7996
Monday, 15 July 2002
[Open session]
[The accused entered court]
[The witness entered court]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: There's a problem with the audio system. We will have to adjourn for five minutes. We will rise for five minutes.
--- Break taken at 9.07 a.m.
--- On resuming at 10.15 a.m.
JUDGE MAY: Colonel Crosland, how long can you remain with us today?
THE WITNESS: As long as necessary, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you for that. What we'll do is this: We will sit for two sessions today; an hour and a half, and then we'll take a break, and then another hour and a half.
Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
WITNESS: JOHN CROSLAND [Resumed] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
Q. [Interpretation] Do you know anything about the infiltration of foreign terrorists in Kosovo? For example, terrorists of Al Qaeda? That was my last question, in fact. And you said that you had no knowledge of that. That was where we left off. And among other things, you said that in Malisevo in July, you saw only one possible individual from the Middle East but that you saw no further evidence of Al Qaeda activities or any other terrorist organisation; is that right? 7997
A. That's correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
Q. Tell me, in Malisevo at that time, did you ask the leaders of that terrorist group, the KLA, who the man was you saw amongst them whom you assumed was a terrorist from the Middle East?
A. I did ask various people, but they were not willing to tell me who he was, and so I left it at that.
Q. And did they -- did you ask them what he was doing there?
A. I think it was fairly obvious what he was doing there. He was part of the disparate group involved with the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Q. But in your statement and the part relating to Malisevo, I don't see that you informed your government about that. Am I right?
A. It is correct, Mr. Milosevic, it is not written in the statement that I informed my government, but I did actually make mention of it during my other reports.
Q. All right. Now let me ask you this: Do you have any information as to the following - and I'm going to quote briefly a passage from the interview before the Committee for International Relations of Congress - it is dated October, the 3rd of October, 2001, and it was a presentation made by Winston Kalistrala [phoen], the former head of the counter-terrorist operation, CIA group. And he says that bin Laden was against his own monarchy in Saudi Arabia, that he was expelled by their service there and that he went to the Sudan where he organised camps, training camps, for Islamic activists and for practically all the major Islamic countries. And the quotation is as follows -- I'm going to ask you whether you had knowledge of any of this. 7998
A. Mr. Milosevic, that's --
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just a moment. I see that nobody in the public gallery is getting the sound, is able to hear.
JUDGE MAY: We're going on with the trial. That's simply a matter for the public. Let's go on. The witness, I think, knows nothing about this anyway. This is somebody giving evidence to the Senate International Relations Committee in October 2001.
Do you know anything about bin Laden in Bosnia -- or in Kosovo, rather?
THE WITNESS: As I've said, Your Honour, the only possible person was this one person I saw in Malisevo. I don't have any knowledge of this document that Mr. Milosevic is referring to.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I'm not asking you whether you saw the document. That's not the essential point. I wish to read out what it says here for you to be able to respond and tell me --
JUDGE MAY: Look, there's no point putting something to him about which he knows nothing. A great deal of time is spent in this trial with your reading out documents and things about which the witnesses know nothing at all. So move on to another topic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume that the British intelligence service has knowledge of the role of Al Qaeda. And if it did not have any knowledge in 1998, I'm sure that after the 11th of September, it did have.
JUDGE MAY: You've got the answer. He doesn't know, apart from 7999 the man in Malisevo. Now, that's the end of it. If you want to put that evidence before us, you can call the man who gave evidence to the committee.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right. And do you know this: That at a national symposium on drug terrorism on the 4th of December, 2001, among other things, it was noted that there were links between drug trafficking and terrorist organisations and that it is maintained that those links are very well documented. And of course, mention is made there of the KLA and others; Chechena and other radical groups. Are you aware of that? You have that, for example, on the 4th of December, 2001. That's when that took place. The Justice Ministry. Drug enforcement administration. Do you know anything about that?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I think everyone knows that terrorist organisations are involved in drug and Mafia trafficking. I don't really see what this has got to do with Kosovo.
Q. Well, it does have something to do with it because the Albanian drug Mafia are the main smugglers of drugs. And it also is connected because it financed terrorist organisations which were infiltrated from outside into Kosovo and that's why I'm asking you whether you know anything about that. And is it possible that your service knows nothing about that?
A. I never said that my service or the British government intelligence services knows nothing about the drug trafficking. Of course they know about that. You will also be well aware that there was a lot of 8000 drug trafficking that went on in Belgrade. I presume your service knew also about that.
Q. Yes. Our services very often arrested members of terrorist groups for the most part and seized the goods.
JUDGE MAY: We're not going to waste time on this. Now, move on to another topic.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. In answering questions during the examination-in-chief with respect to Racak, you said that you were in Racak on the 15th of January and that you had arrived there sometime around 1400 hours. Is that right?
A. As far as I can remember, that is correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
Q. You maintain that you saw that the village of Racak had been shelled by the police and army. Tell me now, please, how many houses were destroyed or damaged in Racak? Did you see any damaged or destroyed houses in Racak?
A. Yes. As far as I can remember, the majority of the houses were destroyed.
Q. Tell me, please, do you have any knowledge as to how many inhabitants of Racak were killed or wounded by those shells that were allegedly launched on the village?
A. I think, if I remember rightly, something like 31 to 35 bodies were brought out of Racak after that operation, but I can't remember exactly, no.
Q. Well, all right, then. Do you know that not a single person, a 8001 single individual who lost their lives in the fighting around Racak was not killed by shrapnel or shelling or grenades but exclusively from the fire of infantry weapons? Are you aware of that fact?
A. Yes, I am. Yes.
Q. Tell me, then, how is it possible, Mr. Crosland, then, for the MUP and the army to keep shelling Racak without --
JUDGE MAY: He has given his explanation. He's told us what he saw. It's not for him to speculate. It will be a matter which we will have to decide.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May, but I think --
JUDGE KWON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Crosland, I noticed you said that 35 bodies were brought out, and also I noticed the 10th of July, when you firstly gave evidence, you also mentioned some seven or eight bodies of KLA members were brought out. Could you clarify "bring out the bodies"?
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, as far as I remember, in a gully close to this village called Racak, approximately 30 bodies were found. And again, I believe seven or eight were possibly from the KLA.
JUDGE KWON: So you use the term "being brought out" as meaning found?
THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour. I believe they were found in this gully.
JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: By Ambassador Walker and other people.
JUDGE KWON: Yes. Please go on, Mr. Milosevic. 8002
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right. You say that from 1400 hours onwards, you were there and that you were there in the throes of heavy fighting. Do you know that after 1400 hours, when the fighting had already stopped, the police withdrew and that the local commander of the KLA here testified that at 1600 hours they had already taken control of the village again? Do you know about that?
JUDGE MAY: He can -- I'm sorry to interrupt but the witness can only tell us what he saw or heard while he was there, and he's given his evidence. Now, it's for you in due course to address us on it, if you wish. If you want to suggest, of course, that there was no fighting and that the witness is wrong, you can do so, if that's your case. But there's no point in reading out things that other people have said. He can't comment on that.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not reading out at all what other people said, Mr. May. All I'm doing is placing the statement of this witness in a relationship with the facts that were ascertained here, and that is that on the 15th, around 1500 hours, the operation was already over.
JUDGE MAY: No. I'm not going to allow this. This is not the time for comment, as you know well, or speeches. Colonel, it seems to be suggested, or in case it's being suggested that you're wrong and there was no fighting at 2.00 when you arrived, can you give us, please, your comment on that?
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the fighting had more or less subsided 8003 by about 2.00 in the afternoon. That and the -- what Mr. Milosevic is saying, that the KLA possibly had retaken possession of the village by 4.00, 1600, I think happened time after time after time within the province of Kosovo. That rather pointed to the futility of a lot of the Serbian security operations that nothing had been achieved by destroying their villages. A tactic that had been employed by the Serbian security forces is at the basis of what this investigation is all about.
JUDGE MAY: What the witness in fact said, according to my note, was this: That he arrived just after the main conflict but there was still activity going on, and covering fire was being provided into Racak.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I'm claiming, that at the time the witness arrived and that he says he watched the conflict, that the conflict had in fact been over by then.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. A moment ago, you said you saw members of the Verification Mission, and you said that during your examination-in-chief as well. So in Racak, on the 15th of January. And your answer was that you had seen them and that you believe you saw Ambassador Walker as well; is that right?
A. That is correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
Q. And when asked whether you were there when the conflict was going on, you said yes, because you were there when the main conflict began.
JUDGE MAY: No, he didn't say that. I've just read out my note of what he said. He arrived just after the main conflict.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 7949, that page of the transcript, 8004 Mr. May. There you have it. Your own transcript of Wednesday, the LiveNote on Wednesday.
The question was:
Q. Did you see members of the Kosovo Verification Mission [in English] while you were there?
The answer was:
A. I did [Previous translation continues]... [in English] Ambassador Walker but I can't remember
precisely. Perhaps you would.
Q. Were you there when the actual conflict occurred?
A. I arrived just after the major conflict had arrived, but there was considerable activity ongoing that afternoon and throughout the day.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. It's not disputed that he said it. Now, can we move on to some more relevant point? What is the point you're trying to make with him?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, precisely the opposite from what you said a moment ago, that he didn't say it, Mr. May.
JUDGE MAY: We are not going to waste further time on this. I've read you out my note which coincides with what the transcript said. There's no point arguing about it. Now, have you got any more questions for him?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tell me this -- yes, I have many more questions. I've just started my cross-examination, Mr. May, and I don't know why you ask me that. 8005
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Tell me, when did you exactly see William Walker in Racak? What time was it?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I told you, I arrived about 2.00 in the afternoon and, as far as I can recall, I remember seeing Mr. Walker sometime during the afternoon period. This was a highly fluid and difficult area where operations were still going on and people were coming and going throughout the afternoon.
Q. And did you talk to him on that occasion?
A. I did not talk to him on that occasion, no.
Q. And tell me where you were on the 14th of January. That is to say, on the eve of the events in Racak.
A. As far as I can remember, I think I was in Belgrade, having just returned to Belgrade from the United Kingdom. I was preparing to come down to Kosovo the following day.
Q. All right. Now, about the events in Racak, as you were there on the 15th of January, did you draw up a report of any kind?
A. I sent -- there's a written report, as I think has been explained to you, and I used to be in communication by other means back to both Belgrade and to the United Kingdom.
Q. Well, tell me why, then, this report was not included with all the other reports that you have presented here, as Racak is an essential event.
A. As I said to you when I was in court last week, Mr. Milosevic, I didn't choose the reports. It was chosen by other people. I can't answer 8006 that question.
Q. You want to say that you gave them all 70 of your reports and that they selected the several reports that were presented; is that it?
