³⁵⁵⁶

Monday, 22 April 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we're told that there's some difficulty about getting the witnesses here this morning. They're in a traffic jam.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, so I understand. Might the time first be used conveniently to deal with the application in respect of Neill Wright.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: The position has been set out in our motion of the admission of his evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis, dated the 22nd of March of 2002. I trust that the Chamber has had both the statement and an opportunity to consider the motion.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: In the absence thus far of reaction by the accused or, I think, the amici, I will simply remind the Chamber that the -- and for those who will be observing the trial, that the statement produces various statistical material provided to a human rights organisation and, in particular, deals extensively with numbers of displaced persons. The formal requirements of Rule 92 bis have been complied with so that the Chamber is left to consider its discretion guided, as that discretion is, by factors listed in 92(A)(i) and (ii). It is our case that the evidence is cumulative in nature because other witnesses have given oral evidence of similar facts, and, indeed, Patrick Ball has dealt with statistics to a broadly similar effect and has ³⁵⁵⁷ relied on the material produced by the proposed 92 bis witness so that it's corroborative of two types of evidence that the Chamber has already admitted and considered.

As to cross-examination, we would respectfully invite you to say that although it's of course a matter for discretion, in this particular case the accused's cross-examination has been not to the fact of displacement but to the motivation or cause of it, and therefore, that doesn't bring him with any of the tests automatically giving him a right to cross-examination, it remaining a matter of discretion for the Chamber.

Your Honours, perhaps that summarises the position for the time being and I'll await what, if any, reactions are there for me to respond to.

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, perhaps you could deal with one or two matters. The first is attachment number five, the statement of Mrs. Ogata made to a working group on the 6th of April, 1999. I'm not sure that it adds very much in any event, and it speaks of forced displacement and the like, and I don't think we need be minded in any event to admit that through this particular witness.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases. She's been referred to in evidence very recently.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Perhaps more important would be, accepting for the moment your argument that really what is being dealt with by this witness is the statistics, the fact that there were refugees, which hasn't been disputed, the issue being as to why there were -- why there was ³⁵⁵⁸ displacement, attachment four, just the emergency update, that is the day-to-day reports, I take it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And this witness is in Colombo.

MR. NICE: Sri Lanka, I think, at the moment, but he is available. I'm not pretending that he --

JUDGE MAY: No. But if he was forced to give evidence, he would come rather a long way.

MR. NICE: He would indeed, yes.

JUDGE MAY: But that's, of course, not a compelling factor, just a practical matter.

Yes. Thank you. We'll hear from the amicus.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Thank you, Your Honour. I've not identified any further issue that might assist the Court except for one; that is, we believe that the accused does have the right of cross-examination if he wishes to do so. And that's the only observation we have.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, we're dealing with the statement of Mr. Neill Wright. His statement has been served. He is a witness from the UNHCR who deals with displacement. And the point the Prosecution make in asking that the statement be admitted, and without cross-examination, is that what he deals with is the statistics of displacement. He does not deal with the reasons for it, that being the -- that latter being the issue in the case.

Now, is there anything you want to say to us about that issue?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't have a chance of seeing his ³⁵⁵⁹ testimony, his statement, and as he's not on the list of the next 30-odd witnesses, this is very far in advance, and I don't go that far in advance, of course. So I don't know anything about his statement or testimony.

JUDGE MAY: His statement was served with the Prosecution motion of the 22nd of March. Very well.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: There are two matters we have to deal with. The first is this: Mr. Milosevic has not addressed us on the issue, saying he hasn't read the papers. But the fact is this: that this motion was served as long ago as the 22nd of March. We bear in mind that he is representing himself and there are a large number of papers. It is therefore more difficult than it would be in a simple case or more difficult than it would be for an accused who is represented. All that we bear in mind. But nonetheless, he had notice that this matter was to be dealt with. He had notice on Friday that we would be dealing with it this morning. So he had every opportunity to read the papers and be in a position to address us. He hasn't taken that opportunity. We deal with it on the basis that his reaction would be similar to his reaction to other such motions for the admission of written statements, namely, that he would wish to cross-examine the witness, and on that basis, we consider the motion. We will admit this statement under Rule 92 bis. It is of cumulative nature since it deals with the statistics of displacement. There has been evidence from many witnesses about the fact of displacement. There has been evidence from Dr. Ball about the statistics ³⁵⁶⁰ of displacement. Therefore, this evidence is cumulative of other evidence and is admissible.

We do not consider that cross-examination in this case is necessary, in the exercise of our discretion, since the witness deals purely with the fact of displacement and not with the reasons for it. There has been no issue that people were displaced. The issue has been: Why were they displaced?

The statement will be admitted as evidence of the statistics of displacement and the fact that people were displaced. It will not be admitted as evidence of why they were displaced. And in any event, attachment 5, the statement of Mrs. Ogata, will be excluded. It would not be admissible through this witness in any event, and it deals much more closely with the issue which we've identified, namely, the reasons for displacement, which is a matter which is very much in dispute. Accordingly, we admit the statement under Rule 92 bis. We exclude attachment 5, Mrs. Ogata's speech.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm grateful. I'm not sure whether the witness has yet arrived. If not, there's another procedural matter that I can raise and make use of the time in doing so.

JUDGE MAY: Is the witness here?

THE REGISTRAR: They have arrived, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, what was it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to say something precisely with respect to the statistics you were talking about. Statistics can serve a purpose if it deals with the facts introduced and ³⁵⁶¹ if those facts are correct, if it deals with the correct facts and figures. But in the practice so far this has not -- here, this has not been the case. We heard the testimony that you mentioned a moment ago by Patrick Ball, for example, which I wholly challenged. And secondly, we are not talking about displacement. And I don't know what you imply by using the term "displacement," because just one thing is without a doubt and that is that there were refugees who had fled, fled from the places where there lived due to the war. Now, if statistics -- if the statistics is about statistics related to refugees, then we can only look at it if the input is correct, the facts are correct, and not -- it does not apply to any displacement that is not connected to refugees. Refugees and war are two things that have always been linked, two phenomena that have also been linked. There has been no war without refugees or refugees without war, as far as I know anything on the subject.

So we're talking about - how shall I put it? - an endeavour, I think, to have the reasons for some sort of displacement ascribed to some other elements and points in time, intentions, plans that we have been listening to here the whole time but never anything than rumours and hearsay, people having heard about something. And that is why I think that statistical presentations of this kind, in my opinion, can be qualified as being worthless.

JUDGE MAY: We've ruled, Mr. Milosevic, and you've heard the reasons for our ruling.

Yes, we'll have the witness. ³⁵⁶²

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And as I say, I see that we have a little time. May I just say that my telephone isn't working again. I don't know how many times this telephone, which is supposed to be at my disposal, is out of order and I can't use it because it's not working, it's not operational.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have that looked into.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Salihi, we'll conclude your evidence now. You'll remember the declaration that you gave on Friday, which of course still applies.

WITNESS: RESHIT SALIHI [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to continue your cross-examination. It appears that there are about 40 minutes left.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I won't need as much time. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Salihi, in your statement, it says that you heard, when the events that you described took place, that in the Serbian language somebody said, "There are terrorists here." Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. As far as I was able to understand, you said that in your village there were no members of the KLA. Is that right?

A. No, there haven't been any.

Q. And do you know that in the close vicinity, right next to your village, in the villages of Bela Crkva, Zrze, Mala Krusa, Pirana, ³⁵⁶³ Medvedza, Samodreza, Studencane, Zociste, that in those villages there were members of the KLA and their groups present?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Did you hear of any occurrence taking place nearby your village, such as an abduction or killing or anything else that might have happened in those villages? Did you hear anything like that?

A. Well, we've heard about it when we've heard that Serbian forces have gone in and killed people, slayed them. They've done everything.

Q. I'm asking you whether you heard of events and occurrences when -- involving KLA members, when the KLA members perpetrated crimes in the villages around your village, the villages I enumerated.

A. At -- there's been -- there's been no KLA in Celine, and this question is not for me.

Q. I'm not talking about Celine. I'm talking about what you say you heard and if you heard anything from the surrounding villages, and I'm talking about what we're referring to as the KLA, that organisation.

A. I've not heard anything about any KLA or anything of the sort.

Q. And do you think that they might have come into conflict in those villages, clashes, and that a group of KLA members fled towards your village and that they were following that group?

JUDGE MAY: The witness has said that he knows nothing about the KLA in the surrounding villages, and that's his answer. He can't add anything to that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the witness doesn't know anything with respect to the KLA. He just knows one side - that's quite ^{3564 BLANK PAGE 3565} clear - one side of it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said in your written statement that the policemen, according to what it says here, had assault rifles. What do you mean when you say "assault rifles"? What are they?

A. Serbian forces came into the village of Celine and they did everything against us.

Q. I'm asking you about rifles. You said that they had assault rifles.

A. Yes. I can't say what kind of weapons they had, but Celine came under shelling. And we were not there in the business of going out into the open for them to shell us, and then that's exactly what they did.

Q. In the last paragraph -- I'm asking you a specific question. On page 2, in the middle of this paragraph -- I only have the text in English and I'm going to read the sentence.

[In English] "I can't remember anything about badges on their uniforms. These policemen were armed with assault rifles." [Interpretation] That's what I'm asking you. What makes these rifles different from other rifles? What are assault rifles, since you claim that they carried some kind of assault rifles?

A. They had -- [indiscernible] automatic guns. This is some kind of a grammatical exercise, and I'm no good at grammar of this kind.

Q. I'm not twisting anything. I'm just reading what's been written here.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we see what's in the statement. The ³⁵⁶⁶ witness has answered as best he can.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right.

Q. So it all boils down to the following: Your village, until the 25th of March - and that is the date on which this event occurred that you described - it was a peaceful village and there were no incidents; is that right?

A. Until the 25th, there was nothing of the kind. After that, we came under siege and the Serbs did what they always wanted to do.

Q. All right. Do you know that on the 24th of March, the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia started, that war started?

A. Yes, I do know this, and that is the reason why Serbian forces besieged us and threw all their revenge upon us, because we were very happy that NATO intervened, of course.

Q. So until the end -- the beginning of the war, it was peaceful, and you did not have any problems; and then when the war began, the events that usually accompany a war started. Do you ascribe everything that happened to the war or to something else?

A. What happened upon the civilians by the Serbian forces only -- can only be laid at their door.

Q. But I hope that we are clear on one thing, and that is that until the beginning of the war, there were no events of this kind whatsoever; all the trouble began when the war began. Is that right or is that not right?

A. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. ³⁵⁶⁷

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MR. NICE: Only one question arising from last week. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Salihi, you've told us about people being killed in your village. How many people were killed, roughly, or exactly, if you can help us?

A. I do know that exactly. Until the 25th or the 28th, I can explain everything here, because I've got everything here in my head.

Q. How many people? Just tell us that.

A. Seventy-five in the village of Celine, aged from 1 year old to 90 year old. They were all killed and massacred in their own households.

Q. I'm not going to ask you any more.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I should explain that this witness, as several witnesses do, come to Court with photographs and documentation that they think will help us. It's always a balance as to whether we should take time producing that material. With this particular witness, although he produced the material, it seemed to me that his witness statement dealt with matters, and I don't ask for it to be produced in evidence. But they bring this material, as this witness did, hoping that they can help the Chamber. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Salihi. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence. It's now finished and you're free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. ³⁵⁶⁸

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before the next witness comes, and because I'm not going to be here after the break, myself, until next week, I wonder if I could explain one or two procedural matters in a way that I hope will help the Chamber and set out the way we're going to deal with things from now on. I hope that will be convenient. It will take about five minutes or perhaps a little longer. I hope that's acceptable. Your Honour, we're now in a position, prosecuting this case in the three indictments, to take account of all decisions that this Chamber has made, indeed the Appeals Chamber's decision in relation to joinder, and we can take account of the experience of the time being taken, for example, with the 92 bis witnesses. And we obviously have our concerns. First of all, we appreciate that there are, or may be, different views about how long these trials should take, or this trial should take, in particular how much time should be taken by crime-base evidence. And although the Prosecution will, and does, hold to its view of what's appropriate, reflected in the list of witnesses we've served, it would be quite wrong of us not to take account of the views of others, as expressed or implied, to respect them, and to recognise that of course our view may well be wrong. We don't believe it's wrong, but we must take that view and we must respond to those possibilities.

Now that we can work out how long evidence in the Kosovo limb will take, the evidence that we've served, we've done the statistics, and if we were to call the evidence listed and on the most favourable assumptions that, for example, four 92 bis witnesses a day and live crime-base ³⁵⁶⁹ witnesses half a day, and experts and internationals one and a half days - you can do it various ways - the time that would be taken would take us well beyond the break, into October.

