³⁶⁷¹⁴

Monday, 28 February 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, your application for a number of documents to be handed over to the witness so that he could read them over the weekend was received late, so we couldn't deal with it. We would have granted it since we consider it to be a useful practice, subject to the understanding that -- the witness wasn't hearing. Is the witness now hearing? No. Is the witness now hearing? Yes.

I was saying to Mr. Nice that his application for a number of documents to be handed over to you, Professor, for you to read over the weekend to facilitate his cross-examination was received late, so in the result the Trial Chamber was not able to deal with it. Had we received it on time, we would have granted it since we consider it to be a useful practice. It facilitates and expedites the process. Subject, of course, to the understanding that it's a matter for the witness to decide whether he wants to read the documents ahead of his examination. Mr. Nice, please proceed.

WITNESS: VUKASIN ANDRIC [Resumed]

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

Q. We were on, of the defendant's exhibits, tab 3, and we were reviewing a witness statement in English of Dr. Pallaska. I nearly ³⁶⁷¹⁵ concluded all I wanted to ask about that statement, the doctor not being named in tab 3 but qualifying under the general description there as being a member of the medical faculty of Albanian nationality who remained in post in Pristina after 1991.

And, Mr. Andric, you will recall that we were looking at this statement last week, and I only have a couple of other things to ask you about it. On page 3, at its foot this witness -- it's not witness. This doctor explained, when spoken to -- we can now see the witness statement, please. Put it on the overhead projector. While it's coming your way I will explain what he said.

He explained that on the 28th of March, while on duty at Pristina hospital, he was approached by a Serbian police officer and told that he was on the list for execution, something that was confirmed to him by a Serbian doctor, Dr. Rodojicic, later, she being in tears. Now, you've given a general account of things. Do you exclude as possible that one of these doctors working in the Pristina hospital should have been told he was on an execution list and that's exactly what led him to leave the area?

A. This is the first time I hear of this case, but Dr. Rodojicic could possibly talk about it. I personally don't believe this is true, especially since the doctor said in the first part of his statement that Albanian doctors were prohibited from talking to Albanian patients in the Albanian language. That is simply unbelievable. Dr. Pallaska, after saying that, could easily have continued on to say that he had been killed. ³⁶⁷¹⁶

Q. Let's not beat about the bush. You're prepared to say that this man, this doctor, who left the town where he lived has lied, so far just to an investigator, and left Kosovo for some other reason? You're prepared to say that, are you, Mr. Andric?

A. Mr. Nice, I have no reason to believe him.

Q. Very well.

A. I repeat that he had uttered something absolutely unbelievable. The man who is capable of saying something like this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Let's move on.

MR. NICE:

Q. Yes. And two other things from this witness. He accepts, as the evidence has already revealed, that there was -- in this case, that there was a voluntary 3 per cent payment by some to the party of Ibrahim Rugova but there was no suggestion that it was ever compulsory. It was voluntary payment. You may have seen a man collecting it, but this was a voluntary collection. Yes or no.

A. This is the first time I hear it was 3 per cent. I never knew the percentage, but I know for sure that everybody was obliged to pay, and I know in particular that many of them were grumbling about it because they didn't have enough money to feed their families let alone finance a terrorist movement.

MR. NICE: If Mr. Prendergast would be good enough just to turn the statement over to the last line.

Q. This doctor, to an investigator, suggested that so far as he was concerned the strikes were welcome, the NATO strikes, and that on no ³⁶⁷¹⁷ account did he leave because of them. Now, you've given a very generalised account. Do you accept - just yes or no - that anyone welcomed the NATO strikes, or would you say that everybody was driven from Kosovo by them?

A. It is Dr. Pallaska's right to say what he thought about the NATO bombing. I have nothing against his personal welcoming the NATO strikes.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, that's all I ask about this statement. I'm going to ask that the eight statements in all that have been obtained in response to this series of exhibits be exhibited, but perhaps that can be addressed in due course.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will address the question a little later.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Tab 5. May the witness have a set of his own exhibits. Tab 4 comes next.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe I was not attentive enough, but where is the name of this Dr. Pallaska in this tab 3 Mr. Nice is referring to?

MR. NICE: It's not. I've made the point on several occasions it wasn't there. It was the doctor the investigator was able to find who met the defining characteristics of tab 3 once it had been corrected in court that it related to a period after 1991 and not 1999.

Q. So tab 4, please. We can look at this very briefly. This is the list of Albanian doctors employed in the health centre who left their post in 1991. Again it's just a list of names. It doesn't provide any other ³⁶⁷¹⁸ source material, does it, Dr. Andric?

It's his exhibit, tab 4. This list was presumably prepared by someone else on your behalf.

A. I must look at the source document and the translation into Serbian in order to be able to comment upon it because I'm not quite clear on this. Can I have a look at my own documents?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... in English. I'm not sure whether we've got this in Serbian.

A. I have the Serbian version with me.

Q. All I know is what I've been given, and my question is simply this: Is this something that was -- can he have whatever is the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please give tab 4 to the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, what -- yes, that's it. You said this was -- I didn't quite understand. What is this supposed to be?

MR. NICE:

Q. I don't know. It's your exhibit, you see. You produced it. You tell us what it is.

A. No. This is a list of private practices --

Q. You prepared it.

A. -- in the town of Prizren, Mr. Nice. Please, let me have a look. It's written in English, I don't have the document in Serbian. So it's a list of private medical practices opened by doctors who had left their jobs in order to open private practices in Prizren.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... list? ³⁶⁷¹⁹

A. The list was prepared by my services.

MR. NICE: Can't deal with that, Your Honours, and haven't been able to find any of the names.

Q. Tab 5.1. We now come to a film, or the video. Can you explain to me, please, was this video we saw a single film or was it compilation of lots of bits of film?

A. Before I answer this question, Mr. Nice, I have to say this: The document before was the list of Albanian doctors who had their private practices in Prizren, including two surgical clinics which employed a large number of surgeons.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... time, Dr. Andric. Please listen to the questions. The film --

A. I will tell you quickly. The film.

Q. Was it a single film or a compilation?

A. It's a compilation. I wrote, when the service required me to produce it, that I had enough material for 20 hours of viewing. Out of those 20 hours, we singled out the most valuable material worthy of showing. There are several sources, therefore. It's not all from one single source.

Q. Though you're not in every clip, not in every part of the film, you nevertheless were responsible for choosing the material that was put in; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. Did you do the cutting yourself? Did you do the cutting of the film yourself? ³⁶⁷²⁰

A. No. How would I be able to do the cutting? I'm not an expert.

Q. And as to the passages of film where you yourself are not present, who was the interviewing journalist?

A. It depends on the clip. In some clips, you could see journalist Borivoje Obrenovic, from Prizren, which means from Radio-Television Serbia or Radio-Television Prizren. There were several Albanian journalists also working for the RTS. And there was contribution about monoethnic imaginary poisoning presented by another journalist of the RTS.

Q. By this time press freedom in Kosovo didn't exist, did it?

A. You say that press freedom did not exist in Kosovo. If it didn't exist there, it didn't exist at all. There was freedom of press.

Q. The accused controlled Politika and all the other major Belgrade organs of communication, didn't he?

A. That is not true.

Q. Is it not? Veton Surroi --

A. That is not correct, Mr. Nice. There were newspapers, television channels that were completely free.

Q. And --

A. There were also opposition newspapers in Belgrade. In fact, there were more opposition newspapers in Belgrade than those that supported the government.

Q. Veton Surroi told us about his being closed down. Is he right?

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Veton Surroi, parliamentarian, much respected man, not someone you can accuse of being a ³⁶⁷²¹ member of the KLA. He told us his paper was closed down. You were a member of the civil administration: True or false?

A. I didn't know what kind of civil administration you mean. The civil administration does not ring any bells.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I don't know that term.

Q. The temporary Executive Council of which you were a member and at which we're going to look, if I have the time, was the only civil administration in Kosovo from October 1998 onwards, wasn't it? There wasn't any other civil administration.

A. There existed the provisional provincial Executive Council, there existed districts.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... provisional Executive Council? Please help us: What body was there in Kosovo dealing with civil administration superior to your provisional Executive Council? There wasn't one, was there?

A. No, there wasn't.

Q. So after about three or four questions, Dr. Andric, am I not right that your provisional Executive Council was the civil administration in Kosovo at the material time?

JUDGE ROBINSON: There may be a problem with the word "civil." He said he didn't understand the use of it.

MR. NICE: Very well.

Q. Non-military administration was by your council.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the answer? ³⁶⁷²²

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to answer?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's -- Mr. Nice is putting to you that your provisional Executive Council was the only non-military body at that time. Its operation -- there was none superior to it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know whether it was the only non-military body, but it was certainly a non-military body. Whether there was within the hierarchy something superior to the provisional Executive Council, I don't know. I am not qualified to discuss this. I don't know if there was a body superior to our provisional council.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, let's just see if in whatever high or low position you had you can remember this, and it's one example of press restriction: In October of 1998, did the Serbian government pass a decree allowing censorship of foreign media and banning broadcast of news programmes from the BBC, Voice of America and RFE? Do you remember that just as an example of press control?

A. I'm really sorry, Mr. Nice, but you're asking questions that I'm simply not able to answer. I cannot speak to things that I know nothing about.

Q. Just a few minutes ago you told me --

A. I am a medical doctor, a humanitarian worker, and I did my job. I didn't deal with the press. I really know nothing about this and I cannot comment. ³⁶⁷²³

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I suggest that you're a humanitarian worker before this court and a doctor when it suits you. You're a politician when it suited you as well. Only a few minutes ago, you explained in the most fulsome terms that the press was free. Now when I ask you about press restraint, you say you can't help us. Is your position you don't know whether the press was free?

A. Mr. Nice, whether the press was free or not is something I cannot elaborate upon, but I do know that in Kosovo and Metohija at the time when I was there, and I spent my whole life there, there were 25 different newspapers and magazines in Albanian and only one in Serbian, called Jedinstvo. In addition to that, there was Television Pristina, which broadcast in Albanian for almost the full 24 hours, and only one hour in Serbian. I cannot comment on technical issues but I know the ratio of broadcasting and press releases.

Q. The reason I press this issue on you is the following: You knew and you know that when somebody pretending to be or being a journalist speaks to refugees in Kosovo at a time when the authorities, it may be, have been killing and throwing people out, a journalist is as much a potential figure of authority as a member of the council or a policeman, isn't he, because this was effectively a totalitarian rule still.

A. I think that is not true, Mr. Nice. How can a journalist be the same thing as a figure of authority or a policeman? I do not understand that proposition. A journalist is a journalist. He was doing his job. He couldn't have known in advance, just as I couldn't have known in advance I would be sitting in this courtroom. ³⁶⁷²⁴

Q. Let's move to, then, rapidly 5.1, and I'm going to go through all these sections very quickly.

The poisoning, or the alleged poisoning, I only have two questions. Can you help me with these, please: First, is it right that schoolchildren were divided ethnically and so that one group was taught in the morning and one was taught in the afternoon but in the same buildings?

A. I think that's true.

Q. Second --

A. But all children came into contact with each other. Certain classes overlapped.

Q. Second, is it right that there were observations -- no. I found it.

Second, is it right, as we can see looking on in your tab to tab 6, that on page 3 of tab 6, that the commission dealing with the poisoning had --

A. I don't have these tabs in front of me.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... newspaper report, and we can see it on page 3 of the English. If Mr. Prendergast would help. It's right that on the commission delegate Mirjana Saranovic objected that no single health worker from Kosovo attended the session of the commission, although at the foot of the same paragraph, it's a bit -- page 3, foot of the same paragraph the point was made by someone that even if physicians from Kosovo had attended, said Vojvodic, no professional talks would have been possible because they wouldn't have been the right people to join the debate, so that we see some criticism of the commission for its non-Kosovo ^{36725 BLANK PAGE 36726} representation; correct?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it wasn't clear to me what the precise question was.

MR. NICE:

Q. Is it right that this commission that we've looked at very briefly under tab 6 had no Kosovo representative there?

JUDGE KWON: Do we have the English transcript?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, there were 11 experts from the clinical centre in Ljubljana, from Zagreb and Belgrade on that panel. The commission came to unequivocal conclusions and showed that among the almost 100.000 cases offered, there was not a single genuine case of poisoning. And the World Health Organisation approved these conclusions.

MR. NICE:

Q. You accept that many UN observers found this was a case of mass hysteria --

JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

MR. NICE:

Q. You accept that many UN observers believed at the time this was a case of mass hysteria?

A. I haven't heard about that.

Q. One --

A. Could have been their position.

Q. I think your position is, to borrow the word of His Honour Judge Robinson, that all the children and all the parents were thespians. They were all actors. Is that your position? ³⁶⁷²⁷

A. Yes, Mr. Nice, and that can be clearly seen based on the footage that was shown. They acted superbly. When the camera came close to them, they would start acting.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And I ask this Honourable Chamber to allow me to answer the question. Mr. Nice is not allowing me to answer. Mr. Nice puts questions to me and when I am about to prove that all of this was a case of acting, Mr. Nice interrupts me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you want to say anything more on that issue?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I wanted to say; that that these young people took up the space that was needed for serious patients at the clinic and hospital centre, patients which needed treatment, and they were listening to the music, walking around in the corridors, and when cameras approached, the children would rush to the beds and get in the beds, start moaning, and cover themselves with blankets.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Although most UN observers maybe at the time thought it was mass hysteria, one UN toxicologist concluded that saranin or tabun was or may have been present in blood samples from children, this being dealt with in a book by Julie Mertus, called Kosovo, How Myths and Truths Started a War. I'm not going to ask to produce it, I'm just identifying the source of my question.

Do you accept that one toxicologist found those two substances present? ³⁶⁷²⁸

A. I don't know about that, Mr. Nice. I don't know about that case. But it is improbable that this could have happened in schools attended by the Serb, Roma, Turkish, Albanian children and that this invisible gas infected and poisoned only the Albanian children. This is absolutely impossible. You're trying to prove the impossible thing.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... tab 5.2, and I'm going to go through these as quickly as I can until we reach the ones of substance.

