⁹⁶⁴⁸

Thursday, 5 September 2002

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Wladimiroff.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: Thank you, Your Honour.

WITNESS: PETER DE LA BILLIERE [Resumed] Questioned by Mr. Wladimiroff: [Continued]

Q. I'm grateful for your coming back. Thank you very much. General, would you be willing to make a list of the sources you reviewed when writing your report, or is this simply this: You saw the indictment and you saw the three binders of materials collected and selected by Mr. Coo and that's what you saw?

A. I can give you, without further research, a list of documents which I have certainly had access to and read. And I think the main one I should draw your attention to is one which I think will be presented to the Court later, at a later period, which is the military analyst's report, which is an extensive document of some 600-odd pages, at a guess - I haven't got it in front of me. I have, of course, read the law on the army of Yugoslavia and the law on defence. I read the pre-trial brief and the rules for international law of armed conflicts, and of course, you'll see various references in my statement that have been directly pertinent to this particular portion of the Court's hearing.

Q. Thank you. I have a question about page 3, if you would be so ⁹⁶⁴⁹ kind as to look at that page of your report.

A. Yes.

Q. In the first three paragraphs, you say: "This top level in the military chain of command..." and so on, adding, "commanding those operations in the field." Do you see that passage?

A. I haven't got it. Could you give me a lead-in again, please? The first paragraph, is it?

Q. Yes, that's right, starting with, "Thus, we see that the top level..."

A. Yes.

Q. And the whole paragraph itself.

A. Yes.

Q. I take it that you here express the general principle of your deriving from your experience and this is not a finding of yourself based on what you know about the VJ; is that right?

A. That particular paragraph is referring, first of all, to general practice, and secondly, specifically to the VJ based on the information put in front of me. Whether it actually worked or not is -- I can't obviously say because I didn't have access there and I haven't interviewed anybody concerned with it.

Q. Thank you. May I draw your attention to page 10.

A. Right.

Q. And the first three paragraphs, starting with, "In Kosovo..."

A. Yes.

Q. There you make a reference to the FRY president, and I emphasise ⁹⁶⁵⁰ that part of that paragraph. Do you say this on the basis of the documents you have seen, that you say that all that you mentioned can be viewed as evidence that the FRY president wanted to maintain? Have you seen documents that make it utterly clear that this was his view, or is that your assumption?

A. Can you just give me a minute to --

Q. Sure.

A. -- refresh my memory reading it. Could you please just elaborate on the first part of your question where you say -- where you say -- you mentioned " ... can be viewed as evidence that the FRY president wanted to maintain?" Perhaps there was a couple of words not put on.

Q. The question is: Were you able, on the basis of the documents that have been shown to you, to establish that what you say before: "In Kosovo, I understand that the Joint Command headed by a civilian (politician) was responsible for coordinating joint VJ-MUP operations. This, as I mentioned, can be viewed as evidence that the FRY President wanted to maintain..." and so on. Did you actually see materials that made it clear that the FRY president wanted that?

A. I'm afraid I can't answer that. I would have to -- I mean, I wrote this from the documents that were put in front of me and in good faith, and to give you an accurate, guaranteed accurate answer, I'd have to do further research. But what I would say is that, in more general terms, that it would be most unusual to have part of the army not under control of the Commander-in-Chief.

Q. Right. If I draw your attention to page 13, where you write about ⁹⁶⁵¹ special operations, I realise that you've got a lot of experience in your time dealing with special operations. I'm not going to question that. What I want to ask you is this: Did you have specific materials dealing with paramilitary working in the context of a military action? Not separate units acting separately from an army but within the context of an army.

A. I understand the police are divided into -- or the MUP are divided into two sections, one of which is the civilian -- normal policing, civilian control, and the other is the more the state, extension of the state arm of the police and responsible for special operations and also for intelligence collection, perhaps arguably more of a counter-terrorist nature more than routine policing matters.

My comments here were of a general nature in that I was expanding my initial more detailed -- in more detail my initial introduction into the need for coordination and control and how it would work, which is what I was called upon to do, put before the Court. And in that context, what I say there is absolutely correct.

Q. What I'm also referring to were the paramilitary units not being a part of the MUP or the army but working together with the army.

A. Can you point out the specific part?

Q. It's not in your report, so that's the reason I ask.

A. I see. I have had documents put in front of me explaining the construction of the -- the breakdown of control -- breakdown of organisation within the MUP up to a certain extent, and if that is what the MUP in Serbia were in fact practising - and there was no evidence to ⁹⁶⁵² the contrary and indeed there was evidence to show that that was their normal -- their normal organisation, method of operating - then obviously they have a special forces area. But I think we want to -- I want to clarify this special operations, seeing, if I may, that you've raised the issue.

I'm talking here of special operations, whether they are police or whether they are military or whether they're some third force.

Q. I understand.

A. And what I'm saying is that you cannot have special operations so special that they go on -- take place in a military area without the military commander knowing that they are happening unless you're going to court fratricide and uncoordinated operations which will lead to, eventually, some form of disaster.

Q. I understood. That was the reason why I asked whether you had anything in front of you dealing with the paramilitary who are not with the police, not a part of the police, not a part of the VJ because you do not mention anything about that in your report.

A. I'm just thinking a minute. I can't recall reading anything to suggest that there was a paramilitary organisation operating in Kosovo, from the information put in front of me, that did not either come from the police or from the military.

Q. Thank you. If I may draw your attention to page 20, first paragraph, starting with, "I would agree ..." In that part of the paragraph, I emphasise again the President of Yugoslavia. You say: "I would agree with the conclusion that, based on the information such as ⁹⁶⁵³ that in the --"

THE INTERPRETER: Would the speaker please slow down.

MR. WLADIMIROFF:

Q. I'm told to slow down, so I will. "I would agree with the conclusion that, based on information such as that in the preceding extract, the President of Yugoslavia has ultimate responsibility for the discipline and standards within the VJ."

Is that a finding or was it totally based on materials you have seen or was it your assumption on the basis of what normal practice would be?

A. It is based on the material that I have seen. It is not based on personal experience because I was not there. And on the material I've seen, it is stated quite clearly what the chain of command is, or should be, and if that was operating in Yugoslavia at this particular time, then clearly what I say in that paragraph is -- explains the situation.

Q. Actually, what you say now is, if I understand you well, that the President of Yugoslavia would ultimately be responsible for and so on.

A. I'm not clear of the significance you're trying to put on the change of wording. Which word are you suggesting you delete from my statement?

Q. Well, here you said, "President of Yugoslavia has..."

A. Yes.

Q. I suggest, if I understand you well, what you mean is the President of Yugoslavia would have ultimate responsibility for, and so on.

A. Yes. I entirely accept that. If -- obviously, if that system had ⁹⁶⁵⁴ been abrogated, then whatever was put in its place, which I had no knowledge, would operate differently. But if it was a standard system the Yugoslav army was practising, that would be the state of affairs, in my opinion.

Q. Right. If I may draw your attention, finally, to page 29, where we find a summary which one also may understand as a conclusion. Is that right?

A. Yes. Correct.

Q. It may sound a silly question, but I take it that Queen Elizabeth, being head of state, is not the Commander-in-Chief of the British army, isn't she?

A. That is correct.

Q. Who is the Commander-in-Chief within the UK?

A. The Commander-in-Chief of the services in the UK is the chief of defence staff, reporting directly to the government and working alongside the Defence Minister who represents the Prime Minister, and as such, he has -- the CGS -- the CDS, chief of defence staff, has direct access to the Prime Minister himself at the chief of defence staff's request at any time.

Q. Am I right in thinking, then, that your experience and your time does not encompass a Commander-in-Chief in your system in the sense as you refer to here?

A. First of all, let me explain what I've already -- add a little to what I've already said in reply to the last question. That is that, in my view, if the British forces behaved in a manner that was unacceptable or ⁹⁶⁵⁵ which failed, I would expect the -- some of the responsibility of that to fall upon the Prime Minister's shoulders. Certainly a significant amount would fall on the chief of defence staff's shoulders as the Commander-in-Chief.

Now, so far as my experience of working with a Commander-in-Chief and a head of state, let me be -- put this quite clearly and firmly. The army in any democratic country is not an independent body, independent of the government of the day, and whatever command structure may have been set up to work in that country, the army is a part of that structure, with its authority emanating from the most senior politician in the country.

Q. In your summary, you say, and I will read it to you --

A. Sorry, I hadn't quite finished.

JUDGE MAY: Finish, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- collect my thoughts. You were a bit quick.

MR. WLADIMIROFF:

Q. Sorry to interrupt you.

A. We must be quite clear that the army is the tool of the politicians. It is not an independent organisation running affairs as it sees fit. It is the tool of the politicians, an extension of politics. All military matters are. Thank you.

Q. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Before you continue, General, I did have some concerns about the conclusions that you have drawn in that paragraph, and I might as well express them now. ⁹⁶⁵⁶

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is the extent to which you extrapolate from a particular constitutional and legal system that it seems to me might not necessarily have been operating in Yugoslavia. For example, in answer to the question from the amicus just now, you spoke of the army in a democratic country not being an independent body, independent of the government of the day, and that whatever command structure may have been set up to work in that country, the army is part of that structure, with its authority emanating from the most senior politician in that country. Now, that may be true and is true of most modern armies in the Western world, but you seem to draw from that that the same system operated in Yugoslavia without presenting any concrete evidence that this is in fact so.

And I might as well go further. Your entire set of conclusions, and as it is set out in the summary, is postulated, is it not, that on -- on the assumption that the Yugoslav army is a well-organised army, well-organised in the same way that the army in the United Kingdom or in Jamaica or the United States is organised and that, therefore, the passage of information from the upper echelons to the lower echelons, from the lower echelons to the upper echelons runs smoothly. But that assumption may not hold in a situation of conflict. Did you address that particular question, that that entire premise on which you worked of a well-organised, well-structured army may not have been functioning in the situation of conflict that Yugoslavia was functioning and how that would affect the conclusions that you have drawn? ⁹⁶⁵⁷

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, my summary is based on the assumptions that I have made throughout my evidence, which I don't think I need probably repeat, but the key assumption so far as your question is concerned is that the Yugoslav army was operating according to international law, according to the -- according to the law on the army in Yugoslavia and according to the chain of command that formerly existed in 1999. And if that is so, and it's not for me to say whether it was so or whether it wasn't, but if that is so - and I had to assume that it was so in my case - then what I have said is accurate.

I haven't finished. If there was a breakdown in the passage of information and a breakdown of such magnitude that the central government didn't know what its army was doing and indeed the Commander-in-Chief didn't know what its army was doing and had no control over it, then clearly you had on your hands the next best thing to an insurrection going on in one part of Yugoslavia where the forces of the state were conducting themselves independently of the state's wishes and the head of state's wishes. I saw no evidence to suggest this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead, Mr. Wladimiroff.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I have no further questions, Your Honours. Judge Robinson really touched on the matter in two questions I asked. Thank you.

Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Picking up on those last points, first of all the point about a Commander-in-Chief, in your experience of countries presided over by presidents controlling the executive, is there any sensible parallel to be ⁹⁶⁵⁸ drawn between such presidents and a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth of England?

A. Queen Elizabeth of England, to my mind, does not come into this discussion. Although she's the constitutional head of the country, the actual executive head is the Prime Minister. And I would have thought that there were plenty of parallels between the Prime Minister's position and the President of Yugoslavia's position on the evidence that I've had put in front of me.

Q. You think -- specifically with His Honour Judge Robinson's most recent queries and concerns, is the detail of the chain of command as evidenced by documents dealt with in the report of Mr. Coo?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And as I explained earlier, typically we would have preferred your evidence to come after his but, for organisational reasons, that wasn't possible.

I think you've dealt with this: Is there any evidence in fact shown to you going to show that this was not a well-organised and responsive army, responsive to the executive?

A. No.

Q. And you were asked a question by Mr. Wladimiroff, if we'd like to be good enough, please, to come back to page 20 in your report to see that question in its full context. You have to come back to page 19. At the foot of page 19, if you'd be good enough, General. Amongst the material you were able to review was Article 136 of the very constitution under which the accused was operating, and it goes ⁹⁶⁵⁹ over the page and says this: "The President of the Republic shall appoint, promote, and dismiss from the service, Officers of the Army of Yugoslavia stipulated by Federal Law: shall appoint and dismiss the President, Judges," and so on. You then say: "I would agree with a conclusion that, based on information such as that in the preceding extract, the President of Yugoslavia has ultimate responsibility for the discipline and standards within the VJ." Is that at the root of your conclusion?

