⁶⁴⁶²

Friday, 7 June 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before we get on with the evidence, there are one or two procedural matters that I must ask the Chamber to deal with pretty well immediately. It may be that if I identify the issues now, either as to all or some, the Chamber would think it most helpful to come back to them later in the morning, either at the beginning of the last session or at the end of last session, although dealing with things at the end of the last session is always a problem because we always run out of time.

The first three matters are very short and can be dealt with in public session and then there are two very short -- two matters to be dealt with, with your leave, in private session. The first, then, topic is the 92 bis applications or the 92 bis position as to certain witnesses. I sought to raise the issue of Mr. Hendrie yesterday and got it wrong. The position is that his first but not his second statement have been approved for 92 bis, and though Mr. Ryneveld will be taking and can deal with that, we would be grateful for your ruling in relation to that.

Next Monday, K6 returns.

JUDGE MAY: On whom we've already made a ruling.

MR. NICE: And -- yes. He's returning and, as I understand it, ⁶⁴⁶³ will be able to give evidence with facial distortion and pseudonym. The question arises as to the 92 bis potential for that witness. William Walker arrives on --

JUDGE MAY: Just pausing there. I think from our usual rulings in respect of witnesses of that type, I would be inclined to say that he was someone who should give evidence live.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases. In effect, if the Chamber changes its mind or expresses a different view, perhaps you'd be good enough to let us know.

William Walker has made himself available at short notice and at personal inconvenience to come on Sunday night, I think, for arrival after a long jet flight here, on Monday morning, with a view to being taken as a witness on Tuesday. We would be asking the Chamber to consider those parts of his statement that may cover territory already covered by others to be subject to 92 bis and to save valuable court time and to minimise the inconvenience to him.

Perhaps we can return to those issues. But insofar as they are outstanding, that would be Walker, I suspect, at the end of the morning.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, if we granted 92 bis for those parts that you think are, forgive the expression, 92 bis'able, how long would his examination-in-chief be?

MR. NICE: I'll have to come back to you on that later this morning as well. If you'll give me leave to come back on that; I can't give an actual estimate at the moment.

JUDGE MAY: We ought clearly, then, to deal with Witness K6 on ⁶⁴⁶⁴ Monday, if at all possible.

MR. NICE: K6 on Monday. There are implications for others who have to look after him and so on. And that, incidentally, may involve -- yes, I'm grateful for being reminded. It's possible that that would involve putting back two witnesses, Ramadani and Avdyli, although I'm anxious not to do so because they've already been here in The Hague for some time. Depends on whether we get through to them today. Unlikely. Can we go into private session for two topics?

JUDGE MAY: Will it be sensible to deal with Mr. Hendrie's second statement, and also -- on the 92 bis point? And also, I have in mind the statements of Messrs. Jemini, Popaj, Ramadani, and Avdyli as being admissible under Rule 92 bis and it might be sensible to take them all. Yes. Well, subject to anything the accused has to say on the matter - and he should be heard - we propose to admit the statements of Mr. Hendrie, both statements, and the statements of those witnesses I've read out, under Rule 92 bis.

Mr. Milosevic, is there anything you want to say about that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a general remark to make in view of the fact that my cross-examination time has been shortened by your 92 bis Rule where statements are given in writing, testimony is given in writing, that this very seriously limits my possibilities of cross-examining the witnesses in the interests of truth. And the second point is that I still haven't received William Walker's statement. I hear that he's going to be here on Tuesday, is he? It's Friday today, as you well know. ⁶⁴⁶⁵

JUDGE MAY: We will raise that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thirdly, my third point: You still haven't given me an answer, although I asked you twice, you promised to respond, to my question, the following: My associate who has taken it upon himself to calculate all this, told me that we received 70.000 pages of documents this week, 200 videotapes, some 50-odd audiotapes, and I don't know what else, not counting all the little bits and pieces that I find on my table here this morning. But my question was to you: When do you expect me to read through those 70.000 pages, look at the 200 videotapes and listen to the 50 audiotapes?

JUDGE MAY: And the answer is this, as I told you: It's a matter which we are considering. The window of opportunity, if I can use that expression, will occur in the summer. We shall stop sitting on the Kosovo case on the 26th of July. There will be then at least three weeks, and we'll consider the necessary time for you to prepare for the other matter. Now, it may be that Croatia and Bosnia can be split. I'm not sure if it can in terms of preparation or whether in fact they are so entwined that it can't be.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm happy to give some preliminary indications but loath to take time. I think the Chamber and the accused may be helped by knowing that my intention is to have a list of witnesses prepared for both cases. I hope to have a reasonably accurate running list of witnesses to be prepared by about the end of next week, and I suspect that you will find that a very large number of those witnesses in the early stages will cover both cases. Therefore, splitting them in any ⁶⁴⁶⁶ hermetic way might not be realistic.

JUDGE MAY: And you will indicate, will you, what -- which of those witnesses could be subject to Rule 92 bis?

MR. NICE: Certainly. Of course.

JUDGE MAY: We are moving some way now from the point. So the answer is, Mr. Milosevic, that we have in mind that question of time and your having the necessary time to prepare for the next stage of the case. We will admit the statements under Rule 92 bis.

Returning to Mr. Walker, when will the statement be available?

MR. NICE: I'll find out the detail of service, if there's been no service, and come back to it later this morning, if I may.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I mean, clearly something should be available tonight or earlier.

MR. NICE: Yes, of course.

JUDGE MAY: So the accused can have it over the weekend. It may be convenient, before we go into closed or private session, to deal with the documents we've been handed, the exhibits, the outstanding exhibits which the accused asked to be admitted. They are numbered D14, 18, is there a 19? D14 to D19. Now, unless there's any Prosecution objection, we propose to admit them.

We will go into private session.

MR. NICE: Yes.

[Private session] (redacted)

(redacted) ⁶⁴⁶⁷ Pages 6467 to 6470 - redacted - private session. ⁶⁴⁷¹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, our records reveal that Ambassador Walker's statement of the 16th of May of 1999 was part of the supporting material disclosed in respect of the indictment. The second statement, ⁶⁴⁷² unsigned, our records show to have been disclosed on the 27th of May. I'll check for receipts in respect of that over the breaks. And --

JUDGE MAY: Have you got some copies?

MR. NICE: We can sort that out by the break.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Are we in open session?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, we are.

MR. RYNEVELD: The Prosecution calls Ian Robert Hendrie.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

THE WITNESS: 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.

WITNESS: IAN ROBERT HENDRIE Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Mr. Hendrie, could you tell the Court your full name, please.

A. Ian Robert Hendrie.

Q. And, Mr. Hendrie, do I understand correctly, sir, that you are currently 42 years old?

A. I am.

Q. And you have a background as a detective in both the Royal Hong Kong and the London Metropolitan Police forces; is that correct?

A. It is, yes.

Q. Now, sir, did there come a time in 1997 or 1998 when you served one of the offices of the United Nations in the Balkans?

A. Between October 1997 to October 1998, I served in the ⁶⁴⁷³ International Police Task Force in Bosnia.

Q. And later on, in December of 1998, were you involved with the OSCE/KVM mission?

A. In November 1998, I joined the United Kingdom Diplomatic Observer Mission and then joined the OSCE in December of 1998.

Q. Thank you. Now, sir, I'd ask you to direct or focus your remarks at this point to an incident on the 16th of January, 1999. Did something happen that day that took you to the village of Racak?

A. I was informed on the morning of the 16th that an incident had taken place at a village of Racak on the previous day.

Q. And did you, in fact, as a result of that information, travel to Racak along with other individuals?

A. I did, Your Honour, yes.

Q. And just very briefly, I'd ask you to tell us what you did when you got there.

A. We arrived at about midday at a checkpoint of the KLA on the edge of the village. After negotiating through the checkpoints, I was shown around the village and saw various sites where I saw bodies. I photographed and made observations on what I saw.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, in view of the 92 bis procedure, I propose now to read a brief summary contained in paragraphs 3 through 13, and then I want to return for a few questions under paragraph 14.

Q. You took a number of photographs, as you've indicated.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, you will find that those photographs are contained in the Racak binder, binder 1 of 5, which have been marked ⁶⁴⁷⁴ an exhibit, and they can be found immediately behind tab 5 of that binder.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Have we got an exhibit number for the statements?

MR. RYNEVELD: I have a couple of questions on that yet, if I may.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. Now, sir, you gave statements to the members of the ICTY firstly on the 25th of February 1999; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you attended before a presiding officer of the Tribunal on the 11th of February, 2002 and indicated or made a solemn declaration that that statement was true and correct to the best your information, knowledge, and belief?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Did you also give a second statement, on the 15th of December, 2000, and go through the same solemn declaration proceedings on the 28th of May of this year?

A. Yes, I did, Your Honour.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might those exhibits -- or those statements be given exhibit numbers at this point.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 214 and 214 [sic] for the redacted version. Excuse me, 214A for the redacted version.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Your Honours, by way of a very brief summary: In his statements, the witness indicates that he was originally -- initially shown the body of someone identified to him as Banush which ⁶⁴⁷⁵ reports in his statement at scene 1. Now, for benefit of the Court and in terms of some diagrams and I believe the large maps that were in these court proceedings taken by Mr. Kelly, those are referred to on those documents as CL1, that's location one, scene 1. I just thought I would relate the scenes in his statement to the other descriptors that you have. He was shown a uniformed KLA soldier -- by a KLA soldier, a courtyard where a man named Bidi Banush identified the headless body of Azem Banush, and later, at the morgue, this body was labelled as RA-1. Then he was at scene 2, which is location 2, scenes 2 and 3. A man maimed Ismail Beqiri informed him of the location of the bodies of three brothers, Arif, Sabri, and Haki Syla, who had all been shot. A short distance from this location, he was shown the body of Hajriz Jakujsi, who had also been shot.

At scene 3, which is location 2, scene 4, he was brought to a family compound consisting of two houses where the body of Ahmet Mustafa, who was apparently around 70 years old, was identified to him. He appeared to have been shot several times and was later identified with the morgue label RA-9.

At scene 4 in his statement, which is location 2, scene 5 in the other documents, he was shown the body of a male in his mid-30s, identified to him as Skender, who had part of his skull missing. He examined an axe that was nearby which appeared to have a small amount of blood on it. At the entrance gate to that compound, he found a skull fragment with some hair on it; and in the house, he found bone fragments that appeared consistent with the man's injuries. This house had suffered ⁶⁴⁷⁶ heavy gunfire damage. En route to the next location, he located and photographed a rifle grenade in the ground with a fintail protruding. At scene 5 in his statement, which is location 5, scene 10 in other documentation, he came across a freshly-dug trench which was about four feet deep and two feet wide which showed no evidence of recent use. He then came to a gully where he located a total of 22 bodies in two groups, one comprising 15 bodies and the second comprising seven bodies. There was a 23rd body located a short distance away but in the same vicinity. On the northern side of the gully, he found ammunition boxes labelled in Cyrillic, indicating 7.6 calibre ammunition. Now, this witness, in his statement, indicates that there were no signs of drag marks or blood leading in or out of the gully. It was apparent, however, to him that some if not all of the bodies had been turned over. Bloodstaining indicated the location where death occurred. All the bodies were rigid and dressed in civilian clothing. There were no weapons near the bodies. The vast majority of injuries on all the bodies he saw in Racak that day were due, in his opinion, to gunshots. He then recorded the individual details of bodies at scene 5, 1 to 23, which you will find again referred to as location 5, scene 10. He moves on then to crime location 3, scene 7. From the gully, he walked into the village to a house with the number 30 on it where the body of Hanemshah Mehmeti was identified to him. Mehmeti was reportedly killed by a sniper while Mehmeti was going to the aid of someone already hit by a sniper.

He was then taken to another location and shown the area where ⁶⁴⁷⁷ Bajram and Hanemshah Mehmeti were killed. The body of Bajram was identified to him. It was lying in a room of the family home. He did not photograph that body because he'd used up all his film, however, another OSCE member by the name of Michael Pedersen apparently videoed it. He then moves on to what was referred to in Mr. Kelly's documentation as location 4, scene 9, which is a family compound where the bodies of Riza, Halim, and Zenel Beqiri were lying in a room. Villagers told this witness that they were shot by the police from a hill about 60 metres away. He also did not photograph those bodies. Xhemzjl Beqiri, a survivor from that incident, told the witness what happened. He moved on then to location 3, scene 8. He was brought to another location where he was shown a compound that had a ten-foot wall surrounding four houses. Ismet Bahimi pointed out the body and severed head of his brother Ajad Bahimi. Apparently he had been shot first and then, sometime later, his head was removed. He did not photograph this scene. There was damage to the family tractors and it appeared that the house had been ransacked.

