness misunderstood

13 that he was compelled or asked about these issues. That's how I

14 understood the confusion to have arisen.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: What is it you want to say, Mr. Visnjic?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's precisely what I

17 wanted to ask the witness now, whether he has any restrictions on speaking

18 about events in Kosovo in relation to Stosic or anybody else.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that was a question I had just asked him and

20 he was in the middle of answering it by saying, "In the criminal report

21 that was brought by the chief of the security administration it was

22 written there that as much -- that as such he also went and worked in

23 Kosovo. That is a criminal report containing criminal charges and is what

24 we worked on so persistently and so seriously."

25 Now, if you want to clarify whether there's anything in relation

1 to that that he's prohibited from disclosing, then that's okay.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, you are correct in understanding that

4 your evidence should be confined to matters for which you have a waiver,

5 and as far as we can tell from what the Prosecutor has said to us, there

6 does not appear to be a restriction on the you giving evidence about

7 Kosovo and that the areas in which there's been no waiver are areas which

8 are irrelevant to this trial. Now, as I understand your evidence, you

9 have very carefully tried throughout to comply with the authority you've

10 been given to give evidence here; and as far as we can tell, absolutely

11 nothing has happened that ought to in any way put your position in Serbia

12 in question. And you are required to stay here as long as it is necessary

13 for your evidence to be completed, and that's our responsibility. It's

14 not your responsibility [Realtime transcript read in error "evidence"].

15 So we don't consider that anything that has occurred here should in any

16 way prejudice your position in your job in Serbia, and we would be

17 extremely concerned if we were to find out later that anything had

18 happened as a result of your -- had happened in respect of your employment

19 as a result of your presence here.

20 Now, Mr. Visnjic, it's important --

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I --

22 JUDGE BONOMY: -- that you clarify whether there are areas in

23 relation to Kosovo that have not been dealt with -- well, it's not your --

24 necessarily your responsibility to do that; I quite appreciate that. But

25 if you do wish to clarify that point, we will certainly not prevent you

1 from doing so.

2 Yes, Judge Kamenova's pointing out something in the transcript.

3 Page 62, line 2, the word "evidence" is wrong there. That should

4 be "responsibility," "it's not your responsibility." In fact, that should

5 be corrected in the final transcript and not left to the point where we've

6 now reached for clarification.

7 Mr. Visnjic.

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we are still in

9 private session --

10 JUDGE BONOMY: No, we're not.

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move private session

12 for a minute so I just ask the witness something, just one question. I

13 don't want to -- I don't want to cause any danger to him.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Your concern is for the witness's security or for

15 the security of someone else?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I'm concerned about what he said

17 that he has these restrictions on these answers and that's why I wanted to

18 ask him something.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well. We shall go into private session.

20 [Private session]

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 11583 redacted. Private session

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [Open session]

2 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Mr. Dorovic, could you please just confirm this for me.

5 Yesterday on page 54 of the transcript, did you first mention that Stosic

6 was linked to the Orahovac mass grave?

7 A. I don't understand. You mean here were before the Court, in the

8 statement? No. As for his role, I spoke about that to my commander, even

9 down there when I was prevented from working. And then I told the

10 president of the supreme military court about this and the supreme

11 military prosecutor and my superior and the security organs, and in

12 writing at that. So it is recorded, like today. The 6th of February,

13 2002. And when I talked about Stosic, because he's their man and they're

14 the ones who said to me that I would lose my life if ever I speak to

15 anyone about that again.

16 Q. All right. The time is now. Did you compile an official note

17 yourself when you spoke to the security organs and is that in the

18 documents of this court?

19 A. One of them is. There are several of them.

20 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that there is an official note in the

21 records of this court of the security organs about the interview that was

22 conducted with you on the 6th of February, 2002, P2712, and that is the

23 document that you, yourself, brought to this court? Am I right?

24 A. No, I really don't know what you're talking about.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] P2172 [as interpreted], Your Honour,

1 could it please be shown to the witness.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, possibly. I don't know what

3 it's about.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Now there's confusion. Is it 2712 or 2172?

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] P2712.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see this note. I didn't bring

8 that note. This note was --

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I assume not, but the Prosecutor probably

11 showed this to you when you were preparing for your testimony here.

12 A. Well, I haven't studied it, but I'm aware of its existence from

13 the work of the supreme military court, because actually it is part of the

14 proceedings against the judges of that court that is underway now, rather,

15 the investigation is underway against the judges who at that time were in

16 charge of the proceedings against me. Now, they are the ones who are to

17 be held accountable --

18 Q. Just a moment, please. Just a moment. What was it that I asked

19 you? What was my question?

20 A. Did I give this note, and my answer was no.

21 Q. Thank you. Tell me now, and is the name of Stosic referred to in

22 this note?

23 A. In this note? No.

24 Q. Thank you. Next topic: The Orahovac mass grave. Do you -- that

25 is 3D532. Milos Spasojevic is the person who gave this statement and the

1 KV number 106/99 that you gave is not a prosecution number but a court

2 number. And that the documents were searched, the National Council and

3 the Army of Serbia and Montenegro searched for these documents and they

4 didn't find these documents.

5 A. KV is a lettering that is used for court cases. Anybody who ever

6 did any work there knows that, but this is one of the 17 cases that they

7 simply destroyed. And Stosic's is the most serious one of all of them.

8 Q. All right. So Stosic is more serious than the criminal report

9 concerning Orahovac or is Stosic simultaneously the criminal report for

10 Orahovac, the mass grave?

11 A. Mr. Visnjic, I'm going to tell you in spite of all the state

12 secret warnings --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Where the killing takes place,

15 that's where Stosic is. Stosic is everywhere where there is killing --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, a very specific question has been

17 asked. Is Stosic -- the criminal report about Orahovac, the mass grave,

18 is that one of the reports in relation to Stosic, yes or no?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In many documents out of the 150

20 documents of which the grave-site case consists, there are several places

21 where Stosic and Djordjevic are mentioned.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: Please listen to the question. Is Stosic's

23 involvement in Orahovac one of the 17?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

1 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, I will also put it to you that

3 Nedeljko Cvijovic, who was the chief of security in the military

4 district --

5 A. Yes, in my military district. We assumed duties on the same date.

6 Q. He also said that he wasn't aware of a mass grave in the Orahovac

7 area. Mr. Dorovic, do you allow for the possibility that this mass grave

8 at Orahovac, as you refer to it, you mistook for a different mass grave

9 that was the subject of criminal investigation?

10 A. Mr. Visnjic, this is the second time you're offending me.

11 Q. I'm sorry if I offended you. So the answer is no?

12 A. Well, I don't rule out -- I rule out that possibility. I worked

13 on that case, and, Mr. Visnjic, one does not forget these matters. This

14 was one of the stolen cases and Cvijovic himself who stole that case.

15 Q. Very well. We will take it one step at a time and we will get to

16 those stolen files.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic, are you tell us which mass grave it

18 was mistaken for, because then you might get an answer that means

19 something?

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's the mass grave

21 mentioned as Pusto Selo or Senovac in the documents. I do believe there

22 will be more discussion of that later on.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: What is your point, that there's no mass grave at

24 Orahovac?

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying to ask the

1 witness if it's true that an investigation was carried out into a mass

2 grave but that it was, in fact, the one at Pusto Selo or Senovac. The

3 witness, however, keeps insisting that it's quite a different location.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you should have put that specific question.

5 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry.

6 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, in paragraph 32 of your statement

7 you said that when you came to Kosovo, before that, your deputy Djuro

8 Blagojevic returned 1.040 criminal reports to the people who filed them.

9 Yesterday in your evidence you mentioned again that the figure of 1.040

10 missing case files --

11 A. Reports.

12 Q. -- yes, reports, I apologise -- was in fact a way to cover up

13 certain criminal offences, including, as I understand, some criminal

14 offences against the civilian population, looting, and so on and so forth.

15 Is my understanding correct?

16 A. I, in fact, said that my superiors were convinced that way since

17 they sent me over there, because the meeting that they held in early May,

18 General Gojovic spoke about 1.040 missing criminal reports and he said

19 that this omission on their part could not be rectified. In my view, most

20 of them had to do with the army, with the failure to respond to call-ups

21 and so on.

22 Q. As you arrived in Kosovo - this is something you learned from

23 Gojovic in Belgrade?

24 A. Yes, from Gojovic.

25 Q. As you arrived in Kosovo, were you able to satisfy yourself

1 directly about the situation?

2 A. No, we -- I could not, Mr. Visnjic. We did not have the register

3 or anything of that sort.

4 Q. Very well. Let me show you Exhibit 3D533, page 5 in Serbian and

5 page 5 in English. Mr. Dorovic, let me tell you that this is a report on

6 crime between 23 March and 1st May, 1999, sent by the military prosecutor

7 from the Pristina Military District, your predecessor, Djura Blagojevic.

8 A. I don't know about that. I don't see the signature.

9 Q. I will show it to you right now.

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can the usher give the witness this

11 document.

12 Q. While you're looking at the document, Mr. Dorovic, I will read a

13 portion of it out loud. This is the section which says that it was --

14 what characterises the crimes of failure to respond to a call-up, an

15 invasion of military service under Article 214, that after the first 40

16 reports were filed with the prosecutor's office by the Pristina Military

17 District command, the military prosecutor asked for 40 investigations to

18 be initiated, 36 were completed, and the military prosecutor dropped the

19 prosecutions against the 36 persons.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I think there was an error, page 70,

21 line 14 [as interpreted].

22 Q. Then the document reads -- not you, sorry.

23 A. No, no, I have nothing to do with this. I see this for the first

24 time.

25 Q. I apologise. The document reads: "For all these reasons, all the

1 criminal reports submitted later on by the district were not processed,

2 but the prosecutor asked for additional check-ups with the person who

3 filed the criminal report, and such action taken by the prosecutor is

4 probably the main reason why the military district command did not

5 continue submitting such reports."

6 A. I did not get your question.

7 Q. I will just put it to you. Does this tally with the missing

8 reports that Mr. Gojovic told you of?

9 A. I understood it this way. Perhaps it's the interpretation. This

10 is about just 40 reports, and there were 1.040 reports missing. This is

11 April. We're talking about March and we're talking about the beginning of

12 the war and about 1.040 criminal reports.

13 Q. Are you quite positive about that figure?

14 A. Well, it's more documents than this, it's more documents than

15 this. Those were hundreds of official documents --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's take this in stages so we are helped by the

17 document. Do you recognise the signature on the screen?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, really, no. Djuro Blagojevic

19 was one of my deputies. He was my predecessor. I don't know if this is

20 his signature. He was one of my deputies.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's go to the part that Mr. Visnjic has been

22 referring to so we can read it, because what he's read indicates no reason

23 for these proceedings being dropped and may not be inconsistent with your

24 evidence.

25 Not that page, we want -- sorry.

1 Now, do you read the explanation there, the part that's

2 underlined, and tell us if you think this relates to the 1.040, that

3 because something went wrong with the first 36 they decided not to bother

4 with the others.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For God's sake, this refers to 40

6 reports. All of us in the army knew about the others. 1.040? That's

7 quite a different figure. This is something different. At the meeting in

8 Belgrade an example was raised to show the then-prosecutor Djuro

9 Blagojevic's omissions at work. He was working in Pristina. They were

10 unable to find these reports. They simply vanished in the air, and this

11 was something that the military judiciary was aware of. You can find that

12 in the reports, or rather, in the information that General Gojovic

13 provided where he spoke of the functioning of the military judiciary early

14 on at the beginning of the war and he speaks about that.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't know if you've really addressed the

16 question because it says that the military prosecutor asked for 40

17 investigations to be initiated, 36 were completed, and he then dropped the

18 prosecutions against the 36. And the document goes on to say: "For all

19 these reasons the criminal reports submitted later on by the district were

20 not processed, but the prosecutor asked for additional check-ups with the

21 person who filed the criminal report. And such action taken by the

22 prosecutor is probably the main reason why the military district didn't

23 continue to submit the reports."

