⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰

Friday, 27 May 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this has been a marathon, five days of testimony, but I know that you have it in you to do a sprint, nonetheless, to the finish, and I expect that we'll conclude this witness's examination-in-chief before the end of the first session. Since it's the first time that we're sitting in the afternoon, let me say that we'll sit to 3.45, then take a break of 20 minutes; then from 4.05 to 5.50, another break of 20 minutes; and then from 6.10 to 7.00 -- 7.15? Is it 7.00 or 7.15? I'm not certain. 7.00. I have been corrected. We have had six days of evidence in chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I shall be needing a geographical map for some questions that I'm going to ask General Stevanovic this afternoon, and the registrar was very -- has very kindly provided me with a map that they have at their disposal. It is a large map, so could somebody take it over, please, and put it on the easel or panel to the right of the witness or somewhere so the witness can see it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... to that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there an easel for it? Yes. Okay.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] For the record, Mr. Robinson, yesterday or, rather, a moment ago - and I was told that the note came in ⁴⁰⁰⁰¹ yesterday from Mr. Nice - I was handed it a moment ago by Professor Rakic, and it says: "Prosecution provides the following information: [In English] September 1999, OTP investigator Dagsland was informed by the residents of the village of Kotlina, municipality of Kacanik, Kosovo, that 12 of the persons whose bodies were found in the wells in Kotlina following the attack on the village on 24th of March were KLA soldiers."

JUDGE ROBINSON: You received this from the Prosecutor?

THE ACCUSED: Yes. I have got it from Mr. Nice. It is signed "Geoffrey Nice, Principal Trial Attorney." Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, is that something the Trial Chamber should receive?

MR. NICE: No, it was provided to the accused under Rule 68.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I see. Rule 68. Provided to you pursuant to Rule 68, Mr. Milosevic. It may be helpful to you.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, do their names appear in the schedule of the indictment?

MR. NICE: I think they do, yes. That's the whole purpose. The -- yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The book that I received published by the UCK or KLA with respect to their dead, this refers to a number of cases which are contained in Schedule B which relate to Bela Crkva, and of course the matter linked to Kotlina and a number of names. They don't all match. They don't all coincide, but it is easy to see what it's about.

WITNESS: OBRAD STEVANOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] ⁴⁰⁰⁰² Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Now, General, to draw the questions with regard to Kosovo to a close, in paragraph 63(k)(i) it is stated that our forces attacked the town of Kacanik on the 8th of March, 1999, or around that date -- I think, no. That is not Kacanik. It is (ii). On or about the 27th and 28th of March. So it is (k)(ii). Forces of the SFRY and Serbia attacked the town of Kacanik.

Now, let me just ask you this, a very simple thing to begin with: At any time during that period or any time at all during the war, did the KLA forces hold any town in Kosovo and Metohija under their control?

A. To the best of my knowledge, only for a very brief period of time they held the town of Orahovac in 1998. I think it was August or perhaps July.

Q. All right. I'm asking you about the 27th and 28th of May, so that is the end of March 1999, was any town whatsoever under KLA control at that time?

A. No.

Q. Thank you. Now, according to what it says in point (k)(ii), it would mean that the FRY forces attacked a town that they had under their control anyway, that our forces were attacking a town that was under their control. Would that emerge from what is stated here?

A. Yes, that would be the conclusion from a formulation set out in that way.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to the fact when different villages are mentioned it is ⁴⁰⁰⁰³ difficult to establish all the facts and data, but here the name of a town is mentioned. It says the forces were there, the police station was there, or anyway that's how things stood, and it's quite beyond any reason that a town would be attacked by Serbian forces if Serbian forces were n control of the town in the first place.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are to avoid the comment, as you well know.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, with respect to Kosovo and Metohija, General, I think you know -- or, rather, I'm asking you, do you know that there were seven white books, so-called white books, published by the government of Yugoslavia on the KLA crimes committed in Kosovo and Metohija, the NATO crimes in Kosovo and Metohija that were committed, and all the events set out in chronological order which took place and were linked with terrorist activities and NATO attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia? Are you aware of those books?

A. Yes, I am aware of those books and I am also aware of everything that was done in connection with them, from the idea to print them and the actual printing and publishing.

Q. Did you take part in reviewing the documents for the book? Did it pass through your hands, those documents and documentation?

A. Yes, it did.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope, Mr. Robinson, that you now have sufficient reason to introduce into evidence the white books that I ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁴ have tendered a number of times. They have been in your possession for quite some time now. You marked them for identification earlier on. The general personally prepared a series of information and facts gathered by the police and ultimately published in those white books, so I hope there are sufficient grounds for the white books to be admitted into evidence, and I should like to tender them now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As we indicated earlier, Mr. Milosevic, we'll consider questions of admissibility of exhibits at the end of the witness's testimony.

Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: I would prefer to leave it until the end of the evidence, simply to review what the overall evidence on the white books is. Maybe I shan't object. I nevertheless gently observe that the characterisation by the accused of the answer given by this witness doesn't seem entirely to match the witness, unless I've missed something, simply saying he's aware of everything that was -- that the books --

THE INTERPRETER: The speaker is kindly requested to speak into the microphone.

MR. NICE: I will speak into the microphone and I do apologise. I think at the moment the witness has said no more than it passed through his hands. Where everything that was done and -- yes. It's not the way the accused characterised it, that's all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He says that he's aware of the books and aware of everything that was done in connection with them.

MR. NICE: A sweeping observation for four volumes of books. ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁵ Normally, one would have a rather more detailed account of methodology and so on, but in any event, if I could have it until the end of the evidence generally, I'll have a position by then.

MR. KAY: In relation to these books, they are different from the exhibits that we've got before us. They're documents that the Court knows about very well.

If the foundation was laid in a little bit more deeper terms with the witness so we could find out the extent of his knowledge. Perhaps it is an issue the Trial Chamber could get out of the way at this stage so that matters that could be raised on them as an exhibit could be dealt with properly by the accused with this particular witness.

JUDGE BONOMY: One would have -- one would have expected, Mr. Kay, that the documents would at least be here for the witness to say, yes, these are what I'm talking about, but maybe it's so notorious that it's not necessary, but I wonder if this is rather too much of a shortcut way of trying to deal with it.

MR. KAY: I think in relation to them they are very, very well known documents, as Your Honour rightly observes, and they have been mentioned so many times during this trial, and particularly the Defence case, that it may be that that shouldn't be a real obstacle if matters could be explored with him to lay the foundation.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: May I add one point which concerned us a little bit at the time. The witness spoke of some of his statistics and charts being identical with or coming from the white book. He didn't provide matching ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁶ references, and I have to say we haven't been able to find them. I'm not suggesting that the material may not be there, but we certainly haven't been able to find them.

So before this witness can produce these documents, I would respectfully invite much more detailed methodology, because otherwise we're going to have to deal with the document if it becomes admitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, you have heard the objections, if they may be so qualified, from the Prosecutor, as well as the comments of the assigned counsel.

You should lay a better foundation to produce these documents through this witness, and I believe that he can, but you need to elicit from him further evidence, for example, as to how the information was compiled and generally to show better familiarity with the documents.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought I could save time, but yes, I will ask the witness a number of questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, how did you collect this information and data, and can you tell us what the methodology applied was? Did you personally take part in preparing this information and preparing the material for publication? Could you explain to us the technology and method according to which that was done, the basic points in the white books?

A. Let me say first of all that I do apologise if I have created some misunderstanding, because I am doing my best to make my answers brief. ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁷ Otherwise, I could have explained the whole thing to you but I thought my answer would be rather lengthy and I thought I would be asked subsequent questions.

But anyway, it was like this: I attended the meeting of ministers at which the minister declared that there was an idea, an initiative coming from the Ministry of the Interior according to which a collection of documents should be compiled in the form of books where all the information objectively collected linked to terrorist activity in Kosovo and Metohija would be produced and all the consequences thereof. To be as brief as possible, let me tell you that at that same meeting, senior staff meeting of ministers, included experts, analysts to think about the methodology and to propose a concrete methodology for that work, for the work in hand.

At the next ministers' senior staff meeting, individuals were appointed and nominated, such as Milos Nedeljkovic, the head of the analytics department, I think he was at that time, and I can't remember what his actual assignment was, or duty was, but then there was Milan Novakovic from the crime police department; they were to head the project. And the way in which the information and data were to be collected was the following: I've already said that the staff of the ministry every morning in their daily morning report would send in information about any event that had taken place, the people who had taken part, and the consequences of the event in question. So this collective information, all the incidents and events that took place were the basis and foundation for compiling the white books, and the tables and photographs and the ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁸ original police documents or court documents were attached to those lists and that material. So apart from the information supplied by the Ministry of the Interior, we also included certain documents from the Ministry of Justice and the army of Yugoslavia. And I think that that is sufficient foundation for the time being. Of course, I can go on and explain.

Q. All the information that was included, were they taken from original data and information of the competent authorities on the events mentioned in the white book?

A. Yes, that's right. The list of events was copied from original documents and the attending photographs and certain specific documents and photographs taken on location were also taken for the specific events and cases individually.

Q. That means -- or does that mean to all intents and purposes that the ministry systematised what the ministry had at its disposal in its official documents about the events that took place?

A. Yes, when the books were published. And let me add this: The books or the publisher was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the printing press was, I think, the Sluzbeni List or Sluzbeni Glasnik, I'm not quite certain, but one of the two companies. And the question raised a moment ago by the Prosecutor, let me say this in response: I did indeed mention that one of the tables from the tabs I mentioned is to be found in the first book, and I think that I remember that it was on page 17 of that book.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you have a good memory. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁰⁰⁰⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Do I need to ask the witness anything else with regard to those books, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's really a matter for you as to the foundation that you wish to lay, but in my view you may now proceed and we'll consider this matter later.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's move on to another topic now, another area, General. The units of the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia during the war and during the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, did they spend time on the territory of Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina at all?

A. The police units from Serbia did spend time on the territory of the Republika Srpska and Srpska Krajina on several occasions.

Q. Did those units take part in any of the combat operations?

A. They did not except quite -- in special circumstances if they came under attack themselves.

Q. When did the police from Serbia become involved in the border belt with Republika Srpska and how long were they engaged for?

A. The engagement along the border or rather the pidaliste [phoen] with Serbia, along the border with Republika Srpska, that involvement started sometime at the beginning of 1993 and lasted up until 1996.

Q. Very well. Fine. Now, can you show us on the map the area in which the police was present in that border belt, which area of the border belt in our country during the material time, the one we're talking about now. ⁴⁰⁰¹⁰

A. [No interpretation].

MR. NICE: I can see nothing, by the way, on the screen at the moment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And we're not getting any --

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the interpretation now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we're now hearing the interpretation. Perhaps the map could be placed -- could be turned around a little so that the Prosecutor can see.

MR. NICE: On my screen neither Video nor Video Evidence turns up with anything at the moment, if that --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps it would be better if it could be placed on the overhead projector.

JUDGE KWON: Can the video show the map, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there an answer to Judge Kwon's question? If not, then we could put that particular section -- we're now seeing it. Yes. We're now seeing it on the screen.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, could you first show the border between Serbia and Republika Srpska.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The border can be seen here quite clearly between the Republic of Serbia and Republika Srpska from the north to the south, and I am showing it. I'm indicating it very clearly. This is where the border is with the Republic of Montenegro.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴⁰⁰¹¹

Q. Could you please be so kind as to show the part where you were, their part of the border as well outside the Republic of Serbia.

A. In the period I mentioned, the police units from the Republic of Serbia were in the territory of Republika Srpska in the area around Bajina Basta, Skelani, then in part of the municipality of Visegrad, from Prelovo via Dobrun, then in the territory of the municipality of Rudo in Republika Srpska, from the village of Strpce to the actual town of Rudo, and this place which has the shape of San Marino, surrounded by territory of the Republic of Serbia. It's called Sastavci.

Q. I don't know whether you understand what this is about. There is a very small part there which belongs to the -- to the municipality of Rudo, right, General?

A. Yes. But actually, it is surrounded by the municipality of Priboj from the Republic of Serbia.

Q. All right. Why was the police engaged there?

A. The police was engaged there basically because of the incidents that I described yesterday inter alia. In addition to the two incidents related to the abduction of citizens of the Republic of Serbia at the railway station in Strpce and the abduction of citizens of the Republic of Serbia again but from a bus in Mijocs in the municipality of Rudo. So in addition to that, there were armed attacks by the army of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina against Skelani and Bajina Basta in mid-January 1993.

