37496
Wednesday, 16 March 2005
[Open session]
[The witness entered court]
[The accused entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
JUDGE KWON: Judge Robinson is absent due to Tribunal business, so we'll sit pursuant to 15 bis.
Mr. Milosevic, for you to continue examination.
WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC [Resumed]
[Witness answered through interpreter]
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon. Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General Gojovic. Yesterday, we went through tab 14 containing a number of documents from which it transpires that you as the head of the general administration of the General Staff were informed about the work of the courts and the prosecutors' offices. Was the Supreme Command Staff informed of the work of the military judiciary organs?
A. Yes.
Q. I wish to draw everyone's attention to tab 15. It contains a paper titled "Information." Was that the kind of information that was supplied to the Supreme Command Staff?
A. Yes. That's the kind of report we received.
Q. It contains all the general data about formation, 1st Army, 2nd Army, 3rd Army. In the penultimate paragraph, concerning the 3rd Army, it 37497 says: "The difficulties encountered by this court in its work also exist when it comes to delivering subpoenas because of the lack of security and safety of movement in combat operations zones, the intense attacks carried out by the aggressor's air force and the covert operations by dispersed terrorists groups."
A. Yes. This is typical of the military corps and the military prosecutor's office of the Pristina Corps.
Q. The Pristina Corps, in fact its zone of responsibility covers the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija. Is that correct, General Gojovic?
A. Yes.
Q. On the next page, in paragraph 3, we see information about the number of cases. It says: "From the moment of establishment of military judicial organs, military prosecutors received 7.807 criminal reports, filed reports for the investigation of 2.911 persons, and charged 3.928 persons. A total of 2.825 requests to start an investigation were submitted. 1.395 were implemented. Some 3.897 persons have been indicted ..."
That is the kind of information you showed us in the form of tables.
A. Yes. I would just like to give a clarification about this. This paper was prepared for over a number of days, and it's dated 12th September, but this information is as of the 15th September, because that was the date when we actually submitted it to the Supreme Command Staff, and the information was updated before it was sent. There were certain 37498 corrections to these conclusions and assessments. So these numbers - for instance the number of cases - coincides with the numbers given in tabular form in the tables we saw earlier in attachments annexes 1 to 3.
Q. The basic problems are also covered here. In paragraph 4, it says: "A large number of criminal reports were submitted in a very short interval, and many of them were not supported by the necessary legal evidence, which causes difficulties in the work of the prosecutor. Such a large number of criminal cases are becoming a burden to the courts. "There is a slight increase in more -- in graver, serious crimes, with an increasing number of perpetrators committing serious crimes, which represents a threat to society and requires greater engagement of the competent organs in order to detect and prevent crimes."
A. Correct.
Q. In paragraph 5, we see what kind of measures were applied. It says: "Provide adequate documentation for establishment of military prisons," et cetera.
THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters request for the accused to provide adequate references before starting to quote.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, you are being requested by the interpreters to indicate the appropriate references before starting to quote.
THE INTERPRETER: And to slow down, please.
JUDGE KWON: And to slow down.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Paragraph 6.3.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 37499
Q. "All commanders of units should report immediately to the military prosecutor any crimes and perpetrators so that they can be prosecuted. Any officers who do not comply shall be accountable and the strictest measures shall be applied against them." That's the kind of information that was supplied to the Supreme Command Staff. This is dated 12 September 1992. Do you have any comments, Mr. Gojovic?
A. There is especially this paragraph concerning the work of the courts where they are urged to do their utmost so that all these cases can be processed in the most efficient manner. The date of this document is 12 May 1999.
MR. NICE: Your Honours, I think we might have a little bit more information about this document. The witness has been asked whether it's like material he received. I don't know if he's saying he received it or where he got it from or how he produced it, but given that it's anonymous on its face, perhaps a little more detail will help us.
JUDGE KWON: I think Mr. Nice can deal with it in cross-examination, but if you can help us with this question, Mr. Milosevic.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can deal with it. I personally drafted this paper. All the reports that went to the Supreme Command Staff regarding the work of the military judiciary bodies were personally drafted by me. Some corrections and adjustments were introduced here by my superior, General Matovic, concerning the work of the Supreme Command Staff. Otherwise, I compiled all this data. 37500
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. It is indicated here that it was the administration for reinforcement, organisation, mobilisation, and system issues of the Supreme Command Staff drafted this.
A. Yes, that is true. The legal department of the Supreme Command Staff was part of this administration, and I drafted this with the approval of the head of this administration, General Matovic.
Q. It says "attachments as indicated in the text." Those are the attachments we reviewed yesterday.
A. That is correct, and those attachments contain exact data on cases processed. So this is a package of documents.
Q. Tell me in the most general terms what issues from the domain of the work of military judiciary were reported to the Supreme Command Staff.
A. They were reported about the number of perpetrators, the number of criminal reports received, the number of requests for starting investigations, and the number of indictments. As for military courts, how many on-site investigations were carried out, how many requests for investigations were received, how many investigations were actually started, how many indictments were brought.
Also, the Supreme Command Staff was given a breakdown by the type of crimes. There were three types of crimes concerning military courts; failure to respond to call-up, desertion, and failure to carry out orders. All other crimes were put in one group. There is crime against life and limb, that is murder; heavy bodily injuries; and the third category is crimes against property. Crimes against property, as I said, they 37501 encompass all crimes concerning property. Additional information would be later submitted concerning the status of persons who committed the crimes; officers, non-commissioned officers, conscripts, et cetera. That is the kind of issues that were contained in the reports given to the Supreme Command Staff, including tables where all this data is contained.
JUDGE BONOMY: General, can I take it that crime against life and limb includes more than murder?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. All crimes against life and limb are crimes against life and body, in other words. There is nothing else in this category.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General Gojovic, did the Supreme Command Staff, after the state of war ended, receive a final report of all criminal cases started before military judiciary organs?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the document contained in tab 16, "Report on the work of military judicial organs during the state of war"?
A. Correct.
JUDGE BONOMY: Again can I be clear about one thing: The last document we've looked at, which is tab 15, is dated at the end a date in May, 12th of May, but at the beginning a date in September. Now, what period does it actually relate to?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no, no. It was not September. I'm sorry. The previous report provides information as of the 37502 12th of May, but it is accompanied by annexes added as of the 15th of May, and the information is added, as I explained earlier, speaking of para 3, that the information was updated before the report was finally submitted. The report took two or three days to compile, and we updated it before submitting it on the 15th, because this report was submitted together with the tables we discussed previously, and we updated the information so that all the data would coincide between the tables and the report.
JUDGE KWON: Do you have that tab 15 with you, General Gojovic? What Judge Bonomy has referred to is a handwritten date on the right top of the document.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's the 12th of May. 12th of May. I wrote that in longhand so I wouldn't have to turn to the last page and look at the date, the last page in the left-hand corner. This is written in pencil.
JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, the first page, at the top of the right part of the page, it says 12th of September, 1999. What does it mean?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. It's the 12th of May. 12/9 -- 12/5. I'm sorry.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, it's a misinterpretation. Yes, I follow.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Must be.
JUDGE BONOMY: One problem about that is a number of your answers have actually referred to September, but we can take it that they're wrong, can we, and they should be May?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the month of May. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. Maybe President Milosevic can help us, but I kept 37503 speaking of the 12th of May. I kept speaking of the month of May, not September. It must be a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. In any case, it's the month of May 1999.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General, do you have the original of that document?
A. Yes.
Q. And what can you see on that document, the original? Can you see -- can we see what you wrote down in handwriting?
A. Yes. Take a look, please.
Q. Because the copy isn't clear enough.
JUDGE KWON: That's clear, yes. Go on, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I'd like to tender tab 15 into evidence, please.
JUDGE KWON: We will admit from tab 13 and 14 and 15 as well.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. You've already answered my question, that is to say whether the staff of the Supreme Command received a final report at the end of the state of war, which means also at the end of the existence of wartime courts; right?
A. Yes.
Q. We're just going to dwell on this very briefly. On page 1, paragraph 3, we see the total figure that: "Military prosecutors have so far received a total of 18.541 criminal reports, filed requests for the investigation of 5.370 persons, and indicted 6.708 persons." 37504 Can you explain to us how an investigation was conducted against 5.370 whereas 6.708 were indicted?
A. This was the situation when you have a cross-section like this. Part of the persons were accused after the investigation, and the second portion were individuals which were not investigated if the evidence and proof was sufficient, together with the criminal file -- criminal report that was filed, for the prosecutor to be able to go ahead in the proceedings, and this was something we could do during a situation of war, which means that without the acquiescence of the investigating judge, an indictment could be raised whereas regularly you would need agreement from the investigating judge to raise an indictment for serious crimes meriting sentences above five years. So that is the difference. It was a state of war and that's why that difference occurs.
Q. Very well. Thank you. I've understood your explanation. The third paragraph from the bottom on that same first page says the following, that sentences ranged "from one to seven years in prison, with the majority being around 2.5 to six years, while for other serious crimes, far more severe sentences were pronounced."
A. Yes. That was for the cases where a judgement was made, and there were fewer people where the high sentences existed, there were -- the cases were referred on appeal.
Towards the end of this piece of information, it says crimes which -- criminal cases that will objectively not be able to be completed will be sent to the responsible peacetime military courts for further procedure as envisaged by the rules of operation of military courts during a state 37505 of war."
A. Yes.
Q. So is this absolutely in keeping with the rules of service and rules of procedure, that wartime military courts are abolished and regular courts of law carry on with the proceedings?
A. Yes. Once the state of war ceases, the military judiciary ceases to work, which means that we don't need extra regulations for this. Once a state of war has come to an end, so do the military courts, and it is the peacetime military courts that take over these affairs. In Nis, in Belgrade or Podgorica. So there were three military courts during peacetime covering the entire area and the area of Kosovo and Metohija for the 3rd Army. All the cases are ceded to the military court in Nis. The 1st Army has its military court in Belgrade, and the 2nd Army has its military court in Podgorica and they continue to work regularly in peacetime.
Q. Can we, General, now comment briefly on the attachments to this piece of information, the state of criminal cases in military judicial organs, the table we have, and criminal reports received against officers 172, 107 against non-commissioned officers, 3.843 against privates, private soldiers, 14.252 against military conscripts, 31 against civilians in the Yugoslav army, and 136 criminal reports received against civilians not in the Yugoslav army, which makes a total of 18.541.
A. Yes. This gives us the total number of criminal reports broken up according to the categories of persons committing the crimes, and this is important for the supreme military staff to see who the perpetrators were 37506 BLANK PAGE 37507 according to the criminal reports filed and received.
Q. And next -- in the last column we see investigation requests, how many indictees, what the judgements were. The total number is 2.185, 360 were freed, which makes a total of 2.811 judgements during the state of war; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was while the bombing was going on, to all intents --
A. Yes. From the time a state of war was declared until it was -- it came to an end.
Q. We have on the next page convictions by category of persons. Could you just tell us briefly about the column referring to crimes against life and limb.
A. The convicted persons for crimes against life and limb that the president has just referred to shows the following: The total number of convicted persons is 2.811, and they are divided up in categories, categories of crimes and the sentences passed, from the smallest sentence to the longest prison sentence. But as I said, 32 is the total number for that category, up to 2 years, 28; up to five years, 4 persons. Four persons received sentences of up to 5. So those are the judgements.
Q. And the others are the ones where proceedings continue.
A. Yes. And the last column shows the total number of convicted persons. 2.185 convicted, 360 acquitted, and dismissed 266. This dismissal - let me just explain this to you. The difference between acquitted and dismissed is that when the prosecutor gives up during the main investigations, gives up the case where he feels there's no case to 37508 answer. Where there is not sufficient proof and evidence to raise an indictment, then the case is dismissed. And this is distinguished from the acquittals column.
Q. Well, let's just take note of that. All the convicted persons, including the most serious crimes, were convicted during the state of war or, rather, during the bombing; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that the courts dislocated, that they moved, that they would have to go into safer areas because they were the target of the bombing. Now, you yourself, based on your personal experience, did you encounter a situation where you had to move?
A. Well, I took up my duties on the 16th of April. From the 16th of April to the 10th of June, we had to dislocate three times, move three times, and before that they had to move twice, which means a total of five dislocations.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, can I have some clarification from you on what the issue is that this evidence relates to, this evidence of the general judicial system that was in operation at the time.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, this relates to the main charges in the indictment according to which it is said that the forces of Yugoslavia or Yugoslav army perpetrated crimes in Kosovo and Metohija, whereas on the basis of all this, we can see - of course nobody questions or challenges the fact that there were crimes that had been committed - but we can see from this material the whole chain of command and the judiciary, the court organs that were working to punish the crimes that 37509 were committed, to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to bring them to court, to take them into custody and to try them. And the executive powers say that perpetrators of crimes must be brought before the court. Once they are in court, it goes -- they come under the domain of court authorities, the judiciary, and not executive power and authority.
JUDGE BONOMY: But would the perpetrators that really matter in this case not all be dealt with by the military court and, therefore, should we not be looking at the cases that the military court dealt with and perhaps the detail of these cases rather than the general cases of ordinary criminal activity in the country?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I understand it, these are just cases that were dealt with by the military court and military prosecutor's office. The cases that went to civilian courts and the civilian prosecutor's office are not incorporated into these documents, nor does General Gojovic, in view of his military functions, is able to testify about what civilian courts did. So these are cases before the military courts.
