³⁷⁶⁰⁵

Tuesday, 22 March 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, to continue your cross-examination; and, General, you remain subject to the declaration you made.

WITNESS: RADOMIR GOJOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, last week we concluded with an examination of a newspaper article published in Danas on the 20th of June, 2001. The witness was aware of its contents, the essential part of the document being an open letter of the Belgrade Lawyers' Association, and I would ask that that be exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Higgins.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, very briefly. The article in the newspaper Danas was clear from the testimony of this witness on the last occasion that he explained his role quite clearly in the Trifunovic trial. The article itself contains aspects of journalistic comment which are not regularly admitted by this Tribunal, and in my submission there is no probative additional value in addition to what this witness has already said, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Higgins.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the article contains a succinct analysis and the expression of views by professional colleagues of this witness. ³⁷⁶⁰⁶ He acknowledged they held and expressed those views, and this would be a convenient way to have them before you.

As to the second part of the article to which we barely turned last week for want of time, I shall be dealing with it with other documents in due course in any event, so it's for the first part of the article that I want its submission -- seek its submission.

JUDGE BONOMY: This is to some extent difficult with the witness present, but it's not my recollection that the witness accepted that these were views that were genuinely held by personnel.

MR. NICE: If I mischaracterise --

JUDGE BONOMY: And I think in the past, because of time pressures, the detail of a witness's knowledge of the content of a document being put to him is not perhaps pressed home in the way it might be if time pressures weren't as they are here.

Now, if I'm wrong about that, obviously I'm quite happy to be very quickly corrected.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, could I just add to what you said, briefly, which is this: In the transcript on the last occasion, Your Honour is absolutely correct, that this witness did not accept the allegations. He referred to them as unfounded and did not accept them.

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think that's Mr. Nice's point. Mr. Nice's point is whether he accepts that the allegations were made by these people, and if he accepts that much, then I can see something in the argument that's being presented, but it -- I mean, that's all. That's as far as it goes. It gets exhibited for that purpose. At least, that would ³⁷⁶⁰⁷ be my own view. But my recollection isn't clear that he actually went that far.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Can I ask him again this morning?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may put it to him again. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. You remember, General Gojovic, the article from Danas that we explored under time pressures last week. I think you declined an opportunity to look at the document, saying that you didn't need to. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And you accept, do you not, that the views expressed in that article were indeed the views of the lawyers who sent the open letter?

A. In addition to their positions, there are also the comments of journalists.

JUDGE KWON: The LiveNote laptop -- there's no problem with the laptops, but if there are some technical people could take a look.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We can follow on the laptop. Continue, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Your answer is that there was also some journalistic views. I'm concerned that the allegations made are the comments expressed by your colleagues, and as you've already said, you accept that those views were their views and were expressed by them.

A. Whether they were their views or not, I don't know. That's what they wrote, and since they acted as Defence counsel of the accused in the ³⁷⁶⁰⁸ case that I presided over, that's it. So any further comment with respect to their positions has no foundations in facts. You received the judgement. You saw it.

Q. I'm going to stop you because time is short.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, for the purpose that I seek admission, the answer, it seems to me, would be sufficient.

JUDGE KWON: And I remember he said he knew of this defence.

MR. NICE: Indeed. He said he didn't need to look at it because he knew of it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll admit it.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 839.

MR. NICE:

Q. The position is this, is it not: You then wanted to become a practising lawyer. You were not allowed to become a practising lawyer. Notwithstanding that, when, for example, General Pavkovic was interviewed by the OTP, you sought to represent him, didn't you?

A. No, that's not correct. I did become a lawyer, and the bar brought up the case again, but their decision was overruled by the Supreme Court of Serbia in the legal proceedings, and they had to proceed pursuant to the law. As for Pavkovic, I attended as his legal advisor, not as his Defence counsel.

Q. And you've applied to appear at this court on behalf of one of those accused of the Vukovar crimes, and you have been declined the rights of audience here, haven't you? Is that right? ³⁷⁶⁰⁹

A. No, not to represent them but they asked me to be an investigator in the Defence team, not myself as counsel. The accused addressed the Court for it to appoint me, to authorise me, to investigate as an investigator in view of the fact that I had headed the proceedings previously and I am aware of the facts. Not as Defence counsel. So don't put matters topsy-turvy, upside down.

Q. I don't have time to deal with Sarajevo much, and if I have more time I'll return to it later, but just confirm these things, if you will: The military police in the barracks at Sarajevo where you were stationed were fully armed?

A. Police arms.

Q. You had -- and had the ability to use, from those barracks, sniper rifles?

A. There were no sniper rifles because the police does not have snipers, sniper rifles.

Q. Did you have access to chemical materials that could have been used?

A. No.

Q. Mladic was regularly in contact with the barracks, was he not?

A. Twice by phone. I asked to speak to him.

Q. You certainly spoke to him once yourself, but the commander of the military --

A. When I left the barracks, then I asked that he receive me for me to be able to inform him of the situation, the court proceedings that were pending from that area. ³⁷⁶¹⁰

Q. Was Tomcic the man in charge of the military police unit?

A. Yes. He was the commander of that military police unit. That means 120 people, roughly.

Q. I'll return to that, if I have time, in due course. As to your evidence last week, and in particular as to tabs 17 and 18, your suggestion or your evidence is that here was a perfectly operating or satisfactorily operating judicial military system; is that correct? That's in summary what you're saying?

A. Yes.

Q. And what you're saying, so that we can understand it and put it in its context in this trial, is such a system to be in effect is incompatible with the existence of a plan, whenever generated, to remove Kosovo Albanians by ethnic cleansing, yes?

A. Well, no. According to the federal constitution, Article 17 - take a look at it - provides for the fact that the -- a citizen of the Republic of Yugoslavia cannot be expelled from the territory of the state. They are free to move around and come back. That is a constitutional right accorded to citizens.

Q. It would be a crime to expel a citizen from Kosovo, wouldn't it?

A. According to international war law, this is an internal conflict. There is no expulsion here. It's an internal conflict in which the citizens left for their own safety and security. When the NATO aggression started, the citizens started to leave to safer places.

Q. Mr. Gojovic, we'll come back to that. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say by way of helpfully encapsulating the accused's ³⁷⁶¹¹ case. I will say it once more so you can understand why I'm asking you the questions I'm going to ask you.

If there was an effective and efficient military judicial system, then the existence of such a system is incompatible with a plan to ethnically cleanse Kosovo Albanians, because you can't be asking people to commit the crime of pushing people out of the country at the same time as having in place a system for punishing them if they commit such a crime.

A. Well, that's what you have the courts for, the judicial system.

Q. Now, the position -- the historical position is that, as you will know, the authorities in Serbia Montenegro had received warnings right from 1998 about the possible commission of crimes on the territory of Serbia Montenegro, and in particular in Kosovo; correct?

A. I don't know who cautioned them.

Q. Well, are you aware, for example, of letters sent by the former Prosecutor Louise Arbour to the accused in March of 1998?

A. What were the grounds for her to send those letters? Was she on the spot or did she receive intelligence reports on the part of certain armed forces?

Q. Does it matter if she received intelligence reports if the warning she gave was a good warning, General?

A. But a warning must have arguments to back it up from the spot.

Q. You're unaware of this letter, I take it.

A. Well, she came out publicly, but I haven't had occasion to read the letter. She didn't send the letter to the judiciary.

Q. Very well. Are you aware of the concerns expressed by General ³⁷⁶¹² Perisic in his letter of the 23rd of July, 1998, where he referred to the -- amongst other things, to the tendency of the army to act outside the system's institutions? Are you aware of that letter?

A. The army never acted outside the system's institutions. If that's what the letter says, then it's very controversial and I can't believe that Perisic said that, that the army was working outside the system. The army never acted outside the system.

Q. I'm going to continue asking you questions that are susceptible to a yes or no answer but you must take your own course as how you reply to them. Are you aware of a letter from Louise Arbour, the former Prosecutor, of the 15th of October, 1998 to the accused indicating an intention to resume her investigations into Kosovo, desiring to visit the place?

A. I'm not aware of it except through the press. There were certain articles with headings to that effect, but I don't know the contents. Just a moment. Why didn't she approach the prosecutor, for example? Why would she approach the president? She's a prosecutor, so she should approach her colleague the prosecutor on the other side.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have your answer. Proceed, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Are you aware of a letter sent by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the 24th of September 1998 to the accused, expressing concern about the developing humanitarian crisis and so on? Are you aware of that?

A. I'm not aware of that. I wasn't a member of the government for ³⁷⁶¹³ Prime Ministers to send me letters. I was president of the military court in Belgrade.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, these are all exhibits. I can give you the numbers if you want them, but I don't want to waste time.

Q. Are you aware of the fact that after Racak several publications asserted that there had been a massacre there? For example, the OSCE made an almost immediate report alleging that the VJ and police had attacked Racak.

A. Well, I followed that in the press, but army did not attack Racak, so the OSCE report is incorrect in that part.

Q. Well, just --

A. As to the rest, I don't know.

Q. -- remind us: Your source of knowledge that the army didn't attack Racak is one -- one informant, isn't it? You never conducted any investigation, did you?

A. No, we didn't conduct an investigation because it didn't come under our purview. The army didn't take part in it, so we didn't investigate. It was the court in Pristina that conducted the investigation.

Q. We're going to hear about that from the next witness, but your pride in the army, your concern that the army should have a proper judicial legal system leads me to ask this: If there was, as there was, public international allegations that the army was involved in Racak, did not the military judiciary owe a duty to investigate? Yes or no.

A. Allegations have to be backed up by proof and evidence. Just to ³⁷⁶¹⁴ claim something publicly internationally doesn't mean a thing. There was a group of armed terrorists and this was a mission without any arms. So where do you get this information from?

Q. We may look at the legal position of the obligations of the legal -- of the military judicial system later, but just so that I can have your answer clearly, it wouldn't matter to you, would it, General Gojovic, how many newspapers, how many television programmes suggested that the army was involved, you wouldn't investigate on the basis of such material; is that right?

A. It's up to the prosecutor. I wasn't the prosecutor at that time. So it's up to the prosecutor. And since the prosecutor didn't react, it means he analysed it and found there were no elements to do so. He investigated the facts through the military command and didn't find --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... General, can you --

A. Just a moment, please. I didn't say that he checked them out.

Q. I thought you did.

A. Just a moment, please. I said I wasn't the prosecutor at that time but the prosecutor probably checked it out. If I were the prosecutor, I would have done so, but as I say, I wasn't the prosecutor so I don't know.

Q. Somewhere in the archives of the VJ, there should be a report, or in the archives of the military judiciary to which you would have access in your term of office, there should be a report, should there, from the current or the then judge charged with investigating, there should be a report showing that the VJ were not involved. Have you seen such a ³⁷⁶¹⁵ report?

A. I haven't seen a report like that, and I don't believe it exists in the military judiciary organs.

Q. On the 3rd of February of 1999, General Drewienkiewicz wrote to the accused in this case, dealing with allegations of looting in particular on a widespread basis, again alleging the matter against the VJ and the MUP. Were you aware of that letter?

A. I'm not aware of that letter, but the investigating organs would have taken steps for any looting when it came to members of the Yugoslav army in 1999, but you're mentioning a date that doesn't fall within that area.

Q. On the 26th of March of 1999, Louise Arbour wrote again, saying that it was her intention to investigate all serious violations of international humanitarian law. Were you aware of that letter being sent?

A. She issued such warnings on several occasions.

Q. Very well. Let's have a look, if we may, at a short clip which is already exhibited, Exhibit 15. Thank you very much. This is not absolutely date specific but perhaps you'd be good enough to watch it with us.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not getting any sound. There should be sound on this. Without the sound, it's of no practical use because it's the soundtrack I want. Thank you very much. We'll cancel that.

Q. If, as I'm going to suggest, there were broadcasts on the BBC and CNN alleging that ethnic cleansing was happening and that the VJ were ³⁷⁶¹⁶ involved - and Exhibit 15 is one such example, Your Honours, when we get the soundtrack back - was that something that was brought to the attention of the military judicial system?

A. You can see the images here, but when we speak about ethnic cleansing, this example cannot be applied to Kosovo and Metohija where we're dealing with citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, pursuant to the constitution, they cannot be expelled from the country. So these were people who were endeavouring to save themselves from the NATO aggression and the terrorist forces in conflict with the army of Yugoslavia and other armed forces --

Q. General --

A. -- so that's not --

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying, General, that if there was an allegation that the military were responsible for evacuating people from their homes, that the military judicial system would not investigate it as long as they remained within Serbia, on technical grounds?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you know what? When somebody says "responsible," then you need to back it up with arguments. You can't on the basis of theoretic fiction make conclusions of reality and paint a picture of reality. And now, on assumption, you want to see how the public prosecutor reacted, or military prosecutor. You must work on facts, not the fictitious writings of newspaper agencies or newspapers or people roaming around and reporting from a distance. You must assess the realistic state of affairs, and the judiciary deals with realistic facts, realistic changes in the world, realistic cause and effect, not fiction, ^{37617 BLANK PAGE 37618} not fictitious and theses and assumptions. The prosecutor analysed the situation --

JUDGE BONOMY: General, it doesn't help for you to deliberately misunderstand the question. You understood the question I asked you perfectly well, and you've given an answer which bears no relationship to the question at all, but I'm not going to take up time. Move on, please, Mr. Prosecutor.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the prosecutor must react if there is something that has been contrary -- done contrary to the law, but he had no proof in that direction to lead him to that conclusion. So we do understand each other very well.

JUDGE BONOMY: As you know, I asked you a hypothetical question.

MR. NICE: I gather we've got the soundtrack. Just remind ourselves of Exhibit 15, please.

MR. KAY: It shouldn't have a soundtrack. I remember making the objection. This is the videotapes produced by the Investigator Spargo and it was to be without soundtrack because there are over three and a half hours of it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, for different reasons but the soundtrack is now what's important because it makes allegations against the VJ. I really don't desire to take time -- may I play it with the soundtrack and we'll see if it can be exhibited with the soundtrack.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How long is it?