In his statement, he also talks about his dealings on the 17th of January, 1999, with Judge Marinkovic. He was at Stimlje when he saw a build-up of Serbian forces that were there apparently to assist the investigating Judge, Ms. Marinkovic. Her purpose was to enter Racak to investigate the incident. The witness indicates that there were sporadic firing aimed at and around the village.

On the 18th of January, 1999, the witness spoke with Judge Marinkovic in relation to the investigation into Racak. She stated, inter ⁶⁴⁷⁸ alia, that the purpose of her visit was to show the world that the bodies were not of innocent peasants, as Walker had said, but that they were terrorists. She - and this is my paraphrasing - said that they found evidence that proves the villagers were terrorists because they found uniforms, trenches, machine-guns, and bombs.

He then, in his statement, goes on to indicate attending at the mortuary on the 19th and 20th of January, 1999, to observe the post-mortems of some of the deceased persons from Racak performed by the forensic pathologist from both Pristina and from Belorussia. He videoed some of those proceedings.

Now, Your Honours, I propose at this point to show five photographs to assist the Trial Chamber with respect to evidence heard from witnesses concerning their observation of bodies and their conclusions that the bodies had been mutilated, shot at close range, or decapitated. You will recall that there's been extensive cross-examination about that, and in fairness and to assist the Trial Chamber to see whether or not there was any basis for those comments by the witnesses, I propose to show first of all photograph 00732320. And Mr. Usher, if you could put that on the ELMO.

This is a photograph showing an unusual eye injury. You will recall evidence about witnesses talking about mutilation and eyes.

Q. Witness, I'd like you to look at that photograph. Do you recognise the scene depicted in that photograph?

A. I do.

Q. Yes. Now, is this one of the photographs you took or is this just ⁶⁴⁷⁹ a photograph of a scene that you recall when you were there on the 16th of January?

A. It's one of the photographs I took.

Q. All right. And -- all right. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: The next photograph, please. Yes. Photograph 00732364. These are all in the Racak binder, in sequence, Your Honours.

Q. Again, Mr. Hendrie, is this one of the photographs you took?

A. It is, Your Honour.

Q. Below and behind the right ear, there appears to be a mark. Can you describe what that mark looks like?

A. It appears to be an entry gunshot wound with scorching and stippling around the wound.

Q. In your statement, sir, you indicated that they appeared to have been shot at close range; is that correct?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Is this one of the factors that you considered in coming to that conclusion?

A. It is, Your Honour.

Q. Thank you. Next photograph, 00732368. Again, sir, that's a photograph you took?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. And what, if anything, can you tell us about this photograph in relation to the eye area?

A. It appears that a bullet has entered the skull and the passage of the bullet has caused the eyes to be distorted. ⁶⁴⁸⁰

Q. Thank you. Next photograph, 00732387. Again, sir, is this a photograph that you took?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. We've heard evidence, sir, about mutilation of bodies and gaping holes in the chest area. What, if anything, did you note about this particular body when you photographed it?

A. I observed that there were two or what appears to be two gunshot wounds to the chest and fluids and remains of internal organs on the chest.

Q. And this area that you noted that's shown in this photograph, where is that wound in relation to where you would normally expect to find the heart?

A. It was in the same vicinity.

MR. RYNEVELD: And finally, Your Honours, a photograph which has not yet been marked as an exhibit in these proceedings. Oh, you've got it there? Yes. Would you put that on the ELMO, please.

Q. That appears to be a headless torso, sir. You, in your report, indicated you saw two of them. Did you take this photograph?

A. I can't recall just now.

Q. All right. Do you recall whether or not you saw any headless bodies while you were being shown around Racak on the 16th of January, 1999?

A. There were two, Your Honour.

Q. Did you photograph one or two or any?

A. One. ⁶⁴⁸¹

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Finally, Your Honours, I'd like to show a 30-second clip of Exhibit 95. You've already seen certain portions of it. Could the AV booth help us? Start the video. It's only about 30 seconds. This is at a part of the exhibit, Your Honours, 95, of the video that was taken with Mr. Walker present.

Yes. Would you run the video, please.

[Videotape played] "Okay. At the top of the hill. The first corpse is that of a male, probably in his mid-to-late-30s. He appears to have been executed by being shot at close range through the head. There are two indicators of --

"One of the bullets -- "There are two indicators of exit wounds. The man appears to have had his right ear severed. He has been shot at very close range in both the face, and I can't see where the chest exit wound originated. "There's a bullet. I just wanted to assess what kind it is. "Okay.

"Because it's not fired. It's pretty big. "Got me?

"Yeah. "There are significant numbers of 7.62 cardboard boxes sprinkled around the area, suggesting that those that undertook this calmly executed their victims and reloaded in the same place."

MR. RYNEVELD: Stop the video there, please. ⁶⁴⁸²

Q. Now, the photograph of the body that we see -- I'm sorry, the image of the body that we see in the video, is that the same person that you photographed?

A. It is, Your Honour.

Q. All right. And again, it showed the chest wound?

A. It did.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, you --

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. We haven't marked yet -- we haven't given a number to that last photograph.

JUDGE MAY: No, but I -- I want to know who that was.

MR. RYNEVELD: Sorry. That was a -- I can ask the witness, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

Q. Witness, did you recognise that individual who was speaking on camera as having been present on the 16th of January when you were there?

A. Your Honour, I didn't see the man there on the day in question. However, I did recognise him as being a man named Brown, a British liaison officer.

Q. And were you aware of his function as head of the medical team there or were you aware of that?

JUDGE MAY: Well, it would be better if you called Mr. Brown.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. That's fine. Thank you, Your Honour. Those are all the questions, other than having that last photograph, which has not been entered, marked as an exhibit, those are my questions. ⁶⁴⁸³ Might that be given an exhibit number?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 215.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Hendrie, a technical question: The images that we saw were of apparently internal organs, some of them, spread out over the bodies or elsewhere near to the bodies. All of that would have resulted from shooting at close range or could have resulted from being shot at such close range?

THE WITNESS: It could have, Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because I must say that, looking at it, one would have the impression that the organs were pulled, were taken out almost manually, which is consistent with what some of the witnesses said. But what you're saying is that that is also consistent with being shot at very close range?

THE WITNESS: I believe so, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, first of all, I have an objection since here we heard comments on details which are considered to be an exclusive domain of forensic analysis, and this witness here is not a forensic expert. I think that --

JUDGE MAY: Why don't you ask him about his qualifications?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I can see that he's a police detective. He worked in the English police. ⁶⁴⁸⁴

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hendrie. Help us about your qualifications to deal with this evidence. What is your background in forensic matters?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I served as a detective in the Royal Hong Kong Police for six years, dealing with murders and rapes and other serious crimes, and I've served in the Metropolitan Police Service in London for some 13 years and the last few years as a detective. And I served in Bosnia and in Kosovo where I've dealt with and seen numerous gunshot wounds and have worked with forensic pathologists and scientists on similar cases.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that is the whole point of my comments. You have statements of forensic experts, and here you are taking evidence on the same subject from a witness who is not an expert. But let me turn to my questions.

First of all, I would like to clarify something.

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, it's right that we should deal with your comment. Any question of qualification or appropriateness of this witness to deal with the matters which he does are matters which go to the weight of his evidence, nothing else. You can cross-examine him about the matter. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my time is extremely limited, and since you classified this witness as a 92 bis -- am I understanding this correctly?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. You've got an hour. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: ⁶⁴⁸⁵

Q. Well, in that case, concerning the previous topic, are you, sir, a medical expert at all?

JUDGE MAY: No. You know quite well he's not. He's given his background.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this is exactly what I claimed, and you told me to ask him about his qualifications, and this is why I put this question to him. But all right. Let's turn to other issues.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But before we focus on specific issues, let me ask you the following: In several instances in your statement, for example on page 1, you say that you saw people in black uniforms and then you say in camouflage uniforms. It was the KLA soldiers in the village. And then you go on to say: "I don't know how many other soldiers I saw that day," and then, at the bottom of the page, you say that you were told that the KLA had removed the bodies of the soldiers before the MUP forces and the VJ forces arrived, which, of course, is illogical. And at that point, you say that you cannot remember how you obtained this information, and you also cannot remember the identity of the persons who gave you this information. And then you go on to say that you don't know the identity of any of the KLA soldiers or military police and so on. So for example, on page 5, you say: "I'm not in the position to confirm the source of the information." This is the spot where you talk about the detaining of the civilian population. And then on page 6, you talk about mass graves near Orahovac where the remains of some missing ⁶⁴⁸⁶ persons --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Therefore, I just quoted seven or eight instances in your statement where you say that you do not have information about locations or the source of the information given to you. So that means that a number of allegations stated by you here is something that you don't know the source for. So is it something that is logical for a professional policeman to state?

So you say on a number of occasions that you don't know the identity, you don't know the source of information, and so on. Is it logical for a policeman to state something of this kind?

JUDGE MAY: Do you think you can deal with that or not?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I reported what I was told as faithfully as I could. It is correct that I do not know or cannot recall the identity of some of the sources.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, when you are retelling something that you were told and you cannot remember or you don't know the source of the information, isn't that something that in lay terms we describe as hearsay, rumours?

A. I believe that's a matter for the Court, Your Honour.

Q. All right. Let's clarify another issue. You said that when you came to Racak, you were stopped by the members of the KLA who were dressed in special black uniforms, well-armed, and so on; is that right? This is what it says here. "They wore black uniforms with KLA insignia. They ⁶⁴⁸⁷ were well-armed," and so on. Is that right?

A. Your Honour, that is correct except I didn't say that they were special.

Q. Well, I quoted your words. "Black uniforms, and they were well-armed."

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I don't normally interject, but if the witness is purporting -- I'm sorry -- if the accused is purporting to quote to the witness a direct quote, then at least the English translation of that doesn't use the words "well-armed," it says "armed with" and then describes it.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. RYNEVELD: I think that should be put to the witness accurately.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Quite right. Let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in that case, I would like you to look at the Serbian version, which says "well-armed." I did not read the English version, and I cannot look into a crystal ball to see whether the English and Serbian versions are identical. I think it's the responsibility of those who provide this material to me. But my question is as follows: I would like you to check the Serbian version and see that it says "well-armed." I did not invent this.

JUDGE MAY: What language did you make your statement in?

THE WITNESS: English, Your Honour.

MR. KAY: Your Honour, just looking at the statements of 24th of May, there is the word "well-armed" used under the 16th of January. ⁶⁴⁸⁸

JUDGE MAY: Let's find it.

MR. KAY: Second paragraph. Page 2 of the statement served 24th of May.

JUDGE MAY: Which statement?

MR. KAY: It's the interview of 12/10/2000 and 17/10/2000.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I have found the location. First of all, in the first statement, it refers to --

JUDGE MAY: It's the second statement. It seems to be the second statement.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. And I acknowledge that although in the first statement, it simply says "armed with," that in the second statement in paragraph -- in the now paragraph numbered -- is it 2? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble finding it.

MR. KAY: It's page 197181 on the top right-hand corner, second paragraph.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, I see it now. The number 2, it does say -- he's now referring back to his first statement and says: "They were well-armed but the weaponry did not appear to be different." So I see that, depending on which statement you're looking at, one statement simply says "armed" and the second statement says "well-armed." I accept that, and I apologise.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I accept Mr. Ryneveld's apologies, by I think that, Mr. May, you cannot draw a conclusion immediately that what the other side says is correct and what I say is incorrect. I think that that is one more manifestation of complete bias ⁶⁴⁸⁹ that we have seen here.

JUDGE MAY: Move on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The people in the black uniforms who were well-armed, were they the same kind of people that were seen on the different photographs and images accompanying Mr. Walker on various occasions during the Verification Mission's term of office?

JUDGE MAY: Can you answer that or not?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I cannot.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Who informed you about the occurrences in Racak? But let's be expeditious, brief. I'll ask short questions, you give me short answers to make the best use of our time.

A. The head of the Human Rights Division, Sandra Mitchell.

Q. Sandra Mitchell. All right. And you were told that there were a large number of fatalities, human fatalities. Now, do you remember what the figure that was quoted was? How many fatalities?

A. At that time, Your Honour, it was just a large number.

Q. Ken Marcusson from the local KVM unit told you that on the 15th of January he was at a certain position close to Racak. That is to say that he was in the same position which is where the tanks, as you said, of the Yugoslav army and the snipers were located; is that correct?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Does that mean that the Yugoslav authorities had previously informed the representatives of the KVM of the activities and called them ⁶⁴⁹⁰ to perform their functions as observers?

