³⁷¹⁵²

Wednesday, 9 March 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: Before re-examination continues, the Chamber will remember yesterday at the conclusion of cross-examination I asked the witness about a possibility of a document reporting to him from his mobile team and the use of bad language; matters he denied. I have since then been -- denied is the wrong word. Matters of which he had no recollection.

I have since then had the necessary freedom to use the document concerned. With your leave, may I put one document to the witness and ask him about -- a couple of questions about it and that's all?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: In the exceptional circumstances, we'll allow you to put just one or two questions on that particular document. And I should say that you're hard pressed the Chamber. Mr. Milosevic will have to take some time out of the proceedings today. We have another hearing which is going to be scheduled at about 1.00. So we're going to break first at 10.40 and then at 12.30. 12.30. Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: If Mr. Nort could very kindly lay this document on the overhead projector, distribute it.

WITNESS: DIETMAR HARTWIG [Resumed] ³⁷¹⁵³ Further cross-examination by Mr. Nice:

JUDGE ROBINSON: And remember, it's -- there's no German translation.

MR. NICE: Oh, yes. I'm grateful for being reminded.

Q. Mr. Hartwig, this is, as we discussed yesterday, I think, a document coming to you from mobile Pristina on the 15th of February, one month after Racak. Fine. Thank you. The booth, perfect. If we look at the bottom of the first block, we see that your mobile unit reported "On the way back to Pristina bypassed through the village of Racak where nobody could be seen except an old man who was back for a while in order to check the property there." But then we see from your mobile team under "Humanitarian/human rights," an observation which we can read on the screen - I don't intend to read it out - about donkeys. We saw your sensitivity in your own report yesterday. What we see there about donkeys is entirely inappropriate, isn't it, for a serious mission?

A. I'm sorry, I have problems to hear you. It's due to pronunciation or whatever, I have problems with my ears. Are you referring to the statement under humanitarian/human rights?

Q. I am. That's an entirely inappropriate remark and shows a lack of professionalism, doesn't it?

A. I -- It is an observation which has been brought to paper which is superfluous as a --

Q. And never sanctioned by you.

A. Pardon?

Q. Never sanctioned by you. ³⁷¹⁵⁴

A. I cannot remember if I -- if I read it. It was -- it was for sure a point for the -- for a discussion or for a -- for a hint to concentrate on real and important things, not something like this. It was basically not our style. It was different to that what I brought in my draft of the weekly assessment where I used something which had been verbally told or which was used by people. This, I agree, is --

Q. That's all I need to ask you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I forgot yesterday to have exhibited the document of October 1998. May that be exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Which one was that?

MR. NICE: That was the first -- the second of the two reporting documents for which I had leave to use, and it was dated October 1998.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: And may this document also be exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 835.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic. I understand there's another one. Do you want this one exhibited too? Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 836.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

THE INTERPRETER: Could the microphone be adjusted, please. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hartwig, yesterday Mr. Nice gave you a letter which you sent ³⁷¹⁵⁵ to General Lukic. Do you still have that letter in front of you? If not, we won't lose time over that, but I'd just like to quote a brief portion from the letter, but perhaps it would be easier if the letter were in front of the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I don't have that copy of the letter.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Have the letter passed over to the witness, please.

THE WITNESS: I have another letter in front of me. So we sent it the same. It's not the letter we were talking about yesterday. Yesterday it was a different letter. I think it was the first one I sent, and since I didn't receive any response, I sent another one, and the second one is dated 25 July 2003.

MR. NICE: It sounds as though the witness has produced from his hotel room another document which we haven't seen, and if that's the accused's intention in re-examination, well, we better have a copy of the document. I'm not sure what's happened. And I thought --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not my intention nor do I know about any other document because I haven't had any contacts with the witness. I'm talking about the document that was produced yesterday by Mr. Nice and quoted from and which I received yesterday from his offices.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Was that document exhibited? It's 834, 834.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Hartwig, we were informed by -- from the Registry that you produced the original letter written in German. Could ³⁷¹⁵⁶ you give some explanation as to that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. What I just try to explain. I don't remember the date I sent the first letter, but since I get -- didn't receive any response, I sent another letter, and this letter I -- before this session I handed over to the Court, and it might be the copy you have in front of you right now, in German. And if I may just in a short version explain what it reads.

It's a letter to General Lukic as well, and I begin: "I don't know whether you are this general I met several times in Kosovo between December 1998 and March 1999 --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. All right. Mr. Milosevic, let the witness continue his -- I'll allow him to continue the explanation. Not too long, because we want Mr. Milosevic to return to his examination.

THE WITNESS: I just introduce myself in order to remind, because with my name I thought he couldn't begin too much. Then I explained that I'm dealing with some collection of my experience of my observations, and I referred to the event of Racak. And my point was I remember that close to the entrance of that village there was a farmhouse on a forward slope position, and I was told that occasionally MUP was there, and I wanted finally to get a confirmation on whether this was one of the official MUP positions or not. This is the basic contents of this letter. Why I came out with this letter today, yesterday the Prosecution requested to submit a document. This was all I had at home in my -- in my folder, and subsequently this morning I brought it, and I'm very sorry it is late. Thank you very much. ³⁷¹⁵⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much. So, Mr. Milosevic, you can return now to the letter on which you wish to put some questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hartwig, you have already explained to us that you talked several times and contacted General Lukic and that you discussed the situation in Kosovo. I'm going to read out a part of this document, then I'll ask you a question. It is -- in the copy that I have received, it is from line 15 onwards. The lines have numbers. I don't know if you have that in the same way in front of you. And this is what you say: "[In English] The task that you had been given, until the time of our evacuation, at the end could not be carried out, because you couldn't and were not able to use your own means the way you thought it necessary, and which would have been most appropriate to the situation." [Interpretation] Would you please, Mr. Hartwig, be so kind as to explain to us, since you're talking to him about a matter you had discussed previously and you knew about, what was this all about, actually? That is to say, that he wasn't able to use your means which he considered necessary, that he couldn't do that, couldn't use your means. Could you explain what you mean by that.

A. As I pointed out yesterday already, I had a very strong impression that security forces tried avoid everything which could have resulted in a violation of the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement. This was basically the background. And it was like driving with simultaneous using of brakes. That was my impression of this discussion.

So basically I was not talking, and I do not intend to express ³⁷¹⁵⁸ something like he should have used more or whatever concentrated power. I just provide my feeling that they did not or didn't dare to do everything they thought it was necessary.

Q. All right. Does that, then, mean this, that there was a greater force at their disposal which would have been more efficacious in resolving the problem that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: "Does that, then, mean this..." You're telling him the answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General Lukic didn't use the force that he had at his disposal. Is that true? Would that be true?

A. I think his attitude was, even with the force he had available, he perhaps could have achieved -- achieved. He could have, yes, achieved more if he hadn't had that feeling to avoid international trouble.

Q. Very well. So he could have achieved more if he hadn't had an order to respect the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement, in fact; is that correct?

A. This was exactly my impression.

Q. Well, does that say something? Does it tell us something about the political position and stance of the country with respect to the use of force in Kosovo?

A. Well, if I understand it correctly, there was something going on on the ground which did not equate to the -- to the overall political situation. The international one -- excuse me. To the overall situation ³⁷¹⁵⁹ with regard to the international situation.

Q. So according to your explanations here, the fact that he didn't use force or the means, was because he had political restrictions on that.