A. I have no cause to change that comment.

Q. That is the setting of this particular question by Mr. Wladimiroff where I think he wanted you to substitute the word "has" by the word "would be" and you were prevailed on to accept that. It was in the course of that question he used the term "Commander-in-Chief." Do you remember a question by the accused to you about control of the forces where he used the term "Commander-in-Chief" of himself. Do you remember that question?

A. I don't, I'm afraid.

Q. Very well. Go back to one of the other questions that Mr. Wladimiroff --

A. I'm sorry, can I just re-emphasise this, if I may?

Q. Yes, of course.

A. If we go back to the top of page 20 again and that extract, my evidence is not based on what was actually happening on the ground, because I wasn't there. It was based on documentary evidence and the laws of the land that were put in front of me, and that extract is typical of the sort of evidence with which I was working. Now if the whole thing had ⁹⁶⁶⁰ been changed and they are working under a different premise and different structure, and a different organisation and different level of responsibility, then clearly what I've said would not be correct. But I think that extract in itself from the Article 136 of the constitution emphasises what the state should have been unless somebody had changed the rule.

Q. And do you remember the questions asked by the accused in broad terms; there was no suggestion to you that the rules had been changed?

A. I had no indication that the rules had been changed, not at all.

Q. Would you be good enough to come back to one of Mr. Wladimiroff's earlier proposals. Page 10.

"I understand that the Joint Command" - middle of the page - "headed by a civilian (politician) was responsible for coordinating joint VJ-MUP operations." Now, it may be or it may be not that you can remember where that particular detail come from. If you can't, don't trouble about it because we can dig it out from the sources we'll turn to in a second, but if there was a civilian politician responsible for coordinating joint MUP-VJ operations, does that sustain the following sentence, namely that this can be viewed as evidence of the executive wanting to maintain authority and control?

A. It would be evidence that the situation -- that the Yugoslavs were behaving according to the regulations that they themselves had set up and expected to work to, yes.

Q. You said early this morning, when Mr. Wladimiroff started to ask you about sources, that you were in a position to provide, I think, a ⁹⁶⁶¹ list. Did you speak of a list or a schedule?

A. I gave all I've got in front of me. I can't, I'm afraid, say that that is totally comprehensive without leaving the room and doing further research. I read an immense amount of stuff. You know, I don't have a legal mind and absorb all this at the first go, I'd have to go and look at the documents, the actual documents I've read and list them.

Q. Yes. Do you still have in your papers - because if you do we can just put it on the overhead projector - the list of documents that was provided by Mr. Coo or others of my colleagues when you were asked to prepare this report? I think it came in certainly two batches but there was a list of documents provided. If you've got it in your papers. It may not be there. If not, I'll get Mr. Coo to deal with it.

A. I have a list which I was working off which was in a private note to me, asking me to make sure that I re-read and read again the certain documents which I read out just now, and detailing particular paragraphs. But in fact I read all these documents that he's put in front of me, like the law of the army of Yugoslavia. I read through pages and pages of that, including the recommended paragraphs, and I just wonder whether it is right to put up a document that might not be complete and whether it wouldn't be better to produce something for the Court that is complete.

Q. Very well. And included in the material you read, did you read the pre-trial brief, do you recall, and Mr. Coo's report?

A. I certainly did, yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. Mr. -- ⁹⁶⁶²

Q. Sorry, if you want to --

A. No. Nothing further to say.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'll deal with the list of material available to the witness through Mr. Coo on Friday.

Q. A couple of other questions arising from things asked of you by the accused. At one stage, if I followed his line of questioning correctly, he was postulating a well-organised army - because he never challenged that - he was postulating that a well-organised army under pressure because of the bombing by NATO. Do you remember that passage of questions?

A. I do.

Q. And I think inviting you to allow for the possibility that such an army might find excesses committed or errors made by soldiers because of the pressure they were under. Just supposing that happened, would that affect at all the duty of commanders at all levels to review actions and to take appropriate disciplinary steps after the immediate crisis was over?

A. No, it would not.

Q. Do you see any evidence or indication of disciplinary steps taken in respect of the humanitarian violations that on the basis of the indictment and only on that basis you assume to have happened?

A. I understand the word "disciplinary measures taken" at an exceedingly junior level. A few cases which I don't have before me. But there was a total lack of any investigatory evidence produced to me or indications of disciplinary measures being taken at any effective level of ⁹⁶⁶³ command, and this would imply either that people weren't doing their job or they chose not to conduct those investigations. And indeed the reverse is the case; many officers received acclaim for their role in the operations.

Q. Then finally, you were asked questions by the accused such as, "Can you imagine an officer ordering execution?" You remember he was sometimes asked to rephrase such questions, but the thrust of his questioning was that there could be no such thing as illegal or improper orders. If in fact - and it's entirely for the Judges to find - there were human rights violations or crimes committed by a well-organised army on a widespread basis, and you've told us that we have almost no orders to review because they haven't been produced, but if you have such a widespread pattern, whatever the organisation of the army, what does that say about orders that must have existed at the time?

A. I think I did actually say -- touch on this in my own response to that question, as earlier stated in the evidence. The extent of the excesses mentioned in the indictment were such that in no way could they have been the odd rogue commander, the odd rogue unit just going his own way and deciding to take the law into his own hands. They required a degree of logistic support to implement them, a degree of coordinated military operations to make them effective. That must have implied that the forces in Kosovo were receiving instructions to behave in this manner. We do not have any written directions suggesting what these instructions were and indeed nor are there -- nor is there any record of war diaries or situation reports. So one can only make the assumption that the ⁹⁶⁶⁴ instructions were given verbally.

Q. Thank you very much, General.

MR. NICE: I have no other questions of this witness.

JUDGE MAY: Sir Peter, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it.

No, Mr. Milosevic. We've heard from you. The witness has concluded his evidence.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE MAY: While we're waiting for the videolink, there's one matter I'm going to deal with.

Mr. Milosevic, your time for cross-examination is the time allotted. As you'll find when you call your witnesses, the other party then can't have another go because it feels like it after re-examination and after cross-examination unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if the videolink is ready, Mr. Ryneveld will take the next witness who has, of course, facial distortion as well as a pseudonym. My own experience of the sometimes intermittent service of the videolink and problems means that we do have another witness in the building in reserve should that ever become necessary. And even if I'm not in the court for a couple of minutes, I'll always be able to be found and come back and deal with it.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Ryneveld, perhaps we can deal with the timing of this witness. There seems to be a substantial witness in terms of length, but do you anticipate being able to get through the evidence reasonably ⁹⁶⁶⁵ expeditiously?

MR. RYNEVELD: That is my hope, yes, Your Honour. I would hope to be able to complete him within one full session, but I see that I've lost half a session now, so it would be probably the balance of this session and probably an hour into the next session. Looking at about an hour and a half to complete my examination-in-chief, depending, of course, on technological impediments preventing speed.

JUDGE MAY: Clearly there must be time for cross-examination. Do we have the videolink tomorrow, if it's necessary? Do you know?

MR. RYNEVELD: I have not been told that it is not available. The equipment is there, the witness is there; it ought be. However, I can inquire during the break in the event that is not the case.

JUDGE MAY: If you would. Thank you.

MR. RYNEVELD: I'm in the hands of the AV booth to let me know whether or not we are in fact hooked up to the videolink and, if so, which screen we are to use.

JUDGE MAY: The registry will deal with that.

MR. RYNEVELD: Here we are. Thank you very much. I see the image on the Video Evidence button, however, I want to ensure before we start that it's only the Court that is able to see that image and there is distortion, in fact, to the public at large. I'm just apprehensive. Can we be assured that we have distortion? Yes. Two thumbs up means that we can go.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we have facial distortion.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let the witness take the declaration. ⁹⁶⁶⁶ Yes. Do we have the sound? Yes. Could the witness try again and take the declaration and see if we can hear it

WITNESS: WITNESS K41

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. If you'd like to sit down.

MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, I have about three or four questions to ask in closed session and then the balance of the evidence ought be in open session. Might that be arranged now, please? So --

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁹⁶⁶⁷

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

--- Break taken at 9.47 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.35 a.m.

[Open Session]

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I gather the videolink can be available - although it will be administratively problematic - but it can be available tomorrow.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

MR. NICE: The next witness has facial distortion but is not concerned that his name should not be known. And in the summary that has been provided, and I hope in time for you to read, there is an explanation he gives about his attitude towards facial distortion.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let the witness take the declaration. ⁹⁶⁶⁸

WITNESS: ZORAN STIJOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

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

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

A. My name is Zoran Stijovic.

Q. Mr. Stijovic, at the application of the Prosecution, your evidence is only being broadcast with facial distortion. Is that because this was requested on behalf of your employers who insisted upon it, you yourself being entirely content to give evidence openly had your employers not taken the view they did?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Stijovic, are you an officer of the Republic of Serbia's security information agency, formerly known as the State Security Service or RDB, having been employed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs since 1990?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. In April of last year, in the capacity of assistant head of the DB of Belgrade, were you appointed to interview General Radomir Markovic, former head of state security and a witness earlier in these proceedings?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you interview him on several occasions, covering many topics?

A. I was officially appointed to carry out part of the official ⁹⁶⁶⁹ assignment related to Mr. Markovic while he was in detention in the district prison in Belgrade, and these interviews took place over a longer period of time; from the month of April until the month of July 2001. The topics were different, and this was a higher level of collecting information for the state security. On the basis of the facts that I obtained from him, we would later consult and then we would continue working with him.

Q. Now, he was detained at the time, facing criminal process himself; is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct. Proceedings are still taking place in the District Court in Belgrade, and he is the accused party in these proceedings.

Q. The particular investigation or interview in which this Chamber has an interest concerns the refrigerator truck. Was that interview part of the investigation into his own alleged crimes or was that in relation to some other more general inquiry?

A. No. As for Mr. Markovic, I talked to him. I had interviews with him related to other topics. That is to say not pertaining to this particular topic. So I did not know anything about the refrigerator truck case except for what was made public in the media in that period. In that period, that was a very big thing in the media, if I can put it that way. So this topic simply imposed itself in this interview. That is to say, this refrigerator that was found in the Danube, and it was imposed primarily because in some of the writings in the media, notably the tabloids, there were particular speculations that surfaces, namely ⁹⁶⁷⁰ that the RDB was involved in this, namely our unit for special operations, that is to say, one of our elite units that is the constant target of attempts to discredit it. And that was the reason that led the leadership of my service to instruct me to discuss this topic with Mr. Markovic in prison, that he should tell me and explain to me the role of the State Security Service in that, whether there was any truth in this, whether any part of the RDB took part in this and possibly whether he knew anything about this case. That was that.

Q. Under what part of your criminal procedure, if any, was this interview conducted?

A. In our country, this is very clearly defined, that is to say work with detainees, persons who are in detention. Also, the authority of the interior is quite clearly defined. That is to say the rights and responsibilities of the agencies involved therein. That involves the State Security Service as well. So this is Article 151 paragraph (2) of the Law on Criminal Procedure that gives the right to persons involved in the agency of the interior to interview persons who are in detention and to collect information on certain things that may be of interest.

Q. Very well. Of course, the Court here may not be familiar with the details of that criminal procedure and may not need to know more than a few details.

First, this is not, I think, an investigation by an investigating judge but an investigation conducted by yourself; correct?

A. This is the so called pre-criminal procedure. And during these proceedings, the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior collect ⁹⁶⁷¹ information. According to the principles of work involved in my service, we are supposed to verify this information and facts that are obtained. On the basis of a possible confirmation of these facts and this information, then one goes before an investigating judge. What is characteristic of this particular article of the law is that a statement or statements are taken. Please understand this term "statement" in the form of minutes, records that are taken from the interviewees. This cannot be used as evidence in a court of law.

Q. Mr. Stijovic, thank you. We'll come to that in a second, and have regard to the interpreters and -- they haven't yet complained, but they may prefer you to speak a little more slowly because I think you're faster than me, and they usually complain about me.

What rights, if any, does the person being interviewed have? Does he have to answer or is he entitled to maintain his silence?

A. The person being interviewed by the members of the Ministry of the Interior, according to this Article of the law, enjoys significant rights. First of all, such a person can refuse an interview on this subject. So the authority given to the employees of the Ministry of the Interior actually hinges on the willingness of the person involved to discuss such matters at all.

Q. And when being questioned, assuming he's been, in principle, willing to cooperate, is he entitled to decline to answer particular questions put by you?