A. My reports were the -- or are the -- in the keeping of the Ministry of Defence in the United Kingdom, and which reports are passed across to this court, I do not know.
Q. You mentioned the killing of three Serb policemen and the conflict and clash between the police force and the Ahmeti group on the 28th of February, 1998. Were you present when this police operation was waged?
A. Do you mean -- which operation do you mean, when the three MUP were killed or when the operation took place at Likosane?
Q. Yes, when the operation took place on the 28th of February.
A. No. No one was present because the whole area was sealed off. I was touring with another defence attache and we came in shortly after we were allowed through. That particular area was sealed for a number of days by your security forces.
Q. And do you have any knowledge that on that occasion there was fighting between the terrorists and the forces -- the security forces?
A. Yes. I have knowledge that there was fighting, yes.
Q. And were those people killed in battle?
A. I can't answer that because I wasn't there. All I know is that 26 people were buried north of Likosane a couple of days later, as witnessed by the BBC.
Q. All right. On Wednesday, you said that 16 persons were killed, that 16 of them were killed in that operation. Now, this 26 now, does 8007 that mean that somebody from other operations who had lost their lives were buried or what?
A. No. The information was that these 16 had been killed in Likosane or around that area, and the further ten were seen being taken alive, we believe to Prizren -- sorry, to Pristina, beg your pardon, and were returned dead. You will have to or someone will have to answer that question; I can't answer that question.
Q. Are you suggesting -- are you suggesting that somebody took the people to the prison, killed them there, and brought them back dead?
A. That is the suggestion, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
Q. Well, how come such a - how shall I put it? - drastic event is not mentioned in your reports, that somebody took off the prisoners, killed them, and brought them back dead?
JUDGE MAY: It is. It's mentioned in the statement which I've got in front of me. Paragraph 4.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Tell me this: I understood that you were in Donje Prekaze when the fighting was going on there. Is that correct or not?
A. No, I was not in Donje Prekaze when the fighting was going on because the whole area was closed down. I was probably the first person into Donje Prekaze directly after the fighting.
Q. So you weren't there actually when it all went on. You weren't present.
A. No, of course I wasn't present.
Q. All right. Do you know about the fact that the members of the 8008 Ministry of the Interior on several occasions before they opened fire called out to the group of terrorists led by Jashari to surrender?
A. I've heard that from various sources, yes.
Q. Did you know that when they didn't want to surrender, that they asked them to let the women and children leave, to leave the house?
A. Yes. Yes, I've heard that.
Q. Do you know for which major crimes, and I'm thinking about numerous killings, Adem Jashari was prosecuted for, and the other members of his group?
A. I do not know the details, Mr. Milosevic, no. I know he had -- there was indications that he had been involved in various activities, yes. But I don't see, you know, this is what is leading to the very deliberate and totally destructive attack that took place on Donje Prekaze which involved armoured vehicles firing at 30 metres. I think that explains the difference.
Q. Well, an Albanian who was a protected witness here talked about what happened, and this completely coincides with what I myself am saying.
JUDGE MAY: No need to, and in fact you can't ask this witness to comment on what some other witness has said.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Tell me this, then: Who gave you access to that locality and allowed you to tour the spot after this operation?
A. I believe it was the MUP or the PJP commander in charge in Srbica 8009 allowed us in, and we photographed the bodies that were at the southern entrance to Srbica in a low, one-storey house just on the southern entrance to Srbica. And there were, I think, as I've said in my statement, 54 bodies; men, women, and children.
Q. On page 3 of your statement, paragraph 4, you claim that during that period of time there were a series of KLA attacks against the police force; is that right?
A. That's correct, Mr. Milosevic, yes.
Q. Now, do you know how many such attacks took place in the course of 1998?
A. We used to be updated by your General Staff on the number of attacks, and I can't remember the details now. But I'm not disputing the fact that there were attacks. I'm disputing the fact that the actions carried out by your security forces really did very little to restore the situation.
Q. Well, whether they helped or not, do you realise that at the end of 1998, the facts say that to all practical intents and purposes the KLA was not capable of launching any more operations at all, that they had been totally neutralised?
A. With respect, Mr. Milosevic, I'm not certain that's correct, because within -- if I remember rightly, between October and November, whilst your forces had gained the initiative in the early part of the autumn, the Kosovo Liberation Army did get or appeared to receive new supplies. I don't think I've, you know, been in dispute with you that there is, there was and has been a terrorist problem within Kosovo. What 8010 I am suggesting is that the way your tactics carried out, as has now been proved, is actually highly unsuccessful and that the burning and destroying of villages - sometimes several times over; crops, petrol stations, the workshops, all the other infrastructure of life - has done nothing actually to help the situation.
Q. We're talking about something else now. In the autumn of 1998, since you were there, I believe that you remember well that the situation had calmed down, that they even brought weapons in on tractors and handed them in. The security situation was almost completely restored to normal, and then, practically, there was a new stage when the Kosovo Verification Mission came. Regardless of whether you want to confirm this or not, they saved the KLA. Is that right or is that not right? They made it possible for the KLA to be revitalised. Is that right or is that not right?
A. Mr. Milosevic, to answer a question yes or no of that magnitude is ridiculous.
JUDGE MAY: Without yes or no, perhaps you could comment on it if you think you can, Colonel.
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, the arrival of the Kosovo Verification Mission was a part of the process of attempting to bring this troubled area to peace. To blame them for an uprise in the KLA, I think is grossly wrong.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. You see, the commander of the KLA, Ramush Haradinaj -- there's even a book that was published, I can give it to you as a present, in English, he says: " [Previous translation continues]... [In English] 8011 BLANK PAGE 8012 saving for KLA."
JUDGE MAY: That's his comment. You can tell us about it in due course. Now, do let us move on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. And since frequent meetings are referred to here with the representatives of the British, American, French, Canadian, et cetera, as he says here, missions, KDOM, et cetera, and then it says: [Previous translation continues]... [In English] in itself of NATO airstrikes that would follow later on." [Interpretation] Is that correct? Is that correct?
JUDGE MAY: Where are you reading from? Where are you reading from in the statement?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm reading from the book, Ramush Haradinaj's book. The book of commander Ramush Haradinaj. And after the war --
JUDGE MAY: No. Move on to ask him some questions about his evidence or about his statement, not the opinions of people in books.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is not opinion, Mr. May. I'm asking him whether they helped the KLA recover, and did they, with the KLA --
JUDGE MAY: He's given his answer: "No." Now, you must learn not to argue with the witnesses. You have to accept their evidence. You can argue the case to us in due course, but there's no point arguing with the witnesses.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I never argue with 8013 witnesses. As far as I can see, it's you who's arguing with me all the time.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Now, Mr. Crosland, do you know that in 1998, 1.854 terrorist attacks were carried out by the KLA in Kosovo and Metohija? That is approximately more than four per day, on average. However, the number went up after the Verification Mission arrived, considerably so. Do you know anything about that?
A. As I've said to you, Mr. Milosevic, we used to get -- or I used to get fairly regular briefings from your General Staff, General Dimitrijevic and other people, and that figure would have been given to me. But let's put it into context with other operations and other areas that I've been involved in.
Of course the security forces will document every single minor action that the opposite side does in order to build up their own statistics, but I don't really see where this leads us. I was fully aware that there was a serious situation developing in Kosovo, as I've said to you and I put in my reports, and I reported this accurately on both sides. I don't really know what else I could do. I could not influence the situation apart from report it both back to your Vojska Yugoslavia General Staff in Belgrade and to my authorities back in the United Kingdom. That is clearly documented in all my evidence.
Q. Is it uncontested that the objectives of the attack, or rather, the targets were the members of the Ministry of the Interior, the members of the military but civilians as well, both Serbs and Albanians and 8014 Muslims and members of other ethnic communities in Kosovo? They were killed, they were kidnapped, they were robbed, et cetera. Do you know about that or did you not know about that?
A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, I knew about that. But you must bear that in context with what your security forces were doing to something like 2 to 3 to 400 villages that I saw burned to the ground. So it's not unnatural that people took revenge. I'm afraid reconciliation in the Balkans is not a word that's very much known about, "osveta." More "osveta" and less -- a bit more "pomirenje" and less "osveta" would be a better thing all around. More reconciliation and less revenge.
Q. And in 1998, Mr. Crosland, was there a major increase in terrorism in Kosovo? Is that being contested?
A. Mr. Milosevic, no. I've told you that in my reports, that the situation initially started at the latter end of 1997 when I first had talks with General Perisic and General Dimitrijevic and then grew in intensity during the early part of 1998. There was then a Serbian security offensive in July, August, September, which led inevitably to the Holbrooke mission. There was a relatively quiet period, but during that period, as I've already said, the Kosovo Liberation Army appeared to get more supplies into the area, then a resumption of Serbian activity -- security force activity just prior to Christmas and then with Bozic and Serbian New Year, there was a quiet-ish period in mid-January until we came to the Racak affair.
Q. And then this notorious Racak happened; right? And then, as you mentioned here, you presented your views to Dimitrijevic and two other 8015 generals, that they were getting involved in a long campaign with few chances of success. That's what you said. Now I'm asking you as a military man who has experience, I imagine, in fighting terrorism as well. What would a shorter campaign entail, in your opinion?
JUDGE MAY: What's the relevance of this?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance, Mr. May, is that this witness, as a soldier, as a professional soldier, is challenging what the police and army did in their struggle against terrorism. So I would like to hear his position, what this would look like in the organisation of his army and his police.
JUDGE MAY: I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems to me totally irrelevant. Let's move on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Crosland, to what extent did your intelligence activities focus on gathering data on the KLA, its manpower, weapon levels, and so on?
A. Mr. Milosevic, within the Kosovo region, I reported back on the KLA that one saw and their activities as is laid out in those reports or other reports that you may not have seen, I don't know. As far as externally, that is the duties of various UK services of which I was not a part of, as you well know. I was accredited to your -- to Yugoslavia.
Q. All right. On page 4, in paragraph 5, you mention that the MUP forces were sufficient to deal with an average rebellion. The question is whether keeping 50 per cent of the territory under terrorist control is something that you consider to be an average rebellion. 8016
A. I think if you're referring to the situation in the middle of the -- the early part of the summer in Kosovo and Metohija, I spoke with several of your senior staff and queried as to why they were allowing the Kosovo Liberation Army to control, I think it was three of the major roads across Kosovo and Metohija.
Q. So that is correct, of course. These three main routes that are a precondition for life in Kosovo and Metohija were blocked in certain places by the KLA; is that right?
A. Yes -- [Previous translation continues]... Sorry.
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- yes. What you were going to say, Colonel?