MR. NICE: Only very short, about a minute, I think.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll see. ³⁷⁶¹⁹

[Videotape played] "Village by village, hour after hour, under the symbols of their nationalism, the Serbian authorities pushed the Albanian population of Kosovo into exile. By now the refugees have been stripped of any document that says who they are. Only their despair is left as a mark of common identity. This is not haphazard flow of people. There is a grim logic to what is going on. When you check where these refugees are coming from, you can see that Kosovo is being cleansed, ethnically cleansed, village by village hour after hour.

"The authorities here do their best to monitor where the refugees come from. Their list reveals an expulsion of industrial efficiency. "Can you show me on the map?

"Starting with the outlying regions of Kosovo, Serb forces have moved remorselessly towards the interior, pushing towards the capital, Pristina. And as if to prove --"

MR. NICE:

Q. I think we don't get more detail than a reference to the authorities pushing people out and pushing them to another country. The authorities could be either the police or the military. If you'd seen that terribly serious allegation, would you have thought it right, as the chief military prosecutor, to investigate?

A. I was not chief military prosecutor. It was another colleague. He looked at these matters, but --

JUDGE ROBINSON: General. General.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. ³⁷⁶²⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question was put on the basis of a hypothesis. Had you seen it, would you have investigated?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would have investigated, and I would have established whether what the reporter is saying is correct or not, but obviously it was impossible. It was impossible. Legally or in real terms. But if we want to look at things hypothetically, then my answer is yes, I would have investigated it because nobody is allowed to expel anyone, according to the constitution.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a very small clarification. The interpreter said, "Would you, as chief military prosecutor..." which in Serbian means only whether that was the case in real terms, whether he was actually the chief military prosecutor. It's ambiguous in Serbian. So when you say "If you were the chief military prosecutor," it's ambiguous.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what the question was, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, when I put the question to him, I omitted that reference, and he gave the answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. In light of your last answer, there -- one preliminary question: You are aware, not only -- not only by the Prosecution in this court but in all sorts of other publications - Human Rights Watch, OSCE - the allegation has been fairly and squarely made that thousands were killed and tens and tens of thousands expelled from Kosovo as a planned ethnic cleansing involving the MUP and the VJ. You're aware of that, aren't you? ³⁷⁶²¹ Those allegations have been made.

A. You put such leading questions, as if I knew that there was ethnic cleansing, and precisely what I've been saying to you was that there was no ethnic cleansing.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... trying to get you to listen to the questions. You're a general. That requires a Ph.D., I think, to qualify in the former Yugoslavia. You must be able to understand -- you didn't have a Ph.D., but that's the level of academic attainment required. You must be able to follow the question.

Are you aware - yes or no - that such allegations have been made?

A. First of all, I do have a master's degree in law, in criminal law, so please don't say --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just listen to the question. The question is whether you're aware, whether you know that allegations have been made of ethnic cleansing by the MUP and the VJ, just whether you are aware of the allegations that have been made.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such allegations were made. Such allegations were made by different --

MR. NICE:

Q. And many of them were made while you were in charge, the allegations, weren't they? Radio, television, Human Rights Watch, and so on, many of those allegations were made while you were in charge.

A. What do you mean "in charge"? What do you mean that I was in ³⁷⁶²² charge?

Q. Well, I can only borrow the words of the accused who summarised, if I can find it rapidly, your position as being in charge, I think, of the legal -- military legal service, when you were made presiding judge. Were you not the man in charge at one stage?

Yes, here we are: "I was appointed to the position of head of the legal department of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia." And I think that was then picked up on one or two occasions by the accused in questions. Were you not the head of the legal department of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes. Yes, I was, and that is correct. That is correct.

Q. A number of the allegations of ethnic cleansing were made while you were the man in charge. And you know what the next question is, so I'll ask it: Where is the inquiry that you conducted or organised to be conducted into ethnic cleansing?

A. There was no evidence of ethnic cleansing, and there were no criminal proceedings instituted against a single individual on such grounds. The military courts have all their records available, and then the prosecutor has to deal with charges, not the legal department of the army. The legal department of the army set up the system, organised it, the system of the military judiciary. And it did function. So if ethnic cleansing occurs as a crime, then the prosecutor in charge has to press charges. However, since this did not happen, the prosecutor did not indict anyone and, therefore, it never happened. And I already mentioned what the reasons were, why there could not have been any ethnic cleansing. ³⁷⁶²³ The Serb population accounts for a very small percentage of the population of Kosovo, 10 or 15 per cent. Who is going to populate such vast areas if a majority of the population is expelled, the way you put it.

Q. The simple answer to my question is this, isn't it, there were widespread allegations from many sources of ethnic cleansing and you did nothing whatsoever to investigate them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Nice, he -- he said that it would be the prosecutor who would be press charges, the legal department.

MR. NICE: I'll check whether the prosecutor made an investigation.

Q. Neither you as the man in charge nor any prosecutor made an investigation. And I'm grateful to His Honour for requiring me to reformulate the question.

Neither you as the man in charge nor any prosecutor made an investigation into ethnic cleansing, did you?

A. The prosecutor looked at the matter. I talked to the chief military prosecutor. I did talk to him. He looked into it, and his findings were that there were no elements for that.

Q. When did you discuss this with him and where is the written report of such an important decision?

A. This was a discussion when there were such things appearing in the world media, and we had this professional discussion, but legally it was not possible for this to happen in our country, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. You've made references today and you made references on the last ³⁷⁶²⁴ occasion to the impossibility of investigating matters such as this. What do you mean by that?

A. This is a constitutional principle. It is a right guaranteed to the citizens of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by the constitution. No one can expel a citizen.

Q. I'm sorry --

A. And it cannot be qualified as --

Q. -- it's my mistake for not having made my question simple enough, so I'll make it more simple. Last time and this you said it was impossible to investigate certain matters in Kosovo. Why was it impossible?

A. It's correct that I said that it was impossible, because of the safety of the agencies that were supposed to carry this out. You are losing sight of the fact that 19 countries of the strongest military alliance in the world attacked that area, that small area. You have to take the facts and figures from NATO. Let them give you their figures, how many sorties there were; 800 per day, at least, up to 1.200.

Q. Let's pause there, shall we? The duty to investigate on one body or another serious crime does not end with the ending of the conflict, does it? The duty to investigate continues.

A. Correct, but we do not have legal jurisdiction in Kosovo now. Again, you're losing sight of that.

Q. Are you saying -- because that's what I wanted you to turn your attention to for us. Are you saying that it would have been impossible for your authorities to investigate matters in Kosovo if you'd really ³⁷⁶²⁵ wanted to?

A. In terms of anything done in contravention of the law, an investigation would have been carried out. Now, we're not going to look at assumptions. If somebody assumes something, we are not going to investigate that. However, whatever happened in real terms would have been investigated.

Q. I think I asked you if it was impossible for your authorities or for the authorities to investigate matters in Kosovo if you really wanted to. Can you answer that question? Was it impossible or was it possible to go to Kosovo and investigate matters?

A. That is a relative possibility. You are seeking only things in an absolute sense. There is no absolute. I have already told you what all the hindrances were in terms of investigating everything that was a crime from a legal point of view. You want to say that there was a crime of ethnic cleansing that occurred in legal terms, and that is where our views differ. We cannot have matching questions and answers because we are proceeding from different premises. You are representing an indictment for which you do not have the proper argumentation. You have a fact which is movement of the population, and that is not challenged. Camps were prepared there in advance. The Red Cross were there. And wherever there is a conflict, an armed conflict, there are refugees. So this was an armed conflict, and it was expected --

Q. Do you accept - yes or no - that if you wanted to go to Kosovo or if other authorities wanted to go to Kosovo to question witnesses, to question victims and to find out if ethnic cleansing had happened, it ³⁷⁶²⁶ would be impossible to do so?

A. In which period? Which period are you referring to exactly?

Q. 2001, 2002, 2003. A period after these --

A. We were not allowed to go.

Q. Do you accept that the next witness from whom we are expecting to hear, Slavisa Dobricanin, was able certainly to conduct investigations on the territory of Kosovo in 2001, 2003?

A. Dobricanin is a forensic expert. He is an expert. He's not a law enforcement agency. The authorities conducting these proceedings called him in as an expert and not a single --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice. Mr. Nice, when the witness answered "We were not allowed to go" in response to the question "Which period are you referring to?" "2001, 2002, 2003."

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that needs to be followed up because it's relevant to the question of the duty to continue with the investigations after the conflict, and if there is an explanation for that, we need to have it.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

Q. Can you explain why you say there would have been no possibility for you to go, whereas Dobricanin -- I'm sorry, he's not the next witness, he's the next witness but one or two, but he could go and conduct inquiries in those years?

A. Again, I've explained this but obviously you don't want to listen ³⁷⁶²⁷ to me or you don't want to understand what I'm saying. Dobricanin is a forensic expert, and he carries out post-mortems as an expert at the request of the authorities, UNMIK, in charge of the investigations, whereas our investigation agencies do not have access to Kosovo and Metohija. That is on the basis of the Military Technical Agreement that was signed. Not a single authority can act there. He goes as an expert upon their request. He does not conduct inquiries. He gives his expert opinion in terms of the identification of corpses, the wounds that were sustained, et cetera. I think that that should be quite clear to the Prosecutor and to all the parties in these proceedings.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, throughout the world day and daily police forces carry out investigations in other countries over which they have no jurisdiction by asking the authorities in these other countries to investigate matters for them or to cooperate with them in the investigation. Why would it not be possible in Serbia, after the conflict, for cooperation to take place in the investigation of allegations?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you. Cooperation was asked for, but on the other side the representatives of UNMIK did not accept that. That's the problem. They do not accept that, or they simply remain silent. But they do not refuse such requests either. The prosecutors addressed them several times, but they never got any response.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, in answer to -- or in development to the answer to His Honour's question, are you saying - and if so, I shall seek from you ³⁷⁶²⁸ chapter, verse, and document - are you saying that there were any requests from the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro to go to the territory of Kosovo in order to investigate the widespread international allegations of ethnic cleansing that had been made?

A. I have said that I was speaking about what the judiciary authorities did, not the agencies of the government of Serbia and Montenegro. The military prosecutors and the military organs addressed the relevant agencies of UNMIK in Kosovo and Metohija, and they did not get any return information from them concerning the possibility of investigating crimes, because they are in charge of carrying out such proceedings. There is the UNMIK organs that are in charge of this. They have their own judiciary, they have their own investigations, and so on.

Q. Just stop --

A. Ask them for a report and then you'll get an answer.

Q. No, I'm asking you. I'm going to repeat the question because it had a detail in it that I suggest you did understand: Were there requests from your body, from any other authorities to your knowledge, to go to Kosovo to investigate ethnic cleansing?

A. There were requests. Information was sought about certain events, and they also asked for certain witnesses, but there were no answers.

Q. I'll try once more, but I'm not sure you've answered my question. Were there requests -- was there any request, even one, to investigate allegations of ethnic cleansing? If yes, I'm going to want to know when, where, where the document is, and so on. So I'll repeat the question: Was there any requests, even one, to investigate allegations of ethnic ³⁷⁶²⁹ cleansing?

A. Now you are moving the question to the area of ethnic cleansing, but I've already answered that question. I've given you a comprehensive answer. If you wish --

JUDGE ROBINSON: General. Mr. Nice, the general referred earlier to a Military Technical Agreement that prevented anybody from going there. Those were his words.

I would like to find out from the general what agreement is this, between what entities?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Military Technical Agreement was the agreement between the representatives of the army of Yugoslavia and the representatives of the NATO forces. It was signed in Kumanovo and on the basis of this agreement all armed forces withdrew from Kosovo and Metohija and all government authorities, and authority was temporarily taken over by the United Nations and they were exercising authority, government, over the area of Kosovo and Metohija. The judiciary is a very important branch of government in any state. So not a single state agency can appear there, only humanitarian organisations. That is the central issue in this regard.

As for ethnic cleansing, I've already given an answer. There were --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm going to move on, and I'm now going to come, as I forecast right at the beginning, to -- ^{37630 BLANK PAGE 37631}

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm disappointed that you are, Mr. Nice. I thought we might have got an answer to the question.

MR. NICE: Well, I'll try, Your Honour.

Q. I'm going to try once more with a very simple question that I --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm going to try once more with a very simple question that I had posed, General, first of all, and I'm going to try and repeat it. Was there a request, even one, to investigate allegations of ethnic cleansing made to the UNMIK authorities? Yes or no.

A. I don't know about that, whether there were any requests to that effect. I have no knowledge of that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not sure if I was refocusing on the question Your Honour had in mind, but the answer that's been given by the witness right now is that he was not aware of any such requests.

Q. You see, General, when we --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, he's giving a legal answer to your question, saying that there was an agreement, an UNMIK agreement. We don't know what it says. UNMIK has jurisdiction. I don't know whether that -- by that agreement Serbia was prevented from carrying out the investigations. This is what he's saying.

MR. NICE: Let me develop it just another question so to make my position clear.

Q. You heard the question that His Honour Judge Bonomy asked about police forces operating under requests on the territory of other states, ³⁷⁶³² didn't you?

A. I heard it, but I am not aware of any possibility of the authorities of a foreign country conducting an investigation in another country. It can only be done through INTERPOL, but I do not know of a single case when one country can send investigators to another country to investigate a matter. I'm not aware of any such thing. If this does exist somewhere, I'm truly sorry for my lack of knowledge about that.

Q. And you are extremely acquainted with the whole business of requests for assistance given in terms of legal proceedings because you for a long time were on the committee that represented the VJ in asserted cooperation with the ICTY, and that committee received and processed many requests for assistance. So you know how requests for assistance work, don't you?

A. As for assistance, yes, yes. But carrying out a direct investigation by the agencies of one state on the territory of another state, that is something that I've never heard of. I'm not aware of such practice. However, assistance, yes, that's fine, and that is also envisaged in the Law on Criminal Procedure on the basis of a previously reached agreement between two states, and the principle of reciprocity applies in such cases.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, was there anything in the Military Technical Agreement to which you've referred concluded at the end of the conflict that would have prevented the authorities in Serbia making a request to UNMIK to carry out an investigation into ethnic cleansing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no such explicit provision ³⁷⁶³³ as far as I can remember. It is a very voluminous document, including several annexes. However, several requests were submitted for legal assistance in the case of several crimes, but there was no answer. But that military investigation agencies can conduct an investigation in Kosovo, no. In that agreement, it is stated explicitly that the military and the police are withdrawing completely, including all their equipment. What was envisaged was that up to 1.000 persons may return, but this has not been allowed until the present day.