A. Yes, at any point in time.

Q. Where did these interviews take place? ⁹⁶⁷²

A. Basically, I conducted these interviews completely in accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure. That is to say that the interviews were conducted in official premises, that is to say separate premises of the district penitentiary in Belgrade. These are premises that are used for interviewees of investigators and investigative judges with persons who are in detention. They're also used by lawyers and so on.

Q. I think you were accompanied on these interviews by another staff member. Can you just give us her name and then tell us what equipment she had with her and what part, if any, she took in taking the statement.

A. Yes. I conducted these interviews with Mrs. Olivera Antonic-Simic. She is a talented staff member from our agency. And in that particular case, that is to say these interviews that I had with Radomir Markovic, she was a technical staff member. She had a laptop and a printer with her, and in that room we talked and we documented the course of the interview between Markovic and myself. So she was a purely technical person. She recorded the statement, printed it, and signed it, eventually, of course.

Q. In general, before we look at this particular interview in which we have an interest, but in general, did the person being interviewed, Mr. Markovic, make any amendments or corrections to first drafts of the statement that were produced? Just explain the system without going into too much detail but enough to let us have a picture of it.

A. Well, the interviewee, in this case Mr. Markovic, actively participated in drafting this document, this statement, that is. At any point in time, he could participate in that during the course of the ⁹⁶⁷³ interview.

I just need to explain how this took place in brief terms, as you said. I put questions to Markovic. He answered. I took written notes during the interview, and when something interesting cropped up, in my assessment, then I would dictate that, in his presence, to Mrs. Olivera Antonic, and then she reported that on the laptop; and at any point in time, Mr. Markovic, as indeed was the case in some situations, reacted or could react. And sometimes he himself would dictate portions of the statement, portions of the interview that we were conducting.

Q. Now, at the end of the process, were final versions printed, hard copies, produced from Mrs. Antonic-Simic's laptop computer and printer?

A. Well, the essence of the process was as follows: When the laptop part would finish, then Mrs. Olivera Antonic would print out one copy, a working draft I could call it, and then Mr. Markovic would take it, he would examine it in detail, and then he would amend it to a point. However, I have to say that these amendments were not of any substantive nature. Sometimes it was just questions of style, grammar, et cetera. Such amendments were then put into the statement by Olivera on the laptop and then we would print out that statement in the required number of copies. Then again Mr. Markovic would look at it, examine it, and once he would agree, then, according to customary procedure, he would sign the statement and put the date thereon. Then Olivera Antonic and I would do that finally. And before that, we would destroy, in his presence, the working draft.

Q. I wonder if the Registry could produce Exhibit 283 and 283A. And ⁹⁶⁷⁴ if we could first of all lay on the overhead projector, so that people can see it, the pages of the B/C/S version, which is 283. There are three pages of it, and we'll just look at it fairly slowly. Page 1 to begin with.

Mr. Stijovic, this exhibit, the exhibit with which we are concerned, does this reflect an interview -- was this the product of an interview that you had with Mr. Markovic on the 2nd of June of 2001? You can see it on the overhead projector -- or on the screen. The screen's not working. There it is.

This is the first page of the exhibit, the three pages. Is this the product of an interview on the 2nd of June, 2001, between you and Mr. Markovic?

A. Yes.

Q. I want to deal first with the format of the record so that those viewing who don't have hard copies themselves can understand it. It begins at the top with a declaration, and then that's signed. And whose is that signature that follows?

A. This is the signature of Mr. Markovic.

Q. The body of the statement starts. We see at the foot of the first page that there's a signature. Whose signature is that?

A. That is also the signature of Mr. Markovic. And the date affixed there was affixed by him.

Q. Going to the next sheet, please, sheet 2. First looking at the top of it, right at the top. And is it on the screen? I've got a video thing on the screen now. ⁹⁶⁷⁵ We see at the top of this page a signature, and we can probably already start to recognise it. If we can now go to the bottom of the page, we see a signature, again with a date. That's the signature of?

A. Of Radomir Markovic. And he also put the date on it below the signature.

Q. And then on the third sheet, turn to that, please. At the top and on the bottom right-hand side, the same two signatures again; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Again with the date. In the middle of the page, we see Olivera Antonic-Simic's name and signature. And on the left-hand side, what do we have there?

A. On the left-hand side is my own signature.

Q. And the title above your signature translates as -- can you just read out what it says there.

A. This is the usual procedural format. The interviewee accepts in full consciousness that this document can be used in further proceedings before judicial authorities. That is to say that the person concerned is willing and ready to explain this with full responsibility and in detail if necessary. So then it should go to an investigating judge, and then an investigating judge should check all of this out.

Q. The two words and three abbreviations above your name, can you just read those out for us, please. "Izjavu Uzeo" and so on. Could you just read those out.

A. "Statement taken by," and then it says, "Authorised officer," and ⁹⁶⁷⁶ then, "Zoran Stijovic."

Q. Can we then take that version off the overhead projector, hand it to the witness. Place the English version, page 1, on the overhead projector,

You will see the opening endorsement reads: "I, Radomir Markovic --" with date of birth and so on -- "make the following statement, being before an authorised officer of the MUP of Serbia state security department, Centre Belgrade, voluntarily pursuant to Article 151 subsection 2 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's Law on Criminal Procedure on the premises of the county prison, Belgrade, 2nd of June, 2001."

Now, Mr. Stijovic, the body of the statement we are some degree familiar with, but if we look at it a little bit further down to remind ourselves, it deals with the refrigerator truck, and in the seventh line in the English version - it will be different in your version, and I think you do speak some English so follow whichever you prefer -- And, Your Honour, I should say this is still a draft translation. We've been pressing for a final version; it should be with us tomorrow. In I think the seventh line, it sets out: "Vlajko Stojiljkovic, as Minister of the Interior, Vlastimir Djordjevic, as the Public Security Department Head, and I attended the meeting. Most likely, the meeting was dedicated to the Kosovo issue and attended by, besides the above-mentioned people, VJ representatives although I cannot say that with absolute certainty."

It may be an obvious question and answer from what you've told us, ⁹⁶⁷⁷ but where did detail like that come from? Did it come from you or did it come from Mr. Markovic?

A. Well, I think I said beforehand that as for the refrigerator truck, I did not know anything about it, I did not hear anything about it except for what I saw in the media. I said that in that period, this was hot news in the media, and police and other officials were referring to it as well.

Except for that and the instruction to ask Mr. Markovic about this, I did not know anything about it. So what is stated here is a reflection of the facts actually stated by Mr. Markovic. I did not include anything else, and I did not change the course of what he said nor did I exert any pressure on him. What he said is what he said. That's it.

Q. And we take it from that, just looking at the next two sentences, you needn't look for any more detail, that it was Vlastimir Djordjevic who raised the issue of the removal of Albanian corpses, and in the following sentence, it was Mr. Markovic saying that it was in that respect that Milosevic ordered Stojiljkovic to take necessary measures to remove the corpses of Albanian civilians that had already been buried. That all came from Mr. Markovic, I take it.

A. Yes. But I told the investigators, I think yesterday, and I think I told you too yesterday that I understood this, that is to say I have been working with these cases where we had a lot of knowledge and information about manipulations with corpses. So I understood this just as a responsible task and assignment which the organs of public security ⁹⁶⁷⁸ were to perform and to stop any possible manipulation with it, or with them. So this was customary procedure, the usual kind of work done after fighting had taken place in the territory it has taken place in, and that's what Markovic said, and that's how I recorded it.

Q. You've recorded here the words that Markovic used, haven't you? Sorry?

A. That's right, yes.

Q. And it was for you to hand on the product of this statement to the investigating judge, for him to take the matter further?

A. No. It was my job, according to customary procedure and the principles of subordination, which hold true in my agency, it was my job to hand it over to the competent seniors, senior officials. And quite simply, I was quite amazed to see that this kind of statement was used in court. First of all because the subject matter and contents, the substance of the statement, the seriousness of the doubts expressed, and I think that it should have been used as a guideline for further work and verification of those data. I handed it over anyway. I had no feedback information or feedback orders coming down to me nor did I have any further conversations with Mr. Markovic on the subject, and that was that. We had our conversation, discussed the subject that was imposed, and that was it. We carried on working on other matters and this went on up until July.

Q. Did Mr. Markovic ever complain about the way this statement had been taken or about its content?

A. No. Mr. Markovic never complained about the course of my ⁹⁶⁷⁹ interview with him. Our relationship, as far as it can be said in a situation of that kind, was highly proper, conducted in a very professional manner. We discussed the topics he wanted to discuss. And he's not somebody upon whom I could exert any form of pressure either or to wield any influence on him and to influence him in any way, in fact.

Q. Any question of your putting words into his mouth or providing text for him to sign which he did so when it hadn't come from him?

A. No. No. That would be -- that wouldn't at all be serious. A man with so much experience and years of work in the crime service. I've only been working there two years. He's devoted his entire life to the service. He is a serious, professional man. So it is quite out of the question that I could have done anything like that and supplanted something that he didn't want.

Q. Very well. I shan't take you any more through the detail. I think you were asked yesterday what recollection you have, quite apart from looking at this statement, of anything that Mr. Markovic said at the time, that is any vital live recollection you have about what he said about these events. Do you have any recollection?

A. Well, the statement was taken more than a year ago, so that's a long period of time. I learnt that I would come before this body on the 16th of August this year. That's when they called me up, the people from the Operative Group of Serbia, and handed me the invitation. It was a surprise to me when I was summoned and that it had to do with my conversation with Radomir Markovic and my work with him in detention. I can't remember any details which would illustrate whether he ⁹⁶⁸⁰ corrected or changed anything, but I do know that he had very negative things to say about the fact that anything like that could have ever happened. And on several occasions, he used negative words and terms to describe what he thought. He used -- he said that it was a morbid job, and he didn't know who could have delved into that kind of thing, that it was a hard job to do, but of course a job is a job and it had to be done. So the gentleman yesterday, the investigator, reminded me that it was in the context of that statement that we mentioned the Racak case and in the context of manipulations with corpses and mistakes made. Had the police remained in the village of Racak on that particular night and provided security for that location where the fighting went on --

Q. I'm going to interrupt you.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm going to interrupt you. You're moving beyond the question.

A. I apologise.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Markovic saying anything about the prospect of the truck and the bodies being discovered?

A. Well, I'm going to be quite frank. He said it was an idiotic and even psychiatric case. That is to say the very idea would be idiotic, that somebody could push a refrigerator truck into the Danube carrying corpses and think that this would not be discovered. In a short while, in five years, in ten years, that that was quite beyond all reason. And I tend to agree with him there. I think that it is quite unbelievable. I don't want to enter into whether it is correct or incorrect, true or ⁹⁶⁸¹ false, but that's what I thought at the time and that's what I think now. I don't know. What can I say?

Q. These observations, the morbid observation and the observation about the truck being discovered were made in the course of the discussion. They don't find themselves reduced to the statement which is more particular matters of detail; would that be correct?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Thank you. Will you wait there, please.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stijovic, from your statement, I can see that in the month of April 2001, you were the assistant head of state security for Belgrade. Tell me, please, who at the time was the head of the State Security Service?

A. The head of the service at the time was Mr. Goran Petrovic.

Q. Goran Petrovic. I see. Is that the man who, with Rade Markovic, was brought up before the District Court in Belgrade? We saw court documents to that effect.

A. I think so. I saw that in the press. I'm not quite sure, but all I can say is that I think it is, yes.

Q. And was it clearly visible that they brought for -- took out Rade Markovic outside the district penitentiary and that they offered him, that they blackmailed him and offered him a change of identity if he gave up his complaints and the charges brought against me?

A. I cannot say whether anybody in addition to me talked to ⁹⁶⁸² Mr. Markovic. What he told me, what Mr. Markovic told me was that he had had talks with Mr. Mijatovic, Mr. Petrovic, and Mr. Mihajlovic. Now, I did not ask him as to the contents of those conversations nor did I want to know about it, although perhaps Mr. Markovic would have liked to tell me about them.

Q. All right. That was at the District Court in Belgrade, and at the time, this is what was established. Now, do you know that Markovic made a statement in the premises of the prison, of the penitentiary, also in front of two boards of the federal parliament, the parliamentary committee, in fact?

JUDGE MAY: I'm going to interrupt you both. Could you remember that this has got to be interpreted, Mr. Milosevic, and also Mr. Stijovic. You both speak the same language and it's inevitable that you're going normally to respond, but could you leave a pause between question and answer. And also, Mr. Milosevic, after the answer.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So there were two parliamentary committees, and it is front of those two committees that he explained that illegally and without permission from the Court, he was taken out by the Minister - this man Petrovic, not to enumerate all the others - and that he was blackmailed, and said that he was asked to charge me with anything whatsoever in order for them to forgive him or to annul or to withdraw - because they had nothing to forgive him for, amnesty him for because he was innocent and in prison for a year and a half - that they offered him a change of identity, ⁹⁶⁸³ money, et cetera. Were you acquainted with this? Did you know about this?

