³⁵⁷⁰⁰

Wednesday, 26 January 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE KWON: Judge Robinson is absent for today. The remaining Judges, Judge Bonomy and I, have decided to sit pursuant to Rule 15 bis.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful. I'm joined today by Mr. Saxon, and if there are any questions to ask of this witness, it's Mr. Saxon who will be asking them.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We have the witness already. Let the witness take the declaration.

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

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

WITNESS: BO ADAM

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, it is for you to examine the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon. Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Adam. Could you please start off by giving us your full name and surname.

A. My name is Adam. My first name is Bo, that is Bo Adam.

Q. And when were you born?

A. I was born 1945. ³⁵⁷⁰¹

Q. Would you please tell us what you are by profession and briefly your CV, your professional career in brief, please.

A. Well, that is relatively short. I have been a journalist for about 28 years. Before that, I was at the university. And as a journalist I have been concerned mainly with international questions and also with legal questions like Palme and Lockerbie. I was a reporter and editor for Berliner Zeitung, and since 2002, I have not been working any more because I am ill with cancer, and that is the reason.

Q. You were in Kosovo and Metohija or, rather, specifically you were in Racak, were you not, and you felt --

A. That is correct.

Q. Tell me when you visited Racak.

A. That was in the year 2000. That was in March, as far as I remember, but I must recheck on this. I have a stamp in my passport --

THE INTERPRETER: He's speaking English.

THE WITNESS: I speak German. Is that possible? Because I confuse myself in listening to my English translation of my German language, you know, so maybe I could speak a bit English and then change into German in case it's too complicated for me to be in English. Is that possible?

JUDGE KWON: It's no problem. As you please.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Sorry. It was in 2000, in March. It was 21st of March, I suppose. And in Racak, I stayed in Racak on the 23rd of March. I have to check my passport. Yes, it was 21st of March. That was the same day when Mrs. Ranta was in Racak for investigation. ³⁵⁷⁰²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, would you please tell us why you went to Racak in the first place. Could you explain that to us, please.

A. Yes. Well, there were two main reasons for going to Racak. The first reason was that of course Racak stirred up a lot of emotions in the whole world, in the Western world, or rather, to be precise, the news about Racak. It was a major event. It was a decisive event in the Kosovo crisis, and a lot of politicians said that in those days, and a lot of media said that, that Racak turned everything into war. And definitely it was so, that Racak helped to break the resistance against the war in the public opinion in Western Europe. So that's one of the reasons. Maybe I can quote one statement by a leading politician. In -- oh, that's great, there's no translation. By Mr. Clinton, who was president in the United States, the United States at that time, and when it came to the war --

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I don't wish to interrupt the witness, but nevertheless, the time is, I think, going to come with this witness when questions of the admissibility of his evidence will have to be considered, and it's probably helpful if I set out my position now and maybe I shan't have to set it out again.

From the materials that we've seen and from the researches that we've conducted, this witness is only, as he's now explained, in Racak a year after the events, and there may be problems of admissibility or relevance in anything he's able to say - we'll wait and see what he says - because it will simply be a character, a form of hearsay that is not ³⁵⁷⁰³ acceptable to the Chamber.

Insofar as he's seeking to comment on or refer to public statements by people such as former President Clinton, I'm at the moment at a loss to see how that's going to be of any relevance, certainly coming from this witness. It appears to be related to the overall determination of the international community to take the steps that it did, but that's not for a journalist - I don't mean that in any sense derogatorily of journalists - but it's not for journalists to deal with it. If it's relevant it has to be dealt with by the appropriate type of witness in due course.

So perhaps I should also add this: We of course understand that the accused's case includes allegations of conspiracy by all sorts of powers to do down Serbia and to rely on Racak, and for that reason alone I will be reluctant to object, because it may look as though I'm concerned that there may be substance in what he's raising as part of his Defence. I will object when it becomes obviously the case that the material is inadmissible. But if the accused chooses to use his time adducing evidence that has nil value in the end, that is a choice he will have made, and it's not something he will be able to pray in aid if when the 150 days has passed he says he wants more time. So it's his decision, and with this witness I think we should proceed cautiously on questions of admissibility and relevance.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Higgins.

MS. HIGGINS: May I address you briefly? In relation to the ³⁵⁷⁰⁴ points raised by Mr. Nice, it may be in fact more prudent to allow the development of this testimony before the Judges take any decisions. It seems to me, if I may just finish, Your Honour, that this witness has been called as a witness of fact. He is evidently, therefore, entitled to bring to Your Honours' attention matters that he read and that came to his attention that may well have led to his investigations. It's a brief point, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, I wasn't assisted at all by that intervention. I would be much more fully assisted, I think, if the intervention took place when there was an objectionable question, and I envisage from what you've already said that there will be objectionable questions, but all the witness was asked at this stage was why did he go to Racak, and he's in the course of giving his second reason, as I understand it, for going to Racak, and I would be assisted certainly by knowing his reasons for going there in the first place.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, he's given the reason, and the reason I raised the point when I did --

JUDGE BONOMY: He gave only one reason and he said there were two, and my understanding is he's now dealing with the second one.

MR. NICE: But he -- as I understood the remark that he made, or the beginning of the answer that he was going to give, "May I quote the statement by a leading politician," and then he turned to Mr. Clinton, to be connected to what he'd said earlier about Racak stirring up a lot of ³⁵⁷⁰⁵ emotions in the Western world, or news about Racak, and a lot of politicians saying that Racak was an event that turned everything into war, and I simply thought it -- it seemed to me that was likely to be something that was inadmissible from the mouth of this witness. But there's no -- there's no -- there's no --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, Mr. Nice. He very carefully corrected that statement, the one you've just given, and said that it was the news of Racak that turned everything into war, and as soon as you say that, then you open the door to the question, What was this news? And indeed if it was news that did turn things into war, then it's very relevant.

MR. NICE: There it is.

JUDGE KWON: I don't think we need to --

MR. NICE: We needn't go any further.

JUDGE KWON: -- spend more time on this issue.

MR. NICE: But most fundamentally I'm not going to take an aggressive line of objection. I'm setting out our general position and I'm not taking an aggressive line for the reasons I've given.

JUDGE KWON: As a general rule hearsay is admissible here and it is for the Chamber to determine the weight or probative value later.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE KWON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As we were saying, Mr. Adam, you were interrupted in the course of ³⁵⁷⁰⁶ your explanations as to what news you heard, what information was available which motivated you to go to Racak.

A. Yes. Maybe I can end that quotation of Mr. Clinton, who said in his message to the nation ahead of the war, just the evening before the war started, he only mentioned Racak as the incident, and he said that in Racak innocent men and women, as far as I can remember, innocent men, women, and children were forced to kneel in the mud or in the dirt to be sprayed upon by weapons. I think it's almost correct. So that's a very grave accusation. So it's the reason for journalists to go there, to look at that even a year thereafter. And since Mr. Nice said it's a year thereafter, there is no relevance for that, it was exactly the same date when Mrs. Ranta that was there. So -- and so far -- well, at least my findings are -- could be used in the same way or a similar way. Not the same way, of course, I'm not an expert. But a similar way.

Okay. That was the main -- first main reason for every journalist, investigating journalist, to go to Racak. The second one was from the very beginning, those official stories or official presentings of the events of Racak were doubted. There were things which being a journalist for more than a quarter of a century where you all of a sudden say there's something wrong in this story. There's something wrong in the presenting.

For instance, there are those -- were those trenches in Racak. There was telling about those trenches, by other journalists, I admit. Well, a trench is not built to flee. A trench is built for fighting ³⁵⁷⁰⁷ purposes, nothing else. That's the sense, the meaning of a trench. And there were different other aspects where you could -- started to doubt. There was, for instance, the aspect that the Serbian officials invited the TV crew to deal with that, to make videotapes of the event, which is quite unusual in such a situation. Another case -- another aspect is that if they had committed a crime, why didn't they take the dead people with them to hide them? Why did they put them on presentation in such a way?

So all those questions motivated us to say, okay, let's find out what is to be the real truth, objective truth. And so we tried to obtain documents, for instance. For instance, there was -- we obtained some documents from the OSCE which were semi-official. They were at least basis for the public opinion or public relations work of the OSCE.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam, if you could confine your answer briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay. Okay. Well, this document which I refer to now is a special report on Racak. It was filed on the 17th of January by the OSCE. It included the statement of Mr. Walker. I suppose you know all about it.

When we got that document, we were quite -- quite -- we found it quite strange, because in that document there was no -- no mentioning at all of any fighting of -- between KLA and Yugoslav or Serbian troops at the -- at the Racak -- at Racak.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: -- you answered the question sufficiently, to the ³⁵⁷⁰⁸ question what was the purpose of your visit or what motivated your visit, and it is for the accused to ask further questions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Okay.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon. Before I go on to ask my questions and put them to Mr. Adam, I would like to draw your attention that in the exhibits, tab 1 is the statement made by Clinton to which the witness referred, which was one of the reasons he decided to investigate. He's a journalist and an investigator. And I'm only going to quote that portion that the witness referred to, which is in tab 1, as I said, paragraph 5 on that one page of tab 1.

And it's Clinton's statements: "[In English] We should remember the thousands of people facing cold and hunger in the hills of Kosovo last fall. Firmness ended that as well. We should -- we should remember what happened in the village of Racak back in January - innocent men, women, and children taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire, not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were."

[Interpretation] That is the statement, and I'd like to tender it as an exhibit. And before I continue, you have tab 2, which is the special report of the Verification Mission, Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE, and I'm just going to quote the first line from the beginning of that report, and it starts with: "Summary [In English] On the 15th of January, 1998 -" [Interpretation] it's 1999, actually. That's a mistake, but it doesn't matter - "[In English] in the village of Racak, 45 Albanian civilians were killed." [Interpretation] That's what was claimed. ^{35709 BLANK PAGE 35710}

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Mr. Adam, from your explanations --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll give the next exhibit number to this binder.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be D273.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, if I might be allowed to conclude from what you've said so far, it was doubt that led you to visit Racak, your doubts.

A. That's true.

Q. Tell me, did you have any other reasons for your doubts or suspicions? What were all the reasons for your doubts?

A. [Previous translation continues] ... say I have dealt a lot with that, so maybe that has finished. I could continue for hours about my doubt, because there are a lot of doubts, or were a lot of doubts.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, please go on. Mr. Milosevic, ask further questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you have in mind that first report or, rather, the first statement made by Walker when he said that, and I'm going to quote, he said: "[In English] mostly elderly men."

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, that's a plainly leading question, and it's not assisting me in the least for a proposition like that to be put. The witness is anxious to tell us about his investigations. We know he's there because of his doubts, so can we not turn to the actual ³⁵⁷¹¹ investigation and what he claims to have discovered.

JUDGE KWON: Try to put specific questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You wish to give an additional explanation, Mr. Adam, as far as I was able to understand, with respect to your doubts and suspicions.

A. Yes. Well, just understand what I then in the end investigated. I have to -- to produce the background. You know, in this -- I refer now to the OSCE report, which is an official or semi-official document by an international organisation, paid by the taxpayers of Europe, and so it's obliged to be truthful and work neutral.

So in that report, we have strong description, a strong description of a massacre. We have mentioning of executions. We have mentioning of people who were elderly and not of fighting age, which is what is explained. Women, children, and so on, who were executed, as Mr. Walker said, by weapons held close to their heads. So that was the very beginning of my investigation. That was the background. Is that true or is it not true?

So we then discussed what -- how could we, that's our journalists in the --

JUDGE KWON: Who are "we", Mr. Adam?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We journalists in the Berliner Zeitung. We were a small team of three journalists who did that work. I was maybe the leading one of them.

We then discussed the possibility of obtaining the protocols which was made by Mrs. Ranta, since they were -- seemed to us to be the most ³⁵⁷¹² objective way of finding out whether there was a massacre or whether there was not a massacre. We were totally neutral in that approach, because we didn't know. But what puzzled us was that normally -- I can tell from my experience, normally such documents are leaked to the press by someone, but those documents are not -- were not leaked to the press, immediate -- simply to show, let's say, it was a massacre and now you had the details leaked.

Those documents, those protocols, were not leaked. And when we then searched in -- to the north, to the south, to the west, to the east, and when we obtained those documents by Mrs. Ranta, the protocols from the forensic investigation, it became quite clear that the allegations about executions from -- from close to -- shooting close to the heads and so on were not true, at least according to that protocols -- those protocols. We, of course, did not only do that work from ourselves -- by yourselves, but we of course asked forensic experts about their assessment, and we had an interview done in the Berliner Zeitung with a German expert who exactly stated that there were no bearing in those allegations.

So that was the next step of my investigation, because my investigations, of course, not only on-site investigations; I'm dealing with documents. As a journalist, that's my job.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you investigate the conduct of the Serb authorities in relation to Racak? Did you, within your team which analysed the issue of Racak, as you've just mentioned, consider who could possibly benefit from ³⁵⁷¹³ such an incident which was given spectacular publicity in the international media?

A. Well, in the end it was obvious that -- well, being -- speaking about Racak, you're speaking about at least 40 people who died. That's a tragedy. That's -- so speaking about benefiting about that, it's not very easy to do. But of course, in the end, if you speak in political terms, it was -- obviously it was the KLA that benefited from the Racak affair and surely not the Serbian side.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Adam, could you look at tab 2 of the documents which you produced. Is that the OSCE report that you were referring to in particular?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, sir, Your Honour.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you show me where it refers to children and women and men of older than fighting age.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, according to -- relating to the elderly men, you can find that on page 1, 2, 3 -- 4, in the statement of Mr. Walker. Then after that, we have three women, and in that case you speak of -- they speak of one child, which is correct. It was Mr. Clinton who spoke about children, not Mr. Walker.

JUDGE BONOMY: You'll see that at the very beginning of the report there is a summary.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And there it talks of 45 -- the part Mr. Milosevic read: "... 45 Albanian civilians were killed. The victims included one female and one boy." Is that accurate? From the subsequent ³⁵⁷¹⁴ investigations that you made, is that accurate?