Q. All right.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just one moment. When I asked you about the ⁴⁰⁰¹² specific incidents you referred to yesterday, I asked the question whether the paramilitaries were Serb paramilitaries. Were these not different incidents?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yesterday, Your Honour, I gave a clear and accurate answer. Those two incidents that I described yesterday were carried out by members of paramilitary organisations, Serb paramilitary organisations; that is to say the attack on the bus in Mijocs and the abduction of citizens of the Republic of Serbia and the abduction of citizens from the Republic of Serbia from a train in the village of Strpce was carried out by Serb paramilitary formations, and the attack on Bajina Basta in the Republic of Serbia was carried out by armed formations of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This attack on the citizens of the Republic of Serbia, both attacks that you referred to --

A. Yes.

Q. -- both were carried out by paramilitary formations in the territory of Republika Srpska?

A. That's right.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Not in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Just explain so that it would be perfectly clear here how come our citizens were in the ⁴⁰⁰¹³ territory of Republika Srpska. I bear in mind the fact that the first incident took place on a train and the second one on a bus. How come our citizens were in the territory of Republika Srpska?

A. I shall explain, but may I say that the first one was the bus and the second one was the train, chronologically speaking. The citizens of the Republic of Serbia who at that point in time happened to be in the territory of Republika Srpska were practically forced to travel that way every day because of the configuration of the railway between the municipality of Rudo and the municipality of Priboj in the Republic of Serbia. In order to get to the main town in their municipality, they have to travel through the different municipality.

Q. Just a moment. You mentioned the municipality of Rudo in Republika Srpska.

A. That's right.

Q. And citizens of the municipality of Serbia, the municipality of Priboj in the Republic of Serbia. When you say citizens, you are saying citizens of Serbia from Priboj, from part of the municipality of Priboj they travelled to the centre of their municipality, Priboj?

A. That's right.

Q. So both are in Serbia but if they travel, that -- in that direction they have to cross the territory of Republika Srpska.

A. Exactly.

Q. Could you please show on the map where this is.

A. This is the territory of the municipality of Priboj, if it can be seen properly, and you can see the town of Priboj here. Most of the local ⁴⁰⁰¹⁴ communities in the municipality of Priboj are in this sector. In order for these people, the residents of these villages, to get to the main town in their municipality, they have to go through this place called Sastavci surrounded by the territory of Priboj. Then they have to enter the territory of the municipality of Rudo and only then near the village of Uvac, right here, they re-enter the Republic of Serbia.

Q. All right. As you say, they have to. They have to, that means because they -- the road goes that way?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are no other roads?

A. There are no alternative roads. Of course as far as the train is concerned the situation is similar, because the train from Belgrade to Bar -- or, rather, that railway goes to Republika Srpska for about nine kilometres and then returns to Serbia in the municipality of Priboj again. So the railway station of Strpce where these persons were abducted also took place on the territory of the Republika Srpska but the persons were abducted from a Yugoslav train on a railway going from Belgrade, Valjevo, Priboj, Podgorica, Bar.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please be asked to speak slower. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is a request from the interpreters for you to speak more slowly.

Can you explain to me - I don't know whether you have - who comprised these paramilitary forces?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I don't know about that. ⁴⁰⁰¹⁵ I don't even know specifically who they belonged to, but from all the information that we had, obviously it's a case of paramilitaries because it is said that they were in uniform and with weapons.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, can we clarify this. When you say the territory of the municipality of Priboj, Rudo, and around Visegrad, throughout the conflict there were no Muslim forces there; isn't that right?

A. Yes, that's right. That is territory that was fully under the control of the Serb forces. So it is absolutely impossible for Muslim paramilitaries to have done this.

Q. All right. The paramilitary forces that carried this out, were they under any kind of control of the army of Republika Srpska?

A. All the information that we have indicated that they were not under the control of the army of Republika Srpska.

Q. General, for the sake of those who don't know about this, this railway that you were talking about, is that one of the major railroads in the country? It's called Belgrade-Bar, it links Belgrade with the Port of Bar, which is Yugoslavia's biggest port in Montenegro.

A. Strategically it is indeed one of the major railroads linking to the two republics and also Belgrade to the Port of Bar.

Q. And that railway, for only nine kilometres, goes through a tiny part of a territory that does not belong to the Republic of Serbia. It is the territory of Republika Srpska.

A. Right.

Q. And this railway station Strpce is outside the Republic of Serbia; ⁴⁰⁰¹⁶ is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. It was not scheduled to stop there, that train?

A. Well, some trains do stop there, others do not. It's a small railway station.

Q. What did our police do when these citizens were abducted?

A. When these citizens were abducted, the police, first of all, had more of its own police on these trains, and they took measures through the appropriate authorities of Republika Srpska to investigate the matter as quickly as possible. I personally stayed in Priboj and Prijepolje and that's where the citizens of Sjeverin were from, those who were abducted and also citizens from Prijepolje, those who were abducted from the train. I was there so we could investigate the problem or, rather, shed more light on it in a way, and try to find these people and have them returned to their homes. Regrettably, we did not succeed in doing that.

Q. All right, so the consequence of that abduction was that a unit of our police constantly controlled that part of the railway that goes through Republika Srpska, that they were protecting people on that train.

A. The only reason for the police forces to cross into this sector of the municipality of Priboj, that is Sjeverin-Sastavci-Strpce was because these two incidents had occurred with grave consequences, and apart from that, there was yet another incident; Kukurevici. That is also a place in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. A paramilitary formation attacked the village, killed a few civilians, and caused considerable damage. That place or, rather, that village is between the Republic of ⁴⁰⁰¹⁷ Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro. I'm showing it on the map. It's over here, roughly.

Those three incidents were both a reason and a pretext for the police forces to cross the border, to take appropriate positions, and to prevent in the future any kind of similar incidents.

Q. What do you know about the investigations carried out about the abduction of citizens from Sjeverin?

A. In the Republic of Serbia, a long-lasting and extensive investigation took place in concert with Republika Srpska. I know that now either in Serbia or in Montenegro there are proceedings under way against some of the suspects involved in that incident.

Q. All these citizens who were abducted, were they all citizens of the Republic of Serbia?

A. They were all citizens of the Republic of Serbia. Possibly there was an exception. I think there was an ethnic Croat there, but I'm not sure what his actual citizenship was.

Q. But they were all abducted in the territory of Republika Srpska?

A. They were all abducted in the territory of Republika Srpska in both cases.

Q. The presence of our police in that area, did it serve any other purpose except protecting our own rolling stock and the citizens of Serbia in that territory?

A. Our engagement was only aimed at protecting the rolling stock and the citizens of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Could you please explain the attack on Bajina Basta in the ⁴⁰⁰¹⁸ Republic of Serbia now. When did it take place; who carried it out?

A. The armed forces of the Muslim Federation attacked Skelani in Republika Srpska, which is right across the Drina River from Bajina Basta. I think that this attack happened on the 16th or perhaps the 15th of January, 1993.

In that attack, there were between 80 or 90 casualties, persons killed and wounded, and about 1.500 inhabitants fled to the territory of Serbia. A few mortar shells fell on the town of Bajina Basta itself. The gravest consequences were on the bridge itself linking Skelani from Republika Srpska and Bajina Basta in the Republic of Serbia.

Q. All right. Let's just clarify this. Now, towards the end of your sentence you mentioned that the town of Bajina Basta is in the Republic of Serbia.

A. In the -- in the Republic of Serbia and Skelani in Republika Srpska.

Q. All right. But that's on the other side of the Drina River and the Drina is very wide there. Tell me, were shells falling on Bajina Basta?

A. Yes.

Q. So was the territory of the Republic of Serbia attacked?

A. Yes.

Q. What did our police do there in order to prevent further targeting? Bajina Basta is a town, the centre of a municipality.

A. The centre of a municipality.

Q. What was the purpose of having our forces cross the bridge to the ⁴⁰⁰¹⁹ other side of the Drina River?

A. In that sector, our forces crossed the border, I think towards the end of March or the beginning of April 1993. This lasted for about ten days. The objective was to search the area and to practically eliminate the danger that was imminent in terms of the town, the road, going down the Drina River, and in this way to create normal conditions for the functioning of the town and the entire border area.

Q. Thank you, General. I think that this will do. But I have the impression that you did not explain more specifically and in greater detail the armed incursion of -- from Republika Srpska to Kukurevici, a municipality of Priboj.

A. This is the fourth incident I referred to, the third one that the Serb forces took part in. It was in March or April 1993. This is what happened: A group that no one had seen, none of the survivors had seen, crossed over from the territory of Republika Srpska. They crossed the border, they attacked this village in the municipality of Priboj in Serbia. I already said that they torched a few houses, damaged a few houses, and killed five or six, perhaps up to ten civilians, I'm not quite sure now.

Q. All right. I think you've explained this very clearly, the road situation, the situation for communicating, and there were no -- there was no possibility of communicating between the same municipality and Serbia except passing through those areas.

A. That's true, and the only way in which we could protect people from Republika Srpska and vehicles, transport vehicles and so on, was to ⁴⁰⁰²⁰ cross the border and to ensure control over those areas. From the time we crossed the border, there was not a single similar event that took place after that.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: People from Serbia, not Republika Srpska.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you know of our police taking into custody people belonging to paramilitary units?

A. Yes, especially in 1992. And I'm quite sure that in 1993 as well there were a number of people who were arrested by the SUP in Uzice. They were suspects and thought to be members of paramilitary groups, and they had crossed over into the territory of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Very well. Now, bearing in mind everything we have stated about the work of the police and how they endeavoured to protect the citizens from paramilitaries during the time of the conflict, could you please give us your comments on what it says in paragraph 24 of what Mr. Nice here calls the Bosnian indictment, where it says that Slobodan Milosevic controlled and influenced the conduct of, among other things, Serbian paramilitary units.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have been through that approach before where you --

THE INTERPRETER: "Slobodan Milosevic exercised effective control or substantial influence," et cetera, et cetera; paragraph 24.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I say that we've been through that approach before, which the Chamber does not sanction. You can't ask the witness to ⁴⁰⁰²¹ comment generally on a paragraph in the indictment. The paragraph may be dissected, it may refer to particular incidents, and you may ask the witness about those particular matters, but not by way of a general comment as to the truthfulness of the allegation in the paragraph, because that ultimately is a matter for the Chamber.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in paragraph (f) of this same section, there is mention of support and direction to Serbian irregular forces or paramilitaries. At that time you were one of the leaders of the police force. Did you have any direct experience yourself about relationships with paramilitaries?

A. I can confirm what I said yesterday and add this: That never personally was I ever in any joint operation with any kind of paramilitary formation nor do I know that anybody from the Ministry of the Interior cooperated in that way or supported any paramilitaries. On the contrary, what I do know is that we always had a negative attitude towards paramilitary units, otherwise we wouldn't have arrested some of their members, as I said in answer to one of the previous questions.

Q. I omitted to ask you one thing, General, linked to Bajina Basta, as you said that it was an important town and a municipal centre and you couldn't allow bombs to fall in Bajina Basta. But tell me this, near Bajina Basta is there a large hydroelectric power station with a dam?

A. Yes. It's upstream about ten to 20 kilometres from Bajina Basta, and it is called the Perucac dam, with a hydro-electric dam there too. Perucac is the name of that as well. ⁴⁰⁰²²

Q. For us to gain a clear picture of the situation and the involvement of our police force on the other side of the border, you explained that to us in part, but can you just give us the chronology of the steps taken? Roughly speaking, what was the chronology of the events and steps?

A. Well, with the beginning of the armed conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serb police first of all strengthened its presence in the border belt towards Republika Srpska. More specifically, they were most numerous in Drina, the Bajina Basta, Ljubovija area, Priboj -- and Priboj, yes.

Q. Does that mean that there was upgraded security to protect the state borders? Is that what you mean, upgraded security to protect the state borders?

A. Yes, that's precisely it, to protect the state borders.

Q. Very well.

A. After the incident in Bajina Basta, a staff and headquarters was set up headquartered in Bajina Basta and I was at the head of that staff for Bajina Basta. After the withdrawal of the units who had crossed over into the territory of Republika Srpska in the zone of Bajina Basta, and that was sometime in April, the MUP staff from Bajina Basta was relocated to Prijepolje, and sometime in April or May 1993, there was the police involvement on the territory of Visegrad and Rudo across the border in relation to the events I described a moment ago.

Q. With respect to the abduction of our citizens.

A. This involvement and engagement went on until mid-1996, as far as ⁴⁰⁰²³ I remember, but certainly up until 1996, perhaps a little later.

Q. You mean after the war had ended?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, General, I've made a note here of that line which was secured. Is that the line that -- or, rather, could you indicate that line on the map, Prelovo, Dobrun, Strpce, Uvac, Ustival [phoen], Sastavci, Sjeverin, and Cervac [phoen], that axis.