A. Yes. This was my impression.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Hartwig.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to establish, because, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nice interpreted it in quite the opposite way and he mentioned Mr. Stanisic yesterday and said that he allegedly said that forces should not be used. I don't believe that Mr. Stanisic did say that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, there's no need to explain to the Chamber why you have asked that particular question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, but because I don't believe that Mr. Stanisic made that statement, I would like Mr. Nice to provide it for me. I would like to see it, and it is my right to see that statement if it has something to do with me. But as I say, I don't believe that that is what he said.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hartwig, yesterday Mr. Nice read out to you something from a document, a report or a book. I haven't got the book here with me, but I remembered the event and incident that he referred to. It was about the killing of -- or the death of a group of -- of -- Delijaj family members, and that was a subject which we discussed yesterday. And it was a report on how a large number of civilians were killed as well. And in that same report, it said that 14 policemen were killed. ³⁷¹⁶⁰ Would you now please tell me, as an experienced soldier, if there was a clash or conflict of some kind in which 14 policemen lost their lives, is it possible that those 14 policemen were killed by innocent, unarmed civilians? Would that be possible?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, how can we have this type of question taking valuable time in re-examination or anywhere else? The accused's re-examinations - I just pause to make the obvious point - are becoming evermore extended with an effect on the available time to him and the time that the Court has to hear valuable evidence, but this particular question passes the bounds.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber is in agreement. Ask another question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And there's no need to spend so much time in re-examination of this witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, this witness, in my opinion, was questioned -- cross-examined by Mr. Nice in a very inappropriate way, so I have to clarify certain points, and I'm sure you had noticed that too.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Had the Chamber found Mr. Nice's cross-examination to be inappropriate, we would have certainly said so. Let us proceed quickly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Hartwig, I'm going to proceed as quickly as possible. Mr. Nice showed you a document that came from, as it says, the RC ^{37161 BLANK PAGE 37162} Belgrade. The 22nd of October is the date. And in that regard and having to do with that, you said that the editor of Koha Ditore, Koha Ditore, as I said, told you that based on the law governing information, if an untruth was published, he could be fined heavily. Is that what you said yesterday?

A. Yes. I referred to that discussion with the chief editor and the publisher of Koha Ditore, but this was in January and didn't have to do anything with this report, because at 23 October I wasn't in the Kosovo yet.

Q. I'm not talking about the report per se. You didn't read the report. But it was following a question related to this report that you said that the editor-in-chief of Koha Ditore said that if he published any lies or untruths, he could be fined financially. Is that what he told you?

A. That's what I told, yes.

Q. You have long experience. Is it customary that if somebody publishes a lie in the papers, that they have to pay a fine, or is that a measure of special repression in any way?

A. I don't know what international rules are. I know in my country what there has been published. Normally nobody takes account or takes any note unless somebody has been directly accused and it is going to become a case to a court.

So with -- with -- if somebody publishes a lie or something like this, I have to admit I don't know whether it will --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you. The witness can't help ³⁷¹⁶³ you much on that point. He doesn't have expertise in that area, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know anything at all, since it was said here that some newspapers were banned, do you know any newspapers that were banned in Yugoslavia?

A. This I don't know. I mentioned that we on an almost daily basis got the Kosovar Sot and the Koha Ditore, the Times edition, and we could receive it at least until I went to that conference in Sarajevo on the 14th or 15th of March.

Q. Very well. I shall not dwell on this any further. Do you remember any explanations given to the effect that if religious or ethnic hatred was instigated, then some consequences would follow?

A. No. I haven't heard anything like this.

Q. Very well. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, under Rule 68 I received a large number of documents, as you are aware. I should like to use only a few of them, following up on the questions asked by Mr. Nice concerning the report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... arise out of cross-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope it does arise out of cross-examination, because Mr. Nice was trying to demonstrate that they did not provide accurate daily reports. He tried to emphasise the fact that the witness did not bring any reports, and here among the exculpatory ³⁷¹⁶⁴ documentation I selected just a few, and I would like to go through them, if you believe that is relevant. If you don't, I won't do it. I should like to ask the witness if certain of these things are based on his reports. For instance, I have a document --

THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter didn't catch the number.

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question? You've read enough.

MR. NICE: Can I assist the Chamber in this way. I'm not sure that this really arises out of re-examination in any classical way, but as ever, I don't want to be seen to be obstructing the accused laying whatever he can and thinks is relevant before the Chamber, but the Chamber will recall that I explained that documents of this kind which were available to us under restriction were the subject of special applications by us to release them from restriction in order to provide them to the ³⁷¹⁶⁵ accused well before he led this witness in chief. So he's always had this material, and if he wanted to lead it, the time to have dealt with it was in evidence in chief, but as I say --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not necessarily. It's for him to choose how he does his examination-in-chief. The real question is whether it arises out of cross-examination.

Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: There is a large file of material. There's one from each area of Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and that's what the accused is using, which was supplied as an entirety relating to Kosovo from the Rule 68 material, and in our submission, it plainly arises in the -- in relation to the style of cross-examination by the Prosecutor of the witness who was head of the particular mission relating to the competence of his particular monitoring mission. It's a shame that the documents haven't been reproduced.

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

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hartwig, the -- this document that's being read to you was described as prepared by the Pec team. Is that a document that you would be responsible for preparing?

THE WITNESS: No.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that answers the question, I think. It's immaterial to the case [microphone not activated].

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you've heard the answer. It's not relevant. The witness didn't prepare it. So ask another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I can ask this witness ³⁷¹⁶⁶ in a different way whether the Pec team was subordinated to him.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Was it, Mr. Hartwig?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the Pec team able to send its reports?

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Sent their reports to whom?

THE WITNESS: They send it to the -- to the regional office at Pristina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's your office?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would it be fair to say that this report of the Pec team is -- was in a way within your jurisdiction and that it came from a group that you headed, that you led?

A. It was a report which included information obtained on the -- on the spot, and it was amalgamated and sent to me. And I -- in my area of responsibility, it was to be included in the Pristina daily report and in the weekly report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You interrupted me. Apparently Ramush asked the man -- "to join the man, took his car and 2.500 Deutschmark [In English] that the uncle carried with him. The family has not heard anything from him since then ³⁷¹⁶⁷ and asked the team if it was possible to find out whether he is still alive or not."

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question? What is the question? You have been reading it for some time now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. My question is, Mr. Hartwig, do you remember how many such robberies and kidnappings there were by the KLA against Albanian citizens?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I'm not allowing that. That doesn't really arise at all. And there's no obligation, Mr. Milosevic, to follow up on every point made in cross-examination. Just select those that are critically important to your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. This also speaks volumes on the issues which opened the door of -- to broader controversies.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, another document. 025-5342, RO Pristina, 17 February 1999. So this was sent to you from Pec on the 17th of February, 1999. This is what it says: "[In English] Headlines DPK says, KLA never will give up their weapons to NATO." [Interpretation] Then it explains: "[In English] I cannot believe that KLA will give up their weapons to the NATO forces and we will support them in this point in the strongest way. KLA must be transformed into another military concept. There will be mechanism to keep the peace. Between NATO and KLA there are optimal relations."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. What's the question now?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The point here is between NATO and ³⁷¹⁶⁸ KLA, there are optimal relations. That's the 17th of February, 1999. Before the decision to bomb Yugoslavia was taken, before the beginning of the war on the 24th of March, optimum relations between NATO and the KLA. You asked a witness earlier, which said that the KLA was NATO's infantry.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I am asking this question: At the time, were you aware of the fact that there is a relationship, any sort of relationship between the NATO and the KLA, let alone an optimum one?

A. I don't -- at this time I didn't know of any direct relationship between NATO and KLA, but it was an open saying that KLA received support, and the media partially reported on who there might be behind. Since I don't have any --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry. You say that it was an open saying that KLA received support. Support from whom?

THE WITNESS: That part I was just trying to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Okay.

THE WITNESS: It was saying that they were supported by foreign countries. I remember one -- one discussion with somebody during the Rambouillet talks when the former US foreign secretary, Mrs. Albright, encouraged the KLA party in the talks to sign the agreement, otherwise, the support would be withdrawn. And I asked an American, "What does that mean?" and he smiled at me and said, "Well, then all humanitarian aid will be stopped for Mother Teresa humanitarian aid organisation."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes. Would you pass over those documents so we can see them, or have them put on the ELMO. ³⁷¹⁶⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With your leave. These two. I haven't yet gone through the rest.