A. I did not know this directly. All I did learn was indirectly, through the press and what was published from the parliamentary committee meetings.

Q. Did you read the minutes from the parliamentary committee, the two parliamentary committees, in fact?

A. Well, the information media did publicise this, so, yes, more or less.

Q. And did you read about the discussion that was held in court about the same topic?

A. No.

Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Stijovic, in order to be able to ascertain the positions from which you appear here in court. So tell me this: Your testimony here, is it designed to demonstrate that Rade Markovic lied when he testified before this Tribunal?

JUDGE MAY: No. That's not a matter for the witness. That's a matter for us as to what his evidence is designed to do and what we draw from it. It's not for the witness to say. His evidence is purely as to what happened. Of course, the inference to draw is indeed that Mr. Markovic lied, but that's not a matter for the witness. It's something you can address us on in due course.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, Radomir Markovic testified here under the solemn declaration, on oath. So I don't see any other purpose of this catching at straws by the opposing party other than ⁹⁶⁸⁴ attempting to prevail upon the witness and to question the statements of a police official of a regime that knows full well what it's doing, what it's about.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, all that is a matter of argument. As I say, the purpose of calling the witness is obviously to produce evidence that Mr. Markovic didn't tell us the truth.

Now, we heard Mr. Markovic's evidence. We've now heard the witness's evidence. It will be for the Trial Chamber to decide where the truth lies. In due course, you can address us on it. It will be one of, no doubt, the submissions you make when the time comes. But as I've told you with witnesses before, you can't ask them what the purpose of their evidence is because it's nothing to do with them. All they can say is what happened. And you've heard this witness's account of how Mr. Markovic came to make this statement, and of course you can ask him questions about that, if you wish, but you can't ask him what the purpose of his evidence is. It's not for him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Or, Mr. Milosevic, if you have evidence which can rebut this witness's evidence, then you may consider adducing it at a later stage.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Mr. Stijovic, tell me this: How many individuals in any way, I mean people linked to the criminal persecution of Rade Markovic, how many of them did you talk to, you personally? How many people did you personally talk to? ⁹⁶⁸⁵

A. Well --

THE INTERPRETER: Could I ask the witness to repeat what he just said, please. The interpreter apologises.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Stijovic, you are asked by the interpreter to repeat your answer again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I was saying, I conducted a criminal procedure and brought charges against Mr. Markovic and against several other individuals, former employees of the State Security Service. And this procedure ended by a sentence passed by the District Court in Belgrade. The Supreme Court of Serbia looked into the case once again, and I think it will be delving into it in September again. It will be brought before the District Court again. And under those circumstances, I talked to -- I can't tell you the exact number of people, but I think it was between five and ten individuals. They were all former leaders and functionaries of the state security department.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, what did this sentence and judgement have to do with? What was the judgement about? What did it refer to, the judgement you mentioned?

A. Well, it was a closed case brought before the District Court. I can tell you what appeared in public and what was stated in public. It was my task, in fact, which was linked to the abuse or, rather, the re-recording of 15 CDs, diskettes on which we had individuals who were being investigated by the State Security Service, and they are all high-ranking functionaries, political and otherwise. They range from ⁹⁶⁸⁶ Mr. Kostunica, Mr. Zoran Djindjic and some others. Fifteen of them, I think.

Q. Was that what the press wrote about, that the proceedings and that they were accused of divulging state secrets? Was that the case in question?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Well, of these ten or so individuals that you talked to, did you discuss any other accusations which were brought to bear against Radomir Markovic, that Radomir Markovic was charged with?

A. Well, I didn't want to talk about that here. I didn't come here of my own free will, and it is my fault that the statement was placed before this Tribunal here. I talked to Mr. Radomir Markovic about his role and the role of his service in the bygone period and very serious topics were discussed. And he spoke at great length. He spoke a great deal about these topics, but I don't think I can go into the contents of those conversations here and now.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Stijovic, if there are matters which you consider to be confidential, then you need not, without an order from the Court, divulge them. The relevant matter with which we are concerned is the statement about the refrigerated lorry.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you happen to know -- did you or anybody else from the State Security Service also blackmail and exert pressure on the individuals you talked to for them to bring charges against General Markovic in order for him to make charges against me? ⁹⁶⁸⁷

A. I can say with full responsibility before you and before this Tribunal that I never blackmailed anybody, nor did I bring pressure to bear or threaten anybody in any other way or ask then in any other way to tell me what -- something they didn't want to tell me. They did so voluntarily; what they told me, they told me of their own free will.

Q. Now, is it true, Mr. Stijovic, that with General Branko Djuric, for example, the former head of the Secretariat of the Interior for Belgrade, that you personally had several interviews, several conversations, one of which lasted for as much as ten hours in order to bring pressure to bear against him to bring charges against Radomir Markovic and to force General Markovic to in turn bring charges against me and accuse me?

A. That is not true. I don't want to say what Branko Djuric talked about and everything we discussed. I don't wish in any way to contribute to the already difficult position of Radomir Markovic. And Branko Djuric knows full well what he said himself.

Q. And is it true that you held similar conversations with Milan Radonjic, the former head of the state security of the centre in Belgrade, discussing the same topic with the same goal in mind?

A. No, that is not true. I just had contacts with him when he was detained. We know each other -- we've known each other for a long time but I took no statement from him. I had no conversation of this kind. It was just as colleagues that we talked for a while, and the way this was interpreted later on by people from his entourage, I don't wish to comment on that. ⁹⁶⁸⁸

Q. And is it true that with three other people, three other individuals who were alleged witnesses in the criminal case brought against Radomir Markovic, that you had the same kinds of talks?

A. I've already told you that I talked to people who were involved in the procedure itself and whom in one way or another were included into the overall procedure.

Q. Now, you claim that you talked to General Markovic on several occasions in the period between April and July 2001; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Why don't you say that you talked to him several times both in February and March of that same year? Am I right or not?

A. No, you're not right. That's not true, not correct.

Q. Now, do you know how many of your colleagues - and I'm thinking about members of the State Security Service - talked to Radomir Markovic at the period when he was arrested up until the present day and always with the same goal and target in mind, to exert pressure and bring duress against him?

A. I don't know that. I think I've already answered that question. I cannot confirm or deny whether anybody talked to Mr. Markovic about that particular topic. I did not myself and I do not know whether anybody else did.

Q. Can you, contrary to the statement made by General Markovic which he gave here in The Hague, claim that he was not taken out from the district penitentiary to some sort of house where he was offered everything he was offered in order to bring charges against me and accuse ⁹⁶⁸⁹ me and confirm the allegations made by this false indictment here? Can you claim that he was not taken out?

A. I cannot claim that. I think I've already said, Mr. Milosevic, that I -- all I can say is what I read about in the press. That's all I knew. And also that Mr. Markovic himself told me that he was taken out. He was taken out by the individuals that I mentioned a moment ago.

Q. You mean the minister, the head of the State Security Service, et cetera; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right. I didn't offer him any benefits. I had no authorisation to do so, to make any offers of that kind to him.

Q. Thank you, but they, of course, did, didn't they?

A. Well, I don't know. I'm just a small official in that whole structure, small clerk.

Q. And what about the -- to exert pressure on somebody, is that a crime? Is it considered a crime to exert pressure and bring -- place somebody in a position of duress?

A. Yes, I think it is, somebody to commit perjury.

Q. But you're well aware that the head of state security at the time did that?

A. Well, you ought to ask them that.

JUDGE MAY: Exactly. Now, you've made this point, Mr. Milosevic. The witness has given his answer. There's no point going on about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 2 of your statement, you state that you pinpointed the topics you would discuss with Markovic and that you decided on these ⁹⁶⁹⁰ topics with your superiors. Were they Petrovic and Mihajlovic again?

A. That is not my statement. This is the portion put forward by Mr. Markovic, what Mr. Markovic said. I merely conveyed the fact he presented during our conversation. That I had consultations is true and not with Minister Mihajlovic and Mr. Petrovic but the person who was operatively in charge of this type of cooperation and cooperation, and that was Mr. Zoran Mijatovic, the deputy head of the state security department at that time.

Q. Now, tell me this, please; when talking to General Markovic, Mr. Stijovic, did you call upon his attorney, the attorney defending him, and was he attended by counsel on those occasions?

A. Well, no. There was no need for that. And this is clearly regulated by the Articles involved. Mr. Markovic, if he did not wish to reply to these things I asked him, he had the right to remain silent, and that is a right enjoyed by him.

Q. But when the attorney is present, the Defence attorney. If somebody does not wish to make any statements on any subject, he has the right to do so and there's no difference there; is that right?

A. Well, Article 151 paragraph 2 of the Law on Criminal Procedure provides for the rules to be respected by the security organs vis-a-vis the interviewee.

Q. Well, you yourself state that the statements obtained in this way cannot be used as a basis for passing judgement. That is what it says in your statement. You say so yourself.

A. Yes, that's right. ⁹⁶⁹¹

Q. Now, you talked about a pre-criminal procedure here whereas now you said it was an information talk, an interview. Now, can that be a pre-criminal procedure or not?

A. Mr. Milosevic, that is indeed a pre-criminal procedure. That is to say, when the internal affairs organs collect and amass information on a certain subject and afterwards we assess whether there are sufficient elements to take the case further and to make it a full-fledged criminal case and criminal procedure.

Q. Well, Mr. Stijovic, and I'm thinking about your conversations with Markovic here, was anyone else present, any of your colleagues from the State Security Service who could bear out what you're saying?

A. Apart from Olivera Antonic-Simic, there was no one else. They were confidential, secret conversations, and that was one of the conditions posed by Mr. Markovic for having the interview at all. So nobody else attended except the three of us.

Q. All right. As far as you know, and I think myself, that Olivera Antonic-Simic was a typist, in fact. She was not an authorised official of the Ministry of the Interior. Isn't that right?

A. Well, that's right, although she's not a typist. She's an employee of the agency, and at that particular moment she was there in that capacity.

Q. So she was in the capacity of a typist, basically?

A. That's right.

Q. But in fact she was not an official employee of the Ministry of the Interior which would be held to the rules of procedure and rules of ⁹⁶⁹² service in conducting an interview; is that right?

A. That is right.

Q. And is it common knowledge that that type of interview, the kind of interview and conversation that you unfoundedly, I would say, called a pre-criminal procedure was conducted according to the rules of your profession, must always be held in the presence of two --

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. You just put that the witness was wrong when you say it was a pre-criminal procedure. Now, if you're going to suggest that, you must put it to the witness and give him the opportunity to answer. Are you going to suggest that he's wrong in so describing the interview?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. Let us omit these explanations as to whether this is pre-criminal proceedings or not.

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Let us move on then and ask a question

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat the question in an abbreviated form so that it will be clear to you as well, Mr. May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that such interviews, that is to say informative interviews, are carried out according to the rules of your service always in the presence of two authorised officials? Is that right or is that not right, Mr. Stijovic?

A. It's not right. I believe that I am a serious and well-experienced operations officer, and I was in a position to conduct such interviews often, and it is not true. The service does have other specific methods for documenting such interviews, and I believe that it is ^{9693 BLANK PAGE 9701} not serious to discuss this subject in this way.

Q. So it is not correct, according to your rules, that two authorised officials should be present during an interview?

A. No, it is not true.

Q. All right. All right. Am I right if I say that such an interview can then be treated only as some kind of operative information and nothing else?

A. You're not right. That is just an orientational guideline for our work, a guideline in terms of how we should work, how to check out the facts. And this is one of the key principles of our service.

Q. All right. Since this is one of the key principles of your service, and also on the basis of what you wrote here and also on the basis of regulations, this statement does not have any procedural legal, material legal value before courts in Serbia.

A. It cannot be used as evidence before -- for reaching judgement in a court of law.

Q. All right. And when you let General Markovic sign his statement, did you caution him that this statement would be used before any court of law, The Hague Tribunal, or any other court? Did you say that to him?

A. Frankly speaking, I cannot remember now whether I did caution him or not. But I thought and I do think, because we talked from the month of April onwards, that he is sufficiently experienced, that he's a good lawyer, and that he knows more or less what this means. However, I must admit that I am really surprised -- I was surprised when I saw that this statement reached the court for consideration. I think that the substance ⁹⁷⁰² of the statement and the topics tackled required a more in-depth investigation and operational work and further investigation.

