³⁷²⁷⁶

Monday, 14 March 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 10.14 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me say immediately that the reason for the delay is that there was another proceeding in this courtroom. In view of the late start, we'll sit first until 11.20, then we take the 20-minute break, then 11.40 to 12.50, and then another 20-minute break, 1.10 to 2.20.

Mr. Milosevic, I think we are in open session, and we'll continue in open session for the time being. I remind you that you had scheduled this witness for two hours, one and a half of which -- an hour and -- I think a little more than an hour has gone. Please start, Mr. Milosevic.

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

WITNESS: BARRY LITUCHY [Resumed] Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] We're in open session, Mr. Lituchy, so I'm not going to mention any names, the names of the Albanian we left off discussing, and there's no need to play the tape any more. We've already seen it.

I'd like to draw your attention to page 135 of the transcript where one of the members of your working group or delegation -- it's at the end of page 135 of the transcript, and the question asked there about -- having to do with the KLA and the Albanian we're talking about who we ³⁷²⁷⁷ saw on the tape says: "I think that many join because they are forced to do so." When asked why they joined. "[In English] If someone refuses to join, he is tortured or killed. They used to say, 'They vanished. Nobody knows where they are.'" That they vanish and nobody knows where they are is under quotation as he was quoted, I suppose, UCK. "People value their lives, so it is better to join the KLA than to be killed."

[Interpretation] Just let's clear this point up because in inverted commas, "They vanished. Nobody knows where they are," that's a quotation in inverted commas. The person you talked to, did he quote what the KLA was saying?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, just turn the page, one page, and at the top of page 137 you'll see the following: This same person that you're talking to, interviewing, says the following: "[In English] In every case, Albanians get hurt from all sides, but mainly from NATO bombing. More than 300 Albanians were killed by NATO bombings."

[Interpretation] Did he say anything more about the Albanian victims?

A. Well, what he said in particular that -- that struck me was the fact that he had travelled with a representative of the United Nations throughout Kosovo during the bombings, and he had seen with that UN representative the death and destruction and killing of Albanians by the NATO bombing, and he had a pretty good knowledge about what was going on in Kosovo because he told us he had travelled with the UN representative ³⁷²⁷⁸ all over Kosovo at that time during the bombing. And that -- that to me -- that to me signified that it was a pretty comprehensive understanding of how bad the bombing had been for the Albanians in Kosovo.

Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. Now, turn the page again, and in that long paragraph where he gives a long account, a lengthy answer --

A. What page was that?

Q. Page 141. I apologise, 39.

JUDGE KWON: Can I make an observation, Mr. Milosevic? If you are going to stick to the transcript, I'd like to make it clear that the Chamber was informed by the interpreters there are substantial, not small, discrepancies between what the Albanian witness said and the transcript. So we may need some fuller translation of that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I also inform the Chamber that I've had some work done over the weekend. I haven't been able to deal with it myself for obvious reasons --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me just say that -- and I should have said this before, that having received that information from the interpreters, we order that the document be translated by CLSS. They have informed us that they will be translating it, but in view of work pressure, it may take some time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, let me just remind you, I pointed out the weaknesses of the translation, and I asked you to bear in mind the fact that I consider authentic what the people actually said, that is to say the videotape I consider to be the authentic original ³⁷²⁷⁹ document in this case as an exhibit. The transcript is just an auxiliary to help us out, but what is authentic is what you can see and hear on the videotape tendered. If there are some vital differences, that's another matter, but the videotape is the original.

May I be allowed to continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please continue. We take that into account, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Furthermore, on page 139, at the top where the person is speaking about attempts at negotiation and so on and so forth, he says the following -- it's in the middle of the paragraph at the top of the page: "[In English] Kosovo is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and multi-confessional. Unfortunately, we cannot -- unfortunately --" [Interpretation] something is missing here but he says "... you cannot find many ethnic groups in Kosovo. [In English]... Serbians, Romas, Muslims, Egyptians, Albanians who do not support the political aims of KLA have fled from Kosovo. One day it may be entirely cleansed and only one ethnic group will be in Kosovo. These days KLA soldiers kill people who work in the fields. I think that all people in Western countries who not believe their government tells them the truth must bring out the truth from our country."

[Interpretation] Tell me, please, Mr. Lituchy, as we can see that this particular witness is giving extensive answers to the various questions that you have asked him, did you ask him to give extensive answers or did he do so of his own accord and endeavour to give ³⁷²⁸⁰ explanations in view of his profession, that is to say he goes into more detail than the others?

A. Yes. He went into more detail because he knew a great deal about what we were in fact looking for. The kinds of information and the kinds of questions we were asking, he was extremely able to answer and wanted to answer those questions.

Q. And if you turn the last page before we come to the photographs where they ask him this, page 141, how he came to leave and so on, that's the context that he's talking about: "[In English] One day before I left Kosovo, a woman came to my flat and said that if I told people that my father was killed by Serbs, I could have a position in KLA. The United States is heavily involved with KLA, they work closely together. Why didn't the United States do anything many months ago, when KLA was killing citizens of Kosovo. United States took measures only when the KLA was about to be destroyed."

[Interpretation] And then he goes on to explain what can one think when one sees "[In English] What can one think when one sees Madeleine Albright, President Clinton, Hasim Thaci together, and Albright gives Thaci a kiss?"

[Interpretation] So what did this witness tell you in actual fact? Since you yourself are an American and you talked to that group, what did he tell you about the position of the American side in these events, especially with respect to the KLA?

A. He made it quite clear that the KLA -- or according to his knowledge, and we believe it was -- it is extensive from what he said, ³⁷²⁸¹ that the KLA was supported by the United States government. I'd like to just add that he also in reference to the previous question you posed to me, President Milosevic, the man in question here, his father was murdered by the KLA. He told us that, and that is in the period before the bombing, of course. So that to me seems to be the -- maybe the -- maybe the greatest motivation for him if his father was murdered by this organisation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, did I understand you correctly? Am I allowed to ask the witness something with respect to what Mr. Nice brought up with respect to the subsequent contacts with this witness or not?

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll allow you to ask those questions, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, Mr. Nice explained at the beginning of last week's session during which you testified about your interviews with these witnesses that he managed to get in contact with this particular witness.

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And to paraphrase, the witness now lives in Kosovo, and the witness says that what he said in your interview he was forced to say, he had to say, because in the room with you you had some members of the secret police of Serbia or Yugoslavia. It doesn't matter what he said, but anyway, they were wearing civilian clothes.

Could you please answer this: You've already said that none of ³⁷²⁸² the authorities attended the interviews, but was there any member of the police wearing civilian clothes, perhaps, or wearing anything else, without a uniform, with a uniform? Were they in any kind of contact with you or the witnesses or, rather, the interviewees that he talked to?

A. Your Honour, I didn't hear Mr. Nice say actually that, but --

JUDGE BONOMY: Precisely. I'd like to be directed to where the material is that indicates that is what Mr. Nice said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, he said that before the beginning of the -- or, rather, at the beginning of the session. He said that he had been in communication with the witness, and I heard him -- that with my own ears. Now, I didn't ask for the transcript, but he said that the witness explained how there was some representative of the police wearing civilian clothes. Now, whether that's in the transcript or not, I really can't say, but that's what I heard, and everybody else heard it, I'm sure, as well.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it would appear that Mr. Lituchy, like me, did not hear it.

THE WITNESS: I only heard that he said he had spoken with that particular witness. I actually didn't hear the part of the police, sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, don't pursue that line of questioning.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll leave that to one side until I've checked the transcript.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, a moment ago you said that it was this particular ³⁷²⁸³ witness who informed you, or person who informed you that the KLA members had killed his father.

A. Yes. That's correct.

JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt. Can I remind the parties that Mr. Nice had said that -- it's page 2, line 19, that I quote: "He explained how at the time of the interview as well as the presence of the other two men referred to yesterday for protective measures purposes there were also plain clothed Serbian Interior Ministry police officers." Am I correct, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: It accords with my recollection. I'm just trying to find -- it accords with my recollection. I'm just trying to find the passage in the transcript which I read over the weekend but now of course can't find it. It accords with my recollection.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In light of that clarification by Judge Kwon, to whom you will be grateful, I'm sure, you may proceed with the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon, for having managed to find that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, could you answer the next question: Was there any kind of policeman in civilian clothes, not civilian clothes, or wearing whatever or not wearing a uniform, was anybody like that in the room with you?

A. That is a complete fabrication and -- and a ridiculous one as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why would it be ridiculous? ³⁷²⁸⁴

THE WITNESS: Well, we were -- we came to interview those people. It would be ridiculous to suggest that we came with Serbian police. It seems -- it seems absurd, to me, anyway.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE BONOMY: Was there anyone else there at all?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. There were two representatives from the Roma federation or association. Yes, there was Mr. -- should I name those individuals? I think they're in the transcript, so Mr. Damjanovic and Mr. Haliti.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And those were the only other two persons in the room?

THE WITNESS: I believe that's correct. There may have been -- well, there may have been one other Roma with -- with them, I think, possibly, but as far as -- as -- to the best of my recollection, it was just the Roma federation people, that's all. And us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And generally in relation to all the interviews that you --

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Was that the --

A. Yes, absolutely. It was just with the Romas. We were just with the Roma people when we interviewed the Romas, and when we interviewed the Albanian refugees we were just with the Albanian refugees and a couple of Romas. In a hotel at that time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you tell us how you managed to -- to gain access to these people? Did you have to go through any authorities? ³⁷²⁸⁵

THE WITNESS: No, no. Actually, we were -- since I've -- I've been asked this before, I'll answer it again but even with a little bit more detail. We were actually a little bit disappointed, to say the least, that we couldn't get any help from the government as far as these interviews were concerned because we thought that -- we thought that our delegation was important enough that it should have -- that it should have received some sort of assistance. But as I recall at the time, President Milosevic was organising a conference for Serbs and diaspora in Belgrade and that was apparently -- I think, actually, in fact we were told there was no time to help us at all. We were specifically told that when we contacted somebody from the I think Ministry of Refugees about that. So -- so what we did -- so what I organised was through my own contacts that I was able to develop while I was there, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And from your knowledge, were the state authorities aware of the interviews taking place?

THE WITNESS: I think only afterwards.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As far as I remember, Mr. Lituchy, you explained that the Albanians you talked to you contacted with the help of the representatives of the Roma federation; is that right?

A. Correct. And let me add also on that point. The Roma people being so desperate, they were looking for us to help them. They wanted -- they wanted to do as much as they could for us. It was only natural that they would help us with these interviews. Sorry. ³⁷²⁸⁶

Q. Mr. Lituchy, in your explanation, you said -- when explaining the KLA, you said that on the basis of the criteria you were able to apply in a fascist -- well, that was applied in a fascist organisation which liquidates anybody who doesn't think the same as they do or political opponents, and in light of that answer of yours to that effect, I'm asking you can you -- have you got any explanation about the conversation that Mr. Nice had with this person who lives in Pristina now?

MR. NICE: Well -- he obviously can't deal with that. If the Court wants to hear his answer, by all means, but it's not going to be of any value.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I don't see the point of that question. Ask another question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, in view of the character of the organisation that you described, Mr. Lituchy - I mean the KLA, that's what I'm talking about - did you receive any information or become informed of the relationship of that organisation towards its political adversaries, for example, or individuals who would be able to present a fact that would compromise the KLA?

MR. NICE: Same observation: Tendentious, leading, whatever you like.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think Mr. Nice is right again. It's very leading.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Well, the question, Mr. Robinson, seems to be leading, would appear leading if you do not have ³⁷²⁸⁷ in mind the kind of organisation we're talking about here and what the actual state of affairs over there is. Now, if you have that in mind and if you have in mind how many Albanians they killed if they did not agree with them, even postmen carrying letters, for example, then it would be quite clear to you that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're now moving into the area of comment, Mr. Milosevic. Let us move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's move on to your interviews with the Egyptians and Roma. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Lituchy, you did not ask, when it came to these tapes that we're going to play now and which relate to the Egyptians and Roma, that they be protected. They can be shown in open session; is that right?

A. That's correct, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please could the technical booth play the excerpts from tape number 12, or excerpt number 12, and then we can take it from there. At the beginning we have Mr. Cerim Abazi, and I can see, and this is on page 30 of this material, he said: "I lived in Pristina. I came to Zemun Polje." And Zemun Polje, by the by, is one of the suburbs of Belgrade, quite a long way from the centre, but let us see the excerpt.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Our analysis of pages 30 through to 45 is that it all relates to events after the bombing -- ³⁷²⁸⁸

THE WITNESS: That's false.

MR. NICE: I wonder if the Chamber would remind the witness not to interrupt when the Chamber is being addressed by counsel.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is unacceptable behaviour, Mr. Lituchy.

THE WITNESS: Sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And might also be contemptuous. Yes.

MR. NICE: Our analysis is this all relates to material after the bombing was over and therefore would be irrelevant. Of course if I've missed something I would be happy to have the time taken with it, but it's a matter for the Chamber and the accused to point what he really wants out of this quite extensive period of interview.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have heard the objection raised by Mr. Nice. He says that this material from pages 30 to 45 is irrelevant in that it relates to events after the bombing and doesn't bear on anything in the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the overall conduct of the KLA that is talked about here is highly relevant for what Mr. Nice says the army did, the police did, and the others, and which I'm being held accountable and charged with. So they speak in great detail about the behaviour and conduct of the KLA, and this time vis-a-vis the Roma, people, for example, towards them, in this particular case, and they cannot say even by a wide stretch of the imagination that they had done any harm to them, and they're even very often of the same faith, because most of them are Muslims. ^{37289 BLANK PAGE 37290}

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider the objection.

MR. KAY: I can just see a passage where, "On May the 11th, I was in a police car with two other people..."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Where is that?

MR. KAY: I don't have a paginated version. Thirty -- 37, in the middle.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, and what were you pointing to, Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: "On May the 11th, I was in a place car with two other people, and that car was attacked by KLA soldiers." So some aspects are --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And what's the last date --

MR. KAY: June the 10th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The outside date is June the 10th -- June the 20th.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Nice, the mere fact that the events might relate to the period after the bombing doesn't necessarily mean that it is -- wouldn't necessarily make it irrelevant to the indictment.

