³⁷⁷⁸

Thursday, 25 April 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

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

WITNESS: NDREC KONAJ

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

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

Examined by Ms. Romano:

Q. Witness, can you please state your full name for the Court, please.

A. Yes. My name is Ndrec Konaj.

Q. Mr. Konaj, where and when were you born?

A. I was born on December 3rd, 1954, at the Novosella e Eperme, Dukagjin.

Q. And in which municipality and town did you live?

A. The municipality of Gjakove.

Q. Can you tell us where it's located, the municipality in Kosovo, and the villages surrounding your town?

A. The municipality of Gjakove is about 36 kilometres from Peja, approximately 82 kilometres from Prishtina. The surrounding villages or ³⁷⁷⁹ neighbourhoods are Piskote, Brekoci, Bishtazhini.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Konaj. That's enough.

A. You're welcome.

Q. And what is your profession?

A. I work as a building inspector.

Q. Mr. Konaj, you were interviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor on 19th of April, 1999; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You were also interviewed on the 12th of June, 2001; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct too.

Q. And you gave two statements?

A. That's true.

Q. You attended a meeting on the 3rd of January this year in Peja, and at that meeting you were provided, by an appointed officer of the Tribunal, you were provided with a version of your statement in the Albanian language; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And at that meeting, you also had an opportunity to review that statement and confirm that the contents of your two statements were true?

A. Yes, that's right.

MS. ROMANO: The Prosecution submits the two statements into evidence.

THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit 112, Your Honours.

MS. ROMANO: The summary of the witness's testimony is the ³⁷⁸⁰ following: The witness refers to incidents in 1998 when, according to the witness, Serb police damaged, looted two of his houses. On 27 March, 1999, the witness was staying at his father's house in Peja town with other relatives and friends. Around 2.00 p.m., 15 masked paramilitaries entered the yard carrying automatic weapons, grenades, and rifles with bayonets. They shot at the house, robbed the witness, and gave the occupants five minutes to leave in the direction of Montenegro. En route, the witness observed military or police at every road junction to prevent deviation from the route. The witness's group was stopped several times. On one occasion, the witness and his uncle were stopped and beaten by a group of nine men with painted faces. On another occasion, the witness was told by a Serb policeman, "There is no place for you to go other than to Montenegro." The Serbian police, army, and the paramilitary troops were located at the entrance of every street to prevent them from going back.

On 28 March, 1999, the group was stopped on the outskirts of Peja by mixed Serb forces and were ordered to return to the town centre. There were thousands of people from all over Peja in the centre. About 20 trucks and buses were filled with displaced persons a number of times and set off towards Prizren. The witness got on a bus driven by an armed paramilitary. In Prizren, the displaced persons were told to leave the bus and walk to Albania. The driver said, "Go to Albania. This is not your place. This is Great Serbia."

Other buses then arrived and took the displaced persons to Vermica, about 7 kilometres to the border with Albania. The witness then ³⁷⁸¹ walked to the border, and his group was told to throw driver's licences, passports, and all other ID documents into a large box. The witness saw vehicle registration plates in the box as well.

That's the summary. No further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. It's all right now. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] How long have you been living in Pec?

A. Since 1956.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let's get it put straight. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic. We'll see what the problem is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Where were you employed during the time that your statement encompasses, that is to say, at the beginning of 1998 and 1999?

A. I was unemployed since 1990.

Q. In your statement, you say that the relationships between the Serbs and the Kosovars deteriorated in 1990. Is that right?

A. Yes, they were. That is true, yes.

Q. Do you know that Kosovo is in Serbia?

A. It never has been. It never will be.

Q. Do you know that Kosovo is in Serbia today too?

A. In your opinion it could be. In ours, no.

Q. Why do you say there was a deterioration in the relationships, as you say?

A. Because we were ill-treated for years on end. We were -- we were ³⁷⁸² beaten up, attacked in every possible manner.

Q. Are you aware of the fact -- do you know how many Serbs left Kosovo since, for example, 1980, up to 1990, when you say the relationships became deteriorated, under pressure and precisely because of that kind of treatment, the treatment that the Serb inhabitants had in Kosovo? Are you aware of that?

A. The question is not very clear. No. Do you mean during the war?

Q. No, I don't. What I'm asking you is whether you know that since 1980, not to go back further in time, do you know how many Serbs left Kosovo under the kind of treatment that you're talking about, but in the opposite direction, the other way around?

A. Did I mention ill-treatment directed towards them? Who? I'm not -- I'm not clear. Who ill-treated who?

Q. Well, that's why I'm asking you. You mentioned the fact -- a fact that I am challenging. So I am asking you whether you know how many Serbs left before 1990, in the ten-year period from 1980 to 1990, left Kosovo because of the terror the Albanians exerted against them. Do you know that?

A. No. This is ridiculous to allege that the Albanians have exercised any kind of terror upon the Serbian population. I'm not aware that this ever occurred. I have no knowledge of this. Even if any individual left, they left out of their own interest, probably to improve their economic situation.

Q. So you don't know that these Serbs left these areas, for example, the area of your municipality, the municipality of Pec, too? ³⁷⁸³

A. No.

Q. And do you know that there are facts and figures about that, books written about it, statistics, individual cases, group cases, and so on and so forth?

JUDGE MAY: He said he doesn't know, so there's no point going on about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right.

Q. You said that you lived -- in your statement, you say that you lived, after 1990 -- you said: "Our Serb neighbours used to say hello to us. We drank together, had coffee together." So when did that situation change? When did that state of affairs change for the worse? Did it happen at that time?

A. On the references to coffee-taking, no, no. This began in 1990, the campaign began, and the worsening of the situation vis-a-vis our neighbours. It is true that we were neighbours. They had their own land. Before 1990, it is true that we used to greet one another. But we were unaware of the intentions that came to pass, that the worst came to pass later.

Q. So when did the situation worsen, in fact?

A. As of 1990 onwards, and between 1998 and 1999, there was the exodus of the entire population in Kosova at large, and in Peja in particular, and this is the time when their attitude towards us worsened.

Q. So that was mid-1998, as you yourself say. So from mid-1998. That's what you said. Is that correct?

A. No, not from mid-1998, but in Peja, the situation worsened to the ³⁷⁸⁴ extreme after Loxhe came under attack.

Q. So Lodza was the turning point which marked the deterioration in the situation. When did that occur?

A. The situation had always been tense, and if you could allow me to take a document out of my own bag...

JUDGE MAY: What is the document, Mr. Konaj, that you want to refer to?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My notes, Your Honour. I've got my own notes, things that I've been unable to recall as a result of the terror and mistreatment, which makes one have difficulty remembering things. If you could permit me to consult them, given that the accused wants the date.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. When did you make the note?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the course of time in Kosova, after the war.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On July the 5th, I left my own house in the neighbourhood known as Bellopoje. And on the 6th, in the morning, Loxhe came under attack.

As far as I can recall, the criminal Seselj was coming to visit Gorazhdec and one of the vehicles escorting the convoy entered Loxhe and incited the problem that resulted in the killing of a number of civilians. Whilst at 5.45 a.m. on the 6th, Loxhe came under attack by military aircraft.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷⁸⁵

Q. And why have you called Seselj a criminal? Do you know him to be a criminal?

A. It is very well known that pursuant to their orders and yours, these criminal incidents occurred, these tortures occurred. Excuse me for expressing myself this way but this is the truth.

Q. Since that is not true, because how could he order anything, let's move on. You, therefore, marked what you call the attack on Lodza as the turning point in the situation, in the state of affairs in Pec. Am I reading you correctly? It was a turning point for the worse. The situation deteriorated after that; is that right?

A. It had been bad all the time, but on this particular day when Loxhe came under attack, the situation became sadder with the ill-treatment and other activities that occurred.

Q. All right. As you have made a written statement, I don't see why you have to read your statement again. If you gave the statement, I assume you know what you said in it.

JUDGE MAY: That's a matter of comment. The witness is referring to his notes to get the detail.

Yes. Can we move on?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just asked for a detail and I got the detail. What he's reading now is not a detail. They are comments.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've got my own statement.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What did you say?

A. And I'm now putting it away. ^{3786 BLANK PAGE 3787}

Q. You gave the statement to the investigators of the Tribunal in April 1999; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So in April 1999, you claim that the situation had worsened approximately 16 months ago, or, rather, that it took place on the first Saturday in the month of July in 1998. That's what it says. "It was the first Saturday in July 1998" is what your statement says.

A. Can you please clarify this? It is not very clear. Regarding the city of Peja, this -- we have -- the suggestion has always been worse. But I mentioned earlier, on the 5th of July, when Loxhe came under attack, at that point the entire city became three times more -- three times more worse, as it were, because of the siege of Serbian forces.

Q. So according to you, the situation was three times worse because the attack on Lodza, according to what you say. Is that it?

A. They came, but as many as three times more reinforcements of Serbian forces. The ill-treatment, beatings, enigmatic killings.

Q. Yes. I have heard about those expressions that the other witnesses used too, but what I'm interested in is the facts. Now, do you know - I'm sure you must know as a citizen of Pec - that the attack on Lodza was organised by the leadership of the KLA and that that --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness answer. Do you know that this attack was organised by the leadership of the KLA? ³⁷⁸⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's not at all true. It's known very well that police vehicles, as I said before, they escorted Seselj's convoy. And one of these vehicles entered the road at the junction from Gorazhdec that goes to Loxhe, and there they met some young kids who were playing with a ball in the road, and they were witnesses of what happened. And then they maltreated these kids. And Tahir Shalaj was killed on that same day.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know the name of Tahir Zemaj?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Your Honour, excuse me. Shall I explain more clearly?

JUDGE MAY: What's the question, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] "Do you know the name of Tahir Zemaj?"

JUDGE MAY: What's the significance of this name?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The significance of this name is that Tahir Zemaj was the chief commander of the units that carried out the attack on Lodza. His deputy was the notorious bandit Ramush Haradinaj and--

JUDGE MAY: The witness has said that it was not -- it did not take place in the way that you suggested. So there's no point going on putting things to him.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that in your sources, the KLA calls the Lodza ³⁷⁸⁹ battle, as they refer to it, as one of the most professional operations carried out by the KLA? Do you know that?

A. No, I don't know this.

Q. And do you know that the 134th Brigade took part in that battle, precisely according to the information provided by the KLA command? Do you know that?

A. No, I don't know about this.

JUDGE MAY: This is not part of his statement. It comes in as a result of your cross-examination. We should return to the statement.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, haven't we all heard here that the battle in Lodza was the turning point for the worse, and this is one --

JUDGE MAY: We have heard that. It comes in as a result of your cross-examination and you have examined the witness about it. You've put your case to him. It seems to be a waste of the Court's time to go on further. He wasn't there. He's merely telling what he heard. And I suggest we move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] All right.

Q. Since you heard that a battle had taken place, between who did this battle take place in Lodza?

A. The Serbian police and army against innocent civilians in the village of Loxhe.

Q. And do you know that your own commanders, who are now publicly writing about that battle, speak of --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this. The witness is merely ³⁷⁹⁰ accounting what he heard. It doesn't assist the Trial Chamber. If it's relevant, you can call evidence about it in due course, but this has gone on for more than 20 minutes. You've only got one hour. You should be concentrating on what's in the statement from now on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, please bear in mind - and I wish to highlight that - since he said that this was a key issue, a turning point, in terms of the deterioration of the situation, and since this is the most flagrant possible twisting of facts, and there is irrefutable evidence about this, including books published by KLA commanders --

JUDGE MAY: This is all argument. The witness has given his evidence. This is what he said is true and what happened. You've had the opportunity to cross-examine him about it. Now it's time to move on to another issue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know the name of Ramabaja?

A. No.

Q. And do you know the name of Stojkaj?

A. I know that they're from Decan municipality somewhere.

Q. And do you know the name of Hadri Djonaj?

A. I come from Peja municipality, not from Decan municipality, and I know my own area.

Q. I'm talking about Pec; not about who was born in Pec, but who did something in Pec. Do you know the name of Farush Thaci?

A. This question is not clear to me. ³⁷⁹¹

Q. I'm asking you whether you know the name of that man. Do you know that man, Farush Thaci?

A. No.

Q. And do you know the name of a man called Salih Ceku?

A. No.

Q. And do you know the name of Rrustem Buci?

A. No.

Q. And have you heard of Shaban Shala?

A. No.

Q. What about Hasan Kamaja? Have you heard of him?

JUDGE MAY: That's enough of these lists. He doesn't know these people.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These are names of commanders of units of the KLA who at that time, precisely at the time about which this witness has been saying the most incredible things, were attacking Lodza, with major forces, with the intention of --

JUDGE MAY: I've told you to move on. Now, unless you've got some different questions for this witness, we'll conclude the examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have many other different questions. Don't worry about that. I just have one question, because the witness was a building inspector, he finished school.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that a book came out published by Mergimi in the year 2000 - this is a mere photocopy, though - and the book is called "Thus Spoke Tahir Zemaj: Comments About the War." ³⁷⁹²

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not catch the other names.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Are you aware of this book that you published in 2000?