MR. KAY: The Military Technical Agreement is paragraph 108 of the Kosovo indictment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. When we look at the material --

MR. NICE: Sorry, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can I ask: General, under that agreement -- General, under that agreement, who would have the power to investigate the crimes that were committed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the territory of Kosovo specifically? The new UNMIK organs that were established. However, the organs of Serbia Montenegro can act in their own territory but they have no access to Kosovo, and all possible evidence is there. Witnesses, events, et cetera. So in order to be able to investigate whether some action was a crime, whether it was illegal, you have to go to the site itself. Otherwise, one cannot get a full picture.

MR. NICE: ³⁷⁶³⁴

Q. The documents you've produced, we may have time to go through the business of production of documents a bit more fully, but the documents you've produced are all that there is, really, in summary form to reveal investigations that were conducted - and I have in mind tabs 17 and 18 - correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were appointed to this job by Ojdanic, who is actually a good friend of yours, isn't he?

A. No, I was not appointed to Ojdanic. Ojdanic was duty-bound by the law to propose it to the president of the republic, and Ojdanic got the proposal from the president of the supreme military court and military prosecutor. They tabled the proposal.

Q. Is he a friend of yours?

A. Who?

Q. Ojdanic.

A. General Ojdanic is not a friend. He's an officer whom I respect and hold in high esteem.

Q. Given the long lead-up of complaints and inquires that we looked at earlier this morning into events in Kosovo, it would have been quite impossible to run this conflict or to take part in this conflict without some form of judicial military body in place; correct?

A. Sorry, I didn't follow your question. How can the judicial body organise something?

Q. Let me put it another way: The eyes of the world had already on focused sharply on possible crimes and the need to investigate crimes, and ³⁷⁶³⁵ in those circumstances, when this conflict started, it would have been quite impossible for the VJ not to have some form of military judicial position in place if it was to be able to give the semblance of complying with international norms.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this question is highly improper, especially after long testimony providing such a great number of documents on the work of courts, of people accused and convicted during the bombing. I really don't understand that it is possible to ask a question like this that somebody wants to have system that must --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- act as representing the law and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let the witness answer the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite obviously the Prosecutor does not wish to understand some things here intentionally, not that he cannot. I said that it is a legal obligation. With the proclamation of a state of war, the imperative norm is to set up judiciary organs during a state of war. So there's no dilemma there. As soon as the government decided to proclaim a state of war, automatically on the basis of the law judiciary organs are developed which act in wartime, and the day that a state of war ceases to exist, then those military judiciaries cease to exist. So it's not somebody's will, whether they want to act in one way or another ³⁷⁶³⁶ because the world public opinion says so. It's a provision in the law. I think we're all men of the law, and when you have laws in a country, they come into force as provided for, and this is not brought into any political context of any kind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. And I'm going to suggest that the system over which you presided to the extent that you did was providing, so far as serious crimes are concerned, window dressing at the best. Do you understand?

A. That's not true. And the military judiciary is now being abused by what you said. Look at the gravity of the crimes.

Q. Let's go to page 43 in the B/C/S version of tab 17.

A. I don't have that tab. You didn't give it back to me. I handed it over. Could I please have it back.

JUDGE KWON: What's the English page number?

MR. NICE: English --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see it properly on this copy. I would like to have the document that I gave over for photocopying.

MR. NICE: Page 56 in the English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What you're giving me is tab 18 now. I need tab 17.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 17, page 56 for the witness.

MR. NICE: 43 in the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, 43 in B/C/S. ³⁷⁶³⁷

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. While we're finding a copy of that to make available to you, don't -- have you found it now?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Very well. This is the case originally --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. This is the case originally involving Slobodan Stosic and one, two, three, four, five, six others. Before I come to the questions I'm going to ask you about this, it's as well that we should remember or remind the Judges that it fits in a document which is almost exclusively concerned with trivial crime, doesn't it? Comparatively trivial crime; thefts, presumably looting of one kind or another, yes? I can flip through and see but locked in the middle is this allegation against Slobodan Stosic.

Now, you said, when answering questions about this, the following, at page 67: "This was uncovered in mid-April and a report was sent to the prosecutor, and the prosecutor undertook proceedings." Can you think back, please, General Gojovic, and tell us who it was that required this investigation to be carried out?

A. The prosecutor is the sole authorised individual to require an investigation to be carried out.

Q. Maybe, but now just turn your mind back. Who in whatever way actually initiated this prosecution so that it had to be prosecuted? Can you remember? ³⁷⁶³⁸

A. Somebody must have informed the prosecutor. Somebody had to inform him, whether somebody from the unit, a unit commander or somebody else, it doesn't say here in the review that I have. But the prosecutor tabled the request which means that he received information. Now, who he received information from is not the essential point here. What is important is the prosecutor learned about it.

Q. Mr. Gojovic, in the papers that have been made available to us, and we've tried to get from the authorities all the papers about prosecutions, it isn't revealed who made the original complaint, but we actually know from evidence in the case. You see, it was Aleksandar Vasiljevic who has told us the following: That he was aware - it was specific knowledge that he had got - that volunteers named Dugi and Oto, and we can see Oto as Palinkos, Dugi may be the man unnamed at the bottom, but in any event, Vasiljevic went on -- General Vasiljevic went on to say that he got the knowledge that these volunteers liquidated six or seven Albanian civilians and threw them into a well in the village of Gornja Klina. Then they dug the well up. And he went on to explain that he found out about the case and he ordered a military police patrol to be sent there to carry out the on-site investigation. Now, then, you know who Aleksandar Vasiljevic is, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Thinking back, can you now remember that this particular and -- this particular investigation into a very serious crime was actually carried out because somebody senior, Aleksandar Vasiljevic, demanded that it be carried out? ³⁷⁶³⁹

A. Please, I don't know about that portion of Vasiljevic's statement, but the court acts upon the prosecutor alone, and you said he told the organs of the military police. The organs of the military police are organs of detection and to the organs of detection, the organs of the military police and military security are led by the head of the security department, and Vasiljevic was the number two man. He was the deputy head of the department. So that would come under his purview, to uncover the perpetrators of crimes. And when he learnt about it and he had to receive information down there at the base, not in Belgrade. He got the information from the base, and then that came under his competence and authority, precisely that kind of thing.

Q. This is -- this is your memory now or is this a hypothetical answer?

A. Not memory, but it is the provision of the law that says -- spells it out. You can't work outside the law.

Q. Vasiljevic was relieved of his position not so very long after this. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do. After me. I retired before him. I had completed my years of service and retired before him.

Q. And to remind the Judges of this particular investigation, Stosic, the lieutenant colonel, was the subject of a discontinuance, and it was only the minor players, the junior ranks, the privates and the reserves, who were dealt with. Stosic lives free at the moment, doesn't he?

A. I assume so.

Q. And let's look at the only other really serious matters. There's ³⁷⁶⁴⁰ another one in tab 17, but we haven't got time to go into that now. We'll go to tab 18, if we may. Just to remind the Judges and get the picture back in our minds. On page 4 of the English, which is I think page 4 in the B/C/S -- no, it's page 2 in the B/C/S. Page 2 in the B/C/S. We see there on your tab 18 now it's only the junior ranks that are now all forwarding for prosecution. Apparently, so you told us, acting without any authority from the man who had taken them there, the senior officer. General Gojovic, was this the truth, that allegations of serious crimes would only ever be investigated when for one reason or another you had no choice but to investigate them and the rest of your time was focused on the trivial matters of theft of a hair-dryer and theft of a cassette and theft of a motor car?

A. You have a review here of the legal proceedings taken against individuals not for peripheral or minor offences, although you do include minor offences in your indictment as well - looting, theft of property and so on - so you have a review of all the cases where the perpetrators were identified and legal proceedings were taken against them. Where they were not identified but where the crimes were identified, and you saw from the review how many of those cases there were, over 600 - 601, I believe - so for 601 victims which you have in your indictment as well and for which you investigated for a full five or six years was investigated in the space of two months.

So those comparisons of yours don't hold water. And here we're dealing with direct perpetrators, the ones that were uncovered.

Q. Let's -- I'm only going to be able in the time available to be ³⁷⁶⁴¹ able to deal with a few inquiries or crimes by way of example, but just to refamiliarise the Chamber with tab 18 before I come to my next point, can we go in the English to page 6 and in the B/C/S to page 4. Now, we see here some serious, very serious crimes. Just look at the first one, numbers 1 and 2, which we looked at on the last occasion. This is where in Susica village Petrovic and Stamenkovic -- I beg your pardon, Petrovic ordered Stamenkovic and Jovic to liquidate two, an elderly man and woman, because they hadn't left the village. Well, now, you can turn my -- can you take me to a piece of paper that's going to show how this particular investigation was triggered?

A. I would have to look at the list of cases, trials. I didn't have a list like that before me. This is a brief information report from the court in Nis, and all three were convicted. You had a note, I believe, on your photocopy that somebody wrote in later on, and that note is indeed correct. This -- number 1 was first of all accused of the crime and convicted and got nine years, and the other man got seven, and I think that the judgement came into force. They were convicted, but the prosecutor re-termed the crime war crime against the civilian population. So four other people were convicted, two officers as you say, and you were given those notes and reports from the court. But I see that you're not commenting on that, whereas you were provided with a list of those crimes where two officers were convicted. One got a seven-year sentence and the other five years, and the other perpetrators got four years' imprisonment and three years' imprisonment, so you do have those facts and figures.

Q. General, all I want is your assistance, if you can give it to me, ³⁷⁶⁴² on what it was that triggered --

A. Yes.

Q. -- this investigation in the first place, and then I'll make my suggestion to you again and we'll look at another example. Can you point me to what it was that triggered this investigation? Who found it? Who decided there had to be an investigation, and so on? Can you point me to --

A. You should look at the list of cases and find it there. I'm sure that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: General. General, listen to the question. Either you can answer it or you can't. Can you say how this particular investigation started? Who triggered it? How did it start? Either you know or you don't know. We don't need to have a speech.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you. No, I'm not going to hold a speech, but you're quite obviously not listening to what I'm saying. All I know is set down here in this document. And let me repeat: The investigation is conducted on the -- by the court pursuant to a request from the prosecutor, and now you are mixing up who uncovered the crime and who investigated it, because it's only on the basis of the -- of a request made by the prosecutor that the court takes steps. Now, who reported the crime, I don't know. All I know is that the prosecutor learned about it and set the works in motion. And according to our laws, a criminal proceedings is put into place when the prosecutor tables a request.

MR. NICE: ^{37643 BLANK PAGE 37644}

Q. You see, General, the summary makes this look to be a classical example of killing in the course of ethnic cleansing, and it's been summarised in that way. Two people, they wouldn't leave the village, so they were shot and killed.

Now, I don't know if you know this, but that's similar to a number of allegations made in this case. So it's going to help us if we can find out what it was that actually triggered this investigation in the way that we happen to know from Aleksandar Vasiljevic's evidence what it was that triggered the earlier investigation, and that's why I want your help. Can you take us to the original documents, to the source of why this investigation, this particular investigation, started?

A. From this here, we can see that unless -- if they didn't leave the village, they were killed, and that's why the whole case was taken court. So that is an argument contrary to what you are insisting. I don't know the details. I would have to look at the lists of the cases. I really can't give you the details. And the documents. But they were convicted for having behaved in that way.

Q. Before I move to my next question --

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you do, I think you said, General, that there were more people convicted than are shown in this summary we have. Are the details of the other convictions somewhere in tab 18?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. There are three men concerned here, three persons, with respect to the event.

JUDGE BONOMY: So they were the only ones that you were speaking of. ³⁷⁶⁴⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, and the previous ones we discussed. But I mentioned in passing that there were four others that the prosecutor knows about but isn't presenting here, four others, because he got the files and the lists, but they are not contained in this tab, because the people were convicted later on, after this tab and document was compiled.

JUDGE BONOMY: One of the things you said was that that part of the investigation was labelled as a war crime; is that right? Have I misunderstood you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What are we talking about now? What do you mean? Which war crimes?

JUDGE BONOMY: I had thought --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This event. This event here, these three men we're talking about now, they were first accused of killing several persons, but then the indictment was changed, and they were -- answered to war crimes, which is in fact a lesser -- of lesser severity than the first charge of killing, murder.

JUDGE BONOMY: It appears here under Article 47, which is multiple murder; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's how the trial started, the proceedings started, but it ended in a different way.

JUDGE BONOMY: In relation to these three accused it ended as a conviction for war crimes; is that right? Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... the B/C/S there was ³⁷⁶⁴⁶ the handwritten amendment, the witness not knowing in whose hand it was.

JUDGE KWON: And, Mr. Gojovic -- Mr. Gojovic, in your earlier answer, you said you could not give the details unless you took a look at the list of cases. Could you explain what the document is being referred to, "list of cases"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Actually, the files of the cases. Not list of cases but the files, the criminal files containing all the proof and evidence on which the judgement was made. So I meant files of the cases. Not lists but files for the criminal cases.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, although I shan't have time to go through them, the remaining cases referred to of multiple murders might also appear to fit with cases that were instituted in respect of ethnic cleansing but we don't know how they were triggered because we don't have the source papers.

Q. I must -- may I confirm something before I forget it, General Gojovic, and I may not have time to go through the whole process of seeking documents, although I shall try to deal with some of it. You said last week that tab 18 was provided in January -- in January 2004, and my recollection was different, but I've been able to check the matter and indeed this document was provided, probably by correspondence in the end or autumn of 2003, coming to us in the beginning of 2004, but it wasn't connected to this witness's evidence until he gave evidence last week. Can I now turn to someone else for your comments. Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic. He was one of your judges, wasn't he? ³⁷⁶⁴⁷

A. No. No, he wasn't a judge.

Q. Was he a prosecutor?

A. Yes. Deputy prosecutor.

Q. Experienced man.

A. He [Realtime transcript read in error "I"] didn't have experience in prosecutors' affairs.

Q. Well, we --

A. No, he didn't.

Q. We know for the purposes of the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the transcript, the answer was -- reads as "I didn't have experience in prosecutors' affairs," as if the witness was speaking about himself, whereas --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you for the correction.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- the answer was "he."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the correction, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. You explained how for the purposes of the Kosovo conflict reservists were called into action. You spoke of 125 altogether, including people who had been working in employment exchanges or matters of that sort, but Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic was not such a reservist, was he?