A. That's right. That's the line, that's the axis. And I'll show it to you on the map. Prelovo is somewhere in this region, between the Drina River and the border, land border. Dobrun goes up to here. Strpce, as I have already said, would be located here. Ustival is also there; Sastavci are this little circle here; and Sjeverin is between Sastavci and Rudo, somewhere in this region here.

Q. General, did you have or, rather, were there any activities to take in the Muslim fighters that had sought refuge in Serbia during the time of the attack and the events in Srebrenica? Did you have anything to do with taking them in?

A. Yes. Towards the end of June or, rather, July, mid-July 1995, those units, the units deployed in the region I explained earlier on, took in about 800 fighters of the BH army who, after the Srebrenica operation, tried to cross over into the territory of the Republic of Serbia. And they were put up and accommodated at the centre in Silovica [phoen] near Uzice and were then moved to Mitrovo Polje near Varvarin [phoen] -- or, rather, near Aleksandrovac, I apologise.

Q. Very well, General. Now, all these fighters who had crossed over ⁴⁰⁰²⁴ into the territory of Serbia, were they all taken care of and was any violence -- was there any violence against them?

A. Not at all. Not even the slightest. They were accepted as people in jeopardy, they were taken care of and accommodated in the collection centre. The Red Cross of Serbia and other humanitarian organisations were informed about their presence, the media and so on and so forth, so everything was public since they crossed over until they left in the direction they wished to go.

Q. Apart from the reasons that you gave us, and if I can just recapitulate and remind us of what you said - and you can tell me if I've left anything out - the unfavourable geographical and topological make-up of the ground for protecting the border and the fact that there were not communicating roads and so on.

A. Yes.

Q. And the unfavourable position of Bajina Basta itself and the attacks that took place on the territory of Yugoslavia.

A. Yes, that's absolutely right; the danger of moving the war to the Republic of Serbia.

Q. So in order to secure the state borders. Was there any other purpose to the police's sojourn there?

A. Absolutely no. The police presence was there to protect the interests of the Republic of Serbia, to protect its citizens, its settlements, and so on and so forth.

Q. With respect to providing safety and security, were the organs of Republika Srpska informed of the measures taken and were they told that we ⁴⁰⁰²⁵ ourselves had to take care of those areas and that we were duty-bound to protect our citizens from the effects of the war?

A. The organs of Republika Srpska sent in their permission for our involvement on that assignment and we had an exchange of information and coordination of activity with the local organs in the field, in the terrain.

Q. Could you explain your relationships with the authorities of Republika Srpska with respect to this engagement and when the -- our police were engaged there.

A. I've already said that the Ministry of the Interior was given permission for the -- from the authorities of Republika Srpska. They were not able to take on responsibility for the events themselves, so they gave permission. And then at local level, in the field itself, this idea was put into practice, and after crossing the border there was daily coordination by exchanging information with local police forces in the Visegrad and Rudo municipalities, and of course before that in the Skelani municipality or, rather, the local commune of Skelani.

Q. Thank you, General. I think that will suffice on that question. Now, let me ask you this: In those assignments and tasks, did the army take part as well, the army of Yugoslavia? When I say "army," I mean army of Yugoslavia.

A. The army of Yugoslavia took part only in the border crossing in the Skelani zone during those ten days that I mentioned in response to your previous question.

Q. When Bajina Basta was attacked, you mean? ⁴⁰⁰²⁶

A. Yes. In March and beginning of April 1993, after the attack on Bajina Basta, and never again after that.

Q. All right. Very well. Now, tell us this: How was control and command organised over those police groups and units that were on the other side of the border?

A. The decision to deploy the special police units to these assignments across the border was taken by the head of the public sector at the time, and the activities were managed by the staff in Bajina Basta and later on the MUP staff in Priboj.

Q. And you were the head of the Bajina Basta staff?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us this now, please: UNPROFOR, that is to say the UN forces, was UNPROFOR informed of the said engagement and involvement of the police of Serbia on the territory of Republika Srpska?

A. As to the involvement of the police from the Republic of Serbia, the local authorities informed the international forces and we received feedback information from them that they had done so, that they had informed the international forces.

Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, did you know that I informed Owen and Stoltenberg about that?

A. Well, I wasn't aware of that, no.

Q. Okay. Fine. Did the police of Serbia have any other contacts and relations with people in Republika Srpska?

A. The police of Serbia assisted and provided security for columns of international forces when passing through the territory of Serbia. I ⁴⁰⁰²⁷ personally took part in providing security for DutchBat, the Dutch Battalion, when they withdrew from the territory of Republika Srpska and while they were passing through the territory of the Serbian Republic on to Croatia.

Q. So you took them over, did you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You took them over at the border of Serbia, you took -- escorted them through Serbia, and they continued their journey?

A. That's right.

Q. Where did you take them over?

A. We took them over in Bratunac and then they entered the territory of Serbia at the bridge in Ljubovija and they went through Lovnica, Sabac and Ruma and entered the Republic of Croatia by the Batovci border crossing.

Q. Very well. Now, tell us this, please, General: During what period of time did our forces -- or, rather, members of our police force, were they present in the Banja Luka area? When were they present there?

A. In the broader area around Banja Luka, police units from the Republic of Serbia were present for about 50 days in the period of September 1995. I can't remember the exact period, but I think roughly speaking it was September.

Q. Was that after the war had ceased in Republika Srpska?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was the strength of the MUP forces engaged in the area?

A. The overall strength of the MUP forces in the area was about 250 ⁴⁰⁰²⁸ to 280 policemen.

Q. In what places in the Banja Luka area were these forces or units deployed, these 250 to 280 policemen? Where were they deployed?

A. A unit -- units were deployed and carried out their assignments in several municipality towns in Banja Luka; Prijedor, Sanski Most, for example, Bosanski Novi, and Doboj. Perhaps in Derventa and Modrica too but I'm not quite sure.

Q. Very well. Now, explain to us the reason for the engagement of these policemen of ours in that area of Republika Srpska. Why were they there?

A. The reason for their deployment, for the deployment of the police in Serbia in that area was a request from Republika Srpska Ministry of the Interior for reinforcements to help them carry out their daily police duties.

Q. When you received this request for assistance to carry out their regular police duties in the area, did they tell you why they needed this reinforcement?

A. According to the request, the reasons they gave was that there was a great influx of people coming in from Srpska Krajina and parts of Republika Srpska itself into that particular area.

Q. During the time those forces were assisting Republika Srpska police as reinforcements, did any armed conflicts break out or clashes between our own policemen and any other armed groups?

A. No.

Q. Were they engaged in regular daily police duties or did they have ^{40029 BLANK PAGE 40030} any other functions?

A. They were engaged to carry out the customary daily routine police duties; patrols, traffic control, crime prevention, and so on and so forth.

Q. General, since you've been a policeman for many years, was that the first time that cooperation in this way was conducted that you know of, the first instance and example?

A. I know of several such instances where policemen from Republic of Serbia, for instance, went to other republics of the former Yugoslavia to help out, and I remember one specific case for the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, the Mediterranean Games in Split, the University Games in Zagreb, and similar large-scale events.

Q. So this assistance in a time of crisis, was it in a way a similar type of assistance in policework?

A. Very similar but the assignments were somewhat different.

Q. What about the situation in Republika Srpska with respect to your police duties? How was it reflected on security in Serbia proper, Serbia itself?

A. Everything going on in Republika Srpska at that time and linked to the large influx of refugees to the Republic of Serbia of course reflected on the situation in the Republic of Serbia. That is to say the situation in Republika Srpska reflected on Serbia itself because they had to take additional steps to protect refugees who were passing through.

Q. You already said that these forces did not take part in any combat activity. ⁴⁰⁰³¹

A. Yes.

Q. That pertains to these cases as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, on a professional level, subordination, how did these parts of our police function in relation to the police of Republika Srpska?

A. As opposed to what happened in Bajina Basta, Visegrad, and Rudo, where we were carrying out our own assignments, as far as this engagement was concerned in the region of Banja Luka, the police of Serbia was carrying out police assignments from the jurisdiction of the police of Republika Srpska, and they were resubordinated to the local police organs in the municipalities where they were operating.

Q. Was that the same pattern as when -- for example, when a gathering in Serbia requires a stronger police presence, a unit of the police from somewhere else comes in and is placed under the control of the local police? Would that be more or less the same thing?

A. The principle is quite the same because it is logical to have the principle of a single command.

Q. Were you there yourself?

A. Yes, I was. I spent about seven to ten days there, and I visited all the places I've already referred to in order to see for myself how this work was being done and whether there were any problems involved.

Q. All right. What about these units of the police that were in the Banja Luka region; what kind of relationship did they have with UNPROFOR?

A. It was the same as I explained for Visegrad and Rudo. The international forces were aware of their presence in the area. ⁴⁰⁰³²

Q. All right. Tell me, please, this engagement of the police units in the area of Banja Luka, was that the result of some kind of secret agreement, secret plan, or was this public cooperation and assistance between two police forces?

A. If was quite public. There was a public request issued by Republika Srpska, and of course it could not have been secret with that many people involved for such a long period of time.

Q. All right. Can you tell us now how you explained this kind of cooperation after those serious clashes between the authorities of FRY and Serbia and the authorities of Republika Srpska after they rejected the plan of the Contact Group, the Vance-Owen Plan, et cetera?

A. In the Ministry of the Interior, people did not think about that. The objective was quite clear indeed, to help the police of Republika Srpska in a proper way so that they could properly protect large groups and columns of refugees from Croatia and other parts of Republika Srpska. These displaced persons had a very hard time. I saw that for myself.

Q. Can it be said that there was no political background involved in this police assistance?

A. It was never my understanding that there was any -- any kind of political background involved in any of this.

Q. General, in which period were the MUP forces present in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja?

A. Police forces from the Republic of Serbia stayed in the territory of Baranja and Western Slavonia.

Q. Eastern Slavonia. ⁴⁰⁰³³

A. I'm sorry, I misspoke. From mid-August 1995 until, say, January or February 1996.

Q. How many MUP forces were engaged in that period in that area?

A. It was a rather long period of time, so there were shifts involved, 40-day-shifts, approximately, and the average presence in that territory was between 450 to 500 members of the police force from the Republic of Serbia.

Q. During the day of these special units, were there any combat actions?

A. No.

Q. Were there any combat operations otherwise in that area, regardless of whether members of the police of the Republic of Serbia took part?

A. At that time, there was no combat action in that area.

Q. All right. Where were these units of the Serbian police force in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja?

A. In Vukovar, Beli Manastir, Ilok, Erdut, Belja [phoen], and a few smaller places. A few.

Q. Are all these towns and villages on the very border with the Republic of Serbia?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the reason for the engagement of the police force there?

A. There were two reasons. One was the request of the police of the Republic of Srpska Krajina to help them out in carrying out their regular duties, and the second reason was better coverage of the state border ⁴⁰⁰³⁴ between Republika Srpska Krajina and the Republic of Serbia on the Danube.

Q. Why was it necessary to have better coverage and proper coverage of this border?

A. I already said that from 1992 there was reinforced border control in order -- in terms of Republika Srpska and Republika Srpska Krajina in order to control crime, et cetera. So that was one of the reasons, one of the two that I've already explained.

Q. General, what happened in that period of time precisely that required the police of Republika Srpska Krajina to ask for reinforced border control?

A. At that time it was assessed that the armed forces of the Republic of Croatia could attack that part of Republika Srpska Krajina. What was expected was a large number of refugees wanting to cross the Danube and all the other problems accompanying that kind of threat. That was the period right after action Storm in the Knin area.

Q. What was the task of this police force in Slavonia and Baranja?

A. These units, like in the area of Banja Luka, were doing regular policework; that is to say border crossings, travel checkpoints, traffic checkpoints, patrol. Of course, all in accordance with the plans of the local police commands.

Q. Were you there yourself, General?

A. Yes, I was. I was there for the most part of this period during the engagement of those units.

Q. And what were the relations like between these engaged units and the police of Republika Srpska Krajina? ⁴⁰⁰³⁵

A. These units from the Republic of Serbia were subordinated to the local police commands. They respected the local authority and the real authority of Republika Srpska Krajina, and I know quite sure -- I know for sure that the international forces were aware of that.

Q. All right. Did you have any contacts with the Serb Volunteer Guard of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan in that area?

A. The guard of Zeljko Raznjatovic Arkan was in Erdut at the time. A few times I had meetings with some persons from that guard.

Q. All right, General. Were they within the army of Republika Srpska Krajina?

A. Yes.

Q. According to all the facts that you had available and that are well known, did they have the status of members of the army of Republika Srpska Krajina --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's leading, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: As indeed was the previous question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You must simply ask, "What status did they have?"

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what kind of status did they have?

