⁹⁰¹²

Wednesday, 28 August 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Right. Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to cross-examine this witness. You have the standard 45 minutes, if you require it.

WITNESS: JACKY ROWLAND [Resumed] Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. May. Before I move on to my questions, I would like us to view the witness's tape that I received as well. It's your tape, isn't it? I gave it to the technical booth. Could it please be played.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll play it.

[Videotape played] "JACKY ROWLAND: ... people have been killed in this first wave of bombing, but that wasn't the end of the story. The drone of bombers could still be heard overhead and as we raced away from the scene, NATO struck again. There was clearly no mistake about the target. A narrow escape for us, but maybe not for the prison guards we were speaking to earlier. "Jacky Rowland, BBC News, Istok in Kosovo."

"Another NATO bomber drops its payload. The target this time a prison in a remote part of North-western Kosovo. We took these pictures as we fled the scene. Just moments earlier, we were at the prison, inspecting damage from a first wave of bombing. NATO pounded the gaol for ⁹⁰¹³ two hours in the morning, firing about 15 missiles into the main complex and blowing a hole in the perimeter wall.

"INVESTIGATING JUDGE: This is the second time NATO has attacked this gaol. I can't find words to describe what I think. "JACKY ROWLAND: Serb officials insist this was a civilian target. They say the prison houses convicted thieves, rapists and other criminals, but what makes Istok gaol interesting is that among its inmates are members of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

"The authorities say a thousand prisoners are being held here. The inmates have been let out of their cells. You can see them behind me, lined up against a wall. Some of them have been killed in the NATO attack. Others may have escaped. By unlocking the cells, the guards thought they'd give the prisoners a better chance of survival. For many, this gamble didn't pay off. Prison officials say at least 19 people were killed in the two waves of bombing today.

"The regional capital, Pristina, has also felt the effects of NATO's campaign, although much earlier. This damage in the centre of the city was caused weeks ago. By now, the people of Pristina are falling into the uneasy routine of being bombed and they're trying to get on with their lives.

"These people are Kosovo Albanians. They're queuing for new identity documents from the Serb authorities. So while refugees leaving Kosovo have had their papers destroyed, here other Albanians are having new ones issued.

"This man says he came to Pristina after fleeing his village. He ⁹⁰¹⁴ says he feels safe here and plans to stay. Nevertheless, some Albanians are still leaving Kosovo. These people are heading for the Macedonian border. Some of them have valid documents. Others hope to get through on old passports."

"Jacky Rowland, BBC News, Pristina."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. That is sufficient. Actually, this entire report, as you can see, you made it round the end of May, as far as I can see, because Pristina follows the events in Istok; is that right?

A. I was in Kosovo for the latter part of May in 1999, yes.

Q. I'm asking you because what you presented at the end of May -- actually, then you refer to the normalisation of life in Pristina. The end of May was the end of the war, and for six months now we have been hearing witnesses here who have been saying that in Pristina in May, some kind of wild Serb police was going around, killing people.

JUDGE MAY: You know by now that you can't put to this witness what other witnesses have said. She won't know about that. You could put to her what she saw or heard herself.

Now, if you want to put that things were normal in Pristina in May, if that's your question, put it directly rather than interspersing it with comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Ms. Rowland, on this footage of yours, no police can be seen whatsoever that is forcing people onto buses with rifles, that is ⁹⁰¹⁵ deporting people, beating people, chasing them in the streets. I see that the streets are full; right? So what was your impression? Was your impression the same as you presented it in your report? People are sitting, talking, strolling about in the streets. Some are travelling. Others are waiting for new passports. Is that the way it was or is that not the way it was?

A. Generally, Mr. Milosevic, I don't think that police officers, if they are going to beat people or chase them out of their homes, they don't generally do it in full view of television cameras.

Q. In this report of yours, you use the phrase "Serb authorities." I assume that "authorities" in any territory means the government. Do you know, since at that time you were in Pristina, that the government of the autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija, the provisional government that was appointed by the Assembly of Serbia, consisted of Albanians, Serbs, Turks, Muslims, Roma, Egyptians; that is to say, all ethnic groups that live in Kosovo, and that in that government Serbs were a minority? Are you aware of that fact?

A. Well, for a start, Mr. Milosevic, I don't think it's strictly correct to say it was the autonomous province of Kosovo in 1999 because you revoked that status of the province some years before.

Q. Let's not debate that. What you call abolition is in the constitution of Serbia, and when you say that the province was abolished, it does say in the constitution that there is an autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija and also an autonomous province of Vojvodina and these are forms of autonomy. This explanation that says that it was abolished ⁹⁰¹⁶ is part of this false indictment. But now let's go back to Istok. Since the beginning of this operation which is called, inappropriately, a trial, did you --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we've had enough comment. Now, you either ask proper questions or you're going to be stopped altogether. Now, have you any questions for this witness, as opposed to making comments as you go along?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I do have questions.

JUDGE MAY: Just ask them, and briefly. We'll all get on more quickly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You've given me 45 minutes, very generously, so do let me use them the way I think is necessary.

JUDGE MAY: You will be stopped -- you will be stopped if you do not act in accordance with the rules. It's as simple as that and you know it. Now, get on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you have the opportunity, Ms. Rowland, to see the introductory remarks made by this false Prosecution about the events in the prison in Dubrava where the Serb authorities were blamed, accused of what you actually recorded here, what you saw there. That is to say in terms of the consequences of the NATO strikes --

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... what the Prosecution said. It's not for this witness. It's nothing to do with her. Now, ask her about what she saw and heard. You've been told that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm asking her. That's ⁹⁰¹⁷ precisely what I'm asking her, whether she saw on her very own television a transmission of what was said here about this event that she had reported on.

JUDGE MAY: Look, you're not cross-examining, you're simply making speeches. Now, unless you ask this witness about what she saw and heard herself, as opposed to trying to comment on the Prosecution, you're going to be stopped altogether. Now, have you any questions as to the witness? Not about the Prosecution but about her evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By all means, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, now we've seen this footage, and I see that you have commented upon that in your statement, that is to say the events in the prison in Istok, why is it significant that you saw a man in civilian clothes, probably a policeman in civilian clothes, who was promenading along the path within the prison and that he has a rifle? What makes this observation relevant at all and what is unnatural about this?

JUDGE MAY: Do you understand the question?

THE WITNESS: Not really.

JUDGE MAY: What do you mean? What do you mean? You must make yourself clear, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It is mentioned by way of some kind of proof that something irregular is being done. The fact that there is a policeman who was patrolling up and down a path within the prison is wearing civilian clothes. What does that have to do with anything? Why is this relevant ⁹⁰¹⁸ at all?

JUDGE MAY: Let us rephrase that so it makes some sense. Was there any significance, as far as you could see, in the policeman wearing civilian clothes? And I guess it's the one who had the rifle and a pistol that's being referred to. Could you see any significance in that, Ms. Rowland, or not?

THE WITNESS: I would be in no position as to know whether this man was a policeman or not a policeman. He was a man dressed in civilian clothes, carrying two weapons.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you made this report - this was during your second visit - the prison had already been evacuated; right?

A. Incorrect. The report which shows the man dressed in civilian clothes, carrying the weapons, that was on my first visit to the prison, on Friday, the 21st of May, 1999, not my second visit to the prison.

Q. All right. But during your second visit - it doesn't matter whether it's that or something else that you recorded - the prison had already been evacuated; is that right?

A. On my second visit to the prison, the prison appeared to be deserted, and the officials, the Serb officials at the prison, told us that the prison had been evacuated earlier that day, that day being Monday, the 24th of May, 1999.

Q. We saw at the very beginning of this tape which was just played a few minutes ago that cameramen, TV crews, are running, perhaps members of your own crew, I don't know who was all there. So the bombing took place, ⁹⁰¹⁹ once again, as you were reporting from the prison; is that right?

A. That is correct.

Q. You say that during your second visit, you saw on the ground in some places around the prison there were still bodies lying around there that you had noticed during your first visit. Did I understand you correctly?

A. It was my assumption that at least some of the bodies I saw lying around the grounds of the prison covered by blankets were still those same bodies from the first time that were still lying in situ. Of course, I cannot say for certain whether they were new bodies. It was my assumption that these were bodies from the first bombing, still lying in position.

Q. And do you know that the investigation that was conducted by the investigating judge in charge and the team of the investigating judge from the District Court in Pec was interrupted due to the bombing and that this investigation took place for a few days with a few short interruptions?

A. Well, bearing in mind that I saw the investigating judge during my second visit to the prison, all I can know for certain is that this gentleman clearly visited the prison on at least two occasions, the two occasions when I saw him and filmed him there.

Q. Yes. So you assume that until an investigation is over, that part of the scene where the investigating team had not been should remain as it was during the event concerned, that is to say, during the bombing. Did it occur to you that what you saw - that some of the bodies were in the same position as they had been a few days prior to that - was because the judge had not processed certain points yet during his investigation? He ⁹⁰²⁰ had not taken care of certain things, of certain individuals. Or do you think there was some other reason? Isn't it logical for it to be that way while an investigation is going on?

A. Well, if we are to be -- if we're to speak strictly about how investigations would be carried out, one could argue that it was inappropriate for the judge and his team to allow a bunch of international journalists to run around the site of the prison. Normally in an investigation, police officers would wish to keep the scene of the event intact. So the very fact that they allowed us to run around with cameras, possibly damaging evidence, suggests to me that they were not clearly following all the procedures that one would normally expect to be carried out if it's a scene that's under police investigation.

Q. The scene, as we could have established, was under investigation for a few days. Do you hold it against them that they allowed you to come in and to film and to see what it was all about and in this way disrupt the investigation?

A. Does anyone really care whether I hold it against them or not?

Q. Well, I see that you are addressing critical remarks in respect of the fact that they allowed you to come and film. Tell me, please, is this your article? It says here [In English]: "Tuesday, May 18, 1999, published at 2123 GMT, 2223 UK, by Jacky Rowland in Pristina."

[Interpretation] I'm going to read it out to you and then I'm going to put some questions to you in relation to this. [Previous translation continues]... Albanian refugees -- ⁹⁰²¹

JUDGE MAY: Before you do, let's establish where it's from and whether the witness recognises it. Where do you get it from, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I precisely wish to establish whether the witness recognises this.

JUDGE MAY: Where do you say it appeared so that she may have some idea whether she can recognise it or not.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You were not listening carefully. I said Tuesday the 18th of May, 1999, 2123 hours.

JUDGE MAY: Listen to the question: Where did it appear? In what publication are you saying it appeared?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, to the best of my understanding, Ms. Rowland is a BBC journalist, so it appeared on the BBC. So I'm asking her whether it's her article and I'm reading it out to her.

JUDGE MAY: What you're saying is this, as I understand it: It was on the BBC website. Is that where you got it from?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was published, Mr. May. That is to say it was released on the BBC on the 18th of May, 1999. I have the actual text. I haven't got the tape, the footage. So I wish to ask her --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. Read it and read it slowly, bearing in mind the interpreters.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. It says by Jacky Rowland in Pristina, Kosovo. [In English]: "Displaced Kosovo Albanian refugees have settled in other parts of Kosovo reportedly without harassment from ⁹⁰²² the Serbian security forces. These examples stand in stark contrast to persistent reports from refugees arriving in Macedonia and Albania of serious human rights abuses committed in Kosovo. In the village of Stari in Northern Kosovo, hundreds of young Albanian men can be seen wandering around or sitting on the grass. At the beginning of NATO bombing campaign, the refugees fled their homes in Podujevo region. Police worked their way south towards Pristina where some of them were allowed to stay. Then, according to refugees, the police opened up a corridor for them, allowing them to move northward again. Some of them came to rest in Svetlje. The refugees say the security forces leave them alone even though there are clearly supporters of the Kosovo Liberation Army in their midst."

[Interpretation] And then there's a quotation here. [Previous translation continues]... "[In English]: ... to sell us cigarettes, they said. Meanwhile, in the south, we were unable to find any evidence of the tens of thousands of refugees who NATO allege are being kept here by the security forces near the town of Urosevac. One Kosovo Albanian man told us he drove his horse and cart from his village to the town every day and has not seen large numbers of refugees in the area. He and his family continue to live in their village while Serbs live in the village next door. These stories stand in sharp contrast to the testimonies of massacres heard from many refugees arriving in Albania and Macedonia, and they suggest a far more complex picture of refugee movements in Kosovo and the behaviour of the security forces."

[Interpretation] Is this your article, Ms. Rowland? ⁹⁰²³

A. I would not be able to verify absolutely word-for-word because, I don't know about you, Mr. Milosevic, but I can't remember exactly what I was doing on Tuesday, May the 18th, 1999, at 2123 GMT, but I recognise the general drift of it, and I would thank you for reading it out in court because it I think it presents an excellent example of how the BBC is objective, fair and impartial and has sensitivity in portraying what was an extremely complicated conflict.

Q. Is this your article, though?

A. As I said, I recognise parts of it. I would not be able to put my hand on my heart and swear that it's word-for-word correct because, as I said, you know, you're asking me about something which I wrote over three years ago. You know, if I had summoned it up from the BBC website myself, then I would be able to put my hand on my heart and say it was. But this is the first time you've read it to me and you cannot possibly expect me to remember word-for-word exactly what I wrote.