A. I have to put you right there, and I do apologise. I'd like to ask the Presiding Judge to enable me to do so. No judge came from an ³⁷⁶⁴⁸ employment exchange. They were all prosecutors and judges from district and municipal courts, with a great deal of experience working in the field, not from employment exchanges of any kind. I don't know what kind of manipulation that is. They were judges who were appointed, and they had a great deal of experience in the municipal courts and district courts. So please don't put questions like that here.

Q. Reading from the transcript, General Gojovic, but --

A. Well, that's the interpretation I received. I don't know English. That's what I was said, that they were brought in from the employment exchanges --

Q. We'll move on from that.

A. -- which is not true, not correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have heard that. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And the person you mentioned, he was an officer. He was a legal man. He worked in the prosecutor's office for a short space of time and was replaced because he couldn't do his job properly.

MR. NICE:

Q. He --

A. And don't refer to him, please.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I don't want to be put in a position which --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... because he tells the truth about what happened?

A. I'm glad to hear that. ³⁷⁶⁴⁹

Q. What happened was this, wasn't it: That he went down to Kosovo and he showed enthusiasm to charge people against whom evidence existed, and that led to his eventually being sent back so that he shouldn't perform his function. Isn't that right?

A. No, that is not right. He had full authority to raise indictments. But what he wanted to do was to kill his deputy because they got drunk and did silly things. And that's why he was replaced. So that's why I said don't put me in a difficult position here.

Q. There was a physical conflict between him and either his deputy or his superior, but before that, he had been bringing complaints and seeking to lay indictments --

A. His deputy.

Q. He had been seeking to bring indictments and had been thwarted from doing so; isn't that right?

A. No, that is not right. He had full authority to bring indictments. Nobody could prevent him from doing so, nor did anybody prevent him from doing so. Nobody like that existed who would prevent him.

Q. And he laid a complaint against you -- or he laid a complaint against judges and other people of the army's military court and military district command, he laid a complaint on the 13th of June, 2001, making allegations as to how he had been effectively thwarted in his work, didn't he?

A. Please. He wasn't thwarted in his work, and the time that he brought in the complaint is quite another matter. ³⁷⁶⁵⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, did -- the question you were asked was did he make a complaint against you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Complaint against me? I don't know about that, that he laid a complaint against me to anyone. And he had no reason to do so either.

MR. NICE:

Q. Did he make a complaint against, as I suggested, unidentified judges of the military court and military district command in Pristina and members of the army and security organs and military police at the said command? Did he make such a complaint?

A. I don't know. I don't know whether he did or not, because that would come under the competence of the prosecutor. He could send it to the supreme prosecutor. But whether he did or didn't, I don't know. I was not informed of any such thing, and I was the head of the legal department in the ministry of department -- in the ministry. I was not in the General Staff any more.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And criminal charges were raised against them because of the conflict. So maybe it was in that case, in those proceedings against him that the prosecutor raised a complaint. And that had nothing to do with the job.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it's time for the break.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer are you going to be?

MR. NICE: I'd hoped to have finished in one session and that ³⁷⁶⁵¹ would have kept me to 50 per cent of the examination-in-chief. Not entirely as a result my own fault, I hope, things have gone rather more slowly but there is -- I shall simply have to make a selection of what's outstanding, but there's a lot of important stuff. I'll try to deal with it in half an hour, but I can't promise.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We won't quarrel if you take 55 per cent. We'll take a break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. General, before we return to the history of your dealings with Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic, which I'm going to deal with now sequentially or chronologically, a couple of matters of correction or detail from the answers you've already given.

First, as to UNMIK, its legal authority was only in respect of the territory of Kosovo and it would never have had jurisdiction to investigate crimes of ethnic cleansing committed by Serb soldiers resident in Serbia, would it?

A. I think the answer would be no.

Q. And therefore, the suggestion that UNMIK would be non-cooperative with a legitimate request by Serbia made in any formal way to give assistance for the investigation of crimes by seeing witnesses is, I suggest, a ridiculous suggestion. UNMIK inevitably would have wanted to cooperate had you made or had anybody made such a request to them. ³⁷⁶⁵²

A. I have already given you an answer, that the prosecutors found that there no grounds for issuing an indictment for ethnic cleansing because there had been none.

Q. Next point, and I've got the documents but I don't want to display them or take time displaying them unless it's essential -- or not displaying them, showing them. Do you accept that as of 2001, a court in Nis trying a rape allegation in respect of an alleged rape committed in Kosovo during the conflict would have been able to secure the attendance from Kosovo of a Kosovo witness, namely the alleged victim of the rape case? Do you accept that that level of cooperation was possible?

A. Which court are you speaking about, a military court or a civilian court?

Q. An allegation that certainly started in a military court. It may have transferred to a civil court, but one way or another, do you accept that there would be no difficulty in securing the attendance of witnesses from Kosovo in Nis in the year 2001?

A. As far as the military court is concerned, I have information that a request was sent to UNMIK and there was no response on two occasions.

Q. Very well. In which case, then, I'm going to hand you --

A. Precisely -- precisely as far as rape is concerned.

Q. I'm going to hand you a document, not for display because of the protection of rape victim witnesses, and just look at this statement, please, and tell me if you're asserting that this is one of the names where a request for assistance to UNMIK was made and rejected. And then I'll make copies available for the Judges, if necessary, but it may be ³⁷⁶⁵³ you'll accept from me on this occasion.

The papers you're looking at now the same or a different case from those where you say cooperation was refused?

A. I'm trying to identify the persons involved here with the information regarding the two cases I mentioned, but the names do not seem to match.

Q. So if I suggest --

A. Possibly, though. Possibly. I mean, I do not preclude the possibility altogether, but I don't see the names match from this statement and --

Q. Take the names of the accused which are here and just show that to the witness. I really don't want to add to the burden of files with documents if it's avoidable.

Is that the same or different from the case you --

A. Yes, yes, yes. Then that's it, yes. If it has to do with this indictment, yes. Yes, fine.

Q. Very well. So you accept, and we needn't burden the Court with the papers, you accept that on the occasion that I've shown you, which was in 2001, there could be cooperation in the provision of witnesses from Kosovo to Serbia?

A. I don't know whether it existed in fact, but I know that requests were sent and that there was no response for a while. As for later, I did not check.

MR. NICE: If I can have those papers back. They're available to the Court, the accused, and the assigned counsel, if wanted, but I don't ³⁷⁶⁵⁴ want to, as I said, burden us with detail if it's avoidable.

Q. Next thing before we move on, is it right that so far as serious crimes, chargeable as war crimes or otherwise, serious crimes arising from the conflict, there were convictions only in respect of Ivan Nikolic, Dragisa Petrovic, and Mancic, those three cases?

A. That's the way it looks on the basis of the information that I have here.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... person convicted was a captain?

A. Captain first class, and a major. Mancic is a major.

Q. No colonels, generals or anybody else investigated, let alone charged?

A. There was no evidence to the effect that they had perpetrated anything like that.

Q. And for the ones that we've looked at and for the reasons that I've already explored, we can't say what it was that triggered those particular investigations that led to convictions, can we, because we haven't got the documents here?

A. Well, it was their illegal action that led to this, and are you seeking a more specific answer? One has to look at the case file in order to be able to give that.

Q. You've produced a lot of material, tabs 1 to 16, going to show that there was in place instructions for and statutes for and rules for compliance with the rules of war and for the operation of a proper military judicial system. Are you acquainted with the evidence of the ³⁷⁶⁵⁵ witness here, Peter -- or General Sir Peter de la Billiere who expressed concern -- or not concern, surprise at the fact that there should be so much material? Are you acquainted with that evidence?

A. No.

Q. He was saying he was surprised at the volume of orders or the need for them to be reiterated at such regular intervals.

A. Which orders was he referring to? I only referred to two orders here and one aide-memoire, which is not an order. Only two orders from the Supreme Command level, which is sufficient.

Q. That was his evidence. And then you're aware, of course, that a book was published in 2001 called the Application of Rules of The International Law of Armed Conflicts, which is an exhibit in this case. I haven't got the number immediately. I can't read it. But you're aware of the publication of that book?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that book published really as a piece of information for the ICTY to read, setting out, as it did, how well behaved the VJ was?

A. I don't know what the author and the publisher of that book had in mind except for presenting what was done by lower-level commands down there.

Q. And then when General Pavkovic was being interviewed in great complexity, material was handed over that again included material going to show that the VJ was behaving properly. Were you involved in the preparation of the material that Pavkovic handed over or that was handed over on Pavkovic's behalf? ^{37656 BLANK PAGE 37657}

A. No.

Q. You see, I'm suggesting to you, General Gojovic, that there has from the moment that this conflict started been an awareness of the need to make it look as though things were in place to conduct the war lawfully and to punish those who offended. That's my suggestion to you.

A. That is the way it was acted, abiding by the provisions of international humanitarian law and also charges were brought by prosecutors where they had evidence against such perpetrators.

Q. But I'm just going to round off my suggestion before we look at the next few documents. The extraordinarily limited number of convictions, the failure to convict anyone of a senior rank apart from possibly a major and a captain, the failure to investigate generals, the failure to investigate ethnic cleansing despite the widespread allegations being made, all show that this was a sham by the army, and you know it.

A. First of all, this is not an omission on the part of the army, and you keep trying to convince me that this is something I know about and that it existed, but it did not exist. If any general had issued orders to commit a war crime, there would have been awareness of that, but there was no such general. You do not think that generals and commanders of brigades would order something like that. How could something like that cross your mind let alone how can you say it?

Q. Again before we move on, we saw last week how, at the end of tab 18, there was an investigation into persons unknown for the bodies found at Izbica. You explained to us how it was that a passing unit had seen something and gone to investigate. Help us if you will, General: On your ³⁷⁶⁵⁸ understanding, were the VJ units or whichever unit it was, were the VJ units first on the scene?

A. On the basis of this information provided by the commander of the unit in question, it seems that when that unit came, it found freshly dug graves, many of them, and of course he found this to be suspicious, and he informed the prosecutor, who asked for measures to be taken in that respect, to carry out exhumations, and that was indeed done. Now, whether there was a unit there beforehand is something that I did not have any information about.

Q. You see, I'd like you to consider, please, a document that is now available. It was not available when we were prosecuting -- when we were presenting the Kosovo part of the case. I think only in English, but there's a short passage to be read to you. It's only in English, I'm afraid, General, I think.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we haven't prepared the whole report. Of course it's available if people want it, but this is for value of only one purpose at this stage, in any event. And if the usher would place the front sheet on the overhead projector.

Q. This is -- General, this is an activity report for 2002, 2004, by the Office of Missing Persons and Forensics of UNMIK. The second page, Mr. Nort, simply shows the table of contents. But on the third page I'm going to read something out to you, General. The report of UNMIK says this, middle paragraph: "Thus far, human remains recovered from mass graves in Serbia ... have been associated with known events of disappearance, each gravesite corresponding with a particular event: For ³⁷⁶⁵⁹ example, bodies exhumed from Batajnica 2 site belong to those who went missing in Meja ... and those exhumed from Petrovo Selo belong to victims of the Izbica massacre."

Now, at the moment this is the only material and evidence we have to make this point, but could you explain to us, please, how if the VJ was there and if your organisation was conducting a proper inquiry into and supervision of the mass gravesites at Izbica bodies were moved from there to Petrovo Selo in Serbia in order to hide them?

A. You will have to ask the people who did that, who were actually involved in the hiding. I cannot give you an answer to that. If this information is correct, that is.

Q. There is no way, is there, General, that a properly conducted forensic exercise into a mass crime, with the crime scene properly preserved, could permit of some of those bodies to be taken away and to be hidden in another territory.

A. The exhumation was carried out, as far as the information I have is concerned, it was the end of May, beginning of June. It was reported on the 29th of May, so it was still the beginning of June when the aggression was still on, so appropriate action was taken. The prosecutor --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... it was on your watch. And I want you to tell us, please, how on earth it could be that bodies taken in a proper forensic examination by investigating Judges and prosecutors could possibly have been taken away to be hidden. You tell us, please.

A. Well, please. After the burial and after all action that was ³⁷⁶⁶⁰ taken and it was established what was found, 144 grave sites and 101 exhumations were carried out, and at that time that was the end of the job of the authorities involved. What happened subsequently is something that I cannot give you an answer about because I have no knowledge about that. I have no information about that.

Q. You sat on this committee under the chairmanship of Terzic that dealt with requests for documents by the OTP to the VJ through the National Council for Cooperation. You tell us what documents exist that deal with the transportation of bodies from Kosovo to Batajnica, because it's not challenged that they did move from Kosovo to Batajnica and to Petrovo Selo. What documents exist?

A. Documents about their transfer, that is something that we never had. At the General Staff and in their archives, there is no such information. Ask those who concealed this. They probably know. Those who found them probably know how they got there in the first place.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you must know. You moved -- you moved at the centre of VJ life for a long time. You tell us. Who moved those bodies?

A. Please, throughout my testimony, you keep saying that it must have been somebody from the VJ. It was no one from the army of Yugoslavia. There is no such information. Had there been any such information, it would have been found. At least this commission and military prosecutors. Even if there were such transfers, it was done apart from the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Let's move on very quickly because I'm running out of time. You ³⁷⁶⁶¹ brought charges that led to about three or so convictions, half a dozen convictions and no more, but let's see what else you were prepared to devote your energies on.

The document before you, I'm afraid -- it is in both languages, it is a document published by Natasa Kandic who runs a non-governmental organisation in Belgrade. The document was published on the 12th to the 13th of August of the year 2000. You can look at it very briefly and perhaps at more leisure if necessary and appropriate later, but she made serious allegations here about the conduct of the army, the FRY army, in the conflict, didn't she? Conflicts generally.

A. There are all sorts of things in here.

Q. You tell us, please, what it was in the year 2000 that was so serious that you felt an obligation to have her charged with a criminal offence for writing criticism of the army when you couldn't and when your group couldn't investigate the ethnic cleansing itself. What was it in this article that was so grave that prompted you to try to prosecute Natasa Kandic?

A. I did not prosecute Natasa Kandic. I did not. It is only the prosecutor who can prosecute her, not me.

Q. Very rapidly at a sequence of events. The next document, we'll have a look at it, please, is the response of the army to this because it's right, isn't it, that there was a response?