THE WITNESS: That's correct, Mr. Milosevic. And I used to travel this area on more or less a daily basis, and these positions, these KLA positions, were not of any great strength or depth, could not have been attacked? That is the question you must ask your security forces. As I've referred to, this is a question of tactics. If your security forces had concentrated on purely the Kosovo Liberation Army defensive positions, I don't think there would have been a problem. But when they went into villages to destroy villages for no other reason than they wished to take these villages down - and the excuse I was given was that it provides cover along the routes - I don't find that very convincing when some of these routes were completely irrelevant to the operations. Major routes were blocked, the wooded area in the central part of Kosovo, which although quite difficult to operate in was by no means impossible with the number of troops that your forces had deployed on the ground against, I 8017 would suggest, probably in the early part of 1998, my 'guesstimate' or -- of the numbers of the KLA was probably about 3 to 400 hard-core at the very most. So not a great deal of people.
But I can't answer the question why your forces did not use the tactics to clear these people out of what were quite clearly illegal defensive positions. Even when I went through their positions and their headquarters in Malisevo, the KLA would not recognise my licna karta as defence attache to your country and I informed them that I was allowed to go anywhere I liked within the country of Yugoslavia; there was no legal rule here. I put the question back to you; it is up to your forces to have carried out the correct tactics.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Well, we're not talking about tactics here, Mr. Crosland. We are talking about crimes and the behaviour of a terrorist organisation that killed many people. Are you denying the right of the legal forces to fight terrorism?
A. Mr. Milosevic, no. I'm actually -- as I tried to explain to the Vojska Yugoslavia General Staff, that if your forces attacked the KLA in these illegal positions, as I've already explained to you, then I don't think anyone would have had any problem. What was the problem was the total wanton destruction over half of Kosovo against a population that, yes, was mainly Albanian. But I think there is a political side to this that has not been looked at. And even the situation now, there is no military solution to Kosovo. There very rarely is a military solution. We in the military have to come along when the political side has failed 8018 to find a solution.
Q. Mr. Crosland, does it seem to you perhaps that the fact that there was a great intensity of terrorist activities and, therefore, reactions of the forces to such intensive terrorist activities is something that you have been calling systematic damage or attacks at some peaceful villages? Haven't you confused certain concepts, Mr. Crosland?
A. Mr. Milosevic, not at all. I understand perfectly well, having been involved in counter-terrorist operations, attacks on terrorists or groups of terrorists by security forces are one thing, and that is pure military business. But for troops or security forces to go around razing, looting, burning crops, houses and businesses is not part of a proper military operation. This is just wanton destruction and revenge against, in the majority, innocent people.
Of course I'm not, you know, saying that there was not support in the villages because these people are Albanians. There was probably nearly 2 million Albanians living in Kosovo. They undoubtedly had some support. Can you not see that if you go and burn and loot most of the villages in central Kosovo, who are just pure farmers and people doing their job of work --
Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. Please answer my questions. Do you know that many houses in Kosovo, and perhaps even entire settlements like the Prilep you mentioned, were used as fortifications and KLA terrorists operated from there against the army, against the police? They blocked roads, they made normal life impossible, they committed numerous crimes. So do you know -- 8019
JUDGE MAY: What is the question? Colonel Crosland, you're being asked about the use of settlements such as Prilep as fortifications which were used for operations against the police and the rest of it. Is that right or not?
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, within the area of Prilep there was, yes, a Kosovo Liberation Army area of operations. The point I am making, Your Honour, is that the major town of Decani, which is an old and interesting town with Visoki Decani, one of the great monasteries of Serbia, the entire Albanian area within that town was systematically burnt out as a revenge. And my point is: What does this revenge achieve? It achieves nothing. Kosovo is now under NATO control with the Albanians. Does that mean you've had a successful --
JUDGE MAY: Well, perhaps, Colonel, you too could restrict your answers. Time is limited. You say that within the area of Prilep there were KLA.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. There were scattered within several areas of Kosovo, areas that were semi-controlled by the Kosovo Liberation Army, of which I knew about and of which I reported back on. And we get back to the same old thing about the tactics employed, yes, by both sides, I would accept that. But you don't -- if you fight terrorism with civilian terrorism, i.e., going around razing villages, all you do is drive more people to support the terrorists. It's as simple as that. I don't condone terrorism. I never will and never have. But the heavy-handed and wanton destruction in the majority of innocent areas and the crops and all the associated infrastructure can only push more people 8020 to fight against your forces. I think that is what has happened.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Crosland, let us clarify this situation. You said that 50 per cent of the territory was held by the members of the KLA for a while. You're talking about fighting all over Kosovo. You're talking about the damage done, about the victims, et cetera. Please give me a precise answer to this question: Was this area -- were these areas under long and heavy fighting between the Ministry of the Interior and the KLA?
A. No. There was -- Mr. Milosevic, there was a period in early 1998, after the two assaults on to Likosane and --
Q. All right, you said "No" by way of an answer, so let's go on, Mr. Crosland. So there was not protracted and heavy fighting in that area?
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness finish. The question was: Was there an area under protected and heavy fighting, and you began to answer, Colonel Crosland. Now, could you complete your answer. You started with a period in early 1998.
THE WITNESS: After that initial period at Prekaze and Likosane, there was then an area of stalemate in the early part of the summer before your forces built up. And during that time, the KLA, as I have said, controlled three of the major roads through. I say "controlled"; they sat on these routes in pretty thin defensive positions. For some reason - I can't answer that question - your forces allowed them to stay there.
Now, with the amount of forces you had in Kosovo, you could have 8021 carried out operations against these defensive areas which could possibly have succeeded. For some reason, your forces did not and contented themselves with destroying the surrounding villages and all the infrastructure, which I've said on many occasions. Now, that only would have made more people join the liberation movement against your forces. And I don't understand the reason you did this. As I said, it was not a military solution.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Yes, Colonel.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right. Can I infer, on the basis of what you've been claiming, that the security forces did not attack KLA strongholds, that they left them alone and then they went out to burn peaceful villages, to kill the livestock and damage these places? Is that what you are claiming, Mr. Crosland?
A. That's exactly what I'm saying, Mr. Milosevic, because around the Drenica, there was something like 45 vehicle checkpoints manned by squads of men. And during this period, the Drenica was under fairly heavy attack by your forces on more or less a daily basis.
Now, I can't answer the tactics and why your men did these things, I can only report to you what I saw. And as I reported back to your General Staff, I said, "I don't understand what you are trying to achieve, because you are tying more and more men up on operations that are achieving nothing and leaving them open to attacks by the Kosovo Liberation Army to what we call penny packeting, little dots here and there all over the map that really control nothing. But there was no -- 8022 if you're going to get down to tactics, there was no night patrolling by your forces and there was very little holding ground apart from what they actually saw from their defensive positions.
You could see where the Kosovo Liberation Army walked up 2 or 300 metres away and then walked around the position to carry out whatever activities there were doing. And if your forces call that controlling the situation, then I'm afraid I disagree. That is the basis of my statement saying that your forces were employing the wrong type of tactics. I made this clear to various people, including General Perisic during our talks in Beograd. I had recognised, amongst other people, that there was a terrorist problem, that actually, your forces were failing to deal with it.
Q. All right. Tell me, please, since you say that these were some kind of weak positions at certain places in Kosovo, that that's what the KLA did in Kosovo, so how did then these poorly armed and few members of the KLA manage, as you had claimed yourself, to control 50 per cent of the territory in spite of such well-armed and numerous troops of the military and the army, again as you have been claiming?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I've already stated that they had various roadblocks across these three areas, with some supporting positions. But they were not seriously, you know, defended positions. If your forces had attacked those positions in a proper, organised manner, I'm sure they would have succeeded. Now, why they did not, I don't know. You will have to ask that question to the relevant personnel concerned.
Q. And do you know that the most frequent targets of terrorist 8023 attacks were precisely members of the army of Yugoslavia? Did you manage to find that out during your contacts with the generals that you communicated with?
You say that you noticed that there was evidence of coordination between the army and the police, the MUP, and their actions; is that right?
Now, tell me --
JUDGE MAY: Wait a moment. You've already asked him one question, you're now going on to a second.
The question was: As far as you could understand from your contacts, were the target of attacks members of the army of Yugoslavia? I don't know if you can answer that or not.
THE WITNESS: The major attacks were against the MUP forces initially, although on the border there had been attacks against the Vojska Yugoslavia positions, particularly on the Albanian frontier. And that was well documented and evidence was produced by your General Staff, to me and other people, of these ongoing attacks. And I was well aware of the attacks on the MUP and the other security forces and of the funerals that took place back in Serbia of these people who had been killed on operations.
I think throughout my time, I observed, as a military man, that when someone is killed in operations, one respects what he is doing for his country.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right. Do you know that the border of Yugoslavia only in 1998 8024 was violated several hundreds of times through arms smuggling from Albania, transfers of well-armed and equipped groups of terrorists who were trained in camps in Northern Albania and so on? So several hundreds of times. Do you know that?
A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, I do, and I explained that to you the last time I was in court, that the information initially came from your General Staff covering this area of the border between Albania, which, as you are well aware, is a historical smuggling and contraband route.
Q. All right, then. And do you consider that the army should have refrained from its basic duty to protect the state borders and to protect the populace and its members and all the facilities and communication? Is that what they should have done?
JUDGE MAY: He has accepted that. He's accepted there was a right to do that. Move on.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right. And tell me this: What is there illogical in the fact that you saw that the army and MUP were cooperating? Was it logical for the police and army of one and the same state, when faced with the danger and crimes perpetrated by terrorism, should cooperate? Is that something that is not standard practice otherwise? Is that something unusual?
A. Under your constitution, Mr. Milosevic - and I would be very careful about lecturing you about your own constitution - but the Vojska Yugoslavia had a priority to protect the national border and 500 metres. And that was written down in the constitution. As I said before, this then spread to other areas when the situation deteriorated. 8025
Q. Mr. Crosland, of course that is not written down in the constitution. At least it is easy to ascertain what the constitution stipulates. But let me ask you this, because quite obviously you don't know the provisions: Do you know the law on defence, the law on the Yugoslav army? Do you know the rules of service for the army and all the rules and regulations that regulate the elements under which the army functions in all aspects and fields, let alone the constitution? That is not something that is written down in the constitution. No 500 metres or borders or whatever.
Do you know about all these rules and regulations?
A. That was what was told to me by your foreign liaison service as part of the Ministry of Defence. Now, of course I do not know the full details. I don't know the full details of what the British army's constitution is. So to answer that in the affirmative, under oath, would be illegal. That is not the point. The point you're asking is the cooperation between the VJ and the MUP. Of course they would cooperate as the situation got worse. It's how they cooperated, by using direct and indirect fire into villages, is not part of modern way of doing -- dealing with the situation. Did it provide the right answer? The answer is quite clearly no.
Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. This lack of information on your part as to rules and regulations probably had, as a consequence, a completely erroneous explanation for certain behaviour and conduct. But we will come to that in due course.
