⁸⁵⁰¹

Wednesday, 24 July 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you can have up to one hour and a half, if you require it, to cross-examine this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I move on to the cross-examination, Mr. May, I would just like to note something that is quite obvious. The last two witnesses were the witnesses whose examination was the slowest since the very beginning, obviously with the intention of using up time, and you could see that for yourself. And for reasons that will become more obvious later --

JUDGE MAY: No. This is not a proper point. They were witnesses who required some careful examination. This is important evidence. And there was no question of time wasting. If there was, we would have stopped it. Now, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is why I did object, because you usually object to what I do. We heard questions for ten minutes about the licence plates on the truck, which was so relevant.

WITNESS: BOSKO RADOJKOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Radojkovic, in June 2002, you gave statements to the investigator of the OTP; is that right? ⁸⁵⁰²

A. Yes.

Q. What is your health like now?

A. Fine.

Q. How good was your health at that time, on the 1st and 3rd of June when you gave your statement to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal?

A. I was fine.

Q. Is it true that when speaking to the working group of the MUP you gave your statement practically from a hospital bed at the medical centre in Kladovo?

A. Yes, in hospital, but in a proper room for that kind of an interview.

Q. Why were you in hospital then?

A. I had some ailments in my chest. My blood pressure was a bit up. That was it.

Q. In the note, it is mentioned that you had had an apoplexy. When did you have an apoplexy, the one you mentioned to the working group?

A. In 1985. It was the doctor who mentioned it, not me.

Q. And the statement that you gave to the working group was on the 14th of May, 2001; is that right?

A. Yes. That's when they talked to me, when they interviewed me.

Q. Was that one interview or several interviews?

A. Yes. There was one interview in Kladovo.

Q. Were there any other interviews apart from that one?

A. A few days later, in the ministry in Belgrade.

Q. So they asked you to come to the ministry in Belgrade to have ⁸⁵⁰³ these other interviews; is that right?

A. No. I asked for it. I asked to have an interview in Belgrade as well.

Q. And which were the members of the working group who talked to you on the 14th in Kladovo and which members talked to you in Belgrade?

A. In Kladovo there were three members of the working group. One of them was Captain Karleusa. The other two men, I can't remember their names now, but they're still at the MUP.

Q. Tell me, in Belgrade, were they the same interlocutors or did you talk only to one of them?

A. No. All three were there. Perhaps at one point Mr. Karleusa went out. For about ten minutes or so he was absent.

Q. In that conversation was there a tape recorder there? Was it tape recorded or did they only take notes about the interview with you?

A. No, they only took notes.

Q. Did you -- when you talked at the medical centre and the physician in charge who gave his approval for you to be heard, was he present or not?

A. No, he was not present.

Q. As mentioned in the Official Note of the working group, on page 5, paragraph 3 of the Official Note, when you speak about the mining of the refrigerator truck, you said: "I finished that and I went to hospital."

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you go to hospital then?

A. That was in 1999, in April. I didn't sleep on the 13th, for three ⁸⁵⁰⁴ days, and I was exhausted. My biorhythm probably went wrong so I went to see a doctor, a specialist in internal medicine, and he gave me some tranquiliser injections so I could fall asleep.

Q. Who were the doctors who treated you?

A. The specialist in internal medicine was Dr. Misa - I can't remember his last name now. He's an experienced doctor.

Q. Are they the same doctors who gave their approval to have an interview conducted with you on the premises of the medical centre for you to talk to the members of the working group?

A. No. Approval was given by Dr. Rzogic, a specialist neurosurgeon, the one who treated me in 1985 for this minor apoplexy. There was a surgeon, Dr. Mitrovic, and there was Dr. Sinisa, who was director of the hospital.

Q. Not at a single point in your statement that you gave to the investigators of this institution here you do not mention that immediately after that event that you say occurred in April 1999 you went to hospital. Why did you not mention that?

A. When the investigators of the Tribunal at the ministry of Serbia in Belgrade presented the official notes to me that were compiled by the working group on the basis of the interviews that were conducted with me in 2001, I was surprised. I wondered how come they had it, but I realised that that was it. So I didn't really repeat anything from the statement to them. And I said yes, that is the core of the matter. So my statement given to the investigators is very brief because I go by what I said to the working group of the Ministry of the Interior, with just a small ⁸⁵⁰⁵ reservation.

Q. As for this reservation, I saw that in the note it says in your statement that some of the corpses wore KLA uniforms, and then you corrected that. Is that right? Was it something like that?

A. No, Mr. Milosevic. I never stated that in the refrigerator truck there were corpses with KLA uniforms or any other type of uniforms that the KLA used in Kosovo. But a document was presented to me. I think that it was a summary or something, or this was the statement of Mr. Karleusa where he mentioned that in the refrigerator truck there were some KLA uniforms. However, I corrected that. I said no, there were no KLA uniforms. There was a confusion with another case. That is what Mr. Karleusa got wrong.

Q. Oh. So it was Karleusa, not you who said in your statement that there were KLA uniforms, and you corrected that statement, going by what you think that you saw; is that right?

A. Yes. Except that I'm not sure whether it's the statement of Mr. Karleusa or whether it's some kind of a report. At any rate, it was mentioned that in the refrigerator truck there were KLA uniforms, and that is not correct.

Q. If Karleusa did not include this in the report, who could have included it in the report?

A. I really don't know. If I were to see this document where this is mentioned, that there were KLA uniforms there on the corpses in the refrigerator truck, then we would certainly see who wrote that because I really cannot assert anything now. ⁸⁵⁰⁶

Q. In your statement to the working group, you say that as for the refrigerator truck that was protruding from the Danube, you found out about it on the 5th of April, 1999, during the NATO aggression; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you went to the scene and you saw the truck. The next day when you came, did you see any changes on it or did you see the same thing?

A. The same thing that I saw on the 5th of April.

Q. Do you know that according to the testimony of some people who saw the refrigerator truck fall - and there are about ten of them - they claim that the refrigerator truck fell into the water, and it was a one and a half tonne truck and the one in the picture is five or six tonnes, as far as I can see. Is that story of theirs correct, that there was perhaps a bit of confusion or something like that, something that you could point to? Did anything look suspicious to you when you came there?

A. No. I didn't hear these comments. As for this refrigerator truck that I have been referring to, it was a seven and a half tonne truck.

Q. All right. You gave this set of photographs here that you took.

A. Yes. I gave the negatives.

Q. But I assume that when the prints were developed, that you recognised them as those that you had taken; is that right?

A. No -- yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. It was an interpreter's mistake. The witness said, "Yes." ⁸⁵⁰⁷

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I have a few questions to put to you. Are they in the same order that you took them in?

A. I don't know which order you have there in your hands.

Q. It's the way they've been stapled together. Why don't you look at it yourself.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please have this given to the witness, and I would like them to be placed on the overhead projector so that I could ask him something.

JUDGE MAY: This is first of the photographs, is it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The whole set of photographs.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness have the set.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you compare that to the set you got. I imagine that you did not change the order in your own set. Is that the right order?

JUDGE MAY: They should be numbered in the top right-hand corner in each case.

Are those the photographs, Mr. Radojkovic? Do you recognise them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, those are the photographs.

JUDGE MAY: If you would put them on the overhead projector, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please give me a copy of these photographs. Could you give me a copy of the photographs because I would like to put some questions to Mr. Radojkovic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁸⁵⁰⁸

Q. Please look at photograph number 1, for instance. You can see an opening there on the back of the truck, and the door is broken along the right edge. And then on photograph number 2, that can be seen as well. It is closer up, isn't it?

Perhaps it's a deformed triangle. That's the best way to put it. Or, for example, like a big arrow head. So it's the entire right side that is ripped; is that right? Please look at photographs number 1 and number 2.

A. Yes. But what has to be disregarded is the reflection of the truck on the water, because the weather was very fine.

Q. I'm not taking that into account at all. I'm just looking on the -- I'm looking at the right edge of the right door, the very edge of the box that is ripped, and there is a triangular shape that is present on both photographs 1 and 2.

As for the other photographs that we will be looking at, for example, photograph 3, then photograph 4 -- I don't know where else it can be seen, the back of the truck. Here. This photograph is number 6135. That's the number. K022.

This ripped edge cannot be seen here at all. Look. This is the photograph here.

JUDGE MAY: Now, wait a moment. Let the witness deal with it. You're being asked, Mr. Radojkovic, about the rear, and taking photographs 2 and 3, you can see the rip in the rear, and then it's said if you look at photograph number 10 or 9, 8 -- 7, 8, and 9, the rear appears to be different. ⁸⁵⁰⁹ Now, you gave evidence about this yesterday, but perhaps you would repeat to us how it comes about that there's a rip in the first two photographs but not in the others.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The rip in the truck, the back of the truck, that's photograph number 1, yes. And then photograph number 2, number 3.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please show photographs 1 and 2 on the ELMO so that we can see what we're talking about. Number 1 and number 2.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please speak into the microphone.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This darker part here, is that the rip that you're referring to?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's the rip. That's what he's talking about.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As far as I can see, that is a rip in the back door by the right edge in the back of the truck. Is that right?

A. Precisely.

Q. On photograph number 2, it can be seen even better.

A. The closer the truck gets to the bank, the closer up the photographs are.

Q. The rip can be seen on the right edge of the truck; isn't that right?

A. Yes, towards the middle.

Q. The protrusion moves towards the middle then; right? ⁸⁵¹⁰

A. Yes.

Q. Photograph number 2, and then this rip moves along the right-hand side of the truck. Already on the other photographs, no rip can be seen on the right edge.

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Which photographs are you referring to without the rip?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the very next one, Mr. May. Then take the last one. Take the one but last. Take the one before the one but last. Take a few photographs from the other end and you will see that there's not a rip on a single one of them on the right-hand side of the rear of the truck.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's deal with this in an orderly fashion. The photographs being referred to are 8, 9, and 10. Let's put those on the ELMO.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I assume that you have them in front of you. It's so obvious, isn't it?

JUDGE MAY: I do, but I thought you wanted people to see them. Anyway, they should. Yes, 8, 9 and 10.

Now, then, Mr. Radojkovic, would you answer please now the point that I made earlier. You gave an explanation yesterday but would you repeat it so the accused can hear it: How does it come about that there is a rip in the first few photographs but none in the second?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On photographs 8, 9, and 10, there is no writing on the door either. The inscription that was on the truck, that is to say -- ^{8511 BLANK PAGE 8512}

JUDGE MAY: Don't worry about that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is to say that I took those photographs after I had done some work on the truck. That is to say, when I closed up that rip also, when I pushed in the two legs and arms, and when I closed it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Radojkovic. If you did these photographs -- if you made these photographs after the work you did on the truck, let us disregard them. Let us then look at the first two photographs or, rather, since the first one is somewhat smaller and the other is a close-up, let's look at photograph number 2. Photograph number 2. Could you please put it on the ELMO.

This one doesn't work. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't work. Oh, it works now.

So could you please put photograph number 2 now. Can it be seen quite properly and vertically on the right-hand edge of the back of the truck there is a rip and then towards the middle of the right-hand side of the door it is there in the shape of an arrow; is that correct?

A. I agree.

Q. Now, where is that rip on the next photograph, on photograph number 3? On photograph number 3, there is no such rip. It should be here, here where you're holding the pointer, as far as I can see. On that side. On that side, on the previous photograph, there is a rip. On this side on this photograph, it's quite different. It's a completely regularly shaped rip. Oh, this went off on my monitor. Oh, all right. ⁸⁵¹³ So are you sure it's the same truck?

A. Yes, yes, Mr. Milosevic, quite sure.

Q. How do you then explain this kind of difference in terms of the place where the rip is and also in the shape of the rip between photographs 2 and 3?

A. I explained that yesterday. While the truck was being pulled out of the water, Zivadin Djordjevic, a diver, was in the water all the time. He wore his diving outfit. He was trying to get the wheels straight. He was doing his best in order to pull the truck out. He informed me that there was something that was protruding out of the truck, and since I was wearing normal clothes - I mean, I had gone to work - it was very deep there so I could not get in. But as the truck was getting out, I mean he kept trying to close this as much as he could.

Secondly, what you can see here on photograph 3, on the upper part, this sort of flat thing, that is part of the back of the door. There is -- there is some kind of wood there on the back of the door.

Q. Let's not waste any time, Mr. Radojkovic. I'm not asking you about diver's outfits or any such thing.

JUDGE MAY: No. But you have raised a point about this rip and the witness must be able to finish his explanation about it. Now, is there anything more you wanted to say?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a bit embarrassed that this is being brought into question now. I would kindly ask the Court to ask the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade for the original of the negative. They have it. ⁸⁵¹⁴

JUDGE MAY: Don't be embarrassed. No need at all.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Radojkovic, you earlier said that the picture number 3 was taken before you did something on the truck. Please take a look at number 9. Could you take a look at picture number 9. Do you think the image, number 3 and number 9, look similar? Which is suggested. Picture number 3 was taken after you did some repair job on the truck; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Number 3 was certainly not taken before this opening was closed. After all, the negative would show everything.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes, please go on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to say that it's open to the Prosecution to provide any evidence that it wishes in rebuttal in relation to this point.

