Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 8609

1 Thursday, 25 July 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE MAY: This is the Pre-Trial Conference relating to the two

6 other indictments in this case relating respectively to Croatia and

7 Bosnia. We propose to begin with the Prosecution and hear submissions.

8 We'll hear next from the accused and finally the amicus if any of them

9 want to add anything.

10 Mr. Nice, we have had the opportunity of reading the very full

11 pre-trial brief. If I may say, we have given it consideration. We have

12 various measures in mind. Of course you must have the opportunity of

13 addressing us upon them. We propose to make orders under Rule 73 bis

14 about the rest of the case.

15 The issues which, therefore, arise are concerned with a time

16 estimate and fixing a time. We have fixed April the 10th as the final

17 day. Obviously there have been developments since then and that date has

18 got to be reconsidered.

19 If it would be of assistance, it may be that I can indicate the

20 matters upon which we would be grateful if you would address us. The

21 first is a time estimate for the length of the Prosecution case, number of

22 witnesses. At the moment, of course, we have the details in the brief.

23 The next matter I would like you to consider is this: Whether

24 opening statements are necessary, this case now having run for four months

25 and more. If opening statements are felt to be necessary, and of course

Page 8610

1 it's a matter for you since you would make the first, should they be

2 restricted in time. So we'd be grateful if you would consider that.

3 The other general area is the order of evidence, and we have in

4 mind -- I think we've raised this before, the problems, first of all, of

5 preparation, very real problems of preparation of a case of these

6 dimensions for all those involved but particularly the accused, that it

7 would be easier if the evidence relating to Croatia was largely dealt with

8 first, which would allow the Christmas recess for preparation of Bosnia.

9 Now, I remember that you told us earlier that you had some

10 witnesses in common, but perhaps you could consider that and let us know

11 what the position is as far as possible.

12 In terms of specific orders as to evidence beyond the general

13 broad orders, which I've mentioned, we have two in mind. The first is to

14 reduce the number of municipalities in the Bosnia case. We note that you

15 intend to lead comprehensive evidence on 14 of the 47 and not to call

16 evidence on a further nine. We think that that should be reduced further.

17 We recognise the complexity and the seriousness of what happened, but this

18 is a criminal trial, and the evidence must be brought within a manageable

19 scope. We have in mind an order except with leave there should be

20 evidence only on the 14 and the three for which genocide is charged. So

21 that would be a reduction to 17 municipalities. There may be reasons for

22 additional evidence, but that's what broadly we have in mind. And we have

23 in mind a reduction of the insiders, or it could be possible to reduce the

24 number of insiders and they were all the number of live witnesses.

25 Likewise in Croatia, what we have in mind in relation to that indictment

Page 8611

1 is that serious, indeed very serious as the matters alleged are,

2 nevertheless some balance has to be drawn between two indictments. And

3 the Bosnian indictment is much the broader in terms of scope and length of

4 time, and that the Croatia indictment should be reduced or the evidence,

5 rather, should be reduced accordingly.

6 We noted in particular that it was proposed to call 20 experts,

7 including experts on psychiatry and propaganda. We are not satisfied that

8 those are necessary, and we have in mind reducing those to nine in all.

9 And as I say, reducing the number of witnesses proportionately to that in

10 the Bosnia indictment.

11 At the moment, on our -- on our mathematics, which can only be

12 approximate from your proposal, the proposal is to call or to have a total

13 of, it appears, to be 560 witnesses, 275 being live, and the time

14 estimate, we work it out, for the cases in chief is 120 days for the

15 Croatian indictment -- I'm sorry, 110 days for the Croatian indictment and

16 120 for Bosnia, a total of 230, which in chief would take a year and some

17 four months or so. That would be -- doesn't allow time for

18 cross-examination, and therefore, we would be looking at a Prosecution

19 case of something in the order of two to two and a half years from now,

20 and we have to say that we regard that as an unmanageable length and not

21 consistent with a fair and manageable trial.

22 MR. NICE: Dealing some of those points in different order,

23 opening statements, subject to any views by anybody else, we would think

24 the best course is to get on with the evidence, but obviously --

25 JUDGE MAY: I think it's matter for you.

Page 8612

1 MR. NICE: If others want opening statements, then we would feel

2 the need to make one ourselves, but if there is to be no opening

3 statements, we're entirely content with that.

4 If in the event that the accused wanted to make an opening

5 statement and the Chamber allowed him to make one, it probably would be

6 necessary for us to make one as well. We think it should be time limited

7 in those circumstances, but our basic preference would be to just get on

8 with the evidence. We had an abbreviated opening but nevertheless an

9 opening, and we think it would be better to get on with the evidence.

10 JUDGE MAY: Speaking for myself, I think that getting on with the

11 evidence would be better. We've had opening statement in this case which

12 have run to over five days, so I don't think we need any more.

13 MR. NICE: Can I, before I turn to the various topics that you've

14 helpfully raised for us to consider, just review the position in the

15 Kosovo part of the case for two reasons? One, to tell you what I

16 calculate to be outstanding to be dealt with in September. And two, to

17 give you somewhat of a snapshot of statistics, because I think the

18 statistics are helpful in showing how it may not be necessary or even

19 desirable to impose particular identified limits of time or numbers at

20 this stage and to rely on us doing our best to comply with the spirit of

21 the orders that you may make or wish to make.

22 First, where we are. Our calculation, and we've got a witness

23 list we can distribute for you which may be helpful, but in the broadest

24 terms, I mean, we can look at the detail if necessary, there's about two

25 to three weeks of evidence outstanding in Kosovo, including Mr. Lilic. If

Page 8613

1 you exclude Mr. Lilic, then I think it's only two weeks. As I say, we can

2 look at the detail in a minute and the time that evidence will take is

3 dependent on a number of things.

4 If I can first of all give it to you in headlines. Outstanding

5 crime base witnesses, depending on whether some of those for whom we've

6 made application are taken fully 92 bis or whether they're all subject to

7 cross-examination would take between three and five days. Allow for about

8 a week.

9 There are then one or two witnesses whose evidence we are still

10 seeking, and it arises from cross-examination, and we hope to have it

11 available in September and served in time for the accused and the amici to

12 deal with it. I can't necessarily identify the witnesses or even the

13 topics at the moment for fear of their not being able to be seen without

14 restraint, but they're limited in number and once the subject of

15 application the Chamber will see precisely why we will be applying for

16 them. It's always better to deal with issues once they're raised in a

17 Prosecutor's case in chief rather than wait for rebuttal.

18 So those witnesses might take part of or the best part of another

19 week, and then if Mr. Lilic is to be dealt with, as it were, in the Kosovo

20 time period and if, for example, the witness in respect of whom there is

21 an outstanding and unresolved application under Rule 70 is dealt with in

22 this same period of time, why, then, we think it might go up to a third

23 week.

24 May I press on the Chamber that that is an extremely satisfactory

25 result given the original estimates of time offered by the Prosecution,

Page 8614

1 given the initial resolution of the Chamber that the Kosovo case should be

2 finished, I think, by the end of the week after next, which is one of the

3 two to three weeks that we would require in September, and given that

4 we've lost whatever it is, four weeks or so, for one reason and another.

5 We have, in short, not only met the deadline imposed, but we have done

6 considerably better than that deadline.

7 In arithmetical terms, our calculations suggest that we've only

8 taken, that is, the Prosecution's only taken some 92 or 93 hours. Of

9 course, a lot of our evidence has also gone in under 92 bis. We've taken

10 something of that order, with the accused taking about 140 hours, and the

11 amici about 14 hours. So that we've barely taken half the time.

12 If you look at the statistics simply in terms of the live witness;

13 the accuse has taken 13 per cent more time than we have.

14 So if we've managed to put our case in in respect of Kosovo in

15 under a hundred hours, which at a five-hour day is an astonishing limited

16 month or a little bit more, we are, I think, to be given credit for that.

17 And the Chamber will have in mind that we've achieved that result by,

18 first of all, successfully persuading the Chamber or the Chamber of its

19 own mind deciding upon reforms that have -- not reforms, procedural

20 techniques that have enabled evidence to come in more swiftly. Not only

21 92 bis, but as we term it now 92 demi-bis. But I suppose we should be

22 careful about extending our language too far. And then of course, there

23 is the list of those who will never be bis'd, but never mind. That's for

24 another day.

25 So we've done it by procedural techniques, and we've been able to

Page 8615

1 do it and we've been able to keep the Court fully occupied on all bar 20

2 minutes, I think, of its sitting times, roughly, by necessary flexibility

3 on our part, by reviewing witness lists and cutting witnesses when it

4 becomes apparent from the developing conduct here, cross-examination by

5 the accused and so on, cutting witnesses whenever possible and cutting the

6 evidence from particular witnesses whenever possible.

7 So although the initial target time given by the Chamber might

8 have been thought to be -- I don't mean in this in a pejorative sense --

9 arbitrary in the sense that it wasn't particularly calculated. It was a

10 timetable acceptable to the Chamber. We worked to it and we got there

11 rather better than that.

12 I've made it clear, I think, on previous hearings of this type

13 that I recognise the sense in the limitation of time and the brevity of

14 the case and subject to the conflicting, sometimes conflicting demands of

15 proving the case sufficiently but respecting the somewhat, some might say,

16 extended time requirements of the adversarial system, nevertheless, I will

17 do all I can to meet target dates as set by the Chamber, and I trust the

18 Chamber will accept that that is so.

19 When we then turn to your particular suggestions, and you came

20 first, I think, to deal with the order of indictments and whether it

21 should be Croatia first and Bosnia second, our position is really this:

22 We think Croatia and Bosnia is going to be economically dealt with in

23 terms of time if it is dealt with as a single case linked, as it is, in

24 time in any event. Of course, and in the most general terms, the Croatia

25 evidence will come before the Bosnian because that's the way things work

Page 8616

1 logically and chronologically. But there are areas of evidence where it

2 would be convenient, in terms of witness time taken, and convenient, we

3 would judge, for the Chamber to have topics covered comprehensively for

4 both indictments, whether we're looking at the role of the MUP or the role

5 of the VJ, or something of that sort, it might be simply much more

6 convenient to have a block of evidence that deals with the topic.