JUDGE MAY: Are you suggesting -- just one moment. Are you suggesting the witness published it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. No, I'm not saying that. The same people who sent him here published the book in order to portray events in this way.

JUDGE MAY: This is a comment. Do you know anything about this book?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that it's been published, but I've never actually seen a copy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that in that book is information given by your commanders? And recoilless guns are mentioned there, heavy guns, heavy armaments, all these other things --

JUDGE MAY: He doesn't know anything about it, and it's quite wrong to refer to "your commanders," quite wrong. There's no evidence of that. Now, you could put the book in front of us, for what it's worth, in due course, if you wish to. Meanwhile, we should continue with this examination on a different topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I highlight this, I mention recoilless guns and heavy weapons that they mention here, precisely because the witness said, only a short while ago, that the army and police clashed with unarmed civilians, and it was numerous units of the KLA that ³⁷⁹³ took part in that, and they attacked Lodza. And in that book --

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to stop this examination unless you move to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So if it is quite clear that the witness is saying a total untruth --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... it's for us to decide. Now, move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. It would be the same thing as if you were to decide on whether today is Saturday or not.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When did you send your older son to Switzerland?

A. Before July, sometime towards the beginning of February, as far as I remember.

Q. As for the month of July, you marked it as the point when things turned for the worse, and you said that in April, the next year, the following year, after less than ten months, or rather, eight months, you stated that the situation abruptly turned for the worse 16 months prior to that. How is that possible? Is that your statement from April or some later statement?

A. Your Honour, the accused is confusing things up. I was very plain in what I said. I said that the attack on Loxhe took place on the 5th of July. On the 6th, there were attacks from the air by helicopter. I sent my son to Switzerland earlier --

JUDGE MAY: We have your evidence on that point. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. What's the next question? ³⁷⁹⁴

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Who is the person called Lorenz Konaj?

A. It's my brother.

Q. Where does he live?

A. Are you really interested? Shall I tell him, Your Honour?

JUDGE MAY: No, unless there's any relevance in this. Where did he live in 1998 or 1999? Can you help us with that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. He was in Germany. He was harried there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What did he do in relation to the KLA?

A. I don't know.

Q. Do you know of any activity of his related to the organisation of the KLA and related to his life in Germany?

MS. ROMANO: Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MS. ROMANO: Unless there is any relevance of the family of the accused, I think it --

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. KAY: Your Honour, might we raise a point on this? If it's a matter of influence over this particular witness, then it may be a legitimate route of questioning for the accused to go down. That's what we would say on his behalf.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll allow these questions providing the relevance ^{3795 BLANK PAGE 3796} can be established.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You must ask some questions to establish any relevance of this and then you can put directly what you say about the brother.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So my direct question is: Does he know about the participation of his brother in the organisation of the KLA related to his stay in Germany?

A. I don't know.

Q. You said in your statement, in relation to this first Saturday in the month, that your wife had a premonition that something bad would happen, and it was according to this premonition of his -- of hers that you sent your mother and two daughters to your father's house, which is in Pec. And after that, you and your wife left your house and also went to your father's house. All of that happened during the same day, if I read it correctly.

A. That's not quite right. The truth is as follows: My -- I sent away my wife [as interpreted] and two daughters two months ago to the Karagac neighbourhood, whereas my wife and I stayed where we were in the neighbourhood Bellopoje, until the 5th of July when, because this -- because this area had been surrounded and -- and everybody stayed around the cemeteries. On the very same day, on the 5th of July, my wife would not agree to spend the night there and so I insisted that we join the mother and our daughters. On the very next day, we heard of the attack at Loxhe. ³⁷⁹⁷

Q. So this coincides with the information provided here. You left your house just before the attack, practically a few hours before the attack. If you left the previous day and if the attack took place in the early morning, one could say that this was only a few hours prior to the attack; is that right?

A. Yes, before, but we were unaware that Loxhe would come under attack. There was no fighting whatsoever. It was -- it was at the insistence of my wife that we left. And we went through the cemeteries of Muslims and the Catholics on the lower part of the cemeteries, which were full of armed civilians and paramilitaries.

Q. So you had not been informed that an attack would take place on Lodza. You left prior to the attack because of the premonition of your wife. That is what you've been claiming.

A. I was not aware. Let me reiterate. I had no contacts or conversations, because we were staying indoors, in the house.

Q. So you did not have any contacts, any talks with anyone from the KLA?

A. No.

Q. Saqir Studenica, did he tell you who had looted your house and damaged it?

A. Saqir Studenica told me that my house had been attacked and that he had sent the corpse of the late Naxhije Hoti there. She's the mother of my neighbour, killed by the police at the Petran object, one of those where vehicles were checked. This happened on the Tuesday, not on July the 5th. ³⁷⁹⁸ She was killed on Monday, and on Tuesday Saqir Studenica told me about it, because police came to the house of my uncle's, looking for my son, and then I went myself there.

Q. And why did the police come to your uncle's place to look for his sons if they were living at your address?

A. That woman who was killed and sent into the balcony of my house, it was alleged that my -- "Your son has killed a policeman." My uncle emerged to say that is not true, because he has not been here for a long while. And so they forced my uncle to go and identify the victim.

Q. How come your son was suspected of having killed that woman and he was not anywhere nearby?

A. The accused should ask the police about that, because that's what they said.

Q. As far as I understand this, the police was acting upon the instructions of the investigating judge in the course of the investigation of the killing of this woman, and your son was a suspect. Are you aware of that or not?

JUDGE MAY: You needn't answer that. Mr. Milosevic, you've spent three-quarters of an hour dealing with events in July 1998 which are of peripheral relevance to this witness's evidence. If you wish to challenge his account, his substantial account of events in March 1999, you should do so in the quarter of an hour remaining to you for examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I think that there is no need for me to repeat that I absolutely contest everything that this ³⁷⁹⁹ witness has said, just like other witnesses who are not telling the truth. From the very beginning of these hearings here --

JUDGE MAY: No need to make a speech about it, but if you want to ask him about what happened in March, you should do so now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The second thing I wish to have clarified is the following: I assume that it is not forbidden to have me question one witness for a shorter period of time and another witness for a longer period of time but if it all adds up to the amount of time allocated to me. I hope that this is something that you won't mind.

JUDGE MAY: It is something we will take into account, but the normal rule would be a one-hour maximum.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You planned one hour, if that's the maximum, and then you planned for four 92 bis witnesses to be heard today; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: There is no plan as to how many witnesses there should be. But let us move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I was thinking that within this time that you have allocated to me, I should economise in a more rational way, but all right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, did your sons have a criminal record on the territory of the SFRY, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

JUDGE MAY: That's not a relevant question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Never. Never.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁸⁰⁰

Q. Tell me, then, why did the police take your uncle Anton Konaj on that day to your house?

A. They asked the uncle to go and identify the corpse that they had placed in the balcony of my own house.

Q. Since you had heard that your house had been damaged and looted, why did you go to your uncle's first and then only to the police station so that you would say what was going on, as you had put it?

A. Not on what had happened, because the police had come into the house at daylight and done what they did. This is not true. I went to my own house to inquire about what the police were about, because the police were unable to get in contact with me. They got in contact with Shaqir Studenica who came to me, and both of us went to the house. Upon arrival, my uncle told me that if I did not go to the police, they were bound to come again at any time; at night, in the morning. And so I decided to go and report at the police station. My uncle came with me.

Upon arriving there, one of the policemen said there was no need, because we are aware who did this, and you should not go to your own properties. And at that moment the uncle came, asked, "How about our own houses?" And at that moment, the policeman insulted him, and then I took my uncle and both of us left.

Q. And how did the policeman attack him?

A. He insulted him, basically, on his mother's name.

Q. So he cursed him, he swore at him?

A. Yes. Yes. He said, "'F' your Albanian mother," and then at that ³⁸⁰¹ moment I just took my own uncle and went out.

Q. And when did you leave Kosovo to go to Montenegro, actually?

A. In 1998, I left Kosova twice. That is to say, on the 9th or the 10th, on a Friday, in the morning, before leaving as a result of police patrols coming to inquire about us at my father's, before departing for Montenegro, my wife and me went to the graveyard, where a neighbour said, "Do not go to your own houses." And at that moment my wife, with the neighbour's wife, went to a different house, where a Macedonian married to a Serb lived, and she escorted them to my own house just to be able to see whether the corpse was still in the balcony.

Upon arriving there, they emerged from the windows, asked, "Where are you heading to?" And she said, "To my own house." And then she went in and saw everything that had been demolished, walls full of graffiti: "Welcome back," "Serbia reaches up to Tirana," and so on and so forth. At that point, we departed for Montenegro.

Q. And you say that before you left, your house was taken over by snipers?

A. Yes, it is true. The other two were demolished and destroyed, and the Court has got photographs of it. They were one-storey buildings, whilst the unfinished, new houses were the locations where the snipers were positioned, not only these two houses but another three or four in that very same neighbourhood, and they had an overview over the whole territory of Loxhe and Peja.

Q. And who were those people in your house, the snipers who took over your house? Who were they? ³⁸⁰²

A. We were not in a position to go and see who they were, because had we encountered them, we don't know what the end result would have been. They were called Frenki.

Q. And did you say a moment ago that your wife just found graffiti written up on the walls of your house? You were talking about your own house, or did I misunderstand you?

A. The graffiti on the walls and the doors of the house were in Serbo-Croatian. It is very clear from the photographs. The Serbian police and the army, whoever was there, had written them. I wasn't there to verify who, which one of the parties did that, but it was very clear what was written: "From here to Tirana, it's Serbia," "This is Serbia," "We'll be back."

Q. "We'll be back." Well, what does that mean, "We'll be back"? It means that somebody had written that who had left the place.

JUDGE MAY: Not for the witness to speculate as to what the meaning of graffiti is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On the occasion, did you see a lot of houses that were burnt, damaged, from the effects of -- in that part of Lodza?

A. On the 6th of July, we were only able to see things from a distance, from afar, from my father's. We were only to see smoke, and smoke specks were reaching up the city, because the place had come under attack by military aircraft. And I don't know why you ask this question, because a number of houses must have been burnt. Loxhe was completely flattened. ³⁸⁰³

Q. You used the same expression that was used by these commanders, KLA commanders here, because they said that they ordered everything to be flattened to the ground and set fire to, in this book here.

JUDGE MAY: That's a matter of comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I'm asking him whether there is any link and relevance, that is to say, that you're using the same expression that they used in the book, "flattened."

A. Helicopters and military aircraft with Serbian insignia. Who else? Who else could have procured that, apart from your own army and the police who bombed them that day, who bombed the entire village?

Q. And those commanders of yours write and say that their fighters in the battle with the Serb forces did that. That's what they say.

JUDGE MAY: You have insisted on continuing a line of cross-examination which you were told was of little relevance, and as a result, I'm bringing this cross-examination to an end. You're continually reverting to the same point in your case.

Now, have the amici any questions? No, no more questions. No.

Have the amici any questions?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have 50 more questions for this man.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no questions for this witness.

JUDGE MAY: Any re-examination? ^{3804 BLANK PAGE 3805}

MS. ROMANO: No, Your Honour. It's just one matter. If the Court needs the photos that the witness is referring to -- the Prosecution didn't want to submit the photos because they are outside of the period of the indictment, but for clarification of the graffiti, if the Court needs, we'll have it.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. And thank you for bringing them, Mr. Konaj, but we've heard the evidence, and it is more than sufficient. Thank you for coming. You're free to go now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

[The witness withdrew]

MS. ROMANO: Your Honour, before we bring the other witness, I just would like to clarify one matter. I wanted to let the Court know that one of the witnesses, the third one, Mahmut Halimi, he had to be taken to the hospital for an exam. So right now, during the morning, he is in the hospital.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MS. ROMANO: Sorry. I've just been informed that he arrived from the hospital, so we won't have to change the order of the witness. Sorry about that, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Who is the next witness?

MS. ROMANO: It's Edison Zatriqi.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecutor kindly provide a resume to the interpreters, please.

MS. ROMANO: Yes, I will take care of that. ³⁸⁰⁶

[The witness entered court]

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

WITNESS: EDISON ZATRIQI

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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. Yes.