Q. All right. Do you have any knowledge -- I'm asking you this, I'm not trying to accuse you of this, but I'm just asking you: Do you have any knowledge as to whether your superiors, that is to say those above you, your superiors who also unlawfully extradited me to The Hague, did they know the purpose why you gave this paper to Markovic for him to sign? Do they know that?

A. I really do not know that, and I really cannot give you a precise and accurate answer to that.

Q. All right. Mr. Stijovic, did you follow the evidence of Mr. Markovic here in The Hague?

A. No. I was on official business. I was out of Belgrade. And I mentioned at the very outset that I first learned that I would appear before this institution on the 16th of August this year when the Operative Group of the Ministry of the Interior called me and informed me about that.

Q. All right. Then I have to read out to you parts of the transcript from Markovic's testimony here that pertains to this alleged statement of his here. In response to the Prosecutor's question, in response Mr. Nice's question, he says -- I'm sorry that the transcript is only in English: [In English] "I said to the investigators of The Hague Tribunal what is true in this statement, and I pointed out to them more than once during our interview --"

MR. NICE: What page -- ⁹⁷⁰³

JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. There's an interruption.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: It's 8725, if you want it.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, page 8725, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. [In English] "... to them more than once during our interview that this is a liberal interpretation of the employee of the office who made this report."

[Interpretation] Then he speaks about the talks he had with colleagues at the Ministry of the Interior, and then he says towards the end within that same response on that same page: [In English] "... and not I ever spoke about these corpses and the need to transport them out of Kosovo and treat it according to the proper criminal procedure and the law."

[Interpretation] A short while ago, you also said, Mr. Stijovic, the procedure that is carried out after combat operations, these are clean-up operations.

A. Yes, clean-up operation, mopping up. It's the same thing for me.

Q. So that was the term used, and I assume that you know what this procedure mean.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, on page 8767 --

JUDGE MAY: No. We're not going to go -- you're not going to get away with putting half of something to anybody. You've put of what ⁹⁷⁰⁴ Markovic said, and you must allow the witness to answer. Mr. Markovic said that what we have here, the exhibit, the statement, was a liberal interpretation of what he said, taking that to mean a free interpretation, that is, not an accurate representation of what was said. Is that true or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not correct. I do not wish to interpret the reasons or the motives why Mr. Markovic said that. What is correct is what I said at the very beginning. That is to say, the statement is a reflection of the actually presented facts by Mr. Markovic --

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Stijovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So this is a reflection of the truly presented facts by Mr. Markovic. I did not add anything there, nothing that was not said, nor did I affect the course of this conversation nor did I exert any pressure to him on the actual content of what he was saying. At any point in time, Mr. Markovic could stop this. He could refuse to sign it. He could say that this was a lie, that that is not the way it was, that I did not understand him properly. I mean, I'm sorry that I've been brought into this position too, but what can I do?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, I believe you on that, but that's what he said here. Mr. Stijovic, you explained that you dictated the statement, and you say that Markovic, as a professional of many years of service, as nobody is denying, he's a general and so on, and he bore in mind that this should be professional, that it should be at a certain level as befits ⁹⁷⁰⁵ such a person.

I am going to quote to you now a sentence that was quoted awhile ago by Mr. Nice, so please give me an answer. I am quoting it in terms of one question. This is a sentence that comes from this statement that was presented here to Mr. Markovic and now to you, and he says that this is your free interpretation and you say it is not, although you say that you dictated it and not him, and this is how the sentence reads: "This is a meeting that most probably was devoted to the subject of Kosovo and which was most probably, in addition to the persons mentioned, attended by the representatives of the army of Yugoslavia, although I cannot state that with absolute certainty."

What does this look like to you? A professional, not a top professional of that nature, but any professional from the service, that it was most probably devoted to Kosovo, that it was most probably attended by some representatives of the army but he does not know which ones, et cetera. What does this look like to you? Does it look like a serious formulation to you or a serious interpretation of anybody's responsible professional statement, as if it's some kind of a field, meadow where there are thousands of people, not a small group of people who are in a room --

JUDGE MAY: Question, Mr. Milosevic. Question, not speech.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is: Isn't this a caricature of a serious statement rather than a serious statement, Mr. Stijovic?

A. I really don't know what to say to you. Maybe you are ⁹⁷⁰⁶ overestimating Mr. Markovic's importance, but that's what he said and that's what I convoyed.

Q. All right, Mr. Stijovic. Let's move on. On this page 8767 from the transcript, the testimony of General Markovic, there is my question: [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... was related to this matter. You said it was a liberal interpretation on their part. You said it was a liberal interpretation on their part, that you discussed the mopping up in an informal conversation with Ilic, that what was said was mostly gossip, gossip, and that nobody, Ilic or you included, ever talked about removing corpses from Kosovo. So could it be said that this statement is a fabrication by the same people who conducted these interviews?"

[Interpretation} Here comes his answer: [In English] "I did not read that statement before I signed it, and it is not really in the format of the statement. It was a conversation, an interview, in which we were looking for a way out of the problems that were facing the Ministry of the Interior. After that, an official -- an official, officer of the State Security Service, drafted this paper."

[Interpretation] I am pausing because I hear the interpretation. When it finishes, then I continue: [In English] "Then when it was presented to me by the office of the Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal, I pointed out certain details which did not tally with the truth. And after that I gave my statement to the investigators of the OTP, which I assert is true and correct."

JUDGE MAY: Now, the witness should have a chance to deal with ⁹⁷⁰⁷ this before we go any further.

Mr. Stijovic, I'm going to ask you some questions arising from what the accused has put. First of all, Mr. Markovic asserted that he didn't read the statement before he signed it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not correct.

JUDGE MAY: Next, he asserted that he --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Judge May, please.

JUDGE MAY: He next asserted it was a conversation, an interview, "in which we were looking for a way out of the problems that was facing the Ministry of the Interior."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that his interpretation of that is different. We talked specifically about circumstances and events that took place then. That is to say the writings in the press about this alleged truck that was allegedly found in the Danube. And my concrete instructions to discuss this subject with him as the former head of state security, whether there was anything in it, what he knew about this, that he should tell us about that. So what he said is what I recorded here, and I do not see anywhere here in this statement that Mr. Markovic said that the bodies were carried from Kosovo and transported to Serbia. Had he said that, I would have written it down. And rest assured that anything in relation to that subject that is of substance, that is important, I would have certainly recorded on paper.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. The last line on this very same page and then I move on to the next page. My question: [In English] "Is it true that the ⁹⁷⁰⁸ mopping up or the cleaning up means a lawful procedure consisting of those elements which you mentioned in chief, that is, removal of mines and explosives, removal of chemicals, removal of dead bodies, taking care of the wounded, repairing infrastructure, service lines, et cetera, that is creating, restoring life back to normal after combat operation; is that correct?"

A. I think -- I beg your pardon.

Q. [Interpretation] That was my question to him. And he says [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... clean-up means, what implies."

[Interpretation] And my question. [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... anyone at that meeting mention clean-up also means removal of traces of crimes or any sort of cover-up? Did anyone say that crimes needed to be covered up?"

[Interpretation] Answer: [In English] "No. Nobody talked about crimes or covering them up."

[Interpretation] Question again: [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... Ministry of Interior. Did anyone speak about the need to transfer some bodies from Kosovo to Serbia proper? Not that I have."

[Interpretation] These are some of the questions and answers. I'll have some more. Now, please, does this coincide with what you talked about?

A. It does, Mr. Milosevic. However, the order of these questions put by you was quite different. So this question of clean-up is one that I ⁹⁷⁰⁹ was very familiar with as a person that lived in Kosovo and did hard work in Pristina. Indeed, I know what it is. It is a highly responsible task. Now, what does "clean-up" mean? You mentioned all of that in your question. However, I would like to change the word order. So this first set, this procedure involves a series of measures, hygienic sanitary measures, that is to say the removal of corpses, of persons and animals, everything that is on the ground; and then a set of measures that are taken from a sanitary technical point of view related to livestock, the spread of disease, and other measures that are taken in order to provide security in certain areas where there were mines, radiation, et cetera.

So this first set of hygienic sanitary measures meant also establishing the sites where there were possibly corpses that had been buried. There was a war going on. All sorts of things happened. There were also personal showdowns, there were killings. There were criminal offences. And the duty of these teams that were involved in this, both from the police and from the military, was to establish where these sites were, to find these sites, to dig them up, to establish the cause of death of these persons, to identify the corpses, and then to hand them over to the families and have them buried. If there was a single reason, if there was a single element that could give rise to suspicion that a crime had been committed, then the procedure stipulated by law had to be enforced, and that was it.

That was my understanding of it. That is how I understood Mr. Markovic, and it is in that context that we mentioned the Racak case. ⁹⁷¹⁰ Well, Mr. Nice interrupted me already when I started discussing that, so I really don't want to go beyond the scope.

Q. So you also understood that he spoke about the clean-up of the terrain.

A. Mr. Milosevic, had I understood it any differently, had I understood that he had said something different, then I would have written it down that way. That's how I understood it and that's how I wrote it down, that these instructions were for that purpose, not for any other purpose.

Q. But did you hear now his statement when I asked him whether anybody mentioned any kind of cover-up of the corpses, some kind of transport of corpses, covering them up, hiding them, that his answer was no. Didn't he say to -- did he say to you that I ordered these corpses to be hidden? Yes or no.

A. Let me check. I'm going to read this, if you agree. May I?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, read it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please go ahead.

A. Apart from the main topic of the subject, Vlastimir Djordjevic, towards the very end, brought up the problem of removing Albanian corpses in order to eliminate any civilian casualties that could be investigated by The Hague Tribunal. Milosevic instructed Vlajko Stojiljkovic to take the necessary measures in order to remove the corpses of the already-buried Albanian civilians. I understood Mr. Markovic then that this procedure was supposed to be conducted according to regulations ⁹⁷¹¹ fully, and if we were to withdraw from Kosovo, which indeed did happen, we didn't want anybody to exhume these bodies and then to present this as something unlawful that had been done by us.

Q. But he precisely says that this is your free interpretation, nobody spoke about any Hague Tribunal at that time. And "clean-up" did not mean cover-up. On the contrary, it meant the legal procedure of establishing the cause of death of certain persons, burying them, informing the families, et cetera. Everything that "clean-up" means. After all, there are military instructions on clean-up. Are you aware of that?

A. Yes, and that is why I'm saying this.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, I think we have been over this. He has recorded -- the witness, I should say, says that he recorded what was taken down. Now, three-quarters of an hour we thought would be sufficient, but we'll give you until the adjournment. That's another seven minutes. This is a very narrow topic on which the witness is giving evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, yes, it is a narrow topic, but it is a clear attempt by this false Prosecution to blame --

JUDGE MAY: No. No comment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I mean, this is not worthy of a civilised conversation, Mr. May.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, it sounds as though you have no more questions.

Does the amicus have a question? ⁹⁷¹²

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

JUDGE MAY: Very well. Ask it, but make sure it's relevant and not repetition.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All of them are relevant, Mr. May. All of them are relevant.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell me, Mr. Stijovic, why on every page of the statement that you claim Rade Markovic gave to you of his own free will there is the date the 1st of June, 2002?

A. I noticed that when they showed it to me now in Belgrade in the month of August. Believe me, it's his handwriting. Markovic can also confirm this. I don't know. It's probably a mistake. I really cannot explain it in any other way. There is no intention. It's his handwriting. He can speak about this.

Q. All right. Do you claim that no pressure was exerted upon him?

A. No. I claim that I did not exert any pressure on him. Whether any pressure was exerted on him or not I cannot say.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down for the interpretation.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Slow down, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, you are putting opposite requests before me; to be slow and to be fast.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Staying in isolation in the prison in Belgrade for a year and a ⁹⁷¹³ half, an innocent man being in isolation for a year and a half without any evidence and proof against him --

A. I don't know whether Mr. Markovic is innocent or guilty. I don't know that he's been in an isolation cell for that long. When I talked to him from April until July, he was in an isolation cell. As of July, I have had no information as to where Mr. Markovic has been and whether anybody -- if anybody has been talking to him.

Q. Do you know that Markovic spent over a year and a half in solitary confinement?

A. No, I don't know. If you say so, I believe you, but I don't know.

Q. You say that Markovic did not object to a single thing that relates to your conversation or to the proceedings?

A. During the conversation, he never drew my attention to the actual course of the interview that was taking place.

Q. Are you really saying that General Markovic was or is in a position to place any objections in terms of interviews that are taking place without the presence of his defence attorney or the representatives of courts, judiciary organs, and he is in a position to make any kind of objections?