It appears to us that there are only a few remaining issues that can affect the length of time that need final resolution. I'll identify them and ask to say one or two words about one or two of them in a second. There's the binders, what use may be made of them; there's the cross-examination of amici, which is being dealt with by a separate motion; and then there's the final position of summarising witnesses. I'll come back to two of those shortly.

But in light of the statistics as we've understood them - and of course those statistics are in line with the original time estimates given by the Prosecutor and by myself on earlier occasions - we've decided to re-order the witnesses to give a priority not to the crime-base witnesses now, or at least after this week, but, wherever possible, to the other witnesses; the internationals, insiders, and the witnesses of linkage. What we intend to do is to get as many of those witnesses in as soon as may be.

This, to some degree, disrupts the order and presentation of evidence, but we think that's a necessary course to take, and we'll keep 92 bis witnesses in reserve - we hope not at their inconvenience - so that they can fill gaps as gaps may appear if we have trouble, as we may well do, getting these witnesses from around the world to come sooner than had originally been planned.

We don't yet know, incidentally, what is the outcome of the Kosovo ³⁵⁷⁰ interpretation booth dilemma, but if -- we hope that this won't waste interpretation booth time if it's limited, we've got that in mind, but nevertheless, we have to have in mind the overall time scale. Now, merely calling those witnesses early isn't going to solve the problem if there is a problem between the time that we believe is required and the time that the Chamber has allowed, and so I intend to do the following in respect to basically all witnesses in this trial unless I'm told not to, and all witnesses in all parts of the trial: I will take steps where possible to have their evidence in chief admitted under the provisions of 92 bis, and that will apply for all witnesses. I will come to detail of that, but before I do, the accused has been saying that from time to time that having witness statements as evidence in chief is not known to any system of law. I haven't bothered to correct him because when he says things that are wrong, if I stand up to correct them, it always takes time.

He's quite wrong about that. Just to take one jurisdiction, the English, in all cases that are not criminal in nature, including the large commercial cases that attract litigation from around the world, I believe, as Your Honour will know, examination-in-chief has been a thing of the past for years. All evidence is adduced by the way of production and adoption of written statements.

And of course there are plenty of arguments that one can deploy for saying that this sort of litigation is much more like large civil litigation with professional Judges and big, detailed issues of the type that are handled by both the small civil courts in England or the large ³⁵⁷¹ courts that deal with banking and other associated matters and so on. So he's quite wrong in saying that this is without precedent. It's absolutely with precedent, and it's been recognised as a technique for saving time, certainly in England and I expect around the world. And of course what happens is exactly what Your Honours have allowed in the case of these 92 bis witnesses; that the witness adopts his statement as accurate and is allowed a few questions of -- to settle him in, maybe one or two matters of detail covered, and than he is exposed or she is exposed to cross-examination.

So it seems to us if there is going to be problems of getting a sufficient quantity of evidence in within the time allowed, that we must use every available technique to abbreviate time. And of course, not having evidence in chief is not something that we want, but it's something that we think we can certainly live with. But it would require some constructive use of 92 bis, which has its own provisions. As the Chamber will recall, 92 bis may only apply in respect of evidence of a witness which goes to proof of a matter other than the acts and conduct of the accused. So that any statement that deals and only deals with such matter, it seems to us, probably couldn't qualify under 92 bis. But there is another part of 92 bis that is of value. 92 bis (E), I think, which says that: "... The Trial Chamber shall decide, after hearing the parties, whether to admit the statement or transcript in whole or in part and whether to require the witness to appear for cross-examination."

So that if there are statements from witnesses -- and I'll come to ³⁵⁷² the other difficulties that arise in relation to this possible technique, but if there are statements that in part deal with acts of the accused and in part deal with other background matter, then, and entirely sensibly, it should be to partition the witness's statement up. I don't mean physically, but to say, Well, as to paragraphs 1 to 10, admitted under 92 bis with entitlement of the accused to cross-examine; as to paragraphs 11 to 20, which deal with acts of the accused, well, that will have to be given in chief in the regular way.

So it seems to us that if I can bring ourselves within the provisions of 92 bis for any witness, for all witnesses, then this will save a great deal of time.

Of course, it won't be possible to go around the world and go through the process of 92 bis'ing, as it's rather unelegantly called, or inelegantly called, every conceivable witness, but witnesses, when they come here, of course go through their existing statements which have been served on the accused and the amici, and if they simply adopt the statement as accurate, it can then be taken to the independent limb of the Registry who can deal with the attesting process that makes the statement potentially valid before this Chamber. If the witness wishes to add to or to amend or correct the statement, a second statement could be taken and that statement can itself be taken through the 92 bising process. Now, if that happens, there will be potential difficulties arising from the notice provisions set out in 92 bis (E), because, of course, statements have to have 14 days' notice to the opposing party for provision of seven days' objection. Well, it's always open to the Chamber ^{3573 BLANK PAGE 3574} to abbreviate time. If the statement in substance or the statement has been served in advance on the accused, as they all have been, there would be no prejudice to him, especially if the Chamber were to decide to allow the statement in, in whole or part, subject to cross-examination. And so we might find ourselves in the position again -- unless the Chamber rejects this altogether as a useful technique, we might find ourselves in the position of saying, well, as forecast, Witness X is available today or tomorrow. His statements have been attested to under the provisions of 92 bis and we would ask the whole statement to go in as his evidence, subject to such cross-examination as the Chamber may allow. Alternatively, if the statement is one where certain paragraphs could not qualify under the opening provisions of 92 bis, we'd say the Chamber should have the whole statement, there being no embarrassment in the Chamber having the whole statement, other Chambers do, but we would seek to apply the provisions of 92 bis to the parts that don't specifically concern the conduct of the accused. There's one other potential difficulty, and this is a procedure and I've tried to think of all problems in advance and alert the Chamber to them, and it's to do with the language of the statements, given the problems of translation that we have.

What happens at the moment is that the witnesses come in, their statements, which have been served on the accused in English and in B/C/S, are then subject to review and the proofing summaries that are served are prepared, but they're only prepared in English because they're not -- it's not possible to prepare them in B/C/S in the time available, and they are, ³⁵⁷⁵ of course, a voluntary provision in excess of our duties. We now know better than the Chamber did when the matter was raised earlier, that the accused speaks English to a very high level, and we would invite the Chamber to say that it would be possible in these circumstances again to be satisfied that there is no prejudice in the provision of 92 bis statements in this way.

So, Your Honour, it has yet to be seen how it operates in practice. Of course the Chamber may rule against us, but I hope it won't. But it does seem to us that this is a technique that will save some more time, be consistent with modern practice, and the Chamber will always be able to afford the accused the opportunity to cross-examine, which is what is important to him, even though the Prosecution will lose that which they normally value, which is the opportunity for their cases to be given in public.

With that in mind, I'll therefore give oral notice now that it's our intention to -- under this method, to seek to rely on the provisions of 92 bis for any and every witness forthcoming, and I'll deal with the details witness-by-witness as we are able to provide revised witness lists, but I hope that that notice will serve a purpose.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think what you propose to do is quite interesting, but it seems to me that there is a certain basic screening that should be done by the Prosecution in this exercise rather than throwing everything at the Chamber, every possible witness. The Prosecution should itself do some screening, because there's no point ³⁵⁷⁶ putting any and every witness up for 92 bis if the very basic requirements are not met. The evidence must purport to go to matters other than the acts and conduct of the accused, and then the provision also sets out some indicia as to admissibility.

So if you have a witness whose testimony doesn't meet those basic criteria, why put up that witness? So while I find it interesting, I believe that there's an onus on the Prosecutor to do what I call this very basic screening. Because what you propose is really an indiscriminate exercise in which any and every witness will be put up as a possible 92 bis, and I believe that you should be a little more selective.

MR. NICE: Well, I certainly wasn't seeking rulings today. I was simply trying to give the Chamber an indication of what was in my mind, as I always do, so that the Chamber can think ahead and dwell on these matters. And of course, there may be witnesses who don't qualify at all because they are all about the acts of the accused, in which case, of course, we wouldn't put them in.

And as to screening, of course we're screening witnesses. We're very mindful of the additional burden that this exercise will place on everyone. There's no need to expose people to unnecessary labours if it's simply wasted. So of course we'll be reviewing each witness on a witness-by-witness basis, but this is my broad plan at the moment. So when I say I'm, as it were, giving notice that any such witness may be subject to 92 bis, that is exactly what I'm doing, and we'll review it as times comes along. And of course this will apply not only for the Kosovo limb, but in due course it will apply to the other limbs of the ³⁵⁷⁷ case. But we don't know what the timetables are going to be there, we don't know whether there will be the same pressure, for example, in Croatia, or whether it would be possible, as it would certainly be desirable in all cases, to have at least some witnesses give their evidence in chief fully. But as long as we have, and must respect and reflect, timetables that are operative on us, we have to look at all provisions, and that's why I've said that we're considering it for, and give notice that we may be considering it for, are considering it for, every witness.

Can I -- because I've got a few other things to say, so that I can be entirely transparent about what our plans are and exactly how they are going to take shape - come back to what I think are the only outstanding potential timesaving issues that are not formally and finally resolved. As I say, cross-examination by the amici is on hold, because it's obviously right that that should be the subject of a written motion for them to deal with.

Location binders. In light of Your Honours' ruling last week, it would appear to us, although it wasn't said in terms, that the Chamber may not be inclined to use the binders as a tool for engaging the accused in the exercise of deciding what's admitted and not admitted.

JUDGE MAY: That's right.

MR. NICE: And equally, that it may be the case that the Chamber is not minded to use the binders as a way of identifying on any not collective but joint basis what evidence may be valuable. Now, if that's the case, the residual value of the binders becomes more limited, and it ³⁵⁷⁸ does, of course, picking up from His Honour Judge Robinson's point, add to the burden of work really upon the Chamber. We don't want to flood the Chamber with material to be considered unless it's for a good purpose. We can carry on with the binder exercise if the Chamber thinks that it's useful.

Now, I know it's never right for an advocate to ask a tribunal any question, and I don't. So we can carry on doing it, but of course, were the Chamber to indicate that it doesn't regard that as an exercise that brings a dividend of efficiency or the saving of time, then we won't, and we'll simply adduce the evidence in line with the rulings that are to be either implied or drawn directly from the ruling in relation to the binder.

JUDGE MAY: Speaking for myself, it might be a convenient way in which to have the evidence together in one place about a particular village rather than having it given by perhaps a series of witnesses.

MR. NICE: Very well. Then we'll carry on, pruning them down in the way that you indicated, and make them available on that basis. There is then one other outstanding issue, which hasn't been the subject of a formal ruling, and that's the issue of the summarising witness. Now, we know that from the binder concerned, the summarising witness was excluded, as it were, in consideration of the binder. We're not sure whether that amounts to a general ruling about summarising witnesses, but --

JUDGE MAY: We haven't yet, I think, allowed one application for summarising witnesses. Now, it may be that you have another approach in ³⁵⁷⁹ mind.

MR. NICE: Well, again, I'm hoping to set out in advance what I'm doing rather than seeking rulings today. It seems to us that there is no Appeals Chamber jurisprudence on summarising witnesses. There's practice in different Chambers that I've drawn to your attention. And it would be desirable, if there's not to be a ruling in favour of a summarising witness in this case, that there might be Appeal Chamber jurisprudence available to all of us to guide us. Because what will be the most regrettable position would be to find - any case - to find itself in a position on appeal where the sufficiency of evidence is argued and where the Appeal Chamber says, "But there was another way of getting this in," and that matter hasn't been dealt with.

So what I'm proposing to do is this, probably next week: I will seek to lead a witness. It will probably be the summarising witness in Racak, and if so, we'll serve his statement upon you in advance. And that's one, because it's a particularly large site and because this is an investigator who has prepared the maps, indeed the maps we've already used with Major General Drewienkiewicz, his maps and so on. But he's been to the site and he's conducted an investigation, but his statement also does contain a summary of what witnesses have said to him. We'll then seek your ruling in relation to that witness. And if it's favourable, then we'll be pleased to adopt the policy of using such witnesses. If it's -- or not "favourable"; if it's to admit. If it's to reject, then we would ask the Chamber at that stage to certify that this was a discrete topic suitable for appellate consideration, and then we ³⁵⁸⁰ could possibly fast-track that consideration. So that one way or another we could know where we were in relation to that category of evidence, not just for this sector of the trial but for others. So with all those changes in mind - not "changes" - with all those proposals in mind, we will come at whatever the final deadline for the Kosovo sector of the trial is, to a position where we have got in, we would hope, the best evidence. Of course we'll be putting in evidence of crime base, probably start off with one per site for the killing sites, because it may be there won't be time for more, and we'll try and use 92 bis, of course, for all crime-base witnesses, as we were always going to. But we'll come to a time when we'll know how much the Prosecution's been able to adduce. We will have the advantage of those documents that I proposed using right at the beginning of the trial, documents where we fill in what aspects of the indictment are covered by particular witnesses. The Chamber will remember I proposed they might be jointly prepared. It was rejected, but I think Your Honour Judge May suggested they might be quite useful. Well, they're being prepared. We can make them available to the amici and to the accused in the meanwhile for correction or comment, things like that. But they will be available to show where there may be gaps in the evidence measured against the indictment.

