URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/july26-2.htm
Subscribe to our newsletter at http://emperor.vwh.net/MailList/index.php
Send a link to this article to a friend!
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
* COMMENT FROM EMPEROR'S CLOTHES *
I have divided the cross-examination in two parts for quicker downloading. In this second part, despite constraints imposed by the assistant prosecutor, Judge Richard May, Mr. Milosevic pulls off a brilliant stroke. He questions Mr. Markovic about the attempt to coerce and bribe him into lying in order to frame Mr. Milosevic. He asks Markovic if he was tortured, and Markovic says, "Yes." You may if you wish go directly to the section on torture, which is indicated by the sub-head, "* [Note From TENC: Section On Coercion & Torture Begins Here] *" It starts at page 8762 line 7.
For more on the abuse of
Mr. Markovic see: "33 Days And
Still No Answer: What Was Done To Rade Markovic?" at
-- Jared Israel
[END Comment from Emperor's Clothes]
Part Two Of Cross-Examination Of Rade Markovic
8 Q. Is it logical, when there is a crisis in a particular territory,
9 in the territory of a particular province, precisely because of the
10 concerns over everything that is happening there, to delegate the deputy
11 federal prime minister with some other high officials. The president of
12 the federal parliament was there for a while as well as some higher
13 officials to help the local authorities, and generally speaking, in all
14 these developments, as an expression of the concern of the state for the
15 events involved and also ways and means of resolving that?
16 A. I think that is logical.
17 Q. Didn't we try, from the very top, down to these authorities, to
18 stop this flow of refugees who were leaving, that we tried to explain to
19 them, to convince them, through good arguments, that the army and the
20 police would protect them, that they should stay where they were? You did
21 that, you from the state security, and also people from the public
22 security section. That was an overall political intention. Is that right
23 or is that not right?
24 A. Yes, that was the instruction, and those were the assignments.
25 Q. And do you know that the KLA carried out propaganda, that as many
[At this point there is the following note in the transcript: "Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and English transcripts. Pages 8749 to 8758."]
1 civilians as possible should leave Kosovo and thus stage an exodus that
2 was caused by some kind of violent behaviour of the authorities?
3 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
4 Q. Did it happen to you too, that you intervened in that direction in
5 order to stop the flow of refugees, to make efforts to help them, on the
6 basis of information that you yourself received and insisted, therefore,
7 upon that, that they be helped, in accordance with the policy that we
8 pursued in this connection?
9 A. Yes, I intervened once in Kosovo, here, from Belgrade. When I
10 received this kind of daily information that a large number of refugees
11 appeared who were moving towards the borders with Macedonia and Albania, I
12 called the staff there, General Sreten Lukic, and I asked him for more
13 detailed information. Also I asked him what they would do in order to
14 stop these refugees. He referred me to Sainovic, the head of the staff
15 there, that I should talk to him about it as well. I called Sainovic and
16 I actually abused your name in that conversation. I think you remember
17 that. I said that it is President Milosevic's order that the refugees be
19 Q. Oh, this abuse I can understand only in - how shall I put it? - in
20 a very relative sense. You knew that that was my position as well. You
21 knew that I wanted the refugees to be stopped. And as far as I can
22 remember that event, when I was asked about that event whether I had
23 issued such an order through you, I said: "Of course I did."
24 A. That's it's way it was.
25 Q. So in your assessment, and according to the experience you had,
1 according to the information you had, were the refugees the result of a
2 war, like any other war, and in all other wars, not some kind of action
3 taken by the army and the police against the civilian population?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In all these endeavours, in all these attempts, did we manage to
6 slow down the refugee flows?
7 A. Unfortunately, we did not manage to stop them fully, but we
8 certainly reduced them to a degree. We guaranteed them their safety, we
9 guaranteed them medical security, and we explained to them that they were
10 safest in their own homes.
11 Q. Precisely in connection with that: To the best of your knowledge,
12 is it correct that the members of the police were actually explaining to
13 the Kosovar Albanians that they should not leave their homes, that they
14 should go back, that they are being guarded by the army and the police
15 and, and that when they go there, across the border, that they would be
16 recruited by force, and that they would be subjected to the other types of
17 violence that the KLA had been carrying out against them?
18 A. Yes, that is just the way they talked to them.
19 Q. And do you know that this political body that you refer to had
20 contacts with Albanian representatives, for example, Sainovic, on several
21 occasions, with Rugova, and with other Albanian leaders, that likewise,
22 during cooperation with the Verification Mission, he was head of the
23 commission of the federal government for cooperation with the Verification
24 Mission, that he had an assistant, the retired General Loncar, who was in
25 Pristina all the time, also for the purpose of cooperating with the
1 Verification Mission, that this federal commission for cooperation with
2 the Verification Mission consisted of representatives of all the relevant
3 ministries that were necessary for this kind of cooperation, that is to
4 say, the army, the military, the police, the commissioner for refugees,
5 the ministry for social matters, et cetera? Are you aware of that?