7 And of course, when we come to experts, the Chamber's already

8 indicated that it would be quite wrong to have more than one expert on any

9 particular topic, and we're not intending to. It would be one expert to

10 cover, in nearly all cases, all three indictments. We would, therefore,

11 intend to present evidence for the remaining two indictments on the basis

12 that it is a single case. The presentation will, we hope, be logical and

13 will be designed to bring to the Chamber, at an early stage, evidence

14 about linkage, about the overall course of events, from experts and from

15 live witnesses. And one of the purposes of doing that is that depending

16 on the scope of the evidence, depending on the cross-examination of it, it

17 may be possible to reduce very substantially witnesses in mind for coming

18 later. But in the same way as we've done it with Kosovo, it may not be

19 possible to forecast in advance which particular witnesses can be pruned

20 from the list until we see the earlier, more significant witnesses and how

21 their evidence is dealt with.

22 We have already prepared a list of witnesses. I haven't yet

23 served it because we haven't had a final discussion amongst the various

24 involved lawyers, but we have prepared a list of witnesses. It's

25 basically a Croatian list, but it incorporates a number of other witnesses

Page 8617

1 within its first 54 witnesses. And we believe that that first 54 or I

2 should say roughly 60 witnesses will provide an extended view of much of

3 the case and are likely to take the Chamber and the accused until about

4 the Christmas break, but of course it may be less than that. We just

5 don't know. And accordingly, if we're able to serve this list as we would

6 intend, if not before the beginning of next week in next week when those

7 with a particular interest in the Bosnian indictment are able to be

8 satisfied that it's a list with which they are as happy as those concerned

9 with the Croatian indictment, we can serve it at the beginning of next

10 week or in the middle of next week, then that should provide a working

11 plan for everyone to take them up to Christmas.

12 A number of experts are included in that list and a number of

13 high-level insider witnesses.

14 We would ask the Chamber at this stage not to make simply a cut in

15 numbers of witnesses because, in our respectful submission, that's

16 unlikely in itself to achieve anything except probably unwarranted anxiety

17 on the part of the Prosecution trying to budget when it's going to be

18 reducing witness numbers and time taken in any event.

19 Can I observe in passing that of course there are still two

20 decisions to be made that will affect the amount of time evidence will

21 take in any event? One is the decision to be made in this part of the

22 case about crime base witnesses being taken fully 92 bis. I know it's

23 only a small issue, but it may affect other parts of the case.

24 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think the answer is that as far as this part

25 of the case is concerned, the usual rule will be followed. I think that's

Page 8618

1 likely, though we haven't yet fully determined the witnesses. So it will

2 be not full but with cross-examination.

3 MR. NICE: Very well. We of course will press, because it's

4 important we do so in the other parts of the case, that full provisions of

5 92 bis should apply in many cases with relation to crime base evidence.

6 The provisions are there.

7 JUDGE MAY: In this part of the case there have been particular

8 issues which have been raised which have to be resolved. Then whether

9 similar issues will arise in other parts of the case is of course a

10 totally different matter.

11 MR. NICE: That we follow.

12 JUDGE MAY: And it may be that, of course, on each incident we

13 will hear one or two witnesses and then we will have to decide whether

14 real issues arise from the cross-examination or not or whether they're

15 merely argumentative and the like or tu quoque.

16 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm glad that the Court has mentioned that

17 because I was going to turn to that, perhaps curiously at first sight, but

18 turn to that when the Chamber turns to consider the medical condition of

19 the accused, and I can forecast now what I was going to say otherwise, and

20 it's this: The accused may require assistance to save himself by the

21 Chamber identifying issues, if necessary, as it were, on his behalf in

22 order to reduce the amount of time he spends in preparing to argue points

23 that simply exhaust him and serve no useful purpose.

24 It's going to be a matter for the Chamber how it deals with that,

25 but it seems to me that's something we can consider.

Page 8619

1 The second issue that has yet to be resolved and that may affect

2 the time evidence will take is the issue in the Appeals Chamber about

3 summarising witnesses. Obviously we are hoping that that matter will be

4 listed for hearing as early as may be in order to assist the further

5 conduct of this trial as well as to assist other trials. We don't express

6 a view on how much it might save in time were it to have application in

7 the Croatian and Bosnian indictments, but clearly it could have some

8 significant effect.

9 That's perhaps all I should say about the order of evidence. I

10 hope that the Chamber will accept our judgement that the cases should be

11 dealt with generally as a single topic, although of course Croatian

12 evidence tends to come first chronologically. Our provisional plan is

13 that crime base evidence would come towards the end of the case or at the

14 end of the case. It had to come at the beginning in the Kosovo case

15 because it was obvious there would be procedural problems to be resolved.

16 They now all have been. So in principle, it can come at the end of the

17 case. Coming at the end, it probably will be possible to reduce the time

18 it takes more than where it to come elsewhere because issues will be more

19 clearly identified.

20 It may be sensible to take the Croatian crime base evidence

21 somewhere before the end of the case, perhaps, as it were, at a notional

22 end of the Croatian part of the indictment. We're -- haven't made a final

23 decision about that, but that may be desirable not least because it would

24 provide some variety for the Chamber. And of course, it's necessary to

25 have some crime base evidence. We can't present these cases as entirely

Page 8620

1 dry events detached from the awful realities on the ground.

2 If I can leap to insiders and come back to deal with the Bosnian

3 municipalities in a second. We'd ask you not to again make any decision

4 on the number of insiders available to be called for several reasons, but

5 principally, I think these two: First, it's never very easy to know in

6 advance whether an insider is actually going to be available to us in due

7 course. Second, if in the event particular insiders do become available,

8 they may save an enormous amount of other evidence, and so in the

9 balancing exercise, one insider may turn out to be worth several other

10 witnesses, and there's great economy in being allowed to call them.

11 The fact that we list an intended number at this stage will not

12 free us from satisfying the Chamber and the Chamber from deciding on a

13 witness-by-witness basis that the witness should be called, and we would

14 ask you simply to leave that as an open issue, there being no real

15 advantage in imposing what might be thought to be simply an arbitrary

16 figure at this stage.

17 And as I think I have I've might clear and is perhaps indeed clear

18 from what we're doing in the case at this very moment, it may be desirable

19 if not even necessary for the Chamber to hear from insider witnesses close

20 or closer to the accused than other witnesses may be, whether or not the

21 totality of their evidence is evidence that the Prosecution would rely on,

22 because that is the way to get the best evidence about this case to a

23 discerning Trial Chamber.

24 Coming back then to the Bosnian municipalities, the 14 and the

25 three. As the Chamber will have in mind from the way things are put in

Page 8621

1 the filing of the 19th of June at paragraph 8, there has been this very

2 substantial reduction in municipalities upon which we will rely, from 47

3 to 14, eliminating nine. And as to the other municipalities, the 24, it

4 is only for particularly significant evidence that we will turn to events

5 in those municipalities, evidence that would qualify as linkage evidence

6 or otherwise have a particular significance. It is not the intention by

7 that evidence necessarily to prove counts in relation to those other

8 municipalities. Not at all. But the evidence will be significant and

9 important evidence going to linkage or other matters, possibly matters of

10 pattern, evidence that it would be, in our respectful submission, quite

11 wrong to exclude on a generalised basis at the moment and evidence that it

12 will be proper to consider when we seek to call it on an item-by-item

13 basis, because it's not possible for me to spell out in a way that will be

14 helpful to you now its value. It will have to be looked at individually.

15 But we would ask you not at the moment, because it would be quite wrong,

16 in our submission, to do so, simply to exclude it in general.

17 I trust the Chamber is heartened by the substantial reduction.

18 The plan of work set out in this filing is detailed, and the Chamber will

19 probably readily recognise from the way the material is set out the scope

20 for application of 92 bis or 92 demi-bis, if I can so describe it, for

21 proving these matters. And we simply do not know to what extent the

22 accused will feel it necessary or desirable to cross-examine these

23 witnesses in the very different circumstances from those applying in

24 Kosovo.

25 Turning to Croatia, I'd like, if I may, to come back after further

Page 8622

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

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

14 English transcripts

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8623

1 discussions with one of my colleagues about psychiatrists, but propaganda,

2 I think, is something that we would rely on as an important and

3 significant element in this case, that we may only be able to prove

4 compactly by an expert and we would press you at the moment to make no

5 excluding order on that. Propaganda is an important element in these

6 cases. Of course, it's been dealt with, we know, separately in Arusha for

7 the Rwanda cases, and extensively being dealt with there. And we would

8 ask you to allow us the opportunity to present an expert's report for

9 possible adduction in evidence.

10 As to the reduction, we would say that again this case is already

11 reduced, as the work plan shows, to a sensible size given the time that

12 may be saved by the application of 92 bis. And that again, there is no

13 reason to doubt but that we will and that I will, in particular, ensure

14 that sensible target dates for conclusion of the Prosecution's case will

15 be met and that by continued reporting to your Chamber, as I'm always

16 prepared to do, you will be in a position to be satisfied that I am

17 working towards and achieving that goal.

18 JUDGE MAY: So you're asking us not to impose a target date.

19 MR. NICE: Your Honour, if I can be absolutely blunt -- sorry.

20 JUDGE MAY: What I was going to say is that we have a target date,

21 of course, at the moment. And if you're not asking us to impose one, then

22 what is your time estimate?

23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the target date that the Chamber has

24 imposed was April. In light of events and assuming the same availability

25 of court time, court working time, which is basically every day of the

Page 8624

1 week, between four and five hours a day, then it would probably be

2 inevitable that that time -- that target date should be put back by a

3 month or whatever to accommodate time that we've already lost.

4 We would know that the Chamber is working, then, on the basis of a

5 May or perhaps June conclusion. And I would much prefer to have that as

6 the target date, to plan on the basis that we can attempt to meet that and

7 report back to you if it becomes clear to us that we really can't. And

8 not to do that at Christmas or February, but to do it on a regular basis,

9 because these cases are very difficult to prepare and present, as I'm sure

10 the Chamber will accept. We haven't yet got into the stage of working

11 together just for Croatia and Bosnia because I've been much involved in

12 Kosovo, but we are now in the stage of making final plans for the

13 preparation for that part of the case.