Q. I will let you have this to look at it so that you can see it.

A. Fine. As I said, Mr. Milosevic, by and large I recognise the article and, as I said, I'm very proud of it because I think it demonstrates the example of how the BBC is impartial, objective, and always wants to tell all sides of the story and to reflect on often complex situations. So thank you very much for your bit of publicity for the BBC there.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the article.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Ms. Rowland, when you occasionally say something that is true, ⁹⁰²⁴ that doesn't mean that everything that the BBC reports about is necessarily true. Perhaps you're an exception, who knows.

A. Was that a question, Mr. Milosevic? I didn't hear a question, I heard a statement.

Q. Could you please look at the article.

A. As I said, it looks familiar. It looks familiar, but I -- you know, it's three and a half years ago. This looks like my article, as far as I can say, but, you know, I can't say 100 per cent that it is word-for-word my article, but it looks like the article I wrote, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. So you were in Kosovo, and some of the things you reported about in the article, some were provided in reports that the other side didn't show, but it's all on tapes that you filed. Do you consider that, for example -- do you believe that, for example, in the case that you witnessed in the Dubrava Prison, do you consider that the aggressor was the one who carried out the crime there by bombing the prison where you yourself said there were 1.000 prisoners?

JUDGE MAY: That -- the view of the witness about that, even if she has one, is irrelevant. It's a matter which we're going to have to determine, as to what happened in Dubrava Prison. The witness can describe what she saw and heard but the conclusions from it are a matter for the Trial Chamber.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] She saw the prison in Dubrava, Mr. May, and that's why I'm asking her whether she assesses that the ⁹⁰²⁵ bombing of the prison is a crime.

JUDGE MAY: The question is irrelevant.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please tell me, a little while ago you mentioned that you were in Kosovo in the second half of May. Is that the only time that you spent in Yugoslavia?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I had the honour of holding a Novinarska Legitimacija signed by your Federal Secretary of Information, Mr. Goran Matic. I was BBC Belgrade correspondent from October 1998 until January 2001. During that period, I visited Kosovo on a great many occasions.

Q. And during those numerous visits, as you say, who did you receive your information from on the locations that you visited?

A. Are we talking -- are we talking specifically about time spent in Kosovo during the NATO bombing or are we just talking about any times between October 1998 and January 2001 when I visited Kosovo?

Q. During the entire time, your experiences.

A. A great many people --

Q. All the time. Very well.

A. A great many people. Mr. Milosevic, as you're probably aware, journalists consult all manner of people from government ministers to simple villagers, farmers, women, children, men. We at the BBC are as interested in what ordinary humble people have to think about situations as we are about what ministers and government officials have to say.

Q. And please tell me, were you able to move about Kosovo safely? ⁹⁰²⁶

A. Depended on the time. There were times in Kosovo in the autumn of 1998 and the spring of 1999, obviously, when there were military clashes going on between the forces of the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army and the forces of the Kosovo Liberation Army when there were certain risks involved, certainly as journalists, in moving around the territory of Kosovo, yes.

Q. Did the authorities enable you to go wherever you wanted or did they prevent you from going and making your reports? Did you have freedom of movement expected by a journalist?

A. During the earlier part of the conflict, we enjoyed considerable freedom of movement. However, I have to say that in the days and last few weeks leading up to the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia, our ability to move around in Kosovo was severely curtailed by the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army.

Q. Did you report about the suffering of the Serb and other non-Albanian population as well as Albanians who were killed by the KLA? Did you report about that?

A. Absolutely, Mr. Milosevic. As you yourself have seen; balanced, impartial, objective, fair reporting.

Q. There is a Serbian proverb which says that one swallow doesn't make up spring, so please do not generalise regarding this one objective report with the reporting of the BBC in general. Did you report about attacks by the KLA?

JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... Ms. Rowland. The comment is about a Serbian proverb about a swallow not making a spring, ⁹⁰²⁷ and it's said that you are trying to generalise from one objective report. Would that be right or not?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I really don't quite understand the question.

JUDGE MAY: What the accused is putting to you is that the BBC were not necessarily objective. That here was one objective report; the fact that there was one objective report -- at least, this is how I understand the point: The fact that there was one objective report doesn't mean that all the reports were objective. Since that point has been made, perhaps you'd like to deal with it.

THE WITNESS: I take a great deal of pride in the reporting that I did from the former Yugoslavia, from both Bosnia, Macedonia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as was including Serbia, the province of Kosovo, and I think that anyone who knew me in Yugoslavia at that time, including Kosovo Serbs, would say that I was one of the fairest and most objective reporters that they knew.

For example, a few days before the NATO bombing began, a radio feature which I made was broadcast on the BBC on the Today programme on Radio 4, in which I looked at the issue of the demonisation of Serbs. And in my report, I interviewed a great variety of Serbian people about how they felt about the way in which their race was being demonised. I think that provides --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Rowland, as I understand it, there is no challenge to your personal objectivity. The question that is being raised relates to the objectivity in general of the BBC for which you work. ⁹⁰²⁸ That's what I think you should comment on, so far as it is significant.

THE WITNESS: Well, A, I would question the significance, but B, I am very happy to say that the BBC enjoys probably the best international reputation of any broadcaster for being objective. And I should point out that during the NATO bombing campaign, Mr. Milosevic, as you well know, the British government was sharply critical of the BBC's coverage. I think at one stage some government officials referred to us as the Belgrade Broadcasting Corporation. They felt that some of our coverage, particularly some of the television reports filed by my senior colleague Mr. John Simpson, were too sympathetic to the Yugoslav viewpoint. So I think that all of this is proof, if any proof really be needed, that the BBC is an extremely objective and responsible international broadcaster.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You said that you are proud of your reports, and as far as the one that we saw here, you have grounds for that, there is no doubt about that. We have to grant that to you. I didn't see that one, unfortunately. Could you please tell me, except for this report from Istok, did you report about the other consequences of NATO bombarding? Did you tour the towns and cities throughout Yugoslavia which were bombarded by NATO; civilian targets, hospitals, schools, buses, trains, moving trains, columns of civilians, people on bridges? Did you report about all of those things, Ms. Rowland?

A. Myself and my colleagues, yes. I should point out that at that time in Yugoslavia, we were a team of three BBC reporters; myself, Mr. John Simpson, who I just mentioned, and also Mr. Michael Williams. There ⁹⁰²⁹ were three of us, and between the three of us, we reported broadly on all the various things that were hit by NATO bombs, yes.

Q. In your statement, you say that you filed many more reports and taped more material than was actually broadcast. Do you think that in the choice of the material that was broadcast, the objectivity was reduced regarding the things that you were reporting about?

A. I would doubt that very much. I have to point out that it was not a BBC cameraman who filmed the material. It was a cameraman from Antena Television. The Serb authorities were keener to have Greek journalists in Kosovo at the time than they were other journalists. I was something of an exception. The way it worked from a technical point of view was that the material which was filmed by the Greeks, they were kind enough to film a piece to cameras, as we saw. I would then give the voice track, which would be recorded onto a cassette. All of this would be taken by car to the border, to the Macedonian border, where journalists on the other side would pick up the tapes - so the visual footage and the voice track - and it would be physically assembled by a picture editor in Skopje, Macedonia. I obviously couldn't be there because I was not at liberty to wander in and out of Kosovo at the time.

Q. In your statement, you say that on several occasions you received information from, as you call it, the Serbian media centre in Pristina, which was known to you as an independent media source. You state this on page 2 of your statement. I assume that you remember that. Did this media centre provide you with correct information?

A. I had a great deal of respect for the media centre. I don't call ⁹⁰³⁰ it the Serbian media centre, I call it the media centre. I think the adjective "Serbian" was added in the statement so there shouldn't be any confusion.

The media centre was run by Mr. Miki Mihajlovic, and Mr. Radovan Urosevic, and I think they did their best to do a serious job of collecting information and checking it, and the information that they gave I generally found to be accurate but not necessarily complete. I think they did their best to double-check their information from their sources in the VJ and the MUP, but I wouldn't have been able to go to the media centre to ask for information about things that were happening on the Albanian side, the Kosovo Albanian side. We used to go to other sources, including KIC, the Kosovo Information Centre, to get other information to complement the information that I was getting from the media centre.

Q. All right. Let's go back to the prison. Do you know that in the prison itself, before the bombing and during that event, there was no military unit stationed there, there were no weapons, and that no military facility was stationed there nor any military unit was stationed in the prison? Do you know that?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I would have absolutely no way of knowing what the situation was at the prison before I visited because the first I even heard of Dubrava Prison in Istok was when we were taken there on Friday, the 21st of May, 1999.

Q. Was it clear to you that this was a civilian facility since this was a prison that was being bombed?

A. I would have no way of knowing for certain exactly what ⁹⁰³¹ applications the prison was being used for at that time.

Q. For what purposes can a prison be used other than as a prison?

JUDGE MAY: Well, that's just a matter of argument.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you see, then, or were you informed that during the bombing the deputy warden of the prison was killed? He's an Albanian. That some guards were gravely wounded, guards and other prison employees, as well as prisoners? Were you informed about that at the time?

A. I was, Mr. Milosevic, and I included it in my radio reports, in the radio reports that I filed on Friday, the 21st of May, 1999, which you can also find on the Internet if you care to hunt them out. I stated quite clearly that we were informed by officials at the prison that both inmates and employees of the prison had been killed and injured by the NATO bombing attack.

Q. Ms. Rowland, do you have any doubt that those prisoners were killed by NATO bombing? Is there any doubt that these people were killed as a consequence of the NATO bombing? Is there any possibility that they could have been killed by something else?

A. If we are referring to my second visit to the prison on Monday, the 24th of May, 1999, yes, I have strong doubts that all of those prisoners were killed as a direct result of NATO bombing.

Q. I didn't understand you very well. So there is no doubt that they were killed by NATO bombing or in your mind you do doubt that they were killed by NATO bombing?

A. The latter. ⁹⁰³²

Q. On what do you base your doubts that they could have been killed by anything else other than the NATO bombing? When you see the dead people, what was it that could have killed them other than the bombing?

A. I believe that some of them were killed by the NATO bombing. However, it was my assessment that some of them may not have been killed by the NATO bombing, and the reason I have those doubts is because of the appearance of the corpses. If a person has been killed as a result of bombing, I would expect to see some kind of injury on the corpse consistent with that manner of death. I mean, if, for example, I look at you now, Mr. Milosevic, I can see that you have both your arms, I can see the features on your face, I can see that your body is intact. If, however, you were hit by a bomb, Heaven forbid, I think I would be able to tell by looking at your body whether that was in fact the manner of your death. And the bodies that I saw in that second report, the bodies - which, incidentally, you didn't play the second report, I believe - the bodies that we see piled up in a room, a room that was not really damaged at all by the bombing, I have serious doubts that those prisoners were killed as a direct result of bombs.

Q. There were collected there, there's no doubt about that. But do you know that the majority of people during the bombing are killed by the blast effect, that the bodies are not dismembered, their limbs are not torn off, or their heads. Death simply occurs because of the blast.

A. The bodies also, as far as I recall in that room, were not -- I would have thought if they had been involved in a blast, they would be covered with either dust or debris or plaster. I didn't recall them being ⁹⁰³³ covered in those. I'm sorry that I'm not a forensic scientist, Mr. Milosevic. I realise today that it was a regrettable decision to become a journalist, but I can only base my assessment on what I as a layperson, an observer, a firsthand eyewitness assessed the cause of their death to be.

Q. Are you familiar with the fact from the official report by the investigative judge that you actually talked to that, from the rubble, 93 bodies were pulled out? The report was completed after your second visit, as far as I can recall by the dates. We looked at it yesterday. But it does state in the report that 93 bodies were pulled out from the rubble, from the prison.

A. I am not familiar with that report, Mr. Milosevic, and for the record, your authorities expelled me from the territory of Yugoslavia a few days after I filed that report.

Q. Are you willing to look? I provided photographs yesterday of the prison. So would you be willing to look not at all of them but only at those which depict the prisoners who were killed? The photographs were taken in the prison after the bombing. Would Ms. Rowland be willing to look at them?

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness see the photographs. Mr. Milosevic, your time is practically up, but the witness can look at the photographs and you can ask some questions about it if you want. Yes. What do you want to ask the witness about the photographs?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you notice that there are no dismembered bodies there but these are people who were obviously killed in the bombing? ⁹⁰³⁴

A. I would say some of them look in a pretty bad state, Mr. Milosevic. This one here looks pretty dismembered to me.

Q. Is it true that during your second visit you determined that the prison was practically razed to the ground?

A. Not razed to the ground, Mr. Milosevic. We shouldn't exaggerate. Buildings were still standing. The building had been heavily bombed by the time I visited on the second time. It had been significantly damaged.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, you've had more than your time. You can have one more question, if you want.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that the organs of the authorities continued with the investigation on the 25th when they also photographed, also sketched the place where it happened? They carried out the external examination by -- of the victims. This was done by doctors from Pec. Fingerprints were taken and other investigative actions were carried out and all of this is documented in records held by the District Court in Pec?