24 So what they're saying is that there was a failure to submit

25 reports, and you say that over a thousand were submitted and then

1 returned. Is that right?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They vanished without trace. One

3 doesn't know whether they were returned to those who filed them in the

4 first place. We don't even know who delivered them. We know that there

5 were 1.040 reports. The prosecutors from the military district said

6 that --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: That answers my question.

8 Mr. Visnjic.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I don't

10 want to comment on this any further. I think -- I believe the text is

11 self-explanatory.

12 Q. Mr. Dorovic, yesterday in your evidence you said that among these

13 reports there were reports concerning crimes against the civilian

14 population. Is that your evidence still today?

15 A. I never said that they were among the 1.040. It is probable that

16 there were some. The fact of the matter is that we had such cases among

17 that group of 17 case files.

18 Q. Let's leave those 17 case files aside for now.

19 A. I know that there were some and that they vanished. What they

20 contained is improper of us to speculate upon.

21 Q. I'm merely quoting your words from yesterday's transcript.

22 MS. MOELLER: Can we have reference for that, please, Your Honour.

23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Transcript page 99, line -- lines 15

24 to 21. Should I quote?

25 JUDGE BONOMY: No, please continue with the next question. We've

1 got to make more rapid progress than this, Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we will be going

3 through this quickly.

4 3D534 should be called up, page 1 specifically.

5 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I will read to you the information on the activity

6 ever since its setting up on the 31st of May, 1999. This is a report by

7 the military prosecutor to the Pristina Military District command. Page

8 1, paragraph 3 reads: "On this occasion we wish to" -- "let us remind you

9 once again that instead of entering the first 492 criminal reports filed

10 against non-serving civilians who are liable for military service for the

11 crime of failure to respond," and so on and so forth, "because it was more

12 than clear from the content of the reports that no crimes had been

13 committed, which is why probably no evidence was provided with the

14 reports."

15 Is it true that there were merely 492 criminal reports,

16 Mr. Dorovic?

17 A. You mean that those that were dismissed -- returned? No, 492 are

18 those that are contained in the register. I believe I drafted this

19 report. I should be the signatory.

20 Q. We will read the second paragraph of this item where -- which

21 reads: "It soon turned out that this was the right decision" --

22 A. Right.

23 Q. " -- because in the legal procedure for acquiring information from

24 those who filed the criminal reports and as a result of the requests sent

25 three times to the Pristina Military District command it was established

1 beyond doubt that the reported individuals had responded to the call-up in

2 time and reported to RJ, which means that the criminal offences cited in

3 the reports or any other criminal offences subject to prosecution ex

4 officio had not been committed and that even if such obviously groundless

5 criminal reports were by any chance to be considered as criminal reports,

6 then they should equally be considered dismissed in due process by a

7 single decision jointly applicable to all of these reports."

8 A. Yes, and every single one of them was registered and dismissed,

9 and you can read them, Mr. Visnjic. This is quite something different.

10 It does not refer to the vanished --

11 Q. Thank you.

12 A. I wrote this.

13 Q. That's why we are going to read the next passage that refers to

14 that situation and it says in here: "The regularity of this decision is

15 confirmed by the fact that in 40 cases in which investigation was

16 requested and conducted on the basis of such evidently baseless reports,

17 the military prosecutor had no other option but to cease prosecution

18 because the results of the investigation confirmed that there is no crime

19 that may be prosecuted ex officio."

20 Mr. Dorovic, I put it to you that in this document what is

21 described is the situation that was described in the previous document

22 signed by Blagojevic and, in the situation that happened the way it did,

23 there is nothing that would point to the fact that something was being

24 concealed and that was within the jurisdiction of this court.

25 A. This is a totally erroneous conclusion on your part, groundless,

1 and I should only be happy if that was the case.

2 Q. Mr. Dorovic, could you please read -- first of all, tell me, when

3 did the 1.040 reports go missing?

4 A. I already told you at the beginning of the war. If I have to

5 pin-point it in time, it was sometime before the mid-April of that year.

6 Q. Thank you. Can you read the title of this document.

7 A. I know the title of this document. It is: "Information of work

8 up to 31 May."

9 Q. Can you read the whole title.

10 A. "Supreme military prosecutor" --

11 Q. Can you go on reading?

12 A. "Information on the work up to 31 May 1999."

13 Q. When was the military prosecutor's office established?

14 A. I can't talk about the Pristina district, but I believe that it

15 was on the 24th and started operating on the 26th.

16 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dorovic. And finally --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can I just be clear on one thing.

18 MR. VISNJIC: I'm sorry.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: You said this was your document.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: But the reference here is the office at the 3rd

22 Army command. Is that the office you were in? I understood that you were

23 the command of the Pristina Military District.

24 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is a stamp of the

25 addressee on the left-hand side, and it shows you who were the -- where

1 the document originated from.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the left upper corner.

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Maybe you can't see it but you can

4 see it now.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the left upper corner.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that where the document is being sent to

7 though? No?

8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] On the right-hand side is the

9 addressee and, on the left, where it comes from.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. That's where it comes from. Okay.

11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. In the transcript you said that the prosecution started -- was

13 founded on the 24th and it became operational on the 26th of March, 1999.

14 Is that so?

15 A. I said that I was not sure, that I assumed that this was the case.

16 Q. And this information is relative to the work from the foundation

17 to the 31st of May. Am I right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. If we turn this document to the last page, am I right in saying

20 that if you signed the document, Mr. Dorovic, that this is the case.

21 A. I can't see the signature, but yes, I did. I know that I drafted

22 this information.

23 Q. Can you look at the document in the Serbian language.

24 A. Yes, yes, this is my signature, yes.

25 Q. Thank you.

1 A. This is my signature.

2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have more

3 questions. Mr. Dorovic, we are moving to the disappearance of 17 files

4 that went missing from the court in Pristina, apparently. These are

5 paragraphs 27, 37, and 38 of your statement, and according to you, these

6 were files speaking on the expulsion of Catholic Albanians from Glavicica

7 on Christmas Eve, Rugova, destruction of Albanian houses near Pec, and

8 some other files that you mentioned already.

9 Q. Mr. Dorovic, you had already informed different bodies about

10 these cases. You informed the army, the court, maybe even the general

11 public. Am I right?

12 A. Yes, you are. From 1999 onwards.

13 Q. Yes, we agree on that. In a letter Exhibit Number P2730, this is

14 a letter that you wrote to Svetko Kovac. You say in this letter that --

15 and he at the time was the chief of security of the Federal Ministry of

16 Defence, I suppose. You say in this letter that -- in the last paragraph,

17 that is, you say that as a military prosecutor, you had been stolen 17

18 case files and destroyed evidence on crimes for unlawful expropriation of

19 valuable Siptar cars. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you also say that none of the crimes that I have just spoken

22 about, the expulsion of Albanian Catholics, the burning down of --

23 villages, the destruction of houses in Istok, Pec, Orahovac, Stosic, and

24 so on and so forth. We have spoken about Stosic and said why but not

25 about others?

1 A. But this is from June and I provided him with written documents on

2 the 6th of February in front of his man. We had been there all day. They

3 filed 11 criminal reports. Colonel Kovac himself will tell you that.

4 Q. He will tell me, as he did in Exhibit 272 [as interpreted], the

5 official note where he says that on page 2, item 5, you list a certain

6 number of omissions and transgressions and you say that unlawfully,

7 property was taken from Siptars and he says that in the prosecutor's

8 office in Pristina there is evidence of 17 cases of fictitious

9 confiscation of vehicles. Again in this document dated 6th February 2001

10 and 10 May 2001 there is no mention of all these cases relative to other

11 crimes, save for the problems with the confiscation of property and

12 vehicles from Albanians.

13 A. Mr. Visnjic, you should ask Kovac why he omitted to record my

14 words that I spoke to him. Although I speak very fast, I had to be slowed

15 down. I provided him with concrete evidence primarily for the 11 of his

16 men were -- and the first one of them is Mr. Stosic --

17 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I'm not interested in people, I'm interested in

18 crimes and we agree that there is nothing about them in the document?

19 A. I really don't know. You have to ask him. I can't draw such a

20 conclusion. I am not familiar with the document, first of all. I've

21 already told you.

22 Q. That document was before you a minute ago.

23 A. You've never provided me with this document. I don't know whose

24 document this is.

25 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can the usher please provide the

1 witness with the document.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the document is on the screen.

3 MR. VISNJIC: Oh, I'm sorry.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: It can be read on the screen.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the previous

6 document and after that I called up 2712 of June 2001. P2712 is the

7 document that I'm referring to. Second page, item 5 in the Serbian

8 language, the same thing in English, please.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Why don't we read other parts?

10 Why isn't there anything else mentioned in here? I've spoken about a

11 hundred of things and more specifically about 11 --

12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Mr. Dorovic, in this document do you see anywhere that any other

14 crime is mentioned for which you claimed in your statement that they can

15 be found in the 17 files, save for the document speaking about the

16 confiscation of vehicles and property?

17 A. Please allow me to read. I can't speak about the document without

18 reading. I need time. I can't talk off my head.

19 Q. I agree with you. While you're looking at the document and then

20 you will answer questions about it?

21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can I please ask the usher to

22 provide the witness with a document.

23 Q. Let me remind you while you're looking at the document, let me

24 remind you of another exhibit; 2781 is the number of that exhibit. We

25 don't have to call it up on the screen. The Judges have it.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

2 MR. VISNJIC: Your Honour, yes.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: One at a time.

4 MR. VISNJIC: I agree.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've spoken at length about Colonel

6 Milan Karan and Aleksandar Papac who attended the conversation, asked me

7 to stop working on the Stosic case. That is one reason why they were not

8 mentioned and that is also a reason why they made me go and write the

9 article, because I was afraid they would kill me that day. They forebade

10 me to do anything. I'm talking about Nesic here. I explained to them in

11 great length, so it is mentioned here. You're not right, Mr. Visnjic, when

12 you say that there is nothing. In the Serbian version you will see it on

13 the first paragraph on page 3, here you can see it nicely that this is

14 mentioned. This is what they wrote. This is a representation of this

15 conversation, a very unprofessional, very improper representation. The

16 fact is that the two of them personally, Colonel Papac, Aleksander

17 Papac --

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Let's not go that way. I asked you whether in this document any

20 other crimes are mentioned against the civilian Albanian population save

21 for the confiscation of property and vehicles. That is my question to

22 you.

23 A. Yes, they are mentioned and this is exactly what I am talking

24 about.

25 Q. Can you please read it? Can you please read it?

1 A. He pointed out that --

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Plesae stop. It's on page 3, apparently, of the

3 Serbian. Which page in the English is it in? And let's have on the

4 screen what it is we are about to be told about. So the last part of the

5 document in English as well, please.

6 Now, what is it you want to explain, Mr. Dorovic?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at the time I

8 explained at great length everything about Stosic, although they knew more

9 than I did because they were the ones who sent him there to do what he

10 did. Those who were present there on the day asked me to stop working on

11 that case, to stop talking about the case, to go into retirement --

12 JUDGE BONOMY: We have all that. What you're going to point out

13 to us is where something along these lines is mentioned in this document.