6 A. Yes, I know that Sainovic did contact the representatives of the
7 Verification Mission and for missions in Kosovo, and also that he had
8 contacts with Rugova.
9 Q. I have a few concrete questions. Being the best-informed state
10 official in terms of state security, as head of state security, did you
11 ever hear of a plan called Kolubara?
12 A. I already answered that question to the gentleman of the
13 investigation, that is to say that I never heard of such a plan.
14 Q. And did you ever hear of a plan called horseshoe, Potkovica,
15 because that has also been referred to here. Let me not go into all that
16 now. I don't want the question to be a leading question. Have you heard
17 of a plan called Horseshoe?
18 A. I have already said that I hadn't heard of that either.
* [BEGIN Note from Emperor's Clothes] *
During the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO officials released a story that the Milosevic government had a plan to use NATO bombing as an excuse to drive all Albanians from Kosovo. Because liars talk too much, NATO had to give their made-up plan a clever name. They said the evil Serbs called it Operation Horseshoe, or 'Potkova.' The idea was, the existence of this plan showed that even while they negotiated, the treacherous Serbs planned to live up to their NATO-supplied label, "The New Hitler." Here's a quote from an article in the new York Times, written, to his shame, by Craig R. Whitney:
Alas, the path of crime is treacherous; likewise, lying. Although the main language spoken in all parts of Yugoslavia is Serbo-Croatian, some words differ in different regions. In Croatia, the word for horseshoe is indeed 'Potkova.' But 'Potkova' would never be used in Serbia, where the correct word is 'Potkovica," pronounced Pot-ko-vitza. The dopes in NATO had probably relied on some Croatian Ustasha (fascist) to provide a title for their propaganda lie, and said Ustasha was likewise pretty dumb. Likewise, Mr. Whitney of the Times.
Birds of a feather flock together?
-- Jared Israel
* [END Note from Emperor's Clothes] *
19 Q. All right. Let me just take a look.
20 In a conversation -- actually, do you remember this conversation
21 that you had with two committees of the federal parliament while you were
22 in prison? During that conversation or interview did you say that the
23 state security was not mine or yours but that it belonged to the state?
24 Is that your position?
25 A. Yes, that is precisely the way I put it, and that is what I assert
1 now as well.
2 Q. So this was not any kind of control over the state security. The
3 state security worked according to their own regulations and according to
4 the law. It could not have been the private affair of you or me or any
5 other individual in the state; is that correct?
6 A. Precisely.
7 Q. Let me just take a look here at my notes.
8 First of all, I would like to continue along the following lines:
9 I mentioned your interview with two committees of the parliament of
10 Yugoslavia, the assembly of Yugoslavia. Is it correct that you were
11 arrested only so that by exerting pressure against you, they could accuse
13 A. Yes. That's why they arrested me.
14 Q. Here, when you talked to two committees of the parliament of
15 Yugoslavia, you say: "They asked me to accuse Slobodan Milosevic and to
16 admit to criminal acts and to say that I was instructed by Slobodan
17 Milosevic thereof."
18 Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct. I was told that in that case I would not be the
20 one who would be held accountable but that I could choose a country where
21 I would live and that I could get a new identity and that it was
22 indispensable to accuse you so that you would be tried in the country.
23 Q. So that I could be tried in the country so that they would not
24 have to sustain the shame of extraditing me to The Hague; is that right?
25 A. I assume that that was the reason.
1 Q. All right. Since you're a career policeman in the details that
2 were referred to here, as soon as you finished your university studies,
3 you started working in the police force and you did so all the way up to
4 your arrest. Is it correct that a detainee in an investigating prison can
5 be only under the jurisdiction of a court and is not under the
6 jurisdiction of the police?
7 A. According to our law on criminal procedure, a detainee is
8 exclusively under the jurisdiction of the court. That is to say, that
9 while an individual is under investigation, he is under the authority of
10 an investigative judge and then after that, within the authority of the
11 president of the chamber of the court.
12 Q. Is it true that even prison guards are not members of the Ministry
13 of the Interior but members of the Ministry of Justice, that is to say, a
14 completely separate authority that is within the judiciary system?
15 A. Prison guards are organisationally linked to the Ministry of
17 Q. Is it correct that without the approval of the court, you were
18 illegally taken out of members of the state security section so that they
19 would exert this kind of pressure that I've been referring to against
21 A. Members of the state security sector did not have a document given
22 to them by the investigating judge to have me taken out. They only had
23 permission to talk to me within the prison.