A. I can't answer that, Your Honour.

Q. And did Marcusson tell you how long the operation lasted and when the members of the police and army withdrew from Racak?

A. Mr. Marcusson just referred to the incident of the previous day lasting the day. He did not tell me at what time the security forces withdrew.

Q. And where did you arrive at Stimlje or Racak from on the 16th of January? Where were you coming from?

A. Pristina, Your Honour.

Q. In passing through Stimlje or Racak, did you notice members of the army or the police force, either nearby or at a further distance?

A. I don't recall seeing any security forces on my journey, Your Honour.

Q. So the only forces that you did see were the KLA forces that stopped you at their checkpoint; isn't that right?

A. Your Honour, I can confirm that I did see members of the KLA. I cannot recall whether I did see any security forces on that day or not.

Q. How many KLA members were at the checkpoint, manned the checkpoint?

A. About a dozen, Your Honour. Sorry, 12.

Q. Twelve of them. Now, you claim that after a short argument, you were allowed to enter Racak. What argument was this about?

A. Your Honour, I wouldn't term it an argument, it was a discussion or negotiation for us to enter. It referred to the ethnicity of the ⁶⁴⁹¹ driver and interpreter that we had with us.

Q. So on the 16th of January, the village of Racak and the surrounding parts were under the military control of the KLA, weren't they? Right?

A. I believe so, Your Honour.

Q. And do you have any idea as to the number of KLA members in Racak and surrounding parts on that day? Do you have any idea?

A. No, Your Honour. I'm sorry. No, Your Honour.

Q. You say that on the 16th of January, your colleague, Michael Pedersen, filmed with a video camera the locations that you describe and the victims. When did he arrive in the village?

A. I don't know, Your Honour. He arrived after I did.

Q. How soon after you?

A. I don't know, Your Honour.

Q. Did he come alone or did he come with anybody else?

A. When I saw him, Your Honour, he was alone.

Q. In your statement, you say that on the 16th of January, when you were touring some places in Racak and the surrounding parts that you mention in your statement, that KLA -- a KLA soldier led you in a camouflage uniform and elderly man, that these were the people who escorted you on your tour; is that right?

A. A KLA soldier in camouflage uniform did show us in the initial stages, and we were shown different locations by different members of the civilian population.

Q. Is it true that when you investigated the scene of the event, as ⁶⁴⁹² you denote to be place, spot number 1, Azem Banushi, did you notice a pistol casing of a 7.62 calibre type?

A. There was an empty case of 7.62 calibre, Your Honour.

Q. A pistol one; right?

A. I believe they're used in semi-automatic or automatic weapons as opposed to a pistol.

Q. Look at page 3, paragraph 2 of your statement, please.

JUDGE MAY: It may not follow because the accused is using the Serbian. What is the passage, Mr. Milosevic, that you want this witness to deal with?

MR. KAY: English page 3, end of second paragraph, first statement.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I don't think that observation is one I'm challenging.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But in view of your experience and as you explained to us, you dealt with killings during your long career, can you make an assumption as to who could have shot the bullet which that casing -- which left that casing?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. But you claim that the photographs of this scene indicate the absence of any signs of armed battle. Is that what you're saying? Do you claim that the photographs that you showed indicate the absence of any signs of armed battle?

A. My observation was that there was no indication of armed fighting ⁶⁴⁹³ at that location.

Q. So you exclude the possibility of an armed battle, the participation of these individuals in an armed battle; right? Or do you just say on that scene, in that location?

JUDGE MAY: If you don't follow the question, say so, Mr. Hendrie.

THE WITNESS: Sorry. Would Mr. Milosevic repeat the question, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Of course. You exclude, therefore, the possibility of any armed battle in which these individuals could have participated, or do you just exclude the possibility of armed battle in that particular locality?

A. Your Honour, nothing I saw or observed on that day indicated that the people -- the dead bodies that I had seen had been engaged in combat.

Q. And what should you have seen in order to confirm that they had been engaged in armed combat? What should they have looked like, the dead people, having been killed in combat? What should they have looked like?

A. Your Honour, it's not just what the combatants, if that's what they were, would look like, it's actually other indications in the vicinity. Empty cases, weapons, discarded munitions, damage from the use of those munitions.

Q. Yes. So you go back to the location. Like you said a moment ago, you said location. Now, can that mean that those participants in armed combat were brought to that location where there was no armed battle or combat?

A. Your Honour, nothing that I observed on that day indicated that ⁶⁴⁹⁴ the bodies of the men and child and woman had died at another location other than those ones where I was actually told and shown that the body had been moved and the location where the body had been taken from.

Q. All right. Now, if the bodies had been moved, the bodies which are moved -- the bodies could have been brought in from somewhere. Isn't that so?

A. I don't believe so, Your Honour.

Q. How do you know what distance these bodies were moved from, whether they were moved five metres or 50 metres or perhaps 200 metres? How could you tell?

A. I spoke to various people and was shown and observed different locations which indicated where people had died and then where they had been moved to.

Q. Did they explain to you how these people had in fact died?

A. On some occasions, yes.

Q. And in that ditch or gully where you saw the bodies, did they show you that?

A. I was shown a number of bodies in the gully, yes.

Q. Did they tell you that at the top of the gully was the police, who allegedly fired at those people?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. They didn't tell you that story, did they?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. How long did you stay in that location?

A. Which location? ⁶⁴⁹⁵

Q. The place where you explained that, in your opinion, there were no traces of armed battle, as you explained it, et cetera.

A. Your Honour, are we referring to the first location, the first body?

JUDGE MAY: Which location?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, let's say the first. How long were you in the first location?

A. I couldn't say, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: How long were you at the scene in the village?

THE WITNESS: Until the late afternoon, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: I don't think we have what time you got there.

THE WITNESS: About midday, sir.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In describing location 2 on page 3, you say that you examined the bodies of three males. Could you describe to us how you conducted this examination?

A. Initially, I observed the bodies from a distance, approached, and then visually observed each body in turn and then attempted to turn the body over to examine, to see whether there were any injuries on their backs.

Q. And you say that in addition to the -- next to the bodies of these three men, you saw no empty casings. Does that mean that no firearms were used?

A. No, Your Honour. It just means that there were no empty casings ⁶⁴⁹⁶ near those two bodies -- I'm sorry, three bodies.

Q. All right. Now, how much time went by, in your opinion, from the moment of death to the moment you actually saw the bodies?

A. I can't say that, Your Honour.

Q. Well, the soldier that took you on this tour, he knew where he was taking you, didn't he?

A. I believe so, Your Honour.

Q. Does that mean that the KLA, before you examined all these places with the team, that you -- that they had access to the bodies?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. And are you aware of a report of the aluminum test with the paraffin glove from the hands of people who were killed in Racak?

A. I am aware that the paraffin test was applied to the deceased.

Q. Do you know of the results, what the results were?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. And were you interested in learning the results at all?

A. I would have been, yes, Your Honour.

Q. But you never asked to hear them?

A. Your Honour, the Serb authorities were cooperative -- sorry, less than cooperative with the OSCE in this matter. I do make an observation that I believe the paraffin test has been discredited a number of years ago in the United States and elsewhere.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. And that was the evidence in this case from an expert.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁴⁹⁷

Q. You claim that next to the bodies - on page 4, you say that, paragraph 1 - that you saw a pool of blood, and it was the body belonging to Hajriz Jakujsi; right?

A. There was a pool of blood next to the deceased Mr. --

Q. Yes. And is it true that the blood hadn't dried?

JUDGE MAY: Would you like to look at your statement?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay, I don't know whether you can find it for us. Judge Kwon has it. It's page 4, second paragraph.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. The pool of blood by the body of Hajriz Jakujsi.

A. It was still moist, sir.

Q. Does that mean that it was well suited to a chemical analysis?

A. You could subject dried and fluid blood to analysis.

Q. And do you claim that the blood belonged to the victims that you're talking about?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you take any blood samples to analyse them or to perform comparative analyses with the victims?

A. No, Your Honour. The OSCE had no such facilities.

Q. So on the basis of what do you say that the blood on the ground belonged to the victims?

A. In this particular case, I cannot say categorically that the blood on the ground adjacent to the deceased was his blood.

Q. And you claim that the body of Hajriz Jakujsi was moved in respect ⁶⁴⁹⁸ to its initial position. That's right; isn't it?

A. It appeared that the body had been rolled over, sir, yes.

Q. And do you know the original position of his body or, rather, do you know what position the body of this man was in when death occurred?

A. The -- the body appeared to have been rolled over from a -- lying front down and rolled over on his back. The blood did correspond to the injuries of the deceased.

Q. So your answer to my question as to whether you know the original position of the body was a positive response; right? It was yes.

A. I cannot say that I know. I can say that I believe from my observations.

Q. All right. If the -- if you don't know the original position of the body, does that allow -- does that allow, along with the fact that the body was moved, that death did not occur in the place where you saw the body for the first time?

A. I don't believe so, Your Honour.

Q. You don't believe so.

A. No, sir. Sorry. No, sir.

Q. But you don't exclude the possibility or do you fully exclude it?

A. Your Honour, there were no indications that the body had been moved from another location and placed where I had seen it. There were no drag marks. There were no blood trails. The pool of blood I saw corresponded to the injury if the body had been face down and then rolled over.

Q. If the body were brought in part of a tent, for example, tent ⁶⁴⁹⁹ canvas, would there be drag marks or blood traces when it was brought in?

A. I believe there would be indications that the body had actually been brought in, yes.

Q. Now, as you are a policeman with 20 years of experience at your job, can you say that you're a specialist for certain aspects of your profession?

A. I'm not sure I'd describe myself as a specialist, Your Honour, but certainly knowledgeable in certain areas.

Q. Did you move the bodies you examined?

A. Some of them, yes, sir.

Q. And do you know that it is a basic rule of the profession to which you belong that on the scene, nothing should be touched or moved until an official investigation is conducted?

JUDGE MAY: Is it a basic rule?

THE WITNESS: In normal circumstances, yes, sir.

JUDGE MAY: And why were these abnormal?

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I was not there as a police officer. I was there as a member of the OSCE to observe what had occurred and to draw some conclusions. There had been some conflict the previous day. The KLA were in possession of the village and the security forces were likely to want to re-enter the village, which is actually what did occur a couple of days later.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you talk about bodies from scene 2 and the Syla brothers - it is the fourth paragraph on page 3 - you make no mention of traces of blood ⁶⁵⁰⁰ on the ground; isn't that right?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Was there any blood around their bodies or not?

A. Not that I observed, Your Honour.

Q. And the absence of blood next to bodies with numerous gunshot wounds, does that mean or can that mean that these people did not lose their lives in the location their bodies were found?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. So if you find a body with several gunshot wounds without any traces of blood, you consider that they could have been killed on that spot, do you?

A. That's quite possible, sir, yes.

Q. Where would the blood be, then? Where's the blood?

A. I don't understand, sir.

Q. Well, how is it possible that there are no traces of blood if there are so many wounds to the body caused by firearms, by gunshot wounds? So those wounds don't bleed, that would mean that.

A. Your Honour, when a person is injured, the wound does bleed, but it doesn't mean that blood will be liberally spread around the scene.

Q. Well, you didn't find blood anywhere. Not liberally spread; you didn't find it anywhere.

A. Sir, I did not observe any blood. It doesn't mean that there wasn't any there.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We're going to adjourn now. We're going to adjourn now. ⁶⁵⁰¹ Mr. Hendrie, just before we do, help us with this in case some point is going to be made about it hereafter. To what extent did you move any of these bodies when you were examining them?

THE WITNESS: I just overturned -- turned the bodies over, sir.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In your estimation, how soon were you on the scene after death?

THE WITNESS: I can't say, sir.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hendrie, we're going to adjourn for 20 minutes. During the adjournment, please remember not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include members of the Prosecution team.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, based on the information here, I take it that you're a graduate of -- you have a degree in chemistry; right?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Can you tell me, please, how long does it take, how many hours, for the blood to dry up?

A. Your Honour, I can't answer that question. It depends on a lot of circumstances. ⁶⁵⁰²

Q. Approximately.

A. I can't answer that question, sir.

Q. Well, you know what the circumstances were. So how long? Two hours, three, five, ten hours, more than ten hours?

A. Sir, I can't answer that question.

JUDGE KWON: Suppose the victims were killed on the 15th of January and they stayed there. Can you answer then?

THE WITNESS: I would have expected most of the blood to have dried, sir, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At any rate, the blood should have dried up in the more than 20 hours that lapsed; right?