14 I think, first of all, we will be able to present you and the

15 accused with a list of witnesses that will keep everybody busy until

16 Christmas. And by a snapshot summary of what that witness -- those

17 witnesses deal with, you will see how far we will be able to take the case

18 roughly by Christmas. And it should be possible for us, perhaps next

19 week, to set out in more detail how the balance of the period up and until

20 May or June of next year could be used, and as I would hope, could be used

21 in a way to conclude the case within that target time of yours. But if

22 it's going to be longer than that, then I must come clean and come and

23 tell you. But at the moment, I would say we hope to work to that target

24 date.

25 JUDGE MAY: We will have to, of course, take into account the

Page 8625

1 medical condition of the accused as shown in the medical report with a

2 recommendation for further treatment.

3 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I've touched on that once already,

4 and I have no idea what the Court is proposing, but of course my proposals

5 are on the basis of five days a week and the same numbers of hours that

6 we've had thus far. And of course if there is to be a variation in that,

7 there should, in all fairness to all parties, be an appropriate extension

8 of time to reflect any diminution in the sitting hours of the day, for

9 example. But I would encourage the Chamber to find other ways to lessen

10 the burden on the accused.

11 Principally, of course, we would press him through you to make the

12 use of lawyers to represent him. Other courts around the world, and I

13 think even in Arusha have imposed counsel on accused, and that is the way

14 he can save himself from the consequences of his ill health. If that is

15 not something that can be done, and we may come back to pressing that upon

16 the Chamber, then we would invite you to exercise your powers to narrow

17 the issues in such a way that his time can be better focused and his

18 energy more properly expended on what's truly material to this case. And

19 he may find that doing that will conserve his energies.

20 Two matters before I close. The experts listed within the

21 Croatian sector are to cover really all indictments. Likewise with the

22 number of insiders. They're really for all indictments, but as I've

23 perhaps already hinted, it's very difficult to know precisely how many

24 insiders are likely to be available. It's difficult to know how many we

25 are likely, of the present ones we have in mind, we are likely to want to

Page 8626

1 call given that unfolding events may make better witnesses available who

2 will make it unnecessary to call those who are of less value.

3 The psychiatrist, I'm informed and should have had this in mind

4 myself, is partly a fact witness and deals with the widespread character

5 of sexual assaults in both Croatia and Bosnia, and that's, of course,

6 significant, very significant, in cases of this kind, and we'd ask you to,

7 in principle, admit such evidence.

8 I'm going to check with my colleagues to see if there's anything

9 else they want me to say.

10 I don't know if I can help further.

11 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.

12 Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what's been said. There are three

13 matters for you to address us on in particular. The first is the time

14 that you require for preparation. The second is the issue of an opening

15 statement, whether you want to apply to make one and whether it should be

16 limited in time. And the third is your medical condition and whether and

17 what impact it has on the trial. If you want to say anything about that,

18 of course, you can. As you know, we've had the medical report in front of

19 us.

20 Yes.

21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You started these deliberations by

22 referring to Rule 73 bis. What does Rule 73 bis mean? What's it all

23 about?

24 JUDGE MAY: It's about the Trial Chamber at a Pre-Trial Conference

25 fixing time limits and the like and numbers of witnesses on the

Page 8627

1 Prosecution. It's a Rule which relates specifically to the Prosecution.

2 I should point out there's another one which refers to the Defence, which

3 gives the Trial Chamber similar powers in relation to the Defence. But

4 we're only, at the moment, concerned with the Prosecution.

5 Now, that's really, as I've said before, really between the Trial

6 Chamber and the Prosecution.

7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I wanted to know that

8 from the very outset, because it was my understanding, on the basis of

9 what you said and on the basis of what Mr. Nice said, the only question

10 here is the question of time. All issues pertain to time only.

11 Did I understand this properly?

12 JUDGE MAY: Well, you've heard what's been discussed. The Trial

13 Chamber is considering whether it should fix time limits on the

14 Prosecution or amend the time limit which has been fixed and whether it

15 should impose a limit on the number of witnesses.

16 As I say, that's strictly a matter for the Trial Chamber. It

17 doesn't really affect you. But what does affect you is the amount of time

18 you're asking for to prepare for the rest of the case. You've heard

19 what -- you've heard what the Prosecution says, that it will produce, and

20 we will have them produce this early next week, a list of 60 witnesses to

21 be taken between now and Christmas. On those you can concentrate. You

22 will have next week for preparation, so you will have a month, including

23 the recess, for preparation. There is also the matter of your medical

24 condition. Those are the matters which you should be addressing us about.

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I understand

Page 8628

1 what the questions are, but I would like to say first that it seems absurd

2 to claim -- for the Prosecutor to claim that they deserve credit for

3 shortening the time taken up through applying Rule 92 bis, through

4 accepting written statements made by witnesses. By doing this, more than

5 ever, you are practically making it possible for the other side to have

6 the possibility of serving here an unlimited quantity of their

7 fabrications and lies. And on the other hand, you are limiting the time

8 for contesting that. And all of this is considered to be a creditworthy

9 thing. I've already said that it seems that time is the only important

10 question here. If time is the only important issue, this is not any kind

11 of trial. It has nothing to do with justice, et cetera. So why are you

12 dabbling in all of this anyway?

13 You said to me in relation to this -- well actually, I'm not going

14 to ask you for nothing. I just want to present the facts here. Mr. Nice

15 explained here that he cannot deal with Bosnia and Croatia during the

16 cross-examination about Kosovo. I assume that the same thing applies to

17 me. I have received almost 90.000 pages for Bosnia and Croatia and about

18 500 cassettes. For 90.000 pages, a person needs 180.000 minutes to read

19 it only. So if I'm supposed to read, say, 500 minutes a day, I need 360

20 days to read this only once. And then I'm supposed to look at various

21 materials that I am to obtain from my associates with regard to the

22 contents of this.

23 So without doing anything else, without engaging in any other kind

24 of activity, that would be it. That is a fact that I wish to state

25 publicly here. And after all, you're going to deal with this the way

Page 8629

1 you've dealt with all other facts.

2 Secondly, the deadlines for discovery that are relevant here in

3 this institution. Thirty days. I was given the right to defend myself.

4 That is a right that you took note of and that is being shortened rather

5 than extended. Then those who have this as their profession, who do this

6 professionally and with a much smaller volume of work, they get 30 days. I

7 don't know about the friends of the Court. And I was given ten days

8 with the possibility of contacting only two associates who are my only

9 link for establishing any kind of communication. Every logic says that my

10 period would have to be longer rather than shorter.

11 What I said to you about 80 to 90.000 pages and 500 cassettes that

12 are out there and, of course, during these examinations I didn't have a

13 look at any of that, that is a job which certainly requires time, the time

14 I mentioned to you. That is quite clear. Although this entire matter is

15 a farce. It is retaliation, because it is amazing how --

16 JUDGE MAY: No. You are not going to abuse this trial in that

17 way. Now, if you've got relevant and sensible points to make, some of

18 them you have made, of course you can go on, but we're not listening to

19 abuse.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know if I've been abusing

21 anything. There seems to be a rule here that is inversion. I think I'm

22 the one who is being abused here, not you or this trial, especially this

23 trial that you thought of ten years after the events in Croatia took

24 place. For ten years, it didn't occur to you --

25 JUDGE MAY: You are abusing your right to speak, which will get

Page 8630

1 you stopped.

2 Now, you had some sensible points to make. Now, you revert to

3 them.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. As for opening

5 statements, I think that you could have assumed what my answer would be.

6 I avail myself of every opportunity to speak here. You will decide as you

7 will decide, but make up your mind today. I don't want you to decide that

8 there will be no opening statements and then after that I listen to

9 tirades of Mrs. Del Ponte or Mr. Nice about Croatia and Bosnia and then

10 they say that that's not an opening statement or you say that subsequently

11 you changed your ruling. As it has happened here, you change your own

12 decisions in two or three days.

13 In relation to what I've just said to you about the materials that

14 were given to me and without any kind of rest, a person would need a year

15 to read that. A few minutes ago - I'm quoting you, Mr. May - you said

16 that the quantity of material should be such that it could be manageable.

17 That's what you said a minute ago. Of course, a manageable quantity.

18 That depends on the time unit for managing that quantity. With a paper,

19 you can deal with a paper, one paper, in three minutes. But 90.000 papers

20 will require, I assume, a different amount of time.

21 Therefore, I'm telling you once again that I am not asking you for

22 anything. I'm just pointing out facts to you and standpoints that you

23 have presented yourself.

24 As for my medical condition, I wish to remind you of the fact that

25 did not ask for any examination. When I was informed about your decision,

Page 8631

1 I said here that I have no objections to the prison doctor. I did not ask

2 for an examination, and you should not harbour any illusions that I'm

3 asking you for anything. You said then that that is what you ordered and

4 that that is your decision.

5 As a civilised man, when these people came to see me, of course I

6 allowed them to examine me and to have blood tests taken later, et

7 cetera. That is your affair. I never complained.

8 During these six months, I don't know how Mr. Nice has been

9 referring to four months. It's been six months. This is the end of July,

10 and we started in February. I never asked for an examination, a medical

11 examination. And even when I had high fever in prison, I told the prison

12 doctor that I am not asking for a break, and I'm not asking him for

13 anything, really.

14 So you're the ones who asked for this, and it is for you and it is

15 your affair.

16 JUDGE MAY: That may be, but you know what the report says about

17 your condition, your cardiovascular condition. You know, for instance,

18 that it recommends that your workload be reduced. Now, we have lost two

19 days due to your high blood pressure already. It's obviously a matter of

20 concern to the doctors, and therefore, it has to be a matter of concern to

21 the Trial Chamber.

22 If you want to -- we hear what you say about your position and

23 your attitude. If you want to say anything about the effect on the trial

24 and your participation in it, of course, you can do so, but it is

25 something which we will have to take account of.

Page 8632

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before you comment on that, I'd

2 like to say something about your medical condition. Your health is a

3 matter of very great concern to me as a member of the Trial Chamber. The

4 doctors have recommended that you be given rest.

5 It is quite clear to me that the whole business of preparing for

6 cross-examination and cross-examination itself is extremely onerous, and

7 it has occurred to me that one obvious way in which you could have some

8 rest is if you were to appoint counsel.

9 Now, you have expressed your views before about appointing

10 counsel, but it may be that we could institute a system in which you would

11 share cross-examination with counsel. That would allow you some rest.