A. The unit of the Serb Volunteer Guard was within the army of Republika Srpska Krajina.

Q. General -- let me just have a look. To the best of your ⁴⁰⁰³⁶ knowledge, all these engagements of the units of the MUP of Serbia, can they be placed in any way in the context of any kind of aggressive measures against the citizens or the actual territory where they were carrying out the assignments that you described?

A. There were no aggressive intentions involved in this engagement of police units outside the Republic of Serbia. I have explained specifically the reasons for it and the objectives for this kind of engagement.

Q. In 20 -- in paragraph 26 of the Croatian indictment, what is mentioned is that members of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia were engaged in some kind of criminal enterprise in SAO -- Eastern Slavonia and Western Srem, SAO Krajina, and the Dubrovnik Republic. Not for me quote all of this. That's what they say; the Dubrovnik Republic. This engagement, does it have anything to do whatsoever with any kind of crime in the territory of the mentioned SAOs; Baranja, Slavonia, Krajina, et cetera?

A. This engagement of units that I have just explained has nothing to do whatsoever with any kind of crime.

Q. Generally speaking did the MUP forces take part in any kind of combat activities?

A. No, they did not.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are beyond the time for the break, but I haven't stopped you. I'm getting mixed up. No, we're not. We are taking the first break at a quarter to. By that time you would have concluded your examination-in-chief. ⁴⁰⁰³⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that was my plan, yes, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In 26(k), Croatia, it says -- there is reference to joint criminal enterprise. I'm not going to quote all of that. "Directed, commanded, controlled, or otherwise provided substantial assistance or support to the police forces within the MUP of the Republic of Serbia..." You are a top official of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia. And I quote: "... including the DB, whose members assisted in the execution of the purpose of the joint criminal enterprise of the SAO, SBWS, the SAO Western Slavonia, the SAO Krajina, and the Dubrovnik Republic." General, tell me, please: You said a few moments ago in response to my question that you were present there. You or any other member of the police of Serbia, did you take part in any kind of illegal activity, let alone crime, in that territory?

A. Absolutely not. Every engagement of the police outside the Republic of Serbia is something that I am very familiar with and I know that this engagement has nothing to do whatsoever with any kind of illegal or unlawful activity, let alone any crime.

Q. General, please look at 25, paragraph 25 of the Bosnian indictment. Subparagraph (k): "... formation ... and the special forces took part in carrying out a joint criminal enterprise which is a violation of..." et cetera, et cetera. I don't really have to quote all of it. What kind of special forces are referred to here or any kind of forces that took part in combat activities, in committing crime? ⁴⁰⁰³⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop. You said paragraph 25(k) of the Bosnia indictment?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: We don't have (k) in paragraph 25.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no (k). It stops at (g).

MR. KAY: 26(k).

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you speaking of the Bosnia or the Croatian indictment?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I quoted both the Bosnia and Croatian indictment. Both. Both contain such allegations that the police forces -- it always says the Ministry of the Interior of Serbia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't have a 25(k).

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wrote it down. It's on this piece of paper that I have right in front of me. Perhaps I wrote it down wrong but you know full well what this is all about.

JUDGE KWON: It's 25(e).

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, General, are you aware of each and every engagement of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia outside the borders of the Republic of Serbia, the time, the composition, all the details that have to do with these engagements?

A. I'm aware of all engagements of the police of Serbia outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia. My previous answer pertains to this last question of yours too.

Q. Thank you, General. ⁴⁰⁰³⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I have completed the examination-in-chief. Now I wanted to ask you whether you think that I should now deal with the additional exhibits or would you like to leave that for later?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are going to leave the question of the exhibits to the end of the cross-examination, but you made a reference just now to "additional exhibits." What did you mean by that?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume it's on now. Yesterday, as Mr. Nice explained, invoking Article 68, I received a photocopy. These books, the Phoenix of Freedom, KLA, that's what it's called, and that's where there is a list of all of their dead, and many of the names match the names in the indictment, the names mentioned in the indictment as being those of innocent civilians who were killed in persecutions by forces of the Republic of Serbia, as you call it here. This is what Mr. Nice submitted to me yesterday, so it's not on the list of exhibits. I received it yesterday from Mr. Nice, and I had no way of dealing with it previously.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Matters of recent disclosure are matters I'll be dealing with in any event under cross-examination, and any that are outstanding can always be tidied up at the end of evidence overall, but I rather doubt if this witness is going to be able to assist. They're not, it seems to me, documents that are likely to assist him but it was judged ⁴⁰⁰⁴⁰ appropriate to serve the material, or re-serve it, on the accused at this stage given the nature of the evidence he was dealing with. So far as production of exhibits is concerned, I would invite the Chamber simply to put back determination on all matters until the end of evidence, however I must say that there's one matter of procedure touching exhibits that I'm going to ask you to deal with in the absence of the witness. It doesn't actually concern him and is better dealt with in his absence. It will take a couple of minutes, or five.

JUDGE ROBINSON: When did you have in mind?

MR. NICE: I was going to ask for the time right now, immediately at the break. If -- the witness will get a slightly longer break and he need be confident that what we are going to discuss in his absence has nothing to do with his evidence. It may have something to do with some exhibits but nothing to do with his evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us first make a decision about the additional exhibits, and it seems to me that we'll deal with them at the end of the evidence overall.

JUDGE BONOMY: The items you've disclosed sound like things that might persuade a Prosecutor to look at his indictment. That's the impression I'm getting from -- is that a wrong impression?

MR. NICE: Anything --

JUDGE BONOMY: Rather than the accused have to do something to bring a witness to speak to a book that's been published that perhaps indicates that some of the names in the indictment shouldn't be there as in the categories in which they are. ⁴⁰⁰⁴¹

MR. NICE: Your Honour is quite right, it's the sort of material that imposes a further obligation on me, an obligation that I am discharging. But if you will good enough to trust me to deal with it in cross-examination and revert to it at the end of the evidence, I hope that will be the most economic use of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, you may leave now. We are going to deal with a matter in your absence.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It doesn't concern you, but you will return after the break. You will be told when to return.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I said you will return after the break, and the court officer will inform you when that will be.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

[The witness stands down]

MR. NICE: Though it's a procedural matter, I would ask that I can deal with it in private session at the moment. It's a private session that will inevitably, as I could judge it, or could inevitably become public later but I ask for private session briefly to explain my position.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll start in private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁰⁰⁴² Pages 40042-40053 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁰⁰⁵⁴

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. KAY: First of all, in our submission this is a clear attempt to get round the recent rulings by the Trial Chamber relating to evidence that should be called in rebuttal of the accused's case. It's a way of opening up a window within the Defence proceedings to have a bite of the time that is dressed up as being what we would call a voir dire, a trial within a trial. That's, of course, something that you would have before a jury, and within the jurisprudence of this Tribunal such attempts have frequently been rejected, as reminded recently by the decision in the Delalic case where the Defence had applied for such a procedure to take place and that Trial Chamber rejected it.

This Trial Chamber is quite capable of receiving evidence, deciding at the conclusion of the evidential proceedings when it makes its determinations as to what it finds admissible, reliable, unreliable, and it can make decisions at that stage. To have a kind of set-up relating to particularly important Defence evidence is a clever strategy to try and undermine the Defence case as it goes along. One cannot fault Mr. Nice's ingenuity and constant attention to such strategic matters in the pursuit of his goal in relation to winning particular battles within this indictment, but that's really what it comes down to. We have had a rule -- Mr. Nice has referred to material that he gets and how important it is. We've had a Rule 68 disclosure very recently, surprisingly very recently, from a witness called K56: "I never ⁴⁰⁰⁵⁵ saw anyone being held in the Urosevac SUP, I never heard of anybody being held or mistreated there." Now, if Mr. Milosevic tried to get this in as Rule 68 material, as he's attempted to do at various stages and the Rules have been clarified, it would of course be rejected by the Trial Chamber. It's completely worthless. And when this came into my hands I gave advice that the witness should be called, interviewed, called, called as part of the Defence case. The fact that it comes on a piece of paper with that sort of assertion is completely meaningless and valueless unless that evidence is able to be properly adduced before the Trial Chamber. This is a strategy to get round the recent rules -- the recent rulings. It's why it arises now. It's very close in time to those decisions by the Trial Chamber. And in our submission if the Prosecution themselves have admissible evidence in relation to issues within the defence case, if that evidence is admissible, it should be called as part of their rebuttal case. Otherwise, they should cross-examine on the materials that they have against the witness Jasovic. In linking these documents that are produced by the witness Stevanovic to the Jasovic admission issue, in our submission that is wrong. Exhibits are able to stand on their own and be produced by different witnesses and be admissible under different grounds, and the witness Stevanovic in producing documents that co-relate to those produced or relevant to the witness Jasovic, those documents which arrive here through him as part of the records from the Ministry of Interior and contemporaneous to the time, if they are admissible on that basis, they become admissible in their own right aside of any issues there may be with ⁴⁰⁰⁵⁶ the witness Jasovic.

And Your Honour Judge Bonomy made the point and it's been said it hasn't been made before by us. That's because the ground hasn't been there to make such a submission before. We've not had a witness relating to the archive of materials until this moment, the witness Stevanovic, by whom such materials properly become admissible. And they are plainly relevant to the issue of Article 7(3) responsibility, they're plainly linked to the matters that I raised in open court yesterday concerning the relevance of the procedures and the investigations that were taking place, that the lawful constitutional provisions provided for and that this accused in that dimension is entitled to rely upon in that aspect of his Defence.

So in our submission, this application is completely ill-founded. It should be not be entertained as a trial within a trial. There's no good reason for it at all. If they have materials, they should cross-examine Jasovic with those materials and they become admissible and exhibits if they are admissible and exhibits.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's your position, Mr. Kay, on whether the accused can rely on these documents for the truth of their contents?

MR. KAY: It's -- for the truth of their contents, it's very difficult. It depends how much is there and whether there's a cumulative background of material that he is able to rely upon. It may be that one statement is insufficient but a cumulative amount of such materials, he would be entitled to rely upon the truth of the background. As far as his criminal liability is concerned. What one's got to remember is that this ⁴⁰⁰⁵⁷ issue concerns criminal responsibility and his criminal liability for matters that he either knew or should have known, would have had cause to have known, and those materials that this witness is producing go very much to a dimension of that issue.

And that's all I have to address you upon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that what Mr. Nice has asked, to keep back the documents which are the result of regular official, current, and at the time of the work -- at the time the work of one crime inspector who is testifying here, is completely unfounded. In fact, Mr. Nice has the right to ask all those questions to raise them during the cross-examination. That is the very purpose of cross-examination. It is in cross-examination that he is able to question the credibility of the witness and to try and raise that question. And in the cross-examination he can also bring up material facts, the ones that the witness is testifying to, and try to challenge those. Now, to try to eliminate and reject somebody's testimony and documents about the time that the witness is testifying about is completely unfounded, and I'm sure you're fully conscious of the fact that a large number of these documents came into being before the Racak case. Racak is a village in the territory of the Secretariat of the Interior in which at the time the crime inspector by the name of Jasovic worked. There weren't thousands of inspectors working there, just a few of them, and he was one of them. He and a colleague of his, they took the statements, and they compiled the documents, and those documents are ⁴⁰⁰⁵⁸ presented here as evidence. Not documents which were compiled precisely for this procedure here but they were contemporaneous with the events that took place and the cases there. So they are official documents, they are documents which were the result of policework, and they are being tendered here through -- presented here through witnesses such as General Stevanovic who was the assistant minister of the interior, that is to say a high ranking police official, who is testifying about those events, both on the basis of documents that he had at his disposal and on the basis of the knowledge he had in view of the position he held and also in view of the fact that at that time on many occasions he was in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija himself. So there are absolutely no grounds for that. Secondly, Mr. Nice has been saying here that he has some knowledge or awareness or that he has some -- he knows that some witnesses took statements under coercion, under duress. I can guarantee that you're going to find as many witnesses as you like in Kosovo to testify to whatever you want them to testify to, but that is all geared towards the purposes here, not towards establishing the facts from the period of time that we're discussing here.