JUDGE BONOMY: You're quite right, but what I'm really getting at is that the only category presumably that really matters here is the crimes against life and limb. The desertion or the failure to answer your conscription call-up and so on is neither here nor there. What we really must be interested in is damage to life and limb and possibly damage to property.
JUDGE KWON: And whether it is a crime against humanity or a war crime. 37510
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As to crimes against life and limb, without a doubt in most cases that's what we did deal with. That's what these cases are. I can't -- the majority. And I can't say that all of them were, but General Gojovic is here to explain that. Whereas the tables were provided as they exist in the documents and as the documents sent up to the higher authorities, that is to say to General Gojovic himself and how he informed the Supreme Command. We didn't make extracts and excerpts from those documents, but as you can see, I'm asking General Gojovic about crimes against life and limb. And I should like to mention in this regard that General Gojovic yesterday indicated that the military prosecutors were guided in their work by the practice of giving more serious sentences --
THE INTERPRETER: Bringing in graver charges, interpreter's correction.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- for these crimes. And some of these crimes even merited the death sentence whereas the Criminal Code in Yugoslavia had no death sentence provisions or, rather, didn't have at that time, and now it doesn't exist in the Criminal Code of Serbia either.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Might I be allowed to give an explanation, please?
JUDGE BONOMY: Not at the moment, please. I just want to make it clear, Mr. Milosevic, that for my part this evidence would be more significant if we were looking at examples to see what is the nature of the case that's being taken up by the military court that might be a case that was an example of criminal activity that would 37511 fall under the terms of the indictment, and I don't really at the moment have any idea of what these cases were.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I hope that by the end of my examination-in-chief of General Gojovic you will get an idea of what this is about, because the descriptions of the cases that we're dealing with will be found in the tabs to come. We haven't come to that yet.
JUDGE KWON: We are looking forward to it. Please proceed.
THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause between question and answer. Thank you.
JUDGE KWON: General Gojovic, please put a pause between the question and answer, for the sake of the interpreters. Yes, please go on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General Gojovic, I think you wanted to give an additional explanation in this regard.
A. Yes, I did. I wanted to indicate this - not to waste time - what I wanted to say was that we are going to see the individual cases next individually and the way and what crimes were committed and which crimes come under war crimes or crimes against international humanitarian law. So you will have the names and surnames, the events, and the judgement of the court in question.
JUDGE BONOMY: General, I know that because I've read through the documents. I'm just anxious to try to make some progress.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I see.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 37512
Q. General Gojovic --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to try and move ahead as quickly as possible, Mr. Bonomy.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General Gojovic, are the military -- is the military judiciously independent in its work?
A. Yes, of course certainly. Without a doubt.
Q. And the Supreme Command or any other level of command in the army of Yugoslavia, did it have the right to influence the work of the military judiciary in any way?
A. The Supreme Command was not able to exert influence on the work of the courts on the individual cases except to provide necessary working conditions and to insist upon speeding up the whole process. So if you can consider that to be an influence, then in that way, but as -- as to the method of decision-making, that came under the jurisdiction of the prosecutor in the first place and the military courts and nobody was allowed to meddle or interfere in their work.
Q. Very well. Now, when we come to the chain of command, could you explain to us, if an officer learns or suspects that a crime has been committed, what must he do? What is his duty?
A. Every officer is duty-bound to act in one of the following ways, or in the following ways: First of all, if it is in his -- if his -- the crime is committed on the territory of his unit, he must secure the area, safeguard the evidence, take measures to uncover the perpetrators, to prevent them from absconding. So those are the first steps. 37513 Then he is duty-bound to inform the military prosecutor or, rather, the organs of the military police for them to take further steps to apprehend the perpetrator.
And if he does all this, then he is duty-bound to file a criminal report to the military courts.
Q. Very well, thank you. Now, where does the -- where do the duties of the officer end?
A. Once the officer has filed a criminal report, gathered all the evidence, then it is the prosecutor who takes over. Where an investigation is necessary and where the search for the perpetrator has to be undertaken, then that is left to the military police and then the duties of the officer cease. It is the professional organs that come into play at that second stage to uncover the perpetrator and to gather evidence. So those are the first steps that the officer takes.
Q. [No interpretation]
THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English interpretation now?
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, the French booth and Albanian booth do not have the document, so could you slow down. And the last part was not interpreted. Could you repeat the last question again.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I said to the witness that I wished to move on to tabs 17 and 18, and the question is:
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. What were the crimes committed that could be considered grave violations of international humanitarian law whose perpetrators were discovered and for whom proceedings were initiated before courts of law 37514 during the state of war?
I'm referring to tab 17. This is a letter sent to the supreme military court in Belgrade. It deals with the period from the 24th of March, 1999, to the 10th of June, 1999, that is to say when the NATO aggression started. Could we please go through tab 17 now. I would just like you to indicate -- or, rather, we have all the tables here of all the crimes involved in the period from the 24th of March until the 10th of June, so this involves a great deal of statistics. That's why I asked for tab 17, where we have a summary review of criminal proceedings instituted against persons who committed crimes in the area of Kosovo and Metohija during the NATO aggression, that is to say from the 24th of March until the 10th of June, 1999.
General Gojovic, if we look at the contents, we can see -- well, actually, I'm going to skip over the summary review. Item 2 is war crimes against the civilian population. This is on pages 2 and 3.
A. Yes.
Q. Three are multiple murders and you mentioned the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia from pages 4 to 5.
JUDGE KWON: Would you indicate the page number in the English version.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I haven't got the English version now, but it's always just a couple of pages. I mean in the English version too item 2 has to start on page 2, because the first page is the summary review.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 37515
Q. You have here war crimes against the civilian population. That's what it says.
JUDGE KWON: I couldn't find the passage.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please get this tab in English, and then I'll be able to find the reference for you.
JUDGE KWON: Is it tab 18, then?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, tab 18. As soon as you go through the contents, I assume there would have to be something that says "Summary," and then there's this summary review of one page only.
JUDGE BONOMY: I think the problem is we were referred to tab 17. But is it 18?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. Tab 17 are simply all the statistical surveys, but then tab 18 is concrete. That is what you insisted on, Mr. Bonomy.
In the English text, it starts from page 4, Mr. Kwon. Page 4, war crimes against the civilian population. In the English text it is page 4, in the Serbian text it is page 2.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, I think we are following you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So it says here Article 142 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and then the name and surname of the accused person, the time of commission of crime, the place of commission. It's the Istok municipality, you can see it here.
As you can see on this first page -- or, rather, the page that is page number 4 in the English language, five persons were indicted, and 37516 then there is a brief description of crime. That's what it says in English, too, "Brief description of crime." And then the persons are mentioned, and it says they "killed with premeditation five unidentified Albanians whom they had previously taken prisoner and detained during an operation by their unit. Having taken them out of custody, they put them against the wall of a house, opened fire on them with automatic rifles and killed them all. They threw them into a well into which they poured petrol and then set it on fire."
Those proceedings or, rather, that case was later referred to the court in Kraljevo. It has to do with five individuals. All five are reserve soldiers.
And then A is Istok municipality and B is Donja Klina municipality. These same persons removed two Albanians from a refugee convoy in Donja Klina, they opened fire on them with automatic rifles in the yard of an abandoned house, killed them, and then threw them into a well. In the English text this is page number 5. On that same page, page number 5, there is an indicted captain first class reserve, and the description of the crime reads as follows: "As platoon commander, he order his subordinate soldiers to fire at a Siptar in a meadow in order to check the adjustments on their weapon sights. In so doing, they killed him. He also ordered them to take money, gold jewellery, and other valuables from the Siptar population." Later on, the case was referred to the district court in Valjevo. On page 6 in the English version - and in the Serbian language it's on page 4 - there are three persons. There is a major, there is a
37517 BLANK PAGE 37518 reserve private, and yet another reserve private. It says here that this officer, in the Susica village sector where his unit was, he ordered the two privates to liquidate Feriz Krasniqi and Rukija, an elderly man and woman who had not left the village. They did not -- they did this, shooting at them with their automatic rifles.
Further on on the same page, there are three persons and there is a description of the crime concerned. On the same page, there is a crime committed by a reserve private. This is number 4. It says: "In the Penduh village sector where a convoy of military vehicles had stopped, when he saw two people, Flazmin Emini and Bahri Emini, running away, he discharged a burst of gunfire after them from an automatic rifle and killed both of them." However, I think it would be better if the general could make comments with regard to all of this rather than have me read it out.
The next page is page 7 in the English version, numbers 5, 6, 7 respectively. He killed Kaljif Berisa and Saljiju Pucoli, two Roma from Kosovo Polje using an automatic rifle. Then the next person under number 6 is reserve captain first class, a particular captain. "Having taken five people from the village of Zagradska Hoca into custody, he lined them up against a wall and then killed one of them with one round from his rifle and the others with a burst of fire.
And then soldier Igor Radojica, who killed several people, and so on and so forth.
All of that is on page 7.
JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask something, Mr. Milosevic? I would like 37519 to ask two things, actually. One is in this catalogue, this list of cases where people were prosecuted or proceedings were taken up in relation to what might be described as war crimes, are any of these cases referred to in the indictment? In other words, are any of them cases that the Prosecution have taken up with the allegation that they are a war crime or are these all quite separate cases that were individually prosecuted in Serbia?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think, Mr. Bonomy, that this is perfectly clear evidence that the organs of the army of Yugoslavia, the judiciary of the military of Yugoslavia, arrested people, brought them to courts of law, and submitted criminal reports.
JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that. That's not my question. My question is whether any of them, any of them appear in the indictment. It's just to try and relate these events to see if they're entirely separate events from the ones that the Prosecution are dealing with or if there's any coincidence between the cases here and the particular crimes that are alleged in the indictments.
I'm only looking for some assistance to make the job easier.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand, Mr. Bonomy, but it is my understanding that Mr. Nice is dealing with all victims for whom he believes were killed by Serb soldiers and officers, by the forces of Serbia and Yugoslavia. So this refers to such victims, with the names and surnames of the perpetrators who were discovered.
JUDGE BONOMY: Many victims are named in the indictment, and I just wondered if any of those named in the indictment against you appear 37520 in this catalogue of cases which were taken up by the Serbian authorities.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to tell you that I did not compare the lists that appear.
JUDGE BONOMY: That's the first question.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice has the answer.
MR. NICE: Your Honour may be assisted on page 76.
JUDGE BONOMY: Can you be more specific, Mr. Nice?
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
MR. NICE: Page 76, Izbica. Izbica is charged. Although, of course, I'm waiting to hear what the witness has to say about this as about other entries.
JUDGE BONOMY: You mean 76 of the indictment.
MR. NICE: No, sorry, page 76 of this exhibit. Page 76 of this exhibit, as I have it, in English is unknown persons, Izbica village, near Srbica. Now that, I think, may relate to something that's charged.
JUDGE BONOMY: You mean charged in the indictment.
MR. NICE: In the indictment, yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: And is that the only one?
MR. NICE: As far as we've seen so far. We've only had the translations since yesterday. That's the best we can do.
JUDGE BONOMY: That's helpful. The second matter I wanted to raise was directly with the general. Can you explain to me how this document was compiled?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can. The survey we are looking at now is one that I personally compiled on the basis of the original 37521 documents from the Nis military court. This is a report that was sent to the supreme military court in Belgrade. This comes from the documents of the Nis military court. They dealt with things in order, in chronological order as they were entered in their register.
I made this survey, and I tried to group the crimes so they could be followed more easily. You will see the page number reference and the type of crime committed in order to be able to follow things more easily.
JUDGE BONOMY: General, when did you do that?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was done in 2001.
JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I'm sorry. But the information contained therein goes up to the 10th of May, 1999.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I don't want to go back to the very beginning now, but it's page 8. I want to draw your attention to the fact that all the columns are the same, and there is also ruling to initiate proceedings. And if you look at your page 8, and you will see that for the person under number 1, the rule to initiate proceedings was -- ruling to initiate proceedings bears the date of the 25th of April, 1999, and for the other person the date is May 1999. So could you please just explain, General, criminal reports have to be filed, I assume, before this ruling or decision is made to initiate proceedings.
A. Yes. This is done by the investigating judge. Once he receives this request and once he interrogates the suspect, he decides whether he is going to initiate proceedings or not. According to the law on criminal 37522 procedure, it is only then that proceedings actually start before a court of law. Before that, it is in the hands of the prosecutor's office, and that is not part of court proceedings.
Q. All right.
A. It is very important to state that all these preliminary dates have to precede the date when the decision is made to initiate proceedings.
Q. All right. We can move on further. On page 7, or, rather, in the English translation it is page 9. There are four numbers yet again. Under number 1 we see again murder. A soldier fired a burst of fire from his automatic rifle at Rusiti Rusiti, inflicting injuries on him and his wife. We see the decision to start criminal proceedings 26 of May 1999.
Number 2 and number 3. At the time when their unit was in the general sector of Pec, they opened fire on an Albanian for no reason, without provocation, and killed him.