12 You're obviously very interested in cross-examining some witnesses, and

13 what I wanted to put to you was that the Trial Chamber might be prepared

14 to consider a system in which you appoint counsel, counsel would

15 cross-examine some witnesses, and you would also have the right to

16 cross-examine. It's a bit unusual, but I think it has happened in some

17 places.

18 The overriding concern for me is your health. Your health is of

19 paramount concern to the Chamber.

20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, first of all, I wish

21 to say to you that I am convinced that you are speaking with good

22 intentions. Therefore, please do not take this personally, because I

23 think that you are an honourable man.

24 I do not recognise this court, and I have no intention of

25 appointing counsel for a non-existent court. This court is exclusively a

Page 8633

1 means of retaliation against the resistance that is being offered to the

2 New World order that is enslaving your country inter alia and many other

3 countries around the world. And it didn't even crossed my mind to take

4 part in this farce in any other way, and the entire world can see what

5 kind of farce this is, except to speak the truth when you are giving me

6 the opportunity to speak. You give me the opportunity to say the truth

7 only during this cross-examination and I avail myself of that opportunity.

8 As for my health, I did not ask for any privileges, and I never

9 asked you during these six months to take a single break. The fact that

10 you ordered that I be examined and that you got a report is your problem

11 now. It's not my problem. But I would like to add one more thing.

12 Mr. Nice's explanation that the working hours are five hours is

13 ironical. I get up at 7.00 and then I work until 4.00 in the afternoon.

14 The breaks are not times of rest for me. The entire day is taken up and

15 you are taking into account only this court time and the time that we

16 spend here in these chairs.

17 You know under what conditions a person comes here and under what

18 conditions a person leaves and how long it takes. If you are not aware of

19 it, then try to find out what it is like and then let us hear these

20 stories about five hours of working time.

21 So, Mr. Robinson, I respect your concern and your attention, but

22 you are aware of this position of mine, and I believe that my answer is

23 sufficiently clear to you both in terms of this Court and in terms of

24 everything that has been happening here.

25 JUDGE ROBINSON: I have heard what you have said, Mr. Milosevic.

Page 8634

1 It seems inevitable then that the Trial Chamber will have to consider

2 measures that take account of your health, and that is something which

3 we'll have to attend to as a matter of urgency.

4 JUDGE MAY: Do the amici have anything to add?

5 MR. KAY: No. All relevant matters have been dealt with, Your

6 Honour.

7 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

8 Mr. Nice, yes.

9 MR. NICE: One thing I should have covered earlier. My mistake

10 for not doing so. There are exercises being undertaken by those dealing

11 with both the Croatian and Bosnian indictments to review the exhibits in

12 order to see which exhibits can realistically be discarded as not

13 seriously expected to be required. Significant percentages of documents

14 are being identified as those that can be withdrawn at this stage, and we

15 will be in a position to notify all parties. I don't know exactly when

16 but comparatively soon. Either of the total number of the identification

17 exhibits that needn't be considered or if we have to do it in stages,

18 we'll do it in stages, but that exercise is very well under way and will

19 enable the accused and others to focus on documentation.

20 Can I just make two other points? One tiny technical matter in

21 relation to the Croatia/Bosnia part of the indictment. Documents, this

22 Chamber has, I think, in a previous case approached documents on the basis

23 that documents are dealt with as authentic unless challenged and,

24 therefore, time is not spent on the process of authentication in court.

25 We have more or less proceeded on that basis in the Kosovo sector. It

Page 8635

1 will always be helpful for us to know because it does save time if we

2 don't have to go through the process of authenticating documents, although

3 we can always do so and will always be in a position to do so.

4 And finally, I should have made it clear that although I'm hopeful

5 we could accomplish what's left in Kosovo in two weeks in September and

6 indeed to get all the Albanian-speaking witnesses into one week, which I

7 know is important for planning reasons within the Tribunal generally, we

8 would be grateful to be allowed at this stage for planning purposes the

9 third week in case we overrun or in case we are able to call Mr. Lilic in

10 that week.

11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, two matters. The accused talks of 90.000

12 pages and 500 cassettes. Is that right?

13 MR. NICE: I haven't, I'm afraid, done the sums. It looks as it

14 probably is correct.

15 JUDGE MAY: There seem to be nods all around.

16 MR. NICE: But of course by identifying individual witnesses, 40

17 or 50 witnesses, 60 witnesses for Christmas -- by Christmas, we'll also be

18 identifying either explicitly or implicitly, and I hope wherever possible

19 explicitly, the exhibits that will have to be focused on for those

20 particular witnesses, and I --

21 JUDGE MAY: The other matter is concerned with the Croatian

22 indictment, and there is a footnote in the pre-trial brief which refers to

23 the Prosecution not seeking to prove genocide in respect of the Bosnian

24 Croats. Now, I would like that to be confirmed if that is the case.

25 MR. NICE: Yes. I meant to flag the footnote myself. Can Your

Page 8636

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

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

14 English transcripts

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8637

1 Honour just remind me of the number?

2 JUDGE MAY: 271 I'm told.

3 MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour. That's the position and for the

4 reason set out in that footnote.

5 [Trial Chamber confers]

6 MR. NICE: It's page 271. I'm grateful to Mr. Wladimiroff, but

7 it's footnote 2076.

8 Your Honour, can I also make the obvious point, but for the record

9 I must make it, when the accused speaks of the focus on time, of course

10 the Prosecution has been and always is -- has been willing and sometimes

11 has been eager to take longer, to spend more time on this case. Its

12 willingness to condense matters and its focus on the saving of time is a

13 reflection of the more general interest that has been articulated on

14 several occasions by the Chamber, but it in no way suggests that we are

15 not willing to spend as much time as is proper for the proof of this case.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just going back to the question of the

17 documentation and the volume, the quantity, I believe the Prosecution can

18 and should do more by way of sifting and screening to ensure that what

19 comes before the Court is what is needed. It is true that the Chamber

20 does have a responsibility as well, but I believe that much more can be

21 done and should be done by the Prosecution by way of screening and

22 shifting.

23 When Mr. Milosevic speaks of the vast quantity of documents before

24 him that he has to read, I must say that I understand and I sympathise. I

25 would like you to accept and acknowledge that the Prosecution does have a

Page 8638

1 responsibility to impose a rigour on itself, a discipline on itself in

2 that regard.

3 MR. NICE: We certainly accept that, and that is why at present

4 the raw statistics would suggest that the reduction in the exhibit list

5 initially served is up to the order of 40 per cent we may be able to save

6 and thereafter we may be able to go further. So I think that Your Honour

7 will find that that rigour has, indeed, already been applied.

8 JUDGE MAY: What would be, I think, of assistance to everybody is

9 an indication of those exhibits which the Prosecution is likely to rely on

10 in the first period. So if we could have a list of the 54 witnesses plus

11 the exhibits.

12 MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour. We can certainly do that and we

13 must.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. And if you can do that certainly bit middle of

15 next week.

16 MR. NICE: We'll do our best certainly.

17 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

18 MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's one matter that touches Kosovo

19 only. Can I deal with that later? It's a particular issue of evidence in

20 relation to Kosovo.

21 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, we'll need to consider these matters.

22 We're going to take the adjournment now. We will then make an order

23 insofar as we can, and we will return and deal with other matters then.

24 Twenty minutes

25 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.

Page 8639

1 --- On resuming at 10.40 a.m.

2 THE ACCUSED: Mr. May.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, since you gave the floor to

5 Mr. Nice after the amici, I believe I have the right to make a few more

6 remarks.

7 In connection with what you are considering and deliberating

8 about, I believe it would be logical for you also to review the answer to

9 the question: What is the purpose of providing material that nobody has

10 time to read? What occurs to me also is something that Mr. Kay said at

11 one point when we had a discussion about the scheduling length and joinder

12 of these various cases. Namely, he said that there was no human being

13 able of handling such a trial. Perhaps that is precisely what the

14 Prosecutor is guided by.

15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we have heard your submissions on this

16 point, and we are now going to give our ruling. No, we're not going to

17 hear you further. You've already given your observations. The Prosecutor

18 had a right of reply because it was their motion that was being dealt

19 with. You do not have one.

20 We've considered what the Prosecution have said about this case

21 and the time that will be taken. We have, therefore, decided that we are

22 not going to make specific orders in relation to exclusion of evidence.

23 We don't think that would be right. However, we are unable to accede to

24 the suggestion that we should make no orders in relation to the number of

25 witnesses and the time that will be taken.

Page 8640

1 We think it right for all concerned in the trial that they know

2 the limitations of time and the numbers of witnesses which are available.

3 This is an order that a fair and manageable trial for all those

4 who are concerned in it can be held.

5 I have indicated earlier the way in which the mind of the Trial

6 Chamber was working towards a reduction of scope, and we are pleased to

7 see that the Prosecution are working in the same direction. We will allow

8 a further three weeks for the Kosovo part of the indictment. We will

9 instruct the Prosecution, by the 31st of July, to serve a witness list

10 until Christmas together with the relevant exhibits. That will allow the

11 accused to concentrate in the time which is available to him on the

12 relevant matter in order to prepare for the period between October, as it

13 will be, and Christmas.

14 We will give an extra two weeks after the close of the Kosovo case

15 for preparation for the period until Christmas. We note that a

16 substantial reduction will be made in the number of pages and the number

17 of exhibits. We welcome that and invite the Prosecution to cut the number

18 even further to the core documents, that is, the documents which are

19 really relevant to the trial.

20 So the accused, in the time which will be available for him for

21 preparation in August and September, a total of six weeks, should

22 concentrate on the case before Christmas. He will then have a further

23 period, of course, of the Christmas recess and any other appropriate time

24 to prepare for the rest of the case.

25 We have considered whether opening statements are necessary.

Page 8641

1 We've come to the conclusion that the fairest way of dealing with that

2 matter is to allow opening statements for up to three hours each. So that

3 will be three hours for the Prosecution, three hours for the accused.

4 The timetable will then be this: The Prosecutor will have until

5 the 13th of September on the Kosovo case, two weeks' preparation in which

6 the court will not sit. The Prosecution will begin on the 30th of

7 September.

8 We have considered the number of witnesses and the time which

9 should be available. We have indicated, as I have said, the way in which

10 our mind is working. We have come to the conclusion that there should be

11 a total of 106 witnesses, live witnesses, this is, in relation to Bosnia,

12 71 in relation to the Croatian indictment, a total of 177 live witnesses.