MR. KAY: Tab 6 -- tab 6 hadn't been made an exhibit in the Defence case. Might that be exhibited now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 6. That's what we just looked at.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I come back now to tab 5.2, and we'll run through them, I hope, sequentially, if people can remember the Djeneral Jankovic order.

Q. The -- were you present there when this was -- bit of film was being taken? Yes or no.

A. You mean the case of poisoning?

Q. No, we're on to - sorry - tab 5.2, the Djeneral Jankovic border crossing with Macedonia.

A. If this footage was recorded in Albanian, then I'm not sure whether I was present. Perhaps I was.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, if I can be of assistance. Dr. Andric said that he maybe was present, whereas in this text, in the English, you can see, "The mobile clinic of the Kosovo and Metohija Red Cross, led by Dr. Vukasin Andric, was immediately among these ³⁶⁷²⁹ unfortunate people."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I did not have this text in front of me in the Serbian language so I couldn't pinpoint to which exactly Mr. Nice referred.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, we've had evidence from Neil Wright of the UNHCR detailing the hundreds of thousands of people moving through these borders over the time that you're telling us about. What are you saying; that there was only a trickle of people, or may you be wrong and may there have been tens and hundreds of thousands of people moving through these borders?

A. Mr. Nice, this was not something uttered by me. I did not say that there were tens of thousands of people passing through. These were the words uttered by the journalist in front of the cameras. There were many more than that, and nobody challenges that fact. However, this is not something that I uttered. This is -- this was the journalist's statement.

Q. Very well.

A. And perhaps this was the case at the time when this footage was record.

Q. Very well. Five --

JUDGE KWON: Let the witness have the index to his Defence exhibit which describes briefly the content of the video, which will remind him of the content.

MR. NICE: ³⁶⁷³⁰

Q. Now, the others --

JUDGE KWON: Yes. We were dealing with tab 5.2. Proceed, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, on tab 5.2 there is no identifiable person --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. That's fine, Your Honour Judge Kwon. I understood that.

MR. NICE:

Q. 5.2 there is no person identifiable by name. If we turn to 5.3, the Vrbnica border crossing and remind ourselves that that was a discussion between an Albanian man and a reporter. The Albanian man was not identified by name, was he? So we can't approach this man.

A. Yes. It is not clear from this footage.

Q. Tab 5.4, the man --

A. We don't know the name of the man.

Q. Thank you. Tab 5.4, at the Djakovica Meja location. Again, a woman and the man not identified by name so we can't track them down. Correct?

A. It is very easy to find them, Mr. Nice, if they're alive, because we have their image and we have the statements given by them at the time.

Q. Did you, in preparation for giving this evidence on behalf of this accused, make any attempt to find any of these people so that we could know who they were?

A. I think that they can be traced. I don't know why that would be so important, and is it really important what is the name of somebody and ³⁶⁷³¹ what statement that person gave? It seems that the name of the person is given more importance than the statement, and I think that it should be the other way round.

Q. Very well.

A. It probably doesn't suit you what this person had stated.

Q. I have no reaction to what the person states. My concern at the moment on behalf of this Prosecution is to see whether we can identify them.

5.7, please. Dealing with an Albanian who was hit in the column. Again, not somebody who can be identified. Do you accept that?

A. Just what I said previously, the same comment would apply here as well.

Q. The same applies, does it, to 5.8. Then we come -- 5.8.

A. I don't understand what you're trying to prove, Mr. Nice. Are you trying to prove that these people didn't exist, that I made them up? These people do exist, and we know roughly from which village they are. They are from the Djakovica area.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Footage exists. These people can be traced.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. However, it doesn't suit you, does it?

Q. I'm sure that if it's appropriate for you to make observations like that you'll continue to do so, but I'd invite you, please, to answer my questions.

Now, if you look at 5.9, we find something different. Please tell ³⁶⁷³² us on what basis you're presenting these statements to the Court. Did you speak to these people yourself?

A. These statements. Well, these statements were taken in an official procedure at the Prizren court, and they were taken by investigative Judges Nijaz Avdija and Branislav Sovtic. These statements are official documents of the MUP. You're not about to say that these people do not exist either, because their identities are very clearly stated here.

Q. Thank you. Feel free to make comments of that kind, but I'd like you to answer the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Professor, you say that the persons who took these statements are investigative judges. Is that indicated in the statements?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is stated here that the statement was taken by Branislav Sovtic and Nijaz Avdija.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but their capacity --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand you. These statements were taken in the premises of the medical centre in Prizren.

MR. NICE:

Q. Precisely. Now, let's see a little bit more, with Their Honour's leave, if we may. If we look at the first one, Syla Labinot, born on the 25th of January, 1984.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just let him clarify --

MR. NICE: Sorry, Your Honour, if I jumped in.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He had said that the persons who took these ³⁶⁷³³ statements were investigative judges, and I asked him, where is that indicated? It's not indicated in the statements beneath their names or anywhere else. I just want to have that clarified.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose, Mr. Nice, that only investigative judges can take statements. No one else could. You don't assume that we would offer a document to you, a statement taken by somebody else and not an investigative judge. So this was done by an official organ, an investigative judge belonging to the court in Prizren.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, you brought this document along, Dr. Andric. You're now inviting us to make assumptions about who the questioners are. You haven't seen the individuals yourself. Just what do you really know about these statements? Where did you get them? Who gave them to you?

A. These statements were official statements taken by the MUP representatives, and they were published in the book Children Accuse. Therefore, these statements were documented and published in that book Children Accuse, which was published also in English.

Q. I'm going to ask you to consider what this same person, who is identifiable and therefore has been seen, Syla Labinot, said last week because I want to know if you're in any position to counter this alternative record.

MR. NICE: With Your Honours' leave, may the statement taken last week be laid on the overhead projector. It's only in English in light of the brevity of time.

Q. And last week -- do you understand this, Dr. Andric? This boy, ³⁶⁷³⁴ now, of course, a little elder, explains that he reads and speaks the Albanian language -- next page, please, Mr. Prendergast. The next paragraph but one says he's been informed that the document is a statement he made to Mr. Sovtic at the Prizren medical centre. He confirms being present at the centre, recalls seeing journalists and other people speaking Serbian and Albanian and some speaking French. He didn't leave his father's side and his recollection is that his father, who speaks Serbian, is the person who conducted the interview. He then describes the injury to his leg where he suffered as a result of a bomb dropped from an aeroplane a few kilometres outside Prizren. And then he says this - further up the page please, Mr. Prendergast: "Concerning the information within the statement, I have been asked why I left the village in April 1999. I can recall that at the beginning of April 1999, in the early morning, at about 0500 hours, our home was visited by Serbian military forces who told us we had two hours to leave the village. We informed our neighbours of this and we packed our bags with clothes and food and headed for the main road. Once there, we saw many other people from Molic and other villages ..." He then goes on to deal with the next movements, to Dobros where the incident where he was injured happened.

And then if we turn over the page, please, Mr. Prendergast, he says this: "Although I recall Molic being shelled in late 1998, up until the day I left the village in April 1999, I did not see or hear of any explosions in the village that year. I can definitely state that I know of no person that left the village of Molic as a result of the NATO ³⁶⁷³⁵ airstrikes... I certainly didn't leave Molic because of the NATO airstrikes, I left because my family and I were ordered to do so by Serbian soldiers."

You're in no position to deny the accuracy of that account, are you?

A. Mr. Nice, in my evidence -- during my evidence, I showed, presented documents which were created at the relevant sites at the relevant time. Therefore, these are truthful documents. You are denying that, and you have gathered your own documents --

Q. Pausing there for a minute. You're asserting, are you, that because they were created at the relevant sites and times they are truthful? Have you taken into account the fact that these were people who -- please listen to me. Have you taken into account the fact that these were people who may have been in fear of being killed or expelled by Serb or police -- Serb military or police forces when they were asked these questions? Have you taken that into account?

A. One of these two things is true; either what I'm saying or what you're saying. And is it also possible that the statements they gave now were given under pressure? You could have obtained thousands of such statements, hundreds of thousands. I can guarantee you that.

Q. Dr. Andric, please be careful. If in your answer you want to make allegations of a certain kind, feel free to do so. The investigator is here.

Can we look at the top of the statement you have produced, the first two lines. Shall we put it on the overhead projector, please. ³⁶⁷³⁶ That's tab 5.9. What this witness, this then 15-year-old witness said, was: "At about 1200 hours on the 14th of April, 1999, we set off with locals from the surrounding villages and my father to the People's Republic of Albania by tractor because we were afraid of the NATO bombing."

Shall we now look at the next statement, please, which is also in 5.9 but is the statement of Zoje Quni. Next page, probably. Let's see how that begins. Zoje Quni's statement begins: "At about 0800 hours on 14 April 1999 we and other villagers panicked because of NATO bombing. We set off to the People's Republic of Albania by tractor because that was what the villagers had decided ..." We see that the statement was taken in the same medical centre in Prizren and by the same Avdija Nijaz and Branislav Sovtic. I would now like you, please, to consider and to, with the Court's leave, have displayed on the overhead projector, a statement taken last week from Zoje Quni.

While that's being displayed we should see that Zoje Quni or Quni is described in the statement part of 5.9 under line 3 as a housewife, unable, presumably, to read or write; illiterate. We'll now see what was said last week. We can nevertheless see that there is a signature on the left-hand side of the original version of this document consistent with the name of the person concerned.

If Mr. Prendergast would take us to the second sheet of the document where we have the text. She explains how she was shown, on the 25th of February, a document, this document.

Next paragraph, she recognises the signature as being hers and ^{36737 BLANK PAGE 36738} recalls signing it. She says this: "The date that is shown on the document is probably correct, but all I can remember about it being written is that I was asked to sign it as it was -- as it was to be shown to people abroad who were going to help me."

She then goes on in the next paragraph to say the following: "At the beginning of April 1999, the exact date I do not recall ... Serbian forces (and I don't know if they were police or military) came to my house and told the family that we should leave the village of Molic. They had weapons with them as they made these demands and while they did not make any direct threats, they insisted that they did not want to see anybody left in the village. My family and I did not even take time to gather any possessions. We ensured everyone was present and we left our compound, on foot, heading towards the main road." And then she deals with the movements to Dobrosh, she deals with looking back to see the village of Molic in flames, with staying in Dobrosh for two weeks, with hearing the sound of an explosion, and indeed with the consequence of the explosion. Next page, please, Mr. Prendergast. With her losing consciousness, regaining consciousness in the hospital, and then she says this: "I returned to Kosovo, together with my family, in June or July of 1999, but certainly following NATO's entry ..."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you're coming to a question now?

MR. NICE: Yes, I am.

Q. "We went to Molic where we saw that our house, with other houses, had been destroyed by fire." And she concludes, "I'm informed that my statement states I left the village because the villagers were panicked by ³⁶⁷³⁹ NATO bombing. I can say that I did not leave Molic for this reason: I left because I was ordered to do so by what I understood to be Serbian armed forces. Additionally, all persons I spoke to at the time and subsequently left the village for the same reasons ..." There is no reason, is there, to doubt the accuracy of what that woman says?

A. This is your claim, Mr. Nice. You don't have to doubt these words. However, I do doubt them. For me, the only truthful statement is the one taken by official authorities.

Q. Your --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, did we establish that two persons are the same person? In tab 5.9, it says the birth year of the witness of Ms. Quni is 1954, and this statements says it's 1952, and I recognise some difference between the signature. The last letter of the last name is written as "I" in this witness statement, while in tab 5.9 it says "J". Whether you can clarify that.

MR. NICE: I can't clarify that myself but Your Honour will see that in the third or fourth paragraph of the statement, she says, "I recognise the signature as being mine" when shown the document and recalls signing it. You will recollect that she was described at the time as being illiterate, although she explains that -- further up. She says nothing, I think, about her ability to read and write but she recognises the signature.

The name is given two alternative spellings in the original. At least in the English, Quni or Cuni, and the name given by the witness is ³⁶⁷⁴⁰ one of those two names. And of course, as the Chamber will be aware, alternative spellings are common place in Kosovo for its Albanian population.

Your Honour, I think that's probably as far as I can go. These are also very small communities where people come from.

Q. If we go on with the exhibits of this witness, we went through 5.10, 5.11 which I needn't deal with, and we come to 5.12. Now, 5.12 I'd like to focus on, please. This was the long video clip, and in this one it starts with Selim Guxhufi reading out from a map place locations to a very large crowd. The map, incidentally, I think is in Cyrillic, not in another language.

Were you present at this meeting or are you dependent entirely on the video clip?

A. I think I was present.

Q. It's right, isn't it --

A. Mr. Nice, this footage was composed of several segments. You're asking me about it now and I can't be sure right now whether I was present or not. Most likely I was present. I mostly attended those meetings and went out in the field and attended various gatherings there.

Q. There were --

A. However, I'm not 100 per cent sure, because perhaps I was present there when this particular footage was recorded, but I could have gone further, some 15 kilometres away, and I was generally in that area but not always present when interviews were conducted and they talked to these people. ³⁶⁷⁴¹

Q. Now, to remind the Chamber and to deal with it as swiftly as I can, a number of people are then seen to be interviewed, men in berets, men in leather hats and so on, and then on page 5 of the English, we come to the first identifiable person, the Albanian lawyer Rexhep Fusha.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, this was an interview that was taken a little earlier last week and is one that is on video. If the Chamber is content to look at it it will remember the discussion it had including with the accused last week, that the lawyer has been spoken on video and I am in a position to play that if the Chamber would allow me, or part of it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you. And Your Honours have this in a binder of documents, the binder that was prepared for possible pre-reading, and it's at tab 39 in that binder.

[Videotape played] "On the 28th of March about 5.00 in the morning, not just us but all the people living in the buildings in our area, we went out. We were ordered to. And we -- we went behind our buildings, and we walked along -- along the river Llap for 5 or 600 metres. We walked then by the -- we walked by the fifth -- by the five bus stations in the city on the left side of the road, and we went in the direction of the village Ballovce and the village of Shekovce."

MR. NICE:

Q. Pausing there for a minute. Do you recognise that man as the same man shown in the film that you presented to this Court? ³⁶⁷⁴²

A. Well, the footage wasn't quite clear.

MR. NICE: If Your Honours would just give me a minute. I've mislaid one piece of paper.

