⁴⁰³²⁰

Thursday, 2 June 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you were in midstream yesterday. The Chamber will endeavour to ensure that doesn't happen again. You may proceed with your cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Thank you. I don't know if the Chamber still has the document that was distributed yesterday. If not, we do have further copies. May it be made available to the witness.

WITNESS: OBRAD STEVANOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. While it's coming, Mr. Stevanovic, you might recall that yesterday we were looking at a different document from that which is being distributed. We were looking at a document of the 2nd of June to Stojiljkovic and others which got an incorrectly attached last page but which referred to Ministry of Interior special units arriving at the institution at 5.00 on the 22nd of May.

Now, would you please be good enough to look at this document. This is a document, if you'd look at the last page, that comes from the warden, Aleksandar Rakocevic, who is referred to in other documentation, and then we go to the front page and we'll see what it's all about. On the first page it says it goes to the Ministry of Justice in ⁴⁰³²¹ Belgrade. Incidentally, before I forget the point, was the person at your rank in the Ministry of Justice also called Stevanovic at that time but with a different first name?

A. Yes. There was one such person in my position, and there were several other assistants to the minister of justice.

Q. Now, if we look at this document, we see that it's a report on the NATO Air Force attack. First of all, it deals with the 19th of May, but if the Chamber would like to look at the foot of the first page -- or if Mr. Prendergast would lay the foot of the first page on the ground, we can see that it says this: "The main building was destroyed," et cetera, and then: "We placed the convicts temporarily on the sports ground." If we move on then to the second page please, which again I'm not going to go through. We can see it covers matters on the 21st of May, with bombing until 1030 hours, the death of the deputy warden --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I cannot hear the interpretation very well. Could the volume be turned up. Yes, it's better now. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. We see it goes on in the second page in English, and in thereabouts, I think, in your document to deal with the 21st with the death of the warden and with dozens killed or injured, the arrival of the journalists, the arrival of the investigative judge. And then on page 3 in the English, it says: "Immediately after the journalists left --" and this is, I think, also at page 3 of yours: "-- and headed towards the main road, the attack started, during which ⁴⁰³²² the complete infrastructure was destroyed." It says this: "According to our visual estimate, about 500 [sic] convicts were killed, the majority of them buried under the wreckage."

JUDGE ROBINSON: 100.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: You'll see you said 500, Mr. Nice. It's in the transcript.

MR. NICE: Oh, no. I said 100, sorry. If I said 500, my error.

Q. And then it says the parking bay were hit by missiles, and then this: "On the 22nd of May at about 0500 hours, a special MUP unit arrived and entered the closed section of the Institution. Following an order by this special MUP unit, the security service employees were withdrawn to the broader radius around the circular wall. We do not know what they were doing there, but we could hear detonations. The same MUP unit arrived again around 1700 hours, as well as on the 23rd ... at around 0500 hours."

It concludes by saying: "On the 24th, at about 0600 hours in the morning another MUP unit arrived with ten buses and three trucks, which evacuated the convicts into an unknown direction, and this finished about 0900."

Now, working in reverse order, is the 24th of May's MUP unit the unit you've spoken about, the evacuation unit?

A. Of course that would follow from this here. It's a bit odd that the warden doesn't know that they were sent to Lipjan but, rather, he says in an unknown direction. I find this a bit odd. ⁴⁰³²³

Q. Maybe he wasn't told. How do you know that he was told?

A. It's possible, of course.

Q. Now, let's go back to what the warden sets out as having happened at 5.00 in the morning. It matches the document provided by the accused with the curious ending to it, and it says that it was followed by the sound of detonations. Do you know anything about this, Mr. Stevanovic?

A. I know absolutely nothing about this. This is the first time I've heard of anything like this.

Q. Well, not the first time you've heard of it if you'd reviewed the document in the accused's bundle that we looked at yesterday. But maybe - help us - did you not focus your attention on the 5.00 in the morning reference to the arrival of the special forces when you reviewed the documents ahead of coming to give evidence?

A. I tried to review all the documents, and I've already answered your question once and I told you that I was unable to look at each and every document in detail. Of course the details of this quotation that you read out are something I remember from the document we saw yesterday. These details relate to the entry of police units at 500 hours and these other two times, but I don't remember that in the document we saw yesterday it was mentioned that detonations were heard. Of course, it doesn't say here what sort of detonations they were or what caused them, but it was not mentioned in the document we saw yesterday.

Q. You're quite right, and well spotted. Nor does this document suggest in any way that the detonations were bombing. It would have said bombing if so. ⁴⁰³²⁴ Is the truth this, Mr. Stevanovic, a truth that you actually know, and as I suggested to you yesterday, there was a plan, cynically, to kill all the Albanian prisoners in that prison and later to blame it on the NATO bombing? Is that the truth?

A. That is absolutely untrue.

Q. You can provide this Chamber with no explanation of or account of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Was it only Albanians who were killed?

MR. NICE: I can elaborate on that. It was only Albanians who were killed, and although we don't have time to explore everything with this witness, the Prosecution's case on this would be that there were a limited number of Serb prisoners held in the prison, not -- not necessarily held exclusively -- in exclusively Serb units, but held in units where they were not exposed to risk from KLA or thought to be KLA supporters. I think it was in unit number 6, but I'm not sure.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The evidence has been -- in your case evidence was adduced on that?

MR. NICE: No. I'm just explaining what the position would be. But certainly none of them was killed as a result of what happened, and whether they were separated or not I don't know, but they weren't killed, as I understand it, none of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your suggestions should be based on the case that you have presented.

MR. NICE: Certainly. And to some extent it's based on -- of course, when I put matters in detail it's based on additional information ⁴⁰³²⁵ that's coming my way and that may be the subject of applications either for rebuttal or to reopen the case. And I've made it clear through my questions to this witness that some of the material I'm putting to him is recently obtained, including from the documents but also from other sources.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Very well.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. In your answers here about Dubrava, you didn't consider, maybe you didn't have a chance to consider, some of the evidence that's available in this case and indeed is part of the case. Were you aware that a Danish forensic military team examined the prison in August of 1999 and took a video of what it found?

A. I'm not aware of that fact.

Q. We'll play it to you, or some very limited extract from it for you, and I'm going to ask you if you'd like to comment on the things that we see or, alternatively, to review your opinion.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the video itself is about an hour and a half long.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. First of all, we see here, do we not, an aerial view of this very large prison. We see an aerial view of this very large prison, with a perimeter wall, a series of buildings laid out in a, I suppose, broadly square shape, and at one end of it we can see the sports field. There we see, I think, the sports field on the right but it's ⁴⁰³²⁶ going out of view. And here we see, I think, some of the blocks for holding prisoners.

You yourself had overflown this, hadn't you, Mr. Stevanovic?

A. During 1998, I think.

Q. We see clearly the results of one bomb on that building, but we see other buildings which have not got bomb holes through their roofs.

MR. NICE: All right. I think that's enough of that. Next clip, please.

JUDGE KWON: Is this already exhibited?

MR. NICE: This is Exhibit 165, tab 8, the video.

JUDGE KWON: Nine hours.

MR. NICE: Is it nine hours?

JUDGE KWON: We haven't seen this actually.

MR. NICE: We haven't viewed it, but it's been produced.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, here this is an inside area, and what you're looking for, or what we're looking at is can you see pockmarks on the floor? We'll see more of them in subsequent clips. We see pockmarks on the floor, and you can see pockmarks on the -- you can see pockmarks on the wall. Now, Mr. Stevanovic, in your experience are those consistent with the shrapnel from hand grenades?

A. I don't know. This might be shrapnel from a hand grenade.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Next one.

[Videotape played] ⁴⁰³²⁷

MR. NICE: A room with it looks like bedding and similar in it. Pockmarks on the floor, you can see, or shrapnel marks on the floor. Next clip, please.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. We see shrapnel marks on the wall and on the ceiling, on the ventilator duct, if that's what it is.

Pausing there, please. You see a hole there in a duct of some kind, I think.

Mr. Stevanovic, what you've seen so far, is that -- you're a senior policeman with the rank of general at the time or before this time. Is what you've seen consistent with hand grenades and/or gunfire within those rooms?

A. I really cannot give you any opinion about that because I have never had occasion to see such traces. Forensic technicians would be in a better position to talk about this. I can see traces that might be fragments from larger bombs, but I do not consider myself an expert on this, and I cannot answer this question.

MR. NICE: Just pause that for a minute. If we can just stop there.

Q. You see traces that might be fragments from larger bombs. Traces of what? These are enclosed buildings with roofs and ceilings intact, subject to some damage. What do you say is a trace of what might be a fragment from a larger bomb, if you're not an expert?

A. I really don't know what you're referring to. What I can see here ⁴⁰³²⁸ are scraps of paper or sheeting or something else.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I was asking you about your previous answer. You said you saw traces of something that might be fragments from larger bombs. I wanted you to tell us what you were talking about.

A. I wasn't claiming that these were traces of larger bombs. I was trying to explain that I cannot confirm that they were traces of hand grenades, because the kind of traces I saw do not have associations in my mind with any kind of bomb. Obviously these are fragments, but I cannot really say what kind of explosive device they came from.

JUDGE BONOMY: There are two separate issues there. What was being pointed out to you was marks on the wall, but am I right in thinking you're referring to what you see as pieces of material that may have come from an explosive device?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to explain that the traces I saw on the walls and the floor, according to what experience I have, might originate from fragments of different kinds of explosive devices, but I'm unable to associate these with any kind of specific explosive device.

JUDGE BONOMY: It was just that you used the expression - at least the way it was translated earlier - was "fragments from larger bombs," but it's not -- you were talking about marks on the wall rather than pieces of material, or were you talking of both?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I was referring to the traces on the wall which were caused by fragments coming from some sort of explosive device. ^{40329 BLANK PAGE 40330}

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Before we restart --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, isn't the truth that the witness can't help us very much on this?

MR. NICE: The witness has tried to help us from a range of material, giving us a concluded version of what happened at Dubrava.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I mean this question of where the fragments came from. He doesn't have the expertise. He has said so.

MR. NICE: He doesn't have the expertise and he hasn't considered this material, and it may be -- and all the other material of a forensic scientific kind, to which I was going to refer in summary, then it may be his evidence on this topic is necessarily and inevitably quite valueless for there is a great deal of forensic scientific in the materials already produced. Not just this film. There are two written reports which deal with the findings, and I wanted this witness to have a chance to deal with some of the more obvious points from them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not embracing your wider proposition. Proceed.

MR. NICE: Very well.

Q. This, you see, is the area where the prisoners, having been released after the first bombing to sleep, were found. We can see an inspection tower in the corner, or a watchtower in the corner, and the wall.

Now, help us: If I suggest to you, as I do, that there are no bomb craters found in this area at all and never were found, are you in ⁴⁰³³¹ any position to contradict me?

A. Of course I cannot contradict you because I have no knowledge of this. I was never in this place. This is the first time I've seen this film, and anything I say would be speculation. I am not a forensic expert. I am not an expert on explosives. Of course I will answer all your questions if I know the answer. In this case I have spoken only of what I know, but I do not know anything about what you are asking me now.

Q. Very well. I may come back to just a couple more pictures from the scientific reports but otherwise I'll leave the question of Dubrava and analysis of the evidence for subsequent argument, but we will return to two documents.

MR. NICE: May we look next at tab 205.

MR. KAY: Binder 6.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. This is a composition of papers produced by the accused, and the part I'm looking at and concerned to look at is the record of on-site investigation. We can just look briefly at that. Do you have the record of on-site investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. If we turn to the last page of it, three pages in English and I suspect the same in your Serbian version, we see -- yes. I said it's a composition of papers, but it's on the on-site investigation report and three pages and as --

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there are several of these. Which -- ⁴⁰³³²

JUDGE KWON: That's not it, Mr. Prendergast. That's Official Note. Third page of on-site investigation report.

MR. NICE: Your Honour is quite right. It's the -- the way I have it in the bundle I have is in three pages. Does Your Honour have one in three pages?

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I've got one in three pages with an Official Note as a fourth page.

MR. NICE: That's right. That's the one, I think.

JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. NICE: And --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is page 3 and the Official Note is page 4 in my version, which is a copy of the original.

MR. NICE:

Q. So we can -- if you turn to the third page, which --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to help the witness find his way around, as well as Mr. Nice. In this tab, there are three attachments. Attachment number 3 is the record of on-site investigation, which in the original has two pages. I hope the witness can see that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then in the same tab we have attachment number 4. That's the Official Note, one page only -- half a page, actually. And attachment number 5, another Official Note. So in this tab we have three documents: The record of on-site investigation and two official notes. ⁴⁰³³³

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Mr. Stevanovic if you go to the second page of your on-site investigation report - for the Court it's the third page - we can see that the document, whether dated or not, covers at least the 26th of May. So it goes beyond the 24th and 5th of May to the 26th of May. If you'd now, please, come back in the Serbian version to the first page, I think, and certainly in the English version, the English translation, to the second page. We see a paragraph that's headed or titled "On-site investigation - continued," and it says: "On the 24th of May, the same investigation team, joined by Slobodan Radovic ..." Do you find that paragraph?

A. Yes. It's on page 2 in the original as well. At the very top.

Q. That says: "Upon inspection of the premises --" "... of the scene -" I beg your pardon - "the atrocious consequences of the bombing that lasted for several days have become obvious. Dozens of killed inmates were found in the prison mess, presenting a horrid sight. There is a hole several metres in diameter in the ceiling or roof structure of the mess through which the sky can be seen. Forensic technicians collected fragments of aerial bombs ..."

Now, will you please just confirm that this document that includes that passage contains absolutely no reference at all to any alleged bombing at 6.00 on the morning of the 22nd.