13 Given the time which is available and the rate at which the case

14 has been going, we've come to the conclusion that this evidence should be

15 heard by the 16th of May, 2003, and we will order, under 73 bis (E), that

16 that should be the time available to the Prosecution for presenting

17 evidence. And under 73 bis (C), we fix the number of witnesses at 177

18 live witnesses.

19 There will, of course, be, where appropriate, the opportunity to

20 put forward witnesses under Rule 92 bis.

21 If the circumstances alter during the trial, the Prosecution may

22 apply under the Rule for variation of this order. However, such variation

23 will only be made for good cause.

24 I turn next to the medical condition of the accused. We have

25 received a report, a medical report, which in its conclusion describes the

Page 8642

1 accused as a man with severe cardiovascular risk which demand careful

2 future monitoring. The authors recommend that his workload be reduced and

3 that additional medical treatment by a cardiologist is most visible.

4 The Trial Chamber considers that the accused should have such

5 cardiological treatment. When the cardiologist reports, the Trial Chamber

6 will consider what course of action to take, including the consideration

7 of any option which may be available for the future conduct of the trial.

8 Mr. Nice, there was a matter about the Kosovo part that you wanted

9 to raise. Is this a convenient moment or would it be better to deal with

10 it later.

11 MR. NICE: I'd be quite happy to deal with it now. Can I make one

12 point about the orders Your Honours made. I made the undertaking to

13 provide both the witness list and exhibits without fully consulting with

14 my colleagues. I gather that there will be difficulties in providing all

15 the exhibits -- in fact, impossibility the way of providing all the

16 exhibits by the 31st of July. We will get the list by then. May we

17 please have leave to provide the exhibits as quickly as we can or identify

18 the exhibits as quickly as we can and as soon as we have numbers of them

19 available. I hope it won't be necessarily actually to serve them again

20 because the accused has got them all. Would It simply be sufficient to

21 identify where they may be found?

22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Provided that it can be done in a fairly simple

23 way. It may be appropriate to do it in stages as the various decisions

24 are made.

25 MR. NICE: Thank you. The issue in relation -- thank you for

Page 8643

1 that. The issue in relation to Kosovo is an entirely discrete issue. I've

2 got my papers. It's to do with the trucks of bodies or the truck of

3 bodies that's been found, and it's -- the issue is whether the Chamber is

4 alive to the fact that there is evidence before it already constituting

5 expert evidence going to show that at least in respect of two of the

6 bodies located in one of the mass graves in Batajnica there is DNA

7 evidence linking those bodies with bodies from Kosovo or with families

8 from Kosovo.

9 I don't know if the Chamber would find it helpful to review the

10 matter. Possibly with the accused at a later stage this week, if

11 necessary. The evidence has gone in through the Witness Billy Fulton, and

12 he's produced an expert report. At the moment we're not intending to

13 produce an expert to go through the sometimes time-consuming exercise that

14 DNA experts have to devote to such issues when they give them in

15 conventional trials, give evidence in conventional trials.

16 There are going to be further reports of a like kind that can be

17 produced in relation to DNA analysis of bodies found in those graves

18 linking them to families in Kosovo. And obviously that becomes

19 particularly important when in relation to the truck found in the river

20 the accused seemed to be cross-examining on the basis that such bodies may

21 have simply been the bodies of people who were involved in the unhappy

22 trade of smuggling individuals from country to country.

23 He's not represented, therefore, I can't go and ask him whether

24 he's accepting the DNA findings in the expert reports. And if the

25 Chamber's in a position to check on its understanding of the evidence and

Page 8644

1 if necessary to raise the issue with him, then we will be guided as to

2 whether we need to call a DNA expert, as we easily enough can, at the

3 consumption of some time in September.

4 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll review that. If the evidence is there,

5 and I recollect Mr. Fulton's evidence, then it's part of the evidence in

6 the case and I would have thought that was sufficient.

7 MR. NICE: Yes. Of course it hasn't been challenged by the

8 accused and I'm being sensitive to the fact that he's not represented.

9 JUDGE MAY: I think you can't expect with a litigant in person

10 that he is going to challenge evidence in the way that you would expect

11 from a professional aptitude.

12 MR. NICE: I'm not remotely complaining about that. I'm really

13 much more concerned that he should understand what the evidence

14 constitutes at present. That's all, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The next part of the hearing will be in closed

16 session.

17 Yes.

18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one clarification. I'm happy

19 to hear you decided that at least for those three hours I can get the

20 floor. You said both parties, the other side and I, but I would like to

21 clarify one thing. At the beginning, in the month of February, I spoke

22 after the opposite side and emphasised that it was not my opening

23 statement, that it was just a statement, and that I will make my opening

24 statement when the full Prosecution case is over.

25 So I would like you to consider these three hours, too, just as a

Page 8645

1 statement of mine, not my opening statement which I reserve for the end of

2 the Prosecution case, the entire Prosecution case. I hope that I have

3 made myself clear.

4 JUDGE MAY: Yes. You will have the opportunity when you open your

5 defence to make a further statement.

6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So that's about the opening

7 statement. As for the other issue raised here, from what Mr. Nice said a

8 moment ago, I see no proof that this DNA analysis is indeed the DNA

9 analysis of the people found in the Danube, because as you have heard, the

10 bodies from the refrigerator lorry found in the Danube have not been found

11 yet, and it may be analysis of completely different bodies. So I

12 challenge absolutely what he said.

13 JUDGE MAY: We're not going to go into the evidence now. We will

14 consider all the evidence in due course, but we're not going to argue

15 about it now. Now, we're going to go into closed -- we're going into

16 closed session.

17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more thing, please,

18 Mr. May. One more very technical issue but very important, essential, in

19 fact. I kindly ask you again to issue an order for these materials. As

20 you can see, they are in enormous quantities, that they provided to me in

21 the Serbian language, because a great part of the material that I have

22 received so far has been submitted only in English. Even the pre-trial

23 brief, which is 350 pages long, has been served to me only in English,

24 which is inadmissible.

25 JUDGE MAY: We'll make enquiries about that.

Page 8646

1 Now we're going into closed session. We'll rise for five minutes.

2 --- Recess taken at 10.58 a.m.

3 --- On resuming at 11.09 a.m.

4 [Closed session]

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 8647

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 8647 to 8680 – redacted –closed session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 --- Whereupon the Pre-Trial Conference adjourned at

25 12.16 p.m. To be followed by the hearing.

Page 8681

1 Thursday, 25 July 2002

2 --- Upon commencing resuming at 12.33 p.m.

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 [The witness entered court]

6 WITNESS: RADOMIR MARKOVIC [Resumed]

7 [Witness answered through interpreter]

8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

9 MR. NICE: We're coming to meetings, briefings and recordings on

10 Kosovo.

11 Examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

12 Q. When you were head of the RDB, what was the rate of meetings with

13 your colleagues in the public security department, what frequency?

14 A. There were regular meetings with the Minister of the Interior.

15 They were held on Tuesdays, every Tuesday. This meeting would be attended

16 by all the supervisors from the state security -- from the state security

17 sector. It was the head and the deputy head and all the supervisors from

18 the public security sector. I also held meetings at the state security

19 sector, but these were not regular staff meetings, senior staff meetings

20 but when necessary, once in every fifteen days. Perhaps it could be put

21 that way.

22 Q. Did you ever brief either the Prime Minister of the Serbian

23 government Mr. Marjanovic, or the president of the Republic, Milan

24 Milutinovic?

25 A. I did. When necessary, if the subject matter involved would

Page 8682

1 require direct information, they would invite me to come and I would come

2 and inform them.

3 Q. You told us yesterday of the occasions when you also dealt with

4 particular issues with the accused. When you had meetings with the

5 accused, was it alone or was there any other of the named people present?

6 A. No. The meetings with Slobodan Milosevic were always in the

7 presence of the Minister of the Interior and the leadership of the

8 Ministry of the Interior or in the presence of his other senior staff

9 members, perhaps the president of the Republic might attend this meeting

10 or other leaders he might invite.

11 Q. I turn to reportings on Kosovo. How frequent were reports from

12 Kosovo received? How frequently?

13 A. Reporting from Kosovo was on a daily basis. That is to say every

14 day during the day from Kosovo a report would arrive, and the analytical

15 service would process it and then send it on further to the addressees

16 that were to receive this kind of information on a compulsory basis.

17 Q. Who were those addressees, please?

18 A. The head of state, the president of the Republic, the federal

19 Minister of the Interior, the republican Minister of the Interior, the

20 Prime Minister, and when he was appointed as head of the political body in

21 Kosovo, then Sainovic as well.

22 Q. What level of confidentiality or secrecy was attached to these

23 reports?

24 A. These reports were state secrets.

25 Q. Were the reports supposed to be retained by those to whom they

Page 8683

1 were addressed or were they supposed to be returned once read?

2 A. The instruction was that they should be returned. Along with the

3 envelope that accompanied that document was an envelope in which the same

4 document was supposed to be returned.

5 Q. Did any of the recipients in fact return their reports or not?

6 A. Milan Milutinovic, president of the Republic, would return the

7 reports.

8 Q. The others, including those sent to the accused, were retained,

9 were they?

10 A. I assume they were destroyed, because this other instruction was

11 that they were supposed to be destroyed.

12 Q. Let's turn to the structure of the MUP briefly. In the 1990s, was

13 the Serbian MUP divided into various secretariats?

14 A. Yes. The secretariats primarily existed in major towns in Serbia.

15 Q. How many of them were there?

16 A. I don't know exactly how many there were, but at any rate, in

17 bigger towns.

18 Q. Were there units called special anti-terrorist units, SAJ?

19 A. Yes, there were such units. There were three units. One was in

20 Kosovo, one was in Novi Sad in Vojvodina, and one was in Belgrade

21 respectively.

22 Q. And to whom were they subordinated?

23 A. They were subordinated to the Minister of the Interior. The

24 republican Minister of the Interior.

25 Q. Which branch of the Ministry of the Interior?

Page 8684

1 A. Public security.

2 Q. When you became head of the RDB, the structure was presumably as

3 left behind by Mr. Stanisic.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did he have and leave behind a number of assistants?