THE WITNESS: I've never found out the exact number of the people who died.

JUDGE BONOMY: Was there one female and one boy?

THE WITNESS: One boy is exact. One boy is exact. There I referred to Mr. Clinton said "children."

But dealing with here, there were two females. That means --

JUDGE BONOMY: That's all I need to know for the moment. It's for Mr. Milosevic to continue the questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I hope that you understood the essence of what the witness was saying. What the witness had in mind was Clinton's statement where he clearly states "women, children, and the elderly were forced to kneel and were executed," which could not have been based on anything else but Walker's fabrications. And this is what this investigative journalist looked into.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. Mr. Milosevic, I don't know about your experience of dealing with other people, but in my case it's enough to tell me something once. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, my objection was to the accused using the opportunity to reply to Your Honour to make an allegation about somebody who has been a witness and whose credibility falls for determination by the Chamber. We've had this sort of problem with him before.

JUDGE KWON: Having heard that, please continue the questioning.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁵⁷¹⁵

Q. Mr. Adam, what did you do then in preparation for your trip to Racak?

A. Well, of course I -- we tried to approach Mrs. Ranta to find out what -- to have a comment of hers to the documents which we obtained, especially because we had the feeling that she herself had stirred up emotions and -- and added fuel to the fire when she, at her press conference in March 1999, had spoken about -- had spoken about the people at Racak where the evidence was that -- it's very complicated because it was quite a complicated sentence she said. There was nothing else than being civilians, unarmed civilians, without -- which hadn't fired weapons by themselves. That's not exactly the phrase, but it's more or less the content of her -- her statement at a press conference. And we approached her, and she was not very willing to discuss that with us, but at least she said to me, or to us, that we -- that she didn't -- had -- that they had never tried to find out whether the people had traces -- powder traces on their hands. In the press conference, it came out as if they had done that. And I can refer to Mr. Vollebaek, who then at that time was the president, I suppose it was, of the OSCE, or presiding minister of the OSCE, who then said that he had concluded that they were not firing. But that was not true. That was simply not true. She -- the team of Mrs. Ranta had said -- had investigated --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam, once again --

THE WITNESS: -- traces --

JUDGE KWON: -- the Chamber is not assisted by a lengthy answer. The question is what did you do in preparation for your trip, and you ³⁵⁷¹⁶ answered that question, and it is for Mr. Milosevic to ask -- to elicit specific evidence each time.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please take a look, Mr. Adam, at tab 3, which is an ECMM daily monitoring activity from the 15th to the 17th of January, 1998. Please take a look at just one sentence on page 2.

You said just now that the OSCE kept silent about the KLA. In this ECMM record, it is stated on the second page, on sentence 2: "The UCK did tell EU KDOM, however, that six of their fighters had been killed and six wounded."

A. That's true. That's very interesting, because we obtained that document at the same time when we obtained the OSCE report, and from almost the same source. And in Kosovo there were different structures, there were parallel structures; there was still this KDOM structure and there was then the OSCE structure, and they reported back to their governments, and this is one of the KDOM parallel documents produced almost at the same time when the OSCE document was produced. And contrary to the OSCE report, in this KDOM report you have clearly the mentioning of the KLA presence at Racak on page 2, which surely -- well, which was absolutely deleted from the OSCE report. When you look at the OSCE report, you only have an approach of the Serbians going into the village of Racak and shooting people.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam, you assert the year is once again a typo? It says 1998.

THE WITNESS: Well, that's -- that's a typing mistake, I suppose, ³⁵⁷¹⁷ because you're in January, and every -- every people -- all people then forget to change the last digit. I suppose it's that.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. It deals with the massacre in Racak on the first page. Yes, it should be 1999.

Yes, go on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, was it clear, in view of the fact that there had already been this report of the ECMM, that --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, contrary to the instruction by Judge Robinson, you started your question with "Is it clear..." I think it's a leading question. Rephrase it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will rephrase it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Was it possible, Mr. Adam, in view of the fact that there had already been this official report of the ECMM, that the competent authorities did not know that there was the UCK presence there?

A. Sorry. Okay. Obviously the responsible politicians knew about the KLA presence at Racak, because that is one of the reports they obtained in those days.

Q. Did you yourself hear any publicly announced information mentioning KLA or any fighting going on?

A. Well, it was -- it was quite clear from the very beginning that there was KLA fighting, because Reuters reported that on the 15th of -- they reported in the news dispatch, they reported about heavy fightings in the area of Stimlje, but when this OSCE report came out, it was kept ³⁵⁷¹⁸ silent. There was no mentioning of KLA activities and fightings between Serb and Albanian forces any more, as far as the OSCE is concerned. As far as the KDOM is concerned, there was mentioning of that.

Q. Yes, but the OSCE Verification Mission did not mention it. Is that what you're saying?

A. Exactly. According to the papers which I obtained, yes.

Q. Now, please let us cover the next document very briefly. This is a press release dated March 17th, 1999, forensic expert team on Racak. I will not dwell on this in any substantial length of time. We will turn to that later. But I would like now to turn your attention to page 3, a paragraph that continues from the previous page, page 2, and goes on to page 3. I hope the usher will give it to you.

A. I see. Can I have my own copy on that because -- may I use my own copy?

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Because I have some signs in there.

JUDGE KWON: You have the same copy.

THE WITNESS: No, it's quite a different one, so it's easier for me to find on my copy. I don't know -- okay.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is the report of the EU forensic expert team on the Racak incident, dated the 17th of March.

JUDGE KWON: Put page 3 on the ELMO. Upper part.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At the end of -- Mr. Adam, for you to be able to follow, at the ^{35719 BLANK PAGE 35720} end of this paragraph which goes on from page 2 to page 3, so at the top of page 3, it says: "There were no indications of the people being other than unarmed civilians."

A. Yes.

Q. In order to save time, would you please take a look and tell us your opinion about it. So please take a look at the following exhibit, which is the press release number 22/99, "OSCE chairman in office comments on the report by head of the EU forensic expert team ..." which in a way is a set that makes one whole. The then chairman of the OSCE, Knut Vollebaek, in the following paragraph says: "Dr. Ranta has concluded [In English] that at least 40 unarmed civilians were killed at approximately the same time in Racak ..." et cetera.

A. That is what I tried to explain some minutes ago, that Mrs. Ranta didn't carry out investigations about the -- any traces on the hands. The Serbian and the Belorussian pathologists did that, but that was not internationally recognised, so we have no proof of anything -- of any kind that those people were -- had -- had used arms, but we had no proof that they had not used arms. There's no proof at all, either in that direction nor the other direction.

MR. NICE: Your Honours I -- I'm so sorry. I'll let the witness finish.

THE WITNESS: And you should have expected from Mrs. Ranta saying exactly that in the press conference. But she twisted that so that a lot of reporters, which I can prove by several of documents, or could prove, that she just twisted it so that someone might have got the impression ³⁵⁷²¹ that that was investigated and there was a proof that they had not used arms, which was not true.

MR. NICE: Your Honour --

THE WITNESS: And then -- sorry, Mr. Nice. One last sentence. And then, in case there was a misunderstanding still among the journalists and the media, the press release of Mr. Vollebaek then stated exactly what was not true, saying that she had proved it.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I repeat that I'm anxious not to take objection to this witness's evidence in light of the concerns that the accused raises about Racak, but I -- my duty is to remind the Chamber that the whole question of the extent of hearsay admissibility was explored in respect of Racak, where, as the Chamber will recall, a distinction was drawn between the narrating of accounts of others by OSCE and Human Rights Watch personnel as opposed to, for example, an investigator. And that was litigated to the Appeals Chamber, and at no stage was it suggested that witnesses without special expertise could offer opinions on matters that are plainly ultimately for the Chamber. And this exchange, as the Chamber will have observed at 19:5 on the page before you, starts off with, "... would you take a look and tell us your opinion about it."

Now, of course I can see that if the witness is in a position to tell us things about what Mrs. Ranta did or didn't do or said or didn't say, then that may be admissible, and I'm anxious not to object to anything that may be of help, but this is a sheer -- not a sheer, it's an opinion simply on other materials, and I'm not sure that it can help the ³⁵⁷²² Chamber. And it's my duty to draw to your attention that we may be transgressing our own limits of admissibility.

JUDGE BONOMY: Speaking for myself, as a journalist who did an investigation, he can give whatever assessment he has but the probative value is for the Chamber to determine later. We heard about the relevance or credibility of powder test. We remember that. And it is for the accused to present his case.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I hear what Your Honour says, and if that's the conclusion of the Trial Chamber, I shall take no further objections, but I think it would be regarded as a substantial departure for the practice of this Tribunal as a whole if opinion evidence of journalists was given a category of admissibility separate from the understood categories of admissibility of evidence of fact or evidence of opinion from experts with which we are all familiar. But I will take no further point.

JUDGE KWON: I don't think it is the opinion of the witness the accused is trying to seek but rather a kind of assessment of a journalist who had a -- who made an investigation to the matter. Judge Bonomy has further things.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, there really are two objections in there, I think. One about hearsay, and I don't think hearsay is really the issue at this stage. The other one about the opinion is another matter. I don't think the witness is offering an opinion on the validity of forensic examination carried out. What he's telling us is what was conveyed through the media about these events and whether that can be said to be ³⁵⁷²³ accurate. Now, there may be a question mark over the second proposition there, whether it's accurate or its validity, but it doesn't seem to me he's straying beyond the realms of his own professional work at the moment. However, I have to say also that I see little value in what's being presented in this form.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I was particularly stimulated to raise the issue with Your Honours when the witness said, "She twisted that so a lot of ..." and so on, because it seemed to me we are moving then into a realm that is absolutely yours. I will take no more time, but I'm concerned that we shouldn't set a precedent that would be unfortunate.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think you would be wrong, though, not to object to something that does appear to breach a practice that has been established in relation to this particular incident. If a particular question arises in that regard, that would assist me, but -- so I don't want to discourage you where something specific arises to which you take exception.

MR. NICE: I shall reply.

JUDGE KWON: We should go on but I'm concerned about the time, given that this witness cannot stay longer than today. How long would you expect this examination-in-chief to last?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope it will be very brief. I expected to complete it within the first session, but thanks to constant interventions by Mr. Nice, time simply is wasted.

JUDGE KWON: Please go on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁵⁷²⁴

Q. Mr. Adam, since you also spoke about how this was presented to the public, and as a journalist you are competent to speak about that, please tell us, why did you use the word "twisted" when you said that the picture presented to the public was twisted? What was your basis for stating that?

A. Maybe it's very complicated to explain. I'll try my best. According to the protocols, there were no mentioning in the protocols of any powder investigation. The -- in the press conference, Mrs. Ranta said that famous sentence of "no indications of not being," which was misunderstood by 99 per cent of the media of the world, I suppose. I haven't counted, but I suppose. That she had found that they were unarmed civilians. But there's no proof in her investigation about that.

That's -- you can call it a twist. You can call it a misunderstanding. She would surely call it a misunderstanding. She called it a misunderstanding when we asked her about it. But then it comes to a twist when Mr. Vollebaek, in the press release which came out immediately as a response to that press conference, says she concluded that at least 40 unarmed civilians were killed. You know, journalists are at times lazy people, and they take the most easy sentence and not the complicated sentence, and so it was published.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, try to put questions where you can get the specific events which the witness had heard or had seen, those ones. This kind of analysis is not helpful to us. Anybody can tell those ³⁵⁷²⁵ stories. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will proceed immediately, Mr. Kwon, but please bear in mind that it was precisely that incident in Racak that was grossly abused in -- for propaganda purposes in an improper and dishonest way.

JUDGE KWON: No. You shouldn't comment, just proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, in one of your responses a moment ago, you said that you had consulted in the course of your investigations of this event German pathologists. Who were those German pathologists whom you consulted?

A. It was a professor from Hamburg. His name is Professor Pueschel, and we did an interview with him which you can see, where he stated that there was no bearing in the accusations -- in some accusations, to be exact; in the accusations about executions.

Q. And this comes under number 9, the Berliner Zeitung. Klaus Pueschel is his name. Is that the article you're referring to?

A. Yes. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I have that tendered as well, Mr. Kwon, please.

JUDGE KWON: What is the question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The question was which German -- or, rather, Mr. Adam mentioned having consulted German pathologists, and I asked him which German pathologists, and he referred to the interview conducted with the German pathologist whose name is written down here, who explained that it is not true. It says: "It is not true that many ³⁵⁷²⁶ persons have been shot dead at extremely close range." That's what it says.

JUDGE KWON: Pausing there. Mr. Adam, did you conduct the interview? Or did you write the article?

THE WITNESS: Since we did it as a team, you know, it's not very easy to distinguish. I tried to remember --

JUDGE KWON: Who is Roland Heine?

THE WITNESS: Roland Heine is a colleague of mine who was part of the team. It was an informal team, of course, that went.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, is this not the territory in which you've got something to say?

MR. NICE: It certainly is, but --

JUDGE BONOMY: Or am I misunderstanding your point?

MR. NICE: Certainly this is all the territory with which I've raised objections. I had in mind, of course, the observation of His Honour Judge Kwon earlier about the general acceptability, subject to weight, of investigations.

JUDGE BONOMY: We're about -- well, if this document is admitted, then what it amounts to is the views expressed by someone in a professional capacity who could be brought here as a witness. And even if he was, there might be questions about the amount of information he had to draw the conclusions in the first place. But as it stands, it appears to me to be completely valueless to hear what a journalist has to say about an interview conducted of a forensic pathologist.

[Trial Chamber confers] ³⁵⁷²⁷

JUDGE KWON: I agree with Judge Bonomy. Put another question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, when you conducted your investigation and interviewed the German pathologists, were they -- did you have the protocols put at their disposal by the Finnish forensic team which otherwise come under point 17, and they are Prosecution Exhibit 156. It is in our list number 17, and it says "Already exhibited as Prosecution Exhibit 156," in brackets.