The Court will be able to see that the -- from the version it has that the clips have been extracted from a longer interview. Can we move to the next clip, please.

[Videotape played] "Around 75.000 or maybe more, they tried to leave for Pristina on the Saturday, it was the 15th or the 16th 1999. We started from the village of Koliq, going in the direction of Pristina. It was not -- it was not just the convoy that -- our convoy that left Turiqice. There were also convoys from other villages. From Koliqe, Dyze, Batllave, Sharban and some other villages and people from some other villages of the Pristina area who joined our convoy. That convoy spent the night on the road because no one let us go to Pristina or going other direction who lived there. And the next day at 10.00 the first convoy was let through in the direction of the Pristina. It was Monday."

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, pausing there, and thinking about this lawyer, were you present when he was interviewed?

A. No. But judging by this clip, what we just saw here, the individual that I can see and the person shown on the other footage is not one and the same, to my mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it is.

Q. I'm now going to -- we're going to move on to the next --

A. I'm sorry, but this person doesn't look like the other one. ³⁶⁷⁴³

Q. Well, we'll get an extract from the previous tape of the accused in a minute but I'm now going to ask you to consider what he says about the circumstances in which this interview was taken, the earlier interview. Please.

[Videotape played] "My clothes --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the witness has already said that they don't appear to be the same person. Is this going to take us any further?

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, with respect, it will. This is -- first of all, the Chamber will be able to consider the visual image of this man beside the visual image of the man in the accused's tape. Secondly, the identity of this man is given, and we know that the identity of the man was given at the end of the tape produced by the accused because he pulled out his identity cards. There is no doubt, in our submission, that this is exactly the same man, and we -- the Court will be able to be satisfied of that. And having the other tape or an extract from it produced, but I'd ask the Chamber to see through to the end this passage which deals with the circumstances of the taking of the statement at the time, and then we consider again the issue of identification.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Okay. Very well.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

[Videotape played] "... clothes on my body for nearly a month, for example. That's the only thing I could think of. We had no food because we left literally with our hands in our pockets. We -- we tried to get -- to get by ³⁶⁷⁴⁴ whichever way we could, whoever had some food.

"Not in the area where we were. There weren't any. They attacked only the tanks and the Pragas of the Yugoslav army. And -- with the Yugoslavia army as well. There were three different groups: Paramilitaries, Arkan's, Seselj's, and the Red Berets."

MR. NICE: Next one, yes. Press on.

[Videotape played] "All the people to whom I have spoken with and the people who I met, they all left for the very same reasons. They'd come under pressure and under attack from the army and the paramilitaries. That was the cleansing operation."

"They didn't ask about our experience in the Podujevo area. They were civilians. We didn't know what they were. We found out afterwards they were journalists. We thought they were inspectors of some kind in the beginning and they didn't ask about our experience. They didn't introduce themselves as journalists. We thought that they were SUP inspectors and we thought that they had come there to rob the people, and we thought that that woman was with them so she could search our women and take our gold."

"So she was a female --" "That woman started afterwards, she started asking us questions, asking where are you coming from, where are you going, and I told her everything. And pushed us out of our house, not just me but everybody there. And during the time the interview took place we were surrounded by paramilitaries." ³⁶⁷⁴⁵ "Right ..."

"After the interview took place, it was just our tractor there and there were 28 people in it, which 14 were children maybe of 10 years or less. The paramilitaries were behind the tractor, behind the tractor when the camera was filming. And they were cursing us non-stop. And during the conversation we had I told the reality as it was there. And one of the questions that was asked of me, How will the situation get better? And I told them that to get the situation better everyone should have equal rights, be it Albanians, Serbs, Macedonians, Romas, whatever. I saw that tape only two months afterwards and the title of it was 'Albanians are leaving because of NATO bombardment' but that's not how it was. The truth was that we all left because we came under attack from the paramilitaries and the Yugoslav army. And I told them that there will be no democracy -- and this is in the tape but they haven't shown that. I told them there will be no democracy until my son has equal rights to the head of the Executive Council of the -- the Serbo-Slav Executive Council, but they haven't shown that."

MR. NICE:

Q. Pausing there. Is his account of the interview happening with paramilitaries behind the camera and out of view one that could be true?

A. That is an absolute lie.

Q. Is it? Why do you say that, please?

A. There were no paramilitaries at all. Yes, I can say that because there was no paramilitary there on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija at all. Some Seselj's men are being mentioned here and I should like to ask ³⁶⁷⁴⁶ the Trial Chamber to allow me to elaborate and to tell you everything that was taken down on this footage because this testimony will not be truthful unless I'm allowed to say everything I think about this particular footage and the interview that was conducted and made subsequently. Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But try to be as brief as possible.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try. I'll do my best, but please give me the time to say this because these are essential points for my entire testimony and for everything that is being discussed here now. The Albanian lawyer -- first of all, let me tell you that I don't think that is the man. I doubt that this is the man that the interview was taken from because it doesn't appear to be the same man that was interviewed at the time. That's the first point. Secondly, the Albanian Rexhep Fusha, the lawyer, and I wasn't present when the statement was taken from him, but without any presence, any police presence, he made a statement to the television station. So these -- it is -- they're pure lies that the police were present and the paramilitaries were present. Those are all lies. He said, in a very relaxed way, he said everything he wanted to say. He said that they had gone to Sajkovac to take -- and when he was asked whether he was afraid of NATO bombing, he said, Yes because everybody, every normal person would be afraid of the bombing. Then the next question was, Have you ever had any problems with the police? He said no, I'm a lawyer never had any problems with the police, et cetera, never, never. And let me say I understand Mr. Fusha. Mr. Fusha has problems with his compatriots today because on ³⁶⁷⁴⁷ the basis of what I presented here, he is going -- there are going to be terrible repercussions and problems that he's going to have with his neighbours and with all the others. Why he made the statement, a statement of that kind in the first place, why he said what he said. But he's quite obviously lawyer, you can see that, and by giving this statement he is trying to save his own head, save his life. Let me tell you what he said. He said they attacked, just the tanks, et cetera. Then he mentioned Seselj's men and two other paramilitary formations, two other paramilitary units. Let me tell you here and now there were no paramilitaries on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija throughout the war. No paramilitary formations at all. There were Seselj's men, as he said, and under pressure he gave -- under duress he gave this statement. Then further on he was asked by the president of the Executive Council of Podujevo to leave his flat and to take refuge temporarily. He was not told to flee to Albania or Macedonia but just to take refuge for a time because there was fighting going on in Podujevo between the KLA members and the regular forces of the army and police. So this was well-intentioned. He told him to take refuge and the man did take refuge and then came back afterwards and gave the interview to the television station that was there at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. You must be coming to an end now. I've allowed you to offer the explanation.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a few more sentences, please, I'll be very brief.

Just imagine this: When he says -- when -- when a lawyer isn't ³⁶⁷⁴⁸ clear when he's being interviewed by someone from the SUP or journalists, he said they didn't introduce themselves as journalists. Then when it came to the woman, they thought the woman was from the SUP and that she had come to take some gold from some other women. This is all construed. It's all manufactured and sham. I don't think I need comment it's so outrageous. So during the interview we were surrounded by paramilitaries. That's what he says. Well, that really -- I mean, paramilitaries. A paramilitary force that doesn't exist. There were no -- not only -- we didn't have any regular units there or policemen there. He was very relaxed and able to make his statement in that relaxed fashion.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. We're going to look at the rest of his recent statement in a second, but just a couple of things. He says that this footage was broadcast a few weeks later. Is he right about that?

A. That's not at all true. That footage, if it was filmed when it was filmed, that's when it was broadcast. Why would we wait to broadcast it? I really don't know. I'm not a director or producer on television but I don't see why there should be a delay in broadcasting it. It might have been broadcast and shown as an example of goodwill, as an example of the care and attention given to people who were displaced.

Q. He says it had been already cut to exclude his if not defiant at least bold reference to the rights of his son being matched to those of Serbo-Slav Bizercic. What do you say to his observation about that, for example? ^{36749 BLANK PAGE 36750}

A. I really don't know but I think that his interview was shown from beginning to end in what the footage we showed. I don't think there were any interruptions, and this can be easily proved. So from the start, as the statement was taken, from beginning to end, we showed it all. He says thank you at the end, and at the end he says, "I am Rexhep Fusha from Podujevo, lawyer," and so on. So he says exactly who he is, so this is not any kind of montage or manufactured tape.

Q. If it was shown at the time or a few weeks later, he's got nothing to fear, has he, from what happens in this trial because it's already been broadcast once. So that observation of yours, perhaps you'd like to reconsider that.

A. Yes, but Mr. Nice, many who should have seen it did not perhaps see it, so he knew that he wouldn't have any problems, but quite obviously he's concerned about his fate. That is quite obvious. He's telling us all kinds of things. Things he should say, he shouldn't say. He mentions paramilitaries, he mentions the seizing of gold, he says that he doesn't know whether they're journalists, but all this is a ridiculous, ludicrous.

Q. And are you still sticking to the account that it's one man running to the defence of somebody else shown on the film or do you accept that it's actually the same man?

A. The film you just showed today, you mean?

Q. Mmm.

A. On the basis of what I saw here, I cannot claim that it is one and the same person. The face seems to be quite different. It is possible, ³⁶⁷⁵¹ but I can't say. I can't say that they are the same people.

Q. We're going to move just to see the last things he says about the preparation of this interview, but the way you've been dismissal of him reminds me to ask you a question about how you were --

A. I'm not being dismissive about him, Mr. Nice, I have no reason to be. Nor am I dismissive about anyone in this world.

Q. You had a passage from the indictment read out where it was suggested that there had been sexual assaults by Serbs on Albanians, and you said you really didn't need even to deal with it. You can the find exact words in a second, but you didn't even deign to comment on the suggestion that there might have been sexual assaults. Just while I remember it, explain why you took that position, as a doctor.

A. I took that position because I don't know about a single case of that kind.

Q. But, Dr. Andric, in your position you must know that the international humanitarian agencies have reported on rape as a means of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and that they've also explained how the culture of Kosovar Albanian women makes the reporting of rape very difficult. You know those two facts, don't you?

A. Oh, come on, Mr. Nice. No, I don't know that.

Q. You see, the disdain --

A. It's impossible, Mr. Nice. Come on. Please don't. It's propaganda, propaganda. And for each case you need to have a name, a surname, when, where. I really don't know of a single case nor have I heard of a single case, especially not what you're saying, in the aim of ³⁶⁷⁵² ethnic cleansing, as a form of ethnic cleansing, that rape was done. That's quite impossible. Unbelievable.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. They're ready to say anything you like.

Q. They are ready to say -- who do you mean by "they," Dr. Andric? Just help me. Or would you like me to help you?

A. The peak of the separatist movement and the separatists their leaders, and those who have worked for decades doing in Kosovo what they were doing with the ultimate goal being an independent Kosovo, an independent Kosovo, let me repeat, and a secession and breaking away from Serbia and Yugoslavia and --

Q. Dr. Andric, you're a doctor and you've told us about the Hippocratic oath. Now, you tell me this: Are you saying that all the women who've reported to the humanitarian organisations and any women who may have given evidence before this Chamber on the question of rape and sexual assault and any of these women who lie behind the revealed evidence of women thrown down wells and raped or sexually interfered with, are you saying that each and every one of them was a Kosovo Albanian extremist doing and suffering what they did for that cause? Are you?

A. No, Mr. Nice. You're trying to put words into my mouth, things that I never said nor are true nor did I ever think of them. I'm -- I don't know of a single case of that kind, and I don't believe and I don't think it is correct that it was done in the aim of ethnic cleansing. Those are pure lies.

Q. Just to remind -- ³⁶⁷⁵³

A. And if there were individual cases of that kind, well, you can have rape in peacetime. There are rapes every day somewhere. But I don't know of a single case and I claim nothing like that was ever done with the purpose of ethnic cleansing as you claimed. Those are pure lies.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the point I wanted to clarify with you. You're not saying that rapes didn't take place, but not as a part of a policy of ethnic cleansing. They were just criminal acts.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, let me repeat, and I want to be quite clear: I don't know of a single such case, but I claim that even if there were individual cases that they were things that had nothing to do with the official policy or official position of the state or any kind of ethnic cleansing whatsoever. I don't know what you mean by claiming that it might be ethnic cleansing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, Dr. Andric, the way you disposed of this when the accused asked you questions and when he read out a passage alleging that women had suffered rape, you said -- and sexual assault, you said: "As for sexual assaults, I think I need not waste my breath even to comment on this." Is that really the approach of a medical doctor dealing with the suffering of women, or is that the approach of someone who is an apologist for this accused, which is what I'm suggesting you are.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Nice, that's more in the form of a comment. Ask another question.

MR. NICE: Very well. ³⁶⁷⁵⁴

Q. Let's return then, if we may, to the evidence of this interview. Ms. Dicklich is helping locate the original image but we'll continue with the interview that was had with this witness -- with this lawyer last week.

[Videotape played] "When someone showed me the tape -- I didn't get it, it was two months afterward and I saw my picture in there and the last sentence was that the situation should be -- a solution should be found in a democratic way. I found out about it about two months later. I didn't know anything. I didn't know that the media had any recordings of the interview. Interview did not take place in -- in an office but on the road when we were surrounded and in the presence of the paramilitaries, the army. We were all surrounded there. If the interview had been conducted in the same conditions as I'm doing this now, the conversation would have been very different. But when you have a machine-gun pointed at you, on your back, you can talk differently. It is -- it is the -- it could be that -- it is not true that the NATO bombed us, at least not in the Lab area, not in our area -- they could have done it somewhere else but in our area it never happened. Maybe they bombed the convoy once in awhile but it was Yugoslav army mostly who put them on the road. "There isn't a single house, a single building that is in the villages or in the town of Podujevo that has been bombed by NATO. And the only thing that NATO bombed on the 24th was the airport of Dumorsh, in the airport, the military airport. They didn't hit -- the NATO -- the NATO did not hit civilians. It was mostly the Yugoslav army and the ³⁶⁷⁵⁵ paramilitaries with tanks, Pragas and different weaponry." "Okay."