6 A. Yes. He had assistants. Some of them stayed behind to continue

7 doing the work they did, and some of them were retired, because some of

8 them had already been retired previously.

9 Q. Can you just tell us about one or two of them? Was there a man

10 Franko Simatovic?

11 A. Yes. Franko Simatovic was not one of the assistants then. He

12 became an assistant minister later. He was one of the leading persons

13 there, but I don't know exactly what his rank was. Was he advisor,

14 special advisor, or something like that.

15 Q. What were his responsibilities?

16 A. When I came to head the state security sector, he was in charge of

17 coordination with the JSO units.

18 Q. And as to its organisational structure, did the RDB have offices

19 in other cities and towns? And give us an idea of where.

20 A. Also in all bigger towns in Serbia there were centres of the state

21 security, not to mention all of them. Nis, Kragujevac, Novi Sad. For the

22 most part, in bigger towns.

23 Q. To whom did those other RDB offices report? Where did they

24 report?

25 A. The RDB offices reported to the appropriate administrations in the

Page 8685

1 state security sector according to the line of work they were engaged in.

2 Q. That's in Belgrade?

3 A. In Belgrade.

4 Q. Thus the intelligence department operating in Pristina would be

5 reporting back to Belgrade. Would that be correct?

6 A. That's correct.

7 Q. I turn to how, at least in part, the RDB was funded. Was its

8 budget met in part or in whole by the state in an ordinary way, coming

9 from state funds, or was there another method by which it was funded?

10 A. The state security sector is financed from a budget designated by

11 the Government of Serbia. However, this budget was never sufficient to

12 meet all the needs of the service, nor was the budget itself always

13 accomplished 100 per cent. I believe the actual rate was 50 per cent for

14 every year.

15 Q. Where did the balance of money come from that funded the RDB to

16 the extent that it was funded?

17 A. To meet needs such as purchase of equipment, purchase of equipment

18 for helicopters, of special units or the unit for special operations,

19 funds were obtained from the federal customs administration.

20 Q. I'd like you to give us some detail of how this funding occurred.

21 Who was the director of the federal customs administration?

22 A. The director of the FCA was Mihalj Kertes.

23 Q. When money came from the FCA, who organised it in the first place?

24 Who gave the instructions?

25 A. In order to get such funds approval was required. This approval

Page 8686

1 for allocating funding for the state security or the army of Yugoslavia or

2 I don't know who else, had to be obtained by Mihalj Kertes from Slobodan

3 Milosevic.

4 Q. And you explained it wasn't just the RDB that was being funded in

5 this way but that money was going to other departments as well, including

6 the army, correct?

7 A. Both the army and the state security.

8 Q. When approval was given and money was to be transferred from the

9 FCA, how did it actually happen?

10 A. Employees of the state security sector in charge of finances went

11 to the FCA, took the money back to the Ministry of the Interior, to the

12 department in charge of finances and purchases. All further affairs

13 related to payment and supply would be taken over by the appropriate

14 department of finance of the Ministry of the Interior because the state

15 security sector did not have any structure necessary to make such

16 payments. I suppose the further work went through the banks which

17 affected such payments.

18 Q. Let's go back to receipt of the money. You say the money came,

19 was handed to employees of the RDB. Did it come in the form of a banker's

20 draft or did it come in the form of cash or what?

21 A. In cash.

22 Q. Did come in national currency or in foreign currency?

23 A. In foreign currency, because statements had to be effected abroad,

24 and the equipment that we needed had to be imported.

25 Q. And after this cash had been received from the FCA and taken to

Page 8687

1 your building, was it then paid into a bank?

2 A. No. It was first handed over to the Ministry of the Interior, as

3 I have told you, to the department in charge of finance, and then I

4 suppose it was placed in a bank because that was the only way you could

5 effect a payment.

6 Q. Which bank was used for effecting payments for goods supplied to

7 the RDB?

8 A. RDB, the state security sector, purchased such equipment only

9 twice, and I believe Beobanka was used both times.

10 Q. Beobanka is also Beogradska bank; is that right?

11 A. There are two Beobanka banks. I believe this one was Beobanka,

12 not Beogradska bank. It was led by Mrs. Vucic.

13 Q. You speak of the occasions when to your knowledge money was used

14 in this way. What, if any, contacts did you have with the accused about

15 the passage of this money on these occasions?

16 A. I had to approach him with regard to the needs of the RDB for

17 equipment, but first I had to address the head of the RDB since the

18 funding required surpassed our budget and we had to look for money

19 elsewhere if we wanted to get this equipment for helicopters, to keep them

20 airworthy. So I had to address President Slobodan Milosevic, and an

21 agreement was reached with him to obtain this money from the Federal

22 Customs Administration.

23 Q. You've spoken of Mihalj Kertes. Did you ever have meetings with

24 him?

25 A. Yes. After that, I would meet up with him, and he told me he got

Page 8688

1 the necessary approval and that the funding required would be passed on to

2 the Ministry of the Interior.

3 Q. Did you ever have a meeting where both Kertes and the accused were

4 present at the time?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Did you ever have a meeting where there was a telephone contact

7 between those two of which you were a witness?

8 A. Yes. On one occasion when this matter was discussed, Slobodan

9 Milosevic called Mihalj Kertes and told him about the needs of the

10 Ministry of the Interior and asked him if he could do anything to meet

11 those needs.

12 Q. In due course, was Kertes decorated with a medal related to all of

13 these activities?

14 A. He was decorated, although I don't know if it was for those

15 activities or any other activities, but he was decorated during the tenure

16 of Jovica Stanisic.

17 Q. Yes. And do you know -- do you know yourself in respect of what

18 that medal came?

19 A. No. I can't possibly know that because it was Stanisic who

20 decorated him. I suppose for merits before the state security sector,

21 because he received this decoration on behalf of the state security

22 sector.

23 Q. Do you know anything about the funding of the -- of any training

24 facility in Kula?

25 A. Yes. Part of the funds for the construction of the Kula training

Page 8689

1 centre was also obtained from the FCA.

2 Q. Thank you. Now, you have, I think, made a couple of statements

3 about these financial matters to an investigating judge; is that correct?

4 A. Yes. I have talked to investigating Judge Cavlina about this.

5 Q. These statements are included in the material relied upon as

6 supporting material for the expert report of Morten Torkildsen who will,

7 in due course, be a witness in the case. I propose to ask this witness to

8 look at them briefly to confirm their accuracy. It being, perhaps,

9 desirable to do that where that is a possibility in respect of the

10 supporting material. Can we look at them, please? The original coming.

11 I handed in the wrong one.

12 If the original can be briefly laid on the overhead projector so

13 that those viewing can see what it is. And if the witness can then have

14 the version in Serbian and the English version thereafter placed on the

15 ELMO. So first of all the original so that we can see what it is. And we

16 can see that it's a signed document. Thank you very much. And if we can

17 now place the English version on the overhead projector.

18 You can see, Mr. Markovic, that this is a statement setting out at

19 the beginning your details, and it reads: "With regards to my --" I'm

20 following it in the English.

21 "With regards to my role in using foreign currency and dinar funds

22 of the Federal Customs Administration and my alleged decisive influence

23 over the then director Mihalj Kertes, I would like to point out that it is

24 a case of incorrect and untrue interpretation. I did not have, neither

25 could I have of such an influence on Kertes having in mind the

Page 8690

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

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

14 English transcripts

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8691

1 widely-known fact that Mihalj Kertes, together with Nikola Sainovic,

2 Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vlajko Stojilkovic used to be the closest associate of

3 the former president of FRY Slobodan Milosevic. It is true that at the

4 time when I was head of the RDB we received certain foreign currency and

5 dinar funds from SUC. However, those funds were requested by and granted

6 to RDB on the basis of operative needs or technical supplies, purchasing

7 equipment or rockets for our helicopter unit. The procedure for getting

8 the above-mentioned funds for purchasing equipment for RDB was set up

9 earlier. Namely, on the basis of requests of particular organisational

10 units of RDB, usually the Special Operations Unit (JSO) I would inform

11 Milosevic about the problems and requests during our direct and regular

12 work contacts. Using the RDB budget in MUP could usually solve the

13 problems. Slobodan Milosevic would afterwards in direct contact with

14 Kertes order him to meet our requests and what happened afterwards

15 depended on the current SUC resources. Technically the agreements would

16 be carried out in the usual manner. The actual paying for the needed

17 equipment and supplies was carried out via Beogradska Bank and other banks

18 that I was not familiar with. After Milosevic had issued orders to

19 Kertes, I would get in touch with Kertes and discuss the realisation. It

20 was usually carried out by Marjan Zovic and Rasha Kandic from RDB.

21 However, I would like to point out that SUC did not provide foreign

22 currency and dinar funds only to RDB. This was also a regular practice

23 with the Public Security Sector (RJB) and that is easy to check in the

24 financial transitions of MUP. People in charge of financial transactions

25 sector of MUP and General Zekovic, who was their superior should also have

Page 8692

1 knowledge of this. Concerning the allegation that I had a privileged

2 position with Milosevic family, I would like to point out that it's a case

3 of wrong interpretation, of regular and normal communication of the head

4 of RDB and the president of the state. I had considerable problems,

5 especially with Mirjana Markovic, due to my opinion and reactions to the

6 influence that political factors had on the work of RDB. If I had been,

7 as it has often been said, one of the people that the Milosevic family

8 trusts the most, I would not only hold the position that I did, but would

9 also be the Minister of Interior. Additionally, it was not me who gave

10 Uros Suvakovic a job in RDB. On the contrary, he was appointed an advisor

11 in RDB following the direct orders and the decision of the then Minister

12 Vlajko Stojilkovic, despite my opposing to that, which is something that

13 my associates from that period know of. As an illustration of my

14 behaviour and the line of action of the then influential political factor

15 JUL, I would like to mention the problem which additionally complicated my

16 position with the Milosevic family. Namely, CRDB Novi Sad, in the process

17 of shedding light on some illegal activities and instances of

18 mismanagement, and with relation to an anonymous letter concerning the

19 crime committed in Nis (Oil Industry of Serbia) and the role of Zivko

20 Soklovacki, obtained some records and evidence incriminating against the

21 Soklovacki brothers while doing interior decoration of the new business

22 premises."