A. I can't answer that, sir.

Q. All right. When you speak of the crime scene number 3, you describe the body of Ahmet Mustafa, and also you describe in great detail the wounds that he had. This is page 4, paragraph 5. You claim that his body was moved or, rather, turned over and moved from the spot in which it was hit. Can you determine in which spot he was shot?

A. I believe that he would -- he'd been killed at that location but had been moved.

Q. Did you move his body as well?

A. I turned his body over, sir, yes.

Q. You claim that this body had no shoes on; right?

A. Yes, sir. ⁶⁵⁰³

Q. But there was a full amount of clothing appropriate to the weather conditions; is that right?

A. He was fully clothed, sir, yes.

Q. Could one conclude that the footwear was removed from this body before you saw this body?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, do you believe that when somebody leaves the house, that person would put on a jacket, a hat, and so on and then leave the house barefoot? Is that what you normally suppose if you think that the footwear had not been removed from this body?

A. Your Honour, people do all sorts of things depending on the circumstances. I cannot tell what was going through this man's mind in the moments before he died.

Q. Very well. As you describe crime scene number 4 and a body identified as Skender, on page 5, paragraph 1, you say that the body was found outdoors and then taken into the house. Is that right?

A. That's what I was told, Your Honour, yes.

Q. Do you know who brought the body into the house?

A. I wasn't told, sir.

Q. Were you able to determine the location in which this person was killed?

A. There was a pool of blood and a piece of skull nearby, and that would appear to be the most likely place for the death.

Q. So somebody brought him into the house because, with lacking a fragment of skull, that person could not have entered the house on his ⁶⁵⁰⁴ own; is that right?

A. I was told that he had been moved into the house, sir.

Q. Did you, and when I say "you" I don't mean you personally, I just mean the verifiers, did you keep the axe that was supposedly found and shown to you, the one that you describe on page 4, paragraph 5?

A. No, sir.

Q. And who showed it to you, this axe?

A. There was a gentleman at the scene. I can't recall his name, sir.

Q. At that time, did you also have some KLA people in -- near you or escorting you?

A. There was a KLA soldier, sir.

Q. Did somebody take or isolate blood samples from the axe that had been shown to you?

A. I did not.

Q. Were there any traces of hair on the axe?

A. Not that I was able to observe, sir.

Q. So is it your claim that this person was killed with an axe?

A. No, sir.

Q. In your statement, you claim that you saw a trench which was about 120 centimetres deep and 60 centimetres wide, and about -- over 70 metres long; is that right?

A. Sir, I'm not very familiar with the metric system. I was using feet. The trench I believe you're referring to was four feet deep and about two feet wide. To answer your question, I did see a trench that would appear to match your description. ⁶⁵⁰⁵

Q. So this can be found on page 5, paragraph 3. It was about 120 centimetres deep, 60 centimetres wide, and over 70 metres long; is that right?

JUDGE MAY: The witness has answered that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What could have been the purpose of that trench?

JUDGE MAY: It's not for the witness to say. Do you have any idea, Mr. Hendrie?

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honour.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But you also claim that there were no signs that the trench had been recently used; is that right?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. Did you examine the entire length of this trench, the entire 70 metres? Yes or no.

A. No.

Q. Well, how do you know, then, that there were no traces of recent use?

A. Your Honour, I saw no traces of recent use.

Q. On page 4, paragraph -- page 5, paragraph 4 in your statement, you describe the crime scene number 5. There was a group of 15 bodies and seven scattered, and you say that this location was taped on a videotape on the 23rd of January between 1329 hours and 1400 hours. Does this mean that this videotape that you mention shows only the location or the bodies as well? ⁶⁵⁰⁶

A. Just the location, Your Honour.

Q. And what is the significance of this footage that was made eight days after the event?

A. I wanted to go back to the location to see the actual different positions with more time. On the day in question, I had very limited time.

Q. Yes. But my question was: What is the significance of this footage of the location which was made eight days after the event?

A. On the 23rd, when I returned, I made a record, a fuller record, of the locations where I had not an opportunity previously.

Q. All right. You say that on the north part of the gully you found casings. How many -- shell casings. How many did you find?

A. I didn't count them, Your Honour.

Q. Well, approximately. Two, four, five, ten, 50?

A. There were dozens, Your Honour.

Q. So dozens. So about 50, would you say? And how far from the body were these casings?

A. They were a few metres away, Your Honour.

Q. And what shells were they? Do you know?

A. I believe they were 7.62 millimetre calibre.

Q. And were the wounds on the bodies caused or inflicted by the shells?

A. The majority of the injuries on the bodies that I saw were inflicted by gunshots. I could not say at that time whether the gunshot injuries were caused by weapons fired and then discarding the empty cases ⁶⁵⁰⁷ I saw.

Q. Did you find rifle or pistol casings as well?

A. The empty cases are typical ammunition from automatic or semi-automatic weapons, not pistols.

Q. Could you be more precise as to the time when you saw these bodies for the first time?

A. I didn't make a record of the time. It was shortly before Ambassador Walker arrived on the scene. So if you're aware of that time, then it's possible to get the approximate time.

Q. So did he arrive after you?

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. And you said that you arrived at 12.00.

A. About midday, yes.

Q. So that means that he came in the afternoon. You claim that all of the bodies were turned over. Is that true? One can find this on page 5, paragraph 6.

A. I believe I said that the majority of the bodies appeared to be turned over.

Q. Could you describe more specifically what indicated that all of these bodies had been turned over and moved?

A. Sir, I said turned over. On the ground next to some of the bodies, there were corresponding patches of blood to the injuries. Some of the bodies had debris, that is dirt and grasses, on their faces which would appear to correspond to the area immediately adjacent to them.

Q. Were you able to determine who had turned over these bodies? ⁶⁵⁰⁸

A. Categorically, no.

Q. Is it true that all of these bodies had several gunshot wounds, through-and-through gunshot wounds?

A. I can't say that all of the bodies had several gunshot wounds.

Q. On what kind of soil or layer were these bodies lying?

A. I don't understand.

Q. On what kind of surface were these bodies lying? What kind of soil are we talking about?

A. I would merely describe it as dirt, sir. I'm not an expert on soil types, I'm afraid.

Q. But when you describe the blood traces, you describe them as pots, not as pools of blood; is that right?

A. I don't believe I've described pools of blood.

Q. Well, that's what I'm saying. You mention patches of blood, not pools of blood.

A. Sir, I believe this is just a matter of semantics. What would be a pool to one person may be a patch to another.

Q. Well, a patch or a spot indicates just a trace, whereas a pool indicates a larger amount. So I believe that this is not a semantic issue, it's a factual one; isn't that right?

JUDGE MAY: The witness has made his comment. Let's go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Wasn't it strange to you that despite all these wounds on these bodies that were grouped together there were only patches of blood and not larger amounts of blood that you could call pools of blood? ^{6509 BLANK PAGE 6514}

A. No, sir.

Q. Are you able to indicate on your photographs and videotapes the traces of blood that you describe? I'm just asking whether you're able to do so, I'm not requiring you to do so right now.

A. I would have to look at the photographs, sir, again.

Q. Well, do you think that you would be able to do that or not, to indicate these traces of blood in the photographs that you made?

A. Possibly.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Have we got the photographs?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but in that case, I would ask that this time not be counted in the time allotted to me for cross-examination.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll get the photographs out.

MR. RYNEVELD: I'm not sure whether the accused is referring to the photographs shown to this witness during that portion in chief or whether he's referring to all of the photographs in the Racak binder.

JUDGE MAY: Any photographs will do. Just produce the photographs taken of the bodies.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The photographs from the crime scenes.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. That would be in Racak binder 1 of 5, and they're here. They're behind tab 5. Could we perhaps have the binder, Racak binder 1, shown to the witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So these are the photographs of the ravine in which there were ⁶⁵¹⁵ these 15 bodies that you described.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, it starts behind tab 5 at number 00732312, and the photographs go through -- well, for some considerable -- two --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Hendrie, can you find the photographs counsel is talking about?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: You have.

MR. RYNEVELD: Does Your Honour want a copy too?

JUDGE MAY: No.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Now, you're being asked about indications of blood. Perhaps you'd like to look at the photographs. And if you can find one that illustrates what it is you saw, put it on the overhead projector, if you would.

THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So we are talking about the group that the witness described.

MR. RYNEVELD: If I may be of assistance. It's up to the witness, but I do notice that number 54 and 78 seem to describe ...

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am referring to the bloodstains on the soil in the location where you found those 15 bodies.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness find his way through that bundle and he can produce these photographs to us. ⁶⁵¹⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I wish to remind the witness my question was as follows: Are you able --

JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. Wait a moment. Let the witness go through the bundle and select the photographs. You can then ask him questions about it later.

Now, Mr. Hendrie, if you would show us, one by one on the overhead projector, the various photographs which you refer to, and if you want to make any comment about them, do.

THE WITNESS: Sir, this is photograph ending 352. As you can see, the deceased here has blood or what appears blood on his face, and to the right of his head there is debris and what appears to be blood, which would correspond to the head if he had been rolled over from a face-down position onto his back.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Another photograph, 732378. The deceased here at the bottom left-hand corner of the picture, there's a pool, if you wish, of blood, and the body appears to have been -- the rigor mortis set in and would correspond to --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Where is the pool? Could you indicate it with the pointer, please, where the pool of blood that you see is.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, go on.

THE WITNESS: [Indicates]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁵¹⁷

Q. Ah. Is that a pool of blood then?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness go on.

THE WITNESS: This area of blood would appear to correspond to the head injury if he had been moved from the face-down position to resting on his back as we see him now.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, go on to the next.

THE WITNESS: The next photograph sir, is 732354. And we see the blood there on the right-hand side of the deceased, with what appears an injury to, as we look at it, the left-hand side of the face. The body, if it was in a face-down position and rolled over from right to left, the blood would correspond to the area of the injury.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I can show Your Honour a photograph of a body where it would appear the body has not been turned over and the blood underneath the head would appear to correspond to the injury.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: It's photograph 732324. The deceased was part of the main group of 15 bodies. The blood underneath the head - and I'd indicate - would appear to correspond to an injury on the deceased's head that we actually cannot see here.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Are there any other photographs you wish to say anything about?

THE WITNESS: I've not been able to find anything in the short time available, sir.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁵¹⁸

Q. All right. Do you then, therefore - let's just clear this point up - do you therefore claim that these patches of blood, traces of blood, indicate that the lethal injuries were inflicted on the place in which the bodies were found? Can you say that with certainty?

A. Your Honour, nobody can be 100 per cent certain. However, all of the indications are that the deceased died where we found them, albeit that some had been turned over and appeared to have been searched. Documents and personal effects were found next to some of the bodies.

Q. So next to the bodies. They lost their lives there, and next to the bodies were their personal -- documents and personal effects. Is that what you're saying?

A. Some of the deceased, sir, yes.

Q. And did you perhaps establish who had searched them and turned them over or moved them, brought them in or whatever?

A. I did not, sir.

Q. How many casings did you find, whether belonging to shells or pistols, next to scene number 5?

A. I believe I said earlier that there were several dozen empty cases a few metres away from the deceased.

Q. In analysing your descriptions and the injuries from 01 to 22 - this is on pages 6 to 9 - it would emerge that these people were hit with a total of 43 bullets, and the wounds inflicted were for the most part in the region of the head, the trunk, the neck, et cetera. Now, in view of all this, the quantity of blood on the scene, on the ground that they were lying on, does this correspond to the number of ⁶⁵¹⁹ injuries and anatomic distribution of the wounds on these bodies?

A. Your Honour, I've never actually counted the number of injuries. I was only able to describe the injuries that I saw, and I'm not saying that there were not others.

Q. So you're saying that the injuries were caused by firearms mostly; isn't that right?

A. It would appear so, sir, yes.

Q. And do you have any photographs or video footage showing a single case from a rifle that you mentioned a moment ago?

A. I don't recall actually photographing any empty cases. As you might appreciate, sir, I had limited film, and in actual fact, I did run out.

Q. All right. You're a professional. You've been a professional soldier for 20-odd years. Is it possible that in your statement you make mention of cases and don't consider it significant to photograph the cases in the places you found them? You say you saw them. Is that logical?

JUDGE MAY: He's a professional policeman. It was translated as "soldier." He's given his answer. He's told you why he didn't photograph them.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, you have additional time. Is there anything else you want to ask this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, yes, I do have several more questions.