A. I do not know the details of the investigation because, as I said, Mr. Milosevic, unfortunately, your authorities chose to expel me shortly after I filed the last report we saw. Otherwise, I would have been very pleased to have continued to cover the investigation into the events of Istok prison.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. No. You've had your opportunity. Now, have the amicus any questions?

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic: ⁹⁰³⁵

Q. [Interpretation] I have just a few questions for you, Ms. Rowland. Looking at the material that was taped, I didn't see in the material any tanks in the prison or in front of the prison. Was there a tank or were there any tanks in front of the prison or within the prison compound?

A. I do not recall that there were any tanks in or around the prison compound on that particular -- during the days of my actual visit. I do not recall.

Q. Were there any in front of the prison? Were there any destroyed tanks or cannons or were they undamaged? Did you see that or did you perhaps tape that?

A. As I said, I do not recall whether I saw any tanks or not. You know, this is three and a half years ago. We didn't see any pictures in my footage, but I do not recall whether I saw any, I'm sorry.

Q. Thank you. Perhaps you didn't see everything, but I would like to know about the wall that surrounded the prison. Was that damaged anywhere? And if it was and if you saw that, could you please tell us the extent of the damage.

A. Well, we've seen the pictures, both on the video footage and the photographs which Mr. Milosevic kindly supplied. There was significant damage to parts of the perimeter wall. A segment two, three metres maybe was blown away, and there was also something of a crater in the ground below the perimeter all as well. So the wall was gone and there was a crater in the ground.

Q. And also this: You stated that in your statement - it's on page 3 ⁹⁰³⁶ of the English version - you said here that the second time you visited the prison, you saw approximately 44 bodies of persons who were killed and that they were mostly covered with blankets. That means that you were not able to see the bodies; is that right?

A. That's correct. That's correct, yes. We were not, as I explained in my statement, we didn't have a lot of time at the prison, we weren't at liberty to inspect individual bodies. I was counting corpses that were covered by blankets.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Tapuskovic.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In a building, there were 25 bodies piled up; is that right? And then you add the bodies looked whole. They did not look as if they were blown apart by a blast. So there were no external injuries on these bodies; is that right?

A. As far as I could see, yes. That's correct, yes, as far as I could see.

Q. Thank you.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: May I? Ms. Rowland, you said that you had --

A. Sorry.

JUDGE KWON: No problem. You had strong doubts as to whether the bodies were all killed because of the bomb at that time. But you didn't mention that aspect in your statement. Why was that? Because it would be a very important aspect. ⁹⁰³⁷

A. Which statement are you talking about? Are you talking about --

JUDGE KWON: The statement given to the OTP, the Prosecutor.

A. I think I have something along those lines there. Hang on.

JUDGE KWON: You mentioned they are brought in, they might have been brought in, but you didn't mention that whether they are killed during the bomb or not.

A. No, it's not there. I would say, as far as my television reports went at that time, I was only really at liberty to pose a series of questions. It was not clear how they died. It was not clear because, as you're probably aware, we were subject to censorship by the Serbian authorities at the time, but despite having been quite careful in what I said, I was nevertheless expelled two days later.

JUDGE KWON: Okay. And could you tell us more about your expulsion. Why was that? Was it because of your report?

A. They never used to give me reasons for expelling me, although they did like to expel me on a number of occasions. They generally wouldn't give you reasons. Just when you would go to the foreigner's section of the police to renew your visa, which is an ordeal we had to go through on a weekly basis, you would just be told that your visa wasn't going to be renewed that week and you had 24 hours to leave the country. It happened on a number of occasions.

JUDGE KWON: Did there come a time at a later stage that you came to hear of the massacre which had allegedly happened during -- between two of your visits to Dubrava Prison?

A. I heard about it later, yes. It would have been August 1999 that ⁹⁰³⁸ I heard about that. I was back in Belgrade by then. The Yugoslav authorities had seen fit to let me return and carry on my work in Belgrade. And I did hear about it. I was contacted by a number of colleagues who were in Kosovo at that time. This was after the NATO forces had moved into Kosovo following the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army and Serbian police, and a number of colleagues contacted me to tell me about I believe these shallow graves that were found and about the investigation that was going on, and they asked me to describe -- well, rather as I have done today, they asked me to tell them about what I remembered of my original visits to Dubrava Prison in May.

JUDGE KWON: Did you produce any report regarding that incident?

A. We're talking about in August?

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

A. I did not, no. One of my colleagues, Ms. Ola Gerin [phoen], did. She was one of the television reporters who was in Kosovo in August 1999. I was in Belgrade. I spent that period in other parts of Serbia, not in the province of Kosovo.

JUDGE KWON: If you could tell us your opinion or assessment as to what happened regarding the alleged massacre, if you could.

A. I don't have sufficient overview really to do that, I feel. All I can talk about is the events that I witnessed at Dubrava Prison, and I think I've already described those in quite a bit of detail today.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Half a dozen questions. Re-examined by Mr. Nice: ⁹⁰³⁹

Q. The man in green civilian clothing, carrying the Kalashnikov and the pistol in the first report, was he apparently impeded in any way by the other people in the prison who were in uniform?

A. I have to tell you that I have no recollection of the movements of this man. He appears in my television footage but I have no personal recollections of anything he did.

Q. The accused has raised with you a report said to be of yours and which you recognise in part in which you speak of the testimony of the massacres given by refugees in Albania and Macedonia. Did you speak to such refugees yourself?

A. I was not in a position to speak to the refugees in Albania and Macedonia because I was in Kosovo and in other parts of Serbia at the time. However, plenty of my BBC colleagues spoke in great detail to those survivors, and I think everyone is very familiar with those television reports.

Q. The media centre, you describe its independence. You explain how you had to go elsewhere for material in relation to Albanians. Was the media centre loyal to a cause however carefully it checked its facts?

A. It was quite clear that Mr. Miki Mihajlovic and Mr. Radovan Urosevic were there to present and defend their views and to defend the position of the Serbian people. Certainly they had a position, and yet I felt that they did carry out their work in a fair and honest manner.

Q. The opinion you've given today about the pile of bodies as opposed to the bodies that you saw on the first occasion, is that an opinion - yes or no - that you've always held? ⁹⁰⁴⁰

A. I've always held that opinion, yes, from the moment I saw them.

Q. His Honour Judge Kwon asked you some questions about your statement. You interpreted his question as a reference to the footage. Maybe His Honour was asking about the written statement, but it doesn't matter.

In the statement, you set out all the facts that you find, the bodies being intact, not appearing to have been blown up and so on. You didn't venture an opinion there. Was your statement a statement of fact?

A. It was intended to be a statement of objectively observed facts rather than my layman's assessments, yes.

Q. An opinion, of course, you were asked by the accused in the course of today.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you very much. Did you see anything in those bodies that you saw from the position you did to indicate that they had been the subject of bombing deaths?

A. What I did see, and I remember particularly strongly and was quite disturbed by was the fact that, for some reason, their trousers were pulled down around their ankles, exposing their underwear, and that was very strange, I thought, and quite disturbing.

Q. Yes. Thank you very much.

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

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: I want to deal with some administrative matters next. ⁹⁰⁴¹

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: Two matters to be dealt with. The first is the next witness, Mrs. Imeraj.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Her evidence is on a new topic and therefore should be given live, but obviously, given the circumstances, it must be dealt with in a very appropriate way.

MR. NICE: I'll deal with it in what I hope is an appropriate way. It may be that it would be not inappropriate for me to lead on a number of matters where I can.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: I have to say that there is a video of the deaths, and we have to bear in mind the wholesale challenge that's coming or that's been advanced to all these witnesses by this accused. There's a video of the family. It's a disturbing video. The witness has seen it. She wishes you to see it. I'll show it to her at the end. We'll show it in an abbreviated form by having one of the investigators in the booth fast forwarding it, if that's an acceptable course to you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. The other matter which I wish to deal with concerns the report which we've had on the health of the accused, which I trust has been seen by the Prosecution and the parties. It has been filed but it's right that I should deal with it generally now. We have this cardiological report concerning the high blood pressure of the accused. The doctor advises that sufficient rest periods for the accused be incorporated into the conduct of the trial as a result ⁹⁰⁴² of the high blood pressure and recommends a period of four consecutive days every two weeks of trial. That is advice which we think should be followed not literally but as far as the spirit is concerned. We will consider, this week, a suitable programme which incorporates it as far as possible.

We will sit this and next week and into a third week, if necessary, to try and finish this part of the Prosecution case, but we will consider if a break is required during the third week. We should consider, as should the parties, the overall effect on the trial as a whole of this new state of affairs and the progress which can be made.

Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may I respond now to that with just these observations?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Assuming my calculation is correct and the remaining witnesses take less time rather than more time this week, but I'm not always very accurate, maybe I'm being over-optimistic, but nevertheless my calculation is that we may well not require the third week at all. There will, of course, be some outstanding issues and witnesses, and I'm going to have prepared for you by the beginning of next week a written document which we will file, setting out the position about all outstanding witnesses. Some of that may have to be ex parte, but we'll see. So I'm optimistic that we may be able to conclude by Friday week. May I call Mrs. Imeraj? ⁹⁰⁴³

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I respond to what we've just heard?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, you may briefly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, quite briefly. First of all, I wish to emphasise once again that I did not ask for any examinations, and I did not ask you for anything. That is one point. Secondly, in relation to what Mr. Nice has been saying, what I'm going to challenge and what I'm not going to challenge, he does not know about that. Yesterday Mr. Nice explained here that I am challenging whether somebody is dead or not. It's not a question of challenging whether somebody's dead or not. It's a question of challenging how the person who is dead became dead.

I am challenging the following, and I assert that, and anybody can see that, and everybody in Yugoslavia knows about that, that there is not a single officer or a single unit of the army, of the police, that would carry out an execution. So that is what I'm challenging. I'm challenging an execution, and whether somebody made a list --

JUDGE MAY: Very well. This is not the occasion to expound on your case. Now, you've made your point.

Now, I'm sure you'll bear in mind with this next witness the circumstances and take it into account when you come to cross-examine her. Yes. We'll call --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for the next witness, I wish to object in principle. I am not asking. I am not requesting. I am not ⁹⁰⁴⁴ begging you for anything. I'm just asking you to put an end to the following practice:

Last night around 6.00 or whenever, somewhere around that time, my associate Mr. Ognjanovic received a telephone call in order to be made aware that there is an addendum, a correction to the testimony of that witness and there are 18 points in terms of correcting her testimony, and that is what I am being given a day in advance. I'm not asking you to postpone the testimony of this witness, but what I do ask you to do is to put an end to this kind of practice on the part of this other side because this is impermissible. She gave her statement on the 9th of May, 1999, and they give me corrections this morning, because of course during the night my associate cannot come to the prison and bring me these corrections. And these corrections have to do with substantive matters.

JUDGE MAY: Let us clarify this. What is the position here, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: The accused has been provided with the addendum that follows on the proofing session with this witness, and the alternative is that she can give evidence and give all these matters without any notice, in the way that happens in most other trials because they're mostly matters of detail, or because the Prosecution attempts to help him and is scrupulous in its fair conduct in this case and have advance notice of matters that are a little different or need correction. It has been the policy I've pursued from start to finish, and the characterisation of the accused is extravagant, inappropriate, and entirely without merit. The addendum is designed to help him and you. ⁹⁰⁴⁵

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Yes. Let's hear the witness.

MR. NICE: And while she's coming in, the Court might like to take the map at page 5. We just lay it on the overhead projector for those viewing. I don't think she's going to be looking at it in any great detail, but Padaliste is shown on page 5 at block L12.

[The witness entered court]

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

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

WITNESS: LIRIJ IMERAJ

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

Q. Can you tell us your full name. And while that's being done, just for the purposes of spelling by any journalists, would the usher just lay this on the overhead projector. Your full name, madam.

A. My name is Lirij Imeraj.

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, you used to live in Padaliste?

A. Yes.

Q. Your husband, mother-in-law, and nine children?

A. Yes.

Q. I don't want to take you through this in any detail. Are you in a position to tell us -- I may ask you some questions about this a little later. Are you in a position to tell us about how life for Albanians in your part of Kosovo changed in the course of 1998? ⁹⁰⁴⁶

A. Albanians had a very difficult life in Kosova. We were persecuted by the Serbs, killed, beaten. Everything happened to us.

Q. Were checkpoints set up in your part of Padaliste?

A. They put up checkpoints at Rakosh Hill, Cerkolez, Banja, all sides.

Q. Did you leave your house for a period in 1998?

A. Yes.

Q. Between what months?

A. In August.

Q. Returning in?

A. In November.

Q. Moving on just a little: Did you continue to suffer interference or attacks between November and the spring of 1999?

A. A lot of them.

Q. In particular, what happened on New Year's Eve 1998/1999?

A. In 1998/1999, there was a lot of hail of gunfire at our house, shell-fire. We were never able to go out in the yard or even out into the meadow. We all had to stay inside in the cellar. This all came from the Serbs.

