Milosevic Transcript 2002-04-08

²⁵⁰³

Monday, 8 April 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to say something with respect to the last day we had here, and I have some complaints to make. As we're going to --

JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Milosevic, we must now get on with this case. If you have complaints about the last day, we will deal with administrative matters at the end of the case -- at the end of the morning, rather. I have some matters to deal with myself, and we'll hear you then.

Yes, Mr. Nice. We have received the atlas here, which can be exhibited, given an appropriate number in due course.

MR. NICE: The accused has only just received it. Other maps have been either Exhibit 3 or 4. Whether this, because it includes both area maps and town maps, might be 3A, I don't know; alternatively, given a second number. It's comparatively easy to follow. I can explain it now or later.

JUDGE MAY: Have you a witness here?

MR. NICE: We have two witnesses, for whom full protective measures have been granted and whose evidence is to be heard in closed session.

JUDGE MAY: In that case, we had better deal with administrative ²⁵⁰⁴ matters now. There are some matters I want to deal with. The first point is to alert the parties and the Prosecution to some matters we are going to deal with later this week. The first is the Registrar's report on Defence facilities, which has been made available. We will take that together with a request which has been made by the accused to the Registry that he be permitted to forward relevant Tribunal documents, including witness statements and summaries, to his associates. That can be clarified at the hearing.

The second matter we'll deal with later in the week is the admissibility of the binder evidence. A binder has been provided by the Prosecution relating to Bela Crkva. The Chamber has looked at it and we would wish to hear submissions about it before we make a ruling on its admissibility.

We have also received from the Prosecution a position paper regarding the length of the case. We wish to discuss that later this week, when the parties have seen it. However, we would make these observations: that we have ourselves been reviewing the progress of the case. We are concerned at its potential size and length. We have only exercised our powers under Rule 73 bis in relation to the Kosovo indictment. We will have to consider those powers in relation to the Bosnia and Herzegovina indictment after submission of the pre-trial brief. We will expect the Prosecution to tailor its case in order to ensure that a reasonable number of witnesses are called and there is a reasonable time estimate. We will wish to consider, with the Prosecution, whether the full extent of the case as pleaded should be presented, in ²⁵⁰⁵ particular, the very large number of municipalities involved in the Bosnia indictment. And it may be that the case can properly be put before the Court by a smaller representative number and that similar appropriate reductions may be made elsewhere.

We have in mind considering, at this stage, so that the parties are fully aware of the position, imposing a time limit for the whole Prosecution case, bearing in mind the interests of justice, which include the ability of an accused to defend himself against the various charges and also the public interest in ensuring that justice is done expeditiously. Clearly, before any such order is made, there must be the opportunity for the Prosecution to address us, and in that connection, the Prosecution should, by the end of the week, be able to give us an estimate of the time which they contemplate will be taken in their case and an estimate of the total number of witnesses. These are all matters which can be dealt with at the end of this week, we have in mind. Now, unless there are any matters which anybody wants to make, raise in relation to that, I propose next to deal with a ruling which the Prosecution -- which the Trial Chamber are going to give in relation to scope of cross-examination, having heard submissions from the Prosecution and the other parties.

I understand the interpreters have copies of this. The -- Mr. Nice, if you'd like to take a seat.

The Trial Chamber invited submissions from the Prosecution and the amicus on the scope of cross-examination in this case. We have now received these submissions and considered them. This is our ruling: ²⁵⁰⁶ Summarising the submissions, they are these: The Prosecution submits that cross-examination on the activities of the KLA and the NATO bombing should be permitted only to the extent that they are potential sources of legal defence. It should be for the accused to establish the relevance of cross-examination to the factual or legal issues. They further submit that when the interests of justice so require, the Trial Chamber may curtail comments, repetition, and argument during cross-examination, together with overly-personal questions. On the other hand, the amici point out that the same expectation and performance cannot be expected from a litigant in person, who is traditionally given more leeway, and the Court can exercise control by ruling that a certain approach is impermissible or by extemporary rulings. They submit that the accused should be entitled to continue with his defence relating to KLA activity and NATO bombing in order to justify the conduct of the Serb forces and to establish, one, what damage was caused by the bombing and, two, what aggression was carried out by the KLA. They also point out that this line of cross-examination is relevant to the credibility of witnesses. They further submit that this cross-examination does not fall foul of the principle prohibiting tu quoque defences, that is, attempting to justify a party's own conduct by reference to the unlawful conduct of another party, since the accused is asserting that he was acting in defence of his territory and people. The Trial Chamber agrees with the amici, both as to the scope of cross-examination and to its conduct. We are satisfied that the accused is entitled to raise issues concerning the activities of the KLA and the ²⁵⁰⁷ NATO bombing since both are relevant to his case as a potential defence. He is further entitled to put specific instances to witnesses as part of his case and to test the witnesses' credibility. Meanwhile, the Trial Chamber, while recognising the leeway which must be given to a litigant in person, will continue to exercise control over the cross-examination in order to prevent irrelevant questions, comment, and argument. In this connection, it is particularly important in a case of this size to avoid needless consumption of time. The Trial Chamber has noted a tendency on the part of the accused towards lengthy questions and speech-making. While making all due allowance for the difficulties facing a person defending himself in person and the fact that the accused is not a professional advocate, the Trial Chamber, in the interests of justice, will continue to place time limits, where required, on cross-examination of witnesses. Adequate time will be allowed for reasonable and proper cross-examination, but time should not be wasted, and witnesses should not be subject to unnecessary, argumentative, or repetitious cross-examination. That is our ruling. We will hear any matters which the parties wish to raise on other matters since this is convenient. Is there anything the Prosecution wants to raise at this stage?