Under number 4, another private reserve discharged a burst of fire from his automatic rifle at a Siptar, hit him, and inflicted fatal injuries. Proceedings -- ruling to initiate proceedings is dated 4th of May, 1999. And --
JUDGE KWON: I think you established sufficient foundation to exhibit this document. I don't think you have to read out all the items. But I'm interested in knowing about the future conviction. How were they dealt with by the courts referred to? Are you going to introduce that evidence in the future? 37523
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly. But these proceedings, especially those that involve murder, take a long time. For instance, in the examples we just reviewed, an event happened -- for instance, let us look at page -- just a moment. Let me take one of the recent examples, not to waste time. Page 9, the cases we just reviewed. If the time of commission is the 24th of April and the ruling to initiate proceedings was made on the 26th of May, that is a month after the crime was committed. In the other two cases the commission -- the perpetration was in May, and already in May the ruling to initiate proceedings was made. The interval between the perpetration and the decision to initiate proceedings is short, about a month.
I should ask the witness.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Is this the usual time, one month, approximately, it took to bring the ruling to initiate proceedings after completing all the preliminary actions such as detection, apprehension, investigation, et cetera?
A. In those specific conditions, it was really efficient work. Those are murders. But in the cases of theft and less grave crimes, the perpetrator would be apprehended on the same day in cases of crimes involving property. A good part of the crimes would already be under way before the courts, or even adjudicated, in the space of a month.
Q. We see from this paper --
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, my question was whether these suspects or accused were convicted at all.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Some were. Some still have not 37524 received the judgement, I guess. This is the information that I can elicit from the general, perhaps.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. How many of these were convicted? I don't know if he knows that, but the description of the crime is clear. Some of these cases must have been referred to regular military courts after the termination of the state of war.
A. I have -- I have data ending with the 2001 as to how many were convicted. Some cases were decided, and some cases are still under way, ongoing. After 2001, I didn't monitor any longer. But for instance, if you look at murders, this is the type of case that would be complex and would take a longer time. But in those -- in simpler cases involving less serious crimes, I believe most of them have already been adjudicated.
JUDGE KWON: General, do you have your data with you now as of 2001?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE KWON: Could you tell me that, please. Briefly. I think --
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a similar review, a similar overview as to what cases were completed, what cases were referred to civilian courts, and in the final column you see the outcome of the proceedings for those cases that were finished.
I have another survey yet concerning referrals to civilian courts, and the data I received from the latter. I can provide this to you to be translated and photocopied. You don't have it.
JUDGE KWON: For the sake of time, I would like the accused to 37525 proceed, and we'll deal with it after the recess.
JUDGE BONOMY: Can I, just before we do proceed, be clear about something, General. Can I take it that if there had been a judgement by 2001 in the cases we have been looking at, you would have reflected it in the document we're looking at?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this paper, in this paper I'm holding right now, it would be --
JUDGE BONOMY: In tab --
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And in the other document that has not been translated, there would certainly be.
JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But the one that you're looking at as part of the examination by Mr. Milosevic, that's tab 18 of the bundle, can I take it that if there had -- if there had been a conviction by 2001, you would have noted it in this document; is that right?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Now some of the cases have been referred to what is described as the district court, for example, the district court in Belgrade. That's a civilian court; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. District and municipal courts are civilian courts.
JUDGE BONOMY: And can I take it that you regarded it as appropriate to refer cases which might be described as war crimes to the civilian courts after the conflict was over?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to clarify this immediately. Military courts do not have competence to go on processing a 37526 case after a person is demobilised, because most of these people were engaged from the reserve force. After the termination of the state of war, they ceased to be military personnel. If by that time an indictment has not been confirmed by the court, the case would be normally referred to the municipal or to the district court, depending on the gravity of the crime.
Military courts would continue to process a case only if the person involved, the perpetrator or the accused, continues to be a military man. This concerns only the cases where a decision has been made by a military court.
As for referrals, I have some additional data.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General Gojovic, I don't know if you paid attention to -- to this last question by Judge Bonomy and what exactly he meant. He asked you if a judgement was made in all the cases indicated in this document.
A. Yes.
Q. So all these cases were adjudicated?
A. Yes.
Q. We won't go any more through this document, in keeping with your suggestion.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, we have other cases dealing with voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
JUDGE BONOMY: Just before we move on, that's a completely different answer from the one you gave to me, General. My understanding -- and let's be clear we're looking at the same document. Have before you 37527 tab 18. Be absolutely sure the --
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: And look at page -- look at page 6. My English version is page 6. It's headed, "Murder multiple." The first accused's name is Dragisa Petrovic.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: Now, if by the year 2001 there had been a judgement in this case, would you have noted that in this document when you were compiling it?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a column here where it says "referred to the district court in Pristina." That was done after an indictment was brought. So he was already indicted when his case was referred to the district court in Pristina, and then later on it was transferred to Nis.
I have information that a hearing was scheduled -- the trial was scheduled, and I believe a judgement was brought here. I believe also -- I seem to remember that it was reversed on appeal, but I'm not sure about that.
What it says here specifically is that the case was referred after an indictment was brought against this accused to the district court in Pristina, later moved to Nis.
JUDGE BONOMY: So why did you not complete the column that says "Judgement"?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the simple reason that I was no longer working on this subject matter. 37528 BLANK PAGE 37529
JUDGE BONOMY: But that's my question. You see, my question relates to the position as at 2001. Can you just concentrate on the question I'm asking you.
Now, if there had been a result in that case by 2001, would you have reflected that result in this document when you were compiling it in 2001?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. I thought that was the answer, and then Mr. Milosevic got a completely different answer from you, so I just wanted to be clear about the position.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I answered the same. Maybe it was interpreted differently.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I, too, understood him as giving the same answer, namely that all those cases in which judgements were made, judgements were brought, were reflected here.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps just another clarification would be of assistance, if you allow me, please. We should look at the column dealing with grave robbery or felony theft. I don't know what page it is in English.
JUDGE KWON: Shall we take a look at page 20 in the English version. That's grave incidents of robbery. There is noted down about the judgement, sentenced to three years and six months each. That judgement was entered into by the military court; is that right? So you noted down all the dispositions by the military court.
MR. NICE: Page 18 in the B/C/S. 37530
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
JUDGE KWON: Judge Bonomy's question, as I understand it, is whether you noted down the judgement made by the civilian court referred to later if the judgement was made at the time of 2001 when you compiled this document.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I had received a report, yes.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Very well. That was precisely my question. You reflected those cases about which you received reports, which doesn't necessarily mean that you included all of them.
A. Yes, because in some cases I did not receive reports. There are both kinds in this overview. If I had received a report, then I would indicate what kind of judgement, if any, had been made.
Q. Judge Bonomy also referred to this page about murders. Dragisa Petrovic is the first name, and there is something handwritten in the -- on this page.
A. Yes.
Q. In my copy, there is a handwritten note in the column Judgement, Nine years, seven years, nine years, and it's also added "war crime" down below. Is it only in my copy or do you have it in your copy as well?
A. You mean in the case of Dragisa Petrovic?
Q. Yes.
A. That's why I said a moment ago I followed that in the newspapers, and I indicated from my memory what the sentences were. 37531
JUDGE KWON: Is it page 4 in B/C/S?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, page 4 in the Serbian version. I'll find it in just a moment. Here it is.
In the English translation the Judgement column is empty. However, in the Serbian copy --
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Do you have that, General, too?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And I hope you do, Mr. Kwon, as well. It says nine years, then seven years, and then another term of seven years, and then at the end it says "war crime." That was not translated. It doesn't exist in the English version but it does in the Serbian photocopy, the judgements.
JUDGE KWON: We've found it. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue? Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I'm not going to dwell on this table. I will skip over the voluntary and non-voluntary. And then we come to rapes. It is on page 16 of the English version; and for you, General, it is on page 14 of the Serbian text.
Here we have a soldier who used force, together with some other soldiers, from a room in a house accommodating refugees. They --
JUDGE KWON: Do not put it on the ELMO.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. They forcibly removed an underaged person. All right. I don't want to read the names either, but judging by the names, I would say they 37532 were Albanian women, perhaps Roma women, I can't differentiate between the kinds of names. But Trivunovic, as printed, committed rapes, and the other person, Marinkovic, was unable to do so, et cetera, et cetera. But anyway, it's the 16th of April, crimes on the 16th of April, and then on the 24th of April -- rather, the time of crime was the 16th of April and ruling to initiate proceedings came on the 24th of April 1999 when an investigation was conducted. All the evidence was collected, all the necessary data, and legal proceedings were taken, and the general says that the indictment was raised as well, filed.
Then once again out of a convoy of refugees so-and-so took aside an individual - I'm going to skip the name, but we can deduce on the basis of the name that it was an Albanian lady - took her to the sector where his union was -- unit was encamped. Another case of rape. The time of the crime was the 29th of May, the ruling to initiate proceedings came on the 24th of June, 1999.
Then we have attempts at rape, attempted rape. And then several pages after that --
MR. NICE: Your Honours, before we move on to that, this is another page where the Serbian original at page 14 of the original has a handwritten passage that's not been translated. And if the Chamber thinks it would be helpful to get this sorted out as we go along, so does page 15 of the Serbian version, which I think --
JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you very much. If the witness could help the Chamber. Could you read those handwritten parts on page 14.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Under number 1, in the 37533 judgement, we heard that a request was sent to the UNMIK courts at Kosovo for legal assistance to listen to the injured party, hear the injured party. So by the time that this report was compiled, the judgement came, I learnt that the court had asked for information and data and that UNMIK -- they asked UNMIK for assistance, legal assistance. They didn't get it.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Well, we have the 24th of April, 1999, as the time of crime.
A. Yes. And the proceedings are still carrying on or were carried on in the district court in Nis.
Q. Mr. Nice also drew our attention to page 15. There was something written in hand there.
A. The situation here is the same as in the previous case. The proceedings are ongoing. They contacted the UNMIK courts in Kosovo, didn't receive any -- the assistance they required.
Q. Well, I'm not going to give any legal qualifications, but if we look at severe crimes of burglary with killings, these serious crimes, grave incidents of robbery and violence, to retain stolen goods, with murder involved. That's that page.
And we see that the time of the crime was the 29th of March, 1999. It is page 19 of the English text, gentlemen. The ruling to initiate proceedings came on the 13th of April, that is to say two weeks later, and evidence was collected in that space of time, within a fortnight. And we're dealing here with seven perpetrators or accused, and they were all reserve soldiers, reservists. And it says that based on a prior mutual agreement they all went to the house of Uksin Uksini and this man fired at 37534 him with an automatic rifle and stabbed his wife Djevahira in the neck, killing both of them. They then took and kept gold jewellery, money and other valuables from the house.
Then we come to B, brief description of crime. They took a vehicle, a car, and then I assumed killed the owner. And we come to C. Once again three individuals who killed or, rather, three people were killed during a burglary, which makes it seven accused in all, people accused of grave incidents of robbery and violence to retain stolen goods with murder.
I assume that is how the qualification reads in the Criminal Code; is that right?
A. Yes. Might I be allowed to make an additional explanation at this point, please?
We see here six individuals listed or, rather, they -- it says that six people were killed but are not shown in the summary representation of the crimes. So this should be recorded as well, where it says a summary report in the same tab when it comes to grave incidents of robbery. There is an empty column, and there we need to add these six persons killed. So that the number of victims in the victims column should be six more. In the summary review at the beginning of the tab.
Q. Well, the statistics looked at the killings and represented them with a figure, whereas the robbery was accompanied with the killing of people. There was an omission there anyway.
I should now like to ask you -- well, I don't want to deal with this further unless you have an additional statement to make, but I'd like 37535 to move on now to tab 17 on page 67 or, rather, chapter 17, page 67, and I'll try to find it in the English version. Chapter 17 starts on page 67. And as we can see from the contents, it gives a review of unknown persons who killed a number of individuals in Kosovo. So they are denoted as NN, persons unknown. The perpetrators are not known. The crimes are recorded. So that is on page 67. In Serbian. Page 67 in the Serbian version.
MR. NICE: 75 in the English.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So this is a summary review, as it says. Page 67 Serbian, 75 English. We know that thanks to Mr. Nice.
JUDGE KWON: No. It's page 75 of tab 18, not of tab 17.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, tab 18. That's how I understood it; we're dealing with tab 18.
JUDGE KWON: Yes. Go on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Could you explain this table to us, please? It says "Person who committed crime," unknown. "Military prosecutor dismissed one charge, military prosecutor gathering intelligence from reports, court proceedings upon motion of the military prosecutor for conducting certain investigative measures, case deferred to competent public prosecutor." The total number is 598, number of persons killed. That's the summary report and that's the total number. I assume that this doesn't need any special explanation on your part, or would you like to give some? 37536
A. Well, I think I could.
Q. Well, go ahead, then.
A. We're talking about unknown persons, perpetrators of crimes, where the crime was uncovered but not the perpetrator, and the prosecutor takes certain steps in cases of that kind and so do the investigating organs. And in one case the prosecutor rejected the request because they were members of the KLA. And in the next column, with five cases, the military prosecutor collects information from the organs investigating the case and takes further steps. One case was referred to the court and the other to the public prosecutor. That is to say in cases where the prosecutor felt that the possible perpetrators of those crimes were not members of the army or were not military personnel and, therefore, those cases were referred to the competent district prosecutor. There were 11 such cases. We have a total figure of 598 persons, and three persons should be added there. They were left out by mistake, because three more persons were mentioned. So it is 395 -- 98 plus 3, which means 600-odd.
Q. Let's just clarify what you've just said. It was under number 2 on the following page. Now, did he reject the case because he learnt that there was no military unit in the region? Was that the reason or was there some other reason?