MR. NICE: Certainly in our respectful submission it would because what we're concerned with here is what happened before people left Kosovo and in order to drive them out, and what happened afterwards and what drove them into Serbia is not a matter of concern to us nor something upon which I shall be cross-examining the witness. There is an enormous amount of material here of one kind or another, and if we go into all of it it's going to take a great deal of time. I'm trying, in large part, to save ³⁷²⁹¹ time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'll allow you to lead it, but be selective. Not everything here will be critically relevant to your case, to the indictment. So be very selective. For example, the passage to which Mr. Kay referred would be relevant. So concentrate on material like that, and remember that the time is not unlimited.

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

JUDGE KWON: We are not getting any translation.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English booth now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I bear that in mind, Mr. Robinson, but the reason why the KLA was expelling the Roma, in this case no reference is made to the Serbs or others, it doesn't really differ from the reasons why they were expelling people two months previously, three months previously, a year or many years previously, for that matter.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you commence, Mr. Milosevic, and we'll make a determination as to relevance on a case-by-case basis.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right. Then very briefly. You have the entire transcript. You have the tapes in their entirety. We are just going to be playing brief clips from clip number 12 onwards, and then I'm going to put a few questions to the witness.

[Videotape played] "Abazi: ... KLA in Pristina. He came here about one month ago, said in his home he didn't live there. There live Albanian terrorists. His house was burned. ³⁷²⁹² Lituchy: His house was burned.

Abazi: Yes. Lituchy: Did he lose any other property besides his house? Abazi: It's his flat and his house.

Lituchy: And what about his family? Abazi: All his family is here. His brothers, they lived in Krusevac in tents because they have no flat or house in which to live. Lituchy: Were any of his relatives killed or wounded? Abazi: There are some wounded people in his family but he doesn't know the number.

Lituchy: I would like to say --"

[Videotape played] "Takih: His name is Tayih Takih. He had a house in the centre in the place Magura and he is Egyptian. His home was protected by the military and the army and one day there is no one left in that place. The Albanian people didn't go out in the street, no woman and no children, but the day when the army and the military left at that place, they came out. The Albanian people burnt down 19 homes, 19 buildings. Lituchy: In which town was this?

Takih: Magura. He now has no food, no property, no clothes, no food. His 20 members of his family are here. Okay. Rezeza: His name is --"

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can go ahead.

[Videotape played] "Rezeza: First his brother was killed in Kosovo Polje. He lives ³⁷²⁹³ near the railroad station in Krstic. His family, he has 45 members. He has no money and is starving. He has no property, no food, no money. The people who told him to go out or in fact he will be killed with all his family. They were in the uniform but some of them were in clothes. He doesn't know the names of that Albanian people because that were not Albanian people from that place.

Lituchy: What property was taken from him? Rezeza: His home is not burned down, but he can't -- came back and can't live there. And now they sleep where they can. Berisha: His name is Berisha Adan. He is from Obilic place in Kosovo and he is refugees with his family. His granddaughter or grandson is only three months. He was tortured by the KLA soldiers and also two neighbourhoods, the Albanians neighbourhoods and his son, he was 12 years old, was killed by them and now -- this is a picture of that guy and he is killed.

Lituchy: What is his name? Berisha: His name is Berisha Idis.

Koteska: And he was 12 years old. Fishkin: Tell him that I'm from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and that our hearts are with him.

Koteska: This is Kuraj [phoen], and he will -- Berisha: And he was tortured by the KLA terrorists. Koteska: And you can see her arm, her face.

Berisha: He was one of the terrorists. Koteska: His ex-neighbour who has tortured him and his wife and ³⁷²⁹⁴ the other one was ...

Berisha: Krasniqi Habib. It was the two brothers who tortured them. They bring out his family from the house and they took all the things they need from their house

Lituchy: What was the address of his house? Berisha: It's Jugobogdan Street 270, Obilic.

Lituchy: And what town is that again? Koteska: Obilic. Obilic.

Lituchy: He lost a house and what else? Berisha: He lost his house, his son. He lost his job, also his son lost a job, and he worked in the factory and he worked there for 26 years, and now he doesn't work. This was the paper that he was working there. One month ago, on Thursday, the KLA soldiers killed his father and his two uncles.

Lituchy: What was their names?"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to stop the tape, stop the tape, and direct some questions to you. The difficulty that I am having is in determining the period to which the witness's statement relate and whether that period is within the indictment period. Some of it clearly, clearly is not, and I don't know how you would be able to substantiate that the events to which the statements relate fall within the indictment period. It appears to be of a very general nature. But let me hear your answer, and then I'll hear from Mr. Nice and Mr. Kay, because I don't think we should continue if we're not able to substantiate the periods to which the statements relate. ³⁷²⁹⁵

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, there is no doubt, and we established that at the very beginning, that these interviews were conducted, as the witness said, in August 1999. These interviews were conducted in August 1999, but people -- these people are talking about what happened to them during the war, during the conflicts in Kosovo and of course after the clashes when they were expelled. I don't mind if you will not watch the video footage any more. I'm going to put questions to the witness about what the interviewees said to him. We can rely on the video footage, too, but I'm just going to ask him to say when the relevant time that you're interested in was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's critically important for us. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Conduct after the period of the indictment can be relevant in a general way to show perhaps the state of mind of the other groups within Kosovo Albanian society and how they were reacting generally to the Serbs who were an ethnic minority in that particular region. The evidence of the Prosecutor was presented in this way, that it was the Kosovo Albanians who were oppressed and discriminated against and had to bear the brunt of the Yugoslav government forces in dealing with them in a particular way involving force and discrimination. If, however, the population that is being alleged to have been affected that way is itself actually in possession of those characteristics acting in that way, it's been Mr. Milosevic's case that this course of conduct that they were embarking upon during the period of the indictment before the conflict was also being sustained afterwards goes to show the correctness in a general ³⁷²⁹⁶ way of what he has been asserting, then in our submission it may well have relevance, albeit limited because it's not within the confines of the indictment, but passages of it could go to show the force of his argument in a general way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Maybe too general a way. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Little to add. They appear all to have left at the end of or after the bombing. They left for Serbia. We are concerned with people who essentially left Kosovo for other reasons and went to Macedonia and Albania. But the utility of this material in showing disposition, if there is an identifiable disposition of the KLA, would have to be modulated by the fact that at the time of the acts spoken of here, even the act of May 11th that we looked at on page 37, comes after a change of fortunes and in the course of the bombing.

The May the 11th one is of somebody who doesn't leave until June the 26th, as we can see on page 37. So that I stick by my original position that this is material that is unlikely to be of any value to the Chamber and not material I'm likely to be cross-examining on.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we don't consider this material to be directly -- directly relevant. You have other evidence which is clearly relevant to the period that the indictment deals with and which can help the Chamber. We don't consider this evidence will be very helpful to us. So let us move on to other material that you have.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Robinson, I'm aware ³⁷²⁹⁷ of the fact that it is this witness who is testifying. We don't have to play the tapes any more, but I'm going to put a few questions to him that have to do with what the witnesses said to him about the time period that you consider to be relevant.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. For example, Mr. Lituchy, you talked to Mr. Abazi, didn't you, the representative of the Egyptians; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What did Mr. Abazi tell you about the position of Egyptians until 1990 and after 1990 in Kosovo and Metohija?

MR. NICE: Before he answers may we know if that is in fact covered in the materials as to any notes? If so, the page number. If it's not covered in the notes, is the witness speaking from any other notes? If not, then we'll know it's just from memory.

THE WITNESS: On page 30, Your Honours.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Page 30.

THE WITNESS: If you look at the first paragraph where Mr. Abazi's name is mentioned, and you take a look at the last sentence: "We were not allowed --" and he's speaking about the period before 1999. "We were not allowed to say that we were Egyptians because we were told that we are Albanians because our language is Albanian." He's referring to the KLA, because the KLA did not -- I should mention that the Egyptians are one of the groups of the Roma people but they are distinguished from the main group of Roma people in that they do speak Albanian as their primary language. Therefore, the KLA wanted, in order to -- wanted -- were ³⁷²⁹⁸ persecuting them if they did not identify themselves as Albanians even though they are Roma. That's what he's saying in this sentence. And that's actually a very well-known fact about the Egyptians in Kosovo.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, let me make a correction. In the transcript it says before 1999, and he really says before 1990, and then in the middle of this paragraph he says "In the '90s through the democratic process we established our association."

A. No, no. I was saying that I was -- I put the 1999 in there. I didn't -- it was not in the transcript. I'm -- I'm -- I was explaining what this sentence means in this transcript, what Mr. Abazi was saying, actually.

Q. All right.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry to have to regularly object to things this witness is saying, but we are really back to expertise again. Here we have a simple, apparently one-line answer by the witness -- I beg your pardon, not by the witness, by the person spoken to, Abazi. Now we have a long explanation of his answer by the witness. It wouldn't normally be permitted because it constitutes commentary and he's going to say it's expert commentary on what he's being said. There must be some parameters in which this evidence should fit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we could -- we could accept what he said as a factual comment, Mr. Nice.

Mr. Milosevic, I am of the view --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. ³⁷²⁹⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- that you are spending too much time on this when you have more relevant material to deal with, and prior to today you had spent one hour and 50 minutes with this witness. You had scheduled him for two hours. So you're now well beyond that time, and you have more relevant material to deal with. It's a question of how you manage your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand that, Mr. Robinson. It is in my interest to manage my time as rationally as possible. I assure you of that. However, I must react to what Mr. Nice said just now. He said that this was commentary, what Mr. Lituchy was saying, but that's not the case at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have dealt with it. I have dealt with it. There is no need for you to rise to the bait on every occasion, Mr. Milosevic. Let us proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wanted to read out a quotation to you. It's not my answer. It's really just a quotation. But never mind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no, no. I have already ruled on it, so there is no need for you to deal with it.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, please, just very briefly I would like to deal with a few witnesses, and please just tell me if you have something that the witness said about the period that is considered to be relevant here. You talked to Mr. Sefedini, right? Did Mr. Sefedini say something to you ³⁷³⁰⁰ about the position of the Roma?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Only if you have something that pertains to this period on which Mr. Robinson insists.

THE WITNESS: If I could have a clarification, Judge Robinson. You're referring to a period before March 1999? Is that what you're -- or prior to June 1999?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Prior to June 1999. 20th of June, which is the outside date in the indictment.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I should clarify that the Chamber does not apply the date in a mechanical manner. As Mr. Kay explained, there may be things outside the indictment date which may be relevant for a particular reason, but in this case we want evidence prior to June.

THE WITNESS: June 10th or June 20th?

JUDGE ROBINSON: June 20th.

THE WITNESS: 20th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Sefedini told me that Albanian, as it says on page 31 of the transcript, that members of the KLA attacked him and forced him to leave his home and that now that property has been taken over by Albanian terrorists. That would have been in that -- in that time period. It's three days after the military agreement in Kosovo. So I suppose that's June 13th, isn't it? June 13th?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷³⁰¹

Q. All right. You talked to Mr. Tefiq. Did he say something to you?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Can I help you, I hope? This is one example, according to the work we've done over the weekend, where if you look at the answer at the top attributed to Sefedini and there is a reference to Albanian separatists and followed by a reference to the KLA to which the witness has referred. My understanding is that that's one example where the KLA simply isn't mentioned and the -- those who prepared the transcript have, for whatever reason, have added things like "members of the KLA" when the words "KLA" aren't there. We'll have to check this, obviously, against the eventual transcript of the tape, but that is an example of the sort of problems that I understand we face.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That would be a very serious misrepresentation if that is so, Mr. Nice. We will be getting a translation from the proper authorities, and when we get that, then we'll have to re-examine our transcripts of the evidence and make our own assessment. That may be another reason, Mr. Milosevic, for you to reconsider your approach to this evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have already said to you that it is the tape that is the evidence that I'm submitting. If there are mistakes in the current translation, they don't really matter to me because it's the original on the tape that is relevant as far as I'm concerned.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, do you have anything characteristic to say about ³⁷³⁰² Mr. Takih, the man you talked to?

A. Is that Tayih Takih?

Q. That would be it, roughly, yes.

A. Yes, that's on page 31. Well, I think relating to the objections made earlier, there is something very important in this statement that Mr. Takih made to me. He said that "My home was protected by the army," and then immediately after they left, his safety, his security, and his property and even his lives -- the lives of his family, were in jeopardy. And I think that's very important, especially in regard to the period before 1999 because it clearly, clearly says that the Yugoslav army was defending the rights --

JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry, Mr. Lituchy, could you tell the name again?

THE WITNESS: It's -- I apologise if I'm mispronouncing his name: Tayih Takih.

JUDGE KWON: But on page 31 he is referring to his name as Krasniqi Tefiq.

THE WITNESS: No. That's the Egyptian before him. I'm sorry. I should have -- yes, they're very similar names.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: But what was I saying? I'm -- yes. He says, "I had a house in the centre of Magura." This man Takih. "My home was protected by the army but one day they were gone." He's referring, of course, to the Yugoslav army, the Yugoslav army police. They were protecting him, they were protecting his property, protecting his family and his right to ^{37303 BLANK PAGE 37304} live there. Then one day they were gone and then so, too, were his rights and his safety. "Once I had fields, now I have no food, no property, no home." This -- this, I think, is -- well, I won't comment on it because I --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But let me just direct your attention to the point raised by Mr. Nice. At the top, Sefedini --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- Mr. Nice is saying that the work that was done by his translators over the weekend --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- indicated that the reference to "members of the KLA attacked me" should not be there at all. What is your recollection of that?

THE WITNESS: Judge Robinson, my recollection is, and it's refreshed by looking at the transcript here on page 31, that the man Sefedini, this refugee --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I would actually prefer a recollection not refreshed by what you see on the transcript.

THE WITNESS: He referred to armed Albanian men on several different occasions. It wasn't just this one reference. In other words, if you look at the entire context of what's saying there and if -- if you -- you know, if you think about the whole thing -- the statement, the whole statement clearly indicates that he's referring to armed Albanians who are terrorising him. Now, if he didn't use the word KLA, I'm not aware of that, but in any event, he does refer to armed Albanian men. ³⁷³⁰⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, we are going to break at 11.20, as I indicated earlier. The first break, 11.20.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mr. Lituchy, where you quote Takih on page 31, the penultimate paragraph, or the third from the bottom, he says, "[In English] But the day when the army left that place, they came out and burned down 19 homes." [Interpretation] So that happened on that same day?

