³⁸⁸⁷

Friday, 26 April 2002

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: I'm sorry you've been kept waiting. There was a apparently some problem about the transport from the Detention Unit. Now, would you like to take the solemn declaration. If you'd like to stand to do it.

WITNESS: AFERDITA HAJRIZI

[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, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. Madam, is your name Aferdita Hajrizi?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you born on the 29th of June, 1964?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you born in the village of Peran, in the municipality of Podujevo, in Kosovo?

A. Yes. Now it's called Besiana municipality.

Q. Ms. Hajrizi, on the 3rd of June, 1999, did you provide a statement ³⁸⁸⁸ to representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor about events that you witnessed and experienced in Kosovo?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the 20th of August, 2001, did you provide an additional statement to 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 in Kosovo, were you provided with a copy of the statement that you made on the 3rd of June, 1999, 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. Did you confirm at that time that the copy of the statement that you had made on 3 June 1999 was true and correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the 9th of March of this year, in the town of Mitrovica, Kosovo, were you provided with a copy of the statement that you made on the 20th 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, I was.

Q. And on that day, did you confirm that the copy of the statement that you made on the 20th of August, 2001 was true and correct?

A. Yes, I did. ³⁸⁸⁹

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would now like to tender these two statements into evidence under Rule 92 bis.

THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit 115, Your Honours.

MR. SAXON: Your Honours, Aferdita Hajrizi grew up in the town of Mitrovica in Kosovo and received a degree in Albanian language and literature from Pristina University. Her late husband, Agim Hajrizi, was an activist on behalf of the rights of Kosovo Albanians and was the chairman of the Independent Kosovo Trade Union Assembly. Ms. Hajrizi's statements describe the harassment and threats directed at her family by Serb officials prior to the commencement of the international armed conflict in 1999. Ms. Hajrizi also describes the events of the evening of 24 March 1999, when Serb police broke into her family's home and shot to death her husband, Agim; her oldest son Ilir, who was then 11 years old; and her mother-in-law. During the next few days, Ms. Hajrizi and her surviving children hid in the Tavnik neighbourhood of Mitrovica until Serb forces began to burn homes and expel Kosovo Albanians from that neighbourhood on the 28th of March, 1999. Ms. Hajrizi and her family then joined a column of people and fled to the village of Zhabar.

After three days in the village of Zhabar, Serb forces forced the Kosovo Albanians in that village to return to the town of Mitrovica. After several days in the town of Mitrovica, Ms. Hajrizi and her relatives boarded buses that Serb authorities had arranged to transport Kosovo Albanians to Montenegro.

Thank you. ³⁸⁹⁰

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, have you any questions for this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Hajrizi, in view of this immense tragic loss that befell you, I shall restrict my questions to very few. The most necessary ones only, really.

In your statement, on page 3, in paragraphs 3 and 4, you say -- actually, I'm just going to read out a small section. "It took me about ten minutes to reach the meeting point." This took place after this tragic event. You went to -- well, you say, anyway: "It took me about 10 minutes to reach the meeting point. The Serb soldiers did not harm me, but sometimes I had to wait and hide to let them pass."

This is already your feeling, but the core of the matter is: "The Serb soldiers did not harm me."

In the next paragraph, you speak about your brother who came to pick you up in his taxi, and towards the end of this paragraph, you say: "About ten metres away --" this is approximately the distance between you and me now. "About ten metres away, there were some policemen, but they did not harm us."

So the soldiers and the policemen, according to your own description, behaved normally. None of them did you any harm. And according to the description of events that you gave - because it's tragic; you lost your son, your husband, your mother-in-law - is it clear ³⁸⁹¹ that this was done by criminals, that this was not done by any military or police unit?

A. Your first question is not clear to me. Can you please repeat it? And then I will answer about the other question, about taking -- me taking ten minutes. I'm not clear what you want to get -- where you want to get at.

Q. That is not important. I was quoting the text of your statement. I can skip that sentence altogether. That's the way the paragraph starts, so I read it in order to identify the paragraph. The point is, "The Serb soldiers did not harm me." That is what it says in the third paragraph. And in the fourth paragraph, it says: "About ten metres away, there were some policemen, but they did not harm us."

So here you speak both about soldiers and about policemen who did not harm you at all. Bearing that in mind, since I assume --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Just to be sure that this is clear for the witness, Mr. Milosevic is referring to the witness's second statement from --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Let's try and deal with it this way so that the witness can follow. Just one moment.

What is being suggested, as I understand it, is this: Is that the soldiers and police did not harm you when you were leaving the scene. Is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What the accused is saying, that is utopia. The fact that we were harassed and attacked in our own home, as ³⁸⁹² innocent citizens we were, the fact that a child, only 11-year-old, an old woman, 65 years old, who had done nobody any harm and was not responsible for what happened in Kosova, for the genocide perpetrated against our people, that shows that Serb police did not come there to save us, to spare us.

JUDGE MAY: Let me interrupt. The point that is made, whether you agree with it or not, is that in the statement, it says that they didn't harm you. This was after the murders which had taken place. And what is suggested to you - and perhaps this is the point of the question - is that this was not a police or a military unit which committed the murders. What is being said and suggested is that it was criminals of some sort who did it.

Now, can you identify those who were responsible for the murders? Can you say who they were?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In my full responsibility, I can identify the perpetrators, because ten minutes before the crime was committed, my husband recognised them very well, because we saw in front of our door two black vehicles parked, and we saw six offspring of Milosevic inside the cars. Two were at the wheel and six others came out in the yard. My husband recognised four of them: Nenad Pavicevic, our neighbour, next-door neighbour, then Dejan, Boban, and Ratko Antonijevic. These four people my husband recognised, whereas the two others he did not. Two of them I know very well. As to Dejan and Ratko, I don't know them, even if I happened to see them today.

JUDGE MAY: You mentioned four people: Pavicevic, Dejan, and Boban ³⁸⁹³ [sic]. What were those people? What did they do?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pavicevic was the son of Dragica. He was a fatherless son, someone I used to know as of 1979, when he was a young boy. I knew them very well because I lived in that neighbourhood and in that house for 15 years in succession. And I know pretty well who they were and what mentality they had because we were neighbours and they passed by us and didn't greet us.

JUDGE MAY: Can you help us with this: What was their occupation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] His mother was a saleswoman. She worked in a store in Mitrovica. The mother of Pavicevic, Dragica, was a saleswoman, whereas Nenad was a student in the high school. After graduation from the high school, all those Serbs who couldn't find a job and who didn't have anything better to do, then they were recruited in the Serb police, with the sole destination of committing crimes against the innocent Albanian people, and he was -- Nenad Pavicevic was one of them.

JUDGE MAY: And the others that you've mentioned, what were they?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The other, Boban, I didn't know him very well until my husband showed me who he was. Lately - that is, in the last two, three years - he was engaged in criminal activity. Boban was a right-hand of Nenad. I have seen with my own eyes, in the middle of the marketplace, they were maltreating Albanians, imprisoning them. They were always active in such activities. Even the young children in Mitrovica know Nenad and Boban. As I said, I didn't know him personally as well as I did Nenad, who was my neighbour, but seeing what they did every day to ^{3894 BLANK PAGE 3895} the Albanians -- I saw from my own balcony them bringing out of the car, seeing things they looted from Albanians and bringing them home, to Nenad's home.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to have the facts clarified. In her statement, the witness described the events concerned.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I understand this correctly: What you described, the murder, the murder in your house, according to what you have been saying yourself, this was carried out by your neighbours. Is that right or is it not right?

A. Yes. My neighbour, together with seven other criminals. They were accomplices, under the orders of the accused. I think they acted on orders coming from their superiors.

Q. All right. We are not going into that now, what the opinion may be. I wish to establish the facts.

You confirmed that this was committed by your neighbours along with a few other criminals, as you have been saying. That is obviously what I asked you. And I asked you whether you are aware of the fact that this was not done by any police or military unit but that it was done by criminals.

JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁸⁹⁶

Q. In your statement, in your statement when you mention the -- when you mention a police unit or an army unit, you mention them later in the street and in the contacts you had with your brother. You say that neither the soldiers nor the policemen did you any harm. Is that right or is that not right?

JUDGE MAY: We've been through this too.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, Your Honours. If I may. Nenad Pavicevic was a policeman at that time when the crime was committed in my very home. The accused cannot say that the police have not done such things because this was done in cooperation with the Serb police and other criminals who subscribed to that crime. It's not true that the police have not done it. Nenad and Dejan, both of them were policemen.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Hajrizi, do you perhaps know that both the police and the army, during this 78-day war, had orders and carried out their orders to arrest people who committed such crimes, including --

JUDGE MAY: This is not for the witness. She is describing what she saw and heard.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Now I have to ask her about things that I have received by way of information.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you this because in the report that I received from my associates, it says that policemen -- the policemen that you mentioned as responsible for the murders were at Gazivode on that day to meet the family of their killed colleague Marash at the border with Montenegro, and ³⁸⁹⁷ it says in that report that a great many of them were there, headed by their commander. Are you sure when you claim that it is precisely these people that you mentioned were at the same time in your house?

A. Your informers must have been very weak. They have sent you very inaccurate information. I am 100 per cent sure that those people were there in my home. I can prove this with what I saw. I saw in front of my house Nenad Pavicevic, whom I know for 20 years, and his friend Boban. And I keep saying that I saw Dejan and Ratko Antonijevic, whom I never know and don't know even today.

So I'm still saying that you have wrong information. I can prove it also with the other fact that I was in the attic in my own home with my two surviving children, and I very clearly heard the voice of my mother-in-law telling him, "Nenad, how can you kill my son?" You can ask me whether they were masked. I can tell you very well that these people standing in front of my home, those six policemen, were not masked. They had black berets, and I could see their face very distinctly. We could identify all of them because the road was lit that night.