JUDGE MAY: We've got no interpretation.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear anything until right now.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters didn't hear what you said. But if it was argument about this point, let's try and move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, what I was saying was that I'm using materials that you presented -- or, rather, that the other side presented. These are these photographs. And I believe it is quite logical for me to ask for an explanation of an obvious difference in the damage on the back side of the truck that can be seen in photographs 2 and 3 respectively. You believe that the witness did answer these questions, and now I have further questions. ⁸⁵¹⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, on this photograph number 3, can it be seen that you had already removed the chain and padlock and that the refrigerator truck was practically open; is that right?

A. No. Photograph 3 does not show that. The chain and the padlock are still there.

Q. Please, where are the chain and padlock on photograph number 3?

A. I don't know if we're looking at the same photograph.

Q. It's the third one. It's this one up here.

A. Yes, yes here. In the upper part, at the end of the white thing. Here it is, the chain and the padlock. It's a thin chain. It is thinner than my small finger. See, up here. That is where the chain is and the padlock. On the original photographs, this can be seen a bit better, because the padlock happened to be turned to the back side so you could really see it quite properly.

JUDGE MAY: If you look at the next photograph, 4, you have it more clearly. Is that it?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Tell me, please, was it on the first day that you opened this with an instrument?

A. No, not on the first day. On the 5th of April it was noticed, and the 6th of April it was removed -- moved out to such a distance that we could open it.

Q. Did you continue making photographs then? You said you made a part of the photographs on the 5th and a part on the 6th. ⁸⁵¹⁶

A. Right. Right.

Q. Now, give me answer to a very important question. How come that when you opened this refrigerator lorry and saw the bodies, here in your statement, it says: "It is my job to investigate crime scenes, to establish what happened. It was my job also to secure potential evidence and investigate all kinds of crimes starting with burglaries and up to murders. I was also trained as a police scene-of-crime photographer. That is also my responsibility."

So you are a qualified crime investigation inspector, photograph, and so on. You opened the door. How come you didn't make a single photograph of the corpses inside?

A. Yes, I opened the door. It is two doors, actually, a double door. There were 30 people operating the cranes around me. There were some people near the village of Tekija who were, it is true, at a certain distance on the road and near the edge of the woods. So I thought they could see it. I opened the door and immediately closed it. It didn't matter, because the corpses weren't going anywhere. I could come back in an hour or two and open the door again.

Q. Please. Yesterday when you said you returned on the second day - and I believe it was Judge Kwon who asked you, but I'm not sure - what time it was, you said between 12 and 1300 or perhaps a little later. Between 12 and 1300 hours is a very good time for taking photographs. As you said you could do it in an hour or two, why didn't you? I assume that you were able to photograph the bodies that you had found inside.

A. Yes, I was able, but the investigating judge had to come, the ⁸⁵¹⁷ public prosecutor had to come. By that time, I just informed them of the contents. And the investigating judge said he didn't even want to look; it was in the jurisdiction of the District Court. So I went to see my boss and tell him what had been found in the refrigerator lorry. It is a big job. It surpasses my abilities or the abilities of the police station where I work.

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, you are a qualified police inspector, and you know very well that evidence has to be collected from the scene of the crime immediately, without delay. The scene of the crime is photographed immediately, and all the clues are gathered without delay. How come you didn't make a single photograph of the bodies?

A. I will explain, Mr. Milosevic. When Tomislav Milojkovic, president of the District Court in Kladovo at the time, the investigating judge, stated that it was not within his competence, the district public prosecutor was invited to come from Negotin, and it was agreed that the public prosecutor from Negotin and the investigating judge should come, and once they come and gave me orders to take photographs, I would have done it, but I didn't get such instructions.

Q. So are you saying that until the investigating judge comes, the scene-of-crime officers are not allowed to take photographs of the scene and collect evidence that would later help establish facts? You are not going to tell me that without the permission of the investigating judge you cannot photograph the place.

A. Under the law on criminal procedure that applied at the moment, the police was able to do that. According to the new law, they can't even ⁸⁵¹⁸ do that.

Q. You have been an inspector for a long time, for many years. You had a camera with you. You made pictures of the refrigerator lorry. The point of this whole story are the corpses, and we can't see the corpses anywhere. How is that possible? How is it possible that you didn't make a single photograph of the corpses?

A. I didn't. There aren't any.

JUDGE MAY: He has answered that now twice, so there's no need to repeat the question. And of course there is a photograph showing a foot.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I really cannot understand this. Yesterday, it wasn't clear even to you until we clarified in my cross-examination of Mr. Karleusa that those corpses have not been even exhumed or found, nor does anybody know where they are at all, because he came to testify about the refrigerator lorry, and instead he testified to the exhumation of bodies in Batajnica.

JUDGE MAY: If you want to put to the witness - and if it's your case you should - that there weren't corpses in the truck, then you should put it to him so he can deal with it, if that is your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what happened. I'm just trying to establish how it is possible that the competent police officer who arrives at the scene, finds corpses there, and it is one of his duties, among others, to make photographs of the refrigerator lorry from the side, from the front --

JUDGE MAY: You have made that point several times. He has given his answer. It will be a matter for the Court to consider in due course. ⁸⁵¹⁹ There's no point going over it again.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is it the usual practice, Mr. Radojkovic, when you go out to the scene of the crime to immediately make photographs of whatever you find there?

A. Yes, and that's precisely what I did.

Q. Except for the main thing, the corpses; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. All right, Mr. Radojkovic. Do you know anything about the following: These corpses that you found there have not yet been exhumed, identified, found anywhere. Are you aware of that as a police officer?

A. Yes. I know that they have not been found, located yet.

Q. You said yesterday during examination-in-chief - and we will perhaps come back to that later - that the death of these persons, and you spoke as a man with experience, which I believe you are, occurred two or three days before you found them; is that correct?

A. Yes. That was my assumption.

Q. Now, if death had occurred two or three days before you found them in the Danube, do you have any idea for how long they might have been in the Danube? Was it one day in the water, a day and a half, for instance?

A. Judging by the changes on the skin of the fingers and toes, they had not been in the water for more than a day and a half or two.

Q. Two days? ⁸⁵²⁰

A. A day and a half at the most.

Q. All right. A day and a half or two. And they were killed two or three days before you found them.

A. That's my opinion.

Q. If we subtract this one day and a half before -- from this two and a half days or three, they were killed shortly -- a day before.

A. Well, unless they were frozen in the refrigerator lorry.

Q. We'll deal with that. If death occurred two or three days before they were discovered, is it possible or probable -- and I'm asking you as a crime investigation inspector, is it possible that in that short period of time they could have been killed, buried, exhumed, and then transported by that refrigerator lorry to the Danube? Is it possible that they had already been buried and then dug out?

A. No. I don't think they had been buried at all.

Q. You said at one point that the truck was taken to Petrovo Selo and a grave in Petrovo Selo was also mentioned. And I read in this press release that was mentioned when Karleusa was cross-examined that these graves might date back to 1945 or 1955. Did I conclude correctly that the lorry was taken to Petrovo Selo empty?

A. Yes. An empty lorry was taken on a flatbed truck to Petrovo Selo.

Q. All right. I'm interested in one little detail. At first glance, it is a very minor detail.

I beg your pardon, I can't locate this in my papers. It must be in this note.

You speak, and you spoke yesterday, about blowing up the ^{8521 BLANK PAGE 8522} refrigerator lorry using industrial explosives; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And here a term is used which nobody uses where we come from, and namely that is "explosives for production." Have you yourself ever used this term "explosives for production"?

A. I'm not familiar with the term.

Q. It's not familiar to you. Well, it's not familiar to me either. In our country, we say "industrial explosives," explosives used in the economy as opposed to those used in mines, quarries, et cetera, but there are no explosives for production.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am pointing this out, Mr. May, because I believe that this was originally written in English and then translated into Serbian, because no native speaker of Serbian would ever say "explosives for production." And even the man who was quoted here believes this to be a very odd term, "explosives for production," "manufacturing explosives." And he gave his statement in Serbian.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Isn't that true, Mr. Radojkovic?

A. Yes. The interview was conducted in the Serbian language.

Q. I thought that much. I just wanted to make it plain. Because as far as this testimony and their engineering is concerned - no offence meant to you - there are many odd things. However, let's move on. You invited a diver to come. I won't dwell on that. And now let's come back to the issue of the photographs. You gave the explanation you gave, but please explain -- okay. You didn't make certain ⁸⁵²³ photographs, although you said yourself that they should be made immediately at the scene of the crime, but did you also draft a dispatch and send it to the competent secretariat of the MUP in Bor, which is also your responsibility?

A. On the 5th of April, 1999, in the evening, I visited the scene of the crime together with Nenad Popovic, crime investigation technician.

Q. Was it on the first day?

A. Yes, it was the first day. I don't know whether a dispatch had been sent to the Bor SUP. I didn't send any.

On the next day, however, the 6th of April, when the refrigerator lorry had already been opened, I personally wrote a dispatch to the Bor SUP. I signed it together with my -- and my boss signed it, Milan Stevanovic. Police stations at that time were dispersed around the secretariat. It was a very unpleasant dispatch, written in elliptical terms to the SUP of Bor because there was a war going on, and basically I invited them to get involved.

Q. All right, but did you make a report on your on-site investigation?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. All right. On the 5th of April, as you have said yourself, you have already completed some investigative work: You established that there was a lorry in the water, you established the type of truck, the damage on it. Was it your duty also to make a report, a record of your findings? Why is there no such record?

A. I don't know whether the record was drawn up. The operative ⁸⁵²⁴ employee was supposed to do that, Mr. Popovic.

Q. Wasn't it your duty to make note of all the findings that you had by that time; that there was a lorry in the water, the type, the damage, et cetera? You had a diver there who had already completed certain work; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn't make a record. Why?

A. I, as a crime investigations technician, do not make records.

Q. All right. But do you go out to investigate scenes of crimes without an inspector?

A. No.

Q. Why did you do so this time?

A. Because the lorry was at a 30-metre distance in the water, 30 metres away from the bank, and we had just gone there with the idea of seeing whether it was there at all and what it was. All you could see was the tip of this trailer box. You can't see much. The depth of the water at that place is 12 metres.

Q. All right. You photographed the lorry except the time when it was in the water, only when it was pulled out with all of its four wheels.

A. I don't think it is among these photographs, but I do have one photograph taken on the 5th where you could see it. I believe it is on the negative.

Q. But it's not here?

A. No, it's not here. I believe it exists on this negative that I have kept. There is one photograph where you can only see this trailer ⁸⁵²⁵ box and this dirty strip on the upper corner from the dirt in the water.

Q. You spoke about that yesterday, about this dirty strip. You can see it on this first photograph. How do you explain that these dirty strips are missing on the rear side of the box? Because a chassis is a 3D thing. You can't have a dirty strip on one side and not the other, if that is indeed what you are trying to explain. Where it ends on one side, it should continue on the other side, depending on the position of the truck, but I suppose it should be visible too.

A. Mr. Milosevic, the right side of the truck, of every truck, is always cleaner. The lateral sides are always cleaner than the rear and even than the front, because the wheels always spray dirt and mud and stuff. So on the lateral side, you can clearly see this dirt strip, this mark made by the water.

Q. Well, it doesn't make sense to me, and that's why I'm asking all these questions.

Could you please tell me, you say two human feet were protruding from the lorry and nobody noticed it except you.

A. No, that's not what I said.

Q. Who else noticed them?

A. Djordjevic, the diver, noticed it before I did.

Q. But I mean except for you and the diver.

A. Mr. Milosevic, there were 20 of us there. We were trying to conceal it somehow so that not everybody sees it. I was there with Nenad Popovic, Momcilo Sujranovic, all of my colleagues. People from the hydroelectric power plant saw it. There is one photograph, and I don't ⁸⁵²⁶ know, Your Honours, if you have it. You can see people standing around the truck.

Q. I want to ask you one more thing. You tried to explain in your statement that nobody saw it. Everybody backed off to a certain distance, and I do see people on one of the photographs, so they must have seen it. I don't know which number this photograph is, but you can see at least two men standing here except for you who were taking the photo.

A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. But when I said I told the people to back away, not to see the bodies in the truck, it was not the only reason. It was realistic to expect that there were explosives laid in the truck. Why should we all get killed if I had to?

Q. Well, I understand your care for your men. That's very kind on your part and nobody questions your professional care for your underlings. But I understood from what you were saying a moment ago that you wanted to conceal this at any cost. Why? For what reason?

In your normal practice when you investigate crime scenes, is it a rule to cover up whatever you are doing, apart from providing normal security around the scene of the crime so that nothing can be touched and tampered with? Why were you trying to conceal anything on this occasion?

A. It was very unpleasant, embarrassing as a job to pull out this truck. And the job was a very time-consuming one. With those feet and arm protruding all the time, there were a lot of machinery operators, employees, workers who had to do this work in the vicinity of the truck all the time and watch this all the time, these feet and arm. So I don't see anything unusual about the fact that we first closed the door and then ⁸⁵²⁷ continued pulling it out. There was no ill intention involved. It was just out of respect for those people. How could you come close to that truck to handle it while -- and attach a cable while a human arm or foot is protruding all the time?

Q. It is your job to conduct the investigation on this site. It is -- I understand that you didn't want your men traumatised. I understand that was your motivation. But that's not your job. Your job was to make photographs. You are paid to be exposed to such traumatic experience.