A. No. This criminal report was rejected because the military prosecutor found that they were not civilians but --
Q. No. I'm referring to something else. On the next page, under number 2. What you've just explained to us, you said that the military judiciary did not prosecute because it wasn't under their competence to do 37537 so. Is that because he concluded that there was no military unit in the territory, in the area? Is that right?
A. Yes. And the district prosecutor is where the case was referred.
Q. Now, let's go back to page 68 for a moment where we have the names and surnames and persons are listed as unknown, the time of perpetration is unknown, and then we have the place listed as Izbica where 144 fresh graves of unknown persons were uncovered. And the military prosecutor was informed thereof. The time when the proceedings were initiated was the 29th of May, 1999, which means that there was detection first, information gathered, and proceedings initiated on the 29th of May, 1999. And after that there's nothing else except current affairs.
A. May I be allowed to give an explanation? Exhumation was conducted, and the bodies were examined by a team, a forensic team from the Military Medical Academy, and they carried out a post-mortem on 101 bodies. They were able to identify a small number of those bodies but not the most part. And there were 144 fresh graves in all, and exhumation, investigations were conducted with 101 bodies.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, we passed the time to break. If it's a convenient time to break, we will break for 20 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General, we were dealing with page 68 of the Serbian version. You 37538 have here, as we were saying, "Murders committed by persons unknown for which the military prosecutor is gathering intelligence from reports." That's the title. Will you please take a look at the table on that page. You started with number 1 and explain that to us, the Izbica place of crime, when the proceedings were initiated.
A. Do you want me to answer?
Q. Yes.
A. In this particular case, it was on the 29th of May, 1999, when the case was uncovered. That is to say it was reported by the command of the unit who happened to be there during that period of time, and straight after that the prosecutor requested exhumation, which was conducted by a team of forensic experts from the Medical Military Academy in Belgrade, and they conducted the post-mortem and examination of 101 bodies. So during that same time, and that was sometime at the beginning of June, that is what happened. The prosecutor is still gathering information. But as the locality itself does not come under the legal jurisdiction of the federal state, Serbia and Montenegro as it is today, we have no access to the crime scene for us to investigate the case more fully.
Q. All right. You said the exhumation was performed by the competent authorities and that they -- it was a team of forensic experts from Medical Military Academy who conducted examinations.
A. Yes. The order was issued by the court in Kosovska Mitrovica for that to take place. It was not something that the military court of the Pristina Corps was able to, and then the investigating judge from Kosovska Mitrovica issued an order because without a court order you cannot 37539 BLANK PAGE 37540 exhumate bodies or conduct post-mortems.
Q. We see that the time of the proceedings initiated was the 29th of May, 1999.
Now, tell me about number 2. That relates to the municipality of Gnjilane, place of crime. There's no date as to when the proceedings were initiated.
A. No, there isn't.
Q. Have you got an explanation for that?
A. Well, a number of bodies were found in the area, it was not recorded for March to June 1999, 33 bodies in all, and the time the proceedings were initiated I have information that it was the 24th of May, 1999, and the SUP of Gnjilane informed the military prosecutor and the necessary steps were taken. So that was on the 24th of May, which means that this does go up to the 24th of May although that column and square is left empty, but according to when the military prosecutor was informed, that was on the 24th of May, 1999. And a request was made for gathering intelligence by the organs of investigation, and the case is ongoing.
Q. Next you come to the place of crime which is Pirane, a village near Prizren. The bodies of five unidentified people were discovered, and we see that the proceedings were initiated on the 5th of May, 1999.
A. Yes, that's right. So this could have been before, and that's when the proceedings were initiated and a request made for intelligence to be gathered, the request coming from the military prosecutor. And it is the investigating organs that had to gather information.
Q. The next case was 14 graves of unidentified people discovered in 37541 the Muslim cemetery in the village of Bijelo Polje. Time of crime, no date recorded there.
A. Yes, that's right. And this is interesting because it's not only when you come across the bodies of persons killed in the field but also when they come across graves which are not marked and freshly dug-out graves. So in those cases, too, the organs in question can suspect that a crime has taken place, and then they take all the necessary steps to investigate.
In this case it was a Muslim cemetery. Probably they were members of the Muslim religion, Islam, so that could make it Albanians and others, because other people -- other Muslims live in Bijelo Polje too. So we can't see who reported the crime. Probably someone from the locality. But anyway, the authorities took the necessary steps in these cases, too, to determine the circumstances under which these persons were killed. And we're talking about May 1999.
Q. And then under number 5 you have a case of 16 -- bodies of 16 unidentified people found in the village of Slovinje. The date the proceedings were initiated is the 16th of April, 1999, and it says "report submitted - deferred to district public prosecutor in Pristina." But that was later on, wasn't it?
A. Yes, that was deferred or referred on the 18th of January 2001.
Q. Could you tell us anything more about that case?
A. I have here that an exhumation was conducted and the individuals identified, and -- so their identity was determined on the basis of exhumation, and then the case was deferred to the district public 37542 prosecutor in Pristina, as it says.
Q. Could you please tell me what Yugoslav law envisages in such situations when a crime was committed. This has to do with a number of killed persons who were found and when the perpetrator is unknown. What happens then when the suspect is unknown?
A. The law is quite clear on that. Especially the prosecutor has a clear-cut task. There is a special file that the prosecutor opens for NN persons, persons unknown. The military prosecutor acts through military organs, and also it is the organs of the interior that have to take action. That is say, all law enforcement agencies, regardless of whether they are within the military or not, are supposed to work on such a case and to collect information because the perpetrator is unknown. Such a case remains open. The prosecutor keeps taking action, and therefore there is no statute of limitation that applies. At any rate, if this is a war crime, there is no statute of limitation. There can only be an absolute statute of limitation. So in the case of crimes when the death sentence is prescribed, then there is a period of 20 or even 40 years during which the prosecutor can institute proceedings.
JUDGE KWON: General, can I ask a question while we are with this document. It's the same document, murders committed by persons unknown. You said that in relation to category 5, you received the information that the victims were identified later. Have you received any similar information in relation to number 1, the victims -- 144 victims in Izbica?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I did look at the exhumation documents, but I didn't really see all of them, and I did not find any 37543 identification. I only saw descriptions of all the ways in which this was done. But the doctor who carried out the post-mortem told me that there were some persons who were identified, but I did not receive any such information. So I do not have any accurate information about number 1, only what I heard, that some persons were identified. But I was not in a position to investigate that -- or, rather, not investigate. That's not the right word. I was not in the position to receive the right kind of information.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General, could you please now look at the investigations carried out in the case of perpetrators unknown. Just tell me whether this is clear enough or whether I understood it properly. This has to do with victims who had been identified. That is to say investigations had been completed and the victims had been identified, or is there some other difference also in view of the previous table? So number 1, 25 bodies were found, exhumed, and identified, namely, and then a list of names follows.
A. Yes.
Q. Mid-April 1999, the village of Malo Ribare, Lipljan municipality. And the 24th of April, 1999, is the time when proceedings were initiated.
A. Certain investigative measures is the word used, and that means that it is the investigating judge who acts upon the request submitted by the prosecutor, and he takes certain measures, hence the wording. Also, you can see the court register number, "Ki," that is Krivicna Istraga, criminal investigation. "Kr" is a different situation. 37544 Prosecutor's register. So hence the two different words. So it is a question of whether the court or -- is going to take certain measures or whether it is going to be the law enforcement agencies, namely the police, that is going to take measures. The judge has the liberty to take measures that were not even required by the prosecutor. That's the difference involved.
Q. Let's move on to item 2. And you have said that the military judiciary did not institute criminal proceedings because they did not have jurisdiction. They considered themselves not to have jurisdiction because there was no military unit there.
A. Yes.
Q. In the case of one person who was identified, it says that he was killed by a policeman.
A. Yes, yes. It was the Prokuplje district court that carried out the on-site investigation, and proceedings are taking place there in the case of two policemen. These proceedings are still under way.
Q. Finally, you have number 3. The time is the 31st of May, 1999, and it says: "Following notification, nine bodies were found in the houses of Seljarin Grdjaliju."
A. It is a small typo. It is Grdjalija Seljarin.
Q. On the 31st of May, 1999, the investigating judge of the Pristina Corps military court went to the scene on the 5th of June 1999 and compiled a note on the incident. He found 13 7.62-millimetre cartridges. He learned that Florije Borsoti was the victim.
A. It's a woman. A few minutes ago -- and she witnessed the killing. 37545 We said a few moments ago that there were some other persons in an adjacent yard. So in addition to these nine bodies that were found in Grdjalija's yard, there were three other victims that were found in the neighbourhood, so total is 12.
In tab 17 we have the report of the investigating judge. We see that there is a report and we see that he could not continue his investigation because fire was opened at him from the neighbouring houses. Hence he had to leave the crime scene, and he instructed the police to take appropriate measures in order to carry out an appropriate investigation once the situation is right for that. Even his vehicle had been hit by a bullet.
This was a great difficulty for the investigation agencies. It was hard for them to get to the crime scenes because fire was opened at them although it was very obvious that they were going out to conduct an on-site investigation in police vehicles and the like. It was very obvious.
Q. Could you just say a few more words about the next page, page 4, persons unknown, mid-April 1999. This is number 4. And it is the 7th of May, 1999, when investigating -- when proceedings were initiated. Could you please be so kind as to explain. You have a very detailed explanation here.
A. Yes. There are a few points that are not quite clear. I managed to decipher it, if I can use that word. The military police organs informed the military court of the Pristina Corps investigating judge that there was a large number of bodies in the villages Dosevac. Dobrosevac is 37546 what is written here but that is a typo. It's Dosevac. Anyway, the date was the 7th of May, 1999, and the investigating judge was informed by the commander of the Glogovac police station that on the 3rd of May, 1999, he had been told on the 3rd of May, 1999, by Captain Rade Krsmanovic of the military post 1365 Raska that there were about 150 bodies in the village of Dosevac and 58 bodies in Gladno Selo. On the 23rd of April, 1999, the military police organs -- in the village of Gladno Selo. Before the police station commander had provided this information the military police organs had already been in the area and on the scene. The military police organs found a total of 20 bodies in the three yards, not as the preliminary information had said.
Later on, further down, we see what they found. On the 30th of April, 1999, the bodies were found as described, by a VJ unit. Since member of the VJ did not commit these murders, the investigating judge did not order an exhumation. Colonel Orovic informed the investigating judge - that is the commander of a unit, Colonel Orovic - that -- I mean, whatever he says Dobrosevac it's supposed to be Dosevac. He says that the VJ units did not find any bodies in Dosevac or any traces that indicated that there had been any, but in the village of Dosevac, which is another village, he found about 140 bodies. VJ units were not stationed in the village before this.
And he informs the investigating judge that it was impossible to carry out an on-site investigation there, and this is what the investigating judge says in his own report, which is included in the file, because units of the KLA entered the area with weapons and they did not 37547 allow any access.
Colonel Pavlovic was head of the MUP team there, and they were given orders, and they were told to go to Gladno Selo and carry out an on-site investigation.
So there is 140 bodies in Dobrosevac -- sorry, not Dobrosevac, Dosevac. Again I'm saying that there's a typo here. It's the village of Dosevac, the village of Srbica. And the total number of bodies is 160 in these two localities. And certain action was taken, of course. The investigating organs cannot act if there is fighting in the area. Then they are not in a position to carry out an investigation.
Q. All right. I don't think there is any need to go into further detail in this regard.
Tell me, General, what was the situation in view of all these proceedings that were initiated, that is to say investigations carried out, information collected, et cetera? What was the situation at the beginning of October 2000, namely at the time when I and some other persons who are included in this Kosovo indictment ceased to hold office?
A. All these cases were discovered during the state of war, all of them. All were dealt with in a certain form and to a certain level as much as possible. Apart from that, there is no information stating that anything new was discovered, any new incident regarding which action could be taken in this form. So this is the situation as it was when the state of war ceased to exist.
Q. All right. While the state of war was still in force, to the best of your knowledge, because you toured courts of law and other agencies, 37548 what about our law enforcement agencies? Were they in a position to discover all violations of humanitarian law that were carried out in Kosovo and Metohija?
A. Well, in view of the fact that there was a war going on and that there was fighting in this relatively small area and where there was a great concentration of armed personnel, it was not possible to discover all the perpetrators or to see all the crimes that had been committed. It would be an illusion to expect to be able to do that within such a short period of time. It would also be an illusion to believe that a perpetrator would speak up and say that he had committed a crime. There must have been many of them who have a mutual solidarity, and they know that what they did is punishable by very severe sentences. Not all officers were in a position to do something, especially in view of the dispersion of units involved. Units could not concentrate because they were targeted by NATO Air Force. The alax [as interpreted] would discover them if they would be in concentrations of more than ten persons. That's why they had to be dispersed, and the situation was such that therefore, objectively speaking, the military officers in the area could not establish complete control over their subordinates, especially not the law enforcement organs that are at the level of the bigger units. They went to where corpses were found. They also went to graveyards where they found freshly dug graves. They went wherever it was possible to find the traces of a crime that had been recently committed. They went wherever they were aware of something like that, but they could not go to places that they did not know about. 37549 Also, when our forces withdrew, jurisdiction ceased to exist as far as our agencies were concerned. If this had remained within our jurisdiction, it is certain that there would have been visible results far exceeding those that were achieved so far.