Your informers have told you where my house is located. It is located in the centre of the town. Across our house, there are some stores and they were very well lit that night. And from where I stood in the window, I could see very well who they were. So I'm reiterating that you have wrong information.

Q. I was just seeking for an answer to my question, and I have received it. ³⁸⁹⁸ Now, were you present on the following day when the investigating judge by the name of Vesna Ristic, a lady, went out to the scene of the crime and conducted an investigation with respect to the killing? From the information that I received yesterday, it says here that the investigating judge, Vesna Ristic, went out to the crime scene. She was accompanied by an Albanian doctor. And it also says that this man Pavicevic went out too.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with this first of all. Were you present when the investigating judge came to the house?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Next question. She wasn't present, so she can't help with that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, do you know that afterwards, during the investigation, a large number of casings were found, 7.62 calibre, produced by China, and two 5.65 casings from these pistols? Did anybody give you a report that was written by the investigating judge?

A. When were the -- where were these weapons found, Accused?

JUDGE MAY: Just deal with the questions, please. We'll get on more quickly. Did you get the report or any report from any investigating judge?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Next question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁸⁹⁹

Q. Do you know that this incident was reported by your uncle, or perhaps your husband's uncle, Pllana, to the president of the district court? "M. Ivanovic" the name given here is. Is that how the crime was reported, in fact?

A. You've erroneous information. Pllana is not my -- is the son of my aunt, Skender Pllana, who on the next day -- he was -- donned a uniform, and on the next day he put on another uniform. And as of 8.00 in the morning, he kept patrolling in front of the door of our home when the investigating judge came and asked for some relative of the family to go inside and identify the corpses. That means to go inside for the third time: The first time when the crime was committed; second time in the middle of the night when Nenad Pavicevic entered and looted all the valuable things he found in my home. He stole all the documents that you needed, as your power needed. And the third time when he changed the uniform and patrolled in the front of the door in the hope that I would show up.

And when the judge asked, "Who is the closest relative to this family who wishes to identify the bodies?" Skender Pllana showed up and said, "I am the one." At that moment, Nenad Pavicevic responded, "Why are you coming and pretending you are the closest relative? Where is Aferdita and the two children? I want her to come here, because Agim Hajrizi has also two other children, and we want to kill them too." This is the truth, distinguished -- Your Honour.

Q. Well, I don't want to go into whether it was your uncle or the uncle's son, but he was present during the investigation that was carried ³⁹⁰⁰ out.

Now I have another question to ask you in that regard. This investigation, is it conducted by the district court in Mitrovica today? Is it an ongoing process? Are proceedings under way today?

A. Everything that the Mitrovica District Court did were mere formality, because the judge of Mitrovica court was very well informed, as the accused knows very well, that none of this happened by accident in my home, and they merely came to carry out the formalities. Because they knew very well who was going to be killed that night, who was going to be killed. The two most distinguished activists of Mitrovica were killed. They worked for the benefit of their people and for working people, and they never did any harm to anybody. So the judge carried out the most minimal formalities.

Q. I don't think you understood my question. I was asking you about now. Are proceedings, legal proceedings, under way now in connection with this murder, and are they being conducted in the district court in Kosovska Mitrovica?

JUDGE MAY: Can you help us with that? Fairly briefly, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understood the question very well, and I gave a very good answer to the first question.

JUDGE MAY: No. Just tell us: Do you know -- you may not know, but do you know if there are investigations continuing or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In August 2000, I was present at the judgement of Lazar Gligorovski and Nenad Pavicevic, who was in absentia. After two hours and a half of statement, I said, and I say again, that the ³⁹⁰¹ assassination that Gligorovski committed against my family, at which my father-in-law and Agim were present, he tried to commit -- to murder us, and the police came, after three hours, came to Lazar Gligorovski's house and said to him clearly, "When did you use your gun? Why didn't you carry out your duty?" I was present during that trial process in 2000, and I was there, and according to the Swedish prosecutor who was present in the trial, Lazar Gligorovski was declared innocent, whereas Nenad Pavicevic was sentenced to 20 years of prison.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That's why I asked you: Were legal proceedings undertaken at the district court in Kosovska Mitrovica?

JUDGE ROBINSON: And have any other proceedings been undertaken in respect of any of the other persons who were involved in this murder?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: They can't hear you. They can't hear you. Have you got your microphone on?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Somebody switched it off. I hope you can hear now. Can you hear me now? Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In the statement given on the 3rd of June, 1999, describing the first day of the NATO bombing, you say that you took your family to a shelter underneath the staircase that had been prepared previously. Now, when did you prepare this shelter that you mention in your statement?

A. I didn't say that we went to a place of shelter. We stayed in our ^{3902 BLANK PAGE 3903} own home and we made a shelter under the steps of our house, under the steps of the first floor. We didn't go anywhere. We were in our own home.

Q. Well, I didn't say that you went anywhere. I was just reading what you said in your own statement, and I read out the following sentence: "I took my family to the shelter underneath the steps," or stairway.

JUDGE MAY: What page are we dealing with, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my version, it is on page 5, paragraph 1; page 5, line 7. And it says: "I took my family to a shelter underneath the staircase which we had prepared beforehand."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question was: When did you prepare this shelter that you mentioned in your statement? And you mentioned it once again just now.

A. I will tell you what kind of shelter I had. My son, Ilir, took a carpet from the room which we had spare and spread it out, because, as a child, he was rather frightened and he thought that he would be safer under the stairs. And it consisted of a few pieces of wood, which enabled the children to go under the stairs of the first floor. That's the shelter that I was talking about.

Q. I didn't understand you to be talking about that, because you wrote "shelter" here.

Mrs. Hajrizi, you're an intellectual. Your husband was an intellectual as well. Are you conscious of the fact of who pushed the citizens of Kosovo into the war and into all these tragic events that ³⁹⁰⁴ followed?

JUDGE MAY: No. This is not a matter for the witness. It's a matter which this Trial Chamber is going to have to determine.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well, Mr. May. I have no further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. If I can ask you some questions about one matter, and that concerns Nenad Pavicevic. He was a neighbour of yours; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. His mother lived in the house next door to your family; is that right?

A. We were only separated by one wall.

Q. And his family had lived there for many years; is that right?

A. My husband's family came a hundred years ago, and they know very well where they come from. They've been living for many years in ...

Q. Did the mother of Nenad Pavicevic not have friendly relations with your family?

A. We never had bad relations or good relations.

Q. Did his mother throw rubbish and medicines into your family compound?

A. No. Nenad's mother, no. But Dragica, Nenad's mother, taught her 5- or 6-year-old son, as my mother-in-law told me. I wasn't married at this time. But this child threw medicines in the well in my yard, from which well our family drank water. ³⁹⁰⁵

Q. And was that Nenad Pavicevic?

A. Yes. Nenad Pavicevic, his mother.

Q. So from the ages of a small child, Nenad Pavicevic was causing trouble to your family; is that right?

A. A person, to become a criminal and to commit crimes like he did, he has to have a mother like this. Because we have a proverb: Where does a child's education begin? A child's education begins 20 years before he is born. To have a well-brought-up child, you have to have well-brought-up parents, and this man comes from a family with natural criminal tendencies. A mother with criminal tendencies brings forth a child of this kind.

Q. So it would be right to say that Nenad Pavicevic, as a neighbour to you, had bad relations with your family and caused your family trouble?

A. I cannot -- may I continue? I can't say this. We never -- we never interfered with their business and never provoked them in any way. Beforehand, we had never had any family problems. This was the way they were brought up. They didn't speak to their neighbours. They didn't greet them. But we never had any conflict between our families.

MR. KAY: No further questions. Re-examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. Ms. Hajrizi, I have a few questions for you. I'd like you to please try to keep your responses short, if you can, so we can move along as efficiently as possible.

Just to clarify some points that Mr. Kay was making. Mr. Kay ³⁹⁰⁶ asked you whether Nenad Pavicevic lived next door to your family, and your response was yes, but I need you to clarify which family; the family home that you shared with your husband and your children, or the family home that your husband grew up in before he married out and where your mother-in-law lived before she died?

A. Please, I didn't understand the question. If you could repeat it.

Q. Mr. Kay asked you whether Nenad Pavicevic and his mother lived next door to your family, and your response was yes. However --

A. Yes.

Q. -- when you describe -- when you say that Mr. Pavicevic and his mother lived next door to your family, are you referring to the home that you shared with your husband and your children, or are you referring to your husband's -- the home of your husband's extended family and the home that he grew up in?

A. I'm talking about the house in which my husband and I lived.

Q. All right. And you mentioned that Mr. Nenad Pavicevic, even as a child, would throw inappropriate things into the family's well; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Or as Mr. Kay put it, he was causing trouble to your family, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then when this young man grew up and finished school, he was then employed by the Serb police; is that right? ³⁹⁰⁷

A. Yes.

Q. Let's talk a bit about the night when your husband, your son, and your mother-in-law were killed. You mentioned that there was a man named Boban there who was present with Nenad. Did the man that you knew as Boban -- was he also a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. And before the -- and before the killings occurred that evening, did you also see the man that you knew as Boban standing outside your home by the two cars?

A. Yes.

Q. In response to one of the questions that you were asked, you said that the two most distinguished activists in Mitrovica were killed on that night.

Now, your husband was killed just after the NATO bombing began; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. It was on the evening of the 24th of March or the early morning of the 25th of March, 1999?

A. Yes.

Q. Besides your husband - and I'm going to come back to him in a minute - who was the other distinguished activist in Mitrovica who was killed that night?

A. The other Mitrovica activist who was killed on the same night was the honoured teacher Latif Berisha, who at that time was chairman of the Kosova Democratic League for the Mitrovica branch. ³⁹⁰⁸

Q. And how far did Mr. Berisha live from your home?

A. I can say about -- it's in the same direction as our house but divided by the river Ibar. He lived in the village of Suhodoll, not far from the town of Mitrovica, rather, in the outskirts of the town.