A. Right.

Q. Is that what you remember yourself?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Very well. Now, tell me this, please. You talked to Mr. Dulaj on page 34. Let me just draw your attention to a quotation there when you ask about his address, et cetera. He says what his address is and says have "I have five children, my daughter -- [In English] Anesi Akmeti, was raped by KLA soldiers. At night we were sleeping in our house, and KLA soldiers broke in and dragged my daughter out and raped her." [Interpretation] Do you remember that interview with Mr. Dulaj?

A. I believe it was Mrs. Dulaj.

Q. I apologise. I do apologise. Because you can't see here, and we weren't able to look at the tape. I just have the surname.

A. That's my recollection. I believe it's the woman, yes.

Q. So well. So it's Mrs. Dulaj. Do you remember that conversation?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember something that would be characteristic for ³⁷³⁰⁶ Mr. Rezeza's testimony? Anything particular that Mr. Rezeza said during the interview?

A. Could you point to the page?

Q. Rezeza is on the last page or, rather, the last paragraph of page 31. He says where he lived. He says that "his [In English] brother was killed in Kosovo Polje." [Interpretation] And then goes on to say: "[In English] My family has 45 members."

A. Yes. I'm sorry, what was the question again?

Q. The question was this: What did Rezeza tell you about the conduct and behaviour of the KLA?

A. Well, clearly that they were -- that they were determined to kill him and his brother, and I think - and let me just check this - but there was -- there were several -- there were several examples where I interviewed Romas where they told me -- Egyptians and Romas where they told me that their family was particularly targeted because they were in the Yugoslav army before the -- before 1999, and -- so that -- I'm not sure if this is one of those instances, but let me just take a look here. Yes. Well, I don't -- well, this may not be one of those instances where -- I don't see mention of his brother being in the army, but there are other instances in the transcript.

Q. Rezeza just says here, among other things, "First my brother was killed in Kosovo Polje," "[In English] in Kosovo Polje." [Interpretation] And then he speaks about other matters which were less serious than this killing. Do you happen to remember that?

A. Yes. ³⁷³⁰⁷

Q. Take a look at page 35 now, please, where you're talking to a Roma man by the name of Berisha. That is six paragraphs from the bottom, one line paragraphs. He says, "[In English] I was tortured by KLA soldiers, by two of my Albanian neighbours. They killed my son..." [Interpretation] and so on and so forth. Do you remember talking to Mr. Berisha?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. And in connection with Berisha, and Berisha's on the tape and he showed you, we saw that, how much he -- well, he said he worked in the electrical distribution industry, whereas the translator says he worked in a factory. So that was a little imprecision there, although it doesn't matter, it's not any major difference or important difference. And he says at the end of the passage: "KLA soldiers killed my father and my two uncles."

Do you remember talking to Mr. Berisha?

A. Yes.

Q. So when was it that the KLA soldiers killed his father and two uncles?

JUDGE ROBINSON: This will be the last answer and then we have to take the break.

THE WITNESS: It was --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall when -- when exactly he --

JUDGE BONOMY: Is that not the reference to "One month ago this Thursday KLA soldiers killed my father and my two uncles." Just about ³⁷³⁰⁸ halfway down page 36.

THE WITNESS: Yes. "One month ago ..." So this would have been July, the first week of July then.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So that would be outside the period, Mr. Milosevic. So that's not evidence that is going to help us. We're now going to take the break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 11.24 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.49 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may want to consider that the tape has been played, and there isn't much point in going over the points. We have seen the tape, and it's a matter for us to form our own views of it. So you may want to move on to some other relevant piece of evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'll conclude my examination-in-chief of this witness very quickly, but I'd just like to say that the persecution of the non-Albanian population has been going on, and you know that full well here, intensively from the Prizren League in 1878. So that persecution of the non-Albanian population is a vital element which must be borne in mind regardless of whether you place it within the frameworks of the 20th of June, before or after that date. But, yes, just a few more questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You have my assurance that it will not be ignored as long as it is relevant. Please move on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, on page 37 there is a brief answer by Mr. Rakipi there. He speaks at length but just this one: "[In English] On May ³⁷³⁰⁹ 11th, I was in a police car with two other people and that car was attacked by KLA soldiers. No one was wounded but the military car in front of us was engulfed in flames."

[Interpretation] Do you remember that conversation?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell you any more about the attacks by the KLA on the army and police at that time?

A. I believe it was a woman again, President Milosevic. It was Rada Rakipi.

Q. I do apologise, but as I haven't got the tape before me, it's difficult for me to distinguish just on the basis of the surname whether it is a man or woman. But let's move on.

On page 41 we come to Berisha. "[In English] I left Pristina on June 15." [Interpretation] That's what he says within the framework of that period of time that we can discuss. He says, "[In English] My brother was in the Yugoslav army. Five KLA soldiers came to my house showing a photograph of my brother, asking for him ... They told me I have just five minutes to produce my brother or they will kill my entire family."

[Interpretation] Then further down, he says: "[In English] I went to British KFOR and told them what happened, and they told me to go wherever I want but just leave this place.

"Lituchy: The British KFOR soldiers told --"

A. Yes, that's correct. In fact, there were two times where British KFOR soldiers -- oh, no. The second time we're not sure if it's British ³⁷³¹⁰ or not, but they were KFOR -- did not help protect these Roma -- these Roma victims. There's the case on page 41 and on page 42. In other words twice. First the sister of Hasim Berisha went to British KFOR and told them -- told them what had happened, how they were being -- how their lives were threatened. This is the brother -- I mean, this is Hasim Berisha, this is his sister, and also it refers to their brother Malic Berisha. The British KFOR forces basically told them to leave. They told them, "You --" they basically went along with what the KLA was also telling them; get out of Kosovo.

And in the second instance, on page 42, it's a slightly different incident but they went to KFOR and one could -- one could argue perhaps that KFOR is -- was not entirely knowledgeable, but it was a translator at KFOR who -- who deliberately put these Romas in danger by not -- by not helping them when their lives were threatened. And by the way, this was all before June 15th. You mentioned June 15th, President Milosevic, but it's actually the before June 15th because that's the day they left Kosovo. They left Pristina on June 15th. So these events took place before June 15th.

Q. Very well. Take a look at page 44, please. And we come to Kotesi there. Do you remember your interview with Kotesi?

A. Yes.

Q. "[In English] On June 18, KLA soldiers attacked Serbian and Roma people in Gnjilane. At that time British and French KFOR soldiers also entered the town. KFOR did nothing because they were on the other side of the town but the town is not very big so they had to know what was ³⁷³¹¹ happening."

[Interpretation] Then he goes on to say how the non-Albanians were attacked. "[In English] 300 metres behind me was another man was riding a bicycle and KLA soldiers threw a grenade at him and killed him. I was lucky..." [Interpretation] And you ask him what was his name, "[In English] Abdulla Ramadani. He was twenty years old." Do you remember that interview with him, Mr. Lituchy?

A. [Previous translation continues]... yes.

Q. And now at the very end in tab 2, tab 2 now, page 5, you ask this -- the person's name is Shakolji. You asked him, "What happened in 1999?"

MR. NICE: Have we had any evidence about the circumstances of tab 2? It's a totally different situation from tab 1. We need separate justification if justification can be advanced for it ever to be admitted when one looks at the date of its preparation. So a great deal more groundwork is necessary before -- the Chamber may think, before it should be considering this testimony.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Agreed. Introduce us to tab 2, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, tab 2 relates to an interview conducted later on, but the questions relate to 1999. As you can see on page 5, for instance, Barry Lituchy says, "Tell us what happened to you in 1999." I'm not going to read all this out now but he says that they took his wife and two daughters. And in the middle of the page Lituchy says, "Did they kill your wife?" And the answer is, "My wife and my two daughters." ³⁷³¹²

JUDGE KWON: We have not seen this video. We are not aware of what this transcript is all about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But you do have it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, is the tape in the set of tapes handed over here?

A. Yes, absolutely.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you can find it. There's no problem there.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours --

JUDGE KWON: No, it is for you to present evidence.

MR. NICE: Can I make one thing absolutely plain? If it will help the Court, as far as I -- we were provided with a number of CDs or tapes -- CDs was it? Nothing -- and we've had them listened to. As far as I've been able to understand, nothing at all for tab 2. And while I'm on my feet because I was going to mention this at some stage, if the Chamber would be good enough to go to where we just ended off -- ended up, which was page 45. Between page 45 and page 127, various interviews, and again we've had no tapes or CDs covering those at all. And I'm going to raise in due course as a separate ground of exclusion of all of that material the fact that without the underlying material it certainly cannot be admitted.

JUDGE KWON: I remember that he said he would not present those parts.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, is there a tape for tab 2?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A tape for tab 2 does exist, yes, ³⁷³¹³ and it was handed over here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Prosecutor didn't receive it. We don't have a copy of that tape. In the absence of a tape which is the basic original material, you would not be allowed to lead evidence on this matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. Then I'll just ask a couple more questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you conducted a series of interviews with people who were refugees at the time, in August 1999, that is, and they -- they told you what had gone on. Now, my question is this: Did you find any other proof and evidence testifying to the position of the Roma people, for example, in Kosovo and Metohija, apart from the interviews you conducted with these people?

A. Are you asking me about evidence that I collected or testimonies or interviews that I made while I was there with Roma or subsequent?

Q. I'm asking you about any other proof and evidence. This is one type of proof, these interviews. Do you have any other evidence?

A. Well, my intention was that we would look to see if the results or the evidence that I -- that I was able to gather could be reproduced or were going to be reproduced elsewhere and, yes, there were other -- other reports. There were many -- there were reports that came out after our visit, by Human Rights Watch and Voice of Roma. Even the UN Ombudsman for Kosovo reported that -- supported our findings as far as what had happened to the Roma in Kosovo, that they had been persecuted. I think that others may not have come to the conclusion that these were crimes of genocide ³⁷³¹⁴ against the Roma, but that was -- that was -- that was my -- that was my understanding from what everything I heard in every interview, but yes, there were many -- you see, the thing is what we -- what we heard was replicated by every other independent researcher into this matter, including the UN Ombudsman. So I suppose that -- that's a pretty good scientific test of what we learned, validating it.

Q. Mr. Lituchy --

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a very brief question. I noticed with all these interviews when you're talking to the individuals concerned, your interviewees, that you always ask them for their address, the address they lived at before they were expelled from Kosovo. Why did you do that?

A. My -- my belief is, and it's based also on my experience with interviewing Holocaust survivors that not -- that the only way that any kind of justice can be achieved is that the property that has been stolen from these people is -- is paid for or returned to these people, and I'm very, very concerned about that. That, in fact, is also one of the reasons I went back -- went to Kosovo in 2004, to see exactly whether any effort had been made to restore not merely the refugees but their property and their -- and their belongings, and I think that that has to be kept in mind by everyone who is interested in the subject of Kosovo.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you also talked to the president of the European Community in Kosovo, Mr. Prlincevic. Can you tell us briefly what you remember about that, what you talked about? ³⁷³¹⁵

A. I'm sorry, did you see the European Community or the Jewish community?

Q. Jewish community, Jewish municipality. I said Jewish.

A. I heard "European" in the translation, sorry. Yes, I spoke to Mr. Cedo Prlincevic, who is the head of the Jewish community in Kosovo, yes. I interviewed him. But he didn't want to be interviewed on -- on video, on camera.

Oh, I'm sorry, was there a further question?

Q. Yes. Or, rather, let me ask you just one more question to do with him. Do you remember what he told you?

A. Yes. He -- he -- I asked him when did he leave Kosovo, why did he leave Kosovo, what did he leave behind; the same questions that I asked all of the refugees, and he explained that he had -- he had left Kosovo about ten days after the bombing had stopped, that he was forced to leave, that he had to give up his job as the head of the city archives of Pristina. He was from Pristina. In fact, his family had lived in Pristina since 1650, he told me, and that when he left with his wife and mother and other relatives, what was left of the Jewish community was completely extinguished by the KLA, that that was -- in other words, what had occurred -- what had not been done by the Nazis in World War II was done by the KLA in two weeks.

Q. Is that your conclusion or did he tell you that?

A. No, I'm sorry. That's -- that was my -- I couldn't help but make that observation, that last point, because the Jews of Kosovo were also persecuted during World War II by Albanians. By Albanian fascists, I ³⁷³¹⁶ should say. Not by all Albanians, certainly not.

Q. And finally, just one more question. Mr. Lituchy, did you have any contact with non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and did you become acquainted with the activities of the NGOs with respect to Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Well, yes. I was interested in finding out if -- if other NGOs were helping the refugees. As you can see in the transcripts and video I asked that many times, and I was never -- I was never directly in contact with them when I -- when I was interviewing the refugees. The refugees told me that -- that -- that they were not receiving assistance from these NGOs and these international aid agencies. You can find that mentioned many times in these interviews. And that the -- and that also was later confirmed by many reports, that Romas were excluded. They were prevented from receiving aid, that the aid would only go to Albanians, and Romas were not -- were -- generally suffered. I can recall from one report that I read, I believe it was -- it may have been a Voice of Roma report that the Romas could not receive aid from organisations like the Mother Teresa organisation and the Islamic Red Cross and others because they were not Albanians. But I did -- I did contact Human Rights Watch and I got their reports, and they did have -- they did have two reports that confirmed what I -- what I learned while in Kosovo, which is that the Romas were being systematically persecuted by the KLA. The dates on those reports are July -- are August 1999 and July 2004.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, ^{37317 BLANK PAGE 37318} Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. So the Human Rights Watch reports seemed to be systematic in a way that you found acceptable?

A. In regard to Romas, yes.

Q. Are you a historian?

A. Yes.

Q. Do recall yourself as a serious historian and a serious academic?

A. Yes.

Q. Is the document that you produced, this record and interviews, do you regard this as a serious work of research?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. What investigators did you take with you with experience in interviewing people to conduct these interviews?