JUDGE MAY: Then let's get on with them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁵²⁰

Q. On page 7, paragraph 6, you speak of body number 13 and the presence of grasses and dirt stuck to his body. Does that correspond to the surface that the body was found on? I'm referring to leaves and grasses. Where do these leaves and grasses come from in view of the ground, the surface on which the body was found? And I'm referring to body number 13.

A. The location was not consisting purely of bare dirt. There were grasses and other vegetable matter, leaves and such like, lying on the ground.

Q. Yes. But you can't see that on the photograph at all. On that particular example, the one I'm referring to. There are no leaves or grass anywhere there.

JUDGE MAY: Can you deal with that or not, Mr. Hendrie? If you can't deal with it, just say so.

THE WITNESS: Sir, I recorded what I saw, and I photographed the bodies in situ. The dirt and debris on the bodies did correspond to the material around the bodies.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you about the leaves and grass.

A. I believe I answered that, sir.

Q. All right. Thank you, then. Now, you claim that you were informed that an 18-year-old, Hanemshah Mehmeti, was hit from a sniper somewhere in the village as well as another person who was with her; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir. ⁶⁵²¹

Q. And who informed you of that?

A. I don't recall, sir, and the name of the person was not recorded. As you might appreciate, not every person that we spoke to did actually want to give their personal details, in view of the circumstances.

Q. And did you talk to her friends and family who transferred her to the house?

A. I spoke to whoever was there, sir.

Q. But you don't know who with?

A. As I said, sir, not all of the people that we spoke to actually wanted to give their details to us.

Q. And the people you did talk to, were they civilians or members of the KLA?

A. They were all civilians, sir.

Q. When did you leave Racak on the 16th of January?

A. About teatime, sir. About 4.00 or 5.00.

Q. You claim that on the 17th, you had intended to return to Racak. Why was that?

A. As you can appreciate, sir, an afternoon to look at the events of the 15th is insufficient, and a return to the scene is always beneficial.

Q. On page 10, paragraph 4, you say that negotiations were held with respect to the entry of Danica Marinkovic, the investigating Judge into the village. Now, what negotiations and who were they conducted with?

A. A member of the OSCE, a senior member of the OSCE discussed the matter with the Judge.

Q. What outcome? What was the outcome? ⁶⁵²²

JUDGE MAY: I think we've had evidence about this from the witness. I don't think this witness can help us much more. Mr. Milosevic, you've got ten minutes more, which means you will have had practically an hour and a half with this witness, which is more than enough in the circumstances.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't need ten minutes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell us, please, who shot at whom in Racak and the surrounding parts on the 17th of January.

A. From what I saw and the radio communication that I listened in to, it would appear that the security forces laid down fire in the direction of the village. Whether there was any return fire, I cannot say.

Q. And do you happen to know what was going on when the bodies were taken from the mosque, taken over from the mosque in order to be transported to the forensic institute in Pristina?

A. I don't understand the question.

Q. Do you know what fighting was going on when the judicial organs were taking the bodies from the mosque in order to transport them to the forensic institute or institute for forensic medicine in Pristina?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. And who prevented the investigating Judge not conducting her examination in Racak for a full three days?

A. I can't answer that question, sir.

Q. Later on, you attended the work of the forensic team, as far as I was able to gather. Yes or no. ⁶⁵²³

A. Yes, sir.

Q. At whose invitation were you present during this forensic procedure?

A. It was at our request, and the director of the institute acceded to that request.

Q. And were you there when the paraffin glove was taken off the bodies in Racak?

A. I was present, sir, yes.

Q. And do you happen to know the results of those tests?

JUDGE MAY: He's already said that. He didn't.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not with respect to his presence when this was taken. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to answer that question.

JUDGE MAY: He's already said he didn't know the results of the paraffin tests. And anyway, they've been discredited.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. So you consider that this has already been discredited, do you? Very well. So the witness --

JUDGE MAY: I was repeating the evidence, which Mr. Milosevic, which this witness had given, which was he didn't know the tests, the results of the tests, and anyway, these sort of tests have not been supported but have been discredited.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the United States, but not in Yugoslavia.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's correct. ⁶⁵²⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, does the investigating procedure in Yugoslavia carried out to USA rules or the rules and of the Yugoslav investigating --

JUDGE MAY: Now, have you any more questions, because you've got less than five minutes left.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Hendrie, I'm first of all interested in one point. When you arrived on that particular day in Racak, were you told, when you were taken to the scene where you saw everything that you saw, were you told at all whether there were any casualties among the KLA on that day? Were there any dead, any fatalities on their part? What do you know about that?

A. I wasn't informed of any KLA casualties at that time. However, I was informed subsequently that the KLA suffered nine casualties.

Q. While you were performing this job which you went on doing until 4.00 or 5.00 in the afternoon, you didn't know that; right?

A. That's correct, sir, yes.

Q. And did anybody indicate the spot, just like you were taken to all these other locations, did anybody show you the location of the KLA base on that particular day, where that was?

A. No, Your Honour.

Q. So you weren't able to see whether there were any traces there of fighting, of blood, or anything of that kind. You weren't able to see ⁶⁵²⁵ that, were you?

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. At what point during that day when you finished your work at 4.00 or 5.00 in the afternoon, or, rather, did you know and at what point did you know exactly what the number of casualties was on that day?

A. I -- at the end of the day, I was able to tot up the number of bodies that I had seen, but I was led to believe that there were additional casualties that I had not seen.

Q. Mr. Walker was just with you up on the hill, but he didn't go on with you at the end of the day when you ascertained the number of casualties. That's right, isn't it?

A. I would not describe Mr. Walker as being with me. He did arrive at the scene with a separate party, and I did not take part or join his group.

Q. Thank you. In your statement, the one you gave, you did not -- and this is on page 5 of the Serbian version, the B/C/S version, you make no mention of this, and it is on page 5, paragraph 2 from the top in the English version. In that portion, you just say that where the 15 -- there were 15 bodies grouped together, you found a grenade casing, a shell casing that you mentioned a moment ago, but you didn't say that you found any casings, in fact, there from automatic weapons. In that statement, that is to say on page 5, paragraph 2 of your statement, you make no mention of having found any casings from a firearm at all.

A. Your Honour, I'm not sure which part in the English statement that the counsel is referring to. ⁶⁵²⁶

Q. Page 5, paragraph 2 from the top in the English version. You just refer to a rifle grenade, and you make no mention in the statement of any cases, casings.

A. That's correct, sir.

Q. Thank you.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm now interested in the following, that is to say it refers to page 7 of the B/C/S text and page 7, paragraph 4 of the English version, and onwards. Paragraph 4 onwards.

Q. On the spot in the gully, you took note of the position of each body, did you not?

A. Generally, yes, sir. There was one exception.

Q. Thank you. You also took note of the fact that each body, whether it was lying alone or in a group of bodies or one over another, for example, body 9, 10, 12 and 13, you even observed that, made note of that; right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you took note of the wounds you encountered. That's right; isn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, I'm interested in bodies 6 and 7, and that is on page 6 of the B/C/S version and it is page 7, paragraph 2. In the seventh body, you say that the right leg of the sixth body, which was lying next to the man, was near the chest and it appeared that there was some blood from the body of the seventh corpse. The right leg of the sixth body lying next to this ⁶⁵²⁷ man was positioned near the man's chest and appeared to have some blood on his leg from the seventh body. That is what you say in the statement.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. With the other bodies lying around in a group or one over another, you did not note that there were traces on another body from another corpse. That's right, isn't it?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, tell me, as an experienced detective, is it possible not to find the traces of one body on another if these people were hit from several bullets, especially in the region of the head, and if they were hit in that spot and if death occurred on the spot, that there would be no body from one -- no blood from one body onto another? How can you explain that? How do you explain the fact that in this group of bodies you found no blood after these shots from one body onto another? Because the blood would have had to have been found on other bodies as well, from one body on another. And in one section here, referring to the tenth body, which was a male, positioned directly below the ninth body, et cetera --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer what you've put so far.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I would not pretend that my notes and observations were complete and full observation of the scene. It was not practical or possible at that time in those circumstances to treat the examination of the scene as we would like to see at home. The examination was, I admit, hurried, and I recorded as much as I could in the circumstances.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁵²⁸

Q. Well, there are photographs of all these bodies together. I'm asking you, as an experienced detective working with crimes of this nature, homicide, that's how I'm asking you. What happens to the blood when somebody's shot in the head? Does the blood spurt and splash in different directions? And if so, how is it possible that traces of that blood was not found dispersed on all the bodies? You just found the blood on --

JUDGE MAY: We have the point. Now, can you deal with that, Mr. Hendrie, please?

THE WITNESS: Each injury or cause of injury is different, depending on the circumstances. Yes, I would have expected to see traces of blood on the other deceased. However, I did not record that. That does not mean it was not there.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We can take a look at the photographs. I've examined them on many occasions and I wasn't able to find what we're talking about. But we have your answer and I don't wish to comment. But I should like to show you, nonetheless, three photographs in the time that I have at my disposal. I'll be able to get through three.

Did you see the body of this particular man? It is Racak 2, tab 5.

A. Yes, Your Honour.

Q. I'm interested in knowing whether he saw him on this photograph where the bodies are separate or on this other photograph where the bodies are grouped together? In the first photograph, they are a good seven or ⁶⁵²⁹ eight metres apart. May we see that photograph, please. Is that the photograph you looked at, this particular scene, rather?

A. Your Honour, it's difficult to see the photograph on the screen. May I have a look at the --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, look at it.

THE WITNESS: The photograph shows the position of the bodies when I first saw them.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This next photograph, may we see that one too? And they're all together on that one.

Now, which photograph corresponds to the actual state of affairs as it was?

JUDGE MAY: Can you help, Mr. Hendrie, or not?

THE WITNESS: I'm trying to recall the actual photograph that I took, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: If you can't, say so.

THE WITNESS: I -- I believe that the photograph that I took is marked 7614, but I'd have to check my records, sir. Sir, if I may refer you to photograph 732399.

JUDGE MAY: If somebody could find that. Mr. Ryneveld, do you think you can help us with that?

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes, Your Honour. 399?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. Right here.

THE WITNESS: Sir -- ⁶⁵³⁰

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this photograph shows the scene from a different angle, and I can confirm that I did take this photograph, and it shows the bodies as I did see them. It shows the KLA soldier who was escorting us and two of my colleagues and several of the civilian population.

JUDGE MAY: So that is separate from the other bodies.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, that seems to have the point.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hendrie, I have just one more question pertaining to your first statement. You said that the 13th body was below the 11th body. It was on the -- lying on the back with both arms partially stretched out. Can you explain this a bit further? Yes or no.

A. Your Honour, I believe the photograph would probably assist more than my recollection of what I saw.

Q. I don't have the time.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] And, Your Honours, on this witness's second statement, on page 1.

Q. Mr. Hendrie, you said the following: I was told that the KLA had removed the bodies of the soldiers before the forces of VJ and MUP had arrived." And then you added the following: "They did so in order to prevent the dead bodies from being publicly shown and used for propaganda purposes."

This is what you were told; is that right? ⁶⁵³¹

A. That's correct, Your Honour.

Q. And you remember that the person who told you this was a member of the KLA; is that right?

A. My recollection, sir, is that it was reported to me by one of my team who had been informed by a member of the KLA that that was the case.

Q. But you say here that this information was given directly to you by somebody who was a member of the KLA. This is what your statement reflects.

A. Sir, I don't believe that my statement actually reflects that statement.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, let us move on. We can in fact read what the statement says.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I'm not insisting, Your Honour. Thank you. I'm just interested in the following:

Q. Your second statement pertaining to Orahovac, page 5.

JUDGE MAY: Do you want these photographs any more? Do you want the photographs?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No.

JUDGE MAY: All right. They can be taken away. We must try and finish this witness.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hendrie, here you speak of some of the information you had regarding Orahovac, and as you say here, you heard that Serb residents of the town were systematically arrested and that the detained include men, women and children. And then you allegedly learned that these missing ⁶⁵³² persons had been killed by the KLA and that there were about 40 of them. Who gave you this information?

A. I interviewed a number of the civilian members of the population of Orahovac reporting missing relatives and friends.

Q. My last question: You say here that: "I was also informed that many of the KLA members involved in the initial detention of the civilian population were members of the local KLA village or town defence unit." So that means that those were civilians. They were what is known as village guards or watches.

A. I can't say whether the members of the KLA involved were actually civilians or true soldiers. I just described it as was described to me.

Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hendrie.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

THE ACCUSED: Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Now what is it?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please.

JUDGE MAY: Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the English version is here, and what amicus just claimed can be found here. It says here: [Previous translation continues]... "[In English] before the arrival of VJ MUP forces. This was done in order to prevent the case from being displayed and being used --"

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we can read.