A. The passage that you have read certainly doesn't mention that. I don't know if there is another passage where it is mentioned, but you are right as far as this paragraph is concerned. ⁴⁰³³⁴

Q. And indeed in this report itself, that is not mentioned. If we go to the Official Note, which is the next document, as the accused reminded us and as His Honour Judge Bonomy I think has already found, we find the Official Note that we've looked at before, apparently dated the 22nd of May, 1999, coming from Bojic, which concludes with the paragraph: "According to subsequent information, NATO continued the bombing on that day from 1700 hours to 1805, and then again at 2310; another attack took place on the 22nd of May at 0610 hours." Now, let me make it quite clear to you: My suggestion is that documents that suggest in one way or another bombing at 6.10 in the morning or documents such as the one we were looking at earlier which ascribe all deaths to the consequences of the bombing over a period of days have been created in order to mislead and to hide the truth.

A. I absolutely cannot confirm or agree with your suggestion, Mr. Prosecutor. During the examination-in-chief, we saw that this reference does exist in some other document as well. We see it here in a document created by an investigative judge. There may be certain contradictions, but any contradiction contained in these documents would require additional verification. At this moment I can simply not state anything one way or another because I don't know. None of these documents are mine.

Yesterday you used the term "fabrication." If any fabrication took place indeed, then everything would probably fit in. These contradictions tell me that there was no attempt at cover-up. Documents were created that contain certain contradictions. Why they are there ⁴⁰³³⁵ would require additional checking. I cannot tell you at this moment why a certain reference exists in one document but not in another --

Q. But why --

A. -- because none of these documents, as I said, are mine.

Q. Why did special units, of which you must have been aware, take the prison over at very short notice from 5.00 on the morning of the 22nd?

A. I cannot give a clear answer even on that. The prison administration falls within the local purview of the police station in Istok and the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec. That is where this incident involving loss of life happened. Nobody should issue any orders to the local competent police for them to go on site and take all the measures prescribed by the law. Why they went there at those particular hours I cannot speculate now.

Q. And you --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, what's your position on the bombing -- the alleged bombing at 6.10 on the 22nd of May?

MR. NICE: I'm sorry I hadn't made it clear. That's a complete --

JUDGE BONOMY: That's also part of your fabrication allegation.

MR. NICE: The allegation is that at 5.00 --

JUDGE BONOMY: I follow the relationship.

MR. NICE: -- and from that moment on there was no bombing, and that any allegation of bombing from midnight on the 21st is a cover-up.

JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

MR. NICE: And my suggestion is that's actually supported by the material we have here. ⁴⁰³³⁶ Can we look at one more document, please, this one.

Q. Now, this document that you're looking at, which is dated the 4th of June, says: "In relation to an order of the Court --" it comes from Rakocevic again, who is referred to in the accused's documentation, "-- forwarded me from the MUP Pec, I inform you of the following: "It was not known to me on the 21st, 24th and 25th of May that an on-site investigation was conducted by the Investigating Judge because I was neither present nor was I informed about it." Don't you find that a little odd, Mr. Stevanovic, that the governor of the -- the chief warden of the prison was not even informed about an investigation happening at his gaol?

A. Of course it does appear odd. That's precisely what I said in response to one of the previous questions. For the prison warden not to know where about a thousand prisoners are being evacuated. Look at the next paragraph, though. He says: "I do know that the investigations started on the 21st of May, 1999 ..." So already in the next paragraph he says he knew.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... read it all then, please, if you want to. I'll read it to you a little more swiftly, and follow it in the original.

"After the 21st of May ... all activities related to the newly arisen situation at PCI Istok were taken over by the authorised SUP organs and the Investigating Judge. I do not know how far they got with the on-site investigation. Therefore, I was not able to act according to the order since do I not have the requested information at my disposal. ⁴⁰³³⁷ "Regarding the security employees, they were all present in accordance with the regular rota, and those wounded were --" and then he names and identifies them.

Last paragraph: "Due to the resulting situation at the institution following the arrival of the MUP employees on the 22nd of May at 0500 hours --" and perhaps you'd be good enough to read from the original the last sentence that the translator found difficult to read. Can you read the last sentence, please?

A. The last sentence is: "Due to the resulting situation at the institution following the arrival of the MUP employees on the 22nd of May at 500 hours, employees of the security service of the PCI Istok were not present."

That is the wording of the last paragraph.

Q. Now, then, Mr. Stevanovic, if you can't tell us what the people were doing deployed at 0500, can you tell me where I should go to find the written orders, the written records, et cetera, of what they did?

A. The only place where one should look for such documents are the SUP of Pec or the municipal or district court in Pec, and of course the prison administration. I'm certainly surprised that the deputy prison warden is not aware of the facts related to the prison he is administrating. We should establish the reason why he doesn't know. That, of course, is only my assumption, and all that I have said, in fact, is only an assumption because I don't really know. I'm seeing the document for the first time.

JUDGE BONOMY: That surely was a misunderstanding of the question. ⁴⁰³³⁸ I think the question that was put to you was where would Mr. Nice obtain the orders that related to the attendance of the MUP at 5.00 in the morning, not the investigating judge and the SUP acting with him.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's possible that I misunderstood, but I answered that question too. The address where you could find such documents is the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec. That is the instance that is qualified, has control over that locality.

MR. NICE:

Q. I thought yesterday you told us - I'll be corrected if I'm wrong - that for the deployment of SUP or MUP officials to take over a prison in the way that is clear this prison was taken over would require very high authority. Are there going to be ministerial records that will show what happened in respect of this prison at 5.00 on the 22nd?

A. First of all, let me say that I have never said that any action of the police in such a case would require a decision from higher up along the chain of command of the MUP. It could be a case of misinterpretation. I said several times that in case of such incidents --

Q. Very well.

A. -- the local competent police acts according to the law without any special instructions. And of course this is not a case of take-over, although this word may be used some way here, but in my understanding --

JUDGE BONOMY: All the signs here are of the Ministry of the Interior, one part, at least, taking over a prison. I don't know if the prison falls under the Ministry of the Interior. It may do. But is it normal for the police to be able to enter and take over control of a ^{40339 BLANK PAGE 40340} prison without any authority from a fairly senior position?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course it's not normal for the police to enter a prison and take it over. We agree on that point completely. But I never spoke of any take-over of the prison. I spoke of police action, regular police action, in cases of incidents involving loss of life. There is regular procedure for that, and no special instructions or orders are required. The police administration is aware of that, and they are required to call the police and the investigative organs to come and perform their job.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, I'm going to make my suggestion to you crystal clear and I'm going to ask you just to look at a couple of documents and we'll move to another topic. My suggestion to you is that you and indeed this accused, as you know and he knows, know full well that this was a cynical, planned massacre, and you are here determined to defend that position on behalf of this accused. Do I make myself clear?

A. That is absolutely not true, and I must say that I am deeply offended by the suggestion, because I came here to testify to the facts that I do know, and you are practically accusing me in front of this Trial Chamber, and I would like the Trial Chamber to protect me if this is not supposed to happen.

I have said that no such plan existed, and I have never been aware of anything remotely similar. I have explained in detail all that I know. You continue to examine me on things that I know nothing about.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, you have asked for the protection of the ⁴⁰³⁴¹ Trial Chamber. Mr. Nice comes from a tradition of vigorous prosecution, and that is wholly consistent with the tradition in this Tribunal as well. You don't require any protection. You answer the questions.

MR. NICE:

Q. This is one of many photographs --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

MR. NICE:

Q. This is one of many photographs from the area where the prisoners were found, the photographs taken in August of 1999 by the Danish forensic team, and the evidence would suggest no bomb craters but marks of this kind on the ground. Exhibit 165, tab 9, part of it.

MR. NICE: Mr. Prendergast, if you would be good enough.

Q. From such marks on the ground the experts were able to trace definable lines of fire, as shown here; football field, volleyball ground, basketball ground, all in the sports area, from different directions. Did you at any time in your perusal of the materials provided by the Serb authorities find record of gunfire shots on the ground? Did you?

A. No. In none of the materials that I reviewed have I found reference to any traces of gunfire.

Q. Nor indeed in the forensic examination of Dubrava carried out by the investigative judge did you find any adequate examination of the ground at all, did you? Because there was superficial examination of the bodies, burial, and end of story.

A. I know what was done, and I have certain information that the on-site investigation was interrupted at least two times and was resumed ⁴⁰³⁴² three times, and from what I saw I could conclude that the on-site investigation was not performed quite meticulously as it was supposed to and as would have been normal procedure. But I think that was due to the ongoing danger and risk.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no sense in wasting further time, because this witness cannot help us with forensic issues. And as you know full well, as Mr. Nice knows full well, and I know, too, those -- that forensic evidence, seeing that it dates back to the August, has no value whatsoever. Those traces could have been left by the KLA in the meantime. And if they wanted to fabricate that story, they could have done anything to do it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic.

Mr. Nice, you may consider the value of putting questions of that type to the witness. He has already said he doesn't have forensic expertise.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I would, in the ordinary course of events, ask some further questions, but in light of the pressures on time, this is a very important matter that I wanted to explore because of the nature of the allegation I'm making against both the accused and the witness, but I think if I simply draw to the Court's attention that there's a whole Spanish team's investigation and there's also the evidence of the ballistics found in the bodies, to which reference has already been made, and I'll move. ⁴⁰³⁴³

JUDGE BONOMY: Is that plan an exhibit?

MR. NICE: Yes, it is an exhibit.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's its tab number?

MR. NICE: 165, tab 9.

JUDGE KWON: I don't remember. I saw this diagram before, but ...

MR. NICE: It's in the materials that have been produced, as indeed has the Spanish team's analysis; 165, tab 8.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, I remember that.

MR. NICE: And the ballistics evidence and so on. And Your Honour, as I have perhaps already indicated, it also seemed to me fair to put --

JUDGE KWON: Tab 8 is the videotape.

MR. NICE: Is the videotape, and there's also the written report as well, with conclusions. And Your Honours, it also seemed appropriate to put my allegations, or the Prosecution's case, to this witness in the fullest detail given that I am going to make an application in respect of additional evidence, reopening or rebuttal as it may be. I'll move to another topic.

Q. I'm going to deal now with some more general points, Mr. Stevanovic, before we return to particular sites that feature in the indictment. These are general points of -- on Kosovo.

MR. NICE: Would Your Honours just give me one minute.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we look, please, at Exhibit 319, tab 32. This is a document, ⁴⁰³⁴⁴ Mr. Stevanovic, found in the Pec police station. Date not entirely clear but January 1999 is the subject of the first substantive paragraph. In light of what you've said about the attitude of troops and police at the time, between 1998 and 1999, can you help us, please, with why under "Objective" it should be said in an ambush plan: "To prevent the movement of terrorists on the above-mentioned local road," and to "eliminate the said terrorists ..."?

A. If this document is genuine - I do see a signature here, the signature of Borislav Vlahovic purportedly, although I'm not sure it's his signature - then the objective as defined here is formulated in a partially lawful way, with the proviso that it is not clear what "elimination" is supposed to mean here. If what is meant is to kill the terrorists, then it is not a legitimate aim at that stage.

Q. Likewise paragraph III, "General tasks," under monitoring the said road, et cetera, et cetera, and then: "... Upon identification of the vehicles and their passengers, use concentrated fire to neutralise and eliminate them."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I have this document, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let the accused have a copy. May I ask whether in the B/C/S the translation of the word is correctly "eliminate"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The term "liquidation" is used here. I have explained in response to one of the previous questions that that term has a broad and a narrow meaning. In the narrow meaning it means to kill with premeditation, and in the broader sense it means to ⁴⁰³⁴⁵ neutralise terrorists as such; to disarm them, to pacify them, to make them disband, to make them disappear. But if it is used here in the meaning to kill, then I can confirm that this position as expressed here is not the official position of the Ministry of the Interior or the policy of the Ministry of the Interior in the combat against terrorists.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this document that the general is seeing now for the first time - and the same goes for me - it is absolutely necessary in order for him to answer any further questions to have time to read it in full. In the preamble of the document, it is said that the terrorists located in the Jablanica village --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll hear the accused. Yes. Just finish what you're saying.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That this plan here relates to a precisely defined group of terrorists. It says they use Opel Ascona cars, a white Mercedes, a white Lada Niva with an installed Browning heavy machine-gun, et cetera, et cetera. So all of this refers to the liquidation of an identified group.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. I have the point, and the witness no doubt has it too.

If the witness wants to have the entire document read, then he's entitled to that. If he wants time to read the document in full so that he knows the entire context in which the particular question is being put, he's entitled to have it read.

And you, Mr. Milosevic, know that this is a matter that you can raise in re-examination. ⁴⁰³⁴⁶ So that if you feel, General, that you are disadvantaged at any time by having a particular section to you without the other sections being brought to your attention, then that's a matter that you can raise.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, would you go and look --

A. Thank you, Mr. President. Of course it is always necessary when I am handed a document and when I see it for the first time to see who compiled the document and who brought it in, and now the question here is whether the document was put into practice, what it says in the document. Thirdly, in my many years of experience I have had any number of cases where my subordinate writes a document which is -- does not correspond to the law, and I had to send it back at least five times so that the text does conform with the law. So I would have to know more about this text and document, whether it was acted upon, and I'd have to look at the entire context.

Here the term was used as it was. Of course it is very important to see whether the plan is directed against concrete identified terrorist groups so that there can be no consequences on any innocent persons. And the fact that it says that doesn't actually mean that somebody is going to wait in ambush for such a group and to kill it without any attempts to apprehend the persons and take them arrest, because the procedure is to use weaker means first of all and move on to stronger means, not to liquidate straight away. And I have already explained, of course, that the consequences of any action can result in death.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁰³⁴⁷

Q. Would you go to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Would you go to VIII, please. The Chamber's page 3, but you will want to look at the original as well to make sense of what I'm going to ask.