Examined by Ms. Romano:

Q. Witness, can you please state your full name to the Court.

A. My name is Edison Zatriqi.

Q. Where and when were you born?

A. I was born on 5th of December, 1956, in Peja.

Q. In which municipality is Peja located?

A. Peja is a municipality in itself.

Q. And can you describe the villages surrounding Peja?

A. There are a lot of villages in Peja municipality. There is Loxhe, Rahociq, and then Cisk [phoen], Pavlani, Radafc.

Q. Thank you. What is your profession?

A. At the moment, I am a driver for the regional office of the OSCE in Peja.

Q. And you are an Albanian?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Zatriqi, you were interviewed by members of the Office of the Prosecutor on the 20th of June, 2001; is that correct? ³⁸⁰⁷

A. Yes.

Q. Did you give a statement at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. On the 29th of January this year, you attended a meeting in Peja before members of the Office of the Prosecutor and an appointed officer of the Tribunal, and at that meeting you were provided with an Albanian copy of your statement; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You reviewed your statement, and you also made an addendum to correct minor mistakes from your first statement; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right. I corrected the errors at that time, and they were translation mistakes.

Q. Thank you.

MS. ROMANO: The summary of the witness's testimony is the following: The witness is a lifelong resident of Peja and was a director of a coach company named Flamingo Tours, which owned three coaches. On 23 March 1999, the witness was ordered to the company yard by Serb police who took away the three coaches. When the witness asked for documentary confirmation, one of the policemen pointed his gun at the witness and threatened him. He did not see the vehicles again until he returned to Peja after the armed conflict. The witness subsequently found out that his buses had been used to transport Kosovo Albanians out of Peja.

The witness also describes that on 27 March 1999, he was in his house when he saw Serb military firing shells from the hospital yard and ³⁸⁰⁸ secondary school towards the area of Kapeshnica. The witness moved to the home of a relative in another neighbourhood.

The following day, 28th of March, the witness and his family drove to Rozaje, Montenegro, in a long convoy of vehicles. En route, they passed armed police and civilians who were directing them. The witness left Kosovo as he feared for his safety and that of his family. He returned to Peja on 26 July 1999 to find his home, business offices, and coaches completely burnt out.

This is the summary. No further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The statement should be exhibited.

MS. ROMANO: Yes. I'm sorry, Your Honour. We submit the statements.

THE REGISTRAR: It is Exhibit 113, Your Honours.

MS. ROMANO: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please. Microphone.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused speak into the microphone, please. We did not hear the beginning.

JUDGE MAY: Can you start again? The interpreters didn't hear the beginning.

THE INTERPRETER: Would the accused please speak into the microphone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: ³⁸⁰⁹

Q. [Interpretation] As you spent your whole life in Pec and that you dealt in the field of transport; that is to say, you communicated a great deal in that environment. You went to and fro. Can we assume that you are well acquainted with the situation in Pec and that you were well acquainted with the situation in Pec prior to the war?

A. It's true that I've spent all my life in Peja, but I haven't always been involved in transport. I became involved in transport after I was dismissed from the Ljubljana bank from where I was dispensed in 1991, and then I started as a driver.

It is true that I travelled a lot, around a large part of the Balkans apart -- as far as Austria, Italy, and so on.

Q. The point of my question was to say that you were well acquainted with the situation and circumstances in Pec and as they were just before the war; is that right?

A. Yes. Relatively well. I'm relatively well-informed.

Q. Yes. And the fact that before working in transport you worked in the Slovenia bank was also a job which meant communicating with people and learning quite a bit in the process; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. What were, during those pre-war years, the relationships in Pec like? Can you tell us briefly in one or two sentences? Describe what the relationships were like.

A. I can answer, but you must make clear in which period of time, whether it's before you came to power or afterwards.

Q. I'm talking about the period just before the war. Now, you can ³⁸¹⁰ talk about whatever period you like, but what I'm asking you is just before the war, the period just prior to the war, which means 1998, 1999, to be more specific.

A. Even though this period was a very difficult one because our movements were very restricted at this time, relations between the Albanians and the Serbs were very chilly. They were especially chilly after the mysterious murders that started in Peja in 1998 with the murder of the Gjuka brothers, the murder of Dr. Ceku, the murder of Dr. Xhevad Gashi, and of Emin Basha. This led to relations cooling considerably.

Q. Do you know who killed these Albanians, the Albanians that you've just mentioned?

A. In this period, particularly in Peja, this was an open secret. These murders were directed and carried out by a notorious organisation called the Black Hand, which, particularly at dusk and at dawn, it kidnapped Albanians that were on the streets accidently and then nothing more was heard of them. And they may well -- they were often found the next day, dead.

Q. I don't know which Black Hand organisation you're talking about. We know about one organisation called Crna Ruka, or Black Hand, which dates back a hundred years. And that one ceased to exist a long time ago. It has joined the rank of history.

So what Black Hand are you talking about?

A. I don't know anything about the Black Hand organisation which was formed 120 years ago, but I know that it continued its work in Peja, and its members were regular policemen who during the day did police work and ³⁸¹¹ during the night committed cruel murders in our city.

Q. And what is it that you're looking for in the papers you have in front of you? Are you looking for the Black Hand, perhaps?

A. No. Fortunately, I did not experience the work of the Black Hand in Peja before the war.

Q. Well, do tell us, then, please. Do tell us, then, please, at least who told you about this Black Hand.

A. There was a lot of talk about the Black Hand in Peja at that time, and I can say I've got a few members of this organisation here in my notes, and they included my neighbours. And as I said before, there was a lot of talk about this organisation in our city.

JUDGE MAY: Just help with us this, Mr. Zatriqi: What are the notes which you have in front of you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These notes that I have are about the period before the war and the moment of my deportation along with my fellow citizens.

JUDGE MAY: And when did you make the notes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I made these notes at the time when these events happened. All the notes I had, I put into a computer and then printed them out.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, might I assist the Court that the notes there look handwritten to me, and on the top of the page. We seem to be having a succession of witnesses now bringing notes into the courtroom, ³⁸¹² and one really questions whether that is desirable, given the fact that this is cross-examination by the accused at this stage, the witnesses have their statement produced as exhibits, a summary given to the Court, and it might be more helpful to the proceedings if they just answered the questions unaided rather than referring to notes that may well have a different history and background that could cloud the issues.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, this would meet your requirement of contemporaneity.

MR. KAY: We haven't really gone into this in great detail with the witness, as to when, and scrutinised the document and questioned him upon it as to when it actually arose and whether matters were fresh in his mind at the time. I take Your Honour's point that it well may be an issue of contemporaneity here. Notes, of course, can have a long period of time to justify contemporaneity. It's the issue, really, with which I raise the matter to the Court, because it may be unhelpful to the evidence if such material is going to be relied upon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I mention that, Mr. Kay, because even when the notes do not meet that requirement, with which you're familiar in your system, we sometimes allow witnesses to refresh their memories from notes which are made even subsequent to the event, because ultimately we have to assess the weight that is to be given to the evidence. But I think we'll consult on this.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zatriqi, we will allow you to refer to your notes, but if you can, give your evidence without reference to them, because it's ^{3813 BLANK PAGE 3814} your evidence we want, not what's written in your notes. But if you need to refresh your memory on a particular point, you can do so. And Ms. Romano, as far as the witnesses are concerned, perhaps the better course would be, in future, that if they want to refer to their notes particularly, then they can ask permission to do so, if they've made notes and brought them along. But on the whole, the witnesses, of course, should give evidence without notes, but simply giving it. So if the Prosecution would take note of that, and in future, if they want to, they perhaps should mention it.

MS. ROMANO: Your Honour, I just want to clarify that when they come to The Hague, they come with several material accompanied, and the instruction of the Prosecution is in the same lines, that what is important is their evidence. But sometimes, you know, they just come to the Court because they feel afraid of forgetting. It's more of a helpful tool.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, if they want --

MS. ROMANO: I will take care.

JUDGE MAY: If they want to provide it - if they were made roughly at the time - if they want to refer to it, they can, but they should ask.

MS. ROMANO: We'll take care of that.

JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now. It's past the time. Mr. Zatriqi, we're going to adjourn for half an hour. During the adjournment, please remember not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include members of the Prosecution team. We'll adjourn for half an hour. ³⁸¹⁵

--- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. THE ACCUSED [Interpretation] Since you took a break after you conferred about the notes, I would just wish to state that nowhere in the witness's statement, the two written statements he gave, has it been said that he used notes while giving his statement. If he didn't do it then, I don't understand why he would do it now. That goes for other witnesses as well.

JUDGE MAY: If you want to ask him about it, you can.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am stating that in the statement, there is no mention of that, because I assume that if the witness had resorted to notes while giving his statement, it would have to be noted by your official. All right.

JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. So you spoke of the atmosphere, the atmosphere that was hampered by crimes. You mentioned some unresolved killings, murders. My question is: Do you know that these killings were committed by the KLA?

A. No. You are wrong. These were not committed by the KLA.

Q. How come you know that it wasn't the KLA that did it when you say, no, that it wasn't the KLA? That means that you know that they didn't do it.

A. First, don't interrupt me but listen to me. Listen to my answers to the end. ³⁸¹⁶

JUDGE MAY: Now, listen, Mr. Zatriqi. You must remember you're in a court. And just answer the questions, if you please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My answer is as I said before, that it was an open secret in Peja, and we knew that this organisation was working in Peja in 1998 and 1999. And at this time, we didn't even dare to go out of our houses. Or when we went out, we did so for very short periods.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you know that this rumour about the alleged Black Hand was precisely launched by the KLA?

JUDGE MAY: We are really getting a very long way from this case, particularly talking about rumour and the like. Now, can we move on to something which is more relevant?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I refer to rumours because the witness spoke about them. Now let us go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You knew people who were in top positions in Pec. Were there many Albanians in top positions in Pec?

A. From the time when you came into power, you could number them on the fingers of your hand.

Q. All right. I'm asking you, from that period onwards and not only from that period onwards, I'm asking you about 1998 and 1999, do you know Albanians in Pec who were in top positions, who held various offices in government in Pec? Just say yes or no in order to save time.

A. In this period 1998, 1999, I don't know of anybody who had a ³⁸¹⁷ significant position in Peja.

Q. Have you heard of the name of Xhafer Gjuka?

A. Yes. He was my physical education teacher at grammar school in Peja.

Q. Was he head of social services in the municipality of Pec and also, later on, a member of the provisional council of Kosovo and Metohija?

A. I didn't know about Xhafer Gjuka's position, but I know that he was involved in a party called JUL or something like that, but I don't know what his position was.

Q. He was a member of the leadership of the Yugoslav left, but he held these positions. So you do not know that he was a member of the provisional council and also that he was head of social services in Pec?

A. I didn't know that.

Q. And do you know of another Albanian, Deme Muhaj, who was deputy head of state security in Pec? Do you know him?

A. I knew him as a person, but you've got his surname wrong. It's not Muhaj, but Mujaj.

Q. I'm not quite certain, when I read an Albanian name, whether I've pronounced it accurately, but it's important that we have identified him. Do you know of Shaqir Nikqi, Shaqir Nikqi, who was a misdemeanours judge in Pec?

A. No, I didn't know him. This is the first time I've heard his name.

Q. And do you know Mazllum Avdyli? Who is Mazllum Avdyli? ³⁸¹⁸

A. I don't remember him.

Q. Principal of the school in Pec. And do you know who is Rizah Demaj, principal of the primary school?

A. Tell me which primary school, because I don't remember this name.

Q. The primary school in Rogovo, near Pec.

A. No, I don't remember him. I don't know him.

Q. Since you were involved in business, you probably know the name of Fatmir Gashi. He was deputy director of the SDK, the public accounting service in Pec.

A. Yes, I know Fatmir Gashi personally. He was a colleague of mine when we worked in the bank. And there was not only Fatmir, but there were many others in the social accounting service.

Q. Also Albanians; right?

A. I don't understand this comment.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. What is the relevance of all this? What this witness said in his evidence, and the significance of it, is that he was director of a coach company, the coaches of which were taken from him and used, the Prosecution say, to deport refugees; and that he was himself, in March of 1999, when he was in Pec, he was there when there was shelling, and he left in his family car and went to Montenegro. Now, that's what his evidence is about. You're trying to extend it to matters which seem to me, speaking for myself, to be totally irrelevant. What's the relevance of the fact that, even if so, that there may have been some Albanians in some positions in Pec at the time?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the relevance is in the fact ³⁸¹⁹ that the witness has been claiming that Albanians were in high positions earlier on and that later on their number was a single-digit one. And then also he said just before the war, in 1998, 1999, there weren't any in high positions that he knew of. I have here a list of a great many Albanians who held very significant positions in Pec. He was a director of a company. Pec is not New York City, so he would have to know all these Albanians. The question has to do with the credibility of his statement. When the witness says that there weren't any Albanians in high positions and when he is shown these facts, he would have to admit that, because it was not a single-digit number, it was a double-digit number, and even more than that, including one Albanian, as you heard, who was a member of the government. That's very important here, because the impression is being created that the Albanians had no rights whatsoever. And we see here that in a big town, Pec, a large number of Albanians held very important positions, public offices, administrative jobs, et cetera. That is why it is relevant. If you claim that all of this is irrelevant, well --

JUDGE MAY: Even if you were right about that, this Court is concerned with displacement and killings in 1999. Now, some evidence of events before then may of course be relevant, but these seem to me matters of not a great deal of significance, and a lot of the Court's time is being taken up with them, the case of the last witness and now here again with this one. If you've got something to challenge about what the witness said happened in his statement, then you should put it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the relevance of these ³⁸²⁰ questions is also in the fact that these facts fully bring under a question mark the stories about deportations, because these persons in high positions -- I mean, had there been any deportations, these persons in high offices would have had to be engaged, involved in these deportations because they held such important positions. And who would believe that, that Albanians who are part of government in a municipality would organise deportations of Albanians, even if it were to be assumed that the Serbs wanted to do that, which is also not true.