There will then be a residue of evidence - I can't think of any other word - the evidence we haven't been able to get in using the various techniques that are available to us, and at that stage we may, and probably will, apply for such extension of the timetable as will ³⁵⁸¹ accommodate whichever of those witnesses, all or some, we still regarded as important to have in the case. But we'll have reached that position having done everything we can to get the maximum amount of evidence in, giving the evidence that we suspect the Chamber thinks may have a higher priority and that we can understand may have a higher priority, giving that evidence its priority. And so we'll be in a position to make any application for extension, having respected and reflected the view as to the length of time the trial should take and done everything we can. And hopefully, we won't have to make any such application. It just depends where we are by then.

But, Your Honour, that is a completely open and transparent explanation of what I propose. The same overall procedure can then follow for Croatia and Bosnia. I had no hesitation in deciding that for this case, crime-base evidence had to come first, not least because I could see there would be a range of procedural problems that would need to be sorted out, and that if we put crime-base to the end of any projected time period for trial, it would be too late, given the difficulties of amassing the witnesses and so on, gathering witnesses, it would be too late to deal with them. Well, we've now identified the problems, the potential solutions, and so on.

So in Croatia and Bosnia, it will probably be the case that we'll call crime-base evidence later and the other evidence earlier, and in each case, or in each part of the case, when we come to the end of such allotted time as there may be, we'll be able again to see what residue of evidence it's not been possible for us to accommodate and make our ^{3582 BLANK PAGE 3583} decision as to whether we seek any extension of the time. In Bosnia, of course, as the Chamber well knows, there are already in hand steps - you don't take steps in hand - there are already in hand various processes for reducing the amount of time that the Prosecution would seek, in any event, by consideration of the municipalities and how many of them have to be proved to the full extent, and the Chamber will also know that there are also time-saving procedures in contemplation, time-saving not just for this trial but for all the Bosnian trials, including the Plavsic/Krajisnik trial. And of course in the Bosnia case, there are other potential time-saving mechanisms available to us by incorporating, if we may, by 92 bis, evidence in other cases, possibilities that don't arise in Kosovo or, barely, in Croatia. So that's what we're doing, and I hope it's helpful to know it in advance. We will -- this week we'll carry on with 92 bis witnesses, and, it may be, next week, because I don't know how soon we'll be able to get other witnesses here. But we will be reordering our priority of witnesses and taking the steps I've outlined.

JUDGE MAY: Two matters arising about timetabling. At the moment, the order is for 90 witnesses, so if you want to extend that, you'll have to apply to do it.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: And it may be the sooner that's done, the better, so we all know where we are.

The second matter is this: Looking at the timetable for the summer, what we have in mind is this: that you said you would be calling ³⁵⁸⁴ linking witnesses in July, having, it's to be hoped, finished Kosovo. We think that, at the very least, the accused and the Trial Chamber should have another two weeks besides the vacation to prepare for the next parts of the trial. So we have in mind adjourning on the -- I think it would be the 19th of July, leaving two extra weeks before the recess begins.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's helpful to have notice of that. Our arithmetic of how long witnesses may or will take, on the best estimates, mean inevitably that the 19th of July is a date when there will be a very substantial residue of witnesses we would want to have admitted into evidence by one means or another, probably before we get to the linkage witnesses who link one case to the next, or one indictment to the next. But we'll have that date in mind as a date when proceedings may come to an end, tailor our calling of witnesses accordingly, and try and give appropriately early attention to such applications as we must make, not only for extending the number of witnesses but also when we should be looking at the residue of witnesses.

The Chamber will, I think, recall that the Prosecutor herself and I - I may have said this earlier - always envisaged that the Kosovo trial would last very much longer than the time that's been available since February and until July, even without cross-examination, and of course there has now been extensive cross-examination. But in due course - but I'm not arguing points now, and certainly not taking other than, I hope, an entirely cooperative and helpful approach - the Chamber will have in mind that the way things have worked out, the accused is occupying over 50 per cent of court time and we're occupying about 45 per cent, and that's ³⁵⁸⁵ going to change dramatically with the statistics for the 92 bis witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: The other matter I wanted to raise was the OSCE report, about which there was talk earlier, and as the case goes on, I think the more helpful it would be to have it. Have we got copies of it?

MR. NICE: It's come down most mornings, and not this morning. They will be down with you at the break. I am proposing to call the witness who can produce and give evidence of the methodology of that report. She is already on notice and she is willing to come. So we'll call her; if leave is granted, to call the additional witness at the earliest opportunity, so that methodology can be explained. The reports themselves will be available to you after the break.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll have the report when it's available and we'll hear the witness in due course.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. We're not making, as you'll understand, any ruling at this stage. There's no ruling about the future of the case or about the evidence or anything of that sort. We've merely heard the Prosecution outline its plans, and we'll consider them insofar as they affect the case in due course. So no ruling has been made or is asked for today.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand that you have not made a ruling, but I assume that, for making a ruling, it will not be too much if I say something about what Mr. Nice has been talking about. The first question relates to written submissions, written ³⁵⁸⁶ statements. He explained himself that written statements are used in cases that are not criminal cases. I'm glad to hear that, because I have been claiming anyway that this is not a criminal case. This is a political case. It's not even court proceedings from the point of view of law and justice. However, since you treat this as a criminal case, then I assume that it is quite unacceptable to introduce a practice for such considerations and for such deliberations which is not really applied anywhere.

As you have emphasised several times, I'm not an expert in these matters, but during one of the breaks, I asked Mr. Kay, who is a distinguished English barrister, and I asked him if this existed in English law, and he said no, this kind of practice does not. So I imagine that the other side, the opposing party, is aware of this as well. So this idea of imposing this kind of thing --

JUDGE MAY: There must have been a misunderstanding, Mr. Milosevic, because in English law, in criminal cases, statements, written statements, can be admitted in certain circumstances, and that applies in a great number of jurisdictions that written statements are admitted. The issue really is in a case of this sort, and we'll have to consider it when we come to your case, too, in the evidence you want to put in front of us, the issue really is: Is there such a dispute about this evidence that cross-examination should be allowed? That's what we're dealing with, the issue that we're having to answer. Because if the matters are not in dispute, there's no reason it should not be put in in written form.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, everything is challenged ³⁵⁸⁷ here. Everything is in dispute, everything that this indictment brings forth. However, this effort to move on from such -- two such witnesses from regular witnesses, so to speak, is something that reveals Mr. Nice's recipe or prescription or that side of his to avoid the weaknesses that became obvious during the testimony of many of his witnesses during the examination-in-chief. In this way, he would make them invulnerable because they would only be tied to their written statements. And in this way, everything would be resolved by paper. And in this way, it would be easier for him to prove the alleged facts that he wishes to prove. I also wish to draw your attention to the following: A few minutes ago, this main deception that is called Racak is something that he heralded as a case that he will seek to prove on the basis of some kind of cumulative witnesses and on the basis of some kind of expert opinions; that is to say, on the basis of witnesses who do not know anything on their own but collected other people's statements; that is to say, on the basis of the statements of his own clerks.

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you because he merely stated that he was going to put in an application to do this. We have not ruled -- we haven't seen the application, and we haven't ruled on it, and it is something which there's little point discussing further now, taking up time with. We'll deal with it when the application is made, and then we'll know what the application is and we can rule on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then I shall only dwell on one more issue quite specific. I heard an explanation here that I will be receiving all information related to witnesses in the English language, ³⁵⁸⁸ and I simply refuse that. If that is the way to prevent the normal functioning of my associates, and at any rate a different way of proceeding would be better. So I find all of this unacceptable. He is duty-bound to give me papers in my language, and I cannot accept this, and I won't accept it. I inform you thereof in advance. It is out of goodwill that I took these statements in English and I read them in English, because it is not in my interest either for this to go on for too long. But the fact that they are duty-bound to provide all of this in the Serbian language is something that should be abided by.

JUDGE MAY: That's a matter we will have to rule on and consider in each case.

I should say we will be sitting today from 9.00 until quarter to two. We will sit the normal 9.00 day, 9.00 morning. Mr. Wladimiroff, since we've been dealing with procedural matters, is there anything the amicus wants to add or mention?

MR. WLADIMIROFF: No, Your Honour, not at this stage. We will deal with it when it comes to a concrete proposal of the Prosecution.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have the witness, please.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I'm sorry you've been kept waiting. We were ³⁵⁸⁹ dealing with some procedural matters. If you'd like to take a seat.

WITNESS: ALI HOTI

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Ms. Romano:

Q. Mr. Hoti, you were interviewed on May -- 18 and 19 of May, 1999, by members of the Office of the Prosecutor; is that correct? I think we have a problem with translation.

A. I have problems with the translation. Too faint.

JUDGE MAY: Can you hear us now?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's better now.

JUDGE MAY: If we could have the witness's full name, please, Ms. Romano.

MS. ROMANO: It's Ali Hoti.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear very well.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's better now. It's okay now.

MS. ROMANO:

Q. Mr. Hoti, just for the record, your full name is Ali Hoti?

A. My name is Ali Hoti.

Q. You were interviewed on 18 and 19 of May by members of the Office of the Prosecutor; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is correct.

Q. And at that time, you gave a statement?

A. Yes.

Q. On the 3 of February, 2002, you attended a meeting where you ³⁵⁹⁰ appeared before an officer of the Tribunal, and at this meeting you were provided with a copy of your statement in the Albanian language, which you had the opportunity to review and confirm that all its contents are the truth of the best of your knowledge; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

MS. ROMANO: At this stage, I would like to formally submit the statement into evidence.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have an exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 105.

MS. ROMANO:

Q. Mr. Hoti, where were you born?

A. I was born at Krusha e Madhe on 6th of April, 1961.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes, I am married.

Q. And do you have family, children?

A. I have four children.

Q. What is your profession?

A. I'm a doctor by profession.

Q. Have you lived all of your life in Krusha e Madhe?

A. Yes, I've lived all my life at Krusha.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Hoti.

MS. ROMANO: I will give a brief summary of the witness testimony.

The witness describes the attack on the village of Krusha e Madhe, where the witness lived, on 25th of March, 1999. He describes the village ^{3591 BLANK PAGE 3592} being surrounded by Serb troops. He saw tanks, APCs, and he will describe also the Pragas approaching the village and the village being shelled, policemen and paramilitary looting property. His own house, as well as those in the surrounding village, were burnt and destroyed. The witness describes that his family started to leave the village that day and headed for the hill which is east of the village and went to the direction of Nagafc, another village. After he had left, the rest of the population also left. The population went in separate directions. When the witness arrived in a valley, he saw about 20.000 people altogether, refugees who came from the surrounding villages. The witness describes how they were ordered by Serb police and soldiers to go back to the village of Nagafc where they were spread out in houses and stayed for several days. While in Nagafc, on the 28th of March, the witness and his family were subjected to demands for cash at gunpoint by Serb police officers. The witness describes also several incidents he heard from refugees he treated while in Nagafc. One of them, Mehmet Krasniqi, had been burned, together with 109 men, by Serb police and paramilitary. And 1st April, 1999, the witness describes that Nagafc was bombed by planes he believes to have been Serbian. The witness saw many corpses at various locations throughout the village.

On 2nd of April, 1999, he joined a large convoy of Kosovo Albanians heading for Albania. On the way, people were humiliated by Serb soldiers. At the Albanian border, Serb police confiscated all documents. While taking the documents, the witness heard them saying, "Kosovo is of Serbs, go to Albania where is your place. You are not citizen of ³⁵⁹³ Yugoslavia any more. You do not need to come back."

JUDGE MAY: Just help us with the municipality, can you, Mr. Hoti? Which municipality do you live in?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the municipality of Rahovec/Orahovac.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.

MS. ROMANO: No further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Your village is right next to the villages of Bela Crkva, Celine, and Zrze; is that right?

A. I can't understand the translation very well. It is okay now, yes.

Yes, it is near.