JUDGE MAY: We have been over this matter now, particularly the photographs.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please tell me, as an eyewitness and an experienced crime investigation technician, how did you assess the cause of this damage on the truck? Because we didn't really understand each other on this point. How come there is a difference between what is depicted on various photographs?

JUDGE MAY: We've also been over this point. Unless you've got a new question, Mr. Milosevic, we're not going to return to it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me now, you say you closed this damaged part with nuts and bolts; is that right? Screws.

A. I think it was screws. And Zivadin Djordjevic gave them to me from his bag. ⁸⁵²⁸

Q. How long did you keep the door open?

A. Three or four seconds.

Q. So your entire perception took place during those three or four seconds while you kept the door open?

A. Yes. I climbed up to the box and I looked inside. I think that the door was not wide open either. I think only the right side of the door was open a bit so that I could go in.

Q. All right. Already on that day, on the 6th, that is - that is the second day - if I understood you correctly, there was a crime inspector with you there on the second day.

A. Yes, since the morning.

Q. And did you and he compile a report on what you had seen and found?

A. No. Only a telegram was sent to the SUP Bor.

Q. So it was known then to you, or rather, you knew what was in the truck. You opened the door, you saw it. You, the crime inspector, and you did not record this at all. You did not write a report.

A. No.

Q. Do you know how to answer this question: Why did you not do that?

JUDGE MAY: He has already explained; it wasn't his job.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, perhaps you haven't noticed. I asked him whether a crime inspector was with him at the time, and he says that that is his job, the crime inspector's job. So I'm asking him whether the two of them compiled a report then, and he says they did not. ⁸⁵²⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer this question?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A crime policeman was with me, Nenad Popovic. We saw that. We returned to the police station, and we presented this to the head of the SUP and the head of the department, what we found and what was in this refrigerator truck. In practice, we never actually made reports on the site itself. We don't have the right kind of equipment for doing that.

As for the situation on the scene itself, it can be described in a report a day or two or three days later. But all of this would move under the jurisdiction of the District Court in Negotin, and it is the investigating judge who compiles this kind of report. We could only compile an Official Note which we would then present to the investigating judge. Since Negotin is 60 kilometres away from Kladovo, nothing was written except for this telegram that I wrote, my superior -- supervisor signed it, and we sent it to the SUP Bor.

Q. All right. But in that statement of yours, you say that this man of yours in Kladovo, right, your boss --

A. Yes.

Q. -- said that this had to be concealed. Did you ask him why?

A. In the evening, at a small meeting of the local police where I was, Nenad Popovic, Milan Stevanovic, Vukasin Sperlic, the head, perhaps somebody else was there as well, the objective was not to conceal it. We were in favour of the following solution: This inscription on the truck that was on the right-hand side that said Progres Export Slaughterhouse ⁸⁵³⁰ Prizren, that we hide that so that it would not attract the attention of the workers who were trying to get the truck out of the Danube; secondly, so that the Romanians would not be observing us perhaps from their military ships that were there in a bay towards Osava [phoen]. I mean, I don't know, they were about a kilometre away from us, they could notice this easily, but they were going all around and they could think all sorts of things.

Q. You spoke about that yesterday, so I don't want to dwell on that. The next day, the 7th of April, in the statement that was compiled by the working group, you went to the scene again and you saw a truck full of coffins and also an undertaker's vehicle.

A. Yes. I saw it on the road, on the road. That this came from Kladovo. A truck from -- a truck with coffins and also an undertaker's vehicle.

Q. I do not see the link between the two, that's why I'm asking you. Because you say that these corpses were taken somewhere. They were not taken in coffins, as far as I understood.

A. No.

Q. What happened to these coffins? What's this all about? I simply cannot link that part of your statement to the other part where you say that they were driven away in a truck or something.

A. I understand your question. A truck was sent from Kladovo, from the public utility enterprise there, with a certain number of coffins. I don't know exactly how many. And there was also an undertaker's vehicle. I saw this, and I knew immediately that that's not the way this can be ^{8531 BLANK PAGE 8532} done. This was already around 11.00 or 12.00.

I knew that actually SUP Bor did not know anything about this then, because I wondered myself, What are we going to do with these coffins? First of all, all of Kladovo and Negotin, I think, cannot collect 80 coffins in one day.

Q. I don't understand. Did you say ten?

A. I said 80. Then the truck with the coffins went back, because we did not even have radio communication with the police in Kladovo from the site itself.

Q. I understand. So you returned the truck because you thought that that was not the right way to resolve this. Did I understand you properly?

A. Yes. Four or five coffins could not resolve this situation.

Q. Yes. And then here it says in this note -- I don't know. What is yours and what is -- now, look. It says here Bosko, and I imagine that's you; right?

A. Yes.

Q. On page 6 of this Official Note, it says: "Bosko has information that on a certain day, about 2200 hours until 2230 hours, people who were coming back from the funeral, as they were moving along the road towards Tekija or the tunnel from Golubinje Kazan noticed two jeeps and men in uniforms, in camouflage uniforms. When they were passing by, the people in camouflage uniforms jumped into the ditch in order to hide. They noticed that the people in uniform were looking in the direction of the Danube, most probably at the refrigerator truck that was floating towards ⁸⁵³³ -- the refrigerator truck that was probably thrown before the second tunnel in the direction of Kladovo." Could you explain this to me.

Q. Mr. Milosevic, in the brief statement that I gave to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal, I said and I asked that this Official Note that you also have and that the Court has and that the Prosecutor has, that I fully support it until that part, because that is what I did with my own hands and that is what I saw with my own eyes. As for the second part, I said that I did not give this to the Tribunal. I never would give this to the Tribunal. I gave it to the working group, as to my colleagues, and that can be used only for further investigations in the police, not the Tribunal. And nobody in the Tribunal asked me about this here either. There's no need for that. So this is just talk.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Radojkovic, you're being asked about it now, and one way or another, the information is before us. Now, can you help us about this, as to any information you may have had about how the truck got into the water?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Everything that is written in that statement is what I heard, but none of it was checked. It's not for me to check. It is for me to notify others and then they will check what is relevant.

JUDGE MAY: No, of course, we understand that. It's not for you to check. But this is what you heard, is it, what's in this note?

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, I am asking you -- I mean, I want this to be clear ⁸⁵³⁴ to you. I'm asking you about this because I did not get this from you. I did not get this from the working group. I got it from this false prosecution. They are the ones who are abusing this. So I would like to clear this up with you to see what the truth is and what is not the truth. Because it is amazing to me that somebody is coming back from a funeral at 10.00 p.m. Please, who is buried at night in our part of the world? Where did you get that kind of information? "Bosko has this information," et cetera. You heard from someone that someone had seen that. You did not see it yourself.

A. No. I am -- that's what I'm saying. I don't even know how the Tribunal got this. I never would have given this to the Tribunal.

Q. But it's not -- it's something that you saw, that's what matters to me. So this was just hearsay. You told those people at the SUP what you heard from someone else.

A. Precisely.

Q. Right. That is what I want to clarify. Look at another example, another example on the very same page of that note.

A. I read it. I know all of it.

Q. I want to read it to you.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that they cannot follow this speed.

JUDGE MAY: Now, I'm stopping you. You're going too quickly for the interpreters. If you're going to read out, remember to read slowly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. I'm going to read slowly. ⁸⁵³⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 5 of this so-called phantom note, phantom Official Note that nobody signed, it says: "Petrovic Zivojin saw something, a security guard. He saw something." It doesn't matter. He worked and then he conveyed this to Ljubo, a driver in Tekija, and then Ljubo Maksimovic told Bosko Radojkovic about this.

Please. This is not hearsay. This is a third degree hearsay. One person sees something, then he tells a driver about it, and then this driver tells a third person, and then this person tells Radojkovic. Please, I'm asking you, Mr. Radojkovic, is this a serious thing? Can -- can this kind of allegation be based on such hearsay?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I told my colleagues in the MUP what I really heard, and I really think that it is not proper for it to be in the Tribunal now because this is not verified facts.

Q. Do you know who gave this here?

A. No. I don't know. I first saw this when I saw the investigator.

Q. Well, your minister, Dusan Mihajlovic, all this hearsay here. I'm not the one who gave it to them, that's for sure, and it's not you either, from what I can see.

A. No, it wasn't me.

Q. This is just a mistake. Never mind. It says Gornji Milanovac. It is obvious that it was written by somebody who did not live in that area. Because in that area, nobody even says "Donji Milanovac," they just say "Milanovac" and half the people don't even know that a Gornji Milanovac exists; is that right? ⁸⁵³⁶

A. Yes. I noticed that mistake too, but that's not for me.

Q. It's not for you. I am just indicating things that are quite clear to me, bearing in mind the fact that I know that area, like all of Serbia, very well but that part in particular, that nobody from there could put it that way. And that could not be your statement, because you are from there.

Look at what it says here: "Rumour has it that before this case --" Please. This in is an Official Note that describes the interview with Bosko Radojkovic. No one else; Bosko Radojkovic. "Rumour has it," et cetera, et cetera. That's what it says here.

Now, please, I don't know whether I'll be able to find it in here straight away. Let me find it. You informed your chief of police -- here it is. That is page 4.

"I informed him about the existence of 30 corpses." So I imagine that when you were telling your chief of police how many corpses there were, you were giving them -- him your assessment, that there were 30 corpses. How did later on -- how did it turn out later on that there were 50 or 56 or 58 or whatever? Can you explain this to me?

A. Yes. I'll try. When I opened the door, the corpses were up to the door itself, and then there was a bigger, bigger pile towards the middle of the box and then deep inside there were less of them. When I looked in, I saw just one pile of corpses, and of course since - how should I put this? - this is sort of like a small pile, a small stack, I was not sure whether the corpses went all the way to the end of the refrigerator truck. But superficially, on the basis of what I could see ⁸⁵³⁷ in a few seconds --

Q. Let's not waste any time. That was your assessment and that is what you told your chief of police.

A. To be quite frank, my assessment was that there were even more of them, but I didn't dare include that in the note.

Q. All right. I am really interested in one thing: The reservists of the DB were present, the state security. I have been -- I was there for a long time, and I never heard of DB reservists. Could you have said something as nonsensical as that, that there were DB reservists, state security reservists there?

A. No, I did not say that.

Q. That's what the note about your statement contains. And who knows what else others would say, others whose statements are being tendered here into evidence where -- and now you have --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes. Ask a question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll be brief, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. Did you say that the same night, at fifteen past one a.m., four men in camouflage uniforms came in jeeps to Djerdap, et cetera, et cetera? Did you state that?

A. Yes, I stated that, that I had heard that.

Q. That you had heard that?

A. Yes, that I heard that. That's precisely what it says. That is this other part of the statement that I expressed my reservations about to the investigators at The Hague Tribunal, because it is something that I ⁸⁵³⁸ heard about.

Q. It's the customs officer who heard about this and he told his friend and this friend told you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you included that in an Official Note?

A. No, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, do you think that if somebody hears a rumour, perhaps it may prove to be true, but does the police then try to find out what the actual facts are? The investigating judge, does he try to find out what the actual facts are or is everything just taken for granted?

A. Mr. Milosevic, as a policeman, I am duty bound in respect of everything that I hear from other citizens. Whether it's a crime or any other event, it is my duty to inform my service about that. If I do not do this, that means that I commit at least a disciplinary infraction. So then people work from this kind of information. And a service that may be interested in will then further check the information that I provided.

Q. You say that you held the door open briefly and that you saw a pile of corpses. Did you come to any conclusion as to who these people were, where they came from, how they were killed, where they were killed, except for what you assessed, that they were not dead for more than two or three days, et cetera?

A. In this respect, I could only notice the external injuries they had, those that were visible to the naked eye. I noticed how they were dressed. But where these people were from, that is something that could not be concluded on the basis of anything. ⁸⁵³⁹

Q. Do you know that General Djordjevic ordered an autopsy to be carried out and that it was impossible to carry it out because of some reasons there, because it was not possible to do it in Kladovo or whatever?

A. No. Throughout the proceedings, I was near the Danube, by the Danube. I was on the bank of the Danube. And those people who talked to somebody else, using phones, whatever, they were about two kilometres away from me, at the border crossing in Tekija. So I did not hear any of that. Of course, I could assume that possibly these corpses would be transported to Belgrade and that then the exhumation -- no, rather, the autopsy would be carried out, because we really did not have the manpower or the equipment.

Q. Please tell me, because there are many things here that are really -- I mean questions.

How come this -- how come this mention of the Kurds? Who launched this idea concerning the Kurds?

A. Since this attracted a lot of attention in Tekija and in Kladovo, people started talking about it a lot. This is right by the road between Kladovo and Belgrade. People go to work, many people saw this, and then people were wondering what to do with this? And then we sort of thought, well, let's invent a story. Let's say that perhaps they were Kurds or some kind of asylum seekers who were trying to flee from Yugoslavia because of the war, because the bombing, that they were trying to flee to Romania, because there was a case like that, a true case with Kurds, with asylum seekers nearby in Golubovac. So we thought that we could use a ⁸⁵⁴⁰ similar kind of story.