24 Q. Is it correct that a month after you were brought into custody,
25 they took you out to interview you and that there was an interview that
1 was attended inter alia by the Minister of the Interior, Mihajlovic, and
2 others. As for the official record from the trial, I submitted that here
3 while Witness Karleusa was being questioned, and that is stated in that
4 record as well. Is that right?
5 A. The first time they talked to me after I spent a month in prison.
6 Then, during the following months, they spoke to me several times. I
7 literally handed over my position in the service in prison, because they
8 did not carry out this handover when it was supposed to be carried out. I
9 talked about the sector. I referred to things where I thought I could
10 help them, where I could lead them to the right path, so that we could
11 clarify where the state security was used and where it was instructed to
12 do certain things and when it was not. Because very often the state
13 security service was used and abused. It was mentioned in many places,
14 and it had no authority to act in such areas.
15 After having spent four months in detention, I was taken out, and
16 that's when I had this meeting with the head of state security, Goran
17 Petrovic, and Zoran Mijatovic, his deputy, and the Ministry of the
18 Interior of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Mihajlovic. They did say that in
19 court, and you have a record of that. They accepted that we did talk
20 outside the prison premises. They claimed that that was at my request.
21 Q. Was it at your request?
22 A. Had it been at my request, then they certainly would have had a
23 proper order from the investigating judge and then they would not have
24 taken me out for dinner.
25 Q. Is it true that they offered on that occasion to you certain
1 protective measures? They told you you would be in prison for six months
2 and would be tried if you don't agree to charge me falsely, to level false
3 allegations against me? Is that true or not?
4 A. They spoke to me about the difficult position I was in. They
5 warned me against the possible consequences and offered me an option in
6 the form of accusing Milosevic, as the person who issued orders for those
7 criminal offences, which would relieve me of liability before a criminal
9 Q. Is it true that they offered you a new identity, money, and
10 sustenance for you and your family only so that you would falsely accuse
11 me? Is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Do you know that in 1998 -- sorry. 1988, the General Assembly of
14 the United Nations adopted by consensus a declaration against torture, and
15 that such treatment that you were subjected to is explicitly forbidden by
16 this declaration, as well as forcing --
17 MR. NICE: Your Honour -- [Previous translation continues]
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. -- statements from detainees, extortion and such things?
20 JUDGE MAY: This doesn't appear to have any relevance to the
21 evidence the witness has given here, none at all. He's been agreeing with
22 you, he's been agreeing to the matters you've put to him, and we're not
23 certainly going to litigate here what happened in Yugoslavia when he was
24 arrested. What we're concerned with, as you know, is events in Kosovo.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, the conduct of a puppet
1 regime in Belgrade is completely identical to the false indictment --
2 JUDGE MAY: Precisely the sort of point which we're not going to
3 consider. Now, have you got any more relevant questions for this witness?
4 Or we'll move on.
5 Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions of this witness?
6 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I have more questions. I
8 have many more questions.
9 JUDGE MAY: How long do you think you'll need, Mr. Tapuskovic?
10 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will try to do
11 what I have to do within 15 minutes.
12 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
13 Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Move on to some other topic.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. All right. Is it true that inciting somebody to false testimony
16 and false accusations is a criminal act under our law?
17 JUDGE MAY: That is precisely the point that has been ruled
18 against. Now, you'll have to deal with his evidence. Do you challenge,
19 for instance, the meeting at which it was said you were at and there was
20 talking of the cleaning up of the terrain? If so, you should put that?
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I am asking precisely that
22 question: Is it true that this statement that has been presented about
23 the mopping up of the terrain was drafted precisely by the same people and
24 under the sponsorship of those people who exerted pressure on you and who
25 have been torturing you for one year and a half now?
1 A. Yes, it's an interview with the same people.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. From --
4 JUDGE MAY: Exhibit 283.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I have noted down your words related to this matter. You said it
7 was a liberal interpretation on their part, that you discussed the mopping
8 up in an informal conversation with Ilic, that what was said was mostly
9 gossip, and that nobody, Ilic or you included, ever talked about removing
10 corpses from Kosovo. So could it be said that this statement is a
11 fabrication by the same people who conducted these interviews?
12 A. Unfortunately, I did not read that statement before I signed it,
13 and it is not really in the format of the statement. It was a
14 conversation, an interview, in which we were looking for a way out of the
15 problems that were facing the Ministry of the Interior. After that, an
16 official, officer of the state security service drafted this paper, and
17 later, when it was presented to me by the Office of the Prosecutor of The
18 Hague Tribunal, I pointed out certain details which did not tally with the
19 truth. And after that, I gave my statement to the investigators of the
20 OTP, which I assert is true and correct.
21 Q. Okay. Let's get one thing clear: At this meeting about which
22 they made this statement, did I ever mention in any way removing traces of
24 A. No. You approved the mopping up, the clean-up.
25 Q. Is it true that the mopping up or clean-up means a lawful
1 procedure consisting of those elements which you mentioned in chief, that
2 is, removal of mines and explosives, removal of chemicals, removal of dead
3 bodies, taking care of the wounded, repairing infrastructure, service
4 lines, et cetera, that is, creating -- restoring life back to normal after
5 combat operations? Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that is what the clean-up means, what it implies.