Q. And then after those villages, we come to the other villages of Mala Krusa, Pirana, Medvedze, Samodreza, Studencane, Zociste, and so on.

A. No, this is wrong. Krusha e Vogel is near in Pirana as well, but Zocishte, Samadrexha, and the others are on a completely different distance.

Q. All right, yes. The other ones too. And do you know that in all those other villages, the ones that I mentioned, there was a considerable presence of the KLA and that, throughout the time, there was a lot of tension? There were a great deal of kidnappings, killings, and other crimes. People were beaten up and so on and so forth by the KLA. Are you aware of that? Do you know about that? ³⁵⁹⁴

A. Yes, I know that there has been a KLA presence, but not in the village where we lived because there was quite a lot of inhabitants and refugees. The KLA used to stay in its own bases, and there's been absolutely no KLA activity in the villages that you mentioned. I mean any military activity.

Q. A moment ago, you answered a question put to you by Mr. May that you were in the municipality of Orahovac.

A. Yes, this is true.

Q. You're a doctor. You had your clinic in Velika Krusa, and it would be logical for you to know what was going on in the surrounding villages and in your municipality generally because Orahovac is a small municipality, isn't it?

A. Yes. I will answer this question. I was a doctor, but I was never given a licence to practice by yourself. I have never worked in a state-owned practice. I've had my own practice, which I help the population of the villages around there to the best of my abilities without having had a formal licence by the organs of government, your organs of government. And my -- my freedom of movement has also been curtailed.

Q. All right. From what you have said, you had your clinic, and you did treat the population from the surrounding villages, which means a broader area, the area in which you lived, in fact, in the Orahovac municipality.

Now, on that basis, can we take it that you know about what was going on, the events that took place in the area in which you lived and ³⁵⁹⁵ which you worked, in which you treated the population?

A. Let me repeat. I've treated people from Krusha e Madhe, Celine, Nagafc, and Krusha e Vogel not on a broader range, because people did not come to my practice, but they went elsewhere, to Rahovec and other villages. On those -- on those four, yes, I have been a doctor.

Q. And where did you graduate from the faculty of medicine?

A. Prishtina.

Q. When did you graduate?

A. I graduated in 1994, after the Prishtina University had been closed down.

Q. I'm not quite clear what your answer means. You graduated, you say, in 1994, the faculty of medicine in Pristina; is that right? Is that what you said?

A. Yes. I will give a longer answer. The Serbian government closed the medical faculty in 1992, and I was left without completing my final year. And then I went on in our own university, which we opened without your permission, and I graduated from the University of Kosova.

Q. And where did you graduate at the University of Kosovo? Was that in Pristina?

A. I said once, and I'll say it once again: In Prishtina.

Q. Do you know that throughout the time that you're talking about, during that period, the faculty of medicine functioned in Pristina, was working, and that many students studied at the faculty of medicine in Pristina? Are you aware of that?

A. I know very well, but I also know that the medical faculty ³⁵⁹⁶ operated only for the Serbs of Kosova and not for the Albanians.

Q. But it was at that faculty of medicine of the Pristina University, for which you claim functioned for the Serbs, Albanians were educated there too, weren't they?

A. No. After the closure of the faculty, we studied on other premises.

Q. Now, could you explain to me, please, whether the faculty was closed or was it only the Serbs that attended the faculty and were educated there? What are you saying? I'm not clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that there was no longer a faculty of medicine at the Pristina University, or are you claiming that the medical faculty did exist but that Albanians were not students there? Which of the two?

A. I didn't say that the medical faculty didn't exist. I'm saying that the Prishtina faculty existed only for Serbian students, because the Albanians were dismissed, both staff and students, and we opened our own faculty on other premises. And in the faculty in which you're talking about, only Serbs studied and not Albanians.

Q. Now tell me this: Do you claim that the Albanians were not allowed to enrol in the faculty? Or shall I be a -- put this in a different way: Could Albanians not enrol in the faculty at all, that faculty of medicine of the university in Pristina? Which?

A. At the Prishtina medical faculty, after it was closed by your government, only Albanians who agreed to speak and study in the Serbian language, not in Albanian, only these Albanians were allowed to study at your faculty. ³⁵⁹⁷

JUDGE MAY: We must adjourn now. It's past the time for our break.

Mr. Hoti, could you remember during the break not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that includes members of the Prosecution team.

Mr. Milosevic, we have checked with the communications unit about the problem with the telephone. The problem apparently lies with the external connection to Belgrade, which is beyond the control, of course, of the Tribunal. The unit is unable to predict when the lines will be working again. So that's the answer.

Twenty minutes, please.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, we are being given copies of the OSCE report, as I understand it.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. Those are the copies that we have available, and hopefully that will be of assistance to the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: And the accused has a copy, I take it? Or if not, he should be given one.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, I do believe he has a copy, but I will check to make absolutely sure that he does.

JUDGE MAY: If you would.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, he has a copy, right there. He's pointing to it. So that's now been confirmed. ³⁵⁹⁸

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll get an exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, it will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 106.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you give me a clarification? I tried to shorten the cross-examination of the previous witness in order to leave more time for this witness, because all the witnesses are not the same. Can I count on that time or not?

JUDGE MAY: We'll see how we get on, see how much time you need, and we'll look at it at the end.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Secondly, the telephone doesn't work even when you want to talk to The Hague, let alone Yugoslavia. The answer I keep getting is that the telephone is not authorised.

JUDGE MAY: We'll look into it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So let us go on. We've come to some facts. So there was a medical faculty at the University of Pristina, and as you say, in addition to Serbs, other students who were studying there were only Albanians, who agreed to have the curriculum taught to them in the Serb language. Is that right?

A. I explained this before.

Q. So there were no restrictions for Albanians. They could study medicine at the University of Pristina. Is that right or is that not ³⁵⁹⁹ right?

JUDGE MAY: He said that they had to agree to the Serb curriculum, as I understand it.

Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's quite right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, that's the curriculum that applies throughout the country. Are you aware that diplomas of Yugoslav medical faculties are easily and readily recognised in many countries precisely because of the curriculum that is taught?

A. I know this, but these diplomas were also accepted when Albanian teachers were there. But with the removal of Albanian teachers from the faculty, we were denied the right to study in the Albanian language.

Q. And do you know that at the medical faculty of the University of Pristina there were also Albanian professors?

A. The occasional one remained. I'm not saying there weren't any, but these were those who agreed to teach and to give reports in the Serbian language, not in the Albanian language.

Q. That means that Albanian professors were not expelled from the university.

A. I've already explained this once.

Q. Well, give me an answer to my direct question: Were Albanian professors expelled from the university or were they not expelled from the university?

A. The great majority of lecturers were expelled from the university, ^{3600 BLANK PAGE 3601} except for one or two, who agreed to work under the conditions that I mentioned a short time ago.

JUDGE MAY: We've spent a quarter of an hour on this topic, Mr. Milosevic. It's not the crucial part of his evidence at all, which is what happened in his village. Now, can we move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then I shall first move on to this subject in the narrowest possible sense, but I think this was important because of what he claimed at the very outset. If that were true, that would have meant that the Albanians' human rights were violated, and as you could see, they were not. They could study, they could teach --

JUDGE MAY: We've heard the evidence about it. We don't need to go over it again.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In your statement, you spoke about a boy who was shot at. You were not present when they shot at him; is that right?

A. At the moment he was shot, I was inside, at home. But he was brought into the yard, and I was in the house and I was able to come out and give him first aid.

Q. My question was: You were not present when he was shot at? So you were not present, were you?

A. No.

Q. You talked about the alleged killings on the other side of Velika Krusa. You also didn't see that; right?

A. I can testify that 241 people were killed in Krusha e Madhe. Two ³⁶⁰² hundred six were from Krusha e Madhe and thirty-five were refugees who had come to this village from other villages. Of these, 171 were buried, of whom 86 have been identified by name, and the remainder have remained unidentified because they were burned, and only their bones were found. And there are 120 others of whom we have no details down to the present day, whether they are alive or where they are. They are still missing, and you must be held to account for where these people are.

Q. That's a different matter altogether. My question was that these alleged killings on the other side of Velika Krusa were something that you did not see, or did you see it?

A. I couldn't see everything at the same time because I am not omnipresent.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hoti, if you didn't see it, just say you didn't see it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw what I said in my statement, but not everything.

JUDGE MAY: Were you present at any of the funerals or burials of the people you've mentioned?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You also spoke about what happened to Fahredin Hoti. You didn't see that either. Is that right or is that not right? You can just say yes or no.

A. I can't answer yes or no, because Dr. Fahredin Hoti was a medical doctor and was killed in the presence of the members of his family. And I ³⁶⁰³ can say that Fahredin Hoti is both a relative of mine and my colleague, and he was killed in the presence of the members of his family.

Q. Yes, but you didn't see that either.

A. I didn't see the actual murder, but I was present at his burial.

Q. You spoke about an event in Mala Krusa in relation to Mehmed Krasniqi. You didn't see that either; right?

A. It's very well put in the statement. I wasn't present at the event, but after Mehmed Krasniqi got out of the place where 117 people were murdered and burned, he came to seek my aid. That's what the statement says. And the words, the account of the event, is his.

Q. So it's not yours.

JUDGE MAY: What condition was Mehmet Krasniqi in when he came to see you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When he came to the village of Nagafc to ask for help, Mehmet Krasniqi was burned all over his body, and his clothes were still wet from the blood of the people who had fallen on top of him. He was totally burned, and we had difficulty in taking the clothes from his body he was so badly burned. And also his face. We tried to cover his legs with other clothes, but when we -- when we started to take off his clothes, the flesh started to come off because of the severity of his burns.

JUDGE MAY: What did he tell you had happened?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He explained in detail, after I'd given him first aid, that in the village of Krusha e Vogel, Serbian forces, together with local Serbs whom he had known, had gathered together ³⁶⁰⁴ all the men they could in one house belonging to the Batusha family, put them inside, brought straw and what we call dried maize stalks and started to fire on people. Then people fell, and two people fell on Mehmet. So Mehmet was lying there. And then they set fire to them, those people who were killed and wounded.

Mehmet told me -- told me that after a short time, because of the smoke in the room, he returned to consciousness and got up, and there was nobody else around who was alive, and he got through a window and fled through the field and reached Nagafc.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You also spoke about the case related to Selami Elshani from Retimlje. You didn't see that either; is that right?

A. Selami Elshani also burned in other place at Krusha e Madhe at a time when Serbian forces separated 17 people mainly from other villages and put them in a room and did exactly the same as they did in Krusha e Vogel. But fortunately, Selami was not hit by a bullet but was merely burned, even though he was much worse burned than Mehmet. And after a time, he regained consciousness and he came to Nagafc, where a refugee population was, and sought help, and I secured him what help I could. But Selami's condition was much worse than that of Mehmet. He was almost totally burned.

The data I have given there is what Selami says.

Q. All right. My question was whether you had seen that or not. So you had not seen that; right? You are talking about --

JUDGE MAY: He's not saying -- he has not said in either case that ³⁶⁰⁵ he saw these events. What he has narrated is what those who had been through them told him.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that is precisely what I wish to establish here. I have already mentioned seven or eight cases by now, and it is obvious that none of them were direct eyewitnesses.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then also you talked about Celine and the church, but you didn't see anything by yourself. Is that right or is that not right?

A. I will answer this in this way, if the Court will allow me: If -- all these people who were at the scene of the incidents were all killed, so those who -- because those who were captured at the scene of the crime were -- all died. So there is no way in which we can give direct evidence of this.

JUDGE MAY: What were you told happened in Celine?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we were sheltered at the Prroni i Cilave at Nagafc, we began hearing bombing, and smoke -- plumes of smoke coming out of Celine. Nobody came to tell us anything, but we could surmise that something major was happening.

After the case of Celine, Serbian forces reached Nagafc, burned a part of it but not all of it. And through our place into the valley, you went into the Krusha Mala and Nagafc, overlooking both of them, because at that time, dusk was falling and Serbian forces did not operate at night, with the occasional fire, gunfire. They paused. They usually paused overnight.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁶⁰⁶

Q. You said somewhere in your statement that the soldiers were setting the houses on fire using some kind of pistols. Did you actually see that, setting houses on fire by pistols?

A. We have seen this from a distance, from the part that overlooked every single activity. After the looting of the villages, like I said, with pistols -- they were fired with pistols and the house was set on fire immediately after that.