A. Mr. Markovic was not forced to do anything or to say anything that he did not wish to talk about. There were things, there were matters on which he was quite decided, and I was informed that he did not wish to discuss them. But there were also many serious issues that he did discuss and that he did give information to the State Security Service on, but he did not wish through this way, through Article 151, paragraph 2, to state ⁹⁷¹⁴ these things.

Q. All right. Just keep it as brief as possible. For how many interviews that you conducted with Mr. Markovic do you have permission from the judicial authorities, that is to say the presidents of the relevant courts in Belgrade before which proceedings are taking place against Mr. Markovic?

A. I state with full responsibility that I had approval in writing as well from Nebojsa Zivkovic, investigating judge, investigating judge of the District Court in Belgrade for every conversation I had with Mr. Markovic and he was in charge of the proceedings against Mr. Markovic.

Q. All right. You claim that confidentiality and secrecy were one of the conditions that Markovic had put in terms of these interviews that you are talking about.

A. You mean all the interviews we had?

Q. Yes.

A. Then that is correct.

Q. Then why did you - how should I put this? - in a rather deceitful way, did you take a statement that he did not give and then, apart from regulations, according to the instructions of your superiors, you gave this statement here? Is that --

JUDGE MAY: Now, what it -- you are putting -- you are putting -- just a moment. Before you start putting that witnesses were deceitful, you need a ground for that. Serious allegations of that sort should not be made without a ground.

What the witness can answer is this: Can you assist, ⁹⁷¹⁵ Mr. Stijovic, as to how the statement came to The Hague Tribunal?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how it reached The Hague Tribunal. It was certainly through no fault of my own nor did I ever think that the statements that were taken from Radomir Markovic were supposed to be the subject of a discussion before any court of law. I'm not only referring to The Hague Tribunal, I'm referring to the courts in my country.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Do you know that Radomir Markovic here, under oath, stated that you, Mr. Stijovic -- he did not mention your name actually, but he said the authorised official of the State Security Service, that you gave him an already-typed-out statement and under these circumstances, under pressure, that is, and after a year and a half in solitary confinement, he had to sign this statement, so practically under duress?

A. That is not true.

MR. NICE: I think on this topic it might be helpful if the accused gave us the page reference so we can have the precise terms that he says were used.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've quoted this to you exactly. And, Mr. Nice, you have the entire transcript, and you can read it as many times as you want.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just one more question to you --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness answer. This allegation has been made. The witness should have the opportunity of dealing with it. ⁹⁷¹⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not correct. Mr. Milosevic, I am not here of my own free will also, but I am here under oath as well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I understand you correctly? Did somebody take away the rank of police general from Rade Markovic? Yes or no.

A. I don't know.

Q. Then why do you write in this statement that you did not address him as "General" but as "Mr. Markovic" because he's in prison, et cetera, et cetera? Even if he's in prison and under investigation, he's still a general, I assume. Of your service at that.

A. I behaved towards him as I would behave towards any person who was in detention. This is my professional attitude, and it was not different at all in respect of any other individual I ever talked to who was in detention. I don't see any reason why I would have to change this attitude towards Mr. Markovic, and he never complained about my attitude or that I did not call him "General."

Q. Who could he complain to?

A. He could complain to me.

Q. Oh, he could complain to you.

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you have now had well beyond the time that we gave you for this limited matter. You can ask one more question. Yes, one more.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. One more. Since that's the time you're giving me.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁹⁷¹⁷

Q. Yesterday I received a statement - in all fairness, in English only - of Mrs. or Ms. Olivera Antonic-Simic. That is the person who typed this. And towards the end of her -- the first page of her statement, it says: [In English] "[Previous translation continues]... specific because this is not an original document. It also appears to bear the signature of Mr. Markovic and Zoran Stijovic. The content of the statement is familiar to me. However, I am really not in a position to confirm that the contents of the statement that has been shown to me are what I typed on that particular day."

[Interpretation] So, Mr. Stijovic, as you can see, even your own official, your own staff member says that she cannot confirm that the contents of the statement shown to her are exactly what she typed that day.

A. I do not understand on the basis of what you infer that she confirmed or denied the substance of that.

Q. I am not questioning that nor do I harbour any illusions that under the pressure of this puppet regime, this quisling regime in Belgrade, that she's been ordered to say whatever she's supposed to say.

JUDGE MAY: This is the way we waste time. What is put -- what he's put, Mr. Stijovic, is that Mrs. Simic says that she's not in a position to confirm that the contents of the statement are what she typed. Is there any comment that you can make about that or not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I cannot make any comments with regard to what she said. I have said what I said. The statement is a faithful presentation of what Mr. Markovic said, and that is the content ⁹⁷¹⁸ of the statement. And the signatures on the statement are my own, Olivera's and Mr. Markovic's.

However, what I do wish to say before this Court, and that is what I informed the colleagues from the Operations Group of the MUP and the gentleman who talked to me is the following: When Mr. Markovic appeared in court, while I was working with him, there were very serious threats and pressures directed at me personally that in this way or that way I should change my statement before this Court. There were some pressures that I should additionally charge Mr. Rade Markovic and also that I should deny the authenticity of this statement.

I said this to the persons in the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia, that is to say this Operations Group. I said this to the investigators. I did not come here as a result of my own wish, my own free will, but through the decision of my government. And as a clerk who -- a civil servant who respects his own government, I said the truth and I said that everything that this statement contains.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, in view of this statement made by the witness, can I just put one question to him, or two?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Who asked you? Who asked you? Who asked you to additionally charge General Markovic, who asked you to deny what you wrote here in this statement? So these are two contradictory pressures that are being brought to bear upon you. So who asked for one and who asked for the other? ⁹⁷¹⁹

A. I don't know whether I can do that and whether this is proper for me to say. Is it all right for me to say something like this?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: Yes, unless you feel it would put you in any sort of difficulty.

MR. NICE: I didn't seek closed session, for our part, but it may be something that could be dealt with in closed session if the witness has any concerns.

JUDGE MAY: Yes. In fact, I think the sensible course is for us to adjourn. We will pursue this matter in closed session. Mr. Milosevic, you can ask two or three questions on that. We will then hear from the amicus for cross-examination. Mr. Nice, what is it proposed we should do then?

MR. NICE: If the link to Banja Luka is operational, we can obviously return to K41. If not, I'm not really in a position to start with Mr. Coo, but there is a short witness who could be interposed. That's John Zdrilic, and it might be that we could take his evidence in chief for the balance of this morning, postponing cross-examination until such time as may be convenient. He's, after all, available in the building.

JUDGE MAY: Those are the three remaining witnesses you have.

MR. NICE: Yes. Yes. That's it.

JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn now. Mr. Stijovic, we are going to adjourn now for a break for 20 minutes. Could you remember, please, during the adjournment don't speak ⁹⁷²⁰ to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and that does include the members of the Prosecution team.

Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.08 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.32 p.m.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁹⁷²¹ Pages 9721 to 9726 redacted, private session.

⁹⁷²⁷

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session. Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:

Q. [Interpretation] Witness, I several questions to ask with respect to the laws, Yugoslav laws and rules and regulations which relate to statements of this kind, the kind of statement that we have before us in court here.

You spoke about voluntariness. And I don't want to go back to that subject, but let me ask you this: Witness Rade Markovic was not in prison -- had he not been in prison, is it normal legal procedure for anybody who is to give a statement in an informative interview should be called first, summoned first, and if he does not come forward, then he is taken into custody, detained, and taken to prison? So that that is the procedure, that there is no voluntariness there; if somebody fails to turn up, that he can be arrested; is that so?

A. Well, we could put it that way, yes, and say that it is so.

Q. Thank you. Now, what I'm interested in now is the following: Is it true and correct that at the time when this statement was given, as you say, according to Yugoslav laws, never -- nobody ever have the right of legal representation vis-a-vis the police organs, that is to say that nobody could bring in an attorney to represent them and so have the statement controlled.

A. According to the law on criminal procedure in force at the time, ⁹⁷²⁸ that was correct.

Q. And is that the reason why the law provides for the fact that statements of this kind cannot be used for court purposes of any kind?

A. Yes, and I explained that.

Q. Now, I'm interested in the following: What happens to those statements once they are taken? The document, is it sealed and put away from the court files?

A. Yes, that's right. The investigating judge places it in a special binder and it cannot be used as evidence in court.

Q. Thank you. What I'm interested next -- in next is the statement we're discussing today. You can see that the statement was made on the 2nd of June, 2001. Is that right?

A. Yes, that is right.

Q. Is it also right that, before you, this statement was signed by Radomir Markovic and then by you?

A. Yes, Radomir Markovic, the recording clerk, and then me; in that order.

Q. Now, why was he the only one to place the date of the 2nd of June, 2002, if in the title page it says the 2nd of June, 2001?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the evidence does not support the 2nd of June. The witness dealt with it quite clearly. It's also apparent on the face of the documents that the man Markovic writes his 1s in a particular way. Mr. Tapuskovic should recall the evidence.

JUDGE MAY: That's right. Mr. Markovic, it was gone into in his evidence. He dealt with it, yes. And he didn't say -- he confirmed it ⁹⁷²⁹ wasn't 2, as I recollect.

So, Mr. Tapuskovic, the evidence, as the Prosecution point out, doesn't support that particular representation.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, but I know that it is a rule and regulation that if you have in the title page one date, then nobody's ever required to place a date underneath their signature.

JUDGE MAY: You can certainly ask --

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] So could he explain that, please.

JUDGE MAY: You can certainly ask the witness that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Tapuskovic, the standard practice in my service - and you can check this out in statements taken by employees of the State Security Service - that the interviewee, underneath his signature, places the date in his own handwriting of when he gave the statement.

MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And do you have to do the same?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Thank you. Now, one more point. You said that you had authorisation from the investigating judge for the visit. I know that, according to the law, when a criminal case is ongoing, nobody can go and visit the person in prison to talk to him about anything, not even a police officer. Now, did you have an authorisation from the investigating judge, and is it true that you were not able to enter the prison without a permit of this kind for -- to conduct an interview?

A. Yes. So I was given a written authorisation by the investigating ⁹⁷³⁰ judge, Mr. Nebojsa Zivkovic, who was in charge of the investigation against Mr. Markovic for that crime, and I was just authorised to discuss other topics, other subjects. I was not authorised nor did -- could I talk to him about --

Q. Yes. That's not what I asked you, Witness. What I'm interested in is whether, in prison, do they have this authorisation for each of these conversations?

A. Yes, they do. They have it in their logbook. It was a closed conversation. The principle of communication was different. It has the number of the official ID card, my signature, and everything else.

Q. Yes. I'm clear on that about these records, but in prisons, do permits and authorisations exist? Are they stored in prison?

A. Yes. I couldn't have entered prison without having that kind of written authorisation.

JUDGE MAY: Any re-examination?

MR. NICE: A few questions, Your Honour, yes. Thank you very much.

Re-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Stijovic, you said that more investigation was required beyond this statement. At the time of the preparation of this statement from Mr. Markovic, did you know where the bodies concerned had been taken and either handed over to relations or reburied? Just yes or no.

A. Could you be more specific, please? What was your specific question?

Q. At the time of taking the statement -- not taking the statement ⁹⁷³¹ but having the investigation in the course of which you took the statement from Mr. Markovic, you say, in answer to the accused, that further investigations were required. I'm asking you, at the time of this investigation, did you know where bodies that had been dug up had been taken, either to be reburied or handed over to their relations? Just yes or no, perhaps.

A. You mean this particular case or generally speaking?

Q. Generally for these bodies that were dug up and that were referred to by Mr. Markovic.

A. Well, yes, I did know.

Q. And where do you say they were taken? Just so we can have account of this.

A. What I know is, as I was the head of the analytical department in the Pristina centre at the time, that there were several cases of this type, and I recall the Slovenija village incident where, in a mass grave, some 30 corpses were found. Once the bodies had been dug up and the identification of the bodies was conducted, the bodies were -- bodily remains were handed over to the family members.

Q. That's quite a different matter from the bodies in the truck. Had your investigations revealed where the bodies in the truck were going? Just yes or no.

A. No.

Q. Is this the sort of topic that might have been the subject of further inquiry?

A. The state security department did not deal with this kind of ⁹⁷³² question. We did not conduct the investigation. I don't know who did, but I do know full well that had we done it, had we done -- conducted it, that question would have required more in-depth analysis and concrete work.

Q. You speak of the use that could be made or the use that could not be made of the interview of the type given to you by Mr. Markovic. You set out in your statement that there's -- there are provisions under Article 84 of the law of criminal evidence whereby such statements may be used in certain circumstances; is that correct?