The original, although it was subsequently crossed out, contained a suggestion that each squad should have hand-held launchers with 30 bullets manufactured in China.

The only reason for having bullets manufactured in China would be to ascribe action falsely to the KLA. Am I correct?

A. Let me find the passage you've just read out first. I don't seem to be able to find it.

Q. Top of page 4.

A. Well, it does say manufactured in China, but then you can see that that was crossed out. So I don't really know why manufactured in China is mentioned at all.

Q. This document generally, I suggest, shows what I was asserting yesterday and will continue to assert to you; that there was a determined plan to wipe out the KLA, and by unlawful means if necessary.

A. The plan to eliminate the KLA undoubtedly existed. So the plan to eliminate terrorism from Kosovo did indeed exist. It was a firm plan at all levels, and it was consistent right down the line. But there was no plan for terrorism to be wiped out using unlawful means. I claim and state that the overall policy always consistent from ⁴⁰³⁴⁸ top to bottom, that terrorism should be eliminated, that citizens should be protected, and that law and order should be brought to Kosovo and Metohija, but not including unlawful means.

And I could just add that despite the fact that I always claim, and I claim now too, that it was the position that terrorists cannot be liquidated as intent, as a premeditated intent, of course does not mean that it is unlawful.

Q. I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you short on answers unless the Chamber thinks it's wrong for me to do so because of the limitations on time. When you've answered something, we'll move on. If we now look, please, at your diary for possibly a little later on but roughly the same period of time, the 15th of February -- I beg your pardon, 14th of February, which is part of tab 440 of your own exhibits. And in the English version it is page 39 and 40, I think. 39 will do.

MR. KAY: Binder 17.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't seem to have it, unfortunately.

MR. NICE:

Q. In the -- sorry. It's actually page -- can we go to page 40 of the English, and it's R0172392 in the top right-hand corner for you, Mr. Stevanovic. Hand-numbered page 28. 28. Do you have that page?

A. 0172392. Is that the right page?

Q. This is the 16th of February, reflecting a meeting of a collegium of -- the collegium. You'll tell us what the collegium was. What was the collegium composed of? ^{40349 BLANK PAGE 40350}

A. Well, the collegium of the minister was made up of the minister's assistants and the heads of the departments at the headquarters of the ministry.

Q. Very well. And what we see is this, under number 1, first bullet point: "Together with the Pristina Corps, the finishing touches are being put to the plan for a broad anti-terrorist operation in the period between the possible airstrikes and the entry of ground forces. "Sending all OPJP or PJP detachments."

There was a clear expectation, was there not, that you would have an opportunity to eliminate the KLA between, in the short window of time between the bombing that you expected and the arrival of ground forces. That's what that means.

A. It states clearly that there is an anti-terrorist plan for the period from the airstrikes to the entry of NATO ground forces, and that is a plan -- the plan that I spoke about. I can't identify it in concrete terms. I think there were two such plans, one in 1998 and one in 1999, and I think that is the plan that is referred to here, the 1999 plan.

Q. And it was the willingness to act illegally in that period of time that led to some of the gravest crimes with which this accused has been charged. That's my suggestion to you. What do you say about that?

A. That is not true. Not at any single point did anybody ever utter or did anybody even think of acting against the law, unlawfully, against terrorism.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁰³⁵¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please define for me whether something which is anti-terrorist operation, termed anti-terrorist operation for the police or any other state organ is contrary to the law, unlawful, for Mr. Nice to be able to carry on wasting time in this way?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's a comment, really. That's a comment.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we now turn in the English to -- yes. I mean, what was the -- how long did you expect the bombing to last, Mr. Stevanovic, all of you?

A. I can't really say, to be quite frank. I expected -- I didn't expect there would be any bombing, despite all the assertions that there would be. My evaluation and estimations were wrong, if you want my personal opinion.

Q. I'm going to inquire. Was the position that you expected the bombing period to be short but nevertheless a period where you could have your way with the Kosovo Albanians, blaming what was necessary on the bombing?

A. Absolutely not. That observation is simply not correct. If there were bombing at the time people thought that it was necessary to undertake more serious -- more serious measures against terrorism, because then it would be quite clear that the terrorists would take the side of the aggressor. So because of that, it was logical that by engaging additional forces more decisive action against terrorism should be taken. And everything that I spoke of earlier on was a tolerance of terrorism despite the fact that we were dealing with terrorism to avoid conflicts and so on. ⁴⁰³⁵² So we were tolerant. But if the bombing were to start, then the situation was clear: We had to enter into an uncompromised struggle against terrorism in Kosovo because it was quite obvious that the terrorists were ground -- NATO ground forces.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... people didn't know what to do and that all the problems that they were facing led to their moving out of the country. Is that your -- is that your account for the population movement still?

A. I said exactly what it was. Yes, I did say that and I claim that now, and I went on to explain the situation that we were facing when the NATO bombing started, and nobody could even have assumed what that would be like. And what I said before that relates to the period before the bombing and weighing up the situation as to what would happen if the bombing actually went ahead, but nobody could have envisaged that it would be such horror, such terror, such panic and such general chaos. So it's one thing what we assessed and thought would happen and it's quite another what did actually happen.

Q. Let's see what did actually happen. At page 94 in your diary, which you can find on page R0172437, I should think.

MR. NICE: If we could have that on the overhead projector. Thank you.

Q. This is a meeting sometime, probably the 3rd of May or thereabouts but before the 4th of May. Have you found the entry?

A. 437, are they the last three digits?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 437 shows the date the 24th. ERN ⁴⁰³⁵³ number 437 being the last digits.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see the entry -- well, if the Court -- if the Court would come back one page, then, to page 93, and we see -- Do you see an entry that begins on page 74 in handwriting, with the printed number 2438? Do you have that page?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. This is a meeting. We'll look maybe in due course at item 3, which says, "Clearing up the terrain," but just go over to item 4 and then we are back where we were, Mr. Prendergast. "Results of the operations:

"Last remaining large groups broken up. "About 2.000 liquidated - many more than previously in a single operation.

"Left the country - 900.000. "Terrorists remaining - 1.000.

"Civilians remaining - 300.000." Was that a satisfactory result for those of you who were supervising this campaign, to have got rid of 900.000 people?

A. I very often have to say that your observations are not correct. I apologise, but I have to do that, because you very often have incorrect statements and observations.

Now, here it is obvious that either through some fault or something else the wrong term was used, or perhaps a term was used to bring together several terms and facts that couldn't be brought under that ⁴⁰³⁵⁴ heading.

So 900.000, let me say first of all, is a figure that I've never seen. My information says 800.000. 900.000, I can't believe that that figure is written down there. So we're talking about the consequences of everything that happened, not the result. A result would imply that that was the goal.

Now, to break up remaining terrorists groups, that could be a result because it was a component part of the plan, to break them up. The liquidation of terrorist groups, conditionally speaking, can also be considered to be a component part of the plan, but this idea of 900.000 people leaving the country, that is not a result and not the result of the plan, just as terrorists remaining is not a result.

Q. It's your handwriting, you see?

A. Now, what does "residents" mean, this heading residents? Yes, that's true, it would appear that this is my handwriting throughout the diary. It is. That is incontestable. But with the reservations that I have made and the provisos I have made with respect to my diary, and you know what they were. I don't want to have to repeat it and go back into private session to do so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not clear to me what these statistics relate to. Do they relate to a single operation, over what area, and over what period of time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, if you ask me -- if you're asking me, Your Honour -- are you asking me?

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you can help, yes. ⁴⁰³⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, taking into account my reservations, I don't see the date here, I don't see what meeting we're talking about, I can't see whether it was my opinion or whether it was just my note, my jotting down of some information given by someone else. So it is difficult for me to state my views, but as to point 4 itself, I've already stated that there are several theses and ideas that can't be placed under one heading, quite obviously.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's plainly sometime around the beginning of May. The next entry is the 4th of May and there's an earlier one the 29th of April. You accept that it's your handwriting, do you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle I do accept that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you saying any part of it is not in your handwriting? Let's be clear about that first of all.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And I explained that earlier on. I can't find the passages. I'd need time to do that, but in the diary --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no. But in this passage is part of it not in your handwriting?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't state my views. It would appear to be all in my handwriting. That's what it looks like.

JUDGE BONOMY: So you wrote -- you wrote 900.000. You wrote about 2.000 liquidated; and you wrote civilians remaining, 300.000; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably that is correct. Unless some -- there was some abuse. ⁴⁰³⁵⁶

JUDGE BONOMY: Even to that question about your handwriting you can't give a simple yes or no answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot because of the fact, Your Honour, that I explained in closed session, in private session.

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that you may be able to identify parts of your diary which -- for which you're not responsible, but what you say about this is "most probably." Now, what is it about these entries that makes you have any doubt whatsoever that they are yours?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I'll explain that, and that's the most important point. I have been led to doubt this figure of 900.000. I was never aware of that particular figure. 800.000, yes --

JUDGE BONOMY: Did you write the 9 or did you not write the 9?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I say, I most probably did because the handwriting resembles my own.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not actually questioning the authenticity of the handwriting.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, you know, because you were there on a daily basis, that there was planned, supervised, forced expulsion of Kosovo Albanians against whom allegations of KLA involvement could never be made. You know that, don't you?

A. I do not know that, and that is not correct.

Q. You know that the Serbs in Kosovo, under cover of the bombing, took the opportunity to kick out as many Kosovo Albanians as they did, and ⁴⁰³⁵⁷ 900.000, or you recorded as 800.000 at another place in your notebook, was a pretty successful result and not one about which you were remotely unhappy.

A. Both observations are incorrect. First of all, this consequence did make me unhappy. And the previous statement is incorrect. It is especially incorrect when you say that the Serbs expelled the Albanians. What does that mean, the Serbs? It would appear that the citizens expelled them.

Q. Well, let me give you some examples from the considerable quantity of evidence that we've had in this court from a witness whose 92 bis statement is Exhibit 108. You police told residents to leave within five minutes at Suva Reka, burning houses and shooting at people. Now, can you say that's false? Do you allow it to be true? What's your position as the senior representative of the police there on the territory?

A. I have also explained that fact a number of times already. Official policies, official plan and positions, element of the plan to suppress terrorism was to protect the citizens independent of their ethnic -- ethnicity. All anti-terrorist action was directed exclusively against terrorists. All the other citizens were the object or, rather, the subject of protection on the part of the security forces in Kosovo overall. And of course people did die, both Albanians and Serbs and policemen and terrorists and soldiers and of course --

Q. I'm going to cut you short and I'm going to suggest that some of your long answers are designed to consume time and if you'd be good enough, please respond to my questions. ⁴⁰³⁵⁸ I'll name you another person and then I'll ask you another question. A witness called Osman Kuci, whose statement was exhibited as Exhibit 109, in Suva Reka spoke of your police - and I'm going to call them "your police" - telling witnesses to leave within five minutes or to be killed.

Can you say anything? Can you say that that man's account is wrong?

A. I of course am not going to say that his account is wrong but quite possibly -- and quite possibly his account is truthful and exact. But then I say that that is a case that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You must let him finish, Mr. Nice.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- was outside control, was beyond control.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let him finish.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And of course I'm not ashamed of my police. On the contrary, I am proud of my police. But not the police that perpetrated this. The policemen who perpetrated this perpetrated a crime, and anybody who committed a crime like that deserves to be punished and to be put in prison, so I would like to warn you of not going into generalisations.

MR. NICE:

Q. Exactly, Mr. Stevanovic. Now, will you please, in this mass of material you've brought -- no. I'll preface this with one other question. You are aware, of course, not only that allegations about ethnic cleansing by your police have been made in this Court but they have been recorded ^{40359 BLANK PAGE 40360} since 1999 -- been recorded in detail since 1999 in researched books like "Under Orders" of Human Rights Watch, or "As Seen, As Told" volume 1 by OSCE. You know about that, and I want you to tell us, please, now, where in these volumes of material that you've brought we can find one evidenced investigation by your police, by your justice department, of somebody charged with ethnic cleansing, with forcing somebody out of Kosovo. Where can we find it?

A. I really can't help you out there where we can find it, but I did give a number of examples in which the perpetrator of a crime was a policeman, the policeman was apprehended, and legal steps taken. And bear in mind that we left Kosovo and Metohija at the very end of the war and that it was impossible for us to carry on investigations there. So rest assured that had we been able to do so, a large number of policemen and soldiers and citizens would have been investigated, prosecuted probably, and even convicted if there was time for that too. But the fact that we were no longer there, that we are no longer there, that we left when the war ended did not give us the opportunity of continuing our investigations on the basis of the documents that I brought in here and on the basis of just as many thousand documents in the MUP. And those investigations can be continued today, too, on the basis of the documents compiled by my police, as you called it.

Q. I'll have a word to say about the prosecutions, such as they were, that have been brought by the MUP of Serbia in respect of this war later, but please now help me with this: Are you saying that there has been at any stage an investigation, a thoroughgoing investigation by the Serb ⁴⁰³⁶¹ authorities into ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? And, if so, can I see it?

A. With respect to ethnic cleansing, as you term it in general terms, of course the concept is clear, but I can't state my views. I don't think it was. But about all specific events where the elements of a crime were uncovered, an investigation was started, there were documents compiled, and they are in place for a continuation of the investigation.