Q. Can you give an estimate in hundreds of metres or in kilometres?

A. I wouldn't say no more than two kilometres.

Q. Before your husband, Agim Hajrizi, was killed that night, what was his occupation?

A. My husband's profession was -- in 1985, he was employed by the battery factory in Mitrovica as head of the computer department in this factory. In 1989, all the Albanians were dismissed en masse from their jobs. They were dismissed by the Serbian regime of the accused, the Milosevic regime.

After 1989, hunger came. There was a very difficult social situation in our city, because Mitrovica is an industrial city. It lives from industry. But all the factories were closed and people had no way of making a livelihood.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Saxon. We need to move on.

MR. SAXON:

Q. Prior to the night he was killed, what was your husband doing for a living? How did he spend his time? In 1998 and the first part of 1999.

A. In 1998/1999, my husband was at the head of the assembly of the independent trade unions of Kosova. So in the service of the working class and the poorer layers of the Albanian population. ³⁹⁰⁹

Q. And my last question: Prior to the night he was killed, how many times, approximately, had your husband been detained by Serb authorities?

A. There were any number of occasions. I wouldn't be able to count them. Many, many times he was taken from his home. He was taken on the street. He was beaten, mistreated, kept in prison for up to 18 hours. He was mistreated in front of his own children. There was a particular case in August 1998 when, together with my young son Arianiti, who at that time was five years old, about one kilometre from home, four police vehicles lead by Nenad Pavicevic stopped my husband. They arrested him and told him to fetch -- to put his five-year-old child in the police car too. But because he refused, my child was left in the middle of the road to the mercy of fate.

My husband was arrested, and my terrified child returned home alone and said to me, "Mommy, Nenad took Daddy." That is one case, but there were many cases in which he was arrested and mistreated.

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

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Saxon, I wonder if the Prosecution could present the Court in due course the judgement referred to by Mrs. Hajrizi today as having been entered against Nenad Pavicevic.

MR. SAXON: Yes. We will undertake to do that, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: I would appreciate it. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE MAY: Mrs. Hajrizi, help us with this if you would: Going back to the night of the murders --

A. Yes, Your Honour. ^{3910 BLANK PAGE 3911}

JUDGE MAY: -- you said that the lights in the street were on; is that right?

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: And also, is it right that there were shops opposite you which were still lit?

A. Quite correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: You said the men were not masked, and they had on black berets.

A. Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Could you tell us if they were wearing uniform or not, or what they were wearing.

A. Yes. They were uniformed.

JUDGE MAY: And what was the uniform?

A. The uniform was dark blue and camouflage patterned, with black berets on their heads.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give your evidence, Mrs. Hajrizi. You are free to go.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Yes?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE MAY: We can't hear. Your microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm interested in knowing what this subsequent examination of the witness means on the part of the Prosecution, an examination which has nothing to do with my cross-examination. Does that mean that after my cross-examination, he is ³⁹¹² continuing his examination-in-chief, which he does not wish to conduct because of the specific treatment that these statements have?

JUDGE MAY: The rule is that the Prosecution have the right, as always, of re-examination, and they're entitled to re-examine a witness after your cross-examination. Your cross-examination was directed to showing that those involved in the murders were criminals. The re-examination was directed to showing that the husband of the witness who was murdered had been an activist and that an activist was also murdered, another activist was also murdered on the same night. That is relevant. It will be a matter for us to consider in due course. So the answer is that the Prosecution are entitled to re-examine on matters arising out of cross-examination and can ask relevant questions in relation to that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The next witness, please.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution calls Mehmet Aliu.

JUDGE MAY: I should say we'll sit until shortly after eleven. We'll take one break and then go on until about 1.00.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

[The witness entered court]

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I don't know whether the brief skeleton summary has been distributed.

JUDGE MAY: No. We will have it in due course. Yes. Let the witness take the declaration. ³⁹¹³

WITNESS: MEHMET ALIU

[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.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Now, Mr. Aliu, do I understand correctly, sir, that you are, at the moment, 56 years old?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are of the Muslim religion and of ethnic Albanian background; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Sir, where do you live or where did you live in March of 1999?

A. I lived in Prishtina, in Kodra e Trimave neighbourhood.

Q. And is it -- are you married, sir?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And how many children do you have?

A. I have six children of my own plus another adopted one.

Q. And what is your occupation, sir?

A. I am a construction worker.

Q. And do I understand, sir, you've been self-employed, owning your own business for the last 20 years or so?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, sir, did there come a time when members of the Office of the ³⁹¹⁴ Prosecutor attended on you and took a statement from you on the 3rd of July of 2001?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you subsequently shown a translation of that statement in your language, the Albanian language --

A. Yes.

Q. -- on the 2nd of February, 2002?

A. Yes.

Q. In your statement you had also referred to some photographs and other documents; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. When you saw this translation of your statement, did you appear before a Presiding Officer of this Court and swear that the contents of your -- or solemnly declare that the contents of your statement were true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief?

A. Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might that statement, with attachments, be marked as the next exhibit, please, Your Honours.

Q. Now, Witness, you say that you come from Kodra e Trimave. Now, is that a village or is that an actual neighbourhood in Pristina?

A. It is a neighbourhood in Prishtina called Kodra e Trimave.

Q. So it is not a separate village on its own?

A. No, it is not.

Q. Now, you come originally from the Podujevo municipality, do you, sir? ³⁹¹⁵

A. Yes, Hertica village, Podujevo municipality.

Q. And then you moved from Hertica to Pristina itself, in the Pristina municipality?

A. Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I may have moved too quickly before we actually had an exhibit number assigned to the statement with attachments.

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. It's Exhibit 116.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Now, Your Honours, if it assists at all, Pristina can be found on Exhibit 83, map 7, and it's very clear where that is. It's the big yellow town. And Hertica is found on the same map, about halfway in the middle of the map, down from number 3, at the top. So 3 and 10. Those would be the coordinates. You see Hertica and Podujevo. If I may briefly outline, for the benefit of the wider audience, the highlights of this witness's statement. I propose to do that now.

I understand, Your Honours, that in the statement that has been marked as the exhibit, the witness describes oppression of Albanians by the Serbs during the decade of the 1990s, including the exclusion of Albanians from schools. This led to home schools being set up, and one such home school was set up in the witness's home. The Serb police tried to close the school down on a number of occasions, and the witness describes how he, the school teachers, and the pupils were harassed by the Serb police, and refers to incidents when he was beaten. As a result of these incidents, the witness sent his immediate family, save for his wife, ³⁹¹⁶ to Germany for safety.

The witness also will describe for you in the statement that he joined the KLA in 1991 and that in the time immediately prior to the start of the NATO bombing, he was in fact in the hills around Podujevo with the KLA. He received information that Serb forces were expelling people from villages and towns around Pristina, and then on or about the 25th of March - now, this is a correction, I understand, from what is in the statement. His statement refers to the 28th of March - the witness returned to his home with nine other family members who were also associated with the KLA.

Then I understand that on or about the 26th of March - not the 30th of March, as indicated in the statement - he saw Serb forces and police expelling Albanian civilians from Pristina. The area around his home and yard contained approximately 10.000 civilians from villages around Pristina, and the witness was requested by these civilians to assist in locating others who had been lost or killed or injured in and around the surrounding area.

On the 28th of March, the witness saw Serb police pursuing civilians and shooting at them, and he says that 12 to 13 civilians, at least, to his knowledge, were shot dead. He describes how the police rounded up the civilians in a meadow, where they were forced to lie down, and they were later released and directed to go to the Pristina railway station by the police.

He describes that the crowd of people in the witness's yard were terrified by what they had seen, and some of them left, but about 300 ³⁹¹⁷ remained. The Serbs forces surrounded the neighbourhood, and the witness saw two men being killed by the police. The police then tried to force entry to the witness's yard, and other KLA members, including the witness, returned fire. Later that afternoon, two Serb tanks arrived and broke down the front gate, causing the KLA to retreat. His house was completely destroyed. That night the witness told the civilians to make their way to the railway station.

My understanding is that the witness continued with his KLA activities until the end of the war.

That is a very, very brief outline of this witness's evidence, to put the potential cross-examination into context. Thank you, Your Honours.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Your activities started, as you said, since your education, since school.

A. Underground.

Q. You assert that Albanian children were expelled from schools.

A. Yes.

Q. Why do you assert that when you know that's not true?

A. How can you say that is not true?

Q. I can say it's not true because the facts speak otherwise. Do you know that your politicians ordered children to get out of schools because they did not want children to study according to programmes, curricula, that applied to all children in Serbia? Do you know that? ^{3918 BLANK PAGE 3919}

A. We know that in the 1990s, 1991, you started to change the curricula and not give them in Albanian, but only teach them in Serbian. It is true that our students didn't want to learn the Serb curricula. I can base it on my own arguments and on arguments provided by internationals.

Q. So your pupils left schools because they did not want to study according to the Serbian school programme; is that right?

A. They were forcibly removed from school by the police and were prevented to enter their schools. In June 1991, when the students went to take their exams, the door of the school was closed by the police, and the police beat them, and they didn't let them enter the school, neither the students nor the professors. Protests were staged --

Q. Try to make up your mind. What is the truth? Was the truth that they did not want to study according to the Serbian school programme, as you had put it, or is it true that they were forcibly thrown out of the schools? Is it one or the other?

A. The truth is that they left the school because they didn't want to learn in the Serb curricula, and your Serb military and police regime did not allow them to go back to school before they accepted to learn in the Serb language and with the Serb programmes.

Q. And do you know that there is no special programme for Kosovo, that all the children in Serbia studied according to the same programme?

A. We know that we used to have our own programme. I myself learned with a programme of Kosova. But in 1991, these programmes were removed and you tried to force us to accept your Serb programmes. ³⁹²⁰

Q. And why didn't it bother Hungarians to study according to these programmes that applied to all children, or Bulgarians or Slovaks or anybody else? It was only you.

JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness to answer. You needn't bother to answer that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So the Albanians left the schools because they did not want to study according to the Serbian school programme, as you had put it. Do you know, do you know, that until the 23rd of March, 1999 -- or do you know how many pupils there were in your town in Pristina, how many attended state schools and studied in the Serb language and how many studied in the Albanian language?

A. I'm not clear about the question. Can you repeat it, please?

Q. Do you know that children, Albanian children in Kosovo, all got their education in the Albanian language, all of the Albanian children who attended state schools?

A. Up to 1990, 1991, they have followed the state schools. As of June 1991 onwards, all the schools were closed down and the professors were fired, and they were imprisoned, maltreated, persecuted by the police. We have documents to prove it. If the Honourable Court wishes so, I can provide it with documents.

Q. And do you know that in that same spot where you're sitting now there were people who worked in schools with 1.200, 1.500, 1.800 pupils, and they confirmed that they worked --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, there's no point in putting that to the ³⁹²¹ witness. He doesn't know what the other witnesses said. If there's a discrepancy, you can point it out in due course in argument, but there's no point in putting it to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no point because there is a difference between ignorance and falsehoods, Mr. May, and the difference is a big one at that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that in the municipality of Pristina, until the 23rd of March, 1999 - so I'm not talking about 1990 or 1991 - only in the municipality of Pristina there were 6.535 pupils studying in the Serb language? In the Serb language, 6.535. And in state schools -- there were 23.511 pupils studying in the Albanian language in state schools in the municipality where you live. Are you aware of these figures?

A. No, I'm not aware. And furthermore, that's not true. That number of students applies to those students that were taught in private homes. And it's true that teaching continued but in homes and in very difficult conditions. Often students were checked in buses, and they were searched whether they had Albanian books in their backpacks.

Q. We heard that. But that's not what I'm asking you. I am asking you whether you know of any Albanian children who went to state schools after 1990; that is to say, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998. Do you know of any who went to Albanian-speaking schools that were state schools?

A. No.

Q. It is your assertion that Albanian children did not go to state schools? ³⁹²²

A. They followed primary school up to the eighth year of school, but not the high schools or higher, the university.

Q. Ah, now you've made a concession. Albanian children did attend primary schools.

A. Not a teacher, not a professor was paid by the state. All of them were paid by the funds put together by voluntary people. None of them worked for the state. They were not paid social insurance by the state.

Q. That's not what I asked you. You are answering my questions now. Did Albanian children attend state schools, primary schools? Just say yes or no. That's what I'm asking you.

A. I told you.

Q. Yes or no. Did they go or did they not go?

A. No, they didn't go to state schools. They followed the lessons in those homes. Why did we allow them to have our facilities, home facilities if there were state facilities?

Q. Thank you. All right. You've answered the question. You said yourself that it did not suit some. It did not suit you. The programme that was applied to all children in Serbia did not suit you. But because there were some who did find it suitable, some did go to school.

A. It's not true that I said so. I said that you have changed the curriculum. And by so doing, we didn't want to go to those schools and learn with those programmes.

Q. Which programme was changed, the curriculum with mathematics or biology? ³⁹²³

A. Education -- the curriculum in general was changed, the educational programme. You forced us to speak Serbian as an official language in Kosova, and the curriculum suffered many changes. I can't tell you how many, but there were many. Considerable changes.

Q. Did Albanian children receive their education in the Serb language or in the Albanian language?

A. In the Albanian language.

Q. According to law and according to the school programme, Albanian children studied in the Albanian language.

A. In the home school.

Q. In the state schools too. I read the figures out to you awhile ago how many attended school in the Albanian language.

JUDGE MAY: The witness has disputed the figures. Now, we've -- just a moment. Just a moment.

We've spent a very great deal of time on education already in this case, and we've already indicated our view that it is a peripheral issue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In this specific case, a great deal has to do with schools. And also, as you say, the witness disputed the figures. He did not only dispute the figures, he disputed the presence of Albanian children in schools at all, in general. He claims that Albanian children did not go to school at all.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. He's given an indication -- he's given an indication of where they went to school. Now, let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It is your assertion that you are a member of the KLA; is that ³⁹²⁴ right?

A. Yes.

Q. When did you exactly become a member of the KLA?

A. That is my secret. I have no reason to tell you.

JUDGE MAY: Is there any particular reason why it's a secret? Is there any reason why you shouldn't tell us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not a secret to you, but it is for him.

JUDGE MAY: Well, tell us.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the moment when the violence started in Kosova. From the moment when the Jashari family was massacred. Not only myself but the entire Albanian population mobilised, and they decided there was nothing -- no longer any life in Kosova unless we rose in an uprising.

Are you satisfied with my answer?

JUDGE MAY: Don't ask us that. But you're here to tell the truth, and I'm sure you will.

Now -- just a moment. The Jashari family were massacred, you say. So that was in 1998 - we've heard the evidence about that - is that right? Fairly early in the year, as I recollect.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] March.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We have heard in the summary that the opposing party presented that you became a member of the KLA in 1991. Is that correct? ³⁹²⁵

A. The KLA started from March 1998 and continued until 1999, until the liberation of Kosova.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, if I said 1991 and typed 1991, that's an error. That's my fault.

JUDGE MAY: It is in the --

JUDGE KWON: It is in the summary at the second paragraph, and the witness said that, "In around 1991, I did join the UCK."

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honours. That can be clarified. But I have copied from the statement, which I believe was a typo.

JUDGE MAY: We can clarify in due course when it was the KLA became operative.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is precisely what the question was.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How could you become a member in 1991 when this terrorist KLA was organised much later?

JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer about that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And which way did you join the KLA? How did you join up?

A. I joined the KLA as a head of logistics, and I had the duty of supplying all the goods the KLA needed within the resources that we have. It wasn't just myself but a group of others.

Q. But you were the chief person in charge of logistics. You were the chief of logistics. That's the way you put it.

JUDGE MAY: He's just said that. ^{3926 BLANK PAGE 3927}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And what did that mean? What did that imply, setting the logistics of the KLA?

A. Supplies it involved.

Q. Of what?

A. Everything that was needed. What I was able to supply, because there was a lot of needs but not all of them were possible to be met.

Q. You said that you also did some intelligence matters with respect to the KLA around Pristina. Now, what kind of intelligence matters?

A. I don't know what you're implying by "spying."

Q. I'm just thinking about what you yourself mentioned in your statement, so I assume that you know what you were thinking of when you wrote that.

JUDGE MAY: Read the passage from the statement so the witness can know what you're talking about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try and find it. I assumed that the witness would know what he said, so I didn't mark the passage in the statement itself.

JUDGE MAY: The first page of the statement, second paragraph.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. It says: "I was also able to supply information on intelligence matters as to what was occurring with the Serb police in and around Pristina." Yes. That is what it says in your statement.

A. When I was at the headquarters there, we watched Serbian police radio links, and I heard orders coming from Belgrade that all the villages ³⁹²⁸ around Prishtina, like Obiliq, Orlovic, Bardh i Madhe, as far as Vushtrria, all the villagers should be expelled in the direction of Prishtina.

Q. So you're claiming that the policemen in Pristina, via radio link, were able to communicate with policemen in Belgrade; is that it?

A. Not with Belgrade, but Misko Lakovic said that orders had come from Belgrade that all the villagers around Prishtina, all the population, should be expelled in the direction of Prishtina.

Q. And who is Misko Lakovic?

A. No. He was an officer, a leading officer of the police for Prishtina.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We can return to this after the adjournment. Just a moment. We'll adjourn now until -- it's time for adjournment. We'll adjourn until half past 11.00.

Mr. Aliu, during the adjournment, would you remember, please, not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that includes the members of the Prosecution team.

--- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.31 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, please: In which way did you come by the information that would be interesting for the KLA?

JUDGE MAY: Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not clear about the question. I ³⁹²⁹ don't know what he means by "information for the benefit of the KLA." I don't get it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I don't know what is not clear in my question, but let me try and explain. You say you collected information for the KLA. Now, I'm asking you: How did you come by that information? How did you collect the information?

A. You said -- you used the word "information." I didn't say that.

JUDGE MAY: He's given an example of hearing something at the headquarters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that you tried to listen in to the conversations that the police had in Lapastica, by Podujevo; is that correct?

A. Yes, it is right that I heard that piece of information about the displacement of the population from the villages in the direction of the town.

Q. Now, were these telephone conversations or did these conversations take place in another way?

A. I heard it on the radio, through the radio relay the police used.

Q. All right. So you listened in to the conversations that the police had via radio. Is that what you're claiming? You intercepted them?

A. Yes, radio connection.

Q. And I also understood a moment ago that you said that you had heard the chief of police issuing some sort of order through this radio ³⁹³⁰ link.

A. Through this radio link I heard him ordering the police stations of Obiliq, Fushe Kosove, to displace the entire population in the direction of Prishtina. This is what I said.

Q. Were those his words? Did he say it in just the way you have told us, or, from what I was able to understand, that he used codes to say what he wanted to say?

A. The order arrived from Belgrade for all the residents of the villages to be driven out of their homes and sent in the direction of Prishtina.

Q. All right. That's what you claim. But what did you actually hear? What did you actually hear this chief of police say, the one that you just mentioned?

A. I don't have here the recorded tape, but this is what I heard. I think I'm being clear.

Q. Yes. But as far as I was able to understand you, you said that he used some codes.

JUDGE MAY: He didn't say "code."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you claim that through this relay station, he informed other police departments of orders allegedly received from Belgrade. Is that it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear --

JUDGE KWON: Just a moment. Just a moment, Mr. Milosevic. ³⁹³¹ Mr. Aliu, on page 5 of the English version, in your statement you said that, the first paragraph: "The order was to all the Serb forces that the Albanian civilians in the areas of," for example, "Fushe Kosove ... had to be been expelled. The conversation was in Serb. However, we were in possession of the codes that the Serbs were using for the names of the towns and villages."