Q. All right. After these many allegations that you made, I would like to read to you now what you saw personally. Again, I do not have -- I shall read what I have in English.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Which page is it, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Page 7. Page 7.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The second, third. [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... 1999 became the most tragic day for the people who were in Nogavac that day. It was the early morning that Nogavac was bombed. It was a real hell. While I was asleep that morning, at about 2.00 I woke up by the noise of an aeroplane. I heard that it had to be very close to the village and that it made a powerful noise. Soon after I heard the noise, I heard the big explosions. The window from the house where I was staying -- I was staying in broke and pieces from the ceiling were falling down. In the house where I was staying, only one woman was wounded. I gave her first aid and stopped her bleeding. People from the village called me to help the wounded people. When outside of the house, I saw that the houses were burning and heard that people were screaming. On my ³⁶⁰⁷ way in the village, I came across wounded people, mutilated, whose hands or legs had been cut off. In the first house where I stopped, five men had been wounded. One of them had cuts on his back and some of his ribs were broken. Another had a cut on his forehead. Another one had his arm broken because of the wall that had fallen on him. On the top of two others one of the walls had fallen down, and they had problems with breathing. Another one had died. His name was Gashi Sinan. He was the father of the one whose forehead was cut. The house where they were staying was the house of Gashi Sinan. I gave them the first aid with a few medicaments. I had continued to go into the other houses to see if I could give any help. I saw a 2-years-old child whose leg had been cut off. I saw 40 to 50-year-old man whose head had been completely destroyed and whose brains had all spread on the ground. I heard screams coming out of house, and when I arrived there, I saw that the ceiling had fallen down, and people told me that 20 persons had stayed inside the house. When I came close to the house, I heard that there were people still alive because I heard their screams. People outside around me were screaming also. I will take -- it would take hours to dig and take them out. It was impossible to do that because all the people in the village were scared and wanted to leave, to leave Nogavac as soon as possible. They were all afraid that Nogavac might be bombed again. The people got into their cars and left Nogavac. The 20 persons in the house must have died."

[Interpretation] So you describe bombing, which is undeniable on the basis your statement. Is it clear to you that Serb aeroplanes were ³⁶⁰⁸ not doing any bombing, that this was NATO bombing?

A. Let us clarify here a little bit, because what I've described, there's no need to go over again. It is like it existed in the statement. I said we were asleep at the beginning, because it was late into the night, and we had gotten used to the noise of NATO airplanes. Ten days into the bombing, it was. NATO airplanes used to stay at high altitudes. We had never heard such an echo, such a big noise. At Nagafc, as opposed to NATO airplanes, the aircraft was flying very low, and the aircraft first went all over to the Pashtrik mountain, and after that, on its way back, it started bombing.

Later on, pieces from the shells were to be found with the Cyrillic writing on them, which goes to show that these aircraft were yours and not NATO's. I am fully convinced that not unintentionally did your police keep us detained for days on end at Nagafc, where only a few houses had remained intact. There were houses with about 300 people inside. You can only envisage and then try to think of their conditions in one house. Your forces had intentionally put us and kept us in one single place, for the simple reason that they wanted to show that this was as a result of a NATO mistake.

Q. What the intentions of these forces were can only be assumed. But do you know that our airplanes, because of this vast air supremacy, were not flying there at all? Are you aware of that?

A. I did make the distinction between the NATO aircraft, which for ten days on end we had seen, and the flight of that very night, where the aircraft was flying very low. ^{3609 BLANK PAGE 3610}

Q. But do you understand what is being interpreted for you? Do you understand the translation, that it is something that can be checked out? And it is quite clear that our planes weren't flying there at all and were therefore not able to bomb you.

A. First of all, can I plead with Your Honour so that the accused does not offend me, because I do understand my own mother tongue very well. Whether the aircraft flew or not, I'm not in the military and I can't say that. I can't say whether it was your aircraft or NATO's but all I can mention here is what I've heard and what I've seen.

Q. Well, without a doubt, you saw a bombing take place. Now, the question is: Do you understand that it was NATO bombing and not bombing --

JUDGE MAY: The witness has given his evidence. Mr. Hoti, there's no need to reply to this.

He's given his evidence. He's said what he saw and heard. He can't take it any further. If you've got some contrary evidence, you can put it before us in due course, but meanwhile, there's no point arguing with the witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And is it clear that those planes used inflammatory devices, from what you have been saying here and claiming? Because you say that many houses were on fire.

JUDGE MAY: Can you answer that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will try very briefly. In the beginning, I said, after the bombing, pieces from the shells were found ³⁶¹¹ with Cyrillic writing, which I in no way can think that the NATO learned from the Serbs, with the Cyrillic script. That's why I think that this was not a result of a NATO bomb.

JUDGE MAY: Can you help, from what you saw, whether, as it's put, inflammatory devices were used or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was 2.00 in the morning on that very night, and every one of us was not outside but inside our houses. And you can only think of the speed with which an aircraft operates. So we've not been in a position to know these things at night, at that very particular moment. Then I don't think that flames alone would be able to pull houses down without some kind of explosive device, and there have been quite a few of these houses that were pulled down this way in Nagafc.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Had you seen the shells with Cyrillic writing or was that something that somebody told you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said they were found later and handed over to the competent organs. I don't know who exactly. But I know that from people who told me that they had been handed over to the internationals to be verified and checked.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So destructive and explosive devices were used, according to what you say; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: The witness has given his evidence about that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And what you were talking about a moment ago, perhaps, about the ³⁶¹² people who suffered great burns, serious burns, was that perhaps also the result of the bombing in which, in addition to the destructive powers, incendiary devices were used too?

A. Even earlier, when I referred to the burned people, those who had been burned at Krusha e Vogel, this had happened before the bombing, some days before the bombing, at Krusha e Madhe as well. There were 68 burned persons from Krusha e Madhe who had been burned before the bombing. So that I saw no similarities at all between the two.

Q. And do you believe that this was the only bombing, the sole bombing, or was there some bombing before that as well?

A. In the villages nearby - Krusha e Vogel, Krusha e Madhe, Nagafc - this was the only bombing and the last that we saw before leaving for Albania. We don't know what happened afterwards, and I can't say, but this was the first until that very day.

Q. And the bombing began on the 24th of March, and there are 31 days in the month of March, which means that this was nine days into the bombing; it was the ninth day of the bombing. Are you aware of that?

A. That's correct. But civilians have never been targeted, and there were 20.000 people over there. There was bombing of your forces. Your forces had been targeted, but not the civilian population. The only case upon a civilian population up until that moment was this one at Nagafc.

Q. But as you can see, the target here was the civilian population. And are you aware of the fact -- or rather, do you know of other cases, for example, of the bombing of columns of Albanian refugees carried out by NATO -- ³⁶¹³

JUDGE MAY: That is outside the scope of his evidence. It's not mentioned in his statement. What he says is that this was the first bombing, as far as he was concerned.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Nevertheless, Your Honour, if you could allow me, I will reply. I haven't seen this, but I heard that the Serbian forces used the civilians as human shield.

JUDGE MAY: It only leads to an argument. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you consider that the column of Albanian refugees bombed by NATO was something that --

JUDGE MAY: No. That's irrelevant, as far as this witness is concerned, and I'm going to stop that questioning.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And is it clear from the statement made by this witness and his testimony here in Court when he says that the most tragic day of everything that he says in his statement was precisely that April 1st, when the bombing occurred at 2.00 a.m. in the morning?

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow the question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it clear, in addition to the fact that our airplanes were not flying, that before that in your statement you explained the large presence of the army and the police in the area? Is that correct? Is that right?

A. Yes. I said in my statement that on the 25th of April [sic], one ³⁶¹⁴ night after the start of the NATO bombing, the villages of Bellacerkva, Krusha e Madhe, Krusha e Vogel, and Celine and Nagafc were surrounded on all sides by a steel siege, and we heard these forces arriving from Gjakove, Prizren, Hoca e Madhe, and we were surrounded on all sides by large police and military forces.

JUDGE MAY: There's a mistake in the transcript. It should be the 25th of March, not the 25th of April.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. It was my mistake.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And how long did those forces hold your village, have control of your village and the other villages that you mentioned were surrounded, as claim? For how many days did that go on?

A. I said in my statement that after the siege and intermittent shooting, the people withdrew from Krusha e Madhe because it's very close to the main road from Prizren to Gjakove. And I mentioned earlier that these forces passed from Celine to Nagafc through Krusha e Madhe, and we were in the streambed, and we could not see what was happening on the main road, but the forces were above us. And on the next day, when we went to Prroni i Cilave, we heard from the Serbian forces themselves that we couldn't go through Krusha because there were troops there. And we were entirely isolated in our houses until the day when we set off for Albania. So I cannot say what was going on round about.

Q. So throughout the time you were isolated by the army and the police or what you refer to as the Serbian forces; is that right?

A. The Serbian forces were always on the hills round about us. I've ³⁶¹⁵ put it in my statement. And on the 28th, they entered the village. They entered the village and they looted us. And a soldier or a policeman got hold of me and said that, "We are on the hills round about." And this is how we were restricted in our movements. We were made aware that they were there.

Q. All right. They, in fact, blocked you. Now, apart from the fact that our planes were not flying, did it occur to you that during the night, at 2.00, that even if they were flying, they would not be able to bomb a terrain in which there were our forces on the ground as well?

JUDGE MAY: That's not an answer he can give.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that it is quite clear what kind of bombing was afoot, even without that.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... in due course.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you happen to know that the only village with a Serb majority population in your area was Velika Hoca in the Orahovac municipality?

A. Yes. Hoca e Madhe was indeed the only village with a Serbian majority population. But it also had the most weapons and the largest military and police presence. I know that too.

Q. And do you know that in the course of the summer of 1998, in your municipality there was a great deal of violence and that, as can be seen from the OSCE reports, in that area there was a great deal of tension as they themselves state?

A. The mission was -- there was tension not only in these villages but throughout Kosova. The situation was very tense. But as far as I ³⁶¹⁶ know, there had never been any military activity against Hoca e Madhe. There was no operation by the KLA against Hoca e Madhe.

Q. I'm asking you about the area of the Orahovac municipality, your area and your village, because you say you know the situation broader afield in Kosovo. So I'm sure that you know about the situation in the Orahovac municipality even better. Isn't that so?

A. I wasn't talking about the situation in Kosova, but I said that the situation was very tense throughout Kosova at that time.

Q. And do you know that in your particular municipality during February 1999, that there was -- there were repeated clashes between the army and the KLA?

A. What time period are you talking about? Could you tell me again?

Q. Well, let me repeat. During February 1999, which means the period immediately prior to the events which you describe, that clashes became prevalent again between the army and the KLA.

A. With a full sense of responsibility, I can tell the Court that in the villages that I have been talking about so far, that is Krusha e Vogel, Krusha e Madhe, Nagafc, and Celine, I can say that there was no military activity. Whereas what happened on the front line between your forces and the KLA, I'm unable to say. But in the villages I have been talking about, there were no military operations and no provocations of any kind.

Q. I'm talking about your municipality, the municipality in which you lived. I assume that as a citizen and a physician communicating with many people, that you were aware of the situation in your municipality. ³⁶¹⁷ Orahovac is a small municipality, in actual fact.

JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer that he knows of no KLA activity in the surrounding villages.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, judging by the book you received a moment ago, it says there that there were clashes once again in the Orahovac municipality. But let's move on.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... decide that. Did you know anything about the clashes in the municipality generally?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in that we had no freedom of movement and we were isolated, how could we know what was happening in the municipality at large? We were cut off.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As of what date were you isolated? When were you cut off?

A. It's not a question of dates, but for years on end we didn't have the right to movement freely, because if we went out onto the main road, there would be police checkpoints and we would be mistreated. So we restricted our movements to a minimum and went out only for very pressing reasons. Otherwise, we didn't travel at all.

Q. And when was the checkpoint, the police checkpoint, set up on that main road leading out of your village?

A. There were always checkpoints, both in the direction of Prizren and the direction of Rahovec. But they increased, and the mistreatment increased after the clashes between your forces and the KLA. ^{3618 BLANK PAGE 3619}

Q. And do you know that already in the summer of 1998, the summer of 1998, that there was a big clash between the KLA and our own forces, and that on the 17th of July, 1998, the KLA took control of Orahovac? Do you remember that?

A. We heard this from the many refugees who on that day came to our villages, nearby villages, and came to us out of fear. We heard about this from them, but otherwise I'm unable to reply.

Q. It was a battle, fighting in which the KLA took control of Orahovac. There was a lot of shooting. And as the KLA had taken control of Orahovac, what do you think your refugees were afraid of, the refugees that turned up in your village?

JUDGE MAY: That's a comment. The witness has said what he knows about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that Malisevo, which is also in your municipality, was where the KLA had its headquarters?

A. I would like to correct the accused here because Malisheva is not in our municipality but is a municipality in itself and is a long way from us.