A. I'm not aware of that. At that time, I was on annual leave when this happened, what Natasa talks about.

Q. So you say. All right. So just look at it. Mrs. Kandic Launches ³⁷⁶⁶² Grave But Groundless and Premature Accusations. To that she had the courage to reply on the 21st of August, and we can have a quick look at that and decide later whether we can apply to have them all produced, but just have a look at what was being said on the 21st of August.

MR. NICE: Coming your way, Mr. Nort. This one we will just focus on for a minute or so.

Q. So here is Natasa Kandic, executive director of the Humanitarian Law Centre, on the 21st of August. If it could go on the overhead projector, please. And amongst the things she refers to halfway down the page is the Yugoslavian army's response with secret trials. She alleges that she will not remain silent about the horrors of the generals who sent young recruits to witness things in Kosovo, and she said towards the foot of the page that she saw Albanian villages surrounded by tanks, she heard the shelling, she saw thousands of people leaving their homes and columns of civilians on the road.

So this is a Serb, Serb woman in Belgrade who dares to challenge the army. Is that right, General Gojovic?

A. As for Natasa Kandic and her arguments, I have a completely different opinion. First of all, Natasa Kandic does not have any institutions of a scientific nature behind her that would establish legally valid grounds. Her observations, aired through the media, she seems to see everything, hear everything. That is her own sense of observation.

Q. Pausing there for a minute.

A. Now -- ³⁷⁶⁶³

Q. We'll look at the bottom of the page and tell you what she said publicly, realising that she faced the entire Yugoslav army. She said this, four lines up from the bottom of the page -- five: "I spoke with people who were in Izbica on the 26th of March." And she gives some accounts.

Go over the page, please, Mr. Nort. Three lines down. Having dealt with somebody whose son was shot but not seen to be shot, she speaks of 10.000 civilians forced by shelling to leave a field. She goes on in the next paragraph, General Gojovic, to say to those whom she was addressing that these are the facts. "... this is the cruel truth about Izbica, Bela Crkva, Cuska, Vucitrn and many other places and not, as the army maintains 'falsehoods.'" And she says: "I stand here and plead guilty because I did nothing to prevent these crimes from being committed. You rebuke me for not praising the Yugoslav army ..." Let's go and see what that drew. That drew a further response from the army, saying it would sue Natasa Kandic. And then it drew this: This is a document, even if you were on leave, General Gojovic, that you're going to know about, because you signed it. While the document's coming your way, do you say Serbia and Montenegro is a place where there is freedom of speech? Do you?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. This is a decision that you signed on the 26th of September of the year 2000. And if Mr. Nort could put the English version on the overhead projector, I would be grateful.

A. Yes, it is. ³⁷⁶⁶⁴

Q. "A disciplinary investigation has been initiated against Djorovic Lakic, Lieutenant Colonel serving with the Federal Ministry of Defence ..."

Next paragraph: " ... due to a reasonable suspicion that, in the capacity of a Lieutenant Colonel serving with the Legal Administration of the Federal Ministry of Defence, on 1 September 2000, when Colonel Mihajlovic, who was replacing the Chief of the Legal Administration of the Federal Ministry of Defence during his absence, in the capacity of a superior in the service, ordered him, based on the material submitted from the Yugoslav Army General Staff, to make draft criminal and offence charges against Natasa Kandic, Director of the Fund for Humanitarian Law from Belgrade, for corresponding criminal acts and a violation ensuing from her interview published in the paper 'Danas' for the 12th to the 13th of August, 2000, he failed to execute the issued order, as was his duty to do, instead he made an official record wherein, inter alia, he stated the following: 'Majority of her (Natasa's) views I deem fully justified and I fully share them with her, that is I share her opinion of those views...'" Pausing there, this was a man who was in Kosovo as part of your group and he identifies with the views of Natasa Kandic. Remind me again, is there freedom of speech in Serbia Montenegro?

A. Please, this is not freedom of speech. This is presenting incorrect information without arguments by Natasa Kandic, and the General Staff says she should offer up arguments, not stories and rumours. And since you mentioned this lieutenant colonel, he received orders to make a draft, that is to see to the technical side, technical processing for a ³⁷⁶⁶⁵ draft complaint to the prosecutor, a draft of that, and then the official would send it forward. Whether they would table it or not is another question, but it would go on for processing. So it wasn't up to Djorovic to assess whether there were grounds or no grounds. He was an official carrying out orders. Any orders not carried out in the service would be subject to liability and accountability and that is the foundation of every army in every state. So to bring that in this context is improper before this Tribunal.

Q. Understand me, General Gojovic, why I ask these questions. First of all, just confirm that it is your signature on the page seeking to have this man prosecuted. It is your signature, isn't it?

A. That's correct. Yes, it is, and I don't challenge that at all.

Q. The context is this: You and those working with you would do everything to shut up people like Natasa Kandic or Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic who were prepared to tell the truth or who were prepared to investigate people at the time, in order to defend the army, and that's exactly what you're doing here today.

A. Djorovic had the possibility when he was a prosecutor to bring these charges and not when charges were taken out against him because of his conduct which were incompatible to the duties of an officer, let alone a prosecutor. So in this way he is trying to defend himself and then seeking assistance by linking himself with Natasa Kandic, just as if someone who was seriously ill would go to a soothsayer to seek help there.

Q. And he also, of course, had the courage to challenge you in another way. We'll look at the next document, please, which tells us more ³⁷⁶⁶⁶ about you, I'm going to suggest.

On the 7th of November of the year 2000, he made a complaint against you, Major General Gojovic. I don't have time to go through the document in detail, but just look at it. And this complaint was to the effect that you obliged everybody in your department to go and vote for this accused. He had the courage at that make that complaint against you, didn't he?

A. He brought in criminal complaints against many people, but they were all rejected. Why didn't he take this into his hands, the processing --

Q. Finally --

A. -- and prosecution.

Q. And then finally on the 13th of June of 2001, and it's a long document, we don't have time to go through it, but you'll be familiar with it and I've referred to it already this morning. I now bring it in in its chronological position. He made a complaint against unidentified judges of the military court about the fact that case files he was pursuing were not dealt with properly and matters of that sort. Do you remember this complaint?

A. I don't know about that, but otherwise, it demonstrates his conduct and behaviour which ranks him among being assessed -- his capabilities being assessed for the army, and that is the way he behaves. He files reports against everybody. Yet when he is in a position of authority, he doesn't do so. Why didn't he name the judges? He knows them all. He is trying to mask the eyes of the public and brings up ³⁷⁶⁶⁷ Natasa Kandic.

Q. General Gojovic, he had no anxiety, did he, about naming you? He was brave enough to do that, and it needed bravery in your state, didn't it, to oppose the army?

A. Well, why didn't he prosecute once the prosecutor rejected the criminal report? He has the power to do so and to take it into his own hands and be the prosecutor against me. He didn't dare to do that, whereas he had the possibility of doing so, so why didn't he? But when you go to court, you have to provide proof and evidence, so that's why he didn't dare to do so. And his writings speak about the rights that you say did not exist, both to file criminal reports and to make -- go public, but nobody prosecuted him. Of course, if he didn't carry out orders, then proceedings against him should be initiated.

Q. General Gojovic, so that I can focus your mind on the relevance of Djorovic's behaviour and conduct, a large number of the people running the military judicial system in Kosovo at the time of the conflict were reservists. Not very many with the experience that he had. And I'm going to suggest to you that it would have been extremely difficult for them and would have required great bravery on their part to try to force through the proper indicting of individuals if the authorities were against it, and that's one of the reasons tabs 17 and 18 are as slim as they are. Is that the truth?

A. I don't agree with that. That is not the correct assessment. It's quite wrong.

Q. Finally, on the question of who you were prepared to -- finally, ³⁷⁶⁶⁸ on the question of who you were prepared or who the authorities were prepared to prosecute, do you remember the journalist Miroslav Filipovic?

A. I don't know who the man is. There was somebody in the press, but I didn't follow that. And when it comes to journalists, I'm not interested in that kind of thing.

Q. Was he a journalist who was prosecuted for saying things that were unappealing to the army?

A. I don't know whether they were appealing or unappealing. That's up to the prosecutor, not the army. The prosecutor is not within the composition of the army, it's within the composition of the ministry, it comes under the ministry.

Q. A small technical exercise next, please, and then I'm nearly done.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I've got a visual aid. I don't necessarily suggest it becomes an exhibit, but I want to deal very briefly through this witness with the efforts of that have been made for us to get documentation so you will know the degree to which these documents are complete, and I'll ask him a couple of questions about provision of documents.

I am afraid it hasn't yet been translated into B/C/S or Serbian but it's only a visual aid or aide-memoire or whatever you like for the time being.

Q. General Gojovic, you've already dealt with, as I've already suggested, requests for provision of documents and you will therefore confirm, I hope, that as long ago as May 2001 there was a request to provide all documents in connection with investigations or prosecutions ^{37669 BLANK PAGE 37670} before courts military or civilian. Do you remember that request?

A. I do remember that request, yes.

Q. In November 2001 there was a request for documentation in respect of Racak. Do you remember that request?

A. That request wasn't directed towards us. It was returned to the competent authorities --

Q. Very well.

A. -- because --

Q. Do you recollect that in July of 2002 there was a production of as little as eight files? In July 2002, there was the production of as little as eight files for cases - and when I say "files" each file may have only been a page or so - and then some records relating to Racak. Do you recollect the provision of those documents?

A. Well, let me answer. When you asked for the files of all criminal charges - I don't know if it was you or Madam Carla Del Ponte - technical assistance was sought because the courts technically were not able to -- did not have the technical resources to copy, photocopy, all those files for us to send you all the cases, and that is why technical assistance was sought to deal with that matter. That technical assistance did not arrive and it was for those reasons that those files were not given over to you. That is the sole reason.

Q. Well, the efforts continued with a request in August 2002 for documentation concerning sexual assaults committed by members of the VJ. Do you remember that?

A. Documentation was supplied for those cases. ³⁷⁶⁷¹

Q. Then in October 2002, there was another request for assistance in respect of court documents for the particular judgements of Mancic, Radivojevic, Tesic, and Seregi. Do you remember that?

A. There wasn't a judgement related to Mancic. That came later. And once again there were technical impossibilities. Technical assistance was sought but we weren't able to comply.

Q. Technical problems. Then on the 4th of November there was a meeting with Mrs. Tromp and Mr. Treanor. Amongst other things, you explained that tab 18, differently described, did exist and said if we wanted it we should apply for it. Do you remember that?

A. I remember that but I didn't understand what subject or tab you're referring to. That's the part I didn't understand but I do remember the meeting where we did discuss it and there were -- technical assistance was brought up again. And technical assistance was promised but once again, for technical reasons, the courts were not able to photocopy the documents to complete the files and send them in, otherwise they would have been happy to do so.

Q. I said November, I meant December. We move on then to 2003, taking it swiftly. On the 14th of April you were asked questions, really basically to the effect of is this all there is in respect of military court files, and the response to that came on the 11th of September with the document that is tab 18, that's item 1, and various other documents fully identified on this schedule but not very much material by way of further files. Do you remember that?

A. On the 11th of September, I wasn't in the commission. The ³⁷⁶⁷² commission was disbanded, and that's when problems occurred with respect to complying with the requests made by this Tribunal. The commission no longer worked as of the beginning of April.

Q. You see, it was disbanded by, what, Minister Tadic, was it?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. On the grounds that it was behaving badly, wrongly, improperly, and obstructing the OTP?

A. No. The main point was to prevent some evidence reaching President Milosevic for his Defence case and not to prevent the work of the OTP. Quite the contrary. The work of the OTP was promoted through the work of that commission. But what was endeavoured was to prevent evidence getting to the Defence, and that's why Minister Tadic was replaced, or disbanded it. There was no other reason. That's my opinion.

Q. I want to be quite clear about it, that the OTP has made every effort to get original files and all documentation, and the provision has been either what we have got in these papers today, a few other files, or the answer it can't be done for technical reasons; is that right?

A. Talking about original documents, you know that original documents are not given from any archive. All you can do is photocopy them and provide photocopies, not original documents, so with that respect --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... we've made every effort to get copies of original files of prosecutions and all we've got is what's in these documents, tab 17 and 18, and a few other files that are listed in the document I've placed before the Judges. That's all we've been able to get from you. ³⁷⁶⁷³

A. Why didn't you provide technical assistance? You would have been provided with all the rest of the files you asked. So you didn't invest all efforts at your disposal. Technical efforts, I mean.

Q. By the way, was Tadic's official reason -- What was the official reason he gave for disbanding your commission?

A. He didn't give any official reasons. What came before was typical conduct; that is to say several articles appeared in the papers according to which some mysterious commission - which was verified, by the way - was preparing the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic. So it was on the basis of those newspaper articles that Tadic came to disband the commission without giving any reasons for doing so. So that was the first act that he signed as defence minister.

Q. Finally this, then: You dealt with all requests from the time the commission was in existence. There is a body called the Joint Command, isn't there? Or wasn't there?

A. You want an answer?

Q. I certainly --

A. Well, I came across the term from a document that came to the commission while it was still working. It was a document one and a half pages long and there was a heading there that said Joint Command. However, the --

Q. Just a minute. We can look at the documents but it takes time. Just confirm, please, that for the duration of the conflict in Kosovo between March and June of 1999, there was a body that ran things for Serbia and Montenegro and it was called the Joint Command, and it was ³⁷⁶⁷⁴ called the Joint Command because it had representatives from civil authority, Sainovic, and the military.

A. I didn't know about that. I wasn't aware of that. I wasn't in that system of command. But I did come across that document later in the work of the commission and we were wondering about what the document was. It was the draft of an order without a signature, without a stamp. So that is the only thing I learnt about, that there might be some kind of body with that name, but what it was actually was I really can't say.

Q. You were the man in charge of the military judicial system. Please tell us, how was the conflict run and where can we find the records of how it was run, because all our efforts so far have been unsuccessful. How was the conflict run?

A. What conflict do you mean?

Q. Response to NATO. How was it -- how was it managed? Who made the decisions? Who deployed the troops? Who made the decisions about the civilians? It was a Joint Command, wasn't it? You must know this, General.