JUDGE MAY: Do you challenge the way in which this witness has given an account of leaving for Macedonia? If so, you should put it. And do you challenge that his vehicles were sequestrated? Do you challenge that? If so, you should put it to him. That's the matters with which he can deal and those are the matters which are relevant.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, isn't it clear that I'm challenging it? And I hope that if you carefully read both of his witness statements, you will also be perfectly clear that his very statements challenge that. But we'll show that. Please just tell me how far time you're giving me for this witness so that I could cut my questions short, because obviously I will not be in a position to put all the questions I have for him.

JUDGE MAY: You have the usual time for the witness, and so far you've taken up, I should think, 20 minutes of it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. So I have another 40 minutes for him?

JUDGE MAY: Something of that order, yes. ³⁸²¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. That is to say, until 12.30.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then I shall briefly scan all of this, and then you're going to tell me whether you know any of these people. Do you know the names of Skender Nuro, director of the company called Zitopromet; Besim Haska, deputy head of the sales inspection in the district; Muhammed Corkadiu, who was president of the municipality of Pec and then head of the planning and analysis department in Pec; Skender Hajdini, head of the personnel department in Pec, that is to say, the person who admitted officials for work and released them; Dr. Drita, who was head of a ward; Fatmir Kurmehaj, also a director of the hospital --

JUDGE MAY: Stop. Mr. Zatriqi, what is being suggested is that there were Albanians who were in important positions in Pec. Now, can you help us about that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. All the names mentioned by the accused are people known to me, but I must say these positions cannot be compared with the position of Fatmir Gashi, who is an able economist. There was no way of comparing this with the position of Xhafer Gjuka, because these are absolute opposites. And I don't know much about the inner workings of the municipality because I didn't have much dealings with it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I don't understand the explanation of these opposites. Xhafer ^{3822 BLANK PAGE 3823} Gjuka, isn't he an Albanian too?

A. Xhafer Gjuka is an Albanian.

Q. He was a member of the provisional government of Kosovo. So why would this be in opposition to the other Albanian who was director of the SDK?

A. I wasn't aware of Xhafer Gjuka's position, but I didn't know he had such a high position. I knew him as a deputy director in the public accounting service.

Q. All right. Tell me, then, all these Albanians whose names I've read out to you, did you know all of them?

A. Not all of them. Some of them I did know but as citizens of Peja, as faces. Some of them I knew.

Q. Are you trying to say that you didn't know what they did? You don't know what positions they held? Is that your assertion?

A. No, I didn't know what jobs they had.

Q. All right. I don't want to waste much time. I'm just going to read ten more names of Albanians to you so that you tell me whether you know them. Dr. Midhat Jakupi, head of the orthopaedics department of the city hospital; Ojdaj [phoen] Pepa, the secretary of --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please slow down for the interpreters.

JUDGE MAY: Slow down, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Adem Grapci, municipal -- Judge of the municipal court in Pec; Shaban Ukaj, coordinator for education in Pec. Claims were always made ³⁸²⁴ that Albanians were not being educated, but even the head of education in Pec was an Albanian. Sali Dionka, director of the cooperative in Kucica. Not to mention all of them. There are five directors of cooperatives in villages around Pec, and all of them are Albanians. At the head of the military department in Pec was also an Albanian. That is to say, the lists of military conscripts, call-up papers were sent by Hatixhe Berisha, Ekrem Zara, inspector --

JUDGE MAY: Enough. The witness cannot begin to take all this in.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am asking him --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zatriqi, you've been asked about a list of names. Can you help about those or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Some of them I know, but I can't know who was in what position. For instance, manager of a cooperative. I was involved in transport and had nothing to do with agriculture. And he could read out a lot of other names, but I wouldn't know what positions they had.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Do you know of Hatixhe Berisha at least, the military department in Pec? That is to say, military conscripts, their lists, call-up polices for the army, et cetera. He was an ethnic Albanian. Do you know of that?

A. No. I don't know anything about him. I completed my military service a long time ago, and I don't know anything about All People's Defence. ³⁸²⁵

Q. All right. You were involved in transportation. Do you know the name of Fetih Hoti and Ekrem Zara? Both of them worked precisely as inspectors for transportation in the municipality of Pec. That is to say, your own line of work. Also Albanians.

A. Yes, I know him personally. And I know that his authorities were very restricted. He had been inspector for years. And there was another inspector called Antic. And Fetih Hoti had very limited responsibilities.

Q. All right. As far as responsibilities are concerned, that's a very relative question. I can't really read all this out to you because it would be pointless, but so far I have read out at least 30 names to you or, rather, positions that were held by Albanians. Doesn't it seem to you that with that structure of positions that were held by Albanians, some government can be involved in the organisation of deportations of Albanians from Pec?

JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness. It's a matter that we'll have to decide.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you remember that in the villages around Pec there were local policemen, precisely in Albanian villages, that were elected by the citizens themselves, the local villagers, and who held these positions of local policemen who wore uniforms and who carried weapons? They were selected by the villagers in those respective villages? Do you remember that?

A. No. I do not remember this, because in Peja and its environs, I ³⁸²⁶ have never come across an Albanian policeman, and I've had contacts with loads of people.

Q. And do you remember the name of Haxha Berisha from the village of Krusevac?

A. No, I cannot remember this name.

Q. He was a local policeman, an Albanian in the village of Krusevac. And what about Gaci Kelmendi? Have you heard of that name?

A. No. I have not heard of any name of anybody who, as you allege, was a policeman.

Q. He was in the village of Kosoric. What about the name of Bushataj? Bushataj, a local policeman for the Llubeniq and Rausic villages which are right by Pec? He was killed by members of the KLA precisely because he was a policeman. Do you know of that event?

A. No. I haven't heard of that.

Q. What about a policeman named Nikoliqi for the Dragovan, Milovanic, and Pocesje villages? Do you know about that?

A. No. I have not known him. And as you very well know, I lived in Peja, and during 1998, 1999, I did not go through these villages in particular. These names are not known to me.

Q. As you were just in Pec, do you know of a single Serb civilian, a policeman or soldier during this period of time, let's say October 1998 and the 24th of March, 1999, was killed or abducted by the KLA from the Pec area?

A. No, I haven't heard. I haven't heard of that at all.

Q. Have you heard of the KLA at all? Did you hear of it while you ³⁸²⁷ were in Pec at all?

A. Yes, a lot, and I am proud of it.

Q. All right. You've given your answer. Now, do you know about the killing -- the killing of children in the Panda Bar in Pec? A boy was killed. He was -- boys were killed, the ages of 17 to 19.

A. Yes, I've heard of this incident. And this is one of the questionable murders that occurred in my city.

JUDGE MAY: Do you know anything yourself about it directly or is it merely things that you've heard?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are things that were spoken about around Peja and which I've heard of. Can I continue?

JUDGE MAY: What's the next question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you heard of Sadriu Komoni?

A. No. I don't know him, and I can't remember this name.

Q. And do you know what his relations were with the Serbs?

A. In my answer, I said that I did not know this person, hence there's no way of knowing what kind of relations he had with the Serbs.

Q. And do you know of an Albanian by the name of Thaci Uka?

A. No. Haven't heard -- haven't heard of him.

Q. And do you know of an Albanian by the name of Bushati Jahu?

A. No. I haven't known him.

Q. And have you at least heard that Bushati Jahu, as a member of the KLA, killed Thaci Uka? That is something that you must have heard about ³⁸²⁸ in Pec.

JUDGE MAY: He says he doesn't know him. He doesn't know about these kind of matters. Can we move on to something more relevant?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, everybody in Pec knows what the other person is having for lunch, is cooking for lunch, let alone when somebody kills somebody.

JUDGE MAY: Is that true of Pec, or Peja?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not true at all, because Peja is not as small a place as the accused is trying to portray it. In addition to that, we must take into account the restricted movement and the impossibility of having information on everything that is being alleged here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You claim that there was restricted movement in Pec when these events occurred. Is that right?

A. Yes. That is true. We -- our movement was always restricted to three to four hours per day. The rest of the days we stayed indoors. At a certain point in time, we were even unable to venture onto the balcony of my own house, because one of our neighbours advised me to stay indoors, given that snipers were positioned all around and they could put my life in danger. Therefore, I can assert here that our movements were extremely restricted.

Q. So your movements were restricted by the fact that your neighbour told you that it was dangerous, not through somebody actually having prevented you from moving around; is that correct? Have I understood you ³⁸²⁹ correctly? Yes or no.

A. No, I think you got me wrong. What I said -- I said that in addition to our movements being curtailed, we were even unable to venture onto the roofs and balconies of our own houses because of the snipers.

Q. That, of course, is not true. But tell me, please: Who restricted your movements? How were your movements restricted and curtailed?

A. It is true that nobody came to me personally to tell me that you cannot go out into the city, and so on, but the fact of mysterious killings is reason enough for citizens to curtail their own movements, i.e., to get out when in desperate need and not on every single occasion.

Q. All right. My question was: Did anybody restrict your movements by issuing an order of any kind, or decree of any kind, and your answer was no. Let's move on not to lose time.

Have you heard of an Albanian by the name of Berisha Zymber?

A. No, I haven't heard.

Q. So you don't know that he was killed?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know that the press, radio, and television made public all these killings in Pec? You had a local radio station and were able to watch Radio Television Serbia's programmes as well, and Pristina's programmes, and so on. So does that mean that you weren't kept abreast with the information media?

A. I'm certainly not -- I did not follow the information disseminated by this media instilled in Peja. As you very well know, we used to follow ³⁸³⁰ other programmes beamed through satellite and so on.

Q. So you just followed the television programmes and radio programmes coming from Albania and the Western media; is that it?

A. The programmes from Albania, very, very little, but it was mostly CNN and EuroNews and other programmes broadcast from Europe, because that is where we were able to get the truth from, to find out what was happening in our vicinity.

Q. So through EuroNews, you got to know what was, in fact, going on in the town in which you lived; is that what you're saying?

A. I was not referring to my own city only, but to Kosova at large. These were the programmes which we used to listen to. And I mentioned other outlets as well, if I recall correctly.

Q. All right. Via EuroNews and the other media. So you claim that you knew nothing about what was going on in your own town; is that it?

A. I didn't say I didn't know anything. I only replied to the questions on the names that you put to me, and what I said is that I had no knowledge. I hadn't heard of any programme that would have broadcast the incidents that you mentioned here.

Q. And have you heard of an Albanian called Kuci Skender, Kutsi [phoen] or Kuci [phoen]. I'm not sure how you pronounce the name, but it was Kuci or Kuci Skender?

A. No, I don't know this name.

Q. What about another Albanian, Adem - or two Albanians - Adem and Bakir Gjuka?

A. Can I please have the surname repeated? ^{3831 BLANK PAGE 3832}

Q. Gjuka, Adem and Bakir?

A. Yes, I've heard of them, and I've known them personally. These were kidnapped and executed on the 23rd, i.e., they were found dead.

JUDGE MAY: On the 23rd of what, Mr. Zatriqi?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 23rd of July, 1998.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. 1998? 1998. They were killed -- kidnapped and killed by the KLA. That's right, the end of July 1998.

Now, do you know who --

JUDGE MAY: The witness -- you haven't asked a question. You've merely put forward an assertion. It is pointless going on asking this witness about things which he doesn't know.

Do you know what happened to those two, for instance?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he just said that they were kidnapped.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, but do you know what happened after they were kidnapped?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The brothers Gjuka were taken by uniformed Serbian police, and at about 2100. And eyewitnesses have given an account of this, and I've got it here. They said that they were executed. They were found dead and massacred at the crossroads between the sugar and beer factories, and the workers who went in for the early shift were the ones who found them.

JUDGE MAY: Did you speak to any of the witnesses yourself?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They were the ones to give me ³⁸³³ this account, because I knew not only the witnesses but also the Gjuka brothers and their families, so I spoke to their families and to the witnesses.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You therefore claim that they were not killed by KLA members. You say that the policemen took them off somewhere and massacred them and threw their bodies away. Is that your story?

A. Yes. This is the truth.

Q. All right. That's quite sufficient by way of an answer. Do you know who Nuredin Zejnullahu was, Zejnullahi or -llahu, Zejnullah Nuredin?

A. Yes. He was a medical doctor. I have known him very well. His murder also shook the city of Peja -- rather, shocked.

Q. Yes. And his daughter was injured on the occasion slightly. He was killed by the KLA at his very threshold. Is that correct or not?