Q. Moving on into 1999 and in particular to March of 1999. On the 25th of March of 1999, was there an attack that you can remember? An airborne attack.

A. Excuse me?

Q. On the 25th of March, was there an airborne attack of which you can remember? ⁹⁰⁴⁷

A. There was in 1998, not 1999.

Q. Very well. What was the date?

A. I don't know the date, but it must have been round about August 1998, because that was when Padalishte was shelled.

Q. From what airborne plane or otherwise was it shelled?

A. It was a plane. It was a bomber. It belonged to the Serbs. The forces took off from the prison and bombed Padalishte.

Q. What prison are you referring to?

A. Dubrava Prison.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we see from the map with which we are familiar, Padaliste is not such a distance away from Istok and the Dubrava Prison, is it?

A. That's right.

Q. Very well. Let's move on to the 27th of March of 1999.

A. In fact the 26th.

Q. On that day, were you at home in the area of Padaliste that bears the same name as your family name, Imeraj?

A. That's right. We were all at home, all our family.

Q. Did you become aware of Serb forces? If so, at what time and whereabouts?

A. Serbian forces came in the morning, and we didn't notice them at all until they surrounded our house. And when we saw them, they were 50 metres away, and then they started to shoot. And we woke our four small children and put them behind the house to go out and flee with the children. And they were watching us, and they shot at the children. And ⁹⁰⁴⁸ Ardiana died on the spot and Afrim, five years old, fell. And I went out to see what was happening to the -- see what was happening to the children, and when I saw that Ardiana was dead on the spot and I went to Afrim and said, "Go inside." And the --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter asks the witness to slow down.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, can you slow down a little, and can I just interrupt your account to get a little more detail. We've heard that many, many houses of Kosovo Albanians are in the form of a compound with substantial high walls around them. Was your house in a compound? If so, was it surrounded by a wall?

A. No. Our house was not surrounded by a wall. None of the houses in Imeraj.

Q. And indeed, how many houses were there in the particular part of Padaliste called Imeraj?

A. There were 18 houses in the Imeraj neighbourhood.

Q. The troops who approached, did they approach just from one side, two sides, or from all sides of your house?

A. On three sides.

Q. The account you've given us so far of the children being shot at, before they were shot at, was anything said to them by the soldiers who were doing the shooting, that you could hear?

A. After they came into the yard, they heard them -- I could hear them, and they were only 50 metres away.

Q. Did they say anything or not before shooting at your children? ⁹⁰⁴⁹

A. After they killed Ardiana, they came up to the house and said, "Hands up because all the Beke family are going to die."

Q. You described the family as the Beke family, that name being the name of -- that name being --

A. That's my husband.

Q. Well, then, let's pause there. A word or so about your husband. What job did he have?

A. A teacher.

Q. Where did he teach?

A. He used to teach. He -- in Uca and in Lecina, Rakosh, and Susica, and 20 years ago in Bukosh.

Q. What subjects did he teach?

A. Mathematics and physics.

Q. And did he teach at schools for Kosovo Albanian children?

A. Yes.

Q. The soldiers who said that the family of your husband were to die, did you recognise the one who spoke or any of those with whom he came?

A. They were in a group, and at that time I was -- I was scared. I couldn't really identify them individually because I was in a terrible state because there was my children and my husband in my house, and I couldn't really grasp what was going on.

Q. At the time they first shot at your children, what if anything had your children done that might have caused them to be shot at by these men?

A. The only reason was because they were Albanians, nothing else.

Q. And at the time that they were shot, what were they actually ⁹⁰⁵⁰ doing? They were outside the house?

A. At the moment when they shot, the four small children were in the yard. The others were asleep. One of them, I took off his blanket and said, "Get up." So they got up and we went out.

Q. The ones who were outside, what were they doing? Were they standing still or were they moving away from the house or towards the house? What were they doing?

A. My small son was playing, just like children do, in the yard.

Q. After that first shooting, they came to the house. What did you do? You've told us about getting the one child up. Just carry on, please, with the account of what happened. Take your time.

A. Half of the children I woke up. The other half were outside, playing, and I told them to go behind the house and flee and run away from the massacre. So I went in and I woke them up, and behind my back they killed my daughter and my son.

Q. And then?

A. Then the children went out in the yard, and they were wounded behind, in the back, behind the neck, and I was wounded in two places and my skirt was torn in two places. And then the army came in and first they fired with automatic rifles inside the house, and the children fell to the ground, and then they -- then they entered. They threw outside -- they threw everything outside. My son was 15 years old, and I hid him, and I didn't see him any more. He was under the bed.

I was behind the house, and I saw when they drew a knife on my husband and then I lost control, and I don't know how they killed him and ⁹⁰⁵¹ I don't know with what they killed him. I was --

Q. One minute. You'd got out of the house, you say, and you were at the back of the house. Were you able to hide yourself to some degree, and if so, how?

A. After the house, behind the house.

Q. Did you hide behind something or in something?

A. Behind the house. And that house was in front and I was behind.

Q. And how did you stop yourself being seen? Were you just behind the house in the open ground or were you hiding behind something or in something?

A. I barely saw them because I didn't go out to hide. I went out to protect my children. And then it was pure luck that I survived.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, when you get to a suitable moment.

MR. NICE: That is as convenient as any.

JUDGE MAY: Mrs. Imeraj, we are going to take a break now for 20 minutes. Could you be back at the end of that, please, to continue your evidence. Could you remember during the break not to speak to anybody about it until it's over, and that includes the members of the Prosecution team.

We will adjourn now.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Ms. Imeraj, I want you to conclude the account of what happened to ⁹⁰⁵² your family members, and it may be helpful and swift if you do it in your own terms quite briefly and then I'll ask you a few supplementary questions on matters of detail.

You already explained that as a result of what you saw you were obviously in a state of shock, but can you just try to summarise for us what happened to your children and your husband and how it came that you then left the house.

A. The police, the Serb police, entered. My children and my husband were in the cellar. They took them by force outside the house. They killed them; six of my children, my husband, and my mother-in-law.

Q. How did they kill them? Was it with guns or in some other way or don't you know?

A. I mentioned earlier that I was not in a situation to see how they were killed, but I've seen them all fallen down, massacred.

Q. Did you hear any gunshots while you were there, apart from the initial time when they were firing at Ardiana?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear one burst -- was it one burst of gunfire or lots of bursts of gunfire or can't you remember?

A. Bursts of fire. There were lots of them. They didn't stop firing for maybe half an hour. They fired a lot. Bursts of fire.

Q. When did you leave the house and how did you leave?

A. I was behind the house. I took my daughter with me, and I walked further up to see what had happened with the rest of the Imerajs. I contacted Nazmi. He was also wounded and asked me to help him with his ⁹⁰⁵³ wounds, and I told him, "Nazmi, I cannot help you. I'm here only with Arlinda." She was the only one who survived. All of my family was massacred. I was in a critical mental state. And I gathered with some others from the Imeraj family who had gathered near a stream. There were 13 of them. A little bit later, Albana and Feride, they also survived.

Q. Now that we've reached the stream, I'm just going to go back over the killing of your family and ask you for just a couple of matters of detail, if you can help us. The troops who came and did this, were they in uniform, and if so, what can you tell us about their uniforms?

A. There were people from the military, paramilitaries as well, policemen. There were lots of them. I couldn't even count them. There were a lot of them.

Q. Did you notice anything about their uniforms, about what's called the insignia that they might have had on their caps or on their shoulders?

A. One was wearing a black scarf around his forehead, and the others were wearing camouflaged caps. They had the Serb army and police insignia on their caps and on their armbands.

Q. First of all, did you recognise any of these individuals yourself in the sense that you knew their faces? Forget whether you knew their names, did you actually recognise any of them facially?

A. Facially I could recognise them but I could not remember their names. We were surrounded in their checkpoints.

Q. When you say you recognise them facially, you recognise them facially as coming from where or as being where when you've seen them before? ^{9054 BLANK PAGE 9061}

A. From Cerkolez.

Q. What were they doing in Crkolez when you saw them?

A. Well, a Serb, a certain Serb who they called Trajku, who used to come from Cerkolez all the time, our land was next to his. He was our neighbour at all times.

Q. He was one of the men you saw?

A. There were -- repeat it, please.

Q. Was he one of the men you saw, this former neighbour of yours?

A. Yes. From Cerkolez. They were from Cerkolez.

Q. You've told us something about how the family of your husband was going to be killed. Was that something you heard yourself or was that something somebody else told you about?

A. No, I heard it myself.

Q. Were you told any other things by the children who survived, of what was said to them in the course of this killing?

A. Yes. They said, "You come out here. Why didn't you want to be compact with Serbia? Why did you want NATO?"

Q. Who was it who told you they had said those things? Which one of your children?

A. Arben and Albana.

Q. At the time you left on your way to the stream, how many of your children did you think had survived?

A. Only Arlinda, because I was holding her by her hand.

Q. In due course, you discovered that two others had survived, namely? ⁹⁰⁶²

A. Albana and Arben. Shortly after, Albana came out from the house and she survived together with my 21-year-old daughter Feride. And I saw her at 20 metres while she was approaching our area. She was walking around and then I just screamed, I called out her name: "Albana, what happened? Tell me what happened." And she said, "They killed them all, Mom, they killed them all. And Arben is still under the bed." Then I returned to the house. My house was on fire. I wanted to see for myself what happened to my son. It was just possible that he was killed as well, but I wanted to go to the house and check.

Then my two daughters dragged me, and they begged me not to go and check on the house because they feared that I might be killed as well. My neighbours also prevented me from going back to the house. Two hours later, approximately, when they set the house on fire, the police were still checking for survivors in the house, but they couldn't see Arben. When Arben set off in the direction of the stream, they fired two bullets in his direction, but the bullets did not catch him. When he arrived, he asked me, "Is any from our family still alive?" And I told him, "Yes, myself and two of your sisters are still alive." And I took him with us, and four members of our family, we were all together. So they did not succeed in exterminating the whole family.

Q. And can we just have the names of your children who died and their ages at the time, approximately or precisely. Feride, was she 21?

A. Yes. Flurije, 19; Violeta, 17 years old; Ardiana, 13 years old; Arijeta, 11 years old; and Afrim, 2 years old. My husband was 52, and my mother-in-law 72. ⁹⁰⁶³

Q. And I think that Albana survived because, in the process of being killed, Feride fell on top of her and thus shielded her; is that correct?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. I'll now move to the stream. Perhaps just before we do, although your house wasn't in the formal fenced compound, did it have associated with it a guest room or I think they're called odas within the --

A. Yes, there were.

Q. I'll return to the reason for my asking you about that later. At the stream, how many other people from the Imeraj part of Padaliste were there?

A. About 13. About 13 were there when we all got together. When we sat there for a few hours.

Q. Were there, as well as people who were alive, some dead bodies in the stream?

A. When we set off for a location further up, we saw many dead bodies. We met Gjylfidan Imeraj, 15 years old. She was lying near the stream with her eyes gouged out. She was screaming, and she died two hours later. Rab Imeraj was wounded. She had three bullet wounds. She lived for another three days, together with her brother-in-law who was also wounded and had some of his fingers and toes cut off. There were lots of wounded.

Q. I think you can give accounts, if asked for details, of Gjylfidan Imeraj you've already spoken of, Mona Imeraj, who I think was 72 years of age.

A. Yes. ⁹⁰⁶⁴

Q. Mus Imeraj, 55, who was wounded. Then Rab Imeraj you've told us about. And then Nazmije Imeraj, who was wounded. I think you saw her.

A. I also saw others. Is it necessary if I mention all their names?

Q. No. I think we've probably taken enough detail. While you were at the stream, did Serb policemen appear?

A. Yes, they came.

Q. What did they say?

A. They came to the stream. Before they arrived to our location, they had gone to the location where Rab and Mus were. They took all their money, all their valuables. Then when they reached our location, they also asked for money, for valuables, and everybody who had something on, we gave it all. And then one said, "Let's kill them." And then another one said, "No. Leave them alone. Don't."

Q. Were you identified or did you identify yourself as Beke's wife when the Serb policemen were there?

A. No. They did not know that I was Beke's wife because otherwise they would have killed me.

Q. You went from the stream to the hills or mountains?

A. To the mountains. We went to the mountains.

Q. Whose advice was it that you should go there?

A. We decided ourselves, because when we heard Musa saying that they were going to come in a short time and take us and massacre us, then we set off in a direction further up in the mountain.

Q. When did you hear Musa say that? Do you mean at the time you've just told us about, when he was stopped by one of the other soldiers; is ⁹⁰⁶⁵ that right?

A. That was after the Serbs came to our location. And when they left, then as we were walking upwards, Musa told us what had happened, how they looted all the valuables and money, and then we -- all the rings, and then we went further up in the mountain and sheltered ourselves.

Q. In the mountains, roughly how many people were there gathered together?

A. About 22 or 23. I did not count them.

Q. Later -- and were they all from your particular part of Padaliste? Were they all from the Imeraj community?

A. Yes, all of them.

Q. Did you move to another part of the mountains called the big field, Fushe e Madhe?

A. That evening at night-time, at about midnight, struggling through, we managed to pass without being noticed by the police. And the following morning, we walked to Fushe e Madhe, where we stayed for another ten days.