May I continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us just see the documents.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us see the documents.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I quoted the highlighted part.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And in accordance with the practice, Mr. Milosevic, you should have had copies for the Chamber and the Prosecutor.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, this is re-examination. I cannot prepare so thoroughly for re-examination and prepare all the copies required. These documents have been filed, and I suppose they're all available on your computers. I received them from the side opposite.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You had the benefit of last evening.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I have a report of the 31st of January of the main centre in Belgrade, regional items Kosovo. And then it says "Security/military," and then it goes on to say: "[In English] Team Pec on 30th of January, investigating judge of the Rogova incident. 15 bodies had been identified. They originated from Rogova, Donje Ratis, Klecka, and --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice is on his feet. ³⁷¹⁷⁰

MR. NICE: As to Rogova, I specifically did not ask questions about Rogova. I had plenty of questions to ask, had material prepared, but I may have even said I would ask questions about Rugova if I had time. I didn't have time because I set myself a time limit of 50 per cent of the examination-in-chief and I stuck to it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm not allowing it. It doesn't arise. No questions were asked about it. And we really need to be bringing this re-examination to an end.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Mr. Robinson, I have -- I remember Mr. Nice saying to the witness that he didn't bring his documentation, that he didn't bring team reports, and I have here a lot of team reports, all of which confirm the findings that the witness reflected in his notes. Each single detail can be found in team reports if they are read carefully.

So generally speaking, all the challenges of his testimony boil down to claims that he did not have team reports, that he did not have appropriate documentation, that his notes were based on nothing, and I have the team reports here, and they reflect faithfully the testimony of the witness, the evidence he gave challenged by Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think the point that you make is a valid one, that Mr. Nice did cross-examine to the effect that the witness didn't bring his reports, and you are now bringing documents to confirm what the witness said. Nonetheless, there is still an issue as to whether Rogova was mentioned. I understand that you did raise it in your ^{37171 BLANK PAGE 37172} -- you did raise it in your examination-in-chief, because on that basis, then, I'd allow you to put questions on it, because as a matter of principle, the point that you make is valid.

But you are using your time, Mr. Milosevic, and you have to consider whether this is the best use of the time that you have available to you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson. I'll skip Rogova. It's enough that the report confirming it exists. But let us move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We have a report of the Prizren team -- let us move away from Pec. Price team, it says. From Prizren team to RO Pristina. 29 January 1999. Then it says -- this is document R025-5661 and 5662. "[In English]... and police MUP forces and SAJ (Special Anti-terrorist Unit) in front of the yard, where fighting between terrorists and police took place this very morning at 06.15. The outcome of the fight was 24 terrorists and 1 MUP dead." 24 terrorists and 1 MUP dead.

[Interpretation] So, Mr. Hartwig, is this one of your reports showing how some terrorists got killed in this attack? That's a report of the 29th of January, 1999.

A. I remember the event, but I can't connect it to the -- to the date or to the time. I remember that there was a shooting, that there were a lot of victims, but that there were victims -- I think it was reported -- I think you mentioned it, it was reported by the team, and subsequently it was also used for the regional office daily report. ³⁷¹⁷³

Q. Very well. It was important for me that you should confirm that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to tender this, too, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Give that a number. Do we have a copy?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

JUDGE KWON: 284. The one that is on the ELMO. The second is coming.

THE REGISTRAR: One to be D284.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Further on, we have a document R025629 of the 29th of January, 1999, ECMM restricted. It reads: "Kosovo --"

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you read this, can you help me by identifying which of Mr. Hartwig's tabs this particular document might support? Because presumably that's the exercise you're going through, trying to support the tabs by reference to official documents. Now, which tab does the one you're now dealing with support?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This relates to the background, although it can also support tab 1 and tab 2, because they describe the general circumstances. And this report goes into details on the same matters. Mr. Hartwig wrote about events without going into details, but obviously he did that based on detailed reports.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I said that the point that you made was a valid one to the extent that in Mr. Nice's cross-examination, he put to the witness that he didn't have any of the -- his reports to support what he was saying, and you're now bringing those reports. But in ³⁷¹⁷⁴ order to be valid, the questions that you are putting must relate to something which the witness said, and this is why Judge Bonomy asked about the tabs.

So I won't allow you simply to put questions on the basis of the validity of the principle that I -- that I outlined. It has to relate to something which the witness said in his examination-in-chief, something that was in the tabs. Otherwise, it's not relevant. We would be here for the rest of the day.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. As I remember, the witness said that the police reacted to KLA provocations; to ambushes, attacks, murders, killings. I had asked the witness whether during the time when he headed the observers mission of the European Union, there was a single case when the police attacked anybody unprovoked. He answered no. All these reports speak of precisely such events. All these events involve clashes between the KLA and the police. There was not a single instance where the police would attack an innocent civilian.

In one document, there is a reference to a policeman who took away, confiscated 800 Deutschmarks from somebody, whereupon the chief of police conducted an investigation, found the policeman and sanctioned him. All of this confirms the truth; namely, that the police reacted to attacks.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice's cross-examination and the points that he put went to the credibility of the witness, and your re-examination -- in your re-examination, you're seeking to rehabilitate the witness, and ³⁷¹⁷⁵ you have put some of the reports to him. You might then consider whether, having put one or two, do you need to put so many more? What you're seeking to do is to rehabilitate the witness, and that can be done by putting one or two of the reports to him to confirm what he said. It will not be the best use of your time in re-examination to spend another half an hour continuing this exercise. You have made a point. If you haven't shown in two -- if you have not established --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- in two reports that the witness is credible, that what he said was truthful even though he didn't have the reports there, then I don't think you are going to do it by putting another three or four or six reports.

MR. NICE: I hesitate to interrupt, but to add this point: Although I certainly drew to the attention of the witness and the Court that he'd come here without his supporting materials and without making efforts to get the best materials so that we were relying on drafts, my questions were actually far more devoted to the expressions made by the witness in the documents that he did produce, and the only tab that I questioned as to whether it existed at all, for obvious reasons, namely I hadn't been able to satisfy myself that there was an underlying original document up was tab 12, if you remember. And other than that, I didn't challenge the existence of other versions of these documents. I just wanted to know why we were being treated to the drafts and not the final versions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think it was more general than that, Mr. Nice, ³⁷¹⁷⁶ to be fair.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases, but that was the focus of my intention.

JUDGE BONOMY: You did actually accuse the witness of being Serb biased, Mr. Nice, and therefore there's justification in trying to undermine that proposition, but it's how it's being done that I question rather than the proposition that the accused is entitled to do it.

MR. KAY: If the accused wants to get in the whole volume of these reports which corroborate the testimony of this particular witness, perhaps a device can be found in the same way that the Prosecutor got in the blue book through Mr. Coo, as I remember. They are documents from the time, they are from an official party, they're a collection that are within the archives of the Prosecution, and they're cumulative. Maybe a 92 bis (A) route can be used.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you for trying to bring some sanity to the Defence, Mr. Kay.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that would make sense, Mr. Milosevic. You could introduce that whole bundle of documents through the mechanism suggested by Mr. Kay. We would be quite prepared to consider their admission. The Prosecutor did the same thing.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I'm going to give you all these documents that have to do with the work of the teams. Not to burden you too much, I'm going to make a selection. But before I finish that, I would like to read something out to you and to put a question to the witness, because this actually supports what he had said ³⁷¹⁷⁷ already.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Does he remember the following, because this has to do with the reports of the Prizren team sent to his office on the 17th of January, 1999. It says: "[In English] First time --" [Interpretation] Before that he says, "The team met two of the five sons of Avdi Berisha (1933) from the village of Brestovce ..." et cetera, et cetera, who was abducted, and then it says "[In English] This is the first time local Albanians admit that kidnappings exist amongst their own, performed by UCK." Their own. "That not all killings and disappearances are political, but also performed for private reasons, just using the situation as a cover. And that the UCK does indeed install a rule of terror in non-extremist villages. All of this we have been aware of already for several months, but for the first time the persecuted Albanians admit to it. It is of importance to mention that the two sons spoke fluent French and started to talk only after our Albanian interpreters left the premises." [Interpretation] Mr. Hartwig, you received this report. During your stay, were you aware of the volume of terror exercised by the KLA against the Albanian population and how far it went?