A. You're wrong here. He was killed by masked people on the threshold of his house. They spoke Serbian, and I know this very well. Your assertion that the KLA killed him holds no water.

Q. Well, do you know that there was a whole investigation, with evidence as to what had happened? It shocked everybody. He was killed because he worked in the hospital, because he worked like a normal citizen of Serbia, doing his job at his workplace. The whole country knows about that.

A. Yes, that's how it is, but you're ignoring the fact that it was your own police who did that. And nobody is disputing the fact that he ³⁸³⁴ worked in a hospital. He was a medical doctor. He was doing a job, like every other Albanian who was employed at the hospital. His profession was such that he had to be at the service of the population, and that is how we all knew the late doctor.

JUDGE MAY: Did you speak to anybody who witnessed this particular event?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the incident, I spoke to a great many of his colleagues, and one of my relatives is a colleague of Cekos [phoen], and that is how I gathered some information on the incident, and I think they are accurate.

JUDGE MAY: And can you tell us when this was?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This happened around November 1998.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It happened on the 18th of November, 1998, and his daughter, Aida was a witness, was an eyewitness, and she was lightly injured on the occasion. There are records about all this, and without a doubt, this was a gruesome killing by a group of KLA members.

JUDGE MAY: That is what you say. The witness's evidence is otherwise.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. That is what eyewitnesses claim, including the man's own daughter.

JUDGE MAY: You can go into the witness stand yourself and give evidence, Mr. Milosevic. At the moment, you're not doing so; you're simply asking questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'll hurry up and ask a ³⁸³⁵ few more questions regarding the witness's statement, because quite obviously you're going to take away the floor in ten minutes' time. So I don't want to be put in this situation, in a situation where I can't get through all my questions, and they have to do with the credibility of the whole statement.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just tell me this. Give me a yes or no answer to my next few questions, because we haven't got time. Was Pec bombed by NATO? Yes or no.

A. Until the 28th of March, it was not. 28th was the day when I was deported.

Q. All right. Then answer me this question: How many Serbs are still living in Pec now?

A. I don't know. There are some in the surroundings of Peja, but I don't know about the town.

Q. All right. Your answer is you don't know. Do you know whether there are any Serbs left in Pec at all? Yes or no.

A. There were some at the Peja patriarchate and there were some around the church there, but I don't know otherwise.

Q. All right. Is it true that you gave the first statement to the investigators on the 20th of June, 2001?

A. That's right. On the 20th of June, I gave my statement.

Q. Is it true that your statement was read out to you in Albanian and that you confirmed that it was truthful and given to the best of your recollections and knowledge and signed to that effect by yourself? ³⁸³⁶

A. Yes, it was read out, and everything in the statement is based on what I said.

Q. Just yes or no, please, to save time: Is it true that you said that you returned to Pec on the 26th of July, 1999, after having previously left Pec on the 28th of March, 1999? Yes or no.

A. It's true. I returned to Peja on the 26th.

Q. Is it true that on the occasion, you stated that your three coaches were found in the same place - they had allegedly seized them from you on the 23rd of March - but that they had been burnt? Yes or no.

A. When I returned, I first went to the place where the buses were parked, and I found them burned and destroyed, not only my buses, but those of my colleagues.

Q. All right. But what I was asking you was to give yes or no answers, because they're very short questions.

Is it true that your second statement was given to the investigators of this institution seven and a half months later, that is to say, on the 29th of January, 2002?

A. That is true, but it's not true that it's the second statement. It's more a supplement to the first statement that I had already given.

Q. All right. Did you give this statement to the best of your recollections and knowledge as well?

A. I described in the statement things that had happened to me.

Q. And tell me, which of these two statements were given to the better portion of your recollections and knowledge, the first one or the second one? What was your recollection better? ³⁸³⁷

A. As I said, in the second statement I merely put in some interpretations, because in the first one I said that I knew that my buses were used for deportations, but in the second one I said that I saw with my own eyes that the buses were used for deportations.

Q. All right. In the second statement, that is to say the latter statement, you say, "I did not learn that my buses were used for the transportation of the citizens of Pec. In fact, I saw my buses full of people before I was deported from Pec."

Is that correct? And that's what it says in your statement, in the short witness statement.

A. [Previous translation continues]... statement I said when I was deported, I saw my buses full of citizens who were travelling in my buses but not of their own free will.

Q. Tell me what is true. Did you not learn that your coaches were used to transport the citizens of Pec, or when you saw your coaches full of people that you came to learn that they had in fact been used to transport people in Pec? Which of these two statements is correct?

A. My buses were confiscated by the police on the 23rd, that is one day before the NATO bombings --

Q. We've cleared that up. That's not what I'm asking you. My question is as follows: Did you not learn that your buses were used to transport the citizens of Pec, or when you saw your coaches full of people, you came to realise and became aware of the fact that they had been used to transport people? Yes or no.

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow that question. What he says is he saw ³⁸³⁸ them full of people. He can't take the matter further than that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well. Then I'll move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it true that on -- the 26th and the 27th of March you spent in the cellar of your house in the Pec district of Sahat Kulla? That's what you say in your statement.

A. That's right. It was Friday evening --

Q. All right. So you did spend the 26th and 27th of March. And is it true that you left Pec on the 28th of March?

A. I was deported on 28th of March. I didn't leave of my own free will.

Q. All right. That is your explanation. Left Pec. So on the 26th and 27th of March, you spent in the cellar of your house in Sahat Kulla in Pec, and you left Pec on the 28th of March.

So when did you see or learn that your coaches had been used for transporting people? When did you see that? You were in the cellar on the 26th and 27th, and you left Pec on the 28th. So when were you able to see that your buses had been used for transport?

A. I left my house on the 27th, and I say in my statement that I spent the night of the 27th and the 28th at my aunt's house. And on the 28th, when the police started coming to the houses, I left in my personal car. And when I got out onto the main road, I saw a long convoy of people on the move, and after a few hundred metres, I came across my bus which was full of the people of Peja. ³⁸³⁹

Q. All right. Does that mean that you want to convince the person listening to what you're saying here and now that your -- that is to say that the Serbs used your buses, coaches, to deport Albanians, according to your statement, and then that they brought them back, parked them in the same way they had been parked once they had been taken away and then that they were burnt? Is that what you're claiming?

A. It's quite true that the population was deported in my buses.

Q. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I am just going to dwell on a few things that Mr. Zatriqi said.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] You already said that on the 28th you were deported. That's what you said just now, that you were deported from Kosovo. You said here something about the 26th. I'm interested in the 26th. The 26th of March, you spent it in the basement. On the 27th, there was the shelling that you spoke of, but you were in the basement on the 26th. On the 26th.

Could you explain this? I have to say one thing. I know that on that day, indeed, all of Yugoslavia was in basements and cellars, but why were you in the cellar all day on the 26th?

A. The night of the 26th, from Friday to Saturday was the most difficult night for me and my family. We spent it there because there was a lot of movement of the police and the army in my neighbourhood. And ^{3840 BLANK PAGE 3841} especially there had been tanks situated in the hospital yard and schoolyard, which you could see from my window. And at about 2.00 in the morning, about ten metres away from my house, because I was watching this tank - my family was in the cellar, I wasn't - but a green van came out and about eight armed police got out and they started to shoot at my house. They broke the windows and various bits of the house, and then they pointed their barrels down and they started running. And I thought that they were going to kill my family. But fortunately, nothing happened.

But then on the Saturday morning -- I must mention that the van that had stopped in front of my house and from which the police had got out and mercilessly shot at my house, that van, around about 6.00 in the morning, when I had gone to the back of the house, I saw this same van parked in the yard of my neighbours, who were Serb.

Q. Mr. Zatriqi, you did not mention a word of any of this earlier on. Earlier on, you just said that on the 27th, shooting started in the neighbourhood of Kapeshnica and that that's what you saw with your own eyes. That's what you said then. But what you are talking about today, you never mentioned before.

You also said that on the 27th, you saw people moving about, and you say that you didn't know what was happening. Is that true?

A. That's right. On the 27th of March, I saw how the Kapeshnica neighbourhood was being shelled. This event that happened during the night in my house, I saw -- the reason -- the fact that Kapeshnica was being bombarded led me to leave my house. ³⁸⁴²

Q. You didn't mention that you saw the police. You said that on the next day, you got your family into your car and only then you went out to the main road. Could you explain to the Court your motives? Why did you leave? You did not mention that anybody had influenced you in any way in order for you to leave your house. Can you explain the circumstances under which you decided to leave your house?

A. First, my surname is Zatriqi, just to correct you. It seems to me I have adequate reason --

Q. I want to apologise.

A. I had adequate reason to leave Peja, because my aunt's house was in a neighbourhood called Jarina, and people, the police had begun to arrive, and police had come -- started coming from house to house, giving five-minute ultimatums to leave. And that is the reason why I left my town and aunt's house together with my aunt's family.

Q. I shall conclude my questions related to, sir, by saying to you that that's not the way you described it. After what you said in your statement, you explained that at one moment you got into your car. Why didn't you put it that way earlier on, I mean the way you spoke here today?

A. I think I did mention these things but rather more briefly, and perhaps this is how you understood it. Because I can't distort things that told -- things that happened to me, and I will always tell it in a straightforward manner.

Q. I would just like to ask you about one more thing. In 1998 and 1999, before the 25th of March, did you hear at all of any armed conflicts ³⁸⁴³ between the army and the KLA in your area?

A. I am not sure, but I think that there were clashes, perhaps not -- you can't really call them clashes, but Loxhe, a village near Peja, was shelled, but I don't think there were clashes between the KLA and the army, but villages were shelled.

Q. And did people, either Albanians or Serbs, come down to Pec in order to seek shelter from these conflicts so that they would not be harmed in any way? Yes or no.

A. If you're talking about Loxhe, there was no need to come down to Peja because Loxhe is part of the plain in which Peja is situated. But yes, they did seek shelter.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Ms. Romano.

MS. ROMANO: Just one matter, if I may. Re-examined by Ms. Romano:

Q. Mr. Zatriqi, you told the Court that when you came back to Peja, you found not only your bus but those from your colleagues totally destroyed. So how many buses did you see at that time?

A. When I came back and found the buses parked, there were about 12 other buses. So along with three of my own, there were 15 buses all destroyed and burned.

Q. And Mr. Zatriqi, do you know what happened to these buses before, or were they kidnapped or taken the same way as yours?

A. The buses were confiscated on the 23rd, and I didn't see them until the 28th, when I was deported. And there was one of them -- there ³⁸⁴⁴ were others belonging to my colleagues. And some of them went to the Albanian border, and others, which I saw with my own eyes, went in the direction of Rozaje.

Q. And how do you know that, Mr. Zatriqi? Did you speak with the people, with the owners of the buses?

A. I had no need to talk to the owners because I could recognise them. And they were full of town people; women, children, the elderly, who I say were in those buses against their will.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Zatriqi.

MS. ROMANO: No further questions, Your Honours.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

MS. ROMANO: Your Honour, just before we bring the other witness, the other witness will be Mahmut Halimi. The next one is Aferdita Hajrizi, but I believe we still have pending a ruling on the admissibility of the written statement.

JUDGE MAY: Do the amicus, any amicus, want to address us on the admissibility under Rule 92 bis of that particular statement? It appears to be admissible. The witness will come for cross-examination.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I say something, Your Honours?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] On behalf of the amici, this ³⁸⁴⁵ rests within your rights. It is up to you to assess this, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be used possibly.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, do you want to say anything about it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Then it will be admitted.

MS. ROMANO: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution will call Mr. Mahmut Halimi.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd take the declaration, Mr. Halimi.

WITNESS: MAHMUT HALIMI

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you'd like to take a seat. Examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. Sir, is your name Mahmut Halimi?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you born on the 7th of April in 1954?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Halimi, were you born in the village of Zhabar in the Mitrovica municipality of Kosovo?

A. Yes.

Q. On the 24th of August, 2001, did you provide a statement to ³⁸⁴⁶ representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor about events that you witnessed and experienced in Kosovo?

A. Yes.

Q. On the 31st of January of this year, 2002, in the town of Mitrovica, Kosovo, were you provided with a copy of the statement that you made on the 24th of August, 2001, in the presence of representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor and a presiding officer appointed by the Registrar of this Tribunal?

A. Yes.

Q. And at that time, did you confirm that the copy of the statement provided to you, the statement that was made on the 24th of August, 2001, was true and correct?

A. Yes, with a few corrections resulting from some interpretation in the course of the translation.

MR. SAXON: Your Honours, at this time I would like to tender Mr. Halimi's statement into evidence.

THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit 114, Your Honours.

MR. SAXON: Your Honours, in summary, Mr. Mahmut Halimi received a law degree from the University of Pristina in 1977. He was a judge for many years in Mitrovica and has also maintained his own private law practice.