Q. Can we look at page 86 of your book, which is R0172432. This is for the 24th of April.

Bottom of the page, please, Mr. Prendergast. Reference to treatment of civilians who are returning, but then a reference to refugee columns. "Security.

"Discretionary checks of persons, vehicles and cargo. "Going out over the border - not en masse.

"Suspicious ones should be detained, processed, kept, arrested," and that's it. The rest should be let go, shouldn't they? It is your handwriting, isn't it?

A. Yes, just give me a moment to see where it says that.

Q. Under item 2.

A. Columns, refugees, then it says "Security." That's the first point.

Q. And then it says --

A. "Discretionary checks of persons, vehicles, and cargo." Probably belongings.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's just make one thing clear, Mr. Robinson. Mr. Nice read out the word "security," and in your ⁴⁰³⁶² transcript it said "security," whereas here in his official or, rather, working notes, it says "secure," "secure," which is different. To -- to -- [In English] to be secure. It can be translated that way. [Interpretation] In the sense of an assignment. He's writing down his assignment and to provide -- to make secure, when it says columns, refugee columns.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can I have your answer to my question about the entry on page --

A. I apologise but I've either forgotten what the question was or I wasn't listening attentively enough because I was listening and reading at the same time.

Q. The fourth bullet point, "Suspicious ones should be detained, processed, kept, and arrested." And I asked you what should happen to the rest? They should be let go, shouldn't they? That was what you--

A. That's right.

Q. You wanted them out of your country. No reference here to counselling them to return, no reference here to saying advise them of security. No, just let them go.

A. Possibly. It does not say it here, Mr. Prosecutor, but I'm sure it does say so somewhere. And here I have just noted down several points which were topical at the time. So it's probably about a point in time when it was impossible to prevent anybody from going there, or leaving, as I have explained a number of times already.

Not to incite them to leave, for civilians to leave. Of course. ⁴⁰³⁶³ In the first point we can see that the objective is that the columns should be provided security, should be made secure.

Q. And can you help us with this, then: There's a great deal of evidence been given about organised, orchestrated passage out of Kosovo by trains and on buses supervised by the police. If you didn't want them to go, why were you arranging for them to leave?

A. Please, it is quite certain that the police did not organise their departure. The police did everything for them not to go, but they did not use force to make them go. I know very well that the organs of local self-government, transport companies, I mean even the police and army were under enormous pressure from citizens to have buses, trains, and other vehicles put at their disposal so they could leave and cross the border. Nobody organised this or used force to make people leave. With reference to transport, we can only speak of enormous pressure on everyone concerned to make available vehicles for them to leave in.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's time for the break. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, although I'll turn to this as a separate topic later, two questions about your alleged inability to investigate crimes committed in Kosovo. Can you point me to any investigations of Serbs forcibly displacing Kosovo Albanians in 1998? ⁴⁰³⁶⁴

A. I cannot recall any specific events in connection with this, and I do not know to what Serbs you are referring.

Q. Okay. Maybe it's your position, and by all means state it if this is so, that there were no crimes committed by Serbs in 1998. Is that your position? If so, we'll move on.

A. It's not my position that the Serbs did not commit any crimes in Kosovo. From the statistics I brought with me, one can see how many crimes were committed in what period and what action was taken in connection with these crimes.

Q. Second thing, just look at these documents. They're not exhibits. I don't particularly ask them to be exhibits either. The first document -- cast your eyes quickly when you get it, firstly over the 1999 document. Do you see the 1999 document? And I want to deal with this quickly. You see the 1999 document is a 30th of April, 1999 request to carry out an investigation of soldiers suspected of obtaining property from entering the houses of Serbs, indeed. Take a look at that.

And if we look at the 2002 document, "In the name of the people," we find that in 2002 this is the same investigation against the same people being continued, right through to verdict and sentence.

A. Do you expect me to provide an answer of some sort?

Q. First of all, is that what the documents show? And then the question: Is that what the documents show? They show process begun in April 1999, concluded in 2002 in Nis?

A. Of course this is the first time I've seen both these documents. ⁴⁰³⁶⁵ One is a request that an investigation be conducted by the military prosecutor, and the other one is a judgement by the military court in Nis. These are military judiciary organs of the army of the then Yugoslavia, and they have nothing to do with the police of Serbia. However, I will answer your question, whatever it may be.

Q. My general question is this, and we can look at other documents if I have time, which I doubt: In exile, or however you describe your position after June of 1999, but away from Kosovo, you had the potential to proceed with investigations and take them to conclusions if you wanted to. You the police, the justice department, and everyone else. Isn't at that right?

A. Some proceedings could, of course, be taken to conclusions. Some were ongoing, and some could not be carried any further.

Q. But nothing of any significance at all was started in respect of offences committed against Kosovo Albanians until after the fall of this accused from power in 2000, and even then only a very small amount; isn't that true?

A. I am certain that a large number of criminal reports were delivered to the competent prosecutors' offices while the police units were still in Kosovo. I know that proceedings were initiated at the time. These were continued. I really cannot say whether the speeding up or slowing down of a proceeding has anything to do with a change in government, but I do assert that all proceedings, whatever organ was in charge of them, were conducted pursuant to documents compiled by the police while they were still in Kosovo and Metohija. Of course, ⁴⁰³⁶⁶ particular cases grew if they continued to be investigated, but --

Q. All right. I'm going to have to cut you short. But my question to you is this: The reason there was either no or almost no prosecution is because what was done on the territory of Kosovo by your police was done in pursuit of the objectives of your leader, the accused, and you couldn't possibly prosecute people when they'd been doing what you wanted them to do. Isn't that the truth?

A. No. The police in no way carried out any tasks in accordance with the wishes of any leader, as you say, but in compliance with the law. You must bear in mind that policemen in Kosovo were also victims. 400 policemen were killed carrying out these tasks and several thousand were injured.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... a very senior person are deeply implicated in all this, as is revealed by what you did to cover up the crimes. That's my suggestion to you, and to make it good we'll now look at the next exhibit, 283A, please.

A man called Karleusa conducted an inquiry into the way the bodies of innocent victims moved from Kosovo to Serbia. He offered you an opportunity of talking to him. Did you decline?

A. No, it's not correct that I declined. I did talk to him.

Q. Did you make a full statement and give a full account of what you'd done in this matter, or not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you tell --

A. With respect to the things he asked me about. ⁴⁰³⁶⁷

Q. I'll try and find it. I may not succeed today, but I'll try my best. This, on the other hand, is a statement made by Mr. Rade Markovic, Radomir or Rade Markovic. Just remind us, where is he now at the moment?

A. As far as I know, Radomir Markovic is in detention, in custody in Belgrade.

Q. For what crime?

A. I don't know that.

Q. Stambolic -- you don't know?

A. No, I really don't know for what crime he is in detention.

Q. You don't know for what murder he's in detention. That's really your case, is it? Not your case, your answer. Something sensational --

A. I don't know. I really don't know for what crime he's in custody. He has been linked to more than one crime, but I have not seen the indictment or, rather, the request for an investigation.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... this is the statement he made, and we'll place it on the overhead -- it is on the overhead projector and let's just remind ourselves of what he said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to remind you, both you and Mr. Kwon, who were here while Judge May was the Presiding Judge, this is a statement brought by Karleusa. Radomir Markovic testified after Karleusa, the person whose statement this is. It's all in the transcript. And he said very clearly that this was not his statement or, rather, that this is not what he said. Therefore, I fail to understand how Mr. Nice can use ⁴⁰³⁶⁸ this document now in this way, because Radomir Markovic said here under oath that this was not his statement, and the statement was actually brought here by Karleusa.

MR. NICE: The evidence, as the Court will recall, is that whatever the former police chief said about his ability to be persuaded to sign a document that was not an accurate reflection of what he had said, following the witnesses, namely the signatories, were also -- the co-signatories of the document were called to give an account of the circumstances in which the statement was made and --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: -- and it will be for the Court in due course to decide where the truth lies. I'm seeking from this witness a comment on the accuracy of what he's going to find.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us consider that.

JUDGE KWON: What I remember is that Mr. Markovic said this might be subject to liberal interpretation.

MR. NICE: That's right, yes.

JUDGE KWON: So --

MR. NICE: He didn't say it wasn't his statement.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. If you follow with me from a few lines down, where he says: "... I know that in March 1999 --" it's about four lines down -- "a working meeting was held around a long table used for working meetings in ^{40369 BLANK PAGE 40370} the library on the ground floor of the White Palace where Slobodan Milosevic most frequently held meetings. Stojiljkovic, Djordjevic, chief of the public security department, and I attended this meeting. This meeting was most likely devoted to the issue of Kosovo, and in addition to those listed was probably attended by representatives of the VJ, although I cannot say that for certain. Beyond the main topic of the meeting, at its very end, Djordjevic raised the problem of removing Albanian bodies to remove all possible civilian victims who could become the subject of an investigation by The Hague Tribunal. Milosevic ordered Stojiljkovic to undertake the measures necessary to remove the bodies of the Albanian civilians who had already been buried. I personally did not get involved in the conversation on this topic since none of the orders was directed at me. I know that Stojiljkovic appointed General Ilic to implement this task and that the latter then went with specific team of collaborators to the Kosovo-Metohija area. I personally did not want to allow the RDB to get involved in this morbid tale of later disinterment and removal the bodies so, as far as I know, it was the RJB and members of the VJ that participated in this."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Time for a question now, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes. It's the next sentence, as you'll see, where the name becomes relevant, with Your Honours' leave.

Q. "Stojiljkovic issued the order to implement these measures directly to Ilic and Djordjevic. In addition to them, Obrad Stevanovic, Ilic, Djuric, Sreten Lukic, Dragisa Dinic, and probably all the members of the MUP collegium at the time also know of the order." ⁴⁰³⁷¹ Djordjevic was your superior at the time, yes?

A. Yes. Djordjevic was the chief of the public security sector at the time.

Q. And just to deal with a small historical point, Djordjevic you will have seen on the Kula camp ceremony video. Do you remember he attended that in 1997? Just yes or no.

A. Yes, I think I saw him on the video yesterday.

Q. Djordjevic was a willing participant in this process of removal of bodies?

A. First let me say that everything that has been read out here as Rade Markovic's statement is untrue. There is absolutely no meeting which I attended and where such an idea was mentioned or anything similar to it.

Q. It doesn't necessarily say you attended the meeting. It says, however, that you would have known of the order. Did you know of this accused's order to have the bodies removed?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Just remind us again: What's your explanation for the removal of bodies from Kosovo to North Serbia?

A. I said that I have no knowledge about this whatsoever except for what I read in the media after the war, and at the time I did not believe it to be true. I can now say that I do believe it's true, but I have no explanation as to who could have done this and for what purpose.

Q. Forgive me if I misinterpreted you, but when you first gave that answer to the accused were you seeking to suggest that in some -- in some way NATO or other occupiers of the territory may have been involved in the ⁴⁰³⁷² movement of bodies? That seemed to be what you were suggesting.

A. I said this as an assumption in response to a question. If I say that there is no logical explanation for such an action when what happened is connected with the official policies and the official behaviour of the state and the police, then it can simply be seen as incredible. And what I said was just an assumption. I said that it was probably done by someone who did not want to conceal the crime but, rather, to prove there was a crime and to ascribe it to the state.

Q. Help me further, because this is very -- obviously very important. How could NATO, the UN, or any other country have access to Serb-controlled areas of military significance in North Serbia so as to deposit bodies there? It's something we'll want your help with.

A. First of all, I did not say that it was done by NATO. I said it was done by someone who in my opinion might have had such a goal. That someone could be in Serbia, outside Serbia, in the police, outside the police, and so on.

Q. Let's follow the workings of your mind and your imagination and your creative calculation. Who, and then how, but first who do you say may have moved these bodies to Serbia? Serbia's not been under foreign control, remind us. Who moved them to Serbia?

A. I didn't say who specifically. I said someone who would have such a goal. Anything else would involve too much imagination, and you yourself said we should not speculate.

Q. Is this a serious answer, Mr. Stevanovic, a serious answer that you're saying someone unknown may have taken all these bodies that come ⁴⁰³⁷³ from Izbica and all sorts of other places, moved them to places that are in the secure control of the Serb authorities with vehicles, dig the holes, and put them in it? Are you really suggesting that?

A. I said that was my assumption. I have no reasonable explanation for it. You had one assumption, I put forward another possible assumption. There are many other assumptions that might be put forward.

Q. The answer -- the truth is this, and I might as well put it now, I'm going to put it at some stage: Throughout your evidence you've been prepared to say anything to avoid a reliable and accurate implication against this accused falling on him, haven't you?

A. That's not correct.

Q. My suggestion to you: You've been prepared to lie and to make things up in order to avoid the truth emerging from your lips.

A. That is not correct.

Q. Let's look a little bit further, then, on this statement. Lukic, Dinic and probably all members of the -- knew of the order. In informal conversations held before the collegium, and at working meetings, there was frequent mention of so-called restoring of the terrain in Kosovo and Metohija. Next sentence: "I know that Dragan Ilic was not satisfied with the activities implemented by the MUP in this area, because of which he complained to me on several occasions of the difficulty of the job he was doing, his lack of preparation for such horrors, and the resistance he was meeting in the field from people who were supposed to assist in revealing the locations of bodies of Albanian civilians. In this context, Ilic told me that MUP Colonel Radosavljevic had offered him significant assistance ⁴⁰³⁷⁴ in this job ..."

Pausing there. First, Radosavljevic is the man we know about who led the attack at Racak; correct?

A. I know that he participated in that action, but I don't know whether he actually led the attack. Well, it wasn't an attack, certainly, it was just an operation. I assume that he did lead it. I seem to recall some information from some media, but I can't be sure about it. I am sure he participated and made some sort of statement.