Q. I am not bringing into question anything in relation to you now. Yesterday when Karleusa was testifying, I presented official information of the State Security Service here and also the Official Note of the public prosecutor of the municipality, the -- in connection with the criminal group that was led by the brother of the owner of this crime review newspaper. And it also includes some members of the police. Do you know anything about this local group of criminals? Let me just add one more thing; it's not only that they smuggled cigarettes, weapons, et cetera, but they also transported people across the Danube and then they also charged 500 German marks per person. Do you know anything about this?

A. I know that there were asylum seekers and that people were being transported, but who does this, I really don't know. Secondly, Mr. Vitomirovic is in Zajecar, and that's pretty far away. We are functionally related to Bor, to the Bor district. So we have less communication with Zajecar.

I am not aware of that, whether these persons took part in that.

Q. You don't know? You don't know about the village of Sipikovo towards Vidin and all that, these transports? You call that the transport of asylum seekers; is that right?

A. Well, I don't know how to put this. From Afghanistan, from Iran, from the Sudan, from Nigeria, I encounter these people. I don't know whether they are asylum seekers or immigrants or whatever.

Q. Never mind. It doesn't matter what we're going to call them. You ^{8541 BLANK PAGE 8542} said Sudan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, et cetera. It doesn't matter. Who is organising this operation?

A. I really don't know. Secondly, as for Sipikovo, I've just heard about it. I know that it's somewhere towards the Bulgarian border. The municipality of Kladovo borders Romania only.

Q. All right. Kladovo is on the border that is actually the Danube. I don't want to go beyond your area, but that's quite clear. Doesn't it seem to you, Mr. Radojkovic, in view of the fact that you know yourself not only about Zajecar but also about your own area, about this smuggling of people from different countries that you mentioned and so on, every piece of dirt that is committed by these gangs, these criminal gangs, should all that be ascribed to the police that were defending the country during the war?

A. I did not say that I knew who the intermediary was in the smuggling of these asylum seekers, I said that I knew that there were asylum seekers.

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, I am not asking you here. I mean, this is not a hearing about who these people are. You know that this is a phenomenon that does exist in that area where the state border is and that is no rarity at that section of the state border.

A. Yes, I know about that.

Q. Now, since you said that it was only the second time that you talked to the working group that there were 86 bodies in the truck and they all had head injuries inflicted by various instruments and that only one body, a boy aged 18 to 20 - and yesterday you said from 17 to 20, ⁸⁵⁴³ never mind - so a young man, he had an entry/exit wound. So nobody had been killed by firearms. All of them were killed in some different way. Now, my question is the following as related to such a claim with regard to these 86 bodies, and also it should be seen that there are wounds in the chest. A layman can see an entry/exit wound. But for this kind of claim as to the cause of death, I assume that you will agree that this would have to involve a detailed examination of the bodies; is that right?

A. My assertion yesterday was not the way you are putting it now. What I stated yesterday was that this young man, who was about 17, 18, 20, he did have an entry/exit wound.

Q. I'm not questioning that you stated that.

A. I just said that I saw him and that I'm making an assertion about him because he was naked and you could see the chest wound properly. As for the others, who were dressed, I did not look, because how could I as they were being dragged? They could only, what, fall in? I said that I only saw that he had an entry/exit wound. None of the others, I didn't claim anything about the others. I only said what I saw. I saw that he had an entry/exit wound.

Q. Did I read that somewhere or did it seem to me -- I don't want to look through this note again -- that you actually said that for the most part, they were killed by some instruments that they had been hit with?

A. Yes, that's what I stated.

Q. So apart from opening the door of the refrigerator truck and taking part in the transport of the bodies, objectively speaking, you had ⁸⁵⁴⁴ no other contact with these bodies. You did not examine them in any way.

A. I agree with that statement, Mr. Milosevic. Yesterday I said and I can say only now what I saw with my very own eyes. In order to note certain injuries, it is sufficient to cast a glance. You don't really need an examination. I can tell you that I saw, during my regular work, murders committed by an axe. I saw slaughtered corpses. I saw corpses with slit throats not related to this in any way. I have seen violent deaths along a broad spectrum, and I know how injuries are sustained. I know what I can assume.

So as for what I saw in the refrigerator truck, I was in a position to say, "Well, this could have been the result of that." The statement I gave to the working group of the ministry had only one objective in the description of these corpses; when they get to these corpses, when they exhume them, because they were probably buried later, so that on the basis of these wounds and on the basis of this clothing, they could say, "Right, those are the bodies that were taken out of the refrigerator truck." Because I said that even my boots are in that truck, the ones that I threw after I finished this. And also red gloves that I had on my hands. So that this would be a trace, this would be a lead so that they could recognise this.

So the description I gave to the working group of the MUP had only that objective. How all of this reached the Tribunal, I don't know.

Q. That's not the question that is being raised here anyway. As an experienced policeman, when the bodies were being transported from the refrigerator truck to other vehicles, did you try to check the clothing ⁸⁵⁴⁵ and to ascertain the identity at least of some of these persons?

A. Yes. In case of a few men, when time allowed me, I put my hand into their pockets or whatever, and I didn't find anything. In the case of a little girl, the corpse of a little girl who was about 7 or 8 years old, she had a rucksack, a little bag.

Q. What did she have?

A. She had a little bag, a little rucksack or whatever. Momcilo Sujranovic, Nenad Popovic, my colleagues who were with me, we were looking at this little girl together. We opened the bag. The two of us opened this bag. She had a UNICEF notebook, A4 format, and in that bag were some colour crayons and a little doll. And in the notebook, there was only the drawing of a house and some little flowers, nothing else. We opened that in order to see what this was and who these people were. No documents were found on the corpses.

Q. I think it's enough about this phantom refrigerator lorry.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you've got four minutes left.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. May. I think there is no need for me to cross-examine this witness about all the parts of his statement which he describes himself as not factual but derived from hearsay and rumours, and they abound in this case, as you can see.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me ask you one more thing about this. You set the refrigerator lorry on fire; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And after that, you blew it up. ⁸⁵⁴⁶

A. Yes.

Q. You did that on your own initiative or was it somebody who told you to do it?

A. It was the head of the Bor SUP who told us to do that.

Q. So the only thing that was your initiative was this story about the Kurds. The rest you didn't do of your own accord.

A. It wasn't really an initiative. It was just conversation. We were just thinking aloud how to present some sort of story to the public. There were various versions, and then somebody said, "Well, let's plant a story, say it was the Kurds or something." And I said yes, that would make things easier.

Q. We discussed this working group and this article written by Vitomirovic. And this Ilija Matic, head of state security, you heard about him?

A. Yes.

Q. Both of them are members of this new party, New Democracy, headed by Dusan Mihajlovic.

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You don't know about that?

A. No.

Q. And both of them are members of this criminal group that I mentioned yesterday?

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No further questions, Mr. May. ⁸⁵⁴⁷

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: No questions.

JUDGE MAY: No questions. Mr. Ryneveld, it is time for the break.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I will have just a few questions. Do you want me to do it before the break or after the break? But there are four very brief areas that I need to re-examine upon.

JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could do it before the break, if they're brief.

MR. RYNEVELD: Fine. I'll do it very quickly Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. First of all, sir, the photographs that you were shown --

MR. RYNEVELD: Could the witness be shown, please, photographs 2 and 3 in the set of ten.

Q. First of all, sir, as a professional photographer, would you agree that camera angles make a difference with respect to what can be seen?

A. Yes. And also the progress of pulling out the truck. The nearer it comes to the bank of the river, the resistance of the water increases, because the dragging accelerates and the water resistance pushes the rear side towards the interior. The damage on the door resulted from the force which acted from inside towards the exterior. The pressure of the bodies, in other words, resulted in this damage. The slit increased. It is quite normal for these plywood doors to return to their original position, at least to some extent, once the whole vehicle is removed from the water.

Q. One final question on the flap or the hole, as it were. On ⁸⁵⁴⁸ photograph number 2, you as the cameraman are standing to the right of the vehicle so that -- shall we say that piece of wood or whatever it is that is attached to the right part of the frame is facing inwards, is it, and cannot be seen? Do you see what I'm talking about?

A. Photograph number -- which number did you say?

Q. Well, let me just see if you've got the same one on the screen that I've got. Yes. Now, you're standing to the right and you're facing towards the left and so the flap visible in number 3 would be away from the camera; is that correct? Do you see the one I'm talking about that is immediately adjacent to the right-hand edge of the box? That would be bent inwards; correct?

A. Photograph number 2 depicts the refrigerator lorry in the form in which it was removed from the Danube. No work had yet been done on the rear of the lorry.

Q. Right.

A. That is an original photograph of the original state of the lorry.

Q. On photograph number 3, you're standing at a different angle. You're standing to the left of the back of the truck and you are photographing into the side of the -- from the other side; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So we're looking at it from two different angles.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Move on.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, I wonder in fact whether it would be ⁸⁵⁴⁹ more convenient to have the break.

MR. RYNEVELD: I will have a few questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: That will give you more time. There's one matter which I've got to deal with before the break and that concerns the preparations for the programme tomorrow. We have a Pre-Trial Conference for Bosnia and Croatia. We also have to have a closed session hearing. What we propose is this: That we will have the Pre-Trial Conference at 9.00 tomorrow morning. It will be followed by the hearing in closed session, and then we'll continue with the evidence.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, thank you. I've been giving thought to what order of witnesses is most appropriate, given the two crime-base witnesses and K34 who are here to give evidence this week. Jemini, one of the two crime-base witnesses may in due course, I don't know, be the subject of a ruling that in part or whole can be given under 92 bis. And in any event, because he comes to deal with a particular matter raised in relation to an earlier witness's evidence, will be fairly short. It's really three passages of conversation that he has to give, and my strong temptation is to take him next in the hope that he will be finished effectively in one session, and then to turn to K34. My estimation is that K34's evidence will probably take, in chief, between one and two sessions. That will then stretch into tomorrow, leaving some of tomorrow and Friday for cross-examination, hopefully being in a position then to take the one outstanding crime-base witness at the end of the week.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll look at Isuf Jemini. We've just been ⁸⁵⁵⁰ given the document in relation to him. We'll give a ruling about --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. According to my list, no Jemini should follow now, but Musa Krasniqi. And I was told yesterday that K34 would be next followed by Musa Krasniqi, not Jemini or Jemini.

JUDGE MAY: There's a narrow point in the case of Mr. Jemini. We have to get K34 in. We'll look at it.

We will adjourn now for 20 minutes. Would you be back, please, Mr. Radojkovic, then.

--- Recess taken at 10.41 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, before you sit down, could you please put this photograph on the ELMO.

Q. Mr. Radojkovic, during the break I found the original photograph rather than the copies that we've been dealing with. Would you look at that original photograph, number 3, as it were, in this series, and is that a clearer photograph? It doesn't seem to make much difference on the ELMO, I'm afraid.

Is that the original photograph, sir, of this --

A. Yes. Yes, this is an original photograph, and visibility is much better. You can clearly see the foot, the arm. The arm is less visible because -- but I see it because I saw it with my own eyes. Perhaps it's more difficult for you. Here is the arm, here is the foot and the other foot. ^{8551 BLANK PAGE 8552}

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I've shown this original photograph to the amici and also had an opportunity, through the court clerk, to show it to Mr. Milosevic. I wonder whether the usher could show it to Your Honours while I ask a couple of questions, if I may.

Q. Sir, just so that I'm clear about what you were saying, this photograph was taken once the truck had been pulled out of the river further than the previous photographs, photographs 1 and 2; is that correct? It's closer in on the bank?

A. Yes. This photograph was taken when the rear wheels or the rear part of the truck was already pulled out to the gravel bank of the river, and it is after this photograph that the patching was done.

Q. Yes. Now, I'm just going to ask some specific questions. When the truck was submerged in the water, did the box itself with the bodies, did it fill with water? Was there water inside as well as bodies?

A. Yes.

Q. As you pulled the truck out of the water, did the water come out of the truck?

A. Yes. And that was precisely the difficulty in the course of extracting the lorry. The difficulty was that the trailer box was full of water, increasing the weight of the lorry.

Q. Yes. And in the process of the water escaping the box through the hole in the back, is that -- do you have any explanation as to how it is that the bodies are now shown and the flap is now -- seems to have been closed? Is that as a result of the force of the water coming out of the back of the box during the process of extraction? ⁸⁵⁵³

A. No. The flap, the damage to the door had to occur earlier. The water could flow into the trailer box through other channels as well as through that opening. But in the process of extraction, the water flows out, and when the lorry is pulled out to a certain extent, the cable is dragging the truck and then the water resistance pushes back the door to its original position.

Q. And does that --

A. Pushes back the flap.

Q. And does that explain, to some degree, the reason why the flaps or the damage to the door looks different from photograph 2 to photograph 3?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Sir, you were extensively cross-examined with respect to the official notes of the working group for the MUP. Now, you did not prepare that document, did you? You're not the one who authored it.

A. No. I didn't write this.

Q. You provided the information that is contained in that working note; is that correct?

A. Correct. I gave that information verbally.

Q. You have recently had an opportunity to read the working notes; correct?

A. Yes. When I saw them in the hands of the OTP investigator.

Q. When you read those in the Cyrillic script --

MR. RYNEVELD: Tab 8, Your Honours, of the Exhibit 274.