MR. NICE:

Q. I see something was amusing you, Dr. Andric. Please give us your comments on that last passage.

A. Yes, I can, certainly. I should like to tell the distinguished Trial Chamber that we are attending the defence of sorts of the gentleman who is the lawyer. So all this is saving his own skin. It's to that purpose. And also with respect to when he said that NATO didn't bomb anything in our parts and then he said he bombed the airport of Dumorsh, it's the Dumorsh village, near Podujevo, and that airport was bombed all the time, and he says himself and admits himself that the airport was bombed on the 24th. But you can see that he keeps infiltrating this with the term "paramilitaries." And it was a bombing of this airport that led to the exodus of the families leaving the village and leaving those areas to take refuge, to get away from an area where there was bombing around the clock. But quite obviously this lawyer is having problems with his own people, his neighbours, his compatriots, and that he wants to justify himself and he doesn't mind what means he uses to do that. So it's not that I'm amused, Mr. Nice. It's not amusing. It's very serious, Mr. Nice.

Q. You realise, Dr. Andric, that from the material you provided, and we had a week to look at it, we went and saw whoever we could identify. We haven't been selective. We just laid out the people we saw. Let's have a look at the original picture. It's on the screen now. ³⁶⁷⁵⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, if you're going to go beyond the break, you would be then in excess of the two-thirds time. I'm reluctant to press you on time. We are losing time and the pace of the trial is exceedingly slow.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the problem - I hoped to finish within an hour this morning, and there's a lot of material, and I haven't yet dealt with the role of the provisional Executive Council, which was the material that was going to be served in advance.

I should also tell Your Honour that in relation to a later tab of this witness's material, there are three witness statements again counter to the inference that he and this accused has drawn from the material. Can I review the position over the break and see what I can cut? I certainly don't want to go over two-thirds. I want to keep it to 50 per cent where possible.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, bearing that in mind, it seems to me to have been quite unnecessary to go through the whole of the statement of the witness. It would have been ample to identify the crucial discrepancies, the crucial inconsistencies and we would have saved a great deal of time. It's just not open to us to explore the whole of a statement when there are others in the wings yet to be dealt with.

MR. NICE: It's very -- Your Honour, I understand that, and it's very difficult for -- it's very difficult to present this material. Can we look at the original picture just to deal with the question of identity because I think that's now on your screens, coming as an extract from 5.12. That's the original picture. I don't know if ³⁶⁷⁵⁷ Ms. Dicklich can now display the picture of the man in the interview room. There it is.

He's given the same name. He's acknowledged himself.

Q. Do you accept it's the same person?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Well, we have seen it.

MR. NICE:

Q. From the witness: Do you accept that it's the same person?

A. I don't think -- I still don't think it's the same person. But even if it is the same, I don't think it changes matters. I think we have clarified the point and that I have said what I have to say.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a little difficult to assess, Mr. Nice. One is a frontal view and the other is a side view.

MR. NICE: Yes. We also have the material on the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have to take the break, and Mr. Nice, you should endeavour to bring the cross-examination to a close.

MR. NICE: What I think I will do, if I may, is identify the topics I would have covered, seek to produce for you -- can I hand to you, please, perhaps for pre-reading. I know the witness won't be able to do so, but the three other statements. They're not very long, and they relate to tab 11, the doctor specialist from the Djakovica city hospital.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Those may be handed over to the witness.

MR. NICE: I'll be able to deal with it that much more quickly and I'll try to deal with my propositions about the provisional Executive Council in just a few minutes, and I think in that way I'll try not to break the two-thirds provision. ³⁶⁷⁵⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will adjourn now for 20 minutes. The legal officer to see us in the Chamber.

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I can be very brief.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. As to tab 11, doctors staying in Djakovica, I needn't trouble you with the witness statements produced from the first three spoken to, but help me with this: It's the case, is it not, that doctors in Djakovica, sometimes with their families, stayed in the hospital on their own initiative, not because they were encouraged to do so by the people in charge?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear the question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. The doctors in Djakovica stayed in the hospital, sometimes with their families, on their own initiative, not because they were encouraged to do so by the people in charge.

A. Which period are you referring to, Mr. Nice?

Q. 1999.

A. Which period; the beginning of 1999, the beginning of NATO bombing?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... your tab 11. ³⁶⁷⁵⁹

A. The doctors in Djakovica remained working in the health centre and in the hospital voluntarily. I mean, Albanians and everybody else.

Q. Next point -- next point is this: The TEC -- Your Honours, can I just identify -- no, one other point before I get there. The man Svend Robinson of whom you spoke, the Canadian parliamentarian, the only visitor to Kosovo in the relevant period from the international community -- and, Your Honours, tab 30 refers if you want to find it -- was extremely hostile to the NATO campaign which he described as a military, political, environmental, and humanitarian disaster. Despite that and following his visit to you, he concluded, page 4, I think -- page 3 of 5, foot of the page, he concluded that many villages had been ethnically cleansed of Kosovo Albanians. Can you explain what it was that he saw that could have led to the conclusion that the villages had been ethnically cleansed?

A. I don't know what kind of statement Mr. Robinson gave after leaving Kosovo. All I can say is I received him in mid-May 1999. I received him at the border crossing of Merberan [phoen]. I know for a fact that he did not hide his amazement upon his arrival in Kosovo, and when he saw --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... saw villages close to --

A. I was just about to say, Mr. Nice, about the villages, but you're not letting me. You're not letting me speak.

So when we entered from central Serbia the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, Mr. Robinson publicly stated his amazement at what he saw, because he had expected to see scorched earth. Instead, he saw houses ³⁶⁷⁶⁰ standing, and among thousands of houses there would be only two or three that were destroyed or damaged. And when he entered Kosovo Albanian villages --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE BONOMY: Dr. --

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- could you actually try to answer the question, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Bonomy, I am willing to answer but Mr. Nice is not letting me. I cannot answer in one sentence. I want to tell you what MP Robinson saw and how he reacted to what he saw.

JUDGE BONOMY: The question is very simple. Can you explain what it was that he saw that could possibly have led to the conclusion that the villages were ethnically cleansed? Was there anything in --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What he saw on the tour he made when I accompanied him - and he chose himself where he would go - on the basis of that, he couldn't make that conclusion.

MR. NICE:

Q. My last question on Mr. Robinson. You see, this man could not be more hostile to the NATO campaign, publicly and in extreme terms, and I want to know if you can point to anything that you know about Mr. Robinson that could lead to his making up or being wrong about a finding of ethnic ^{36761 BLANK PAGE 36762} cleansing. Why should he get it wrong? Can you point to anything?

JUDGE KWON: Was the witness shown the passage?

MR. NICE: No, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: It's very difficult for the witness to comment.

MR. NICE: I accept. It's the time problem.

Q. You see, what he said was this, and I'll read it out to you slowly: "Driving into Kosovo --" it's foot of page 3 to 5 -- "from Belgrade and then from Pristina to the Macedonian border was a terrible experience. Village after village was totally empty of any life, with houses burned and roofs destroyed. They were like ghost towns. While the Serb officials blamed this all on the KLA or NATO bombing, it was clear that many of the villages had been 'ethnically cleansed' of Kosovar Albanians who had fled to neighbouring countries or into the mountains." That's what he said, you see, Mr. -- Dr. Andric. And you can't explain how he reached that conclusion?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would appreciate it very much if the Trial Chamber would allow me to answer without being interrupted by Mr. Nice, if you want a real answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You will answer. You will answer. Mr. Nice will not interrupt.

MR. NICE: I won't interrupt.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson arrived in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and stated his wishes as to where he wanted to go and what he wished to visit. He visited villages in the Podujevo municipality and, I reiterate, he was amazed. I can testify to ³⁶⁷⁶³ that because I was all the time with him, in the car or next to him. He this thought, based on his prior knowledge from Canada and TV reports, he had thought that he would find scorched earth. And when we arrived to villages where Albanians continued to live normally, he said that there was an epidemic of diarrhea in the village, which wasn't true, because throughout the war there had been no epidemics in Kosovo. And then he asked me to bring people from the democratic union of Kosovo headed by Ibrahim Rugova because he wanted to speak to them. I answered it was impossible.

And when we headed on from those villages to Pristina, he kept saying, "Everything is scorched here." I asked the driver to stop, to pull over, and I told Mr. Robinson, "Look at any side of the road you like. Look at any village you like. Let us count the houses that were burnt down, not scorched."

Out of all the houses in one village, there would be two or three that had been damaged in the fighting between regular forces and the KLA. And during the entire visit of Mr. Robinson, I didn't hear him say anything that could tally with what Mr. Nice is saying. In one of the villages, he met some villagers, such as Sajkovac --

MR. NICE:

Q. Next question, different topic. You are the first person, to my knowledge, in this court, maybe ever, to offer an explanation for why documents were taken from refugees. I have it at page 8 of the last transcript, where you said this: "It indeed happened that personal documents were taken away. I don't think it was done following some ³⁶⁷⁶⁴ orders. It was done as a precaution maybe because these documents could have been abused. There is a central computer at the level of the state of Serbia where all the citizens of Serbia are registered. So any citizen of Serbia, even if they've lost their IDs, could get new IDs." Two points: First, you gave that answer because you're here with a mission to try and achieve an acquittal for this accused, not to tell the truth. That's my first and clear submission to you. Do you follow?

A. I follow you perfectly well, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you say to that? He's putting that to you. Do you agree with that proposition or not? Let's move on.

MR. NICE:

Q. And --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's hear the answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Right.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

MR. NICE:

Q. When you were at the border, did you see anyone having their identification documents being taken from them?

A. I was very clear in my testimony. I said I hadn't seen such cases, but I heard of such cases. I said that for a while that was the practice, and following that I explained with all the knowledge that I have about it.

Q. I don't have the time to explore this observation of yours in any more detail than to this effect: Would you accept that if what you say is ³⁶⁷⁶⁵ the theory to justify the removal of documents is correct, the Albanians should have been told, "We're taking these documents from you for your own good. You can get your documents back later"? Would you accept that that would be the logical conclusion of your position?

A. Mr. Nice, I said that those people, even those whose documents had been taken away, were alive, and they can get their documents back. Or are you going to say that their documents were taken away so that they could be written off from the list of living people?

Q. Would you listen to the question again --

A. I said for what reason their documents might have been taken away.

Q. If the documents were being taken for their own good, they should have been told they could get identifications back, shouldn't they?

A. I really don't know what they were told when their documents --

Q. Very well.

A. -- were taken away. I didn't see a single such case happening.

JUDGE BONOMY: Doctor, what was the abuse that you had in mind?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such documents could have been used for forgery and to enable infiltration of terrorist gangs dressed in civilian clothes into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I -- I just don't understand the point, I'm afraid.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, I'm afraid for want of time I can only end it in this way, Dr. Andric: You gave that answer to the Court, an answer of that explanation to Court, one that you know to be false so you gave it ³⁶⁷⁶⁶ dishonestly, because you as a member of the TEC probably know exactly that there was a policy of taking identification papers from Kosovo Albanians so that they could not come back. Isn't that the truth?

A. I am asking now for the protection of the Trial Chamber. This proposition is absolutely not true. There was not a single meeting of anybody of the temporary Executive Council that made such a decision or discussed such a possibility. This is absolutely inaccurate.

Q. Next question on that council, which we have established was effectively the highest authority of a non-military kind, and it's this: Your explanation to the Chamber is that killings were by individual criminals at worst, never by the military or the army. You were in regular contact with the army and the police. We have had evidence of bodies being moved from Kosovo to Batajnica, as very recently the Serb war crimes prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic has acknowledged, 800 bodies, the subject of mass execution, were moved from Kosovo to Serbia. Now, if these bodies were killed just by way of criminal killings, you as the civil administration should be able to tell us, should you not, why were they moved in refrigerated trucks to Serbia?

A. Mr. Nice, when you were asking this question, you made several inaccurate points. It is true that we had daily contacts with -- or, rather, it is not true we had daily contacts with the army and the police. I said on the first day of my testimony that we contacted with the army and the police only at the level of the staff for coordinating the activities of the civil authorities with the army and the MUP. The only point of our cooperation with the army and the police was ³⁶⁷⁶⁷ to help the population. Now you're asking me about certain parts of police investigations and how bodies were transported. I was not involved in any way. I know nothing about the removal of bodies. The Court will have to decide about that. The temporary Executive Council had nothing to do and had no knowledge about any of that.

Q. So you as somebody, a doctor, dealing with public-health issues no doubt at some stage, knew nothing of the clearing of the terrain of bodies, the digging up of bodies and their being moved to Serbia. Is that really right?

A. Again, in putting your question you are asserting things that I know nothing about. Of course I'm familiar with the clearing of the terrain as such. However, it is the army who does that. Staffs for civilian protection performed the clearing of the terrain, and it involved mainly the removal of carcasses of cattle and the removal or alleviation of consequences of bombing, environmental protection after, again, bombs hitting oil refineries or stocks of oil --

Q. Very well.

A. -- and such. You are talking now about things that I know nothing about. You're talking about 800 bodies which are part of a court investigation.

MR. NICE: The last of my questions I'll put in a couple of sentences. I'll identify the tabs that I would have relied on and that could be available for others to review. Of the documents that have been circulated, it's tabs 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 29, and significantly 25, which deals with a meeting on the 24th of March about which the witness has ³⁶⁷⁶⁸ already spoken.

Q. And my proposition to you on the TEC or, rather, the provisional council, is this: One - just yes or no - the idea to appoint this came from the accused. Yes or no. I've asked you this before but I want just to run through.

A. No.

Q. Second, once the Serb Assembly appointed the body, appointments to it were exactly that: People were appointed, Andjelkovic as the chairman and the rest of you as members. There was no question of election by the people; correct?

A. That is correct. For dozens of years, Albanians did not want to turn up at the elections. They had a democratic right to participate or not to participate. They chose not to.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... again. There may have been elections in Serbia. There were no elections, since 1990, in Kosovo, were there?

A. That is not true, Mr. Nice. Every time elections were held in Serbia, they were held in the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija because Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia, and everybody who wanted to take part took part. Those who didn't want to, didn't.

Q. And the council was originally financed by the accused's political party, the SPS, through one of its companies?

A. That is not true. The council was financed just as any other part, any other body of the state authority, through the budget. And in that year, 1998, we made a draft budget for the following year, and it was ³⁶⁷⁶⁹ endorsed by the Assembly of Serbia.