Q. You knew nothing about the headquarters of the KLA in Malisevo then?

A. I have heard that there was a KLA headquarters there, but I never was in Malisheva in this time, because to go there I would have had to go through Rahovec itself, and Malisheva was a long way away.

Q. And do you know that in your particular municipality, the ³⁶²⁰ municipality of Orahovac, there were many cases, perhaps you at least know of some of these cases, of the abduction and killing of Albanians whom the KLA thought were inclined towards the Serb authorities?

A. I don't know of any particular case, but I know very well that there are still 120 people missing from my people, that my cousin and a university professor is missing from my village. I do not know where these people are, but you are responsible for them, so you can tell us where these people are.

Q. Well, I asked you about the many cases of people being abducted and killed, Albanians, people whom the KLA --

JUDGE MAY: He has given his answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just in passing, that is what it says in this book "As Seen, As Told." Precisely what I'm asking him about.

JUDGE MAY: You can put all of that in front of us in due course, but for the moment there's no point going on arguing with the witness. Now, you've had the hour which you were allowed. You can have another ten minutes because you were quicker with the last witness and there is quite a lot in this witness's evidence, if you need it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I saved a full 30 minutes of time with the last witness, as you know.

JUDGE MAY: We'll give you to the break. You can have quarter of an hour.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that in June 1998, in your own municipality, an ³⁶²¹ Albanian was abducted who was well disposed towards the Serb authorities, and he was abducted in Brestovac by three KLA members. He was held in prison in Ratkovac. Do you know about that case? This is also mentioned in the OSCE documents here.

A. I'm sorry, I haven't read this document, but I don't know why you're so -- why you're so careful about this Albanian and not interested in all the others who have disappeared.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hoti, would you just answer the questions. We'll get on more quickly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you bear in mind that I'm not asking you as the reader of a book but as a citizen of Orahovac and a physician at that who must have known what was going on in his municipality.

Now, do you know when the KLA in your municipality killed two Albanians and a third --

JUDGE MAY: He has given evidence about that. He said he didn't know of any particular case. Now, there's no point putting these matters to him when he says he doesn't know. As I've said, you can put your evidence before us in due course.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you at least know of the daily protests on the part of families, of persons who were abducted and who had disappeared? Abducted at different times by the KLA and many of them later found dead.

A. I have never heard of these protests, and I don't think they took ³⁶²² place. I did -- I heard very well of protests that were held by the Albanian side about the thousands of people of -- the thousands of Albanians who've disappeared, and no doubt you've heard about them too.

Q. And as this was something that was quite loud, you couldn't not hear it; do you know anything about the mortar attacks of the KLA on the village of Zociste, also in your municipality? In March 1999.

A. In March 1999, as I said before - I'll repeat it - we were unable to move. We were restricted in our movements. I know that at that time Zocishte was not inhabited by any Albanians because their houses were burned. The Albanian residents were refugees. So we couldn't go to Zocishte to find out what was happening there, so I don't know anything about what was going on beyond the villages I've mentioned. What was happening in Zocishte or Malisheva or Rahovec, I just cannot say.

Q. But the refugees from Zociste came to your own village, as far as I was able to understand you, and you mentioned refugees from Zociste.

A. I did not say in March 1999, but Albanian refugees from villages had been staying with us for over a year. They had left the village a long time before, because their houses had been burned down by their Serbian neighbours.

Q. And how far away is Bela Crkva from your village?

A. Bellacerkva is about 15 kilometres away from us.

Q. And did you know anything about what was going on in Bela Crkva?

A. Again, what time are you referring to?

Q. Precisely the period starting with the beginning of 1999, because KLA presence was in that village from then on. ³⁶²³

A. I have no idea that the KLA have ever been at the Bellacerkva or that there has been a KLA staff in there. Your information could be incorrect on this.

Q. This information is correct, but we are not going to spend any more time on this.

Are you aware of any one of these killings that were carried out by the KLA in your municipality? I'm going to read this out to you and you're going to tell me whether you know about any one of these.

JUDGE MAY: You said earlier you didn't know of any particular cases. If the accused reads out a list to you, will you be able to answer or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, because I don't know anybody. I have absolutely no idea.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but I'm asking you about whether you had heard of any one of these killings, because there are a great many killings that were committed there by the KLA.

JUDGE MAY: It's pointless to read out a list when he can't give an answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He knows in advance that he does not know about any one of these killings?

JUDGE MAY: He doesn't know about any particular cases. Now, Mr. Milosevic, you can put this evidence before us in due course. It's pointless going on arguing with the witness. Now, is there anything else you want to ask him, anything new? ³⁶²⁴

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know, for example, about the name of Muharrem Berisha, an Albanian, born in 1951, from Brestovac, from your municipality? Have you heard of him?

A. How could I know everybody from other villages? You're talking about a village that is four villages apart from my own village. I can hardly know people from my own village, with about 6.000 people, let alone someone who lives about four villages apart.

Q. Yes, but if somebody is killed, then people usually hear about it, at least in the area where he lived. So you've never heard of him? And did you hear of Marko Gashi, another Albanian, born in 1927, from the village of Dobri Do, also from Orahovac?

A. Are you aware how far Doberdoll is from my own village? And would you believe me that I've never been there, and I've got absolutely no idea which way it is located. If you start asking about all the honest Albanians, as you refer to them, as to who they are, I do not know them.

Q. And why do you qualify these killed Albanians in that way?

JUDGE MAY: It was a comment. It's not taking us -- There's no need to answer.

It's not taking us any further. Mr. Milosevic, you've had practically all the time. Unless you've got a new topic, I'm going to bring this examination to a close.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have many questions that pertain to the crimes committed by the KLA, but obviously you do not seem to be willing to make it possible for questions of that nature to be put. ³⁶²⁵ I have a few pages of questions.

JUDGE MAY: You have put them, you've heard the witness's answers, and I've said it's pointless to go on. You can put your evidence before us when it's your opportunity to do so.

Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions of this witness?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE REGISTRAR: Your microphone.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I do have a few questions related to the statement that was read out here. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. On page 1, in the second paragraph, Mr. Hoti, you said that in Velika Krusa there were about 6.000 people. After July 1998, this number increased because refugees had arrived from Retimlje, Zociste, and Opterusa; is that correct?

A. That is correct. Yes, that's how it is.

Q. And can you give me an answer as to how many people came in that July of 1998, that summer of 1998, how many people came to your village?

A. As you mentioned it, and I've written about it, about 3.000 to 4.000 refugees stayed with us in our village. It is approximately around that number. I can't give an exact figure. About 4.000.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Before I put the next question, Your Honours, I would like to draw your attention to page 9 of the English version, paragraph 6.

Q. Mr. Hoti, in your statement, it says that the first Serb offensive took place in the spring of 1998. Is that correct? In the spring of ³⁶²⁶ 1998.

A. It could be wrong through the translation. In the summer of 1998 and the offensive on Rahovec and its municipality. I'm referring to the summer - June, July - but not the spring of 1998.

Q. Perhaps it's a question of interpretation, but is that the time when these 3.000 or 4.000 people came to the village, to your village? Is that that particular time?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, if we understand each other now, then this offensive that you mentioned, does this offensive pertain to a clash between the KLA and the army of Yugoslavia, or the police, and that that is why these people primarily came to your village?

A. For several times it was mentioned that there was an offensive in Rahovec and Bellacerkva, and the population, out of fear, fled and came to our village. All I know is that refugees reached our village and stayed with us throughout.

Q. I have understood that part. But this offensive was launched against what, against whom? Was it aimed at driving these people out of their villages or was it aimed against the KLA?

A. No. Against the KLA.

Q. Thank you. Another subject. I'm not going to go back to this, that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic read out, but again, it's page 7, of the English version, that is. In addition to everything that you have already confirmed while you were being examined by Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, I would like to go back to the third paragraph from the bottom. It says here that ^{3627 BLANK PAGE 3628} after this bombing that occurred that night, immediately during that night, you say: I came across a burned van where seven young men had fallen asleep -- had been sleeping. The young men were burned also. Does that mean that the van was not hit at all but that the young men in the van had burned?

A. The burning after the bombing of that van, the van was completely charred, and during the bombing, these youths were only buried after we returned from Albania.

Q. All right. I'm satisfied with your answer. That's not the way you had put it.

But now for something else. The next day --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- Your Honour, Judge May, do I have a bit more time?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That you said when you had set out for Prizren, that you took 15 wounded persons with you. "We put them on a truck and sent them to Prizren. Most of them had been mutilated by shrapnel." Is that correct?

A. It may either be a mistake in translation or incorrect, because what I said is the night we set out for Prizren, a lorry, driven by an elderly person, was filled with some wounded people who were coming from several villages and headed towards the Prizren hospital, not with the population, but the lorry was filled at Nagafc with wounded people. It's only the driver who took the wounded people there.

Q. That's not the way it's been explained here, but all right. This ³⁶²⁹ is the explanation you give now, and I'm not opposed to that explanation either. You said that that night in Nogavac, 40 to 50 people were killed.

A. That's correct. This can be corroborated with the reburial of all of them after our return from Albania.

Q. Could you please explain just one thing: That night you only heard the sound of aircraft, but you didn't see any aircraft?

A. No, because one cannot see an aircraft at night.

Q. That was the first thing I wished to refer to. The second one: You were in a house. You heard detonations and you say that the window broke. But the house itself had not been hit; right? Is that right? I mean, it wasn't hit by a bomb?

A. The house where me and my family were sheltered, and alongside another 80 persons, because of the tremors of the explosion by a grenade, or whatever it was - it was in the close vicinity - the roof was completely destroyed and the window panes were also shattered, but there was no burning.

Q. And this happened to many other houses too, right, due to the --

A. This happened to many, many houses at Nagafc. Almost all of Nagafc was completely destroyed that night.

Q. Just one more question. Did you see, on the next day, before you set out - as you explained here, you were frightened - did you see any craters from these bombs next day in the village, and were they big? There were about ten of them. Were some of them 10 metres long and 7 metres wide? Did you see that? ³⁶³⁰

A. These craters, I did notice them even on the night when I set out to help the wounded, and I've seen the craters and I've seen -- because of the flames of the burning houses. On the very next day, before dawn, we set out for Albania.

Q. They were that big?

A. Yes, they were that big.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Any re-examination?

MS. ROMANO: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hoti, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. If it please the Court, the Prosecution calls Rahim Latifi, spelled L-a-t-i-f-i, as our next witness.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.

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

JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat. ³⁶³¹

WITNESS: RAHIM LATIFI

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, I wonder if you could secure Exhibit 83, page 10, and put it on the ELMO. Thank you.

Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Now, Mr. Latifi, I understand, sir, that you were born in Pirana, is that correct, near Prizren, in Kosovo?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you live there most of your life?

A. Yes, all my life.

Q. I'm going to ask that you look at the map that's on the ELMO. I don't know if that's displayed on the video screen. Do you see your town of Pirana on that map that's now before the Court?

A. Yes. It is there.

Q. You're now pointing to --

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, on page 10 of Exhibit 83, there is a number 23 in the right-hand column. About two inches to the left of that is Pirana.

Q. All right. You're pointing to Pirana now, thank you, on the screen. Thank you. And that's in the municipality of Prizren, is it?

A. Yes, the municipality of Prizren.

Q. Thank you, sir. You can -- that's -- Sir, I understand that you took your secondary education in Prizren, and you studied agriculture for some time at the university. Is that also correct? ³⁶³²

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Are you married?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any children?

A. Four children.

Q. And did you, in 1998 and 1999, live with your parents and another brother in the same house with your family in the village of Pirana?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: I would now propose if I may, Your Honours, to give a very brief skeleton summary of what is contained in the witness's statement, but before I do, I should ask him some questions about that statement.

Q. Sir, were you interviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor on the 28th of April, 1999?

A. Yes.

Q. And you gave that statement. And was that statement subsequently translated into Albanian and given to you to review on the 29th of January, 2002, of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you appear before a presiding officer at that time and indicate that the contents of that statement were true to the best of your knowledge and belief at that time?

A. That's true.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might that statement now be tendered as the next ³⁶³³ exhibit in these proceedings, please, Your Honours.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be Prosecutor's Exhibit number 107.

MR. RYNEVELD: While that statement is being distributed, I propose, with the Court's permission, to read a brief skeleton summary. I've made, actually, a copy of it for the benefit of the translators, and I believe a copy has also been handed to all the parties. In the statement, Your Honours, he describes incidents in the spring of 1998 when he found three dead villagers. All of them had been shot in the back of the head. One had his hands tied with a metal string, behind his back. Another's body was black and blue from having been beaten. All were civilians.