14 You've just told us it's there on page 3, so where is it?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the first paragraph he pointed

16 out that a certain Major Nesic from the security body of the command of

17 the military district in Pristina put pressure on him to give up on

18 prosecution of several persons --

19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot follow.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Please slow down. The interpreter can't follow

21 you. Continue reading more slowly, please.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Put pressure on him to give up on

23 the prosecution of several cases for which criminal reports were filed by

24 the security organ of the Pristina Corps. Allegedly, there are documents

25 to that effect in the military prosecutor's office of the Pristina Corps,

1 not allegedly. There are, in fact, such documents in the case where a

2 decision was brought by the court, a collective decision --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: You've pointed out where it is in the document.

4 Mr. Visnjic, please.

5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can the witness please

6 be shown Exhibit 2781. This is a criminal report that the witness issued

7 against unknown judges and unknown persons for 17 crimes contained in

8 several case files. And I would kindly ask the witness to be shown page

9 1, paragraph 1 of that document, where it says that the persons reported

10 in relation to 17 criminal cases of the military court of Pristina

11 Military District command, that is, from 15 case files -- cases in

12 relation to investigation requests and two cases as per indictments

13 brought by the military prosecutor before that court during the state of

14 war illegally take and hide a number of documents, documentation,

15 certificates, and temporarily confiscated items, vehicles, driving

16 licences, and traffic licences for those vehicles, official notes of

17 authorised officials of the VJ security organ, and so on and so forth.

18 Q. Mr. Dorovic, in your document in your criminal report that you

19 filed against 17 individuals -- actually, against unknown individuals, you

20 still went on to mention only documents relative to vehicles, the vehicles

21 confiscated from Albanians.

22 A. Not only that documentation. I don't mention only that. In the

23 explanation of the decision I speak about other things as well.

24 Q. Are you referring to the explanation of the criminal report?

25 A. Yes, criminal report.

1 Q. Let's stop here. Page 2, paragraph 4, please, at the explanation

2 of the criminal report. Among the case files that were returned, there

3 were also 17 case files in which -- from which the individuals reported

4 concealed documents Ristevski and Stefanovic are two against whom

5 prosecution had started. In the English that is also page 2, paragraph

6 1.

7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Can you scroll down a little in the

8 English. The Serbian version is okay, but we need to scroll down in the

9 English and go to the next page, please, in the English version to display

10 the text. Thank you.

11 Q. This is a long amount -- but it says here: "Among the returned

12 documents there are also two cases against Ristevski and Stefanovic as

13 well as the 15 cases pertaining to requests for the investigation of

14 members of those organs and their associates from which the persons

15 reported had stolen and hidden certificates on temporarily confiscated

16 items. 10 expensive passenger vehicles taken from Siptar civilians as

17 well as statements of the accused, witness statements," and so on and so

18 forth.

19 Mr. Dorovic, again you don't mention any other crime that you

20 mention in your statement as being in the case files of these cases from

21 which parts of the documentation went missing. Am I right in saying

22 this?

23 A. You're partly right, Mr. Visnjic. What you have just quoted

24 refers to two indictments that were issued in my office, and we are

25 talking about the investigations that were carried out by the court of the

1 Pristina Corps which pronounced itself incompetent and wanted us to act

2 because they thought that we were competent for those cases. In those

3 cases, as a matter of fact, in all the 15 cases there are those serious

4 crimes, among them the mass grave that I was talking about and the other

5 cases that you have just listed. And why am I not mentioning them

6 here?

7 Q. But this is not in the 15 case files for which you filed criminal

8 reports.

9 A. Yes, these are those cases.

10 Q. But you don't mention those crimes?

11 A. I've already told you, I did not dare as mention Stosic and

12 others --

13 JUDGE BONOMY: I thought the 17 were cases where the files

14 disappeared. And here we're talking about 17 cases where the files are

15 returned. So how do these relate to each other?

16 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the way I understood it

17 is that from the 17 case files -- first of all, the witness stated that 17

18 17 case files were stolen but we have it here that documents were stolen

19 from the 17 case files but the case files still exist. This is what I

20 understood from the report. But we have the witness here. Maybe he could

21 explain.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are cases that were under

23 investigation and some of them, I believe at least three of them, were

24 issued against requests for some investigative procedures that were to be

25 taken by the investigative judge of the military court with the command of

1 the Pristina Corps. These investigative judges were in a very dire

2 straits --

3 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

4 Q. Let's not go into all the teats, Mr. Dorovic; it's very simple.

5 A. It's not simple at all. It is by no means simple at all.

6 JUDGE BONOMY: Some things are simpler than you would like to make

7 them, I suspect. In paragraph 17 of your statement you say: "They stole

8 the files of the 17 cases from the office of the court in Pristina." And

9 this document says: "The Pristina Military District command returned to

10 the military prosecutor at the said command a number of documents

11 pertaining to the criminal cases of previously initiated investigation

12 reports. Among the returned documents, there were also 17 case files from

13 which the said persons had stolen and hidden material evidence on the

14 crimes committed."

15 Now, are these the 17 -- the same 17 cases?

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, they're the same, or

17 rather, 15 of them; if we take into account the indictments, the

18 indictments are separate. However, this has to do with the investigation

19 stage. These are cases --

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Stop. Just deal with my -- I'm -- I'm obviously

21 not as quick and bright as you are; it takes me a little time to take in

22 the details of things like this. And you've also the advantage of having

23 been involved when we were not involved. So please answer the questions.

24 17 -- what are the two that are not part of the 17?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ristevski and Stefanovic because

1 those indictments were issued by my office of the prosecutor, the first

2 VTK90 --

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop there. I am having difficulty with -- in

4 understanding. 17 files were stolen, and papers from 17 files were

5 returned. These are the two things we've got. Now, are they not the same

6 17 files in both cases?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were court files from the

8 Pristina court, whereas I am talking about part of the documents, the

9 files, the prosecution files that went missing first. And then every

10 trace was lost of all files, everything was lost, including those two; all

11 17, that is.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Just stop there. If they are files -- 17 from the

13 prosecutor and 17 from the court, do they relate to the same 17 cases?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 15 are the same ones, so there are

15 two indictments that were issued in this prosecution office and these 15

16 cases are the cases that we're talking about.

17 JUDGE BONOMY: So in two cases nothing was returned; is that the

18 position?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everything went missing,

20 everything. Ultimately, they took everything in the evening on the

21 30th. I personally reported Lieutenant-Colonel Cvijevic as the person

22 responsible and Nesic, too, and there are other reports in which I was

23 actually more specific, the one that I submitted to the security organs

24 with the permission of the supreme military prosecutor.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, perhaps the parties in their questions will

1 manage to clarify this. I certainly am baffled. I make that clear to you

2 at the moment, about the other -- the two that seem to be separate from

3 the others.

4 Now, Mr. Visnjic, I think you've probably had as much time as we

5 can possibly allow you --

6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour, I will

7 have perhaps another ten minutes of questions for this witness, if you

8 allow me to do so. You see that I am struggling with time all the time

9 but ...

10 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, I recognise that, but the same happened

11 yesterday with the Prosecution. You're both suffering from the same

12 difficulty, which is not of your -- well, not entirely of your own

13 making.

14 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Just one more thing, Your Honour.

15 Correction in the transcript while we can still see it. The witness

16 refers to the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Cvijevic in several documents.

17 It is actually Nedeljko Cvijovic. Let us not have any problems later in

18 terms of identifying this person, this Nedeljko Cvijovic.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Nedeljko.

20 MR. VISNJIC: It is 3D543.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. We started

22 together down there, Nedeljko Cvijovic, yes.

23 JUDGE BONOMY: Just one final question, Mr. Dorovic, if -- are

24 you saying that this document on the screen now must be wrong because

25 nothing was ever returned to your office?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was stolen, Mr. President. They

2 seized it, they stole it, on the evening of the 31st of May. All the

3 documents --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you listen to my question. Are you saying

5 this document here must be wrong when it says: "Among the returned

6 documents there were also 17 case files ..."?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I am talking about

8 the exchange of cases between the Pristina Corps and the military

9 district. I, as prosecutor, was attached to the Pristina district,

10 whereas these 15 cases were cases that were dealt with by the

11 investigative judge of the other district court attached to the Pristina

12 Corps. So when I say "returned," I'm referring to the return of those

13 documents and files allegedly to that court because that court had claimed

14 that they had no jurisdiction allegedly, and then they ordered that

15 nevertheless these cases should be dealt with by the military prosecutor

16 and then that --

17 JUDGE BONOMY: Stop, stop, stop, please.

18 Ms. Moeller, can you explain this to me?

19 MS. MOELLER: Your Honour, what the witness just said is what is

20 also in paragraph 27 of his statement. This return was -- he was asked to

21 return cases that had -- that he had taken on from the military prosecutor

22 at the command back to this command because it was said he didn't have

23 jurisdiction and that's the first sentence in paragraph 27. "They were

24 turned over from Spasojevic from me" --

25 JUDGE BONOMY: To Spasojevic, yeah.

1 MS. MOELLER: Yeah, to, and Spasojevic was -- the witness was at

2 the military district court and Spasojevic was at the military prosecutor

3 at the command; so that was the turning back and forth of the cases that

4 he talked to. And maybe the confusion comes from there.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: But these -- this talks about them coming back

6 where?

7 MS. MOELLER: Back to Spasojevic.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: I can't read the top. Somebody's magnified it.

9 Can we see the top of this document as well -- let's just see the whole

10 page.

11 MS. MOELLER: It's on the English version on page 3, the top

12 paragraph says: "The military court at Pristina Military District

13 command," which -- "and returned to the military prosecutor at said

14 command a number of documents."

15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

16 MS. MOELLER: "Pertaining to criminal cases."

17 JUDGE BONOMY: So these are being sent from Mr. Dorovic --

18 MS. MOELLER: They are from the military district --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: -- because he's at the military district of

20 Pristina, so he's sending them.

21 MS. MOELLER: He's sending them.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: That doesn't explain this. It says that he's

23 sending 17 case files from which people had stolen and hidden material

24 evidence.

25 MS. MOELLER: No. He was ordered to return these cases to the

1 prosecutor at the military command.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

3 MS. MOELLER: And I understood that was because the claim was that

4 he had no jurisdiction over these cases.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

6 MS. MOELLER: So he had to return them to the military command to

7 Mr. Spasojevic.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but when that happened, there were already

9 documents stolen from them, according to --

10 MS. MOELLER: No, that's not my understanding.

11 JUDGE BONOMY: No. Read what it says: "Among the returned

12 documents there were also 17 case files from which the said persons had

13 stolen and hidden material evidence." So that has happened before they're

14 returned, unless the translation's wrong.

15 MS. MOELLER: That -- yes. I understand that --

16 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm totally baffled by this.

17 MS. MOELLER: -- may be the translation then.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

19 MS. MOELLER: And we will look into that.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: We need a break now, Mr. Dorovic, for lunch. The

21 usher will show you again where to go.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE BONOMY: And we'll resume at five minutes to 2.00.

24 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.53 p.m.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: We need a break now, Mr. Dorovic, for lunch. The

1 usher will show you again where to go.

2 [The witness stands down]

3 JUDGE BONOMY: And we'll resume at five minutes to 2.00.

4 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.53 p.m.

5 --- On resuming at 1.57 p.m.

6 [The witness takes the stand]

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.

8 MR. VISNJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Dorovic, in your statement you spoke about

10 certain disciplinary measures that were taken against you, and my question

11 to you is very specific. Is it true that at the time the federal minister

12 for defence, General Dragoljub Ojdanic, did not want to sign the proposed

13 decision on you being prosecuted by the military court? Is that the case?