Q. Andjelkovic, the chairman or president, made it clear that your duties were as members of the SPS just as much as anything else. So it was a party-dominated body.

A. That is not true. Quite the contrary. I remember very clearly being summoned to an interview and being offered the position of the provincial secretary for health care. There was a man with me who later became the provincial secretary for agriculture, and both of us were surprised at being summoned.

Andjelkovic told us, "I don't want politicians. I want experts. I want a good government." I don't believe that Mr. Andjelkovic provided you with this information.

MR. NICE: There is another witness. There's one listed who may be able to deal with the provisional Executive Council and the supreme or Joint Command. I'll deal with my questions through that witness. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is no microphone. The microphone is now on.

Before I start my re-direct, would you please explain, because I didn't quite understand. Mr. Nice just enumerated a number of tabs from the binder he provided. He said 5, 11, 12, 29, 25, and then he didn't elaborate. Did he introduce these tabs into evidence or did he simply give them up? What was that all about? ³⁶⁷⁷⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, they were not introduced into evidence. Mr. Nice can clarify, but my understanding is that he --

MR. NICE: Yes -- I'm sorry. They're identified for the assistance of the accused, the assigned counsel, and indeed the Bench, as the documents upon which I relied, inter alia, for the propositions I was putting, and they will then be on notice with later witnesses, or possibly in a rebuttal case, that that's material I will rely on. But I don't invite the accused to deal with them in re-examination unless he particularly wishes to do so, but of course if he does, they may become exhibits at that stage, but I'm not pressing for that.

JUDGE KWON: Among that bundle, only tab that you're going to introduce is tab 30?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, as ever, is spot on. Tab 30 I have more formally dealt with it, which was Mr. Robinson's --

JUDGE KWON: We'll deal with it later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin your cross-examination [sic].

MR. KAY: Is tab 30 to have an exhibit number?

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll deal with all the exhibits later. The transcript has me as saying, "Mr. Milosevic, you may begin your cross-examination." It's re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. I have just a few questions.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Dr. Andric, at the beginning of the NATO ³⁶⁷⁷¹ aggression, according to all the evidence presented here, many statements were given by refugees fleeing Kosovo who said that they were fleeing from the bombing. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it the case that later, as CNN reported, and the CNN version became the accepted version, they claimed that they were fleeing from Serbian forces rather than the bombing?

A. Correct.

Q. Several statements have been shown you --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm sorry to have to ask, because as soon as I sit down it's unappealing for me to be rising to object, but the accused does it time and again. He moves into the most extraordinary leading question and mode of questioning, which is of no value to the Chamber, in my submission.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have been through this already. I try to be as lenient with you as possible, but you must be disciplined and not ask questions which suggest the answers to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'm not going to ask any leading questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Andric, in the video recording made in 1999, we saw certain members of the provisional Executive Council. We had opportunity to see Mr. Guxhufi, Mr. Jashari, among others, addressing a large number of Albanian refugees and telling them that they should return to their villages. Did we see that? ³⁶⁷⁷²

A. Yes.

Q. Please explain now. How come that members of the temporary Executive Council are leafing through the map and telling them which villages are safe to return to and others were not? Is it true that it was a matter of safety?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it true that they were urged to return to their villages wherever possible?

A. Yes.

Q. And now we are hearing the theory that the same authorities are driving them away, forcing them to leave the villages.

A. That is not true. Throughout the war, our Executive Council was trying to take care of those people and to keep them in their villages, providing medical assistance, providing food and everything else.

Q. All right. Now we saw from these statements taken a couple of days ago, we saw Guxhufi, Jashari, and others telling them to return to their villages. Now we see some of those people retracting, saying that the Serbian authorities were driving them away. How come that these people are saying now in 2005 that Serbs were expelling them?

A. I can understand those people to some extent. They are under horrible pressure. They have no choice but to say what they are saying. They do not dare to say anything else. Especially striking is the case of that lawyer. He has to save his bare life.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What pressure would they be under now?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, they are ^{36773 BLANK PAGE 36774} under terrible pressure. I think that their lives are at stake. Their lives are jeopardised, so they had to give such a statement. And I will support this with the following: How is it possible that an attorney, therefore not a farmer but an attorney, who has worked as a lawyer his entire life did not know that he was interviewed by journalists and believed those people to be inspectors of the SUP? So how would that be possible? There were many, many other illogical claims in his statement as well. So they -- these people are under terrible pressure, and this is what they have to say. I understand that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Now that you have mentioned this example, Mr. Nice mentioned this attorney who didn't know it was the journalists interviewing them. Now, please tell me, when somebody approaches you with a microphone and their TV camera is in front of you, would you believe that these people are journalists or would you assume that they are from police?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that question. Don't answer it. Next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Now, this same attorney -- I don't have the transcript in front of me now, but this same person stated that NATO targeted only tanks.

Mr. Andric, if this was indeed true that NATO targeted only tanks, do you know how many tanks were destroyed by NATO in the 78 days of bombing? ³⁶⁷⁷⁵

A. In 78 days they destroyed 13 tanks and APCs.

Q. And during those 78 days, was NATO bombing Kosovo round the clock? Is it well known?

A. Yes. They literally bombed it round the clock, 24 hours a day.

Q. Mr. Nice asked you about the statements given by civilians who were injured in the columns near Meja, Bistrazin, and so on. There were several drastic examples. Please tell us, was it the civilians who were bombed on that occasion, and how many civilians were killed?

A. Yes, civilians were bombed and hundreds of civilians were killed. I can give you the exact figures because I know them. In Bistrazin and Meja, 82 were killed on the spot and 28 died in the course of transport to the hospital and in hospital. This is as far as Bistrazin and Meja are concerned. In Korusa hundreds of civilians were killed, out of which 30 children. In both places there were over 100 gravely injured people.

Q. Since you were on the spot then, you provided care to these people and dealt with humanitarian issues, please tell us, in the vicinity of those columns that were bombed, or perhaps in the vicinity of the bus that was hit on the bridge where a lot of people were killed as well, therefore, in the vicinity of these spots where there were grave casualties, were there any tanks present or army units?

A. No. In the area of Meja and Bistrazin the column that was bombed was bombed on the 14th of April, 1999. They started bombing at 1.30 p.m., and it continued for almost two hours. The planes returned several times and bombed the column. When the health workers from Djakovica and Prizren came to provide assistance to the wounded, the bombing was still going on. ³⁶⁷⁷⁶ They were still bombing the rear part of the column, and there were no tanks or no army units present, anything to do with the army.

Q. Mr. Nice, when reading the statement of the witness which we can see in tab 5.9, Mr. Nice especially highlighted the fact that she was an illiterate woman. Now let us please take a look at this second statement in 5.9, and the last sentence reads: "The statement has been read out to me. I accept it as mine and affix my signature." Precisely because this woman was illiterate, I think that the regular procedure is to read out the statement to the person giving the statement to be sure that the witness will confirm it as his or her own statement. Is that the regular procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. In tab 5.9, we have these two statements. Please tell us, are these statements in accordance with the footage we saw earlier describing that same event, torched tractors, torched bodies? The footage describes the terrible tragedy that took place on that day. So are these statements in accordance with that footage recorded on the spot on that day?

A. Yes, they are. I was present at the spot 15 minutes before the bombing started and I talked to those people and they're fully in accordance with the footage.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice put it to you that the doctors who remained in Djakovica remained there on their own initiative, not because they were invited to do so by the authorities, "authorities" being a rather broad term. I have the statement submitted by Mr. Nice just now, which was given on the 25th of February by Samile Juniku. That's the statement that ³⁶⁷⁷⁷ you received during the break. So this is the statement taken by the 25th -- on the 25th of February, 2005, and at the end of page 2, this person - I assume that this person is a physician - so the last sentence on page 2 reads: "Again, I questioned a colleague about this and [In English] was informed that Dr. Muhaxhiri had been invited to stay at the hospital by the then hospital director, Dr. Sava Stanojevic."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Question? What's the question?

MR. NICE: Before the witness answers, if the accused is going to pursue this line, he's obviously got to go to the second page and go to the paragraph beginning, "In the presence of my patient and the soldier..."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I normally don't give instructions to Mr. Nice as to what he should quote when he is giving quotations because I normally quote full sentences and he normally takes things out of context.

Q. But my question is: Is it clear from this description that the Serbian doctor who here represents the authorities was the one who in fact invited these people to come and stay there with their families? So they didn't stay on their own initiative. This was at the invitation.

A. Yes. On the 25th of March, I signed an order stating that all the health professionals had to remain in their posts and could bring in their families if they wanted. The state of war was declared, and that was the situation at the time.

Q. All right. Now, immediately after that, when he said that he was invited by the director to remain, he said: "From my section alone, there ³⁶⁷⁷⁸ were maybe four doctors with their families, [In English] as well as a number of nurses who were staying on the hospital premises day and night. A similar situation existed within other sections of the hospital. As head of the section and having established that the staff there in fear of their safety from police and military within the city of Gjakove, I was satisfied that they could remain living at the hospital." [Interpretation] Therefore, he says that he decided that they should remain and live in the hospital, and prior to that he stated that Sava Stanojevic, the director, invited them to remain at the hospital. So they basically wanted the doctors to be at the hospital to treat patients. Please, can you tell us, what is the percentage of Albanians in Djakovica?

A. About 95 per cent.

Q. Therefore, the director of the hospital insisted that the doctors should remain in order to treat the patients, 99 per cent of whom are in fact Albanians?

A. Yes.

Q. And how is that related? How does that relate to the claim that the authorities are expelling Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija?

A. That claim is not true at all. In Djakovica hospital, there was 731 employees. Out of that figure, 605 were Albanians. And what was taking place in Djakovica could happen anywhere in Kosovo and Metohija. The same rule applied. The authorities did not expel anyone. On the 25th in the morning I signed that order especially highlighting that all those health professionals who believed that their ³⁶⁷⁷⁹ families were not safe enough could bring their families to the premises of health centres. This applied in the entire territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and it was only in Djakovica that Albanian doctors fully applied this and brought their families to the hospital. This shows something else contrary to what this Albanian colleague of mine, physician claimed in that statement of hers, that they were expelled. So how come that she was expelled when in Djakovica 605 Albanian employees remained working at the hospital without any problems? This other lady was absent for a week from work during the war and because of that she lost her job because she had left her job.

Q. Very well. Now, please tell us this: When applying this position that people should seek refuge at the hospital, what was the guiding thought? Was it that NATO would refrain from bombing hospitals and that they would be safe in hospitals?

A. Yes, precisely, because hospitals were clearly marked and they could be sure that their families would be safe at the hospital while at the same time the doctors could work.

Let me mention this once again. This was the state of war, and work obligation was implemented and everybody had to comply with their work obligation.

JUDGE BONOMY: Before we -- before we move on, I wonder if you could have that statement in front of you briefly. Is there a Serb version of this, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: No, we didn't have time.

JUDGE BONOMY: There's not. Well, Mr. Milosevic has quoted parts ³⁶⁷⁸⁰ to you ending at the top of page 3. Can you read the English version, Doctor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE BONOMY: If I read it to you perhaps you can comment on this. After the part that he read to you, it goes on: "Towards the end of the week, on either 8 or 9 April 1999, I was conducting an ultrasound examination on a patient within the hospital. At this time, I saw and spoke with the director -- at this time, I saw and spoke with the director, Dr. Stanojevic, who was visiting a soldier in the same part of the hospital ..." The witness goes on to explain that he thought that he was a paramilitary. And he goes on to say: "In the presence of my patient and the soldier, Dr. Stanojevic questioned me about the staff and their families residing in the hospital. I explained my understanding as to why they were there, and Dr. Stanojevic told me that I should order the staff to cease residing in the hospital. I informed him that I had not invited any of the staff to stay at the hospital and requested that he, as director, give written instructions for staff to leave the hospital grounds outside of working hours. I further informed Dr. Stanojevic that I, as head of section, would act upon his written instructions once they were received."

Now, that seems to contradict the earlier part. Can you explain why Dr. Stanojevic would want the staff to leave the hospital?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before the witness answers, in order to be fair, I would like to read the last sentence in that passage, which reads: "Our conversation ended [In English] at this point and at no time ³⁶⁷⁸¹ in the future did I receive written instructions from the Director or anyone else." [Interpretation] So the instructions that he sought concerning leaving the hospital are the instructions that he in fact never received. So nobody ordered him to ensure that the people left the hospital.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, you have every opportunity to ask questions here and expand upon anything that's asked by me, but I would be extremely grateful if you would not interrupt my questioning of the witness.

Now, Dr. Andric, could you please answer the question. Why do you think Dr. Stanojevic would suggest that the staff should cease residing in the hospital?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Bonomy, first of all I would like to say that here in one sentence once again paramilitary formations are mentioned. I would like to repeat that in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, there were no paramilitary formations present at all. The army of Yugoslavia would never allow the presence of such formations and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not the question, Doctor. Just attend to the question the Judge asked you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer now, Your Honour Judge Robinson. I think that Dr. Stanojevic would be the best person to give an answer. I don't know how is it that this physician came to give this statement, but let me tell you, I visited the Djakovica hospital on the 14th of April, 1999. I spoke to almost all doctors, Albanians and the ³⁶⁷⁸² other staff working there. I did not hear from them a single complaint regarding the conduct that -- and the treatment of Albanian physicians and other staff. They all had their families there at the hospital, and none of them had any problems until the very end.

I don't know why this physician gave this statement, but we cannot take one person's statement and apply it to the rest of the 600 persons working there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Dr. Andric. Based on your experience, if this stated by this doctor here was really true and if he indeed asked for written instructions from Dr. Stanojevic, do you think that Dr. Stanojevic would have given him those written instructions?

A. Dr. Stanojevic would not have been able to give him those written instructions because that was not the official position and this is precisely why he didn't give those written instructions, providing that this statement is true. Dr. Stanojevic took good care of his staff and his staff was able to remain there.