A. From many discussions with other people, I knew that UCK was trying to expand by numbers, and I think I mentioned something like either they become members of UCK or at least they support UCK. And I also talked about -- that case I remembered was this young medical doctor which was forced to join UCK, and in order to convince him that it would be the better solution, some of his personal guests were wounded by bullets. ³⁷¹⁷⁸

Q. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not to waste any time, if you consider this to be a waste of time, that is, Mr. Robinson, I am going to submit these documents to you if you believe that this is the best way of handling this. This report from the 15th of January, 1999, Albanians killed by the KLA, then the report of the Prizren team about the role of the KLA and FARK, the ECMM report with a separate part dealing with Kosovo only, then the conflict between the KLA and the border guards near the border itself, then the report of the Pec team speaking of the conflict again between the KLA and the police.

If necessary, I'm going to read out the numbers, too. I'll do it gladly. Your number is always here because it was always registered by the opposite side. In fact, I received it from them in the first place. The report of the Prizren team about this first admission by the Albanians that the KLA is abducting persons in Albanian villages and that there is a reign of terror there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just to be clear, these are all reports that would have been sent to Mr. Hartwig or to Mr. Hartwig's office?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or reports that from the Pec, Prizren and other teams in Kosovo, or his office in Belgrade, those parts that have to do with Kosovo and that are -- that came from him. For example, this report that says that although it's been known for several months that the Albanians have been saying that the KLA has been terrorising them, this is what the Prizren team sent on the 17th of ³⁷¹⁷⁹ January, 1999, to the regional office. So this is a perfectly valid document that went through the witness's hands, because from his team in Prizren, it was sent to -- if you want to reject those that are not from his teams, that is for you to decide. But as for the general documents that are written in Belgrade, it always says what came from Kosovo, and whatever came from Kosovo came from him because it has to do with the European Union mission. If you exclude that, that is your own affair, but I simply want to hand all of this in.

So then it's the Pec team to the Pristina office --

JUDGE BONOMY: May I interrupt just briefly. It's not our affair. It's you that's conducting this Defence.

Now, I wonder if I can get some assistance from Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay, this could easily be done by simply asking the witness to confirm that these are documents which passed through his hands. That was the method that you were suggesting here.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: The problem that that raises, as I see it, is that the Prosecution haven't been faced with this as part of a case and now they can't cross-examine these documents at all. Now, obviously Mr. Nice may accept that that's just the reality of the situation. The alternative might be to find another witness to present these as evidence in chief and, if necessary, they could be cross-examined, I suppose.

MR. KAY: We've been discussing this. We thought the producer who produced it to the Prosecution in the first place might be a way of bringing it in through Rule 92 bis (A) as being cumulative of the ³⁷¹⁸⁰ testimony of this witness.

JUDGE BONOMY: But to a certain extent we could solve the problem at the moment in relation to at least the ones that the witness is familiar with.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And that would be subject to Mr. Nice accepting that course of action because I can see that it could prejudice him to some extent.

MR. NICE: Dealing with Mr. Kay's point, the person who produces the documents to us, and of course as the Chamber will appreciate they originally came under a method of protection, is not somebody who is going to be available to or useful as a witness.

The second point is of course in making the very elaborate arrangements we did to have these documents freed of their restrictions and provided to the accused, we were forecasting that he might want to use them.

That brings me to the point I made earlier that the proper way to have used them if he had prepared his case properly would have been to have put them in in chief in some way or another. Then I could have cross-examined on the basis of them. I could, of course, have put them all in myself but time restraints just simply don't allow us that as a possibility, which is why I identified the only document about which I had existential concerns, tab 12, and focused on the content, as I hoped on the others drawing to the attention of the witness his failure in simply not trying to get the original documents himself to help us. ^{37181 BLANK PAGE 37182} The present position is deeply unsatisfactory. It's not of our creation; it is of the accused's. My suggestion is, frankly, let the documents in, yes I have been prejudiced in that I haven't been able to cross-examine on them, but let them in. I can make comments on them, if necessary, in closing arguments an may the accused be invited to be more workmanlike and more practical in presenting documents of this kind with subsequent witnesses.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, may I say, Mr. Nice, that I consider that a very reasonable approach. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Those documents which were sent to the witness --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, hand over the documents to the witness so that he can have a look at them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The microphone. Mr. Hartwig, please, would you look at these documents and tell us whether all of these documents are documents of your organisation, that is to say the European Monitoring Mission.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Hartwig.

THE WITNESS: They are reports from the teams. They were all the reports from our office to Sarajevo or from my office to Belgrade or vice versa.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice, do you wish to see them?

MR. NICE: Later we will do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. We'll admit them, then, under one number.

THE REGISTRAR: One number, yes. Your Honour, can I give the ³⁷¹⁸³ number to the previous documents dated 29 of June, 1999. That will be D285. And this bundle of documents will be entered as D286.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Hartwig -- Mr. Hartwig, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. NICE: Before we move on, can I raise something in private session very briefly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In private session.

MR. NICE: Yes, please.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁷¹⁸⁴

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you have an objection.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, as to the next witness, Mr. Lituchy, it's a little hard to know, as ever, exactly what it is that the accused wishes to raise with and through this witness. We've seen the documents, and I don't know if the Chamber has had an opportunity of looking at them. In which case it's hard to do more than outline the objection, it may be that the Chamber will want to deal with the objections as the witness goes through his proposed testimony, but let me outline our position briefly, as I will always do in procedural matters because of the time implications of procedural arguments.

There is a document which contains a report. The report contains a number of interviews, in our submission the material is inadmissible for one of two reasons: Either A, it's irrelevant because it concerns bombing of Serbia --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Microphone not activated] -- would you ³⁷¹⁸⁵ Mr. Nice -- yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's go back to private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE: Back to the proposed exhibits of Mr. Lituchy and the inference I can draw from those documents as to what it's expected that the witness will be asked to give in evidence. Two grounds for arguing that the material's inadmissible: One, the interviews recorded are, many of them, related to either the bombing of Serbia or what happened to non-Albanians either at the end of or after the conclusion of the bombing. So simply irrelevant because it doesn't touch on the issues of why people left Kosovo.

The other ground for exclusion is that some of the people ³⁷¹⁸⁶ interviewed and the nature of the interviews, which are detailed interviews, may contain material that relates to this indictment but it's material that shouldn't come in in a secondhand interview of this kind. For example, two of the people interviewed towards of end of this bundle of material are members of the provisional Executive Council, which you will recall we dealt with at some -- in some detail with the witness Andric and which may well be material evidence. Now, what's being done here is there is an attempt to bring in evidence in the form of interviews with these people when the people themselves, who are fully identified, should be before the Court as witnesses, because, of course, I'm not in any position to cross-examine the people who are being interviewed on this tape, and in light of recent rulings, there wouldn't be much purpose in my going and having them interviewed by an investigator elsewhere and seeking to put those interviews in.

So the material, in our respectful submission, is or is very likely to be seen to be inadmissible for one of those two reasons. There are other problems with the report which I can deal with in cross-examination or otherwise, but if the Chamber gets an opportunity to go through it, either now or in the break, you will see that the interviews are conducted by people with agendas of their own, with preconceived notions. The interviews are not conducted at all in a way that would be acceptable in a Court. And therefore, it's our submission that this evidence is or is going to be found to be inadmissible. It may be that the Chamber will want to ask the accused exactly what he wants to elicit from the witness on the grounds of its asserted ³⁷¹⁸⁷ admissibility. I would remind the Chamber that at an earlier stage in the evidence of the witness Anastasijevic there were interviews that were admitted when they were the interviews of people identified as co-perpetrators and where they constituted to some degree, I think, declarations against interest, but the Chamber drew a line between admitting those interviews and rejecting interviews of others who weren't in the joint criminal enterprise but who otherwise would have been valuable sources. In our submission, that ruling, which was some time ago but no doubt still operating on the Chamber's mind, would again be a reason for excluding the interviews of potentially substantial witnesses dealt with here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, very quickly in response.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The first reason that Mr. Nice mentioned, namely that these were non-Albanian witnesses and that they're therefore irrelevant, is quite incorrect, because first and foremost, it is Albanian witnesses, and then there are Roma and Egyptians too. That is to say, witnesses who are victims. Albanians, Roma, Egyptians, that is to say non-Serbs who fled to Serbia.