THE ACCUSED: And then: "[In English] I am unable to recall how I came to be told this information or the identity of the person who ⁶⁵³³ supplied the information. However, I do remember that the source of the information was supposed to have been an UCK member."

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We can read that. Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

MR. RYNEVELD: Very briefly. I am conscious of the time. Three very quick areas.

Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Sir, much has been made during cross-examination about whether or not the bodies in the gully were brought to that location, and you've given your -- your answer and told the Court some of the reasons that -- from which you derived that impression. Did you, in the course of your examination, also make any observations about the clothing and any bullet holes in clothing in relation to wounds?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how, if at all, did that compare and how, if at all, did that assist you in your conclusion?

A. Where the injuries were actually on the torso or arms or legs, the damage to the body corresponded to the damage in the clothing and the corresponding blood.

Q. All right. Second point: In your experience, sir, if a person is killed outright and the heart stops pumping, do you expect to see more bleeding or less bleeding?

A. There would be less, sir.

Q. All right. About the issue of the drying of blood, you've said it depends on circumstances. Would the depth of the pool of blood be one of ⁶⁵³⁴ those circumstances?

A. It could be, yes, sir.

Q. Would the temperature - this is 15th or 16th January - be a factor?

A. It would be, sir, yes.

Q. In your statement, did you notice frost or snow on any of the bodies?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And in your experience, might that also provide drying or provide reliquidation of the blood?

A. It could delay the drying of the blood, yes.

Q. Finally, there was questioning about whether you would expect to find blood on adjacent bodies. Assuming that the bodies are upright when shot, in other words point of impact, that's when the spray or blood would be, while they're upright; correct?

A. That's what I would expect, yes.

Q. And subsequently when the bodies fall together, if they were together, would you necessarily expect the blood spray to be on the bodies lying adjacent?

A. No, sir.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.

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

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.

[The witness withdrew] ⁶⁵³⁵

MR. NICE: The next witness is Mr. Jemini, please. Your Honour, we're back -- there is going to be further Racak evidence but, logistically, it hasn't been possible to have it all together at the same time. Although there's a slightly better scale map in the relevant binder, it may be that the Chamber would be happier continuing to use the atlas for basic geography because the Chamber has become familiar with it. I'll lay this atlas at page 10 on the overhead projector, or have that done. The Chamber will see that Celine, which features in the indictment in respect of deportation rather than specifically in respect of killings, I think paragraph 63 or thereabouts but I'll come to that if necessary in due course, that Celine lies south-east of Bela Crkva and is to be found on page 10 at box K22. Again, waiting for the witness to come in and using the time, unfortunately we don't have an usher to deal with it.

Your Honour will probably recall that there are several overhead photographs of Bela Crkva. Perhaps inevitably none of them actually is taken in the direction of Celine, but I can explain by reference to Exhibit 157 where Celine may be found and that will help the process of orientation.

First of all, on the map, it's page 10, box K22, Celine south-east of Bela Crkva. And worth noting, there are roads, the red roads, coming from the north, the west, the south; several roads into the village. They feature --

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes. Let the witness come in.

[The witness entered court] ⁶⁵³⁶

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

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

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

WITNESS: AGIM JEMINI

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Your full name, please, sir.

A. Agim Jemini.

Q. Mr. Jemini, did you make a statement to investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor in Tirana on the 17th of July of 1999? Did you come to this Tribunal some days ago, and did you, before a presiding officer of the -- appointed by the Registrar, testify -- attest to the accuracy of that statement on the 3rd of June on which day you also provided a short addendum making corrections and amplifications to your statement?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Jemini, before you came in, I'd started the process of assisting the Judges with matters of geography, so I'm picking up a story part way through and there's no need for you to say anything except if I get things wrong.

MR. NICE: May I lay on the overhead projector what is Exhibit 157 from the Bela Crkva binder, first of all. I think there are a couple matters of geography that I'll draw to the Chamber's attention on this to save time. ⁶⁵³⁷ The village of Celine is off to the left on this photograph. If we can now focus on -- that's probably all I need ask at this stage. There are other questions I'm going to ask in relation to this photograph for the next witness.

The witness, Your Honour, produces two exhibits. Can we distribute them, please. Photographs. I produce them now. It will make more sense of the summary once I read it; that is, the summary of his witness statement.

Your Honours, some understanding of the immediate geography of the house in which the witness hid is necessary. I suspect that, although he may be inclined to help us with more detail, survive without knowing the full complexity, but if we do need more detail, there are more photographs available. If we can look at the photographs in order, laying them on the overhead projector, please.

JUDGE MAY: They should have exhibit numbers.

MR. NICE: Certainly, yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 260.

MR. NICE: For both photographs? Thank you. Can we can lay one of the first -- can we lay a colour one, please, on the overhead projector. Take them both.

Q. The first one -- put it on the overhead projector, please. Yes. This shows the view from the window of a partially-completed building, one of, I think, five in the family compound occupied by this witness. The white building ahead is, I think, another building in the compound. But of more significance is the brick -- they're all brick, but the exposed ⁶⁵³⁸ brick building in the foreground which has balconies to it and in which soldiers were stationed during the attack on this village. The witness, from his vantage point, roughly where the cameraman is, being able to overhear what was said by soldiers in the building next door. The next photograph, please. We're now looking back from the opposite side of that compound, towards the house from which the witness was viewing things and in which he was hiding. It is the top exposed square window opening immediately under the roof of that building in which he was positioned and from which he was, in due course, to see the death -- deaths of members of his family.

The building to the left of this photograph, the white building, is another building within the compound. But as I say, it may be that detailed local geography is not required because matters are adequately explained in the witness statement and summary.

But, Your Honour, I'll ask the witness if I've adequately dealt with those photographs and, if so, may they then become an exhibit.

Q. Mr. Jemini, have I adequately summarised - and it is a summary - the effect of those photographs?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: The Chamber will probably have noted, and if not, may I remind it, that there is in this witness's statement a paragraph at page 3 of the statement where the witness gives an account of what he overheard from the adjoining house. The statement is, of course, inevitably to some degree a summary of what he overheard, and having checked this morning, the essence of it is accurate. But it is to some degree the essence, and ⁶⁵³⁹ it may be that the Chamber would prefer the passage that starts: "About 5.00 p.m. that afternoon..." and ending at the following paragraph - a short passage - to be given live by the witness rather than simply read from the statement. I would --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: In which case, with the Chamber's leave, I will now turn to the summary of the statement --

JUDGE MAY: We ought to get the statement exhibited.

MR. NICE: May we have an exhibit number.

THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit 217 and 217A for the redacted version.

MR. NICE: That, of course, incorporates the addendum, I trust. And if the usher would be good enough to put the atlas back onto the overhead projector so that the area can be viewed by those watching. With the -- no, not the overhead photograph, the atlas. I'll hand it in. Here it comes.

If the usher would be good enough to put the atlas on the overhead projector, please, where my thumb -- and if the audio-visual unit would focus on the immediate area of Celine and Bela Crkva. The statement of this witness records that, now 40, having lived in the village of Celine all his life with his family, his house was located in a compound of a total of five houses, three of which, including his, were only partly built at the time.

The Serb offensive, in his description, was in three phases, of which the first phase occurred at 5.00 on the morning of 25th of March when the village was surrounded with tanks, armoured vehicles, and Pragas. ⁶⁵⁴⁰ There was, at the time, no KLA presence in the village and none of the villagers had any obvious reason to leave.

At about half past five, the Serb forces started to shell and shoot at the village without warning. It appeared at that time they were trying to scare villagers rather than to aim at them. Elderly, women, children, and some men left their homes and collected in open areas within the village which they were unable to leave at the time because it was surrounded. Younger men, fearing they might be targets, decided to hide rather than to gather together with the larger groups. And the witness, with his cousin Isuf, hid in the roof cavity of the incomplete house that I've already shown to you in the photographs. That top level was a level generally unused and he was able to conceal himself within it, being afforded a view from that window space of a large part of the village.

Later that morning, a large number of foot soldiers entered the village. The uniforms he's able to describe on page 2 of his statement were of green/brown camouflage uniforms bearing the white double-headed eagle insignia, those in command wearing dark green beret-style hats, the soldiers wearing pointed Partizan-style hats.

At about 9.30, a number of soldiers entered the yard of his compound, shot his dog, and started looting the houses, removing valuables. They also removed satellite dishes.

Two soldiers who, from what he could overhear, may have been the commanders of the offensive took up positions on the second floor of that adjoining exposed-brick built house that I drew to your attention in the ⁶⁵⁴¹ photographs. Additionally, a number of soldiers took up positions in the house in which he was hiding but underneath him and from which they would have had a good view of the village.

At about 10.00, the village school was set on fire, and I think burnt down, and throughout the day, he was able to see soldiers looting and setting fire to the houses of the village. Again, they took satellite dishes.

Can we now turn in the evidence of the witness himself, and at page 3 of the statement.

Q. Mr. Jemini, were you, from your position in the house, able to hear in general conversation between the people in the next-door house? Just yes or no.

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I should have said that the statement deals with some of the call-signs, Commander 444, and the use of special codes, but the Chamber can read that in detail if it needs to.

Q. Mr. Jemini, did you, at about 5.00 in that afternoon, hear something in particular? And if so and in your own time, would you tell us what you heard, please.

A. Yes. We heard a radio conversation where the question was what the situation is like in Celine and the reply was the situation is good. How is it? Is it as well as in Racak? No, it's twice as much as in Racak.

At that moment, scared as we were having heard this conversation, we gathered that the number of dead was twice as much as in Racak, ⁶⁵⁴² approximately about a hundred dead. That was the conversation which we overheard coming via radio communication.

Q. Later on, at about 7.00, did you hear something else?

A. Yes.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. We heard that the offensive at Celine ought to stop, and their commanders agreed that the offensive should stop. And they stopped the offensive at 7.00 in the afternoon -- or in the evening.

Q. When you say it was to stop, who said it should stop? Was it somebody in the house or was it somebody over a radio?

A. No, it was a command that came from a distance, from remotely, from Prizren where the main command was located and which was in charge of the offensive at Celine, whilst the local commanders in the village agreed to the order that the offensive be stopped.

MR. NICE: I return to the summary from which I am reading, with some amplification.

Soldiers stayed at points throughout the village that day, although most of them left that night. And at about 8.00 on the morning of the following day, his parents and three other family members returned to the village from where they had been in hiding. He spoke to them. And since people thought that this, the end of what the witness would be describe as phase 1, was the end of the attack generally, they all decided to stay in the village.

However, very shortly afterwards, the second phase began with further military units, this time thought by the witness to be special ⁶⁵⁴³ police forces, approached the village from the main road. And as the Chamber will understand, the main road is, of course, the road running north-west/south-east, and to the south of the railway line until just to the east of Celine.

So that these soldiers were approaching from that road. There were differences between these and the uniform of the first soldiers. They had coloured ribbons on their sleeves. And as we can see at page 4 of the statement, they had shaved heads, no hats, beards. And the impression obtained by the witness was that they may have been Arkan's men.

His mother and father, despite being urged by him to leave the village, remained. His mother, indeed, insisted on baking bread, which in due course was to draw her to the attention of a troop carrier who yelled obscenities at her but on this occasion drove by in the direction of Velika Krusha and Krushe e Madhe, which I think we can see just at the bottom of the screen.

His relations went and hid in a basement. He returned, did the witness, to the same roof space, and within half an hour, at about 9.00, there were suddenly 200 to 300 soldiers in the village with coloured ribbons and so on on their sleeves. These soldiers went from house to house, and at about 9.30, they entered his compound and searched every house. When they reached the second floor of the house in which he was hiding, they took up positions, apparently guarding their colleague soldiers who were there. He saw about eight soldiers enter the house in which his parents were hiding in the basement, bring them out and stand ⁶⁵⁴⁴ them in the yard. He heard the soldiers ask his father and his uncle Shaip if they had money. His father, his cousin Muharrem and his cousin's wife were then taken to the houses in which they had money in order to recover money in a substantial amount, which was then, of course, stolen from them.

Those relations were brought back to the witness's mother and uncle. He saw the soldiers lead all five to a gap between the two houses, and he saw them all shot, falling immediately to the ground. A little later, a truck drove into the compound and further looting occurred of property from the houses. And throughout the rest of that day, the witness observed soldiers going around the village, burning houses, using flame-throwers for that purpose and only leaving the newer houses, such as the one in which he was hiding, which were more difficult to burn, intact. Thus it was that his house and the neighbouring house where the commanders were or had been located were not burnt. They also heard, he and his cousin, the sound of automatic gunfire from time to time.