Q. And finally at the end of that statement, and four people signed the statement, so I don't know why we're challenging this, but in the last sentence, it says: "Dr. Zuna (No. 3), is correctly shown as being present at the hospital. In addition to these doctors, there were a further five doctors [In English] within my section who reported to work after the commencement of NATO action in Kosovo."

[Interpretation] Now -- well, actually then it says on the following page: "Those listed at number 1, 2, 3, and 5 as well as ³⁶⁷⁸³ Dr. Zuna, all stayed on the hospital premises after 24 March 1999." Can you remember now and not to have to look for it in your tabs how many medical staff members in the Djakovica hospital were of Albanian ethnicity?

A. 605.

Q. Did any of these 605 people, Albanian employees working in the hospital, did you receive reports that anybody was abused, sent away from his work or discriminated against in any way whatsoever?

A. No.

Q. You were asked by Mr. Nice a moment ago about the freedom of the press. Do you have any idea of how many papers were printed in the Albanian language in Kosovo?

A. About 25, weeklies and monthlies.

Q. Now, did these papers openly criticise state policy, criticise myself personally, and generally speaking wrote from the positions of Albanian separatism, and were they published did they come out, and could you buy them in the streets and kiosks?

A. Yes, they wrote whatever they wanted to write. There were no restrictions.

Q. Was a single copy or issue ever banned?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Nice asked you something else with respect to the poisoning case, the alleged case of the poisoning that took place in the early 1990s. You explained to us here that laboratory tests and analyses were conducted of blood, urine, et cetera. Do you know that any single ³⁶⁷⁸⁴ analysis was conducted and where the findings were that there was the presence of any noxious matter at all?

A. No. Although Mr. Nice mentioned a report which I never heard about, I really don't know about that report and I don't think it is the right report because the commission numbered 11 people and tabled their own report, and it was that report which was adopted later on and sent forward to the World Health Organisation. So there was absolutely no proof of a single case of poisoning, whereas there were about 100.000 cases in the three and a half months that went through the health institutions on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Mr. Nice quoted tab 6. I can't seem to find tab 6 here now. I put it away because it wasn't admitted, but it seems to be accepted now, but I have the English translation of it where it says: "Dr. Branko Pocek --" I assume he's not a Serb, and we're talking about the federal committee that discussed the matter --

A. He was the director of the federal institute for health protection at that time.

Q. Very well. "... Dr. Branko Pocek said that ethical norms [In English] and the Hippocratic oath were violated in Kosovo because health workers were guided by certain political objectives." [Interpretation] That the Hippocratic oath was violated. So was that what was established at federal level at the time, as far as you remember?

A. Yes, and it was a continuation of the manipulations, from the miner's strike on the old square in February 1989 and then onwards towards ^{36785 BLANK PAGE 36786} 1990s, the 1990s and the mass poisoning and the general strike in September 1990. So there were a series of manifestations of that kind that were staged, manufactured, and I can't remember them all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, let me just clarify this. You say that in the period of three and a half months there were 100.000 cases of alleged poisoning; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Robinson, roughly speaking, that's the number. However, I have to say that quite simply the Albanian health workers banned any precise records from being kept. But in certain clinics, 400 and 500 patients would be seen during a single day, and 1 to 200 would be released. So they took each other's places. And that's what happened throughout the territory of Kosovo and Metohija at that time. But as I say, there are no precise facts and figures. But this went on from mid-March 1990, for instance, up until the middle of June 1990, and sporadic cases later on. But I have to say the same thing that happened in Kosovo and Metohija happened simultaneously in Macedonia in the settlements inhabited by the Albanian population. Means that this whole drive was synchronised.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Dr. Andric, at the time, experts dealt with this matter, and we can see that from this report, and I assume you will remember, more broadly speaking, there were experts from Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, from the large centres which had the proper specialists in poisoning and so on and so forth, specialists for poisoning. Is that true? Is that ³⁶⁷⁸⁷ what happened?

A. Yes.

Q. I think that had an erroneous interpretation. I don't mean translated. I mean that what Dr. Vojvodic said was interpreted erroneously. "... Dr. Vladimir Vojvodic, a general, an eminent toxicologist, VMA toxicologist, said that the toxicological service was not developed in Kosovo and the province had no experts in this field." Full stop. And then we come to what Mr. Nice quoted: "[In English] Even if physicians from Kosovo had attended today's session, said Vojvodic, no professional talks would have been possible because they would not have been the right people for the debate."

[Interpretation] Now, what it says here, what Vojvodic says here, is that linked to the observation made that they didn't have any toxicologists or is he discriminating in some way against these people from Kosovo? He was a physician. Do you happen to know --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the latter part of the question is clearly leading.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The fact is this: At the time on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija in our health institutions there we did not have a highly developed toxicological service, and that was a big problem in our health service, the fact that we did not have toxicologists, and we found it difficult to deal with cases like that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What about that doctor who was an Albanian who made statements, if you remember, if you recall from the videotape we saw, who said that they ³⁶⁷⁸⁸ were undertaking therapy on the basis of their own assessments and findings? What was he by profession? What was his speciality?

A. Professor Alush Gashi, who gave the interview, at the time was an anatomist. He worked in the institute for anatomy. And Professor Zatriqi, who appeared, asked for assistance from Zagreb and Ljubljana. And Professor Hajredin Ukeri was with him, he was a general surgeon, and the other one was a paediatric surgeon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I don't know how much longer you intend to be with this witness, but in my view he should be out of here before the next break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that's what I'll do and I'll do my best to do that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Dr. Andric, yesterday -- when I say "yesterday," I mean on the last working day last week -- we saw a statement here that was provided. I can't go through all the statements but I'll take one of them, select one of them, and it is the statement of Meshqyre Capuni-Brestovci. That's the statement taken on the 22nd of February, 2005. Meshqyre Capuni-Brestovci. And this is in fact the transcript of a video interview that was conducted, and I'd like to ask you to focus on certain points. On page 2, for example, this is what it says -- the person making the statement says: "[In English] On the 24th of March, all the colleagues were working. The situation was tense and everyone was afraid, and after finishing our working hours we went home so that we could go back to work the next day." ³⁶⁷⁸⁹ [Interpretation] And then it says -- or, rather, she says that the director -- "[In English] I notified the director of the hospital what the problem was and he said I will give you ... he said he would give me a document which would allow me to walk through the city and to go to work because a colleague of mine had already asked for such a document." [Interpretation] So to calm her down he gave her a document of some sort confirming that she was an employee of the hospital not because he issued documents of that kind but because a colleague had already asked for a similar document.

At the time, was she in any way in any danger in the town of Pristina?

A. Just like everybody else, all the other doctors, regardless of ethnicity, in the same way that they were.

Q. Now take a look at this. It is clip 2. "[In English] (... during the night) since we did not want to make my sister's situation more difficult, then we decided to go towards the Macedonian border." [Interpretation] So here she says "we decided to go towards the Macedonian border." Looking at that passage is there any mention in this statement, taken two or three days prior to that, that somebody -- or, rather, that somebody exerted pressure on her or somebody forced her to go towards the Macedonian border? She says, "we decided to go towards the Macedonian border."

A. That was their own decision. Just as my family had decided -- my wife and daughter decided to leave the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. And then she goes on to say that they waited at the border, and ³⁶⁷⁹⁰ towards the end she said on the eighth day some soldiers passed, et cetera, et cetera. "[In English] You can go back now because Milosevic says that you can go."

[Interpretation] I assume that she's referring to one of my public statements when I said that refugees were coming back to their homes. But that's not the vital point. The important point is that she says on the eighth day, which means that they were standing at the border for eight days, which is more than the week that you mentioned that she hadn't been to work. You mentioned a week, that she was absent for a week. Here she says on the eighth day -- she was there for eight days, and then she says, "We decided to go back immediately."

Take a look on the following page the next page, then she says, "We returned home by car," et cetera. That's what it says. But on that eighth day. So she didn't report for duty.

And then in clip 3 she says, "We stayed at home for about ten days [In English] and we did not dare to go out," [Interpretation] and so on and so forth.

So if they were at the border for eight days and then after that another ten days they stayed at home, then she could have turned up to work not earlier than 18 days later, if we add the two up. And then she goes on to say, at the end of this first paragraph of clip 3, "When I went there the director looked really sad and he said that he was sorry, [In English] but we had lost our jobs because we had not notified them that we would not be working, and we could not get our salary of the previous month." ³⁶⁷⁹¹ [Interpretation] Now, please, since you were the head in the health service, if somebody wasn't able to get their salary for the previous month, does it mean that they worked or not worked?

A. Only if they did not work would they not be able to get their salary.

Q. Now, I'm sure you know the rules. If you do not notify your employer of not being on the jobs for not five days but for at least 18 days, is that a legal reason for you to be dismissed from your job, not only for Albanians but Romanians, Hungarians, Serbs, anyone else living in Novi Sad, Belgrade, or anywhere else in Serbia?

A. Yes, that would apply to everybody because a state of war had already been proclaimed. So even if you were away for one day you would be liable to forfeit your job.

Q. Let's leave wartime apart. But if you don't go to work for 18 days in peacetime without notifying your employees [as interpreted], would you be liable to dismissal? Is that a legal provision that holds true and is in force everywhere in Serbia?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Nice --

JUDGE BONOMY: Dr. Andric, would it be easy to replace the doctor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand. How do you mean "replace"?

JUDGE BONOMY: The point is being made that during this wartime period if a doctor was absent for one day, that was good reason for dismissing or not allowing the doctor to return to work. Was it really ³⁶⁷⁹² very easy to replace doctors in Kosovo so you could take this rigid line with people?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps in this case it would have been easy, but it wasn't one day, Your Honour, it was 18 days' absence. And you know when --

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand this was 18 days. But you made the point that in wartime if a doctor was off for even one day, that was intolerable and the doctor would be dismissed. Now, I'm surprised at that, that it was so easy to replace doctors, and I just wanted to be clear about the position.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you're asking me personally from my own opinion, had I been the director, I would have acted differently and then I would have violated the law, whereas this director respected the law at the very letter of the law to the end, fully.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you said even a day, did you mean or did you say in principle, were you talking about the principle of the thing when a state of war was declared, or do you know that somebody was actually dismissed for not turning up to work one day?

A. Nobody was dismissed for not coming to work for one day. Only if people were absent for many more days. We had even Serbian physicians, professors who were absent for five days who were dismissed and they never came back to work.

Q. So when the bombs were falling on the territory, was this something that you had to contend with, some -- this was not something ³⁶⁷⁹³ that could just be made up for the following day, if you weren't there one day. So what could you conclude if somebody was absent for a period of 15 or 18 days, for example?

A. Simply that he -- that that person had decided not to come back to work and was not fulfilling his work obligation because they were afraid or whatever reason.

Q. Mr. Nice asked you something about a meeting that you attended with high military leaders, high-ranking military leaders, and then the explanation given was that it was a transcript or minutes from the 15th session of the provisional Executive Council of Kosovo and Metohija held on the 24th of March, 1999. I don't have any notations here. On this other copy it says 319, tab 33. Exhibit 319, tab 33. And we were shown that -- or, rather, handed out that by Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: It's tab 25 in the bundle distributed this morning, if you want to find it, or if the accused does.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no 25 --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- very short minutes.

MR. NICE: It would have been tab 25 in the witness's version but of course you were provided with a list, it being a previous exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have this document under 25 precisely. It must be some technical error. ³⁶⁷⁹⁴

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, this is a brief record, and the subject matter is a session of the temporary Executive Council, or the provisional Executive Council.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this is a regular session of the provisional Executive Council, and it says the session is attended -- Please add the missing names. It says Vukasin Andric -- I suppose this is listed in alphabetical order. Vukasin Andric, Ratomir Jocic, Dragutin Markovic, Guljbehar Sabovic, Cerim Abazi, Zejnelabidin Kurejs, Ivica Mihajlovic, Jovica Jovanovic, Selim Guxhufi, Ibro Vait, Petrit Kostari.

And it says absent members: Faik Jashari, Verica Tepavcevic-Aleksic, Vesko Piric, Bajram Haliti, and Dzafer Djuka. Is that the entire members?

A. Yes, 17 members.

Q. Out of those 17, how many Serbs were there and how many other -- of other ethnicities?

A. Eight Serbs, nine Montenegrins, and the rest were other ethnicities.

Q. And then it says the session is attended by members blah, blah, blah, also attended by Nebojsa Pavkovic; Major General of the VJ Vladimir Lazarevic, commander of the Pristina Corps; Major General Sreten Lukic from the Ministry of the Interior; Obrad Stevanovic, also from the MUP; et ³⁶⁷⁹⁵ cetera, and then it says "heads of Kosovo and Metohija districts and presidents of municipalities."

Mr. Nice asked you if you were the only civil administration. How many districts were there in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Five.

Q. So all the five heads of districts were present, that is, the civil administration one step below. And how many municipalities?

A. Twenty-eight.

Q. So municipalities were also bodies of self-administration. And as we can see, the agenda consists of the decision of the federal government on the proclamation of the state of imminent threat of war and the decision of the national assembly of the Republic of Serbia not to accept any presence of foreign troops in Kosovo and Metohija. Discussion is about the current situation in the country and the threats of NATO after aborted negotiations in Paris and in Rambouillet with the delegation of Kosovo Albanians with the mediation of the Contact Group.

Do you have any idea why this unsuccessful negotiations is in quotation marks or, rather, failure it says here?

A. Because the negotiations never happened.

Q. It says further down --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that doesn't arise out of cross-examination, so I'm not allowing it. You should be bringing your re-examination to an end now. It's time for the break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm wrapping it up. ³⁶⁷⁹⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do we see from here that the army would be defending the country from raids from Albania?

A. Yes.

Q. The discussion goes on about the fight against terrorists.

A. Yes.

Q. Protection of the population.

A. Yes.

Q. When it says "population," does that include everybody or just the Serbian population?

A. Everybody.

Q. Did Andjelkovic stress that he would go on working for a peaceful solution?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Andric. I have no further questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't want to keep this witness after the break.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I should like the permission of the Honourable Trial Chamber to address them, if I may.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is unusual. The witness usually answers questions put to him. The suggestion that you'd like to make an address is unusual.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Dr. Andric, that concludes -- Dr. Andric, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give ^{36797 BLANK PAGE 36798} it, and you may now leave.