That's what you said in your earlier statement. So you were asked: What was the words exactly which you heard? And could you help us with the codes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to explain that, through the radio link, we knew what codes they used for Prishtina, Obiliq, when they referred to these towns. So when they spoke to each other, communicated to each other on the radio, we knew what they were talking about. So when the order was issued, I realised that my house was in jeopardy. Because for many years I was the target of police attacks. I have even indicted the police who did that, the police of Milosevic's power, and I never received an answer.

So I knew I was in danger. That's why I took my ten members. In my statements, I say I was -- my family was composed of ten persons, and we left in the direction of Pristina.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Aliu, do you understand -- do you understand Serb?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: So what you're referring to is that the Serb police, they are communicating in Serbian, but they referred to the names of ³⁹³² cities in some code name. So that's what you understood; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They used the code for Prishtina when they gave the order to the police stations. It was -- the order was that the whole population should be ousted from the villages and sent in the direction of Prishtina. They used the code in the case of the town Prishtina.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said, a moment ago, that when you listened in to the conversation, you concluded that your family was in danger. And in the next sentence and in the same context, you said that you also concluded, as I say, that your family was in jeopardy because your house had previously been the target of some attacks.

Now, my question to you is the following: Did you conclude this from what you had heard in that conversation, that your family was in jeopardy, or did you conclude this, as you explained a moment ago, that you concluded your family was in jeopardy because your house had been the subject of attack on previous occasions? Which of the two is correct?

A. I'm not clear about the question, I'm afraid. I think I was clear in my explanation.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it will be easier for the witnesses, and we will save time and you will save time, if you don't repeat to the witness the answer which he's given. Just ask the witness the next question. People often do that in cross-examination, repeat the answers, ³⁹³³ but it takes up time and it makes things confusing. So with that in mind, just ask him the question that you want him to answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said, therefore, that your family was in jeopardy because your house had previously been the object of attacks on several occasions. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

JUDGE MAY: What he said, as I recollect, was this: He said he heard the order given and came to the conclusion that his house was in danger, having heard the order, because on previous occasions it had been the subject of attack.

Is that right, Mr. Aliu?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

JUDGE MAY: So he heard the order, and because of his previous experience, he thought the house was likely to be attacked.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. THE ACCUSED [Interpretation] All right. That is your explanation, Mr. May, but not the witness's explanation.

JUDGE MAY: That's what the witness said. There's no point trying to confuse him with further questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not trying to confuse him. I'm just trying to get an answer to my questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Who did you get these codes from, the codes you claim you had for ^{3934 BLANK PAGE 3935} the talks, the conversations that the police were having?

A. We were a professional army. We had members from all walks of life and professions, and just like all the other armies, we could get hold of these codes and were capable of leading these attacks in self-defence and doing all these things. We were not what you might think, just a crowd, a mob of people. We had a whole hierarchy of people there.

Q. So that's what you say about yourself. I did not say that; you said it about yourself. Now, if you knew the codes, tell me, then: What codes were there for Podujevo, Vucitrn, Suva Reka, Lapastica, et cetera? Which codes were they? What were the codes?

A. It was four or five years ago. I don't think I can remember the codes now, because the codes kept changing every week, every day sometimes.

Q. What you're claiming didn't happen four or five years ago; it happened three years ago, what you're claiming took place.

A. It was -- it happened during 1988 and 1989. Sorry, 1998, 1999.

Q. Do you mean that you heard, in 1998, how the chief issued orders to displace the Albanian population, to expel them from Kosovo Polje, Obilic, the village of Krusevo and Orlovac, which are the ones you mention?

A. It was in March 1999, not in 1998. It was in March 1999.

Q. All right. Let it be 1999. Even then, those citizens were not expelled from those places. How, then, do you link up the order with the fact that this never took place? ³⁹³⁶

JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness. He's given his evidence about what happened. You can make comments, if you want, in due course, but this is what he said happened.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He didn't say what happened; he said what he said. And what he said did not happen, did not take place, and that's the whole point.

JUDGE MAY: We'll hear evidence about that in due course. Now, can we go back to the witness's evidence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you don't know any of the codes for which you claim you used and which were subject to change, as you yourself said?

JUDGE MAY: He says he doesn't remember. That is what he says.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, a pupil says the same thing when he doesn't know the answer to a question. I don't know whether the teacher then makes the distinction of whether he doesn't remember or doesn't know.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, tell me: What activities, as the KLA, did you undertake in the Pristina area up until 1998?

A. I'm not clear about your question, I'm afraid.

Q. You were a member of the KLA. Now, I'm asking you: What activities did your KLA organisation have in the area of Pristina up until 1998, or 1998 as well, included?

A. It didn't undertake any actions in the Prishtina area, in fact, in none of the cities, because it didn't want to put the population in ³⁹³⁷ danger. But the KLA was stationed in the mountainous areas in order not to bring any danger to the population, up to when it launched the offensive in -- when the offensive of Kacanoll was undertaken and the population asked for its assistance and the KLA went to the succor of the population.

Q. So up until then, the KLA had no activities whatsoever; is that what you're saying? Have I understood you correctly?

A. What do you mean by "activities"?

Q. The purpose for your organisation and establishment as the KLA. Why did you organise yourselves? Why did you set up the KLA?

A. We founded the KLA and started an uprising against the occupying Serbian forces. That's why we formed it. And for self-defence in our own country.

Q. Well, what you've just said: "Started an uprising against the Serb forces." What activities? So this action is what I mean when I say "activities." What were those activities? What was that action that you took?

A. The action that the KLA took was called an uprising, and we started mobilising everything that was necessary from the massacre of the Jashari family. And before that, we were underground, but following the massacre at Qirez and the massacre of the Jashari family, the population had to defend themselves, so they rose in an uprising.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter requests the witness to draw closer to the microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹³⁸

Q. All right. Just give me short answers to my questions, please, to save time. Who was your KLA commander?

A. Rrustem Mustafa, with the nom de guerre of Remi, was my commander in the KLA. He led the Llap operational zone.

Q. Where did you hold your meetings?

A. We held our meetings at the headquarters, where we had our place at Kacanoll, at the school.

Q. How did you recruit new members?

A. Like all other armies. We did the same.

Q. Does that mean that you recruited them forcibly, individual members of the Albanian ethnic group?

A. We didn't have the right circumstances to recruit people. People came in as volunteers, and there were even only sons who agreed to join the KLA.

Q. All right. So you're saying that it was on a voluntary basis. How was the KLA financed?

A. By the people.

Q. That's a very general answer. Did you personally finance the KLA?

A. Yes, with large sums, with everything that I could.

Q. Do you know any other way in which it was financed?

A. Yes. It was also financed by Albanian women, who gave their own gold, their jewellery, and gave it to the KLA, saying, "Take my gold until Kosova is liberated."

There have been cases when people -- when people married, they didn't hold a proper wedding, they didn't buy furniture, but they gave ³⁹³⁹ this money to the KLA.

Q. Now, as you dealt in logistics, do you know any funds coming in from Germany, Switzerland, and so on?

A. Yes. Both aid and people came from Albanians who were emigrants there.

Q. And how did the money come into the country?

A. Very easily. When there's no lack of willpower, where there's a will, there is a way.

Q. Yes. But I'm asking you specifically. What routes did the money come in by?

A. Well, I can tell you. I myself was in Hungary, and I brought aid by car through Serbia to Kosova on the road.

Q. Including money?

A. Yes, money. Hard currency.

Q. And what weapons did your unit within the KLA dispose of?

A. All the kinds of weaponry that the police and army of your regime had that is the light weapons, we had them. And a large proportion was actually supplied by the police and army of your regime.

Q. How were you supplied by weapons? As far as I was able to understand, you got your weapons from our police and army. Is that what you said?

A. We bought them with money.

Q. So you're saying that you purchased weapons from the army and the police. Is that it?

A. Yes. ³⁹⁴⁰

Q. Well, our police force didn't have any ammunition and weapons made in China. How were you then able to purchase these from them?

A. It seems that you're not listening to me. I said 80 per cent of our weapons came from the police and the army, and I can produce evidence of this.

Q. Well, I'd like to see that. And how did you finance the procurement of weapons?

A. With hard currency.

Q. In the way in which you described a moment ago; is that right?

A. How do you mean? We bought weapons in Podujeva and in Prishtina. They brought them to Rudar and Medvedja by truck. They came to Peje and Kragujevc, and then we waited a week until they rubbed out the serial numbers and then we acquired them. I can produce evidence of this. Some of the weapons come from the army.

Q. And who were these people who sold you the weapons?

A. They were members of your police and army.

Q. Well, can you tell me which members of the police and army who -- who were they who sold you the weapons?

A. One -- one of them was a member of Arkan's men, and he brought a truck full of weapons as far as Rudar. The truck was full of weapons, and then we met in the hotel in Rudar, and then we had a long conversation about your position.

Q. I did not understand the answer. You had a long conversation about what position?

A. About your position personally. ³⁹⁴¹

Q. My personal position?

A. Of course.

Q. This is a conversation that you had with this man who was selling weapons to you. What was the name of this man?

A. For security reasons, they didn't tell their names because they were Serbs.

Q. And what did this conversation pertain to, the conversation you were having with him?

A. If the Court allows me, I can explain the entire conversation.

JUDGE MAY: Briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The weapons came, and we had an appointment in Rudar. We waited in the cafe until they arrived. And on that same day, President Milosevic and President Rugova, they asked us what we thought of them. Anybody -- they said, "We don't give a shit for Milosevic and Rugova. For us it's important to make money, because they have taken good care of their own families and are giving a hard time to our families. They are killing people for no reason." And they said that Arkan will do short work of Milosevic and will replace him in the long-run. That was the crux of the conversation. It was longer, of course, but it took two hours. It will take me several days to tell you every and each of the words we said. After they left, they -- the police didn't stop them. They escorted us up to Stedine village where the truck was waiting. There was also 5.000 metres of cloth for uniforms. There were some mortars, 12.7 millimetres; and a large quantity of bullets, 35.000 ^{3942 BLANK PAGE 3943} bullets; 100 sniper rifles; Kalashnikovs.