Mr. Halimi's statement describes the different Serb forces in Mitrovica who committed serious crimes prior to the outbreak of the international armed conflict in 1999 and the harassment that he and his family suffered during this period. ³⁸⁴⁷ Mr. Halimi describes the murder of two prominent Kosovo Albanians in Mitrovica, Mr. Latif Berisha and Mr. Agim Harizi, shortly after the NATO bombing campaign began in March 1999.

On the 25th of March, Mr. Halimi received an anonymous phone call in the Serbian language. The caller said to him, "You have to escape, because it is your turn. They are killing you at the end." Mr. Halimi describes how he and his family fled his home, first to the village of Zhabar. Shortly after the family fled, their home in Mitrovica was attacked and looted.

After two days in Zhabar, members of the KLA told Mr. Halimi that he should leave the village because his presence was endangering the rest of the village. Mr. Halimi spent six nights in the mountains before eventually returning to Zhabar.

On the 14th of April, 1999, Serb police and paramilitary forces approached Zhabar. Mr. Halimi and his family fled to the nearby village of Zhabar i Eperm. On the 15th of April, Mr. Halimi and his family observed Serb police and military units pushing approximately 25.000 to 30.000 people from neighbourhoods of Mitrovica towards the village of Zhabar.

Eventually, Serb forces split this large crowd into two groups. One group was initial sent to a school in the village of Shipol. Several young men were executed during this process. The second group eventually was also sent to Shipol. On the morning of the 16th of April, Mr. Halimi watched as this group of approximately 30.000 people were sent away towards the town of Peja. ³⁸⁴⁸ At about 11.00 on that same morning, Serb forces entered the village where Mr. Halimi and his family had taken shelter, firing their weapons and burning homes. Mr. Halimi and his family attempted to escape from Zhabar i Eperm in an automobile, but their vehicle was seized by Serb soldiers who ordered them to continue on foot. They were directed to walk to the bus station in Mitrovica. The family walked back to the village of Zhabar, where they sought shelter for the night in some empty houses. The following day, 17 April, Mr. Halimi and his brother were able to obtain two automobiles for the transport of their families. They joined a column of vehicles which was repeatedly stopped and robbed by Serb forces. The column eventually travelled from Mitrovica to Klina to Djakovica, then past the city of Prizren and to the border with Albania.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, do you want to start your cross-examination now or would you rather we adjourn before you do?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's up to you.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. You can begin your cross-examination now.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Immediately upon graduation, you became a judge at the municipal court, and somewhat later you became a judge at a district court, when you were very young, from what I can see here. Were you the youngest judge at the district court?

A. First of all, after finishing my studies, I had an apprenticeship which lasted about a year, according to the laws. After that, I took my exams, and following that, I became a district court judge. It is a fact ^{3849 BLANK PAGE 3850} that I was one of the youngest judges. At the same time, there were two of my colleagues who graduated at the same time and were of the same age and were accepted at the district court.

Q. You say at the beginning of your written statement: "At the beginning of 1982 I became a judge at the district court in Mitrovica. When I was given permission to retire, I ended my career as a judge, in 1985, and then in 1986 I opened my own law office," and so on and so forth.

Why did you retire that early, in 1985, practically three years after you became a district court judge in Kosovska Mitrovica? In 1985. You were born in 1954; is that right?

A. I did not resign. I did not forward any application. But I had a request to be dismissed from the job of the judge because I wanted to practice as a defence lawyer.

Q. You say that you were granted retirement by having submitted an application. So were you retired as a judge of the district court, and did you then become a defence lawyer? Yes? No?

A. No, that is not correct. I forwarded an application to be discharged, and with the expiry of the three-month period. And if the assembly which has appointed the judge does not take a decision on it, with the expiry of the three-month period, his mandate comes to an end, and that was the procedure that was applied in my own case.

Q. I'm asking you because it says here in your own statement that your own request was granted, your request for retirement. So what it says here in the statement is an inaccurate interpretation of what you ³⁸⁵¹ said. That's the way I understand it now. Right?

A. It may be a misinterpretation resulting from the translation from English into Albanian or the Serbian. The truth is as I mentioned it earlier.

Q. All right. You said in your statement that as for the interests of your clients, you could have them realised only through money. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct, in the majority of cases.

Q. That means that as a former judge, first of the municipal court and then of the district court, and then as a lawyer, as an attorney, with that kind of career, that you were involved in bribery.

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow that. What's the point? What's the question, Mr. Milosevic? What's the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First of all, I asked, in relation to the witness's statement -- how did he put it here? The interests of his clients, he had them fulfilled through money. And I asked him whether that's correct, and he said that it is correct. And the question --

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps we had better get an explanation of the answer, what that means.

Now, can you help us, Mr. Halimi -- Just a moment. We'll have it clarified.

Mr. Halimi, can you help us? What is the position here? What is being said is that you were involved in bribery. Now, can you help us with that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Let me explain very briefly. ³⁸⁵² During the time of Milosevic's regime in Kosovo, justice in Kosovo was bought and sold. It was to be paid for.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So as a lawyer, as an attorney, you were involved in bribery; is that right?

A. The only way to secure freedom, somebody's freedom -- it was the only way to secure the freedom of my clients.

Q. A short while ago you pointed out that that's the way it was during the Milosevic regime. However, you became an attorney, a lawyer, in 1985, or the beginning of 1986. Is that contradictory to what you've been saying?

A. These words that you quoted, I was thinking of the 1990s. I wasn't thinking of 1985.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me ask the witness a question. I'm afraid I'm not understanding this whole matter of bribery, and in particular, of the witness's personal involvement as a lawyer in bribery.

Can you give us a practical example of how you were involved in this buying of the freedom of your clients? Give us a practical example, because it's not clear to me at all.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was 1994, and there was a person accused of a large quantity of weapons, which, under the chief examination in the Mitrovica district court, the accusation remained concerning three guns. And for this he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. And to lessen the sentence, in the Serbian Supreme Court, ³⁸⁵³ you had to find a connection, and 5.000 marks were paid, and my client was left with a reduced sentence of one year's imprisonment, while for one gun, a long one, that is, an automatic weapon or a military gun, the Mitrovica communal court, and other courts, would pronounce minimum sentences of six to eight months. And I think this says a lot.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We'll return to this after the adjournment. It's time to adjourn now until half past 2.00.

Mr. Halimi, would you remember, in this adjournment and any others there may be, not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over.

--- Luncheon recess taken at 1.05 p.m. ³⁸⁵⁴

--- On resuming at 2.31 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Halimi, before the adjournment you were telling us about the practice of the -- in relation to the inference of money in the judicial system. What I'd like to find out is just how widespread was that practice of bribery?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can freely say that this practice, especially from 1993 onwards, until the end of 1998, was an open secret known to every single citizen of Kosova.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you yourself participated in this practice?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my previous statement, when I mentioned a case in response to a question from the accused, I said 5.000 Deutschmarks were given, and this was confirmed by the brother of my own client, and I can responsibly assert here before Your Honours that, in my whole life, in my whole career as a defence lawyer, it only occurred once to me that I had to produce a thousand Deutschmarks to have something done that related to me, and the rest I've heard from other people.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, let's continue with that, then. In view of the fact that in your statement, you explained, in very clear terms, that this was the practice, or rather, that that was the practice you engaged in, are you now withdrawing that statement that you previously made by saying that you only did it once? Are you retracting that or do you stand by your statement and said that you had to do your job through money, with the help of money, as you said in your statement? ³⁸⁵⁵

A. It appears you have not understood the answer correctly, so let me clarify, and this will be crystal clear. I said, regarding especially the period from 1993 to 1998, Serbian justice, which decided the fate of the Albanians all, where the life of Albanians was at issue, meant -- and we've often commented with my own colleagues, we'd often say that Serbian justice is on the point of being sold as a commodity on the market.

Q. I think that regardless of the harsh terms used, that you can't retract what you said in your statement. Let me quote. It is on page 3, at the beginning of the page, the first paragraph on that page. I'll jump over the unimportant things, although I can take it from the beginning: "I had to find hundreds of ways to keep good relations with the Serb authorities in Mitrovica. I always had to act in the interests of my clients, and the most difficult moments in my professional work was when I realised that nothing but money was the reality. It happened, unfortunately, rather often. I had some difficult times when I had to go back to my clients and tell them that they had to pay because Serb justice was only valid if they were ready to pay."

Therefore, your qualifications of Serb justice - we'll come to that later on - but from what I have read out, is it clear to you and everybody following these proceedings that you state, unfortunately, and you do use the word "unfortunately," "it happened rather often." Therefore, we absolutely cannot accept, whether I'm right or not, what you said happened to you just once. Because you weren't answering my question, you were answering Judge Robinson's question and said you gave 5.000 Deutschmarks to reduce the sentence for one client. He asked you ³⁸⁵⁶ about one case. You told him of one case and one example, whereas here in your statement you said, "It happened, unfortunately, rather often." And then you go on to say, "I had some difficult times," et cetera, but it did happen rather often. Now, my question is: You engaged in bribery. Is that correct or not?

A. I can say partially yes. I had to. That was the only way to sort out the future for my own client.

JUDGE MAY: The point which is being made is that you say in your statement: "It happened, unfortunately, rather often." And what you're telling us was that it happened once. Now, can you explain the discrepancy?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I explain those cases, I can probably dwell on this issue for about four hours on end. However, let me reiterate that in the majority of cases -- and let me say in the Supreme Court, in the District Court, throughout Serbia, where I've been defending various parties, in the Supreme Court, being a court of the second instance, and not only me, but also my own Albanian colleagues have seen people before those courts, the Supreme Court of Serbia, and we had to defend -- and we had to defend our own clients. Technical personnel of that very same court were in charge of the procedure on certain matters, and the wheeler-dealer of that same court approached me personally, asking me to give money if I were to sort out the fate of my own client, and that is the message that I conveyed to the family of the client. I told them who they had to go to to sort that out.

JUDGE MAY: You explained that. But did this happen once or more ³⁸⁵⁷ than once?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I myself, only once did I have to produce, out of my own pocket, a thousand Deutschmarks.

JUDGE MAY: You also say in your statement: "Only in political cases, it was not possible to use bribes." Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. Because state security, whose members were a party to this procedure, were under strict control of state security, and that's why the situation was different. It was not possible there to pay bribes to have -- to release someone who had been convicted on politically-motivated charges.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, you engaged in bribery; yes or no.

A. I think I gave an answer to this. I don't think I have to reply twice to the same question.

Q. Well, the answer is quite obvious. Now, did I understand you correctly? As you yourself said here, you frequently gave money, and once you even gave money out of your own pocket. Now, as you're a lawyer yourself, is it clear to you that it doesn't make any difference whether you gave out your own money or your client's money in a criminal -- in the criminal act of bribery?

A. I'm fully aware, and especially if you're aware of the institution of extreme need, that is, when in order to save the future of the freedom of somebody, that in itself is prioritarian [sic] compared to the money.

Q. Every criminal, when he perpetrates a crime, gives that same ^{3858 BLANK PAGE 3859} explanation, that he had to do it in order to achieve a certain goal, a certain end. Now, are you conscious of the fact that the difference between what must necessarily be done and what is done in a legal manner and what must be done and is committed against the law, means the difference between a crime and an honest affair?

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow the question. I suppose it could be rephrased in this way:

Did you think what you were doing when bribes were paid or arranged was dishonest?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, all the time, and I felt very bad about it.

JUDGE MAY: And then you can tell us why you did it nonetheless.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said the freedom of a person is sacred. People were being charged with no evidence at all, simply out of ethnicity. When the law on weapons and munitions was passed, if I'm not wrong, in 1991, the only applicable venue was Kosova, and it was only meant and applied against the Albanians.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If they were being charged as a result of their ethnicity, would that fall into the category of political cases that you said formed the only exception to this practice of bribery?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A criminal political offence, I can freely say here, wasn't constituted, actually. The ultimate aim of the Milosevic regime - and the munitions and the weapons bill was part of it - the Albanians, when the police charged someone with arms possession, an Albanian had to go and try and buy a weapon somewhere in order to show it ³⁸⁶⁰ to the police or otherwise suffer the consequences and be abused on a daily basis by the police.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it clear to you that by quoting the example you picked at random in response to the question posed by Judge Robinson, that you in fact put forward the example of your client, who was accused of possessing large quantities of weapons, in fact? Now, was he being charged for possessing large quantities of weapons under the circumstances that prevailed in Kosovo, and is it clear to you that that too must necessarily have been considered as having a political background, being in possession of large quantities of weapons? So not pistols or hunting rifles or something that someone might buy from someone else, but large quantities of weapons in Kosovo. How, then, if you could not -- if nothing could be done about things of that kind, you were successful in bribing the people? Or perhaps what you said to begin with wasn't true, that is to say that in political crimes you were not able to bribe anyone. So what is the truth?