JUDGE MAY: You can stop the comments and just get on with the 8026 questions. You're taking up much too much time with these lengthy questions. I will remind you, you've got now 25 minutes left.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that can't be possible that I only have 25 minutes left, Mr. May, in view of the fact that I have used up very little of my time and this is a very, if I can put it that way, long, lengthy witness as to the things he is asserting.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's not only possible but it's the fact that you've got 25 minutes left. Two hours was what you were given. You've spent most of it arguing with the witness. Now, let's go on.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. All right.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Let's be a little more efficacious, Mr. Crosland, with the answers.
On page 6 of your own statement here, you say on the 20th of August that the club of military attaches, General Ojdanic, the Deputy Chief of Staff, presented reasons for the joint operations of MUP and the army in the Malisevo area and other areas because he said that they were in keeping with one of the four assignments in Kosovo, tasks in Kosovo. And then first, the protection of communications and roads in Kosovo, maintenance of the border security, protection of the army facilities of Yugoslavia, protection of units of the army in barracks and in the field, et cetera.
Now, regardless of this unwieldy interpretation of one of the four tasks or assignments, do you know, nevertheless, Mr. Crosland, that according to the rules of service of the army of Yugoslavia in peacetime 8027 BLANK PAGE 8028 the army of Yugoslavia can be deployed, of course, for all these tasks that you were explained to as being legitimately done by the army of Yugoslavia and also many other assignments and tasks? And I should like to mention in particular the struggle against sabotage and terrorist groups.
So according to the rules of service, the rules and regulations and their provisions - and you refer to the constitution in a highly incompetent way - the Yugoslavia army, under those rules and regulations that are valid and that you can read through, can be used, may be used against sabotage and terrorist groups; it can be used to protect the communications and roads; it can be deployed for the purpose of dealing with any situations where military facilities have come under attack or the army itself has come under attack, of course in order to protect the state borders in-depth, et cetera, and so on and so forth. So where is the problem there?
JUDGE MAY: What is the question you're asking? You've gone on for two minutes but we've got no question. What is it?
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Is it clear to you that there is nothing that is unlawful there in the Yugoslav army's actions?
A. Mr. Milosevic, you're missing the entire point. We had stated -- we had pointed out to your General Staff that it is quite clear that the Vojska Yugoslavia army was highly involved in the operations throughout the middle of 1998. It was your General Staff, Colonel General Ojdanic, who refuted it completely until I showed him a video and other evidence 8029 that this was not true. So I don't understand your question.
Q. As far as I can see here, Ojdanic presented the reasons for this joint activity on the part of the army and MUP in the area of Stimlje and Malisevo, and he said -- he did not deny -- he did not deny -- you yourself said that they were in keeping and in conformity with the tasks of the army in Kosovo, and then he went on to enumerate the protection of the communication lines, ensuring the borders' security, protection of units in barracks, and otherwise. And therefore, he precisely explained the reasons for which it was completely legitimate and legal to -- and lawful to use the army and why the army's activities were lawful. And I enumerated the provisions and rules and regulations, as I said that what you had said did not exist in the constitution but I said what the rules of service for the Yugoslav army stipulate. Now, why should that be questionable?
JUDGE MAY: We are wasting time here. The witness has already been over this. The point, Mr. Milosevic, is not whether the army should or should not have been deployed or what the constitution said or didn't say. The point of the witness's evidence was the use of artillery against the villages, undefended villages, the destruction it caused. Now, that's the point you should be concentrating on.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, first of all, there were no attacks on undefended villages in Kosovo. Now, I'm asking the witness the following:
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Whether a facility or a house or a fortified village or any 8030 facility of that kind from which fire is opened on the army and police is a legitimate military target or not.
A. Mr. Milosevic, you know full well that under the Geneva Conventions you are not entitled to fire artillery or anti-aircraft weapons that are specifically designed to attack aircraft at ground targets. Now, these tactics were used, as I have stated under sworn oath, throughout Kosovo against many, many villages. Both artillery, self-propelled artillery, normal towed artillery, main battle tank, including multi-rocket launching systems which were fired, I saw being fired into Junik --
Q. I heard you. I heard you, Mr. Crosland. You said that a 20-millimetre cannon was used, is that right, anti-aircraft gun, 20-millimetre one. That's what you said was used. Now, as you're a soldier yourself, answer me this: Is there anywhere in the armaments of any army a cannon which is of smaller calibre than the 20-millimetre one? Is there a smaller calibre gun than 20 millimetres at all in the arsenal of weapons?
A. Mr. Milosevic, there are many, many calibres, from 9 millimetre to 556, 762, 12.5, all the way up to 20, to 30.
Q. I'm talking about cannons. You're talking about artillery devices.
A. Of course a cannon cannot be under 20 millimetres. A gun, top of --
Q. Well, that's what I asked you.
A. I told you -- 8031
Q. So is there any smaller calibre for a cannon than this 20-millimetre one? So it means that this was the smallest calibre cannon that was used for those targets that you're talking about. And secondly, it is not correct, Mr. Crosland --
JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with the calibres, first of all, since you've raised it.
THE WITNESS: I don't understand the direction of your question. Various military equipments come in various calibres. Machine-guns go from 556 to 762; heavy machine-guns of 12.5. And all these were used in Kosovo.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. I'm not asking about the calibre of weapons now. I'm asking you a very specific question, and that is: Is there a cannon? I don't know what the interpretation was. Perhaps it was "gun." I meant cannon because gun can mean a rifle, because you said 5.6, et cetera. So cannon, is there a cannon with a smaller calibre than the 20-millimetre calibre and your answer was no, that such a cannon does not exist. Now, let's go back to more important questions, please. You're claiming, therefore, that General Dimitrijevic explained to you the fact that Pavkovic was not adhering to orders from the General Staff.
A. That was General Dimitrijevic's words to me, yes.
Q. All right. They were General Dimitrijevic's words, the ones that you're quoting here. Now, what I'm asking you is this: Do you imply and understand that it is possible, in any army whatsoever, for any event that occurs in the course of a day that a daily report should not be drafted 8032 which is then sent to the higher command, superior command? And as this was the army command, in this case it would be the General Staff. That it is not passed on to the General Staff? What is your opinion as a professional soldier? Is it possible that a report of this kind would not be sent on straight away, informing the General Staff of each and every incident that took place in the course of that day?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I can't answer for your Vojska Yugoslavia staff. I'm telling you the indications that General Dimitrijevic and General Perisic gave to me on several occasions which are itemised in my summary report. I would hope - sincerely hope - that there was a proper brief given back to your Vojska General Staff and to yourself as the Commander-in-Chief. I don't know that because I'm not privy to that information.
Q. All right. But your assertions are, to put it mildly, strange. At least, they appear strange to me from the aspects of ethics and seem to be quite unbelievable. And at the end of this particular page - it is a long one with all the points - you talk about the discussion with Dimitrijevic on the 3rd of October, and you said that he said that General Pavkovic was trying to create a name for himself. Now, my question to you is based on this doubt, Mr. Crosland. I doubt that a general would --
JUDGE MAY: We're now having yet another speech. First of all, it doesn't matter what the evidence seems to you, it's what the witness said happened, and your views about it are totally irrelevant. Now, what is the question? You've asked something about General 8033 Pavkovic was trying to create name for himself.
Did somebody say that to you, Colonel? Just a moment.
THE WITNESS: Your Honour, yes. This came up in the two discussions on the 3rd of October and the 5th of November with my ambassador, that this was the feeling from members of the General Staff, that General Pavkovic was now acting outside the normal chain of command, direct back to Beograd and to Mr. Sainovic and Mr. Milosevic.
JUDGE MAY: Yes.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Please. As I asked you this question as referring to professional soldiers, is it possible that there should not be reporting about each and everything that the army is doing in the field? Now, according to the rules of service and the provisions regulating the army's activities, it is duty-bound, even when it comes to sabotage, terrorist groups, and protection of borders and the protection of communication lines and the protection of itself and it is being shot at, do you really think that the commander of the rank of an army commander for each specific situation, concrete situation where soldiers are being shot at or when a border hut is being attacked at the border or a group is passing by that it actually has to ask the General Staff whether to proceed in keeping with its duties to protect the borders, to protect its unit, to protect the communication lines, to react against sabotage groups that it is -- that it has spotted, and only once it receives orders from the General Staff can it carry on in performing its duties. Is that what 8034 you're saying? Is that what you're assuming?
A. Mr. Milosevic, that is completely untrue. I have never said or stated that a field commander should not act on his own initiative. Of course the commander of the 3rd Army from Nis, Colonel General Pavkovic, had to act on his own initiative. What was indicated by your General Staff at both CDS - chief of defence staff - and chief of counter-intelligence, was that it was outside their chain of command. They have to answer that question. I cannot answer that question. This was the feeling that they had, that they no longer, as chief of defence staff and as chief of counter-intelligence, had a control of what was going on in Kosovo. You must ask those three gentlemen concerned what they meant. They indicated to us General Pavkovic was acting directly to yourself on a different order of battle to what was going on in the chief of defence staff. That is the allegation. Of course a field commander has got the right and must have the right to react to the situation on the ground. And I never -- I've never gone against that feeling.
Q. And is it clear to you that his reactions, this reaction to the situation on the ground, is it clear to you that this reaction of his on the ground must be and was in conformity with the orders given down the chain of the command -- down the chain of command? It could not have been outside the chain of command, because in that case, he would have to bear the consequences because he has to report back about everything. And I maintain that General Pavkovic was not acting outside the chain of command, was not acting outside his own competencies and authorisations, regardless of the fact that you say that Dimitrijevic and Perisic told you 8035 that.
A. Well, in that case, Mr. Milosevic, then you and General Pavkovic must be responsible for what happened in Kosovo. And that included the destruction, massive destruction of civilian population and infrastructure around Kosovo.
Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. Do you feel it to be probable - and that's why I'm asking you the question because I think it is impossible and quite improbable - that generals in the General Staff - you've mentioned the chief of the General Staff and the chief of the security service - should, with you - you were a foreigner, you were a colonel, a colonel of a foreign army - should talk to you about a colleague of theirs, the commander of the 3rd army of the Pristina Corps? Does that seem to you probable that he was doing this in order to make a name for himself?
JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Milosevic, you've missed the point. It's exactly what the witness said happened. It's no good your saying it doesn't seem probable. It's what happened, he says. If you say he's not telling the truth, of course you can put it to him, but there's no point saying it's not probable. It's what he said actually happened. Now, do you want to challenge it? You can. The witness can answer it.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, precisely because I consider this to be so improbable, I'm asking the witness whether he just conjured that up or maybe it was the impression he gained.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Milosevic, I am under oath, and I have written 8036 in several statements exactly what has happened. And on one occasion, on November the 5th, I think I'm correct in saying, there was also a meeting with General Dimitrijevic attended by my ambassador where this again was stated, that things were not as they should have been. And I suggest if you want to find out the answer, that you ask the gentleman concerned. But because of my good relationship with the Vojska Yugoslavia and what I had done for the Vojska Yugoslavia in helping to save the lives of six soldiers, during the evacuation from Kosovo I-49 Brigade out of Prizren, I got an accolade from General Simatovic for helping to withdraw that particular brigade and about 12.000 Serbs back to Strpce that may not have happened. So please do not accuse me of not looking after the aspects of the Vojska Yugoslavia.
The welcome that I received when I went back to Belgrade in 2001 was a very generous welcome by your Vojska Yugoslavia General Staff.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. All right, Mr. Crosland. I assume that you're well acquainted with British military doctrine and you are a soldier of the British army, and that one of the elements, for example, is to protect dependent territories, regardless of the fact whether they are thousands of kilometres away.
Now, your country, did it not deploy its own forces on countless occasions not only to fight terrorism but also to protect the dependent territories of its --
JUDGE MAY: That's irrelevant. Yes.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, my question is: How, then, 8037 can a member of that army consider that the Yugoslav army should not have taken part in the struggle against --
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have -- you have missed the point of the witness's evidence, which I've pointed out to you already and I will again. The point that he's made was that destruction caused by the use of artillery against villages, the point that he's made was the disproportionate response which was shown by your forces against the KLA. That's the point. It's been the point throughout this trial, and not one which you seem to have grasped.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think I have grasped that essential point, and with the example of Prilep, which was highly fortified, it had walls of concrete, and it was built as a fortification in order to cut off the main communication line.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Now, you, as a soldier, do you consider that the deblocking and removal of such a fortification and stronghold which Prilep had been turned into can be done with infantry weapons, without the use of artillery? And how many victims and casualties should this cause, would this have caused? Speak as a professional soldier. Go on.
A. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. The area of Prilep was a KLA stronghold, and your forces attacked it on many occasions when I was present in that area. Did they succeed in holding that area? No. Because you tactics were strong. And you can raze a village, as you did on many occasions, drive the population out, and within a matter of hours the population came back because they had nowhere else to go. The point 8038 I'm making is that your dispositions in Kosovo were totally inept and a very small number of terrorists initially - it grew later on - kept at bay a considerably larger number of forces. If they had been -- if they carried out operations in a far more professional way, I dare say the outcome would have been different.
If you insist on going around, destroying everything that you suppose or your forces suppose is to do with the Kosovo Liberation Army, then your intelligence is not as good as it is meant to be. If you destroy the civilian population, inevitably you drive more people to support what was and is, and I have admitted, a terrorist organisation. We have had many, many incidents in Northern Ireland. We didn't go around destroying towns in Northern Ireland. The IRA probably destroyed more because of their bombing. And it's taken us 35 years to reach a partial, and I stress "partial," political initiative. What was totally lacking in Kosovo was any form of political initiative. As I've said, there was this air of revenge and never any reconciliation. And now Kosovo is still not part of Serbia. And there are many Kosovo --
JUDGE MAY: Let us not pursue the future. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Well, all right, then. Tell me this, because you mentioned Prilep: Does the opening of communication lines constitute a legitimate object, goal?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I spoke to your General Staff. I asked Colonel 8039 General Vilickovic [phoen], who, sadly, was killed in Kosovo, why hadn't you opened the three channels of command across Kosovo, from Pec to Pristina, through Ribnik to Stimlje, Caraleva and Suva Reka, and he looked at me blankly and I had said, Well, they are not strong positions. How much more can I say? Correctly directed operations may, and I stress "may," have got you much better results than these completely wanton destruction of areas that achieved very little, because most of these areas came back under the Albanian influence very shortly afterwards as your troops withdrew to more static positions. I can't answer why they did that. That's something that you must ask your own generals.
Q. Well, that specific village, Prilep, Mr. Crosland, was emptied of the civilian -- of its civilian population and turned into a KLA stronghold, fortification, in order to block the main communication line. Are you aware of that or not?
A. Mr. Milosevic, I drove up and down the road from Djakovica to Decani, Pec more times than I care to remember, and I used to follow the beer truck that used to go around delivering beer to your positions, which was a great morale booster, and they were two very brave soldiers. Prilep definitely was a KLA area, and I've told you that several times. But razing it to the ground did nothing but actually harden the resistance in that area. And in the end, did you win that contest? I would suggest no.
JUDGE MAY: I think we've got beyond argument. Mr. Milosevic, you've got five minutes left and then you've had your time with this witness.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think, Mr. May, that this 8040 kind of cross-examination of a witness that is claim -- presenting a mass of assertions, I cannot conduct this cross-examination in full within the time limits and time constraints you've given me. So I have no options but to use up the time I have. But this is an example of the fact that I have 50 more questions that I would like to ask this witness but won't have time to do so. But we'll have to deal with that separately.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Please, Mr. Crosland, you are claiming that after the agreement which was reached between myself and Holbrooke, the army withdrew, in keeping with the agreement, and then two or three days later returned to its positions; right? Is that what you're saying?
A. Mr. Milosevic, that's absolutely correct. And I was there when the three battle groups withdrew back to Prizren, Pristina, and Urosevac. And I actually informed the various powers that be that if we did not get people in place - KDOM or whatever it happened to be - then the KLA may well fill that vacuum. I issued that warning to various people. So I was aware of the very fluid situation in Kosovo at the time. I cannot be held responsible for what other people did. I reported, as my duty, as a professional soldier --
Q. Please. That's not what I'm asking you. That is not what I'm asking you. Until now, everybody established that we observed the agreement, that we diminished our own forces, withdrew our forces, and it is the first time that I hear this from you that we are tricksters who withdrew our troops and then returned them two or three days later. If it were so, why doesn't the Verification Mission say so in any one of its 8041 reports that we actually returned what we had withdrawn. And even General Naumann here claimed, in order to prove that we increased our presence, that we had, for example, 500 policemen more, which is about 5 per cent. Even that were correct, it would have constituted no more than 5 per cent. How can you claim that once we withdrew our forces, we returned them immediately behind the backs of the Verification Mission? Is that your assertion?
A. Mr. Milosevic, that's correct. Your Vojska Yugoslavia withdrew, as I've already indicated to you, quite correctly, back to their respective brigade barracks. The MUP, other elements, also withdrew. But within the next week or so, I myself saw many, many MUP returning on a roulement basis. Now, if the Kosovo Verification did not see that, it was perhaps because they were back in their bases. Some of us worked extremely long hours. And we're not silly, we know when people come back in and out using the cover of darkness. So perhaps the Kosovo Verification Mission did not see that. I can't answer for them. I am making a statement and I am confident and prepared under oath to say that the MUP were roulement in and out, came back in as just a large number very shortly after this. Your Vojska Yugoslavia did withdraw back, correctly, despite some attention from the Kosovo Liberation Army, to their barracks. And I have given them credit for that.
Q. All right. Do you know that it was the MUP precisely according to that agreement that had 10.024 of its own people in Kosovo at the time? Did you have the obligation to cooperate with the Verification Mission? Because there was the British KDOM, too. And also there were British 8042 verifiers in the Verification Mission. How come you did not draw the attention of the British verifiers and British KDOM to that? And that the fact that you have been claiming that the MUP returned after the agreement was signed is something that you didn't draw their attention to then. You are making this claim only now in 2002.
A. Mr. Milosevic, that is completely untrue. The British KDOM were based in Prizren, which, as you know, is in the western side of Kosovo. The withdrawal of the MUP went out around the ring road of Pristina to Podujevo, and on to Nis, Prokuplje, et cetera, et cetera. They came back in through that route because we were based not far from Kosovo Polje, the obelisk there, in a house there. So that is where we saw these people come in and out. It was nothing to do with the British KDOM because they were not responsible for that area. People responsible were in the Pristina, Podujevo and eastern areas. Now whether they saw or did not see, I have no idea. That is there are job, not mine. But I made my reports back and they are stated in my reports as sworn evidence.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, this will be your last question.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What was that? Was this my last question or am I supposed to put one more question to him?
JUDGE MAY: One more.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Mr. Crosland, we've quoted here from the month of January a meeting that was held in London. It was your government with the participation of Secretary Cook and high officials, at which it was stated that most violations of the cease-fire were caused by the KLA. I assume 8043 BLANK PAGE 8044 that that was established in your reports as well. In your reports as well, not only in the reports of the Verification Mission, because I assume that your government receives information both from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and also from verifiers as well. Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Crosland?
A. Yes, of course our government receives reports from all sorts of agencies. And the allegation that the majority of attacks were by Kosovo Liberation Army is possibly correct. What is -- that is respected. Unfortunately was the return of your forces --
JUDGE MAY: I don't think we need to pursue that part. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you have any questions?
MR. WLADIMIROFF: There is no matter to assist the Court, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: If you can be very quick.
MR. RYNEVELD: Nothing arising in re-examination. Thank you.
JUDGE MAY: Colonel Crosland, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give your evidence. It's now concluded and you are free to go. And the Trial Chamber will adjourn for 25 minutes.
--- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.
--- On resuming at 12.20 p.m.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.
MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly, before we call the next witness, Dr. Baccard, who will be very brief, I wonder if I might raise a few administrative matters, some of which are somewhat urgent in the sense that they affect the witness after Dr. Baccard. 8045 In the first instance, I want to point out to the Court that the Prosecution intends to call Mr. Karleusa live, and I believe the Court has had an opportunity of seeing both his statement of that of Mr. Radojkovic, who we propose to call pursuant to Rule 92 bis, because, as you might be able to determine from their statements, the evidence overlaps and therefore could be part of the cumulative in nature. So I just want to alert the Court to our intention of proceeding in that way, if the Court approves.
I also wanted to point out that Witness K32, you may have before you at the moment an application to have him proceeded with under Rule 92 bis. On reflection, that is a witness that I will be calling, and the subject nature of his evidence might be better if I were to call that evidence live. And again, that's for Your Honours to determine. Finally, and perhaps more urgently, after Dr. Baccard, who I think I'll take no more than 15 minutes with, on the list you have the next two witnesses, Merita Dedaj and Merfidete Selmani, and those witnesses we have requested to proceed with by way of Rule 92 bis, and thus far I'm not aware whether a ruling has in fact made its way to us, so I'm just asking about that.
JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Ryneveld, there hasn't been a ruling because we didn't realise there was any plan to call these immediately. There's been a change in the order.
MR. RYNEVELD: I'm told that's true, Your Honour, and that's our fault and my apology. So it's as a result of us changing the order that it now requires the Court's permission for us to call them by way of 92 8046 bis. So I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Court has been tardy in giving the ruling, it's just that, in order for us to be able to call them in that way, I wanted to alert you to it.