They escorted me up to the place and then I took them to our position in Kacanoll.

Q. How many of them were there?

A. Four. There was a driver with a truck. There was another person. And I was accompanied with three other people. We had our car, and no police, roadblocks, check blocks gave us any hard time because those Serbs had the proper authorisation, and nobody dared stop them on the way.

Q. And it is your assertion that these were some of Arkan's men?

A. Yes.

Q. On the basis of what you talked to with them, was it your conclusion that they were with him or against him?

A. They were with Arkan, against yourself. They said that the only person important in Serbia is Arkan, who keeps his family in Serbia, who fights with his family, whereas the others stay in power while their families are in safe places abroad.

Q. So they were on his side against me. That is your assertion.

A. That was their assertion, not mine.

Q. Tell me, do you know that my family was in Yugoslavia throughout and that they were not anywhere abroad?

JUDGE MAY: We're getting far from the indictment now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He's talking about an assertion.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. He's describing a conversation. Now, let's move on. ³⁹⁴⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I doubt that explanation, but we can go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Were you personally issued with some kind of a weapon? Did you have a personal weapon of your own?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of weapon did you have?

A. Up to the time I was engaged in supplying, in logistics, I didn't need a weapon. I just had a stick, a baton. But when I joined the army after the NATO airstrikes again and your army started their attacks, I also got a weapon. I had a Skorpion.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter corrects herself.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What kind of weapon did you have exactly?

A. You are asking me to tell you what weapon I had?

Q. Yes.

A. It is my own personal secret.

Q. All right. Where were KLA members trained for using weapons?

A. We had our own training sites, shooting ground.

Q. How many terrorist actions did you take in the territory of Pristina and in the surrounding area?

A. You might wish to call them terrorists, but I don't agree with that.

Q. I'm not asking you about qualifications. I'm asking you about how much you did in the territory of Pristina. ³⁹⁴⁵

A. This is not something that I should answer. Somebody else can answer this question.

JUDGE MAY: Why can't you answer?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because I didn't take part in this kind of thing. I don't know about this kind of operation.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, may I raise a matter? This is plainly important evidence as far as the accused is concerned for issues involved within his defence. If this witness is able to help with information that he knew, having been an insider within the KLA, it would be extremely helpful for the accused if those answers were to be given, and in those circumstances, the Court.

JUDGE MAY: He's given an answer about the last question. He says he doesn't know about it.

Yes. There's also the matter of time. The hour which the accused is usually given in cross-examination is now up. Would you apply for a longer time in this particular case, Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Certainly. I was going to ask for a far longer period than normal, in view of the evidence this witness can give as well as the conciseness of the accused's questioning, which obviously is of importance when he is questioning witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll consider that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we will extend the time. Mr. Milosevic, we expect you to finish by 1.00.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹⁴⁶

Q. Before I continue, could you please tell me when this event occurred exactly, the event you just described, when you bought a truckload of weapons from these persons, from those four men you mentioned.

A. This was about January, February - I don't remember exactly - in 1999.

Q. In January or February 1999?

A. I don't remember exactly, because I was on a lot of tours, and I don't remember which one. I also have the fax to bring the shipment to Medvedja.

Q. And did you make this institution aware of that fax? We can go on.

Do you know how many armed persons the KLA had in 1998?

A. No. It was not for me to know. My job was merely to supply food.

Q. If you say no, let's just save time. You say that it was only up to you to supply them with food; right?

A. Yes.

Q. A little while ago you said that you supplied them with weapons as well.

A. Everything: weapons, food, vehicles, and whatever I could, whatever kind of goods I could buy for the KLA. Whenever I had the opportunity, I bought things and sent them, as did all of my group. For instance, there was Ahmed Ajeti, who was a mechanic in Podujeva, and he worked as a mechanic servicing your vehicles, and they sent him weapons, saying that we were sending him vehicles. And that was one supply route. ³⁹⁴⁷ And round about 1992, when the war in Croatia started, I had my own business, and they asked me -- people who wanted to desert from the army when the war in Croatia started, they -- and I sent them civilian clothes. And they left their weapons there, and I collected those weapons and used them. That was in 1992, 1993, during the war in Bosnia. There was only one case in which there were 11 desertees who came with their weapons, and I gave them aid --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, I realise this is highly unusual, but a highly unusual situation has just arisen. The witness has been asked about documentation about this particular matter, about the selling of arms, et cetera, et cetera. Not included in his statement, not included in the attachments, the witness has brought a document with him to this session which is provided to us, which is not properly something that we could submit as far as the 92 bis. Normally I would re-examine on this document, but perhaps it is important that this document get distributed so that the accused has an opportunity to deal with the matter, since it's arisen during cross-examination. I just thought I should bring this to the attention of the Court and the accused, in fairness to everyone.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Because if I were to wait until re-examination, I wonder whether that would be appropriate.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's put it on the ELMO and we'll have a look at it.

MR. RYNEVELD: Again, I'm unable to assist in terms of what it ³⁹⁴⁸ says, but I know it relates to the subject matter presently under discussion.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Aliu, would you look at that. Is that the document you were referring to?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] It says here: [As read] "12.7" - that's a machine-gun calibre - "can be provided, three pieces. Price, 2.000 Deutschmark." Then it says: "Both types of rifles" - I don't know what this refers to - "for the time being, 100 pieces, according to the agreed price." And then it says: "Munitions for a 12.7-millimetre machine-gun, about 30.000 pieces, two Deutschmarks per piece. Munitions" - this is a bit deleted - "for rifles, 7.62 millimetres, will be prepared, about 150.000 pieces. According to plan, these major goods will be taken care of by the end of the month because all of this cannot be obtained and placed in a safe place and cannot be carried out before additional activity on a truck for transportation." And then there's something deleted. I can't see this. This seems illegible. I can't see whether it says "Malisheva" or "Mitrovica," but in the original you can probably see what it says. It starts with a capital letter, so I assume that it is the name of a town. So "That version is acceptable," it says. And then it says: "For you personally, you will get a gift, a Heckler, 9 millimetres, automatic." Could you please lift the page further up. A bit further up. A bit more. "It should only be confirmed, as soon as possible, in order to have yet another shipment taken care of. Plastic explosives and ³⁹⁴⁹ those ignition fuses." I can't read this. Could you please put it up.

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] "Main" I can't read this. "The main," and there's another word. "At least 80 kilogrammes, and then 100 kilogrammes. Agrees to return to warehouse so that then all these other goods could be paid for in a deferred way" - I imagine he's referring to deferred payments - "for transportation by truck. I would have to" - I can't see this properly on this monitor - "get this"? "Get this"? He mentions a telegram. "When I tell you that we should talk." Sunday. It says "on Sunday" up here. Sunday, telegram. "This Sunday we should talk." And that's the end of this page.

Q. So this is your communication in writing, with your provider of weapons; right?

JUDGE MAY: Let's go over the page to see -- is there a second page? No. That's it. Thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At any rate, most of it is legible. On the original, you can probably see those words that are illegible this way. Who sent you this? Are these the same people who actually sold this to you?

A. No. Other people.

Q. Who are these other people who provided you with explosives, machine-guns, rifles, et cetera? Who sent you this paper, these people that you were cooperating with? ^{3950 BLANK PAGE 3951}

A. Yes. It's not "as far as Malisheva" that's written there, but "Medvedja," "as far as Medvedja." That's what's written there.

Q. I see. Up to Medvedja. All right. That can be established when it's read precisely. That's no problem. It seems a bit blurred, especially on this screen. So who are these people?

A. They are -- for security reasons, these are people in Serbia, so I can't say who they are, but this is to show that we were supplied by your people, and that's the evidence that I have.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, in fairness, this document having been read into evidence, might it be marked as an exhibit?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, and it can be translated in due course.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. The other thing I should note is that it appears to be a fax with a date of March 20th, 1999, which is barely legible, would not show up, but that is the top right-hand corner on the fax.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you. Let it be exhibited, let it have a number, and let the accused see it. If you exhibit it --

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will be Exhibit 116.1 ter.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, you can see now that it says "Medvedja," because on the screen it could not be read. That's right. It says, "Medvedja," 20th of March, 1999, at 20 past 11.00, judging by the fax. Yes. Oh, I thought this was an original. This is a fax. But obviously you know who you were communicating with.

Q. Is that right or is that not right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Usher. You can take ³⁹⁵² this.

JUDGE MAY: Did you know who it came from, is the question.

A. Yes, we knew from the people who supplied us, but the names are --

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter asks the witness to move closer to the microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So that means that you can identify the perpetrators of this crime?

JUDGE MAY: He said that for security reasons he does not want to give the names, and I, for one, would support that answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but he is duty-bound to give those names.

JUDGE MAY: Not necessarily. We'll discuss it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kay. What is the evidential value anyway?

MR. KAY: If it is of evidential value, and it may be, perhaps the names could be written down on a piece of paper, kept under seal, disclosed to the accused in the usual way, and then he may reflect upon whether he needs to use the names or not and the names can be protected.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think I would need to be assured of the evidential value, because there is a clear possibility of prejudice.

MR. KAY: It may be contrary to the interests of these ³⁹⁵³ individuals, but it may be prejudicial to the defence of the accused if he doesn't have the information, which is why I suggest perhaps it can go under seal, which means that it's a document that's protected from the public eyes, and it can be considered.

JUDGE MAY: What evidential value could it have? It could put them in danger. That's the point.