A. I conducted the interviews.

Q. So you took no investigators. What training did you go through before you decided how you would interview people?

A. Well, I prepared my questions in advance, yes.

Q. What training in the skill of investigation did you undertake?

A. My training involved my previous interviews with Holocaust survivors and also with Croatian -- Krajinan Serb refugees. That was my first-hand training. Sometimes training is in the field not in the classroom.

Q. Very well. Obviously you took no particular training for ³⁷³¹⁹ yourself. Just in general terms, did you give any particular consideration to the advantages or otherwise of interviewing people individually or in groups or in crowds? Did you give thought to that?

A. Well, that -- that was where the conditions under which we -- the only conditions under which we could do the interviews. It was very difficult, I admit.

Q. If you take the interviews in the basement of the hotel, you chose to conduct those in the presence of other people, not just one-to-one. Why did you do that?

A. That was so my colleagues and the delegation could also participate in the questioning of the refugees.

Q. So everybody could have a go, everybody could have a turn at speaking and questioning?

A. Well, if -- if they had -- when I asked them if -- if they had a question, yes.

Q. Did you give any thought to whether that was the best way of getting the most accurate answers out of those you were interviewing, Mr. Lituchy?

A. I didn't think that it compromised the answers given by the refugees, no.

Q. You gave no thought to that really, did you?

A. I suppose not.

Q. No. Was this a neutral inquiry or was this an inquiry with a particular purpose to serve?

A. Well, we didn't know -- we didn't know what the answers were that ³⁷³²⁰ we would get until we got them.

Q. Were you going to try and find evidence that would show the NATO bombing to have been a terrible event?

A. Well, we were -- that was our understanding prior to our arrival there, that there were -- that there were abuses, there were violations of human rights. That was already our assumption, actually, before we went but we did not know what the Romas or the Albanians would tell us until we interviewed them.

Q. You were predisposed before you went against NATO and in favour of the Romas; correct?

A. Of course I was in favour of the Romas, yes.

Q. And predisposed against NATO.

A. If they were -- if -- if their actions had hurt the Romas, yes.

Q. You were also predisposed against Albanians who were in any sense separatists, weren't you?

A. Well, if -- it -- I wanted to find out what exactly the Albanians had to say on that score, but I didn't -- I didn't -- I didn't know to what extent the KLA had support among the Albanian population. I learned as a result of my questions that the Albanians -- that not all Albanians supported secession, that not all Albanians supported the KLA and that the KLA was a great threat to the Albanians. So that was something that I had to learn.

Q. I'll try the same question again: Predisposed against Albanians who were separatists?

A. Well, "predisposed" can mean a lot of things. I'm not sure what ³⁷³²¹ that means.

Q. Did you go and speak to any of the Albanians who had been forced out into Macedonia or into Albanian?

A. No, I didn't have a visa to go to Albania or Macedonia, no.

Q. And at no time since have you investigated them, their stories, their accounts, have you?

A. No, that's true.

Q. Why not? If you're a serious historian investigating this short period of time, Mr. Lituchy, why not?

A. It was not -- it was not -- I did not have the time to make those investigations, and that was not my priority, that's true.

Q. You're a great publicist, aren't you?

A. No, I don't think so.

Q. Don't you? Incidentally, before we move on, so that the Court can know this, do you intend to write about in a public forum your experience in this court?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Good. Can we just look at one or two of the things you said. We'll try to take them in date order.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm happy to have the articles produced. On the other hand, I'm quite happy not to burden the already heavy file of exhibits in this case with writings of this witness. He acknowledges saying the things contained in these articles, I'm quite content to leave it at that and to leave the material on the transcripts, but I'm in the hands of the Court, the accused, and to some extent Mr. Kay. ³⁷³²² Mr. Prendergast, please, can we just lay this on the overhead projector.

Q. Starting off, this is now the 27th of August, 1994. This comes from the Coalition Against Western Intervention in the former Yugoslavia. You remember being involved with that?

A. Yes.

Q. Just if we can have a look at a couple of your then views. Is it my screen or are they all a bit hard to read today? Is everybody else's legible? Just looking at that first paragraph. Your expressed view then was: "We all know what needs to be done. And I say this with some sadness, because I am not by any means anti-Muslim or anti-Croat. But what needs to be done, is for the Serbs to fight on to military victory in Bosnia. There is no other way forward. And we must -- we all must do everything in our power here and around the world to help the Serb forces achieve this military victory."

Now, at this time, what, you were an academic?

A. Yes.

Q. No Serb background in your family?

A. What does that have to do with it?

Q. Please answer the question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You must answer the question, Mr. Lituchy.

THE WITNESS: Well, I am a native born US citizen, but if the question is do I have Serbian ancestry, I do have part Serbian ancestry, yes.

MR. NICE: ³⁷³²³

Q. How far back?

A. A couple of generations ago.

Q. And is this what informs your then and present attitude towards Serbia?

A. No, absolutely not.

Q. Doesn't it?

A. No, it does not. That's false.

Q. You see, what we can't help but notice is that in this paragraph it's "We must do everything in our power."

MR. NICE: Mr. Prendergast, would you turn us to the second page, please, and the foot of it. Thank you.

Q. There it is. "We must not --" we again "-- let the Western powers succeed in dividing us. They want to divide the Bosnian Serbs from Yugoslavia and the Serbs of Krajina because they can't militarily defeat the Bosnian Serbs any other way. But if they can divide the Bosnian Serbs from Yugoslavia and Krajina, then they can beat all three! That's their strategy - it's a three for one deal. And you can see this reflected in the recent articles of the New York Times which are gleefully reporting on these divisions as a good sign."

The next paragraph: "We can't allow ourselves to be divided because this would be essentially allowing the imperialists to watch us beat ourselves. Nor can we allow the Bosnian Serbs to be defeated..." Let's go back. These are still your views, are they?

A. My view is that the Serbian nation is one nation and it should have the same national rights as all other nations to a unified national ³⁷³²⁴ state.

Q. So you are -- you're not really an historian at all. You're person with a political view, aren't you?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Isn't it?

A. No.

Q. Read on, then. Have a look the next one, please, that I have in date order, which is the 27th of January, 1995. Just see a couple of examples of your then opinions.

MR. NICE: If Mr. Prendergast would show us the first page so we can see what it is. Coalition Against Western Intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Media Deception and the Yugoslav Civil War, by yourself. Foot of the next page, please, Mr. Prendergast.

Q. Just see how you then saw the conflict. Right at the foot of the page: "In August 1992, British television helped publicise the supposed existence of concentration camps allegedly used by the Serbs to exterminate Muslims and Croats. To prove that what they had discovered was not a prison but rather a Nazi type death camp, ITN and others broadcast pictures around the world, focusing on one emaciated man, presumably a Muslim. Eventually that man was identified as --" The name there, is that the right name, do you think, Slobodan Konjevic?

A. Are you asking me?

Q. I'm asking you; you said it.

A. I believed at the time that that was the correct name, but it may -- I believe I subsequently learned that that was not the correct name. ³⁷³²⁵ I'm not sure, to tell you the truth, at this point.

Q. "... a Serb suffering from tuberculosis for ten years, arrested for looting. The concentration camp/death camp story, having served its purpose, was dropped. But by then the story had already been seen millions of people. The fact that everyone in the photographs of these 'death camps' was well fed just somehow escaped reporters' attention. "At about the same time as the death camp fabrication --"

JUDGE KWON: Next page.

MR. NICE: Sorry, next page, Mr. Prendergast. Thank you.

Q. "At about the same time as the death camp fabrication was the 'ethnic cleansing' story. While it is true that some Bosnian Serb forces have evicted Muslims from their homes in Serb-held areas, what was not said was that Muslim and Croat forces were carrying out the exact same policy. But the media still presented it as a purely Serbian crime ..." So that's your position at the time on the camps. Do you accept now that there were camps?

A. Yes, but what I'm saying here is that -- I mean, that's not my point. The point, as you just read it, was that this was presented as purely a Serbian crime and that the Muslim and Croatian crimes of the exact same nature were suppressed by the media and that there was a demonisation going on of the Serbian people at that time, especially if you take into consideration what's also in this article, that illustrations were being made in leading newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times portraying Serbs as pigs, gorillas, vultures. This is all in this article. ³⁷³²⁶

Q. Have a look at the foot of this page, if we can, please. And this is the way you put it: "Incredibly, there are even worse examples. On February 5, 1994, there was the infamous Sarajevo market massacre where 68 people were killed. The Serbs were blamed for it, that is until the story leaked out on French TV that the UN knew that the Muslims had bombed their own people in order to induce UN and NATO military involvement. The disgusting ploy worked..." So still your position is it, that the UN knew that the Sarajevo market massacre was --

A. What I'm saying there is that the UN -- that some people in the UN knew and that that information was suppressed.

Q. Before we move on to the events after Srebrenica to see how your views may have changed, just help me with this: You volunteered yesterday, and you've put it in writing to be fair to you, that the late Alija Izetbegovic was a war criminal.

A. Nazi war criminal.

Q. Nazi war criminal, yes. Well, now, it's true that at the age 18 he joined a group that sided with the Germans, but can you just tell us, please, because I may have missed it, what was the actual war crime he committed and that you were so willing to volunteer here? What was it that he actually did?

A. As I recall, it was that he was an organiser for the youth movement for the Bosnian Muslim fascist organisation that was helping to recruit Bosnian Muslims for SS divisions.

Q. And at the -- well, he was part of a movement, and he served a period of imprisonment. ³⁷³²⁷

A. That's what it did. That's what it did.

Q. I asked you a specific question: What was his war crime? Because it's very easy to say these things, Mr. Lituchy, but you as a serious historian would know how careful you have to be. What was the war crime he committed?

A. That he was a collaborator with an organisation that was recruiting people for the SS divisions in Bosnia.

Q. Now, at the same part of your evidence, before we move on to one or two of the other things you've said, the same part of your evidence -- let's just see if I can find it -- you volunteered this, and this is -- I have it on page 37200. Having dealt with his being an alleged convicted war criminal and collaborator is how you described it, you went on to say as a result of foreign forces, "These actors again played a role in the persecution of national minorities in Yugoslavia in the 1990s." Now, are you saying that the late President Izetbegovic persecuted national minorities?

A. Within Bosnia?

Q. Well, what are you identifying as the "persecuted national minorities," then, please?

A. Well, during his activities as a -- as a Nazi collaborator, there's little doubt that that organisation was involved in the genocide against Serbs, Jews, and Romas in Bosnia during World War II. As far as later on in the 1990s --

Q. That wasn't actually an answer to the question, was it? You volunteered that again, but carry on doing it if you think it's helpful. ³⁷³²⁸ Now, answer the question, please: Where did he persecute minorities in this 1990s period?

A. During the 1990s, we can say that Izetbegovic was involved in helping to ethnically cleanse parts of the population of Bosnia.

Q. Oh, really? That's it, is it?

A. Well, that's enough, I think.

Q. It doesn't occur to you, does it, Mr. Lituchy, that you may see things through a somewhat extraordinary prism, that you hold very one-sided views?

A. I don't think so.

Q. Don't you? Let's have a look at what you said in the 29th of November 1995. Now, presumably you as a person with an interest in the region had learnt about Srebrenica. Had you?

A. Sorry?

Q. Presumably you as a person interested in the region had learnt about Srebrenica.

A. Yes, I remember when had happened.

Q. So that this article has to have in mind that you're now aware of this. The detail of it wasn't necessarily known but the generality of it was known, this most appalling event. Let's see what you then expressed about the Dayton pact.

If we just go a little bit further down the page, please. "The Dayton Pact --" third line -- "like the Munich Pact nearly 60 years ago, is not a peace agreement, but rather a prelude to further war. The Dayton Pact signifies the unconditional surrender by the Bosnian Serb

³⁷³²⁹ leaders to the neocolonial powers of the West, led by the United States. In one of the most obscene spectacles of fascist thuggery in modern times, the Clinton regime has imposed its neocolonial political and military rule over the destinies of some 20 million people in the Balkans by staging a dubious international conference inside a military base in Ohio. It represents one of the greatest setbacks to human rights since the Vietnam War."

Help us. Is this a paragraph that you're happy to live with?

A. Yes.

Q. And against which your position as a serious academic should be measured?

A. I -- I certainly -- I certainly believe that the facts do prove that the war -- the wars that occurred in Yugoslavia were unnecessary and would not have occurred without the US determination to break up the country, yes. There's no question about that.

Q. There's the terminology.

MR. NICE: Let's go on two pages, please, Mr. Prendergast.

THE WITNESS: But that wasn't your question.

MR. NICE:

Q. My question to you was - and if you want it again you're welcome to it: Is this a view to which you hold and against which your position as a serious academic should be measured?

A. Right.

Q. And you say it should be, should it?

A. And you said that that -- well, I won't quibble with you, but I've ³⁷³³⁰ made clear that that's the basis for my position then and now.

Q. Let's look at how you describe things two pages on. "There were several important tactical objectives that had to be accomplished first before the US could directly impose its political and economic jackboot on the peoples of the Balkans. Among these, some are quite obvious: the restoration of the fascistic movements among the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim population calling for secession from Yugoslavia; the international recognition of these fascistic secessionist movements and the destruction of a unified socialist Yugoslav state; a policy of war against those who were against this (the Serbs); the demonisation of the Serbs through a media campaign launched by governments, public relations firms and human rights organisations which staged 'atrocities' that never happened ..." Now, you understand, Mr. Lituchy, we're examining you as a -- for reliability, for integrity and objectivity. Can you tell us, please, what were the staged atrocities that you had in mind so shortly after Srebrenica?

A. Honestly, I don't remember exactly which ones I had in mind.

Q. Give us a collection then.

A. But I certainly can refer you to a couple that occurred after this, including Racak.

Q. That's not going to be very much use, is it?

A. Well --

Q. Mr. Lituchy, please listen. You as a serious academic seeking to influence - let's not beat about the bush - world events, assert following the Dayton Peace Accord that you know many regarded as a good solution, ^{37331 BLANK PAGE 37332} you assert that there have been staged atrocities. Now, please, you wrote it, you tell us what it meant.

A. Okay. I can recall one in particular. There was the article that appeared in The New York Times about 50.000 rapes. That's one that certainly strikes -- that I can recall that I must have had in mind. The fact that this story of mass rapes was being bandied about and yet there was very little evidence, if any at all, of any unusually high level of rapes at all, in fact, compared to, say, in the United States in a normal year.