JUDGE MAY: We will have to consider that when we've heard Dr. Baccard's evidence.
Let me deal with one other matter while we are awaiting the witness. We will approve the calling of Mr. Coo in chief before the recess, cross-examination after the recess.
We have considered the statement of Mirjan Krasniqi, which was mentioned in evidence last Wednesday in connection with Suva Reka and during the evidence of Shyhrete Berisha. There was an application by the accused to exhibit the statement. The statement was marked for identification. The application now is to -- that it should be made part of the Prosecution case under Rule 92 bis.
Mr. Milosevic, you've heard what I've said about the statement of Mirjan Krasniqi which you asked should be exhibited. There's now an application we're considering that it should be exhibited or it should be admitted, rather, under Rule 92 bis. The Prosecution have made that application.
Do you want to say anything about that?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you know my general position that every witness should be cross-examined.
JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll consider that. Can we have the witness, please.
MR. RYNEVELD: Yes. I hope the usher is getting Dr. Baccard. 8047 There we are.
[The witness entered court]
WITNESS: ERIC BACCARD [Recalled]
[Witness answered through interpreter]
JUDGE MAY: Dr. Baccard, thank you for coming back. There's no need to take the declaration because you're already under it, you having made it once already. If you'd like to take a seat.
MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, while the witness is getting directions, I might just alert the Trial Chamber to the location that this evidence refers to Cirez, which you will find at page 6 of the Kosovo Atlas number 2, and about dead centre in the page where you see on the left-hand side column there's a 5 and at the top there is a 90. Where those two intersect, about a half an inch to the right of the intersection of 5 and 90, you will see Cirez, C-i-r-e-z. That's the location that this evidence will be pertaining to.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.
MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:
Q. Dr. Baccard, at the conclusion of your evidence last day, you were asked to review the pathology reports carried out by the French team with respect to individuals found in three wells in the village of Cirez in Kosovo; is that correct?
Sorry. I didn't get a response because the microphone wasn't working.
A. I said yes. I said yes to your question. 8048
Q. Thank you very much. Now, sir, what information did you have available to you in order to review the autopsy reports and express an opinion at this courtroom today?
A. The material that I used that was given to me was -- is found in a binder called "Sexual assaults," with the reference number K1054, K1062, which include the analyses, report of Dominique Lecompte and Dr. Vorhauer as well as a scene examination report that was prepared by the team headed by a division head Mr. Dominique Gaillardon.
MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, would you show the witness a binder of material, please.
Q. Very briefly, Dr. Baccard, is this the binder that you indicate you were shown and does it contain the information you used in order to prepare your subsequent report?
A. Yes, that's correct.
MR. RYNEVELD: I would tender that binder as an exhibit in these proceedings, if I may, Your Honour. Copies were -- were distributed earlier, but I believe last date they were handed up and returned. So I do need these -- this binder marked with an exhibit number.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 261.
MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
Q. Now, then, Doctor, very briefly, can you tell the Court what the subject matter of this autopsy report concerned? In other words, how many individuals and what were the circumstances to the best of your information and belief?
A. According to the documents that were given to me, we're talking 8049 about exhumations and autopsies that were carried out by the French forensic team on the 2nd and 3rd of July, 1998 -- 1999, rather, and there were eight female victims who were taken out of three wells. Four women were in well number 1, one was in well number 2, and three other women were in well number 3.
Q. Now, very briefly, sir, in the autopsy reports, were these individuals given specific numbers? In other words, were they assigned particular numbers in order to keep the data straight?
A. Yes, that's correct. Each of the victims was given a number, a code number with several letters; SI, which is representing Cirez, P for well - "puits" in French, "well" in English - the letter C for body, "corps" in French.
The wells were numbered from 1 to 3 since there were three wells. SIP 1, 2 and 3. And the bodies were numbered from 1 to 4, which was the highest number of victims in 1, letters from C1 to C4.
Q. So just if I have it correctly, if you have a number such as SIP1C1, that would mean -- SIP1, would be -- that's the first well, and then the body would be C1. That would be the first body in the first well; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. I see. All right. Now, sir, were the pathologists able to ascertain the ages of the individuals that were exhumed from these three wells?
A. Yes. The age was determined. The victims were also identified by their relatives. The ages went from 18 to 60. 8050
Q. And if you haven't already told us, the sex of the individuals in the wells? Were they all women?
A. Yes. There were eight victims. They were all women.
Q. Sir, were the pathologists able to determine how long the bodies had been in the wells at the time they performed their exhumations on the 2nd and 3rd of July, 1999?
A. That estimate, which showed the amount of time that they were in the water, but it was approximate, the time that the forensic pathologists had was completely compatible with staying in water which would be for about two and a half months.
Q. So two and a half months, from early July, would be roughly what, mid-April 1999?
A. Approximately that, yes. I can agree with that.
Q. Sir, did the autopsy determine a cause of death on any or all of these women?
A. The cause of death which the French pathologist noted was the same for all the victims; that is, they were drowned.
Q. Drowned. Now, these -- to the best of your information and belief, these bodies were found in a well; is that correct? Or in a series of three wells.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. And you indicate, sir, that the symptoms were consistent with having been immersed in water for a period of time. So there was water in these wells?
A. Yes, that's correct. 8051
Q. And just so that I'm clear, if they died from drowning, does that mean that these -- what does that tell you about whether or not the victims were alive before they went into the well or not? Are you able to say?
A. Yes. And I mentioned this on page 2 of the addendum which I drafted on the 23rd of May, 2002. The conclusions of my colleagues, who were French pathologists, was that the cause of death was death through drowning. The report does not -- the autopsy does not specify whether additional examinations were carried out, but the observations that were made under microscopes were completely compatible with the death by drowning. So it is death -- well, that was -- those persons were drowned.
Q. Sir, to your knowledge, was any attempt made to determine whether or not there had been evidence of sexual assault on any of the victims?
A. Yes. That was systematically checked by the French pathologists. Obviously the state of preservation of the bodies represented an obstacle to bringing out the diagnosis. However, in two cases, it was possible for the experts to say, yes, that two of those victims had been subjected to sexual aggression. That is SIP1C1 and SIP1C2 which showed signs that were very, very clear that -- clearly indicated that there had been sexual attacks.
Q. Now, did you yourself have an opportunity to study the photographs and the autopsy reports, and did you personally come to any conclusions about whether or not the autopsy reports were correct in their findings?
A. Yes. I myself examined the autopsy reports and the photograph albums. And in order to answer your question in respect of the two 8052 victims, in the first case the victim that is SIP1C1, we saw clinical signs associating the presence of red blood at the opening of the vulva and an abrasion-type lesion on the left thigh that pointed - I say pointed - to sexual assaults.
Things were much clearer in respect of SIP1C2, because that victim also showed red blood at the vulva opening. She had lesions which showed traumatic violence on the upper third of the -- on the right thigh and the upper third of the left leg. And also, she was completely naked. That is, the lower half of her body was completely naked. And therefore, as regards that second case, the diagnosis showing sexual assault pointed more to that and could be considered as most probable.
Q. Now, Doctor, of the eight women exhumed from these wells, you say that there was an assessment that two had been sexually assaulted based on what you've just told us. Due to the state of putrefaction or decomposition of the other bodies, was it possible to make a determination whether or not they were not sexually assaulted? In other words, was it possible that they had been or could you rule it out?
A. As I said, at first the state of preservation of the bodies, which showed putrefaction of the tissues and also a rather long amount of time spent in the water, made the experts' work difficult. And the lack of clinical signs, macroscopic clinical signs in the general sphere of the lower limbs showing traumatic lesions, the fact that those signs were not there does in no way eliminate the possibility of a diagnosis that there had been sexual assaults.
Q. I see. Finally, Doctor, you have provided a two-page report dated 8053 the 23rd of May, 2002; is that correct?
A. Yes, that's correct.
MR. RYNEVELD: Might that report now be tendered as an exhibit, Your Honours? And once it is, I believe those will be my questions. Thank you.
I might say, Your Honours, that I do not intend to show the witness the photographs. The binder that was marked as a previous exhibit refers, and if the Court wishes, I can perhaps indicate some of the photographs with numbers, but I don't propose to put them on the ELMO in respect of the witness -- the victims and their families.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 262.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, have you any questions for the witness related to the evidence which he's given about this report?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Baccard, do you know how far away the wells were from one another? Where the bodies were found, that is.
A. No, I don't know. In the reports of the crime scenes, I did see them. It was indicated there, but I can't tell you now.
Q. Did I understand you correctly that the assertion is being made that the women whose bodies were found in the wells had been detained at a particular place? Is that right?
A. I can't answer that question. It does not deal with the report that I was asked to draft.
Q. As an expert, do you have any logical explanation as to why the 8054 bodies of these women were found in three separate locations, in three different wells?
A. I have no explanation in respect of the distribution of the victims into the three wells.
Q. And do you know when the village from which these women were - as far as I can see, that's the village of Kozica - when it was free of the official state authorities, the security forces?
A. No.
Q. Did it occur to you that it would be necessary to establish that in view of ascertaining the time when you claim that these bodies were in these wells, in the water, et cetera?
A. That point was not part of the expert mission that was given to me, the purpose of which was to check on the French pathologist expert reports and the crime scene analyses.
Q. And do you know which party in the conflict did these bullet casings or shell casings of 105 millimetres belong to, the ones that were found near the wells in Cirez?
JUDGE MAY: That's not part of the witness's report.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in the addendum to the report it says that Mr. Baccard pointed out that he had studied the on-site investigation reports, and this was carried out by Dominique Gaillardon, if my pronunciation is correct, so it was included in the reports, and I can see by what is being distributed --
JUDGE MAY: It's not part of his expertise. 8055
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Do you know how high the concrete wall of the well was?
A. Which well are you talking about? That should appear in the crime scene analysis report.
Q. Did you bear in mind that, because it was your duty to view the scene itself in order to ascertain what had happened, how high is this wall? I see in some photographs it's made of concrete, in others, it's made of wood.
A. I was not to look -- I did not have the opportunity to look inside at the reports but, rather, look at the reports that had been drafted, so I limited myself to what was the mission that had been given to me. However, this appears in the expert report that Mr. Gaillardon prepared.
Q. All right, Mr. Baccard. Only a short while ago, I got this binder with the photographs where these wells can be seen. So I've had much less time to look at this than you did, and I can see that the walls around the wells are either made of wood or of concrete and that they are quite high. And in these details, one can see that even on the edges of these walls, one could sustain injuries. So I'm asking you what kind of injuries can be sustained from the edges of these walls. Because you state what the injuries were like and the place where they did take place. I imagine that you had to be interested in that, how these edges could injure a person.