Q. How many people were gathered there?

A. There were about 25 of us.

Q. Yes. But were there other people from other villages there?

A. No, only from the Imeraj community.

Q. And then did you, in due course, leave the area and leave Kosovo indeed and go to Albania?

A. We stayed in the mountains for ten days and then we set off on foot in the direction of Montenegro. We joined the convoy, and with my three children, I crossed, I went to Montenegro, after three days of ⁹⁰⁶⁶ journey.

Q. Just a couple of details of other events which you'd heard or that you'd seen. This is at the foot of page 4, I think, of the statement. Was there one particular death amongst the Imeraj family of a man called Hasan Imeraj and his son?

A. Yes. On 26th of March, on the same day, they also went to the family of Hasanaj. The family of Abdyl and Hasan were together at that time. They took Fadil Imeraj, Hasan Imeraj, they took them outside and they executed them at the front door.

Q. Were you told of things that were said by the father before that killing and his willingness to die in the place of his son?

A. Before they killed him, Hasan said, "Kill me. Don't kill my son. We are neighbours." Because they were neighbours in Cerkolez. And they answered to him, "No. We are not neighbours. We are here to exterminate you."

They knew Hasan very well, and Hasan's daughter also knows them, and she can testify about this.

Q. In total, how many members of the Imeraj community were killed?

A. Nineteen members.

Q. Your son Arben, who, I think to your surprise, survived, he having been in the house, has, I think, been reluctant to talk to you about the detail of what happened; is that correct?

A. No. He didn't want to talk to me about details because he knew I was a mother and he didn't want to worry me.

Q. Nevertheless, did he tell you anything about what the troops had ⁹⁰⁶⁷ done by way of speaking or singing at the time of the killings?

A. I've heard them singing myself. My son told me about this as well. They were singing in Serbian Croatian language. They were singing in Albanian. They were cheering each other for having killed people.

Q. Your house was on fire, you say. All of the house, including the guest house, or any part of the complex of buildings?

A. The house was burnt because the oda, the guest room, was a little bit further, near the entrance. The children were killed in front of the oda.

Q. Did you hear from others what happened to the oda in due course and whether it was used at all by the Serbs or not?

A. They haven't used it. I don't think they have. I don't know how they could use it when the bodies of my children remained in that room for three months, unburied. For that reason, they couldn't have used it.

Q. Before we return to that particular issue, I just want you to look at one document, please. Perhaps you'll look at this document, please, and tell us when you first saw it and in what circumstance. When did you first see this document?

MR. NICE: Perhaps the usher would be good enough to place the original on the overhead projector initially and then we'll put an English version on top of that so those viewing can see what we're looking at. First the -- no. The witness can keep that. Thank you. Just lay that on the overhead projector. Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document was found with Shaban Mani, a deceased person. It is a list of persons who carried out ⁹⁰⁶⁸ massacres in the municipality of Istok.

MR. NICE:

Q. Just there, Ms. Imeraj. Because most people read English rather than B/C/S, so can we now put the English version on the overhead projector while Mrs. Imeraj keeps the Cyrillic version. We can see in English, Mrs. Imeraj, that the document is actually dated the 27th of April, 1998. "At an extraordinary session of the association of veterans of the war of 1990," setting out certain decisions. And we then see a list of people. And on the second page, if the usher would be so good, we see that over the signatures of a Mr. Djordjevic and Asanin, decisions were taken about weapons, about a working war staff being linked up with a working war staff of the municipality, and various other matters.

Now, if we come to the list, first page again, please, the document's dated April, 1998. Roughly when did you first see it, please?

A. The first time I saw this document was three weeks ago.

Q. Very well. Shown to you by whom?

A. By the wife of Shaban Mani, who has the original of this document. .

Q. And according to that person, the document was found where?

A. The document was found in Shaban Mani's house. The Serbs had left it there.

Q. We can see on the typewritten version, and better on the original Cyrillic version, that Zikica Belosevic has been underlined in hand and that numbers 21 and 22 have been annotated in hand as Guso and Guso's son. ⁹⁰⁶⁹

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Can you explain those markings?

A. It was composed by Shaban Mani when he was alive. This person was a commander who ordered the massacre at Imeraj's community. And the others also participated in the massacre, and all these persons whose names are underlined --

Q. Pausing there -- pausing there for --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, I must interrupt. It's difficult to understand the significance of this.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

Q. The list is a list that came to somebody in your community and has the writing on it that we can see. Now, we can see that somebody's named as Guso, number 21, and that's a handwritten amendment to the list, and you've spoken of somebody called Guso. Is this the same Guso of whom you've spoken?

A. I don't know him, but they said that he took part from Djurakovac.

Q. And the Belosevic, is that a name known to you or not personally?

A. Belosevic.

Q. Belosevic, number 18.

A. Would you repeat this once again, please?

Q. Number 18, the name Zikica Belosevic. Is that somebody known to you personally or not?

A. Belosevic. I've heard his name but I do not know him personally.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I think the document can be of use only as ⁹⁰⁷⁰ a list found in the area setting out the facts that it sets out on its face. I'd ask that it be available produced for that reason but for no further.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We will --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Cerkolez, there is a neighbourhood called Belosevic.

JUDGE MAY: Let me repeat that so it's on the transcript. The exhibit will be given a number and exhibited for the limited purpose for which the Prosecution put it in.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit 293.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. Ms. Imeraj, you've spoken of your family, your husband and children, being left unburied for many weeks.

A. For three months.

Q. Have you seen this morning a video, an amateur video, taken of the house in which you lived --

A. Yes.

Q. -- showing --

A. Yes.

Q. Distressing as it obviously is to look at such a video, are you happy for it to be shown to the Judges and to see it or would you prefer that it can be produced, as it could be produced, by a later witness? Would you rather deal with it yourself or would you rather it was dealt with by a later witness?

A. Let's see it. Let's watch it. No problem. ⁹⁰⁷¹

MR. NICE: Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there's a colleague in the booth who is going to fast-forward the video, and I can then, I think, probably ask just a few questions at the end of that. We'll give the video an exhibit number at the end if it's produced.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. I think the first body is the body of your husband; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The other bodies that we're looking at, are they the bodies of your children and your other relations who died?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Fast-forward, please. Fast-forward, please. I think that's probably enough by way of demonstration of the video. Thank you very much.

Q. Are those the bodies of your family members left lying for three months in the garden?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Can that video be given an exhibit number, please.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be Prosecutor's Exhibit 294.

MR. NICE: Ms. Imeraj, will you wait there, please, and you'll be asked some further questions.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to cross-examine. You ⁹⁰⁷² will bear in mind the particular circumstances of this witness, I am sure, in cross-examining her.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am sorry that this witness lost her family. Because of that, I'm going to reduce my own questions only to those that seem quite necessary to me. However, before I move on to my questions, let us try to clarify some of the timing. Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] The time frame, from the statement, as far as I can see, this event occurred on the 27th of March. Is that correct?

A. 26th of March. And it was on your orders that all my family were massacred. So you shouldn't feel sorry for me.

Q. This tape is the 24th of June, 1999. So this is three months later. So all of it stood the way it was for three months then.

A. So what difference does that make? Please.

Q. I just wanted to clarify the timing to see whether it was clear to me.

You described an exceptionally savage and cruel crime. That is what you've described. In addition, I see at the end of your statement that you speak -- that you say the following: "Most of them spoke the Albanian language." Then you say that they sang. They sang in Albanian and in Serbian, that they congratulated each other and, generally speaking, that they behaved like savages.

My question is the following: Mrs. Imeraj, do you allow for the possibility that these were not Serb policemen at all or, rather, that they were not Serbs at all? ⁹⁰⁷³

A. It's not possible, not at all possible. They were all Serbs, and they spoke Albanian better than we did. They were our neighbours from Cerkolez. They all speak Albanian. We know they were Serbs. I could recognise them, my daughter could recognise them; they were familiar faces to us.

Q. Well, I have to say to you that, for me, it is really incredible that Serb policemen kill children, sing Albanian songs, cut fingers off, and so on. So that is what I'm asking you precisely, whether it is possible that they did something savage and cruel like that and then they sing Albanian songs and then they massacre children?

A. Of course it is possible. They were our neighbours. They spoke Albanian. As we speak B/C/S, they could speak Albanian as well. They did it for fun, to kill Albanians.

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, your husband was an intellectual, from what I can see in this statement, and he was a member of Rugova's party, the LDK; is that right? He was an activist of that party, a prominent member.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that the members of the KLA liquidated a large number of prominent members of Rugova's party on the eve of the war, during the war, and after the war, after the United Nations came to Kosovo?

A. It's not possible. All those that were killed were killed by your hand, by those who were in Kosovo, who were positioned by you in Kosovo.

Q. And do you know that it is precisely members of the KLA that in 1998 and 1999 committed various atrocities precisely towards the Albanians? And they claimed the Serb police for that or the Serbs who ⁹⁰⁷⁴ live in Kosovo. Do you know about that?

A. This is not possible, not at all.

Q. All right. I'm asking you whether you know about that. And do you know that in such events the members of the KLA, in order not to be recognised, wore camouflage caps and masks so that they would be disguised?

A. How can a KLA kill Albanian? They're Albanians themselves. They were there to defend their thresholds. They were not there to kill Albanians. This is nonsense. This is not possible.

Q. There are many such examples, but I do not wish to burden you with that.

Do you know that among the members of these units there were foreign mercenaries as well, Mujahedin, who mercilessly carried out the most cruel crimes possible? Actually, the savagery and the cruelty of the crime that you described precisely resembles them. It looks like them doing it and then singing about it after that. This identifies them. Did you ever give it any thought?

A. I never thought about it, and it can't be true. They were Serbs from Cerkolez, those who committed the massacre in my courtyard. This is not true.

Q. I advise you to give some thought to that, although I have no right to give you any advice.

Please let us just clarify one more fact: In this correction that I received this morning, you wrote that you were correcting the second sentence in the third paragraph of your statement, and your correction ⁹⁰⁷⁵ reads as follow: "[In English] Our house was surrounded. I could not see who was surrounding us. I found out later from a document that it was a local paramilitary group. The document from which I learned this information was found by the late Mani, Shaban, in an office." Et cetera. Please.

A. This is not true. This might be a mistake of the interpreter. I could see them well, that they were the ones who surrounded the house, they were the ones who killed my children. They were Serbs. And as far as this document is concerned, I just discovered it three weeks ago. And as for the rest, I know everything by heart because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen them myself, how they surrounded the house. I was there behind the house. This is not something that I've heard about, this is something I've seen with my own eyes. They were from Cerkolez. They were from Gjakove. They were all familiar faces. Only four or five of them were not familiar faces. This is more than true.

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, I do not wish to upset you by this. I just read to you what I received, stating what you had allegedly said when correcting your statement. And this was submitted by the other side this morning. I'm not claiming that this is correct.

I asked you how come it was possible then that you found out only three weeks ago, when you saw this document, who it was that surrounded you? Because here you say that you did not know who had surrounded you. That is what is written here. However, if they put it wrongly, then it's their mistake and I'm not going to torment you any further with this. Another thing I just wish to ask you: In this correction of your ⁹⁰⁷⁶ statement, it says here -- again I'm going to quote to you what I received. You say that you speak Serbian. Unfortunately, I cannot quote this to you in Serbian because I received it in English. "[In English] I also wish to add that in addition to the words I heard Belosevic Zikica saying to my ..." [Interpretation] and so on and so on. You heard what Zikica Belosevic and others were being told. A few moments ago when asked about this list, asked about this document, as far as I understood you, you said that you did not know Belosevic.

A. I've heard all these names while they were shouting at each other, calling each other by names in the courtyard. I could hear everything. I could see everything.

Q. Did they address each other by their last names?

A. By names. By surnames. They were calling on each other as they were going down the courtyard.

Q. And did you see that it says here in this list that it was established and that it has as its task to protect all the citizens and all the attacks of the Serb -- on Serb property and on Serb citizens and all people with a patriotic commitment?

A. The Serb citizens, not the Albanian citizens. They were defending their own people, the Serbs. It can be seen on the videotape. The tape talks for itself how civilians were protected, how my children were protected. This doesn't need a comment. You can see for yourselves how they acted and what they did. All the world knows.

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, it is not being challenged here that you lost the members of your family. I just wanted to clarify the point that you could ⁹⁰⁷⁷ not be certain, first of all, that they were policemen; and secondly, that they were Serbs at all on the basis of the entire description, and that is why I put these questions to you.

A. I'm 100 per cent sure. This is not based on description. This is something that I've seen myself. This document, I've seen it three weeks ago only. And what happened, I saw it with my own eyes, and you cannot deny it. I can tell you that I've seen the Serbs with my own eyes, and I've heard everything myself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not true.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The accused is quoting from, I think, corrections --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- that were made this morning. Those corrections, however, were not passed on to --

MR. NICE: I'm sorry if you don't have them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't have them.