Q. -- did you agree that what you told the working group was contained in that report? In other words, was the information they ⁸⁵⁵⁴ recorded accurate?

A. Yes. To the OTP investigator, I said that I had read the Official Note, and I said it was accurate. I only had reservations about the second part of that statement. I said it was intended more for my colleagues, not the Tribunal. It was intended for my colleagues to follow up on the work that had already been done.

Q. Yes. It's not that the information was inaccurate; you didn't expect to see it in the report in our hands. Is that correct?

A. Yes. This information was provided to the working group to enable their continued operative work, that is, the checks they were running. I didn't expect to see it in a report before this Tribunal because they deal with hearsay and with rumours.

Q. And the evidence in chief that you were asked to give in this courtroom by the Prosecution was restricted to that information about which you had personal knowledge, not hearsay or rumour; is that correct?

A. Yes. I testified about what I have done myself and what I have seen with my own eyes.

Q. Yes. There is some suggestion about the statement that you made. Sir, is what happened in the taking of your statement that you were -- that the original document that was produced was in English. There was a conversation in Serbian with the investigator, it was translated into English and then retranslated into Serbian. Is that what you understood happened, or do you know?

A. No. First -- the first time I saw the Official Note it was in the Serbian language, and I was then shown an English translation of that ⁸⁵⁵⁵ Official Note, but I don't understand English and I cannot say whether it was a good translation or not.

Q. Sorry. I'm not talking now about the Official Note. I'm talking about a witness statement that you gave to investigator John Zdrilic on the 1st of June, 2002 and Monday the 3rd of June, 2002 in the presence of an interpreter whose name also appears. That's what I'm talking about. The original statement there was taken in English; is that correct? You're nodding your head.

A. Yes. Correct.

Q. Final question: It was suggested to you by the accused that among these 86 bodies, and I'm talking now about the 17-to-20-year-old man, that there were no gunshot wounds. Can you explain to the Court what you mean by an entry/exit wound? When you talk about an entry/exit wound, do you mean a gunshot entry/exit wound, or some metal object entry -- tell us about that.

A. On the body of that young man, on the chest there was an entry/exit wound inflicted by a projectile. When you say an entry/exit wound, it means that a projectile or a bullet enters and exits the body on the other side. So you have an entry wound and an exit wound.

Q. Were you able to determine from your experience whether or not that projectile was like a bullet or like a stake or some object? Are you able to tell us?

A. I am certain that it was inflicted by a projectile, because I have seen many such injuries. A projectile is a bullet.

Q. Thank you. And this is the same young man who had, I believe you ⁸⁵⁵⁶ gave evidence earlier, that his hands were tied behind his back with wire; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Those are all my questions in re-examination.

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

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Now, the -- Mr. Nice, the future progress. We've considered the position. What we have in mind is we really ought to get on with K34 as soon as possible.

I've discovered a document which suggests that counsel has been granted to him. Do you know anything about that?

MR. NICE: Counsel has been with him on all substantive proofing sessions. He wasn't there this morning when matters have just been gone over again. Yes, he has been available to him.

JUDGE MAY: It's limited to that. I mean, it's not proposed that counsel comes into the courtroom.

MR. NICE: I don't think so, no.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Then the next matter is this: That Mr. Jemini is here but being taken out of order. I gather it will take a little time to get K34 here.

MR. NICE: Yes, it will.

JUDGE MAY: It seems to be sensible, for that to be put in hand, ⁸⁵⁵⁷ K34 to be got. But it may be that we can use the time for Mr. Jemini to start with, but it may be also that the accused isn't ready to cross-examine and we would find that understandable because, of course, the order has been changed.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: We have in mind to admit it, the statement, under Rule 92 bis. Of course, we will have to hear the accused on that and we will do so now, but what may happen is that we will have Mr. Jemini in chief and put the cross-examination off until tomorrow or a suitable time.

MR. NICE: Entirely as Your Honour pleases. Although admitted under 92 bis, I will have to deal, of course, with the three particular conversations that he overheard, conversations he can speak to.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, two matters. First of all, it's proposed that Mr. Isuf Jemini should give evidence or, rather, his statement should be admitted under the usual Rule, and we will hear you on that. The second matter is this: You may not be ready for cross-examination, in which case we would be prepared to put cross-examination in his case off until tomorrow or Friday so you would have time to prepare.

So two questions for you to answer: Do you oppose the admission under Rule 92 bis, apart from your usual objection; and secondly, are you prepared to cross-examine now, or would you wish to cross-examine at a later date?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can cross-examine him today ⁸⁵⁵⁸ without delay, but I believe it makes sense for you to bear in mind although I did get his statement in due time, if what you are constantly curtailing you call time allowed, but I understand that you want me to cross-examine him under 92 bis, and I object to that because that radically, drastically shortens my cross-examination time. I understood that he would not be under 92 bis. I have prepared a large number of questions, prepared for a witness whom I expected to testify in the normal way, and then I see that he is introduced under 92 bis and my time is considerably shortened.

So I agree to him being introduced under 92 bis, providing that you allow me enough time to cross-examine himself properly.

JUDGE MAY: This is Mr. Jemini, not Krasniqi.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have Krasniqi's statement, of course. I just protest against this practice of the OTP, who constantly keep changing the sequence of witnesses. But they cannot take me by surprise and find me unprepared to cross-examine witnesses.

JUDGE MAY: We have that in mind, that if there is an alteration, it may impact on your ability to prepare for cross-examination, and if you find a difficulty about it, then you must apply to us and we will consider whether to grant you time. But if you're ready to deal with Mr. Jemini, we will admit his statement under Rule 92 bis. I would anticipate the usual rules will apply about length, but in view of what you've said, we will consider the position during your cross-examination. Yes. Well, we'll hear Mr. Jemini then.

MR. NICE: May he be brought into Court. And while that's being ⁸⁵⁵⁹ done, the Chamber may wish to refresh its memory in relation to the earlier relevant evidence. The map at page 10 and Exhibit 216 relate.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

WITNESS: ISUF JEMINI

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

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

MR. NICE: I think the Court already has copies of the 92 -- Rule 92 bis package. May these be distributed to others who require them and may the witness please have a copy of the statement in front of him. Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Is your full name Isuf Jemini?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Jemini, did you make a statement to an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor on the 11th of June of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you since then and while at court attested to the accuracy of that statement in front of an officer of the court?

A. Yes.

Q. And is the statement that you produced true and accurate?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: May first of all for those viewing the map, the general map, at page 10 be laid on the overhead projector, and its grid reference ⁸⁵⁶⁰ or grid box is K and L 22 and 3 that we need to be focusing on, please. And I will read, until it comes to a material passage that has to be given live, a summary which will be a shortened form of the summary that the Chamber already has.

The statement of this witness, a Kosovo Albanian born in the village of Celine, which we can see to the centre and right of the map, thank you very much, shows that he is a co-owner of a factory and a married man with three children who was awakened on the 25th of March of 1999, by an explosion sometime between 5.00 and 6.00 in the morning, following which he went to discover a Praga armoured vehicle in his yard -- not in his yard, saw from his yard a Praga armoured vehicle on the Prizren road, firing continuously into the village, with about 20 soldiers nearby. That Praga continued shelling Celine throughout the day, and women and children went to the yard of Reshit Rexhepi's house in the centre of the village, the witness observing two tanks situated on an overlooking hill.

The witness, with his nephew Agim Jemini, who has already been a witness at this hearing, went to the house of Sadri Jemini, an uncle. That house was only partly completed, and the witness used a ladder to climb into a roof space, pulling the ladder up after them, the better to secure their safety.

We've seen and now if I could turn to Exhibit 216, please - our copy will do for the overhead projector - we've seen already that from that top storey of a partially completed building, the witness and his nephew were able, when looking through the window opening, to have a view ^{8561 BLANK PAGE 8562} of the neighbouring house within the compound and of other houses. They could hear -- or this witness could hear shelling from the Praga and the tanks. And between or sometime at about 10.00, he saw a number of shells hitting several of the houses.

He also had a view from the roof by lifting a roof tile. He could see a little of what was happening outside, and he saw hundreds of MUP and VJ enter Celine from the direction of the village school on the main Prizren-Gjakove-Krusha e Madhe road. He saw the school set on fire and observed houses burning and heard the sound of continuous gunfire, seeing beneath his positions MUP and VJ personnel who spoke in Serbian. I turn from the summary to live evidence.

Q. Mr. Jemini, do you understand and indeed are you able, when necessary, to speak Serbian?

A. Yes.

Q. In the course of hearing what you heard, did you hear any reference to or use of a code? If so, what code?

A. I heard that the code was the number 444.

Q. Did you hear from the window opening a particular conversation that you remembered? Just yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. Was this a conversation between two people on the ground or in a building nearby or whatever or was it between a person and somebody being heard on a radio?

A. This conversation, we were in the attic. We were able to overhear this conversation on the radio. And the number 444 was used, and the ⁸⁵⁶³ question was what was the situation like in Celine, and the answer was "The situation is all right." And the question was, "Was the massacre not a bigger one than Racak?" And the answer was, "Not only was it bigger, but the massacre was twice as big as Racak."

Q. We will come to that once more, but before I do and by reference to the photograph on the overhead projector to your left, can you explain to the Judges where the conversation was or was apparently coming from?

A. Yes. In that --

Q. Would you point to the photograph on the projector for our assistance. Thank you.

A. In this, you can't see the position where we were ourselves because we were inside the house. We were sheltering on the platform of the roof rafters, and the voices that we heard were in the lane by this house about ten metres away. And the Serbian police were positioned in this house all the time. So the conversation was heard from this house, which is near the road, and we overheard this, as I said.

Q. The particular exchange concerning Racak, you've given us it in your own language, but just for the purposes of this trial, can you tell us, please, what you actually heard said in Serbian, please.

A. Yes. [In Serbian]: "Was it bigger than the massacre in Racak?" And the answer [In Serbian]: "It was twice as big as Racak."

Q. Thank you. Was that the only apparently significant conversation or exchange you heard from your vantage point or did you hear other things said?

A. There were several conversations of this kind, and I heard others ⁸⁵⁶⁴ which I don't remember.

Q. We'll come to those, if I can possibly jog your memory, in a second or so, but did you stay in this position in the house?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'll come back to another -- perhaps something you overheard in a second.

MR. RYNEVELD: Going back to the summary, Your Honours, at the moment on page 6, although we'll go back to the last sentence on page 5, the witness's statement goes on to reveal how the MUP moved into the half completed house some 15 metres away, apparently using it as a command post. And the following morning, at about 8.00, his father, together with the parents of Agim, the earlier witness, and the witness's cousin Muharrem and his wife Zade, entered the compound. The parents of Agim or one of them, Sadri, went to the second floor and spoke with the witness and Agim through the entrance to the attic. At that stage, he was told by this witness to leave the village. Now, I turn again to live evidence.

Q. Mr. Jemini, in giving instructions of the kind you did to your relations through the opening in the attic roof or floor, were you concerned as to what would happen to them if they stayed in the village?

A. Yes.

Q. Had you heard things that gave you reason to give them this advice?

A. Yes. When Agim's father came up to us in the attic, we told him to go down because the offensive was not over, and we told him about some ⁸⁵⁶⁵ -- he said that the offensive was over and that people had been killed in the village, but we told him that the offensive was not over and that we had heard that it was still continuing along the Bellacerkva-Krusha e Madhe road and they had abandoned the main road and were using village roads.

And we had come to the conclusion that the offensive was not yet over, and they would still be present on that section of the road. So we told them to gather in the village with other members of the family.

Q. Did you have any particular concerns for what might happen to people moving around in small groups? If so, why?

A. Yes. We had heard something said on the radio as they talked among themselves, that anybody seen moving about in a small group of up to 10 persons would be liquidated without warning. So we understood from this that if groups were smaller, they might survive.

MR. NICE: I return to the summary. I can conclude from the summary, although it touches the death of the father of this witness and I might ask him for a word or so about that.

Q. Following the advice you gave, were you brought food by your nephew Agim's mother, advising her --

MR. NICE: Sorry. The witness explains that they were brought food by Agim's mother, they advising her to leave. Shortly thereafter, a group of 20 to 30 policemen approached from the direction of Bela Crkva, burning houses as they moved, entering the yard of the witness's home and burning a house there.

The group of people present, including the relations and in ⁸⁵⁶⁶ particular including this witness's father and the parents of Agim, with others, were brought out of a basement, robbed, asked if they had more money. Agim's father and the parents of -- Agim's father and Muharrem responded that they had money in their homes, to which they were taken to collect that money.