And my second point is this: I'd like to draw your attention to a quite obvious matter, quite evident: A whole series of these statements which was taken by the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac and Mr. Jasovic and not confessions at all. They are information about others; other people, other circumstances, descriptions of whom they saw, who was armed, who were members of the KLA, who were not members, what colour the cars were, what they had equipment-wise, uniform-wise, where ^{40059 BLANK PAGE 40060} the bakery was, where the infirmary was. What kind of confessions are we talking about? They aren't. And I think that on the previous working day I presented a statement from one of the witnesses, a statement compiled by Jusuf Shefqet Becir was his name, Jasovic took it, and it showed that the two persons mentioned in that particular statement were members of the KLA from Kotlina. Today, on the other hand, we saw that in a document by Mr. Nice we have 12 names listed of KLA members from Kotlina. And in the document which was the result of Jasovic's operative work, two people were identified. In the document I received from Mr. Nice, 12 people are mentioned. Neither documents are complete because all the people over there were members of the KLA and they were clashing with the police forces there at that time, just like this book, the book that I offered up about the KLA with their names. I'm sure that's not complete and comprehensive either. It contains some names but not others. But at all events and at any rate, everything that was the result of official work as official documents along the line of duty in the police force which are being tendered as evidence here I believe should be admitted into evidence as such, and I think that it is quite untenable to disqualify a witness by saying that somebody subsequently tried to compile evidence that he exerted force and that witnesses were made to make statements under duress. And in none of those confessions -- they're not confessions, they're statements collected by Mr. Nice during the testimony Mr. Jasovic himself, one of the people giving the statements said they gave it when they saw bloodstained walls in the basement of the Secretariat of the Urosevac Secretariat. And Mr. Jasovic said that the ⁴⁰⁰⁶¹ secretariat in Urosevac did not have a basement or cellar at all, so I don't think there's any sense in following those lines and presenting arguments of that kind.

Everything that Mr. Nice has to challenge he will be able to do so during the cross-examination.

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

MR. NICE: Just a couple of points, and -- there's always a danger in imputing to one's opponent a strategy or inviting an explanation for the process that leads to an action being taken, because it's always possible that the opponent will feel obliged to reveal and in view of what Mr. Kay said, I do.

I made it clear that it was your recent rulings that stimulated my reflection on the problems we were facing. And I have very much in mind from the combination of recent rulings two points; one that seeking certification is not a proper way of expressing disagreement with a ruling, and I accept that; and second, that case-by-case decisions are what you're making. That led me to examine the difficult position in which we found ourselves and to come to the conclusion that I had erred by being too -- "accommodating" is the wrong word, but I hadn't been sufficiently adversarial, again something that I was invited, as it were, to reconsider by the rulings. And the problem we faced was this: If hearsay evidence that is challenged comes in on an important point, and obviously whether the victims at Racak were active KLA members is an important point, if it comes in in hearsay, I must be allowed under your ⁴⁰⁰⁶² Rules, under our Rules, Rule 95, to explore the issue of whether it should be admitted if it's been obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings. Now, here's the problem, and if I may say so the only point, since I'm invited to reveal my strategy, the only point upon which we maintain a position contrary to any of Your Honours' recent rulings at all. Your Honours have said that we can't put in as an exhibit, to neutralise statement 1 of person X, we can't put in statement 2. It can't become evidence in the case. So that we are not in the position to cross-examine and to put exhibits in, because of course the witness will say "untrue" or "I know nothing about it." Probably does know nothing about the second statement. He can't know anything about it. And so that problem basically means, that combination of decisions, means that I can't challenge evidentially the grounds of admissibility, and that must be, in our submission, completely wrong. That's what made me go back to think about what would happen in an ordinary trial, and of course the answer is you would have a voir dire.

JUDGE BONOMY: But you only have a voir dire, do you not, to get around the problem of perhaps the right to silence where, for example, the accused would have to give evidence to deal with a matter, which doesn't arise here. What -- how would you deal with this in a domestic court, this situation? You wouldn't, in the middle of a Defence case, seek a voir dire, would you?

MR. NICE: Of course in a domestic court you -- let me go back. I ⁴⁰⁰⁶³ understand that the rules of hearsay have changed significantly and I haven't done a trial in our domestic jurisdiction with the revised rules of hearsay but --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, but you would have a witness -- forget hearsay, the witness says something and you've got a statement of what he said on another occasion. What you would do is you'd cross-examine him about it and then you would seek leave of the Court to lead evidence to prove the statement at an appropriate stage in the proceedings. You wouldn't be seeking an interruption of the Defence case to deal with it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour's, I think right. It's under Lord Denman's Act, isn't it, that there was an absolute right to cross-examine on a prior statement provided the circumstances of making the statement were revealed to the person concerned. But there we're dealing with something different. There we're dealing with Witness X in the witness box who says proposition A. I have a statement attributed to Witness X, signed or otherwise, written or otherwise, asserting the reverse. I am allowed to cross-examine him on it, and if he acknowledges that the signature is his, then it goes in. If not, then I have to call the maker of the statement to prove -- to prove that it was made. But that's not what we're dealing with.

What we're dealing with here, and this is my problem as a litigator on this side of this courtroom, what we're dealing with here is a witness producing either firsthand - Jasovic - or secondhand - Marinkovic - or Nth-hand - Stevanovic - statements that plainly are being relied on for the truth of their content to prove these people were KLA. ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁴ And indeed, as Mr. Kay was good enough to explain on a much earlier occasion, there is basically nothing I can do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You could try to lead the evidence in rebuttal.

MR. NICE: Well, then the -- I can, but should it -- should I be obliged to be in that position with the consequences that I have set out in various places when the evidence may be inadmissible because it's unreliable? If this Court has a rule that says unreliable evidence is inadmissible, then a party who holds evidence going to show that it is unreliable must be allowed to establish its unreliability. And that's all I'm seeking to do, and that's exactly the process, since Mr. Kay wants to know, that led to my making this application. Of course, this application was really to try and decide when we should have the argument, the full-blown argument. It's turned into the full-blown argument itself. As to His Honour Judge Bonomy's query in -- the position on voir dire trials has been dealt with in various cases and allowed as a possibility in the Appeals decision in Mucic, which you can find. Although there wasn't one, it was clearly expressed that that was a possibility. Yes, this was a case of a defendant's statement, an accused's statement, but I think the principles are general. There's a case from Rwanda called Bizimungu, an oral decision on the qualification of a Prosecution expert Rubaduka, and again that was found as a possibility, that you can have a voir dire. But the general proposition is, to which in my respectful submission the answer must be, yes, you can have such a hearing, the general proposition is if there is a provision that allows exclusion on the grounds of unreliability, then in ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁵ certain circumstances it must be open to the opposing party to deal with unreliability by the calling of evidence.

Now, here -- and then I must revert to the point about calling evidence in rebuttal and drawing your attention again to our assumption - maybe I was a party to the assumption, maybe it was my fault that I allowed the assumption to continue - the assumption that the rebuttal evidence would be the evidence of the witnesses themselves, or 20 or 30 or 90 of them. You know, it could be the evidence from the investigators, and I'm not going to rehash that argument. But my immediate problem is what to do about this particular witness.

If -- I would prefer, obviously, that there should be -- if there is any question of my not being allowed a voir dire, then I would prefer the matter perhaps to be first the subject of a written argument - I've got one substantially prepared but not finally prepared - so that you can have a look at the authorities if you have any doubts on the matter and revert to it next week. And I don't need to deal with this part of the evidence with this witness this week, that's for sure, but it's certainly an important point and will have a significant affect on the scale of evidence that I may seek to call.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So at this stage your application is confined to seeking a ruling on Jasovic's evidence, testimony that relates to --

MR. NICE: Jasovic with this witness, which I would invite to be negative for this witness, knowing that it be dealt with with the other witness.

[Trial Chamber confers] ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not going to deal with any questions of admissibility now. Mr. Nice, you may put in your submissions on the voir dire by Monday, and we can have a response to that from Mr. Kay and the accused.

MR. NICE: Much obliged, Your Honour. Sorry to have taken a little more time than usual, but it's quite an important point, I suspect.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be called. There is one matter that should be dealt with. It's tab 177. Yes, tab 177, which has the names of rape victims, and that should be under seal.

[The witness takes the stand]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may commence. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Remind us, please, of your personal history. In 1990, what job did you have?

A. When giving answers on the first day, I think I explained what I did in which period. In 1990, I think I was head of the department of the police, or commander of special units of the police, and for a certain period of time I was in Kosovo and Metohija as well.

Q. You remained head of the special units for how many years?

A. You mean commander of special units of the police? Well, it must have been four or five or even up to six years. Tentatively from 1990 until 1996. Tentatively.

Q. Very well. What police rank did you hold when you were promoted in 1995 to general? ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁷

A. I didn't have a rank. I had the -- I had the top police rank at the time, which was chief inspector.

Q. And so it was either as chief inspector or possibly as general that you were in charge of the special units at the time of the DutchBat's withdrawal -- is this the DutchBat's withdrawal from Srebrenica, is it?

A. I think that that's correct.

Q. And which bit of the geography were you involved in in their withdrawal? Where did you meet them and look after them?

A. You mean the Dutch Battalion? Is that what you mean? On that day, I came to Bratunac, and I found the leaders of the Dutch Battalion there at the hotel, together with General Mladic and a few other officers of the army of Republika Srpska. An hour later, approximately, we crossed the bridge at Ljubovija, and with a certain number of policemen I provided security for that battalion through Serbia all the way up to the Batrovci crossing, which is in Srem, on the border with the Republic of Croatia.

Q. Now, as general and probably still in charge of the special units, you changed jobs in about 1996; is that right?

A. In 1996, I think, I became deputy head of the police administration, and then head of the police administration. When I became lieutenant colonel general, that should have been 1997. Then I was appointed assistant for -- assistant minister for the interior. I was appointed. It was an appointment, not an election.

Q. Yes. And it was as assistant minister that you dealt with Kosovo in 1998 and 1999.

A. Formally, I was in charge of particular lines of work, and I ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁸ presented a document in connection with that, what I was formally in charge of. And it is correct that in 1998 and 1999, as I've already said, I carried out certain assignments upon instructions from my minister in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Now, the police service that you have served -- and you gave up being an active policeman in 2000, didn't you?

A. I think it was 2001, the beginning of 2001. I haven't ceased being an active policeman, though. I am still at this point in time an authorised official, that is to say a policeman.

Q. So, for example, you have ready access to the Ministry of the Interior?

A. I can always go to the Ministry of the Interior. I am employed at the police academy, but in accordance with the law, I have the status of an authorised official.

Q. The service, the police service that you served, is it one of which you're proud?

A. Yes.

Q. And when we speak of the police service, the MUP, be under no illusion, I'm asking you about all of the MUP. You're proud of everything of the MUP, are you?

A. I am proud of all the units that I belonged to. When I say that I am proud of the police that I belonged to, I primarily mean the public security sector.

Q. Well, yes, I wondered whether you might say that, because -- but on the other hand, do you remember an answer that you gave to the accused ⁴⁰⁰⁶⁹ - I'm just trying to find the detail - right towards the end of your evidence, where you were asked about your knowledge of the activity of the police outside Serbia, and you said you knew absolutely everything about what they were doing. I'll try to find -- do you remember that answer?

A. Yes, I recall that answer.

Q. Although you may for a period of time have been more intimately concerned with the public police, you know about what the DB did, don't you?

A. Well, I know relatively little of what the state security sector did because these are two sectors that had a completely different scope of work and activity. Police conduct culture was that what the DB did was not supposed to be matter of in-depth interest for any one of us belonging to public security. In principle, generally speaking, I know what they did but I was never interested in great detail.

Q. There was nothing they did of which you were ashamed?

A. They did not do anything that I know of that they should be ashamed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That they should be ashamed or of which you should be ashamed?

Mr. Nice -- I think the question was, "There was nothing they did of which you were ashamed."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was my understanding of the question. My answer is in respect of such a question. Actually, I have no reason to feel ashamed because I did not belong to that sector, and I do not know of anything that I should be ashamed of. ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁰

MR. NICE:

Q. We haven't got it translated, but would you take your tab 6, please. I should say the accused doesn't have it translated, because it's not our duty to do so.

Now, I think I'm going to be referred to the correct clause, but you can take us there. There was, in fact, a duty for the two parts of the police service to cooperate, one with another, wasn't there?

A. That is correct.

Q. It's Article 17 and 20, I think. We won't take time with reviewing them now, but they require one part of the police service to cooperate with the other, and that makes it impossible for a very senior policeman like yourself to claim that you don't know what the other side is doing.

A. That statement is not correct. "Cooperation" means to give assistance in accordance with a concrete request and to notify the other sector if the other sector knows something from the scope of work of the former. Cooperation in the sense that you put it does not mean that one sector will know everything about the other sector. After all, state security -- the state security sector in a certain way, according to the nature of their work, is more closed than the sector of public security. It is logical that they know more about the public security sector than the public security sector knows of their activities.

Q. So far as paramilitaries are concerned, I have a number of questions to ask you, but at this stage just one. From your answers about paramilitaries, would it be really a matter of complete disrepute for a ⁴⁰⁰⁷¹ police officer like yourself ever to have worked alongside or with any paramilitary group?

A. Yes. In my understanding and in the understanding of the top echelons of the ministry, that would be a bad thing or, rather, it would be unacceptable.