7 Q. Did anyone at that meeting mention that clean-up also involves
8 removal of traces of crimes or any sort of cover-up? Did anyone say that
9 crimes needed to be covered up?
10 A. No, nobody talked about crimes or covering them up.
11 Q. And even later, in the Ministry of the Interior, did anyone speak
12 about the need to transfer some bodies from Kosovo to Serbia proper?
13 A. Not that I heard.
14 Q. Is it well known that the actual situation, the reality, was quite
15 the opposite, as far as covering up is concerned? The position of all of
16 us, starting with me, the minister, Milutinovic, and other politicians,
17 yourself and others, namely, that crimes had to be answered for and that
18 any perpetrator of a crime had to be brought to justice?
19 A. That was also written in the orders that we received.
20 Q. So can we derive the conclusion that if anyone wanted to cover up
21 anything, it was concealment from the local authorities and not The Hague
22 Tribunal, because at that time, in March 1999, nobody gave a thought to
23 The Hague Tribunal?
24 A. Yes, it could be interpreted that way.
25 Q. Very well. During your testimony here, some sort of record of
1 interrogation was presented here, your interrogation before an
2 investigating judge, and Mr. Nice quoted, "Jovica Stanisic showed you a
3 paper which was actually an authorisation from then president of Slobodan
4 Milosevic, according to which the head of the SDB was directly answerable
5 to Slobodan Milosevic I don't know exactly was written in it, but it
6 transpired -- the essence was that the minister was bypassed, the Minister
7 of the Interior, Vlajko Stojilkovic, was bypassed, and instead, Jovica
8 Stanisic was directly accountable to Slobodan Milosevic."
9 That is basically the statement that Mr. Nice quoted here
10 yesterday. And then this decision was also presented to you, and you
11 confirmed it was the decision that indeed had been shown to you. Since
12 this decision contains only one sentence, I will read it out:
13 "In the period of preparations for enacting the federal law on
14 conducting law enforcement in the SFRY, the security sector shall work
15 according to the guidelines of the president and the government of the
16 Republic of Serbia from the day of entry into force of this decision until
17 the day of entry into force of the federal law which will govern security
18 affairs from then on."
19 So I've read this decision entirely. It says at the bottom
20 "Slobodan Milosevic, president of the Republic," and my signature. Can
21 this decision be interpreted or understood as bypassing the law or, as
22 they said here, bypassing the Minister of the Interior, Vlajko
23 Stojilkovic? Can that be the interpretation of this decision?
24 JUDGE MAY: Before you answer, the record should reflect that the
25 accused is referring to Exhibit 277.
1 Yes, Mr. Markovic.
2 A. It is a fact that Jovica Stanisic did not submit reports to the
3 Minister of the Interior, Vlajko Stojilkovic, nor did he or any
4 representative of the state security branch during his tenure attend the
5 senior staff meetings of the ministry while Vlajko Stojilkovic was the
7 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Okay. Let's clear this up. This decision was adopted on the 21st
9 of April, 1997. That's what it says here. But before I ask my second
10 question: Was that the case during all the time while Jovica Stanisic was
11 head of the DB until late autumn 1998, what you just said, that he did not
13 A. No. That was the case only during the time when Vlajko
14 Stojilkovic was appointed Minister of the Interior. Until then, he was a
15 regular attendant of meetings in the office of the minister, Zoran
17 Q. All right. But beginning with the 21st of April, or around that
18 time, Stojilkovic was appointed before that, was it the case that during
19 all that time he didn't attend these meetings while Vlajko Stojilkovic was
20 the minister?
21 A. I believe he started to attend, and at some point later, when he
22 was enabled in this way to report directly to the government of Serbia, he
23 stopped attending.
24 Q. So that was the case until the end of his term of office?
25 A. Yes, until the end.
1 Q. All right. This was adopted on the 21st of April, 1997. And I
2 ceased to be president of the Republic of Serbia by assuming the functions
3 of the president of the SFRY in the same year, on the 23rd of July. I
4 suppose that these facts are not disputed or disputable. Therefore, in
5 light of this decision - and I assert that it cannot be understood in this
6 way - he was able to report to me from the end of April until the 23rd of
7 July, but not after that date, because this refers to guidelines of the
8 president and the government of the Republic of Serbia, not me personally.
