³⁷⁸²²

Thursday, 24 March 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes. You are to continue with your examination.

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

WITNESS: DANICA MARINKOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. Good morning, Mrs. Marinkovic.

A. Good morning.

Q. Yesterday we went through those videotapes and reviewed your report that you sent from the on-site investigation in Racak village. William Walker was in Racak on the 16th when fire was opened on you and you were unable to reach the village. You drafted the report that we quoted here after the 15th, on the 17th and 18th. Tell me, was Walker able to see everything that you saw; the trenches, the ammunition that was used, military equipment, the KLA base, everything that you found there on the 18th?

JUDGE BONOMY: My understanding was that you didn't actually see Mr. Walker there, that you learned about his presence from a newspaper report or a television report.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I saw him on TV, actually. ³⁷⁸²³ May I answer the question?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, answer the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since Walker was in Racak, I suppose that he was able to see all the things that I saw, at least the trenches, because the trenches criss-crossed the hill from every direction. I don't know from which side exactly he entered Racak, but since trenches are in many places, I suppose he saw them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you say "trenches," you mean also the military equipment, the materiel that could be seen, the casings for Chinese-made weapons, doubtlessly from the arsenal of the Republic of Albania.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're offending the rule against leading questions. Either you can conduct the examination in chief or you can't conduct it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us just derive one fact that is certain: Walker seems to have seen things that you didn't see, and you saw things that he didn't see. That's what seems to come up, and you were in the same place.

A. Well, I didn't see the things that Walker says to have seen, on television, since I tried to enter Racak with my team and fire was opened on me.

Q. You said that already. Walker was in Racak. That's one thing.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm now lost. What is it you say Mr. Walker claims to have seen that you did not see? ³⁷⁸²⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see what I saw on television and the version that Walker presented on TV, namely the ditch with the corpses and the unbelievable news that the police had committed the massacre of civilians in Racak. I didn't see that when I came for the on-site investigation. I tried to reach the spot where those corpses allegedly lay. We toured the entire village of Racak. We didn't see that spot. We didn't see any traces of blood, nothing of what Walker spoke about on television.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mrs. Marinkovic. Since we were able to see the police entering Racak on the videotape, we could see the vehicles of the Verification Mission on the hill overlooking the village, we could see the things that the Reuters cameraman filmed that morning, and we could see that there was ammunition, weapons, and all the things that you found on your tour of the village, was there any grounds for the claim that the police had massacred civilians in Racak?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. She can't answer that, Mr. Milosevic. If you are unable to conduct the examination-in-chief, I'll ask the assigned counsel to take over.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you ordered that the victims from the mosque should be transported away, that the forensic expertise should be performed. Were all these killed in Racak identified?

A. I should like the Trial Chamber to permit me to answer the ³⁷⁸²⁵ previous question and to present certain observations that I wanted to present yesterday during the viewing of the videotapes. The session ended precisely at that moment, and I wanted to say because I was on the spot --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no. I've already ruled that that question is not to be answered, and it's not a ruling that I will reconsider.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When we entered Racak and when we entered the mosque, we found 40 bodies. We entered the mosque together with the representatives of the OSCE who were with me, and with other on-site investigation team members and representatives of the press whom I allowed in to film briefly and then leave so that we could conduct our official business. All the bodies found in the mosque, all the 40 bodies were marked, according to procedure, with numbers. Our forensic expert, Mr. Dobricanin, Professor Dobricanin, viewed the bodies and tried to see if there are any traces of massacre, if there are any visible signs of massacre, and then the bodies were transported in a vehicle that was intended --

JUDGE BONOMY: The question was whether the bodies were identified.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to give you the whole story as things were done.

JUDGE BONOMY: Your task here is to answer the questions that are actually asked. I know it's a system you're not familiar with, but the system here is that the witness -- the examiner asks the questions and the witness answers what's asked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Next question, Mr. Milosevic. ³⁷⁸²⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mrs. Marinkovic, since pursuant to that procedure which you described, you transported the victims to the Institute for Forensic Medicine, tell me, were all those bodies identified?

A. Yes.

Q. Were they identified according to the rules of forensic medicine, including the taking of prints, inspection of all ID papers found on them?

A. Yes. They were identified pursuant to the law and our procedure, all the rules of investigation, and all the bodies were identified, all 40 of them. I issued an order to the SUP of Pristina to comply with my order, and part of that order was to identify all the bodies we found in the mosque.

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Marinkovic, when was it that you saw those bodies at the mosque? Could you give me the date and time.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We saw the bodies on the 18th of January, 1999, when we arrived at Racak village. It could have been 11.00, 11.30, maybe noon. The time is marked in my on-site investigation report. I cannot tell you the exact time now when we entered the mosque. There is a record of the investigation on-site dated the 14th of January. Sorry, dated --

JUDGE KWON: Up until that time --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- dated the 18th of January, and the number -- the number is 14/99.

JUDGE KWON: So up until that time you were not able to enter the village, weren't you? ³⁷⁸²⁷

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Yes?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was not allowed to go into the village. It was impossible for me to go into the village.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just let's have one thing clear with regard to Mr. Kwon's question. You entered the village on the 15th.

A. Yes. That was the first time. I explained that yesterday.

Q. And you included that in your report when you found the weapons, the ammunition, et cetera, then fire was opened upon you. The 16th you were not able to go in. On the 18th you wrote in your report what you were able to do. That was the first occasion when you could see the bodies, the 18th.

A. Yes. On my -- in my Official Note dated the 15th of January, all of that is written. I performed only one part of my on-site investigation on the 15th. I found the weapons on the 15th and then fire was opened upon us.

Q. Very well. On the 15th, when the incident happened, you started your investigation, and you finished it on the 18th.

A. Correct.

Q. In view of the circumstances you already described.

A. Yes.

Q. I asked you in this connection how the bodies were identified, and you told me all of them were identified. Now, since you have a list of ³⁷⁸²⁸ all of the identified bodies, all 40 of them, my question is: Do those names coincide with the names contained in the annex to the indictment related to Racak?

A. May I just take a copy of the indictment to compare the list? This is my list that I have, and it is already provided to the Office of the Prosecutor. I can put it on the ELMO.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters would kindly ask the accused and the witness to slow down a little. This is very important.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic and Mrs. Marinkovic, the interpreters are asking you once again to speak more slowly. That will facilitate the interpretation.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, please give us the briefest possible answer. The list that you have here on page 41, where it says Annex A, persons killed in Racak, the 15th of January, 1999, so this is a list, and does this list coincide with your list of 40 persons who ended up at the Forensic Medicine Institute on your orders?

A. As for the list that I have in terms of the identification of the bodies that were found in the mosque in Racak, and it is 40 bodies, when I compared the names to the list on page 41 of the indictment, 36 bodies match the names mentioned in my list, and the names mentioned in the indictment, that is. However, in the indictment, there are no details, only names and surnames, and in some cases the age is mentioned as well. However, in my list, there is also the date of birth, the place of birth, ³⁷⁸²⁹ the father's name, and where the said person came from. Now, what does not match in terms of my list and the list in the indictment is nine persons who are in Schedule A of the indictment. I do not have them on my list, so this is nine persons.

Q. So nine are not in the 40 that you found.

A. Yes.

Q. And they are in Schedule A in that list?

A. Yes. And four persons mentioned on my list who are identified with the other persons are not in the indictment.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell me when that list was supplied to the Office of the Prosecutor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume with the other evidence that has to do with Racak, when it was handed over to the Office of the Prosecutor, when the Office of the Prosecutor asked for this.

JUDGE BONOMY: When was that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. All 40 that were found were identified. They were fingerprinted, full identification was carried out, all their details were provided, and practically four plus nine is 13 and that is the difference between the two lists?

A. Yes.

Q. There are nine persons here who are not among the 40 who had been killed in Racak, and there are four who are not on this list but who are ³⁷⁸³⁰ on your list?