Q. General, I'm going to put a very clear question to you. Do you know of any single crime that constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law that Yugoslav organs found out about and did not initiate appropriate proceedings?
A. There is no such case because that would have been sheer nonsense as far as the judiciary is concerned.
Q. General, bearing in mind all your previous answers as well as the fact that you were a lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor, did you have an opportunity of familiarising yourself with the content of the Kosovo indictment?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you compare the allegations contained in the indictment with the information that our military judiciary had?
A. I did make some comparisons and some comparative reviews.
Q. And what were your conclusions?
A. There are several localities --
MR. NICE: I'm sorry. Just where are we going? Is the witness going to give us an opinion on that very series of decisions that it's for this Trial Chamber to make? Is that what the accused wants?
JUDGE KWON: We can decide after we hear some comparison he's going to say. I will consult. 37550 BLANK PAGE 37551
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, could you reformulate your question in a more specific way.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Certainly, Mr. Kwon, I will phrase it very specifically.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So, General, since you compared the two, tell me, to what degree is there a certain coincidence between what was established by our competent authority - when I say "competent" I mean the courts and all the other judiciary, including all the cases that were reviewed in our country - and allegations in the indictment?
A. If we take the case of Racak, which is not under review here, we have an 80 to 90 degree coincidence in the case of Izbica village, because there were 144 fresh graves, 101 bodies were autopsied, but we have to bear in mind that the indictment was revised several times - three times, more exactly - and in the summary review that we saw before, the total number is 120. So it is almost complete coincidence between the two. There are another two localities where the information coincides. For instance, the indictment mentions Sudimlje and Gornje Sudimlje whereas in our information we have Donje Sudimlje. Those are places in the same area, same municipality, and there is also a coincidence between the two documents in Grdjalija where our investigative organs were not able to finish their work because of the circumstances, but the information coincides in cases involving death.
As for robberies and other crimes since -- crimes against 37552 property, since it involves a broad spectre of crimes. In cases of aggravated robbery, for instance, we have clear descriptions of what exactly was taken without inventories, but the property in question was found in the possession of perpetrators. Large numbers of peanuts, et cetera, 200 kilos, et cetera, something that the perpetrator must have stolen.
JUDGE KWON: General, I couldn't follow when you mentioned Racak and Izbica village. Did you mean that Racak is in Izbica village?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. Racak is a completely separate incident of the 15th of January where the competent judiciary organs of the civilian courts in Pristina processed. That was not taken into account in the indictment -- in the summary review, sorry, but it is mentioned in the indictment. I am setting that case aside. Izbica is a completely separate locality where the number of victims is approximately the same. However, the locality is the same.
JUDGE KWON: Now I follow. There should be a period between the sentences. Yes. Please go on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General, is it the case that the military -- that in the case of Izbica, military judiciary organs had specific information whether the victims were civilians or KLA members.
A. We had no such information.
MR. NICE: Extraordinarily leading observation for which there is absolutely no material foundation, unless I've missed it. I'm particularly interested to know what this witness is going to provide by 37553 way of his foundation material in relation to Izbica, and so that last question rather spoils the purpose of examination and cross-examination.
JUDGE KWON: Reformulate your question, Mr. Milosevic.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. General, do you know --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm asking a perfectly neutral question. I asked about a case that the general has mentioned before.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Did -- were, rather, the military judiciary in a position to establish in all these various cases whether the victims were civilians or KLA members?
A. I'm aware of only one case where it was established that victims were members of the KLA, and the military prosecutor dismissed the criminal report. In all the other cases, it was not possible to establish from the initially available evidence whether any of the victims were civilians or KLA members, except, of course, in the cases where the victims were women and children, because in most of the cases it was not possible to identify or decide whether somebody was a civilian or not, only on the basis of whether they wore a uniform or not. A uniform is no indicator, just as the -- just as civilian clothing is not enough to establish that somebody was not a member of armed forces.
Q. Tell me, why was it that the judiciary did not complete its investigation in the case of Izbica, for instance?
A. For the very simple reason that the military prosecutors withdrew from Kosovo on the date envisaged by the -- by the Military Technical 37554 Agreement. It was only up to that date that they could work. And they could only gather evidence up to that date.
Q. In those cases where investigations were carried out to establish the circumstances and identify perpetrators, were there such cases that were not covered by the indictment?
A. Well, yes. All the cases that you can find in my documentation, in this summary review. In all those localities, appropriate investigations were carried out whenever it was objectively possible.
Q. Now, according to the data that is available to you, based on those investigations and investigative measures carried out, and they were carried out in all the localities, what numbers are involved, and what is the correlation between that number and the numbers cited in the indictment?
A. Well, as for cases where the perpetrator is unidentified, there is a total of 601. This is incomplete data. So 601 unidentified perpetrators. And as for known perpetrators, we have 42 or 43 victims. So the total is 645 victims involved in both types of cases. That is a precise number.
In the indictment, the last revised, amended indictment, the number is 608. So it's approximately the same or very similar. As for description of crimes, it is vague in the indictment. It says "around," "approximately," et cetera. So in the last amended indictment the number is 701. In the previous second amended indictment the number was lower, around 400 for the indictment of the 22nd of May. These are approximate numbers, although every death, every victim 37555 is important. But if you ask me about correlation, there is a relatively high degree of coincidence. Our investigative organs detected, uncovered a great number of crimes and perpetrators, and now that this Tribunal has access to the documentation and our investigative organs no longer have access to the area, that is the number we have to work with.
Q. Is all this information public?
A. Well, relatively speaking, because investigative organs do not make their information public to prevent panic while investigation is going on, but anybody who is interested can gain access to this data, because all the -- all the actions, all the proceedings are public. They're not closed to the public by any means. It's just that the information is not published, publicly announced, but it is accessible.
Q. Bearing in mind your entire experience, General, from the period we are discussing now, what according to your knowledge was the principal position of the highest military and civilian authorities regarding crimes and their perpetrators?
A. Well, from all these actions that were taken at the level of the Supreme Command Staff and the judiciary bodies in keeping with the legislation, and if we look at the measures accompanied by the enforcement of those laws -- that accompanied the enforcement of those laws, we cannot see that there was no action, no measures taken that disregarded the requirement to comply with international humanitarian law. All the measures were taken to prosecute perpetrators in every case where a violation of international humanitarian law was uncovered in the entire territory, including Kosovo and Metohija. We can see this from our 37556 surveys and overviews. As for the police, the military prosecutors, the military courts and everybody who was in charge of reporting crimes, everybody made a maximum effort. No case was neglected or forgotten.
Q. But I asked you specifically: What according to your knowledge was the principal position of the highest authorities?
A. To prevent crimes, of course. And if crimes take place, that they should be prosecuted and punished. This is the fundamental guideline, the fundamental principle.
Q. To the best of your knowledge based on all the information you received from all organs, everybody you came in contact with, was there ever an idea in circulation that they should be killed and persecuted in order to expel them from the territory of Serbia?
A. No way. There can be no question of that. Not even clandestinely could there have been such an idea, because our competent authorities did everything to prevent any murder. It would be an illusion to believe that for a moment.
If we compare the number of victims which is currently recorded as a thousand to 1.200, although it's very difficult to operate with approximate numbers, that is -- that would be impossible with such a large number of police in the military in Kosovo at the time. If you just allow me. In the area of Djakovica, there is reference here to some refugees who were moving out because of the fighting between Yugoslav armed forces and the KLA. It was considered a liberation army of Kosovo.
Q. Just another question. There is a paragraph in the indictment 37557 dealing with the highest political and military leadership.
THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters beg the accused to repeat the paragraph.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, could you repeat the question, or could you repeat the paragraph from the beginning.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Paragraph 19, Mr. Kwon.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So it says: "... while holding positions of superior authority, Slobodan Milosevic and the others are also individually criminally responsible for the acts or omissions of their subordinates, pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal. A superior is responsible for the acts of his subordinates if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were about to commit such acts or had done so, and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish their perpetrators."
So from all you know, from all you were able to follow and document, is there any coincidence between this allegation that he is responsible if he is responsible, if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates were about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish?
A. This doesn't hold water, because all the competent authorities, all the professional services established at the level of the Supreme Command Staff were tasked, were legally bound and received orders to do their utmost to prevent crimes, and if crimes were detected, to find and 37558 punish the perpetrator.
So if you want to find a cause and effect connection between omissions or failures of our organs, there is no such connection. That is something basic in criminal law. I know that from my own work, because I had direct access to all the information about what is being done on the -- on the ground.
The chain of responsibility does not -- is uninterrupted there. You cannot establish responsibility in this case. If you speak about reasonable measures, all the reasonable measures were taken in view of the time and the circumstances.
Q. As an experienced soldier and lawyer, can you tell me, was there a measure that could have been taken and was not taken?
A. Absolutely not, because some measures were impossible to take. You cannot have a policeman and a prosecutor following every soldier on the ground.
Q. Thank you very much. We are coming close to the end of this examination. But apart from the question of Kosovo, I just have a few more short questions for you in view of your own activities in the military judiciary, and I will be able to complete my examination in chief within one or two minutes to get through it all. But let's go back to the beginning of the 1990s. What was your role in the case with respect to the well-known killing of the soldier from a firearm and an attempt at killing another soldier by strangling him in Split at the beginning of May 1991?
A. Ah, yes. That was on the 6th of May, 1991. It was in front of 37559 the headquarters of the military naval district where some large-scale demonstrations were held with the aim of provoking the command, and this particular case I was the prosecutor in the case. It went to the Split military -- from the Split military court and referred to the military court in Sarajevo in order to create the necessary conditions for unimpeded legal proceedings, and I was the prosecutor in that case. It was about the killing of a soldier. His name was Bjesovski. Bjesovski was the name of the soldier. He was a Macedonian soldier. Another one, Svetlance, and the driver of that combat vehicle was also a Macedonian. He was -- they were all members of the duty guard.
Q. I asked you what your role was, and you said you represented the prosecutor.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you take part in any other case with respect to the Vukovar case in 1991?
JUDGE BONOMY: Just before moving on, was there an accused person in this case?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In what case?
JUDGE BONOMY: Who was the -- in the case you've just referred to, the one involving the Macedonian soldier, the case --
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. There were four accused; Ivan Begonja. He's the one that tried to strangle the soldier. Then there was Zvonaric, another -- four of them, four accused, and they were civilians from Split, the town of Split.
JUDGE BONOMY: How did the military prosecutor have jurisdiction? 37560
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because the attack was an attack on military personnel in the course of doing their duty. They were on guard duty for the command, and therefore it came under the military court.
JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean that -- does that mean that in Kosovo the military prosecutor investigated attacks on Yugoslav army soldiers by Albanians?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
JUDGE BONOMY: But you don't have the particulars of that with you?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have the particulars of that, no. But the total number of persons killed --
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Very well. I'll just follow on from what Mr. Bonomy said, and I'd like to draw your attention to tab 19 now, General. Tab 19 is a review of the losses in the Yugoslav army, officers, non-commissioned officers, soldiers, contractual soldiers, reserve officers, reserve soldiers, and so on and so forth. And it says the causes of death during the aggression in combat operations, 546 persons; from NATO planes 248 or 45.4 per cent, under the effects of --
JUDGE KWON: If we could pause there. We have a note that it hasn't been translated. Could you -- could the B/C/S version be put on the ELMO so that we can follow.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Since it is a table, you're able to follow the figures quite easily, I think.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] 37561 BLANK PAGE 37562
Q. But it says in the note at the bottom, and I hope it's on the ELMO now, the note at the bottom of the page says the cause of death during the aggression in combat operations, and then in brackets 546 persons; under the effects of NATO aviation, 248 persons or 45.4 per cent people were killed. The victims of Siptar terrorist forces, the number there is 246 individuals or 45.1 per cent; from the effects of mines, once again the KLA, 33 persons lost their lives, or 6.0 per cent; and other reasons, miscellaneous, brackets, NATO and the Siptar terrorist forces later identified as having been killed, 19 of those or 3.5 per cent. So Mr. Bonomy asked you whether you were -- had the authority of establishing these deaths, and here we can see -- or, rather, take a look at the total number now, please.
A. These are the losses during NATO aggression in the combat operations during the armed conflicts. I understood the question to be that he was asking about crimes which were outside combat operations because it was linked to the events in Split where there were no armed conflicts at that moment. So that was the answer I gave along those lines. I said I didn't have information of that kind. But there were cases of that kind in Kosovo and Metohija where, in peacetime, crimes were committed against soldiers. And these cases were dealt with by the military court in Nis, but I didn't present that kind of information and data here.
Q. Very well, General. Now, these are serious losses, large numbers, several hundred people killed in the operations. I quoted the causes a moment ago. I don't want to repeat it. But is it possible that they 37563 could have been killed by unarmed civilians, because quite obviously they were -- or is it quite obviously the case that people died or were killed in struggles over a very violent enemy?
A. These are all -- this is all information from combat reports where the commanders of each unit ascertained and established the deaths resulting from terrorist armed formations of Albanians in Kosovo and these are differentiated from the NATO aviation victims. So these are the losses of the Yugoslav army members and not the losses of the MUP. We have a column of people killed before the aggression. Forty-five soldiers and officers died before the aggression from the effects of KLA armed formations.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I omitted to tender these remaining tabs that we dealt with in detail into evidence. I think the last one was tab 15 that was admitted into evidence, and I'd like to tender 16, 17, 18 and 19, the remaining tabs.