14 A. Yes, I learned from a person --

15 Q. Is it true or not?

16 A. I was told that this is the case.

17 Q. Can this be found in the documents that were sent to you from the

18 Ministry of Defence in response to some of your requests? Am I right?

19 A. In different and very odd context when I wanted all this to be put

20 to an end but they've never wanted to do that --

21 Q. I agree with you. But the fact is am I right?

22 A. Please. Mr. Visnjic, in the documents that arrived from his

23 office pursuant to the order of the court when I wanted the court to put

24 the proceedings to an end, either to convict me or to find me not guilty,

25 then my administration told me that General Ojdanic had not accepted the

1 request but he never issued a formal decision, either.

2 Q. I agree with you. Thank you. And then yesterday in paragraphs 40

3 to 46 of your statement you spoke about the meetings dealing with certain

4 problems concerning vehicles which were in the possession of the Army of

5 Yugoslavia. And as far as I understand your statement, you say that the

6 General Staff put pressure on Gojovic and Obrencevic --

7 A. This is what I said.

8 Q. And that they conveyed that to you. So nobody actually put

9 pressure on you. The pressure was put on the two of them?

10 A. Yes, on both me and Dr. Grigorije Spasojevic in the segment of our

11 work when we were issued the task to prepare a draft of the decision to be

12 signed by the Chief of General Staff and following at the end was to send

13 this to the Ministry of Defence to sign. It was said that the vehicles

14 will never be returned by the General Staff, that they wanted to keep

15 them. General Uzelac conveyed this to us.

16 Q. It was conveyed to you, the two of you by General Uzelac?

17 A. And to the working group and to me and to Grigorije Spasojevic,

18 because the two of us remained to draft this as well, I remained, I stayed

19 behind to sign this letter.

20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to refer you

21 to the statement 3D539 which is the statement by Svetozar Obrencevic and

22 3D538, the statement by Milos Gojkovic, and I will not belabour on that

23 point.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move on.

25 Mr. Dorovic, at the end of your last answer you said that the two

1 of us remained to draft this letter as well, I remained, I stayed behind

2 to sign this letter. Is that what you said?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To prepare a draft for the letter to

4 the signed by the Chief of the General Staff. The draft of the decision

5 exists. It was the Chief of the General Staff who was supposed to sign

6 the letter.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: That's all I wanted to be clear about. Thank you.

8 Mr. Visnjic.

9 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Mr. Dorovic, can the two of us agree -- or let me approach it in

11 a different way. The OTP has disclosed to us some of the requests for

12 your dismissal -- 2775 P and 2777 are the numbers of the documents --

13 actually, 2778, the request that you, or the notice letters that you have

14 submitted in the course of your career. Am I right when I say that in

15 none of these documents there is a reason which you state in the statement

16 that the security organs tried to get involved in your work?

17 A. You're not right. This is probably a conclusion that you drew

18 from the analysis of these requests. You will see in my request and in

19 the decision to be conveyed, which was supposed to be arrived at the

20 minister's desk in order to be conveyed to the president and no reasons

21 are mentioned and it is not by chance that the supreme military prosecutor

22 wrote and in the president's decision it says on request.

23 And one more thing. I did not request that only on two

24 occasions. I requested for my dismissal on four occasions. I have seen

25 three of them here, and the fourth one is missing.

1 Q. I apologise. I have only two of your requests. One dated the

2 18th of January, 1997, and the other 30 March 1998.

3 A. And there is another one that you've just analysed, and the fourth

4 one is missing, and in that one after having worked with Tijanic and with

5 two cases, I wanted to be relieved of my duties as a prosecutor. They had

6 decided that I should go to Kosovo, and they explained to me that I am

7 needed over there.

8 Q. Am I right in saying that you, while you were the deputy

9 prosecutor --

10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, I'm referring you

11 to the statement 3D --

12 THE INTERPRETER: If the counsel could repeat the numbers which

13 the interpreters failed to --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you repeat the numbers, Mr. --

15 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] 3D539 and 3D538.

16 Q. On several occasions you got into a conflict with the parties, the

17 judges, the attorneys at law, and sometimes you would even abandon the

18 hearing or the judges would abandon the hearing and they asked Colonel

19 Petkovic to intervene.

20 A. You're talking about a very specific case that is notorious not

21 only in the army but in Serbia as a whole. This is the case when I

22 attended a trial for a whole day, and then I lerned learned that the

23 decision had already been written. It's a notorious case. The judge had

24 already drafted the decision in an ample number of copies and he decided

25 that the person would be released from prison. He took 7.800

1 Deutschemarks for that. The president of the court knew it, the

2 prosecutor knew, everybody knew about that. When I learned about that, I

3 filed a criminal report against that judge and I left the courtroom.

4 I can only tell you that I went on foot to my house, and I'm

5 talking about a distance of more than 6 kilometres. I was angry, I was

6 cross, I was outraged. My bosses understood that, and they know what the

7 real reason was. That was the real reason. I have never come into

8 conflict with anybody before or after. I can only tell you that I was

9 fortunate -- or misfortunate that I was dealing with the most difficult

10 cases, and this is what Mr. Nikola Petkovic, Colonel Nikola Petkovic

11 pointed out in my assessment.

12 It is not true that I was in conflict with everybody. I was in

13 conflict with one judge and with the president of the court, Gojovic, who

14 wanted to cover this up. Everybody else was afraid and they said if the

15 general public learned about that, that the military prosecutor's office

16 and the judiciary would stop existing. And then I said it should not have

17 been set up in the first place if the cases are fabricated and rigged and

18 such a judiciary system should not exist.

19 And this is the truth, Mr. Visnjic, and this is my bosses -- this

20 is what my boss is going to tell you. I believe that Petkovic is going to

21 confirm this. There is a criminal report. There is a decision by the

22 Supreme Military Court in that case, and you can verify all this, and if

23 there is any difference in my bosses, they will confirm this. If the

24 Trial Chamber wants me, I can consult my notebook and I can give you the

25 numbers of the court, the number of the prosecutor's office for this file,

1 and if you want to verify any of this, I believe that you will find out

2 all that.

3 It is a notorious case. A lot of people know about it. I believe

4 this is the case that you are talking about and the traces of that file

5 still -- and the case still exists in the court. On four occasions I

6 asked it be dismissed --

7 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... yet again to

8 bring some sort of reality to you, Mr. Dorovic. We do not have forever

9 in this court to listen to endless explanations when there is a simple

10 answer to the question, which you have already given. Please allow us to

11 make progress with the case; otherwise, we will not hear the important

12 parts of the evidence that you can give to us. This is obviously

13 something you feel passionate about because of the way it affected you

14 personally but -- and I sympathise with that. But there are much bigger

15 and broader issues to be addressed by you here. So please bring some

16 perspective to bear on the way in which you answer questions.

17 Mr. Visnjic.

18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have spent my ten

19 minutes and all of my questions for this witness. Thank you very much.

20 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Visnjic.

21 Mr. Aleksic.

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. My learned friend Visnjic

25 has asked you a lot of questions, but I have a few things that I would

1 like to discuss with you. At the beginning of the sitting today you said

2 that you spent some eight days in Kosovo all together.

3 A. Up to the moment when I wrote the report on the 31st. On the 4th

4 of June I was in custody all day. In the evening I was taken to Nis, and

5 from there I was sent to Belgrade. So I was returned from Kosovo on the

6 4th in the evening.

7 Q. But your request for dissolution was submitted on the 30th?

8 A. Yes, after Stosic's attack and after I had learned that my case

9 files had been stolen and after the decision of the collegium on the

10 advice of the supreme military prosecutor that I should draft a note on

11 all that, that it should be done in a very formal way.

12 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. We will come to that day. Now

13 something that you told us yesterday in the transcript, this is on page 37

14 to 40, you spoke about a document that was mentioned in your analysis, and

15 this analysis is an exhibit before this Chamber, speaking about the work

16 of the military courts. And you also spoke about the application of the

17 international rule of war in the armed forces of Yugoslavia, and this was

18 issued sometime on the 10th of June, 1998 [as interpreted].

19 A. I spoke about two documents. One of them was issued in 1991.

20 This is an order of the minister of defence and an instruction of the

21 minister of defence on --

22 Q. The instruction --

23 A. But you mentioned the year 1988, so I suppose that you are talking

24 about the instruction on how to apply the international rules of law.

25 Q. Yes, this is what I said. You should listen to me.

1 A. Yes, I'm listening, but I was talking about two orders.

2 Q. Yes, this is the instruction on applying the international rules

3 of law in the armed forces of the SFRY of the 10th of June 1988. Do you

4 understand?

5 A. Yes, I'm now clear on what you're talking about.

6 Q. On page 40, line 14 to 22, in response to my learned friend

7 Moeller's question, who asked you whether this instruction prescribes any

8 measures or a minimum penalty, you said that no minimum or maximum penalty

9 or any penalty whatsoever are prescribed in this particular document or

10 instruction, to be more specific. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes, this is what I said, this is what I think. This is a very

12 voluminous instruction.

13 Q. Thank you very much. Am I right in saying that one of the basic

14 obligatory elements of a crime for a crime to exist is that a penalty is

15 prescribed for such a crime, both a minimum and a maximum.

16 A. Yes, absolutely.

17 Q. Am I right in saying that only a law, a republican or a federal or

18 a general or a special law, can prescribe whether a certain behaviour

19 represents a crime?

20 A. Absolutely, in our system.

21 Q. Yes, this is the system that I'm talking about, our system. Now,

22 let's go back to the document that we have discussed, that we have spoken

23 about.

24 MR. ALEKSIC: I apologise.

25 Q. [Interpretation] You have told us how you came up with your

1 analysis and you said that this document, the instruction on applying the

2 rules of the international rules of war in the armed forces of Yugoslavia

3 dated the 10th of June, 1988, was signed by the then-defence secretary of

4 the SFRY who --

5 A. This was Nikola Ljubicic.

6 Q. Yes. Am I right in saying that the federal secretary for defence

7 is a member of the general government or the executive power?

8 A. Absolutely, you're right, sir.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Dorovic. Am I right in saying that a document

10 issued by the executive power, such as this instruction, cannot be used to

11 prescribe something that has to be prescribed by law, for example, a

12 crime?

13 A. Now I understand you. I believe that you have taken a wrong way

14 in Article 21 of the instruction --

15 Q. No, no, we'll come to that. I'm going to ask you that.

16 A. You're not right. If you want a yes or no answer, then the answer

17 is no, you're not right.

18 Q. Article 21 speaks about the responsibility, not about criminal

19 responsibility; am I right in saying that?

20 A. Article 21 reminds the officers --

21 Q. I'm asking you whether this is about responsibility or criminal

22 responsibility.

23 A. I should have to look at it. If my memory serves me right, I even

24 quoted that article --

25 Q. That's no problem at all. We will call up the document on

1 e-court?

2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] The number is --

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The responsibility is also a

4 subtitle --

5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Hold on just a moment.

7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] This is P2672, the last page in both

8 versions, the last paragraph on that page, where this Article 21 of the

9 instructions is quoted.

10 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm addressing both Mr. Aleksic and Mr. Dorovic.

11 You will need to slow down and observe some break or pause between the

12 question and the answer so that the interpreters can catch up. Otherwise,

13 we will lose some of this important evidence.

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, and I

15 apologise to the interpreters.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also apologise. I'm sorry.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Mr. Dorovic, have you got this Article 21 before you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Is there a word here "criminal"?