He describes that on the 24th of March, 1999, in the evening, the NATO started its air campaign. And by 4.00 of the next day, the 25th of March, 1999, his village was surrounded by the army and MUP units, by tanks, various military vehicles, and a lot of personnel. At 8.00 in the morning, the first house in Pirana was set on fire, and at approximately the same time, the Serbs started shelling the village. Later, the police burned the whole village to the ground. According to his statement, when the attack on the village began, the residents started to evacuate. There was a free corridor to Mamusha village, so 80 per cent of the population of the village, which he estimated to be about 1.900, started moving towards Mamusha. The rest of the population, including the witness, went towards Srbica. On the way to Srbica, a sniper killed one villager and wounded another. In the village of Srbica, some Serb families met the refugees and ³⁶³⁴ asked the police that they not be harmed, but next day, about 70 police started shooting at their tractors. Some Serb residents tried to protect them from the police. And the witness's family stayed there for over a month.

About three weeks later, the chief of police of Prizren came and said that whoever was not originally from Srbica village should leave the village and go to Albania. The local Serbs from Srbica then organised six buses for the refugees, but the witness and his family of 86 members stayed in Srbica for ten days longer because there was no room for them in the buses.

On the 25th of April, 1999, the Serbs started a big offensive in the area of Srbica. From Srbica area, they would shell the villages of Pirana, Reti e Ulet, Reti, and Randobrava.

On the 26th of April, his family hired a bus for about 2.000 German marks and they were escorted out of the village by local Serbs. They proceeded with the cars both in front and behind the bus until they reached the village of Zhur. At the border crossing at Morina, their personal documents were taken away.

Now, the witness also describes several incidents in his statement about bodies that he saw, and there are some eight of them. First of all, in a dry stream near Pirana, the police buried several bodies with a bulldozer. Secondly, one day he saw two police trucks on the road from Krusha with many bodies inside, but he doesn't know where they took them. Three, he describes an incident where he reburied three bodies in Pirana. Four, he describes an incident in the village of Randobrava where a shell ³⁶³⁵ hit a tractor and a convoy and all six members of a family got killed. Five, in the same village, he found the body of a man about 45 to 47 years old whose fingers were cut off and his abdomen was cut open. Six, in the village of Reti e Ulet, he describes a gravesite where he helped bury 25 people who came from the village of Krusha e Madhe. Seven, he also found 12 more bodies in Randobrava that they buried in the field. And finally, number eight, he describes finding 52 people killed in the houses in the village of Velika Krusa, most with gunshot wounds to the head. That is a very brief skeletal summary and I have no further questions at this time. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me, may I make a correction?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Srbica, it is called Srbica but not Skenderaj. Skenderaj is not near our territory where I live. It's a technical error.

MR. RYNEVELD: That must have been a translation, because I do not recall using the word "Skenderaj." It certainly is not contained in the skeleton statement that I read out.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] You said that you graduated from high school in Prizren and that you attended the faculty of agriculture for two years in Pristina.

A. Yes.

Q. When were you enrolled in secondary school; which years? ^{3636 BLANK PAGE 3637}

A. 1987.

Q. You graduated from secondary school in 1987; is that correct?

A. 1989.

Q. And when did you enrol in the faculty of agriculture; which year?

A. In 1990, in September.

Q. And when did you leave the faculty of agriculture?

A. In 1992.

Q. And why did you abandon your studies at the university?

A. Because our university was closed and I didn't have the right conditions to continue in private houses. Because after the university was closed, classes continued to be held in and among private houses.

Q. But do you know that at the university in Pristina, there was a faculty of agriculture all the time?

A. It's true, there was, but only for Serbs and people who accepted your regime.

Q. And could Albanians freely study at the faculty of agriculture at the University of Pristina?

A. When are you talking about?

Q. In that period from 1992 onwards, when you left the university.

A. No, it wasn't free.

Q. And do you know that a large number of Albanians did study at the faculty of agriculture in Pristina after 1992?

A. Yes, among private houses. Not on the faculty premises.

Q. All right. Let's just clear this up. It is your claim that the Albanians did not study at the regular faculty of agriculture of the ³⁶³⁸ University of Pristina?

A. This question is not clear to me. I tried to study in premises because to get the right conditions, but the truth is that we were evicted from them.

Q. All right. If I have understood your answer correctly, Albanians were evicted from the faculty of agriculture in Pristina, and from 1992 onwards, you say that there weren't any Albanian students at the faculty of agriculture of the University of Pristina.

A. On the premises of the faculty, there weren't. In private houses, in rooms 4 metres square, there were, but they didn't have access to a library or anything.

Q. All right. Therefore, I understand that you said that at the regular faculty of agriculture of the university in Pristina, from 1992 onwards, there were no Albanian students. Have I understood you correctly?

A. I can repeat again: On the faculty premises, the premises of the agricultural faculty, there were no Albanian students, but there were among private houses.

Q. All right. Thank you. When you say "among private houses," this did not belong to the faculty itself; this was some kind of parallel studies. So nobody was studying at the university any longer?

A. You can't call it parallel. We tried -- that is, our students, our professors, we were trying not to leave students on the streets. You can't study in private houses like you can in university premises, and even among private houses, our students were harassed and persecuted. ³⁶³⁹

Q. What do you mean, they were harassed and persecuted?

A. Everywhere: on the streets, in their flats, at the bus station, in the bus.

Q. Who persecuted them?

A. Uniformed policemen mainly, civilians. There was no way we could protect ourselves from the police. You couldn't bring your faculty identity card home. If they found you with a faculty identity card, you were in trouble.

Q. Were any students arrested? Or let me be more precise: What did this persecution consist of?

A. All kinds of things. There's no dispute about this.

Q. But describe at least some of these forms of persecution, when you say that students were persecuted in Pristina or in Kosovo.

A. In April 1992, in Aktash II, seven students, friends of mine, were arrested. They were mistreated until they lost consciousness, on the street and then in the police station. There's a short description for you.

Q. And how long were they detained in the police station?

A. About 24 hours. Just because of these 24 hours, they had to interrupt their studies for two months, because of the way they were beaten and mistreated. Whether they were women or men, the question was: Are you a student? Are you studying? They were concerned to brainwash us.

Q. You, therefore, claim that it was the police that prevented Albanian students from going to their studies, from studying? ³⁶⁴⁰

A. The police received orders from somewhere and obstructed us.

Q. And do you know, at that time, the time that you're talking about, how many Albanian students were enrolled at the regular university in Pristina, as regular students?

A. I only know about my faculty. In the first year, there were 120 students, and in the second, the number was reduced. Merely in the arable department. I can't talk about the rest of the university. I don't know about it.

Q. All right. At the second year, the number is reduced anyway, minus those students that don't complete the first year. Was that the reason or was there some other reason?

A. I was a good student. I passed all my exams on time. I am talking about myself as an example. But what worried us most of all was the treatment of the girls, because they were unable to travel from Prizren to Pristina because of the maltreatment, and we had to protect them because of our honour.

Q. And who abused girls?

A. The police. Who else? The civilians were not authorised.

Q. Well, can you quote an example of the police abusing some girls?

A. For example, two girls from Suhareke got off at Stimlje and were maltreated, but they didn't come with us in the bus. We had to leave them there. And then what happened to them, I don't know. I don't know who they were. I just know that they came from the Suhareke area. I don't know which faculty they were studying at.

Q. You lived in Prizren, in a town in which there were Albanians, ³⁶⁴¹ Serbs, and Turks alike, and also a number of Roma; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. At that time, the time you're talking about, in the Prizren municipality, were there Albanians and Serbs and Turks and Romas holding responsible positions?

A. In the recent years, I don't know of there having been any Albanians. There were reduced number of Turks, and I don't think there were any Roma, and the majority were Serbs. All the managers were changed at that time, all the employers, all the supervisors, all the bosses.

Q. And do you know Sokol Qyshi from Prizren, for example?

A. No.

Q. He's an Albanian. I assume you know him because his name -- you can judge that by his name. And he was a director in Prizren throughout that time, right up until the war. Do you know about that? Do you know about him?

A. From his name, he's an Albanian, but I didn't work in the administration. I had no way of knowing him. This is the first time I've heard of his name.

Q. Well, his name just came to mind, but I have a number of other names, Albanian and Turkish, who held responsible functions. Now, did it occur to you, in view of the structure of the authorities in Prizren municipality, which was composed of Serbs, Albanians and Turks, that for the incidents that you spoke about, that you asked their assistance, that is to say that you appealed to the authorities in the municipality for their help? And it was a municipality ³⁶⁴² that had representatives of both the Serbs, Albanians, and Turks.

A. What sort of aid should I be looking for? I don't understand this question.

Q. The question is: If there were certain incidents that took place against people from Prizren, those of you who were studying, did it ever occur to you to go to your own municipality, the municipality of Prizren, and go to one of the functionaries in the municipality who was an Albanian or a Turk or a Serb, whatever, to report to them that something had been going on that was not normal and proper, that was out of order? Did it ever occur to you to report that to them?

A. We did think of this, but we didn't follow it up. We went into the police station, and our farewell was, "I hope you -- God willing you'll come out alive. And if you don't, you get buried."

Q. I didn't understand you. Who told you that?

A. That's the sort of thing that happened. This is not just rumour. Anybody who went to the police station, that sort of thing happened. You had no one to complain to, because we had a -- a parallel municipal authority in which the Albanians were predominant. But we had -- we had no reason to go to these police stations.

Q. All right. Let's move on to the next part of your statement. I don't understand that if something happens to you that you don't go and report it or complain to somebody about that. I don't quite seem to understand that.

A. That's how it was. That's how it was. There was no one to complain to. And if you did complain, nobody paid you any attention. ³⁶⁴³

Q. Yes, but you did not complain. So you don't know if anybody would have paid you any attention or not. You didn't try.

JUDGE MAY: He's given his evidence about this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say in your statement that in the spring of 1998, you found three dead farmers, Mehmet Elshani, his son Afrim, and a worker of theirs, Sali Gashi.

A. Yes, that's correct. We found them.

Q. Do you know that they were liquidated by the KLA?

A. I don't know who they were killed by. What I'm saying is we found them killed. I don't know who killed them, because it happened at night. They were killed at about 10.00 at night. We heard the gunshots. And it was impossible for us to emerge out of our houses at night-time.

Q. All right. You said that from the autumn of 1998 onwards, as far as I was able to understand, the situation calmed down, relatively speaking, and that there were no major incidents.

A. There was -- forces were preparing. Military and police forces were rotating and deploying, especially the army. So they were not dealing with the local population. It was quite obvious that they were preparing. They were just swapping locations.

Q. What were they preparing for?

A. I do not know. You should know this better. You should be aware of the tactics better.

Q. You said that on the evening of the 24th of March, air -- the air ³⁶⁴⁴ campaign started, and that in the early hours of the morning on the 25th of March, your village was surrounded by the army and Serbian police units with tanks, various military vehicles, and a lot of personnel, as you say in your statement. Now, where were you surrounded?

A. We were surrounded on the 25th of March. The noise of the tanks and other heavy vehicles could be heard since early on in the morning at 4.00, whereas movement within the village started at about 8.00 when the burning, shelling, uncontrolled, indiscriminate, started.

Q. What village are you talking about?

A. Pirana. Pirana.

Q. How far is Pirana away from Prizren?

A. Eleven kilometres.

Q. Were you able to see from Pirana the bombing of Prizren?

A. Prizren was not bombed from Pirana.

Q. I didn't mean bombed from Pirana but bombed from the air by NATO.

A. You can only see a little. I understand. I understand. But there's very little leeway because Prizren is on high ground and Pirana is not. So very little can be seen.

Q. All right. Let's go back to the incident you describe. You say that at the same time, they started setting houses on fire and shelling the village -- and shelled the village. How was it possible for them to be in the village and set fire to the houses and at the same time to throw shells on that village and burn the houses, as you say?

A. They set fire to the houses by hand from the vicinity, not from Prizren. ^{3645 BLANK PAGE 3646}

Q. I'm not talking about Prizren. I'm talking about on the spot. You say that they were setting houses on fire and shelling the villages at the same time. If they are setting fire to the houses, it means that they are in the village. If they are shelling the village, then they are shelling the village that they were in. Now, how is that possible? How can these two things take place at the same time simultaneously? How can they be in the village setting fire to the houses and shell the village from elsewhere?

A. The shelling did not occur at the same time as the police forces entered the village.

Q. I asked you about this because you say in your statement that it occurred at the same time. You say, "Approximately at the same time," et cetera. And later on --

JUDGE MAY: It ought to be read --.