Q. Remember my earlier suggestion to you that you're taking time deliberately. Please keep answers short where they can be. Is what is said by the -- about the MUP here being involved --

A. Excuse me. That is not my intention, really.

Q. Is it what --

JUDGE ROBINSON: And I agree, Mr. Nice. I think that's an unfounded -- there's no foundation for that.

MR. NICE:

Q. Is what is said about the MUP's involvement here true, false, or may it be true?

A. You must focus your question on a specific part of the text, otherwise I don't know what to reply, what my reply should be about.

Q. Yes. I've read that they weren't satisfied with the activities of the MUP but they got significant help from Radosavljevic. Is that true, false, or may it be true?

A. I really cannot concentrate enough. I cannot focus enough. I don't know what you're referring to. I assume you're referring to what ⁴⁰³⁷⁵ was allegedly said by Dragan Ilic, that he had problems in Kosovo and that Goran Radosavljevic helped him.

Q. Very well. Let's look the another document if you find my questions about it not helpful. We'll move then, please, to --

A. I can respond, of course, but I really wasn't focusing. I don't know what you mean. I offered you a response about what Dragan Ilic allegedly said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, if you wish to reformulate the question, then you should. Or if you wish to move on --

MR. NICE: I'm going to move on because of time.

Q. Page 100 of the diary in English, please, which is 0172446 for you.

Have you found that page?

A. Not yet, unfortunately. Yes, I have found it. 446 are the last three numbers.

Q. Now, this is part of an entry. You can -- keeping your finger in that page, you might go back to find what you say is the relevant date for this page but it's sometime after the 21st of May, on or after the 21st of May. Is it your handwriting?

A. Yes, this is my handwriting, obviously.

Q. A few entries we might like to look at on this page. "Urgent end to burning and looting." Whose burning and looting was that you were writing about? Ten lines down. Sorry to interrupt you. Whose burning and looting?

A. This point does not refer to anyone specifically but simply to ⁴⁰³⁷⁶ putting a stop to the occurrence of burning and looting regardless of who was doing it. It cannot apply selectively to certain categories of perpetrators.

Q. Was it the MUP, was it the VJ, or was it some third body that we haven't heard about? Who was it?

A. Such things evidently occurred. The police can be ordered to prevent it through various forms of activity regardless of who the perpetrators were. The perpetrators could be civilians, policemen, soldiers, terrorists, whoever. However, this simply means that additional efforts should be made to put a stop to these occurrences.

Q. Then let's look at the next three lines on. It reads as follows: "Remove traces of violence against civilians," and then there's something that's not decipherable by us. What's meant by "Remove traces of violence against civilians?"

A. It's a bit odd here. It says here "Roads." It's probably traces of violence in connection with civilians. It has to do with clearing up streets and roads, making streets and roads passable. And the abbreviation should be civil protection, civilian protection staffs.

Q. So, what sort of --

A. Excuse me. Excuse me, please. This is why I'm concerned and have reservations. Had I put this away, it would really have been a problem. It says here "Remove traces of violence against property." It doesn't say against civilians. I'm trying to be brief in my replies and not to study the documents in too much detail, but here it says clearly, "Remove traces of violence against property." So this means rubble ⁴⁰³⁷⁷ blocking roads and streets. You said civilians and I accepted what you said.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please be good enough, and we'll just follow it in the -- in the original --

A. I apologise.

Q. If there's a translation error, please just read the entry and we'll hear it translated.

A. It says quite clearly: "Remove traces of violence against property."

Q. We'll make that amendment if that's just --

JUDGE ROBINSON: So for "civilians" it should read "property."

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. Let's --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If I may suggest one thing. The Serbian version should be placed on the overhead projector so that those who follow can see for themselves what is written because this is written in Cyrillic. The letter C in Cyrillic is similar to your letter Y, with a long dash at the bottom, and it is clear that what is written here is "property." What we should put on the ELMO is the Serbian version, not the English translation, which is incorrect. And I'm not suggesting that it is intentionally incorrect, but still.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe this matter has been satisfactorily settled, Mr. Milosevic. We accept that the word should be "property" and ⁴⁰³⁷⁸ not "civilians."

MR. NICE: Move on, shall we, to page 106 in the English which is R0172451. And if Ms. Dicklich can find that as well, and if Mr. Prendergast is able to assist us, can we have both 106, and if Ms. Dicklich can hand the -- point the relevant passage to Mr. Prendergast, we may be able to squeeze both onto the overhead projector at the same time. See if you can accommodate both at the same time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is the underlined word -- words going to be the subject of your questions?

MR. NICE: No, not particularly. All of them are, but -- I see what Your Honour's point -- no.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because in that case I would have it placed on the ELMO so we have the Serbian.

MR. NICE: That, I think, probably does the trick. Thank you very much, Mr. Prendergast.

Q. This entry begins with a reference -- first of all, your handwriting?

A. Yes. This, too, is my handwriting.

Q. The reference to "the president" at the top right-hand corner --

A. Yes.

Q. -- what does --

A. The word "president" is written there.

Q. And who were you speaking about?

A. Well, I'm not sure which president this is a reference to. It ^{40379 BLANK PAGE 40380} could be the president of Serbia, the President of the FRY, the president of the government, in other words the Prime Minister. It could be President Milosevic or President Milutinovic. I don't know if there is anything --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... with both?

A. No. I attended meetings where both presidents were present.

Q. If this is to do with the removal of bodies from the territory, if it is, which president would it be?

A. That has nothing to do with which president was present, and whether there was any talk about the removal of bodies I don't know.

Q. Well, let's look at the content and see if that's going to trigger a recollection of what this meeting was. Does the first entry read - and we have both on the overhead projector - "No corpse, no crime"?

A. Yes, that's exactly what it says.

Q. It's your handwriting. Read, please, the next line for us.

A. "Back-breaking work on --" I can't make out the last word.

Q. Could it be that -- that question?

A. "On that issue."

Q. "Issue." Very well. Can you read us the next line, please.

A. "They will use evidence on crimes to justify aggression."

Q. Thank you. Next line.

A. The next line is "Clearing up."

Q. The next line.

A. I think what it says is: "Simultaneous clearing up of territories." ⁴⁰³⁸¹

Q. Next line.

A. I can't make it out.

Q. Try. "When the mission arrives --" carry on.

A. I can't make it out. That's the problem. I can see that the last word is "mission."

Q. There's a phrase in there about --

A. "When the mission arrives," approximately, but I don't know what the third word is.

Q. And then?

A. "Clearing up the terrain the most important."

Q. No. Stick on the line where you were about when the mission arrives. The word "difficult" or "more difficult" appears there, doesn't it?

A. It doesn't say "more difficult." Maybe the first word is "more difficult."

Q. Then --

A. "We will find it more difficult to --" I don't know what it says.

Q. "We will find it more difficult to," is a possible interpretation. Well --

A. Possible.

Q. Now, what was the setting for this entry? You were sitting there with one of the presidents, were you? May we take that to be the case?

A. Whether I did or didn't, I really cannot determine from this. It really says "President," and it is probably a reference to a meeting at a president's office. ⁴⁰³⁸²

Q. Now, you tell me, please, what that phrase "No corpse, no crime" means.

A. I think I have explained this during my interview in Belgrade. At that meeting, I don't know precisely which meeting that was but I do have a vague memory, one of the representatives of the security forces, whether it was the military or the civilian security, I don't know, warned against perfidious action by terrorists, namely that they are removing the corpses of their victims and the casualties of anti-terrorist actions only to gather them again later and place them in mass graves in order to blame these mass graves later on Serbian forces.

Q. Is this really your account for this entry? They're speaking here -- the president is speaking here, is he, about the perfidious actions of terrorists?

A. No. That's absolutely not the president speaking. The word "President" can mean that the meeting took place at his office, and that's probably what it means. I do have a vague recollection of that.

Q. I see. What, in his personal office, was it? Without him present, I suppose.

A. No. That's not what I'm saying. If the meeting is at a president's office, he is of course present, together with all those attending the meeting.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... bush. As is said, the president here is this accused.

A. That's something I can accept.

Q. You can or cannot accept? ⁴⁰³⁸³

A. I can accept.

Q. Now, let's look at the next line. "Back-breaking work on that issue." If anyone was talking about the removal of bodies by the KLA in their own interests, why on earth write "Back-breaking work"?

A. "Back-breaking work" cannot be ascribed to anyone other than those working against you. The word used, "mucki."

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The other meaning of this word is "perfidious," primary meaning is "perfidious."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That indicates that it is a reference to somebody who is jeopardising you in a perfidious way. You will notice that in all descriptions of terrorist actions the formulation "perfidious attack" is used. So this is a word most frequently used with reference to terrorists and their activity.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The interpreters said the other meaning of the word is "perfidious."

MR. NICE: They did?

JUDGE ROBINSON: "Perfidious," not "back-breaking."

THE INTERPRETER: Correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And I notice the witness's answers have been consistent with that interpretation.

MR. NICE:

Q. Moving to the next line --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you want to say something, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Robinson. I don't know English as well as your interpreters do, and I ⁴⁰³⁸⁴ don't know the term back-breaking, but for me the word "mucki" in Serbian, which is a very heavy term, should be most of all translated as "perfidious." It is something underhand, perfidious, absolutely negative. It is not something you would use speaking of activities of your own side. You would use it to describe activities and dirty work of the other side, of your enemy.

Everybody who knows Serbian would understand this. And from this -- this original, when we say "mucki rad," we cannot -- we shouldn't understand that as difficult work.

JUDGE ROBINSON: At the end of this exercise, Mr. Milosevic, you may be a qualified interpreter, but what you have said is consistent with what the interpreters said, that "perfidious" is the translation. Are the interpreters saying that "perfidious" is the better translation or that it is the -- the primary translation, or what is it?

MR. NICE: My understanding from the interpreters was that it was the primary meaning. They didn't, as I understood it, exclude the alternative second meaning. I think they are reluctant, and understandably so, to turn themselves into expert witnesses in the booths. We'll clarify the matter a little further, working on the basis of "perfidious" for the time being.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't see that they're acting as witnesses at all.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter's explanation would be that in combination with the word "work," it is inconsistent to translate this ⁴⁰³⁸⁵ term as "perfidious." You don't say "perfidious work," and people have been known to use terms loosely, so we interpret this as "back-breaking work." If it were combined with the word "attack," then it would be indeed "perfidious attack," and that is how it is used most often.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm grateful to the interpreters, and we'll turn to the third line, Mr. Stevanovic. "They will use evidence of crimes to justify aggression." Who is the "they"?

A. This is a reference to terrorists, and in keeping with my previous explanations, when the terrorists take away their victims and the dead, those who got killed in anti-terrorist actions, to later bury them in mass graves, they thereby create evidence of the alleged crimes of Serbian forces. In this context, I would like to remind you of the alleged mass grave in Pusto Selo and the alleged mass grave in Izbica. This part of the estimate about their perfidious activity I indeed found in the minutes of one of the sessions but I can't remember which.

Q. So the -- for me to understand your -- what you say is the interpretation of this note made in May of 1999, is that the KLA killed people, they take the bodies, having killed them, they find a mass grave, they bury the mass grave -- they bury the bodies in the mass grave. They then create evidence that it was actually the Serbs who killed these people, who will presumably be Serbs they killed, it may be Albanians, and in that way they then justify their continuing cycle of violence. Is that what you're saying? ⁴⁰³⁸⁶

A. By using the media to show mass graves, combined with the explanation that these mass graves contain innocent victims of Serbian aggression or Serbian violence, they try to prove violent actions of the Serbian forces in Kosovo. That is an explanation of their perfidious activity with corpses. When we received those aerial photographs of Pusto Selo, I believe that was before Izbica, we all noted that such an estimate was correct.

Q. What do you mean "such an estimate was correct"?

A. That this estimate, according to which they will use alleged evidence on our alleged crimes to justify the -- or explain the victims, the casualties of anti-terrorist operations.

I can be more specific; that they would thereby justify our theory, our estimate. They in fact proved that it's true even before we found this mass grave in Pusto Selo.

Q. So far as Pusto Selo is concerned -- I'm so sorry. Since you mentioned Pusto Selo, let me just lay on the overhead projector, please, a page from Exhibit 106. It doesn't feature in the indictment, but since you raise it, this is what a well-documented and sourced account, further down, says of this event: "When the village was shelled on or around the 29th of March, many of the villagers fled --" forgive my discourtesy. I hadn't kept my eye on the Bench.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may continue.

MR. NICE:

Q. "When the village was shelled on or around the 29th of March, many of the villagers fled towards Danjane/Dejne, while others remained behind. ⁴⁰³⁸⁷ One man who was in a wheelchair and took shelter just on the outskirts of the village, and another man who was hiding in the mountains gave an account of what happened.

"VJ and paramilitaries surrounded the village and gathered the villagers into one place. They separated the women and children from the men. The women and children were ordered away towards the road on foot. There were more than 100 men left behind. After going through the belongings of the men, the VJ and paramilitaries, in groups of 10, started shooting into the group of men. Nine men survived the shooting and six others were burned alive when they were set on a tractor, had petrol poured over them, and were set on fire. A man who was in the woods said that he heard shooting coming from the direction of Pusto Selo --" "A man who was in the woods said that he heard shooting coming from the direction of Pusto Selo --" I'm so sorry.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we received a note from the interpreters about the same word, "mucko," and I'm going to ask them to explain -- explain it. Apparently they have checked the dictionary. Would the interpreter explain the note which was sent, in the interest of transparency.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that the note was handed in by a French interpreter, so the French booth can perhaps explain.