So did you work with those protocols, and did you present the people with those protocols?

A. Yes, of course I did. We presented all the protocols we had obtained to the experts, yes.

Q. So what the experts concluded and what they were not able to find in the protocols they didn't find because it didn't exist in them. They had everything else. Did I understand you correctly?

A. Yes, of course. Since I rely on the expertise, then I would say yes.

Q. Very well. Thank you. Let's move on. Did you try to contact Mrs. Ranta and to seek an explanation from her for the contradictions between the official version and what was announced and the report by the expert team?

A. Well, we tried that. I tried it. We tried it via some other channels, Dutch journalists who had this, and so on. We did it, but all ³⁵⁷²⁸ in all, when it comes to the end of the day, it's -- Mrs. Ranta didn't want to cooperate with us about that.

Q. Are you saying that she refused to make a statement about this?

A. Yes, she did. She refused.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is there anything wrong with that?

THE WITNESS: No, no. Simply -- sorry. I don't want to speak about Mrs. Ranta. She made -- you could call it a game of hiding for this. Or played a game of hiding.

JUDGE BONOMY: For all we know, that could be because of her previous experience with journalists. We have no idea why she would do that.

THE WITNESS: But then -- then we were informed that Mrs. Ranta went to Racak. And since we had all those other doubts and problems and questions, we decided that I should go to try to meet her at the place, at the spot. That was then the idea. That was then the 21st of March.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Thank you. Mr. Adam, we have now established that you decided to go to Racak, and you went to Racak, as you say, on the 21st of March. And what happened next? Did you meet Mrs. Ranta there? Or tell us generally what happened. From the moment of your arrival in Racak, what happened next?

A. As I said, the purpose of going to Racak was of course not only to speak to Mrs. Ranta. It was my hope to do it, but that didn't work in the end because she refused again. But there was, of course, another reason to go there, and that was to try and find out as much as I could, as an ^{35729 BLANK PAGE 35730} investigating journalist, what had happened at Racak and to get a picture of the whole scenery.

So when I was -- went to Racak, then when you come into the village, you first see the graveyard on the left side of Racak, and so I decided to go up there first, and there was a person gardening in that graveyard. I now forgot his name, but his brother was one of the people who died at Racak. Azemi it was. And I asked him to go and show me around where the things happened at Racak, and he agree to that. And then we went ahead and were then first stopped by what I would call a KLA policeman who tried to stop me going around in the village, and he argued that he could tell me everything about the incident so I don't need to look for myself, but I insisted to do that and in the end he gave in. And then just ten metres later on we came into a cordon which was done by Finnish troops who had escorted Mrs. Ranta, and I approached them, I identified myself to them and said that I would like to -- would be very happy if I could speak to Mrs. Ranta, but they then talked to her by walkie-talkie, and they -- since she denied to be -- to speak to me, I had to take that into account and say okay. She was up in the ravine at that time.

Q. All right. You weren't able to contact Mrs. Ranta, so did you go where else, then, in other direction? Did you go to some other places in Racak?

A. Since the ravine was sealed off, I had to go to other places in Racak. And -- I knew that I had quite short time, so I had to concentrate on two things, two aspects. The first was how did the woman die, because ³⁵⁷³¹ that was crucial to the question was there a massacre or not, an execution or not. And the other one was how did the boy die, because those was at least -- it was, of course, a tragic event, and -- a very tragic event, and to find out whether it was very -- very important to find out whether the sentence of Mr. Clinton and other statements of politicians were right, of the people forced to be -- to be sprayed on -- forced to kneel in the mud to be sprayed upon. So I tried to find that out. Since people from the village helped me and assisted me, it was --

Q. And what did you discover? You wanted to find that out, so what did you find out?

A. I insisted that they didn't only tell me but showed me the places and showed me how the people died. And they did that, themselves being eyewitnesses of those days. That was very important for me, those villagers who joined us.

JUDGE KWON: Can you tell the names?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Azemi was one of them. There was a coming and going because we went all over the village, and there were different other people which I have names of but I wouldn't reveal because maybe that's not good.

JUDGE KWON: Do you remember the first name of Mr. Azemi?

THE WITNESS: I should have to have a look.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, if you could.

THE WITNESS: His brother was one of the victims. Sorry for -- that you're waiting. Oh, sorry. It was wrong -- the name was wrong. Shabani, Nesret Shabani. It must have been, yes. ³⁵⁷³²

JUDGE KWON: Shabani. Yes. We have Shabani as well in the list of victims.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: You don't remember his first name?

THE WITNESS: Nesret. Nesret.

JUDGE KWON: Nesret.

THE WITNESS: As far as it was written down for him here.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, thank you. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A moment ago you were explaining that your interest focused at that stage of your visit on establishing how the woman had died and how the boy had died and that you wanted not only to hear about it but to show you the place and describe the event.

Would you now, to save me interrupting you, tell us in your own words what you established when it came to the death of the woman and the death of the boy and possibly any other person whom you investigated.

A. From the point where the road goes up to -- you know, Racak is on a hillside, situated on a hillside, and before Racak there's a broad valley, and there's a road going around those hills at the bottom of the hill, and that's -- should be the main road of what you could call the old village of Racak. And when we started going around in the village, we stopped at the crossing just at -- of this main road, between two houses. I don't know exactly if the crossing was between the houses or the two houses were afterwards, but at least it was on that road. And that was the point where the people told me here the lady died. Okay, I said, and ³⁵⁷³³ how did she die? They then turned around and showed to the other side of the valley, which was some hundred metres away, where another hillside comes up, the other hillside from the valley, and they said they shot from over there.

So that was, of course, tragic and surely not -- should not have happened, but it was no execution at short range, and it was no kneeling in the mud to be sprayed upon. So that was the first, let's say, case. We then went ahead, that road to the back part of Racak, because I insisted that they would show me the place, the spot where the boy died, because that would be a very grave indication of execution if in case he had been killed in that way.

First we went to the courtyard of the family, and I met with the mother of the boy, and of course I expressed my condolences. That is not for the Court here, but I have to say it because that's from my personal feeling, it's necessary.

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Is that what you heard from Mr. Nesret Shabani?

THE WITNESS: The woman?

JUDGE KWON: Nesret Shabani. I don't remember if it's he or she. Nesret Shabani came here as a witness.

THE WITNESS: It must be a he. That's -- well, it was such a way that I first met the man upside -- in the graveyard, as I told you. Then other people joined us, so it was a small group. And I was, of course, obtaining information. For me it was not of quite great importance who said what in that group. ³⁵⁷³⁴

JUDGE KWON: I'm referring to your statement that the -- Mr. Shabani -- the woman was shot from the hills 300 metres away.

THE WITNESS: Maybe --

JUDGE KWON: Is that what Mr. Shabani said to you?

THE WITNESS: I cannot tell you that Mr. Shabani said that. One in that group of the eyewitnesses from those days.

JUDGE KWON: But Mr. Shabani was among them?

THE WITNESS: Must have been among them, yes.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I think, to be receiving information from an unidentified member of a group, will probably be found to contravene the limitations imposed by -- both by the Trial Chamber and by the Appeals Chamber for reliability.

JUDGE KWON: That goes to the weight of the evidence.

MR. NICE: Well, possibly admissibility, but one way or the other.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: If, however, someone who has given evidence here was present, and that is the indication, then it can at least have a value in relation to credibility and reliability of that witness if he doesn't, for example, jump in to contradict the statement made. So I think this is one that will require more detailed exploration in due course rather than a blanket refusal to hear it at this stage.

MR. NICE: It may be, but of course for that to apply the point should have been raised with the witness, and I'm not sure now whether -- I haven't checked it, but I'm not sure now whether it has been. ³⁵⁷³⁵

JUDGE KWON: We will allow the accused to proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you first established how the woman died, and from this group of villagers who accompanied you, you received information that there was shooting coming from the opposite hill, the hill on the other side of the valley, and that she was hit in that shooting. Have I understood you correctly, Mr. Adam? And have I also understood you to say that it was on that basis that you established that it was quite a different story from any execution having taken place or, rather, the woman having been killed by execution.

A. Definitely.

Q. Now, please could you tell us what they told you, whether you were on the spot in the place where the boy had died and what they told you about that.

A. As I tried to explain, I went -- we went to the courtyard where I met with the mother and I expressed my condolences to her, and then I asked to show me again the exact spot where the boy died and how he died, of course. So we went out of the courtyard again, and we went along the road and up to a small road which went up the hill. And after ten or 20 metres, 30 metres - I cannot say - they stopped and said here the boy was killed.

Now, this is -- was -- you could call it another ravine, but it was not the ravine, the notorious ravine but simply another ravine, a road which was covered by bushes and trees on the side, but since it was -- when I was there it was March, so there were no leaves on the branches, ³⁵⁷³⁶ and of course in January there were no leaves again. I then asked who shot and how did they shoot him. And then again they turned around and looked at the other hillside on the other part -- on the other part of the valley and said, okay, from there. So it was again some hundred metres affair, and no execution at short range. Then we afterwards went another ten metres high along that road and stopped, and then the -- those people said here the father died, Mr. Beqiri. Right. And again I insisted they show me how he died. And now on that spot, you had a hole in the bushes. I don't know if -- how you can explain that. There were -- as if they were cut away. And I made a photo of that. And when I asked how the father died, one of the persons who had joined me laid himself into that hole, this attitude here, as if he had a rifle in his hands, laying on that -- into that hole, and then he did it that way, and not that he did it that way. That's how he was shot.

That's not -- not correct what they -- exactly what they said, because Mr. Beqiri was shot here, but that's a detail. According to the autopsies, again, which I checked, of course.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam, do you remember who it was who talked to you about that event?

THE WITNESS: In that case, I have no name. I made a photo of that and --

JUDGE KWON: Photo of the person.

THE WITNESS: Photo of the person in that hole.

JUDGE KWON: Did he say that he was on the spot when the boy, ³⁵⁷³⁷ Beqiri, was killed?

THE WITNESS: He didn't say that. No, I cannot say that he did say that.

JUDGE KWON: But how did he know, then, if he was not there?

THE WITNESS: You know, the problem is that we have dealt a lot and I had dealt a lot with witnesses, villagers who said -- said this and that, and as a journalist my own possibility to find out was to ask other villagers, of course. As far as I know, there was nobody else in that small ravine when they were shot, but I'm not sure, of course.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: But afterwards there was an uncle which died at another ten metres later, but that's -- that's --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you established how several of the people died, and you've described to us now that Beqiri, the man you spoke about, that he showed you and lay in the hole and explained that the man had a rifle in his hand. So what would that mean? What does that mean, what he described to you and showed you? How did you understand that?

A. The only way you can -- you could understand that was that it was not a fleeing situation but a fighting situation. But other hand, Mr. Beqiri was not listed as or named as a KLA fighter. He was named under the civilians. And when those villagers told me that -- or that villager told me that, I of course was shocked, because that was just contrary to the official presentation of the things.

JUDGE KWON: How do you know Mr. Beqiri was a member of KLA? Did ³⁵⁷³⁸ anybody say to you --

THE WITNESS: No. That's what puzzled me. What they told me was that he had a rifle in his hand, it was a fighting situation, but he was not named as a KLA fighter in the official version of the things. I must say that I have gone it through and gone it through for times. When I was there, I met another journalist that was -- okay, that's again hearsay, Mr. Nice, but maybe it's important enough to do it, and you can judge about it afterwards.

There were -- there were among journalists always rumours about a village militia at Racak that was not officially KLA and not -- had no uniforms but was fighting in the days around Racak. Those rumours or those informations or what you can call them were -- had been around all -- all the days. And later on, Der Spiegel made a story about it where they definitely said that there was a village militia at Racak. It was not uniformed and not KLA.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. One more question and we'll break, Mr. Milosevic, but I can say that the Chamber is not assisted by the general overall hearsay, but try to get specific events he specifically heard or saw. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Kwon, I understood it that Mr. Adam had specifically seen and heard all the details connected to the deaths of both the woman and the boy and Beqiri's father. And I think he mentioned another relation of his. So it was on the basis of those details that he had established that they were killed in the shooting that took place several hundred metres away from them and that this man had a ^{35739 BLANK PAGE 35740} rifle in his hand and that he died that way and he didn't die fleeing, he died fighting. I think he went into great detail. Now, you have Exhibit number 6, and they are photographs. Mr. Adam wanted to have the photographs as confidential to protect the identity of the person he took pictures of in view of the fact that his statement is diametrically opposed to the official statement by which -- which said that these were civilians. So he doesn't want to threaten the man's security and safety.

So please may we have the photographs placed on the ELMO - and it is Exhibit 8 - but that it be on Sanction and not publicly displayed.

JUDGE KWON: If it is to be confidential, what merit do you have to putting them on the ELMO or Sanction? You can put these pictures to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope the witness has his own pictures of this, but I wanted to show the people sitting here in court. And if it's not transmitted, then it won't disclose the identity of the person in question.

JUDGE KWON: Your intention is to maintain the confidentiality of these pictures?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is my intention to respect what the wishes of the witness are, and he wishes to protect the identity of the man he photographed, and I think we have to respect that. It's not a secret for any of us here in the courtroom, but it should remain a secret and confidential to the public, because that is how he is protecting the safety and security of this man. ³⁵⁷⁴¹

JUDGE KWON: Put the pictures to the witness, not on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have the pictures, I think, the photo spread.

A. [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE KWON: So that those are the pictures of those you interviewed or had words with?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And it's time. We'll break for 20 minutes.

Mr. Adam, you are not supposed to have words with the Defence team during the break.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I would expect you to conclude your examination-in-chief in half an hour.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, let us deal very briefly with this issue of identification of the persons you've mentioned.

In the first group, was Nesret Shabani among the people in the first group?

A. It must have been him, yes.

Q. Was the mother of the boy with whom you talked the person that was identified? Third, the person that we see in the picture here, is that ³⁵⁷⁴² the person explaining how Beqiri was killed?