MR. NICE: They're coming your way. I'll make an observation at the end of the evidence about the circumstances in which they were made available to the accused and when. The addendum was, of course, in the 92 bis package, but the decision having been made, I'm sorry it didn't reach you independently. It was my oversight.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, could you just bring our attention to the precise passage that you just quoted.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to tell you, ⁹⁰⁷⁸ Mr. Robinson. It is the third paragraph, the third sentence. It reads: "[In English] At the time when our house was surrounded I could not see who was surrounding us. I found out later from a document," et cetera. You can see that now, I suppose.

JUDGE MAY: The point that the witness was making is that it was the local -- she found out it was the local paramilitary group, from the document. But in any event, we can read it.

Mr. Tapuskovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And the other quotation I made was the third paragraph from the bottom, where it says: "[In English] I also wish to add that in addition to the words I heard Belosevic Zikica saying to my husband," et cetera.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And a short while ago, the witness said she had only heard of the name but she did not know him. I wish to point out these elements that simply indicate the fact that the witness can be confused with regard to the perpetrators of this crime, which is beyond any doubt. So I have no intention of --

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in view of the tragedy suffered by Ms. Imeraj, I did not intend to ask her anything, had I not received this today. It was actually today, during the break, during the trial, I got this translated into Serbian, this addendum. I'm referring to the addendum. I would just like to clarify something that Ms. Imeraj did not say earlier on. This is the last paragraph of this ⁹⁰⁷⁹ addendum. The last paragraph.

Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Imeraj, you said that the night before the attack on the village, a helicopter had fired about 100 grenades on your municipality. That was the night between the 25th and the 26th. One hundred grenades were thrown on the municipality and --

A. No. In 1998 -- no, no. This is not true. In 1998, the helicopter bombarded in Citak and in Padalishte. And in 1999, nobody bombed. This is not true. This is misinterpreted. It was in 1998, in August. I can't remember the exact date. Citak and Padalishte were bombed by a helicopter which took off from the location near the Dubrava Prison.

Q. Mrs. Imeraj, I'm not going to insist, but you said the night before the attack. That is literally what you said two days ago. That is what is recorded here.

JUDGE MAY: She said --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling the truth here. What you're saying is not true. It was in 1998. In 1999, there were no bombings, there were only massacres.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Ms. Imeraj, just a couple of matters arising. It's been suggested to you that the KLA had something to do with this. Were there any KLA present in your area?

A. No. At the Imeraj neighbourhood, there was no KLA. No KLA in the ⁹⁰⁸⁰ Imeraj neighbourhood.

Q. Has there ever, to your knowledge, been any hint or suggestion or question raised in an investigation about whether the KLA had anything to do with this killing, this massacre?

A. The KLA has nothing to do with this massacre.

Q. More than that - and this is at page 3 of the statement - a suggestion of the accused is that this was something that happened at the time of the bombing by NATO. Did you discover - this is at page 3 of the statement, second to last paragraph - did you discover later --

THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Nice speak closer to the microphone, please.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, yes.

Q. Did you discover later something of a conversation between Slobodan Petkovic and Shaban Selmanaj about what was going to happen to your family?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us shortly the circumstances in which you learned of this and what it was you discovered.

A. Slobodan Petkovic said -- told Shaban Selmanaj that, as you are working in three schools --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness slow down, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And he --

MR. NICE:

Q. Slow down, please.

A. Slobodan Petkovic told Shaban Selmanaj that, "How can Beke ⁹⁰⁸¹ continue with teaching? How can he go to work? We are going to massacre him and all his family." He was also a teacher, Slobodan Petkovic, who used to work in the same school with any husband.

Q. What ethnicity is Slobodan Petkovic?

A. Serb.

Q. According to what you've heard from Selmanaj Shaban, how long before the massacre was it that Petkovic had said what he said?

A. I don't know how long before the massacre it was. My husband was still working in the school.

Q. When did he stop working in the school?

A. My husband? He worked in the school until he died.

Q. So sometime before he died, according to Shaban, who I think was the school cleaning man, there had been a warning by Petkovic, the Serb, of the death to come; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I think the man Petkovic, is he still in circulation, still at liberty?

A. Yes. He is still teaching in Cerkolez. He is still in the teaching.

Q. Finally, just to clarify, you've named the man Belosevic. Just help us; was that a name that you knew before the killing or not?

A. Slobodan Petkovic --

Q. No. I moved to another topic. It's my mistake. The man Belosevic, the man who's been -- he's on the list and the man you've been asked questions about, did you know that name before the massacre or ⁹⁰⁸² not?

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters request the witness to move closer to the microphone.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Belosevic. Belosevic is the neighbourhood in the village of Suhogerlle.

MR. NICE:

Q. It's name you knew certainly as a location before the massacre.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear the name used at all in the course of the massacre or not?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Those are the only questions I ask of this witness.

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

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

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: The statement and the addendum have been referred to. They should be exhibited together.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. Have we given a number to the video as well?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: We have. Thank you. Before I move to the next --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. The statement and addendum, please.

MR. NICE: We have them, of course, in the 92 bis package, which is probably the most convenient way if you ... ⁹⁰⁸³ While that is being dealt with, can I --

JUDGE MAY: Let's just have a number before we go on.

THE REGISTRAR: This will be marked Prosecutor's Exhibit 295.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before I move to the question of the next witness, I, of course, will take as little time as I can to correct the various unfortunate things the accused feels it necessary to say from time to time on procedural issues, but this morning's outburst should not go entirely uncorrected. First of all, I explained why it's in his interests and benefit to have things like addenda, and I hope he will accept that. Whether he does or he doesn't, he declines, I understand, to accept material by way of fax transmission, either from us or even, it may be, from the Registry. We've been asked to communicate with him via the Registry and this material was available yesterday for faxing sometime in the middle of the afternoon.

His associates with whom I have attempted to create a relationship that would assist the accused lack instructions to deal with this directly, either in relation to matters of this sort or in relation, of course, to matters of Rule 68 disclosure, as the Chamber will know from the reports we've filed, and these outbursts of the accused are designed to generate interest or sympathy elsewhere but don't reflect what this Prosecution is doing to try to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion. Can I move to the question of the next witness.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: I said at the beginning of the week --

THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Nice move closer to the microphone, ⁹⁰⁸⁴ please.

MR. NICE: It's either this microphone or my volume. Perhaps I must turn the volume up as well.

I mentioned at the beginning of this week I might ask you to consider taking Mr. Merovci out of order. The Chamber will recall that he's coming back simply to deal with a television broadcast which is about a minute long which the accused raised with him and in respect of which he gave some answers already. He's a witness I took -- I can't be here after the second break. The video itself is available, Mr. Merovci is available, he's flown in, and I wonder if the Chamber will consider taking him now. I obviously haven't proofed him. He's obviously, as it were, in the course of cross-examination. He's simply here to have the video played and to give his answers to the text which we do have in the form of a transcript for you. The transcript would take about one minute, at most, to read.

JUDGE MAY: Has the transcript been disclosed?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: It hasn't been disclosed to us.

MR. NICE: Not to you but it's been disclosed to the accused. Because the accused it was who said -- he'd got a copy of the video. In any event, it was he who raised it.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, would you have any objection to Mr. Merovci being called next?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only request for the tape to be ⁹⁰⁸⁵ played that I provided for you awhile ago because the tape of his interview at that time was not disclosed. And then he can give his comments on that tape, because no one has seen that tape except for you.

JUDGE MAY: Is this another tape, a different tape to that which has been provided by the Prosecution?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. I gave you the tape at the end of the cross-examination of Merovci. I told him about his interview and his stance in that interview, and I said that I had the tape. I had received it on that day. And the next day, I provided it for you. So that is the tape of his interview by which I confirmed that what I said was correct. But that tape, since he finished his cross-examination and left, was never shown. So if he wishes to respond to this interview, and it's a TV interview in which he gives answers, the answers and questions are taped in their entirety, so I ask that the tape be played and then Merovci can respond to questions.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, can you assist about this? The accused apparently provided a tape. We apparently have it.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Now, is the tape which you're going to produce a different one?

MR. NICE: I think it's the same, and the transcript of this was disclosed in draft as long ago as the 27th of June, the final version from CLSS much more recently, but the transcript -- it's a very short point and if we just play it, I'm sure that the Merovci --

JUDGE MAY: But the accused must have his tape played if it's ⁹⁰⁸⁶ different. So perhaps during -- we will adjourn now. Perhaps somebody could see if there's any difference between the two and then we'll decide what to do.

MR. NICE: Very well. I may not -- I may be here, I'll see, because I have to leave sometime -- at 12.40, I think.

JUDGE MAY: You can be here for 20 minutes, perhaps, to short that out for us.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll adjourn now. We'll hear Mr. Merovci. We'll play the necessary tapes after the adjournment. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

--- On resuming a 12.34 p.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Merovci, you have been brought back on a very limited point which we will deal with probably first by playing a video. The -- would you bear in mind that you're under the same declaration which you took when you gave evidence earlier.

WITNESS: ADNAN MEROVCI [Recalled]

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

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the position is, as I've now discovered, that the tape produced by the accused had been the subject of a transcript within Registry, but the transcript had never found its way to us. I make no complaint about that, these things happen. It's a longer tape than the tape that we have, our tape covering just the last part of it. I gather ⁹⁰⁸⁷ the accused wants the longer version played, which is about 14 minutes or something like that. And so rather than quibble about it, no doubt that should be done.

I'm afraid I won't be able to wait to hear all of it myself, but that can be dealt with by my colleagues.

Comparing the transcript of the relevant part of the longer transcript and the shorter transcript, I'm not sure quite how full the translation is, or the transcript is, on the first version but we'll have to hope for the best.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. NICE: I would ask that indeed it be played and that the witness be given an opportunity to comment on it at the end.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Before we do, you say you have a transcript.

MR. NICE: We have a transcript that the registry has had. We have a shorter transcript, which is only of the last couple of questions and answers, but it does seem to be more detailed in format than --

JUDGE MAY: Let us have that transcript too.

MR. NICE: We'll hand that in as well. It picks up from the second to last page, I think.

Yes. Let the video be played.

[Videotape played]

VOICEOVER: [Interpretation] "SEHOLI: You're talking about a peaceful solution, how can we talk about a peaceful solution to this?

"MEROVCI: We know that President Rugova has -- wants a peaceful ⁹⁰⁸⁸ solution, that the way he has chosen is the way of peace. President Rugova remains firm in this position and is committed to making a temporary solution for the people who have left Kosova, and he is one of the few people that can do something to alleviate the situation and to make use of certain mechanisms. And first, President Rugova is in a good physical state and is alive, and I asked that he be provided with a telephone and that has been done.

"SEHOLI: You're one of President Rugova's close associates. In the meeting with Milosevic, he met with various associates like Fehmi Agani, Idajet Hiseni, Drita Tahiri, Alush Gashi, and Dzemalj Mustafa. Milosevic made a commitment, as I said before. According to what I have heard, these people are in Macedonia, in Skopje, and some are in villages. "SEHOLI: Did you have an opportunity to see the consequences of the NATO bombings? And what about the casualties of Albanians caused by NATO?

"MEROVCI: I have met with -- specifically with Lubisha Vasic, the member of the Provisional Executive Council, and Prishtina is not like the city that we know and love. We have seen the damage caused by the bombing in the city centre, and my own office was in the bank building, and I worked there for years. And I haven't worked there because I was sacked from my job. But I think the -- the question of the flight of the population is a very complex one. It is very unfavourable for all concerned, and that is why we say that bombing has caused people to move, but this argument -- there was a counter-argument. Why have Serbs from northern Serbia not run away from the bombing? So this is really a ⁹⁰⁸⁹ complex issue. But I think to an extent, in an implicit kind of way, the bombing influenced the flight of the population. "SEHOLI: But Albanians didn't run away from the bombing. "MEROVCI: That is a counter-argument that might be used, but on the -- I have said before that this is a very complex issue, and time will tell and proper analysts will look at it and say to what extent the bombing influenced the movement of the population. But the main point, I think, is that this a complex issue that must be examined over time. "SEHOLI: How do you communicate with these people and what about their food supplies?

"MEROVCI: I was out with the -- on the town and met some Albanians, some friends, and they were pleased to talk with me because they had heard that Rugova was wounded, and they also heard some interviews on the radio. And I myself saw that the shops had -- had, to an extent, improved. I saw some shops were open and also some state shops, and they were open, and they had bread and milk, yogurt, and staple groceries. And I also heard that four kilos per head of bread were available.

"SEHOLI: What about the talks that Milosevic started towards helping a solution of these humanitarian issues? "MEROVCI: After the meeting with Milosevic, the idea arose of continuing the political process with a -- to these severe problems, and we can talk about solving the issue of Kosova and alleviating it on the basis of the Rambouillet agreement. And it's a matter of bringing people back. And I would say that there are negative factors influencing the ⁹⁰⁹⁰ situation.

"SEHOLI: What did you talk about with Mr. Christopher Hill, the US intermediary in Skopje?