23 And, Your Honour, it goes on on those matters and I don't think

24 it's necessary to cover them. But Mr. Markovic, in relation to the

25 matters dealing with finance, is what you set out in the statement there

Page 8693

1 accurate?

2 A. Yes.

3 MR. NICE: May that perhaps rather than being subsumed within the

4 exhibit of Mr. Torkildsen to come, may this be a separate exhibit.

5 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 277.

6 MR. NICE: Could the witness have the next statement, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Last Exhibit will be numbered 278 instead of 277.

8 MR. NICE: We will take this one more shortly. Could you just lay

9 the original on the overhead projector so that we can see the sort of

10 document it is. First sheet and second sheet. We can see on the third

11 sheet that it's signed and is in Cyrillic. Thank you very much. I think

12 the signature is on the third sheet, but if we could now go to the English

13 version, please, Mr. Usher. And we can see from the top of the first page

14 that this is compiled on the 22nd of May of 2001 before the investigating

15 judge of the District Court of Belgrade. And if we go to the second page,

16 please, and the foot of that page, we can see a paragraph beginning.

17 Q. As far as I recall, it says:

18 "... I only spoke to President Slobodan Milosevic on two

19 occasions as chief of the SDB. The first time I told him we needed to

20 secure foreign currency reserves to provide the SDB with the equipment it

21 needed - guns for the DB helicopters. This was not to secure helicopters

22 (they had been procured previously) but to provide equipment for the

23 helicopters."

24 Q. You go on then to deal with that. The next paragraph starts

25 with: "I did not see this foreign currency, but as far as I know it went

Page 8694

1 to a bank..."

2 The next paragraph says: "I really could not be certain what

3 amount of foreign currency we are talking about. I do know that it was a

4 considerable sum."

5 And then the last paragraph: "I spoke to President Milosevic for

6 the second time at the beginning of 1999 to secure foreign currency for

7 the procurement of the special vehicles for the special operations units

8 of the DB Department. Once more I cannot remember the exact amount of

9 money but it was a considerable sum." And you deal with details of that.

10 MR. NICE: May that be produced, please, as an exhibit?

11 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 279.

12 MR. NICE:

13 Q. And so far as that statement is concerned, when you read it was it

14 accurate as to your financial dealings with Kertes and with the accused?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Before we move on, Kula, the training facility at Kula, who was

17 trained at Kula?

18 A. Kula was a centre of the special unit of the RDB which is called

19 the Unit for Special Operations, JSO. And the training was provided for

20 people who worked in the state security sector.

21 Q. Take paragraph 9 ahead of paragraph 8. You've told us already of

22 the name of Mrs. Borka Vucic. Can you tell us a little bit about her and

23 her authority or influence? Who was she?

24 A. She was the director - I believe I already said that - of Beobanka

25 or Beogradska Banka. I'm not ceratin about that. She was an expert in

Page 8695

1 her line of work. She had many years of experience in banking and was

2 very knowledgeable?

3 A. Were you able to assess the degree to which she was used more

4 generally than just for the RDB for the transfer of funds?

5 A. No. I don't know that. All I know is that on one of these

6 occasions that I mentioned, the funding went through her bank.

7 Q. As to the accused, did he express any views or make known any

8 views he had about her and whether she should be used for these

9 transactions?

10 A. I know that they knew each other, that they had known each other

11 for a long time and cooperated for a long time and that Slobodan Milosevic

12 had great confidence in Mrs. Vucic. And I suppose that is the reason for

13 his proposal to go through her bank. But this was handled by the Ministry

14 of the Interior, that is, their finance department. Such a request could

15 not have been addressed to the RDB. It had to be addressed to the

16 Ministry of the Interior.

17 Q. Did the accused say anything to you about which bank you should

18 use or anything to you about Mrs. Vucic?

19 A. No. I believe it was only the bank that was mentioned. And we

20 all knew Mrs. Vucic. She had been there for many years at the head of

21 that bank. And it was common knowledge. You didn't have to know her

22 personally.

23 Q. Paragraph 10. Slobodan Rajh, except that I think the

24 pronunciation is wrong. Can you tell us about him, please?

25 A. I never met that man personally, but I heard that it was through

Page 8696

1 him that equipment was purchased for the state security sector starting

2 from the tenure of Jovica Stanisic, and the final transaction involved the

3 purchase of vehicles at the time when I was already heading that sector.

4 Q. What goods did you understand he to have been involved in buying?

5 A. Technical equipment, technical supplies necessary for our work,

6 the work of the state security sector. I know specifically about

7 vehicles, jeeps. But I suppose that during the term of office of Jovica

8 Stanisic, he supplied other equipment for the RDB, because I already found

9 in our sector vehicles bought in Israel, and he had very good connections

10 in Israel.

11 Q. Was there a helicopter purchased, to your knowledge, involving

12 this man?

13 A. Yes. He was a mediator in the purchase of helicopters. I believe

14 that helicopter was called Sikorsky.

15 Q. And by whom was that used, that helicopter?

16 A. That helicopter wasn't used a lot. President Milosevic used it

17 once or twice. Otherwise, it wasn't used at all.

18 Q. You spoke of business dealings in Israel. How connected, well or

19 otherwise, was Slobodan Rajh with business entities of one kind or another

20 in Israel?

21 A. I don't know about that. I don't know, because all these

22 purchases were made before I took over the post of the head of the state

23 security sector. All I know from speaking to my associates is that these

24 transactions were handled through him, with his mediation. I don't think

25 that he was the only one.

Page 8697

1 Q. There were, nevertheless, purchases made in or through Israel; is

2 that correct?

3 A. I don't know whether it was only through Israel. All I can say is

4 that the equipment I have seen was equipment from Israel, but we had other

5 equipment from the US and from Europe.

6 Q. Come back to Slobodan Rajh in just a second, but another person,

7 the accused's brother, Borislav, who was at one time the FRY's ambassador

8 to Russia, what part did he play, if any, in the purchasing of equipment?

9 A. From what I heard, he was an intermediary in the purchase of

10 Russian-made helicopters. So I was told to use his services, considering

11 that he had connections in Russia, for the purpose of further purchases of

12 helicopters and spare parts for them.

13 Q. Were you creating a new relationship or was this building on a

14 relationship that you understood Mr. Stanisic had had before you with the

15 accused's brother?

16 A. It was all based on this old relationship. He had already been

17 engaged in this business for a while, and I was told that this could be

18 continued because, as our ambassador to Russia, he had good connections in

19 that country.

20 Q. Back to Slobodan Rajh just briefly. Was there another man you can

21 help us with called Franko Simatovic? We've mentioned him already. And

22 if so, was he known to or friendly with Slobodan Rajh?

23 A. Yes. They knew each other well, but I don't know what kind of

24 relationship they had.

25 Q. Let's turn to Simatovic himself. When you took over as head, what

Page 8698

1 position did Simatovic hold?

2 A. Simatovic was coordinator between the head of the state security

3 sector and the commander of the JSO special unit. I don't know whether he

4 had any other special position, but at any rate, that is the work that he

5 was involved in.

6 Q. You say "coordinator." Who was in command, if not him, of the JSO

7 or was it him?

8 A. The commander of the JSO was Lukovic.

9 Q. Where did Simatovic fit in in relation to Lukovic really?

10 A. He was between him and the head of the state security sector,

11 Jovica Stanisic.

12 Q. What action did you take in respect of Mr. Simatovic when you took

13 over?

14 A. In view of the fact that the Special Operations Unit had sustained

15 major changes, that is to say that it was decreased by two-thirds in terms

16 of the manpower that was in this unit, it also underwent changes in terms

17 of the arms and equipment it had. There was no need to have this position

18 of coordinator any longer between the commander of the unit and the head

19 of the state security sector. I appointed Mr. Simatovic my assistant for

20 operative matters.

21 Q. Turn to the relationship of the MUP and the VJ. Did there come a

22 time when one was subordinated to the other?

23 A. Yes. That was -- there was this resubordination act that was

24 passed by the army and it contained the following elements: that all

25 forces and all members of the Ministry of the Interior should be

Page 8699

1 resubordinated to the command of the army of Yugoslavia.

2 Q. When did this come about? Who issued the order? How was it

3 passed down?

4 A. I think that this order was issued in 1999, and I assume that it

5 was issued by the chief of General Staff, because I did not see it

6 personally, this order. I had it communicated to me by Vlajko

7 Stojiljkovic, Minister of the Interior.

8 Q. Having learnt of this order, did you speak to someone about it?

9 A. Yes. I did speak to the Minister of the Interior, and I also

10 spoke to Slobodan Milosevic. I asked about the authenticity of this

11 enactment and how we should function in this way, the Ministry of the

12 Interior, and the Minister said this was an order that had to be obeyed,

13 and all of us were prepared to carry it out.

14 Q. You spoke to the accused about it. What did he say about it?

15 A. He said that this was an order that was issued by the command of

16 the army, that is to say, the chief of General Staff, and that he thought

17 that that was indispensable at that moment. He was not duty-bound to give

18 me any detailed explanations. I was simply a bit surprised by this order,

19 such an order, and I simply did not see how the service, the sector, would

20 function under such conditions. I wanted to check. I did not get any

21 detailed explanations. I just -- I was just told that such a command had

22 to be carried out.

23 Q. Did the accused give you any explanation of why, what its purpose

24 was?

25 A. No. He gave no explanation to me personally. The Minister of the

Page 8700

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

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

14 English transcripts

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8701

1 Interior gave me an explanation. He said that the point of this order was

2 to have a single command in Kosovo.

3 Q. When, according to your memory, did this order come in relation to

4 the beginning of the NATO bombing?

5 A. At any rate, before the bombing started.

6 MR. NICE: May the witness see another exhibit, please? 1953.

7 If we can -- the usual format. Put the original on the overhead

8 projector first, the first sheet, so that we can see what it appears to

9 be. You can see the date the 8th of May of 1999. And then if we turn to

10 the second sheet of the original, we can see a stamp and a signature.

11 Pavkovic. And then if we can look at the English version, please, on the

12 overhead projector, front page. We will take it quite briefly because it

13 exemplifies the point being made by the witness.