THE WITNESS: Approximately --

JUDGE MAY: It ought to be in context. "At 8.00, the first house in Pirana was set on fire. This was the house," and the name is given. "Approximately at the same time, the Serbs started shelling the village." Now, that's the context in which it's put. And in fact, it goes on: "There was no damage. I saw later the police burnt down to the ground the whole village."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we proceed?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. But you must put the whole statement to the witness so that he can -- it can be dealt with fairly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope that I have supplied ³⁶⁴⁷ the essence, the substance of it, because in the statement, it says that the house was set on fire, too, and the village shelled at the same time. So that was what my question referred to. But that's just a comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that the next day, you went to Donja Srbica and that the Serb population in the village helped you to find your way and go into the houses, and you say that your family stayed in the village for one month.

A. Not on the morrow but on -- because the day after that was the 26th, and this happened on the 25th. And we left the house at 8.00. We headed towards Srbica. And in that convoy, Xhafer Elshani was killed. Mehmet Elshani was wounded. And we lay down on the ground for over two hours until we started heading towards the village. Local Serbs prepared us for staying in local villages, in the local village.

Q. Well, that's what I was asking you. Your family stayed in the village for a whole month, as you say in your statement.

A. Yes, for a month.

Q. During that time, did anybody mistreat you in any way, or did anything to harm you, or was rude to you?

A. In Srbica, this did not happen, as did in other places like Krusha e Vogel, where Serbian inhabitants lived as well. In Srbica, it was a bit different. There was partial provocation, but they were not of the extent that it endangered one's life. But certain Serbs and Albanians who could have been able to cohabit even today, but it was only the war that marked the parting of the ways, as it were.

Q. I'm sure that what you said is quite correct, and that is that the ³⁶⁴⁸ war was the cause of all this. You said: The police kept coming, but they did not harm us. The police would come but do no harm to us. That's what you said. You said that the Serbs from Donja Srbica later organised six buses for you to help you be able to seek shelter.

A. I do not know how this came to pass. From Prizren, from the municipality, six, seven buses came to Srbica and told us to leave because our life was in danger. Your police and army -- from your police and army.

Q. And where did you go then?

A. The first group left for Albania, or set off for Albania, and we later learned that they had made it, whilst we stayed in Srbica for another three weeks, the rest, that is.

Q. In your statement, you describe an event on the 25th of April, when a big offensive started. You say the Serbs started a big offensive in the area of Donja Srbica, and from Donja Srbica, they would shell the villages of Pirana, Retimlje, Randubrava, et cetera. Do you know of any KLA presence in the area, and do you know what was happening in the area with respect to the clashes that were going on between the army and police, on the one side, and the KLA, on the other?

A. No, we were not aware of what was happening, but we could only see the shelling, police, Serbs, and the infantry assaulting these villages. That part of those villages that had escaped the burning of the 25th, 26th, 27th of March was burnt on that very same day. I am not aware of what pretext or excuse.

Q. I'm not talking about any pretext. I'm just asking you whether ³⁶⁴⁹ you are aware of the present course of events and the attack on the police and army by the KLA in that area.

A. No, I'm not aware of any KLA there.

Q. As you're from those parts, do you know, in October 1998, when about -- when the KLA killed a soldier? His name was Srdjan Simonovic, and he was killed precisely in those parts where you come from.

A. I do not know. I have not heard of this case.

Q. Did you hear about another case, when, on the 17th of March, 1999 - that means that the Verification Mission of the OSCE was still there, they were still on the ground - that another soldier, by the name of Vladimir Markovic, was also killed, also in your area?

A. I have no information.

Q. And do you happen to know that in the village of Pirana, in actual fact, on the 27th of March, 1999, that a soldier by the name of Bojan Jovanovic was killed?

A. At that time, I was not staying in the village, and I do not know who has been killed.

Q. And in the next village, the village of Landovica, on the previous day, soldier Slobodan Gasparic was killed. Did you hear about that killing?

A. No.

Q. I have here -- it says here that during the time you were still in your village in the Prizren municipality -- I have here a fairly long list of soldiers who were killed. Now, I'm not going to read it out to you and ask you the individual names, but let me just ask you generally: Did you ³⁶⁵⁰ hear, throughout the time that you spent in the area, about the killing of any soldier at all, soldier or policeman, in the Prizren municipality, either in your village or in the neighbouring villages, or did you hear about anything similar happening? So any of these events or anything similar happening. And the press, radio, television broadcast this. It was on Radio Prizren in Albanian, Turkish, and Serbian. But tell me, did you hear of any of these events?

A. The media at the time worked under restricted conditions. There was no information on true events. There was disinformation. Even what was broadcast, we did not take that to be resembling the truth, but simply misinformation. It was not our media, because if it had been ours, it would have been like the ones that we have at this very particular moment, and we have not followed the media of the time.

Q. And once again in the village of Pirana, do you happen to know of another event? It was the killing of a policeman by the name of Zvezdan Tasic and it took place in April, the time you're talking about. Were you there then?

A. When the burial of Zvezdan occurred -- and I've known him personally. He was an unusual criminal in our areas, not only in our areas, but elsewhere as well. When he was buried, we were in Srbica, and we were scared, because when we saw police on four buses, we were not aware of why they were there. When we heard that Zvezdan had been killed, that's when we heard what had happened.

Q. So you just heard about that one killing; is that right?

A. At that time we were staying in the village, and I lived near the ³⁶⁵¹ cemetery, so that we were kind of participants over there and we had heard about it.

Q. Apart from him, you didn't hear about the killing of any other Serb, whether policeman or soldier?

A. No.

Q. And this man, Zvezdan Tasic, who was killed, he was a policeman. Why do you refer to him and call him a criminal?

A. That's what he was. We had heard that at the Rahovec clash he had wreaked havoc, and that's why I call him a criminal. If he had been alive, he'd be here with you, because there were people who had known him, because he served in the area.

Q. Do you know also that all these present-day leaders - Thaci, the Selimi brothers, Cekve [phoen], et cetera - are criminals as well?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's a general comment. No need to answer that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Since you do not know about the killing of a single Serb, I'm going to read out to you the names of a few Albanians who were killed in your area. So now we are going to see whether you know of any one of them. You knew about this one personally, but have you ever heard of the killing of any one of these: Marjan Doni, Bojaxhiu Fatmir, Dejcaj Binak, Ponik Arsim, Cemaj [phoen] Beha, Likaj [phoen] Hamit, Rijazit [phoen] Avdyl, Morina Sali?

JUDGE MAY: That will do for the moment. The witness is to answer. ³⁶⁵²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know of the killing of any one of these persons whose names I've just read out, that were committed by the KLA? These are Albanians, first and foremost, and this was precisely in your area.

A. I have never known any of these people. I didn't know them, and I have no information about how they were killed, or anything of that kind.

Q. I'm not asking you about whether you knew them; I'm asking about whether you heard about the killing of these persons.

JUDGE MAY: He's mentioned that he has no information about how they were killed.

It's alleged -- just a moment. It's alleged they were killed by the KLA. No doubt other names are about to be read out to you with the same allegation attached. Can you help us as to that? Do you know anything about this at all, these allegations?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know anything about this.

JUDGE MAY: No. It's pointless to go on reading out the names.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then I should not ask any more about any one of these killings that had taken place where the witness was staying.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know about an event -- I mean, I'm asking you about this because, if I understood your assertion correctly, you've been saying that you did not know anything about any KLA activity whatsoever, at any time.

A. In our villages, in the places where we were staying in Pirana and ³⁶⁵³ Srbica, there were no KLA soldiers. I never saw them. So I can't comment on things I haven't seen.

Q. I am asking you whether you know about this, whether you've heard of this, because you've been talking about a great many things that you've only heard of, not seen. Have you heard of KLA activities?

A. It's not true that I've been talking about things I know from hearsay.

Q. All right. I am asking you. Have you heard of any KLA activities?

A. No. I had no connection, either direct or indirect, with the KLA, and I never heard about these things.

JUDGE MAY: It's pointless to go on asking about the KLA of this witness, so you should move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question related to this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you at least heard of a big event, in terms of the numbers involved, between the 13th and 14th of December, 1994, when almost 100 members of the KLA in the region of Prizren, on the border, clashed with the army that were manning the border? A number were killed, a number were arrested, and also a large quantity of ammunition, weapons, materiel were taken. Do you remember at least that incident that had to do with the KLA in your area?

A. The border area is not near my village. It's a very long way away. There's no way I could hear of these things. ³⁶⁵⁴

Q. Well, this is an incident that was talked about a great deal, and I had assumed that --

JUDGE MAY: He's answered the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that together with 20 people, you buried the bodies of the killed persons from Velika Krusa. Who are these people that you did this with?

A. In the evening - I'll say it as it originally happened - that a child's voice came to us and we had the idea that we would put ourselves at risk because perhaps there were children left by themselves in the fields. And we saw many corpses near the Randobrava in the fields, in Krusha e Madhe. They were terribly, terribly badly -- they were wounded in the head. They were burned. They -- they were -- there was no one to bury them. There were some cousins of mine, and there were some civilians who had been left behind in Randobrava and Krusha e Madhe, and that's how we did this job together.

Q. You did not see who killed these people and how?

A. We know who killed them. They were your troops. But how they were killed, well, we saw the corpses. They were killed in the most cruel fashion.

Q. You said that the KLA took pictures of the graves and the corpses.

A. On that day in the evening, we accidentally met in Randobrava two uniformed soldiers. They were also armed. And they had come out to ³⁶⁵⁵ reconnoiter the territory with the same idea, that there should not be unburied bodies left on the ground. And we told them about this event. And we handed over these photographs because we were scared to have them in our pockets, because -- because for the sake of a photograph, we would put our lives and our entire families in danger. How would we put ourselves at risk for the sake of a photograph?

Q. That's not what I've been asking you. Quite simply, I'm putting the following question to you: You were in contact, therefore, with the representatives of the KLA. So far, you've been saying that you had never had any contact with them whatsoever and that you had never heard of any kind of KLA activity. Did you encounter anyone else? Did you talk to anyone else? Did you have any other contacts with the KLA except for these two that you've just mentioned?

A. It was a very fleeting contact, accidental. On that day it happened, but never again. And when I came back from Albania, I saw them again. But it was a very fleeting contact on that day.

Q. All right. I just wanted to clarify this in view of what you've written.

And in Velika Krusa, you did not see who had killed these people and how?

A. Who killed them? I told you. They were your forces, because this was an act of revenge because of NATO. And after the bombing started, this action of vengeance on the part of the army and the police started, because we were defenseless. We had no army. It was vengeance against the civilian population. It was murder, rape. ³⁶⁵⁶

Q. Well, just awhile ago you said that you would not speak of anything that you had not seen, of anything that you had only heard about, but this that you've just said is something that you've only heard about. Is that right or is that not right?

A. These are things we experienced, not things we heard.

Q. Well, I asked you whether you saw who had killed these people, and you had not seen anyone. But you claim that it was, as you had put it, the Serb troops that had done that.

JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer about this. Mr. Milosevic, we should try and finish this witness today since we're not sitting tomorrow.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, we can finish with this witness, because I have other questions related to victims in the area. However, since the witness answered that he did not know absolutely a thing about them, I think it's pointless to ask him, because he said that he knew nothing about any kind of KLA activity. There is no need for me to ask him anything.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then just one more thing.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You did not have an army. And just a few minutes ago you said that you encountered these two soldiers. These two soldiers that you encountered, did they belong to this army, the KLA, that you consider to be your own army, or did they belong to someone else?

JUDGE MAY: He's dealt with that. ³⁶⁵⁷ Yes. Mr. Tapuskovic, have you any questions for this witness? Thank you.

Any re-examination?

MR. RYNEVELD: Just one, if I may. Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Witness, you were asked by the accused about the organisation of the six buses when you left Srbica. Did you want to leave for Albania?

A. Nobody ever leaves their own home of their own free will, but it was a question of saving our families, because our houses were being burnt. Murders were starting. We thought the same thing would happen to us, because that -- we were thinking that NATO was our rescue, and then this happened.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Latifi, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence. It's now concluded, and you're free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, will you be calling the witnesses in the order on the list?

MR. RYNEVELD: That is our proposal, health and everything else and availability, but, yes, we intend to call the witnesses as -- as scheduled.

JUDGE MAY: So we can make our preparations. We're not sitting tomorrow because there's a Plenary, a meeting of the Judges, but we shall be sitting again on Wednesday, when? If I'm right, the time is 9.30. ³⁶⁵⁸

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. And we have the extended hours then to 4.00? 9.30 to 4.00?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: We will sit into the afternoon. We will adjourn now.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day

of April, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.