A. Yes, yes. And I wish to add something else in terms of identification, that the next of kin of the killed persons came to the Forensic Medicine Institute directly to take the bodies of their nearest and dearest. And before a kinsman would identify a body, I would compile a record, and this record would be made when the bodies were identified, and on the 10th of February, 1999, the family members of the victims were there and they signed the record stating that they took the bodies of their family members, and this is part of the documentation that has to do with what happened in the village of Racak.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like you to tell me slowly the names of the nine persons who are not on the Prosecution's Schedule A but are on your list.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The nine persons who are on the Prosecution's list but not on your list. Just tell me the names slowly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Aslani Ljuta [phoen], it says here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Aslani Ljuta, for the first one. And the second one.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Emini Ajet.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the interpreter help me with that.

THE INTERPRETER: E-m-i-n-i.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Third?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ibrahimi Hajris [phoen].

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Four. ³⁷⁸³¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ismaili Mejha [phoen].

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ismaili Muhamet [phoen].

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Six.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mustafa Ahmet.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The next one, seven.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Salihu Jashar.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Eight?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And Salihu Shurri. And another name up here, Azemi Banush [phoen]. It's the second person on the list, actually.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. And then the four -- and then you said there were four on your list but not on the Prosecution Schedule A. Give me the names of those four.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Kamberi Banush.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Kamberi Banush.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With a K. Kamberi.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Second.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Smajli Mehmet.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note the first letter is S, it starts with an S. It's just Smajli, not Ismajli.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Third.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Brahimi Ajet.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Brahimi... I'm looking for the spelling on the transcript, Ajet? ^{37832 BLANK PAGE 37833}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In some cases it's Hajet, in other cases it's Ajet, but sometimes it's with an H and sometimes without an H, but most probably it is A-j-e-t.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Number 4.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sula Sabri.

JUDGE ROBINSON: When did you first discover this discrepancy between your list and the list on the -- in Schedule A of the indictment?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now, when we were in contact and when we were preparing the Defence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you know that Western sources, starting from Walker, made it public that women, children, old men were --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, put your questions properly. Put your questions properly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, on your list are there any women; and if so, how many are there? When I say "your list," I'm referring to the list compiled by the forensic experts from our country, from Belorussia, and from Finland. Are there any women?

A. There is one woman.

Q. Can you give us her name?

A. Number 36, Mehmeti Hanamushahir.

Q. All right. So it's one woman.

A. Yes. ³⁷⁸³⁴

Q. Did you establish through your own investigation whether that woman was a member of the KLA or not?

A. In the pre-trial proceedings, on the basis of the information I received, and also after what happened in Racak, I received information and I came to know that she was one of the members of the KLA in the village of Racak, together with her three brothers and their father who was commander of the KLA staff in that area.

Q. All right. Children and old men were mentioned in the public. A German journalist, Bo Adam, testified here. He investigated Racak. He testified about this, and he said that one young boy who got killed was killed by gunfire coming from the hill on the other side of the valley. Are there any other children who were victims?

A. No. Apart from that boy, there are none. We identified the boy as being between age 12 and 13.

Q. All right. So all the others were men.

A. Yes.

Q. In your investigation, did you establish that these were members of the KLA, or were they civilians?

A. During the investigation process that I carried out on site when I carried out the on-site investigation on that day when the place was made accessible to me, and before that on the 15th when I found a large quantity of weapons, after that day we toured the entire area. We found the trenches, their headquarters. And all the material evidence that I found in the field directly as an investigating judge I entered in the official record in the presence of all other members of the investigation ³⁷⁸³⁵ team, in the presence of the OSCE monitors, who were with me all the time as we could see yesterday on the video footage, and I explained as we were going along all of this to them too.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question was whether you're able to establish that they were members of the KLA or whether they were civilians. Were you able to establish that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I managed to establish that they were members of a terrorist gang that was operating in Racak. They were not civilians. That is why I mentioned all the things I did in terms of material evidence, and also later on, before the police started their planned action, there was knowledge that Racak was a major stronghold of terrorists in the area. I received information immediately on the 15th about that from the policeman. And if you wish, I can show you my handwritten note that I wrote on that day, that very day, the 15th, when I first got there. This is from my own notebook, everything that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just give us concisely the bases for your conclusion that they were members of the KLA, the terrorist group.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of the information collected in the pre-trial proceedings by the authorised personnel of SUP Urosevac and before the action took place in Racak and after that. In that period, in October and September 1998, the terrorists kidnapped and abducted both Serbs and Albanians. They were killing policemen, and immediate grounds why the police took action was the fact that in the village of Slilovo [phoen] on the 10th of January the police vehicle was shot at, a police vehicle from the police station of Stimlje was shot at, ³⁷⁸³⁶ and a policeman was killed --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the name. The witness is again speaking extremely fast.

JUDGE KWON: You are speaking very fast, but are you reading from something, Mrs. Marinkovic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My notes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're reading from a note made when?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 15th of January, 1999. On the day when I first entered Racak.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, okay. Well, I had asked you for the bases for your conclusion that the men were members of the KLA. So far you have been telling me that you had information that the KLA were active in the area a few days prior to the Racak incident. Any more specific bases for concluding that they were members of the KLA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Concrete evidence on site. When I carried out the on-site investigation, I found weapons, I found their headquarters where there were uniforms, and I found lists, duty rosters of different shifts of their members who were on duty, and in the house where their headquarters where was the kitchen where they got their food. Also, there was a warehouse where there was a large quantity of food. Then trenches that criss-crossed the area, and there was a countless number of casings of ammunition from automatic weapons, and also a bunker where they forgot a machine-gun nest and they were operating from there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mean they forgot the tripod? ³⁷⁸³⁷

A. Yes. Also, I can tell you that the 40 bodies we found in the mosque were dressed in civilian clothes. However, some men wore grey woolen military trousers. Most of them had military boots. They had identical leather belts, and we found that some of them had other layers of clothing, two or three underneath the clothes they were wearing. Everything I found there on site and after the post-mortem was carried out and after we collected all information or, rather, after authorised personnel collected all information, and when this written -- this information was submitted in written form, all of this indicated that it was terrorists who were in the village of Racak, not civilians. Secondly, three days before, I tried and when I succeeded on the fourth day to enter Racak, I was shot at all the time, and the members of my team were shot at too. Fire was directed at us from all sides, even on the 18th. As the on-site investigation was coming to an end, I was shot at, the members of the team were shot at, the members of the OSCE were shot at, and we were forced to seek shelter and run. We were followed by gunfire as we were leaving Racak. Even the vehicle where I was was hit, and other members of the investigation team were there too. Fortunately, it was an armoured vehicle, so I managed to survive.

JUDGE KWON: I have one more question. Two, actually. You said you found a duty roster. Do the names in that match with the list, with the names you have for post-mortem?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, believe me, I just can't remember now. Yesterday, when we looked at the footage, I heard them read out the names of the people who were on the list, but I really can't say ³⁷⁸³⁸ now. I can't remember. It was a long time ago. But the lists were confiscated and as evidence they are in the set of files linked to Racak. So you can compare them.

JUDGE KWON: And my last question: So where do you think we could find that duty roster that you found at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this: After we completed the investigation, I handed over the complete set of evidence and files to the authorised public prosecutor in Pristina. So the case went to him and the case should be located in the district court in Pristina, which at the moment we don't have access to. Perhaps you yourselves could come by that -- those files. That's as far as I know, because when I completed my investigation and when I received the findings, analyses and conclusions of the post-mortems, I handed over all the files and records there, and I have an Official Note saying I did that.