9 The reference is made here to institutions, not an individual?
10 JUDGE MAY: You're making your point.
11 Mr. Markovic, help us with this: Can you see any point in this
12 document? What would you understand the purpose of it to be?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, we'll come to the purpose
14 of this document. Let me continue my examination.
15 JUDGE MAY: You've been making speeches. Let the witness answer.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood that the head of the
17 state security sector at that time, Jovica Stanisic, did not wish to
18 communicate with the Minister of the Interior. The reason was probably
19 that his past experience until then was much richer than the experience of
20 the Minister of the Interior. It was at his personal request - and that's
21 what he told me himself - that he received this document, enabling him to
22 communicate directly with the head of the Republic of Serbia, the
23 president of the Republic, and the government of Serbia.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Let us now go to the essence of this document and the essence of
1 what you testified yesterday, I believe it was during the
2 examination-in-chief. It might have been even the day before yesterday,
3 because there were constant interruptions. The subject was the
4 preparations for enacting the federal law governing security affairs on
5 the territory of Yugoslavia. Is it true that the procedure for enacting a
6 federal law starts with a certain expert body preparing a draft law, or a
7 bill, after which the competent ministry proposes that bill to the
8 government; if it is a federal law, then to the federal government; the
9 federal government first approves the draft, then reviews it, and only
10 then it is reviewed at a session of the federal government, whereupon a
11 proposal is made to refer it to the federal parliament for enactment.
12 Does this describe roughly the procedure for enacting a federal law?
13 A. Yes, that is the procedure for adopting a law.
14 Q. Could you then assume -- let me break this question down again.
15 Do you think that Jovica Stanisic was -- perhaps I should put it this
16 way -- to a great extent, the person who was the greatest expert in
17 national security affairs that we had at that time? Is that right or is
18 that not right?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. So do you assume that he headed the team that worked on the
21 professional preparation of that law?
22 A. Yes. That was his idea originally, to adopt this law.
23 Q. Do you know that it was considered, in many developed countries,
24 that these state security affairs should not be carried out within the
25 Ministry of the Interior, but that there are agencies that the state
1 establishes for carrying out such work?
2 A. According to that model, that proposal was made, and I see that
3 such a law has been adopted now.
4 Q. Do you know that at that time, when work was being done on
5 regulating the state affairs in the area of state security, there was a
6 state security service of Serbia, a state security service of Montenegro,
7 there was an administration for intelligence and the General Staff, then
8 also an administration in the General Staff that also dealt with security,
9 and then also in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a special service that
10 also dealt in such matters? Are you aware of all of that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So the objective was to create a community of security services,
13 to regulate it by federal law, and in this way to make it possible to do
14 away with mutual rivalries, mistrust, jealousies, et cetera, that usually
15 exist between such communities and they jealously guard the information
16 they have, rarely give it to other agencies, et cetera? Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, that was the objective.
18 Q. And then is it quite clear that Stanisic wished - how should I put
19 this? - to protect himself from lateral influences with regard to the
20 professional preparation of that law, and once he drafts it with his team,
21 it could not have a different fate by what we established a few minutes
22 ago, that it be presented to the government then, that then it be
23 presented as a bill to the federal parliament, and so on? So there was no
24 other question involved.
25 A. I can only assume that that was his wish.
1 Q. All right. But isn't it logical that someone who believes and --
2 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... amount of --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.
4 MR. NICE: There must be a limit to the amount of self-serving
5 benefit that can be got by assumptions and so on through this witness, but
6 it is a matter for the Court.
7 JUDGE MAY: It's a matter for the Trial Chamber to decide what
8 value this evidence has, given largely by the accused.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. There's not much point. This is
10 the point that's being made: Going on to the witness about matters which
11 he really doesn't know about and asking him what his assumptions are.
12 Now, if you want to call or give evidence about these matters from
13 somebody who knows about them, you can, but it's of little benefit to the
14 Trial Chamber. As you know, your time is limited, so you'll want to use
15 it as usefully as you can.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am using it, Mr. May, but
17 precisely from this paper that was submitted by Mr. Nice, this paper shows
18 what I have been claiming. It shows that the most expert team possible
19 that was preparing a draft law was headed by the greatest expert of all,
20 and it was logical to make it possible for that man that until he prepares
21 this bill for consideration for the government, that he should not be
22 subjected to pressure from any other sides until he actually prepares
23 this. So then it was not up to me or anyone else; it was up to the
24 government and parliament what kind of bill would be presented and what
25 the parliament would ultimately adopt.
1 JUDGE MAY: We hear your argument. It is a matter of argument.
2 The witness can only give evidence about what he knows himself or saw or
3 heard. Now, unless there's anything else you want to ask about this which
4 is relevant, I suggest we move on and don't waste further time on it.