"MEROVCI: We used to have regular meetings and the talks were constructive, and he spoke to me on the telephone, and he asked me about what condition Mr. Rugova was in, about the situation in Prishtina, and other questions.

"SEHOLI: A league for peace has been formed in Prishtina by the Democratic League of Kosova. Do you think that this will give a contribution to ease the atmosphere, and can Mr. Rugova be involved in this?

"MEROVCI: Mr. Rugova is a major political figure. He had a meeting with Mr. Milosevic. You have to realise the circumstances in which he finds himself. I do not think it is worth giving too much importance to formal meetings and to photographs, but we have to do vital things to ease the present situation.

"SEHOLI: This is the private television ASK in Albanian. Please tell our viewers whether this conversation we're having has been to order. "MEROVCI: First of all, people asked me whether I would do this interview and I agreed, and there was no pressure put on me. I am one of Mr. Rugova's staff, and I'm not subject to political obligations, and I would say there are no bad answers, there are bad questions. And I can say again I am not in the same position as you are, and I can say now in public that I do feel under a certain kind of pressure, and I don't need to say any more. ⁹⁰⁹¹ "SEHOLI: Would President Rugova in this moment be in a position to address the people of Kosova? Because there's been a lot of rumours. He's been talking to people like Baton Hadziju and other close colleagues. "MEROVCI: As to the people you mentioned, I heard that -- I've seen interviews on television. I've heard that the person in question is abroad and -- we've heard that he's alive, Fehmi Agani, and we're trying to contact to contact him. We're trying to contact his family, his son, who said that he had information that his father was alive, Fehmi Agani. It could be true or not.

"As to Mr. Rugova and his statements and interviews, he's not the person fond of making statements and comments and journalistic speculations. I remember his words quite well. Mr. Rugova has made several declarations, and he will speak again at the proper time. "SEHOLI: Difficult moment in our country. Perhaps not a great contribution but at least a moral contribution, moral assistance could be given, moral support by him.

"MEROVCI: The reference of Mr. Rugova in Kosova and his presence in the public so that the public can be convinced that he will uphold the values you mentioned so that people will be more secure, feel more secure, and people will return. As I said earlier, some people I met, it's a fact that I've mentioned a number of times, the only inspiration in this situation is that the conflicts between the people, between the Albanians and the Serbs and between the people in general in the streets, I have not heard about. There's a lot of rumours about damage, but still, in this situation, there are a lot of people out of control, maybe from the Serb ⁹⁰⁹² side, larger groups.

"SEHOLI: Information from Croatian television. What would be your message for them?

"MEROVCI: My message is what has happened has happened. We need not go any farther, because very soon the time will come that we will be able to return to our homes, where our houses were, their houses were. They can come back, and I hope my expectations are based on facts and not on fear and panic but on complete safety.

"SEHOLI: To viewers, this was an interview with Adnan Merovci, protocol head of the President of the Liberal Alliance of Kosovo, Ibrahim Rugova.

"Mr. Merovci, thank you very much."

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, I was thinking about it. I think it's probably right that Mr. Milosevic should begin and you can re-examine.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Questions about this tape, of course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You received a transcript of the interview, which is a little more precise than the simultaneous interpretation. It was very difficult, I assume, for the interpreters Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] But there is no doubt that you, Mr. Merovci, in this interview, are in favour of cooperation, understanding you're pointing to the consequences of NATO bombing, and you also point to ways out in cooperation between the Serbian and the Albanian factor. Is this ⁹⁰⁹³ so or is it not so?

A. No, that's not so.

Q. Very well. In this brief extract from the interview which you gave, which takes up less than two full pages, you were asked whether you saw the effects of the bombardment and what you think about the attacks by the NATO forces and did they cause the movement of refugees. Your answer is that it's a complex question, that there are both of these issues. There is also a counter-argument because in the northern of Serbia Serbs are fleeing the bombing, even though it's a complex question, and then you say: "And I think to a degree implicitly the bombing influenced the departure of the population." So did the bombing cause the population to flee or not? This is something that you confirm here even in this answer of yours here.

A. In my statement in May, at the end, you insisted that I have time to answer your question, and I would paraphrase. You said at the time that the main cause of the movement of people from Kosova was NATO bombing. That was your question. And my reaction was: No, it's not true. The situation was as it was, but this -- it was an interview here that was broadcast on terrestrial transmission, but it's not the whole interview, this tape. It was edited. It's only part of it. You can see that it's edited by my movement of my hands. I was surrounded. I was in front of the camera. There were soldiers around me, people armed, civilians who were armed standing around me. If you look carefully, you can see. You can hear their voices. So I want to insist that what I said and what I asserted there during the interview is true. What I said I did ⁹⁰⁹⁴ say and I meant. But one should take into consideration the special circumstances.

The question as to whether NATO caused the movement of refugees, my answer in May, here at the Tribunal, was no, and you can see that in the material. I was -- during the television interview, I was standing in front of guns. You can't argument that the -- you can't take -- you can't explain the movement of the Albanians only. There were other people too who were fleeing. So why, then, were the Albanians going to Montenegro? Because, after all, there was bombing in Montenegro too. So the attempt to say that NATO caused the fleeing of the population is not true. There were Serb -- implicitly because Serb and Montenegrin forces were taking revenge for the NATO bombing.

So I can repeat now that NATO was not the cause of the flight of the population, and I can comment in this way on the -- what I said in the video cassette.

Q. All right, Mr. Merovci. We don't want to exaggerate now. Are you trying to say that you condemned the NATO bombing in this interview because you had guns pointed at your -- at you? Is that what you're saying, that you condemned that because you were faced with guns?

A. I have no need to demonstrate this because this is true and exact. You can ask the interviewer in this video cassette because he was in the same situation, even though he was one of your quislings.

Q. So you yourself and this man - I don't know who it is, it's probably an editor of this private TV station - so you and him at gunpoint made this interview. And the guns were pointed by our forces. Is that ⁹⁰⁹⁵ what you're claiming?

A. The room where the interview was held and behind the cameras that were filming, in this room there were four or five men who were working with their automatic rifles and were toying with them, and you can hear them on the video cassette. And you can hear their whispering and the noises they make.

Q. Oh, please, Mr. Merovci. These are such unbelievable things that I really do not want to squabble with you about them. But let's move on to the material facts.

You compare the bombing of Kosovo to the bombing of other parts of Yugoslavia. Are you aware of the fact that out of the total bombing of Yugoslavia, 40 per cent of the bombs fell on Kosovo and Kosovo comprises only 10 per cent of Yugoslavia's territory? That is to say that the bombing was four times more intensive in Kosovo than it was elsewhere? Do you at least recognise that fact?

A. This can be shown by what I have said. The movement of Albanians from Kosova was not at any time caused mainly by the NATO bombing.

Q. All right. And do you know that from Kosovo - again, from Kosovo - due to the bombing - and this is contained in the same UNHCR tables - about 100.000 Serbs and other non-Albanians fled in addition to the Albanians who fled? Are you aware of that fact? So they were fleeing from the bombing, the Serbs and other non-Albanian population as well. Why were they fleeing, then? Why were the Serbs fleeing if it wasn't due to the bombing of Kosovo?

A. I don't believe that that is accurate, and I said before and I say ⁹⁰⁹⁶ again, the movement of the Serbs has not been shown to be from this cause, and they didn't -- and I say it again, the Albanians didn't have reason to flee because of the NATO bombing.

Q. They didn't have reason? And do you know how many Albanians were killed by the bombing? And you yourself in this interview said that the centre of Pristina was destroyed, it was no longer the town that you loved, et cetera. You say that in that interview. And it so happens - this is a coincidence - today we had the opportunity of seeing a BBC report that depicted the destruction in the centre of Pristina, and it fully corroborates what you said. So these are facts, Mr. Merovci. And what do you have to say to that?

A. The question of the bombing of Prishtina, this involved only the old post office where your police and army forces were stationed. These are the men who caused massacres in the population. So NATO properly performed its mission by bombing it.

Q. Very well, Mr. Merovci. I do not doubt your need to make propaganda speeches now in contrast to what you said before. However, in this excerpt that you provided, that is to say that you selected the excerpts that spell out in relative terms what you said in the interview, again, there is a question.

As I go back to this interview, Serbs were fleeing from the north but Albanians were not fleeing from here either before the bombing. That's what I'm asking you about. We saw the transcript here on the monitor, but it was very difficult for the interpreters, so they were not in a position to interpret the interview fully. But it says it here in ⁹⁰⁹⁷ this transcript. "I said this is a counter-argument," et cetera. "But I think that the bombing influenced people to get on the move." That is what you say. So what do you have to say to that now? Is this your interview or is this not your interview?

A. The movement of Albanians from the territory of Kosova started even before the NATO bombing, during the notorious offensive of the summer of 1998 and there was the movement of Albanians from destroyed villages. But during the NATO bombing, these movements were caused by your forces and by your platform of ethnic cleansing. And all the evidence so far supports this.

And as for my interview, I gave it under the circumstances in which I found myself, and I am able to answer for everything I said in it. Certain buildings were bombed, and various buildings around were also damaged as a result of the bombing, but in the main building that was bombed, your forces were stationed.

So I would say to your question did I give this interview or not, I would say yes, I did, it was in that month of May.

Q. But you say that you gave it under duress.

A. If you want to dwell on this point, I will explain that this interview -- that I was forced to give this interview, in fact. This interview, the request was to have an interview with Mr. Rugova, and I agreed to give it. But its purpose was merely to make a statement in -- to the world to provide a comment about a comment by a German journalist on a news programme and -- and I was surprised by the argument. An interview without discussing it in advance, making a declaration; these ⁹⁰⁹⁸ are conditions which I accepted to -- under which I accepted to make the interview, to do the interview. But there were other questions which were not on the tape. The interview was not broadcast for three weeks. They probably didn't like my answers, that's why.

JUDGE MAY: Let me clarify this: Who was it who requested the interview?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact, the request for the interview was made by contact people, people who contacted us. It could be the so-called secretary Mr. Vasic. And the request was for an interview with Mr. Rugova. The interview was carried out in an ad hoc -- at an ad hoc studio, it was typically political -- politicised.

JUDGE MAY: Who was Mr. Vasic?

A. Mr. Vasic at the time presented himself as the secretary of administrative affairs in the municipality.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In answer to Mr. Milosevic, you just said that you were forced to give this interview in fact. So by whom were you forced or by whom did you consider yourself to be forced? Was it by Mr. Vasic or by somebody else?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't want to go back too far. It was a continuation of other declarations I had made. At the time, we were under arrest, we were hostages, and everything that we did was to save our own skins. And in this context, we were asked for a comment from Mr. Rugova for -- about the article in the German paper Der Spiegel. At first, Dr. Rugova refused and said, "What have I got to comment on?" but later they insisted and he asked that I should, in a way, make this ⁹⁰⁹⁹ comment because I was his sole close colleague. And I considered myself obliged to make this comment, considering all the circumstances that I gave in my evidence, and when I went downstairs, instead of seeing a camera and a microphone, I met a person who spoke Albanian who I didn't know, and he said, "We're going to make an interview." And I was confused. And behind the cameras, I saw armed men. And I, as an intellectual, realised that this was a moment where I had to accept this interview, and I think this contains the answer to your question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's important for me to understand it and, I could imagine, for the Chamber. In the transcript, you're asked by Mr. Seholi to say if the interview has been imposed or ordered or whether it is the expression of the will for surmounting the crisis, and your answer to that was: "I have accepted it, and I declare under my full responsibility that I have accepted it without any pressure, because it is not in my nature, in the first place, because I am just an activist involved not in politics but in service."

So that in the interview you declared that you were not under any pressure, you were not forced, but now your explanation is that you were in fact forced.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If my answer was that I had been forced, I wouldn't be here today. And you can see from the transcript that I say that nobody is free in this situation, nor was I. So I can tell you that I was a hostage, I was under arrest, and then you can understand everything.

And we went to Belgrade, and we did make certain journeys. And ⁹¹⁰⁰ from this you can understand that we were hostages and under arrest. So we weren't in a situation to refuse. And you can -- you can understand now what the accused is driving at, but the facts are here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The physical situation in which you were placed that made you feel that you were a hostage, explain a little more the physical surroundings, the soldiers who were there and the situation as a whole that led to your considering yourself a hostage at that situation.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First, I must say that I have seen this video material. I have seen the copy. I viewed it. And the copy shows very clearly, although the monitor in front of me was not very good, and first you can see on my face various consequences of some ill-treatment I suffered earlier. Second, the noises off and the sounds of the weapons that were being moved behind the camera, you can -- in the video version, the original one which I have here and which is the same but which is an earlier copy, you can hear these noises off and the noises of the automatic rifles and also my own movements and the way I'm looking in the interview. And if you watch it carefully from the beginning and if you look at my appearance at certain critical moments, you can see that I am looking at the armed men behind the cameras who are moving their automatic weapons. And these are the circumstances under which I gave this interview.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you then saying that the entire interview, including your statement on which Mr. Milosevic relies that implicitly the bombing caused the fleeing of the people, is to be understood in this context, in the context in which you were under pressure? Is the entire ⁹¹⁰¹ interview to be read in that way?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My reply that the movement of the population can be implicitly ascribed to the NATO bombing, this answer was subtle in its own way in the situation in which I was, because to get by this moment, I had, in a way, to find a diplomatic answer. And in this word "complexity," this contains a lot of things, and thus I avoided saying yes or no and I gave a rather conditional and diplomatic reply to this question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Merovci, awhile ago you explained here quite unequivocally that you did that and that Rugova did that because you had to save your own skins. That's the way you had put it; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And does it seem to you that actually by your purported denial now you are doing precisely that, saving your own skin from the KLA? And they loom above your heads, and you have to deny everything that is true and everything that you said in order to save your own skin today, under present circumstances in Kosovo? Is that right, Mr. Merovci, or is that not right?