JUDGE KWON: We will admit them. However, those parts which contain the names of the rape victims will be under seal.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Let me just ask you this in closing, two short questions linked to your professional service. Did you take part in any court cases linked to the Vukovar cases in the autumn of 1991, Vukovar and its environs?
A. With respect to that event, I acted as the investigating judge although I was present at the military court in Belgrade but this was pursuant to a request for the military prosecutor to take steps linked to 37564 the event that happened in Vukovar, in Ovcara, and I spent -- I undertook certain investigative steps and then the documents were sent to the prosecutor who then referred the case to the district prosecutor in Belgrade because he found that he -- this did not come under his authority and competence to try the perpetrators.
And also I was the presiding officer of a court chamber which at the request of this Tribunal asked that the three persons be taken into custody. The request was refused because there was domestic criminal law on the constitution of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which did not provide for the possibility of extraditing nationals, Yugoslav nationals to a foreign country and foreign institution. Those provisions have now been amended in the constitutional law.
Q. Thank you, General.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, that completes my examination-in-chief of this witness.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
Q. You said earlier that independence of the judiciary is important in your system. Are you a fully independent person coming to give evidence here yesterday and today?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. No connections with any vested interest or political interests that underlie the cases we're dealing with?
A. No, none.
Q. No particular loyalty to this accused? 37565
A. None except my professional approach to the matter in hand.
Q. Out of interest, when did you last visit Russia?
A. This is the first time that I've been abroad, outside the boundaries of the SFRY. I've never been to Russia.
Q. Very well. Let's look at tabs 17 and 18 initially, because I want you to tell us this: Can we find in either tab 17 or 18 any recorded conviction of an individual for a war crime?
A. In tab 17, it is the report by the military court in Nis, they took it in chronological order, and in the columns we see the judgements, where the judgement was made. And in tab 18, I'd like to draw attention to --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... tab 17 because I'm afraid I've only had a translated version of this document for a day, and I had lots of other things to do. We've had a version of the B/C/S document for about a week.
In tab 17, is there anything there that constitutes a war crime?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you just point us to one so that we can all understand what is a war crime and how it was dealt with.
A. Here it is. In tab 18 you can see that. Just so that I can connect the two. If you find the page in tab 17. Find page 43 in tab 17. Under number 7. I don't know what the page is in English. 43, number 7. Then you'll find the individuals listed. War crimes, Article 142 of the Criminal Code linked to Article 22. So you have that on page 43.
Q. Give us a second. We've got to page 43 in the B/C/S, and we're 37566 going to find it in the English if we can. This is the page -- this is the page --
A. Under number 7.
Q. That's Slobodan Stosic. The page heads with --
A. Yes, and the others too.
Q. Ivan Nikolic, and we'll just see if we can find that.
A. It says Stosic --
Q. Just wait a minute. There's no point in our following it or trying to follow it unless we can find the English, you see.
JUDGE KWON: What's the report number? There are several reports. Tab 17.
MR. NICE: In tab 17, it's number 9.
JUDGE BONOMY: Trial page 56, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE: Thank you very much, Your Honour. Yes, absolutely right. We're now on the same -- on different page but effectively the same pages.
Q. And you want to tell us little bit about Slobodan Stosic, and you say this is recorded as a war crime. Just explain further, please.
A. Number 7 and number 10, another war crime. And the prosecutor here qualified the crime as such wherever there was an order from a superior officer that a crime was committed if the perpetrators committed the crime. So here we have the suggestions that the crime be committed and they perpetrated the crime. And this is a classical example. He cannot bypass the superior officer. Wherever there was a superior officer ordering somebody to do something and the subordinate soldier committed 37567 the crime, that was considered a war crime. Where there was no superior officer having ordered or kept quiet about, turned a bind eye to, et cetera, then it wasn't considered a crime of that nature. So you have this case in point, the one you were interested in, number 7.
Q. Yes, I am interested in it, and I just want to see how we see that it's reported as a war crime. What's different about it than anything else. Is it that it's under Article 142 that shows its a war came?
A. Yes, that's right. Article 142 is a crime, a war crime against the civilian population pursuant to the Criminal Code of Serbia and Montenegro. At the time it was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, of course.
Q. And the facts of the Slobodan Stosic case is probably well known to you because this was a man who took some prisoners out of the gaol, didn't he, and he took them down to Kosovo and -- did he take them down to Kosovo to kill people? What was the nature of the crime? Was that what he did?
A. Here it is. I'll read it out. So the people who were there, he ordered them, the subordinates --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... can we find what you're reading from?
A. A description of the event.
Q. I'm sorry, you see --
A. In tab 18 you'll find a description of the event. 37568
Q. Right. You're now in tab 18, and what page in tab 18?
A. Right, yes. It is page 2 in the Serbian version.
JUDGE KWON: Page 4 in English.
MR. NICE: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, yes.
MR. NICE:
Q. So this was the only one in tab 17 and thus far the only one in tab 18 that's a war crime; is that right?
A. There's one other one on the following page.
Q. But before we move on from Stosic, who complained about Stosic's crime?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the table here we see Article 142, which relates to all of them, not -- it's 142. Several Articles 142 are referred to. Wherever it says Article 142, I assume, and I assume General Gojovic knows this, in the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia is a war crime. Article 142 is a war crime. Was that clear from his answer? So it's not only -- doesn't only apply to Stosic.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, we heard that.
MR. NICE:
Q. Yes. Who complained about Stosic's and Palinkos' and Mijatovic's and Miskovic's behaviour?
A. This was uncovered in mid-April, and a report was sent to the prosecutor and the prosecutor undertook proceedings. I don't know who 37569 informed the prosecutor about the event. I don't have that here.
Q. Now, somewhere the underlying papers will exist that show how it was that this war crime charge was initiated, but you can't help us; is that right?
A. Well, it's in the documents of the criminal case, and I didn't have access to the papers because it was sent to the district court in Kraljevo. I wasn't an investigator and therefore didn't look at the documents. But everything is recorded there, who took what steps and when in the files, the binder for that particular case, whereas these are brief entries about what the case -- of what the case was about, a brief description of the crime.
Q. The case against these men, has it been discontinued?
A. No. It was continued.
Q. With what result?
A. The trial continued.
Q. With what result?
A. I don't know the result.
Q. Pretty serious case, isn't it? Throwing people into a well and setting light to the bodies? Throwing bodies into a well and setting light to them. Pretty serious case. You can't help as to what happened?
A. It is a serious case, yes, but as soon as it was referred to the district court, it was no longer under my sphere of competence. I did ask -- I did ask to see the papers, and the first instance judgement was revoked, but I didn't record this because I learnt about the case later on. So when I drew up this column -- 37570
Q. Go to number 10. This is the next in tab 17.
JUDGE KWON: Let me be a bit clear on this matter. Could page 56 of tab 17 be put on the ELMO.
General Gojovic, in item number 7 you see Mr. Stosic here, and at the second last column it says proceedings against Mr. Stosic discontinued. So that's why he does not appear in page 4 of tab 18, and he is the highest -- he has the highest rank amongst them. He was the lieutenant colonel while the others were reserve privates. Do you happen to remember why proceedings against this Slobodan Stosic discontinued?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as the information I received from the prosecutor orally, it was ascertained that he didn't order them to do that but when they were uncovered, in order to justify their acts, they said that they had received orders and that's why the case came -- the proceedings were launched against Stosic. But once this was ascertained, the proceedings were discontinued and continued against the other individuals. But we can see the records of this in the military court in Nis.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MR. NICE:
Q. And before we move on from that, there being some potential ambiguity in the way things are recorded, the five reserve privates -- the three reserve privates, the one private and the perpetrator unknown, at least in this record, had they themselves, the perpetrators, been in prison and taken out from prison for the purposes of the fighting? 37571
A. I'm not aware of such information that they were there previously. I don't know about that. I don't know where you get this information that they were in prison beforehand. They could have been sent to prison only because they committed this crime.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I cannot find it, the English translation now in this big bundle, but in the Serbian language it's quite clear what it says, and this is probably what confused Mr. Nice and that's why he put the question. In Serbian it says since they were taken out of detention - I mean this is in reference to the victims - they were brought to the wall of a house and fire was opened at them. These soldiers took people out of detention.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice is well aware of that.
MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... the accused's intervention. I may come back to this topic next week.
Q. Can we now go to number 10 on tab 17, which is the only other one I think you're going to tell us referred to as an Article 142 matter, therefore a war crime.
A. Yes.
Q. Despite being a war crime, it was simply handed over to the district court in Valjevo, and do we know anything about what happened after that?
A. I just know that this case was deferred during the investigation because this was a reserve officer. He was demobilised, and then it was the district court in Valjevo that the case was deferred to, and I just knew that the investigation was under way. I did not have any other 37572 BLANK PAGE 37573 information.
Q. So that takes care of tab 17. But before we pass from tab 17, it's worth observing, isn't it, that a great number of cases were convicted for matters like stealing cars, sets of tools, money, things like that, with prison sentences recorded. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So there appear to have been the resources available in the judicial systems to bring to conclusion comparatively trivial cases in the time with which we're concerned. Comparatively trivial. I'm not suggesting that stealing someone's car is not of gravity to the person.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's go to tab --
A. May I just explain. It's because these are simple cases where it's easy to rule and the evidence is quite clear. But in case of complex proceedings, it requires a great deal of expertise and forensic expertise. If a particular object is stolen, it is easy to see the evidence, and it's easy for the courts to deal with that, and no expertise is required.
Q. Of course. And before we move to tab 18 and since you raise it, to investigate the more serious crimes also requires access to sources of information, doesn't it?
A. Correct.
Q. And you as the military judicial system presumably had ready access to relevant sources of information if you wanted them; correct?
A. The information that we had. The sources of information that we did not have access to, we did not. It is on site that one acquires first 37574 information.
Q. You as the military investigator -- just assume for the time being that on a particular day at a particular time a VJ tank or tanks was or were seen to be deployed. Two things: First, in a well-regulated army, the location and deployment of tanks would be recorded, wouldn't it?
A. It depends on the conditions in which the tank is deployed. You see, this is not front-line fighting. The area where this was taking place is rugged terrain, so patterns cannot be applied of that kind.
Q. All right. Let me -- let me tie you down a little bit more. If a tank was deployed on a particular date in a town, it doesn't matter what town, near to Pristina, it would be possible to work out from which unit that tank came, and you as the military judiciary and prosecutors one way or another would be able to get access to the records showing what the tank commanders were doing on the given day, wouldn't you?
A. There is some possibility on the condition that this commander knows at every moment where his tank is. A tank would not be in the same place for the entire day. Such a tank would not survive or, rather, its a crew would not survive until nightfall.
Q. Thank you for your general answer. What I want you to help me with is this: There's a lot of evidence that tanks were deployed around Racak on the day that it was attacked and that they were firing into Racak in a way that people have said is criminal because it was inevitably disproportionate. I'd like you to tell us, please, what steps the Serbian-Montenegrin military judiciary took to investigate the tanks that attacked Racak. 37575
A. There was no tank attack against Racak. I don't know where you get this information that you refer to just now. Secondly, it was the district court in Pristina that was in charge of the proceedings regarding Racak. Units were deployed in their positions far away from Racak. It is only after the fighting that they took some kind of combat order for the sake of their own protection. If somebody opened fire, it was mostly out of fear, probably, but the army did not take part in this.
Q. First of all it was the district court in Pristina who was responsible so your unit wouldn't be. Then the second answer is that the units were deployed in positions far away from Racak but I don't know what your source of information for that. Your third answer is that it's only after the fighting that they took some kind of combat. Are you giving answers or are you trying to protect a position, General Gojovic?
A. No. I did not say that the units, after fighting, took part in combat. I do not have information that the units of the army of Yugoslavia took part in an armed conflict in Racak. I do not have such information. They were in the broader area. I cannot say that they were not in the broader area.
I had the opportunity of talking to one officer, that is to say the commander who was there in -- at his command post, was it Djakovica or Glogovac, and he came to the position only subsequently, to the position where his unit was. So what happened in Racak has no influence over all of this. I mean, except for the fact that the units were in the broader area. But they did not take part in this. I do not have the kind of 37576 information that you have and no such information was available.
JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, that might be a convenient time?
MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.
JUDGE KWON: We will break for 20 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
--- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nice.
MR. NICE:
Q. Just before I turn from Racak, I overlooked at your very first answer about Racak, was that the event hadn't happened at all. How if you conducted no investigation were you able to offer that opinion to the Chamber that the attack by the VJ didn't happen at all?
A. Let me tell you. At that time on the 15th of January I was president of the military court in Belgrade, so it was not under the jurisdiction of that court. I have this unofficial information that the units of the army of Yugoslavia did not take part in this. I did not have occasion to act in any official capacity with regard to that event.
Q. You see, you're a judge, or you've been a judge, and is the position you're now a lawyer? Is that right?
A. No. Now I'm a pensioner.
Q. But you've been a lawyer, haven't you?
A. Briefly.
Q. And you know how important it is to leave for judges the determination of factual issues on the basis of evidence and yet your immediate response to my question to you about Racak was there was no tank 37577 attack against Racak. Is that a sentence you'd now like to withdraw, bearing in mind it's the Judges who have to deal with the facts of this case?