A. I suppose you mean the picture of the hole in the ravine, down to the left. Down to the left. Yes, that was the person, according to my --

Q. Yes, in the lower left corner. Therefore, in addition to these three persons that we can identify, was everybody else in that group confirming what you heard from these persons?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there must be a limit to leading questions. The witness has said nothing about general confirmation. He simply said that information came from a group. The last question is really wholly unacceptable and shouldn't have been asked in that way.

JUDGE KWON: I agree. Reformulate the question again.

THE WITNESS: Can I put something? I have to correct myself, because I made a picture of Mr. Azemi, so it must have been Azemi I met first. You know, he is sitting just beside the grave of his brother. Afterwards I met Mr. Shabani. I met a lot of those people who were eyewitnesses, but the first one was Mr. Azemi. I have to correct that, from the picture.

Up to the right corner you see -- on the pictures, you see the mother of the killed boy. And down, you have one of the Sadik Osmani family, down to the right.

JUDGE KWON: Bottom left is the same man, still Mr. Azemi?

THE WITNESS: No. It's a different one which I cannot identify by name. He joined us and was part of the group of eyewitnesses. I asked him to -- to tell me in case they were eyewitnesses.

JUDGE KWON: Sorry, but is it okay for you to name them in public ³⁵⁷⁴³ session?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I did. But I cannot -- simply I cannot identify this person by name. Sorry for that.

JUDGE KWON: You wanted the confidentiality of these pictures.

THE WITNESS: I'm not able to do it. I cannot identify. I wrote a lot of names down, you know --

JUDGE KWON: I'm referring to Mr. Azemi, the mother of this boy and -- and another one.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry for that, but you know, I made my photos, I made my notes, and I didn't corroborate them. It was some time ago now.

JUDGE KWON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did I understand you well, Mr. Adam? You simply do not wish to show the picture of the man showing how Mr. Beqiri was killed? Is that the only thing you want to keep confidential?

A. That is the only thing I would like to be confidential. That's right.

Q. Very well. How many persons there were in that group that toured with you several of the spots?

A. The group consisted of two, three, four, five people. At times -- it was a long road going, and of course the people were curious and joined us, and then others went back again and -- you know, I was not doing that as an investigator for the Court, I was doing it as a journalist, so it was quite natural. For me it was important to get the news, get the ³⁵⁷⁴⁴ facts, and get, of course, the names of the people but not to corroborate them in the straight manner or the tight manner of a court.

Q. The persons providing information to you, there were always several of them present; is that right? And therefore, the others present there, did they also confirm or did they also agree with the information you were receiving?

A. Yes. As I understood, what was told me was general opinion of the people. There was nobody who opposed it, there was nobody who said anything else. Exactly when I insisted on showing me how it happened, people were there, and one told me and showed me, and the others were around and kept silent. They didn't oppose anything.

Q. Would you please be so kind, Mr. Adam, in relation to the photograph of the man showing how Beqiri was killed, to describe the terrain, the configuration of the terrain where he is located and where -- from which direction the fire that killed him came.

A. As I told, Racak is on the hillside and then there's a valley and then there comes the other hill, up here some hundred metres away where the OSCE monitors were and the Yugoslav or Serbian forces were at that time. And as -- the Beqiri incident happened in the back part of Racak. Not at the end but in the back part of Racak, and it was a road going up the hillside, but it was quite clear since we stood there and turned around that we could look at the other hillside from -- on the other side of the -- of the valley, and of course that could be looked into from the other side of the valley. That was the important thing for me. It was very plausible what they told me. ³⁵⁷⁴⁵

Q. Mr. Adam, you mentioned the village militia. Do you know anything about the sources of the information concerning the village militia?

A. No. As far as magazine Der Spiegel is concerned, this is an article where you could have a feeling that the source is somewhere in the Prosecution of this trial which leaked something to Der Spiegel because they are mentioning French tapes which intelligence forces from France taped of the conversation of -- of the conversation between -- between that village militia and the KLA, which as far as I know, haven't been presented here in the courtroom, but of course I don't know. So I cannot say anything about the sources, but it looks as if it may be useful to ask the Prosecution about it. Or to ask Der Spiegel people.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, this is something in which I think it is appropriate that I should inform you of recent correspondence between Mr. Kay and ourselves. In anticipation, I think, of what this witness might be saying in evidence, Mr. Kay sent a letter to me on the 27th of October, seeking query -- seeking answers to queries about sources of intelligence of the kind that the witness has referred to, and the Office of the Prosecutor searched all its records, as it had already done for disclosure under Rule 68, and refreshed all its inquiries and wrote back to Mr. Kay but also to the legal associates of the accused by a letter dated the 8th of December of 2004, explaining the nature of the inquiry that had been done and making clear that there was no information of this kind available to the Prosecution.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁵⁷⁴⁶

Q. Mr. Adam, let us go back to your own experience. When you completed touring these spots, what did you do next?

A. Well, I decided then to go to the small village of Malopoljce, which was five or four kilometres away from Racak.

JUDGE KWON: Could you tell us the village name again.

THE WITNESS: Malopoljce.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, why did you decide to go to Malopoljce?

A. Sorry, Malopoljce. The reason is in the mentioned OSCE report, you have a figure of five civilians killed at Racak, taken away by their families to Malopoljce. Five of the original 45 people which were mentioned there. And I wanted to know how they were then buried at Malopoljce and what had happened to them.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. I just noted it appears on page 3 of tab 2.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Mr. Adam, what did you establish upon arriving in Malopoljce?

A. Well, when you come into Malopoljce, you have -- just from the very beginning see a graveyard, another graveyard with the Albanian flag on top, the red flag with an eagle, and this graveyard was guarded by a KLA soldier. And I approached that graveyard. I was together with a taxi driver who drove me around that day, who was Albanian and who spoke a bit English, so we could understand each other. And I approached that graveyard, and we were first stopped and then were allowed into the graveyard and the KLA soldier then told my driver that those were KLA ³⁵⁷⁴⁷ soldiers who had died at Racak.

I went along those graves and noted names of the people who had -- were buried there and was, of course, very puzzled because in that OSCE statement you speak about civilians -- they speak about civilians, but those were, according to the KLA soldier on the spot, they were KLA soldiers. So that cannot be true that they were civilians.

Q. Please tell me, Mr. Adam, whether you remember any names of persons which you investigated. According to the information I have here, this involves the members of the Mujota family, if I'm pronouncing it right.

A. I can -- if I -- I'm allowed to look at my notes?

JUDGE KWON: Is that --

THE WITNESS: The names.

JUDGE KWON: You made it spontaneously?

THE WITNESS: No. I put them into my computer afterwards, of course. But it's only the names.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, it's okay.

THE WITNESS: The names of the people who are buried at Malopoljce, but according to their graves died at Racak were Shaqir Berisha, Rashita Simoni [phoen], another Skender Simoni [phoen], Nasim Kokolari [phoen], Ismail Luma, Shefqet -- I'm not able to speak Albanian so maybe it's not the wrong pronunciation, but Sadik Mujota, Hanumshahe Mujota, Mehmet Mustafa, and Kadri Syla. So those people were buried at Malopoljce but died on the 15th at Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁵⁷⁴⁸

Q. The names of these persons, are they listed in the report dealing with the people killed in Racak?

A. As far as know -- I know, they are not. They are deleted like everything else what is concerning the KLA and fighting of the KLA. There is no mentioning of that in the OSCE report.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. --

THE WITNESS: To --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Adam, is that seven names you gave us?

THE WITNESS: Those were the names I noted.

JUDGE BONOMY: And are there seven?

THE WITNESS: Ten.

JUDGE BONOMY: You noted ten. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: There are the names I noted. Of course, there were more graves but I was short of time, so when I hit the names of Syla and Mujota, which I knew were from Racak, then I stopped investigating because for me it was not a matter of completeness but a matter of principle.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What did you conclude based on that, Mr. Adam? What was your conclusion upon establishing that those were the graves of the KLA soldiers, that they were not listed as the victims of Racak incident but, however, that they had been in Racak? What did you conclude based on that?

A. I would like to refer to that --

JUDGE KWON: What's the point of the question? We can proceed. We've heard everything. ^{35749 BLANK PAGE 35750}

THE WITNESS: Your Honour, maybe I can -- maybe I can add something?

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: When I refer to the OSCE report from the 17th of January and see there that they note that five people, civilians, were taken by their families to Malopoljce, and then I find out that those were in fact, KLA fighters, then there you have two things which is not -- surely not disputed any more. They were fighters, but in those days it was a dispute or it was denied by the OSCE. Secondly, if you put it that way, family members, maybe they were taken away by family members, but that was not their characteristic. They were there not as family members at Racak but as KLA fighters. Then you hide something. Now, that's my point against that report of the OSCE, that they hided the identity of KLA fighters in their report to maintain the picture of being only civilians.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. We've heard that. Mr. Milosevic, proceed with your questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On the basis of what did you establish upon arriving in Malopoljce that it was the KLA graveyard and not an ordinary cemetery?

A. Well, the graveyard -- well, it was told to me by that KLA soldier that guarded that graveyard. So all -- it was told to my driver who was my interpreter at the same time, to -- again to be exact. Well, it was the shape of -- of course there was this Albanian flag on top, which was not typical. At Racak you have -- for instance, two cemeteries. You have ³⁵⁷⁵¹ the traditional one around the mosque, and you have another one which deals with the people who died at Racak on the 15th. And that's again the same type of -- of graveyards and of cemetery as at Malopoljce, with a flag on top and so on.

So I was told at Malopoljce that this is a KLA or UCK graveyard -- cemetery.

Q. Now, Mr. Adam, let us make some very brief conclusions. You arrived in Racak doubting certain allegations in the official presentation of the event as it was presented in the West; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Now, please tell me, as I have followed your evidence quite attentively, to what extent were you able either to confirm your doubts or to dispel them through your investigation in the field? I will ask you about five points in relation to the execution which was the leitmotif. What was your starting point and what did you establish through your investigation?

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that question simply calls for the witness to repeat his evidence. It's a complete and utter waste of time.

THE WITNESS: It's short. There's no problem.

JUDGE BONOMY: We've heard it. We don't need to hear it twice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, I will now enumerate all five questions that I wanted to summarise.

So these doubts that were dispelled or confirmed pertained to the ³⁵⁷⁵² execution, to the claim that women and children were killed, to the claim that this involved unarmed villagers. It pertained to the presence and activities of the KLA and to what you had established in relation to the Mujota family.

So your suspicions were aimed at the allegations in the official publications, announcements. To what extent were you able to dispel or confirm the doubts that you had about the execution of unarmed civilians, women, children, the presence of the KLA, and so on?

JUDGE KWON: It's just a repetition, as Judge Bonomy pointed out. Go on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In that case, I would simply like to turn now to several exhibits remaining. I've already mentioned Berliner Zeitung under tab 9. "It is not true that many persons were shot dead at extremely close range."

And then we also have Berliner Zeitung on the 13th of March, "OSCE Representatives Repudiate Walker."

Then tab 11. This is the report of the Reuters News Service. Then tab 12 is an article from Le Figaro, "Obscure Areas of a Massacre."

Tab 13 is another article from Berliner Zeitung, "Europeans Urge Head of Kosovo Mission to Resign."

Tab 14 is Berliner Zeitung again, "The Disappeared Dead of Racak." I would like to briefly discuss this, this topic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What do you know about the disappeared dead of Racak? ³⁵⁷⁵³

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before -- before the witness answers and without, I hope, inconveniencing him, I'm not sure if the accused is seeking by his last observations to have admitted all those newspaper articles; and if so, on what basis.

JUDGE BONOMY: We'll deal with that, I think.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, we will.

JUDGE BONOMY: But not at the moment.

JUDGE KWON: I think the accused is going to deal with tab 14. Go on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Under tab 14, there is an article dealing with "The Disappeared Dead of Racak." What do you know about that, Mr. Adam?

A. That article deals with exactly what I had told you; that some of the KLA fighters from Racak were brought away to another village and buried there to hide that it was not -- that it was a different thing of execution and that there was a fight in Racak.

JUDGE KWON: Which was written by you.

THE WITNESS: It was written by me, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, Mr. Kwon, I would like to tender these exhibits into evidence, the ones attached to the testimony of Mr. Adam. And I heard the intervention made by Mr. Nice awhile ago that newspaper articles should not be introduced into evidence. I think he has introduced numerous newspaper articles along with his witnesses and their testimonies, so I think it is quite reasonable, in view of the fact that we're talking about researchers, journalists from ³⁵⁷⁵⁴ the West, in this case from Germany, who have no reason whatsoever to be biased and support the Serb side in any way, that they should be introduced.

And having said that, I should like to ask just one more question of Mr. Adam, and it is this:

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, before asking that question, we ruled already that we will not admit tab 9 for the reasons stated by myself and Judge Bonomy, and -- but 10, 12 -- I'm speaking for myself. I'm minded to admit tab 14, but the other articles, I don't see any point to admit them in such a wholesale manner. We'll deal with it later and after having heard your last question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Adam, since you're a professional journalist yourself, I assume that you are quite competent to answer the question related to the topic you dealt with, the investigation you undertook. Was this a case of propaganda which was utilised against Serbia and the Serb authorities with respect to what you uncovered in Racak?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I really don't think that the record of this trial should be burdened with an answer to that sort of question. It is the broadest possible conclusion. If relevant, it's a matter for the Chamber on evidence, and it is not something for this witness.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. The Chamber agrees with the observation. That concludes your examination-in-chief? ³⁵⁷⁵⁵

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is minded to admit from tab 1 to tab 6, and tab 11, and tab 14 for the reasons that because they were referred to during the examination-in-chief.

If there's any other observation from the Prosecution? Mr. Nice -- Mr. Saxon. I'm sorry.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, thank you. Cross-examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. Mr. Adam, you made the comment early on in your direct testimony that Racak was the decisive event in the Kosovo crisis, and that was one of the reasons why you eventually decided to go to Racak. That's correct?