MR. NICE: Nothing. At some stage I want to help you understand the map. It won't take very long.

JUDGE MAY: Well --

MR. NICE: We'll do it straight away?

JUDGE MAY: We'll do it straight away. ²⁵⁰⁸

MR. NICE: It's a slightly technical document and I think it can be useful. I found it -- I've only had my copy of the map this morning, having seen it earlier but not retained a copy. The pages I think that will help us most, starting at the beginning, are Roman numeral i, the Contents page, particularly because it identifies, starting at pages 18, on the left-hand side, those towns for which we have town maps - I don't think they are otherwise indexed - starting with Prishtine and Decan, and so on. So page i shows where we have town maps.

The following pages, ii and iii, are obviously useful, just providing, on the left-hand side, an area map, as is Roman pages iv and v, which gives an interesting view of the topography of the area generally. Thereafter, I think there are three pages that will help the Chamber find its way through the map.

The first is at Roman x which -- and xi. X shows, on the left-hand side, the various references to either United Kingdom, United States, or Yugoslav military map numbers should we need matters in detail. There are three superimposed grids there that give the relevant map number, should we need to find them.

Roman numeral xi simply identifies in the conventional way which pages that follow give which particular parts of the map. So starting on from there, we have the conventional atlas, which is useful. The town maps begin at 18 and, as I say, are only indexed, at least so far as I've been able to discover, at the beginning of the book. Then the next most helpful page for the Court will be, ordinary numerals, page 45, which explains the index, although I still haven't ²⁵⁰⁹ worked out one reference. And page 45 has the municipalities rather helpfully set out for us on 1 to 30, with the map setting out which the municipalities are. And if we then take, simply as an example, the very first listed town, Abri e Eperme, we see that it's in municipality 3. I'm afraid the following codes I can't fully explain, or indeed explain at the moment, but it can then be found on ordinary page 6, with a conventional atlas grid reference N15. So that that page and the following pages will enable us to find towns or villages on the ordinary page numbers. They can also tell us in which municipality a town or village lies, and the earlier pages will help us find our way around the map otherwise. Nothing else at this stage, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, a comment with respect to the request made by the other side to limit the cross-examination when we're talking about NATO-pact forces and their activities and the KLA and the explanation given in that regard.

I would like to make things quite clear. It is not a question of any kind of justification for crimes, alleged crimes of the army of Yugoslavia and the police, by putting forward the crimes committed by NATO and the KLA. Quite the contrary. I maintain that the army of Yugoslavia and the police did not commit crimes and that the individual crimes could only have been committed by individual criminals. Therefore, nobody is trying to justify crimes that nobody committed, and the army and the police did not commit crimes. The crimes on the territory of Kosovo and the whole of Yugoslavia were committed by the NATO pact and the terrorist ²⁵¹⁰ organisation the KLA, and I want that to be quite clear. Ultimately, this will out, the truth will out, and the public will be able to see this. However, with respect to the criticisms made in respect of cross-examination that is ongoing, I should like to complain to you, Mr. May, personally, because last time you switched my microphone off more than ten times, and then you interrupted my cross-examination and therefore made it impossible for me to complete my cross-examination, and you did not do so for the first time either.

Something else that I consider to be quite unacceptable is that you allowed the Prosecutor, during my time for cross-examination, to manipulate with some papers here, where allegedly the -- which the witness had allegedly referred to in his fabricated conversation, and at the same time tried to hide a paper that he handed out to us, the text of the Second Protocol of the Geneva Convention, in fact, because it was subsequently quite obviously, due to his competence, that the paper was to the advantage of Yugoslavia and not to his false witness. So this was an attempt to cover it up. I think that this kind of manipulation, which is obvious to those people following the trial, is quite impermissible, and I demand that manipulations of this kind be stopped. Now I come to a separate question for which I have a criticism and complaint to make. You brought it up in a way that was not quite clear to me what my possibilities are. I have no contacts with my associates, and I demand that I be allowed to --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we are going to discuss this later in the week. There will be a time when we consider the paper by the ²⁵¹¹ Registrar on the Defence facilities. We will also consider your request. Now, it will be convenient to deal with it then. Meanwhile, any criticism which you have, as alleged, are matters for the Trial Chamber to deal with during the course of evidence. You've heard our ruling on cross-examination. That ruling will be followed. We will allow reasonable cross-examination, but that which is not reasonable will not be allowed, and indeed your microphone will be switched off if you continue in that way. But if you cross-examine reasonably, of course you're entitled to do that.

Now we'll hear the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How can you assess --

JUDGE MAY: No. It's not a matter for argument now.

MR. NICE: One small point arising from the wholly-inappropriate use of the word "manipulation" by the accused relating to the evidence of Mr. Ashdown.

Just to remind the accused through Your Honours: Mr. Ashdown came in on the second day of giving evidence, giving an account of the document that he had drawn to the attention of this accused. He made it plain that insofar as there had been a change in what was expected by way of his account, it was something he had appreciated overnight. He had given the Prosecution no notice in advance of the change that was about to be made, and there had, of course, been absolutely no contact between the Prosecution and Mr. Ashdown between the first day of his giving evidence and the second about the content of his evidence. So the observation of the accused is entirely inappropriate. ²⁵¹²

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now we'll hear the evidence. Yes. We'll go into closed session for this witness.

[Closed session] (redacted)

(redacted) (redacted)

(redacted) ²⁵¹³ Pages 2513 to 2593 - redacted - closed session.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 9th day

of April 2002, at 9.30 a.m.