A. That's right. I can remember two cases in point. At the request of the accused. That is the first condition. And the second is if death occurs, if the accused were to die. So specific conditions under which that statement can be used in criminal proceedings, in a court case. Otherwise, they are set aside, as I said a moment ago.

Q. Couple more questions. As to the form of the statement - I think you've dealt with this already - it was suggested to you by Mr. -- by the accused that you dictated the statement. In fact, did some of the words come from you or did all of the words come from you? Did some of the words come from Mr. Markovic? Just help us again so that we know what your evidence is.

A. Well, I can't remember exactly now how the event actually evolved, but the procedure was as follows: I would dictate out loud the contents. I would dictate it to Mrs. Olivera Antonic-Simic. Mr. Markovic was present and took an active part in this. And he would interrupt me if he considered that my formulations or the turn of phrase I used was not ⁹⁷³³ adequate, did not correspond to what he said. I don't know whether that happened in this particular statement, but that's what happened. He would go through the stylistic errors later on, he would make his corrections, and that would be it.

Q. Two more questions. You were asked --

JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Nice. When answering a similar question asked by Mr. Nice previously, you put it this way: You've been working only for two years there, while Mr. Markovic devoted his entire life to this service. Do you remember that? You've only been working there for two years. So I'd like to clarify the meaning of "two years."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. That was an error in the interpretation. I said that Mr. Markovic spent his whole time in the crime police and the public security service and that two years of his own career, not my career, were spent in the State Security Service at a top level function as head of the service. So what I meant to say was this referred to Mr. Markovic, that he was in the State Security Service for two years. So this was a mistake in the interpretation. I quite certainly didn't say that. In 1998, he was appointed.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Just turning to the statement of Olivera Antonic-Simic, I'm not sure if the totality of the relevant passage was put to you so I'm just going to read it to you very slowly again. She says she was shown a photocopy of a statement. She goes on to say: "I have examined the ⁹⁷³⁴ statement and confirm that the copy statement appears to bear my signature. I cannot be more specific because this is not an original document."

Now, that's all that was said. Do you have any doubts yourself as to the fact that this statement that's been shown to you with the signatures on all pages is the statement prepared on that day in June in the way you've described?

A. I have no doubts, and I think I stated this.

Q. Finally, you were asked a question by the accused following questions where he had quoted fully from the transcript, this being a question where he did not do so. And the question can be found on page 58 at line 20. He suggested to you that Mr. Radomir Markovic had stated under oath that you, Mr. Stijovic -- the accused added he didn't say your name but identified you as the authorised official. He went on to suggest that you gave him an already-typed-out statement and under these circumstances, under pressure, that is, and after a year and a half in solitary confinement, he had to sign this statement, so practically under duress. And you said that wasn't true. The accused declined to identify the passage, saying that I knew where it all was. Your Honour, the passage can be found, I think, at page 8787. And just to assist you, Mr. Stijovic, what happened with Mr. Markovic was this: The accused put to Mr. Markovic in a single sentence not anything about duress. He suggested to Mr. Markovic the statement, "It was brought to you written the way it stands; right?" to which Mr. Markovic just gave the answer, "Yes." ⁹⁷³⁵ Now, dealing with the way the accused raised the issue in detail as opposed to the way he's recalled it being given today, what do you say to the suggestion made to Mr. Markovic by the accused that you brought him the statement already written, effectively, in the way it is now. Any truth in that?

A. There is no truth in that. It would be quite irresponsible and not serious, both on my side and Mr. Markovic's side, if we had both made an error of this nature.

Q. Thank you very much.

MR. NICE: Nothing else from this witness. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Stijovic, before you were stopped by Mr. Nice, you apparently tried to speak something about the Racak incident. Since Mr. Markovic, Radomir Markovic, answered to the question of Mr. Nice and myself regarding Racak and did mention something, I would like to hear what you tried to say before. To remind you, you mentioned about the manipulation of corpses and some police remained in the village of Racak or something like that. Could you tell us more.

A. Yes, I remember that. The Racak case is a very serious case, and Racak is the subject of various interpretations, and some people represent the case as being a crime, others see it as a montage of manipulation rigged by Albanian propaganda and information media. What I can tell you and what I know as somebody that has been in this kind of business, we know a great deal about manipulations of this kind and the abuses that can arise. ⁹⁷³⁶ What I said was that on that particular day, in the area of Racak, there was a combat operation under way and that in that fighting, there were people who were killed on both sides. As it -- darkness began to fall, the police withdrew, and I said - that is in my conversation with Markovic - had the police remained in Racak at all cost, at the cost of having reinforcements, today Racak would not quite certainly be the subject of a discussion and deliberation at this court or anywhere else. We would have known exactly whether it was a crime or whether it was manipulation and something along those lines.

So I indicated the error that took place, the mistake that was made on the part of the police, the decision to have the police withdraw. The police ought to have remained on the spot to secure the locality and wait for the following day, the following morning, to undertake an investigation, as prescribed by law, and then all of us would know today what -- where the real truth lies and what actually did happen. That is what I wanted to say on that subject if you have understood me, sir.

JUDGE KWON: That was your personal observation, but what was the response of Mr. Markovic at that time?

A. Well, he and I were making comments to that effect. He roughly -- roughly portrayed this as a bad mistake, a mistake in assessment and also a mistake that resulted in grave consequences for my country.

JUDGE KWON: He said earlier that he didn't receive any direct information about Racak and he did not have much knowledge about the casualty of the civilians or something like that. He didn't know ⁹⁷³⁷ something about the Racak incident more than that.

A. Who did not get what?

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Markovic said in this court that he didn't receive any direct report regarding Racak. Is it right?

A. He certainly got a certain type of information as to what happened there. He was in such a high position of high responsibility that in the system of information -- in the procedure of information in my agency, it is impossible that he would not be made aware of the operation and everything that was taking place in Racak. Absolutely. This does not correspond to the truth. I don't know what were all the details he knew about that, but that's it.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Stijovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Stijovic, in answer to Judge Kwon, you just said that you know about manipulations of that kind. Would you like to elaborate on that? Are you in any way suggesting that there is a practice of manipulation in matters of that kind in that area?

A. May I give a bit of an extensive answer to this question, please?

JUDGE MAY: Yes.

A. Well, this is the way it is. For a very long time, I have been dealing with this problem and this work that pertains to Kosovo and the relations between the Serb and Albanian people down there. One of the characteristics, perhaps one could put it that way, of the Albanian ethnic community is this propensity for -- for staging this kind of theatre. The Albanian community is a very closed-off community, linguistically and in other ways. They have certain archaic ways of ⁹⁷³⁸ behaviour too, the manipulative techniques that are highly developed now - and it so happens to be that this is in my line of work so I do know something about this - such a community can create major problems. I'm going to mention a few cases to you that were very clear and in this way they can reflect that situation.

In 1989, we had a kind of phenomenon whereby many miners were closed in the mine in Stari Trg, and then they said that many of them went blind. And then in 1991, we had this monoethnic poisoning. In this sense, a story started going around quite clearly that some kind of spray had been used. Can you imagine this? And that only Albanians were poisoned by this spray. So this was a theatre play, and it was presented for the entire public.

Then, Albanians, according to religion, are Muslims. We have a few situations in which their behaviour completely differs from the behaviour and the obligations that Muslims have. For example, this has to do with the status of funerals and the status of the deceased. May I proceed?

JUDGE MAY: There is a limit of time, I'm afraid, Mr. Stijovic. One more example, if you please.

A. Yes, one more and then I will conclude. We had a mass funeral of Muslims in coffins with candles, and that is quite contrary to Muslim customs and everything else. But this was an image that was supposed to be portrayed to the public. So that is this dual morality that I'm talking about. There is one story that is told to the Albanian community and then there is this other story that goes outside the Albanian ⁹⁷³⁹ community, for the wider community. So one story is told within the Albanian community, and due to this exclusiveness of language, a super-real image is portrayed. Whereas in the external world, the picture is distorted and is adjusted to the needs and interests of that community. I don't know whether I managed to explain this to you really.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That has been helpful, yes.

JUDGE MAY: Now, Mr. Milosevic -- Have you finished re-examination?

MR. NICE: I have.

JUDGE MAY: I think we have really exhausted all these topics. What is it you wanted to ask?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. May, I avail myself of the right to put questions only in relation to the new question that was put by Mr. Kwon, in order to clarify things lest there be any misunderstanding or confusion, because I understand the witness very well.

JUDGE MAY: You may ask, but it must be limited to one or two questions.

Further cross-examination by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] I'm saying that because I understand the witness well, but I'm afraid that perhaps the broader public may not understand him sufficiently well and there may be some confusion in the true meaning of what he said here and what is the truth.

Actually, Mr. Stijovic, when you talk about manipulations and manipulations in relation to Racak, you are referring to manipulations by the KLA and William Walker. Is that what you mean, those manipulations? ⁹⁷⁴⁰ Or let me make the question even clearer: You said that the police made a mistake because, after the battle, which is not being challenged, they did not remain, a police detachment did not remain there to guard the site because then there would be no scope for manipulation. Then they could not bring in any kind of corpses, then they could not present what was later used as propaganda, as was the case in Merkale and the street of Vase Miskina, against Yugoslavia; is that right? The police remained --

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness -- let the witness answer, Mr. Milosevic, instead of all these long questions. You're asked to clarify what you meant by "manipulation."

JUDGE KWON: But first of all, you are able to tell us whether you are in a position that there was a manipulation or not, first.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I shall be quite specific. I mentioned the case in Racak as one event. That is being used for various interpretations. I cannot and will not say that this is a manipulation of the Serb side, that it is a manipulation of the Albanian side, or somebody else. What I want to say is that had the police remained on the spot after the fighting, even at the cost of further casualties or further reinforcements, we would not be discussing Racak any more at all. Definitely. The next morning, in the presence of the verifiers and appropriate crime investigation services, there would have been an on-site investigation, and it would have been quite clear what this was all about, whether this was manipulation by the members of the Kosovo Liberation Army, as is being claimed from one side, or was this a crime that was carried out by the other side? ⁹⁷⁴¹ So the point is, the core of the matter is that this would not have happened had the police not made the mistake of withdrawing. I believe that that is the core of the problem.

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

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: While the court is being prepared for the departure of this witness, may I say that I understand the position is we may not be able to make contact with K41 today. Mr. Ryneveld is in a position to take the evidence of John Zdrilic in direct, in chief, if that's acceptable to the Chamber, and we can then use him as a person in the building, whenever it's necessary, to finish his evidence assuming it doesn't conclude today.

JUDGE MAY: One of Mr. Ryneveld's phrases to do with wrapping around. He seems to be the author of many of these expressions.

MR. NICE: We have a developing dictionary of which "wrapping around" is one, "bis'ing" is another, and indeed "demi-bis'ing" is a third. But never mind.

Before we turn to that witness, can I just return to Olivera Antonic-Simic. I'm not sure how available she's going to be next week, and in light of the evidence already given, I'm not really sure that it's necessary to call her, especially since the challenge, once seen in context, placed by the accused on the statement quite clearly is a challenge built on the fact that she's simply saying she hadn't seen an original document. ⁹⁷⁴² I'll think about it overnight, but I think, I suspect, that the very least I will do is, in the jurisdictional terms with which Your Honour is familiar, tender the witness in case it is thought to be of importance for the accused. That is probably not a concept he will immediately understand so I might ask the Chamber to explain it to him tomorrow when I've decided how available she is and what my position is. I must say, for my part, I'm not sure that she would otherwise be necessary.

Your Honour, I think that's all I need to say before we get on with the next evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

JUDGE MAY: I must say my reaction -- I must say that my reaction would be that it may not strictly be necessary to bring a witness with these sort of travel problems and the like to cover what can only be a pretty peripheral issue in the light of what she's said about it. I don't think it's really going to take us much further.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. I take it we're in open session. It may be convenient, while the blinds are being removed, to deal with the evidence of Mr. Curtis and to say briefly that we have reconsidered the question of allowing Mr. Curtis to be called. On the further request of the Prosecution, on the reasons advanced by counsel, namely that his evidence related to investigations and, I would add, having read the statement, of exhumations, the Trial Chamber is of the view that it has heard sufficient evidence on those issues and considers more unnecessary. ⁹⁷⁴³ The other area urged is that relating to the arrest of the accused. The Trial Chamber is of the view that that also is not one on which further evidence should be allowed. The legal issues relating to the arrest have already been litigated and settled, and there is, therefore, no point, in our view, in calling further evidence to reopen the issues. And also, I would add, a matter which is not strictly relevant as far as the indictment is concerned.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] There was the issue of the correspondence with Judge Arbour. That could always, of course, be dealt with by Mr. Zdrilic as a matter of fact. I don't know that the Chamber gave specific consideration to that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I? May I object?