On the 1st of March, 1999, it says, I gave to the official public prosecutor of the district court in Pristina, I gave all this material, and the number is 3/14/99 of that file.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Thank you. And as for the boy whom Mr. Milosevic referred to whose name I remember as Beqiri Halim, do you have any idea yourself how the boy was killed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mrs. Marinkovic, do you remember how many names you saw on the duty roster and what period was covered in relation to ³⁷⁸³⁹ their duty?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I can remember now - because I did see the lists and there was the typewriter they type wrote the lists on - according to the duty roster there were shifts, one shift in the morning from morning until 3.00 p.m., then from 3.00 to 5.00 p.m. They worked in three shifts and what I remember is that on one of the lists it said that for that particular day two men who were supposed to be on duty were sick and were relieved of duty, and they had their small clinic in Racak's infirmary where they would go if they were sick and then they would be relieved of duty.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, perhaps I could help with that question. Yesterday, I heard a voice when we saw the footage that was played when they were looking at the material at the headquarters, I heard a voice mention at the base, I heard a date the 24th of December, I think, and another day in December. So that was several weeks prior to the event, the dates that you could hear on the tape that was played yesterday. There was a voice mentioning two dates.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I also heard the voice of the interpreter together with my voice when we played that footage.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mrs. Marinkovic, you said that as of the 1st of March, you passed the papers in the case or your report on the case to the prosecutor. What is the nature of the case? ³⁷⁸⁴⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since the case is under a Kri number, that was 14/99, which is a book of records where we keep all the reports on the investigation, on-site investigation conducted by the investigating authorised judge. So it is linked to the scene of crime investigations, and all the evidence that is amassed and collected is placed in one file and handed over to the prosecutor. That means that everything I did as the investigating judge -- I completed my work on the investigation. Everything I have collected, including my own -- what I saw on the spot, all the research I did, my orders for the post-mortems to be carried out, my order for identification to be carried out, that complete set of material I handed over to the authorised prosecutor to assess and see whether there was good cause to take the matter further or to seek additional explanations, reports, and so on. So it is up to him to ask the SUP to carry on the investigation on the spot if he feels he needs to have more material and evidence, or he can ask me to carry on additional investigation if he deems necessary.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, a practical question for you now. During the investigation and the expertise and in keeping with the provisions of crime investigation for individual cases, did you check out and investigate whether the individuals who were the subject of forensic investigations used firearms, for example?

A. Yes. In the order I issued giving instructions and guidelines to the crime investigation service of the SUP in Pristina, what steps they ³⁷⁸⁴¹ should take, one of my orders includes this, and I think you have my order in the file.

Q. All right. Just give me a brief answer now, please.

A. From the bodies that were found in the mosque, paraffin gloves were taken in order to establish the gunpowder traces on their hands.

Q. And how many of the people that were examined on the basis of that paraffin-glove test was it established had actually fired from a firearm?

A. This was established on 37 of the bodies. There were gunpowder traces which showed that they had come into contact with firearms.

Q. Thank you. Mrs. Marinkovic, the police organs, prior to the event of the 15th of January, did they have data and information about Racak and the surrounding villages, Malopoljce, Petrovo Selo, Rance, the surrounding villages and hamlets, that general area, that they represent a firm stronghold of the terrorists? Did they have information of that kind?

A. Yes.

Q. And on the basis of what can you say that? What grounds do you have for claiming that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer? Can I answer?

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have been through that already, Mr. Milosevic. You're going over the same ground.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, please, let's take a look at a few tabs, Mrs. Marinkovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And, gentlemen, I'd like to draw ³⁷⁸⁴² your attention that you have all this material. And the English text is far more legible than my Serbian version because I have photocopies which are fairly poor photocopies, illegible, but nonetheless, you can read them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 46, we have a piece of information which is set out on four pages, and that was compiled by authorised persons. They are listed at the end. And this is what that report says. It is dated the 20th of January, 1999, and at the beginning of the report notice taken of the facts that in June 1998, in the village of Racak, in the mosque, a meeting of members of the so-called KLA was held, and then it says who led the meeting. That's not important for us at the moment. And then it talks about the establishment of subheadquarters for Racak, for the village of Petrovo, Ljuzak Mahala, and Malopoljce. And then it goes on to explain where the subheadquarters for the village of Racak is located, substaffs, where they were put up, located. It goes on to explain that for a brief period of time Afet Bilali was appointed or was the acting commander of the staff or substaff. And it also says who dealt with the rear and logistics; Lutfi Bilali, his brother Qerim, Ameti, and so on -- well, my question is this: In view of the fact that on the one but last page, under number 3, or page number 3, there is a long list of all the people who were there. Can we see from this that a number of people were from the village of Racak? Some of them were from Racak, others were from Malopoljce, for example, and the Kacanik area, Lipjan area, Suva Reka, and so on. ^{37843 BLANK PAGE 37844}

A. May I be of assistance here with respect to this report? On page 2, for example, it says that they collected money.

Q. Well, all right, but I'm not interested in that in particular. But since you mentioned paragraph 2, it says: "On the basis of operative knowledge, we have information that in the village of Racak there were over 100 members of the KLA." That's what it says here. So was that the information that you received? It says, "Based on operative information, we have details..." et cetera.

A. And the penultimate paragraph talks about how they armed themselves and said they had hand grenades, snipers, automatic rifles, and so on.

JUDGE KWON: The accused just said that this is the information received. Is it right you received? Could you tell me, first of all, what this document is about. Is this the information you received at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this: This report was compiled by the authorised persons of the SUP in Urosevac. It is under number 6/99, and the date is the 20th of January, 1999. This information or report is contained in the bulletin of the Urosevac SUP. It is a bulletin that they put out on a daily basis, including all information of this kind, and they send on to the prosecutor's office and the court. So every day we would receive information, a bulletin, a report of what they were doing in the field, et cetera.

JUDGE KWON: So this was written or filed after the Racak incident? ³⁷⁸⁴⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But it also includes what happened the previous day, and this was done as of July --

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE INTERPRETER: The events from June on, actually, interpreter's correction.

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, this was something that was written after the Racak massacre, referring to events beforehand; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The events were ones that happened before.

JUDGE BONOMY: And these events must have been recorded in other documents; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the bulletins, the official bulletins of the SUP.

JUDGE BONOMY: And we don't have the bulletins.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It all remained over there. It's all over there.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well.

A. May I be allowed to add something, give an additional explanation? Linked to all this, the events that took place before and after Racak, official reports were filed by the officials, authorised persons, and those criminal reports were sent on to the public prosecutor, for kidnappings, killings, abductions, and so on. Official criminal reports were filed, and the SUP went out onto the scene of the crime and wrote ³⁷⁸⁴⁶ minutes of what was found.

Now, I was prevented, for security reasons, from going to the scene, so I authorised official persons to conduct an on-site investigation instead of me, and I am authorised by the law to do so. So in certain criminal reports that were sent on to the public prosecutor, for instance, in the criminal report it states that the investigating judge was informed that an on-scene investigation that was carried out, that such-and-such was established, and then all those files were sent to the prosecutor, and there are a large number of criminal reports for that period of time for all crimes committed by the terrorists during that period of time where legal proceedings were initiated as a result.

Q. Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic. Now, if we see here on page 3, for example, paragraph 2, the month of December 1998 and January 1999 says: "Members of the so-called KLA in the village of Racak dug trenches and bunkers above the village of Racak in the direction of the village of Petrovo, Rance and towards the main Stimlje-Crnoljevo road," et cetera, et cetera. When you came on the scene, you saw the bunkers, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. You saw the trenches that were dug, did you not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. So if we were to compare what it says here in this report, and every report refers to the time before the -- the incident that happened before the report was compiled, is that right?

A. Yes?

Q. So everything that happened you were able to see? ³⁷⁸⁴⁷

A. Yes. And I walked through the trenches. I saw them and walked through them.

Q. You talked about -- mention is made of the substaff. You were in the staff, were you not?

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So are you going to accept this as an exhibit? Is this going to be exhibited, Mr. Robinson? This is an official report by the official body.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, can I make one observation on the admissibility of this as a document. It's obviously not the witness's document, not her report. The person preparing the report has relied on sources of information which are themselves, it would appear, sometimes perhaps secondhand and we don't have those original sources of information so it's a very difficult document for us to deal with. The question for the Chamber whether it's sufficiently satisfied that it can be of some evidential value, but this remove of hearsay and information might take it outside that category. It's up to the Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Well, it's an official document that passed through her hands at the time, so therefore it's --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Albeit after the event, but we'll admit it. It goes to weight. And there's an earlier document that the witness used, her own list of the -- of the bodies that she found, which should be admitted. ³⁷⁸⁴⁸

JUDGE KWON: It's not in the binder.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not in the binder. Could you get that from the witness, Court Deputy.

JUDGE KWON: If the accused wishes to exhibit it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is just a document showing that the indictment does not operate with accurate facts 16 years after the event -- six years after the event.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You may admit it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's admitted.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A copy.

THE REGISTRAR: Document will be numbered Exhibit D291.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But make a copy and return it to the witness.