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you did not caution the
6 other side that they were wasting time when they were putting questions
7 about licence plates on a truck for ten minutes, and you are cautioning me
8 when you speak about a decision that is quite legitimate and that pertains
9 to the internal regulation of a sovereign state. And you cannot even --
10 JUDGE MAY: Your points are totally false. There was no question
11 of ten minutes on that matter. Anyway, it's irrelevant. If you want to
12 ask, if you've got questions that this witness can deal with, of course
13 this is an important document. If you've got some questions that the
14 witness can deal with in relation to it, why, then, ask him, but asking
15 him about a series of assumptions is not going to assist anybody.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The assumption is -- or rather, the
17 construction that somebody planted to this witness on purpose is that
18 through this document, the Minister of the Interior was bypassed. That's
19 not what it says in this document. And that the law was bypassed. And
20 that's not what this document says either.
21 JUDGE MAY: It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber to decide
22 what construction to give to the document. Now, let's move on.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Please, were there any changes at all in the method of your work
25 and in the work of the state security -- I'm comparing the time when I was
1 president and the time after I stopped being president, that is to say,
2 after the coup of the 5th of October. Did you work the same way before
3 that and after that?
4 A. The public security functioned the same way. I cannot speak about
5 state security because I do not know how it functioned at that time.
6 Q. All right. But I'm referring to the following. For a while you
7 did head state security after the 5th of October too, for a few months. I
8 cannot say exactly how many months. Did you change anything in the method
9 of your work? Did you work differently while I was president and after I
10 stopped being president?
11 A. No. Nothing was changed in the method of work. That is to say
12 that the sector worked for the state, and the state had its duties that
13 are precisely regulated by law and other regulations.
14 Q. Now let us digress in relation to this mystification of
15 resubordination of the forces of the Ministry of the Interior to the army.
16 Actually, in a situation of war, precisely because of the existence of the
17 principle of one command, the police is subordinated to the army. Is that
18 correct or is that not correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Is it correct that by proclaiming a state of war, the General
21 Staff of the army of Yugoslavia becomes the staff of the Supreme Command?
22 Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is it correct, therefore, that the staff of the Supreme Command
25 and the Supreme Command, in a state of war, includes all armed forces, not
1 only the army? That is to say, the army and the police and everybody else
2 who carries a weapon.
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. I am not going to give you now this instruction of the staff of
5 the Supreme Command, Mr. May, because I need it for other reasons, more
6 important ones, but I should just like to recall that it bears the
7 signature of the head of the staff of the Supreme Command.
8 Lest there be any misunderstanding, the fact that it was signed by
9 the chief of staff of the Supreme Command does not mean that I am not
10 considered to be the authority -- the order giving authority in this
11 respect as well.
12 MR. NICE: I'm not sure if the accused is saying that he's
13 cross-examining on a different document from any that we have and that
14 he's not prepared to disclose, but if that's what he's saying, he should
15 perhaps be corrected, because if he has a document, it ought to be
16 revealed to the Court.
17 JUDGE MAY: Let's see what the point is.
18 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what I'm trying to say: In
20 the order -- actually, yesterday Mr. Nice presented a document here that
21 refers to General Pavkovic's order in respect of resubordinating the
22 police to certain structures of the army in the field, but I'm just
23 mentioning that General Pavkovic's order is based on the order issued by
24 the staff of the Supreme Command, and in it the command of the 3rd Army,
25 headed by General Pavkovic, are told that forces of the civil defence are
1 being put under the command of the 3rd Army and are being used exclusively
2 on the basis of your decision. So we clarified this a short while ago,
3 that this is a legal --
4 JUDGE MAY: What is the date of this document?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The date of this document is the 9th
6 of April, 1999.
7 JUDGE MAY: You're going to produce it in due course; is that
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course I will. But I need it for
10 cross-examining another witness. According to the list provided by the
11 OTP, or rather, those who aspire to be the Office of the Prosecutor, I
12 will needed this for another witness that I will be cross-examining, and
13 after all, I have that right, not to disclose it now. After all, I have
14 the right not to disclose anything I don't want to disclose, so there.
15 JUDGE MAY: But in order that there's some order in this, you must
16 disclose that before we break from the Kosovo part of the case. Or you
17 can give a copy to the Prosecution. Either way will do.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am going to tender it before we
19 finish the Kosovo segment of the case, Mr. May. Don't you worry. But
20 before that, I want to discuss certain allegations made by a witness who
21 is supposed to appear here. I hope so, at least, unless the Prosecution
22 does not call him again.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Furthermore, please, let's just look at the question of financing
25 for a moment. You were asked -- or rather, you personally have been asked
1 here by the representatives of this indictment -- this is the way I wrote
2 it down -- whether the state security was financed by the state, from
3 state sources, or in some other way. And then there was an explanation
4 given by you that the budget was approved, et cetera, et cetera, and that
5 the funds that were lacking for that were given from the funds that were
6 collected by way of the Federal Customs Administration. Is it contested
7 that resources that are collected by way of the Federal Customs
8 Administration are also state funds, not funds that are apart from the
10 A. These are state funds.
11 Q. Is it contested that every time, for such funds, there was an
12 appropriate relationship between the customs and an appropriate service of
13 the Ministry of the Interior that then used these resources according to a
14 plan that had it explained and elaborated before that? Is that right or
15 is that not right?