We are going to take a break for 20 minutes, and when we return we'll hear very, very brief arguments on the admissibility of the I think six proposed exhibits from the Prosecutor.

We are adjourned.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, very quickly. First Meshqyre Capuni, the video and the transcript of the video evidence.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. I'd ask for her to be admitted. If the Chamber will remember the history for why we were asking what was only partially correct questions; no fault of ours, it was because we didn't know that the document needed correcting, which happened only after she was interviewed. Her evidence is valuable, countering the general propositions advanced, and should be, in our respectful submission, seen along with Pallaska, although not a named person, the only person we could find, once the transcript had been corrected, to accord with the category given by the accused through his witnesses, and both will be of value in assessing that part of his evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I note that the witness did not accept any of your propositions in relation to the information on the video or the transcript.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes, but here we have people who are named and from whom certain inferences are to be drawn, without their being the ³⁶⁷⁹⁹ subject of so much as the courtesy of a request in preparation of the evidence. List of names, I make no detailed point about the lack of knowledge of where even the list comes from, but it says here is somebody who did something, here is a category of people who did something, the following must be right. When you test it by going and finding the only named person we could and another person in the same category material to the contrary effect. My submission would be that that material is properly before the Chamber now as a cross-examination material and it's better for it to be before the Chamber now so that the issues are joined. The alternative position, and it applies for all eight statements because there are another six, is that if they don't go in now for the Chamber to have as part of the material to assess, why then I shall be almost obliged to make an application that is not in terrorem but just looking at it from my point of view should be almost obliged to make an application to call in rebuttal because the issues have been raised by the accused and therefore need to be dealt with.

My second general point is, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding is that in the civil system material of this kind would probably be acceptable or would certainly be accepted once an issue of this kind is joined, but that's a very general observation and I don't have more than, as it were, anecdotal observations from my colleagues who come from the civil system to lay before you on that at the moment.

His Honour Judge Kwon may be of a contrary view

JUDGE KWON: Not in Korea, which adopts the civil law system. ³⁶⁸⁰⁰

MR. NICE: In any event, that's my argument on those two.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That's on Capuni and Pallaska.

MR. NICE: Yes, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: As to the next one -- the next two, the statements taken allegedly by the Committee for the Collection of Data in Crimes and Humanity, absolutely the plainest examples of statements that should be before the Chamber. Completely contradictory to what was said and what was relied on by the witness. As ever the witness had an argument against everybody, it didn't matter what anybody said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your statements are in response to statements produced by the accused.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And the question arises whether we should admit those statements --

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- since they were not introduced through either Rule 92 bis or 89(F).

MR. NICE: Absolutely right, and indeed in a short exchange with His Honour Judge Kwon I explained that I was reserving my position at the time they were first produced, with the Rules in mind, and of course I knew that I had an investigator hopefully tracking the witnesses down to see if they were going to adopt those statements but let me make it --

JUDGE ROBINSON: How do you understand the Appeals Chamber's decision on the decision that went from this Chamber on written ³⁶⁸⁰¹ statements? Does it mean that the effect of that decision is that the only method of producing statements in lieu of oral evidence in the Tribunal is via 92 bis and 89(F)?

MR. NICE: Well, I think -- that I would think is the general proposition for ordinary witness statements, but there are a couple of caveats I should make to that answer, and before I come to those can I just deal with this: When I said I reserve my position on the statements, had the investigator confirmed that each and every line of the statement was true, then -- I don't know if I expressed this at the time but it was certainly my clear intention, whatever the formality or whatever the Rules, I would have been prepared to admit the statement because it's a quick way of getting material before the Chamber, so that had they -- it would have been without prejudice to subsequent statements but had they been confirmed as true, I would have been prepared to let them in, subject to, of course, the Chamber's ruling.

Now, then turning to them as witness statements, any witness statement presented by a party on either side under 92 bis or 89(F) comes with the express understanding that the witness adopts that statement at the time the statement is tendered into evidence, either expressly by the 92 bis affirmation or at the moment the witness comes to give evidence and says, "This is my statement. It is true."

These statements made and acknowledged as signed by one of them are not accepted as the truth at all. On the contrary. So that they simply don't qualify as witness statements because they don't have that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: They don't purport to be -- ³⁶⁸⁰²

MR. NICE: They don't purport to be statements of truth. Now, the next point arises, of course the accused, and I think probably the Prosecution, have in the course of producing evidence of one type and another produced hearsay material which to a greater or lesser extent may be before the Chamber for the truth of its content, whether newspaper articles or reports or one thing and another, it simply isn't possible to draw a line between that which is and that which is not hearsay admitted for the truth of its content.

And of course the accused tendered these documents as a species of written material for the truth of their content. I am neutral as to whether the Chamber would simply exclude them, having heard the arguments and seen the contrary material, or whether, without prejudice to any future statements and certainly without prejudice to any future arguments I may raise, it allows them in but on the basis that it also allows in the statements taken over the weekend or whenever it was. I think it was over the weekend. The effect, of course, of allowing them both in would be inevitably to neutralise them until and unless further evidence was called.

And if I can turn then to the lawyer. One of the problems this morning is that the lawyer's transcript was in short form, the fuller version -- I'm sorry, I gather you had the fuller form and it was only I who didn't. The problem of identification is dealt with there because he gives his name, he gives his location, and it will be a matter for the Chamber whether it displaces the evidence of appearance that may think is clear on its face. ³⁶⁸⁰³ In light of the extensive answers given to the camera by this man when a refugee, in our respectful submission, this material undoubtedly should be before the Chamber as part of the complete picture. And likewise when we come to the last three documents that the Chamber --

JUDGE KWON: Staying there, then.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: An important distinction we cannot ignore between the two video footage, one the a film taken spontaneously and contemporaneously at the time, and the other being taken very recently conducted -- being conducted by the investigator of the OTP for the sole purpose of making comment on the witness's evidence and being used at the courtroom. Do you not think it's a little bit unfair to the accused, without giving -- without being offered any opportunity to cross-examine the witness?

MR. NICE: Unfair, no. And let me make a couple of points about that.

First of all, I notice that the witness was only too willing to accuse the Office of the Prosecutor and its investigator of impropriety in the preparation of the various materials that had been prepared, and as I explained in the course of evidence these were simply the first eight people we could contact. Yes, he made observations about -- I can't remember the terminology -- pressure that was brought to bear on one of the witnesses. He said it in terms, maybe the word "pressure" isn't right -- ³⁶⁸⁰⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he said pressure but it wasn't clarified from whom the pressure was coming.

MR. NICE: And certainly the investigator is of course available at any time to deal with the circumstances in which took these -- took this material.

Second point of His Honour Judge Kwon, as to the witness interviewed in the refugee status that he was interviewed in, he was already giving a narrative of something that was past. It wasn't somebody being caught as he - caught on the camera - as he left his village. So to some degree he was already giving a narrative history. Of course he was contemporaneous in the matters he was describing at the time. So to some degree the distinction is not as sharp or as clear as Your Honour would propose.

Second, there can be, as has been explained on one side and the other, reasons for either form of interview being accurate or inaccurate. The witness says accurate because said at the time. The -- that is the witness Andric. The lawyer himself says inaccurate at the time because of that form of pressure and by implication accurate at this time when given at leisure.

In our respectful submission, given what we faced when this tape recording was produced, we could do no more than obtain an account from the witness given-- and you can see the way it was given in the video -- an account of the witness as to what happened to him and why it was he said what he said. The Chamber will recall that there's one passage indeed in there about a democracy that reflects the video that we've seen ³⁶⁸⁰⁵ coming from the Defence. I don't think that the witness himself had a chance to review that video before answering these questions to Mr. Sutch, and in our submission the best course is to have the best material at the moment, recognising that it leaves open the question of either calling more evidence by the accused or rebuttal by the Prosecution but that it will probably free the Prosecution of feeling absolutely obliged to seek time in rebuttal to take this witness when, in a year's time or whatever it may be, the pressures for rebuttal time may be very considerable. And the reduction of that pressure will have been fair because it will have been achieved by enabling the present balanced position to be before the Chamber.

So my answer to Your Honour is no, nothing unfair in that, because Your Honour's question, if I may perhaps suggest, carries with it an implication that somebody will be less than frank when preparing something for the Trial Chamber.

The Trial Chamber might take the contrary view that material prepared for court is more likely to be candid and certainly sufficiently confident that it may be candid or should be candid before it could be a balance to the other material.

The other three statements coming in relation to, I think, tab 2 point -- no, tab 11, have been dealt with very swiftly by me. The accused has gone into one of them in considerable detail.

JUDGE BONOMY: They weren't dealt with at all by you.

MR. NICE: No. I simply asked questions of the witness. I didn't deal with them -- I didn't deal with them, I simply asked the questions ³⁶⁸⁰⁶ that derived from them about the conduct of the doctors at Djakovica.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: If I can just -- sorry.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay, Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: What I said immediately following the last break was, "As to tab 11, doctors staying in Djakovica, I needn't trouble you with the witness statements from the first three spoken to but help me with this ..." and then I put my case on the basis of it, and the accused clearly understood what I was doing, in light of his re-examination. And the position on those three, again, the first three we could find of people who were never approached before their names were prayed in aid when their conduct was relied upon for inferences by the accused, it would be appropriate for the Chamber to see what other material there is counter to the arguments advanced on this topic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. There's a misunderstanding, in our submission, on this issue when the Prosecution present material such as this between that which is assertion and that which is evidence. Evidence comes from witnesses and through the court procedures, be it under 89(F) or 92 bis. What we have here in relation to these particular statements are materials that are assertions by the witnesses that can ordinarily be put by the Prosecutor in cross-examination and should be part of his materials, but it goes no further than that. If this material is to go in as evidence ³⁶⁸⁰⁷ through rulings made at this stage, the accused himself is unable to cross-examine the witnesses and to put his case to them, or indeed for anyone other than the OTP, who have produced the materials, to have any input into the information, to have any examination of the information that that particular person has within the statement. If one considers that the technique here -- and I did alert the Court to this as to what would happen is that we would have -- once a ruling, a favourable ruling was given to the Prosecutor, that it would then drive a coach and horses through the procedures here and you would be, having made one ruling, another 500 statements following behind, and one can see that that has been the procedure here. When this material is put as an assertion by the Prosecutor to the Defence witness, it is for the Defence witness to deal with the question. It remains, if the Prosecutor disagrees with the answer given, if he believes that it's relevant to the indictment and to issues within his case, to call the evidence in rebuttal. That should be the process. The Court should not be tied up here with considering how or how not the Prosecutor may choose to present their case in rebuttal. That is very much an in terrorem argument that is being put to you; that we won't be able to deal with all the things we should deal with in our rebuttal case if we are prevented from adopting a particular procedure at this stage in relation to our cross-examination of the Defence witnesses. It is not in any way similar to a process under the other system, Civil Code systems of justice, which have distinct procedures for the taking of evidence outside the courtroom which is subject to judicial ³⁶⁸⁰⁸ controls. That is not here. The presentation of the evidence in this trial is actually under the adversarial mode of criminal justice proceedings. That must be borne in mind here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But the admissibility of evidence is governed by 89(C) --

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- which is civilian mode.

MR. KAY: The adduction of the evidence under 89(F) requires affirmation by a witness in the courtroom to adopt that statement. 92 bis has a distinct judicial procedure which requires that it be cumulative or other issues that we know within the section of the act to allow it to come in through the procedures of the Court and be evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you see --

MR. KAY: 89(C) admits evidence that is probative and relevant. This is not evidence here. It is an assertion that is being made. It doesn't fall into the category of evidence because it's never come about through your process as the Judges or through the procedures in the courtroom. It's merely been material that would normally have been put in the form of questions by the Prosecutor.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If the witness agrees with the propositions put forward by the Prosecutor, what then?

MR. KAY: It may be adopted then in particular circumstances, and one shouldn't put a rule that then every single document would be adopted. It does become an issue of relevance and how important, in my submission. But if it is adopted by the witness, then it is capable of becoming an ^{36809 BLANK PAGE 36810} exhibit in the case if the Judges, if the Trial Chamber wanted it, but --

JUDGE ROBINSON: In none of these cases did the witness agree with the Prosecutor's propositions.

MR. KAY: No. And if it is to be relied on by the Prosecutor, it should come in to court in the usual form and be subject to examination in the courtroom. That will have not have taken place if this is admitted into evidence and becomes evidence in the trial under the procedures sought to be adopted by the Prosecutor at this stage. That's our concern here.

We know the Trial Chamber is concerned about the magnification of issues, documents in this trial. Some of these rules, in our submission, have been devised to enable a more focusing on the essential materials for a trial and preventing side issues from turning a case into being a far wider vehicle. If these were documents that were relevant to the acts and conduct of the accused or other issues concerning the indictment, they would plainly be admissible in the scheme of things and we wouldn't be debating it, but we are dealing very much with tangential issues here that, in our submission, cause this debate to produce far wider materials into the trial than is necessary because it's not focused.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Canadian MP's report --

MR. KAY: He --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- taking into account the fact that the witness was present with him when he was observing the situation in Kosovo.

MR. KAY: I would concede that that becomes admissible because it's a document by him. There's been assertions on the video, assertions ³⁶⁸¹¹ by the witness. A report written by him is within the Rules of this system. As I've said, people have said I'm a common lawyer through and through. It's not true at all. I've hardly practiced in my own jurisdiction for many years now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's nothing to be ashamed now.

MR. KAY: I'm probably more international these days than domestic. So the fact of the matter is that that does come in and we don't object to that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, the two formal statements taken in the hospital which the witness said were taken by examining Judges, investigative judges, should they not, if we are to consider them, be introduced formally under Rule 92 bis or 89(F) in some way rather than in the form -- this sort of pseudo-formal form that they're in at the moment?

MR. KAY: Ms. Higgins and I have had a discussion about this because we were aware of that, and what we believe to be the system because it happened in the Prosecution case, that as this was a document arising at the time during the general passage of events and under, on the face of it, procedures for public documents that it was an official record, then it comes into being that way as a document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the res gestae.