Q. Now, another little matter of detail. You told us about Mr. Paponjak, the traffic policeman who we heard from before you, and he produced us a tab, 2.4, an exhibit, and it was his exhibits tab 2.4, and you hadn't seen it yourself until it was shown you by the accused. Do you remember that? Any time you want to be reminded of something or have your memory refreshed, just tell me and we'll give it to you. We can hand you the document again, or you can remember it.

And you told us that you had a conversation in the hotel with Mr. Paponjak about the exhibits. Do you remember that? And tell us again what it was he told you.

A. First of all, may I say that we did not discuss exhibits. We talked in general terms about the dossier KiM, Kosovo and Metohija. So he helped me understand those letters and numbers, and he just told me that the letters denote subdossiers and that Roman numerals were used to denote secretariats.

MR. NICE: Would Your Honours give me a minute.

Q. What did he say about the preparation of material for the indictment? Because I think you told us something about that.

A. I didn't understand the question. Preparation of material for the indictment? That was my understanding, but -- that was my understanding ⁴⁰⁰⁷² of what you said, but in that case I don't understand what you're saying.

Q. I'm afraid I haven't got the immediate quotation to hand so I'll come back to that when I have, but --

JUDGE KWON: You mean 2.4?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: "The information is not correct" "Response to point 7, or count 7"?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: If my memory is correct.

MR. NICE: That's right, yes. And Paponjak discussed that with him in the hotel, but we'll find the quotation and move on and we'll come back to it.

Q. When these documents were produced, or these 4 or 500 documents, whatever it is, who chose them? Who selected them?

A. You mean the documents from the tabs we just used, or do you mean the dossier on Kosovo and Metohija?

Q. The very documents we've been using here in court. Who selected them?

A. The documents, to the best of my knowledge, were obtained pursuant to a request from the assistant for Defence, and I suggested in a general terms what documents could be sought, and that was three or four months ago. So the advisor for Defence, in fact. And I said what I could testify about, and then the advisors for the Defence drew up a list of documents to be requested from the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. Yes. Were there any documents that you yourself produced? ⁴⁰⁰⁷³

A. No, there were no documents which I prepared myself, but there were a few documents which I provided.

Q. Can you tell us which ones?

A. To be quite frank, I can't remember exactly now. I think that there were several tables. For example, the table that I mentioned about the terrorist attacks in the period from 1991 to 1997, for example, I had that one personally and I can remember that. But I will, of course, be able to tell you exactly what ones I had, although I can't remember just now.

Some documents I did provide when I was interviewed in 2002, and so mostly it refers to that set of documents. But they were also obtained from the ministry.

Q. So the vast majority of the documents that are here beside you are documents produced by the ministry, and for the most part they were documents you'd never seen before?

A. That's not correct. The first part of your observation is correct, and that is that the vast majority of the documents were produced by the Ministry of the Interior and just a small number, a negligible number, I provided myself, but those that I provided were copies of the ministry's to a certain extent and -- could you remind me of the second part of your question, please? The second part of your question again, please.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you'd never seen before.

A. That's not true. Most of these documents I have seen before, and I've already explained that. I explained it when I was interviewed by ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁴ your investigators already in 2002. If you look at the transcript, you will see that what I am saying is quite correct.

Q. Well, we may have to look at that on a document-by-document basis, but let's deal with the documents of statistics that you've produced very generally. You're not a statistician yourself, are you?

A. Correct.

Q. The statistical documents don't identify, I think, for the most part or any of them who created the document?

A. Is that a question?

Q. That's a question.

A. Perhaps this was not explained in the previous testimony, but if I remember correctly, I think I did say that the statistics and tables were compiled by the analytics department of the Ministry of the Interior on the basis of official cases and case files that the ministry had and on the basis of reports from the staff in Pristina, and they received daily reports, as I've already stated.

Q. So I'm right; we can't actually get to the individual who bears responsibility for the compilation of the statistics, can we?

A. Of course I don't know what person in particular compiled them, but I knew -- know who is at the head of the organisational unit in the ministry who was responsible for everything that that unit and department in the ministry did.

Q. We've been provided with no original sources nor indication that we can have access to original sources?

A. I really can't help you there. The advisors for Defence, I'm ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁵ sure, would know who could help you. The only way I could help you is to tell you who you could contact for information about that, and I'm quite certain that the information will be as I've just stated.

Q. We don't have, for example, criteria for how things were determined to be terrorist or non-terrorist, do we?

A. Well, perhaps we don't have them specifically written down, but it is logical that experienced analysts and leaders in the secretariats deal with things of that nature and are able to qualify an act in the corresponding way. Of course, we can always raise the question of whether that way is the right way, but according to all our criteria, I think that the qualifications are good ones.

Q. We know nothing of any electronic system for holding material or the way in which that system was accessed, do we?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, had I known and had I had the right or, rather, had I known what nature your questions would be, perhaps I could be of -- could have been of assistance to you and I could have brought in exhibits of that nature, but I didn't do so because I didn't know, so I cannot answer your questions. I quite simply don't have the information.

Q. Incidentally, how long did it take you to become familiar with this 17 volumes of documents as they are now? How long did it take you to become familiar with them and in order to prepare for giving evidence?

A. Let me repeat in part what I've already stated: The vast number of these documents that are here, that we have here, were known to me back to the days of the war. For example, Pusto Selo, Kotlina. I had information about that. And then again a number of documents I saw in the ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁶ MUP before I moved to the police academy. And to be quite frank, I didn't have sufficient time to become well acquainted with all the exhibits and documents because I had to remind myself of some things and a lot of time has gone by since those things took place. But I can tell you now that I did not have a chance to look through all the documents in my preparation for testimony here, but from what I was able to look at and study, they are documents which are original documents of the ministry.

Q. Could you answer the question: How long did it take to prepare?

A. I have been here since the 13th of April. Perhaps you didn't know that. And if you want me to answer how long I would have needed, I would certainly have needed much more time. But the time that I had at my disposal I used in the best way I thought possible.

Q. And just finally on this, as you were preparing -- and this is for a matter that doesn't relate to your evidence, understand. While you were preparing these documents, and I don't want to know anything about the detail of it, just help us: Were detailed notes being taken of the ways in which you could help with the giving of evidence as you were going through these documents?

A. I did not make any notes. Perhaps I did jot down a few things, and the notes that I made are in my room, but that is a limited number. Just enough for me to recall a date, a period, and so forth, because I have -- I find it quite difficult to memorise dates and numbers.

Q. The quotation that -- the quotation that I wanted to remind you of in relation to your knowledge of the DB as well as the public security was this: You were asked whether you were aware of each and every engagement ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁷ of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia outside the borders of the republic; the time, the composition, all the details that have to do with these engagements, and you replied, if I may say so, emphatically, "I am aware of all the engagements of the police of Serbia outside the territory of the Republic of Serbia." That is your position, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And that includes not just public service deployment but also DB deployment, doesn't it?

A. My answer does not include the DB. Therefore, I said the police. And very often in public communication the police and MUP are used as synonyms, but I always like to refer to the police because the concept of the MUP, it is difficult to bring in to context and relationship with the operations that I was discussing during my testimony because the MUP implies the administration as well. It also includes the administration. And then this concept does not correspond to what we're talking about here today.

Q. I see. Now -- just to revert to and complete what I wanted to ask you about your conversation with Paponjak, you said this: You spoke of the dossier and the subdossier, including one based on allegations in the indictment. And you went on to say, "And I know that the ministry asked the secretariats to provide the ministry with all evidence and information concerning incidents described in the indictment that they might have anything about. That is what I'm absolutely certain of." His Honour Judge Bonomy asked you, "How do you know that?" And you said, "I know ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁸ because while I was preparing to testify here, I spoke to certain people, including Mr. Paponjak, while we were at the hotel." So may I take it that your understanding from Paponjak was that the documents he was producing, or some of the documents he was producing were because the ministry had asked the secretariat to provide evidence and information concerning incidents concerned in this accused's indictment; is that right?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, that question is far too complex. It's too complicated and I'm not sure that I'm going to answer it properly, but I'll do my best.

In continuation of my answer to a subsequent question, I said that I just mentioned Paponjak as a current illustration, but of course my preparation for testimony didn't begin when I arrived here, which is to say that certain elements about the Kosovo and Metohija dossier is something that I knew about before I talked to Paponjak, because these documents, this material is about that, and I -- it was I who brought these materials.

And the second point is this: Before I talked to Paponjak, I knew, roughly speaking, orientation-wise, what the structure of the Kosovo and Metohija dossier was. I couldn't reconstruct it to any precision, but I did know that dossier A, for example, with cases resulting in death, I knew then that and know now, and that B are crimes are to the detriment of Albanians, with Albanians as victims; that the next one in line was against Serbs, where the Serbs were victims, but I couldn't remember the rest. So in responding to a question here, I recognised the letter DJ, ⁴⁰⁰⁷⁹ and from the title of the piece of information I was able to conclude that it was a subdossier which related to events from the indictment. So that was the substance of my answer. And I have no changes to make to that answer. Quite possibly the answer wasn't clear enough, or was slightly complicated, but there you have it.

JUDGE BONOMY: The original answer was very clear. The position now is extremely complicated.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. And perhaps you'd like to think back, Mr. Stevanovic. As His Honour Judge Bonomy observes, your answer was extremely clear. Let me just remind you of a little bit of the history of the questioning. The accused asked you in a question which was leading in form whether the document you were being shown related to an indictment other than his indictment but you maybe didn't hear the question and you made it clear that the document you were looking at related to this very indictment. When asked how you knew that, you made it quite clear you got that from a conversation with Paponjak.

Do you now wish to change that simple explanation?

A. If that's the way I put it, as you have just told us, then of course I could correct myself somewhat, but I didn't understand myself to have put it the way it was put. I don't doubt the interpretation, but I'm just wondering whether it was the right one. I know, also from Belgrade, that there is a subdossier which relates to the collection and amassing of facts by the secretariat from Kosovo which relate to the events from the indictment, and I explained at the time that the police used all sources ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁰ available, and one of those sources was the indictment and knowledge of the indictment, and that source was that -- and therefore we wanted to amass the documents in one place, related to that. I'm very sorry. I thought I was clear enough, but it would appear that I wasn't.

Q. You see, what you say is interesting, but let's approach its value in this way: You and the accused's associates and advisors had no difficulty whatsoever in getting any documents you wanted from the Ministry of the Interior, did you?

A. I don't know whether they had any difficulties or not. I think they did. And I don't think they received all the documents they had requested.

Q. But if your answers are correct, within the ministry there is a complete dossier, or there's -- it may not be complete, but there is a dossier specifically prepared with this litigation in mind, because it's prepared to deal with the allegations in this litigation. Am I right about that?

A. You're absolutely not correct about that. That dossier contains at least ten subdossiers and they are classified - and I've said this several times - according to set criteria which that working group applied.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... a subdossier exists which is prepared with this litigation in mind because it deals with the allegations in this litigation; correct?

A. It deals with the events from the indictment, and those events ⁴⁰⁰⁸¹ from the indictment are serious both in terms of how they are described and qualified and what it says there. It's quite natural that the MUP, which at the time of their occurrence was in charge, and is still in charge in one way for those events because they took place when the MUP had jurisdiction there to deal with those cases, but the MUP doesn't deal only with those events. It deals with all crimes, everything that is -- all acts against the war -- against the law. And it seems to me that it was a good idea. It seems to me a good thing that all these questions in the indictment are dealt with within one.

Q. Two other points and I must move on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to break at 20 minutes to, resume at 6.00, and then we'll have one hour.

MR. NICE:

Q. It is well known, isn't it, that the allegations against the accused include that he committed serious crimes through the agency of the MUP.

A. Do you want me to answer?

Q. Yes.

A. I should like to ask you -- I'm not accustomed to this type of questioning, these questions, the way in which they're structured, I mean. Of course from the indictment we can see that the police had a significant part in the alleged events as described in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. And my last question before the break, if this is convenient to the Court, is this: In your long evidence, you've heard on several ⁴⁰⁰⁸² occasions one or other of the learned Judges invite the accused to consider having called someone closer to the action than you, and on each occasion you will have heard the accused say he doesn't need to call anyone else. Do you understand, Mr. Stevanovic, that you are basically here to cover and deal with all allegations made against the accused on the basis of agency of the MUP?

A. I of course did not think along those lines, and I have no awareness of that being the case. I decided to respond to the request for me to come here and testify and have declared that I will speak the truth. I of course answer questions, I don't formulate the questions. So I will be ready to answer all your questions just as I answered all the questions posed to me by the Defence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just clarify. When the witness said that he's not accustomed to this type of questioning, these questions, I gather that he was saying that some of the questions are posed as statements in the way in which we pose questions, certainly in common law jurisdictions, and so that's why he's saying he doesn't -- he's not accustomed to those type of questions, and that's certainly the way that you pose your questions. They're in the form of statements, and I'm very familiar with that way of questioning.