The second point I wish to make is the following: These interviews were conducted in 1999, so any procedural objection that would have to do with this trial is senseless.

As you know, I was kidnapped and brought here on St. Vitus Day in 2001, practically two years after these interviews. These interviews were conducted with people who -- ³⁷¹⁸⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just want to say that that matter was examined by the Tribunal, and there is no basis for that comment. Continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Further on in these tabs you received transcripts, I hope, of these tapes in their entirety, but I do not intend to spend time by playing these tapes in their entirety. There are about three hours of these interviews. So although you have these complete tapes, it's not only a selection that's been handed over to you, but out of these three hours of tapes, about 40 minutes in total were taken out in order to save time. However, you have received the tapes in their entirety. If anybody wishes to make a more extensive analysis, to listen to the entire interview, that is quite possible. What I think -- what I wish to exhibit here is much shorter.

I think that this is very important. We talked about Albanians who fled to Macedonia, so now we're talking about Albanians who are fleeing to Serbia. We are talking about Roma and Egyptians who are non-Albanians. This has to do with a great many relevant matters that are under discussion here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. The important distinction is this report was not prepared for these proceedings, of course. It arises virtually contemporaneous to the time. It deals with aspects of evidence relating to Serbia and Kosovo. It was evidence being prepared, it seems, for a commission being held at the time investigating the matter of the NATO bombing. ³⁷¹⁸⁹ The Court will remember that in relation to video evidence, Mr. Spargo, the second ever witness in the case, produced a series of videotapes of over three hours relating to refugees of a general nature; and a later witness, Sadik Kadriu, produced some videotape as well as two reports, Exhibit 39 and Exhibit 49, which were for his commission, a private commission investigating killings that had taken place. That was ruled admissible by the Trial Chamber on the basis that such reports which were at the time were part of the evidence of the Tribunal and the Tribunal would attach appropriate weight to them having considered them, that they would admit them into evidence and consider how to deal with them --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice made a point that had a temporal aspect to it. I'm not sure that I quite understood it, that it doesn't explain why people left Kosovo.

Mr. Nice, could I just hear you on that point again?

MR. NICE: Yes. The burden of most of these interviews is what was happening at the end of June or after June 1999 has nothing to do with why people left Kosovo. It has to do with what the effects of the bombing were on them and matters of that sort and therefore it's probably just simply not relevant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: They're statements by people as to why they left Kosovo on June the 11th and other periods, what they had been through at that particular time. They obviously emerge in Serbia having left Kosovo, and that's the connection, but it's all Kosovo specific and relating to the ³⁷¹⁹⁰ issue.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Milosevic, just on that last point. Do you want to say anything just on the last point made by Mr. Nice, the timing aspect?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, to tell you the truth, I didn't understand that anything like this could be challenged at all. And Mr. Nice shows us propaganda programmes by the BBC with an incorrect translation of them and that is accepted, whereas here this is original material that we're dealing with, with witnesses and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not answering the particular point. You can't restrain yourself. I mean, it's -- it's almost a puerile instinct that you have.

We'll consider this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to add one more thing, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice -- or, rather, Mr. Nice mentioned that witnesses can be called. For some that holds true. For others, it doesn't, because one of the Albanians who --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't need to hear you on that point. I don't need to hear you on that point. I'm more concerned about the other point. We'll take a break now. It may be that we might -- I think we'll take a break for 25 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.08 a.m. ^{37191 BLANK PAGE 37192}

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber's ruling is that the witness may give evidence. That is, of course, without prejudice to particular objections being taken to any particular piece of evidence on the basis of relevance or any other ground.

Mr. Milosevic, the witness may be called.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I call the witness whose name is Barry Lituchy.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make many declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: BARRY LITUCHY

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin your examination.

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

Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Lituchy -- or, rather, good morning. Tell us, please, to begin with, briefly, something about your professional career and your CV, your biography in general.

A. Well, my name is Barry Michael Lituchy, I was born in New York City in 1959, I attended University of Pennsylvania where I received a bachelor's degree in European history. I also attended University of Pennsylvania and received a master's degree in Russian and Soviet history-

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down, thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You've heard that. ³⁷¹⁹³

THE WITNESS: Yes. Sorry about that. That's New York. I also attended for one year the Frei Universitat Berlin. I spent a little bit of time at Moscow university. I studied French, German, Russian and Serbo-Croatian. I also attended New York University as Ph.D. candidate and completed the course work and Ph.D. oral and written exams in Russian history, Soviet history, general European history, Eastern European history, history of technology and history of science. I completed about half of my dissertation. I haven't finished it yet. I worked briefly as a journalist in the 1980s, I then began writing about Yugoslavia beginning in about 1990, and gradually that became the main focus of my research and work. I've written many articles, many research pieces about Yugoslavia in the last 15 years, some of which have been published in books, others in magazines and newspapers. I'm the editor and contributing author to a forthcoming book on the study of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia entitled The Holocaust in Yugoslavia, Testimonies and Analyses.

I've taught as adjunct professor and university lecturer for the last 18 years at various colleges and universities in the United States; New York University, Brooklyn College, Medgars College, LaGuardia Community College, and Kingsborough Community College where I've taught for the last six -- excuse me, nine years, and I currently am teaching there. I teach modern European history primarily, although I've taught other subjects.

I -- I began my research on the Holocaust in Yugoslavia approximately 11 years ago. I was the initiator and co-organiser of the ³⁷¹⁹⁴ first international conference and exhibition on the Holocaust in Yugoslavia at my college --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. I think Mr. Milosevic can take it over from here now.

THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you are one of the founders of the Research Institute in Jasenovac. Or the official title is Jasenovac Research Institute, with its headquarters in New York; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. How did that come about? How did it come about that Jasenovac became one of your preoccupations and the subject of your research work?

A. As I was studying the subject of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the worsening conditions in republics of former Yugoslavia and the worsening human rights conditions relating to various factors, I -- it became clear to me that the subject of the Holocaust was fundamental and central to the whole history, not only of Yugoslavia and the Balkans but of -- to European history and to the whole story of the break-up of Yugoslavia.

I think that one would have to be a rather poor historian, especially of the Holocaust, if one didn't recognise that the story of the history of the Holocaust and human rights are indivisible. The promotion of human rights, because the first lesson of the Holocaust is "never again." ³⁷¹⁹⁵ In the case of Yugoslavia, I think what we saw was that "never again" was not learned as the first lesson. The first lesson was missing from the textbooks, and that was because the story and the history of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia was not adequately studied. It was not adequately learned. In fact, to a great extent it was suppressed, and that was -- that laid the foundations for what happened in the 1990s, and therefore it -- I don't believe it would have been possible for many of the things that happened in the 1990s to have occurred if the lessons of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia had been learned properly in the first place. That's my short answer to that question.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. And did you delve into the reasons for which the subject of the Holocaust was left aside and put into a second-rate position?

A. Yes, of course. Shall I continue?

MR. NICE: Before he does, the first answer has a feel of it, the feel of an expert report. If we're going into the next question and answer, it sounds as though it's expert again.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have heard the objection. You're asking the witness to testify as an expert.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What are you asking him to testify as? To what facts, then, are you asking him to testify?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He was in Yugoslavia. In 1995 he worked and met refugees from Krajina. In 1999 he met refugees from Kosovo. I'm not sure whether you're getting the volume, whether you can ³⁷¹⁹⁶ hear what I'm saying.

Anyway, he had contacts with refugees and had direct contacts with the victims of the conflict in Yugoslavia.