MR. KAY: We seemed to have had this during the Prosecution case where official documents were produced by a party, and there were many, from Lilic to others, who would have had no idea about the making of that document, but they were current to the time and, therefore, they're able to be looked at. What weight is then put upon such a document is a matter ³⁶⁸¹² for the Bench, of course, in the ultimate analysis but it has more relevance and is more probative than statements that are being produced later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There was nothing in the statements to show that they were in fact official or taken by persons with the capacity that the witness said possessed.

MR. KAY: Perhaps it's my familiarity with the documents we've had in this case, but you tend, if you put these documents against others, to recognise an official type script and layout that is part of the system. And the witness said that it was taken by investigating judges, as far as he knew, from the circumstances that they were taken and presumably the form of the record that comes with it.

I see there's no stamp on the document or anything like that, but the declaration and its general layout follows that of other documents that we've seen in the case. But it's a matter of weight at the end of the day, in our submission, what the Trial Chamber would give to such a document as that. I hope that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm afraid that this formal analysis neglects what was actually taking place. This involves documents covering an event that has not been challenged, namely bombing of a column of refugees as a result of which hundreds of people were killed. That is not disputable at all. You could see on the video footage that the entire downtown of Pristina had been destroyed as well. ³⁶⁸¹³ And the claim of Mr. Nice that that had nothing to do with the fleeing of refugees, the fact that the entire infrastructure and the buildings were destroyed, is absurd and ridiculous. He's trying to convince us that this was all a result of activities of Serb forces.

I can assure you that you will not find a single Albanian in Kosovo and Metohija who would dare and give you any other story than the story proclaimed by them, which is the story of CNN and Madeleine Albright, that the Albanian were leaving Kosovo because they were forced to do so by the Serbs. And everything else about the destruction of downtowns, bombing of refugees columns and the deaths of hundreds of people as a result of that had nothing to do, had no influence whatsoever, and in fact Albanians, as is frequently said, welcomed NATO bombing, which is completely ridiculous.

If you think that somebody can actually buy that story, then, yes, you can circulate the facts of these nature which are not facts at all. And the statement that was taken two days ago in 2005 from participants of events originally taking place in 1999, such statements have no value at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I start first with the witnesses Labinot Syla and Zoje Quni in tab 5.9. These are statements presented by the accused and to which the Prosecutor responded with statements taken from or allegedly taken from the same witnesses very, very recently. These statements, in the Trial Chamber's view, which the accused ³⁶⁸¹⁴ presented, ought to have been presented under either Rule 92 bis or Rule 89(F)). So they are not admitted as part of the accused's case, and the Chamber takes this opportunity to encourage the accused to utilise those procedures since they were designed to expedite the proceedings before this Tribunal.

The report from the Canadian MP, Mr. Robinson, tab 30, is admitted.

The other statements, Meshqyre Capuni, the female doctor, and the video, Dr. Pallaska and the video from the lawyer Mr. Fusha are not admitted. We agree with the submission of Mr. Kay that these statements have not proceeded beyond the level of being mere assertions. At no time did the witness agree with any of the propositions advanced by the Prosecution in relation to the information in these documents. So they are not admitted.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I should just make it clear: I thought it might have been obvious that by rejecting as exhibits the Prosecutor's -- the accused's statements from Labinot Syla and Zoje Quni, I'm also rejecting the Prosecutor's statements responsive to those. Mr. Milosevic, you did utilise the statement of Juniku. That could be admitted on the basis that you have made use of it. Do you have any comments on that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what statement you have in mind, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is the statement from Samile Juniku, which the ³⁶⁸¹⁵ Prosecutor advanced and you made a reference to several passages in it.

JUDGE KWON: The doctor invited to stay at the hospital.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That was a reference to Dr. Stanojevic. Yes. We'll admit that.

We will not admit the statements produced by the Prosecutor from Shahin Roka and Vjolca Vula.

Will the Court Registrar please give a number for the MP Robinson's report, which was at tab 30.

THE REGISTRAR: The tab 30 will be entered as 827. The witness statement of Juniku will be entered as 828.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Your next witness, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I call my next witness, Mr. Robinson, just for the sake of the transcript, I know that you have admitted the report by the Canadian MP. You also saw on the videotape that the Canadian MP took footage of the cluster bombs which is not reflected in his report, and I want to make sure that this is in the transcript to show that this was -- this had political goals and not the goal of discovering the actual reality. We were even able to see him talking to various Albanian residents in the video footage. I will now call my next witness, Dr. Dobre Aleksovski.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit. And, Mr. Milosevic, you may begin. ³⁶⁸¹⁶

WITNESS: DOBRE ALEKSOVSKI

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

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Aleksovski, good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Please tell us, what is your occupation?

A. I am a physician, a doctor of medicine.

Q. When and where did you graduate from the medical school?

A. I graduated from the medical school in Skopje in 1972.

Q. Did you complete your military service? If you graduated from the medical school in Skopje in 1972, did you also complete your military service in the JNA?

A. Yes, I did. And I completed it before I graduated from the medical school. To be more precise, in 1968 and 1969.

Q. Where did you serve in the military?

A. The first three months in Zrenjanin, and the remaining eight months in Krusevac.

Q. During your military service, did something particular happen that you can tell us about? Did something happen in the JNA that was of special importance to you?

A. What I can tell you, that during the first three months, we had lectures, military training, and after the completion of that training course, we went to individual units. And since I was a medical student, I was sent to the health centre in Krusevac.

Q. When did you complete your medical specialisation and when did you ³⁶⁸¹⁷ become the head doctor? Because I can see from your title that you were head doctor.

A. I became the head doctor and -- or, rather, I completed my specialisation or my internship in 1983 and I became head doctor in 1998.

Q. When did you become employed in the emergency services in Skopje?

A. In 1983.

Q. Does that mean, Dr. Aleksovski, that you spent your entire medical career after graduating from the medical school in the Skopje emergency service?

A. Yes, that's right. I worked at the clinic or infirmary at the centre of the town very briefly, and then following that I transferred to the emergency service where I have been working for 32 years now.

Q. During the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia, were you employed at the emergency service in Skopje; and if so, what was your position?

A. Yes. I did work at the emergency service, and at the time I was the director of the emergency service.

Q. At that time when you were the director of that service, how many mobile medical teams did your service have?

A. At the time, we covered the territory of Skopje and Glina with ten mobile medical teams. We worked around the clock, 24 hours a day.

Q. What is the composition of a medical team?

A. From the time when our service was founded in 1956, we have always worked in teams, so that a team would comprise doctors, nurses, and a driver, a driver who has been trained to assist the medical team. In addition to that, there was also a medical technician there. ³⁶⁸¹⁸

Q. So this would be the typical composition of a medical team; is that right?

A. Yes. This has been so from the time when our service was founded, and it's still so today.

Q. Please tell us, in 1999, what area of the Republic of Macedonia was covered by your emergency service?

A. From the beginning and also nowadays, our service has covered the entire city of Skopje and the surrounding area. Some villages are more than 30 kilometres away. So this has always been so. This has always been the area that we have covered.

Q. Please tell us, this area covered by your emergency service, does it also include the border area near the border with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, certainly. Since the border area, border with the Republic of Serbia, is there in that region, we do cover that area. There are some villages right at the border, and this does come under our jurisdiction.

Q. All right. At the time and as a result of the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, did you increase the staffing or did you elevate the level of alert, and did that also cover the border area near the border with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes. Unfortunately, that did take place while I was holding that position. We covered the area of Donje Bllace, and we had many calls and provided treatment to many people who needed it, starting on the 24th or 25th of March, after which time it became much more intense.

Q. If I remember correctly, you said you had about ten medical teams. ³⁶⁸¹⁹ Did you increase the number of teams after the 24th of March, for instance?

A. We did increase our medical teams after the 1st of April, 1999. We changed our working hours and shifts because we weren't able to take in new people quickly. We had to make do with the same staff we had. They're all experienced members, but, yes, we did increase the number of our teams.

Q. After the 24th of March because you said that that was the date after which you increased your teams, or the 1st of April or whatever, did you go to the border area towards the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia more frequently at that time?

A. Yes. After the 24th of March or, rather, the 24th of March we had the first calls coming in to us from the border services. They were toll calls in actual fact, but there was no need for us to intervene, so the calls didn't need us to come out and deal with the situation.

Q. Dr. Aleksovski, you said a moment ago that you were the chief of the emergency medical service. You said that a moment ago. And if so, did you go every day, or how many times did you go to the border, to that border belt? What was the frequency?

A. I started going on a daily basis up to the border since the 30th of March 1999, because that was when I received orders from the Ministry of Health telling me to form, since the public security at the Donji Bllace crossing point and there was another crossing point, an unofficial one nearby, Gornje Bllace, because they said they needed three teams; two at Donje Bllace and one at Gornje Bllace. And that's what I did, I sent ³⁶⁸²⁰ the teams there, and because our men were there, our people were out there, I would go on a daily basis, every day even three times or more, several times, at least, a day.

Q. So at least three times a day you would go from Skopje to the border crossings, the border belt; is that right?

A. Yes. First of all as the director or the chief, I had to see to our employees, to see that they were properly supplied, the teams were properly supplied with the necessary medical material they needed and everything else. So I would go at least three times a day to see how they were doing.

Q. Dr. Aleksovski, before we go on, would you please take a look at the exhibits that we're going to use here during your examination-in-chief.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is on his feet.

MR. NICE: There are various grounds to object to these exhibits. The first one was received by us without translation last Friday, the second one this morning. They would appear to be records of some kind. They contain no detail sufficient for us to track down individuals but they clearly are related to individuals. The Chamber may want to observe, first of all, the difference in photocopying format between the first and the second in order to work its way round the document. Opening the first exhibit at the first two pages, you'll see running across from left to right 12 columns, of which the eighth is diagnosis and the ninth is therapy.

Before we move on, if you go to the second tab, you'll open that ³⁶⁸²¹ at its first page, you will see immediately - no complaint, just so that you can follow it - but there seems to be something slightly different here. We've only got seven columns, I think, but -- I can't explain that. But in any case, that's the -- I've only received this document and I can't find 8, 9 -- I can sometimes. Sometimes it's on the left-hand side of the page.

So it is a document of the same form, again with diagnosis number 8, and therapy. Now, if you flick through -- the pages aren't numbered. If you flick through either volume, there may be some slight inconsistencies of preparation in that there may be long passages where diagnosis is not included, but for the most part diagnosis is included, along with therapy. So these are clearly a species of medical record. Question number one is whether there is any appropriate route for the production of medical reports by this witness of people for whom he plainly doesn't have their consent to produce their records in evidence. You can see under the therapy headings, you can see some familiar words even though it hasn't been translated. Many of them no doubt comparatively trivial although it's not for us to say, others more obviously significant words, like angina and various other broadly recognisable conditions; diabetes and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Where is that, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: The diabetes I was looking at? Just passed my eye over and I've lost it again. It's roughly in the middle. They're not page numbered. It's roughly in the middle of the first volume.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that in English? ³⁶⁸²²

MR. NICE: Well, the words don't change very much. "Angina" is the same, and I certainly saw "diabetes" as well on the right-hand page, roughly in the middle.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, the first matter is the lack of translation. I think we may be able to deal with that since there is not much to translate except the headings at the top, but you have been leading evidence of this kind now sufficiently long to know that you can't get in evidence without laying a foundation. You must first lay the foundation through the witness so that we can accept that the evidence can come through him. What does he know about the preparation of the document?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that's certainly one problem. Second problem is the fact that they're medical records and therefore they are confidential documents that aren't prima facie subject to production in a court.

And the third problem is the whole purpose about which they're going to be put, of which I'm ignorant not having been provided with any detail of what the witness is going to say, and I reserve my position to make further objections later.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, let me give an explanation straight away. Quite logically, you concluded that here there is actually nothing to translate except the headings. The diagnoses are given in the usual form, in Latin usually, and you can ask for an explanation from Dr. Aleksovski in the case of a particular diagnosis. Now, as far as the first tab goes, it relates -- it is the logbook ³⁶⁸²³ for refugees from Kosovo, and Dr. Aleksovski has the original logbook with him as it was kept. He was the head of the emergency service, and they kept a separate logbook for refugees from Kosovo. So this is a complete logbook which he has.

I hope, Dr. Aleksovski, you have brought it here with you and that you can show it to us all for us to be able to compare that this is the original copy of that original logbook.

But before they started keeping a logbook for refugees from Kosovo, coming in from Kosovo, the cases were entered in the regular hospital logbook or admissions book, and there are many Macedonians there, because each case is recorded. Whenever anybody calls up the emergency service, a record of that is kept. And there are several hundred calls coming in from the border crossings which had to do -- concerned Albanian refugees. So this is logbook where we can see what happened before a separate logbook was opened for Albanian refugees.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what you have just told me you have to adduce through questioning the witness. But let me hear you very quickly on the technical point, and Mr. Kay, concerning medical evidence.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. KAY: Obviously the foundation has to be laid, but we've had evidence in the Prosecution case -- I think there were train timetables, we've had border crossing records produced by one of the border guards. Document that's arising during the events that is an official record of an institution, be it a train company or at a border crossing, that one can establish relevance to the issues in the indictment that was ³⁶⁸²⁴ kept at the time as long as those foundations are properly established through the witness, in our submission, would plainly be admissible. We've had a large number of documents in this form. I think that the war records -- was it Captain Dragan and all the soldiers, hospital records of injured soldiers we had. The board, I think it was called. Sorry, my memory can't precisely identify it, but we've had this kind of material in the trial before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Medical records.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, lay the foundation through the witness --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I address the Presiding Judge? The Prosecutor a moment ago speeded up this question. I wanted to explain something, but I thought my time will come to explain that in due course. So this is the first part of the documentation which Mr. Milosevic has just explained to us as well, the logbook or protocol. For the first day -- days we kept this logbook for our own citizens but for the refugees too. We didn't have a separate protocol or logbook for refugees. We had one which applied to everyone, entries for our citizens and others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic will ask you the questions and through the questions that he asks --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. But a moment ago -- ³⁶⁸²⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't have to respond to Mr. Nice. We'll deal with the legal arguments.

Unfortunately, we are not able to proceed beyond 1.45 today, so, Mr. Milosevic, you have the benefit of the night to prepare the questions that will lay the foundations for this witness to testify to these matters.

We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of

March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.