THE INTERPRETER: Okay. One interpreter in the French booth checked in the dictionary Serbian into French and found "mucko," which means "perfidious" and only perfidious or perfidiously, and "mucno," which ⁴⁰³⁸⁸ means "with difficulty, arduously."

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the word in the original B/C/S, "mucko" or --

THE INTERPRETER: The original word in the document is "mucko," K-O.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So does one take it, then, that the translation should be "perfidious"?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not sure where I left Your Honours, but I've been reading out from the "As Seen, As Told" history of the hundred men being shot, the surviving nine, the six who were burned alive on the tractor, and then I come to: "The man who was in the woods said that he heard shooting coming from the direction of Pusto Selo around the same date and waited for three days before entering the village. Over 100 dead bodies were later found and buried by returning villagers. The villagers had been shot and some completely burned while others were partially burned."

Q. Now, Mr. Stevanovic, this, as you can see from the footnotes on the document, even if you're not able to follow the English text, is a sourced account of what happened at Pusto Selo. Explain to me why you say that account is incorrect.

A. I can't explain this to you, of course, because I don't know about an event like that nor did I have any information about an event that was described in this way. I said that the first information of an alleged ^{40389 BLANK PAGE 40390} mass grave in Pusto Selo we received from the aerial photograph which is here. I think we showed it on the overhead projector, in fact. So from that knowledge, from that information, the police acted together with the judicial organs, and you have three large binders about what the police did, what steps it took after it was informed about this alleged mass grave. And there you will find facts from the post-mortems for each individual corpse that was found in the grave, and all of them, all the bodies were buried afterwards in the corresponding graveyards in that region.

And if I remember correctly, a certain number of people who were found in the graves were not from Pusto Selo. However, I'm -- I don't want to claim that but we can see it quite clearly here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that these are binders 13, 14, and 15 in the exhibits which were attached to this witness's testimony, and they're all documents that relate to Pusto Selo in fact.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's now go back to your diary and your entry on page 106 or the other page that you've already got open to you.

This -- these entries, whatever the interpretation of the word "perfidious" may add to it, these entries fit completely, don't they, with the suggestion I put to you that there was a planned operation, and at this time, to move bodies away from Kosovo before land occupation of the territory would make it more difficult to hide the crimes. ⁴⁰³⁹¹

A. These entries have absolutely nothing to do with transporting the people killed from Kosovo in a northward direction to Serbia. These entries have only something to do with the way in which the terrorists acted, and that is where the word "mucki" was used. Now, if you look at the rest of the documents, you will be able to see, with the concept of terrorist activity, this adjective "mucki," "perfidious" or "treacherous" is used frequently to describe the way in which they acted from an ambush.

Q. Just look at the last -- the second to last line. "When the mission arrives, we will find it more difficult." More difficult to hide things, or impossible.

A. That is absolutely not possible and doesn't have anything to do with this, although I don't know which mission this refers to. I can't explain that sentence, actually, because if it is a mission, then it can be the Verification Mission and then the date doesn't correspond to that. And here we can see, and perhaps it's important for me to tell you that, I can't just find it just now, but had the date been the 21st, for example, 21st of May, then the 4th of April, then ten pages later you have the 20th of May again. So there are some pages here that have been not put in the order they exist in the original, so I'm not quite certain now what period of time the text was written; whether it was written during the war, before the war, I really can't say. Because this notion of "mission" isn't clear to me. I used it usually to denote Verification Mission. I don't know how else I could have used the word "mission," to denote what else. ⁴⁰³⁹²

JUDGE KWON: Yes, date is a bit confusing. Page 97 it says 21st of May, and 103 it's 7th of May back again.

MR. NICE: There is no doubt about it, there is an incorrect ordering of the pages.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, okay. That's true.

MR. NICE: I don't challenge that at all.

Q. We're going, if --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice says that he is not questioning the fact that the pages have been mixed up in their order, but he claims that what he has just quoted was something quoted from May 1999, although the mission, the word "mission" is used, and as the general has just said, that word and term was used to denote the Verification Mission, and judging by the sense of what it says, this must have -- must have been noted down before October 1998, before the arrival of the Verification Mission although there's no date here and he doesn't know where it is but he claims that it's May.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: Respectfully -- no, I won't say it.

Q. Well, we're going to hear a little later, you see, when we return to your evidence about places like Izbica, one of the facts for which there is evidence is that even where the Serb authorities exhumed corpses, those corpses found their way to Batajnica 1 and 2. Don't answer yet. I'll wait. ⁴⁰³⁹³

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. We're going to hear that there is evidence about places like Izbica where -- even where the Serb authorities exhumed bodies, some of those bodies found their way to North Serbia and to territory controlled by Serb forces. Are you suggesting that the movement of those bodies is in any way explained by the conception you put on this entry in your diary?

A. Let me answer the second part of your question first. That absolutely does not correspond in any way to any note from my diary. Now, let me answer the first part of your question. Precisely with that fact or by that fact that the corpses taken out of the ground were post -- examined as a post-mortem, photographs were taken, and I said that everything that happened was a great mystery in actual fact. This detail was particularly important in the conclusion that I presented to you earlier on and that I'm telling you now as well. So if in this binder here there is a document about some person who was -- who had been killed and who -- and whose body was found, exhumed, autopsied and buried, I don't know then what the reason would be for that same person killed to be found in some other place.

Q. Is the position quite simply this: That wherever possible, once this accused had given his instructions to move bodies from Kosovo that would reveal crimes, those bodies were moved in refrigerated trucks, one of which unfortunately landed up in the Danube? Isn't that the simple but overwhelming truth? ⁴⁰³⁹⁴

A. That is not a simple truth and nor is it the truth. I've said on several occasions that I don't know of any case where the president of the Republic of Serbia issued any kind of order whatsoever to whoever, except possibly the minister when he went to see him, but I don't even know about that.

Now, the minutes from the meetings that I attended I do believe are in existence and I do believe that they will bear out what I'm just telling you.

Q. The minutes from the meetings you attended. Well, which meeting was that?

A. I can't, of course, remember any meeting as to time and period. I know that I attended, say, five or six meetings accompanied by the minister or accompanying the minister. At other meetings perhaps I wasn't present when I was in Kosovo. Some other minister might have attended. But at the meetings that I personally attended, we heard reports from representatives of the police and the army. They reported at the meetings. And then all the leaders down the chain of command, both in the police and the army, were present at the meeting. A plan was accepted that was presented, or reports that were read out, and that's where the meeting ended. And all the findings after the meetings and between two meetings came to the police from the respective leaders.

Q. Well, if, as I'm going to suggest is the truth, the president you refer to in this note is sitting to your left in this very room, you're also aware that his chef de cabinet Goran Milinovic is being investigated or charged with destroying his archive of documents, aren't you? So they ⁴⁰³⁹⁵ don't necessarily exist. Are you aware of that?

A. I'm not aware of the fact that an investigation is being conducted against somebody for having destroyed an archive. I know that the chef de cabinet of the president of Serbia was brought up in the newspapers, but I don't know in respect of what. And this is the first time that I hear that the archive documents were destroyed from the meetings with the president.

Q. And can you explain to me why, given that we have made requests for assistance to your governments over the years in terms that would encompass records of the type you've just referred, can you explain why they haven't been provided to us?

A. I really have nothing to do with those requests. From my general information, I know that the government of Serbia is investing every effort, significant effort in cooperating with the Tribunal in The Hague. However, that's just by way of general information. I don't have the impression that the government of Serbia and the competent authorities are questioning their cooperation with the Tribunal and that they are intentionally not complying with requests made. That, of course, is my impression. I'm not in the government myself and I don't have access to official information of that kind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received information from my chef de cabinet, the state security service, or as it's called the security and intelligence agency as it's called now, confiscated my entire ⁴⁰³⁹⁶ archives. So I'm going to ask you to issue an order for those archives to be returned to me, because I need them, and I assume they had enough time, sufficient time to copy the entire archive and that nothing can remain hidden therefore.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Go ahead, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes. I'm waiting for the document. Thank you very much.

Q. Have a look at this document, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I remind you if you're serious about the request, that is governed by Rule 54 bis, as you well know, and if you put in an application which accords with those provisions, it will be considered.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just add that that was my private archive that was confiscated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't make any difference.

MR. NICE:

Q. At the time of the movement of the bodies from Kosovo to Serbia there were certainly minutes being -- there were minutes being retained, some of which we have been able to obtain - it may be all of them, I'm not sure - of the MUP staff based in Pristina. And if we look at this one -- page 1, please, on the overhead projector -- it says that the meeting was held by you and by Major Sreten Lukic. Was that a standard way of holding these meetings? The two of you held these meetings?

A. I think yes. ⁴⁰³⁹⁷

Q. Time doesn't allow me to go into all of it, but may we just go to the entry by Branko Prljevic on our page 4. I suspect it will be your page 3. In any case, Branko Prljevic.

Underneath his entry, he says there's a shortage of 30-millimetre ammunition and anti-aircraft guns, spare parts. I thought I'd understood you to say that the MUP didn't have such weapons. It appears they did.

A. It did have weapons of this kind. If I didn't say it, then I probably omitted to say so just by chance.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Mr. Coo, who reminds me that the MUP staff minutes are in 68 to 73 of the tabs of this witness.

Q. If we move on to the bullet points under Milorad Jankovic's entry, and about -- I'll forget that one and we'll just move to the -- no, I won't.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I apologise for the slight delay. I'm working from two different translations. This translation I'm working from that's available for the Court only recently having come to hand, which explains the problem. But let's go right to the end of the English page 7, and the last page of the version that Mr. Stevanovic has.

Q. So the two of you are there, making your points, and it then says this: "The deputy Prime Minister of the federal government --" bottom of the page, please. Thank you very much. "Deputy Prime Minister of the federal government, Mr. Nikola Sainovic, joined in and said that it was necessary for the first stage of anti-terrorist operations to be completed today for the purpose of active defence and for the protection of territory and the border in case of a breakthrough by the aggressor deep ⁴⁰³⁹⁸ into the territory of the FRY. He also said that persons who had been detained for perpetrating crimes should be held in custody until they are taken over by judicial organs."

Other matters regarding the completion and execution of assigned tasks are then dealt with.

Mr. Sainovic, as revealed by this document, had the power to give you instructions, didn't he?

A. Well, it cannot be considered that these are instructions. He attended the meeting, he gave his views, but of course as I've already said, that does not mean that he ordered anything. Because everything it says here, everything that is written, is authorisation of the police; that is to say keeping persons in custody, detaining persons, and that could last for a period of up to 30 days, according to the wartime provisions, and afterwards they had to be turned over to the judicial organs. I assume that was his opinion at that point in time.

Q. My suggestion to you is that whatever the formal position about a Joint Command, the reality was throughout the period of the conflict with NATO, or whatever one describes it as, you were under instructions that came from Belgrade, through Sainovic by this time, and that you always did what you were told.

A. Let me repeat, and I've been saying this a number of times: Orders were certainly not given through Nikola Sainovic or anybody -- or any other politician present. Each of the politicians present quite normally had an opportunity to analyse the situation and to present his or her views, but that does not mean that this was an order at all. ^{40399 BLANK PAGE 40400} Politicians very frequently occupy a position that might not be in conformity with the regulations because they don't know -- they're not fully aware of them.

Now, here we're dealing with obviously the presence of Mr. Sainovic at a meeting and his position and viewpoint with respect to certain issues. However, even if he were not there, had not been there, conduct with persons detained is regulated by the law. And every policeman knows about this. Even the lowest unit knows what conduct is expected of the police force vis-a-vis a detained person. There is no need for anybody to suggest it. But that was quite simply the position taken by that particular individual.

Q. Can you point me, Mr. Stevanovic, please, to any documented example of you or your brothers in the army going against an instruction or an expression of view by Mr. Sainovic? Got lots of documents here. Think back. Point me to one.

A. Well, unfortunately I didn't think along those lines, those categories and relationships. I can't really say whether we acted contrary to them in any instance but that doesn't mean we acted pursuant to orders from Mr. Sainovic. All that can mean is that we conducted ourselves pursuant to the law.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We must now take the break for 20 minutes. We'll adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. ⁴⁰⁴⁰¹

MR. NICE: Can we look at this one next, please, which is --

JUDGE KWON: The document we just saw is -- resembles tab 70 --

MR. NICE: It is tab 70, and I think the problem is --

JUDGE KWON: -- but the translation is a bit different.

MR. NICE: Yes. We've been obtaining translations -- Your Honour, just give me a minute.

Yes. We're now turning to tab 71, if there is a translation there, which I think there is.

Q. Tab 71, please, Mr. Stevanovic. This is a record of the minute of the staff MUP meeting held in 7th of May, 1999. Deputy Prime Minister Sainovic took part.

Would you be good enough, please, simply to go to the last page -- sorry, not the last page, page 7 in the English. And that's in the -- I'll find it for you. The large -- the long opening address of Mr. Sainovic. And it's a passage that -- in the contribution of Mr. Sainovic it's two paragraphs before the end of his contribution, before Janicijevic speaks.

Have you found it? I'm sorry not to have been able to flag it for you more swiftly.

A. I found the end of the passage relating to Mr. Sainovic.

Q. In that case that's on -- go back one page, I think, and you'll find the paragraph that begins: "The president of the republic and the Supreme Commander, Slobodan Milosevic, heard the report of the commander of the 3rd Army ..."

A. Yes, I found that. ⁴⁰⁴⁰²

Q. I will read that out: "The president of the republic and the Supreme Commander, Slobodan Milosevic, heard the report of the Commander of the 3rd Army and the MUP police staff of the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija and the text of the statement was made public, representing a state directive and order issued by the Supreme Commander which should be relayed to all police commanders as a task assigned by the Supreme Command."