JUDGE KWON: Go to the points.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Ask him about those issues. Those are fact issues then.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will get to those questions, too, but I wanted to introduce the witness, and I wanted to lead him -- or introduce him by giving a basic explanation of the kinds of things he deals in.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, before you ask the next question, let me ask Mr. Lituchy this: You spoke of the Holocaust in Yugoslavia.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you then equating what happened in Yugoslavia with the Holocaust in Germany in the Second World War?

THE WITNESS: It was an extension of that, yes. It was part of the -- it was part of the overall story of the Holocaust in -- during 19 -- during World War II, yes, part of the racial genocide that were committed during World War II, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, as your testimony progresses, I'll return to this to see exactly what you mean by that comparison. Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, we can clear that up straight away. ³⁷¹⁹⁷

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Are you referring, when you speak of genocide during World War II, do you have in mind the genocide against the Serbs that was committed during World War II?

A. I'm speaking about the triple genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Romas, racial genocide that was committed against three groups during World War II in the territory of Yugoslavia at that time and that were -- that were -- are very well documented and recognised because there were racial laws against these three groups in the Independent State of Croatia, and those groups were also persecuted elsewhere in the territory of Yugoslavia during World War II.

Q. And what connection were you able to establish between the genocide committed during World War II and the events of the 1990s, Mr. Lituchy?

A. There are many connections. I think I should back up for a second and say that I'm not trying to compare the events. I'm trying to show the connections between them, the historical legacies. First of all --

MR. NICE: This is clearly expert evidence, and I don't -- I'm not going to mind if the accused and the Chamber want in it. I can't cross-examine on it because I haven't been prepared for it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, return to issues that are more related to factual matters. Because we have had evidence on --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- on this issue already.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Fine. ³⁷¹⁹⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. For example, one factual matter which links this up. Did you happen to establish, for instance, that the leader of the Bosnian Muslims, Alija Izetbegovic, had ties with Nazi groups during World War II, and did that have anything to do with the activities of his own group --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we can't allow that. That's a very leading question. That's a very leading question, and it is not the kind of fact issue that is going to help the Chamber.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, did you establish any personal links between the events that took place during World War II and the 1990s' events?

A. Well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Mr. Milosevic, let's deal with the issues that are very relevant to the indictment; the interviews that he had with refugees, issues of that kind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will, of course, come to those issues, but I have questions to ask before that, and I said that certain forces from outside supported in the break-up of Yugoslavia Nazism and Islamic fundamentalism and used that, harnessed that to bring about war in Yugoslavia. And I think that it is quite in order for me to be able to ask this witness questions about that. But if you consider otherwise, I can move on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will allow him to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: Well, I think one of the most important things aside ³⁷¹⁹⁹ from the fact that human rights and the need to, for instance, carry -- conduct interviews with refugees and learn about what happened to them is connected to understanding the history of human rights in the Balkans, understanding also what the greatest war crimes were, and also understanding that some of the political forces that committed the worst atrocities in the history of the Balkans were still alive and active even into the 1990s. And Alija Izetbegovic was a war criminal during World War II and a collaborator with -- I'm sorry with the Nazi forces --

MR. NICE: I have an objection. Apart from the fact that this is clearly expertise, looking at Mr. Lituchy, I don't think he was around in World War II in order to be giving direct evidence of fact. There is something extremely disturbing about these sorts of easily made allegations about a person who is dead. There's a question of dignity and decorum involved here as well. I realise that won't concern the accused, and I say that quite conscious of what I'm saying, but there has to be a limit to how far rein is being allowed to witnesses like this. And I can't deal with it for the reasons I've already explained.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll allow the witness to answer this as a matter of historical fact. He can speak to that.

THE WITNESS: With all due respect, Your Honour, the -- the fact is -- has been well -- has been published that Alija Izetbegovic -- it was in the New York Times in his obituary, in fact, that he was a convicted war criminal and a collaborator with the Nazis. That was published the day after he died in the New York Times. So it's very well known fact. So I think to get to the main point, the preservation of certain ³⁷²⁰⁰ former Nazi collaborators from World War II over the decades as a result of various reasons, particularly obviously foreign -- foreign forces, that these -- that these actors again played a role in the persecution of national minorities in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and particularly in Kosovo we can say that if it were not for the fact that there were these foreign forces involved with and these long-standing traditions connected to World War II fascism, the rebirth of fascism in the Balkans would not have been possible and that there is no coincidence that they're pro -- that their programme of racial persecution and racial genocide was the same. These are -- these are -- this is not a reinvention but, rather, a continuity, a pattern.

And this comes -- this is something that is -- comes clear actually when you interview the victims of oppression and racial persecution in places like Kosovo, that they are aware that these are long-standing conflicts, that they did not begin yesterday, that they are holdovers from the World War II period when many of these -- these political movements were first created.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind we have had evidence on this linkage already.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, were you in Yugoslavia in 1995?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And what were you doing there in Yugoslavia at that time? ^{37201 BLANK PAGE 37202}

A. I came there for two reasons. I -- I -- I first became very concerned with the -- the refugees from Croatia, the Serbian refugees in particular, because when that -- when that event occurred, it was clear in the -- from following it in the US media, that it wasn't giving -- wasn't being given any attention at all, and it was a massive humanitarian catastrophe.

I -- I recognise it was given attention in -- in other European media, for example, but in the United States, where I'm from, there was no attention, practically no attention. It was blacked out of the media, virtually non-existent. And I felt -- I felt at that time that it was -- it was important for me to go there and collect testimonies of refugees and victims of persecution, find -- and make some inquiry into what had happened to them and why. But I had also intended to conduct interviews with Holocaust survivors in Serbia. So I -- I also did that during my trip. Actually, in the end I wasn't able to -- actually, while I was there that was when the bombing of Bosnia began, and I was there during that period as well. But I was mostly concerned with interviewing Serbian refugees from Croatia and Holocaust survivors from World War II.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, in view of the fact that you noticed that there was no reporting in America about the ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Croatia, did you turn to media and say that you could report on events from Yugoslavia on that?

A. Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, I contacted --

Q. And who did you contact?

A. I contacted a number of radio stations, for example. I had some ³⁷²⁰³ contacts in the media, and I was -- I offered my services to them. I was also hoping to get media credentials from them. Actually, none of these -- none of these media outlets were interested, even ones that were quite -- that tended to be quite interested in the past in refugee crises and human rights issues. So I was -- I was really dumbfounded. Dumbfounded.

Q. Do you know in these events in 1995 when you were in Yugoslavia, do you know how many Serbs were expelled from Krajina and killed?

A. I don't know the exact number, but my understanding is it's around a quarter of a million that were expelled during that period in 1995. I don't know the exact number that were killed.

Q. Explain this to me now, please, as an American dealing in public affairs and history and so on. How is it possible that what happened and what many, and among them the co-president of the Conference on Yugoslavia, Lord Owen, qualified as the greatest ethnic cleansing of the 1990s in the conflict in Yugoslavia, how did it happen that this was not in the focus of attention of the media in your country, that it was thrown out and sidelined?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't see the relevance. I don't see the relevance of that.

THE ACCUSED:: [Interpretation] Very well. Will it be relevant if I ask the witness this: How does he explain the fact that the largest ethnic cleansing, that is to say a quarter of a million people, and masses of people killed and bombed columns of refugees, et cetera, that this boils down to the responsibility of one single general here, General ³⁷²⁰⁴ Gotovina, for instance, who wasn't even one of the most important participants in those events?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a comment. You must formulate your questions in -- in the proper manner, and you have had enough experience now to do that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, how and how much -- how much would be better, were your activities linked to the question of refugees in the Balkans, and how does this relate to your research work on the genocide committed against the Serbs during World War II? So your activities on the issue of refugees in the Balkans and your activities in the 1990s, how does that relate and is connected with the question of the genocide committed against the Serbs in World War II?

A. One of the -- one of the obvious things that we have learned is that Holocaust denial and the failure to learn the lessons of the Holocaust in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia during World War II, laid the foundation for the continuation of war crimes, the continuation of racial enmity. There could not be any reconciliation. There could not be a foundation for human rights if the lessons of the Holocaust and of racial --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Lituchy, we've had this already.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just so you're under no misapprehension about the position you're in here, if any party to one of these cases wishes to ³⁷²⁰⁵ bring expert evidence, then they're free to do that, but there are certain rules apply about producing reports, and so on. It's not your expertise that is the issue here today, otherwise there would have been a report prepared. Our concern is with the factual investigations you've carried out.