A. There is not a -- there's not a single angstrom. You technician scientists will know what that means, but not a minute particle of that holds water.

Q. All right, Mr. Merovci. You did not answer the question put by Mr. Robinson. Who was it who forced you, blackmailed you? Who threatened ⁹¹⁰² you, by what, and who was the person who forced you to give this interview? And what kind of threats were issued? Please answer both aspects of the question. Who threatened you and with what kind of threats?

A. I explained the circumstances under which I gave this interview. And the request was for Mr. Rugova to make this statement, and I agreed to come out in his place because of my obligations to him as a colleague, but I can repeat that everything that we did was done on the basis of a general kind of duress. And my description of these circumstances shows and provides the answer to your question.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Merovci -- just a second, Mr. Milosevic. In an answer to my -- to Judge Robinson's question, you mentioned that we can see on your face various consequences of some ill-treatment you suffered earlier, on the TV. Would you clarify that meaning to us in specific terms.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was physical mistreatment of me in May when my house was entered and occupied on 31st of March. And on my face, or the black eye - because I've got to give a real answer although I don't really want to answer this question - this interview took place on the 14th of April, and you can imagine that you can still see the consequences of an injury of that kind after that length of time. So if you look at the video cassette carefully and in colour and in the original copy of the video, you can see it, but you can't see it on this black and white copy.

JUDGE KWON: When you were beaten, were you asked to have an ⁹¹⁰³ interview at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This was when the troops entered the house and I was maltreated. But this event made me feel under arrest and gave me a sense of being a hostage.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, we cannot continue on this particular point much longer. We must to finish today. You've got another five minutes.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please just give me brief answers. On the 31st of March, they beat you; right? You just said.

A. Yes.

Q. On the 1st of April, you came to me with Rugova; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how come nobody noticed on the 1st of April no bruises on you nor that you complained that anybody had beaten you, and you say that 14 days later you still had bruises? Who can believe you, Mr. Merovci?

A. I was asked this question in May, and I've already given the answer. You've got it on the transcript.

Q. What did you answer? You said now that on the 14th of April, you had bruises dating back to the 31st of March, and you didn't even have them when you came to see me with Rugova on the 1st of April, and you did not mention that anybody had laid a finger on you.

JUDGE MAY: What he said -- let me just read my note so it's ⁹¹⁰⁴ clear. In cross-examination, he said he didn't complain to the accused - he must have been referring to the 1st of April - about his maltreatment because it was trifling compared with what happened to others in Kosovo. That was his answer in May.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he gave the same answer that he gave now, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let me ask you once again: When did you go to Italy with Rugova?

A. On the 15th -- 5th of May.

Q. All right. You left on the 5th of May. And then you were in a safe place; right? When you went to Italy, you were in a safe place; right? Is that right or is that not right?

A. We were free men then.

Q. So then when you came to Italy, why did you not say on the 5th of May, on the 6th of May, on the 7th May, on the 10th of May, or the 10th of May the following year, Mr. Merovci, for that matter, why did you not say that you gave this interview under duress, that you were not telling the truth, that you were forced to do so? Why did you not say it then? Why did you not say it then when you were not speaking at gunpoint any more? This is the first time I hear that somebody has guns pointed at him in a TV studio and that he is giving an interview. Why did you not say then, "I did not give this interview. This interview was taken from me under duress"? Why are you saying it only now, three years later? You're saving your own skin from the KLA; is that right, Mr. Merovci? ⁹¹⁰⁵

JUDGE MAY: That's a separate point. The first point you're being asked about, Mr. Merovci --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said about the KLA in May --

JUDGE MAY: No. Don't deal with the KLA. The question you're being asked is, first of all, why didn't you mention that the interview was given under duress earlier, for instance, when you were in Italy?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The interview -- the interview -- the question in the interview was what was the main cause of the movement of the population, and I gave the answer -- the diplomatic answer at that time. And now you ask me why this -- why I did not say that this interview was given under duress. But at that time, every gesture, everything I did, everything we did was done in the capacity of a -- someone who is under arrest, a hostage. And in the final analysis, the essence of the interview I cannot deny. I don't say I didn't say these things, but if I describe the atmosphere and the surroundings under which I gave this interview, then it becomes clear.

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And was it under this duress that you explained in the interview that life was going back to normal in Pristina, what we heard now, that there were better supplies in the shops and that there was enough milk, bread, yogurt, pastries, et cetera? Did somebody suggest that you say that as well, in terms of positive developments in Pristina and normal life taking place once again? Were these Kalashnikovs pointed against you because of yogurt? ⁹¹⁰⁶

A. I don't understand your question. Could you repeat it?

Q. Well, you say that it was under duress that you explained that due to the NATO bombing, people were running away. Was pressure exerted against you because of yogurt as well, that you had to say that there was enough bread, milk, yogurt, et cetera, that life was being restored to normal? Did you do that at gunpoint as well?

A. What I said is what I said and that's what it was like. If you want to analyse it, you should have gone to villages around Prishtina, gone to Pristina yourself.

Q. Mr. Merovci, I am saying that you did say what you said. I completely agree with that. But, please, could you please tell me, since you mentioned a little while ago how the person who made the interview, as well as you, were both under pressure. Does that mean that the questions were made up under duress or perhaps somebody gave him the questions he was supposed to ask. How was this interview organised? How did it come about for him to ask these questions since he was under pressure as well?

A. That's a question you must put to him if he comes here.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic that must really bring it to an end, but you can ask one further question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In spite of the fact, Mr. Merovci, that the people fled from NATO bombing, they fled as far as Albanians are concerned. They also fled because you called the people to leave their homes. You issued flyers and appealed to the people to flee, in order to justify the NATO intervention. We have to skip a whole series of questions in relation to this ⁹¹⁰⁷ point, but since you and Rugova claimed here that you saw this pamphlet but it wasn't yours, why did you not, on your departure to Italy on the 5th of May say that this pamphlet was not yours if you felt that this pamphlet was a false one, the one calling on Albanians to leave for Albania? Why did you not say expressly that this pamphlet was not done by you?

A. I will only ask -- answer the questions which involve me. Mr. Rugova can answer his own. And I will answer according to the -- about the pamphlet that you fabricated, there are a lot of evidence -- there's a lot of evidence to support what I said because on the first day when Rugova returned home from Paris, he -- he supported the NATO bombing. So it's not true that he was against it.

Second, this pamphlet bears two names, the KLA and Rugova, and this does not correspond to the reality of the situation. And as for your question why we didn't declare this pamphlet a fake, the forgery was so transparent that we didn't see fit to deal with it. And nobody remembered this pamphlet until you reminded us of it.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to bring your time to a close. You've been examining for a long time.

Yes. Re-examination on that point.

JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Tapuskovic, I'm afraid we haven't time for your questions today.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Merovci, last time when you were questioned ⁹¹⁰⁸ and when the existence of this interview was mentioned, why didn't you say then that it took place under such circumstances?

JUDGE MAY: No. There's no need to go into this. Yes, the Prosecution.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honours. Re-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

Q. Mr. Merovci, Their Honours have asked most of the questions about what I wanted to ask you about in terms of background but I just want to be clear about a couple of things and then I want to ask you a particular question about the transcript itself.

As I understand what you have said, that you were initially taken hostage on the 31st of March and then you went to Belgrade on the 1st of April; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's true. Mr. Rugova went and so did I.

Q. Yes. And you met with the accused. Did you remain in Belgrade for the next two weeks, until the 14th of April, when you gave this interview?

A. No. We returned to Prishtina the same day.

Q. How is it, or where did this interview take place? I understand, sir, that this happened -- well, you tell us. Where did this interview take place? Was it in Belgrade?

A. The interview took place on the ground floor of Mr. Rugova's home. He has a living-room, an entrance.

Q. All right. So the camera crew and everybody came to Rugova's home, is that correct, for this interview? ⁹¹⁰⁹

A. I'm just waiting for the translation. Yes. The team came to his home, but I'd just like to remind you that to get into Mr. Rugova's house you needed all sorts of authorisations, go through police post blocks and things.

Q. And did these armed men come with the camera crew or were they already in Mr. Rugova's home?

A. The people I saw I hadn't seen before. The house was always surrounded. There were even armed people in the house and around the house, certainly. But as individuals, as far as I can remember, they were people who had come in especially for this -- for that occasion.

Q. Prior to your attending this interview, were you aware that there were armed forces around and in Mr. Rugova's home?

A. During the interview, you mean?

Q. Prior to your arriving for the interview.

A. Yes, from the 31st of March, we knew the house was surrounded. We had to spend all our time just in one room. We couldn't move around.

Q. So you and Mr. Rugova were still hostages during that period time, is that correct, in Mr. Rugova's home?

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. And it's in that context that you agreed to give this particular interview; is that correct?

A. I agreed to make a declaration for Mr. Rugova. It became an interview only when I got down to the room. And the decision to do an interview was made by me because I thought that it would be a good solution. ⁹¹¹⁰

Q. And just to summarise, my -- please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand your evidence today, the presence of these armed men during the interview affected the candor of your responses to the questions being posed to you; is that correct?

A. I would say rather that it wasn't one armed man. There were several, four or five people who were armed. And the situation, circumstances, led me to understand that I would have to be very careful.

Q. And your explanation for the answers that you've given were that you were trying to be diplomatic in your response. Is that what you've told us?

A. Yes. The interview, the answers. The whole thing was designed not to irritate relations and so that we would survive.

Q. I now want to actually ask you a question about the transcript itself, and perhaps you could clarify something for me. We have two translations of what was played on the videotape earlier this morning.

MR. RYNEVELD: And in particular, Your Honours, just so you can -- I'm going to read a couple of sentences from both translations. First of all the long translation, which is marked page 2, first paragraph under the heading of "Merovci." The last two sentences says: "As a counter-argument may be used the stories as to why Serbs from northern Serbia have not run away because of the bombing, as they also suffered from it. So that this is really a complex issue. I implicitly think that the bombing caused the fleeing of the people."

I'm going to stop there and I'm going to read the other translation and then I'm going to ask you to comment. ⁹¹¹¹ The other translation is found on the first page of the two-page edited summary. I'll read both question and answer. "QUESTION: Did you have any opportunity to see the consequences of the bombing, and what do you think of the attacks by NATO forces? Did they cause the movement of refugees?

"ANSWER: The question of people fleeing or the movement of people is a complex one. The two issues are inseparable, so if we can say that the bombing caused people to move or rather to flee from Kosovo, one could ask as a counter-argument why the Serbs -- why the Serbs from the northern part of Serbia did not flee the bombing, although there was bombing there. So this is a complex question and I think to a degree, implicitly, the bombing influenced the departure of the population." Now, my question to you, sir, is the question appears to be referring to why Serbs from northern Serbia did not flee or did not run away. Is that what you were responding to?

A. Yes. This was my answer so as not to give a direct answer to the question, not to admit or not to accept that NATO was the cause of the fleeing. We were talking about how could it be explained. And the importance is that the counter-arguments, what I wanted to do was dismantle the counter-arguments. It was a diplomatic answer in that sense. I didn't want to agree with the interviewer, but at the same time, I wanted to let him understand that I considered the question of the movement of peoples as a complex question. So implicitly one could understand in various manners that it -- because of the bombing, which obviously irritated the Serbs in their campaign of ethnic cleansing but ⁹¹¹² still the people left Kosova, implicitly it had a link.

Q. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: Time dictates that I end my re-examination at this point. Thank you, Your Honours.

JUDGE KWON: Just one question. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Merovci, before you leave, if you could give some explanation about the ASK Television; as to how many television channels are there in Kosovo and is this ASK Television a very popular one, and such as who owned the company and operates them, as far as you know and very briefly.

A. ASK Television was created during the bombing and was an ad hoc television station that was created, and it was a station that I wasn't able to watch and actually keep track of at that time, but after the bombing, it didn't operate at all because it was a television station created by the local regime, presumably for the territory of Kosova. And it was managed and editorial policy was in the hands of the person who interviewed me.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Merovci, thank you for coming back to deal with that matter. You are now released.

We ought to get some exhibit numbers for the tapes -- the tape, rather, and the transcripts.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and I congratulate you on the work that you're doing. ⁹¹¹³

[The witness withdrew]

THE REGISTRAR: The videotape will be defence Exhibit 31, and the transcript will be Defence Exhibit 32.

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

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 29th day of

August, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.