MR. KAY: I don't think we dealt with tabs 45, yesterday, did we, to formally make them exhibits?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I remind you that you must ensure that the exhibits that you wish to have tendered, you must bring them to our attention. 45 was the -- what was 45?

MR. KAY: The video clips.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 45 are exclusively CDs, video footage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit those.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you please look now at tab 47. It contains a statement of ³⁷⁸⁴⁹ an ethnic Albanian by the name of Shemsi Emini, signed by him. The statement was given on the 11th of February, 1999. All his personal details are on record here. He's of Yugoslav identification, personal identification number, the number of his ID. I won't dwell on that. He says that in June 1998, a meeting was held in Racak, attended by the villagers, and the meeting was chaired --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just lay the foundation. You have been doing this long enough now to know. Don't just move to the document. Lay the foundation for her to deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I laid the foundation for all these statements because I asked her already to name the grounds for stating that Racak, Malopoljce, Rance and this narrower area of Racak was a major stronghold of the KLA, and the witness answered based on reports collected, information and evidence. I'm asking her now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Among the other information that was available to you, did you have this statement given by Shemsi Emini? Just yes or no.

A. Yes.

Q. Does this statement coincide in terms of information with the previous report we saw in tab 46?

A. Yes.

Q. In the passage -- the paragraph not far from the bottom --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, what is more important to the Judges is not the content of the document at this moment. How was this statement taken? Was this document part of the official record, and how was this ³⁷⁸⁵⁰ document taken? Those are more important issues. That's what the Presiding Judge emphasised: Just lay the foundation of this document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, is this statement part of the official record that includes everything, the entire evidence you collected during your investigation in Racak?

A. Yes. This is a statement taken by authorised personnel, authorised officers.

Q. That's my separate question. Who took the statement? Were they authorised officers?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the statement taken in the proper form in which authorised officers are required to take statements from citizens?

A. Yes.

Q. I will read out to you the end of this large passage --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... just to make an observation without repeating myself if similar statements are going to be dealt with. I've made my position, I think, clear in earlier discussion about statements of this kind. I've made observations about whether statements of this kind should be adduced if at all through the process of 92 bis or 89(F), and I have sought to draw similarities between the material contained in this kind of document and the material that was excluded when it was sought to summarise evidence of this kind or broadly similar kind through the evidence of Barney Kelly. So my objections to ³⁷⁸⁵¹ this document are simply a repetition of arguments I've made before, but I announce them. And if the document is admitted in, I shan't stand up to repeat my objection in respect to any similar ones.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We understand that. We know this is an official document.

JUDGE KWON: What is the exhibit number the Prosecution just tendered? I'll find out. Give me a -- Exhibit 837 and 838. Those are witness statements. Some of them are under seal, but the Prosecution didn't tender it under 89(F) or 92 bis, Mr. Nice. Mr. Nice, I don't see a point you are emphasising the regime of 89(F) or 92 bis at this stage. The Prosecution itself is not tendering the statements under those regimes now.

MR. NICE: Not now it isn't, no. In fact, the reference to 89(F) and 92 bis I think was raised by, initially in this part of our discussion on procedures, by Your Honour in relation to I think it was statements that were tendered or proposed to be tendered by either Andric or -- I think it was by Andric, and the contemplation then was that this was, as it were, an exhaustive process for the tendering of documents that were in this general form and prepared for court purposes, but I think the debate has moved on since then and indeed the Chamber has admitted two documents produced by the Prosecution, or one document in statement form, maybe the one Your Honour's referring to, since that debate started. But, Your Honour, the position remains that the Prosecution does not accept that all statements -- we understand the rule about hearsay, but statements of this kind which come from witnesses we aren't able to ³⁷⁸⁵² cross-examine, if the witnesses are available and if there's no other foundation laid for why they should be produced in this way, we would respectfully argue should not be admitted in this format but I'm not going to repeat the arguments that we've set out here and indeed elsewhere.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson. The witness we have here is an investigating judge, the investigating judge who performed the investigation in Racak. This document is part of the official record reflecting the work of the investigating judge, a part of the official record of the investigation she performed, and such official notes and reports and statements are numerous. The information in them matches mutually and the investigating judge is sitting right across from you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I think you have put it very well. Continue, yes.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, at the end of this only long passage, it says: "... I saw the following people wearing uniforms with KLA insignia and armed with automatic rifles: Nuhi Jakupi, who was among the first to join the KLA; Rifat Imeri; Idriz Mehmeti; Mehmet Agusi..." and so on and so forth. He keeps enumerating people that he had seen. And then he says, "The commander of the Racak substaff was Afet Bilali, also known as Copa ..." He also says that Sadik Mujota was also in Racak. This Sadik Mujota which he says was accompanied with his sons, was ³⁷⁸⁵³ Sadik Mujota also one of the prominent members of this terrorist organisation, according to your information?

A. Yes. Many reports collected by authorised officers confirmed this, corroborate this.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like the tab 47 exhibited, please, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it's admitted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could you now look at tab 48.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, this statement under tab 48, is it part of the official documentation you reviewed? It's a statement given by Serif Sadiki.

A. Yes.

Q. Was it possible to establish -- is it possible to establish that this statement was given on the 12th of January, three days before the Racak incident?

A. Yes.

Q. This statement, was it also taken by authorised office --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I don't follow this. I'm lost. How and why was the investigation on already on 12th of January? ^{37854 BLANK PAGE 37855} On what case?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mentioned to you earlier in my testimony that for a while, starting with September, October 1998, in Racak, in the area surrounding Racak, there were abductions, kidnappings, killings, victimising Serbs, Albanians, the Roma. There were attacks on police patrols causing deaths of policemen. Houses of villagers who refused to join the KLA were torched. And in connection with all those terrorists activities, the police continuously collected operative information on the ground. This information indicated that Racak was a major stronghold of the terrorist gang called the KLA. I have a large file of material that I was not able to bring here, but the police in Urosevac has many, many case files dealing with all these cases, because every single case was accompanied by a criminal report submitted to the district public prosecutor. And I can add, as you will see from the Official Notes that follow, the names mentioned in those statements taken from citizens in the pre-criminal proceedings match with the names of killed persons on the list that I have, which indicates, seems to indicate that they were members of the terrorist gangs.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have them here with me.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm bearing in mind that all these documents that I am quoting can be viewed easily later once they are exhibited, and we can compare the names. Some were killed in battle, some fled. Some were perhaps involved in other assignments at the time of the incident. But all these statements indicate the presence of ³⁷⁸⁵⁶ the terrorist gang in Racak and the surrounding villages. Since you have information about all that was going on in 1998, including the large number of terrorist attacks, let me remind you that many more Albanians than Serbs were killed as a result of terrorist acts in 1998. And you heard the testimony of Mr. Hartwig and saw his reports --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Please proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So this statement related to Racak that was given on the 12th of January, 1999, he mentions that: "In Racak I saw Smail Musliu and Nebi Smail and Shyqeri Smaili wearing KLA uniforms before the house of Bilali Lutfi, where humanitarian aid was collected." And he said, "I heard recently that two members of the KLA had been wounded on the hill above the old peoples home in Racak village. One of them from the Kacanik area are being treated at the -- is being treated at the outpatients clinic." And then he says, "I'm not certain, but I think there are between 50 and 100 members of the KLA in Racak village."

Ms. Marinkovic, does this piece of information fit with the other information collected by authorised officers? This is the statement given by Sadiki Serif.

A. I agree. Especially it fits with the reports drafted by the police in Urosevac dated the 20th of January, 1999.

Q. Is it precisely based on such information collected on the ground that official persons, in this case policemen of Urosevac, make their reports? ³⁷⁸⁵⁷

A. Yes.

Q. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, may this tab as well, 48, be exhibited.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 49, there is an Official Note which was compiled on the 28th of January, 1999. Was that Official Note part of the records that you worked on in connection with the investigation of Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this the customary way of writing official notes? It says Official Note, here, number 36/1999, Urosevac, "Compiled on the 28th of January, 1999, with regard to information about the death of Racak villagers who were members of the so-called KLA."