A. Yes, in connection with my doubts, yes.

Q. And when you went to Racak, you spoke to several witnesses there about the events of the 15th of January, 1999 because, as you put it, that was very important to you. That's right?

A. That's part of my investigation. That's correct.

Q. And would you agree with me that for an event as decisive, to use your words, as Racak, it would be important to do -- for the authorities to do a complete and comprehensive investigation in order --

A. What authorities do you mean?

Q. Well, the authorities of the Republic of Serbia at the time.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the usher kindly adjust the witness's microphone. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, in principle, yes, of course.

MR. SAXON: ³⁵⁷⁵⁶

Q. And part of such a comprehensive investigation could include, for example, speaking to survivors of the event, as you spoke to them, a year later.

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Part of such an investigation might include speaking to the members of the police or other units, armed units, who may or may not have been present at Racak on that day. Would you agree with that?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. In fact, it might even include speaking with members of the KLA if that were possible; would you agree?

A. My approach is a journalistic one, of course, and I speak to everybody.

Q. Sure. So an investigation that made no attempts to speak to survivors or perhaps police who were involved would not be very complete, would it?

A. Surely not.

Q. In fact, it would be somewhat deficient, wouldn't it?

A. Yes, you can say that.

Q. Just to clarify one point: On the 15th of January, 1999, the day of the events that occurred at Racak, do you recall where you were?

A. Yes, exactly. I was at home because it was Friday -- well, I was at work, and on Saturday, when the first news came in, I know it very well because I said to my wife, then wife, that in case that is true, there will be a war. So I knew from the very beginning that that was a crucial point. ³⁵⁷⁵⁷

Q. And can I assume that your home is in the Berlin area?

A. Yes.

Q. So on that day, you were many thousands of kilometres away from Racak?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. And on that day you had no direct contact, for example, by telephone or by radio with persons in Racak, did you?

A. No, of course not.

Q. So everything that you've told the Trial Chamber today is based on things that either you read or that you were told by other persons; right?

A. Yes. That's the way we journalists are doing it, and we are finding a lot out.

Q. I agree. You mentioned Dr. Ranta in your direct examination, and you mentioned at one point that you -- you and your journalist colleagues had received all of the protocols done by Dr. Ranta and her team, and I just want to clarify something. By the word "protocols," you're referring to the autopsy reports that were done on the bodies from Racak; is that right?

A. Yes. Well, they are called protocols, so we obtained the protocols. I don't -- to be quite exact, we missed two or three pieces, and there were reports which were part of the protocols, but that's very detailed now, so I wouldn't go into that in case you don't want.

Q. Thank you. And after reviewing those protocols, you and your colleagues came to the conclusion that President Clinton's earlier allegations about executions, et cetera, clearly were not true. That's ³⁵⁷⁵⁸ what you've testified today; is that right?

A. Well, if you shorten it very much, then you could say that, but first of all I have to state that we, of course, when we had those protocols, we went to the experts.

Q. Okay. All right.

A. That's very important, because -- well, now I would almost say that I'm half an expert on that issue, but of course they are still experts, real experts.

Q. All right.

A. But of course my conclusion in the end, or our conclusion in the end was that what Mr. Clinton said, which I quoted, "forced to kneel in the dirt to be sprayed upon by weapons," had no bearing.

Q. Okay. I'd like to show you an exhibit, if I may.

MR. SAXON: I would like to show the witness Prosecution's Exhibit 156, tab 11.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just before another question is put, in case I've misunderstood this, my understanding was that you thought that the evidence did not justify the statement by President Clinton, and that's because you considered that insufficient attention had been paid to a particular line of investigation that might have clarified the position. But equally, I didn't understand you to be saying that what he said was wrong. What you were saying was it hadn't been proved to be right.

THE WITNESS: Well -- well, of course I cannot -- I cannot tell you what happened at Racak. What I can tell is what didn't happen or probably didn't happen. I can put of pieces of evidence together like ^{35759 BLANK PAGE 35760} police people do it, I as a journalist do it, and I can say that they are not consistent. That's what I can say.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. SAXON: We have this exhibit on Sanction, I'm told now by Ms. Dicklich.

Q. Mr. Adam, I'm going to show you part of an exhibit that was produced in this courtroom by Dr. Ranta. It's entitled Executive Summary on the Work of the European Union Forensic Expert Team in Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1998 to 2000. And this report was submitted to the European Union on the 22nd of June of 2000. Obviously when you and your colleagues reviewed the protocols produced by the forensic experts, you had not read the contents of this summary, had you?

A. Of the field investigation?

Q. Correct.

A. No.

Q. And I'd like to --

A. That was kept secret.

Q. Exactly. And I'd like to direct you to page 9 -- excuse me, page 19 of this exhibit, if we can get it.

MR. SAXON: I think we need to look at the next page.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. This is page 18.

MR. SAXON: We need to look at one more page. Well, we don't have a very legible -- can this be improved in any way? I'd like the witness to be able to read it with me. ³⁵⁷⁶¹

THE WITNESS: March 2000?

JUDGE KWON: He's able to see the Sanction, but I wonder whether the witness is able to see the document. I have the original.

MR. SAXON: I have the original as well, and I'm willing to let the witness read along with me if someone could lend me their copy so I could follow along as well.

THE WITNESS: I see a page on the screen. I can read it.

MR. SAXON:

Q. You can read it? Very good.

A. Yes, starting March 2000.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. SAXON:

Q. Mr. Adam, I'd like to direct your attention to the last paragraph on this page. It begins: "The forensic materials and evidence ..." and it goes on to say "... during scene investigations were recovered and documented by the members of the team with the effective logistic assistance of the Finnish KFOR Battalion in Lipjan, Kosovo. In November 1999, metal detectors, which were adjusted to reach a depth of 30 centimetres, were employed and the total area of 170 metres by 30 to 60 metres was searched for metal objects." And they're referring to the ravine at Racak in this paragraph.

"Several bullets and bullet fragments were found at a depth of 0 to 15 centimetres. The location of the victims, as verified by the OSCE on 16 January 1999, and the sites of recovery of bullets and bullet fragments coincide. Bullets were not found elsewhere in the gully or its ³⁵⁷⁶² vicinity. Moreover, cartridge cases were recovered on the surface of the ground, occasionally under leaves and silt. The majority of cartridge cases recovered by the team were found under the bushes lining the gully. In some cases, other material of human origin was found in association with bullets."

Obviously you did not have this information to use when you and your colleagues were reviewing simply the protocols regarding the autopsies that were done. If you had had, for example, this information that the location of the victims in the gully and the sites of recovery of bullets in the ground coincide, might that have changed your mind or altered your view as to whether an execution did take place at Racak?

A. Well, first of all, you should expect from such an investigation that this investigation is complete; right? As I mentioned, I came to Racak and Mrs. Ranta was up doing finishing of her investigation, and they had done the other metal detector investigation in November, and when she left, then I was allowed to go in or I went in to the ravine, and what I found there were the paint spots made by the investigation teams where they had found something. But what I also found just half an hour after Mrs. Ranta, were cartridges, spent cartridges. I could have taken half a dozen of them with me. I took one with me. I have it here in my fingers. Which let me doubt, without having known the outcome of the investigation, that this investigation -- at least it puzzled me, to put it polite, that an investigation was done and then just afterwards simple persons like me can come and recover other cartridges.

That's what I can say to that investigation. I can hand it over ³⁵⁷⁶³ to the Court if you need, but it's not -- not a very pleasant memory.

Q. Mr. Adam, can you answer my question, please. The question was very simple.

A. Yes, I understood you.

Q. Well, let me repeat it again --

A. Okay.

Q. -- because I have not received an answer. The question is just this: If you had had the information available to you that I just read to you when you were also reviewing the autopsy protocols --

A. Yes.

Q. -- might that have affected your views about whether an execution took place at Racak or not?

A. Okay. Everything that I read affects me, and I try to find out what that means. I answered your question, because that experience with that cartridges, of course, influenced my opinion about investigations of Mrs. Ranta. Nevertheless, of course Mrs. Ranta's investigation were surely interesting.

What I'm missing, before I come to a conclusion, and maybe that should be done here in court, is a match of those bullet fragments and bullet holes in the ravine with the wounds of the people who died in the ravine. I haven't -- as far as I know, there has been no match of that --

Q. As far as --

A. -- now.

Q. As far as you know; is that correct?

A. As far as I know. ³⁵⁷⁶⁴

Q. As far as you know.

A. Not in public, as far as I know. That's part of the answer. When you try to find out those incredible bullet holes at times, well, we -- we all know that film JFK where there is a magic bullet going this way, that way around, turning around and so on. This is nothing against the riddles when you try to match the bullet holes at Racak in the ravine. There you have people being shot 15 times and just aside of that, behind those people, people who are shot only three times or one time. There are holes you cannot corroborate with anything else. And of course the whole thing is -- the main thing is that the -- even if you find bullets there -- well, I'm not telling you that there was -- that people were not shot there, some of them at least. Some of them at least. But how they were shot, that's the important thing.

Q. Mr. Adam --

A. A fight -- in a fighting situation or not in a fighting situation. I can tell you one thing which I discussed with a --

Q. Mr. Adam --

A. -- specialist on that.

JUDGE KWON: That's enough, Mr. Adam.

MR. SAXON:

Q. Mr. Adam, I need to -- in order to move along, I need to sort of guide you with my examination. You don't have any formal training in forensic science, do you?

A. Well, in the Racak case.

Q. Is that formal training? ³⁵⁷⁶⁵

A. No, it isn't formal, but I have dealt so much with that so that at least I know a little. You know, that's part of the job of being a journalist; you have to start from zero and then within a week or time you have to be able to speak to a professor of a science or what else, and you have to put the right questions, and that's ability I have learned.

Q. Right. And in this case, for example, with the Racak case, you started at zero; is that right?

A. Well, at the very beginning, yes, of course, as we all do it.

Q. Would it surprise you to learn that, for example, in the case of one body there was a bullet found in the ground next to a molar that came from the jaw of the victim whose body had been recovered from that spot?

A. No. I've heard about that or I've seen that, yeah.

Q. And that to you would at least be a fairly effective, or a sign of a reasonably effective forensic investigation, wouldn't it?

A. Yes, of course. That's part of it.

Q. You also gave some testimony regarding the information that you heard, that you received when you went to Racak in March of 2000, particularly regarding the death of a woman and a child, and I think the woman you're referring to is a woman who was known as Hanemshahe Mehmeti?

A. Muso.

Q. And I believe the child's name was Halim Beqiri.

A. Yes.

Q. Based on what the group of people who you met with in Racak told you about how this woman and how this child died, you learned that apparently they were fired at from a distance of approximately a hundred ³⁵⁷⁶⁶ metres; right?

A. That was what they showed me, what they told me.

Q. And therefore, you took the view that there had been, at least with respect to these two victims, there had been no "execution at short range"; is that right?

A. Well, exactly. That's what I tried to find out and I found out, that in those two cases there was not an execution at short range, right.

Q. Can I just ask you --

A. Or three times, because there was an uncle up the hill.

Q. Mr. Adam, can I just ask you this: Is it possible that those -- that woman and that child died as the result of a long-range execution?

A. Again, I have to tell you that my approach as a journalist was -- I'm not in the situation that I can do a full-scale investigation. So I have to concentrate on several things, and I have to concentrate on what is being said, and then I have to compare that with what has been said in the official version, to put it, and then what can I find out, and to match those things in some small cases and then to try and find out is it -- okay, that's -- and since Mr. Clinton spoke of children who were first forced to kneel, then that was a clear match between that sentence and the facts.

Q. Or perhaps to -- to follow your point, a clear mismatch, I think.

A. A mismatch.

Q. Fine. I completely understand your point, but I'm asking you something different. It's just very simple. Is it possible that Hanemshahe Mehmeti, the young woman, and Halim Beqiri, a 13-year-old boy, ³⁵⁷⁶⁷ were the victims of a long-range execution; for example, a sniper firing from a hundred metres away? Is it possible? Just yes or no.

A. Of course, it's possible. The problem is you then have to take in the surroundings, the situation. Is there a fight? Is there -- in that time, is there -- are there people fighting -- shooting there and back and so on, or is it an invasion by forces into a village which is totally peaceful? And I cannot say -- I cannot say what that shot was, but I can say that if you -- of course if you leave out the fighting situation, then it must have been some form of execution. But that's what not is true, because there was a fighting situation over the day, as Mr. Shukri Buja told us.

Q. Can I just ask you another question just to follow up on that point. In situations of armed conflict where there -- there is fighting going on, in your experience are sometimes civilians deliberately targeted, in your experience as a journalist?

A. In that general form I have to say yes, of course.

Q. And would you agree that if civilians are deliberately targeted by one belligerent force or another, that would be a crime, wouldn't you agree?

A. Of course that would be.

Q. I would like -- I would --

JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt you. You referred to Mr. Shukri Buja.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Does that mean you met him in person or you referred ³⁵⁷⁶⁸ to his testimony?

THE WITNESS: I referred to his testimony.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I think that's allowed. Of course I can refer to Reuters or what else.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Are you aware that in at least one published report from the 17th of January Ms. Hanemshahe Mehmeti was reportedly coming to the aid of her stricken brother when she was killed?

A. Yes, that's one version, yes.

Q. That's one version. All right. I would like to show you a bit of videotape, Mr. Adam, and this will be an extract, I believe from a BBC production called The Fall of Milosevic. And I believe we have a transcript of the extract that we're going to show you so that people can follow along.

[Videotape played] "Narrator: In early January 1999, the KLA shot dead three Serb policemen. The Serb response in the village of Racak would change everything.

"[No interpretation] "Narrator: For six hours the paramilitary police fired into the village from one end while army units bombarded it from the other. Then the major moved in with his police.