21 A. It is implied, sir. It's not written there.

22 Q. It is not there but it is implied. I have no further questions

23 about this topic. I would like to move on to your statement. As far as

24 your statement is concerned, I would like to know this about your career.

25 I'm not clear on one thing. This is paragraph 2. You said that you

1 graduated from the faculty of law in Pristina, and then towards the end

2 you say, I worked in the civil municipal court in Berane" and then you

3 returned. Can you explain how this came about?

4 A. Gladly. According to the internship programme - and I'm sure that

5 you're familiar with that - in the military there is a one-month period or

6 a 30-day period during which a future military lawyers have to be

7 familiarised with the work of the civilian courts. In the month of May

8 1881 [as interpreted] spent a month in a civilian court --

9 Q. This is not clear in your statement, but now I am clear and I have

10 no further questions on that. I shall move on. Paragraph 4 of your

11 statement says that you were appointed as the military prosecutor in

12 Belgrade and then in Pristina on the 20th of May. Can you please tell

13 us -- and you also told us that military courts and prosecutor offices

14 were set up at the beginning of the war. As far as Belgrade and the 1st

15 Army are concerned, can you tell us how many prosecutor's offices were set

16 up? First Belgrade, then Pristina.

17 A. In Belgrade there were --

18 Q. I'm asking about first-instance courts.

19 A. There was one with the command of the Belgrade corps, it was

20 either the second or the first, as you well; and then with the command of

21 the air force and then the command of the anti-air force forces --

22 anti-aircraft forces --

23 Q. So if I understand you well, there were five courts and

24 first-instance prosecutor's office in the 1st Army?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Since you have told my colleague Visnjic that your not sure

2 pursuant to which order the courts were established in the 3rd Army, I

3 would kindly ask Exhibit Number 45153 [as interpreted] to be placed on

4 e-court. This is an order of the command of the 3rd Army, 4 P 153

5 [as interpreted]. This was signed by the Chief of General Staff,

6 General-Major Ljubisa Stanimirovic. The date is 28 March 1999. Do you

7 agree -- first look at it if you need to look at it. Do you agree with me

8 that this decision served to establish five first-instance prosecutor's

9 offices and courts and the second-instance prosecutor's office that -- a

10 department, a detached department of the prosecutor's office with the

11 command of the 3rd Army? Am I right?

12 A. I personally think that you are absolutely wrong, that you are

13 very much mistaken. All courts and military prosecutor's offices had

14 existed before the war. On the 24th of March, when the decision of the

15 government was proclaimed, you know that it was proclaimed at 8.00 in the

16 evening, and automatically by a law without any additional documents or

17 orders, military courts and prosecutor's offices had to become

18 functioning. This is my position. And truth be told, I really don't know

19 what you're asked me about this document. I don't understand your

20 question. Are you asking me to count the prosecutor's offices and courts?

21 I can do that.

22 Q. You didn't allow me to finish. I just wanted to ask you this: Do

23 you agree with me that in the course of the war there were five

24 first-instance courts and five first-instance prosecutor's offices in the

25 zone of responsibility of the 3rd Army? That was my question.

1 A. Again I would have to count them. Believe me --

2 Q. You can read the document; that's why I'm showing it to you.

3 A. In the 2nd Army.

4 Q. No. In the 3rd Army, item 2, prosecutor's offices --

5 A. I'm confused about the 2nd and the 3rd Armies. There are a lot of

6 reasons for that.

7 Q. But don't go into that.

8 A. The first-instance institutions they are here --

9 Q. Do you agree with me that there are five first-instance

10 prosecutor's offices?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. Thank you very much. You have already spoken about my next topic

13 with my colleague Visnjic. It is not disputable that you left on the

14 22nd, but how did that transpire? Why were you sent there? In paragraph

15 9 of your statement you say: "On 19 May," and you confirmed yesterday

16 that the statement is truthful, that it corresponds to the truth and that

17 you would repeat it to the letter. You say in your statement: "On the

18 19th of May I wrote a request to be relieved of duty to the supreme

19 military prosecutor because of pressures and threats," and I won't go into

20 any details of those. And then -- just a moment, please. Bear with me.

21 In paragraph 21 you say again about those threats -- I apologise.

22 And by an order of President Milosevic you were appointed on the 15th of

23 May, according to you, and there is nothing contestable about that. This

24 is Exhibit Number 2780, a prosecutor's exhibit. Just bear with me for

25 another moment. And then earlier today in answering my colleague

1 Visnjic's questions on page 69/2, you said that in practical terms, the

2 decision by the supreme prosecutor to be sent to Kosovo was issued at the

3 beginning of May. Now can you tell me of these dates, which one is

4 correct? Was it at your request? Was it punishment? Or was it reward?

5 Because there are four different documents with four different pieces of

6 information.

7 A. If you read my official war assessment --

8 Q. We'll come to that.

9 A. But it says in those documents --

10 Q. But you said --

11 A. But it says in my assessment what was the reason for me being sent

12 to Kosovo. It says that I sent -- I went at my own request. You have to

13 know that I had asked for that. On the 19th I requested that, but this

14 was my third request as a war prosecutor --

15 Q. Can I stop you there. Very well then. So this is the truth. It

16 is the truth what you said. But then what you said in the statement, that

17 you were transferred because of a conflict and because you did not want to

18 obey your superior's orders, then that's not true. What is true of the

19 two things?

20 A. No, Mr. Aleksic. I wanted to be dissolved of my duties because I

21 could not bear the pressure and torture by the security organs. I wanted

22 to be protected. I asked for protection from General Obrencevic. First

23 he promised me and then he decided to accept my request and now if you're

24 talking about a reward or a punishment you have to call them. According

25 to my official assessment, this is a decision according to which I was

1 useful if I was sent over there.

2 Q. We'll come to that. And now with my colleague Visnjic you

3 discussed the topic of Tijanic and proceedings against him. I have to ask

4 you some other things, and I will try not to repeat anything that has

5 already been said. In paragraph 17 of your statement you say

6 this: "Pavkovic and Lazarevic gave us Tijanic reserve officers in the

7 technical procurement department in the Pristina Corps authority to

8 collect goods in the form of material goods, clothing, cigarettes, coffee,

9 and everything else that might be of use to the Pristina Corps." And you

10 proceed to say: "Tijanic and other witnesses in their written statements

11 stated that Tijanic carried out all these operations on the orders of

12 Pavkovic and Lazarevic."

13 This is what you said. Can you please tell us as you sit today

14 which witnesses provided statements and stated this. Can you give me any

15 names, please?

16 A. First of all, these were persons who provided written statements

17 to the security organs. I will tell you that over there there is a

18 statement by Buba Morina about her material being given to them --

19 Q. I'm not talking about that. I'm asking you for the name of a

20 witness who spoke about Tijanic working on the order of Pavkovic and

21 Lazarevic?

22 A. Buba had written it down. There are written statements to that

23 effect and I am saying to you that at least 30 people in very high

24 positions and even the highest position, if I may say, from my point of

25 view, from my aspect, and there are also --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, names, please, that's what you're

2 being asked for. Just deal with the question.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Kertes, Mihalj Kertes, the chief

4 of the customs administration.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: That's in your statement already. It's other names

6 that Mr. Aleksic is asking about, other witnesses who give written

7 statements. Can you give us some names or not?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can, Mr. President, Your Honours,

9 but just bear with me. Who among the top personnel from the state

10 administration was that. First of all, I can't remember the name. Bojic

11 is the family name, and I don't know what his position was, Dr. Bojic, the

12 minister for health. Furthermore, the director of Belgradja Denka [phoen]

13 department store, whose name I don't know. Furthermore, the directors of

14 Naftagas, Ina, the company from Rakovica for processing oil derivatives.

15 In other words, the top executives who had confirmed that they had given

16 assistance to the armed forces and it was collected by Tijanic on the

17 order of General Ojdanic and Pavkovic. This is what you can find in

18 written statements, and this can be verified if you look at the case

19 file. I don't know whether this is always truth, but you can find it in a

20 written form.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Now you seem to have changed the position slightly

22 and you say that -- well, tell us again on whose orders you say this was

23 done.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the written statements, these

25 people explained why they had provided material and equipment because they

1 had been confiscated, and they said that they had given them to Tijanic

2 but not knowing that he would not convey them further. And it was done on

3 the order of Pavkovic and Ojdanic, of Generals Pavkovic and Ojdanic.

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.

5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

6 Q. Can you tell me whether you know about Buba Bratislava, Buba

7 Morina, what was her position at the time? Am I right in saying she was

8 the commissioner for refugees?

9 A. Yes, you are right, but she also provided a lot of assistance, a

10 lot of help that had been confiscated from Tijanic.

11 Q. Did you see a document, and let's focus on General Pavkovic, in

12 which General Pavkovic, as the commander of the 3rd Army, provides an

13 authority to the reserve officer and --

14 A. There were over a hundred such documents.

15 Q. Did you see this one?

16 A. No, I did not see an order signed by either Ojdanic or Pavkovic.

17 I'm talking about statements, witness statements, and I am talking about

18 the statement by the accused, Tijanic.

19 Q. We'll move on. Thank you. To save up time to the court and

20 yourself, you spent a great deal of time talking with Mr. Visnjic about

21 the investigations surrounding Stosic and the way the cases came along and

22 so on. I'll read two paragraphs to you, and then please be patient and

23 you will get a chance to answer.

24 As far as Stosic is concerned, in paragraph 25 of your statement

25 you say: "Obrencevic told me that this was the same person as before and

1 that the incident in Decani would be dealt with by other authorities. I

2 said to him, 'Who could these other authorities be? I am the military

3 prosecutor in Pristina. I have jurisdiction over the case.' Obrencevic

4 told me that he would give the case to the military prosecutor at the

5 Pristina Corps command."

6 Wait a minute, please. In paragraph 35 you state: "I came across

7 a grave-site that was discovered near Orahovac. I requested the case be

8 transferred to me. I went with my file to Spasojevic because -- and I

9 expected that we would talk of jurisdiction. I was surprised because he

10 asked me to hand over the case. I refused and told him that I would not

11 do that without an order from Obrencevic."

12 In paragraph 36 --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat what he said.

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

15 Q. -- did you, in fact, state this?

16 A. Yes, I did.

17 Q. The time we're talking about is the month of May of 1999. General

18 Obrencevic was the chief military prosecutor. Is that right?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Milos Spasojevic was the military prosecutor with the Pristina

21 Corps command which -- and was thus, as we were able to see, the

22 first-instance military prosecutor?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. You were the military prosecutor with the Pristina Military

25 District command?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up Prosecution

3 Exhibit P3 -- or rather, P1309. There are two laws there. First we have

4 the law on courts, and we need -- I need the Law on Military Prosecutor's

5 Offices, Articles 18, 19, and 20.

6 Q. Or rather, Mr. Dorovic, I can already start reading this out to

7 you to save time before it shows up?

8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes that we don't have the

9 text.

10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

11 Q. Article 18 states: "The first-instance military" --

12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch what the -- can the

13 counsel please read slowly since we don't have it on the screens, please.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic, you're going too quickly, because

15 there's no English version on the -- well, there now is a Serb version.

16 Yeah, we now have both. Continue.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. We have

18 the Law on Military Courts which is the first part of this exhibit. What

19 we need is the Law on Military Prosecutor's Offices which is behind this

20 piece of legislation. I apologise.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: It's Article 18 of the later section of this

22 exhibit.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be of assistance, I have

24 the text of the Law on Military Prosecutors. Maybe that can be used.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: No. We'll find it in a moment. It should be here

1 in the system. No. That's just -- that's just the next page of the same

2 part. It's a second -- there's a later part of this exhibit which also

3 has another Article 18, 19, and 20.