Q. English is your natural language. This is in English. False account of rapes over a period of time is an allegation that can always be made, but "staged atrocity" in the mouth of an educated academic --

A. I'm sure I have one. I'm sure I have one in mind.

Q. Well, please think about it.

A. I had one in mind but unfortunately at this moment I can't recall exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that because I didn't come here to testify because about my -- all of my writings. I can't remember every single one of my writings.

Q. Any chance you were thinking about Srebrenica or something like that?

A. Oh, no.

Q. Very well. Let's read on. "... that never happened while distorting the conflict; the imposition of UN --"

A. Excuse me, Mr. Nice. So that was what you were getting at, that you suggest that I had said that Srebrenica was a staged atrocity? Do you ³⁷³³³ have evidence of that?

Q. I'll press on with questions. It's not for you to ask me questions. You've been given an opportunity to explain your writings.

A. That's absurd.

Q. "... while distorting the conflict; the imposition of UN sanctions and 'peacekeepers' as a military stalling tactic, to hold the Serbs back militarily while the Croats and Muslims were covertly armed; the corruption and splitting of the Serbian leadership, pitting the Bosnian Serb leaders against the government in Belgrade by making phoney deals with both sides; sending the CIA and Pentagon war machine into Croatia and Bosnia to covertly train and arm the Croats and Muslims while collecting intelligence on the Serbs ..." Just that sentence. Where did you source there, so we can know?

A. I can recall that. I can recall that I sourced that first of all in an article in the Independent about Clinton's armed -- I mean, you know, we're really asking me particulars about articles that I wrote ten -- about ten years ago, but I do remember this, as a matter of fact, that there was an article in the Independent that I -- that I was referring to in this -- in this line here, about arm shipments to the Muslims that Clinton -- the Clinton administration had in fact coordinated secretly, breaking the arms embargo, as a matter of fact. And this is prior to Dayton, yes.

Q. Let's look at the next sentence and I'm done with this page and I've only got one more article I'm going to have the time to ask you about, I think, today. Let's look at the next sentence to the end of the ³⁷³³⁴ paragraph: "... the NATO bombing and the coordinated Croat and Muslim offences and genocidal attacks on civilian populations."

A. Oh, I see.

Q. You're been very free with the use of the word "genocide" since you've been here. Which of the genocidal attacks are you referring to here?

A. Mr. Nice, the -- the definition of crimes of genocide, as I understand it, is that when a government or -- or army partakes in the attempted destruction of a people, either in part or in full, by carrying out certain actions against the civilian population, that that constitutes a crime of genocide. There's no -- there's no question in my mind that there were actual bombings of civilian targets in -- during the 1990s by the Clinton administration. This was confirmed by every investigation, every serious investigation that's been done on the subject, and therefore it -- it constitutes if that -- it can be argued that a crime of genocide was committed if the attempt was to destroy the Serbian civilian population in either Bosnia or Serbia.

Q. Again, so that the Court can know where -- what your position is, name us one of these -- and it must be intentionally, presumably, bombing of a civilian target so we can just have it in mind.

A. I'm sorry, could you repeat that question.

Q. Of course. Can you name for us one of those civilian targets subject to what must have been an intentional bombing.

A. In 1999 in -- during our delegation's --

Q. This is 1995, so we're looking at anything before 29th of ³⁷³³⁵ November, 1995, Mr. Lituchy.

A. What I read in the newspapers at that time when I -- prior to writing this article, was that there were hospitals in Bosnia that -- civilian hospitals for Serbian people that were being bombed by NATO. That's what I -- that's what I read at the time, and that was the basis of my -- of my conclusion.

Q. Newspaper article, hospital bombing. Thank you. Last sentence: "The final nail in the coffin was the complete surrender of the current Serb leaderships in both Belgrade and Bosnia to the demands of US imperialism."

So you thought the compromise made by the Serb leadership and RS and also in Belgrade completely wrong, did you?

A. I don't think that any diplomatic agreement based on bombing can be considered valid or legitimate.

Q. Let's go and see, for the last extract, which I think will help us with an understanding of you, to this document of June 28, 1999. History department at Kingsborough Community College, headed The American Barbarism and the Big Lie Technique. And if we just go on, please, to page 4 of 4, Mr. Prendergast, and see where you've summarised.

A. Where is this from? I don't believe I've seen this, but anyway...

Q. History department, Kingsborough --

A. No, no, this is not published by the history department.

Q. By whom is it published?

A. I have no idea, Mr. Nice. How would I know?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson? ³⁷³³⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please receive this document? I expected to get another one too.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you should have a copy.

THE WITNESS: Judge Robinson, may I ask a question?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, do you have copies for --

MR. NICE: Yes, I have copies for everybody --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please.

MR. NICE: Although, as I say, I'm quite happy to just have it on the record, I'm neutral as to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Put it on the ELMO. Mr. Lituchy, what do you want to say?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Prior to this cross-examination, you directed me not to answer questions that were not directly related to the facts about which I've been called to testify --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, these questions go to your credibility.

THE WITNESS: As a witness?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I see.

MR. NICE:

Q. This document is headed American Barbarism and The Big Lie Technique. The original location is set out there.

A. This is not published by the history department of --

Q. By whom was it published?

A. I have no idea. I actually don't know. I haven't seen this. ³⁷³³⁷

Q. It is attributed to you.

A. It may very well have been written by me but it certainly is not published by who it says it's published by.

Q. Let's just check to see that --

A. I don't know who published this.

Q. Let's just check to see whether the first paragraph appears to be your position. Let's go to the first paragraph. I hadn't intended to but I will. "Is there anyone left who still leaves that Yugoslavia was destroyed by 'ancient ethnic hatreds,' and not from without by Western - particularly American - imperialism and covert action?" This would appear to be your position, wouldn't it?

A. I agree with it, yes.

Q. Could we go to the fourth page of four and see what is attributed to you and I'm going to ask you if you adopt this as your terminology. Halfway down that first paragraph, we see this: "The defeat of the Serbs leaves us all with a much more dangerous world." That's no doubt your view. "It has fully exposed the dark, criminal nature of William Jefferson Clinton - a rapist, a murderer, a gangster and a fascist - and his entire government. But we should not compare Clinton to Hitler; it does not do justice to the full range of Clinton's social pathology. He's best compared to a Ted Bundy or a John Wayne Gacey ..." You'll see where it ends.

If you go to the last paragraph on this page, this: "We must promise ourselves to do better this time than after Jasenovac." We know your interest in Jasenovac. It goes on: "We must promise ourselves that ³⁷³³⁸ there will be a reckoning for the crimes committed by American fascism, and that there will be a punishment extracted - in blood if need be..." These your words, Mr. Lituchy?

A. Anyone who is guilty of crimes of genocide, yes, of course. Of course. This is -- if -- if these are the crimes committed, then someone should be published for those crimes. I believe -- I'm not opposed to the death penalty, Mr. Nice.

Q. Two things then: The description of Clinton and the comparison between him and Hitler is one you still stand by, is it?

A. There are many -- there are many comparisons to be made, and the fact that both Hitler and Clinton tried to divide a unified Yugoslav state and did so by promoting proxy armies that included fascists among them, yes, absolutely. This is -- this is a very clear analogy.

Q. Let's not beat about the bush. You're saying here in terms, so that we can follow you, as the serious historian you are, you're saying here that Clinton is worse than Hitler. Is that really your view?

A. I don't believe that Hitler was guilty of sexual crimes.

Q. That's your answer, is it?

A. That's my -- that's my answer, yes.

Q. Let's just conclude then with focusing again on the last paragraph and indeed the last words that I read out. "We must promise ourselves that there will be a reckoning for the crimes committed by American fascism and that there will be a punishment extracted - in blood if need be..." What were you seeking to achieve by publishing, saying, broadcasting, whatever it was, that sort of observation? ³⁷³³⁹

A. First of all, I don't know who published this. I made that clear before. I mean, stand by these words. I think I did write this. I don't know actually who published it, but I do believe I did write it, yes. So let's correct that point.

Q. What shedding of blood, did you, Mr. Lituchy --

A. Oh, I see, I see. I see what you're saying. I've already answered that question. I explained to you that I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in crimes of genocide.

Q. That's shedding of blood, is it? Forgive me, I know there are various brutal ways of killing people effected in various States in the United States of America but I'm not sure that any of them sheds blood. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

A. That's more of a metaphor for the death penalty.

Q. Is it, or are you lying to us?

A. Lying?

Q. Because by shedding blood -- Yes, lying, Mr. Lituchy.

A. That's absurd.

Q. Because by "shedding blood" you meant something entirely different from the death penalty.

A. That's absurd.

Q. Is it?

A. No, that's absurd. But I will add this, I will add this: That people deserve to be defended against crimes of genocide that they -- and that may entail the shedding of blood, yes, absolutely.

Q. Let's have it: Is it the death penalty or is it the shedding of ³⁷³⁴⁰ blood?

A. Both.

Q. Both. Very well. What shedding of blood did you envisage in 1999 - I have the date again - as being justified, assuming that the date --

A. Defending people from crimes of genocide just precisely as the crimes that I've documented here with the Romas and other refugees from Kosovo.

Q. Do you realise the significance of the date, don't you?

A. What is the date? I didn't see it.

Q. This is -- the date this is June the 28th 1999. So that's just --

A. I don't recall -- I don't think that date is valid or is accurate. I'm not sure when the date of this piece is because I didn't publish it, but I do believe I -- somehow someone got a hold of this. I may have written this, or I -- I'm really not sure. I don't know where this comes from. You never told me where you got this from.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, we can only do our best with the Internet and we can --

A. Is the Internet a reliable source? I think I'm more reliable than the Internet. I'm here.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you confirmed that the Internet is reliable because you confirmed that these are your words and we took it off it. We can only as to the date of the publication what the Internet provides.

A. The description is false.

Q. You --

A. The description is straight out false, so this is not valid. It ³⁷³⁴¹ was not published by any -- by the history department of Kingsborough College, so that's not accurate.

Q. Can you give us --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Lituchy, do you have anything to do with the Communist Party of Australia?

THE WITNESS: That's a very good question Judge Kwon. That's a very good question. I don't even know -- I don't even know anything about the Communist Party of Australia.

JUDGE KWON: The address at the bottom of the page says that it seems to be related to that institution.

THE WITNESS: I really don't know. I -- I -- I've never even heard of the Communist Party of Australia. I assume there may very well be one but I don't they anything about it. I don't know the first thing about it, the Communist Party of Australia.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can I turn now to the reliability of your interviews? First of all, and I deal with this swiftly and compendiously, the document that we have before us and as -- I'm not sure what decision the Court has made but I'm focusing on pages 1 to 45 and 127 until the end of tab 1 because it seems to me that the other part hadn't been spoken to and tab 2 has been expressly not produced.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's an accurate representation.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

Q. You had no investigator and no particular investigative skills. ³⁷³⁴² How did you choose your interpreter?

A. We asked for -- we -- I don't recall exactly how we found her but we -- through my contacts in Belgrade I asked for an interpreter for these interviews. That's the best I can remember as far as that's concerned. I believe it was through one of my colleagues in Belgrade.

Q. Did it occur to you that the interpreter might herself, as it turned out to be, have views and interpose her judgement between question and answer?

A. That was -- that -- I agree that was, regrettably, something we couldn't quite control. We tried to stop her from doing that but we didn't want -- we didn't want her to do that.

Q. So do you accept, do you, in the way that I think His Honour Judge Robinson observed, it was clear she wasn't doing straight translation because she -- she leapt in before questions were completed and sometimes gave very short answers where there had been a great deal of speech from the person being spoken to.

A. I believe that the translations were a fair and accurate representation of what people were saying, but it is also true -- you see it doesn't have to be either/or, Mr. Nice. It can be -- it's both. It's both the fact that the translations were accurate and fair representations of what people were saying and also that she interposed things that she had no right and no business interposing, and it was very annoying to me.

Q. I asked you if this was the serious work of scholarship, as it were -- I didn't use the word "scholarship." You confirmed that it was serious work. If you knew certainly before coming to this court that what ³⁷³⁴³ she had said was not free of her own intervention, why did you not arrange for the transcript to be properly transcribed by an independent -- sorry, why did you not arrange for the tape to be properly transcribed by an independent and neutral interpreter?

A. Actually I didn't know that I was going to be -- I didn't make this transcript for this Court, but I did -- had I been more aware of when I was going to -- if I was going to testify, when I was going to be -- when I was going to testify -- I didn't have the time or the resources at the time to -- to do that. But yes, I absolutely did want to do that and I think it -- it was certainly on my agenda to do, yes.

Q. In the event, and unless the matter had been drawn to the Court's attention, both by the accused and by me, this transcript would have gone in without correction, wouldn't it?

A. No, that's not true.

Q. Did you draw to our attention that it was false?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. Oh, I thought you said would I have. Yes, I would have.

Q. No, did you?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Well, why not?

A. Because it was already -- it was brought up immediately by President Milosevic before.

Q. Coincidentally while you use the term "President Milosevic," it reminds me: I've only been able to research so much of your material from ³⁷³⁴⁴ open sources, and I may have missed it, but your Serb -- your personal Serbian background isn't referred to in any of your public writings?

A. That's because I'm not a Serbian nationalist.

Q. Do you not think when seeking to change world events by expression of opinions in the way that you do that it might have been preferable and fairer to reveal that you have a Serb historical connection?

A. No, I don't think that that's necessary. I don't think -- I don't think one has to identify what one's national -- one's ancestors are. The human race originated in Africa. We're all Africans too. I mean, we can't -- it would be extremely unfair and it's not -- it's certainly no scientific requirement that one identify one's ethnic heritage in any kind of writing or research. I've never heard of such a -- such an idea before actually. This is -- this is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Lituchy, how far back does your Serb ancestry go?