As I understand it, you've already answered this question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, did you have occasion to meet and talk to many Serb refugees from Croatia, for instance, at any time?

A. Yes, in 1995 I did.

Q. And what did they tell you?

A. Well, they were recounting on videotape, because I was also filming them, their -- how and why they were expelled from Croatia, what was done to them, and they -- I don't know if I could assess right now all of the conclusions that I drew from that, but it was clear that there was a planned -- a pattern of racial persecution against the Serbian population of Croatia. That's -- that's clear from any -- okay.

Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. Thank you. Let's focus on -- this is what -- let's focus on Kosovo, since that's what we're dealing with. Now, what do you base your knowledge on with respect to the events in Kosovo and Metohija, your knowledge?

A. I don't think there's anything I could base it on that's more important than my interviews of refugees from Kosovo. There's nothing -- there is no information, there's no hard evidence that I could rely on, or ³⁷²⁰⁶ any information at all, for that matter, that I would rely on, I think that would override or take precedence over the information I obtained from the refugees who were expelled or persecuted from Kosovo. That would be the basis. That's the most important basis of my knowledge.

Q. And the conversations that you mentioned you had in 1999 immediately after the NATO pact aggression; is that right?

A. Yes. That was in --

Q. And where did you conduct those conversations? Where did you talk to the refugees from Kosovo and Metohija?

A. I conducted interviews with these refugees in Belgrade and also in the suburbs of Belgrade, northern suburbs.

Q. And what was the national structure of the refugees that you interviewed?

A. Our delegation as a whole interviewed Serbian refugees. I did not do the Serbian interviews, but I personally conducted the interviews with Roma refugees, Egyptian refugees, with Albanian refugees, and subsequently with a Jewish refugee as well. Let's see. Am I missing any -- oh, members of our delegation also interviewed Turkish -- Yugoslav Turks who were refugees, but I didn't conduct those -- those interviews.

Q. When you say delegations or groups, who made up that group? How many of you were there? The names aren't that important but how many members did that group number, the one that conducted the interviews?

A. There were approximately 16 of us who travelled for two weeks in -- around the -- around Serbia, around Yugoslavia, observing damage during -- following the bombing or during the bombing, and a number of us ³⁷²⁰⁷ conducted interviews, but I conducted probably the most of the -- most of the interviews. This is something we planned to do prior to our departure, because we wanted to learn the reasons for the -- for what had happened to these refugees and the specifics, the specific details.

Q. All right. Mr. Lituchy, to the best of your knowledge and following on from what you've just said and the information that stems from those interviews, is there a common cause that made these people leave Kosovo regardless of their national or religious affiliation, that is to say regardless of whether they were Albanians, Roma, Egyptians, Serbs? Is there a common denominator, a common or general cause for them to leave Kosovo?

A. Well, there were two primary causes, I would say, and two secondary causes, but the -- if -- that's the first part of my answer. The second part of my answer would be that, is there a common denominator? I would say that there is perhaps one common denominator as a cause of the expulsion of all of these national groups and as well as Albanians from Kosovo -- all of the national groups were to one extent or another persecuted and expelled, and the main cause was KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army's use of terrorism against these national groups. That's the one common denominator, although there are other causes.

Q. And tell me, in what way were you able to contact those people, come into contact with them?

A. The -- I organised the delegation. I organised the interviews, but I had a lot of help from my contacts in Belgrade, particularly my contacts with the Roma federation, and they were extremely helpful in -- ³⁷²⁰⁸ in providing the logistics to hold these, to make these interviews.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the witness said that there were other causes, and he should tell us what the other causes are.

THE WITNESS: Well, one of the -- one of the -- the other one of the two primary causes from the interviews, and I'm basing this purely on my own investigation, was the bombing, the NATO bombing. That's -- I mean, that's -- in many cases that's why people had to flee. They had to flee bombing. Of course that's not -- that's not a common denominator. Not everybody fled because of the bombing, but everybody did flee -- who did flee because of Kosovo Liberation Army terrorism. The two secondary causes, I think, that were very important for the refugee crisis in June of 1999 were, first of all, the failure of KFOR forces, and I suppose also UNMIK, to provide security for non-Albanians and -- non-Albanian nationalities and for those Albanians who may not have been members of the KLA.

Finally, a fourth reason, at least as far as I know and from -- from my investigation, is that the -- the absence of -- this is something that was told to us especially by Roma refugees, that once the Yugoslav army and police forces left Kosovo, the people did not feel safe. They did not feel that they could continue to live in Kosovo, and that obviously is a -- was a very significant reason for some of the people to flee.

Those are the four reasons.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷²⁰⁹

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you said that the Roma federation helped you establish contacts. Perhaps others did, too, but let me put a specific question to you. Did anybody from the government of the Republic of Serbia or Yugoslavia give you any assistance in establishing contacts?

A. No. No, not at all. No.

Q. Did any representatives of the then-authorities of Serbia or Yugoslavia -- when I say representatives of the authorities, I'm referring to any representatives of the authorities at any level -- did any of these representatives, any such representatives, rather, attend meetings with refugees from Kosovo and Metohija?

A. No, never. Never. The only representatives that were there were from the Roma federation. Who were not being -- obviously who were not being interviewed.

Q. And agreement to have these interviews conducted by you and the members of your delegation, was this an expression of their free will of the interviewees, or did anybody bring pressure to bear against them in order to have them grant interviews to you, to the best of your knowledge?

A. No. It was completely voluntary. I -- obviously not everyone wanted to give interviews. We -- we could very well have -- we would have liked to have had more -- conducted more interviews. Not everybody wanted to, but those who did want to we interviewed. I think there was -- the desperation was so great that these people wanted to tell, wanted to give witness to what happened to them. They wanted to tell their stories.

Q. And how did you get in touch with the Albanians from Kosovo with whom you had interviews at that time? ³⁷²¹⁰

A. That was also thankful -- we thank the Roma federation for that. That was through our connections with them that they organised that for us.

Q. Now, when we're talking about general impressions, about all these people that you talked to, what was indeed your general impression about the psychological state that they were in just before the interviews were conducted and while they were being conducted?

A. They were, to varying degrees, in terrible psychological state. They were in terrible emotional state. Many of them had seen their fathers, brothers killed, other family members murdered. They themselves had been either tortured -- some of them had been tortured, some of them had simply been threatened with death. They were extremely afraid. They were nervous. They were -- they were desperate and often crying. In some cases. In other cases it was -- it appeared that they were stoic, but nevertheless extremely afraid, terrorised.