MR. KAY: As yet, I don't know, we don't know, because we don't know if the names are of any significance or not, but if the information is kept in a protected form - this Court is well used to dealing with protections for the Prosecution in relation to information in their case. In our submission, the same criteria should be applied to the accused. I don't know the names. No one else does except for this particular witness. So the significance of the issue can't be determined.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I too cannot see the evidential value. The only reason I've brought the matter to the attention is that he was being cross-examined about whether there was any documentation. I felt I was duty-bound to bring it to the Court's attention. Having said that, in our submission, the names of the people who supplied it are totally irrelevant to the issue that it confirms the fact that the witness said that there is corroborative evidence of his testimony. That, clearly, is the issue. To put unknown persons at risk or at danger for disclosing this information, to me, with the greatest of respect, would not serve any useful purpose. If the Court is disposed to adopt the procedure suggested by Mr. Kay, I would ask that any discussion of this ³⁹⁵⁴ matter be in closed session and under seal, but that would be only secondary to my primary submission, that it can be of no assistance to the Court.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what's said. It's irrelevant in any event. What relevance can it have?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How wouldn't the names of these criminals be relevant? If what the witness is saying is true, how then would the names not be relevant of criminals supplying a terrorist with weapons? They are very relevant, highly relevant.

JUDGE MAY: No, to these proceedings, to this trial and the issues in it. That's the point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I assume that you deal with crimes on the territory of Yugoslavia. That's at least what you claim. Now, if supplies of weapons to terrorist organisations is something that you consider to be legal, then I don't know what I can explain here. A whole series of crimes starts there. And probably theft and the illegal possession of weapons on all counts. And then ammunition, explosives, and other devices sowing death, they were sold to a terrorist organisation in Kosovo.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we deal with crimes, yes, but here we are concerned with the crimes charged in the indictment. We are not dealing with crimes generally, crimes that were committed in Yugoslavia. And what you were asked to do was to demonstrate the relevance that this particular piece of evidence would have to an issue that has arisen in the ³⁹⁵⁵ trial.

As far as I am concerned, you haven't -- you have not been able to demonstrate that relevance. On the other hand, there is a clear prejudice to the persons who gave that information, and that is what the Chamber has to consider as well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But is not -- is it not clear that those individuals were accomplices in the execution of terrorist attacks, killings, explosions? You can see here that they're purchasing 80 kilogrammes of explosives, and you know that they planted explosives in marketplaces, bus stations, shops, coffee bars, et cetera. So is this not a case of accomplices in killings that arose from the activities of this terrorist organisation, a member of which the witness is?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: We shall not require the witness to answer. Since it's an important issue and I think the first time it's arisen in these proceedings, we will explain why.

The Court has a power to protect those who may be put in danger because of answers which are given. If there are matters which are of significance in a trial which require answers to be given, the Court can also require that they be given and afford some measure of protection, as the amicus has suggested.

However, before the matter can even be considered, there has to be demonstrated some relevance in the particular proceedings, of the answer. In this case, the answer is, in our judgement, of no relevance at all. The significance of the witness's evidence is the way in which weapons ³⁹⁵⁶ were obtained. He's described that, and he's produced a document which supports his evidence on that count in that he was being supplied in the way which he said.

Who individually was doing the supplying is a matter of no relevance at all. In any event, even if it was, the fact that the suppliers, if the identity of the suppliers were given, that their security, their safety would be put in danger would be sufficient for us to rule that the identity should not be given.

So we will not require the witness to answer the question. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. I think you should bear in mind my claim that in support of the KLA terrorist organisation, we see the participation of the Secret Services of a whole series of countries. The names of those people who supplied them with weapons --

JUDGE MAY: We have -- we have ruled on this issue, and there will be no further argument on it.

Now, have you got any more questions for this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a lot more questions, and I'll try to get through as many of them as possible.

Q. Do you know that in Pristina and the surrounding areas in 1998 there was an increased number of explosions in public places planted by the KLA? Just give me a yes or no answer, please, so that we can make the best use of our time.

A. It's not clear to me what he's asking. What does this question mean? ³⁹⁵⁷

Q. I asked you whether you know that in the town in Pristina and the surrounding areas in the course of 1998 a number of explosions were planted in public places by the KLA.

A. I don't know about this. And it's not true that they were placed by -- they were placed by your police forces and the army.

Q. So you say it's not true. All right, then. How many people lost their lives in those terrorist operations, the planting of bombs in Pristina and its environs? Do you know that?

A. We know that in terrorist operations carried out by the Serbian police and army, we know about these. But about any others, I don't know.

Q. All right. I could have assumed that your answer would be what it was. That's why you used -- you purchased the weapons, so as not to use them. Is that right? Is that how I'm to understand you? From the environs of Podujevo later on --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters apologise, but there is too much interference with the channels. We're unable to hear the accused.

JUDGE MAY: They're having trouble with the interpretation. I'll ask the Registry to do something about the channels. There's supposed to be interference on the various channels.

THE INTERPRETER: We're hearing the Albanian interpretation on the B/C/S channel.

JUDGE MAY: The interpreters say they are hearing Albanian on the B/C/S channel.

MR. KAY: While we are waiting -- while we're waiting, Your ^{3958 BLANK PAGE 3959} Honours, it might be appropriate for me to raise a matter of the interpretation which has been brought to my attention during the course of the day. It concerns the Albanian translation of various questions that were put this morning. I'm not a speaker of either B/C/S or Albanian, as the Court knows, but that various matters were raised with me, and I've had a chance to review the transcript to assess how a witness seems not to be understanding questions that were put, that there appear to have been no linkage between questions and answers.

It may be appropriate that the transcript of today's proceedings be checked by the translation services to see if there were any problems in what was being relayed over the Albanian channel.

JUDGE MAY: It may have been the nature of the questions, but we'll do that. We will have it done.

We'll go on.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask something, Your Honour?

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.

[Trial Chamber and the Registrar confer]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- question for the Chamber.

JUDGE MAY: I'm told it should be all right. Yes, Mr. Aliu.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a question for the Chamber. May I pose the question, please?

JUDGE MAY: Not usually, but what is it?

A. The term used by Milosevic in relevance to me, calling me "terrorist," that's not appropriate. I'm here in the position of a ³⁹⁶⁰ witness. He's there in the position of accused. It's not appropriate to exchange such terms.

JUDGE MAY: He is entitled to ask questions within limits. We bear in mind what he said, and we bear in mind what you say. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you went home with ten people, ten soldiers of the KLA. How big is your yard?

A. I went home with ten members of my own family who were in the town. My yard is about 40 acres, and it is surrounded by a wall of about three metres high.

Q. Do you mean 40 acres or 40 R's, or could you give me a figure in hectares, please?

A. Two hectares.

Q. Two hectares, you say. Is there a fence round your yard?

A. It is a wall made of strong material that surrounds my yard.

Q. So there's a wall made of strong material around your yard. Now, how high is that wall?

A. About three metres. Even -- some places higher, some places lower.

Q. That means that your yard, surrounded with this wall which is three metres high, was that made to be a fortification or was it the yard and the courtyard to your property, with a fence?

A. It is my own right to do what I want with my property, to build what I wish there. ³⁹⁶¹

Q. I'm not questioning your right to build. I'm just asking you that when you say a strong wall three metres high, I'm just asking you is that a yard or is it a fortification? What did you want to build?

A. It is a yard, and it's my personal property, I said.

JUDGE MAY: Were you trying to fortify it or not? That's the point that's made.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't want to fortify it. But it is our tradition to surround our yards. Not only myself but all Albanians that can afford to do that build surrounding walls. It's an old tradition of ours.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's what I was saying, precisely that, on other occasions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So how, then, can you say that there were 10.000 people in your yard when you say that the yard is two hectares in surface area?

A. It was possible to have even a larger number of people in smaller areas, because in that place, about 3.600 students had their lessons there. In Prishtina school of economics, for example, studied 1.500 students. So a total of 3.500 students had their lessons there in that compound, let alone talking about refugees who were panic-stricken. They could stay there, herded there, even 100.000 of them.

Q. I was just asking you that. Two hectares is 100 metres times 200 metres, roughly. That's clear. One hundred metres times 200 metres. That's the rough surface area. Now, on that area, there are buildings there too, so it's not an empty place this space, this 100 by 200. And ³⁹⁶² you claim that there were that many people there. Just yes or no. One hundred thousand.

A. I already said I couldn't count them one by one, but I said about 10.000 people who were driven out of Bardh i Madhe village, Fushe Kosove, and on a critical day, even from Dragodan.

Q. All right. You said that on the 28th of March, you and some of your associates or family members or KLA soldiers, it doesn't matter any longer, that you slept in a shelter not far from your home. Yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. Was that a dug-in shelter of any kind?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was it made out of, built of?

A. It was a hole dug in the ground. It was -- a hole was built and it was disguised, which the Serb forces, paramilitaries, they stayed there. And it was a very well-disguised place. Nobody could detect it.

Q. All right. I'll skip a few of my questions because I see I just have 11 more minutes. It's 11 to one. Describing the clash with the police which you led from your house on the 31st of March, 1999, did you throw hand grenades at the police on that occasion? And judging by what you said, you killed six policemen. Is that correct?

A. It is not correct. We didn't see them with our own eyes because some iron doors prevented them -- us. But when they came near, they shouted in Serbian, "Open up your doors. Fuck your mothers." And they shot in our direction, and we shot back, and that was it. We saw them when they executed 13 people. This is something we saw with our own eyes, ³⁹⁶³ not only myself but many other people who were there. I could tell you -- I could show you the place where that occurred.

Q. I'm asking you something else. How many policemen did you kill then?

A. Five or six remained killed, as the witness said. Of course you may have more precise figures because you were well-informed, certainly, being their chairman.

Q. I am asking you. How many of them did you personally kill?

A. I said it very clearly. Personally, I didn't kill them. We were protecting ourselves. I know that we fired back in response to their firing, and some people got killed in the process. I can't tell you how many. You may have a more precise figure.

Q. Well, I'm looking at your facts and figures. You said you threw bombs, grenades. Now you say that five or six got killed, and I'm asking you how many you personally killed.