THE WITNESS: I'm a native-born US citizens. My parents are native-born US citizens. Two of my grandparents are of Serbian background.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, you had wanted to say something?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wanted to put Mr. Nice right. He said that you drew attention to the problem with the translation in the transcript. I drew attention to the translation, the problems with the translation, and precisely that was the reason that I emphasised that the exhibit I'm tendering is the tape and not the ^{37345 BLANK PAGE 37346} transcript, which has serious defects. And I'm sure you'll be able to find that passage in the transcript of my having said that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I give you full credit for that, Mr. Milosevic. What Mr. Nice attributed to me was also accurate. Mr. Nice, we have to take a break now, and we'll adjourn for 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I ask a question for technical reasons? Is Mr. Nice going to finish before the end of business today so that I can know for my next witness?

MR. NICE: The next session is how long?

JUDGE KWON: Seventy minutes.

MR. NICE: Seventy minutes. I would certainly hope to finish before the next session. I know the topics I have to deal with. There are only about two in the nature of things because amongst other things I want to point you to some of the shortcomings of the transcript. It will be closer to the end of the next session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Twenty minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.54 a.m.

--- On resuming at 1.16 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice to continue.

MR. NICE: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, we'll go through your document in broad fashion, please, just to remind ourselves what it amounts to. Pages 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 there is preface we haven't focused on that, I'm not going to trouble you with it. Page 8 is a press release. Again, I'm not ³⁷³⁴⁷ interested in that. Page 9 and in between pages 9 and 13 we have an interview with Bratislava Morina. Now as a matter of history, Bratislava Morina is the wife, or was the wife, now widow of Rrahman Morina, who replaced Vllasi when he was forced out of office, didn't she? Didn't he, rather.

A. Are you asking me?

Q. Yes, I am.

A. Oh, yes.

Q. And her husband, or her late husband, was indeed a fully loyal supporter of this accused and indeed -- well, yes or no.

A. Yes, yes, of course.

Q. And was brought in to replace Vllasi when Vllasi's independence of mind was troublesome, yes?

A. Well, that part I don't know.

Q. Because this is not a woman I've been able to make any contact with, I'm not going to ask you any questions about the content of what she says because I can't deal with it save just for this: You say that you had no cooperation with or assistance, I think, by ministry bodies or by Serb bodies in your inquiry, but if you go to page 12, please --

A. No, no, wait a second. You're misrepresenting what I said.

Q. In which case, if I'm misunderstanding it, you must put us right, because it's quite clear from page 12, in the middle of the page, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is entirely at your disposal, isn't it?

A. I was referring to the interviews of refugees. That's precisely what I was talking about, that's what I was questioning about. We did not ³⁷³⁴⁸ receive any help from the government in that regard, no. But as far as other -- yes, we did have some, we did have assistance as far as some of the other interviews, but not with the refugees, no.

Q. And indeed when -- if we look on the same page, page 12 a little further down, "Lituchy: I think we would like to visit a refugee camp, if that's possible, particularly a refugee camp that was hit by NATO bombing." That was something, what, that the Foreign Ministry or Ministry of Refugees --

A. They didn't organise it.

Q. They didn't?

A. No.

Q. But they were prepared to do anything they could to help you?

A. I don't know if I'd agree with that but because they didn't help us as far as the refugees were concerned. I mean, it's true -- I mean, I don't want to -- with all respect to Mrs. Morina, I don't -- you know, I -- but still we didn't get any help as far as interviewing the refugees, no. That's definite.

Q. You were known, however, wherever you went as being an investigation that was against NATO; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And associated with the then Serb government; correct?

A. No. Not necessarily, no. That's not necessarily true.

Q. To be against NATO would be to be siding, in a simple analysis of events, with the Serb government, wouldn't it?

A. Well, the problem is that that's too simple, yes, you're right. ³⁷³⁴⁹ It's a simplification of -- I mean, it's very possible to be opposed to the NATO bombing and still not be in support of President Milosevic. In fact, many of -- there were many people in our delegation who had that position.

Q. As a historian, you know that sources and -- sources are critical to the work of a historian?

A. Right.

Q. And if -- if you have two sources, one better than another, you go to the best --

A. Right.

Q. -- not to the second best. If something is to your knowledge in need of checking, you check it.

A. Correct.

Q. Although it remains a fact that this record was something you knew needed checking but never was checked.

A. Which record are you --

Q. The record of interviews that we're going to look at. You knew it needed checking because you knew that the interpreter was not doing the job of interpreting faithfully and yet you didn't actually check what was on the transcription, did you?

A. Right, well, there's a reason, there's an explanation for that. What happened was that the transcript -- the transcription was done by a colleague of mine in Ohio who also had a translator helping him to improve the translation. I thought perhaps all of these problems would be worked out. They weren't, and shortly after that I became -- I was very ill for ³⁷³⁵⁰ a period of about three years, actually, after this took place, so I was unable really to devote any time at all. I -- I -- I was undergoing chemotherapy and I was very sick. I couldn't -- I had no time for this during the three years after that.

Q. Well, when did you first then become aware that the problems hadn't been sorted?

A. When exactly? Well, I certainly knew that the original translation needed to be improved. So I -- in that regard, I can -- I can tell you that I knew from the beginning that we needed a better, a complete and improved translation. However, as I've said all along, I still maintain that this transcript fairly represents the content of these interviews.

Q. I'm not sure how you can do that, you see, because you realised it was in need of correction, it was dealt with by a colleague of yours and another translator --

A. Yes.

Q. Did you think that he'd corrected all the problems?

A. I thought he corrected 99 per cent of the problems at the time.

Q. How did you know he hadn't done a completely satisfactory job?

A. Well, I did find -- I did find one or two things after I published it, yes.

Q. What is that, because you speak Serbian?

A. I do speak and understand -- read some Serbian, yes.

Q. So you've actually listened to the tapes?

A. Of course. ³⁷³⁵¹

Q. Since your unfortunate ill health and treatment and coming here to give evidence, and you knew that the tape and the transcript were not accurate reflections one of the other.

A. Mr. Nice, you realise that the -- from the very beginning our main purpose was to conduct the interviews and do so on video and thereby preserving the full integrity of those interviews on videotape, and therefore it was always possible -- I suppose I'm guilty of not showing a sufficient amount of -- of speed and -- and effort in -- in providing a better transcript. I should say that there were only 200 copies of this report published in 2000, and it was by no means meant for a broad --

Q. I want to cut you short because I want to finish my cross-examination in under 50 per cent of the time.

A. I hope I answered your question.

Q. I don't think you did. I simply said to you -- this Court is dealing with very serious matters and I said to you you came here knowing that the tape and the transcript were not accurate reflections one of the other.

A. The tape. The tape is accurate. The videotape is accurate.

Q. I shan't take any more time on that. Pages 15 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the inaccuracy relates to the transcript, the translation, not the tape.

MR. NICE: The translation of the transcript, absolutely correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. If we look between pages 15 and 27 -- 28, beg your pardon, we'll ³⁷³⁵² find something that relates, I think, all to people leaving after the bombing, with refugees -- beg your pardon, this relates to refugees in Serbia and their condition, and I'm not going to focus on that at all. So if we can go to page 30. Now, these refugees, Mr. Lituchy, you would accept are going to be either extremely difficult or impossible for me to find in the short period of time that I've had your documents?

A. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that question.

Q. You made no efforts to contact them before allowing their answers to be given as in evidence this case, did you?

A. Of course not.

Q. You know perfectly well, if they were refugees, that tracking them down with little more than one name or sometimes a couple of names and a former address is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible?

A. I don't know.

Q. Don't you?

A. I don't know.

Q. I see. As to these pages, I remind you of an answer you gave I think to His Honour Judge Robinson but it may have been elsewhere, where the word KLA was not on the tape but was on the transcript. Do you remember that? And you said, well, it doesn't really much matter because the implication was that the KLA were the people involved.

A. In the context of the answer to my question, the Roma refugee made it clear that they were armed Albanians.

Q. Well, and "armed Albanians," therefore, can be transliterated, for convenience of reading, to "KLA"? ³⁷³⁵³

A. I'm not claim -- I did not do that but it's -- as far as I know, no.

Q. If the document before the Court is to be reliable, such errors ought to have been corrected, oughtn't they?

A. Well, that's why I brought the videotape as well.

Q. So that if we now look at -- if we look on page 30 we've got Nenezu, Abazi, and then on page 31 we've already looked at the one reference at the top where I'm suggesting to you that the word KLA was never mentioned, line 3. Halfway down the page in the answers of Tefiq I understand that the word again "KLA" has simply been added to the text. Inexcusable really, isn't it? It's your report, but it's inexcusable.

A. I can't comment on that. I don't know what the answer to that is.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, you're a historian. You tell us you're a serious historian. You've confirmed that the sources have to be checked, you've confirmed that this needed to be checked and wasn't checked. It's your discipline. If you present a report about things done by the KLA purporting to be a transcript of what people say knowing that that material is being given in evidence, it is inexcusable not to correct an error of the kind I've described.

A. Are you asking me a question or making a statement?

Q. I certainly am asking you a question.

A. It's not inexcusable because I brought the videotape which is the full interview in its entirety, and that -- if -- if I was trying to dissemble or trying to distort anything, I certainly would not have done -- I would not have brought the original with me and presented that. ³⁷³⁵⁴ That's -- that's the basis of my interviews. That's what we intended to do and that's -- that should be looked upon as the most important evidence.

Q. These witnesses -- not these witnesses, these people being interviewed were found for you by --

A. No, no.

Q. Well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't hear -- what's the question? I didn't hear the --

MR. NICE: People interviewed were found for him, but he denies that.

THE WITNESS: We were brought to a place where refugees -- are you talking about the Romas and Egyptians? You're talking about Egyptians and Romas, is that right?

Q. This part of your report, yes.

A. Yes, that's what I thought. No. This is an area in which refugees were living. This was an area that had already, prior to the time of the refugee crisis, had been a place where Romas and Egyptians were living, and so this is where the refugees fled to. Now, as you -- if you look at the -- if you look at the original tapes or CDs, whatever you have, you can see for yourself that people came. They were -- they came, they heard perhaps secondhand or thirdhand, that people were -- that people from other countries were there to interview refugees and so they showed -- they stepped forward. They stepped forward on their own.

Q. At this page, page 32 of your transcript, we'll find, will we not ³⁷³⁵⁵ when we see the original properly and fully translated, that your interpreter was gathering people out of the crowd or gathering people and calling them forward to come and speak to you. Is that the role she took?

A. No. That's not a fair representation. Where do you see that?

Q. It's not in the transcript, it's on the tape.

A. It's on the tape. No, I don't think that's a fair representation of what she was doing, no.

Q. Then we move on to page 35, please, very quickly, and you'll see a third of the way down the page -- and if there's a spare copy I'm happy for Mr. Prendergast to lay it on the overhead projector if it makes it more interesting for those viewing but not to delay us. We see a third of the way down the page, "The children awake at night calling 'mama, mama.' I have nothing to give them. They are afraid of aeroplanes." Aeroplane is pretty important, isn't it?

A. Would you show me where that is.

Q. A third of way down page 35.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you sure it's 35?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I see it.

MR. NICE:

Q. Yes.

A. And what is your question?

Q. Reference to aeroplanes is important, isn't it, because aeroplanes connect it to NATO.

A. I don't think that's specifically important.

Q. Don't you? ³⁷³⁵⁶

A. No, I think --

Q. Why was it added then to what the person said, because as I understand it, and I'm dependent --

A. The purpose --

Q. Please listen to me. -- unhappily so, on Ms. Kisic, who has given up her weekend to listen to the tapes and attempt to help me. The words "aeroplane" doesn't feature on the original tape. To add "aeroplanes" would be inexcusable, wouldn't it?

A. The question, as I understand it, was is that necessary -- is that very important to the -- as I recall that's what you asked me: Is this very important to this testimony? No, it's not, because I'll tell you why -- what this is about. This is about how these children, the Roma children, were being persecuted. This is the -- this is the extent of the horrible nature of crimes, is that children were being killed, children were being raped, and children were being persecuted. Children.

Q. Page 37, please. Third line down, one of your colleagues, I think: "Why do you think they were doing this?" Answer from Berisha now: "The Albanian soldiers did that to us because we support Serbia and we oppose secession." Well, which bit of that last six words is important? "We support Serbia" or "We oppose secession"? Is it one bit that's important or both?

A. It -- it is important because -- I'm not sure -- you may be trying to say that this is not in the tape, and I'm not sure about that right off the top of my head. No, I don't know.

Q. You're quite right I'm going to suggest that one bit of it isn't ³⁷³⁵⁷ in the tape, but I want you to tell me which bits are important. Serbia or secession is important?

A. Both.

Q. Well, then why did somebody add the words "we oppose secession" when those words were never there?

A. I don't know. That I can't tell you.

Q. Was this remotely a serious minded work of scholarship or research or was this political material?

A. No. It is -- it is important because we wanted to know what the relationship of the Romas was and -- was to the Yugoslav government. That was -- that was -- and so when Romas did tell us that they served in the Yugoslav military or if they supported the Yugoslavia, if they considered that to be their state and they considered it to be defending them prior to the bombing, then it was -- yes, then it would be important. If that's an error, I -- I deeply regret that that's -- that that's there if that's in error, but I don't think that that in any way compromises the entirety of the interviews.

Q. Look down the page, please. About seven lines up from the bottom. Rakipi: "On June 26 we left Kosovo after the KLA forced us from our home." I'm going suggest to you that the word "KLA" doesn't feature there. And similarly, if we go to page 38, please, about 12 lines down, in the answer of Eles or Elis: "I left Kosovo on June the 26th. After I left Kosovo, KLA soldiers took everything." Again the words "KLA" were not included.

That's the sort of error I think that you accept, with your ³⁷³⁵⁸ recollection, happened, don't you? "KLA" was inserted where "KLA" was not said.

A. I don't know the answer to that question.

Q. Well, if we move on to --

MR. NICE: And I'm not doing all points, Your Honours, just a few of them.

Q. If we move on to page 44 so that we can have in advance of the translation some understanding of how these interviews were conducted. If we look down the page about seven lines to your answer, "Thank you and we wish you the best," had you, although it's not included on the transcript, asked for someone who had had a family member killed and who had witnessed that to come forward and speak and then --

A. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.

Q. Very well. Then we go on to page 47, and as I've already indicated between 47 and 126 there's been no evidence given and I forecast we won't be dealing with them.