The soldiers stayed in the village until about 1.00 the next morning, and as soon as they left, the witness and his cousin left the village, not even feeling that they could check on the bodies of relations whose fate they all-too-perfectly understood.

He made his way to Zrze, which the Chamber will remember is to the west of Bela Crkva, the north-west of Celine, and on the way - and one can see the logic of this if the Chamber recalls the site at the junction of the streambed and the railway immediately south of Bela Crkva - on the ⁶⁵⁴⁵ way, he saw a large number of human corpses there at that junction of the stream and the railway line.

That, then, in this witness's account ended the second phase. Having arrived at Zrze at about 5.00 that day, they rested and returned to Celine two nights later - not the four in the statement, that's been corrected in the addendum - and then he with other villagers would spend the days away from the village, returning at night to bury the dead.

In the course of this period of time, Serb police together, it would appear, with Gypsies visited the village regularly, looting houses and continuing to burn property.

And so it was over the next 30 nights that this witness, as I think I explained, the mayor of his village for many years, or for several years, so it was that he and others returned at night to bury some 78 victims of this attack. Of these 78, some 18 bodies were burnt and carbonised beyond perhaps recognition in many cases.

JUDGE MAY: Does this appear on the schedule, the victims?

MR. NICE: Yes. It's in his statement -- at least I hope it's in his statement.

JUDGE MAY: No, I meant to the indictment. Is this a schedule in the indictment or not?

MR. NICE: Not. For the reasons I've given, that Celine is being dealt with as a deportation site and although, of course, it's all integral to the -- if I'm wrong about that, I'll correct the position. Although it's all integral to really what is a very small area, as we can ⁶⁵⁴⁶ see from the overhead picture, notwithstanding the awfulness of these events, he might not have been called as a witness but for the very important evidence that he can give about the conversations that were overheard. But I'll just check that he -- that the victims are not in the schedule to the indictment.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Mr. Jemini, we're going to adjourn for 20 minutes. Would you come back then to conclude your evidence. Remember not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.

If the registrar would come up, please.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.52 a.m.

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

Q. [Interpretation] According to the information you have provided, it says that your previous profession was technical director. Where were you technical director, in fact?

A. At the industrial exchange parts in Rahovec.

Q. And what is your vocation?

A. Mechanical engineering. Mechanical engineering.

Q. And where did you go to school? Where did you graduate and when?

A. In Prishtina, in 1985. ⁶⁵⁴⁷

Q. You say that for the last 15 years, you were the head of a village, elected that; is that right? Village leader.

A. Yes.

Q. And who elected you village leader?

A. The residents of the village.

Q. When you were giving your statement to the investigator, you were 38 years old; right?

A. Forty years old.

Q. Forty.

A. Thirty-nine.

Q. Thirty-nine. Very well. So you were village leader of Celine when you were 24 years old; right?

A. From the age of 24.

Q. As this isn't customary in Kosovo, how do you explain the fact that such a young man was elected to be village leader with all the older people around you?

A. This can be explained because we were working for the future and the prosperity of the village. And this -- and this was a voluntary position, because every villager tried to contribute something for the future of the village.

Q. Are you a member of any political party?

A. Now, yes.

Q. Which one?

A. The democratic party.

Q. Is that the party of Ibrahim Rugova? ⁶⁵⁴⁸

A. No.

Q. Who's the president of your party, then?

A. Mr. Hashim Thaci.

Q. Were you a member of the KLA?

A. No.

Q. When did you become member -- a member of the Hashim Thaci party?

A. From when the party was founded.

Q. And when was that?

A. On the date when it was formed.

Q. What was that date?

A. On the day when the party was founded, after the war.

Q. You don't know the exact date?

A. No. It's not very important.

Q. Well, I'd like you to answer the questions. Now, whether it's important or not is not up to you to decide.

A. Perhaps I can't -- I can't really remember the date but I know that it was founded after the war.

Q. All right. On page 2 of your statement, paragraph 2, it says and I quote: "The whole population of the village --"

MR. NICE: I trust the witness has got the statement before him.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. "All the inhabitants were still in the village because there were no members of the KLA present, and there was no reason for anyone to leave." End of quotation. Are those your words? "The whole population ⁶⁵⁴⁹ of the village was still present because we had no KLA presence and there was no reason for anyone to leave." Is that what you say?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, explain this to me: Why do you emphasise the fact that because there were no KLA, that the inhabitants had no reason to leave the village? Why do you say that?

A. I say this because everywhere the Serbian army and police entered into areas where there was KLA. So I wanted to say that we were not in any way to blame for this. And that's why we decided to remain in our houses and why nobody left the village.

Q. Yes. But as you say there were no KLA -- we had no KLA presence and there was no reason for anyone to leave the village, when you say that, do you in fact imply that from villages and places in which there were members of the KLA, the population left the villages and those places?

A. No.

Q. So not even in places where there were KLA members did the inhabitants leave the villages; right?

A. Nobody left the villages until Serbian army and police forced them out.

Q. I understood your explanation in a different way, that you had no reason because there were no KLA, which means, conversely, that if there were KLA present, the inhabitants had reason to leave the village. Is that logical or not?

A. No, because the KLA was in operation for a year. But in no -- ⁶⁵⁵⁰ nowhere did the population go to Albania in this time. But it was the Serbian army and the police that, according to their strategy, regardless of where the KLA was, it was the Serbian forces that decided to expel the population into neighbouring countries.

Q. All right. As you say regardless of where the KLA was the Serb forces behaved in the same way, why then did you say that all the inhabitants were still in the village because "we had no KLA presence there"? If this is regardless, as you say, why are you placing it in regard of this, if I can put it that way?

A. We emphasised this because, until the NATO intervention, the Serbian army and police had not expelled anybody from the Albanian territories to neighbouring countries. But at the moment of the NATO intervention, they had a strategy ready, prepared, to expel the population regardless of whether the KLA was present in these places or not.

Q. All right. That means that before the 24th of March, the beginning of the war, you had no problems. That would follow on from that, would it?

A. We didn't have any kind of problem in the village.

Q. And then when the war broke out, the refugees started, just like they do in any war; right?

A. No. When the Serbian army and police came to the village, whether the KLA was present or not, the intention was to expel the entire population to the territory of neighbouring villages, regardless of who was there. And it involved murders and assaults and arsons and other crimes. ⁶⁵⁵¹

Q. Yes. Tell me this: Have you ever heard of a war without refugees?

JUDGE MAY: It's not a matter for the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's first then clear up one other point; what you say in your statement on the first two pages. You explain that the army, at 9.30, arrived. You hid. Various events took place, as you say. They entered houses, took away some property, some belongings. And then on that first day, that is to say, you listened in on a conversation, and then on that first day, they left. Is that right? And you then believed that they had come, gone, and passed through; right?

A. Looking at the strategy so far until 25th of March, the army and police throughout Kosova behaved in this kind of way. They would go out and do their duties and then withdraw on single day or half-day offensives. And we, the population, thought it would be an offensive of this kind and we would then be free to return to our homes.

Q. All right. As far as I was able to gather, on that first day, the one you're referring to in pages 1 and 2 of your statement, nobody suffered at all; right?

A. I think you've misunderstood this. A lot of people suffered on the first day. Fifty-five people were killed on the first day. The entire population was gathered together and robbed at a certain place. Several houses were burned, and there was fire from tanks and armoured vehicles and Pragas throughout the day. From 6.00 in the morning to 8.00 ⁶⁵⁵² in the evening.

Q. All right. You say from 5.30, but that doesn't matter. And where does it say in your statement that people did fall casualty on that first day? You didn't write that anywhere. You didn't say that anybody was a victim on that first day.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Let the witness deal with that. Just look at your statement, Mr. Jemini, if you have it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In my statement, it says like that. But the murders of the 25th happened on that day, when -- and it was on -- at 8.00 in the morning that the news came that so many people had been killed, on the following day.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, come on now, please. Show me in your statement, where you begin with the 25th of March at 5.00 and then 5.30, you say: "About 5.30 a.m., the military forces..." That is in paragraph 3 on the first page. "It did not appear that they were aiming at the people but it seemed that they were trying to scare everyone in the village." That is how your sentence reads. And then you go on to say that people left and so on. But nowhere on the first day do you speak -- there is absolutely no statement of yours referring to any people getting hurt or any casualties or any individuals getting hurt. Isn't that right? And then they left, you say, and returned afterwards. That's another matter. But as to that first day, tell me, please, where in your statement does it say that people were hurt, that there were casualties?

A. In my statement, it states what happened on the 25th and the 26th ⁶⁵⁵³ and the 27th and thereafter. It says very clearly what happened on the 25th. The 26th -- and please read my statement carefully.

Q. Well, precisely because you say specifically what happened, I claim that your statement makes no mention of anybody getting hurt on the 25th. Is that right or is it not?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The accused is simply not turning to his mind to what the evidence has been. 5.00 p.m. the same day, the witness has already given an account of what he overheard, the inference he drew from that, and if he didn't happen to see any particular killings because of his vantage point, that's one thing, but it's clear as can be that he assumed right from the beginning that there were killings going on and he gave a calculation of how many he thought there were from what he overheard on the radio.

JUDGE MAY: That is right. Nowhere it refers to 55 people. If it does, perhaps you could refer me to it.

Now, Mr. Milosevic, you've made the point. Let's move on to something else.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, this fact that nothing happened on that first day logically refutes what you're talking about when you say that you listened in, that you heard this; isn't that right?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a point. The witness has described what he heard, and you can ask him about it, but asking him hypothetical ⁶⁵⁵⁴ questions like that is not going to help anybody.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll ask him now. I'll ask him about that right now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How far is this house away, the one you indicated from which you allegedly listened in to the conversation which the commander had via radio with the person he was communicating with? How far is this house?

A. Fifteen metres.

Q. Well, can't you see on this photograph, as you can see your own window from which this was taken, that it's at least 50 metres to that house?

JUDGE MAY: We have --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That's what you may think.

JUDGE MAY: We have the photograph in front of us.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. And on the photograph, can you see that there's no window facing you, towards you?

A. No. It seems you don't understand the photograph, because 0226138, you can see the window clearly with two balconies in front. So you can see that it's only 15 metres away.

Q. The balconies are not facing you, are not turned towards you, neither are the windows. They don't face you, they are at an angle of 90 degrees and are facing the direction from which your window was looking out onto, but there's no window facing you.

So you claim that you were listening to a conversation taking ⁶⁵⁵⁵ place in the neighbouring house which has no windows turned towards you and that you were doing this, to boot, from the loft, the attic of a neighbouring house, which is the distance you can see, and we can establish that distance. We're not going to go into that now. But you claim that you were listening in to this conversation via radio.

A. Excuse me. We know that you don't accept the truth, but the truth is that the window is in the position to see the two balconies, a distance of 15 metres. It's not -- it's not a photograph of the kind that you suggest at all. So you can indeed see this site from 15 metres away.

Q. But these are balconies that have not been finished yet. Construction not completed. People couldn't sit out on them. And the people were inside and you say that you heard their conversation from your window where you were hiding so that nobody could see you.

JUDGE MAY: That is his evidence, yes, that he could hear the conversation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But according to the statement from the alleged crimes that he refers to, part of the satellite dish was removed from the building. And he says that he heard how there would -- it would be worse in Racak. And then he heard them say, "Stop the attack on Celine," and the other man said, "Yes, we will," as if this was a conversation between the command and the officers.

JUDGE MAY: This is not a question. Either you must ask a question or we'll close the cross-examination. ⁶⁵⁵⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'll move on. I'll move on in my questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 2, paragraph 2, you say that most of the inhabitants left their homes and collected at two or three main areas in the village. Which areas were these?

A. These are on the outskirts on the village where they felt they were safer. Places of hiding, in the shade of -- at the foot of a mountain or hiding in some kind of hole where bullets wouldn't be able to catch them.

Q. And why didn't you go with them there? Why didn't you collect there but you hid in the attic with a relative of yours? Why were you hiding in the attic?

A. We didn't leave because we knew what the Serbian strategy consisted of, and we were quite aware of what they thought of people who were involved in contributing to the prosperity of their country, especially belonging to the ages of between 30 and 40 years of age. And we were interested not to be amongst women and children and the elderly, our mothers and fathers, so that they wouldn't become subject of mistreatment. That is why we preferred to remain at a distance so that we wouldn't testify to the worst.