The witness heard Agim's mother asking the policemen, "We did nothing. We are innocent. Why are you mistreating us?" The witness heard the -- a policeman tell the group to go to the side of the house, this being a group that included, of course, his own father. The group did as instructed, and the witness saw the police take up firing positions. He was unable to look. He heard a single shot followed by a burst of automatic fire. He was told thereafter by Agim what had happened. And having the courage to look, he saw a pile of bodies on the ground. The police continuing callously looting and burning houses, although they did not attempt to burn the houses, including the one in which he was hiding that was under construction. He remained in that roof space with Agim all the afternoon and evening. They saw the MUP taking away looted property on a tractor and a truck, and they heard other destruction and saw some evidence of it. At about midnight, they descended from the roof space and crawled away about the one kilometre from Celine towards Zrze. Passing the bridge at Belaja River near Bela Crkva - of which, of course, the Tribunal has heard evidence - when there, they noticed the bodies of old men, children, and younger men in the river, on the river bank and beneath the bridge, the witness estimating a group of some 30 bodies clustered together. ⁸⁵⁶⁷ They eventually arrived at Zrze, some five kilometres away, taking about three and a half hours to get there, Zrze appearing to be intact. With Agim, he remained at a house in that village for about two days, until on the 28th of March a fellow Celine villager, Behajdin Fetahu arrived in Zrze, telling them that the entire Celine population had been captured by Serbs in the Pisjak woods, being robbed of their valuables and identification documents. And so it was on the following day, the 29th of March that the witness, with others, went to those woods where they sheltered for the following four weeks. During the day, they remained in the woods, going to Celine for food at night, burying the bodies they found them -- found there. And he remembers burying three families in one grave, a total of 22 persons.

On the last day of April, the witness and Agim joined a column of refugees and entered Albania. Later, on the 18th of June, accompanied by family and friends, he returned to Celine, where they set about the process of reburying the victims who had been buried where they'd been found. Eventually, he located the bodies of his father and Agim's parents, and they were subsequently exhumed and identified. The witness's evidence in the statement is that 82 persons were killed in Celine, of whom 75 were Celine residents and seven had gone there as guests.

May the witness's 92 bis statement and associated documentation be Exhibit, and I think it's 276.

THE REGISTRAR: Correct, Your Honours. That will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 276. ⁸⁵⁶⁸

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

Q. [Interpretation] In your statement, you say that you could not leave Celine on the 25th of March, 1999, because you did not have freedom of movement; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Who restricted your freedom of movement?

A. The Serbian police and the army restricted our freedom of movement. It was impossible to travel on the paved road from Celine to Prizren and other towns.

Q. All right. In which way was this freedom of movement restricted?

A. If you're talking about the time after 25th of March, it's very simple: Our movement was restricted in the sense that we couldn't even leave our house let alone go any further than that.

Q. On the same page of your statement where you speak about this restriction, you say that in Celine there were many internally displaced persons from neighbouring villages; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Tell me, how is it possible that these displaced persons came to Celine if there was no freedom of movement?

A. These people had not been displaced after 25th of March, they had been displaced for months on end, in previous times when it had been easier to move.

In our house alone, we had 24 displaced people from other villages, but they had been there for six months before the final ⁸⁵⁶⁹ offensive of 25th of March started.

Q. All right. Further on, you say that between 5.00 and 6.00 in the morning the shelling of the village started, as you put it, by the Serb forces. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Further on, you say that you went into the yard and saw soldiers, vehicles. You say that soldiers were lying down; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. How far away from you were these soldiers and that vehicle that you referred to?

A. They were about 500 metres away.

Q. Could you see from that distance who they were shooting at, the soldiers?

A. The -- we didn't see the soldiers that were positioned there, but we saw the armoured vehicles and the Praga firing in the direction of the village.

Q. But my question was whether you saw who these soldiers were shooting at.

A. That morning at half past five, they were shelling the village. They were only shelling the village. So that the population were trying to shelter in the woods or in different valleys. Then --

Q. All right. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that on page 2, paragraph 7, you refer to this shooting. And in that same paragraph, you say that on that morning not a single house had been hit. Is that correct or not? ⁸⁵⁷⁰

A. On that morning, they shelled in order to stop the villagers fleeing the village. Their intention was to capture them all in the village.

Q. I'm not asking you about your comment of possible motives. I am indicating to what you said in your statement, that that morning not a single house had been hit. Is that correct or is that not correct?

A. That morning, they weren't hit at that time, but later they were. And I saw several houses burning.

Q. Please. You say, and I am reading your statement to you because you are not answering my question directly, that is paragraph 7 on this first page of the statement. Since there is a cover page, this is, in essence, the first page. You say that you saw a Praga vehicle. You say that you saw it firing continuously into the village for the entire day, with small pauses. "I did not see it hitting any houses during the morning period."

So you state that they were shelling the village, and you say that they did not hit a single house. So not a single house had been hit. Is it correct that then the army and the police were responding to KLA attacks in the area, in the area of your village?

A. It's not true what you say. I said before, before when the shelling started --

Q. Mr. Jemini, say yes or no. I have many questions for you, so there's no need to elaborate. So it's not correct. They were shooting, they did not hit a single house, and they were not responding to KLA attacks. So who or what were they shooting at then? Do you know? ^{8571 BLANK PAGE 8572}

A. I can't answer your provocative questions with only yes or no. It requires an explanation. And if Your Honour will allow, I will explain.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the beginning, at 5.30 in the morning when they started shelling, they didn't shell the houses directly. They -- they fired around the village. But later on, I saw houses in flames.

So after an hour, they started shelling houses, burning houses, and the police and army infantry entered the village. That's how it happened.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say here that the soldiers were lying on the ground by the railroad, that they had taken positions because they had been attacked, and now you say that the army and police entered the village, and here you say, "I did not see any members of the MUP."

So what is correct, Mr. Jemini?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't think the witness has got a copy of the statement. The accused hasn't identified the passages to him. There is a habit or a pattern of putting multiple questions with the effect of confusion. The witness should have a copy of the statement, in my respectful submission.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Does he have a copy of the statement?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, he apparently has one but he should have the passage brought to his attention.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, yes, yes. Mr. Jemini, would you look at the ⁸⁵⁷³ seventh paragraph. It says, you will see, that between -- "At about 5.00 to 6.00, Serb forces began shelling the village," and you could see a Praga armoured vehicle parked on the main road to Prizren and soldiers deployed around it. You say the Praga was aimed towards the village and you saw it firing continuously into the village for the entire day, with small pauses. You did not see it hitting any houses, you say, during the morning period. That was the point that the accused was drawing to your attention. You now say that they started -- it started shelling the houses after an hour.

You're next invited to comment on the next passage: "I saw approximately 20 soldiers near the Praga. They were just there lying on the ground near the railway track. I did not see any MUP." Now, Mr. Milosevic, what's your question about this passage?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I put a question.

JUDGE MAY: It wasn't clear. What was it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He said, the witness said, that the village had been shelled from the morning onwards and then that they did not hit a single house. Now when speaking here, he said that they were not shooting at the village but they were shooting at the surrounding area around the village, and that coincides with my question whether they were actually engaged in a conflict with the KLA that was outside the village, in the surrounding area. And then he responded to me that there was no KLA there. And then I asked him, because he said the army and the police, I asked him why he mentioned the police now when he says here, "I did not see any MUP in the -- at this stage." ⁸⁵⁷⁴

JUDGE MAY: I don't follow the question. He said the village was attacked by the VJ and the MUP, but at this stage he's not talking about the attack, he's talking about shelling in the presence of soldiers. Now, unless you've got a question about this, let us move on. Your time will be limited, as you know, and much of it is taken up with these repetitive questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please. You said that the village was shelled, and now you say it was not the village that was shelled but they were shooting around the village. Now, make up your mind; was the village shelled or were they shooting around the village?

JUDGE MAY: He's answered that question. We can see the discrepancy in his statement, and it will be a matter for us to decide what weight to give it. There's no point going on asking the same question again.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right, Mr. May. I wanted to know what the truth was finally in the witness's opinion, whether they were shooting at the village or around the village, but I never heard an answer to that question.

JUDGE MAY: He's given an answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. If he's given an answer, then it must be recorded in the transcript.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In 1998, were you in your village, Celine, during the summer?

A. Yes. ⁸⁵⁷⁵

Q. How far away is your village from Orahovac?

A. As the crow flies, about ten kilometres.

Q. So your village can be considered the closely surrounding area of Orahovac; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know that in the period between the 17th until the 22nd of July, in the area of Orahovac, 39 Serbs and Albanians were taken away by KLA terrorists?

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

Q. Do you know at least that criminal reports were filed in this regard at the court in Prizren? And there's no point in quoting numbers of these criminal reports or anything. Have you heard about this at all, that this was reported?

A. I heard, but these reports were framed. We never trusted these reports.

Q. And do you know who is Gjelaj Hajdatoni?

A. I've only heard his name, and I know that he was a KLA commander, but I don't know any more about him.

Q. Do you know whether he was the leader of this gang for the area of Orahovac?

A. I don't know of there being any gang in the area of Rahovec, any gang of Albanians.

Q. Well, they called it the KLA. Do you know at least that, that there was a KLA group in the area of Orahovac?

A. That was the Kosovo Liberation Army and was present not only in ⁸⁵⁷⁶ the Rahovec area but all over Kosova.

Q. That much is true. And since I'm asking you about your immediate environs, do you know that the KLA intended to take over Orahovac and expel the entire non-Albanian population precisely at that time?

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

Q. And are you aware of the fact that during the attack on Orahovac, they passed through your village and some KLA from your own village were involved?

A. There were members of the KLA from our village, but part of our village was free at that time. It means when you talk about that period, the Serbian police and the army killed more than 200 Albanians in Rahovec, and the population were forced to leave Rahovec and take refuge in safer villages, and one of these villages was Celine, where a large number of the inhabitants of Rahovec took refuge. And I have never heard of the Serbian population being expelled from Rahovec at all.

Q. And do you know about the KLA attack and takeover of Orahovac? Just say yes or no; "I do," or, "I don't know."

A. I have heard of confrontations, not of attacks undertaken by the KLA in Rahovec.

Q. And do you know that Orahovac was a strategic focus for the KLA in order to control routes towards Suva Reka, Malisevo and Prizren?

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

Q. All right. And do you know who Skender Hoxha is?

A. There are a lot of people called Skender Hoxha, so I don't know this particular one. ⁸⁵⁷⁷

Q. I mean the one who became the chief of the KLA after this failed attack on Orahovac and the death of this Hotoni. That's what I mean.

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

Q. You said a moment ago that there had been members of the KLA from your village. Let us put that aside. But do you know that attacks of the KLA started from the direction of Djakovica and that passing through your village they forcibly mobilised a certain part of your village's inhabitants? Do you know anything about this forcible mobilisation of your locals?

A. There was no forced mobilisation at all. The members of the KLA were our sons, our brothers, and so we recognised and welcomed the KLA as our army. They were volunteers. Nobody was enlisted by force. There were so many volunteers that the KLA could not take them all in.

Q. All right. That is a very important statement. So you say nobody was mobilised into the KLA upon orders. Everybody was a volunteer. Tell me, since you say that you had left the village, how did you leave the village if the freedom of movement was already restricted by that time, as you put it in your statement? And how far away was this woods or the creek where the population of the village hid?

A. You are talking about the period after 25th of March, 1999? Because so far you've been talking about an earlier period in 1998.

Q. Well, I'm talking about the period of 1998 first, then I moved on to the period of the NATO attack where hundreds of villagers moved away towards the woods and the creek. When the freedom of movement was restricted, as you said, how was it possible for them to leave the ⁸⁵⁷⁸ village?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could give an answer, if you allow me.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was not so difficult to move among the woods but it was impossible to move on the roads such as on the paved road to other towns.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. You claim that 80 per cent of the people left their homes. Did you see with your own eyes that number of people leaving their homes?

A. When I say 80 per cent, this is, of course, an estimate because I didn't count them. And I saw them myself. I saw all these villagers gathered, and on the 25th of March, we sent -- we sent my family too to the stream which we might call a place of refuge.

Q. Well, you are now at the -- on the attic of this house of your uncle, Sadri Jemini, and you climb up there sometime between 7.00 and 7.30; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that mean that you were observing the people leaving their homes from that attic?

A. We could see them from the attic, but I'm talking about the period between 5.30 and 7.30. In those two hours, 80 per cent of the population of the village left the village and took shelter in safer places, either ⁸⁵⁷⁹ in the woods or in some stream. I saw this myself and sent my family myself to these safer places, and then I myself took shelter in the attic.

Q. And why didn't you go together with your family?

A. We didn't go because younger people were in danger if they stayed with the mass of the population. We had heard from earlier offensives that they used to divide the population, they used to separate the men from the women and children. So we knew that we would fare badly if we stayed with the general population.

Q. All right. Does that mean that all the men remained hidden somewhere in the village or was it just you?

A. Some of the men were hiding, and some remained with their families.

Q. All right. Were you safe up there in the attic?

A. We thought we were safe, but it wasn't a hundred per cent safe. We thought that this attic was safer than other places.

Q. And how high was this attic? How roomy was it?

A. It was about a hundred square metres, because the house has two floors plus the attic, and the area of one floor of the house is a hundred square metres, and so the attic is the same.

Q. How come that only the two of you hid in such a large attic?

A. This happened because Agim and I - that's my cousin - we had sent our families away because we thought it was safer. But we didn't want to stay there to confront the Serbian police because it would be dangerous for us. And there were only the two of us up there in the attic because it was Agim's house. It was our house, and they wouldn't know that we ⁸⁵⁸⁰ were hiding up there in the attic.

Q. All right. Tell me, now, did you have any weapons with you?

A. No.

Q. On page 3, in paragraph 2, you said you saw three tanks and one Praga hitting three houses around 10.00 on the 25th of March. Is that true?