A. I accept that it is the Judges who decide about that. It's not that I decide whether a statement will be considered in this way or that way. I just said that as far as I know, the members of the army of Yugoslavia did not attack Racak, did not take part in any such thing, as far as I know. I said that as a private individual, not in any official capacity.
Q. I see. Do we have to distinguish in your evidence, then, and perhaps you would be helpful enough to tell us when we do, between answers you give in an official capacity and answers that you give as a private individual? Is that what we're going to have to do as we assess you?
A. This is the first time that I said something as a private individual. Until now, I did not say anything like that. I just said, when asked about my knowledge, that I learned of these things in passing. I was never in a position to act in an official capacity in dealing with that. This is the only statement I've made here as a private individual.
MR. NICE: As I turn from tab 17, can I draw to the Court's attention that immediately after page 13 in the B/C/S version and immediately before page 14 there are some documents in Cyrillic that I wish to ask questions about but they haven't yet been translated. For some reason, they've been omitted. I understand from Ms. Anoya that the matter is being investigated and we will come back to it next Tuesday. I imagine the Court's papers will be similarly composed to mine, but it's 37578 between pages 13 and 14.
Q. Shall we turn, then, General, to tab 18. I'm still with the question of the issue of what's shown and revealed war crimes. So if we go in the English page 4, we've already looked at that, just to start our journey through the document. Go to page 2 in your version, page 4 in ours, we see the one we've already looked at and we know what happened there.
Then we go to number 6 on page 5 in the English and page 3 in the Serbian. Stevan Jekic. Do we know anything about what happened to him?
A. I've already answered that a few moments ago. This case was referred, in the investigation stage, to the Valjevo district court and they continued the investigation. I'm not aware of the outcome.
Q. Do you know whether he was convicted or acquitted?
A. I have no such information.
Q. More important, can you help me, please, with how it was that this matter was brought to the attention of authorities so that they investigated it to the degree that they did?
A. There is a brief description here about what this was all about, who reported about this, and then the investigation started and he was no longer a military person at that stage.
Q. Just stop. I want to know who reported it. Do you follow me? Simple question. Because I want to know why, according to this table, some action was taken. Now, can you help me, please?
A. Somebody reported it. I do not have information who it was who reported it. However, in the record, in the file of the case, there is 37579 such information, but I did not have the file in my hands. I did not have insight into it. This is information from the register where there is just brief contents of the cases that are being dealt with. But the files are with the court --
Q. And does this --
A. -- and a request can be made to obtain them. I'm sorry -- I'm sorry for interrupting.
Q. General Gojovic, we're going to come to what happens to requests made to you and your government for material of this kind in due course, trust me, but I want to know now, is the register the underlying material that you relied on for all these cases that you tabulated?
A. Yes, yes. The register and the report of the military court. That is reliable information. And also when I required additional information, I would ask verbally the prosecutor or the president of the court to check some information out.
Q. And bearing in mind the answers you gave to the accused this morning, can you at the moment remember any other examples where you had to ask for supplementary information before either composing this table of investigations or where you had to seek additional information from an investigator in order to be able to give the answers to this Court today?
A. I did not prepare myself especially for this here. I sought the information earlier. I sought this information from the courts to which the cases were referred. From some I did receive information, from others I didn't. From those I did, I used this information for compiling these documents. 37580
Q. Very well.
A. And this additional information can be seen. If you wish, I can write about it more.
Q. Very well. Let's go to the next table. We looked at this entry, page 6 of the English and page 4 of the Serbian, already, because this is the one that had a little bit of additional writing about the sentences of seven, nine, and seven years that were imposed. We will come back to the rest of the writing in due course because there are a couple of words and we'll have to see what you can tell us about those, but just tell us as to this one, numbers 1, 2 and 3 on English page 6, on Serbian page 4, what was your source of information? What was the source of information that led to this inquiry? Can you tell us?
A. In every column, it says whether the report was submitted or not, whether such information was known or not. There is no entry here, and this was done on the basis of the register, and that is not recorded in the register who this information was obtained from.
Q. If you can't help us, the answer no will do. There was dealt with under Article 47, as we see at the head of the page, so it wasn't dealt with as a war crime. However, this is the only occasion it may be when the words "war crime" appear, because they appear in the handwritten annotation on page 4 of the Serbian, underneath the recording of the number of years. Is that correct?
A. I do not have this information, but I do know that the prosecutor changed the charges, and it is certain that the charges were changed during the proceedings. But I did not follow the trial later. During the 37581 trial, the prosecutor --
Q. It may be my mistake entirely, and I do apologise if it is, but I hope my questions are comparatively straightforward. There appears on page 4 the handwritten notation recording a finding of war crime; correct? Am I correct?
A. I don't know where you got this note. I do not have this note in this survey of mine.
Q. The handwritten -- page 4 of the Serbian, the handwritten entry, nine years, seven years, and seven years, and then there are two words underneath it. What do you say those words say?
JUDGE KWON: I notice the general is looking at the ELMO. Yes, there it is.
MR. NICE:
Q. The two words underneath the sentences of seven years. What are those words?
A. "War crime."
Q. Thank you. Who wrote those words?
A. I don't know who wrote those words.
Q. It's your table, General. You produced, you've prepared it, and you've brought it to court. Who wrote those words?
A. Please, lest there be any misunderstanding, I have brought my surveys. I have them here. But this is not my handwriting. This is not my handwriting. This is an entry that somebody made subsequently. I don't have any such thing on my documents. It's somebody -- yes. Well, never mind. But I know unofficially and from the newspapers that the 37582 charges were changed in this case, that it was -- that he was charged with a war crime, and that the first instance judgement was revoked and that the trial has been reinstituted.
So I don't know if this is some -- I mean, I don't know about this myself. I don't have firsthand knowledge, but I have read in the newspapers that --
Q. Does this reflect, then, that the policy of the military courts was to charge matters as crimes other than war crimes but that on this particular occasion another lawyer getting seized of the matter gave it its correct title?
A. Not necessarily. Not necessarily.
Q. Can you explain it to me any other way?
A. On the contrary.
Q. I see. Go on, then.
A. I will explain. The military prosecutor was committed to go with the highest, the most severe charge. If he does that, he always has the possibility to change the charge to a less severe one. However, if he starts with a less serious charge, he cannot commute it to a more serious one even if it turns out that the crime in question is a more serious one. That is why this was done that way. I don't know if I was clear enough.
Q. We'll move on because -- in order to save time. This is the position, isn't it: There's no other crime in your tab 18 that is identified as a war crime at all. They're all categorised as domestic crimes.
A. Well, ending with this last number, you have this information, and 37583 BLANK PAGE 37584 I found out later that another four persons were charged with war crimes. We have that in the survey, the summary overview. A total of four persons were charged with war crimes, as we see from the overview, at the time. Another four were charged with war crimes later. They are not covered by this table. And a more serious crime was commuted or, rather, more serious charges were commuted to less serious charges on the decision of the district prosecutor.
Q. Would you be so good as to return, then, to page 68 of the Serb version and page 76 of the English which we can lay on the overhead projector. Again, just to -- I underline the point that I've been getting you to confirm, this page of the table is headed Article 47. It's not a war crime, despite the fact that 144 fresh graves of unidentified persons were found at Izbica and, as your table asserts, proceedings were initiated on the 29th of May, 1999, well before the conflict ended and while your courts were still in operation. So the general question is, please, why on earth wasn't this incident manifestly likely to be a war crime investigated as a war crime if you were doing your jobs properly?
A. Again, you don't seem to want to accept the explanation that the prosecutor had in mind. The prosecutor is the one who decides which charges to press, and he decides on this one because it entails the death sentence or the minimum prison sentence of ten years. If he qualifies it as a war crime, the minimum sentence is five years, and that why the prosecutor seems to have made this decision. It is easy to amend the indictment and commute the charges and requalify it as a war crime. War crime sounds better for the press, but under our national legislation, 37585 this particular charge entails a much harsher sentence than a war crime. That's why the prosecutor decided on these charges, because he's able later to change it if he wants to.
You want to say that the prosecutor should have qualified this as a war crime from the start to satisfy justice. That would have had the contrary effect.
Q. I hadn't put it in those terms, General Gojovic, but in a sense you're quite right. But let's move on. Yes, I would suggest that to you; categorising war crimes in another way is a way of hiding collectively from the truth, isn't it?
A. No, that is not the reason.
Q. Let's look just for the last time at this page, although I'll have to return to it next week, because what you told us about the other place that may be covered in our indictment was something I haven't yet been able to prepare, but let's look at Izbica. I haven't been able to prepare, not knowing you were going to say at all. Izbica, initiated on the 29th of May, 1999, according to this table, and I ask you as I have with all the other -- I'm sorry. First of all, apart from the other village to which you've referred, this is the only matter in the Kosovo indictment covered in your table, isn't it?
A. Yes. And there are another two that could have qualified, but this is the only one that actually appears in the indictment.
Q. I want your help, please, with why it was that this one got pursued and, as we can see on the basis of your table, comparatively early. Why was it that it got pursued? 37586
A. Compared to this case, this location with fresh graves were found, the unit commander -- the commander of the unit which arrived there at the time reported that there are fresh graves.
Q. Yes. Remember you told me not so very many minutes ago that your source of information for preparation of this table was - I can't remember what the name of the document is, but was another document - a register. Do you remember that you told me that?
A. I do.
Q. Remember I asked you questions about when you needed to go to seek further information in order to give evidence to this Court? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. If we look at the face of page 76 or whatever it is. I'm sorry, I've lost it again now -- 68, I think. When we look at that, unless I've missed it, and you must help me with this, there is absolutely no reference to a unit finding an unmarked grave, let alone to a commander of a unit, is there?
A. In this original register, this piece of information does appear. It was a unit from Krusevac.
Q. Have you got it there so I can have a look at it? Because it doesn't appear on the document that we've got here.
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Well --
A. I'll look for it.
Q. Though I'm pressed for time, I'm going to give you, with the 37587 Court's leave, enough time to --
A. Right. We can look at it later.
Q. I'd like to see it today, if I can.
A. It's somewhere in this material. I can't find it right now. I can't even open up all these pages to --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and review over the days between now and when this court will sit again on Tuesday?
A. It has been copied here in your services, and this material can be found under tab 17.
Q. I see. You're looking at tab 17. In which case it may be there?
A. That piece of information is there.
Q. Let's just see if we can find it, because if it's there we can move on, to a degree.
A. Fine. Here under this tab. Under item 3 in tab 17. Fresh graves, 144 graves in village Izbica discovered by unit --
Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
A. It's under tab 17, at the end. There is an annex, a text there, report by the military prosecutor. The last report by the military prosecutor in that tab. The heading is "To the supreme military prosecutor in Belgrade from the military prosecutor in Nis."
JUDGE KWON: What is the page number?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the end, there is no page number. It's prosecutor's report annexed to this tab.
MR. NICE:
Q. I don't think we've seen this before. I'll just check, if I may. 37588 And it's not one of the untranslated --
A. It must be in your binder as well.
Q. Sometimes photocopying errors occur.
MR. NICE: The short answer, Your Honour, is it hadn't been included.
Would Your Honour just give me a minute.
[Prosecution counsel confer]
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
MR. NICE: There are a number of documents here that haven't been translated, and I see the documents that I have identified as not having been translated I think are included in the middle of this document. It may be that the better course would be for this document to be photocopied in full and provided to the parties today if that's something that the Chamber could organise.
JUDGE KWON: General Gojovic, do you mind that document being photocopied?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I certainly don't mind. On the contrary, I would be glad. But I think it has been photocopied and submitted to you.
JUDGE KWON: That will be done.
MR. NICE: Thank you very much. And if -- if it can be made available by the witness to whoever is doing the photocopying. You see -- immediately at the close of the hearing today.
Q. You see, if we can go back to where we were on pages 76 and -- 80 -- 68, 68 for you, there's an important fact about Izbica, isn't there, 37589 General Gojovic, that we should have in mind; namely that this was the mass burial site that was subject of a video produced by the United States at a very early date in 1999.
MR. NICE: It's Exhibit 162 tab 7, for reference of the Court, and tab 6.
Q. This particular killing site was publicised internationally, wasn't it?
A. I don't know whether it was publicised internationally. I didn't follow that. But I do know that the international public opinion was informed and focused on that quite a lot. But this is not a case of a mass grave. It is a series of individual graves in a small area.
Q. You see -- well, whatever. We've got evidence that the United States briefed in respect of Izbica at an early date in, it appears, March of 1999, that there was an aerial photograph taken of a gravesite outside Izbica in May of 1999, and my inquiry of you is this: Is the reason that Izbica is the only serious crime charged in this indictment that finds a reflection in your schedule, that with the international attention focused on it there was no way you could ignore it?
A. Let me tell you one thing: In our overview, we have another case of this kind involving 140 graves of victims. In another case yet, 175, that those cases were developed and processed. So there can be no question of what you are saying. What the American services made aerial photographs of cannot be the decisive factor in taking on a case or not. Look at this case of Dosevac. 140 bodies. Ninety-five in Senovac. What's the difference between 95 or 140 compared to 120 that you 37590 quoted in the indictment? You cannot take the fact that the American services made a photograph of something as a very important factor. An incident that is not accompanied by a record of investigative organs cannot go anywhere. It doesn't matter what American services recorded. It's what the judiciary and the police discover that matters to us in deciding whether we are going to go ahead with a case or not. The public opinion, international public opinion included does not matter, has no importance, is not relevant.