A. Forgive me. I did not understand this question.

JUDGE MAY: Try and put the question more shortly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said, when quoting the example for Judge Robinson, that your client was accused of being in possession of large quantities of weapons. That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes. ³⁸⁶¹

Q. Now, what is the punishment, the sentence, for being caught in possession of large quantities of weapons, according to the law? What would the sentence for that kind of crime be?

A. According to provisions of Article 33, paragraph 3, subitem 1 of the bill on weapons and munitions, as it was called at that time, it was possible to sentence someone to up to 15 years in gaol, for possession of over three weapons.

Q. And that means that your client, although you said that Albanians were unjustly taken to court, when he possessed large quantities of weapons, he was sentenced to a fifth of that maximum prison sentence, because you said three years, he got three years. Is that right?

A. Yes, because I paid with my own money -- his own money.

Q. No. You said that he was sentenced to three, and then those three years, by giving bribes, you were able to reduce to one year. That's what you said.

A. It seems you didn't understand my answer, or this is your personal view. It was two years and it was reduced to one year by the Supreme Court.

JUDGE MAY: That, in fact, was what he said earlier.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. So the prison sentence was two years and it was reduced to one year because you paid; is that it?

A. Because the client paid, not myself.

Q. All right. Because the client paid, through you; is that right?

A. Not through me, no. I showed him the connection. I said, "Go to ³⁸⁶² the entrance of the Supreme Court and go to such-and-such a person."

Q. All right. You organised this transaction of bribery for him. Now, as you said that you did this because of the ultimate goal of freedom, because freedom was inviolable, did you consider when this client of yours was sentenced to two years, you say, for a criminal act of being in possession of a large quantity of arms, when he could have got 15 years, you say that he was unjustly sentenced, when he just got an eighth of the prescribed maximum prison sentence for that crime.

A. I mentioned the case in which justice was bought, freedom was bought. I only mentioned one case. I could explain umpteen other cases. I could talk for about four hours, elaborating on this question.

Q. All right. During the many years you were in practice, I'm sure that you carried out this criminal act of bribery countless times. I'm not asking you to mention exactly how many times. I'm sure you couldn't do that.

JUDGE MAY: You cannot put things like that to a witness without letting him answer.

What's suggested is that you were involved in bribery countless times, Mr. Halimi. Is that true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, so it is, and there was no escaping it. Because this is what the regime was like. It was impossible to work in any other way in this regime.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As a lawyer and a former judge, are you aware of how much -- the number, the figures aren't important, but there were quite a considerable ³⁸⁶³ number of cases where people were held to account in courts of law - Judges and other lawyers - precisely for having committed the crime of bribery. They were taken to court. The type of crime that you have been speaking about here. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes. When the regime sought to cover its own traces, it always managed to find such cases.

Q. I don't know what this has to do with the regime and traces, but as you are aware of this: Do you know that for every report made of a judge receiving a bribe, there was a very careful operation put into place by the investigating organs, and do you know that in cases of that kind, the money bills would be marked and that if those marked money bills were found on a judge, they would serve as corpus delicti and the authorities did everything they could to eradicate bribery of this kind and that these cases were taken to court, especially when it involved bribery in courts of law, in legal proceedings?

A. To tell the truth, I don't know of such cases, at least not in Kosova. I know of nobody in the office of a judge being discharged for receiving bribes. I've never heard of such a case.

Q. Well, your answer is sufficient for me. Now, can you answer the following question: A moment ago, you said that you knew that people were taken to court for having received bribes. Why did you not report a single case, why did you not report a single individual who had in fact received bribes?

A. Because I was working in the interests of my client.

Q. Thank you for your answers, for these answers of yours. I'm going ³⁸⁶⁴ to move on now. But before I do move on, I should like to ask you to give me just one answer, please, Mr. May, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Kwon. This witness, especially a lawyer, an attorney, who engages in bribery, can he in any regular court of law be considered a credible witness for what he is testifying to?

JUDGE MAY: That will be a matter for us to decide. You can make the point. Not now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am --

JUDGE MAY: But not now. This isn't the time for speeches. You're supposed to be asking questions. When we come to consider all the evidence, you can make the point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, every question of mine that you don't like, you call a speech. I asked you a question --

JUDGE MAY: It's not for you to ask questions of us. You're supposed to be asking the witness the questions. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I answer?

JUDGE MAY: You can say something at the end. Let's move on with the examination. Let's go on to something else.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you purchase from Bulo Seniki - I don't know whether it was in 1997 or 1998, a house, in the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica? Because, as far as I'm able to read here, you do have a family house in Donji Zhabare and you purchased a house in the northern part of Kosovska ³⁸⁶⁵ Mitrovica in 1997 or 1998 from Seniki Bulo; is that correct?

A. It is correct. I bought a house in 1997.

Q. Yes. In 1997, you paid 250.000 German marks for that house; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you get such a large sum of money from?

A. Very easily. I inherited this real estate from my father, and from this estate -- probably for about a thousand hectares near the reservoir in Mitrovica, and I sold this and bought the house.

Q. All right. What did you say at the time? How did you explain the fact that you bought a house in the Serbian part of Mitrovica? Do I have to remind you of that?

A. According to you, it should be interpreted -- you interpreted it as the Serbian part, but it's not the Serbian part. It's a part of Mitrovica. It belongs to all the citizens of Mitrovica. And if you want to know the composition of the area after the detachment of municipality of Zvecan, the remaining proportion of Serbs in Mitrovica was 3.4 per cent. So you can't say that it's the Serbian part of Mitrovica, regardless of the ethnic divisions. It belongs to all the citizens.

Q. I'm not asking you this because I dispute the fact that it belongs to all of the citizens, I'm asking you this because of the explanation that you gave. Namely, is it true that at the time when you bought this house in this part of Kosovska Mitrovica, you said that you were doing this in order to have your children raised together with Serbian children and in order to have your children learn to speak Serbian as well as you ³⁸⁶⁶ and your wife did? Is that right or not?

A. It seems rather a ridiculous situation here. I didn't say anywhere, to anybody, in any part of my statement that I went to that part of town so that my children could learn Serbian.

Q. I'm not saying that this is contained in a statement given to this institution, your statement given to the Tribunal. I'm saying that you said this to a number of people whom you had contact with at the time when you purchased this house and thereafter. So I'm just asking you whether this is true or not. I'm not asking you whether this is contained in your statement given to the Tribunal.

A. This is your fabrication and the fabrications of people who are credulous [as interpreted].

Q. Very well. I am afraid that you're taking a slippery road now. You said that you were represented a Serbian family that was grateful for your services. Did you have in mind the family by the last name of Mijatovic, Branislav and Suzana?

A. Mijatovic, yes.

Q. And you were recommended to this family by a very good friend of yours, Dragan Djuric, who is a policeman with the MUP of Serbia; is that true?

A. It is a fact.

Q. And is it also true that this trial has not been concluded yet and that the members of this family have not been to a hearing yet, and therefore were not in a position to thank you? Is that true or not?

A. It's not true. Let me tell you very sincerely, after Suzana ^{3867 BLANK PAGE 3868} introduced herself to me myself, the wife of Branislav Mijatovic, we met by accident in front of the UNMIK building, and there she confirmed to me the fact that the person who killed their only son in a traffic accident had been condemned to eight months' imprisonment but had still not started his sentence. This was not ten days before I came here. So the judge -- a verdict has been given and the sentence has been served, and it is merely waiting to be carried out. So that we don't misunderstand each other, it was his only son. Meanwhile, he has also had a daughter, called Maja, and after the death of his son in a traffic accident, he has another son, so now he has two children.

Q. Is it true that you called this friend of yours, Dragan Djuric from Serbian MUP, you called him on the phone from Zhabare, asking him to transfer you to the northern part of Mitrovica?

A. I don't understand -- I don't understand the question.

Q. Well, the question was quite simple: Did you call your friend Dragan Djuric from Zhabare on the telephone, asking him to transfer you from that place to another area, to the northern part of Kosovska Mitrovica? At that time, his wife answered the phone because he was not at home.

A. When do you say? What time are you referring to?

Q. I'm referring to the time frame about which you're testifying.

A. No.

Q. All right. Very well.

A. I remember I talked once to him, and at that time it was like this: The date after 5th of March, when the entire family of Adem Jashari ³⁸⁶⁹ was killed, I went to this man's office to intervene regarding a case. This is the office of Dragan Djuric. It is a fact that we had very proper relations, he and me, because we are the same generation. However, we were not close friends.

Q. Well, I asked you a moment ago whether you were friends with him, and you said that that was true.

A. [Previous translation continues]... not answering to that question.

Q. Very well.

A. I understood it as: Did Dragan Djuric intervene in the case of Mijatovic so that I could represent them in court, and I said yes. I did not say that he had been my friend. We had proper, correct relations between each other. And I said the last time that we spoke was after the 5th of March, and that was my last contact with Dragan Djuric. And then he said to me, "Please don't come to my office, because when there is war, there is no friendship. There's no keeping company when there is war."

Q. Do you know Ismet Hoxha?

A. Ismet Hoxha? Could you help me by telling me where he comes from? Because I know more than one, it appears.

Q. Well, I have in mind the one that you represented. He, as a thief and a hooligan, was deported from Germany back to Yugoslavia, and it is the same Ismet Hoxha who, on the 22nd of December, 1997, in the Zeta cafe, killed Hali Trnaca [phoen], called Ollaco [phoen], whose real name was Shabani Javci [phoen]. At the time, there were 400 guests in the cafe, and he shot and emptied two clips of an automatic rifle and then fled from ³⁸⁷⁰ the cafe. This is the Ismet Hoxha that I have in mind, the one who you represented, the one who had been deported as a criminal from Germany back to Yugoslavia and the one who had committed this crime in a cafe where there were 400 other guests. So do you know now which Ismet Hoxha I have in mind?

A. His name is not Ismet Hoxha. It's not the one. Ismet Hoxha comes from Vushtrri. He was a member of the KLA in the Cicavica area and he's currently a member of the Kosova protection corps in Mitrovica.

Q. Well, this is exactly what I'm referring to. This is the person who is responsible for killing a member of the Security Service, Dejan Prica [phoen]; isn't that right?

A. I have no idea. I do not know of this incident. I know Ismet Hoxha very well. I'm not aware of there ever having been such an incident.

Q. Don't you know that after that incident, he fled in a vehicle owned by Fatmir, called Guli?

JUDGE MAY: He doesn't know about this. Let's move on to some more relevant matters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it your claim that you were not an attorney representing Ismet Hoxha and that you were not an intermediary when he surrendered the rifle that he had at the time? And are you also claiming that he did not engage you as his attorney?

A. Ismet Hoxha, no, I'm not aware that he ever fired against anyone at a cafe. He's a man of a very quiet and sociable kind and he's never ³⁸⁷¹ been abroad. Until 1990 he served as a policeman in Vushtrri and Prishtina. After 1990, when the regime of the accused dismissed Albanian employees, including the policemen, he survived by working at Vushtrri at various honourable manual jobs. And I'm not aware that Ismet Hoxha ever dealt in these kinds of shady things. I'm quite convinced of that.

Q. And are you now telling us, by way of this example, that after 1990, there were no policemen of Albanian origin and also there were no Albanians working in the state security? Is that what you're trying to tell us?

A. After 1990, the number of Albanians who were accepted to work within the interior organs was very small. You could have counted them by the fingers of your hand.

Q. Do you know how many hundreds of Albanians, for example, worked in the police force in 1998, let alone 1990 and 1991? Let's just stick to 1998. Do you have any idea about this?

A. I only know that that number was very small. I do not have an exact figure.

Q. All right. Well, you gave us a number that you believe is true, which is almost zero. You said that one could count that by the fingers of one's hand. This is what you're claiming. Did I understand you properly?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. Do you know Fatmir Delic, who is the brother of Ismet Delic? Yes or no, please.

A. I know many citizens in Mitrovica. I do know Ismet Delic. Fatmir ³⁸⁷² could be his son; maybe he's too young that's why I don't know him.

Q. Is it true that Delic Ismet, together with Ismet Hoxha and Nexha Cubreli, was a member of the KLA?

A. I'm not aware of Delic. On Nexha Cubreli and Ismet Hoxha, yes, they were members of the KLA.

Q. And is it true that Fatmir's nickname was Gika and that he's wanted by the police in Europe as a drug dealer? Do you know anything about this? He's one of your clients as well. Is that so or not?

A. The informers who have passed this information have got it wrong. He's the son of Ismet Delic, a martyr, whose death was marked a few days ago, nicknamed Bika.

Q. I didn't understand your answer well. Let me just see what the transcript says. So you're saying that he was killed a few days ago?

A. I didn't say that. You are saying that. I was saying that I am proud to remember him as a martyr who fell in 1999, fighting against your own forces.