Now, that's Sainovic speaking. Explain what it means if it doesn't show this accused's authority over the MUP. Do you want me to read it again?

"President of the Republic and the Supreme Commander, Milosevic, heard the report of the commander of the 3rd Army and the MUP police staff of the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija and the text of a statement was made public, representing a state directive and order issued by the Supreme Commander, Slobodan Milosevic, which should be relayed to all police commanders as a task assigned by the Supreme Command."

What does that show?

A. It is clear that Mr. Sainovic here observes a clear-cut fact, an unchallenged fact; that the meeting existed, that Mr. Pavkovic and Mr. Lukic reported, and that from the meeting a text was published, a statement was published which in a way represents a state directive or order by the Supreme Commander, Slobodan Milosevic. Therefore, nothing is said which wasn't well known at that point in time. And let me remind you that I showed in one of the tabs a document ⁴⁰⁴⁰³ of Mr. Lukic and the text of the statement was sent down to all the subordinates to become apprised of and to use. That does not in any way mean that they, on the basis of such a text, should do anything that would be unlawful. And the text certainly doesn't contain anything unlawful or against the law. It is just information about state policy in a difficult time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I notice that the order, it says the order was issued by the Supreme Commander, but at the bottom it says that this was to be relayed to all police commanders as a task assigned by the Supreme Command.

MR. NICE: Indeed so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. And His Honour's observation indeed generates my next question: What is the Supreme Command to which this document refers?

A. I think I have already explained this, although I wasn't, quite obviously, sufficiently clear in my explanations. When I hear the term "Supreme Command," it is the Supreme Defence Council of the FRY, and the staff of the Supreme Command is made up by the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia at a given point. So that is my conception of it and understanding. I haven't had occasion to read the text of the constitution or the law, the actual wording, but that is how I understand the Supreme Command. As far as I remember, there were some terminological problems with respect to that concept and notion but at this point in time I can't remember the details of it. ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁴

Q. You mean there were terminological problems at the time? You mean people didn't know how to describe their authority body? Is that what you're saying?

A. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that terminologically speaking there was a problem that cropped up. I can't remember the details of it. But just terminologically speaking. And I explained what I personally understand under that term and concept.

Q. You see, I need your assistance on this a little more. You say, and I don't accept your answer, but you say that the Supreme Command equals Supreme Defence Council. Let me just tell you a little bit of history and ask you a question. After considerable efforts, we have obtained the authorities the Supreme Defence Council records up and until the beginning of the bombing. We have been told that there were no Supreme Defence Council minutes or records for the period after the 23rd of March. We have also been told that there are no existing records for the Supreme Command after the 23rd of March. Now, that's the history on the litigation efforts to obtain the records.

In light of that, are you saying that there were Supreme Defence Council meetings even if we've been refused the minutes of them?

A. Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question, and apart from that I'd like to say that I really didn't -- I'm really not a legal expert. And I've already said that in the near past I did not read the constitution or the law for me to be very specific. But I said what I understand and imply by that. That, of course, does not mean that I'm right. ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁵

Q. Well, I'm not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying that at the time when you dutifully sat through this meeting, if you did - of course you did - and you heard Mr. Sainovic speak of the Supreme Command, are you saying that you sat there in ignorance of what he was talking about or are you saying that you thought to yourself, "Aha, the Supreme Defence Council." Which is it?

A. I clearly understood what it says here, what is written here. I understood it to be the Supreme Command. Now, my previous answer referred to what I consider to be the Supreme Command.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does it matter if the order's given by the Supreme Command or the president and it's simply relayed by some other organ?

MR. NICE: Arguably not, Your Honour, but what -- to explain the position, by our request for assistance we've been attempting to identify the body through which the Supreme Commander operated, lawfully or not, and it's for that that I seek this witness's assistance.

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, your answers - let me explain - constitute the following, correct me if I'm wrong: That you, the most senior police official, didn't know the nature of the body from whom you were taking instructions. Is that really your position?

A. Please, I have been repeating this several times: We did not receive orders from the Supreme Command. Therefore, the police received orders down its chain of command. And this text of the statement was used so that the subordinate in the police force could be informed about state policy at that given moment and the positions taken by the Supreme Command. ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁶ So I myself am not a member of the Supreme Command or a member of the Supreme Defence Council either. I know which regulations are applied in war and relate to police structure, and in this statement I'm quite sure there is nothing that is unlawful, but there is no duty on the part of anybody to apply any statement in which there is anything unlawful. Perhaps I'm -- I don't understand the sense and gist of your questions and therefore I'm unable to give you a specific answer, precise answer. Of course, I'm not the man best placed to deal with theoretical questions about what the notion of Supreme Command actually means, nor did I delve in that. I understood the document to be a statement from the Supreme Command meeting which represented a political position and stand with respect to the conduct of all state institutions at that particular moment, and quite obviously, it was a moment of war.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Throughout your evidence you have struck me as a very well-informed senior official. While I understand the significance of the answer you've just given in relation to fairly inferior officials in the police, I find it difficult to understand that someone in your position wouldn't have to hand the information about what constituted the Supreme Command.

Now, can I take it, therefore, that what you call the Supreme Command is in fact the Supreme Defence Council and that you did not regard or you did not consider that there was any other body forming the Supreme Command? ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁷

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is what my answer means.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. So just last question on that, then. So --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd like to draw your attention for you to be able better to understand this, because there are no mysteries here at all, that this is to be found in tab 65, that is to say the document, the act or decree of General Lukic which speaks about sending out statements by the Supreme Command. It says, "In a statement by the Supreme Command" at the end of the document. And you also have the statement by the Supreme Command there where you can see that at the meeting that I received General Pavkovic and General Lukic and that another member of the Supreme Defence Council was there of a total of three members. The third was the president of Montenegro. He wasn't present. So we had the other member present of the Supreme Defence Council and the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command was also present. And then it goes on to say what we were discussing here. Then it was published publicly. It was made public in the papers.

JUDGE ROBINSON: These are points you can make in re-examination.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it may be that -- it may be that if Mr. Milosevic is in due course able to assist us on the structure of the Supreme Command he will do so through an appropriate witness.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁰⁴⁰⁸

Q. And as I move on to the next topic just, then, this, Mr. Stevanovic: Must we interpret -- must we apply your interpretation of the structure to this document in this way: That Mr. Sainovic, an extremely senior politician with experience of the Supreme Defence Council, describes it in a minuted meeting using the wrong term? Is that what we must understand?

A. First of all, I never understood that Mr. Sainovic was a member of the Supreme Defence Council. I believe that's what you said. I may be wrong.

As for the second part of your question, I didn't understand it.

Q. In which case I'm going to move on. It's Exhibit 387, tab 46, then, we need to look at.

This is an existing exhibit in this case, and it's dated 25th of May of 1999, and it comes from the army, 3rd Army Forward Command Post, and it's addressed to the MUP of Serbia. And in paragraph 3 it says -- bit further down, Mr. Prendergast, please.

It says this: "The security regime in the territory has not taken root in the spirit of the law and on the basis of the proclaimed state of war. The best example is the operation of the joint checkpoints manned by the MUP and military police units, where there are frequent altercations because MUP members condone or openly permit evident criminal activities and plunder committed by their fellow MUP members as well as civilians, resulting in the misappropriation of a vast number of motor vehicles, technical goods and other resources from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija." ^{40409 BLANK PAGE 40410} Over the page, please.

"It has been established beyond doubt, and we have already reported on it in regular combat and other reports, that due to non-compliance with the resubordination orders, some MUP members and to a considerable extent entire smaller units which operate independently on the ground are committing serious crimes against Siptar civilian population in settlements or refugee shelters - murder, rape, plunder, robbery, aggravated theft, and they then purposefully attribute or plan to attribute those crimes to units and individuals in the VJ." Now, what do you say to that comment by General Pavkovic?

A. First let me say that it is highly unusual that I am seeing this document for the first time. It would have been logical if all these claims were made at the time this document was compiled, that the head of the staff should know about it; and had this arrived in the staff, I would certainly have known about it too.

We can see that this appears to be an original document, but these are serious allegations by the army against the police which I was not aware of until now. I spoke of problems pertaining to resubordination, and this is the title of the text here, but I did not have any information to this effect or any information that was as serious as this. I can only say that this may be true or may not be true. This is the first time I have seen it.

Q. Let's break down what General Pavkovic wrote into two parts. Forget who the culprit is. What he writes makes it clear that there are serious crimes being committed against the Albanian civilian population. ⁴⁰⁴¹¹ Can you think of any reason why General Pavkovic at this time would fabricate, make up allegations about the commission of crimes against Albanians? Forget who the culprit is. Can you think of any reason why he should make up the commission of crimes?

A. Quite honestly, no, I can't.

Q. Is it reasonable --

A. I thought that he was a very dependable man.

Q. Is it reasonable thus to infer, and I'm asking you to help us with this, that there were indeed serious crimes committed against the Albanian population in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. I have already said that there were, yes, but all the crimes that we were aware of were dealt with, processed in the appropriate way. If anyone in the army had any knowledge of a specific crime, then it was indisputably the duty of that soldier or leader to either arrest the perpetrators right away or to submit a report to the MUP for them to act pursuant to their authority.

Let me remind you that the police arrested a group of soldiers who were caught red handed committing a murder. You have the report here. It would have been logical.

Q. We'll come to that in due course. Let's look at the end of this document. This is, after all, May of 1999. General Pavkovic, intelligent, educated, experienced soldier, was he? Was he?

A. As I understand it, yes.

Q. Let's look at "Measures Proposed: "In light of the above-said, and particularly the consequences ⁴⁰⁴¹² already in evidence, which could, however, become much more important, the Supreme Command should take urgent measures falling within its jurisdiction to resubordinate the units and organs of the MUP of Serbia in the spirit of the constitution and existing laws and in accordance with the proclaimed state of war or annul the order on their resubordination and leave the command and commanding of the forces of the MUP of Serbia in the hands of the Ministry of the Interior - staff of the MUP and the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo-Metohija through the Joint Command as has so far been the case."

Now, in light of the most recent questioning of you, should we be able to make sense of this paragraph if we substitute "Supreme Defence Council" for the phrase "Supreme Command"? Should we? The Supreme Defence Council should take urgent measures? Or, at the end ...

A. Of course that's what it should mean. But the document on resubordination was also signed by the Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command. Rather, the chief of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia at the time. As I don't have the entire context of this document, I can conclude that the previously provided explanations and facts cannot be brought into connection with the act of resubordination or subordination, because subordination can only refer to combat activities, whereas what we previously discussed were crimes and criminality. The police are duty-bound to deal with crime, and no one can be resubordinated in this respect. So these are two different things that have been erroneously joined together.

I have already said that there were problems in connection with ⁴⁰⁴¹³ subordination, but here these problems are being linked with matters falling purely within the competence of the police, and this was not the subject of the order on resubordination, based on what I read out.

Q. Your answer is, as I understand it, that yes we can make sense of this paragraph if we use the words "Supreme Defence Council." Can you be good enough, please, to read in the -- just read without comment the last sentence of this last paragraph. In fact it's all pretty well one sentence, I think, but perhaps you could pick it up from three lines up from the bottom on the left-hand side, where it starts to make sense. Just read it out for us, please.

A. If I start with the part where it says " ... and in accordance with the state of war that has been declared, either to annul the order on their resubordination and leave the command and commanding of the forces of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia in the hands of the Ministry of the Interior - staff of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia for Kosovo and Metohija through the Joint Command as has so far been the case." Of course I have not previously observed that it says here "Joint Command."

Q. It doesn't make any sense, does it? The MUP of Serbia wasn't instructed through the Supreme -- can I finish the question? It doesn't make sense --

A. I apologise.

Q. It doesn't make sense to insert the words "Supreme Defence Council" there because the MUP of Serbia wasn't instructed through the Supreme Defence Council, was it? ⁴⁰⁴¹⁴

A. Well, of course, from what one can see here, there is a contradiction because in the beginning of the sentence the standpoint is expressed that it is the Supreme Command that should take measures, and then at the very end an alternative is offered and that is that command of the police forces should be taken over by the staff of the MUP through the Joint Command. If it's the Supreme Command that is in charge, then mention of the Joint Command is superfluous. This is evidently the standpoint of Mr. Pavkovic about the role of the Joint Command. I still abide by what I said previously in connection with this body. I continue to assert that the MUP in Kosovo was not commanded by the Joint Command.

Q. You understand, Mr. Stevanovic, how it is that -- or can you explain, then, how it is that all the documents we look at suggest the existence of some other body, the Joint Command? Can you understand that?

A. Of course you have shown the documents you have, and of course I did not have most of these. But in these tabs, there are dozens of documents indicating that the police forces in Kosovo and Metohija were commanded by the top of the ministry through the minister, the staff of the ministry in Pristina, and the Secretariat of Internal Affairs in Kosovo and Metohija.

If we look at this document in isolation, assuming that the others do not exist, then of course my answer to your question would have to be different.

JUDGE BONOMY: The context here would suggest that Joint Command is something different from Supreme Command, and it -- in its context it ⁴⁰⁴¹⁵ seems to be referring to the command of the MUP as distinct from the command of the army or the army with the MUP resubordinated to it. So was there something, Mr. Stevanovic, something in the MUP hierarchy that could be described as the Joint Command?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only if this concept can be used as a synonym for the MUP staff in Pristina. But the staff of the MUP is mentioned here alongside the term "Joint Command." So in this case the answer would have to be no.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Then I suppose just this last question: Have I understood it correctly from you that if one is to trace the paper trail of orders -- decisions and orders, directing either the MUP or the army in Kosovo during the conflict, one's looking at the chain that goes back to the minister concerned. Is that your position? If we're looking for the paper trail of orders, we have to look at something coming down from the ministry?