A. No, please. You're mixing apples and pears here. All the orders went from the staff of the Supreme Command, and that was the system of command that was functioning. So if there was a body called the Joint Command that was just to dovetail and harmonise relations down there because there were organs of internal affairs, civilian protection there, and somebody had to coordinate all that, and their mutual actions, cooperation, working together, somebody had to do the job. But otherwise, the army functioned according to the principle of subordination from the ³⁷⁶⁷⁵ Supreme Command to the lowest level unit. Now this auxiliary body, if it existed, it might have existed. That's nothing new. Quite obviously, civilian organs had to coordinate their affairs. You have to live down there, get supplies down there to the units, coordinate everything, so somebody had to be in charge of that and do the job. Whether the term was the right term and whether you're being misled by the term "Joint Command," that's another question.

Q. Don't have time to do that, but just help me with this: We've had a lot of evidence in this case with VJ units being deployed, shepherding Kosovo Albanians out of their country, Macedonia, Albania. You've fielded, you've dealt with all the requests for detailed information and for documents from the OTP during the period you were on the commission. Where can we find the documents that will explain the deployment of those forces and explain what it is said they were doing? Because we want to know.

A. Every action on the part of the army, every movement by the army would come after orders from a superior officer, and we have those orders. You don't wish to say, I assume, that orders -- by issuing orders you couldn't deploy the army to defend the country from attacks and giving artillery support and so on. That was the only case in the world in the history of warfare where this would have happened.

Q. You had no trouble, did you, providing 8.000 documents that concerned offences committed by the KLA, did you? No technical difficulty with doing that. Eight thousand pages.

A. That was done by the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of ³⁷⁶⁷⁶ the Interior is quite a separate institution and organisation.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... very well. More efficient than yours? Is that it?

A. Possibly. Possibly they're more efficient in cooperating and complying with your demands because they had the technical ability to do so and other support.

Q. If you don't acknowledge the existence of something called a Joint Command, you know of something called the Supreme Defence Council that used to meet, don't you?

A. Well, that's a constitutional institution.

Q. What did the function of the Supreme Defence Council after the 26th of March of 1999, because we haven't been provided with any documents showing which body did, can you help us?

A. Well, apart from those documents, I didn't have an insight into the workings of the Supreme Defence Council. Their acts and orders and decisions didn't reach me.

Q. Very well. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, any re-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibits.

MR. NICE: Oh, Your Honour, yes. I would ask for the sequence of documents that I presented to be exhibited. All of them bar the last one were acknowledge for what they were by the witness. The last one, the complaint by Djorovic in respect of his working as a prosecutor in May or ³⁷⁶⁷⁷ thereabouts of 1999 was not acknowledged as a document by the witness but I don't think he denied the fact that such complaints were made by Djorovic, so I would ask that the Court to consider as admitting not only earlier documents but that last document as well.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- our treatment of documents as an issue, and I for my part think it appropriate in the context in which you've now raised the matter to being cautious about -- particularly cautious about how we treat these, and I don't find it satisfactory just to be invited to exhibit these as a bunch of material without some sort of explanation of the evidential value that you see in each of these individually, because I think the responses of the general have varied among the documents. Now, can we take them one by one.

MR. NICE: Certainly. I'm sorry to have attempted to deal with things more swiftly than was helpful but there's always the pressure of time.

The first one, I think, is the publication of the 12th to 13th of August, 2000, and the Chamber will recognise that the burden of my questioning was to the effect that --

JUDGE BONOMY: Let me get the document. Which one was that, sorry?

MR. NICE: It's the 12th to the 13th of August 2000 interview of -- ³⁷⁶⁷⁸

JUDGE BONOMY: The interview, yes. Okay. Now, what is the evidential value of that document?

MR. NICE: The evidential value of this document is that the reality of the general's approach, and indeed the reality of the approach of the authorities he represented, was that an article like this would draw an attempt to prosecute whereas there was no attempt to prosecute for the grave crimes being reported publicly, and that's the general burden of this sequence of exhibits.

With that proposition in mind, the sequence of the reply by the army, which is the next one, that's the document that's titled "Mrs. Kandic Launches Grave But Groundless and Premature Accusations," the response by Mrs. Kandic of the 21st of August headed "HLC Executive Director's Letter to Yugoslav Army General Staff," which ends, in fact, on the same document with the response, "The army says it will sue Natasa Kandic" are all to the same theme, and they are the necessary preparatory material for consideration when the Chamber looks, if it would be good enough, to the document of the 26th of December signed by this witness where he initiates or signs in respect of a decision to initiate proceedings against Djorovic.

So I would ask that those form a straightforward sequence and I would ask that they all be admitted.

JUDGE BONOMY: And --

MR. NICE: Then we come to -- but I'll stop there before I come to the next document.

JUDGE BONOMY: No, I understand and I'm clear now about the ³⁷⁶⁷⁹ purpose for which you seek these, simply to establish the fact that these things were written and the fact of the response thereto.

MR. NICE: That's right, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And is the next letter then the one that's headed "Military Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade"? Is that --

MR. NICE: No, the next --

JUDGE BONOMY: That still part of the same sequence?

MR. NICE: Yes, it is -- no, the next one is a slightly different point. Military Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade is the complaint by Djorovic in respect of this witness that they were summoned in and required to vote for the accused, and this, of course, is a straight question of credit.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, well the problem with this is that I don't think you asked the witness the question, "Did you actually do this?"

MR. NICE: I think Your Honour's right.

JUDGE BONOMY: And therefore there's no evidential value if that's the purpose --

MR. NICE: With Your Honour's leave, may I ask that question out of time? But that's the value of that one, and it's a credit issue.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it would depend on there being evidence to support it.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you may put the question Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm very much obliged.

Q. And General Gojovic, you know this allegation made by Colonel or ³⁷⁶⁸⁰ Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic to the effect that on the morning of the 3rd of October of the year 2000 you summoned people to your office, instructing them as to how they should and when they should vote. You know about that allegation, don't you?

A. I know about that allegation, but it was not correct. There was a meeting indeed but it had a completely different agenda. Current matters that was, yes, the second round of elections, and there was a lot of propaganda as to whether people would vote or not vote. So that has nothing to do with anything. It's not that I can issue orders to anyone on that score and it's not that anybody will vote in accordance with these orders. Voting is by secret ballot. The Constitutional Court had to rule on this, and indeed the court did prove that the first round of elections was not right, so then there had to be a run-off --

Q. Only one other question -- sorry, Your Honour. You confirm that the elections were discussed in this meeting.

A. Not discussed. It wasn't an official meeting about elections. The official meeting was about something completely different, and then after that there were polemics among colleagues, but they are colleagues, co-workers. Whether people are going to vote or aren't going to vote, it was up to each and every individual himself. The official position of the court that was made public was that the first round of elections did not succeed in terms of the law, and that's the way it was. And why there was not a second round is something that you are fully aware of. So this was after the first round of voting.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, were you aware that this complaint had ³⁷⁶⁸¹ been made?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I first familiarised myself with this complaint when that group of lawyers manipulated it in their proceedings. So that is when I learned about it, after quite awhile. They referred to that complaint of his, and where it came from was something I had no idea about.

MR. NICE: I don't seek leave to ask any more questions.

JUDGE BONOMY: So I have one other document here --

MR. NICE: The last document is the one that I specifically set aside from the other series of documents when I made my comprehensive invitation to admit documents, and I set it aside because the witness did not acknowledge the existence of this complaint in this form. I think he did --

JUDGE BONOMY: This is the one headed Criminal Report.

MR. NICE: That's right, yes. And this is a long document which deals with the Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic's view of events that happened in May of 1999.

JUDGE BONOMY: You're not asking for that to be exhibited.

MR. NICE: I invited Your Honours to consider admitting it, but recognising that the witness hadn't acknowledged it as a complaint but had, I think, in the course of his testimony acknowledged that complaints of this kind were made by Djorovic, although he gave a different reason, if you'll remember, for Djorovic being sent back from Kosovo, saying it had to do with a fight and didn't have to do with these complaints.

JUDGE BONOMY: And did you ask to exhibit the summary of -- ^{37682 BLANK PAGE 37683}

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that's an aide-memoire for the Court. Of course it can be, if it's helpful, but I --

JUDGE KWON: How about activity reports of MPF, of UNMIK?

MR. NICE: I ask for the --

JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: The grounds for that are more difficult in the sense that they don't fall within any of our particularly recognised categories at the present. The position this, however: The witness comes to court and asserts that there is a legitimate or there has been, not a legitimate, a proper inquiry into the Izbica crime scene. It emerges, and it's emerged, of course, substantially since the close of the Kosovo evidence in this case, that there is material going to show that bodies from Izbica were hidden in Serbia. That would appear to be inconsistent with there being a properly conducted judicial investigation into the Izbica crime scene, and therefore I would ask that that material be admitted at this stage. There may, of course, be the opportunity to admit more evidence later, but to be admitted at this stage as some material going to counter the suggestion that this was a proper investigative process supervised to the extent that it was supervised by this witness. In this way, the argument's pretty much the same as the arguments we've been having over the recent weeks and months - not arguments, discussions - about the scope for admitting new material at the hand of the Prosecution in the course of the Defence case. We weren't to know until the witness came and gave evidence and gave his interpretation of document ³⁷⁶⁸⁴ tab 18 what he would be saying, and it's in answer to that that this material will be of value to you. But it -- so it's consistent with earlier applications, perhaps slightly different. I think, incidentally, the position is, although I haven't yet found chapter and verse, that it has been indicated to the Chamber at an earlier stage that it might be necessary for us to seek to add evidence about exhumations in general and perhaps exhumations in Batajnica or Petrovo Selo in particular because the information was only coming available as the trial was progressing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: For that another time, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: If Your Honours wanted to tell us first of all what was being ruled out and then that cuts things down, in my experience.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I think the two that are --

MR. KAY: The Activity Report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Activity.

MR. KAY: And the Criminal Report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And the Criminal Report.

MR. KAY: I don't disagree, then, with the findings of the Court, then, if the others are ruled in.

JUDGE KWON: We would like to hear about the Activity Report from you.

MR. KAY: The Activity Report, well, again, we've had evidence ³⁷⁶⁸⁵ during the Prosecution case about the bodies being found in Serbia. That's already featured in evidence. This adds absolutely nothing. There's no reason for this to be made an exhibit at all. It has nothing to do with this witness. It's just another report from somewhere that comes into the case, it doesn't take any issue any further, and then is just left as an exhibit, almost hanging in the air, of no relevance to this witness when we've heard evidence already that in fact greatly amplifies in far greater detail in the Prosecution case the paragraph that we're looking at within this report. So in my submission, it simply doesn't take matters further. It's something that was described as ammunition for cross-examination, I remember Judge May saying at one stage of the proceedings. Ammunition for cross-examination and no more.

JUDGE KWON: The other side of the coin would be that there would be no harm in admitting this one. Therefore, there's already evidence.

MR. KAY: There is harm because there is the amount of material we have to deal with. We don't know whether we have to file a response to it in a closing brief, how we have to deal with it, and it multiplies the material unnecessarily.

JUDGE BONOMY: It seems to me there's a point of principle involved here, because while this particular one might be harmless - may be, I say no more than that - if the principle is that the Prosecution can present freestanding material in the course of cross-examination, then we could come against, at a later stage, some very significant piece of material that we would have exactly the same point to decide about, and that's what concerns me. While this particular one may be of no great ³⁷⁶⁸⁶ significance, I'm more concerned about the principle.

MR. KAY: Exactly. That's our position on it --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Kay, please.

MR. KAY: Exactly. That's our position on it. These things build up. You then have to find them. You have to -- and they're not actually hung onto anything within the proceedings themselves but they're lying there, perhaps as a dormant bomb that could have some significance that hasn't been dealt with at the time.

In relation to the criminal report, he didn't know anything about it, and in our submission it doesn't take anything any further. It doesn't come into these proceedings in any way. It has no real relevance to the issues that we're dealing with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Milosevic, just on these two, the two documents, the Activity Report and the Criminal Report.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do not understand that you were talking about the UNMIK Activity Report. You were talking about the Activity Report of the MPF, weren't you, or perhaps I misunderstood it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's the Activity Report --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may comment on the other documents as well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you. May I start now or are you taking the break now? I'm looking at the clock.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let's hear you on this and then we'll take ³⁷⁶⁸⁷ a break. I don't imagine you'll be very long.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You mean the cross-examination?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. You don't have anything to say on the documents?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. In relation to this, I just asked you whether you were talking about the MPF document or the UNMIK document. That's what I asked you. That's the clarification I sought.

MR. NICE: May I reply in two sentences? With Your Honours' leave, may I reply in two sentences? As to the UNMIK document so described, it is, I think, new material because thus far I don't think there was a connection between Izbica and the burial sites in Serbia. There's a connection between Meja and Batajnica and so on, so it's new on that. On the other point, it is material that is significant because of course if it be the case that somebody was thwarted from doing his conscientious task as a military prosecutor, then that would be important in relation to this witness's evidence. So it is potentially significant. That doesn't determine the question of its admission, but I don't accept that it's not potentially important.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. In relation to this material that, as Mr. Nice just said, linked up some graves in Serbia to the victims, the dead from Izbica, Mr. Bonomy commented and said that this is not harmful to the Defence or, rather, that it did not harm the Defence in any way. I would like to add something to that. It's helpful to the Defence, as a matter of fact, because I wish to draw your attention to the ³⁷⁶⁸⁸ following: This witness, in the documents that you saw, he provided documents and testified that on the 29th of May, our organs - that was 1999 - discovered corpses in Izbica. As a matter of fact, an exhumation was carried out of 101 corpses and also a forensic analysis and so on. And now indeed a question is raised in the minds of all who are listening to this, watching this, and particularly in your minds, gentlemen, when there is a case dating back to the 25th of May, when an exhumation was carried out, a forensic analysis, et cetera, what would be in somebody's interest, to take these bodies somewhere to Serbia and to hide them? These bodies have to do with criminal proceedings that started during the war, as far back as that. That is something that is incomprehensible to any person who is sensible and reasonable. Then we will finally get to the background involved, how and where and when these bodies were buried in Serbia. But this link indubitably shows that there was an active criminal case as from May 1999. The bodies had even been exhumed then. Why and who did this? That would have to be established in order to explain things. So I'm not opposing admitting this into evidence at all. As for the Criminal Report, I don't know what you exactly mean, because Mr. Nice kept using the same expressions. He said in a very meaningful manner what Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic thought of what was being done. I think that this needs to be admitted in order to show that Mr. Nice is mystifying things.