A. That's true.

Q. In the same paragraph, you said that you are not sure who was firing. You only saw the shots being fired. Is that correct?

A. We were sure that it was the Serbian police and army that was firing, but we didn't identify which tank it was that was firing on these houses.

Q. All right. You stated further on that you saw a large number of policemen entering the village, and you observed all of this by raising one of the roof tiles a little, and also through a window in the attic which was upright, vertical.

A. Yes.

Q. You say you were peering through when that was safe, that you were taking quick looks when it was safe.

A. It's true that we were in the same position all the time.

Q. All right.

JUDGE MAY: The time has come when we should be adjourning. It's the usual time. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Jemini, we're going to adjourn now, as you've ^{8581 BLANK PAGE 8582} heard. Could you remember not to speak to anybody during the adjournment, and that includes the members of the Prosecution. Could you be back in 20 minutes, please.

--- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, in the particular circumstances of this case, the case of this witness, you can have up to another half hour with the witness, making an hour in all. Could you bear in mind the interpreters, please. I've had a message that things should be slowed down a bit for them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will try to finish this even sooner, because in the meantime, assuming that my time will be restricted, I eliminated some questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In paragraph 4, you said that you didn't see anyone killed on that day; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the same paragraph, you say you overheard conversations between MUP members over the radio; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. And then on that day when you say no one was killed, you say that they claimed that it was twice as big as Racak. Does that make sense to you?

A. This does make sense. But your questions are provocative. I said this: From the position where we were -- ⁸⁵⁸³

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The questions aren't provocative. They're perfectly proper ones. Now, go on and finish your answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the position where we were, we were unable to see who had been killed but we heard over the radio that the massacre had been twice the size of Racak. And the next day, we were told many killed people, and when we returned to the village, we identified them all, 82 people killed in the village of Celine.

JUDGE MAY: And, Mr. Milosevic, to add completeness, you put that he said no one was killed that day. What his statement says is: "I did not see anyone being killed on this day. I could only hear shooting and explosions." They're rather different.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's precisely the part I quoted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You didn't see that anyone was killed on that day. So this lack of logic between reality and the conversation is clear. Are you clear about the use of the word "massacre"? Do you know that the word "massacre" --

JUDGE MAY: The premise that you put the question on is wrong. What the witness said is that he didn't see anyone killed on that day. That is different to there being nobody killed. The voice said that there was a massacre. There is no lack of logic in that. You may challenge it, of course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am now talking, Mr. May, since I asked a question about the actual aspect of things, I'm now talking about value judgements. ⁸⁵⁸⁴

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Are you aware that the word "massacre" was launched by William Walker?

A. We saw with our own eyes that massacres had taken place in Kosovo and in our village in particular. I don't know what other word we can use when a 1-year-old child is killed at its mother's breast or the most elderly people, and the bodies are burned. Some of them are totally charred.

Q. Mr. Jemini, I would appreciate it if you would only answer my questions. Do you know that the word "massacre" to us was synonymous with mass crimes, and that word was used by Walker?

A. It was indeed used by William Walker because that's what happened.

Q. I am not questioning the fact that Walker and you qualified certain things as a massacre, but do you suppose that "massacre," which for us meant mass crime, is a word that is used in their internal communications by police commanders?

A. Yes.

Q. That means our police commanders are using your and Walker's language in their internal communications. Is that what you're asserting?

A. They used their own language. They were talking in Serbian, and they put the question that I mentioned in my evidence.

Q. Right. So somebody asks him, "Is the mass crime that you just committed bigger than the one in Racak?" You are claiming that that's what he asked him. Can you imagine such a question?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may I interrupt? The accused is trying to ⁸⁵⁸⁵ twist language. The witness is simply giving an account of the word he used, not of its definition or interpretation. The accused should really do better than that.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Next question. That's right as a comment, Mr. Milosevic; you were just trying to twist what the witness was saying. Now, let's have the next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I'm only pointing out that it is completely impossible that a police commander of ours had used the word "massacre," and I'm putting it to the witness that it is his invention. That's what I'm trying to clear up, and it must be clear to everyone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, how far away --

JUDGE MAY: Put it to the witness in terms. It's your assertion that this wasn't said. Put it to the witness in terms. I will do it. What is suggested, Mr. Jemini, is that you have invented this conversation. Now, is there any truth in that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not true that I made it up.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, how far away were you from the house from which you heard this conversation?

A. I was only 15 metres away. But the lane that goes through the villages of Bellacerkva, Krusha e Madhe, Celine is only ten metres away from the house.

Q. All right. Tell me, now, since you are saying that shelling was ⁸⁵⁸⁶ going on at that time, shooting, racket, how come that with all this -- or, rather, through all this racket and shooting, yelling, and so on and so forth you can still overhear a conversation?

A. Very easily. They talked about a lot of other things that we didn't hear, but what we heard was during a pause in the shelling and shooting, and at that time we could hear the conversation clearly.

Q. And you were able to hear even what the person on the other side of the line, the radio line, was saying. You heard not only the person who was 15 metres away from you but also his interlocutor on the other side. Is that what you're saying?

A. That's true. It was a radio link that you could hear very clearly, and you could hear the other side very clearly.

Q. All right. You are saying that they were located on the second floor of that house. Is that correct?

A. They were on the second floor, but they also moved. And they were on the first floor, and they came into our house too, as far as the second floor. And you could also hear conversations on the street nearby when they passed, from the attic of the house, which was only ten metres away.

Q. All right. You stated you had to lie down. You were afraid to move around the attic and that once or twice you raised the roof tile and peered through; is that correct?

A. The truth is that we were 42 hours in that attic, and during those 42 hours, we were sometimes lying down, we were sometimes sitting up, and we were sometimes standing, and we sometimes looked out to see what was happening round about. ⁸⁵⁸⁷

Q. I see. But practically, in view of your position, you were not able to see who or why or at whom they were shooting.

A. It's not true what you say. We saw the members of our families when they fired on them and when they killed -- and -- but from the position where we were, the other families were further away, and we couldn't see who was killed and who was not. And it was later, when we came to bury them, that we managed to identify the dead.

Q. All right. We'll come back to that. From that attic during the night, you heard the noise made by a tractor, and you heard people living the village; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. How could they move around when movement was impossible? And moreover, you say that they were moving on tractors. I suppose the police must have heard that too.

Q. When we heard the tractors, it was 1.00 in the morning, and it was a position above the village. So they were moving from the village to the woods. And the police weren't up there because they were -- had no doubt no security for themselves.

Q. All right. All right. But on the 26th, in the morning - we're not talking about the woods now - you said your father came up to the attic, into your house, that is; is that correct?

A. On the next day, on the 26th at 8.00 in the morning, my uncle, not my father, came to the house, and not to the attic but to the floor below, and spoke to us through the aperture that we used to enter the loft.

Q. All right. Uncle or father, that's not the point here. How was ⁸⁵⁸⁸ he able to reach you if the police had a command post in the house next to you and movement was forbidden?

A. I said this; after 1.00 in the morning, all the shelling stopped until 9.00 the next morning. And he didn't know what was happening in our house, and he was concerned about our fate, and that was why he had come up to us.

Q. I am not asking why he came. I asked how could he possibly come under the circumstances that you described, that there was no freedom of movement and that the police were in the house next door, et cetera. That means that there was freedom of movement; right?

A. You can call it freedom of movement. It wasn't freedom of movement at all. It was merely luck that he wasn't fired on. And at that time, the police were not in position. And after 9.00, they came back to the house where they had been before. But during that time, at the position where they had been on the Prizren-Gjakove road and above the school, there were armoured vehicles stationed, but down below in the village they didn't notice this and they thought the offensive was over.

Q. That's not when I asked you. You are talking about this freedom of movement and about the movement, you say that Agim's mother came and brought you food. So her movement through the village was unhindered as well; right?

A. It's true that people were moving, but those people who were in movement did suffer consequences, like the members of my family. Because people who went out fared worse, like my own parents. I don't know what you mean by "freedom of movement." ⁸⁵⁸⁹

Q. I just asked you how your uncle came, how Agim's mother came to bring food, et cetera, because you said that nobody could move about. It seems that you were the only one who was hiding. That's the way it's been put.

Now let me skip a few questions. You heard fire from automatic weapons, and you say that some people were taken out by the house.

A. Yes, there were shots, and our relatives, my parents, were taken out of the house. My father, my uncle, my uncle's wife, and my cousin and his wife.

Q. All right. Did you see somebody kill them? Did you see somebody shoot at them?

A. We saw the entire incident. They had been sheltering in a basement when the police came. The police came and got them out of the basement, and the first question was, "Do you have money? Do you have any money?" And they replied, said that they did. And indeed, my father had 10.000 Swiss francs. And I don't know how much my uncle had and my cousin, but all the money they had in their pockets was taken. And then they asked, "Do you have any more money hidden at home?" My uncle said that he did, and they went into his house. And my cousin, Muharrem, and his wife, they took his money as well, thinking that by giving them money they might save their own lives.

And then they gathered them altogether, all five of them, and at that moment, Agim's mother turned round and said, "What are you doing? We've done nothing. What are you doing to us?" And then they took them behind the house, lined them up. I saw this with my own eyes. They took ⁸⁵⁹⁰ up position to shoot, and at that moment I didn't have the strength to watch because I knew what was happening. And I fell down, lying, and Agim remained standing and watched them being shot. I heard the volley of gunfire, and Agim confirmed to me that they had been killed. After a short time, I stood up, too, and I saw their bodies lying there.

Q. I understood your statement to mean that you had seen their bodies but that you did not see when they had been killed. Now you've explained it somewhat differently. So where were you in the attic? Could you see from that place where you were the place where they were allegedly executed?

A. Yes.

Q. But you didn't see the execution.

A. The moment of execution, I didn't see that because I didn't have the strength to see what was happening to my parents. It's not easy to see your parents being executed.

Q. All right. Tell me, on page 6 you mention that on the 30th of March, you talked to some men in the Pisjak forest; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Were these men members of the KLA?

A. No.

Q. On the 31st of April, you went to Albania; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you there with the members of your family?

A. Then we met our relatives in Albania. Except, of course, for ^{8591 BLANK PAGE 8592} those who had been killed.

Q. All right. You say that Muharrem and Zade Jemini's body were charred; is that right?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. And you say that these bodies were never officially identified; is that right?

A. These bodies, when we got back from Albania, we asked for them. We asked the members of the Tribunal to investigate them because some had been buried in Rahovec and others were at home and others were charred. And then we suspected that the identity of these carbonised bodies and the Tribunal experts proved that these people had been killed and burned and only some bones of them were left. And we assumed that nobody else was missing among the ranks of our relatives.

There's no other way of identifying them because we are only left with some bones.

Q. All right. On page 6 you say that you buried a total of 22 persons. How did you find out -- on the basis of what did you conclude that 82 had been killed if you had only buried 22?

A. It's not true. It's nowhere in my statement that we buried only 22. There were 22 buried in one mass grave alone, and there are others buried in ones, twos, threes, and fives. They were killed in the houses, they were killed in cellars, they were killed in yards, and some were buried where they died, because even as we were burying them, we were not safe. We had no safety at this time. This, of course, we did during the night. ⁸⁵⁹³

Q. All right. Did you see the circumstances under which these persons were killed and who killed them?

A. They were killed by the Serbian police and army.

Q. All right. I'm asking you whether you saw this or whether this is what you've been claiming on the basis of what you think.

A. At that moment, there were no other armed forces in our village. We saw our parents being killed by Serbian police and army forces, and so the other people who were killed were also killed by the Serbian police and army.

Q. All right. Does that mean that none of these people were killed in the fighting between the army and police and the KLA? Is that your assertion?

A. We believe that nobody was killed in the confrontation between the KLA and the Serbian police and army but directly by the Serbian forces, because the Kosovo Liberation Army were very few at that moment. And considering the weaponry that was round the village and the size of the Serbian forces, they didn't want to put the population in danger, and so they withdrew for the population's sake. And there was not a single shot fired between the KLA and the Serbian forces.

Q. All right. Does that mean that none of the persons killed that you refer to was a member of the KLA?

A. There was only one who was a soldier of the KLA, and he was killed in a wood near the village while he was giving up his position.

Q. All right. And is my conclusion on the basis of everything that you've been saying correct, that you personally had not seen a single ⁸⁵⁹⁴ killing?

A. I've said it several times, and I saw five people, including my parents, killed. I don't know how you can say nobody in the light of these five people.

Q. All right.

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have only a few questions for Mr. Jemini.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Jemini, in connection with something that you described in your statement on page 1, you said that in Celine, there were many internally displaced persons. When saying "internally displaced persons," do you mean persons who fled from the areas where there were conflicts between the police and the KLA, that people then sought shelter at safer places, and then for a period of six months stayed in your village as well?

A. No, that's not right. The Serbian police used to enter villages where people had been expelled and were taking shelter and had expelled these displaced people in turn.

Q. And were they in danger of anyone there in Celine while they were staying with you?

A. Not only they were in danger but we were in danger too, but we were in less danger than in the villages from which they had been expelled because Serbian forces had still not entered our village at that time. ⁸⁵⁹⁵

Q. Could you please explain how you were in danger and how they were in danger and how many persons were there from other villages?