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, then Mr. Milosevic. You were saying that there was a question of the correspondence.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated]

JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, perhaps you could consider, if you want to pursue that, how to put it before us.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: Apologise. We can put it before you through the witness John Zdrilic quite conveniently. It's simply a documentation in our possession, and it probably is important. I'm grateful for that opportunity and for that ruling. Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice distorted my assertion in respect of quoting the statement of witness Olivera Antonic-Simic. I did ⁹⁷⁴⁴ indeed read a sentence that has to do with her statement regarding the signature, and she observes that this document was not an original. However, the point is not in the signature. The point is in the next sentence that I highlighted, and the next sentence reads as follows: [In English] "The content of the statement is familiar to me, however, I am really not in a position to confirm that the contents of the statement that has been shown to me are what I typed on that particular day." [Interpretation] Therefore, it is not really important at all whether the original was shown to her or not in order for her to be able to ascertain whether that's her signature or not. She says that she cannot confirm that the contents shown to her are what she had actually typed. That's the point.

JUDGE MAY: Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Secondly -- I have another objection. Zdrilic was not announced for today. In the list of witnesses that was given to me specifically --

JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, let me interrupt you. I know. We won't call on you to cross-examine him today. We'll merely deal with his evidence in chief, as it's called, or his direct evidence, and you can have time to prepare any cross-examination.

And let me deal with one other administrative matter which I have, and that is a motion to call a witness after the 13th of September. We will grant it, the most recent. It's an application, the 2nd of September. We will grant it.

MR. NICE: Obliged. ⁹⁷⁴⁵

JUDGE MAY: Now, can we have the witness, please?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Which witness is this? I would like to write it down too.

JUDGE MAY: We will have closed session for that, please.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁹⁷⁴⁶

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.

JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the declaration.

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

WITNESS: JOHN ZDRILIC

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

Q. Mr. Zdrilic, do I understand correctly, sir, that your full name is John Martin Zdrilic and that you have worked as an investigator for the Office of the Prosecutor since the 28th of March, 1999?

A. That's correct.

Q. Prior to coming to work for the Office of the Prosecutor, sir, you were a detective in the New South Wales police service?

A. That's correct.

Q. In Australia; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Ryneveld, please.

MR. RYNEVELD:

Q. In Australia. Thank you. Now, sir, upon your arrival here, have you been largely involved in the investigation concerning the matters presently before the Court?

A. That is correct. ⁹⁷⁴⁷

Q. And as such, sir, did you have particular responsibility for the investigations in the southern part of Kosovo, which would include the municipalities of Prizren, Suva Reka, and Orahovac?

A. That's correct.

Q. And have you also been involved in the ICTY exhumation project, specifically in the summers of 1999 and 2000?

A. That's correct.

Q. Sir, very, very briefly just to put your evidence into context, can you explain very, very briefly what occurred in Suva Reka as it touches upon the evidence that I'm going to be leading from you today?

A. I was tasked to investigate an alleged mass murder which occurred within the township of Suva Reka primarily in a disused cafe. It was as a result of that investigation where a number of exhumations were carried out and that also relates to my evidence.

Q. All right. And as a result of your investigation, sir, did you, in addition to investigating the scene in Suva Reka, conduct an investigation into an area known as Korisa and Ljubizda? I'm not sure if I've pronounced that correctly.

A. That's correct. It related to a mass grave located between the villages of Korisa and Ljubizda in the municipality of Prizren.

MR. RYNEVELD: Mr. Usher, could you please provide the Kosovo atlas page 11, please, and put that on the ELMO. And Your Honours, can I just address your attention to page 11 at the intersection of O and 21 and 22. That would be 21 and a half. And we can perhaps show that. We don't have it on the screen yet. Sorry. I don't have it on ⁹⁷⁴⁸ the screen. All right. Thank you.

Q. Now, Suva Reka is shown there, and these two villages you refer to, could you point those out for us, please?

A. Ljubizda and Korisa. Is that what you're asking for?

Q. Yes, please.

A. This here is the village of Korisa, and this is the village of Ljubizda. This area down here is actually the township of Prizren. The area we're referring to is between the two villages I've just mentioned.

Q. And that orange just at the edge of the page, is that in fact part of Prizren?

A. That's correct.

Q. I see. All right. Now, sir, did you attend at that particular area and can you tell the Court what is found between those two villages?

A. It's a vacant area, and what used to be contained there and the remnants of are an old VJ firing range. Upon attending that location in 1999, what was found was the remainders of a mass grave which was subsequently examined and exhumed by the British forensic team.

Q. All right. And those bodies, et cetera, from that examination or exhumation were videotaped and photographed, and were there any bones and artefacts located as well, do you know?

A. There was. There was there were some bodies and some human remains, artefacts and personal effects located at that scene. The British forensic team, working on behalf of the OTP, fully examined that scene; videotaped, photographed, and logged.

Q. And from that process, sir, are you aware whether any of the, ⁹⁷⁴⁹ shall we say, remains found at that firing range were identified?

A. To date none of the remains were identified although the artefacts that were located there, there were at least 11 artefacts that were identified by family members as belonging to alleged victims of the Suva Reka cafe incident, and those artefacts pertain to at least six persons.

Q. All right. Now, sir, I'd like you to address your mind to during 2001. Are you familiar with a gravesite having been located near Batajnica about which we've heard evidence? And if so, do you have any knowledge as to what investigations or subsequent DNA analyses have been performed with respect to such a site?

A. Throughout that year there was a number of mass graves located within Serbia and a number of those graves were located at a site called Batajnica, which is a suburb on the outskirts of Belgrade in Serbia, found within the special anti-terrorist facility called May 13th at Batajnica. The first of those mass graves was called Batajnica 1, and as a result of -- that mass grave which DNA comparisons were done through the Madrid Institute in Spain.

Q. All right. And you are familiar of that a colleague of yours, Mr. Fulton, had provided this Court with a preliminary report performed by the Spanish DNA team; is that correct?

A. That's correct. The bone samples taken from the bodies and the human remains located at Batajnica 1 were transported to the institute in Madrid. DNA comparison was done with those bone samples and blood samples taken from living -- from living relatives as a result of that -- as a result of that DNA comparison. To date, there have been two reports ⁹⁷⁵⁰ provided to the OTP. The first of which, the preliminary report has been produced to this court through my colleague Investigator William Fulton, and the second report is the report that we have here today.

MR. RYNEVELD: Just for the record, Your Honours, I understand that the preliminary report referred to by the witness is in fact Exhibit 166 and it's found at tab 28 of the Suva Reka binder which was also referred to and introduced during the evidence of Dr. Baccard, you will recall, when I called the pathologist. And so that is what that reference is to.

Q. Now, sir, you've indicated that there is now an additional report. Perhaps we could have that report distributed at this time. While it's being distributed, sir, are you aware that this is a Spanish report from the Ministry of Justice which appears to have -- do you remember approximately when that was received? It bears a date of the 4th of July, 2002. Do you know approximately when that was received?

A. It was received by the OTP some two weeks later. I believe it was the 16th of July.

Q. When you get a copy of that document once it's been made an exhibit, there is a fax date at the top.

MR. RYNEVELD: Might that document be given an exhibit number, please, Your Honours.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be marked Prosecutor's Exhibit 313.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: May I address the court on this issue?

JUDGE MAY: Yes. ⁹⁷⁵¹

MR. WLADIMIROFF: It seems to the amici that it's most unlikely that the accused will be able to cross-examine this witness on this closed exhibit so it is a matter for consideration for the Court, perhaps, to allow this document to be marked, not admitted, unless it has been clarified whether the accused has any issue related to the document as such. If not, yes, it may be admitted; otherwise, it should be submitted, in the view of the amici.

JUDGE MAY: Well, the document can be admitted. It's simply a report which speaks for itself. If there are issues arising from it, it would seem to me that the document can be challenged, if there's a real issue arising from it, and further evidence, if necessary, could be called. As you know, we admit widely hearsay here, particularly official reports. But it's a matter which could be considered.

MR. WLADIMIROFF: I have no problem with that. I just wanted to draw the attention of the Court to that matter.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE MAY: For the reasons I have given, this document will be admitted.

MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honours.

Q. Now, Witness, you've heard the Court indicate that this document speaks for itself. I'm going to ask you if you would, however, provide some background as to what you are aware of that the people in Madrid had available to them in order to prepare this report. In other words, what did they receive and can you just basically explain what occurred? ⁹⁷⁵²

A. As I've outlined, the Madrid labs, based on information provided by the OTP and received from the Belgrade Forensic Institute, some 59 bone samples. These were samples taken from bodies or human remains recovered from the Batajnica 1 exhumation site. They also received a number of blood samples. These are blood samples taken from, and again based on information taken from the OTP, based on relatives of the believed victims of the Suva Reka cafe incident from 1999. They also were provided by us with some family charts showing the relationship of the victims or the alleged victims of the cafe massacre, and the -- showing the relationship between the victims of that incident.

They were also provided with -- then taking that information, they then conducted a DNA analysis or DNA comparison between the bone samples and the bloodstains which they had received.

Q. All right. Now, do I understand correctly, sir, that these family charts, did you produce some family charts, showing the victims and their familial relationships?

A. That's correct.

MR. RYNEVELD: Madam -- Mr. Usher, could you show these to the witness, please. There are some additional copies. Your Honours, I'm looking at the clock, and I will not be able to finish my examination-in-chief in the four minutes remaining. I just --

JUDGE MAY: When you get to a convenient time. We should adjourn on time.

MR. RYNEVELD: I will. I just thought I would alert the Court that rather than try to rush it, I probably need ten minutes in total, and ⁹⁷⁵³ I can't do it in four.

Q. Now, just for the record, I'm showing you some documents that have the title of Annexure JZ-1 and right through 4, and there appear to be some charts. They've also been given ERN numbers. Looking at Annexure JZ-1, you produced this document, did you, sir?

A. That's correct.

Q. And can you, just very briefly, outline to the Court what it is that -- let's just deal with JZ-1. What does this -- what do these boxes mean and what happened?

A. What I've depicted here, as I said, is the relationship of the alleged victims of the Suva Reka incident, the cafe incident.

Q. Sorry. It may be of assistance if we could put that chart on the ELMO so that anybody following your evidence would also be able to see what it is we're talking about. That's good. Thank you. Go ahead, Witness.

A. In JZ-1, what I've attempted to do in the annexure itself is depict this particular family group. The head of this family group are the husband and wife, Vesel and Sofia, and they're depicted at the top of the chart, as I indicate here. The number in the brackets, naturally, is their age at that time in 1999. Stemming down from that, from Vesel and Sofia, are their children, and in this case it is Hajdin, Besim, Fatmire, Bege and Dasurije. These are the children of Vesel and Sofia. The names coupled with those, of course, are their married partners. In the case of Mihrije and Mevlude, again the ages by there. As denoted in the legend, down here, all those names that are depicted or have a cross beside them ⁹⁷⁵⁴ are persons that are alleged victims of the Suva Reka incident or the cafe incident in 1999. The names that are highlighted, which I'm indicating now, being Vesel, Sofia, Fatmire, Besim, Genci and Graniti, are all persons who have now been -- whose remains have been identified as being located at the exhumation site of Batajnica 1 in Serbia.

Q. I see. So the shaded names that were highlighted are in fact names referred to in the report, the Madrid report that we just had entered as an exhibit; is that correct?

A. That's correct. The -- the addition of Genci and Graniti were in fact identified by DNA comparisons in the preliminary report received from Madrid, and then the additional four names and those two individuals as well were mentioned in the second report.

Q. My last question before the break, because we are instructed to stop on time: To your understanding, sir, the mitochondrial procedure that's referred to in the report, that goes through the maternal line -- the identification is made through the maternal line of the family; is that correct?

A. That's correct; "mitochondrial ligna" to my understanding, is the paternal and maternal matching through DNA comparisons.

MR. RYNEVELD: I think the time has been reached, Your Honours.

JUDGE MAY: Yes, we will adjourn now. We won't mark this as an exhibit. We will keep it there. We will deal with it in due course. Mr. Zdrilic, I should tell you, of course, not to speak, please, to anybody about your evidence until it's over, and will you be back tomorrow to conclude it. ⁹⁷⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We will adjourn until tomorrow, 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 6th day of

September, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.