"[No interpretation] ^{35769 BLANK PAGE 35770} "Narrator: The Serb force reported finding the bodies of 15 Albanian men in the village. The Serb major says that after searching from house to house he left a small unit to stand guard overnight. "[No interpretation]"

MR. SAXON: Thank you.

Q. Mr. Adam, I take it as part of your investigation you did not interview Goran Radosavljevic, the Serb police commander we saw in this film; did you?

A. No.

Q. All right. He was also known as Gurij. The information that you just received, or this particular version of the events that we just saw, if three policemen had been killed and certain people had already been identified as suspects, normally wouldn't you expect that those people, the suspects, would have been investigated, perhaps prosecuted according to the legal system in place in that society? Would you expect that?

A. You will repeat that question?

Q. I'm sorry. I'm -- like journalists, lawyers sometimes are lazy and not as concise as they should be.

Assuming what the police commander said was true, that they had information that residents of Racak had -- were responsible for the killing of three policemen, do you think it might have been possible for the authorities of the judicial system in the Republic of Serbia to investigate what had happened?

A. I wouldn't assess that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon. ³⁵⁷⁷¹

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that the question is improper, because the police officer on the tape spoke about a terrorist group in Racak and the attack that the police carried out against the terrorist group in Racak, not against the inhabitants of Racak. If you follow it, what the police officer said. Therefore, the question is improper.

JUDGE KWON: I don't think your intervention to be appropriate, because the witness is surely able to deal with the question.

MR. SAXON: Actually, Your Honour, just to clarify, what the police commander says was, "We got reports that a family in Racak had killed three policemen."

Q. So I'm just wondering, do you find it perhaps a little odd that rather than the local authorities taking action against these -- this alleged family that was responsible, we see a large police operation?

A. That was part of the things that puzzled me at Racak because in case this was a small group of KLA fighters or what else, how you call them - let's call them KLA fighters - then you don't need that build-up, that military, paramilitary build-up. You see the tanks on the video. Not on this video but on other videos. You see two tanks. Not firing, but they were there. What puzzled me, and I -- I cannot understand, but that means -- well, I don't know if I'm allowed to --

JUDGE KWON: Yes, please go on. Go on, please.

THE WITNESS: For me, the presentation by Mr. Buja, Shukri Buja, shed a light on that because it was far much more than a, let's say, ³⁵⁷⁷² criminal investigation into the murder of policemen. It was far more than that.

MR. SAXON:

Q. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Would you agree also that after a village is bombarded, as the commentator said in this video, for about six hours, that it's possible that some of the villagers, women, children, some men, might try to flee? Would you accept that's possible?

A. Absolutely, but again we know from Mr. -- sorry, from Mr. Buja that they had asked the people to go out of Racak before the fight. That's what he said, refers to that.

Second, I have to correct you. It has been said many times that's part of the things which are not true, that cannot be true, according to my materials, to be cautious, that this village was bombarded. In that same OSCE report from the 17th of January, they mention three houses burnt. Three houses. After six hours of bombardment of a village, three houses burnt. Of those three houses, two houses were the so-called KLA headquarters or bases. And the third one was -- I couldn't identify the third one. But that's not a bombardment of a village.

Q. Let me --

A. According to my materials, I say.

Q. Let me follow up on the point that you just made. You mention Shukri Buja's testimony that members of the KLA had asked the civilian residents to leave, but you're also familiar with his testimony where Mr. Buja said, however, that that many civilians decided to stay.

A. Yes, some of them did. ³⁵⁷⁷³

Q. I would also -- you also mentioned in your testimony the presence of trenches in Racak.

A. Yes.

Q. And you described how trenches are not used for fleeing, they're used for fighting.

A. Right.

Q. And during your time walking around Racak, you went up to the infamous ravine, I take it. You didn't see any trench running up that ravine, did you?

A. Exactly. I saw that. There is a trench halfway down the village, and that goes directly up to the ravine so that you can say the ravine is part of the trench if -- a natural part of the trench, because it's like a trench, this ravine. And there are what I suppose in English it's called foxholes up in the ravine, because you can -- in a wonderful way you can overlook the whole valley from the ravine. It's a very interesting military point.

Q. Could a ravine be used for fleeing? Could people flee up a ravine?

A. Of course. People can flee everywhere.

Q. Thank you. I would also like to show you an article that I believe you wrote. It's a --

MR. SAXON: Yes. Your Honour, I would ask that the video that we just showed be given an exhibit number and that it be entered into evidence.

JUDGE KWON: Ms. Higgins. ³⁵⁷⁷⁴

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honours, brief observations. The witness was asked questions about it. He made it very clear that he didn't interview the man who was seen on the video. He can't speak to what that man said, and as a general practice, this Chamber does not admit parts of documentaries. This is edited material from a several-part documentary called The Fall of Milosevic. I would object to its admission on those grounds.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. Can I hear from the accused on this matter, whether you oppose to the admission of this video clip.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I have opposed several times already the use of this propaganda material of the BBC. It contains edited bits of the statements of certain people. As we were able to see in this particular excerpt, their statements are interposed with various comments which all go to distort the picture. If you have an entire statement of a police official, then I do not mind that being admitted, however, the BBC material with BBC comments and their text, I believe that that is entirely unacceptable.

As for a statement of a police official, if you have such official statements, then, yes, please use them, but not these bits and pieces.

JUDGE KWON: I assume that Mr. Saxon is minded to present the entire statement of that --

MR. SAXON: We can do that, Your Honour, absolutely.

JUDGE KWON: -- police officer.

MR. SAXON: We'll do that as soon as we can.

JUDGE KWON: I think the Prosecution has the entire script of The ³⁵⁷⁷⁵ Fall of Milosevic.

MR. SAXON: That's correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: No, the full statement of the police officer.

MR. SAXON: I have to check on that, Your Honour. I can't respond 100 per cent at this time.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The position is we have already obtained some of the full records of interviews of some of the people shown on both The Death of Yugoslavia and The Fall of Milosevic. We've been selective in light of logistics and cost. There is nothing to stop us getting a full transcript, for example, of Radosavljevic. And I believe we don't have him yet in full, but we will undertake to do so.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: Having considered the position of the Prosecution and considering that relevant part is already put to the witness, I don't think we need to admit this one.

Proceed, Mr. Saxon, then.

MR. SAXON: I would like to show Mr. Adam an article. Your Honour, just correct me, are we going to break at 12.15?

JUDGE KWON: Quarter past.

MR. SAXON: Quarter past. In the interests of time and I think prior to the break, I would like to distribute a statement -- if I may have your indulgence for a moment, Your Honours.

[Prosecution counsel confer] ³⁵⁷⁷⁶

JUDGE KWON: And for the timetabling matter, how long would you expect -- would you need for cross-examination?

MR. SAXON: I think I have just a few more minutes, Your Honour. In fact, I might be able to finish very close to 12.15, if that would --

JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will go on, and we will have the previous witness after that.

MR. SAXON: I'd like to show Mr. Adam an article entitled Racak, How Did 13-year-old Halim Beqiri Die?

JUDGE KWON: Is that not part of the tabs?

MR. SAXON: I believe it is, Your Honour.

MS. HIGGINS: Tab 15.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, tab 15.

MR. SAXON:

Q. And very quickly, Mr. Adam. This is an article that you authored and was published on the 24th of March, 2000, in the Berliner Zeitung, and I would simply like to direct your attention to the very last paragraph of the article. Do you see the very last paragraph? It begins with the words "Our guide ..." Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. That paragraph reads: "Our guide tells us that 25 men had hidden in a small barn underneath this hill but that they were discovered by the Serbs. The majority of those Albanians had started running up the hill where they ran into Serbs who killed them."

I don't know if you've had the opportunity any time recently to review the indictment regarding the events in Kosovo, particularly the ³⁵⁷⁷⁷ Racak paragraphs.

A. Of course I have.

Q. And there is a paragraph, it is paragraph 66(A).

A. No, I am running into difficulties because I have --

Q. You may have my copy, Mr. Adam. I'm just going to read a sentence or two. It's page 26 of the Kosovo indictment. And in paragraph 66(a) we see the following in the middle of the paragraph at the bottom of page 26: "Villagers, who attempted to flee from the forces of the FRY and Serbia, were shot throughout the village." And then it says: "A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building, but were discovered by the forces of the FRY and Serbia. They were beaten and then were removed to a nearby hill, where they were shot and killed." Would you agree that the last sentences that I have just read to you are generally consistent with the version of the -- of your guide that you describe in this article from the 24th of March, 2000?

A. Well, first of all, you can see from that article that I quote that people independently of what they say. I'm writing about this witness and since -- as I'm writing about the other witnesses had told about Mrs. Mehmeti and Mr. Beqiri, first of all. Because I was totally impartial and totally unbiased on that.

Q. Sure.

A. I can tell you, just as a detail, I asked the editors of Koha Ditore in Pristine to come with me to help me investigate that.

Q. So I take it your response is yes to that?

A. Sorry. Then when you have to go into detail, I don't know, your ³⁵⁷⁷⁸ question is whether that is consistent -- last sentence is consistent with this -- with what --

Q. Whether what you describe in the last paragraph --

A. The village guide said or what I wrote.

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. If it's -- you ask if it's consistent with what I wrote. Then --

Q. In this article.

A. It's not exactly consistent, because you use the word --

Q. My question was is it generally consistent.

A. You know in German we say -- [Interpretation] We say the devil is in the detail.

Q. I asked you question, Mr. Adam. I'm speaking English and I used the word "generally." Is it generally consistent with the allegations in the Prosecution's indictment that I just read to you?

A. [In English] Well, in a very essential question it's not. So I have to -- to deny that. You speak about removed. I speak about -- yeah, I speak about they ran up.

Q. Okay.

A. Being removed is just a different thing.

Q. Thank you.

MR. SAXON: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: The Prosecution is of the opinion that this tab should be admitted?

MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour. ^{35779 BLANK PAGE 35780}

JUDGE ROBINSON: That will be so ordered.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 825.

JUDGE KWON: It can be part of Defence Exhibit for the convenience. Tab 15, it can be revived. Yes, because it refers to the same article, but the translation seems to be a bit different. We will admit it as a Prosecution Exhibit. What's the number again, please?

THE REGISTRAR: So 825.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you have any further questions, further re-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I do.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

JUDGE KWON: With the indulgence of the interpreters, we'll go on. How long do you need for your re-examination? It's more than -- if it is more than five minutes, we will take a break now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that I won't need that much.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Very well. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Adam, both you and Mr. Saxon during this cross-examination mentioned several times witness Shukri Buja who testified here. Do you know who Shukri Buja was?

A. Well, according to his own testimony, he was commander of the Racak or Stimlje region. I'm not sure whether it was the Racak or Stimlje region. And commanded over 800 or a thousand soldiers, but I'm not sure of the exact number.

Q. Do you know that here during cross-examination he confirmed that ³⁵⁷⁸¹ it was actually the KLA who started firing first at the police entering the village and then the fact they fired from a heavy machine-gun? This can be verified in the transcript.

A. As far as I remember, yes.

Q. In addition to what this fact points to, do you also remember what he confirmed about the presence of the KLA members in Racak at the time when the fighting took place? He was their commander.

A. Yes. What he told was that there was a garrison or what you can call it of about 40 KLA fighters at Racak in that small valley just down from the ravine, downside from the ravine. There was a compound where they were -- where there were KLA soldiers. So it was a garrison. But all in all, there was quite larger amount of soldiers in the region, as he told. Of KLA soldiers I speak.

Q. As I have showed a video about these events here, please tell me, do you know that the police invited representatives of the Verification Mission just before the fighting in Racak and that two orange jeeps of the Verification Mission could be seen in the tape surveying the entire event from the hill?

MR. NICE: I can't see how that arises from cross-examination and it's leading in form.

JUDGE KWON: Agreed. Please reformulate your question again.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know that the Verification Mission was informed about the police operation related to Racak?

A. I'm -- I'm not informed about that. I don't know, but what I took ³⁵⁷⁸² from -- that there was a formal invitation, I don't know about that. But obviously the OSCE vehicles were on top of the hill. You can see them on the videos.

Q. Everything that you collected, all the information that you gathered related to Racak, did all of that point to the fact that this was in fact a conflict between police forces and the KLA?

JUDGE KWON: This is a leading question again. No further questions, Mr. Milosevic?

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

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Adam, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the International Tribunal to give it, and you are now free to go.

JUDGE KWON: Before we break, I have a couple of matters. I'm not -- yes, you may leave, Mr. Adam.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure the Chamber received the Exhibit 825. I thought it was, but this is different one. It is the names on the tombstones. During the break if the Registrar could check it. And in relation to -- another one is in relation to the binder tendered through the previous witness, Mr. Markovic. I was advised by the Court Deputy that tab 18 and tab 53 were dealt with during the examination but not admitted yet, tab 18 being the Constitutional Court decision. I don't see any difficulty in admitting it, but tab 53 is a Newsweek article by Mr. Henry Kissinger which was put to the witness and confirmed by him. If Mr. Nice has any observation on that. ³⁵⁷⁸³ MR. Nice: I can only, at the moment, imperfectly remember the Kissinger article and the part it played in the evidence of the witness. Probably the easiest course is for me to take no objection at the moment, given the fairly generous standards of admissibility that we're following at the moment, and leave it for what it's worth.

JUDGE KWON: Seeing no position from the Prosecution, we'll admit those two tabs.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, just before you adjourn, in relation to Bo Adam, can for the record it be marked that tab 6 should be under seal, confidential document?

JUDGE KWON: Yes, in particular, number 3.

MS. HIGGINS: Indeed.

JUDGE KWON: In particular number 3 picture, not others.

MS. HIGGINS: Yes. And also for the record tab number 4 has already been put into evidence as Court Exhibit 1.3.

JUDGE KWON: For safety, we'll put the entire tab 6 in confidential status. What's your second point; number 4? Could you repeat your --

MS. HIGGINS: Tab 4, Your Honour, is already in evidence as Court exhibit 1.3, C1.3.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. That being the case, we don't need to admit it again.