16 A. That's what I said.
17 Q. Yes, but, for example, the Prosecution said that there was some
18 kind of mediation in terms of the purchase of helicopters and equipment
19 for helicopters, that there was some kind of mediation on the part of my
20 brother. Did he do this as my brother or because he was required to do so
21 by the service?
22 A. He did that within the context of his own service, and this was
23 required from him by the service.
24 Q. And do you know that already in the early 1970s my brother was
25 counsellor of the embassy in Moscow?
1 A. No. I met him as ambassador.
2 Q. And do you know that later in the 1970s he was minister counsellor
3 in the embassy in Moscow? Just say yes or no. It's not important.
4 A. No.
5 Q. And do you know that towards the end of the 1980s he was
6 ambassador of the former SFRY in Algeria and he also served a term?
7 A. No. I only know about the period when he was ambassador to
9 Q. And before that period he lived in Moscow, and before that in
10 Paris, et cetera. Was it through me that the service communicated with
11 our ambassador to Moscow, or did the service officially address him? For
12 example, did you communicate with him through me when you had some contact
13 with him, or did you have contacts of your own with him?
14 A. No. The communication was direct, because it was inherited, so to
15 speak. That is the way it worked before me. And Borislav Milosevic was
16 engaged in other matters in addition to being ambassador, before that, and
17 he was a man who knew very well what the possibilities were of obtaining
18 what we needed.
19 Q. Actually, did he help the service to meet their needs in terms of
20 purchasing some equipment?
21 A. Yes, he did help the service.
22 Q. Because of what can be interpreted between the lines, did anyone
23 ever have any information to the effect that he had taken some money for
24 helping the service?
25 A. No. He only enabled contacts based on which the service of the
1 Ministry of the Interior, the relevant service, managed to conduct these
3 Q. So he used his own reputation, connections, to enable members of
4 your ministry to get this done?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And do you have any information to the effect that he himself, or
7 any of his subordinates, collected any money for this service, so to
9 A. No. The state security sector did not conclude any contracts. It
10 was the job of the financial department of the Ministry of the Interior,
11 and I have no such information.
12 Q. You mentioned yesterday Borka Vucic. I don't want to object to
13 this or hold it against you, but the opposite side seems to represent this
14 person as some sort of shadowy figure through which such -- shady figure
15 through which such transactions were conducted. Do you know that she was
16 actually the director of one of the major financial institutions, major
17 banking institutions called Beogradska Bank?
18 A. I spoke of Mrs. Borka Vucic precisely as an expert in the area of
19 finance and banking, and that was the reason why we were directed to
20 conduct our affairs through that bank, because they were experts in that
22 Q. Do you know that Mrs. Borka Vucic has been engaged for many
23 decades in this area and that she is well known to the top-notch bankers
24 in the world?
25 A. I have heard a lot about the expertise of Mrs. Borka Vucic. I'm
1 not competent to qualify her or to assess her qualifications, but I know
2 that she is a well-known banker internationally.
3 Q. But do you know that every transaction had to be legally effected
4 through a bank precisely because rules had to be abided by in every
5 respect, rules governing banking, financial affairs, et cetera?
6 A. Since it was the Ministry of the Interior, I'm certain that all
7 transactions had to be effected legally and lawfully.
8 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Let me just look through this.
9 JUDGE MAY: We're going to adjourn now. It's 12.15. It's time
10 for the break. Twenty minutes. Would you be back then, please,
11 Mr. Markovic.
12 MR. NICE: Your Honour, just before we leave, in setting the
13 timetable for the balance of the day, with a witness of this kind, he's
14 already been in cross-examination longer than in chief, there will be a
15 significant number of questions to ask in re-examination. It's not a case
16 where, of course, the cross-examination has been regarded as hostile by
17 the accused. The re-examination may be quite important.
18 JUDGE MAY: How long are you asking for?
19 MR. NICE: At least 15 minutes, but it could be longer.
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
22 --- Upon commencing at 12.39 p.m.
23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can have half an hour more, if you
24 require it.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was just going to tell you,
1 Mr. May: Since I heard that the amici want to use up 15 minutes and that
2 Mr. Nice too wants 15 minutes, I was going to tell you that I will shorten
3 my cross-examination so that they can have this opportunity in full, and I
4 wanted to say that at the end of the previous session, when you told me I
5 may continue after the break.