A. Yes.

Q. And then here it says further on: "Through friendly information channels we learned that the following three members of the so-called KLA were killed in the clash with Siptar terrorists in Racak village, Stimlje municipality in mid-January this year: Sharamet Syla, Kadri Syla, and Shyqeri Syla."

A. Yes.

Q. And then it says: "The Official Note is hereby forwarded for further processing."

What does this -- what does this mean "through operative ³⁷⁸⁵⁸ channels," "information channels," "friendly information channels"? What does that mean in an Official Note of the Secretariat of the Interior and when such two officials sign a note?

A. "Operative channels" means that authorised personnel spoke to a person whose identity they are protecting because he is an informant of theirs and therefore, due to security reasons, his name cannot be mentioned.

Q. Did you look at the names mentioned here, the names of the killed persons referred to in this note? Are they on the list or not?

A. Yes. These three persons mentioned in this Official Note, when compared to the list of identified corpses that appeared in Racak, there is Syla Shyqeri and Syla Sharamet.

Q. The third person does not appear there?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. That is sufficient explanation.

A. As for my list, if you want to have a look at it, it is corpse number 18, Syla Sharamet, and corpse number 20, Syla Shyqeri.

Q. According to what it says in this Official Note, two out of the three mentioned persons coincide with that -- with persons on that list of 40.

A. Yes.

Q. One person's name cannot be found on that list.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please exhibit tab 49. ³⁷⁸⁵⁹

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before that is done, I think this may be the first time, or my recollection of the first time that the Chamber has been confronted with information that is expressly based on intelligence where the source of the intelligence can't be given. That's my understanding of what the witness is saying. And that may or may not be a new factor that the Chamber would want to consider before admitting the document.

Of course, the only pursuit that the Prosecution could make would be of the preparer of the document, if at all, it appearing that providing the person who prepares the document sticks with the line advanced by the witness, we won't be able to get back to the source of information.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We've dealt with that before, and what we have said is that it's a matter that you can take up in cross-examination and eventually it will be for the Chamber to determine what weight to attach to the evidence, but we don't think it invalidates the admissibility.

MR. NICE: I may be wrong in my recollection, but the characteristic of this that may be different is that this is actually relying on information that is expressly confidential or secret. It would be like, I suppose, a Prosecution witness coming along and saying he or she had been provided by the intelligence services of country X or Y with information to the following effect. I don't believe that's happened before in this trial. I mean, it's a long time and sometimes one forgets things, but I don't believe we've ever reached that position before. And many -- in many jurisdictions it would be regarded as unusual. But I don't want it take any more time. That's my additional point on this ³⁷⁸⁶⁰ document.

JUDGE BONOMY: The unusual nature of it would be because in a domestic jurisdiction the prosecutor might oppose its admission and there might be national security grounds for doing so, but here we have a situation where a party's tendering it and you don't have a basis for opposing it on that sort of ground.

Now, this document's offered as a piece of material which was in the hand of the witness in the course of her investigation, and for that reason alone it must be admissible. The question will have to be addressed later, whether it could be viewed as evidence supportive of the truth of its contents. That's quite a separate issue, I think, on which you will no doubt address us later, but it seems to me you couldn't resist its exhibition on the basis that its material in her hands at the time.

MR. NICE: If the -- if evidence of the witness's opinion is in itself of value to the Chamber, as opposed to the accuracy of opinion, that is the evidence -- if evidence of what her opinion was is of value to the Chamber, then I can see that supporting material can have independent admissibility criteria on that ground alone, but once we move beyond the fact of what her opinion was to its accuracy, then one could object to the admissibility of supporting material that is simply not accessible to us in any way for examination and cross-examination. That's all.

JUDGE BONOMY: I've been looking, Mr. Nice, at some of the situations presented by the Prosecution in the course of its case, and we even get, on occasions, to the point of what was the rumour or what was the word on the street, more or less, and that's come in as evidence, ³⁷⁸⁶¹ which we will have to at some stage adjudicate upon. We will have to decide whether it has got any weight at all. Probably in that case it hasn't got any, but it's there and it was led in answer to specific -- indeed, on one occasion I saw, it was followed up. So this is no different in character, I would suggest, from some of the material that was given orally in the course of the Prosecution evidence. Just because it comes in writing it doesn't seem to me that it therefore has a different status.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I accept entirely there's been a wide range of evidence given. I repeat my observation that I think this is the first time - I may be wrong - the first time that we've had material that is expressly protected on grounds of this kind of secrecy, but that's all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for the submissions, Mr. Nice. Yes, we'll admit it.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's on again now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in your investigation, did you have in your hands this statement which is provided in tab 50, Shaban Rama's statement on the 16th of January, 1999? All his details were taken. Did you have this statement in your hands?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it part of the records that you compiled, the evidence that you compiled in relation to Racak?

A. Yes. ³⁷⁸⁶²

Q. Shaban Rama says that in KLA uniforms recently and with PU insignia. What is this PU insignia? Did you manage to establish that during your investigation?

A. This is insignia worn by what they call their special police.

Q. All right. So this is a terrorist organisation, the KLA, which has some kind of a special group, too, bearing PU insignia.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what this abbreviation is in Albanian, this PU?

A. P, I assume, is police.

Q. But what about the U?

A. I don't know.

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, Mr. Milosevic. Is Jasovic, Sparavalo, or Vujnovic, those persons who seem to have taken this document, this statement, are they from part of your team at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are authorised officers of the Urosevac SUP but at the time when I was carrying out the on-site investigation they were not present.

JUDGE KWON: Where did they take this statement?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, usually either on the ground or in the office. A citizen would come and report something, and if the citizen wants to be interviewed by the official, then the statement is taken in the official's office.

JUDGE KWON: This says that this statement was taken on 16th of January, when you were shot at at the Racak village.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. ³⁷⁸⁶³

JUDGE KWON: So this is done apart from your on-site investigation. Am I right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, I assume that that's it, because as for my work in relation to Racak, some witnesses, inhabitants of Racak stated that they had left the village of Racak before the action had started. So the village was empty. Villagers who were not members of the KLA were simply not there, people who did not want to take part in any kind of action. So they moved either to Stimlje or to Urosevac to stay with relatives, with their families. I assume that this is one such witness.

JUDGE KWON: And I noticed most of the questions put to these witnesses are who were those who were -- who are the KLA members. So the main purpose of this investigation is to identify the members of the KLA. Am I right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. To identify them and to establish the fact that in Racak there was a major terrorist stronghold.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon --

JUDGE KWON: You may proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you just bear this explanation in mind: In all those years, starting from 1992, as you can see from the records, the police tried to establish who members of the KLA were, and some were arrested on those grounds.

JUDGE KWON: You can put the question to the witness instead of commenting yourself.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. ³⁷⁸⁶⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just wait a minute, please.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the first 20-minute break. We will adjourn.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, please continue.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, we're talking about this critical period of time, 1998, 1997, further back, but for the most part in 1998. Were most of the KLA killings made from ambush?

A. Yes.

Q. Were some of the killings in the area that you're talking about, Racak, Malopoljce, Rance, committed in that way before the incident in Racak that we're talking about? And I'm referring to the area of the SUP of Urosevac.

A. Yes.

Q. So on the basis of instructions issued to the police by the investigating trial judge, was the task of the police to uncover who members of the KLA were and it was their activities that led to such a large number of victims?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I'm looking at tab 50, the statement of Shaban Rama. Was that part of that endeavour to uncover members of the KLA who were committing ^{37865 BLANK PAGE 37866} these crimes?

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Robinson, could you admit into evidence the statement contained in tab 50.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would just like to add something. There are two names that are mentioned in this statement, that these persons were killed on the 15th of January, 1998, by terrorists of the KLA. I have them on the list of the 40 persons, and the names are Bilali Lutfi and Emini Ajet.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure about the names because it was very fast.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. On the 15th of January, during armed --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic and the witness, Judge Marinkovic, you're overlapping. The interpreters are asking you once again to slow down.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I asked to have this statement admitted into evidence. It is part --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- of the records on which Judge Marinkovic worked. Thank you.

MR. NICE: It's my mistake probably, but I managed to find on the document one of the names that she's referring to as being a member of the ³⁷⁸⁶⁷ KLA. That's towards the bottom in the block of text.