Lieutenant Colonel Djorovic, in this Criminal Report, does not raise the question of concealing any document whatsoever in relation to the crimes that are being prosecuted, in terms of war crimes, violations ³⁷⁶⁸⁹ of humanitarian law, et cetera. This entire Criminal Report of several pages has to do with thefts only, 17 cases, and it's obvious that all of them were returned by the end of May.

This was some kind of manipulation, if that's the right word. It all boils down to robbery, theft.

Mr. Nice held it against General Gojovic that in statistics there are many crimes of theft, robbery, et cetera. Well, they're there because they are crimes, and as a rule they are the most numerous ones. If you read this Criminal Report, I don't think you've read it in the meantime, but read it and you will see that each and every letter in this document has to do with the make of a particular car, chassis number, and so on and so forth. It has to do with cassette players, TV sets, and so on and so forth. Robbery, theft only, not hiding documents that would indicate theft of -- I mean, not concealing documents that would have to do with any serious violations of humanitarian law or killings, rapes, attempted murders, and so on. So this Criminal Report is something that you can look at and you will see that he did not even refer to any documents that had to do with violations of humanitarian law.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you actually see this document as being of assistance to you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is useless, worthless. I commented upon this because Mr. Nice was mystifying matters. He was saying that somebody was concealing something and then this honest lieutenant colonel comes in and indicates that there was a lack of prosecution of such crimes. And that is simply incorrect. It only has to ³⁷⁶⁹⁰ do with theft. Of course that is a crime, too, but that is far away from all the things that we are discussing here. Whether somebody stole a vehicle is something that local courts of law should deal with. It has nothing to do with the matters at hand here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. At the end of the break, we'll give our ruling which will demystify matters. We will take the break now.

--- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will admit all of the documents put forward by the Prosecutor. In doing so, we would in particular note the agreement of the accused with the admission of the last two, the Activity Report and the Criminal Report.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm much obliged and I also apologise for having attempted to take things too swiftly. It's one of the problems with living under the pressure of watching the clock.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you get through it, Mr. Nice, so much the better. The numbers.

THE REGISTRAR: 840 will be for the Activity Report 2000 20004. The interview with Danas will be 841.

The next, Kandic Lunches Grave But Groundless and Premature Allegations will be 842.

843 for the document dated 21st of August, 2000. 844 for the decision dated 26th of September, 2000. 845 for the Military Prosecutor's Office dated 7th of November, ³⁷⁶⁹¹ 2000.

846, the Criminal Report. And 847 for the summary of Prosecution requests.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, re-examination.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] General Gojovic, Mr. Nice this morning at the beginning of our session asked you a number of questions with respect to the Viktor Bubanj barracks in Sarajevo. I am bearing in mind the fact that last week, when speaking of the matter, said the court was in the Viktor Bubanj barracks, the investigating prison, the detention centre, military -- police -- military police company and some other organisations. So they were all housed on the premises of the barracks. And it was noted that 120 people was how much the military police company numbered which provided security for the prison and the court. From the military aspect, could the Viktor Bubanj Barracks be considered a location of a combat unit in any way?

A. No. It was an institution. It was where the unit was accommodated and that's why the place was called the Viktor Bubanj Barracks, but otherwise they were all military institutions that were housed there. The court, the prosecutor's office, the land surveyance office, and that part was empty. ³⁷⁶⁹²

Q. Very well. We cleared that matter up. Mr. Nice said that if an effective prosecutors and military system existed, which means he claims one didn't exist, and I took a note of this, he also said that there was no attempt made to prosecute serious crimes. I made a note of him saying that.

Now, in that connection, I would like to refer you back first of all to tab 14. And tab 14, on page 1, provides a list of convictions and on page 2 a list of accused.

Now, General Gojovic, I'm not going to look at the other columns, just crimes against life and limb, that particular column, and in the second list, and we'll go back to list one, 55 individuals were accused of crimes against life and limb. Is that what it says here, the total figure in this document?

A. Yes. And that the date there is as of the 15th of May, 1999.

Q. Very well. Now, 55 persons were accused of these crimes as of the 15th of May, 1992, for crimes against life and limb alone, which means that in the first 50 days -- that was within the first 50 days of the NATO aggression; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you know that in Kosovo, there was bombing round the clock, 24 hours every day?

A. Yes, I know about that. Not only Kosovo but throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. Yes, but especially in Kosovo?

A. Yes, especially in Kosovo. That was the photo point. ³⁷⁶⁹³

Q. And do you know that 16.000 tonnes of bombs fell on Kosovo?

A. I know that there were facts and figures to that effect. There were enormous quantities. I'm not sure of the exact figure.

Q. Last week you said that the units and institutions and courts and the prosecutors' offices would relocate, move their locations to avoid the bombing very frequently; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So under those conditions nonetheless of round the clock bombing during the war just up until the 15th of May, 55 persons were accused of crimes against life and limb, and as we can see in the first table, 6 plus 2 gives us 8, 8 were convicted per category of person and type of crime for crimes against life and limb. Six plus 2 persons convicted.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General. General, do you have any information as to the circumstances in which these crimes would have been committed? It's fairly general here, "crimes against life and limb." What types of crimes are these?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are crimes against life and limb, as it says; wherever human life came into question, killings, et cetera. And these were mostly killings. And tab 18 gives you a review up until the 20th of June, 1999. 188 were convicted and 382 court proceedings were taken for this particular category of crime against life and limb against the civilian population, multiple killings, attempts at killings and so on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷⁶⁹⁴

Q. Very well, General. Now, in view of the circumstances that the military judiciary organs, law enforcement organs, the police function, the commands and other institutions during the bombing, do you as a professional judge, prosecutor, and chief the legal department in the General Staff think and assess that this is a high degree of efficiency or --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no, no, Mr. Milosevic. It's very tendentious and leading. "Do you think it's a high degree?" He will say yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. No, I hadn't completed my question. What I wanted to ask him is this:

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it a high level of efficiency, average, or low level of efficiency? How would you in view of your professional experience categorise this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if we bear in mind the fact that 2.811 persons were convicted in two months, the first verdict came in around the 1st of April, 1991, and over 6.000 were accused, 6.000 accused, and in the first instance 2.811 convictions were passed means a high degree, without doubt.

Now, in that figure, we could not have included all the serious crimes which required complex investigation and proof, but if you look at the figure itself, it speaks for itself, self-evident. And no court even in peacetime can achieve such a high level of efficiency in practice. And ^{37695 BLANK PAGE 37696} I have been following the practice and efficiency of courts for a very long time now, since 1971.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, could you just ...

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, just clarify: These are all crimes committed by soldiers, military offences?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The crimes I'm talking about, yes, just members of the army of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As we were saying, in no respect were these crimes, the crimes that the military judiciary worked on, incorporated crimes which the civilian judiciary had under their jurisdiction?

A. No.

Q. Very well. Now take a look at tab 18, please. It is page 4 in the English version and 2 in the B/C/S. So B/C/S 2 is English 4. And there you have war crimes against the civilian population, against civilians. I'm just going to dwell on that for a short time because Mr. Nice last week asked a question relating to that from which it emerged that it was soldiers that were taken out of prison and then engaged in shooting, and he said he would go back to that but he didn't in fact to it, so I have to do that now.

What it says here is this -- I haven't got the English translation but I suppose it's the same in English. The accused's names are given, ³⁷⁶⁹⁷ and then it says: "With premeditation killed 5 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."

Now, is it clear from that that these individuals or, rather, the individuals who were killed were taken out of detention? It wasn't the soldiers that were taken out of detention and committed a crime, it was these individuals who were taken out of detention.

A. Yes, that's precisely what it was.

Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, from page 2 onwards and up to page 19, where serious instances of theft, looting -- on page 17 armed robbery, for example, including killing, that is why they are grievous crimes because armed robbery with killing took place. So over those 17 pages we have the names and surnames of the perpetrators who were known to have committed the crime, and they include 25 individuals.

A. Yes. And that is shown at the beginning, the summary review. The total number is given there.

Q. When you count them, all the names and surnames, this gives us 25 in total. Now, in the column to initiate proceedings, which means once the information has been collected and ruling to initiate proceedings goes through, can we see when the proceedings were initiated? It is page 4 of the English version. It gives us the date, the 4th of August, then the 10th of June, all in 1999. The 2nd -- the 22nd of May is the next date. ³⁷⁶⁹⁸ Then we have the 4th of June, 1999, and the 21st of May, 17th of May, 15th of June, 25th of April, and May 1999. Then once again we take it from the 26th of May, the 11th of May, the 4th of May, the 9th of May, and so on and so forth, ruling to initiate proceedings on those dates. All the most serious crimes were initiated during the situation of war, state of war.

A. Yes, that's precisely it. And I said that this column entitled ruling to initiate proceedings is a ruling brought by the investigating judge. The military prosecutor before that already had information, gathered the information, checked it out and then sent in a request for an investigation to be launched to the court. Once a court order was made to initiate proceedings, then according to our law, we have the ruling to initiate proceedings. That's when the proceedings were initiated. Everything is the pre-trial stage, done by the investigating organs. So the prosecutor learnt about this far earlier than the dates recorded here, but these are the first dates recorded so that we know exactly when proceedings were initiated. And all these cases came to trial on these dates during the NATO aggression.

Q. Very well, General. Let's just clear one more thing up. A moment ago in giving your explanations to a question asked you by Mr. Nice, you said something about crimes here, and you said that some of the crimes were processed or, rather, they were qualified to begin with as killing -- multiple killings, and then the indictment was changed to a charge of war crimes. Could you clear one matter up, please: Did the prosecutors, when qualifying the crime and bringing in an indictment, did they opt for a more serious qualification or a less serious one? ³⁷⁶⁹⁹

A. I've already explained that. Wherever there was not sufficient information, proof, and evidence, where there was an order from a superior officer that killings should be perpetrated, always sought the more serious qualification of killings of two or more people, multiple killings. And according to republican law, this provided for the death sentence, and the lowest sentence was ten years' imprisonment.

Q. Very well. So I just wanted to clear that point up. Now, let me summarise: If he starts off with a more serious qualification, then the prosecutor can commute this to an easier, to a lighter sentence?

A. Yes.

Q. If he starts off with a lighter qualification, can he commute it to a more serious one, a graver one?

A. He cannot do this during the proceedings, requalify it and change the charge, so that's the way they worked to give them more manoeuvering space.

Q. Thank you. Now, according to our laws, multiple killing, is that a more serious qualification, because it invokes the death sentence, than a war crime?

A. Far more serious. Not only does it invoke the death sentence but the minimum prison term is 10 years.

Q. You mean for multiple killings?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So something starts out with multiple killing and then ends with this lighter qualification of war crime, is that it? Is that the process and that's what you tried to explain to us in your response to Mr. Nice's ³⁷⁷⁰⁰ question?

A. Yes, of course, that's right.

Q. Thank you. General, in view of the fact that we are discussing the question of whether all these crimes were prosecuted, whether they were uncovered, the perpetrators brought to justice, et cetera, you've already explained that to us. But may we -- would you give me a specific answer to my question now. Was there a single case of a crime having been committed for which the organs of Yugoslavia -- when I say "organs of Yugoslavia" I mean from the topmost to the lowest organs of the judiciary, the law enforcement organs or whichever other organs in that context -- was there a single case of a crime for which the organs knew about but didn't prosecute?

A. I have never heard of a case like that. All the crimes that were known to have been committed were prosecuted by the prosecutor.

Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Nice dwelt in particular on one point and I'd like to ask you to give us an explanation. He dwelt on tab 17 for some time, page 43, in fact, in the B/C/S, in the Serbian version, and I think he said that it was page 56 in the English version. And under number 7 --

A. Would you repeat the page number, please.

Q. 43 in Serbian, 56 in English of tab 17. Yes, that's right. And he pointed that page out to you and drew your attention to the fact that it was page 56 in the English version.

Now, under number 7 we have here proceedings against a lieutenant colonel and four soldiers, privates. And then he asked you to explain or clarify -- or, rather, he suggested that it was the lower ranks that were ³⁷⁷⁰¹ prosecuted but not the higher ranks. Now, looking at this example that the proceedings were interrupted with respect to the lieutenant colonel, these legal proceedings with respect to the lieutenant colonel, were they stopped because he was a lieutenant colonel or was there any legal reasons for the proceedings to be interrupted with respect to that individual?

A. No, it wasn't because he was a lieutenant colonel. Quite the contrary. As far as I can see from this, he was a security officer and as these were individuals who were detained, he investigated the reasons for that, and then the soldiers who are listed here took these people out of detention without his knowledge and permission and put them up against a wall and shot them. So that is why proceedings were brought against the lieutenant colonel and these individuals, but it was established that they did this on their -- of their own accord without instructions or orders from the lieutenant colonel. That is why the case was stopped. There was no reason to prosecute the lieutenant colonel. And these privates went on to commit other cases. This came group of men, under B, were responsible for the second crime, too. So that makes a total of seven.

Q. So you said that the proceedings -- the lieutenant colonel was prosecuted to begin with because he was the senior officer, but the legal proceedings were stopped because it was established that he never knew that they had -- they were not following his orders, and they did not take these people out of detention, shoot them, following his orders, that he had no knowledge of that?

A. Right.

Q. Thank you. You saw a clip that was played here by Mr. Nice. Many ³⁷⁷⁰² civilians could be seen. I don't know whether you noticed that the recording starts with a commentary and an image. It is the border of Yugoslavia. You can see the Yugoslav flag there, and I assume that the Serbian flag is there, too, but they went over that very quickly. And then the reporter says, "Under the symbols of Serbian nationalism, the authorities are expelling the Albanians."

A state flag that is at a border crossing, can that be considered a symbol of Serbian nationalism under which Albanians are being expelled?

A. It's only natural that everybody knows that, but this reporter sounded like a sports commentator covering a football game. He really got carried away.