A. In general terms, I would say that the type of wound that could be caused by a traumatism to the body from wood or concrete are usually 8056 superficial. They are usually abrasions.
Q. All right. Now, you said some kind of abrasions on the inner side of the upper part of the leg. Can these injuries be sustained when one jumps over such a fence? And we can see on the photographs that they are quite high and that the edge is pretty sharp.
A. Each type of abrasion has to be looked at in respect of where it is. Its location on the inner side of the thigh could be possibly connected to other traumas. But when they appear in a -- along with other symptoms which show red blood and open orifices and the fact that the lower half of the body is naked, the interpretation becomes completely different.
Q. All right. But do you exclude the possibility -- what I understood you to say was this, let's take it one by one: You concluded that those women drowned in the well; right?
A. I didn't understand. I read the autopsy reports where my colleagues concluded that there had been death by drowning, and I judged that the comparison of the autopsy reports and the photographs was also compatible with this diagnosis.
Q. There's water down there. But do you exclude the possibility, for example, of this kind: That the victim wanted to hide herself, that she jumped over the edge and that while she was jumping over these rough edges, these abrasions were caused, as you call them, on the inner side of her upper thigh and that, later on, she drowned; that nobody threw her there into the well. Would that be a theoretical possibility, plausible?
A. It is possible to have that hypothesis, but that does not explain 8057 the red blood on the vulva, on the vulva opening, that is.
Q. Very well. And do you know what the surface of the interior of the wall is, from the top to the surface of the water? Are there any -- any protrusions or anything like that?
A. According to the photographs that I saw, apparently there were kind of irregularities. There were some protrusions within side the -- on the inner part of the well.
Q. Tell me, what type of injuries can be caused from those protrusions? What injuries to the body with these rough edges?
A. That would depend on the size of the trauma that the body experiences when coming up against those rough spots. They could be skin abrasions or wounds, fractures. All would depend on the violence of the trauma.
Q. Yes. But in view of the dimensions, the size that I can see on the photographs, I assume that you measured all this and that this was -- these were some very narrow wells. Not wide wells but narrow wells. So what injuries do you think this could cause to the body? Are they similar to the ones that you observed? Can this type of injury be incurred if an individual wanted to hide and had to jump over a well, even if a person wanted to commit suicide or anything else, but to jump there, could such injuries be sustained of the nature you've described or do you exclude that possibility?
A. As regards the relationship between the wounds and the well itself, that was studied and suggested by the autopsy report of the French expert. In one case there was the victim, SIP2C1, who had an injury to 8058 the scalp in the front part of the skull, and the experts noted also that within the well there were traces of blood on the wall of the well.
Q. And on what parts of the body would these injuries be localised if, for example, the individual had jumped over this edge herself? Let us suppose that the person wanted to hide and jumped inside or was thrown inside, bearing in mind the width of the well, as we have seen, was narrow? Would these injuries differ in the latter case and in the former case?
A. That would depend on the position of the victim when she went into the well, whether she were to fall head-first or whether she was thrown in or whether she jumped in feet-first.
As regards this case, there was a wound on the forehead.
Q. All right. That was the case with one of the victims, this injury to the forehead.
Now, tell me this: The injuries on the bodies of these women, would they be more intensive than the ones you described had they been thrown into the well? Would they be more marked? Or like this particular case, the situation that I described to you?
A. As regards the lesions and the skin abrasions on the inner part of the thighs, it would be very unlikely that the lesions were caused by a fall, because since -- on the inner side of the thighs, this is an area which anatomically is protected when one falls into a narrow well. This also concerns the two victims for whom there is suspicions of sexual assaults. There were other traumatic lesions that were noted on five of the other victims, and they are fractures of ribs, which were 8059 BLANK PAGE 8060 caused before death. This concerns those victims who were mentioned at the bottom of the page of the report, the bottom of the first page, SIP1C1, SIP3, SIP3C2, SIP3C3. They had rib fractures.
Q. All right. But I asked you about this protected part of the body, as you called it, the inner thighs. Could those injuries have been sustained while jumping over the rough edges of the well? Because they weren't -- these parts of the body weren't protected because you put one foot forward, one leg forward, and then the other if you want to jump over.
A. One has to understand that the state of the bodies did not allow us to have a very precise autopsy, given the putrefaction caused by how long they had been in the body [sic]. In fact, nothing allows us to eliminate the possibility that you've mentioned, but once again, that hypothesis does not allow us to explain the presence of blood at the vulva opening.
Q. Yes. I understood your understanding that it wasn't easy to establish whether they had in fact been sexually assaulted or not and so on, but as you're talking about blood, as you've just mentioned blood, could you answer this specific question: In the false environment such as the interior of a well -- moist environment, I'm sorry, does the hemolysis of erythrocytes take place, dissolving?
A. What is the question?
Q. My question is: In a moist environment, you have a humid, moist environment, you said that these bodies had been immersed in water for two and a half months, so in this kind of circumstance, in a wet, moist 8061 situation, does the hemolysis of erythrocytes take place or their dissolution. Dissolving, dissolution?
JUDGE MAY: What does that mean in ordinary language? Can you help us, Dr. Baccard, as to what the accused means or not?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. We're talking about a destruction of red globules. "Hemolysis" means the destruction of the red globules, corpuscles, rather, excuse me. And that phenomenon can occur, and in the report, it was made clear that the experts mention the presence of red blood, and we're not talking about any kind of liquid related to putrefaction but, rather, in respect of the other openings that showed mucous, like the mouth, there was no red blood, and that the red blood was only noted at the vulva opening.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. So my question is that this is a case of decomposition in this moist environment over a period of two and a half months. Now, my question is: Can you prove the origins of hemolysed blood, Dr. Baccard?
A. That could be possible with a microscopic analysis of the cells which appear in the blood, but I really don't see what the point of this question is. There was blood on the vulva opening. There was blood on the vulva opening. That's what it was.
Q. All right. I apologise if I interrupted you. Please go ahead.
A. No. No, no, it's all right.
Q. Fine. And tell me, after what period of time after death does the blood in the body lose its characteristics because of the decomposition and decay that sets in, and putrefaction, under the conditions in which 8062 these persons were to be found?
A. It varies, and one cannot give a specific estimate. It depends on temperature, it depends on the type of water, it depends on the way the body is more or less protected by something. It's impossible to make a specific evaluation.
Q. So it is not possible to estimate this, make a specific estimate. And after what period of time is it not possible to ascertain the person's blood type?
A. That also depends on the state of preservation of the blood. If there's sampling under scientifically standard conditions, then it's possible for a long time. But everything depends on the condition of the blood that's been conserved or preserved, and it's very difficult to answer that question.
Q. And tell me, please, Dr. Baccard, what is decomposition fluid?
A. It is a -- it's a phenomenon which is related to hemolysis and the destruction of tissue in the chest area, inside the thorax, or within the various body cavities. It's kind of a -- it's a mechanism which is involved in putrefaction.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've had now more than 20 minutes with this witness. The Prosecution were quarter of an hour. You can have half an hour in total, which will give you rather less than ten minutes more with this witness. It is more than sufficient to cross-examine on this very narrow point, in the view of the Trial Chamber.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Could you tell me in advance, Mr. May, then, please? Because as far as I know, you have cut 8063 down my hour to 45 minutes, now you're cutting it down further to half an hour, as far as I can see. I've already mentioned once that pre-emption. I see that you can see in advance that I'm -- whether I'm going to ask a relevant or irrelevant question, what is allowed in cross-examination. I am not aware of the fact that this exists in court practice anywhere in the world.
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've got about seven minutes left.
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. Tell me, please, Dr. Baccard, with bodies that have drowned and with decomposition and putrefaction set in, does the -- do the fluids ooze out, and in what part of the body does that take place, this loss of fluids and liquids?
A. As I was saying, they would take place within the thoracic cavities, but also within the abdominal cavity.
Q. And from the professional viewpoint, is it more correct to say that at the opening, vulva opening, if a woman is assumed to have been assaulted, whether there will be putrefactory liquid or blood present, what would you say, in view of the fact that the person had drowned?
A. My colleagues, the pathologists, said this was not putrefaction that was coming but it was actually red blood. Ordinary blood which is putrefying has a kind of a blackish colour or a brownish colour to it.
Q. All right. Tell me, can you assess the fact that the blood was blood caused by sexual assault if the corpse has been immersed in water for two and a half months? Are you able to establish fresh or vivid red 8064 blood present or not?
A. The hypotheses which comes to one's mind when one sees this bright red blood at the vulva opening is that the victim, throughout the time that she was in the water, had her thighs closed against one another and that the vulva orifice was protected by the large lips and allowed avoiding of contamination by the water. That is what I would think.
Q. All right. And tell me this: Is it completely reliable what you are stating? Is this something that represents a general -- generally accepted rule or is this merely a possibility from the aspects of your profession?
A. I think that in this case I go back to what was said both by the French pathologists and what I put in the conclusion of my report. In light of the state of the bodies and the amount of time they were in the water, it was not possible to have an exact diagnosis. In one case, SIP1C1, the observations were compatible with the diagnosis of sexual assault; and for SIP1C2, the diagnosis seemed more than compatible and really pointed to various things. We cannot go further than that. All of this is related to the limits that are caused by how -- the state of preservation of the bodies. This is not an exact diagnosis.
Q. So it's not an exact diagnosis then. Now, did I note this correctly when I looked through your report: None of the drowned women had any traces which would indicate that they fought against someone or that they were thrown forcibly or were injured as they were defending themselves in any way? None of this was noted on any of the bodies; right? 8065
A. That's not correct. As I have already said, five of the victims showed rib fractures which were caused before death. One of them had a wound on the scalp. As regards the others, the lesions that were noted showing skin abrasions are described for victims SIP1C1 and SIP1C2. So they did show traumatic lesions.
Q. Yes, but is it logical that in the case of violent behaviour toward somebody that the injuries would be found on their hands and arms which the victim would use to defend him or herself or if they were forcibly detained or thrown into prison or thrown anywhere else? So did you detect any of these - how shall I say? - defence injuries, injuries sustained during a person's defence?
A. I think that you didn't or you weren't able to look at the photographs of the bodies. The state of preservation of the bodies was very, very poor, and this once again is related to putrefaction and the amount of time that was spent in the water.
Q. Well, that's what I was looking at, precisely that. So the post-mortem on the bodies of these women, as far as I was able to see from the report, did not register any of these what we call protective or defence injuries which one would expect if somebody was forcibly thrown into a well. They would have sustained injuries while defending themselves. So how can you explain that?
JUDGE MAY: The witness has already answered that. He's referred to the five cases of rib fractures.