JUDGE KWON: Bilali Lutfi.

MR. NICE: That's that one, but the other one, it must be my mistake, but --

JUDGE KWON: I'm trying too.

MR. NICE: I obviously need to know this material in some degree of detail if I'm to prepare sensibly to cross-examine, and obviously if I'm able to establish that these people were members of the KLA I shall make it clear.

JUDGE BONOMY: The other one is on the schedule and is one of those who the witness said was common to both her inquiry and --

MR. NICE: Yes, it's just I haven't found the name. The other one is --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes that the other name is Hacif Hisenaj.

MR. NICE: I've got it, thank you very much.

JUDGE KWON: But what I heard was Ajet Emini, so that --

MR. NICE: So did I, so I was confused.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter said at that point that it was extremely fast and it was very hard to keep up, and the other members of the team managed to find it. Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: I understand that. Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admit it.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I see that it's on now. I see the ³⁷⁸⁶⁸ light on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you know the name of Dzeljadin Muhadini, an Albanian; and if so, how do you know the name?

A. Yes, I know the name because he also made a statement in pre-trial proceedings to authorised personnel on the 17th of January, 1999.

Q. That the statement that you had in your own proceedings and which is contained in tab 51? Muhadini Dzeljadin, on the 17th of January, 1999.

A. Yes.

Q. In this statement, he claims that he is a permanent resident of the hamlet of Cesta in the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, and he says: "Since two months ago, my family and I have been temporarily residing at the house of Muhamet Rexhaj, a friend of mine, in Stimlje." He left Racak, therefore, two months prior to what happened. The villagers of Racak, they left Racak. Is that what you established? And in Racak there weren't any residents, any villagers at the time of the event?

A. Yes. As I mentioned yesterday, when I entered the village of Racak, there was not a single civilian there that I found. It was abandoned and empty, the village.

Q. In this statement, he mentions the following members of the KLA who were killed in Racak on the 15th of January: Sadik Mujota, with his daughter, whose name he does not know; Shaqa Shaqiri, from the village of Racak. He's referring to the ones he saw in camouflage uniform with KLA insignia; Enver Rashiti from the village of Racak, a member of the KLA in ³⁷⁸⁶⁹ the village of Laniste. Kadri Ismajli from the village of Racak. Lutfi Bilali from the village of Racak, and Nijazi Zymberi from the village of Racak. And then he mentions an individual whose first and last name he does not know. He knows that he is from the area of Kacanik and a member of the KLA. He was killed 200 metres away from the KLA substaff in the village of Racak. And then the commander of the substaff for the village of Racak, Afet Bilali, was seriously wounded and taken to a place unknown to him for further medical treatment.

Is that the information that you had in mind during the course of the investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. He says: "While I lived in the village of Racak, security at the village of Cesta--" "While I was living in the village of Racak," and he says he lived in the hamlet of Cesta, "dressed in uniforms with KLA insignia," the following were involved and armed with infantry weapons, Sadik Mujota, Mehmet Mustafa, Shaqa Shaqiri, and the brothers Idriz and Bajram Mehmeti and son of Mehmet Agushi. He also mentioned a piece of information that we saw in former statements. He says: "A month ago, two KLA members were wounded," and he gives their names, and the same name of the doctor who treated them.

Now, did you compare these statements and all the facts contained in them and deal with all that during your investigation into Racak?

A. Yes. And he mentioned two individuals here as having been killed in the village of Racak as members of the KLA, and they are Bilali Lutfi and Zymberi Nijazi. ³⁷⁸⁷⁰

Q. And do they coincide with the names on your lists?

A. Yes.

Q. I mean the list of persons who were -- or corpses taken from the mosque to be forensically examined.

A. Yes. But I think that Zymberi Nijazi was just mentioned here in the interpretation. I said Bilali Lutfi as well. That's the second man.

Q. All right. I'm sure that will be put right in the record. What you have in front of you is the transcript --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask about the others on the list. You'll see it says that, "During the operation on the 15th of January, the following KLA members were killed in the yard of the KLA substaff." Now, the first four of these are not on either list, are they?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they're not. They're not. They're people I don't know about.

JUDGE BONOMY: Have you any idea --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know about --

JUDGE BONOMY: -- what happened to their bodies?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. The bodies I found in Racak are the bodies of those 40. As to the other bodies, I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This statement, does it represent what the individual knew, the individual you took the statement from? He is Dzeljadin Muhadini.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I would like to exhibit this document from tab 51 as well. I'd like to tender it into ³⁷⁸⁷¹ evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mrs. Marinkovic, you first saw the bodies on the 18th in the mosque.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Those were bodies of people who had been killed on the 15th. Did you get any information that would have enabled you to ascertain whether the number of bodies that you saw coincided with those that were killed on the 15th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I didn't have the possibility of doing that on the 15th. I was -- just managed to get through part of my on-site investigation. But on the 18th, the bodies that we found in the mosque, those 40 bodies, 40 corpses, I didn't have any possibility of reaching the others if there were any, because in the village of Racak, terrorists had entered again and we had no access. They continued to open fire --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What I was trying to find out is whether you received any information that it was in fact 40 persons who had been killed or whether it was 45 or 50 or 35.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, I didn't receive information like that. At the time, all I had to work with was the 40, the figure of 40 corpses.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: In addition, you obviously had information about other deaths where you did not have a body.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the information that I ³⁷⁸⁷² received and I investigated and compared with the data I had, I saw that there were more than we had found. But I didn't find those bodies, the extra ones.

JUDGE KWON: Did you not hear at the time that some bodies were taken by their families or KLA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't have that kind of information at the time.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, on the 18th when you arrived in Racak, the bodies had already been transferred to the mosque?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you tour the area to establish whether there were any more bodies, or did you start out from the assumption that they had collected up all the bodies and brought them to the mosque?

A. We found the bodies in the mosque. We toured the whole area, went round the whole area to find out what Walker had said on television, that there were victims, and the place he pointed to as being the location. So we continued our investigation, went round the whole hill and the entire area, and we never found that location nor any victims nor any traces that would indicate the existence of any victims, traces of blood or anything like that which would indicate that the massacre that Walker spoke about on television had actually happened.

Q. All right. So you went round the whole area and all the bodies ³⁷⁸⁷³ that had been found had already been taken to the mosque; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Would you answer this question now, please: The statements in tabs 52 and 53 given by Afrim Mustafa and Shukri Ajrizi, are they also part of your files and did you have them in your hands?

A. Yes. Afrim Mustafa, they're statements made on the 16th of January, 1999.

Q. My copy isn't very legible, but right after that he says, as far as I can see underneath the part where it says Statement, the title Statement, after the particulars that were given, it says that on the 15th of January when there were armed actions in the village of Racak, that from the village of Racak he fled to the village of Malopoljce. Did you establish that?

A. Yes. But I see that my photocopy isn't very legible either.

Q. Did you compare and see that the commander of the substaff was Hasan Bilali and his deputy Shefqet Musliu, both from Racak, that that coincides as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And then he says -- he doesn't assume but he says that he knows that there were around 80 members of the so-called KLA in Racak village, and then he goes on to list the other leaders, commanders.

A. Yes. I am aware of the contents of the statement.

Q. And then he says they had checkpoints in Racak in front of the bridge in Racak, next to the asphalt road, at a place called Cesta on the hill above the old people's home in Racak village where there are two ³⁷⁸⁷⁴ checkpoints, one towards the Stimlje main road.