We then come to 127 where the interviewees were in the basement of the hotel and where may have been afforded protective measures so that their names mustn't be given. We're calling them really 1, 2 and 3, Albanians 1, 2, and 3. And at page 127 we are on Albanian number 1. Before I look at these to the extent that I must, help me with this: Remember I said if you have a source of information that is good but not necessarily the best, the appropriate course for a historian is to go to the best, and you accepted that, didn't you?

A. Yes. ^{37359 BLANK PAGE 37360}

Q. This morning you knew something before the accused mentioned it or before it was discussed in court of what had been said on the last occasion about contacts made by someone on my behalf with Albanian number 3. How did you learn about that, about what had passed in court concerning my inquiries or inquiries conducted on my behalf for Albanian number 3?

A. Your Honours, I never -- I didn't know. I don't know what you're talking about.

Q. The process whereby an investigator had spoken to Albanian number 3, are you saying you knew nothing of that?

A. Well, I heard you said -- say -- that much I heard you say in court when I was here last week. That I heard, yes.

Q. And you had no other knowledge of that?

A. No other knowledge. Of course not.

Q. Very well, I don't have time to check the actual transcript of what you said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Bear in mind the Prosecutor is not pursuing that. He's not pursuing that, so there's no need to address it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. NICE:

Q. On page 127, then, we're with Albanian number 1. Halfway down the page you asked: "Did this political party run in the previous elections ..." ³⁷³⁶¹

MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, unless I am advised otherwise, it doesn't seem to me necessary to go into closed session to read out the answer. In any event, the Chamber will remember that I had achieved some contact with this individual last week. I propose to read the answer.

Q. The answer says this: "No, this is a new political party, formed only last year, so we haven't yet run in elections. This was the one, the only Albanian party to stand by the government, and our political position was for Kosovo and Metohija to stay in Yugoslavia and to organise humanitarian aid for people, and to oppose secession." Now, can you explain to me why, if it's the case, that answer is completely incorrectly transcribed in two ways? First, no reference of "opposing secession," and secondly, what was actually said on the tape was that it was the only political party to stay with the people during the NATO airstrikes, saying nothing whatsoever about standing by the government.

Can you explain to me, please, if this is a serious work of scholarship, why there should be -- or research, why there should be those two errors?

A. I can't -- I can't explain it.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, as far as I remember, the interpreter in the film said it was "President Milosevic" instead of "the government." So "Albanian party to stand by President Milosevic."

JUDGE BONOMY: I must say that I've noted that also, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE KWON: I'd like -- I wanted to ask the witness why it was changed. ³⁷³⁶²

MR. NICE: Can I just check? The reference to Milosevic, I hadn't ...

[Prosecution confer]

MR. NICE: Different conscientious ears pick up different things but I'm not going to challenge that what Your Honours heard may have been different qualities of sound,, and that would also need explaining. So perhaps should I ask the question or would Your Honour prefer to?

JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Lituchy, one of two possibilities is that there was no reference to either government or President Milosevic, and the other is that there is a reference to Milosevic, all of which mistranslated as standing by the government. Can you explain why those changes would have been made, either of them?

A. No, I can't, but if it does say they're supporting President Milosevic, that is in essence the same thing as supporting the government in this regard. In this case, anyway.

MR. NICE: With Your Honours' leave, I'll move on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now if we look at page 128, and to remind everybody this is the meeting in the basement of the hotel with people sat on a table and, as you've told us, lots of people there -- or not lots of people, other people there. Last line on page 128, and it shouldn't go on the overhead protector, sorry, take it away. The questioner asks how many people were ³⁷³⁶³ forced out by the KLA, and an answer is given of 150.000 Albanians. But in fact if one listens to the tape, somebody in the group of others volunteered the number. Isn't that right? And then maybe the person being interviewed gave it himself.

A. Mr. Nice, I think the correct thing to do is look at the tape. If you want -- if you want to get to the truth, that's what you have to do and that's why I brought the tapes.

Q. Remember I asked you questions about the advantages of interviewing people singly and you explained the advantage of having people in -- other people there? You were there.

A. Yes, that's true.

Q. Was the rigor of the interview process such that if somebody from the crowd, as it were, or from the other people there, said 150.000, the person being interviewed would say, okay, 150.000. Is that actually what was going on?

A. No, no. This -- this would be a mistake from the transcription from the tape, if that is indeed a mistake.

Q. You understand the suggestion.

A. Yes.

Q. The suggestion is that this information is volunteered by someone else and it's then perhaps picked up by the person being interviewed, put in the answer, but of course it doesn't come from him, it comes from the crowd. Is that the rigor of your interviewing process made real?

A. No, no. You're conflating what happened in the transcription with the process of the interview, which is -- which is really a distortion. ³⁷³⁶⁴ You're distorting -- you're distorting the truth. That's not what happened. I did not -- I did not say this is -- this is the answer. Someone in the crowd says something, that's the answer. This is something that happened from -- this is why we have the videotape here in this courtroom.

Q. Let's go on to page 132. It is Albanian number 2. And halfway down the page again: "Lituchy: Were you threatened by anyone in Kosovo? "Ismali: Yes, because I supported --" says Yugoslavia -- "and I opposed secession." Again I'm going to suggest to you that the reference to secession is simply not there on the sound track. Do you allow for the possibility that whoever is responsible for the transcript has been adding little answers about secession, opposition to secession, regularly?

A. Do I allow that -- about something that I -- some hypothesis. I guess I have to allow for a hypothesis, yes.

Q. No, you're in a slightly better position than a hypothesis. It's your tape, you've listened to it, and you speak Serbian. So tell us, because we're going to eventually have a transcript, do you allow for the possibility that in the overall process for which you are responsible references to secession were added to what was said by witnesses -- not witnesses --

A. Do I allow for that possibility? It's -- if it's -- if that's what happened, I guess I have to allow for it. I mean, you're -- you're asking me questions about -- the answers to which I'm not sure.

Q. Two more of these and then I think I'm done on this topic. When we come to page 138, we're on Witness number -- not witness, Albanian ³⁷³⁶⁵ number 3. Perhaps we ought to look at -- perhaps you could look at page 130 -- 133 first, where we're still on Albanian number 2. And there's -- in the middle of the page there's a question, "Under what conditions do you think you might be able to return to Kosovo?" And the answer given is: "If our army and police return to Kosovo, we'll go the same day." Now, if the man actually said as recorded, "When it's safe to live there and work there, I'll go," can you explain why the reference to the army and the police has been added?

A. I thought he did say that, but we'll see.

Q. Page 134, towards the foot of the page, and now we are with Albanian number 3. Albanian number 3 was described as a traitor, and we know, indeed the accused confirmed it himself, that it was the word "tradesman." Can you explain how the word "traitor" could have been typed in there?

A. Yes, I can.

Q. Very well.

A. Since it was brought up last week, I thought about it and I think that what must have happened, and this again must have been a problem in the -- either in the translation during the interview or during the translation during the transcription, that the transcriber heard the word "traitor" and it was "trader" and not "traitor," and misheard, misheard. Now, that's -- that's my guess. That's my best guess since I didn't do the transcription.

Q. Let's go up three or four lines to the third line of this answer, where it says: "Until the NATO bombing, I loved and sympathised with ³⁷³⁶⁶ democracy in the United States."

A. What page is that?

Q. Same page, just three lines up. Four or five lines up. "Until the NATO bombing, I loved and sympathised with democracy ..." If the tape can only be heard -- reveals his saying, "Until recently I loved and sympathised with democracy in the United States ..." any reason why it should have been changed to "until the NATO bombing"?

A. I don't -- I don't know the answer to that question.

Q. And finally, please, page 135, still with Albanian number 3. If we look halfway down the page at this: "Do you know what torture methods the KLA use?" Albanian number 3 replies, "What more do you want? They're killing people. They killed them by strangulation and by torture." Could there be any reason for adding those words "they killed them by strangulation and by torture" when the words weren't said at all?

A. I do recall -- I do recall remembering that that was a mistake.

Q. You recall that that was a mistake?

A. Now I do because I just looked at the -- I just looked at the -- no, just the addition. I remember him saying what more do you not want that they're killing people, but I recall just -- which was listening to the tapes in the hotel last week looking at them that it was -- that that was there.

Q. You mean the mistake was there?

A. Yeah.

Q. I mean, these are very dramatic words. "Killing people by strangulation and torture." Did you really not think you owed any duty to ³⁷³⁶⁷ correct the material being presented to this court?

A. Of course I owed a duty to correct the material.

Q. Why didn't you present it?

A. I present the tapes which have the original--

Q. Oh, come, come, Mr. Lituchy. You saw the muddle we got into with the tapes. You knew that this printed document was being presented.

A. There shouldn't have been any muddle with the tapes. The tapes are in good condition. They do appear to be in much worse condition than as I brought them here.

Q. I'm going to suggest to you that this document not just for reasons of its method of preparation is an unreliable document and that your answers today show that. It's nothing like the sort of material you as an historian should be relying on, is it? It's flawed, isn't it?

A. It has flaws, but it correct -- I think it -- I think it accurately presents for the most part what these refugees had to say.

Q. Now I'm going to turn to the other shortcomings of your interview and I want to suggest to you that what you're now going to see is a proper exercise of research if viewed objectively. Do you follow me?

A. I heard you.

Q. The documents concerned are the subject of protective measures so we can't put them on the overhead projector but with the Court's leave I'll deal with this in public session because I think it's appropriate that can, and that I should. And I'm going to ask the witness to have before him two documents, one a statement of Mr. Sutch, and if he has that one first. ³⁷³⁶⁸ You would accept, wouldn't you Mr. Lituchy, that secondhand evidence, that is evidence of A saying what B said is often not as good as first-hand evidence, what B said himself?

A. Of course.

Q. So that here what you have is the witness statement of the investigator who contacted Albanian number 3. I'm not going to take you through all of it but I am going to take you to just one passage. If you look down towards the end of the first page you will see a paragraph that begins, and we don't use the name of the person, "... stated that invariably that," Albanian number 1 --

A. Sorry, which paragraph is this?

Q. It's the foot of the first page. So we're going to use code. So Albanian number 3 stated that another person was present in the interviews: "As well as plainclothes Serbian Interior Ministry police officers. He does not recall police being present at the Hotel Prague interview. He believes that he was identified as an interview subject ..." and so on.

Now, if you read those two lines together carefully, they coming from an interview conducted over the telephone with an interpreter, there is some ambiguity in there, isn't there?

A. Yes.

Q. There was presence of police officers but he doesn't recall them being present in the Hotel Prague. Would you accept that the appropriate thing to do, if possible, is go and take a statement, find out exactly what the person meant to say? ³⁷³⁶⁹

A. Well, I think that's fine, but this is not true.

Q. Very well. Let's now look at the next statement, if you would be so good, remembering again that we aren't going to identify the person at all. It's now in numbered paragraphs and as you can see from the name at the bottom --

JUDGE KWON: Can we have it?

MR. NICE: It's coming to the Chamber immediately.

Q. And you can see, incidentally, that the date of the statement was the 13th of March. You can see that it is an interview if you look at the details with the place of the interview, the interviewer, the interpreter identified. A one-to-one interview subject to the necessary presence of interpreters. And without going through all of it, the person interviewed, Albanian number 3, explains this: "On the 28th of June, 1999, the building was stormed by many Kosovo Albanians and at the same time British NATO troops entered the premises ... The situation became chaotic and I, together with --" I won't read that out -- "left with the assistance of others. That day I travelled to Belgrade where I remained until the end of August 1999," and then refers to the circumstances of return and family matters.

Paragraph 4 sets out his own employment history. Paragraph 5: "I recall taking part in many interviews during the period in Belgrade, but I am unable to remember all of them individually. The interviews concerned NATO aggression and its consequences, why Kosovo Albanians were leaving the region of Kosovo and support of the Milosevic policy on Kosovo. I do not know who the interviews were arranged by, but I was aware that they ³⁷³⁷⁰ were conducted with the approval of the Belgrade authorities probably for propaganda purposes."

Well, of course your interviews in Belgrade at that time were conducted with the approval of Belgrade authorities, weren't they?

A. Not these interviews.

Q. Weren't they?

A. No.

Q. What about the cooperation you had with the ministry?

A. Which ministry?

Q. The ministry we've been looking at.

A. The refugee -- Ministry for Refugees?

Q. Yes.

A. They did not organise these interviews, Mr. Nice. I'm sorry.

Q. Very well.

A. I'm very sorry, but this statement is not truthful. It's not accurate.

Q. Not accurate or not truthful?

A. Well, it's not accurate. I'm not -- he does say that -- he does say here in the statement, if I can get back to that --

Q. We're sticking with this statement?

A. Yes, right, right.

Q. And we're going to see exactly what he says?

A. He says: "I do not know who the interviews were arranged by but I was aware that they were conducted with the approval of the Belgrade authorities and probably for propaganda purposes." ³⁷³⁷¹

Q. You want to say that that's --

A. That -- that can't be -- that's not accurate, and I wonder whether that's actually -- if that's maybe under duress.

Q. And against whom would you like to assert duress, Mr. Lituchy?

A. I'm not asserting -- I'm not asserting anything.

Q. But you just have. You said you wonder if it's under duress.

A. I wonder if there isn't the pressure of perhaps the threat of being put out to the wolves, so to speak.

Q. By whom?

A. I don't know.

Q. Which wolves?

A. The KLA.

Q. Who would put him to the wolves?

A. I don't know.

Q. Or the KLA? This is a person interviewed for the purpose of dealing with your testimony, Mr. Lituchy.

A. And it's not accurate.

Q. No?

A. It's not truthful, as far as I can tell.

Q. Not truthful. Very well. That's the assertion you are --

A. It's not the truth, that I know.

Q. The interviews were generally conducted by Serbian journalists. Let's turn over to paragraph 6: "I recall one interview in particular sometime in July or August 1999, which took place in the basement of the Hotel Prague in Belgrade and that was conducted in the English language ³⁷³⁷² and I responded to questions in the Serbian language via a Serbian interpreter. At the same time the journalist conducted an interview also with Albanian number 1. The interviews were taken in the same room with all of us but we were responding the questions one by one." That's accurate, isn't it?