14 Q. This is an order or a command dated the 8th of May of 1999, and

15 it's concerned with the deployment of army and MUP forces in combat

16 control on the territory of -- combat and control of the territory, and

17 it's an order. It's marked as going to General Lukic, Pristina MUP,

18 personally, and it reads so far as material: "As a result of the

19 deployment of VJ and MUP forces, Shiptar Albanian terrorist forces in

20 Kosovo and Metohija have been overpowered and significant losses have been

21 inflicted on them. By making use of rugged terrain in the eastern and

22 central part of Kosovo and Metohija, remaining groups of Shiptar terrorist

23 forces continue to conduct periodic raids and ambushes.

24 "In order to prevent further activities ... and completely destroy

25 armed terrorist groups ... I hereby order," and then a series of orders.

Page 8702

1 For example, at numbers 3 and 4 references to the MUP, and in number 2 the

2 VJ. And if we turn over the page then without troubling the detail, we see

3 that it's signed by Colonel General Nebojsa Pavkovic.

4 Does that command structure revealed in that document,

5 Mr. Markovic, accord with the order that you have told us about?

6 A. This was signed by Nebojsa Pavkovic, I assume as commander of the

7 3rd Army. I don't know whether at that time he was also the chief of the

8 General Staff. I assume he was not chief of General Staff then. I assume

9 that this is an order that he had to get as well. But it does pertain to

10 Kosovo.

11 MR. NICE: May this be given an exhibit number, please?

12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 280.

13 MR. NICE:

14 Q. Now, the subordination of MUP forces to the VJ of which you've

15 spoken, how wide-ranging was it over the territory? Was it just in Kosovo

16 or elsewhere? What was the position?

17 A. It pertained to the entire country. However, as far as I know,

18 this did not fully occur everywhere. I think that most of this was

19 carried out in Kosovo, less in Serbia. I mean, in this part outside

20 Kosovo, that is, that this was not carried out fully.

21 Q. Can you help us next, please, with the degree to which the accused

22 was briefed about MUP and VJ activity and by whom? What reporting, to

23 your knowledge, did the late Stojiljkovic give?

24 A. It was the duty of the Minister of the Interior to keep the

25 president of the country informed on a daily basis. President Milosevic

Page 8703

1 got daily reports from the state security sector. The same kind of report

2 was received from the public security sector. I'm not sure whether it was

3 on a daily basis, but it was certainly related to a particular subject

4 matter that is within the scope of work of the public security sector of

5 the Ministry of the Interior. The president also received information

6 from the military structures, but I don't know. I did not get these

7 reports, and I do not know what they contained.

8 Q. There came a time when Sreten Lukic became head of the for Kosovo

9 MUP; is that right?

10 A. Yes. General Lukic was appointed Chief of Staff in Kosovo.

11 Q. What was his reporting pattern of behaviour?

12 A. He had a line of reporting through the public security, that is to

13 say to Vlastimir Djordjevic, head of the public security sector. That's

14 who he submitted his reports to. The head of the public security sector

15 was duty-bound to submit reports to Vlajko Stojiljkovic, Minister of the

16 Interior, and then he sent these reports further, if necessary, and as

17 deemed necessary, depending who it would be sent to.

18 Q. Were there any personal briefings in Belgrade to your knowledge by

19 Lukic or Pavkovic?

20 A. Yes. From time to time, perhaps once a month, they would come

21 from Kosovo and they would personally brief the Minister and President

22 Milosevic.

23 Q. Were you ever summoned by the accused to give personal briefings

24 supplementary to what he may have been receiving elsewhere?

25 A. Very seldom. Only in respect of the information he received from

Page 8704

1 the state security sector. If something was not fully explained or if he

2 required more in-depth information, President Milosevic would call me and

3 then I would add to this either in writing or verbally depending on what

4 he would insist upon and depending on the urgency of the matter involved.

5 Q. Look at one more exhibit at this stage, please. Mr. Markovic, I

6 don't think you've had an advance opportunity of looking at this document,

7 so take a little more time with it. And while you are, perhaps the usher

8 would be good enough to put the front page of the original on the overhead

9 projector so that we can again see what it is. It's a document dated the

10 27th. It's a little hard to see, but I think it's clear that it's March

11 of 1999. It comes from Pristina. And if you will come back to the front

12 page in a minute.

13 The -- if you go to the last page of the original, please,

14 Mr. Usher, which is about seven pages on, you will see a signature there,

15 and it's probably just possible to make out the word, typed words "Sreten

16 Lukic" above the signature. If you come back to the front page while the

17 witness is considering the document.

18 I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon for pointing out that, I think, there is

19 a error in the translation. We can see from the original -- that's

20 perfect -- that the dates covered are the 26th of March to the 27th March.

21 Probably calculate that for ourselves even if we can't read the Cyrillic.

22 We can see above that a distribution list, and with that one

23 possible error in translation corrected, can we now look at the front page

24 of the English version, please?

25 Mr. Markovic, I'm sorry to have taken you by surprise, to some

Page 8705

1 degree by surprise with this document, having reviewed and you don't need

2 to trouble with the detail of the contents, does this appear to be a

3 report of the Ministry of the Interior dated the 27th of March of 1999

4 from and signed by Sreten Lukic? And we see that the reporting chain is

5 up to Belgrade, to the Minister and then to various others including the

6 head of the RJB public security Djordjevic and to yourself and to others?

7 A. Yes. These are the reports that were coming in from Kosovo.

8 Q. And we see that this one is a summary of events and occurrences of

9 importance between two days. Thank you very much.

10 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 281.

11 MR. NICE:

12 Q. Some help next with the scope of armour and armed vehicles

13 available to the RDB. What sort of equipment did you have and maintain?

14 A. I found equipment that was in line with military standards for the

15 most part in the JSO. However, since it was not necessary, in my opinion,

16 for the state security sector to have such a unit, I transformed the unit

17 into a special unit, that is to say with the kind of purpose that these

18 units of the public security sector have. That is why the equipment that

19 did not fit into the functioning of this type of unit was handed over to

20 the army of Yugoslavia. And the manpower that was not altogether required

21 for further work in this special unit were dismissed or, rather, these

22 were persons who were under contract. So their contracts were terminated.

23 They were not permanent employees. The facilities in Kula were built for

24 training special units. Not only that special unit but all special units

25 of the Ministry of the Interior. The armaments and equipment that the

Page 8706

1 unit had was standard equipment for anti-terrorist units, that is to say

2 fast, mobile vehicles, jeeps, armoured, and we adjusted this to the needs

3 of that unit, and also standard weapons for anti-terrorist units,

4 firearms.

5 Q. Thank you. The next topic is something called the joint command.

6 Is that a description that -- or description of a body that you can help

7 us with, please?

8 A. Joint command in Kosovo, you mean?

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. A joint command did exist or, rather, this staff in Kosovo existed

11 that was headed by the general that you saw in this report, Sreten Lukic

12 from the public security. And he also had associates of his who were in

13 the Ministry of the Interior. And also the head of the public security of

14 the secretariat in Pristina was part of that staff, and also the head of

15 the state security sector in Pristina.

16 Q. Can you give us the names of the various people who formed this

17 body?

18 A. I cannot. I cannot recall any one of their names. But I did look

19 at a document where these names were contained, and they approximately do

20 correspond to the names of the persons who made up this staff. The

21 composition of this staff changed. There was a period during which people

22 had to work in Kosovo, and then they would be replaced by others.

23 Q. The -- what was the scope of authority of this joint command,

24 please?

25 A. Well, the staff was in charge of all the units of the Ministry of

Page 8707

1 the Interior that were in Kosovo. That is to say that it looked to

2 day-to-day matters and resolved situations that required rapid action, as

3 it were.

4 Q. By whom was the joint command appointed?

5 A. It was appointed by the Minister of the Interior.

6 Q. In addition to the joint command, was there a political grouping,

7 a political body?

8 A. Yes, there was a political body. This body consisted of Nikola

9 Sainovic, Zoran Matkovic, and Andjelkovic. I can't remember his first

10 name.

11 Q. And by whom was that political body appointed?

12 A. I don't know exactly who appointed this political body because I

13 did not see any decisions in writing on their appointment.

14 Q. How did the political body that included Sainovic and Andjelkovic

15 react with or interact with the joint command itself?

16 A. Well, that political body had the function of coordinating between

17 the command of the army of Yugoslavia and the members of the army of

18 Yugoslavia and the members of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia or,

19 rather, the leaders of that joint command in Kosovo.

20 Q. So it's probably obvious from your last answer. We went through

21 the personalities on the joint command at something of a speed. Was the

22 VJ represented? Was the army represented on the joint command?

23 A. Yes. The army of Yugoslavia was represented on the command.

24 Q. Look at another document now, please.

25 MR. NICE: The regular format, please. If you can put the

Page 8708

1 original on the overhead projector so that we can see what it is.

2 Q. And we see a document with clear date, the 7th of July of 1998.

3 You can see it's got a command number on the right-hand side. If we turn

4 over to the second sheet it's signed document, the second sheet not being

5 entirely clear. I think it's colonel Dragan Zivanovic.

6 So if we now look at the English version, please, front page only,

7 first page only. This is headed as a "Command of the 125 Motorised

8 Brigade," 7th the of July, 1998, and is: "Ban on operations without the

9 knowledge and approval of the Joint Command for KiM, Strictly

10 Confidential ... with the aim of increasing efficiency in carrying out

11 tasks, better organisation and cooperation with units in the zone of

12 responsibility," et cetera.

13 "Order," and then there are various orders that follow. The

14 first is: "Prohibit the execution of operations by units and formations

15 without the approval of the Joint Command ... and my own approval."

16 Well, now, Mr. Markovic, does this order dated July 1998, coming

17 from a colonel in the circumstances set out accord with your understanding

18 of the scope of authority of the joint command?

19 A. I see this as an order that was issued by the command, that is to

20 say the staff in Kosovo, and that relates to other units in Kosovo. That

21 is to say that they are being directed to coordinate and that they will be

22 getting orders from the centre. I am not sure that this is a document

23 that was adopted at the time when this political body existed. I think it

24 was adopted before that.

25 JUDGE MAY: We will have an exhibit number for that.

Page 8709

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

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

14 English transcripts

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 8710

1 And, Mr. Nice, it's time it adjourn if that's a convenient moment.

2 MR. NICE: Certainly.

3 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 282.

4 JUDGE MAY: We're going to adjourn now.

5 Mr. Markovic, would you please be back at 9.00 tomorrow morning.

6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

7 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day

8 of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25