A. In the Ministry of the Interior, of course, to the minister of the interior in the army to the chief of the General Staff.

MR. NICE: Well, the Court will understand that in our search for clarity on this issue we've also sent out RFAs that would cover such lines of authority.

Q. Can you look, please, at tab 67. Quite briefly, I think.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. ⁴⁰⁴¹⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As you know, I was the president of the republic and the Supreme Commander. So if it's of any assistance, I can tell you what the Supreme Command is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you can give evidence later on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to assist you with an explanation. It's in the constitution and in the law on defence, so it's easy to read about it.

MR. NICE:

Q. Yes, a quick look at tab 67, document of the 13th of May of 1999. This one's going the other way round, as it were. It's from the Ministry of the Interior, signed by Lieutenant General Sreten Lukic, and it goes to the chief, and then it says at the end of the first paragraph: "At the mixed checkpoints and during patrols, tasks are performed jointly by members of the MUP and the VJ and the VJ members stop and check VJ members and vehicles while MUP members stop and check MUP members and citizens and their vehicles.

"During work so far in general and in the work of the aforementioned checkpoints and patrols, the following weaknesses and shortcomings have been observed:

"Inefficient, inconsistent and unprofessional conduct; "Arrogant, improper and impolite conduct ..." And so on. It goes on to say this creates a negative image of the police. So we have on the one hand the army saying there are really serious crimes being committed and the MUP are responsible, and we now have the MUP saying to themselves there have been some shortcomings in ⁴⁰⁴¹⁷ behaviour. Is the truth that there were serious crimes and that this document's a half-hearted attempt to reflect some acknowledgement of it?

A. I have already said more than once that there were crimes. We discussed some of those looking at the documents in these tabs. However, this statement indicates that there was awareness of errors and failures, weaknesses, and these are clearly identified in a public document. Attention is drawn to what was observed and request is made to remove these weaknesses.

When we look at this order, which is, in a sense, criticism of subordinates, this is stressed so that subordinates will take it seriously, that is the fact that things were being done not fully in compliance with the laws and regulations. Attention is drawn to the improper manner in which uniforms are worn, caps, and so on. This is done to draw attention to the problem so that subordinates will deal with this problem.

Q. I suggest to you there were serious crimes being committed against Albanians throughout. You know it, but there was some need to put something into documentation to cover your backs. This is an example of it.

A. I did not dispute specific events and I explained them. But it was not the policy or the plan or the order or the standpoint. The policy was to suppress anything illegal, first of all terrorism and then any other illegal actions, regardless of who was perpetrating them.

MR. NICE: Before I turn to another topic, one last question on terminological inexactitude. That's my today's test for the interpreters. ⁴⁰⁴¹⁸ If we can turn to the English page 119 of the diary. It's R0172461.

Top of the page, please, Mr. Prendergast.

Q. Have you found the page, Mr. Stevanovic?

A. Just a moment.

MR. NICE: We'll put it on the overhead projector. If Mr. Prendergast would help, then we don't have a language problem. Mr. Prendergast, the Serbian is coming your way as well, just to make sure. It's really just the title of this I want, so you can lay one under the other.

Q. We've got one that says in the English, "Session of the Joint Command," and then it says -- it may be further up, I'm not sure.

A. Yes, that's what it says in Serbian too.

Q. We better have from you an explanation of what this -- is this your handwriting?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. What does it mean "Session of the Joint Command"?

A. Well, from everything I said about the Joint Command, it's probably clear what this means. The only problem is in the date.

Q. What does it mean, then?

A. It means that I most probably -- no, not most probably, certainly attended a session that was attended by people who, as I explained previously, made up the Joint Command, or some of those people. And I remember very well from the interview in Belgrade that this is the only place in my entire diary where this term is found. And I express my ^{40419 BLANK PAGE 40420} doubts as to why this is here with that date. It would be logical to have this down in 1998. It doesn't seem logical to have it entered in 1999. Maybe somebody mentioned that that was the name of the meeting and then I wrote it down as such. That would be logical. But I understood that we have minutes of these sessions, so it might be a good idea to check whether there actually was a session on that date.

Q. Well, you see, we've had -- this is dated very clearly the 2nd of June. We've had evidence from a witness about attending a meeting led by Sainovic the day before. There was a Joint Command, wasn't there? That's what you wrote down. For some reason you don't wish to acknowledge it now.

A. I admit, and it's obvious, that this has been entered in my diary. I expressed quite a few doubts about it during my interview in Belgrade. You can check that in the transcript. I don't know why and how I wrote this down, because everything else I know corresponds with what I said during this testimony apart from this fact.

Q. Well, you see, we've had this express denial from your government that this Joint Command existed in 1999, and now we've got your writing effectively that it does. Is there some kind of joint agreement to try to hide the Joint Command and the Supreme Command from this Court? Is there some endeavour to do that?

A. Absolutely not. And since you mentioned the government, I can tell you with full responsibility that I am not in contact with anyone from either the previous or the present government. What I am saying I am saying relying only on my recollection of ⁴⁰⁴²¹ that period. By no means on the basis of an agreement with anyone, especially not someone from a previous or the current government of the Republic of Serbia. This is simply a fact.

It says -- I've explained this extensively. I've expressed my doubts, and everything else I know does not confirm that the Joint Command existed at the time mentioned here. If you go through the entire diary, you will see that I'm right.

Q. I'm going to move to something else. You have been asked about and have given evidence favourable to the Defence about Padaliste, Suva Reka, Izbica, and indeed Racak.

Let's just put on the overhead projector, please -- can we place on the overhead projector, please, this photograph. I'll just tell you this is the photograph of a woman from Padaliste who gave open testimony that men in police uniform, or in uniform with police insignia, surrounded her house in Padaliste on the 26th of March of 1999, killed six of her nine children, of whom the oldest was 19 and the youngest was 2, her husband, and her mother-in-law. She explained that the probable motive for the murder was revealed by the fact that a policeman had told her that the family would die because her husband was a teacher for children at an Albanian school. Do you know anything to suggest that this woman has told us untruths?

A. No. I know absolutely nothing. But when you put this kind of question to me and show me this picture, I have to express my deep regret for the suffering of this woman. I have no knowledge of this event, and I ⁴⁰⁴²² think that's what I've been saying all along. All I can say is that the police did not register this event. No such event was reported to the police and --

Q. That's what I want to ask you next.

A. I don't doubt that it did happen.

Q. How could it be, Mr. Stevanovic, that a killing of this monstrous kind on the 26th of March by people in police uniform could go undetected, uninvestigated, and indeed untried? How could that be?

A. I have explained all the problems that we were facing at the time. Let me be brief now. It's possible that something happened of the kind that we saw yesterday, that video footage, but I'm saying again it has nothing to do with the official conduct and official policy of the police in Kosovo.

If the police had even a scrap of knowledge about this, be sure that you would have a case file and an investigation. Maybe we would not have a complete result, but action would have been taken --

Q. Remind us, Mr. Stevanovic --

A. -- you cannot doubt that.

Q. -- what was it you said about Padaliste that was favourable to this accused. How were you able to help this Court in respect of Padaliste? Tell us.

A. I was not intending to help the Court. I just mentioned something that seemed illogical to me.

Q. What was that?

A. I knew that Padaliste -- ⁴⁰⁴²³

Q. What was that that was illogical?

A. In a certain way it was illogical, although of course in my opinion it doesn't matter that much. What seemed illogical was that several people with the same last name were casualties in a place where there are dozens of different last names, and the allegation was that soldiers and policemen fired at random across the village. If the fire was indeed random, then it's unlikely that people with the same last name would be killed in a village with almost a hundred people with ten different last names. But I didn't doubt at any point that those people were indeed victims.

Q. On reflection --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me draw your attention to the fact that the allegation of Mr. Nice is contained in paragraph 66; that the forces surrounded the village, fired at villagers who were running away, fleeing, and that's how people got killed. And the witness explained on that occasion that it was -- that it seemed illogical, and he's saying the same thing now.

If you want to read it, you can read about it. It's paragraph 66(f).

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. On reflection, Mr. Stevanovic, do you take the view that you have nothing to contribute to the evidence about Padaliste?

A. According to what I know, I don't think so. Which doesn't mean ⁴⁰⁴²⁴ that evidence does not exist, but I'm sure it doesn't exist at the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. Let's look at the --

JUDGE KWON: Just for the record, I have to note the name of this witness is not Limaj but Imeraj.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. I thought I pronounced it correctly but maybe I didn't. It was on the transcript incorrectly -- sorry, it's on the film it's incorrect. Your Honour is absolutely right.

Q. Shall we look, please, at Suva Reka. We'll -- if you wish to, we'll find that in the indictment as well.

Remind us how you feel you can help this Court in respect of Suva Reka, Mr. Stevanovic.

A. If I remember correctly, I answered questions on that subject too. In these case files, we can find two incidents involving nearly 20 people who were killed. There are also documents that the police and the competent judicial authorities drew up in connection with these incidents. If my memory serves me right, I said in response to a question that there could be no reason why the police would not act in the same way with regard to the incidents alleged in the indictment if it had had any information about them. So my response was that the police had no reports or information about the incidents cited in the indictment concerning Suva Reka.

Q. The S-A-J, or SAJ as it's pronounced, is a body with which you are familiar, and it falls within your part of the MUP, doesn't it?

A. SAJ, S-A-J, the special anti-terrorist unit of the MUP, it ⁴⁰⁴²⁵ belonged to the sector of public security, that much is true, but it was not within my purview, in my job of assistant minister. Nor was it in my purview at any other time before that job.

Q. Nevertheless, although not within your purview, can you confirm that there was a firing range of the SAJ near Prizren?

A. I cannot confirm that, and I don't think that's right. I do know that there is some sort of firing range near Prizren, but I have no information that the special anti-terrorist unit of the police used it for their exercises.

Q. What you can tell us is this: Firing ranges aren't open to the public, are they?

A. Generally speaking, no. I believe that one was within the compound of the barracks.

Q. We have a photograph of the witness, but I'll tell you what it was she said. We had a witness here called Shyrete Berisha, coming onto the overhead projector now - thank you very much - and she explained how on the 26th of March of 1999, men wearing green camouflage uniforms killed her four children and her husband. Altogether, 40 people were killed in the coffee shop by perpetrators who shot and threw hand grenades. She was wounded but survived, jumping from the back of the truck that had transported her, as if dead, and other bodies away. Now, the evidence, Mr. Stevanovic, is that those bodies were first buried at the SAJ firing range near Prizren, somewhere which, as you say, in principle, should not be open to the public. They were then exhumed by workers of the Hygijena company and loaded onto a refrigerator truck, and ⁴⁰⁴²⁶ taken at that time nobody knew where. But in 2001, they were found at Batajnica at the SAJ premises there, the 13th of May training facility, facility under the public MUP's control.

Can you explain to us, please, what was wrong with the system of policing of your territory that people murdered in this way could pass into one firing range that may have been or, as you would say, may not SAJ and land up in the controlled environment and premises of another SAJ training facility near Belgrade?

A. First of all, let me reiterate the statement that this training ground in Prizren was certainly not used by SAJ, because I cannot remember a single moment when SAJ were in Prizren. I know they were in some other areas. That's one thing.

Second thing: All that you have described just now I already qualified in my previous answers. So I really do not know what could be the reason and who could be the perpetrator of this. This would have to be explained by somebody who was involved, who participated in this, because I have no knowledge of this, nor did I have any knowledge --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you were a very senior policeman, and if I may invite you -- and we're dealing with the real world here. For bodies to move from one controlled environment to another belonging to a police force is something that the senior officers and representatives of that police force should be able to explain, and I want you to tell this Court why it was this woman's family was moved about after they'd been killed in that way.

A. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with an explanation. All I know ⁴⁰⁴²⁷ in this connection I have already said. I can only repeat myself. And in policework, I have already told you, when you are working on something that hasn't been elucidated yet, you always start out with several possible versions, and at this moment I cannot single out any of the possibilities, but I hope that this will be ultimately elucidated.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I see the time. I'm happy to go on as long as the Court wants but I simply --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, we have stop.

MR. NICE: Can I mention this: I shan't -- I had hoped, of course, to finish today. I shan't be long on Monday. But there was the possibility of this witness giving assistance in relation to certain matters and indeed I think His Honour Judge Bonomy raised it, as did I. We will provide him, if he would find this helpful, with the photographs and the names of the people identified or suggested as identifications by me yesterday, and if there were any other matters that he might usefully inquire into there is a three-day period for him to do so, but it's the photographs, with your leave, that I would make available to him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Those photographs may be provided to the witness.

You will recall, General, that you had indicated that you could make certain contacts. Of course, these contacts do not allow you to discuss the evidence at large, it's for a very narrow purpose, and you're not to discuss the evidence with anybody during the break.

JUDGE KWON: There are now several more names in the Prosecution's exhibit, Mr. Nice, for the witness to confirm? ⁴⁰⁴²⁸

MR. NICE: The only names that -- in the exhibit there are many other people, but I think the names are the only names that I'm presently in a position to put, and I put them, of course, both with names and with photographs so far as possible.

MR. KAY: It wasn't only the photographs. It was also the documents that were produced in cross-examination yesterday, and the witness said that he would make inquiries, and it arose as a result of a question from the Bench, as to those members of the MUP named in the documents, which I should imagine the Court would have no objection for him undertaking those inquiries in the recess.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think he should be given the information to do that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand that the documents have already been passed on to the witness.

We are adjourned until Monday, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 6th day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.