MR. NICE: One other --

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: When I said that I understood that we didn't have the ³⁵⁷⁸⁴ full Radosavljevic interview, I was in fact in error. It is one of those we have available in full. It is, of course, material that came rather late in the day because that broadcast only came late in the day and after, I think, the Kosovo segment of the trial was concluded. I am entirely in Your Honour's hands as to whether you would change the ruling for this particular witness but it's certainly material to which I will return whether it's exhibited now or at a later stage.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: I would recommend you to disclose this statement to the other parties.

MR. NICE: Certainly, we'll do that.

JUDGE KWON: And then we'll consider --

MR. NICE: I'm much obliged. Therefore the question of the exhibiting of the video that was played can either be returned to or -- yes, marked for identification or something to that effect maybe.

JUDGE KWON: We ruled that we would not admit it and it will be returned.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. We will break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, I was informed indirectly that the translation of tab 15 of the previous witness is a CLSS translation and is superior to the Prosecution translation, which was admitted as Exhibit ³⁵⁷⁸⁵ 825, which is only a draft translation. So that being the case, the Chamber would admit tab 15 as part of the Defence exhibit instead of Exhibit 825.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Continue your examination. Mr. Balevic, may I remind you that you're still under your oath. Please proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: MITAR BALEVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Balevic, were you at the celebrations of the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo which took place at Gazimestan on the 28th of June, 1989?

A. Mr. President, before I give an answer to that question of yours, with Mr. Kwon's permission, may I be allowed to add something to my answer yesterday when I was interrupted when we were talking about Albanian nationalism. And I don't think you'll be able to gain a proper picture unless I'm allowed to add to what I said yesterday. With Mr. Kwon's permission, of course.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: We don't think it would be -- assist us very much. Why don't you ask Mr. Milosevic to put the question again if necessary. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mr. Balevic. What was it that you wished to say with ³⁵⁷⁸⁶ respect to escalation of Albanian nationalism?

A. Mr. Milosevic, you interrupted me at the point where I was speaking about the death of Boro and Ramiz as secretaries and communists. They were killed as communists but I wasn't speaking about them as --

JUDGE KWON: I'm stopping you. We ruled that it is not relevant. It's not relevant at this moment.

Mr. Milosevic, ask another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, let me repeat the question I asked you at the beginning: Did you attend the 600th anniversary celebrations of the battle of Kosovo on the 28th of June, 1989 at Gazimestan?

A. Yes, I did. I was there as president of the Municipal Committee of the League of Communists in Kosovo Polje. I was a sort of host and greeted guests coming in by railway to Kosovo Polje and were further transported to the ceremony itself in buses.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, before I continue, may I just remind you that Mr. Nice, in his introductory speech, and I'm referring to page 26 of the transcript from the opening statement he made at the very beginning when he spoke about the event, and I'm just going to quote briefly from that, returning -- it is page 26, line 12. [In English] "Turning to the rise of this accused and returning to Kosovo, we come to the 28th of June, 1989. Another, I think, famous clip but we must show it, and it must be entered into the evidence of this case. On that day there was celebration of the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo. I shan't trouble the Chamber with the detail of why that battle, ³⁵⁷⁸⁷ which was indeed a loss by Serbians, was celebrated in the way it was. The event occurred at the place called Kosovo Polje in Kosovo. An enormous number of people attended."

[Interpretation] And then Mr. Nice gives us an excerpt from that, and he wants that to be tendered as part of the document. I would like to play the tape now of the speech delivered at Gazimestan. Tape has been prepared. We have the translations of what is being said so you'll be able to follow.

May the tape be played, please.

[Videotape played]

THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Comrades, comrades, men and women. At this place, at this place in the heart of Serbia at the Field of Kosovo, six centuries ago, a full 600 years ago, one of the greatest battles of the time took place. Like all major events, there are many questions and secrets attached to this one and are the subject of public curiosity and scientific research. By the force of social circumstances, this great 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo is taking place in a year in which Serbia, after many years and many decades has regained its state, national, and spiritual integrity. It is not, therefore, difficult for us to answer today that age-old question: How are we going to face Milos, Milos Obilic, legendary hero of the battle of Kosovo. To replay of history and life, it seems as if Serbia has precisely in this year 1989 regained its states and its dignity and thus is celebrating an event of the distant past which had a great historical and symbolic significance for its future. Today it is difficult to say what is the historical truth ³⁵⁷⁸⁸ about the battle of Kosovo and what is the legend, and today that is no longer important. Oppressed by pain and filled with hope, the people used to remember and to forget as, after all, all people in the world do, and it was ashamed of treachery and glorified heroism. That is why it is difficult to say today whether the battle of Kosovo is a defeat or victory for the Serb people. Whether thanks to it we fell into slavery or thanks to it we survived in that slavery. The answers to those questions will constantly be sought by science and the people. What has been certain through all the centuries is that today in that -- there was disharmony that struck in Kosovo 600 years ago. If we lost the battle, then it was not only the result of social superiority and the armed advantage of the Ottoman Empire but also of the tragic disunity and discord in the leadership of the Serbian state at the time.

"In the distant 1389, the Ottoman Empire was not only stronger than that of the Serbs but it was also more fortunate than the Serbian kingdom. The lack of unity and betrayal in Kosovo will continue to attend the Serbian people like an evil fate through the whole of its history. Even in the last war this discord and betrayal led the Serbian people in Serbia into an agony, the consequences of which in the historical and moral sense exceeded the fascist aggression. Even later when a socialist Yugoslavia was established, in this the new state the Serbian leadership remained divided, prone to compromise to the detriment of its own people. The concessions that many Serbian leaders made at the expense of their people could not be accepted either historically or ethnically by any nation in the world, especially because the Serbs have never in the whole ^{35789 BLANK PAGE 35790} of their history conquered and exploited others. Their national and historical being has been one of liberation throughout the whole of its history and through two world wars, as indeed it is today. They liberated themselves. And when they could, they also helped others to liberate themselves. The fact that in this region they are a major nation is not a Serbian sin or shame of any kind. It is an advantage which they have not used against others. But I must say here and now in this big legendry Field of Kosovo Polje that the Serbs have not used the advantage of being great for their own benefit either.

"It is thanks to their leaders and politicians and their vassal mentality that they felt guilty before themselves and before others too. Discord among Serbian officials made Serbia lag behind and their inferiority humiliated Serbia.

"This situation lasted for decades. It lasted for years, and here we are now standing on the Field of Kosovo Polje to say that this is no longer the case. Therefore, no place in Serbia is better suited for saying this than the Field of Kosovo. And there is no better place in Serbia which is better suited than Kosovo Polje to say that unity in Serbia will bring prosperity both to the Serbian people in Serbia and each one of its citizens irrespective of their national or religious affiliation.

"Serbia is today united and equal with the other republics and prepared to do everything in its power to improve its financial and social position and that of all its citizens. If there is unity, cooperation, and seriousness, it will succeed in that. That is why the optimism that ³⁵⁷⁹¹ is present in Serbia today to a considerable extent regarding the future days is realistic, because it is based on freedom which makes it possible for all people to express their positive, creative, and humane capabilities in order to further social -- social life and their own private lives.

"Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today more than ever before in the past, we have members of other peoples and nationalities living in it. This is not a disadvantage or handicap to Serbia in any way. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage. And the national composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly the developed ones, has been changing in its direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions, and races have been living together more and more frequently and successfully. Socialism, as a progressive and just democratic society should not allow people to be divided in the national and religious sense. The only reasons one can and should allow in socialism are between hard-working people and idlers, between honest people and dishonest people. Therefore, all people living in Serbia who live on the basis of their own work, honestly and respecting all other people and other nations and nationalities in their own republic. After all, our entire country should be founded upon those principles.

"Yugoslavia is a multinational community, and it can survive only under conditions of full equality for all the nations living within it. The crisis that has hit Yugoslavia has brought about national but also social divisions, cultural, religious, and many other less important ³⁵⁷⁹² divisions too. Among all these divisions the nationalist ones have shown themselves to be most dramatic. Resolving them will make it easier to remove other divisions and mitigate the consequences that these other divisions have created.

"Ever since multinational communities have existed their weak point has always been the relations between the different nations. The threat is that a Damocles sword stands over their heads and that one nation might be endangered by another one day, and this can then start a wave of suspicion, accusations and intolerance, a wave that invariably grows and is difficult to stop. This threat has been hanging over all our heads and external enemies of multinational communities are aware of this and therefore they organise their activity against multinational societies mostly by fomenting national conflict. At this time we in Yugoslavia are behaving as if we have never had such an experience and that in our recent and more distant past we have not experienced all the tragedy that national conflicts have brought with them in a society and yet survive. "Equal and harmonious relations among Yugoslav peoples are a necessary condition for the perseverance and existence of Yugoslavia and a way out of its crisis, and especially a prerequisite for its economic and social prosperity and in this way Yugoslavia does not stand out from the social milieu of the present day, especially the developed world which is more and more marred by national tolerance, national cooperation and even national equality.

"Modern economic and technological as well as political and cultural development has guided various peoples towards each other and ³⁵⁷⁹³ this has made them interdependent and increasingly has made them equal. In the civilisation of the present day towards which mankind is striving, it can only be equal peoples, and if we cannot lead the way into such a civilisation certainly we must not be at its tail either. "At the time when this famous historical battle was fought in Kosovo, the people looked to the stars, expecting them to provide the answers and give them assistance. Today, six centuries later, they are looking to the stars again, waiting to conquer them. On the first occasion they could allow themselves to be disunited, to have hatred and treason because they lived in small, weakly interconnected worlds. Today as citizens of the planet, they cannot even conquer their own planet, let alone others, unless they live in mutual harmony and solidarity. "Therefore words devoted to unity, solidarity and cooperation among people have no greater significance anywhere else on the soil of our motherland than they do here in the Field of Kosovo, which is a symbol of discord and treason. In the memory of the Serbian people, this discord in unity was decisive for them losing the battle and the terrible fate that Serbia was to suffer for a full six centuries. Even if it were not so from a historical viewpoint it remains certain that the people regarded their disunity as its greatest disaster. Therefore, it is the obligation of the people to remove disunity and discord in order to protect themselves in future from defeat, failure, and stagnation. "The people in Serbia this year have become aware of the necessity for mutual harmony as indispensable for their present life and further development. I am convinced that this awareness about harmony and ³⁵⁷⁹⁴ unity will enable Serbia not only to function as a state but also to function as a successful state. Therefore, I think that it makes sense to say this here and now in Kosovo Polje where disunity once upon a time tragically pushed Serbia back for centuries and endangered it and where renewed units may advance it, give it back its dignity. And it is this kind of awareness about mutual relations that constitutes an elementary necessity for Yugoslavia, too, because its fate is in the joined hands of all its people.

"The Kosovo battle and heroism also contains another great symbol, and it is the symbol of heroism. We have poems and literature devoted to it and history is devoted to it, too. The Kosovo heroism has been inspiring our creative endeavours for six centuries. It has been feeding our pride and does not allow us to forget that once upon a time we were a great army, a brave army, and a proud army. One of the few who remained undefeated in defeat.

"Six centuries later, in the present day today we are again engaged in battles and are having to face battles, but they are not armed battles, although such things cannot be excluded either. However, regardless of what kind of battles we're talking about, they cannot be won without the resolve, bravery and sacrifice of the people, without the noble qualities that were once present here in the Field of Kosovo Polje. Our main battle today concerns the implementation of economic, political, cultural, and general social prosperity to find a quicker and more successful approach to a civilisation in which people will be able to live in the 21st century. It is for this battle that we need heroism in ³⁵⁷⁹⁵ particular. Of course of a somewhat different kind, but the kind of coverage and bravery without nothing serious and great can be achieved in the world. And this remains an eternal truth and an eternal necessity. "Six centuries ago, Serbia heroically defended itself here in the Field of Kosovo, but it also defended Europe. Serbia at the time was the bastion that defended European culture, religion and society in general. Therefore, today it appears not only unjust but even unhistorical and completely absurd to talk of the Serbs belonging to Europe. Serbia has been a part of Europe incessantly. It is now as it was before. Of course always in its own way but in the way that in the historical sense never deprived it of its dignity.

"And it is in this spirit that we now endeavour to build a society which is rich and democratic and thus to contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful country of ours and at this point unjustly suffering country but also to contribute to the efforts of all the progressive people of our age in the efforts they're making for a better and happier world.

"Let the memory of Kosovo -- of the Kosovo heroism live on forever. Long live Serbia. Long live Yugoslavia. Long live peace and brotherhood among peoples. For the strengthening of Serbia, so that Serbia could leave the times of crisis and start heading towards true progress."

"Narrator: A cultural programme will follow, dedicated to Prince Lazar, with the participation of the choir of the radio television of Belgrade, the symphonic orchestra under the conductor Darinka Markic." ³⁵⁷⁹⁶

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Put your questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a note before I continue with my questions. In the English transcript there are numerous mistakes. I believe that this is just a technical problem because we have provided a translation in advance, so I hope that you will be able to compare the two and make corrections. This is just a note of a technical nature.

JUDGE KWON: We have the transcript in tab 3, but which tab actually contains two translations, one being BBC transcript and the other being edited or supplemented by your Defence team. So it says that blanks in the BBC translation filled by Mr. Milosevic's Defence team. Is that it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's how it should be. Since this is an authentic TV footage, it would be very easy to compare it word-for-word.

JUDGE KWON: And I remember that we admitted this transcript under D251, if I'm right. Yes. But because this was -- the blank was filled, so we are minded to admit this again.

Yes, go on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, what were your impressions from this event?

A. My impressions were just as all of my impressions from all of the events where you spoke, such as the one in Kosovo Polje, in front of the elementary school, in front of the cultural hall, the speech that I heard you give there. All of your speeches were messages of peace, of ³⁵⁷⁹⁷ brotherhood and unity, and you confirmed that with your last slogan where you said, "Long live peace and brotherhood among peoples."