I can say that at the moment when everybody left the village of Celine, I personally, as village chief, I personally -- there was people, two people came and were beaten up because they couldn't tell the police and the army where I was. They inquired about my whereabouts, and they ⁶⁵⁵⁷ were unable to tell them.

Q. And why were they looking for you, especially when you weren't a KLA member?

A. It's not true that the Serb -- that the strategy of Serbian police and the army was to inquire after KLA members. Part of their brief for years on end was to eradicate everything that is intellectual and contributes to the prosperity of the Albanians. That's what Serbian criminals attempted to do.

Q. All right. Will you please just answer my questions. We don't need to go into this business with intellectuals. Why did you hide in the attic with your relative --

MR. NICE: I'm sorry --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- and you didn't know where your children were?

MR. NICE: If the accused asks questions of the kind he asks of a person who may rank as an intellectual and the person's understanding is that he may have been targeted on that basis, then the answer is proper. And the accused regularly trying to shut out questions by making comments is really unacceptable.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I didn't understand this witness to be an intellectual, and if it is true --

JUDGE MAY: We're not going to go into this now.

THE ACCUSED: Okay.

JUDGE MAY: We've dealt with it. ⁶⁵⁵⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So now, as you just described to us, everybody had left except for you and your relative who were in the attic. And where were your children at that moment?

A. At that moment, my children, my father, my mother, and my wife, they -- alongside the rest of the extended family and the overall inhabitants of Celine, went away together. As I said earlier, we did not want to be in their midst, being aware that your police, based on the strategy that we were fully aware of what it was, wouldn't want to be a part of that, because it wasn't only me and my cousin; there were other people who were left behind and helped bury the people and the victims of the massacre that occurred at Celine.

Q. Can you explain to me, please, where did the army shoot at the village from?

A. It's not a big deal. It wasn't choosing its positions. The whole village was encircled from all sides. From the main road, Prizren, Gjakove, from Bellacerkva, from Rahovec, from Lignaci, from Krushe e Madhe.

Q. All right. And if they were not targeting people in the village, then what did they target?

A. No. They appeared keener to secure their entry on foot into the village so that everybody would be massacred and there'd be burning down. So their duty on the first day, using heavy artillery, was to pave the way for the entry the very next day of the infantry and of the soldiers on ⁶⁵⁵⁹ foot to do everything that does not belong to modern civilisation.

Q. And what did they destroy with their artillery in order to clear the way?

A. Nothing else but to scare the population away so that it would be easier for them to carry out what they'd set out to do.

Q. All right. You say that you were hiding for 48 hours in the attic with your cousin Isuf Jemini. Did Isuf give a statement to the investigators of the Tribunal as well?

A. Yes. But given that the statement was fairly similar, given we were together all the time, it appeared sufficient to have only one statement of that kind submitted before this Tribunal.

Q. In your statement, you say: "In the house adjacent to us, commanders used second floor and balcony on the second floor, the balcony which faced the house in which I was hiding."

So as we can see from this photograph, this balcony is not facing the house, it's facing the opposite side.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we've been over this point. We're not going to go over it again. Find another point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You claim that the soldiers shot indiscriminately throughout the village, broke into houses, looted, yelled, and so on; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So that means that they were shooting indiscriminately and yelling and so on. So all of that must have produced a lot of noise. Is that ⁶⁵⁶⁰ right or not?

A. Not necessarily a lot of noise. It -- it was quiet because the population was not there and it was only the Serbian military and the police that operated in the area.

Q. Well, everything that you listed so far, didn't that create a lot of noise? Now you're telling us that it was quiet in the village. So what was it? Was there noise, yelling, shooting, and everything that I've numbered so far, or was it quiet? Choose one or the other.

A. No. The noise and the shouting came from the side of the police and the army. There was no noise made by the population of that village because they were waiting death to come.

Q. I'm not asking you about the origin of the noise. I'm just asking you whether all of that shooting, yelling, and so on, did that produce a lot of noise? You are telling us that the army did all this. So was there a lot of noise?

A. Yes, certainly there was some noise.

Q. Could you now explain to me, please, how was it possible that you were in the attic, hiding, and all of this noise created by the army and firing was going on by the army and all the while you were able to hear the conversation in the adjacent house.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the question, to be fair, should be this: Was there -- was there a noise at the time of the conversation?

A. The noise was coming from the village. It wasn't concentrated where we and the Serbian police, 15 minutes away from us, was situated. So the noise came remotely from the village. And that did not hamper us ⁶⁵⁶¹ overhearing the conversation that the police carried out during those moments.

Q. All right. And in your statement, on page 3 you say as follows: "I watched the whole day the soldiers go into the houses throughout the village."

So were you able to see that through that same window?

A. Excuse me. Maybe you're misreading the third part of this declaration. That came after we'd been to Xerxe and returned two days later. And then we stayed in the village for about 30 days, on the outskirts of the village, that is, where we buried all the people that had been killed and massacred. All in all, 82 people.

Q. I'm going to read to you paragraph 2 on page 3. It says as follows: "Throughout the day ..." so now you describe how you were hidden up there for 48 hours. This is on page 3, paragraph 2. And you say: "Throughout the day, I saw soldiers entering and looting all the houses of valuables throughout the village. They removed satellite dishes from all of the houses. During the day, 12 houses were set on fire," and so on. So this means that you watched the entire day how the soldiers entered the houses in the whole village.

A. Yes. This happened on the 26th. Throughout the day on that day, they entered the houses and looted, took away all valuables and demolished everything that was deemed to be demolishable.

Q. Please. You are now referring to the 25th. The 26th will not begin until the end of that page when you say: "About 8.00 a.m. the next day, my parents," and so on and so on. So what you spoke of before was ⁶⁵⁶² the 25th. So how was it possible for you to see from this window during the course of the entire day the soldiers entering the houses and so on? What were you able to see from that window?

A. As I've mentioned in the statement -- or I mentioned in the statement everything I was able to observe throughout the day from 8.00 in the morning until the evening, beginning from the first meeting with the parents, then the Serbian police killing my parents, and proceeding likewise until evening when I observed police and the army entering every single house and burning it down. Until the hours of the evening, that is.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jemini. Mr. Jemini, please take a look at your statement. While you are describing what happened during the day of 25th, you said: "Throughout the day, I saw soldiers entering and looting all the houses." So you are being asked about that sentence, about that paragraph. Is it that you watched all of that, all of what happened during the day, or is it the kind of thing you've heard of?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I saw everything throughout the day on the 25th.

JUDGE KWON: So the question is that -- whether you are able to see all the village from the window of the room you were hiding in.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We had that vantage point which enabled us to see not only from that window but also from other parts of the roof. We could take away the tiles and be able to see what was happening around the village.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Please go on, Mr. Milosevic. ⁶⁵⁶³

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So that means that there was a military command 15 metres from you, a full yard of people, of soldiers, as well as the second storey of the house, and yet you still take the roof tiles off the roof in order to look. So weren't you afraid that you would be noticed?

A. Yes. However, we thought we were capable of that, and we felt ourselves superior to the Serbian army which had broken up all rules and sent soldiers to occupy the second floor of my house.

Q. All right. I'm talking about your fear now. You hid out of fear, not because you wanted to be above, on a storey above. Weren't you afraid to remove the roof tiles of a house in which there were a lot of troops as well as a yard full of troops? Weren't you afraid of being noticed?

A. Yes. At that moment, fear appeared to be going away, because we were expecting to be killed from moment to moment, having seen what was happening around the village.

Q. All right. That is quite enough. Now, tell me, please, paragraph 1, page 3, you state there that the soldiers who were on the second floor of the house in which you were hiding just a few metres above, in the attic, stood guard for the rest; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. How did you conclude that? Why would they stand guard if there was nobody else in the village except for armed residents and especially in view of the fact that there were no armed KLA members, as you claim it? So why did they have to stand guard?

A. This is a fact. In fact, they thought that there was nobody. In ⁶⁵⁶⁴ fact, there were two of them were only a few metres away. We were on top of that. We could have done everything; we could have killed them. We could have killed the command and everybody else. We didn't do that because we did not believe in that kind of method in this kind of civilisation.

Q. Were you armed?

A. No.

Q. So how could you have killed them if you were not armed, killed the commander and the soldiers and so on?

A. There were ample opportunities to kill them. There were other methods. You can't kill people using weapons alone.

Q. Well, what other methods were at your disposal? Could you please tell us?

JUDGE MAY: This is all hypothetical. Mr. Milosevic, you've got two minutes left. Is there anything else you want to ask this witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have many more questions left. And I can't see why do I have to cross-examine this kind of witness for less than 40 minutes, Mr. May. He is coming out with all kinds of things here.

JUDGE MAY: We have judged it -- we judge that 45 minutes is sufficient. Now, if you have anything else to ask him, you should ask it now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have at least 30 more questions. But let me try and complete this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁶⁵⁶⁵

Q. You say here that specialist troops came. They had beards and they had red ribbons. They were armed in a similar way. They had long knives that were at least half a metre long. Does that mean they had some kind of sabers?

A. You should know that.

Q. But this is what you're claiming. I don't know of these knives that are more than half a metre long. That's what I'm asking you, were they in fact sabers? And then you say that they saw your mother in the yard and said, "Well, what are you doing there, old woman?" And at that time you were hiding with your cousin in the attic. So my question is: Why were you hiding under the roof when even your mother, a female therefore, stood in the yard, baked the bread, and went on her normal business?

A. It is not true that life was carrying on as normal. She had come over to bring us some food. However, being aware of the plans of the Serbian offensive, I told her to return and join the rest of the population, to join everybody else, my wife, the children. So I wanted the same of my parents. I was aware of the impending offensive of the day. And my wife -- my -- excuse me. My -- correction. My mother returned with her bread in her hands, and when she came, there were 12 Serbian police brought a truck which was driving by our yard. They saw my mother, and in barbarian Serbian language, they spoke to her and she was scared away.

JUDGE MAY: What -- we're bringing this examination to an end. You're now past your time. ⁶⁵⁶⁶ But tell us this, Mr. Jemini: What happened to your mother?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My mother and father and the cousins were in the basement. So when my mother went there, she said she'd seen a group of Serbian police. And they decided to stay or to re-enter the basement. But at that very moment or 10 or 15 minutes later, police went in -- Serbian military police went into the yard. They demolished all the doors and decided to go inside the houses.

They went into the basement, seven or eight of them, and they took out of the basement seven members of my family; my mother, my father, my uncle, and his son with her [sic] wife. They were ordered to stay in front of the houses but - you see by the photographs that have been submitted as evidence - at that moment, the policeman asked my parents whether they had any money. My father says yes he has got some money. Where are they? In the bedroom. And -- of the building where they were. And my mother says in Albanian, "What do you want of us old people? We've got nothing against you, nothing against you carrying out your duties. We've done nothing wrong. So please go out and carry your duties against those that you think are undermining you or acting against you. So leave us alone." The other policeman intervenes in Serbian and says: "You shut up because nobody is asking you." The first policeman asks Muharrem, my cousin, whether he has any money and he says yes. And he asked where were they, and he said in the house to the rear. And without any hesitation, they say they would return to their houses in order to get the money. Some moments later, however, all of them were put together at the house opposite, about five or six metres away, the one that is five or six ⁶⁵⁶⁷ metres away, and then they make them face the wall and, from a pistol gun -- a pistol arm was shot in the air first and then with an automatic gun rifle, they were shot at and they fell. That is the moment when calamity fell.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. I would like to remind you of the part of your statement, page 4, paragraph 8 --

JUDGE MAY: We have gone past the time which we can sit and I brought your cross-examination to a close. Mr. Milosevic, you must concentrate on asking relevant questions, and you must stop arguing with the witnesses. That way, you'll get through very much more. We're going to adjourn now. I'm afraid there's no time for re-examination or anything else.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I was going to make this observation, though, that in his 45 minutes of cross-examination of a man who says he's lost and seen the loss of his parents under gunfire in a very substantial alleged massacre, the accused hasn't actually put a case and the 45 minutes really has taken us nowhere. And I'm going to count it, for the purposes of argument, as evidence that is unchallenged.

JUDGE MAY: We're dealing with a litigant in person. We're dealing with a litigant in person, Mr. Nice, and therefore, various different considerations apply.

Mr. Milosevic, we've -- we are adjourning now. We will deal with matters in the morning on Monday.

Mr. Jemini, thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to ⁶⁵⁶⁸ give evidence. It's now concluded. You are free to go.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to put in an objection to this cross-examination, especially to what Mr. Nice just said, because --

JUDGE MAY: You've heard our response. We have replied to Mr. Nice. We're not going to take the matter any further. We will adjourn now.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 10th day of June, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.