A. That is, yes. That's perfectly accurate.

Q. Deals with number 2 and the circumstances of number 1. Paragraph 9: "The interviews were taken by a male English speaking journalist at the presence of a cameraman and Serbian and English speaking interpreter. I do not remember the name of the English speaking journalist. Even if the ICTY investigator would tell me the name I am not able to confirm it as correct. Maybe I could recognise the person by face only. But I would like to stress that I did not give any other interview in Hotel Prague in Belgrade apart from this one.

"In Hotel Prague were present plainclothes and uniformed Serbian Interior Ministry police officers." Pause there. You'll probably read on to the next line and we're coming to it, but just pausing there. In the hotel there were Serb Interior Ministry police officers present; correct?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. But they were not present in the basement during the interview?

A. Uh-huh.

Q. So that clarifies, doesn't it?

A. Yes, it does; yes, it does.

Q. A proper research method, ambiguity: Clarify it by going to a better source? ^{37373 BLANK PAGE 37374}

A. I'm glad you clarified what I'm saying.

Q. And this shows the value, doesn't it, of proper research methods?

A. You came to the same conclusion I did through my methods.

Q. "I believe I was identified as an interview subject because of my ethnicity, combined with the fact that" -- I'm not going to read the last bit but you can read it.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that how he was identified?

A. He identified himself in that way.

Q. How was he actually got to the Hotel Prague?

A. You know, I don't know that answer. I know -- I know how the interview -- I know how I organised the interview but I don't know how he got to the Hotel Prague, no.

Q. So someone on your behalf, to use the modern verb derived from a noun, targeted him as a potential interviewee.

A. Targeted. No, that's not accurate. Targeted, no, that's not accurate.

Q. Paragraph 11: "I would like to say that, as with all interviews, I have responded to all questions in the manner that would have been expected from me by the Belgrade authorities ..." I'm sorry that you laugh, Mr. Lituchy. Explain, please, why it should be funny --

A. It's absurd.

Q. No, listen to the question. Why it should be funny that a refugee in the state like the Belgrade state, or the Serbian state was in Belgrade ³⁷³⁷⁵ at this time, should say something like that.

A. It's absurd when you think about the fact that this man's father was murdered by the KLA. How could -- how could -- how is it possible that he needed any compulsion to tell the truth or to speak? He was compelled by his own personal life experience.

Q. Refugees in Belgrade at this time were in a hostile environment.

A. No.

Q. Weren't they?

A. No, no. That's absolutely false. That's totally false.

Q. The government of this accused was not friendly to this type of refugee at all, was it?

A. I don't believe that's true.

Q. Don't you?

A. No, no. In fact, I think the only thing that saved his life was that he did have this government to flee to.

Q. So you feel it appropriate, when somebody interviewed about this experience sets it out, you think it appropriate to laugh, do you, at his assertion?

A. No, I was laughing at you, Mr. Nice.

Q. Let's see exactly what it was you were laughing at. Your answer was with "targeted." You said that's not accurate. I asked you paragraph 11, and I quoted from the person being interviewed, and I quoted only so far. I got down to the word "Belgrade authorities," and then I interrupted myself because you were laughing. So explain to me how, Mr. Lituchy, since you volunteered this, how you find it appropriate to ³⁷³⁷⁶ laugh at me when I read out verbatim the words of somebody interviewed last week in careful and considered circumstances about your evidence?

A. I don't -- I don't -- I don't accept this as an accurate statement, and I think it's -- I think it's a terrible distortion of what actually happened, because I was there.

Q. So you were laughing at the statement and the person being interviewed.

A. No.

Q. And not at me.

A. You're the one who said that it's the Belgrade authorities. Well, okay, you may have been reading from this statement, but I can't -- I can't accept this as being -- as being anything but some fraud.

Q. Mr. Lituchy, your bias and prejudice is such, and you revealed it, that you would laugh at a refugee.

A. No.

Q. At somebody upon who --

A. No.

Q. Very well, then let me ask you this question before we read on: You as a serious researcher, if somebody you've spoken to says something different and gives an explanation for why the account is different, do you consider it --

A. Of course.

Q. -- or do you just laugh it off?

A. No, no, no, no. This is just --

Q. Do you laugh it off, Mr. Lituchy? ³⁷³⁷⁷

A. No, no, no. That's not correct.

Q. Let's read on and get to the end of this.

A. That's not correct. That's not accurate.

Q. I'll take the same sentence again and you must feel free to respond in whatever way you think's appropriate. "I would like to say that, as with all interviews, I have responded to all questions in the manner that would have been expected from me by the Belgrade authorities - who approved the interview in the first place - and would in no way have criticised the Serbian government.

"I am always mindful during the interview, of the fact that my family remained ... even though it was now ... more importantly, I was in in Belgrade where any negative statements towards the government as well as any support for the NATO action would in my opinion --" and then he sets out the consequences for himself and/or for others. He explained in paragraph 13 that he hasn't been approached by you or, until we approached him, by anyone. He explains his willingness to testify.

MR. NICE: And Your Honours, again, this is a clarification of and indeed a slight change from the position in the Sutch statement at paragraph 14 where he deals with the question of protection. I don't need to read that out but I certainly want the Chamber to have read it. And the Chamber will see in paragraph 14, in the second to last line, there is an amplification or addition to the grounds of his position of last week.

Q. You, Mr. Lituchy, were asking questions with your colleagues sitting around you and with an unreliable interpreter in circumstances that would bring about unreliable answers from those to whom you spoke. ³⁷³⁷⁸

A. No.

Q. Everything about Albanian number 3, and indeed everything about the rest of the circumstances of this interview and the transcript show that this is an unreliable document.

A. No. That's not -- that's not correct.

Q. So that I can understand your position, you never interviewed those in Albania or Macedonia who had left Kosovo in the period either before or during the NATO bombing?

A. No, I only interviewed Roma refugees in Serbia and in Kosovo, that's all.

Q. You made one observation - this is I think my last question, or my last topic which may be two questions but no more - about those Serbs who left the Krajina, you described it in the most dramatic terms, and left for Belgrade. Are you aware that many of them were forced straight out into Kosovo without any sympathy being given to them by the Belgrade authorities?

A. I don't know that for a fact, but if -- if -- it's -- I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer to that question.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, any re-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few questions. With regard to the third Albanian.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] As we can see, he even gave some kind of a ³⁷³⁷⁹ statement.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm sorry. Mr. Nice, do you wish to exhibit these?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the question of exhibits, it's a fairly difficult one at the moment. There are two things that I would invite the Chamber at some stage to consider, and that is whether in relation to the production of whatever parts of the exhibit itself, the Chamber should consider Rule 95, which says that no evidence should be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to or could seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings. The Chamber has now heard a great deal more evidence about this exhibit, including concessions by the witness himself as to the transcript. Of course they rely on the tape itself. If the Chamber admits the exhibit in part, clearly not in whole, but if it admits it in part, I would of course apply for the statement taken to go in as an exhibit, but I'm aware of what the Chamber's practice was in relation to an earlier witness.

It's a matter that I'm seeking to resolve. I make no mystery of the fact that there's a motion or so coming your way today or, at the latest I hope, tomorrow, but I can hardly -- I can hardly consciously ask for something that I know to be inconsistent with your earlier and recent practice.

The Prosecution's position is, however, that if the exhibit goes in of the witness, then, yes, the statement would be an item we would like to be exhibited. ³⁷³⁸⁰

JUDGE KWON: The transcript has already been admitted, hasn't it?

MR. NICE: I think it probably has been, but, Your Honour, I'm quite sure that it's always possible for decisions about admissibility of documents to be changed, but that's a matter for the Court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Very well, Mr. Nice. Let's hear the re-examination, and bear in mind we're stopping at twenty past.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I'll try not to keep Mr. Lituchy until tomorrow.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice provided two documents. There's no need to omit mentioning the name. That is Sutch, Jonathan Sutch who interviewed Albanian number 3. At the bottom of page 1 - and Mr. Nice indicated this- it says -- let me skip over this that this gentleman stated that another person, another important person from Kosovo, an Albanian: "[In English] ... interviews as well as plainclothed Serbian Interior Ministry police officers." [Interpretation] So the investigator claims that this Albanian number 3 said to him very decidedly that a policeman was present during the interview.

In paragraph 10 of his statement that was quoted to you --

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... of the statement. Sutch makes it clear later that the witness says that there was no one present from the police in the Hotel Prague interview, which is the only one that matters for this purpose. The position's already clear that the witness wasn't claiming there were any police present at that stage. ³⁷³⁸¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry Mr. Bonomy. Maybe I did not understand what it says here. It states here Mr. XY stated "[In English] Mr. XYZ would be present in the interviews as well as -- as well as plainclothed Serbian Ministry of Interior police officers." [Interpretation] Full stop. I'm reading what it says here towards the end of Mr. Sutch's statement. I cannot claiming or representing anything. I'm just reading out a part of the statement. This is the very bottom of page 1 of Mr. Sutch's statement, the last paragraph.

JUDGE BONOMY: What about the next sentence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The next sentence doesn't have anything to do with any presence. "He does not recall -- [In English] police being present at the Hotel Prague interview." [Interpretation] It has to do with the following: "[In English]... that he was identified as an interview subject because of his -- of his ethnicity combined with the fact that he was --" then there is about profession. [Interpretation] So that is clear, I hope. Then in paragraph 10 of his statement, "In Hotel Prague "[In English] were present plainclothed and uniformed Serbian Interior Ministry police officers. But they were not present in the basement during the interview." [Interpretation] I have a question for Mr. Lituchy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Lituchy, on these tapes, these extensive tapes that you handed in and that were submitted here, is there any recording that depicts all the persons present in the room? Can you remember that? I, for example, cannot remember, but that's why I'm asking you. ³⁷³⁸²

A. Yes, there is. It does show -- it does show -- the camera does pan from right to left toward the end of the interview and it shows -- it doesn't pan from -- it does not pan from left to right, but it pans from right to left toward the end of the interview, showing the Romas in the left-hand corner of the room. That much I recall. It shows me as well, conducting the interview.

Q. In your opinion, what is the point of mentioning the possibility - I underline the word "possibility" - that some kind of plain clothed policeman was somewhere in a big hotel? Does that indicate any kind of police presence or the fact that in a big hotel like the Hotel Prague a person can find a policeman somewhere?

A. That's a question put to me?

Q. Yes.

A. Well --

Q. Yes. Yes. Did anybody say that to you? These are policemen in plain clothes here, did anyone say that to you?

A. No. I mean that is -- that is why it seems absurd to me, because we certainly had no knowledge of any police anywhere near. In fact, for that matter, even in the entire hotel or even out in the street. Who knows where there were policemen. Somewhere in the city, I suppose. I don't know. But not in that hotel. Not in that room, anyway.

Q. Not in that room at any rate. That is your assertion. And whether there were any policemen in the hotel, that is not what you're saying at all; is that right?

A. Right. I don't know. I mean, I -- I didn't -- I didn't see any ³⁷³⁸³ policemen walking into the hotel or walking out of the hotel. So as far as I know, we know for a fact there was no one like that in the room, so -- and I didn't see anyone going in or going out of the hotel who I could recognise as a being a policeman, so -- and the whole idea that we -- that we had policemen with us while doing this interview strikes me as being bizarre.

Q. Very well. Could you please look at paragraph 12. Now he says: "[In English] I was always mindful during the interview of the fact that my family remained in Kosovo, even though it was now under NATO/UN protection..."

A. I remember reading that, but I don't know -- oh, here it is. Okay.

Q. Paragraph 12.

A. Yes.

Q. He says that his family stayed back in Kosovo. "[In English] ... that I was in Belgrade where any negative statements towards the government as well as support for the NATO action would - in my opinion - have lead to cause me and my family serious harms." [Interpretation] Serious harms.

If his family was in Kosovo, is it possible that what he says about the NATO bombing --

A. It's illogical. It's an illogical statement. Totally illogical. Shall I explain why?

Q. Yes, yes. Please go ahead, yes.

A. He was fleeing from Kosovo, from KLA terror. So if he was fleeing ³⁷³⁸⁴ into the -- if -- if there was a possibility that the Yugoslav state was a threat to him, why would he flee from terror into the arms of the Yugoslav state for protection?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm not going to exhibit a lack of discipline. There is another trial scheduled to commence shortly. We were told to --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Can I just use one more minute, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he'll have to come back. All right. Well, one minute.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, please let's not return him. It's not that I have that much left. Just one minute.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Point 7.

A. Point 7 in the same document?

Q. Thank you. The same point 7. You were asked yesterday how come you claimed that this Albanian number 2 was killed, and this Albanian number 3 says that this person was killed in 2003 in Glodjane village, Stimlje municipality. You know that.

A. Yes.

Q. And now finally, how do you explain paragraph 14? I'm just going to read out the second part because of time constraints. "[In English] ... I say that I would prefer --" [Interpretation] he's talking about the video footage of the interview. "[In English] I would prefer it is disclosed in closed session because of safety of my family, which is ³⁷³⁸⁵ currently living in Kosovo. Otherwise, I have no objections to disclose it."

[Interpretation] So, does he insist that this be in closed session or - I'm asking you, Mr. Robinson - whether we could play this in open session so that it could be seen. I hope that Mr. Nice is not opposed to this. "[In English] Otherwise, I have no other objections to disclose..." [Interpretation] Although I think that what he says about the safety and security of his own family is reason enough. So I'm not going to insist on this, of course.

Did he deny a single word from his interview in this statement? Did he deny a single word from the interview that is a considerably long interview? Did you find any denial or anything that he refuted here?

A. He did not deny anything in his interview, and --

MR. NICE: There's no reason to ask that. He was asked about the detail of his interview. He was asked about the circumstances of the interview.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Your very last question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This Albanian number 3, was he the interviewee who gave the longest answers with political explanations, although you did not insist on such lengthy answers?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Lituchy.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Lituchy. ³⁷³⁸⁶

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to adjourn now. Tomorrow we deal with the question of the exhibits.

MR. KAY: Exhibit number for this particular tab 1 and tab 2. I don't -- tab 2 is out, but it's tab 1. I don't think we've had a number.

JUDGE KWON: We'll deal with it tomorrow.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's deal with everything tomorrow because we are very late.

MR. KAY: Okay.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn until tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.25 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of

March, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.