6 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. I have just a few more questions, mainly related to what the
8 opposite side put forth in this courtroom. Radomir, yesterday, or the day
9 before yesterday - I can't remember exactly - the opposite side quoted
10 some alleged statement of yours to the effect that my wife wanted to
11 influence have over the service, and that is associated with the
12 appointment of Uros Suvakovic on one of the positions in the service.
13 Just a few questions about that.
14 Is it true that Uros Suvakovic was not a member of the Yugoslav
15 left wing, but a member of the socialist party of Serbia?
16 A. Suvakovic was a member of the socialist party of Serbia, yes.
17 Q. Was he appointed by a decision of the Minister of the Interior to
18 his position?
19 A. He was appointed by a decision of the Minister of the Interior,
21 Q. Is it true that in that position to which he was appointed to,
22 Uros Suvakovic did not deal in either intelligence or counter-intelligence
23 affairs, but as a young scientist in the field of sociology, he dealt in
24 general issues of sociopolitical nature, of political and security nature,
1 A. His job had to do with analytical work in the state security
3 Q. Very well. Yesterday, the opposite side produced a document here
4 titled "Order by Lieutenant General Nebojsa Pavkovic," dated 8th May,
5 1999. It is an order concerning resubordination of the MUP to the army of
6 Yugoslavia, and it was adopted almost a month earlier, as I said before.
7 Is it true that the command of the 3rd Army of the VJ -- is it true that
8 this order relies completely on this previous order, since it is dated the
9 8th of May, 1999?
10 A. Yes. I said yesterday that I assume that this order of his is
11 based on the order of the staff of the Supreme Command.
12 Q. And it is implied - and I don't contest it in any way - that an
13 order of the chief of staff of the Supreme Command must have an approval
14 from me.
15 A. That's understood too.
16 Q. Are you aware of any -- I quoted here only a certain number of
17 orders, but are you aware of any order of the staff of the Supreme Command
18 which would be contrary to the laws and customs of war, the Geneva
19 Conventions, and all the legislation governing proper treatment of
20 civilians and proper conduct of the army or the armed forces in general?
21 A. No, I don't know of any such order. I am certain that none
23 Q. Some training centres for volunteers have been mentioned here. Is
24 it true that neither you nor your service could have had no information
25 about the role of the leadership of Serbia or my personal role in the
1 fostering or maintenance of such training centres? Is that true or not?
2 A. I had no such knowledge, and during my tenure as head of the state
3 security sector, there were no such camps.
4 Q. I omitted to ask you something about that notorious mopping up.
5 Is it true that there was an official instruction on mopping up that
6 included all those elements that you enumerated, plus some more elements
7 which were prescribed by the same instruction?
8 A. I don't know about the official instruction, but it was prescribed
9 by the army of Yugoslavia. They issued an order to that effect, and I
10 suppose it was signed by General Lazarevic.
11 Q. When was the first time that you heard about some transport of
12 corpses to Serbia proper?
13 A. I heard about it and I read about it in the papers while I was in
15 Q. So you didn't, and you couldn't have known anything about it while
16 you were heading the state security sector, and if anything of the sort
17 existed, I suppose, you would have had to know?
18 A. I knew absolutely nothing about it.
19 Q. Since you occupied high positions in the police, have you ever
20 heard of any plan designed by me or anyone else in the top echelons of
21 Serbia or Yugoslavia to create a Serbian army outside the territory of
22 Yugoslavia or a Serbian army within the boundaries of Yugoslavia? Have
23 you ever heard of such a plan?
24 A. No, I haven't.
25 Q. References are made here often on the importance of the Ministry
1 of the Defence of Serbia, especially in relation to Croatia. Since you
2 worked in the Ministry of the Interior and you had access to the most
3 confidential documents, did the Ministry of Defence of Serbia ever have a
4 role with regard to Croatia or the war in Croatia?
5 A. I know nothing about that.
6 Q. One more question: Did the KLA -- or rather, is the KLA just a
7 name for a terrorist organisation which assumed that name in order to make
8 the international community treat them as some sort of liberation movement
9 rather than a terrorist organisation?
10 A. Yes.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No further questions, Mr. May.
[Transcript is continued "Cross-Examination,
Part 2," at
To subscribe to the Emperor's Clothes
email list go to http://www.emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Send a link to this article to a friend! If you receive this article by email, cut and paste this URL into your browser:
mailto:ENTER FRIEND'S EMAIL ADDRESS HERE?subject=Here's a great article from emperors-clothes.com!&body=I just read the following article which I thought you would find most interesting. Here's the address: http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/july26-2.htm