4 The problem, Mr. Aleksic, is we need an e-court number for this,

5 which you haven't given.

6 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, if I may assist, they are both in the

7 same exhibit number, P130 -- 1309.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: We know that and we now have it I think. Thank

9 you.

10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise. In B/C/S,

11 that's page 8 of 11.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we have your question now, please.

13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. You agreed with me about Article 18, and I believe we reached

15 Article 19, paragraph 2.

16 A. I have a different text on my screen, something concerning the

17 Tanjug news agency or maybe regulations governing the work of that agency.

18 At any rate, I don't doubt that you indeed read the text accurately.

19 Q. Is that in English? Is the text in English right? Yes.

20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in English I believe

21 we have the right page, do we?

22 JUDGE BONOMY: I think so, but I don't think think you've got the

23 right one in the Serb.

24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I believe that the witness will

25 agree with what I have to read out and he will hear the interpretation of

1 what I say.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: But what is the question you're going to ask him?

3 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I still have to quote one article,

4 Your Honour, and then I will put my question.

5 Q. So Article 18 says that the military prosecutor of first-instance

6 is responsible to the supreme military prosecutor for his work. Article

7 19, paragraph 2 says: "The supreme military prosecutor shall direct the

8 work of the first-instance military prosecutor and in this respect may

9 issue mandatory instructions to them."

10 Paragraph 3 of Article 19 reads: "The instructions of the supreme

11 military prosecutor may also concern procedure in specific cases and are

12 binding for military prosecutors of the first instance."

13 Article 20: "The supreme military prosecutor may directly

14 exercise all rights and duties pertaining to the first-instance military

15 prosecutors under the law."

16 And paragraph 2: "The supreme military prosecutor may take over

17 the exercise of certain" --

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's get -- ask the question, Mr. Aleksic. If you

19 need to go back to the documents, we'll go back to them. What's the

20 question?

21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Dorovic, based on the legal provisions I've just read out and

23 with which you've agreed, I claim that General Obrencevic as the supreme

24 military prosecutor had authorities pursuant to the law, first to provide

25 instructions to you as well as any other military prosecutor to proceed in

1 any case, that he was entitled to take from you or any other prosecutor,

2 for that matter, and hand over that case to any other prosecutor, or he

3 was also entitled to be seized himself of any particular case and of

4 taking any actions in that case. Am I right?

5 A. If he does that in writing or if he formulates this order in

6 writing. He can't do that in a telephone conversation. There has to be a

7 written trace in that given case. If someone who is seized of a case

8 wants to be deprived of that case --

9 Q. This isn't something I asked you. You mention a written order.

10 In paragraph 36 you state that you received a written order order to hand

11 over that case?

12 A. But that was later on.

13 Q. Later on, but you did not hand over your case before you received

14 a written order.

15 A. I never even handed it over. It was taken away from me.

16 Q. We will not go into that.

17 A. But that's the gist of it, Mr. Aleksic.

18 Q. Yesterday in your evidence at page 89 of the transcript, lines 24,

19 25, 26 and on the next page, you spoke of your superior officer, Colonel

20 Nikola Petkovic. You told us that you hold him in high esteem as an

21 officer as and as a person, as a professional. You told us that you

22 worked with him on drafting some regulations.

23 A. That's my opinion, indeed.

24 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up Prosecution

25 Exhibit P830.

1 Q. As you can see, Mr. Dorovic, this is a report on the criminal

2 cases instigated by the military prosecutor's offices against the members

3 of the VJ for violations of the norms of humanitarian law. The date is

4 the 9th of April, 2002, and we have supreme military officer written in

5 the heading. I will read out the first sentence only, which reads:

6 "In the period of 1st of June, 1998, when the terrorist activities

7 in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija escalated until the 27th of June,

8 1999, when the state of war was annulled, the military judicial organs

9 instituted criminal proceedings against a total of 305 persons for acts

10 violating norms of humanitarian law. Of that number, 38 persons were

11 tried for crimes against humanity and the international law against life

12 and limb and for crimes of personal and moral degradation while

13 proceedings of property crimes were conducted against 267 persons."

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please show the last page of

15 the document in both versions. Let's see who signed the document.

16 Q. Is the supreme military prosecutor Colonel Nikola Petkovic the one

17 who signed the document?

18 A. You didn't have to waste the time here.

19 Q. We do have certain rules that we have to follow, Mr. Dorovic.

20 Let me just ask you this: The last page of the document shows who the

21 document was delivered to, office of the president of the Federal Republic

22 of Yugoslavia and office of the Federal Ministry of Defence. Therefore,

23 it had nothing to do with the General Staff or any other military

24 institutions. Am I right?

25 A. Why should it have anything to do with it, may I ask?

1 Q. Well, you cannot ask. They're not there.

2 A. Well, they need not be.

3 Q. Thank you.

4 A. You are forgetful of the time when the document was issued. The

5 war had already been finished three years earlier.

6 Q. Sir, you presented accusations against various institutions in

7 your evidence here --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: If you're moving away from this document, can I ask

9 you, is that supposed to be a record of all prosecutions in Kosovo during

10 the period from -- is it dated 1998 until 1999.

11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: What does it relate to, then? I mean for crimes

13 against humanity and international --

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: It's every one during that period, is it? Has

16 anybody ever been found guilty of anything?

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Well, we would in that case have to

18 go through the entire document.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. If you don't know, then it doesn't

20 matter, because it will arise later.

21 Ms. Moeller, did you want to say something?

22 MS. MOELLER: I just wanted to explain that this list was the list

23 sent to the OSCE when they requested information on these proceedings.

24 That's the document I tendered yesterday under this heading.

25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but it has the interesting feature, it doesn't

1 tell you the result of anything, as far as I could tell, unless that's on

2 a later page, and that's 2002. And there's nothing to indicate any

3 prosecutions have been completed by then, which is a rather disturbing

4 thing to see. No doubt it can be clarified later.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed, Your Honour, to

6 give my observation of the matter?

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you can assist us factually on it, yes.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely. The figures of 37 and

9 the sum total of the cases processed as well as the date, the 1st of June,

10 1998, before the start of fighting, this is something that was used in the

11 material sent through the ministry pursuant to a request from the

12 Tribunal. We analysed the document yesterday. It had tables in it. This

13 does not speak of cases that were completed --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's go back to the first page, though, please.

15 It's 1st June 1998 until 27th June 1999, and it's the total number of

16 criminal proceedings taken for violations of international humanitarian

17 law during that period.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to this report, yes;

19 however, I know that Petkovic as a legalist may have these figures in his

20 records. But they are inaccurate, they are erroneous, because the persons

21 who provided the information did not provide him with accurate

22 information. The fact that some persons were released and their cases

23 aborted are best shown by the fact that you do not find them here, either

24 as persons against whom the case was initiated or who were convicted. And

25 I believe that this report is not complete, although it does -- it did

1 have enough time to obtain all the necessary information.

2 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

3 Mr. Aleksic.

4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. In paragraph 28 of your statement, you said that at the

6 moment: "The military department of the Belgrade District Court is

7 conducting an investigation against Gojovic, Vukadin Milojevic, and

8 Radenko Miladinovic for abuse of their position and destroying case

9 files." Is that right?

10 A. In 2005, indeed, there were such proceedings before the supreme

11 military court.

12 Q. No, no, I'm asking you something else. You said, and I'm going to

13 read it out once again. Perhaps there's a mistake in the translation.

14 But you said: "In 2005" -- sorry, I misread it.

15 "In 2005, my crime report was accepted, and there is currently an

16 investigation conducted by the military department of the Belgrade

17 district court against Gojovic, Vukadin Milojevic, and Radenko Miladinovic

18 for abuse of their position in destroying case files."

19 A. Now, yes, after the ruling of the supreme military court, I can

20 say what --

21 Q. Wait a moment --

22 A. Now, now, yes. Now proceedings are under way and I can give you

23 the number under which this has taken place. It is KI1/38.

24 Q. Just wait a moment, please.

25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we display on e-court P2759.

1 That is information with regard to a request for assistance. The number

2 is 310. Sent -- sorry. Sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the

3 Republic of Serbia. In paragraph 2 -- I'm sorry, the English version

4 hasn't appeared on our screens yet.

5 Q. In paragraph 2 it says:

6 "According to the knowledge that the military court in the

7 district of Belgrade has before this court, there are now proceedings,

8 criminal proceedings, against Radomir Gojovic, Vukadin Milojevic, and

9 Radenko Miladinovic for abuse of office and destroying 17 case files on

10 investigations which, according to the information that the Office of the

11 Prosecutor has, were taken from the office on the 30th of May ... " so on

12 and so forth.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note that they do not have the

14 text again.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: We seem to have two different documents on the

16 screen.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes, Your Honour, yes.

18 This is a request for assistance that we have in the English version but

19 now we have to look at page 3, the response. So one is the request and

20 then comes the response. Yes, that's right. So what I read out just now

21 is paragraph 2.

22 JUDGE BONOMY: We've got it.

23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document, which

24 was written on the 30th of November, shows that the district court in

25 Belgrade and the foreign ministry informed the office of the prosecutor

1 that there are no proceedings of that kind, as the witness spoke of in

2 paragraph 28. In the last paragraph -- now you see the English version.

3 In the last paragraph, it says that in the archives of the district court

4 in Belgrade, there is a case KI2/03 which was brought to an end through a

5 final decision made by the supreme military court, and as for that

6 decision I would like to show that as my next document on e-court, that is

7 P2694 --

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Before we move from this -- before we move from

9 this document, the matter referred to in the last paragraph, is that

10 something different from what's referred to in the second paragraph?

11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. This is the same

12 case; however, the district court says that it was archived, that it was

13 resolved, that there was a final decision made. They are saying that

14 there are no live proceedings, but they are saying that it exists in their

15 archives --

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not true, it's not true. Look

17 at the other paragraph just before that.

18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, quiet please while I'm speaking. I'm

19 dealing with Mr. Aleksic at the moment.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I apologise.

21 JUDGE BONOMY: The last paragraph seems to relate to a suspect

22 called Gojkovic and doesn't look like the same matter as in the second

23 paragraph. It's gone now.

24 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours --

25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in paragraph 28 of his

1 statement, the witness says: "The Belgrade District Court is currently

2 conducting an investigation against Gojovic, Vukadin Milojevic, and

3 Radenko Miladinovic for abuse of their position and destroying case

4 files," and in the response it says that there are no such proceedings

5 that are taking place then, that it was brought to a final decision

6 through a ruling of the military court, and the text of the judgement was

7 disclosed by the OTP.

8 JUDGE BONOMY: Ms. Moeller.

9 MS. MOELLER: Your Honours, I just would like to draw the

10 attention of the Court and counsel to the last paragraph which is on the

11 next page. There is another proceeding ongoing. That's the only thing I

12 wanted to say. I wanted to go into that in re-examination, but since the

13 witness got excited, there is one proceeding still ongoing. I just wanted

14 to let Your Honours know.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: My reason for asking these questions, if we go back

16 to the page we had before, is that the second paragraph -- one might be

17 forgiven for thinking the second paragraph had been very carefully worded

18 to be confined to the question of whether there was an ongoing criminal

19 procedure. Now, that may not matter very much if the last paragraph

20 refers to the same thing, but on the face of it the last paragraph does

21 not appear to refer to the same thing because it doesn't mention

22 Gojovic -- oh, it does, in fact. It's the third -- yeah, yeah, different

23 order. That's the problem. I'm not reading it in the same way. Right.