Q. The evidence we have, which is Exhibit 162, tab 7, from the United States has the matter recorded as there being no graves on the 15th of March and new graves by the 15th of April.
From your answers, General Gojovic, are you saying that public -- international public opinion or international public broadcasting of allegations about what had happened did play a part in the decision whether to investigate?
A. What was publicised internationally or not is something that the judiciary organs were not aware of. They were not even a position to follow the international press or television. The prosecutor had the obligation to report it and start a case. What American TV stations reported on doesn't matter. They reported on things that never happened, in some cases.
As for when these bodies were buried, it doesn't mean anything. They could have been buried before.
Q. Military prosecutors and military court judges have a freestanding duty to investigate -- to inquire into and to investigate matters that may 37591 concern the military, don't they?
A. Certainly.
Q. As you've told us, you're independent of politics.
A. Correct.
Q. Why didn't you investigate Racak, given the broad public allegations about the involvement of forces included the army? Why didn't you investigate it?
A. The military prosecutor did not have the evidence to start the case. What the public says are only stories.
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... only stories. Tell me, how do investigations start if they don't start with stories? This is a very serious event at Racak. Why did the military judicial system of the country in which it happened - and Serbia's been very proud of its integration at the time with Kosovo or the other way around - why didn't it investigate Racak?
A. They couldn't investigate Racak if they had no evidence that a single soldier killed anyone there or that a military unit attacked Racak population centre. Why would then the military prosecutor investigate that incident if the investigative judge of the district court in Pristina went to the sight to investigate accompanied by the police and the relatives of the victims? I don't know what piece of evidence constitutes grounds for you to link the military prosecutor to this event. There is no such piece of evidence.
What Walker said on the scene, the statements he made and the stories that circulated in the public, that doesn't matter at all. 37592
Q. And you haven't attended to the evidence of people like Maisonneuve who were quite specific in seeing tanks firing into Racak. You've never focused on that yourself.
A. No. There is no such information.
Q. Just a few other things. I'll have to come back to tabs 17 and 18 after the weekend.
MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, this was a document that wasn't listed under the 65 ter, nor was it supplies.
Q. I want to deal with this quite shortly, the next point, although it might be necessary to look at some documents.
A. Excuse me for a moment, Mr. President. With regard to tab 18, if you allow me one explanation after this remark made by Mr. Nice.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, briefly.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tab 18 was submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor in January 2004 at their own request. That is the overview about which I said that I drafted it myself. It was submitted to the OTP in January last year.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'll investigate that. It doesn't accord with my records and recollection, and I'm come back to that next week as well.
I'll move on to something else.
Q. Your independence as a lawyer and member of the judiciary, can we start with the Trifunovic trial, please. Trifunovic was the general, was he not? 37593
A. Yes.
Q. At the time he was a general, you were a colonel; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were prosecuting colonel?
A. No. I was president of the military court in Belgrade.
Q. At the time of his first trial, his second trial, or his third trial?
A. The third trial. At the time of the first and second trial, I was deputy of the supreme military prosecutor.
Q. There you are. You were a prosecutor, and you were a colonel.
A. Yes.
Q. Just to remind the Court, Trifunovic was the officer in charge of one of the blockaded barracks in Croatia; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Just as a matter of flavour or detail, the barracks of which he was in charge lay north of the famous Virovitica-Karlobag-Karlovac line, whereas many of the other blockaded barracks, like Vukovar and Split and Zadar, lay south of the line, correct?
A. Varazdin is in the northern part of Slavonia, upward of Zagorje [phoen], closer to the border of Slovenia or the triple border Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia.
Q. And we know there was fighting to different levels at the conclusion of the blockaded barracks in Vukovar Split, Sibenik and Zadar. The problem in Varazdin, if it was a problem, was that following massive desertions by the troops and some killings of the troops, Trifunovic 37594 BLANK PAGE 37595 arranged, negotiated the way whereby his remaining mostly young recruits and he were given safe passage to Serbia; correct?
A. He did not have authority to negotiate. He had among his personnel 1.500 troops.
Q. But other than that comment, my summary for the purposes of this trial is accurate, isn't it? He negotiated a conclusion for the blockade of his troops and got everybody who was left, including himself, safe to Belgrade or to Serbia.
A. On the condition that he hand over all his weapons and equipment, and the value of that equipment would amount to $700 million, and weapons. That was the value of it. Which the Croatian army later used in fighting on different battlefields.
Q. The first two trials presided over by judges then, I suppose, your equals or superiors -- no. One was a captain. You were a colonel. The first two trials resulted in his being acquitted; correct?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. But this didn't accord with the general disposition of the army which ran a massive campaign against Trifunovic; correct? Wishing him to be held as a traitor?
A. Quite the contrary. Quite the contrary. The Chief of the General Staff, General Adzic, as a witness, testified to everything that could help. He never said anything to the disadvantage of Trifunovic. So this is a regular example of the courts working completely independently and autonomously. And the military courts rescinded the acquittals, and according to their authority, they said which proof and evidence should be 37596 presented by the first instance court to arrive by the right conclusion, which was not the case in the first two trials.
Q. So you, then Colonel Gojovic, were one of the prosecutors who pressed for the second appeal, despite the fact that the judge in the second trial said that the superior officers of Trifunovic had a lot to answer for; is that correct?
A. I didn't understand your question.
Q. You were one of the prosecutors pressing for appeal of the second trial.
A. No. No. I didn't act as prosecutor in that trial at all. The prosecutor that acted was in another organisational unit. It was a separate prosecutor working for the SSNO, and he conducted both the trials in the first and second case. So I myself as prosecutor did not take part in that trial, and I came across the case for the first time when I was a judge, as a judge.
Q. You were appointed under a system that had appointments of judges made by the President of Serbia on the advice of the Ministry of Defence. You were appointed as a general and judge to try the Trifunovic case at its third hearing, weren't you?
A. No.
Q. Well, you were appointed as the presiding judge. Yes or no.
A. Please. The question has been distorted. I was appointed judge, the president of the court on the 6th of January, 1994. The 6th of January, 1994. And the judgement by the supreme court, which rescinded the judgement of the first instance, was brought in quite a long time 37597 afterwards, later. And when the hearing came to court, I was already president of the court, and that's where I encountered the case for the first time and started to work on it as judge, because the first judge had moved to another post, and the second judge was getting ready to take up the profession of lawyer. So all that remained was for me to take over the case because all the other judges had just come to work in the court. So I don't see where the problem is there.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.
JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice asked an incorrect question, because he said, and I'm reading from the transcript, "[In English] You were appointed under a system that had appointments of judges made by the president of Serbia."
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. At the time, the president of Serbia did not appoint judges. It was the president of Yugoslavia at that time and it was always the president of the federal state who would appoint judges. It is a federal institution not a republican one.
MR. NICE: Fine. I'm in error.
Q. You see, the trial you presided over has been widely --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, this is a completely inappropriate comment. How can the accused be the person who appoints the president of the court in 1994? What does "the accused" mean when he says the accused was the person who --
JUDGE KWON: It was an error. Yes.
MR. NICE: 37598
Q. Can we move on. This trial has been widely condemned by your colleagues really as a travesty of justice, hasn't it?
A. Who condemned what? I wasn't following you.
Q. Yes. This trial has been widely condemned really as effectively a travesty of justice that you presided over. Trifunovic.
A. Which colleagues? Which colleagues are you referring to? You're talking about lawyers, defence counsel, what?
Q. Your legal colleagues.
A. Please. Oh, no, please. Come on.
Q. Are you a licensed advocate at the moment?
A. Let me answer the first question first. The judgement that I brought in as president of the council was confirmed by the supreme court in Belgrade and that judgement went on appeal to reinvestigate the case with the federal court of Yugoslavia. It is confirmed there too. Then the judgement on two occasions went before a commission to establish the constitutionality and the requests were all rejected, after I had left the court. So that piece of information and that argumentation that the Prosecutor is pointing forward at this point and he wants to gain satisfaction of some kind doesn't hold water. So it went through several court instances and was confirmed on several levels. It was confirmed, as I say. Once I had left the service in general, requests were made for the protection of legality and constitutionality where all the judges were replaced and the request rejected. So this was a judgement that was in conformity with the law.
Now, the fact that the Defence counsels were not satisfied with 37599 that, that's their problem. There are very few lawyers who are satisfied with court decisions if it goes contrary to the interests of their client and themselves.
Q. The simple question to which a simple answer: Trifunovic was subsequently pardoned by Lilic, wasn't he? Just yes or no.
A. From serving his sentence. Not from the sentence itself but from serving the sentence due to reasons of health.
Q. And you were either denied the opportunity to practice as a lawyer or you had your licence or registration as a lawyer taken away from you on the basis of complaint made of you by your fellow lawyers. Can we look, please -- that's correct, isn't it? And we'll look at a report of this from Danas and see your comments on this.
A. That's no problem. The lawyers who were defence lawyers in that case, when I asked to be entered into the register of the bar, they answered and the bar, contrary to the law, revoked my registration and it was rescinded by the supreme court of Serbia. The decision made by the Belgrade bar was revoked, annulled by the supreme court of Serbia because it was unlawful. The proceedings are still under way because they repeated their demands. They did not have the right to revoke my registration to the bar, which was done in keeping with the law on the basis of subsequent filings by the lawyers who weren't satisfied with the judgement. They weren't satisfied. I don't deny that, but they couldn't revoke it. They could do nothing about it so quite normally they were dissatisfied.
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... in front of you and it will 37600 go on the overhead projector in English and will probably bring me to the end of --
A. I don't need it, I don't need it, I know it all.
Q. What it says is this, that in an open letter to the Belgrade lawyer association, Belgrade lawyers, and there are three of them, Boturovic, Stanic, and Milan Stanic, disputed your registration, saying that you weren't worthy to be a lawyer because you "left black, not to say bloody trails in the military judicature; as chief justice of the Military Court of Belgrade and Judge of that court assigned the cases, in which evidence and guiltiness of the accused were staged," you "devotedly participated in fixing and sentencing innocent people." You "lead the legal proceedings against Major General Vlado Trifunovic and his collaborators Raduski and Popov." The open letter went on to say that pursuant to Article 121 of the FRY Criminal Code, they were released on charges of subversion of military and defensive powers. "The Judge Milos Sajic was deciding the penal in the first criminal proceedings and Judge Djorde Dozel presided in the second." "... released of charges in the second proceeding." The military leadership wanted to find culprits for all the failures and defeats of the JNA and they found them in Trifunovic and his collaborators so they had to sentence them. The newspaper article goes on to say, or the letter, that it's interesting that during the first and second proceedings you were the deputy of the military prosecutor of the Yugoslav army. "During the proceeding on the appeals against the decisions (he filed an appeal against the find for the defendant) as Chief Justice, he appointed himself 37601 as the judge in that case". He presided the main procedure in scandalous, tendentious and a biased manner.
Now, is that not the allegation of your legal colleagues about you?
A. Those allegations are unfounded and these colleagues took part as Defence counsel. Trifunovic was Branko Stanic's defence counsel. Raduski was defended by Stanic Milan and his son, and Popov was defended by Jovan Boturovic, who was a judge of the military court before. And they were dissatisfied with the decision and ruling of the court which was later confirmed by the supreme military court and the federal court as well. So that is the verification of it, whereas these kinds of complaints were tabled to the Belgrade bar, and they exerted pressure on public opinion to have the decision revoked, but it wasn't, because no -- none of the judges succumbed to this kind of pressure. So these are completely irresponsible stories, not backed up by arguments.
Q. [Previous translation continues] ... remaining sentence, and on the second page of the English and at the end of this article turn briefly to another point. Natasa Kandic is a Serb who has brought many events that are uncomfortable to Serbia to light, and she has not pursued the Serb cause in endeavouring to uncover the truth. She works for a non-governmental organisation.
We see that the following in the second paragraph on the English on the second page reported against you: "As a suitable and selected member of staff, Gajovic was appointed Chief of the Legal Administration of the Federal Ministry of Defence, although he did not satisfy the 37602 requirements," because you don't have a doctorate in science of law. You were promoted to major general. And as chief of the legal administration you ordered Lakic Djordjevic to write a criminal charge against Natasa Kandic, director of the Humanitarian Law Fund because of the article she'd written "Authority hides responsibility with repression." Lakic had the courage, didn't he, to refuse to do that, and he has instituted an inquiry against you; correct?
A. No, not correct. At the time, I was on holiday and what Natasa Kandic has written is incorrect. I didn't order him to write a criminal charge against her, because I was on holiday at the time. I wasn't doing -- I wasn't at work. And whenever Natasa Kandic comes in from the streets to tell a story, she writes whatever she likes. So I would like to suggest that you don't base your questions on what Natasa Kandic said.
Q. And lastly, if I may, because we have to --
JUDGE KWON: This should be the last question.
MR. NICE: Yes, this will be the last, and I hope the last I will have to deal with on these topics on Tuesday, probably.
Q. One other allegation that Djordjevic has made about you, a subordinate placing himself at risk for making complaints because he made a complaint about the way that you tried to get your entire legal office, you instructed them to vote for this accused in the elections of 2000, and he complained about your doing that, didn't he?
A. Not true. It's funny. Ludicrous.
Q. Very well.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We will adjourn for today. We will 37603 BLANK PAGE 37604 resume at 9.00 on Tuesday morning.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 22nd day of
March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.