A. Yes. Both those -- they always had checkpoints where they were located, both those locations.

Q. He then goes on to say that on the 16th of January, he set off on foot from Racak on the asphalt road towards Stimlje and that he reached the bridge in Racak at around 1000 hours. Near Metus Mustafa's shop he saw people wearing black uniforms and carrying automatic rifles, Ismaili Kadri, Mahmut Hisni, Mahmut Banush, Beqiri Aziz. Those are the people he saw. And Kadri told me -- told him, rather, where the police were in Stimlje and to inform him on the way back, which I agreed to do. And he gave him instructions to establish where the members of the police were located. That was a group of KLA men on the 16th.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mrs. Marinkovic, this is an example of a person who presumably is not a KLA member, who is actually in Racak on the 16th of January. Do you have -- or are we going to come to statements of people from the area who can tell us what actually happened on the 15th, or do you have no statements about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were no statements of that kind, of people who were in the village of Racak that day and watched it happening, except the terrorists who were there, the KLA.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now, please -- or, rather, I'd like to tender into evidence that exhibit from tab 50 or --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, it may be admitted. 52.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. ³⁷⁸⁷⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you say in tab 53, the statement there given by Shukri Ajrizi, the first one was dated the 16th of January, 1999, and number 53 was given on the 24th of August, 1998, of Shukri Ajrizi. Where in that statement can I find that date? I see it. I see it, with the particulars, record. It says citizen Shukri Ajrizi, et cetera, et cetera, a mechanic, car mechanic, permanently resident in Racak village, on the 24th August, 1998 - that's the date I was looking for - authorised officials of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, et cetera, et cetera, Urosevac, "and on the basis of article 151 paragraph 2 on the Law on Criminal Procedure, voluntarily gave the following statement." And then he says here -- actually, I'd like to ask you.

Is what he says here -- does it coincide with the information given to the authorised officers of the Secretariat of the Interior which we looked at at the beginning? He made the statement on the 24th of August, 1998, and he says that at the beginning of July, in early July 1998, in Metus Imeri's shop in Racak, he met Sadiku who told him about the mosque and that he was contacted by contacted by Isak Musliu from Racak who was otherwise a member of the KLA staff, Stimlje municipality. And then he goes on to say that they gave him the assignment of collecting money. And the same names are mentioned that we find in a number of the statements, and this statement was made in August 1998, and we come across those same names.

Did you have this statement in your files when you conducted your investigation? ^{37876 BLANK PAGE 37877}

A. Yes, I did. In this statement, the citizen talking to the official set out all the facts and information which those authorised persons -- on the basis of which they drew up a report, and the two coincide. They match. And he speaks about the meeting in the mosque that took place and that they decided to collect money at the meeting in the mosque, they needed the money to buy weapons, and he gives the names of the KLA members and refers to the village of Rance. And he said that when he was taking the money - he had collected about 16.000 German marks in all - he was stopped at the entrance of the village of Rance by armed KLA guards, and so on and so forth.

Q. All right. Now, do you know the names --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Or, rather, Mr. Robinson, I'd like to tender tab 54 into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: 53.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. 53, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 54, we have the statement of an Albanian, Mustafa Fari. Was that also a statement included in your documents and files when you conducted the Racak investigation?

A. Mustafa Fari, yes. The 16th of February, 1999, is when the statement was taken.

Q. Very well. Thank you. He says at the end of December 1998 when he went to Racak to visit a house, he was stopped by members of the KLA who were armed with automatic rifles, and then he says who they were. He ³⁷⁸⁷⁸ gives their names; Afet and Lutfi Bilali from Racak village. And they demanded that he join the KLA in Racak village. And then he goes on to say that a member of the KLA, Lutfi Bilali, was killed during an armed combat in Racak village on the 15th of January 1999 while Afet Bilali was otherwise also commander of the KLA staff in Racak, and was known as Copa, was seriously wounded. And that coincides and matches the statements made earlier on, doesn't it?

A. Yes. And Bilali Lutfi is mentioned again, and we came across the name Bilali Lutfi in earlier statements and we learnt in fact he had been killed as a KLA member on the 15th of January, 1999.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, during your investigations over several days or, rather, your attempts at investigating between the 15th and 18th, was there -- were there any policemen directly with you as an escort to protect you?

A. Yes, there was, and he was a policeman by the name of Miro Mekic.

Q. Can you tell us, please, what happened to him.

A. Miro Mekic, who was by my side all the time while I performed the on-site investigation, was killed in Racak village on the next day, the 19th January. He was shot by sniper fire, and he was killed. He was killed from ambush.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excuse me for a moment. Mr. Robinson, about tab 54 that we just reviewed, Fari Mustafa's statement from the files of Mrs. Marinkovic, I would like it to be tendered, whereas tab 55 contains records related to the murder of this policeman who was killed, as we can see from the records, on the 19th. We ³⁷⁸⁷⁹ have a document here addressed to the investigating judge of the district court, Danica Marinkovic, on the day of the 19th of January, 1999, in the area overlooking Racak village, Stimlje municipality, in the operation of capturing and arresting Siptari terrorists, Mekic Miro, assistant commander of the police station of Urosevac, was killed and Jovica Stamenkovic, policeman of the SUP of Urosevac, and Nikcevic Radojica, SUP Pec policeman, were wounded. And then we see other documents related to the same policeman from your security detail who was killed. He left behind a wife and two children. And he was a refugee who had come to live there from Bosnia. He was killed tragically.

I would like to tender this tab 55 as well. Tab 55.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we have anything in English here, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I thought this has been translated. These are documents from the Institute for Forensic Medicine related to the murder of this policeman Miro Mekic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mark it for identification.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, although we're admitting these documents, and the Chamber maintains that they're properly admitted, the weight that we are going to have to attach to these many statements will be affected by the fact that the witnesses are not available for cross-examination, and I'd like you to bear that in mind.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am bearing that in mind, but I'm also bearing in mind that these are official records from the file that ³⁷⁸⁸⁰ Judge Marinkovic worked with, and you had occasion to establish yourself, to see for yourself that many of these statements match in terms of information provided by the difference in dates. This covers a period from August 1998 to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The admissibility is one thing, but when we come now to assess the weight to be attached to it, the truthfulness of the averments of the statements, we will have to take into account the fact that the witnesses are not available for cross-examination. Please proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I will now move on to another very, very important event from the year 1998. It has to do with the area of Klecka, Klecka locality.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, are you familiar with these names: Ljuan and Bekim Mazreku?

A. Yes.

Q. To what event are these names related?

A. I performed an investigation against these two persons, these two suspects in 1998 related to the events that involved an attack on Orahovac between the 17th and 22nd of July, 1998. During that attack, 43 civilians from Orahovac were abducted or killed, and these suspects were involved as members of the terrorist gang based in Malisevo, the terrorist headquarters.

Q. Do you know the names of the persons abducted during the attack? Most of them were Serbs, but were there any Albanians among them? ³⁷⁸⁸¹

A. Yes. Among the 43 abducted persons, there were Albanian civilians as well.

Q. So all the abducted were civilians?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the district court in Pristina and the district prosecutor's office have a list of all the people abducted and killed in Orahovac during that attack?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have occasion also to read those documents carefully?

A. Yes. They were part of the evidence during my investigation.

Q. Very well. Please look at tab 56 and tell me if that is the list of persons abducted and killed between the 17th and 22nd of July, 1998, in Orahovac.

We see the following details: Place of residence, last name, father's name, name, surname, date of attack, and status of victim. There are 43 names on the list, 43 abducted and two persons killed during that attack. Is that the list you mentioned as being part of your evidence?

A. Yes. That is the document listing all of the abducted persons and two killed. Out of the 43 who were abducted, under number 20 we have Gani Hamza; 27 is -- sorry, 21 is Hajrulah Isaku, and under 22, Azem Isaku. They were Albanians among the abducted.

Q. You said that already. On the next page under the same tab, there is a document of the district public prosecutor's office from 2001. I wish to ask you about this document. It says: "On the basis of the evidence presented at trial pursuant to Articles 337, paragraph 1 of the ³⁷⁸⁸² Law on Criminal Procedure, I'm hereby amending the indictment against the accused Ljuan and Bekim Mazreku, the disposition of which shall from now on read as follows: Rationale: Ljuan and Bekim became members of the terrorist gang in March and May respectively, year 1998, in Malisevo. Ljuan, with an intent to jeopardise the constitutional order and security of the SFRY, committed acts of violence, creating a feeling of insecurity among the citizenry by the following actions: In the period 17 to 22nd July, 1998, they were involved in the attack on Orahovac during which locals Andjelko Kostic and Rajko Nikolic were killed and 43 other persons were kidnapped. They were first taken away to Malisevo and then together with other abducted persons from other places they were taken to Klecka village in Lipjan municipality. The abducted persons were first tortured. Ljuan raped a young girl of Serb ethnicity aged 12 to 15. One boy, aged around 9, had his ear cut off. Bekim raped several females of Serb ethnicity after which those two together, together with another 18 members of the gang, mass executed the persons who had been abducted and tortured, deliberately killing them."