JUDGE MAY: He has answered that. We can also read what's in the statement in which he said: "We responded with return fire and threw a number of hand grenades. I think about five or six of the police were killed." Now, that's his account in the statement, and he's given his answers about it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How many people took part on your side in that clash with the police in what you refer to as an exchange of fire, or, "We responded with return fire"? ³⁹⁶⁴

A. I couldn't count them because there were rank and file people who were there. I can't give you an exact figure. There were many people. We were afraid. I have stated in my statement we were afraid because there were about 300 women and children, and we were afraid for them lest the Serb forces came and assaulted them. There were children, women from my family, from other families. So we didn't have time to think who was there but just to think what we would do in self-defence.

Q. All right. So on your side, on the KLA side, many people took part in that clash, as you say. You didn't count them, but you said many; is that right?

A. I didn't say there were many there in that particular place, but there were many round about. I was with my own family members and people were killed even while they were on board the trucks. They stopped at the cemetery and they executed them. They stopped them when they were at the tiles factory and executed some of them. So -- many things were happening at the same time one couldn't follow up everything.

Q. Tell me this: San Giovanni, who came to you, was he an Albanian by origin?

A. Who is this San Giovanni? Please be more explicit in your question.

Q. I'm asking you about an individual whom I assume organised the visit of the Italian parliamentarians to your house.

A. It happened during the time when we were having the education there. It was not only that group. Many groups came there. There was also the wife of Zimmerman who visited the schools. ³⁹⁶⁵

Q. And what about Christopher Hill, the US ambassador? When did he visit you?

A. I don't remember the date. I can't keep track of all the dates.

Q. Did he come once or several times?

A. Personally, I've seen him only once. He has come and visited the school. You can ask him yourself. I know that he visited that home school, and your police came and saw also the OSCE representatives coming there. I have stated that in my deposition.

Q. And you said that you were also visited by the wife of US Ambassador Zimmerman, that she came to your house too. That was at the beginning of the 1990s.

A. She did not come to my home but to that home school, because I used to live in another home when I gave one of my homes to be used as a school. The murder of the school principal and the owner was something that all knew about.

Q. So the school was the reason that they came, but I assume you met them.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you met them, during these meetings, was there anybody else, any other prominent representatives of the KLA or the political life of the area, or Albanian political parties, or any other public officials, personages?

A. I kindly ask the Chamber to recall that I haven't stated they visited me. I have said that they visited the school. So you can find --

JUDGE MAY: We take that. You were asked if there were other ^{3966 BLANK PAGE 3967} prominent representatives present or not. If you can remember. If you can't remember, just say so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember. They didn't visit me, I said. They visited the school.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but you would see them - you said that a moment ago - when they visited the school. Did they know -- did you tell them that you were a member of the KLA?

A. You must have forgotten that I never said that I met and talked to them. I clearly said that they visited the school, but not me. You can find the relevant documentation with the Human Rights Council. They didn't come to visit me, never. They visited the school, my home when it was used as a school, I mean, but not me personally.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Anything else, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you get any recognition for your activities in the KLA?

A. Yes. Not only me, but the entire Albanian people got recognition, because today they are free. In the past, they didn't dare leave their own yards, and today they are free. That is our remuneration.

JUDGE MAY: It's now 1.00. Very briefly.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, I think the questioning of this witness is quite considerable, in view of his importance and his evidence. I'm looking at page 6 of his statement, paragraph 4, where there are issues ³⁹⁶⁸ there that remained untouched, and it may be far more appropriate for the accused, upon considering the matter with his advisors, may want to develop a strategy in relation --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's a question of time, though. This witness -- can this witness be here next Wednesday?

MR. RYNEVELD: Frankly, Your Honour, I hadn't anticipated him being here that long, so I haven't made that inquiry. Perhaps he could be asked personally whether -- I'm sorry. Without speaking to him, which I'm not allowed to do now -- I thought he would be done today.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, everybody did, and matters have developed. Mr. Aliu, can you stay here until Wednesday? We're not sitting until then. Or can you come back perhaps at a convenient time to conclude your evidence?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can come another time. I'm busy this time. I thought that I would be done today.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. So did everybody else.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, we've got to balance what's reasonable with the points you want to make. If there are further points you want to make, you can make them not through the witness, but directly to us. But if you would like ten minutes, you can have it now, and then we'll conclude.

MR. KAY: I'll see what I can do, Your Honour. Questioned by Mr. Kay:

Q. Witness, I want to ask you some questions now about your ³⁹⁶⁹ activities during the conflict in Kosovo in 1999. Do you understand?

A. Yes.

Q. You have made a statement, where you have said that, "Ten of us, along with twelve of the civilians who decided to join us, went to the hills and continued with our duties relating to the war." Do you remember saying that?

A. Yes. This was after what happened in my home, and I had to leave my home because I knew that if the Serb forces found me there - and some people volunteered to join me, who wanted to join the army, the KLA, we took to the hills and did join the army - there was no way out for me, because I was sure that they had intercepted me somewhere. I knew what would happen to me.

Q. In which area were you joining the army?

A. In Llap area.

Q. And were you taking part in armed battles with the Yugoslav army or the police?

A. We didn't have a chance to engage in clashes because they were -- the army and the police were in large numbers and they drove out the population in a day and left in the direction of Hertica, Turucica. When we were staying in Turucica, through the radio link, we heard from our superiors that the commander of Llozhan station, called Zoran, had ordered his -- had informed his superior, telling them that we would make the waters of Batllava Slobova Lake red with the blood of the Albanians. Then we received orders to head the population in the direction of Prishtina to save them. We were dressed in civilian uniforms, and we were ³⁹⁷⁰ escorting the population when we were ordered to see them up to Koliq but no further, because we were in danger. Then, when they arrived in Makovc, the massacre of 100 people occurred; that is, I think about 360 people actually got killed there in that place.

Q. I'm asking you questions only about what you did, and I'd like you to answer those questions rather than referring to any other matters, because we only have a short period of time. Do you understand?

A. We did nothing on our own. We just executed orders. I'm telling you what our commanders told us to do.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let counsel ask the witness this.

MR. KAY:

Q. Were you in operations with people from your unit before the war started? Was it the same people you worked with?

A. I didn't understand you. I'm sorry.

Q. You told us that your job was that of logistics and that you had a commander.

A. Yes.

Q. Were you operating with the same group of men or a different group of men?

A. The Llap area had only one commander, and we acted all under the same commander. We were many units. I don't know how you can understand that. We had Rrustem Mustafa, with the pseudonym Remi, as our commander, and he was that commander of Llap area. I was responsible for the logistics unit, the others were responsible for other units, and so on.

Q. How many units did you have? ³⁹⁷¹

A. We had many units. It was not my job to know how many units there were. I was quartermaster and I was responsible for providing supplies and I had my collaborators with whom I worked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You were in charge of logistics, so you should have a very good idea as to the number of units.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you help us with the number of units?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that we were one and the same unit. We were taking part in an uprising to liberate our people. I was doing my job in the logistics, and this is all I know.

MR. KAY:

Q. Were there armed units?

A. You mean the logistics unit or the other units of the KLA?

Q. Were there other units that were armed?

A. No. Only the KLA. There wasn't any other army. We didn't have tanks and aviations, but we were popular uprisings, having light weapons.

Q. There were KLA units that had weapons that were conducting armed battles; is that right?

A. Yes. Yes, they were part of KLA.

Q. As a logistics officer, were you supplying them with weapons during the battles?

A. We supplied them with weapons before the battles, because during the battles we couldn't do so. We could do nothing when they were fighting. We supplied them with weapons before the clashes. We didn't have much space to move around. There was only one area we had command ³⁹⁷² of.

Q. How many people worked in your logistics unit?

A. About 20 people. Not only in the Llap area. We were responsible for the entire KLA, a total of 20 people.

Q. The 20 people in the logistics, were they in different bases around Kosovo?

A. We were civilians staying -- we couldn't go to cities and towns. I mean, we tried to disguise ourselves from the army and the police. We supplied the KLA with foodstuffs, with clothes and footwear, and so on.

Q. You organised one area for a commander. Did the other logistics officers, the 20 of them, did they work to other commanders in the areas of Kosovo?

A. Yes. They worked for the Drenica, Shala areas, and other areas. We used to supply all these areas. We were all involved in it.

Q. You've told us about receiving a shipment of arms. Were the other logistics officers performing the same tasks as you, receiving arms and distributing them?

A. Sir, we didn't have any ranks or anything. We were just a group trying to contribute as much as we could, whoever could lay hands on arms from the army, from the police. I supplied not only the Llap but for the entire staff, because if Llap area had weapons and the others couldn't, then how could the war be waged? So we systematically provided the KLA members, fighters, with weapons. We didn't have a very clear division of our responsibilities. We just provided -- for example, I provided weapons in Gllogjan once. Another time, someone from Gllogjan gave weapons to ³⁹⁷³ Llap. So this was how it was.

MR. KAY: And if the Court would permit me just one more matter.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. KAY: It's out of context to this, but it arises from something I noticed in the transcript.

Q. You mentioned being involved as early as 1992, when the conflict was happening in Croatia. Is that right?

A. I didn't say I was involved in the conflict in Croatia. I said that when the conflict broke out in Croatia - please follow me closely - when the conflict broke out, the Serb army, who was deployed in Prishtina, they were sent to the war, and the soldiers didn't want to fight in Croatia and in Bosnia, and they deserted. I used to know some Serb citizens who were from those areas, and they addressed me -- they called me on the phone, asking me to help them, their children, to take them outside the border. And there was a meeting place where we met, and I helped them. I felt it as an obligation, a human, moral, political obligation to help them.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Ryneveld, there isn't time for re-examination.

MR. RYNEVELD: No, Your Honour. Sorry, Your Honour. I anticipated that, and although I have questions, I must forego them.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Aliu, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. We'll adjourn until half past 9.00 Wednesday -- rather, 9.00, I think it is. ³⁹⁷⁴

[The witness withdrew]

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.15 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of May, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.