Q. Yes. You don't have to go into details. Everybody has heard the speech.

A. Yes, they have. But it seems that that is not enough, because they're trying to go forward with this allegation of Serbian nationalism, and there is none of that mentioned in any of your speeches. On the contrary, all of your speeches have to do with the brotherhood and unity, with peace for all of those who live in Kosovo and Metohija, but also further, outside of it, in the entire Yugoslavia.

Q. Mr. Balevic, perhaps this video footage has refreshed your memory, but I also hope that you remember from attending it. Can you tell us, who were the prominent guests attending the celebration? Do you remember that?

A. Yes. I remember some of them because I greeted some guests formally as a host. I remember that Drnovsek was there, as was Ante Markovic, Budimir Loncar, Momir Bulatovic, Patriarch German, Veljko Kadijevic, that there were representatives of the diplomatic corps who had arrived, some of them in buses and some of them in cars. I couldn't tell you exactly what diplomats were there, but there were representatives of the diplomatic corps. There were quite a few foreign journalists, and that would be all I can remember.

Q. All right. Janez Drnovsek at the time was the president of the time of the SFRY Presidency?

A. Yes, that's right. And Janez Drnovsek led the Slovenian ³⁵⁷⁹⁸ delegation that was there. In addition, there were citizens from all parts of Yugoslavia, all Yugoslav republics. There were not just Serbs there. They were Serbs from Romania, there were even Bulgarians attending this event. And representatives and Serbs from the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia.

Q. Your memory is still good, and you were present at this event and had contacts with many people. Did you or anybody else that you were in contact with gain an impression from that event on any potential conflict of war or anything of an aggressive nature?

A. No. To the contrary. I will just quote one sentence. When you said prosperity to every citizen, to which more than a million citizens, million and a half citizens applauded saying, yes, you're right, which is to say they supported what you were saying, and you were uttering the message of peace, none of the people that I talked to spoke of any warmongering attitude, nothing of the kind. On the contrary, this was a speech of peace, encouraging people to live together in harmony, all of the nationalities, the Turks, Gorani, Ashkali living in Kosovo, as well as throughout the entire Yugoslavia.

Q. All right. What you quoted, which all of the attending citizens applauded, yes, pertained to this life and harmony.

A. Yes, Mr. President. I had to quote these words just to confirm that this is what you had in mind about our future life together and how all of us supported your words.

Q. Now, please tell me whether after the constitutional amendments that took place that same year - albeit somewhat earlier, in March, ^{35799 BLANK PAGE 35800} whereas this speech was in June - in any sense that you can remember, in any way the rights of Albanians in Kosovo were violated?

A. Yesterday, Mr. President, I touched upon this topic partially. I claim with full certainty, claim categorically that no rights of Albanians were violated through the constitutional amendments from 1989.

Q. I'm not asking you about the constitutional aspect. I'm simply asking you about the everyday life in an area where you lived. Do you know of any facts indicating that the rights of Albanians were violated?

A. I claim categorically that no rights of Albanians were violated.

Q. Please tell me, why is it that the Albanians did not go out to vote, did not participate in elections?

A. Mr. President, I believe that this was a grave mistake on their part. Although the delegation of Serbia came 16 or 17 times, I'm not sure, intending to speak with the representatives of the Albanians about peace and future life, the elections and so on, the Albanians refused to participate in the elections because they boycotted the state of Serbia. And even though they lived in Kosovo, which was a territory of Serbia, that would have been wrong in their minds.

However, had Albanians participated in the elections, they would have been able to find mutual grounds. All of their leaders, Veton Surroi, Ibrahim Rugova, and so on, it is questionable whether the leading party would have won.

Q. Well, let us not go into that. But at any rate, they would have had a number of deputies which would be representing a certain segment of the population. ³⁵⁸⁰¹

A. Yes. They probably would have had the second party in terms of seats in the parliament.

Q. Very well. Now, to go back to your personal experience, let us not deal with the regulations, because you're not an expert in that field, but let's just dwell on what you personally saw and experienced. Please tell us, what was the situation like in view of the needs of the Albanian residents of Kosovo and Metohija in the field of education, health care, press available in the Albanian language, and everything else that was important for their national identity?

A. Mr. President, I will start from the last question and then I will go back to the first part.

Based on what I know, there were 24 publications in Albanian published in Kosovo and Metohija, and there are some claims that there were even as many as 60 of them. In Serbia, there was just one publication called Jedinstvo and some monthly journals that were published, two or three of them. So this is as much as I can say about publication. It will illustrate that their rights were not violated in that respect.

As for the education, in order to boycott the state of Serbia, in order to draw the attention of the international community to their situation, they left schools and school premises despite the fact that nobody expelled them from there, and continued with schooling in homes, private homes, and so on.

In Pristina where I lived, there were many schools attended both by Serbian and the Albanian children who were physically separated and ³⁵⁸⁰² seated in different classes, in different classrooms, or perhaps the school for the Serbs in Serbian was held in the mornings and for the Albanians in the afternoon. In that sense, they were separated. One year before the war started, Papovic was still the dean of the university, there was a delegation from Rome visiting the university in Pristina, probably at the request of the Albanians. Therefore, one year before the war, the faculties were equipped with furniture and everything else they needed, but only the premises used by the Albanian students. Some Serb students even protested that such modern facilities were available to the Albanian students but not to Serbian students. And this is true both for secondary schools and for university.

Q. All right. Let us go back to the issue of elections. Based on the information and based on what I know from that period of time, what I asked you about the Albanians not participating in the election pertained to the majority of them, but were there some Albanians that did vote?

A. Yes, there were some Albanians that did vote in the elections organised by Serbia. Let me just add this: As for the Albanian elections, they had all the conditions they needed. They had the facilities. They had all the prerequisites in order to attend poll stations. I would meet some Albanians in my neighbourhood, and we would joke about that. Therefore, I can claim with certainty that all terms and conditions needed for them to vote were available to them but they chose to boycott the elections organised by Serbia.

Q. Based on your knowledge, could you please tell us when the KLA started being present in the public life. ³⁵⁸⁰³

A. Based on what I know, and I was a member of the SPS party in Kosovo and Metohija, the KLA started with its attacks in 1995.

Q. Before we turn to your personal knowledge about that period of time from 1995 until the war broke out and NATO started its aggression in 1999, please take a look at tab 4.

Mr. Kwon, part of this tab has been translated into English.

JUDGE KWON: I think we have it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope you have it. This is a book documenting the crimes committed by the Albanian terrorists. In order to be as rational as possible with our time, I will not ask that you admit the entire book as an exhibit, although it would be very useful if you were to do so. But if it's acceptable, we can perhaps admit just this bit that has been translated.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. From this part that has been translated, Mr. Balevic, I will read out to you several excerpts, and then I will put questions to you relating to those events. What I'm reading out now is in the English translation --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can we find out if the witness is familiar with the book, who the author is, and a little of the background so that we can understand its potential significance?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this has not been translated, that bit has not been translated, but I can tell you what is stated in the Serbian.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I confirm that? Because I have ³⁵⁸⁰⁴ the document. I have the document but I didn't present it here because I don't know whether it has already been exhibited or not. It is entitled The Crimes of the Albanian Terrorists Between 1995 and 1998. And in the end it says here 1999. These are the documents published by the publishing company Panorama, the journal entitled Jedinstvo.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The journal entitled Jedinstvo is published in Pristine, in Serbian?

A. Yes, that's right. This was published by the public publishing company Panorama. The journal Jedinstvo, special publications. Director of the company is Milorad Vujovic. The question has been asked, therefore, I have to give all the details. These are official documents published by this journal.

Q. Very well. I will read out several quotations. In the English translation it will be on page 4.

JUDGE BONOMY: The bit that -- or the part that is translated certainly does not look like an official document. It looks like a statement of -- a statement about events compiled by someone who compiled it from the opposing point of view, and that may be because it's only part of the document. That's the only part I'm reading, it's the part translated. There may be official documents somewhere else.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please, may I be -- oh, I apologise. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁵⁸⁰⁵

Q. Just a minute, Mr. Balevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, you're quite right. This is indeed a book and not an official document. However, within it we find facts and quotations from official documents which are accessible to us and which were published by official organs, and every figure here was taken over from official records. So with the aim of examining this witness, I'm going to read several excerpts from this portion, and in order to establish the truthfulness of what is being presented, we will provide documents upon which these are based. And we have already provided some of those documents.

And let me remind you that I tendered six white books, as they're called, of official publications or documents by the government of Yugoslavia about the events in Kosovo and the crimes committed in Kosovo. Year by year I tendered them into evidence and they are the official documents of the government of Yugoslavia containing all these facts and figures. But it's already been introduced into evidence. And they are six white books, as they're called.

JUDGE BONOMY: I've --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or white papers.

JUDGE BONOMY: I've heard reference to these books before, and I think the last time I heard that reference was in your opening of the Defence case that we're now dealing with, and I tried to locate these, and I have been unable to locate these or to identify what they actually refer to. So as presently advised, it does not appear to me that I've been given these documents if they were tendered into evidence. ³⁵⁸⁰⁶ The only other point I'd like to make while this issue is alive for the moment is that the official records are likely to be much more productive in the way of evidence than some of the sort of comment to which I think you may be going to draw our attention, because part of a Judge's job, as I'm sure you will appreciate, is to exclude from his mind the political posturing of anyone and to concentrate on the facts of the matter, and it's the detail that in the end of the day will really matter here.

MR. NICE: To assist, the white books were on the accused's list of proposed exhibits. I understand from Ms. Dicklich that we have copies of them but that they have not yet been tendered into evidence, which is why Your Honour can't find them.

As to the proposed exhibit tab 4, to achieve consistency or to at least contemplate consistency, the Chamber will have in mind that with books such as the OSCE or Human Rights Watch exhibit books, the book always has a methodology set out first identifying the raw material and usually producing in some format the raw material and will then have concluding paragraphs.

I at the moment don't know -- I can't even at the moment tie up the pages of the English translation that we do have with pages in the text. I'm sure the accused will be able to help us with that. But it's clear that we don't have any explanation of the methodology from the book about to how it is composed. And I think that would be, to achieve consistency as between this and other similar, or it may be similar documents, that's a minimum prerequisite at this stage. ³⁵⁸⁰⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I am very happy to see that Mr. Nice has provided us with that information. He said something that I was not aware of hitherto. I was convinced that the white books which make up the official documents of the Yugoslav government with statistics, photographs, the names of people, and so on, were introduced into evidence. Now, I don't know how you're going to get out of the predicament and have the documents finally be included in these documents. I don't know what other way there can be other than me asking that they be tendered within the set of documents. And otherwise, these books have been printed in both English and Serbian, and I handed over copies of the books in the English so that you will be able to read what they're all about without any difficulty, without previous translation or interpretation.

JUDGE BONOMY: May I make a suggestion. It may not commend itself to you, Mr. Milosevic, but I think we're in the sort of area where Ms. Higgins could give you considerable assistance, because that sort of technical material could be presented in a form on which I'm sure she could advise you and then give us it in a context as well in the course of the presentation of your Defence case. It's no doubt material that does not need to be explored in great detail orally in evidence but perhaps even a filing about it would assist us. But that sort of approach, a rather different approach, perhaps, to some of the material that you have to present might assist you to present the maximum amount of material in the course of the limited period you will have to present your Defence.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, can I just make one point. D136 marked ³⁵⁸⁰⁸ for identification is in fact an excerpt from one of the white books, and that was produced through witness Milan Kucan, from my records.

JUDGE KWON: That's a -- merely an extract.

MS. HIGGINS: It is, Your Honour, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, in my opening statement, I provided all those six books of the government of Yugoslavia.

JUDGE KWON: You mentioned --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all the documents, the complete documentation.

JUDGE KWON: -- seven white books in your opening statement, but they haven't been tendered. But time is up. You can ask one question to the witness. We -- we'll see how we get on with this book. If there is any question, put it to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I intended to do, to quote several excerpts from the book. And you already have those portions translated in tab 4.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, would you take a look at page 4, please, and by force and circumstance it seems to be page 4 in the English version too. It is page 3 in the B/C/S version from the top, and in English it is the third or, rather, the third from the top -- bottom to you and third from the top in English.

And in my question to you a moment ago, you said that the activity of the so-called KLA appeared and was made manifest in 1995, and this quotation goes: "Between early 1995 and the end of 1998, Albanian ³⁵⁸⁰⁹ terrorist gangs mounted a total of 1.845 armed attacks on both members and installations of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, and on citizens of all ethnicities and their property. Police officers were the target of 1.075 terrorist attacks, citizens and their homes and business premises of 745 of them, and 25 attacks were directed against areas and facilities inhabited by refugees from the former Yugoslav Republics." And then the next paragraph goes on to say the following: "The Albanian terrorist hordes treacherously and most often brutally killed 364 people in these criminal campaigns. They included 122 police officers and 242 citizens of Kosovo and Metohija, 97 of whom, let us point out, were Albanians. At the same time, 605 people were injured, seriously or slightly, 426 of whom were members of the Serbian MUP, Ministry of the Interior, and 179 citizens of all ethnicities."

And then it goes on to say in the following paragraph: "Abductions, tortures ..." et cetera --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, pausing there, put the question and we will adjourn.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Balevic, you are well aware of these facts and figures, I assume.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you personally have any insight and can you testify about some of these specific events, the events that you were able to gain your own impressions of? Just give me a yes or no answer.

A. Yes. ³⁵⁸¹⁰

Q. And tell me now, please, do you know anything at all about the attack on the police on the 2nd of August, 1995?

A. It was an attack on police station number 1 in the centre of Pristina. One of our most modern and best equipped police stations, in fact. And I was on the spot after the attack had taken place. I took a look and went on my way.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, that should be it for today. Mr. Balevic, we will adjourn until 9.00 next week, on Tuesday, 1st of February. During the break, you are not supposed to have contact with the accused or his associates.

We are now adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of

February, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.