24 That's clear now. Thank you.

25 Your next question, Mr. Aleksic.

1 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] In relation to this, can we please

2 see on e-court P2694.

3 Q. So this is the decision of the supreme military court dated the

4 7th of November, 2003, repelling the complaint of Lakic Dorovic against

5 the decision of the military court; a certain number KV106/03, dated the

6 25th of June, 2003. And in the introductory part we can see that the

7 names are Vukadin Milojevic, Radenko Miladinovic, and Radomir Gojovic as

8 the persons who are referred to as the accused.

9 JUDGE BONOMY: That's clear. What's your question?

10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I have no question. I'm just saying

11 that that's the document. That is part of the previous document -- well,

12 I'll move on to something else.

13 JUDGE BONOMY: Please.

14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I just have a few more -- well, I'll

15 try to be as expeditious as possible.

16 Q. As you said in your statement and yesterday in the transcript, you

17 said that on the 30th of May you wrote a letter to the commander of the

18 military district of Pristina, Zlatimir Pesic, and we saw that a few

19 times. That is P2754.

20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we briefly have it back, and

21 my questions have to do with the following:

22 Q. Yesterday in the transcript, on page 57, lines 15 through 25, you

23 said that you personally took that document to three addresses, to the

24 commander of the military district, Pesic; then the chief of the security,

25 military security in the military district; and the third copy to Colonel

1 Radosavljevic, who was my immediately superior officer.

2 Now, the last sentence, could you please read the last sentence

3 out for me before your signature.

4 A. "At the same time I have also sent a copy of this complaint,

5 petition, to the security organ of the command of the Pristina Military

6 District and I submitted it to Radosavljevic as well. I did --"

7 Q. Wait a moment. You say in this document: "I have also sent a

8 copy of this complaint, petition, to the security organ." You do not

9 refer to Radosavljevic in your own document. That's the only thing I'm

10 referring to.

11 A. But I did provide him with a copy.

12 Q. Mr. Dorovic, do you agree with me that during the war the

13 first-instance prosecutor reports on a daily basis to the prosecutor

14 attached to the army command, as you said in your own statement in

15 paragraph 39. Is that right?

16 A. That's what we did throughout the war.

17 Q. As far as I understood from your testimony, the representative

18 General Obrencevic, or practically the person who was in charge of the

19 department -- the supreme military prosecutor's department, was

20 Radosavljevic; right?

21 A. But I never spoke to him. I never saw him. A few times when he

22 asked for me, I always submitted a report to Radonje Zivkovic, a

23 lieutenant-colonel who was his deputy.

24 Q. All right. In relation to that, am I right if I say that during

25 the war all prosecutor's offices and military courts were subjected to the

1 legal department of the ministry and only the supreme military

2 prosecutor's office was detached and was attached to the 3rd Army?

3 A. In what sense do you mean?

4 Q. In terms of submitting reports, reporting to the supreme military

5 prosecutor's office, and in accordance with Article 36 of the Law on

6 Military Prosecutors, where it says what the obligations of the Ministry

7 of Defence are and in relation to the organisation of work in a

8 prosecutor's office.

9 A. Absolutely wrong. You are absolutely wrong, Mr. Aleksic. During

10 the war, the legal department had different obligations in terms of

11 statistics and records in terms of cases dealt with.

12 As for information or notification, it is the prosecutors who

13 notified their superior prosecutors, that is to say that we from the

14 ground - if I can put it that way - the offices of the prosecutor attached

15 to commands of the army and then they dealt with the supreme military

16 prosecutor. As far as I know, and I did not work in a court, but as far

17 as I know, from the outside that's the way they worked, too, in the

18 court. So that is the line, but that's not the end of it.

19 And let me tell you one more thing. The legal administration of

20 the General Staff organised the complete work and also -- this is a very

21 important thing.

22 Q. Please, you were responsible to the supreme military prosecutor as

23 a first-instance prosecutor. We agree on that?

24 A. The legal department did not have competences during the war -- I

25 mean, I'm talking about the legal department of the ministry. General

1 Gojovic created all of this work --

2 Q. Please, please, let us deal with something else now.

3 In paragraph 44 of your statement you talk about a meeting dated

4 the -- that took place on the 24th of November, 1999, and in your

5 statement you say that Pavkovic's logistics assistant chaired the meeting

6 and you say who the attendees were. Also present were General Obrencevic,

7 Gojkovic, the assistant for logistics, and General Uzelac.

8 A. That is not what I said. I never said that.

9 Q. Well, please look at paragraph 44. The first sentence: "The

10 meeting was led by an assistant of Pavkovic for logistics."

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Then -- sorry, 44, yes. My mistake.

13 A. Well, please do not combine paragraphs. If we are talking --

14 Q. Sorry, I have already apologised. Paragraph 44.

15 A. I make no reference to that there. It's not true. The generals

16 before that had two meetings.

17 Q. Mr. Dorovic, please read the first sentence to me. "The meeting

18 was led by an assistant of Pavkovic for logistics."

19 A. That's the way it was.

20 Q. In paragraph 41 you say: "General Pavkovic gave instructions for

21 having this meeting organised. I know that because I have the written

22 order from Pavkovic." What kind of order?

23 A. This is an order to have a meeting held where these questions

24 would be discussed, and it exists in the files of the supreme military

25 court, 269.

1 Q. So Pavkovic's assistant for logistics chaired the meeting. Could

2 you tell me what the name is of that officer?

3 A. I think it was Dasic. He was there in the beginning. However,

4 General Uzelac was the person who was actually in charge of the meeting.

5 Q. You said that yesterday, but now I'm reading the statement to

6 you. The statement says: "... led by the assistant of Pavkovic for

7 logistics ..." --

8 A. The introductory part, five minutes or something. I don't know.

9 I think it's Dasic. But at any rate I know that he was introduced as the

10 person in charge of logistics, and then the meeting was chaired by General

11 Uzelac.

12 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Also in the transcript from

13 yesterday, when you were saying something else, on two places, lines 19

14 and 25 on page 28, you repeated twice that the Chief of General Staff

15 during 1999 was General Pavkovic. Is that right?

16 A. Perhaps I made a mistake there. Actually, I'm not certain of the

17 dates. I know that chiefs were appointed and relieved of duty --

18 Q. I'm not asking about chiefs. Yesterday -- you said that

19 yesterday. General Pavkovic, was he Chief of General Staff in 1999?

20 A. I'm not quite sure about that. I think that during the war he

21 was -- well --

22 Q. All right. So this meeting of the 24th of November, he was the

23 Chief of General Staff and it was his assistant who chaired this meeting?

24 A. There's an order --

25 Q. I'm asking you if I'm right. Am I right?

1 A. There's an order.

2 Q. Thank you.

3 A. With the signature.

4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Could we please see on e-court now

5 4D163. That's the last page, I believe. It exists in B/C/S and -- yes,

6 yes, in the B/C/S, it's the one-but-last. In English it's page number - I

7 am sorry about this - number 6.

8 Q. And we have number 8 here and then these two tables where it

9 says: "Transferred and assigned according to peacetime establishment to

10 the position of Chief of General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia in the

11 year 2000, the 23rd of February, year 2000."

12 Can you see it --

13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Rather, can we see the previous page

14 in the B/C/S version so that the witness could see it.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: We don't -- is this to prove when Mr. Pavkovic

16 became Chief of the General Staff? It's a matter of -- it's in the

17 indictment as a matter that the Prosecution have conceded. This isn't

18 something you need to go about, this elaborate exercise of trying to

19 prove.

20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

21 JUDGE BONOMY: Just put to the witness that he's wrong. We don't

22 need all this.

23 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Q. Yesterday, on the issue of this meeting, we were looking at an

25 overview of confiscated and taken vehicles. That's P2752. At pages 74 to

1 76, you spoke about this, and on page 75, line 20, when answering to a

2 question by His Honour Judge Bonomy to illustrate in an example how it was

3 for the -- possible for the army to take 92 vehicles for purposes other

4 than military purposes, you give your answer on page 75, line 20, by

5 mentioning 10.000 vehicles from Vogosca, Sarajevo, and Banja Luka. You

6 speak of the vehicles and of a time-period which was considerably earlier

7 than 1998 or 1999. Isn't that right?

8 A. The question was whether the army had been bringing in vehicles.

9 Q. We have an indictment and are dealing with the time-period between

10 the 24th of March and June 1999. The incident involving vehicles from

11 Vogosca was some seven or eight years earlier.

12 A. I said that if need be I can provide even a thousand examples.

13 Q. Please, we have the table here. Yesterday you spoke of the 1st

14 Army when replying to the Judge. Here we can see that the 2nd Army also

15 had vehicles, as did the air force and the ground forces and security

16 administration. Are all these groups part of the army? Can you perhaps

17 provide us with an example that would involve these other elements of the

18 army.

19 A. You mean the other ones?

20 Q. Yes.

21 A. I do.

22 Q. Which ones?

23 A. The command of the 2nd Army was bringing in from the Dubrovnik

24 frontline in an organised fashion vehicles for General Strugar, and this

25 was well-known.

1 Q. I apologise. I told you a moment ago that we are interested in

2 the year 1999. There is no General Strugar.

3 A. You mean a case involving vehicles from Kosovo being brought in?

4 Q. I was asking you about these other groups.

5 A. I really don't see what you're asking me.

6 Q. About the 1st Army?

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, just try to listen to what you're

8 being asked. These questions relate to the 1st and the 2nd Army.

9 Generally speaking, it would appear they weren't in Kosovo. If you look

10 at the date on the document, you'll see it's about 1999. So with that

11 background, would you listen carefully to the question, please.

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]

13 Q. Yesterday you said that, despite the fact the tables were

14 presented this way, that all these vehicles came from Kosovo, and then His

15 Honour asked you about the 1st Army and then you didn't. And then I'm

16 asking you now to give me an example that would involve the 2nd Army or

17 any other formation where a vehicle was seized and that it had to do with

18 that time-period.

19 A. I filed criminal reports. You forget that I got into conflict

20 with security organs when I asked my prosecutors to give those vehicles

21 back, not to use them.

22 Q. But that was in Kosovo.

23 A. Precisely. Should I talk about Kosovo or do you not want me to

24 talk about Kosovo now? And then there's another matter involving vehicles

25 being pulled out of Kosovo --

1 JUDGE BONOMY: Why can't you just listen to the question and try

2 to answer it? Just listen again to what you're being asked. You're being

3 asked -- let's take the example of the 2nd Army, and if you look at this

4 table, you'll see 59 private cars in the first column. Got that? Have

5 you got that?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

7 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, give us an example of a legitimate way in

8 which, in 1999, the 2nd Army, wherever it was, probably not Kosovo, would

9 take one of these 59 vehicles from its owner or from wherever it was.

10 Give us an example so we can understand this concept that falls into that

11 column.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You said legally take or legally

13 taken?

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Legally, yes.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I disregard what was considered

16 to be a material duty, what was exercised by military departments, aside

17 from that, I wouldn't know of a single case where the army took vehicles

18 in a legitimate way, in accordance with the law. But the vehicles that

19 the army took as part of the material obligation of the owners, this was

20 prescribed by law and constituted a legal procedure. What we are talking

21 about here are vehicles that were unlawfully taken to Belgrade, and the

22 question was raised as to what to do with these unlawfully seized

23 vehicles. And these 213 vehicles --

24 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, are you saying that this document

25 relates to vehicles which were taken illegally, this particular document?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Mr. President. That was

2 the very reason why it had to be decided what to do with the vehicles.