Q. Isn't it quite clear that this is propaganda, that this is propaganda information that is given tendentiously?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that, Mr. Milosevic. Ask another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Further on, he says, "The Serb forces are moving from the outskirts of Kosovo towards Pristina," as if the army of Yugoslavia is taking Kosovo, conquering Kosovo. Do you know that the units of the army of Yugoslavia then and before that and for years before that were in Pristina itself, which is to say that it is not some kind of a movement from the outskirts towards Pristina; this is an integral territory where the army was. The army was throughout the territory. Are you aware of that? ³⁷⁷⁰³

A. I know that in Kosovo and Metohija, there were several military garrisons where there were military units, even in peacetime let alone in wartime. So that statement in itself by the reporter disqualifies his own conduct, as if Kosovo were a separate state entity of another state and that these military forces were now invading it. So he is saying something that is quite contrary to the truth.

Q. Mr. Nice suggests that what was planned was some kind of ethnic cleansing. General, do you know -- or, rather, he mentioned reports in the world public about the expulsion of Albanians. Do you know, General, that this story about ethnic cleansing was invented in order to justify an illegal aggression?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you continue like that, I'll terminate the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You gave explanations about the establishment of war courts in accordance with the law. General, military courts have existed throughout; for as long as there's been a state; for many years.

A. One hundred sixty years without any interruption. That anniversary was commemorated last year, of the military judiciary, that is.

Q. All right. Isn't it quite clear in the law that if a state of law is declared, by virtue of that fact military courts are turned into war courts?

A. That is an imperative legal provision that war courts are ³⁷⁷⁰⁴ established in a state of war once a state of war is declared. The war military establishment is developed in this way.

Q. This wartime military establishment, how much bigger was it than the peacetime establishment? What were the numbers involved when you compare the two?

A. According to wartime establishment, there were 20 first instance courts and four second instance courts whereas in peacetime there were only three courts, one -- two first instance courts and a third court of appeals, a second instance court. And hence there are appropriate prosecution offices with a total of over 60 people, and this way there were 155 judges and -- judges.

Q. Not going into all the persons mentioned in tabs 17 and 18, Mr. Nice asked you about one or two cases. I'm not sure about that. I think it was two cases. Who started the proceedings, whose initiative it was and so on.

In response to the question put by me as to whether these documents were accessible to the public, you said yes last week; right?

A. Yes.

Q. I assume that all the relevant facts are included there in all these individual cases, and can it be established who started the proceedings and how this was dealt with?

A. This exists in every case file.

Q. As for all the persons mentioned here, are there case files with the judiciary institutions in charge in Serbia?

A. Yes. They were all dealt with by military courts, especially the ³⁷⁷⁰⁵ military court in Nis, and now they were handed over to the district court in Nis because towards the end of last year, military courts ceased to exist.

Q. Mr. Nice put a question to you that had to do with cooperation with UNMIK. Before I ask you about this cooperation in greater detail, I have a few preliminary questions.

General, do you know how many Serbs, Montenegrins, and non-Albanians in general were expelled from Kosovo and Metohija from the moment when the UN took over in Kosovo?

A. Practically the entire population. A very small number remained. I cannot give you the exact number, but most of these people were expelled before the very eyes of the representatives of the UN.

Q. And do you know how many Serbs and non-Albanians, including even some Albanians, were killed under the authority of UNMIK?

A. There were many who were killed and kidnapped; over a thousand.

Q. Do you know how many monasteries and churches were destroyed during UNMIK authority?

A. The number is a very high one, going up to 180. I don't know the exact figure, but this has to do with major historic landmarks.

Q. Do you know how many tens of thousands of homes and properties of Serb families were destroyed under UNMIK authority?

A. A great many. Over 80 per cent.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... what the witness is answering to and what the question really means, speaking about UNMIK and saying under their authority. I'm not sure that the matter really ³⁷⁷⁰⁶ arises for re-examination but if he wants to ask it, he can, but at least we ought to know if it's being said that UNMIK in some way authorised these things. I'm not sure what's being suggested and what the witness thinks he's answering to.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's not -- it's not very clear that this does arise out of cross-examination, but in any event, we need to have this clarified, the question "Do you know how many monasteries and churches were destroyed during UNMIK authority," which would appear to suggest that the destruction of the monasteries occurred somehow with the connivance or the support of UNMIK. Is that what you're saying?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, there is no doubt that with 10.000 policemen we kept law and order in Kosovo, and the UN cannot prevent this many crimes with 40.000 soldiers. One cannot talk about any kind of active role on their part in protecting the population. Under the contrary: Under their auspices, the greatest crimes happened. 300.000 persons were expelled. Churches and monasteries were --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you would have no evidence, would you, to say that UNMIK supported or promoted the destruction of these monasteries.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, there are even videotapes that show soldiers of the forces in Kosovo now just standing there while the churches and monasteries are in flames.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing any more questions on these preliminary matters. Move to the main subject area.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷⁷⁰⁷

Q. Is that the same UNMIK that you addressed and that you said did not give any response to requests made by the military judiciary organs in order to get legal assistance?

A. I know that the prosecutor and the court addressed the judiciary organs in Kosovo under UNMIK auspices in order to get assistance and that their requests were not met.

Q. All right. I mentioned all the crimes that were committed, and that's a well known fact. Do you know how many perpetrators in Kosovo were convicted of the crimes that I mentioned to you just now, or at least arrested on account of those crimes?

A. I'm not aware of any such information, how many people were arrested, how many people were convicted. I don't know about that.

Q. Do you know that the authorities of Serbia or, rather, the organs of Serbia sought cooperation in terms of crimes committed by very precisely defined individuals, like Agim Ceku, Hashim Thaci and others? Was there any cooperation there with UNMIK?

A. The very fact that Ceku was arrested at an airport in Hungary, I believe, speaks in itself, but he was released due to UNMIK intervention, although there are proceedings instituted against him in a court of law in Serbia.

Q. Tell me, what kind of assistance did you seek from UNMIK, the one that was not given to you?

A. It has to do with a few crimes, including rape, and it also has to do with the victim in that case, that she be brought to the court of law where her safety would be guaranteed. However, this was not done. She ^{37708 BLANK PAGE 37709} needed to be heard by the court directly. However, that did not happen. As far as I know.

Q. General Gojovic, Izbica was mentioned here. Tell us what you know about Izbica. What was done in relation to Izbica?

A. I have already --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am not allowing you to re-examine that. Izbica was mentioned. If you have a specific question arising out of something that was asked in cross-examination about Izbica, then you may re-examine on it, but not just, "Tell us what you know about Izbica." If you don't have a specific question relating to something that arose in cross-examination about Izbica, then move on to another matter. You are spending too much time in re-examination, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, Mr. Nice linked the bodies from Izbica to the graves in Serbia. I hope that it's clear in whose interest this could have been, whether this could have been the interest of the state --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've cut you off. You are evidencing a reckless disregard for the rules, and if you continue like this, we will terminate the re-examination and you call your next witness. You're moving in that direction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what was the number of corpses that our authorities found in Izbica?

A. One hundred forty-four freshly dug graves. 101 bodies were ³⁷⁷¹⁰ exhumed. There are files about all of this. One hundred forty-four graves were found. How this happened, how come these corpses happened to be in the grave in Batajnica is a different question altogether, and it requires new explanations.

Q. Have you read the Kosovo indictment?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the number referred to there as far as Izbica's concerned?

A. A few numbers are mentioned there, but the final figure is 118 plus 2, so 120.

Q. All right. Does that mean that our authorities established as far back as May 1999 the proceedings started on the 29th of May, 1999, that they uncovered even more bodies?

A. Yes, 144.

Q. Thank you. General, I'm not going to ask you about Izbica any longer.

Mr. Nice, in his cross-examination - this does not have to do with you personally although he was dealing with you personally - he put a question to you in relation to your master's degree, that in order to be promoted to the rank of general, a master's degree is required. What are the regulations in Yugoslavia in order to have somebody appointed to the rank of general? It can only be a colonel who can become a general. Does such a person have to have a master 's degree?

A. In order to be promoted to the rank of general, as far as the legal services are concerned, a doctorate is required. That is in peacetime. However, during a state of war, other regulations are applied, ³⁷⁷¹¹ and there is a particular article in the law of the army of Yugoslavia that spells this out. In that case it is necessary to man all the required units and therefore a person has to manifest successful command and war merits. That is the requirement.

Q. That is as far as legal services are concerned?

A. Yes.

Q. And what about generals who are not in the legal services? For regular generals, do you need to have a master's degree?

A. No. They need to have different kind of military schools completed, not like the ones in civilian life.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I was going to say don't worry about that. Nothing turns on that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm just going to spend a minute on this text that you got. This is the text that Mr. Nice said he did not have in Serbian but only in English. "[In English] Summary of Prosecution requests for assistance concerning records of investigations and prosecutions of members of the VJ..."

[Interpretation] I'm just going to read one part where you are mentioned by name. This was the meeting held on the 4th of December, 2002, and then it says -- [Previous translation continues] I think that refers to the army centre, does it?

A. I didn't understand what you mean.

Q. When it says "Meeting at 'VJ house,'" the VJ house is in fact the ³⁷⁷¹² army centre; right?

A. Yes, one was in the army centre and one was in the Ministry for External Affairs.

Q. Right, but this was at the VJ house or army centre, and this is what it says -- among other things, you were present, and you say, or, rather, it says: "[In English] General Gojovic reported that many of the recent military cases from Kosovo were still in progress and others were transferred to civilian courts. Of 382 such cases, 188 resulted in conviction in military courts and an additional 137 had been transferred. There were also a number of cases involving the deaths of 580 persons where the perpetrators were still under investigation by military or civilian authorities..."

[Interpretation] And so on. Now, was that the overall statistics that you had available at that point in time about the cases in which the organs of the -- of Yugoslavia were involved?

A. Yes. Those are facts and figures in tab 18, the summary review, with 382 cases, 188 resulted in convictions, and 137 were transferred to the competent civilian courts. The only other figure, this 580, it was actually 598 persons. That should be the correct figure.

Q. So --

A. Yes, it is the result of this summary review.

Q. Right. I see. Thank you, General Gojovic. I have no further questions for you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General Gojovic, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to give it. You may now leave. ³⁷⁷¹³

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you as well.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your next witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My next witness is Judge Danica Marinkovic.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: DANICA MARINKOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may commence. Bear in mind we only have about seven minutes. There is another trial here this afternoon.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Marinkovic, where and when were you born?

A. I was born in 1951 in Bosanski Brod.

Q. And what are you by ethnicity?

A. I'm a Macedonian by ethnicity. My maiden name was Drakulovska.

Q. And what education do you have? Which schools, where and when?

A. I completed gymnasium or secondary school in the faculty of law in Skopje, Macedonia, in the Macedonian language.

Q. Tell us briefly when you graduated from university. ³⁷⁷¹⁴

A. I graduated from the faculty of law in 1975.

Q. Where were you employed?

A. I began work as a trainee in the law in the municipal court in Skopje.

Q. Where did you work after that?

A. After one year, I took my bar examination before a committee of the Ministry of Justice in Macedonia, in Skopje, and having passed the examination, I went to live with my family in Pristina where I began working as an expert associate in the Supreme Court.

Q. When were you elected judge of the municipal court in -- or district court in Pristina?

A. I was elected judge of the district court in Pristina in 1984.

Q. And when did you start working as an investigating judge of the district court in Pristina?

A. I began working as an investigating judge in November 1994.

JUDGE KWON: Sorry, you said you were elected as judge? Elected by whom?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, the Municipal Assembly of Pristina.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, interpreter's correction: The Provincial Assembly of Pristina.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation]: Mr. Kwon, the National Assembly appoints judges.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. ³⁷⁷¹⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it an appointment or election?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's called the election of Judges whereas -- might I be allowed to explain?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, let Mrs. Marinkovic explain. She knows more about that than I do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sure she does.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Judges are elected, so once a judge is elected by the Assembly, after they take the oath of office in front of the Assembly electing him, he begins working or she begins working as judge.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, would you explain to us in the briefest possible terms how the Assembly elects judges. How were you yourself elected a judge? Did you -- was there a public competition and you put your name down, or what are the proceedings?

A. I shall explain. The election of -- there is a public competition that appears in the information media prescribing the conditions according to the law that each candidate must comply with in order to take part, the requirements. And once you put your name down, the candidates are checked out to see that they have the necessary requirements, and then the proceedings are sent on to the Assembly. There is a commission set up to review all the documents submitted for each candidate, and then it makes its decision as to the candidates and puts their names forward to the Assembly and then the Assembly elects -- makes the final election.

Q. In order to compete, what requirements must you have? ³⁷⁷¹⁶

A. For a candidate to put his name down and apply for a judge, they must have graduated from the faculty of law, they must have passed the bar examination, and must have a certain amount of years of service depending on the court he is applying to, whether the district court or the municipal court. For the municipal court, three years of service were required, and for a district court judge, at least seven years of experience were required.

Q. Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic. In paragraph 87 of the Kosovo indictment, and I'm going to quote that paragraph to you now: "After in --" "After Kosovo's autonomy was effectively revoked in 1989, the political situation in Kosovo became more and more divisive. Throughout late 1990 and 1991 thousands of Kosovo Albanian doctors, teachers, professors, workers, police and civil servants were dismissed from their positions. The local court in Kosovo was abolished and many judges removed. Police violence against Kosovo Albanians increased." First of all, Mrs. Marinkovic, I've read out that paragraph, paragraph 87 from the indictment. Is what is alleged here true?

A. From what you have just read out is not correct.

Q. Now, since we have heard the statements by various witnesses pertaining to the general situation that is being described here, and in view of the individual professions mentioned, I am going to ask you questions and in doing so I shall be guided by the fact that you yourself are a judge. So I'm going to ask you about judges. It says many judges, so as a judge with many years of experience in the judiciary in Kosovo and Metohija, as a judge yourself, in other words, would -- may we have your ³⁷⁷¹⁷ comments on this paragraph, bearing in mind the situation in the judicial organs. Or, let me be more precise and concrete: How many judges were dismissed in 1990? And I'm bearing in mind what you know. The district court in Pristina, which is where you worked at the time, you told us that a moment ago, and the municipal court in Pristina, I assume you know about the situation in those two courts of law.

A. Yes, but before I answer your question, might I be allowed to say or, rather, to give some explanations, with the Trial Chamber's indulgence? The local courts mentioned in the indictment, the local court in Kosovo was abolished, it says.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will hear the explanations and the answer tomorrow because we now have to adjourn. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd day of

March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.