A. I don't know the exact number of people from other villages, but about 2.000 from other villages was -- were in Celine, and Celine has 2.500 inhabitants. So I suppose there must have been about 4.500 to 5.000 people gathered in Celine at that time.

Q. Thank you. Then on page 1, you say that on the 24th of March, 1999, you heard the sound of aircraft above you and that you saw a fire then in the direction of Prizren. Was that during the night, this bombing?

A. That was about 8.00 in the evening on 24th of March.

Q. And do you know whether there was some more bombing in the area where Celine is?

A. There was bombing near Celine in places where there were concentrations of Serbian forces, with heavy vehicles belonging to the Serbian forces.

Q. How far away is the village of Nogavac from your village?

A. Only one kilometre.

Q. And do you know that this village was bombed during the first days of April? Do you know what happened? Do you know who actually did the bombing?

A. I know that on the night before Nagafc was bombed we had been there. But later, we were not in Nagafc but in Celine, whereas in Nagafc at about 2.00 in the morning, a very loud explosion was heard, and even from where we were, we could hear something and we could hear that it was ⁸⁵⁹⁶ very close. One person who was with us in the group in Celine had been in Nagafc that night and came to Celine and confirmed that Nagafc had been shelled during the night. But he said that they were -- it was bombed by planes that flew very low. And later it was demonstrated that these were planes belonging to the Serbian army, because there was a very large number of people taking refuge in that village, perhaps more than 8.000 people. I don't know exactly.

Q. And in addition to all of that, did you hear that there were ten craters that were ten by seven? The craters from the bombs, that is. Do you know about that?

A. I have heard, but I wasn't really concerned about their dimensions.

Q. Thank you. Just one more thing. You spent 42 hours in the attic; is that right? That's the way you put it. When you decided to leave the attic, did you take a look? Did you see whether there was anybody nearby and was it only then that you decided to leave the place where you had been?

A. Before we left -- when we left, it was 1.00 in the morning when all the shelling had stopped. And seeing that all the houses in our yard and more than 80 per cent of the village had been burned - and I saw this with my own eyes - I heard that our village, our house would be burnt too, and so this was why we left the attic. So that as we left, we were quite unable to see much because it was dark, and also, there was rain that night. We set off in the direction of Zrze.

Q. Mr. Jemini, could you just explain this, because your nearest and ⁸⁵⁹⁷ dearest lost their lives before your very own eyes. Did you walk up perhaps to see whether they were showing any signs of life or did you not walk up to them? Can you explain this?

A. The -- we had watched the bodies now and then during the entire day, and they had never moved. And at the moment when we left, the bodies were directly opposite a Serbian police position, and we could not go up to them, so we went around them in quite a different direction and left the village that way.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. NICE: Just a few matters. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Only an incomplete part of your account about burying bodies has been summarised by the accused. Is the position, as set out in your statement as follows, page 6: That the 22 people you buried in a single grave included three families comprising respectively seven, six, and five individuals for each family, together with some other bodies of other people; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. The two bodies whose remains were charred were actually found by you in your own yard or compound, and for the reasons that you've given, they were never fully identified but you calculated, because you've never seen them since and there weren't any other bodies, that they were Muharrem and Zade Jemini; is that correct?

A. We supposed that there were no others there, and so -- and others were accounted for, so we came to the conclusion that these people were ⁸⁵⁹⁸ Muharrem and Zade.

Q. In addition to those, and working with other people including the relation from whom we have heard, were the total of 82 people buried that were buried, either all or very nearly all of them, in a graveyard dedicated specifically to that purpose in your village, with appropriate markers over each individual grave? Is that correct now?

A. It's correct. We identified the people who were buried because there were people of the village who buried them, and we also marked each grave and put a name in a bottle on each grave and put the bottles on the grave so that when we came back from Albania they were all marked and it was easier to complete the task of identification.

Q. There has been some veiled question but no positive suggestion about some force other than the Serb forces killing these people. Has there been any suggestion in the area where you live that forces other than the Serbian forces killed any of these 82 people from your village?

A. No. There were no other forces besides the Serbian forces.

Q. There have been some questions asked of you about your staying separated from your family before they were killed. From your knowledge of what happened at that time, would it have added to the safety of your family for you, the younger men, to have stayed with them when they were at risk in the way you identify?

A. It would have been much more dangerous, because in earlier offensives, people above 20 and middle-aged people were separated from their families and executed. So to avoid a worse fate, we thought that the best thing we could do would be to hide in that loft. ⁸⁵⁹⁹

Q. Finally, and it hasn't been challenged by the accused, you spoke of hearing instructions given that people moving around in small groups should be killed. We haven't had a precise count of the number of people including your father and other relations who were killed, but was it more or less than ten? If you can give us the precise number, please do so.

A. We heard that anybody moving in small groups of up to ten people should be liquidated without warning.

Q. And the group including your parents or your father, as you described it sometimes, was that more or less than ten?

A. Later, when we found the people who had been killed in groups, groups of two, five, ten, and then up to 22, but then there were also individuals who were killed. In total, there were 82 people killed in Celine.

Q. Thank you very much.

MR. NICE: Nothing else of this witness.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Jemini, that concludes --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Objection, Mr. May, just one.

JUDGE MAY: What is your objection?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Nice said that I did not challenge some conversation about groups. I challenged his ability to hear any conversation at all so I don't think that I should challenge every word that was said.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Mr. Jemini, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the international Tribunal to give it. You are free to go. ⁸⁶⁰⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: The next witness has been identified for some time as K34, a pseudonym. In fact, as we were informed by his lawyer who has been representing him for reasons that will become apparent, he's happy to give evidence in open session and with his name known. Indeed, one of the characteristics of this case applies in his case as well; his name has, in any event, been publicised as a potential witness associated with the pseudonym in the territory. So I call Radomir Markovic, please.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness stand to take the declaration.

WITNESS: RADOMIR MARKOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Take a seat. Examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Can you tell us, please, your full name.

A. Radomir Markovic.

Q. And, Mr. Markovic, were you formerly the head of state security for Serbia?

A. Yes. I was at the head of the state security of Serbia from the -- from November 1998 to year 2000.

Q. Your present position, as revealed in part by the circumstances in which you entered this room, is that you are still on trial in Serbia in a ^{8601 BLANK PAGE 8602} trial that has yet to be completed, and as is well known in Serbia, a charge that includes counts of murder laid against you.

A. Yes.

Q. Allegations that you are contesting.

A. Certainly I'm contesting them. I was falsely accused in Serbia, and I hope that justice will prevail.

Q. First may we deal with your background, and to some of these questions yes/no answers will probably be permitted and may save time. Were you born in 1946 in Lukavac in Bosnia, educated in Belgrade, graduating from the law faculty there?

A. That is correct.

Q. Had your entire professional life been spent working for the MUP, which you joined in 1970, working for the first five years as an operative in the second department of the management for criminal acts?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Did you then spend eight years at the department for the prevention of drug trafficking, subsequently becoming head of department at Belgrade airport?

A. Correct.

Q. You then became head of public security in the city of Belgrade and indeed secretary of security for that city?

A. Yes.

Q. You became an Assistant Minister of the Interior in two separate departments, the later one of which was -- or the first one of which was for analytical and informational works and the latter one of which was as ⁸⁶⁰³ Assistant Minister for Criminal Acts.

A. Correct.

Q. And then that brings us to November 1998, when you became head of the state security branch, the RDB of the MUP. Who appointed you to that position?

A. I was appointed to that position by the Minister of the Interior, Vlajko Stojiljkovic.

Q. What, if any, part in that appointment did the accused take?

A. I presume that it was the suggestion of Slobodan Milosevic, but I cannot know that with certainty. I was nominated by Vlajko Stojiljkovic. I suppose that the president was aware of that and that he approved it.

Q. I turn now to the chain of command operative at the time you were performing this job. To whom did you report as head of state security?

A. The Minister of the Interior.

Q. And was that a chain of command that -- or was reporting to him within a legally established chain of command?

A. Yes. Everything was in keeping with the legislation.

Q. Your instructions came from whom, from the same minister or from elsewhere?

A. From the minister. We had regular staff meetings where the minister issued us assignments for the period that followed.

Q. Were you able to form a view one way or the other as to how the instructions you received from the minister fitted with the policies of the president, the accused?

A. Well, the policy of a country is charted by the president together ⁸⁶⁰⁴ with his associates, and the Minister of the Interior certainly has to follow that policy. There is no doubt about that. So the state policies are created by state authorities and the president of that state, and we were only executive bodies who followed the orders.

Q. Did you ever yourself report directly to the accused?

A. In what sense did you mean "report"?

Q. Report on what you were doing, on your actions, tell him what you were engaged in; did you ever report to him?

A. Slobodan Milosevic received daily reports both from the public security and the state security branches. And when he was particularly interested in something, he would invite me to his office and I would have to elaborate on that either in the form of a written report or verbally, depending on his request.

Q. We'll come to the detail of weekly reporting in a little while's time.

You took over your position from whom, please?

A. From Jovica Stanisic.

Q. Was he somebody you knew well or not?

A. No. I didn't know Jovica Stanisic very well. I knew him superficially as a colleague, as a professional, not socially.

Q. Had you seen a document dealing with the control of or subordination of Jovica Stanisic?

A. Yes. I saw such a document. It was shown to me by Jovica Stanisic himself.

Q. And roughly when did he show you this document that you can now ⁸⁶⁰⁵ recall?

A. Well, he showed it to me immediately after I took over from him.

Q. What was the date of the document, or at any rate, the year, if you can recall, of the document?

A. I think I can. I believe it was 1997.

MR. NICE: May the witness now please see the document, which we will produce as an exhibit. On this occasion, I think it may be desirable for the whole four-sheet package to be before the Court, which includes the explanation of how this document comes to be provided to the Tribunal.

JUDGE MAY: Give it an exhibit number.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Prosecutor's Exhibit 277.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. If we can do the following, please, Mr. Usher: If we can look at -- first of all view the first page briefly so that those viewing can see what it is. First of all in the -- it's proper to see it in the original and then we'll go to the English. So we a document, a letter with a stamp in Cyrillic, and the second page is then -- if you turn over, please. The next document is a document in Cyrillic, and we can see at the foot of it a date, 21st of April, 1997, and again some official stamps.

If we go to the third sheet, please, we come to the translation of those documents in order, the first being a letter from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dated the 27th of June, addressed to the liaison officer, Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal, signed by the ⁸⁶⁰⁶ assistant federal minister, and following the formal courtesies, forwarding, it says in the second or third line, forwarding to this Tribunal, or the office of the Prosecutor in any event, a copy of the decision DT numbered 1/97 from the 21st of April, that was brought by the former president of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic. And then we can see a translation on the fourth sheet of the document itself. And the document reads: "According to the Article 83 of the Republic of Serbia constitution, I bring the following..." I should observe it's headed "State secret." "Decision. 1. During the preparations for passing the law on carrying out the security affairs of the FR Yugoslavia, the department of the state security will perform its duties in accordance with the guidelines of the president of the republic and the Republic of Serbia government. As from this day, this decision is put into effect until the day the federal law is enforced, which shall, in accordance with the constitution of the FR Yugoslavia, regulate the security affairs in the framework of the FR Yugoslavia jurisdiction. "2. This decision is put into effect on the day it was brought." And then signed by the accused.

Q. Mr. Markovic, just having seen this document, I think today, can you help us one way or another whether this is the same document that you were shown by Mr. Stanisic?

A. Yes. That is the document.

Q. This document thus says that the department of state security will perform its duties in accordance with guidelines of the president of the republic and the Republic of Serbia government until the federal law that ⁸⁶⁰⁷ it sets out is enforced.

First, was the relevant federal law referred to there ever made?

A. No. It was just a bill that was never enacted.

Q. So as long as it was in effect, this decision of the accused had the effect of bringing the department of state security under his control?

A. That was in effect only during the tenure of Jovica Stanisic, because when I took over as head of the state security branch, that was no longer in effect. It no longer applied.

Q. Dealing with it in two stages: Until the end of Stanisic's term of office, it was in effect.

A. From the day of the entry into force of this decision until the end of his term of office, yes.

Q. You say it didn't apply in your case. Is there any document recording the cancellation of this order or decision?

A. I don't know if such a document exists. I was informed of that by Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, who told me that the state security branch had to address directly the Ministry of the Interior, that is, him.

Q. At the time of this decision and through to the time of your holding this office, was there any federal State Security Service or not?

A. No. The federal State Security Service did not exist.

Q. So the Republic of Serbia's security service was performing the task of the federal government?

A. You could put it that way. But it is not completely accurate. Since that had not been agreed with the Ministry of the Interior of Montenegro, it functioned only partially, to the extent that was necessary ⁸⁶⁰⁸ for security of the state.

Q. So now can we turn to the process of meetings, briefings, and reporting.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, this will take us beyond a quarter to. I don't know what additional time is required for the arrangements of the witness, given the circumstances in which he arrives here.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. It may be better to start tomorrow on that. Mr. Markovic, we're going to adjourn now. Would you remember during this adjournment until we recommence your evidence tomorrow, and indeed any other adjournments there may be, not to speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that includes speaking to members of the Prosecution.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. We will adjourn now. Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.43 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 25th day of July, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.