JUDGE MAY: Now, let's move on to some more relevant matters. , Mr. Milosevic, you've very nearly had your hour in this case. We'll consider how much more - since this is important evidence - how much more, if any, you should have.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We want to make sure this witness finishes today. Because we spent some time on one particular issue, we'll give you until quarter to.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's quite all right. ³⁸⁷³

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know Ismet Osmani, called Culi, who has several companies in the Czech Republic?

A. Yes, I know him. He's a cousin of mine.

Q. Is it true that he's the chief source for drugs on the route between Germany, Istanbul, and Prague -- Istanbul, Pristina, the Czech Republic and Germany?

JUDGE MAY: You can answer that question if you want, but if you don't want to, it seems to me to have absolutely no relevance.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only know that he's German of the club of Racak 1999, chapter 1999 of Mitrovica.

THE INTERPRETER: 1989, sorry, of Mitrovica. Correction from the translator.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know Shevqet Dobralluka, called Vinica, who together with his brother Karsil [phoen], whose wife is a Brazilian, together with Culi, deals drugs on the route between Istanbul, Pristina, and Rome?

JUDGE MAY: Irrelevant. Move on. No need to answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well.

Q. When you were in Zhabare, the KLA was there; is that right?

A. No, there was no KLA at Zhabar. There was a hospital at Zhabar with the wounded people, that is to say, after it started.

Q. Yes. And which village did you leave because they asked you to? ³⁸⁷⁴ Which village was it?

A. The one I was living in. I think in my statement I said that on the 25th of March I left my house in the northern part of the city and I went to my home village of Zhabar i Ulet, which is about two kilometres from the centre of Mitrovica.

Q. But in the summary, we saw that you were asked to leave the village and that, after that, you went into the mountains, further to their request.

A. Yes. This happened on the 27th of March of 1999, the second day after I had sought shelter at Zhabar i Poshtem. There were two members came, they were unarmed, they had civilian clothing. They introduced themselves. They identified themselves as members of the KLA and that they had an order to escort me to the mountains of Dermova on Zhabar i Eperm.

Q. I said Zhabare. I didn't specify whether it was Gornji or Donji. Therefore, I was imprecise. I was referring to Donji Zhabare. The KLA asked you to leave the village. Why didn't you mention before that they were unarmed, and was it a practice for the KLA members to go about unarmed or were they armed?

A. In the majority of cases, they were armed, but there was a specificity to Zhabar in that the whole region of Mitrovica had sought shelter there from the surrounding villages, as well as residents of Mitrovica, and for the sake of protecting the population so that the population would not become a target of police forces, there were no members of the KLA inside the village. There was only the hospital there, ³⁸⁷⁵ where wounded people sought aid.

Q. Does that mean -- does what you said mean that the police did not attack unarmed civilians? You have just told us that police did not attack unarmed civilians, and this is the reason why they did not carry arms. Isn't that so?

A. I was referring to the care shown by the members of the KLA. As concerns the behaviour of police and military forces as well as the paramilitaries and whatnot, they showed no consideration at all towards anyone.

Q. Yes, but you have just explained that the KLA made a decision to go about unarmed in Donja Zhabare in order to avoid being pressured or attacked by the police, and based on that, I conclude that it was a fact that the police did not attack unarmed civilians. Is that so or not?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I can simply clarify the record. What the witness said in the English translation was that there were no KLA soldiers present in the village, armed or unarmed, but that two unarmed members of the KLA came to the village on that specific day to speak specifically to that witness. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. The next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not receive a reply to my previous question.

JUDGE MAY: It's unnecessary. It was a mere matter of comment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Very well. ^{3876 BLANK PAGE 3877}

Q. When you were leaving Prizren, a soldier of the JNA told you at the time to be cautious when using lights because NATO could bomb you. And did you mainly have your lights turned off after that?

A. It was very dark, 18th of April of 1999. It was approximately after 8.00 in the evening. It is true that upon leaving Prizren, a soldier asked us to switch the lights off because of any eventual attacks by NATO, but it was impossible to drive in this kind of darkness, with no lights on at all, so it was -- it was necessary switch them on because it would have been impossible to drive otherwise, and the car -- the car that I was driving was not in a very good condition. So what I had to do is switch the medium-range lights and the back lights -- rear lights, rather.

Q. And did the soldiers tell you, as you were going along, not to be afraid and to take care not to go across any mines that had been planted?

A. This happened on the 18th of April, when we were crossing the border at Morina, near Prizren. We had stopped in front of the border crossing point, at the building by the bridge, on the Albanian-Kosova border. And they indicated by hand not to go on the left side of the road, because five members of a family from Fushe Kosova had been hit by mines while crossing the day before and had suffered very badly.

Q. Is it true that at around 2200 hours on that occasion, you heard a strong explosion and that you thought that NATO was bombing the border?

A. Yes. I said sometime around about 8.00 or 8.30, I arrived somewhere near the village of Zhur, because it was a very long convoy. It was a convoy that stretched from Zhur to the border, which must be eight or ten kilometres. And I was at the back of the convoy, at the exit from ³⁸⁷⁸ the village of Zhur. And about 8.30, when we arrived, we stayed in line in that position, and the convoy advanced very slowly. And we didn't know what was happening at the head of the convoy at the border. We were just waiting in line to cross into Albania.

And at some time, perhaps after 10.00, sometime round about then, there was an explosion heard. The border was closed and we had no further chance of going forward to see what had happened. That night, we supposed that there had possibly been a NATO attack on this part of the border, but when we passed close to it, we saw a very serious tragedy had taken place, and this is when five members of a family from Fushe Kosova were killed, and there were only fragments left of their own car.

Q. Does that mean that they came across a mine?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, why did you tell the group of intellectuals, why did you advise the group of intellectuals from Kosovska Mitrovica not to go to Montenegro?

A. Because I knew that they would suffer the fate that I did. I knew that they couldn't pass there without being detected by Serbian military forces. I was with them. They included Dr. Adem Ademi and many other of my friends who are now missing.

Q. And how many of them did you meet after everything had passed? You said that there were about 15 of them in the group, as far as I recall. Or how many? How many were there in the group?

A. Of that group with whom I stayed, there is not one of them left. None of them are alive. ³⁸⁷⁹

Q. I understood you to say that several of them returned, and a part of them are missing and that their whereabouts is not known.

A. I don't know where they are. They have disappeared, while I myself and my friends Adem Nura, a doctor in Mitrovica, and the veteran Rilindja journalist and various other intellectuals decided two days previously to return to Zhabar and to Mitrovica, that part of Tavnik where the situation was now quiet, and they remained there and not one of them -- not one of them has returned to their own homes. They fell in an ambush somewhere.

Q. And tell me this: How many members of your own family - I don't just mean your nearest family, that is to say, your wife and children, but your broader family, your relatives on your mother's side and so on - were members of the KLA?

A. Not one, because they are all abroad.

Q. Let's go back to your statement now. I'm going to quote just one passage from that statement, and it relates to your explanations as to how individual people who wore uniforms - you said "soldiers," I believe, I haven't got the exact word now, and then you say, comma, "members of paramilitary forces," which is not the same thing, is it? - that they would take money, that they would stop you, and so on and so forth. And then there's a paragraph after that, from your statement, which says the following: "They had already moved to the next two cars to loot them." And then this paragraph, and it is on page 14, as far as I can see, and you say: "I saw that from the direction of Djakovica, a white police vehicle was approaching us. It was a Land Rover." ³⁸⁸⁰ It is one, two, three, four, the fourth paragraph: "From the direction of Djakovica, I saw a white Land Rover, a police car, coming towards us. When the paramilitaries saw the police car approaching us, they immediately stopped their activities and jumped into their Opel Calibra and drove away very quickly. The police car did not stop at us but continued towards Prizren."

Now, from this paragraph, is it clear that this banditry that you're talking about, and those who took part in it, who were fleeing from the police, shows two things, actually: First, that they were not members of any -- forces of any kind, but just ordinary bandits who were afraid of the police; and second, that the police was in pursuit of bandits of that kind. And is that the conclusion that you, as a lawyer and a previous judge, one-time judge, can draw from that paragraph?

A. First, from the uppermost level to the lowest level of the military police structure, you can say that it was all coordinated minutely. If those policemen had wanted to fight crime and the looting of the populous -- now I remember, because it was an Opel Calibra. I remember that these paramilitaries had very, very long rifles. There was one more -- I was the second, the third in line, and the police approached us. And then this Land Rover came and passed close by. If the police had wished to help, they could have done. They saw what happened. But they only parked and observed at a distance of 200 metres. And this was a village near Prizren, more or less the final village before the entrance into Prizren.

Q. Well, you're now saying something quite different. From what I ³⁸⁸¹ just quoted, reading from your statement, the members of what you refer to as paramilitaries, who, according to what you say, went on looting, when they saw that from the direction of Djakovica a white police car was approaching, a Land Rover, in fact, went off very quickly. And you say that "the police car didn't even stop by us but continued along the road to Prizren." So they saw a police car, they fled from the police, and the others went past. Now you say that the police stopped at the parking lot and watched you being mistreated. This is quite the opposite of what you yourself wrote down here in the statement. Is that clear or not?

A. You asked me to comment on that, and I did that. Why didn't the police go and chase the car with the people who looted other people? But it continued on its way.

Q. How do you know? How do you know they didn't go that way? That's the direction the car took, fleeing in the face of the police vehicle. That's what you yourself say in your statement here.

A. No, I didn't say that. I said the two cars passed one another. The car that did the looting went in the direction of Gjakove, whilst the car that came from Gjakove headed towards Prizren.

Q. That's not what you said. No. It says here --

JUDGE MAY: No. I think we've exhausted this topic. We can see what's said and we've heard the witness's answers.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then I just have a few more questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As you have been living in Kosovska Mitrovica and are doing the ³⁸⁸² profession that you are doing, I assume you are well acquainted with the situation and circumstances in Mitrovica. Do you happen to remember the first instances of violence and killing committed by the KLA, in the first half of 1998 already, in your area?

For example, let me remind you: A bus -- at a bus station, there was an attack on a police patrol at a bus station on the 6th of May, 1998, for instance, and that took place in Mitrovica itself. Policeman Milovan Nikolic was killed on the occasion, and another policeman seriously wounded. His name was Darko Ivac. Jovica Jovic as well. He was another one. And one of the terrorists was killed on the occasion as well, Jashari Arti, from Kosovska Mitrovica. Unfortunately, the policeman succumbed to his wounds as well and died. The man named Ilaz, he died in the same day, in Belgrade, at the medical military academy. So we can say that both of those two policemen were killed. Do you remember that incident?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that an act of terrorism, this shooting at policemen at a bus stop 50 minutes after midnight?

A. I consider this to have been a guerrilla action and as a guerrilla operation of the KLA, as a response to the violence that was carried out against the Albanian population every day, especially in Drenica.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's now a quarter to, which is the time we said we would allot you, which is above the normal time. Mr. Tapuskovic, have you ever questions? ³⁸⁸³

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No questions for this witness, Your Honours. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll be brief. Re-examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. Mr. Halimi, Judge Robinson asked you a question during the cross-examination regarding whether certain cases were political cases or not, but I'm not sure whether your answer really clarified the matter. Could you please, very briefly, help us providing a summary of one or two perhaps prominent or well-known examples of political cases that occurred in Kosovo, brought against Kosovo Albanians during the 1990s. Just one or two examples.

A. One example is very well known to the accused here, the case of Asem Vllasi and the Trepce miners, in 1990, when I was a lawyer. I was a defence attorney in the case before the courts. Also in 1996, I defended the group of Avni Klinaku in Prishtina.

Q. What was Mr. Linaku charged with -- or Klinaku. I'm sorry.

A. Mr. Klinaku was charged with hostile activities against the FRY.

Q. And would this be an example of the kind of case that you mentioned that would be controlled by state security forces and so would not be subject to the use of bribes? You need to give a verbal answer.

A. That's right. That's right.

Q. Moving on. Later on, you mentioned that you had a conversation with the man named Dragan Djuric and that your last contact with Mr. Djuric was after the 5th of March, when Mr. Djuric told you, "Please ³⁸⁸⁴ don't come to my office. There's no keeping company when there is war." My question is: What year was that? March of what year?

A. 1999, at the beginning of March. It was the 5th or the 7th of March, 1999, still -- while the NATO attacks had still not begun.

MR. SAXON: Thank you. I have no further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Halimi, at one stage during your evidence, your credibility was called into account. You wanted to say something and I stopped you. Now, if you want to say something on that topic, now is your opportunity to do so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't feel the need. Thank you very much.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. That concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Well, Ms. Romano, rather than starting the next witness - or Mr. Saxon - rather than starting the next witness, it's late. We'll adjourn now and start again at 9.00 tomorrow morning. I should say, we will sit between 9.00 and 1.00 tomorrow. We'll stop at 1.00 because there's another case to be heard in the afternoon.

MS. ROMANO: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. 9.00 tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of April ^{3885 BLANK PAGE 3886} 2002, at 9.00 a.m.