Now, one more question, Mr. Milosevic, and then that's the end of your examination. 8066
MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Q. In your response to a question from Mr. Ryneveld when you said that there existed, although it was not easy to ascertain the assumption that the two victims had been sexually assaulted, is it possible to claim that the others were not sexually assaulted, raped? Although you said that it was very difficult to ascertain that in these two cases. And you said that you could not exclude that possibility. Now, can you explain that to us? Because what you're doing is with two victims, you say that the possibility existed but there was no probability or possibility with the other two. Now, what are your professional guidelines on the basis of which you say that this cannot be excluded with the other two bodies, where no possibility of that was established in the first place?
A. I repeat that as regards the two victims that I've spoken about, C1 and SIP1C2, the diagnosis of sexual assault was, for one of them, compatible with the signs found on the body, and for the other, highly probable.
As regards the other victims, in light of the state of preservation, which was very poor, of the bodies, and the immersion for a long time in the water, the pathologists were not able to bring out microscopic signs which allow us to conclude with that diagnosis. But the absence of those signs does not allow us to exclude this type of assault in light of the fact that the bodies were extremely degraded and that preservation showed highly evolved tissue degradation which does not allow us to exclude that possibility.
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Wladimiroff? 8067
MR. WLADIMIROFF: I have nothing to ask, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Mr. Ryneveld.
MR. RYNEVELD: Nothing arising. Thank you, Your Honour.
JUDGE MAY: Thank you, Doctor. You're free to go.
[The witness withdrew]
JUDGE MAY: We will need to see these statements. We haven't got them with us. Can you give us some copies?
MR. RYNEVELD: Absolutely. Yes, Your Honour. Ms. Romano will be handling the next two witnesses, but ...
JUDGE MAY: We will look at these.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we're considering now whether we should admit the statements of Merfidete Selmani and Merita Dedaj under Rule 92 bis. Before we decide, it's right that you should have the opportunity to make any objection you wish to. We note your general objection that all evidence should be given verbally and not by written form. We've heard that. Is there anything else you'd like to add in these cases?
THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking me, but as you say, you know my general objection and you do whatever you like anyway, I don't see ...
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will admit them subject to cross-examination.
MS. ROMANO: Your Honours, the next witness we'll be calling is Merita Dedaj, the first one. And, Your Honours, I also point out that the villages that the witness will be mentioning, and it's mentioned in her 8068 statement, are located on page 9 and 10 of the atlas. It's right in the middle. It is in the Gjakove area. And it refers to villages such as Meja, Korenica, Guska, Babaj. They're all in the middle of the page, both pages.
While we wait for the witness, Your Honours, I also would like to inform the Court that the witness this morning brought with her several photos, and we reviewed the photographs with her, and we selected I think approximately four or five photos. I have copies in black and white here, and I suggest or, with the permission of the Court, that I put the photos on the ELMO and I explain what the photos are and the Court makes a decision about the admissibility as an exhibit.
JUDGE MAY: Very well.
[The witness entered court]
WITNESS: MERITA DEDAJ
[Witness answered through interpreter]
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: Yes. If you'd like to take a seat. Examined by Ms. Romano:
Q. Witness, can you please give your first and last name to the Court.
I will repeat the question. Can you please give your first and last name to the Court.
A. Yes. My name is Merita Dedaj. 8069
Q. Were you born on 8 January, 1983? Yes or no.
A. Yes.
Q. Were you born in Guska in the Gjakove municipality?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, did you give a statement to the Office of the Prosecutor on 8 April 2000?
A. Yes.
Q. And on 12 July of this year, did you attend a meeting with an officer from the Registrar of this Tribunal, and did you review your statement and did you make an addendum of your statement to clarify and correct some dates? Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, did you confirm that the contents of your statement are correct and true?
A. Yes.
MS. ROMANO: Might the statement and addendum be tendered into evidence, Your Honours?
JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let it have an exhibit number.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 263, the original, and 263A for the redacted version.
MS. ROMANO: The witness is from Guska village, Gjakove municipality. She was 16 years old and still attending school in 1999 and lived with her parents, one sister, and three brothers. She witnessed the killing of nine males on 27 April 1999. Amongst these men were her father, uncle, and cousin. 8070 Serbian forces controlled the area where the witness lived from autumn 1998. VJ and police constantly patrolled the area, which is close to the Albanian border.
On 29 March 1999, VJ forces led by Dragan, one of the VJ commanders, expelled the witness and other villagers from Guska, giving them one hour to leave. The villagers headed for Korenica and en route they were escorted by VJ vehicles. On arrival in Korenica, the witness stayed in a field with other displaced persons. She stayed there for one week.
A week later, the displaced persons left in a convoy numbering 1.000 people. On arrival at Orize, the convoy stopped and people were ordered to return to Korenica. The witness describes the atmosphere of fear created by the Serb forces.
On 27 April 1999, at 6.30 a.m., the VJ forced entry into the house where the witness was staying. The occupants were ordered out of the house. The men were beaten and robbed, and the women and children were separated from the men and ordered to leave. As they left, the women and children were made to make the Chetnik sign and shout "Serbia." The witness saw her father, uncle, a cousin, and five other men being lined up against the wall of the house. From a distance of approximately 20 metres, she heard multiple shots lasting two minutes. On turning back, she saw the men falling to the ground. The witness could not judge whether these men were dead, but none of them were seen again, and they are all listed as missing persons by the ICRC, International Committee of the Red Cross. 8071 As the witness left Korenica, she heard gunfire and saw houses burning. The witness and others formed a convoy and walked towards Djakovica. En route, she saw two unidentified dead bodies covered with blankets being placed on a VJ truck by soldiers. The convoy was ordered to follow the truck.
On arrival at Bishtazin, the convoy was stopped at a checkpoint. Serb police abducted a number of men from the convoy, most of whom have not been seen since. The witness and her relatives sheltered in the village until the end of the war.
On returning to her village, the witness saw that her house had been ransacked and looted and the cattle had been killed. Gjon Dedaj, her uncle, took several photographs of both her family home and the home of Pjeter Dedaj.
If the usher could show the witness or put on the ELMO the photographs in this order. Thanks.
Q. Witness, the first photograph is of your house taken by your uncle when you returned to Kosovo. It shows damage to the interior. Is that correct?
A. Yes. It's here. That's my house which was ravaged, ransacked. This is right after the war.
Q. Thank you. The second photo, please. This is a photograph of Pjeter Dedaj's house, and also taken after the return to Kosovo, showing the damage. Pjeter is your uncle; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. The third photo. That photo, Witness, shows uniforms 8072 left by the Serb forces in the house of Pjeter Dedaj; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you also seen the interior of the house, and have you also seen these uniforms that are depicted in the photo?
A. Yes. Yes, I've seen them. I did see them.
Q. The other photo, please. Is this the same house of Pjeter Dedaj, and it also shows the uniforms left by the Serb forces?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, Witness.
MS. ROMANO: Your Honours, the Prosecution submits the photos into evidence. And I have copies here with me. They are black and white, due to the time.
JUDGE MAY: Next number, please.
THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 264.
MS. ROMANO: That's all, Your Honours.
JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Have you got questions for this witness?
Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
Q. [Interpretation] It was my understanding that you gave a statement to the investigators of the International Crisis Group and then to the investigators of this institution. How were you in a position to give a statement to the investigators of the International Crisis Group and then to the investigators of this institution here?
A. Of course I was able. I came back after the war, and they came, and I was in a position to give them a statement about what I had seen. 8073
Q. And how old were you when you gave your statement first to the investigators of the International Crisis Group and then to these investigators from here?
A. I was 16. It was right after the war.
Q. Did you give all your statements in the presence of your mother or not?
A. No. I was alone at the time.
Q. And your mother and your aunt, did they give any statements to the mentioned investigators?
A. No.
Q. And the two of them were with you all the time; right? During the period that you describe in your statement, that is.
A. Could you repeat the question, please?
Q. Your mother and your aunt, were they with you all the time during these events that you describe in your statement?
A. Yes.
Q. But they did not make any statements.
A. No.
Q. I would first like to remind you of page 1 of the statement -- or, rather, it's page 2. You say: "The Serb forces, the VJ, and police were deployed in our area from autumn 1998. This is an area near the border, as they were constantly patrolling this area. As far as I can remember, there were no incidents between Serbian forces and villagers in that period. In that period of time, I did not see any paramilitary units in our area. I used to go to school, to Gjakove every day on foot, and I 8074 never had any problems with the police checkpoint that had been set up in Brekovac. Only once they addressed me by saying that I had to greet them."
Later, you say that you went to Korenica, and you say that during that week, you did not see a single crime that had been committed there. And now let's go back to the beginning. You continue by saying that: "On the 24th of March, 1999, the NATO airstrikes against Serbia started. From that day, my family and I could not go out any more." And now my question is the following: From the 24th of March, when the NATO airstrikes began against Serbia, why could you and your family not go out any more?
A. We didn't dare to go out because the police had a checkpoint there. They were everywhere. And they would take all the men away.
Q. You claim on the same page and in the same paragraph that the army forces, on the 25th of March, went to the villages of Deve and Babaj, and you say that they executed eight civilian men there. How do you know that? You were not there. How do you know that they killed eight men there?
A. Because the commander of the army, called Nikola Micunovic, also known as Dragan, came to my uncle's house and told him to go and bury the eight dead bodies.
Q. So you found out from your uncle or from your uncles that he buried eight bodies; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Could he tell you, because he was asked to bury them, how these 8075 BLANK PAGE 8076 people got killed?
A. No. He didn't know how they had been killed. He just knew that they had been killed and he was told to go bury them.
Q. So you heard about these people from him, and he did not know how they got killed. Why do you then say that it was the army that killed them? On the basis of what did you infer that it was the army that killed them?
A. The army commander was the one who came. And there were two other soldiers with him who called my uncle and told him to go and bury the bodies.
Q. Yes. But my question pertains to something else. I understand that he called your uncles to go bury the dead there, but on the basis of what did you conclude that the dead people got killed by the army?
A. Well, it was well-known that the soldiers killed them.
Q. I did not understand that. How did you know that it was the army that killed them? Who told you that?
A. That's what -- that's what my uncle said.
Q. Yes. But your uncle went there to bury them. So he went there when they were already dead and when the commander asked him to go and bury them. How could he --
JUDGE MAY: What the witness has said, what the witness has said is that it was well-known that that is what happened and that her uncle told her. Now, she can't take it any further than that. That's what her uncle told her and that must be the extent of her evidence. It's now quarter to, and we will have to adjourn. 8077 Ms. Dedaj, we have to adjourn for the day now because there's another case that's got to come into this courtroom. So I'm afraid I must ask you to come back tomorrow morning to conclude your evidence. Would you be back, please, at 9.00 tomorrow morning, and would you remember during the adjournment not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team. Could you be back, then, at 9.00 tomorrow morning.
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.