Q. And what kind of knowledge did you gain then?

A. Excuse me, knowledge? Could -- I didn't -- knowledge about what?

Q. About what had happened to these people, through the interviews that you conducted.

A. Well, we learned a number of things. We learned that the -- that in many -- that in almost all cases, whether they were Romas or Albanian opposition people or Egyptians or Jewish or Turks, we learned that they -- or Serbs, we learned that they had been -- that their lives had been threatened and that what we learned was that one of the obvious things that happened was that in the days immediately after the withdrawal of ^{37211 BLANK PAGE 37212} Yugoslav forces and the arrival of KFOR forces, this facilitated the arrival on the scene in many towns across Kosovo where they had not been active before, the KLA and -- and really a mass -- a dark -- perhaps the darkest day in recent European history, the mass expulsion of maybe as many as 130.000 Romas and hundreds of thousands of Serbs and other -- other non-Albanian peoples. Certainly there was also at least the expulsion of at least 20.000 - we were told from our investigation by Albanians who were extremely knowledgeable about non-KLA Albanian political movements - that at least 20.000 Albanians had been forced to flee by the KLA because they would not cooperate with the Albanian KLA movement. They were considered traitors. They were not considered loyal to the -- if they were not -- if they were not loyal to the KLA.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Lituchy, by Albanian opposition people, you mean those Albanians who were not loyal to the KLA.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the answer that's just been given relates to a period after the withdrawal of Serb forces, effectively after the allegations raised in this indictment. It's not concerned with the movement of people from Kosovo out of Kosovo, it's concerned with the movement of people out of Kosovo after the period of which this indictment is concerned. It seems to -- possible to argue that it's entirely irrelevant to this indictment. I can't see what its relevance is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. ³⁷²¹³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What Mr. Nice says is not correct. Witnesses testify about events in Kosovo and Metohija, about the time that is relevant. What is correct is that after the war ended, they were interviewed, but basically they were interviewed about what had happened at the time which is relevant in your view.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider the point.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have to make sure that the witness gives evidence about the period covered by the indictment. KFOR and UNMIK, that's after the indictment. But he can give evidence about the interviews, people telling their stories as to why they fled during the war, but we don't want evidence about events after the period covered by the indictment. And some of what he just said did relate to that period. So let him concentrate on the interviews relating to the period covered by the indictment, why the people fled.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly. Certainly, Mr. Robinson. I'll make sure I do that. But I would like to draw your attention to the behaviour of the KLA to the Serbs and Roma and Turks and Egyptians and Roma. That's a question that has to do with all times. This is constant behaviour. That's what witnesses speak about all the time, and that is why I believe it is relevant. It's a permanent thing.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You've heard what I said. Bear that in mind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall certainly bear that in mind, ³⁷²¹⁴ Mr. Robinson, rest assured.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, now we are going to look at parts of some of your interviews, although we handed in all of your tapes. However, before we start playing the tapes, I have to clarify certain matters with you beforehand.

Tell me, as far as Albanians are concerned, Albanians who were interviewed, do you believe this should be dealt with in closed session, for the sake of their own safety and security, or do you think that we can deal with this in open session?

Let me be quite clear on this: I'm not talking about the Roma, the Egyptians, the others. I'm just talking about the Albanians.

A. Yes. Yes. It's my opinion that it would be risky and we would be putting the lives of the Albanians at risk if this was -- if their identities were known. So I don't think that it would be wise to -- to do that, no.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: No advanced warning of this. This is typically a matter that, if it was ever going to be raised, should have been raised, as a professional lawyer would have done it, in advance. I absolutely object to this on the following basis: If this evidence or material is going in and if it's going to go in as evidence, it's going to go in on the basis that presumably what is said by the people concerned is truthful.

Now, we've already seen by material not yet admitted as evidence ³⁷²¹⁵ but in relation to the witness Andric, people may say one thing in interviews which they then explain later they never intended to say. If the material is put out publicly so that the people can see it, there is an outside chance that I may be able to deal with the people concerned insofar as they're not fully identified in the tape and find out whether they meant what it is said they said or what is shown they said. The things dealt with in private session, even that possibility to deal with this evidence is going to be denied me. So that this material -- well, first of all, simply to have a witness express the very generalised concerns that Mr. Lituchy has addressed without substantiating it by reference to any particular Albanian is pretty unsatisfactory, the Chamber may think, but it will have the effect of making this evidence beyond my ability in any way to test.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Lituchy --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I'd like you to elaborate on the statement that you made, Albanians will be at risk. I need to have a more substantial reason.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I'll give you two reasons. The first reason is that the KLA functions classically as a fascist paramilitary organisation that is determined to destroy first and foremost its political opponents. That means kill.

Number two, of the three Albanians I interviewed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: There were just three?

THE WITNESS: Three in this video, yes. ³⁷²¹⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry to say that one of them was already murdered by the KLA, and that's why I'm concerned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this just a wild allegation or --

THE WITNESS: No, it's a fact. It was reported in the media.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Has there been any arrests?

THE WITNESS: No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, any charges against members of the KLA for --

THE WITNESS: That I don't know.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, it may be worth observing that of the other two, since the witness has now identified the one who is dead, the other two are prominent members of the community, I think, he will confirm, who are members of the provisional Executive Council, just like Mr. Andric himself. Why they should be protected from the public disclosure of what they said on some earlier interview entirely escapes me.

While I'm on my feet, if there is any intention to adduce effectively the interview of a person who is dead, the Chamber will recall that Rule 92 bis was introduced following an episode before this Chamber in the Kordic case specifically to deal, amongst other things, with the mechanisms for introducing evidence of dead witnesses. This is not the way that was envisaged, nor is it an appropriate way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, apart from the question of timing, that there is no notice given of it, isn't this a matter that the Tribunal ³⁷²¹⁷ cannot ignore, the possibility that the lives of persons to whom testimony relates may be at risk?

MR. NICE: It's not question of ignoring it. It's a question, if I may say so, of dealing with the thing properly. If these named prominent individuals have any anxieties, it is for the accused in the normal way, through his associates or through Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins or someone else, to get from those witnesses their express desire to be protected in some way from risk. That hasn't happened. It's just speculation by this person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did we not protect persons like this during the Prosecution case?

MR. NICE: I can't immediately put my finger on an example where we did, but what is quite clear is that wherever there was protective measure, especially in the case where the accused was so insistent that absolutely everything should be given in public, we were careful to dot Is and Ts in supporting requests for protective measures by inquiries made either contemporaneously with the evidence itself or very close to by investigators who contacted the affected party. We don't have that here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, well I grant you that, that you did follow the certain procedures which haven't been followed here. But the substances of the matter still needs to be addressed.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, these are prominent people. There is no evidence that they express concerns for their own position. If this material is heard in closed session, there's no way I can deal with the issue, either in cross-examination or by raising the material with the ³⁷²¹⁸ witness, I suppose. I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: Why is that, Mr. Nice, if you know who the people are?

MR. NICE: I beg Your Honour's pardon?

JUDGE BONOMY: Since you know who they are --

MR. NICE: Since they're named here, now I know exactly who the witness is speaking about.

JUDGE BONOMY: What is the difficulty then?

MR. NICE: First of all, if it's closed session, I'd have to have leave to explain to them what's been said about them and identify to them the fact that they've been referred to in this way. But there's also, of course, the practical problem that we've encountered with the Andric evidence, that even if I go and find from them that they express contrary views or qualified views, how can I deal with it? Because as things stand at the moment, although I can probably put the fruits of such inquiries to this witness, I couldn't certainly get the material in as evidence, although that's something I'm going to address more generally in another way.

JUDGE BONOMY: That may be a question of timing, as you know. What pages should we be looking at in this document?

MR. NICE: I think what the witness has in mind -- if you look at the index, you find the index, something headed Contents, and I'm grateful to Ms. Graham for having perused late last night the extracted compact disk containing what I forecast the accused will want to lay before you, numbers 5 and 17 on the list are what's going to be the subject of ³⁷²¹⁹ evidence, but it's number 17 which comes first on the CD. So you have to find number 17.

Now, unfortunately, the pages aren't numbered. I'm sorry, I haven't got a numbered one. It's page 127. I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich. And at page 127 -- I've got it here. What we have is three names, and it's the one in the middle who is dead, and the other two are alive. Now, you can then -- I'm not -- for reasons of caution I'm not going to identify them by taking you through the detail, but you can read for yourselves what is said. If you look down a few lines to the first question, "Please introduce yourself," then get answer. So we can see what the first person's role in affairs is.

And if you go over to --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, could you hold it a minute.

MR. NICE: Sorry.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: To deal with what is virtually an application, protective measures, we will go into private session so we can deal with it more effectively. I will also hear from Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Kay.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁷²²⁰ Pages 37220-37229 redacted. Private session.

³⁷²³⁰

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: As indicated earlier, we are going to take the adjournment now, and we will resume this hearing tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m. -- oh, I'm sorry. We have another hearing tomorrow morning at 9.00. We will resume this hearing at 10.15, 10.15.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And last time -- last time you said 10.50. Is it 10.50 or 10.15?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It's 10.50, ten minutes to eleven. Thank you. ³⁷²³¹ We will adjourn.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.32.p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of

March, 2005, at 10.50 a.m.