3 JUDGE BONOMY: Who compiled this document?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw the document for the first

5 time when the generals tasked me with preparing that note. I believe it

6 was drafted by the chief of the traffic administration, General Uzelac, or

7 his people but I'm not sure about that. When the meeting started, he was

8 the one who personally gave us this table in addition to other material.

9 I had already had this document because at the previous two meetings the

10 generals didn't have the table whilst I had; I got it there. This was

11 another example. General Uzelac asked his associates to distribute a set

12 of materials to all those present, including this table. I'm not really

13 sure whether he himself authored the document.

14 JUDGE BONOMY: So the answer is: None of these were seized

15 legitimately.

16 Mr. Aleksic.

17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

18 Q. In paragraph 46 you speak of a draft document following this

19 meeting, and that on the 16th of December, the then-president of the

20 supreme military court signed document P2750 which you had drafted. You

21 commented on one of the paragraphs, I believe it was paragraph 2.

22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we please call up P2750.

23 Q. In your statement you say on this very issue, in paragraph 46:

24 "I drafted the document and this is another piece of evidence

25 showing that the supreme military court refused to provide an alibi for

1 the Yugoslav Army to keep the goods and vehicles after the war."

2 Mr. Dorovic, we said who sent the document and to whom. I will

3 read the first paragraph below the heading which says:

4 "With reference to your" --

5 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, let's hear the question first before we

6 decide whether we need to go through this palaver every time a question's

7 asked.

8 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. Thank you, Your

9 Honour.

10 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I put it to you that what you said does not

11 transpire from this document, but rather that paragraphs 2 and 4 of this

12 document, which have to do with the federal government, the supreme

13 military court provides two possible ways of solving this request, as I

14 read it, in reference to the draft order on the return of the vehicles and

15 not on retaining these vehicles. And if you disagree with me about the

16 two ways of solving the problem, then I will have to read out paragraphs 2

17 and 3 to you, with the permission of the Court, of course. In particular,

18 paragraph 3 says:

19 "Having in mind the possible consequences, not just material ones,

20 it may be best if the final decision about all of this is made by the

21 federal government in the same manner in which this matter will be dealt

22 with in relation to the vehicles at our disposal."

23 This is the opinion pursuant to a request asking how to proceed.

24 I'm not saying that the supreme military court is providing an alibi but,

25 rather, two possible ways of solving this problem, and that is all which

1 concerns this matter.

2 A. And what is your question for me?

3 Q. Well, I put it to you that contrary to what is contained in this

4 statement -- in this document, paragraph 3.

5 A. Perhaps the Tribunal should also be given the possibility to

6 analyse the draft decision as well.

7 Q. Well, you see, we don't have that. I am presenting you this.

8 A. The draft decision says that the vehicles should be kept and

9 distributed, but this decision was never publicised.

10 Q. This decision that you're talking about, was it ever signed by

11 anyone?

12 A. I have just told you that it was never signed, but this is the way

13 it was acted upon --

14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, you have a great ability for

15 hijacking the proceedings. Could you just answer the question, which is

16 that the document doesn't support what you say in your statement, that

17 this is an example showing that the supreme military court refused to

18 provide an alibi for the VJ to keep the goods and vehicles. Now, what's

19 your comment on that suggestion?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to highlight the fact that

21 the point this document makes when you analyse it in its entirety is that

22 the supreme military court suggested that no specific enactment be made.

23 This decision, which was the subject of the analysis and which in fact

24 stated that the vehicles should be distributed to those who had obtained

25 them in the first place, regardless of the fact it was done unlawfully,

1 and all of this in accordance with the regulations valid in 1991. If you

2 analyse -- or rather, the analysis itself is based on that very

3 decision --

4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Dorovic, you have said that this is an example

5 of the supreme military court refusing to provide an alibi for the VJ to

6 keep the goods and vehicles.

7 Now, where do we see that? Tell us which part of the text is

8 it -- makes it clear that this is a refusal to help the VJ to keep the

9 goods.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those sections of the document where

11 the president of the supreme military court says that no special enactment

12 should be issued because it is pointless and that the decision about this

13 matter should be taken by the government which will take care -- or

14 rather, this should be analysed in conjunction with the fact that a large

15 number of these vehicles were in possession of the ministry.

16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

17 Mr. Aleksic.

18 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

19 Q. Mr. Dorovic, I will try to complete my cross-examination. You

20 speak of the events of the 30th of May. I will give you the number of the

21 paragraph or -- yes, that's paragraph 31. You state there: "One day two

22 military" -- or rather-- my apologies.

23 "On the 30th of May a military police officer and two military

24 police officers came to my office. They offended me and I beat one of

25 them up and the others fled. I then wrote a report about the incident."

1 Is that what you said?

2 A. Beaten up, well, I said that I had the upper hand.

3 Q. We'll get to that. Mr. Dorovic, tell me, because of this event

4 on the 30th of May, was a criminal proceeding instituted against you

5 before the military court attached to the 3rd Army command?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. On the 11th of June, was a decision taken on an investigation

8 carried out against you?

9 A. I don't know about the date, but yes.

10 Q. This is exhibit -- I would like to read one part of this decision

11 which says-- that's 4D165.

12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Your Honour.

13 Q. The disposition of this decision says against you -- an

14 investigation was conducted against you because there was reasonable

15 suspicion to believe that as a military prosecutor in Pristina on the 30th

16 of May at around 2200 hours whilst in your official office you hurt

17 severely Dragoljub --

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the last name.

19 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation].

20 Q. -- your deputy prosecutor in Pristina by drawing out your pistol

21 and telling the aggrieved parties, or rather, saying something disparaging

22 to them and then you knocked that person down and kicked him in the head

23 repeatedly with your military boots. When a police officer arrived to

24 intervene you said, Scram, all of you, I will kill you all. Am I right?

25 A. Are you asking me whether you read this correctly? Yes, that's

1 true. Now, if you're asking me whether this is true, I will tell you

2 right away, this is not true. Something that lends support to what I say

3 is the final decision. Six hearings were held --

4 Q. Tell me the upshot.

5 A. After six hearings were heard, the prosecutor dropped charges for

6 what you've just read out.

7 Q. Tell me when this was and who was the prosecutor involved.

8 A. If you want me to, I can show you the court documentation.

9 Q. For which crime?

10 A. Grievous bodily harm, but the charges were not dropped and it was

11 delegated to the military court, or rather, the department in Belgrade

12 where two hearings were held.

13 Q. I have to interrupt you. We're all very tired. I'm not asking

14 you for how many criminal offences. I'm just asking you is -- are these

15 criminal proceedings that were initiated ex officio against you, are they

16 still pending?

17 A. No. I told you, I received a new indictment after the first

18 hearing. Then I was supposed to appear at the trial in order for it to

19 end. I talked about this yesterday. Once again I will write a request to

20 have this direct confrontation done with.

21 Q. Mr. Dorovic, can you answer my question. Are there criminal

22 proceedings pending against you in Belgrade for any criminal offence which

23 can be prosecuted ex officio?

24 A. I was told that it was not ongoing because the district military

25 prosecutor dropped the charges for the remaining allegations which was the

1 conflict with the police officers.

2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will finish soon.

3 Q. When was it that you learned that the prosecutor dropped the

4 charges for all these actions? When did you learn about it?

5 A. When I raised the issue of my promotion. It was just recently, in

6 the month of March.

7 Q. You mean in the current month of 2007?

8 A. On the 1st or the 2nd.

9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] One more question, Your Honour.

10 Q. In paragraph 57 you state, among other things: "The decision on

11 my promotion was revoked at the last moment."

12 Can you tell me who revoked the decision and who drafted the

13 revoking decision and at which point in time this happened.

14 A. Yes. Thank you for asking me. I will tell you.

15 Q. Tell me which month and which year are involved.

16 A. It took place on that same day when I celebrated my promotion on

17 the 4th, or rather, no, on the 5th of June, 1999. That's what I'm

18 referring to.

19 Q. You said that you were in detention on the 4th. How could you be

20 promoted on the 5th and you had submitted your resignation on the 30th?

21 A. I'm telling you upon my full responsibility that on the 5th of

22 June in the morning I was celebrating my promotion with my generals. I

23 can show you the document, and can I have the permission of the Tribunal

24 to show you the document authored by the supreme military prosecutor

25 Colonel Petkovic where he gives a written confirmation thereof. My

1 generals, who celebrated with me in the morning, can confirm this. In the

2 afternoon they were asked to help to destroy me.

3 Q. Can you tell us who wrote this decision to promote you during a

4 time of war. Where is this decision?

5 A. No, the decision, no. I told you that it was withdrawn at the

6 last moment. It was a decree by the president of the republic, the late

7 Slobodan Milosevic, upon the proposal of the supreme military prosecutor.

8 You have these documents, Mr. Aleksic. You can consult them.

9 Q. Let us finish. We are at the end of the day. On the 5th of June,

10 1999, you were supposed to be promoted, yes or no?

11 A. A decree is being served on a person. There is a certain

12 procedure to be followed. I was told that it was signed and that we were

13 only waiting for it to be officially served. It was still a time of war.

14 I don't know how long it would take such documents normally to arrive, but

15 there is a document to that effect and you can consult it.

16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unfortunately, I won't

17 be able to finish now. I will need ten minutes more and by your leave, I

18 will then be able to complete my cross-examination.

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we have to interrupt again, Mr. Dorovic,

20 because there are other court proceedings here this afternoon. We have no

21 more time, albeit we would like to continue to complete this. So you have

22 to return again tomorrow morning to continue your evidence, and that again

23 will be at 9.00. Meanwhile, can you please leave the courtroom with the

24 usher.

25 [The witness stands down]

1 JUDGE BONOMY: One matter I want to address just before we leave,

2 Ms. Moeller, and it's really to make sure the message is passed on. This

3 morning with Mr. Hannis we discussed the question of any further documents

4 that the Prosecution seek to have admitted in the language we use here

5 from the bar table. And the -- the discussion was confined to the

6 evidence of Mr. Coo. And Mr. Hannis explained how he intended to deal

7 with that. If there are documents relating to any other matters other

8 than those that will be dealt with by him and it's intended to make a

9 motion for them to be admitted as stand-alone documents, then there has to

10 be a deadline for that. Now, are you aware of whether there are any other

11 documents that is intended to submit in that form?

12 MS. MOELLER: Yes, Your Honour. I think there is a small amount

13 of documents where we may have another motion and it's currently being

14 worked on.

15 JUDGE BONOMY: When will that be filed?

16 MS. MOELLER: As soon as possible, of course, but that won't help

17 you. So we're aiming at maybe -- yes, we're aiming towards the end of the

18 week, but --

19 JUDGE BONOMY: Not good enough, Ms. Moeller. Anything of that

20 nature has to be in our hands no later than the end of this week. To

21 enable this -- the Defence to have an opportunity to address the issue, we

22 can't allow any more time than that.

23 MS. MOELLER: We will do our very best, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE BONOMY: This has been ongoing --

25 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

1 JUDGE BONOMY: -- since the pre-trial stage. This isn't something

2 that's just arising now. Unless it relates to documents that have only

3 recently been received. But so far as others are concerned --.

4 MS. MOELLER: Yes.

5 JUDGE BONOMY: -- it's a long outstanding issue.

6 MS. MOELLER: Yes. Part of the documents which we intend to file

7 something on are indeed documents where we very recently got the

8 translation only. Others are the ones that we selected from a very

9 serious cut of our exhibit list and the boiling down of documents that we

10 really need. But we will seek to file something by Friday, as you ordered

11 us.

12 JUDGE BONOMY: Tomorrow we sit from 9.00 to 1.45.

13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.39 p.m.,

14 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 15th day of

15 March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25