MR. NICE: I shall endeavour to highlight the interrogatory nature of my interrogatory statements.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 5.42 p.m.

--- On resuming at 6.03 p.m. ⁴⁰⁰⁸³

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Immediately before the break, I asked you whether you appreciated you were here to cover all aspects of the police case, and you said you weren't aware of that. In light of the questions you've asked, I'm going to seek your assistance on many topics.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that Mr. Nice is asking improper questions to the witness because his question contains the assertion that the witness wanted to cover all aspects of the MUP, and that's not true. You know that before that there were other MUP representatives here.

And secondly, your suggestion, to which Mr. Nice refers, that is to say that somebody who is closer to the events should be called, and I said that in that case that would not be necessary, that referred to a suggestion from you while we were showing photographs from Kotlina, which were taken on the day that the event took place, and I said that I assumed there was no need for somebody to come in, somebody who had taken the photographs and was in Kotlina. From that, we cannot deduce the conclusion that Mr. Nice has extracted at all and ask the witness to answer -- and said that he was the only person from MUP. There were Jasovic as crime inspector, then Paponjak was secretary. Now we have the assistant minister here. So he's asking quite the wrong questions and improper questions and leading the witness astray, trying to mislead the witness, in fact, and he is aware of that. ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let us hear Mr. Nice's question. If it is improper, we'll exclude it.

What's the question, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: The next question has changed and it's this:

Q. Were you the officer who led the -- I was going to use the word "attack" -- that led the troops, the police troops in Racak? Were you?

A. Of course I was not. And I answered that, that I was not.

Q. Is that man still alive? Goran Radosavljevic, is he still alive?

A. Of course he is.

Q. Were you either the officer or the prison service warden in charge of Dubrava prison at the time of the alleged bombings? Not the alleged bombings, the bombings. Were you? Of course you weren't. Are those men alive? Well, we know the assistant warden's dead. But others are alive, aren't they? Aren't they?

A. I'd once again like to ask you not to ask me questions the way you have been doing, because in the Serbian grammar, if I say "yes," then that would be a negation and would mean no. If I said "no," it would turn out that my answer was "yes." So could you ask me questions that I can understand straightforwardly? You have double negations, double negatives, and if I add my negative this is very convoluted then and complicated.

Q. Very well. I've made my point. I'm going to move on. You've taken the solemn declaration here.

A. I will answer.

Q. You've taken the solemn declaration. Are you prepared to help ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁵ this Chamber if I give you that opportunity a little later? Are you prepared to help them? Or are you here to help the accused?

A. I have already said that. I am here to answer questions both put to me by the Defence and the Prosecution, and I will answer them by telling the truth. As to your previous question, I really can't give an answer because it seems to me to be nonsensical whether I was the warden of the Dubrava prison. I don't see the sense of that question.

Q. In light of your answer that you're prepared to help this Chamber, would you be so good as to give us a list again of the paramilitary groups of one kind or another of which you were aware that operated in and from the territory of Serbia during these wars. Name them.

A. First of all, let me say that it is important that we understand the concept as I understood it and put it. Only in that way am I able to answer your question. So the way I understand the concept, we're dealing with groups wearing military uniforms, with military weapons, which were not under the command of the regular military or possibly police forces. I cannot list all the groups. I can't enumerate them. I know some of their names, but I cannot say whether at that point in time they were within the composition of some structures, state structures or not.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... do your best.

A. I know about the Serb Volunteer Guards, for example, and I said that I knew that it came within the composition of the army of the Republika Srpska Krajina, so at that time --

Q. Next name. Just the list. I just want the list, please, of the most famous paramilitaries. You gave us a list before and I want you to ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁶ have another go.

A. I said, if I recall correctly, about the existence of the White Eagles, but I can't say who they belonged to.

Q. Next?

A. I know about certain paramilitary groups in the Republic of Croatia, such as the ZNG, for example, and in Krajina the Red Berets of Captain Dragan, for instance. I also know about Sarajevo and the Green Berets.

Q. Any other names come to mind?

A. And I can't remember any more just now.

Q. That's the second time that you've given a list and on each occasion you haven't mentioned the Skorpions. Would you like to think about the Skorpions?

A. I did know about that particular paramilitary unit, but I don't know who it belonged to or whether it belonged to any regular state structure or not. And thank you for reminding me of it. If you remind me of some more, I'll be happy to answer you.

Q. It answered to the MUP, didn't it?

A. I'm not aware of that, that it reported to MUP --

Q. Well, tell the Court this --

A. -- answered to MUP.

Q. -- are you aware of the publication in your own country of reports to the effect that a video exists showing that Skorpions killed innocent victims at Srebrenica? Are you aware of that? It's been the subject of wide publicity. ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁷

A. Mr. Prosecutor, that is something I absolutely do not know about, and I'm quite sure that a group with that kind of name was never active within the composition and structure of the police of the Republic of Serbia. Possibly certain individuals were taken on in some kind of procedure, but I claim that no organised group with a name of that kind ever belonged to the police of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Well, what did the Skorpions do, to your knowledge?

A. I don't know what they did. I think they belonged to either police -- the police of the Republic of Srpska Krajina or the army of Srpska Krajina, and that's how I seem to recall that name and that particular group. I think it was in Slavonia, Eastern Slavonia or thereabouts.

Q. I see. And if I give you an opportunity in due course to assist in identifying people on a video showing what may be the Skorpions killing in Srebrenica, will you assist me?

JUDGE ROBINSON: In what way, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: Identification of individuals, and other things.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see.

MR. NICE:

Q. Will you assist me? Now tell us -- you nodded. Now tell the Court this: Had you been aware of the publicity given to the possible existence of this video in Belgrade?

A. I never saw a video of that kind. Therefore, I state --

Q. Were you aware of publicity given in newspaper articles to the possible existence of such a video? Indeed, it led to people being ⁴⁰⁰⁸⁸ threatened and I don't know whatever else. Were you aware of such publicity? Yes or no.

A. I'll be more specific: I absolutely don't know about any publicity linked to any kind of group bearing the name of Skorpion.

Q. I'm sure that's --

A. Quite simply, I can't know what you're asking me about.

Q. Well, then, you can help me with the next topic because I want you to describe your state or the country in which you lived for the decade of the 1990s rather more fully than we have done so far. Dealing with things politically, and you rose to the position of an assistant minister, throughout your time in the police in the 1990s, would it be fair to say that decisions as to what happened -- decisions of importance of what happened so far as the police were concerned and the army were concerned all ultimately channeled back to this accused, whatever the formal structures? Would you accept that?

A. I do not accept that statement. May I answer the first part of what you said now? I was not appointed assistant minister according to a political term. I put on a police uniform the first time when I was 14 years old. At the time when I was in the ministry, there were no political appointments as far as assistant ministers were concerned. Everybody appointed to that position would have a long service in the police force. Only ministers came from the ranks of politicians. And indeed throughout my professional career, I never dealt with politics. I dealt with law enforcement. I did not pass laws. I was not a member of parliament. ^{40089 BLANK PAGE 40090}

Q. I'll ask the second part of the question: Did decision-making throughout the 1990s and whatever the structures, did decision-making of important decisions ultimately rest with this accused?

A. All decisions and all instructions that I received and carried out exclusively came from the minister of the interior while I was assistant minister. When I was at lower positions I received them from my immediate superior. I never got any instructions from President Milosevic in any way. I was never asked by him to come and see him, and I never went to see him, either at his invitation or because I wanted to go.

Q. You had access to a lot of material over the years. You know the general nature of the allegations made against this accused. Do you accept that serious crimes were committed by any Serbs in any of the theatres of war that we are concerned with here?

A. I accept as a possibility that there were crimes in all areas and that representatives of all sides took part in the commission of these crimes. However, a crime is a crime when it is proven and when a verdict is passed. I am a policeman. I don't like thinking in those terms.

Q. Assuming that such crimes were committed, from all your vantage points of knowledge, can you point us to any other senior politician or general, or whatever else it may be, who you could see as making independent judgements leading to the commission of crimes other than this accused? Can you point us to any individual who you say may have been responsible for the commission of the crimes that you accept may have happened? And, if so, who?

A. I cannot answer that kind of question because I do not have ⁴⁰⁰⁹¹ information. I have already said that I was not involved in any way in political decision-making. I said what meetings I attended, and I can testify to what I know from those meetings.

Q. You and the accused had an exchange of some comparatively lighthearted nature about the use of the term "policeologist" which has been associated with Mr. Babovic. Although I can't find his using the term, it was used in a question by the accused of Zoran Lilic. It may well be that it did turn up in the evidence of Mr. Babovic and it hasn't been -- or isn't retrievable on our system at the moment. Have you read Mr. Babovic's report?

A. Yes, I have read it.

Q. Would you like to tell us whether you -- or have you got a copy of it with you?

A. Perhaps there is one somewhere, but I simply can't find it.

Q. Did you make any notes on it to record where you assert or would wish to assert that he was in error?

A. I did not make any longer notes. Possibly on my own copy I jotted down a thing or two, perhaps a question mark or a statement of my own, but I cannot show that now.

Q. Can you remember, so as we can deal with it, any part of his report that you say is fundamentally wrong?

A. Well, perhaps I cannot recall in detail, but many statements and qualifications pertaining to the police of Serbia in the 1990s in my firm conviction are absolutely incorrect. They are political qualifications, rather, of an opponent of the then police rather than serious analytical ⁴⁰⁰⁹² conclusions of a serious analyst.

Q. Have you read his books?

A. I haven't.

Q. In engaging --

A. I do not even know of the existence of them.

Q. In engaging in the little dialogue with the accused where the word "policeologist" was bandied about, did you remember what job Mr. Babovic had before he retired?

A. I really do not know that.

Q. Do you think --

A. As for Mr. -- you know, I've been in the police a long time but I don't know exactly what duty he had. I know that he worked at the Federal Secretariat for Foreign Affairs -- sorry; Internal Affairs. I always make this particular slip of the tongue.

Q. He became head of the Yugoslav Central Bureau of Interpol. Do you think such a person might have less or more knowledge of other police forces than you? Would working for Interpol give more or less access to other police forces than being a simple -- not simple, a straightforward, internal policeman?

A. Perhaps you've assisted me, but I would like to know for how long he worked in that position. I know roughly what that sector in the Ministry of the Interior dealt with. If he was actually there, then I can claim with certainty that I have a better knowledge of the police of Serbia than he does, because that sector in the Federal Ministry of the Interior practically dealt in corresponding with Interpol in relation to ⁴⁰⁰⁹³ particular events, but they never took part in investigating and resolving criminal cases. That sector in the federal MUP was a purely administrative organ within --

Q. Pause. The question was whether he had more knowledge of other police forces. Would you accept that he did? Of other police forces; foreign police forces.

A. Of course I cannot answer that question because I do not have any information what the man personally dealt with. That sector does not deal with the structure and organisation of other police forces. They only cooperate with those police forces in respect of concrete events and concrete crimes in terms of legal aid, the exchange of information, et cetera. They do not analyse other police forces except if he himself did that by way of his own professional commitment.

Q. Well, his conclusions included that for the period between 1988 and 2000 the police had become an instrument for defending the regime from the people, that it was politicised, militarised, corrupt, and uncontrolled by society.

Now, if you've read his report - we don't have time to go through it in detail, but if you have read it - would you like to think of any of the workings of the report that led to those conclusions that you can tell us to be wrong?

A. Well, what you quoted just now speak in itself of a qualification that is not based on specific facts. Nothing is explained beforehand, and yet that kind of conclusion is reached. So there is no background given. I claim that the police was not politicised in Serbia, that it was ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁴ not militarised in Serbia. I claim that it was not there to protect the state from the people. The police equally protected the people and the state, because that is what it's supposed to do according to the law and the constitution.

Of course it is always possible to make certain contradictions, that the police protect people more than the state and vice versa. Policework is very delicate, and somebody can qualify it one way and somebody else can qualify it in another way.

Q. Very well. Do you --

A. The police has to apprehend perpetrators of crimes and defend institutions. That is its duty.

Q. Do you remember that in 1997 Nebojsa Sarkic was deputy Serbian justice minister?

A. I think that I remember that. I remember for sure but I'm not sure of the exact period, but I'm sure it was.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... by Mr. Babovic, along with a lot of other material, but he is cited as having said in 1997 of the police force of which you are proud, this: "It is quite clear that the police are out of control. It is time for a large meeting like the fourth plenum, or something like that, to find ways of introducing control and punishment of the police."

Now, can you explain what circumstances could lead your own deputy justice minister to give that summary of the police force of which you were proud in 1997?

A. I wish to repeat yet again that I am proud of the police that I ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁵ was in and where I was a person in charge. I read that before, and truth to tell, I don't believe even now that he actually said that. If he did actually say it, it is an absolute falsehood, and it is motivated by something that I am not aware of. I think even at this point in time that is not his view.

Q. My last question about Mr. Babovic is this: He retired, author of books on the police and Yugoslavia and other things, he retired in part because he had a clash with people from the Ministry of the Interior but also because he realised that things were happening in the country about which nobody knew and about which nothing was being done. As a policeman, retiring for those reasons. Can you understand his concerns in 1991?

A. First of all, I do not know that these reasons were actually correct. I don't know until when he worked and when he retired. And of course I cannot have any opinion as to his motives. If that is what he said his motives were, then it seems to me that he was not being sincere.

Q. You say that your state was not a police state. What definition of "police state" are you applying when you give us that evidence?

A. Well, that concept can be understood in different ways, of course. In my interpretation of this concept, a police state would mean that the police played a dominant role, a very large police force, et cetera, frequency of repressive police measures and the like. I assert that in Serbia everything that was done in the 1990s cannot be qualified as a police state. We have had -- we had indeed a very complex security situation in the country, and it was very hard to do the right thing all the time. I'm a participant and witness of and in all ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁶ of that. I know that we worked day and night in order to secure law and order and peace. And you know full well what kind of problems Serbia faced during those years.

Q. One of the characteristics of a police state - would you accept this - is that it is anti-democratic?

A. Absolutely not. I accept that that would be a characteristic of a police state. Let me be specific. I do not accept that that was the case of the Republic of Serbia in the last decade of the 20th century.

Q. Another would be that the police have extensive if not almost unrestricted powers and are objects of fear to the population. Yes?

A. I could accept that characteristic, too, but I assert that that was not the situation in the Republic of Serbia. The police in Serbia had the usual powers and authority prescribed in most European countries and for most European police forces according to what I've read and what I know.

Q. What about the police in Kosovo?

A. The police in Kosovo, regrettably, was in the most delicate position to defend part of the territory of Serbia from growing terrorism, which was not only a problem for the Republic of Serbia. It will become quite evident that that is a problem for the international community as well.

The struggle against terrorism, as we all know from our experience, is not simple at all. I provided part of this explanation in my answers to the Defence.

Q. Would you accept -- ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁷

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Would you accept that Kosovo Albanians, by the end of the 1990s, if not earlier, much earlier, certainly by the end, would have been in fear of Serb policemen?

A. It is possible that there were Albanians who lived in fears of different kinds, but I'm convinced that they lived in greater fear of terrorists than of the police. I'm also convinced that for the most part fear from the police was imposed upon them by the terrorists, because that was part of the plan, that Albanians as citizens of Serbia should lose confidence in their state. That could not be the objective of the police by any means. The objective of the police was to keep this confidence, to raise it to a higher level, to build that confidence, and that is the conclusion that can be drawn from my testimony before this Court, and that can also be concluded from the documents that we presented to this Court.

Q. I'm going suggest to you now so you can know it's coming that in Kosovo in particular life became the life of a police state by the end of the 1990s and you know that to be true. Follow? That's the general suggestion.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, allow me to say that I know the situation in my country better than you do. I'm sorry if I'm overstepping my rights before this Court of law in saying that. I spent over five years in Kosovo and Metohija, and I know what effort and what sacrifice the police made in order to ensure law and order and confront terrorism. Of course, the saddest thing of all, in my personal opinion, is ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁸ that some forces sided up with terrorism instead of siding up with the state in its struggle against terrorism. That is my greatest disappointment from Kosovo.

Q. Returning to the proposition that a police state is anti-democratic, in democratic states exposure to criticism is a healthy thing, isn't it?

A. Yes, if it is sound and realistic.

Q. For a long time there have been non-governmental organisations that have had the courage to confront what's been happening in Serbia and Kosovo and to make their findings public, haven't there?

A. There were non-governmental organisations that were highly critical of the activity of the police in the Republic of Serbia.

Q. The Humanitarian Law Centre was one, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia was another.

A. Yes, I know these organisations, but I have not dealt with them seriously although I did read some texts.

Q. And we know from your answers yesterday that your duty as a police force would be to inquire into any allegation of crime, from wherever it came, to take it seriously and to look into it; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Two points first of all: Where those two non-governmental organisations have drawn to the public's attention wrongdoings by Serbs - and they also bring to the public's attention wrongdoing by Albanians and anyone else - has your police force investigated their allegations or not?

A. I don't know which concrete allegations you have in mind, but I ⁴⁰⁰⁹⁹ can give a general answer that all allegations regardless of their source get police attention and are investigated by the police.

Q. And there's no reason, is there, to doubt the good faith of people who put themselves and indeed their lives at risk in exposing that which your society was unwilling to have uncovered? No reason to doubt their good faith, is there?

A. Again the question is a bit complicated. Perhaps I cannot follow it.

I do not know people, at least from the police structure, who wanted something not to be uncovered. We did everything within our possibilities to discover everything that was illegal and to do on account of that everything that any police would have to do. Since we're talking about non-governmental organisations, first of all I have to say that I absolutely support the existence of non-governmental organisations, and I am aware of the role they play in any democratic society. However, over a certain period of time it is my impression we had highly partial conclusions drawn by some non-governmental organisations regarding the human rights situation.

Q. Not these two. You didn't know anything about them. You've told us that.

A. I didn't say that I knew nothing about them. I said that I knew of their existence and I said that I read some of the texts of those organisations. I'm worrying now about the interpretation, whether it's good since you're putting this kind of question to me.

Q. In your diary, Exhibit 404 -- tab 404, just lay this one page on ⁴⁰¹⁰⁰ the overhead projector. 440, I beg your pardon.

We can see on the left-hand side there, in a list of actions and other things, we can see -- and if there's an English translation, it's on page 39, but I don't want to take time duplicating because we can see it there. For the --

A. First of all, I have a request, if you allow me.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... lines down, it says "Our enemies --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it, General?

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.

MR. NICE: May the last passage be redacted, please.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁰¹⁰¹ Pages 40101-40104 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁰¹⁰⁵

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's go back to the beginning of the 1990s. The SAJ, when was that formed? Tell us what it was and when was it formed.

A. They are specialist -- it's a special anti-terrorist unit, the SAJ, which before that had a similar name but slightly different - I can't remember it now - and I know that it was established in 1978. That's when it was formed. And that it has existed to the present day and does exist.

Q. PJP was formed when, first formed when?

A. The PJP under that name -- well, I can't remember exactly. I ⁴⁰¹⁰⁶ think we had a document about that. So it could have been in 1993, for example, because the last document --

Q. Early 1990s. The JSO, which became the Red Berets -- the JSO, which became the Red Berets, when was that formed?

A. I didn't finish my answer with respect to PJP and when that was formed. The first special purpose unit in Serbia was formed in 1972 and all subsequent ones nurture the traditions of those first units. And the JSO - I think I answered that question yesterday - it was formed in 1996.

Q. Its precursor was formed in 1991.

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. Aren't you? We'll come to that very shortly. All of --

A. I'm not aware of that, but just a moment, let me be specific because I don't want you to say that I'm sidestepping the issue. I just heard at an interview I had in Belgrade two or three months ago that Mr. Franko mentioned the formation of that unit in 1991.

Q. Well --

A. But that was a leading question. I said, "Well, if Franko said that, I have no reason to doubt it." That is quite right, that's what I said. But I know that the unit was formed in 1996.

Q. These three units were all military in formation, weren't they? Military equipment, military structure.

A. They were not, of course, military units. However, internally and organisationally, as we call it, they had what we call military structure, but they weren't military units as such.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... early 1990s, right up and ⁴⁰¹⁰⁷ until 2000, or it may have been 2001, when the gendarmerie was formally introduced, you have an army, a police force which is functioning perfectly well, and at least three militarised or military characterised units. Now, can you explain why it was necessary to have these additional military-type units operating on the territory without formalising them as a gendarmerie, right through the 1990s?

A. Well, that's quite clear. It's easy to explain that. Each of these three units was specific in one way or another and had its set purpose. So the special units were units which had more men. We said they were ad hoc units, not classical units of permanent composition, and they performed very different assignments, from the simplest task to provide security for public -- large public meetings, or more complex tasks, for example, to suppress and prevent terrorism. But let me repeat: They are not special units. Special anti-terrorists units -- unit was a small unit numbering 100 men, and that particular unit --

Q. Do you now accept that Frenki, if he said he formed his unit in 1991, must have done so, and on your account done so without telling you about it or without your knowing about it? You described the Red Berets yesterday as paramilitary. Paramilitaries working on well-ordered societies have a destabilising effect, don't they? Can you explain to us, please, why it was necessary for a paramilitary force under the MUP to be operating from 1991?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, you really have asked me five questions in one, and I'm not able to follow.

Q. Yes, well, I'll ask you one question: Why was it necessary to ⁴⁰¹⁰⁸ have a paramilitary force acting under the MUP on your territory from 1991?

A. I'll give you a quite clear answer: Within the composition of the MUP of Serbia, there was never any paramilitary force active. I tried to explain the problems of that concept and term, the term used. An ordinary police can be considered paramilitary. So if you understand the concept in that way, then I'm not able to answer you. But since we're talking about police units here, we cannot say that that was a paramilitary unit.

Q. Why was it necessary to have a militarised unit operating on your territory, if your answer is correct and honest, unknown to a senior policeman like you?

A. What unit are you referring to? I apologise.

Q. Mr. Simatovic said, and you accept, was formed in 1991. Why was it necessary to have such a unit answerable to the MUP from 1991?

A. Let me repeat: It was not a paramilitary unit. It was a regular unit, a regular unit with the frameworks of the state security department.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... how come --

A. Now, I don't know how many times you want me to repeat this, but --

Q. You tell us: If it was a regular unit -- if it was a regular unit, how come you knew nothing about it, so you tell us?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I said quite clearly several times that I do know that it existed within the state security department, and I told you what I knew about when it was formed, and I said that I had heard that Franko Simatovic said that it had been formed in 1991. But I attended the ⁴⁰¹⁰⁹ ceremony at the end of the winter, beginning of spring, I believe it was, 1996, and that ceremony was organised --

Q. I'm going to cut you short --

A. -- with regard to the establishment of the unit for special operations.

Q. Let me remind you of two things: It was you who used the word "paramilitary" about it. That's the first thing. And the second thing, in answers just a few minutes ago, you said, "I just heard --"

A. That's not true.

Q. I'll check the LiveNote. You said a few minutes ago, "I just heard at an interview I had in Belgrade two or three months ago that Mr. Franko mentioned the formation of that unit in 1991." Two or three months ago is, what, four years after you gave up being an active policeman? Now, will you tell us, please, why this accused had, from 1991, a unit you described yesterday as paramilitary in nature operating apparently unknown to a regular and senior policeman? Why?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I really am not able to follow you. I do apologise. Perhaps I don't have the possibility of memorising all this, but you are stringing a series of questions, five of them, very different ones.

I never said that the JSO was a paramilitary group. I don't remember having said that. Possibly, but then it was a slip of the tongue certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's true, as far as I can remember.

MR. NICE: He used the term yesterday. ⁴⁰¹¹⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: In relation to 1991, to 1996?

MR. NICE: Yes, the Red Berets.

Q. May I just conclude with this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But 1991 to 1996 there was a different name.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

MR. NICE: 1996 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. The transcript is going to slip away. He said was organised, and then he said 1996. He said that ceremony was organised in 1996, but it -- what didn't come up in the transcript. That's what he's talking about.

MR. NICE: May I ask one more question? I see the time. I'm happy to go on, but I expect you want to rise.

Q. One more question and I'll make it simple so that you can follow it. One way or another, Mr. Stevanovic, you've told us that you first learnt three months ago of a unit that Mr. Simatovic ran from 1991 on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Do you follow me? That's the position. You have --

A. No.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness said that three months ago he heard that Simatovic had said that a unit existed, not that he heard about the unit three months ago. He said that three months ago he heard that Simatovic had said that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's precisely how it was. ^{40111 BLANK PAGE 40112}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's a big difference.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's my understanding.

MR. NICE:

Q. When did you first learn about this unit. And tell us what it did. We're going to find out what it did, but you tell us what it did.

A. Well, I have to repeat: Again, I attended the ceremony held with respect to the organisation of this unit in the spring of 1996.

Q. And what did the unit do between 1991 and 1996?

A. Well, of course it didn't exist during that period. It was formed in 1996.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have to adjourn. We're past the time for adjournment. We will adjourn until Tuesday, 9.00 a.m., next week.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 31st day

of May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.