Is this the incident which you investigated?

A. Yes.

Q. Were any of these persons ever found?

A. Never.

Q. What we have in front of us, since the persons involved are Mazreku brothers whose personal details we have listed here, criminal proceedings were instituted against them. And we have, under tab 57, the judgement of the district court in Nis in the case of these two brothers. ³⁷⁸⁸³

JUDGE BONOMY: Before we move to the next one, the document says that you amend the indictment. "I hereby amend the indictment against the accused." What did you amend it from?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will explain. I as investigating judge, acting pursuant to the request of the public prosecutor, conducted an investigation against Mazreku brothers in 1998. That was in August 1998. However, when we left Pristina, the case files remained behind. So later, pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure, we tried to restore, reconstruct the files, and we received assistance from the suspects and their Defence counsel. So we managed to restore the case files. After that, all the evidence that was available to the public prosecutor at the time served as a basis for the indictment in this form. It was this indictment that was in force when the trial started, because the indictment had been originally brought back in Pristina.

JUDGE BONOMY: The charge here is one of terrorism. What was the maximum sentence for terrorism?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For this crime, according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, the minimum sentence is three years and the maximum was 20, which was the general maximum for any crime at that time, for the crime of terrorism.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the maximum sentence for the crime of multiple murder?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It depends. Multiple murder, pursuant to the Law on Criminal Procedure, could entail --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] You mean the Criminal Code. ³⁷⁸⁸⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, the Criminal Code also envisaged the death sentence. However, it was later abolished. Terrorism as a crime could entail --

JUDGE BONOMY: Let's assume a person found guilty of multiple murder was not sentenced to death. If you exclude death, what was the maximum possible sentence for multiple murder?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Twenty years. The same.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was the maximum sentence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, let me just add that was the maximum prison sentence envisaged for any crime under the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia. Even if the death sentence were pronounced, it could be converted into the maximum prison sentence.

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Marinkovic, Mr. Milosevic seems to have done with Racak incident, however, can I ask this: You had a lot of witness statements identifying the members of the KLA, and there you have a lot of names identified as members of the KLA. Among them, how many did match the -- with the list, with the names of your list or the annex of this indictment? Are you in a position to answer that question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the list, my list, I can -- I can tell you only about that, how many matches I found. In my list, which I used for comparison based on the information available to me, I found Lutfi Bilali, Muhamet Mustafa, Nuhi Jakupi, Hacif Hisenaj, Sharamet Syla, Fatmir Limani, and Nijazi Zymberi.

JUDGE KWON: So what's the number in total? ³⁷⁸⁸⁵

JUDGE BONOMY: Seven.

JUDGE KWON: Seven. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we haven't yet done the reconciliation ourself, but Mr. Saxon thinks there may be one or two others that we can identify.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, we can do that. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us go back to the records related to the abducted and killed. There is a reference here to 100 persons, people who had first been tortured and later executed in Klecka. That's in tab 56, the list that you mentioned, and the amended indictment in which we have a reference to 100 persons who were tortured, raped, later killed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender tab 56 into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 57, Mrs. Marinkovic, can we find the judgement of the district court in Nis related to Mazreku brothers? All right. Let us just establish one thing at a time. Is this the judgement of the district court in Nis?

A. Yes.

Q. It was brought based on the indictment of the public prosecutor with your underlying investigation. ³⁷⁸⁸⁶

A. Yes.

Q. Very well.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender tab 57.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: We have a note that the first nine pages are illegible, so they were not translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can read from these pages, Mr. Kwon. Nobody told me that it was illegible. I'm not saying that it's a very clear copy, but if you put it on the ELMO, the Serbian version, I mean --

JUDGE KWON: If we mark the -- mark it for identification, those pages, if you can provide the legible ones, they can be translated later.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. During the investigation proceedings, as the investigating judge of the district court in Pristina, you interviewed directly both of the Mazreku brothers; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. In tab 57 -- or, rather, tab 58, is there a document containing the statement of Ljuan Mazreku that he gave on the 6th of August, 1999?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1998.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That is a record of Ljuan Mazreku's interview. That is the 6th of August, 1998. This is a form for this kind of interview, suspect interview.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ^{37887 BLANK PAGE 37888}

Q. Can you say briefly what Ljuan Mazreku told you on that occasion?

A. Ljuan Mazreku on that occasion talked about how and when he became a member of the terrorist gang which was called Lumi [phoen], this was in 1998, at the beginning of the month of December. No, not 1998. Just a moment, please. Let me have a look. The beginning of 1998. He says here how many members this organisation had, who the commanders were, and then he mentions Gani Krasniqi, Hisnik Hilali [phoen], Skender Krasniqi. These are individual members of the KLA who went for military training to Albania, that from Albania they brought in weapons illegally.

Q. Let me just draw your attention to the following: He refers to members of the staff, and then he says here: "Since they could not get identical uniforms for all, they bought black clothes in the market and put KLA insignia on these clothes."

And then towards the end of this big paragraph, on the second page of the statement: "Weapons were brought in every week from Albania."

A. Yes.

Q. And then --

A. And then that on orders issued by his commanders, he toured the area of Orahovac, Tulla, Lapusnik, that they were on guard duty wherever they were ordered to do so. And after that, a special unit was formed within that gang of theirs consisting of 15 men, including him. And then he says that he was one of the participants in the attack that was launched against Orahovac and that he watched when the KLA members entered the village, how they abducted people, civilians, and took freight ³⁷⁸⁸⁹ vehicles and passenger vehicles and transported them from Orahovac to the road to Malisevo, where the KLA headquarters were.

Q. All right. Let me just draw your attention to page 3. He says in the third paragraph: "On orders issued by Ganic Krasniqi we were supposed to carry out our task in Suva Reka to bring by force two Albanians Agim Thaci and Faid Letici [phoen] because they were cooperating with the Serb police." And then he explains how they did all that.

A. Yes, that's correct. On the third page he explains this in detail; how they found these persons, how they mistreated them, how they massacred them, and he gives an account of all the things they did to them.

Q. And then further on, they talk about an Albanian who did not know where his brother was, and they caught him, they tied him up and took him away.

A. Well, his statement was rather long, the one he gave to me. It's six pages. So he explained in detail all the activities, everything they did, what happened. And then on page 5, these abducted persons from Orahovac were put up in Malisevo where their headquarters were. And he explains how these persons were maltreated, abused, that among them there were women and children and elderly persons, and that after that they were transferred by buses and trucks to the hill of Klecka.

Q. All right. But on page 4, he describes in detail that they were ordered -- that Skender Krasniqi and Hisni should go back, and they murdered Faik Batici [phoen] in the same way, "just like we massacred," he says, "Agim Thaci." When he says "we," he means him and his -- other ³⁷⁸⁹⁰ members of his unit?

A. Yes.

Q. And then he says, "I forgot to mention that I and Agim massacred him while Darda [phoen] was cutting off his toes and fingers. I was holding Agim. I trampled upon him. Darda put his foot on his forehead and then he slit his throat."

JUDGE ROBINSON: The statement is here for us to read.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You investigated all crimes against Serbs and Albanians that were committed by members of the KLA?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. And he says: "In the group of abducted persons, there were more Serbs and less Albanians." That's what he says on page 6.

A. What is important and what I would like to add here is the following: When the civilians were tranferred to the hill of Klecka, they were abused, mistreated there, and ultimately executed. Ljuan Mazreku said that.

JUDGE BONOMY: May I ask, Mr. Milosevic, what the relevance of this detail is to the indictment that we're dealing with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The relevance is that it proves, as you can see from these records here, that this is a most atrocious crime, where hundreds of people were tortured, executed, and after that set on fire in Klecka. It is obvious that even such atrocities were investigated. The perpetrators were arrested. As you can see, nobody ³⁷⁸⁹¹ liquidated the Mazreku brothers. They were arrested, they were interrogated according to the Law on Criminal Procedure, they were tried in a court. And this shows how the authorities functioned in relation to terrorism and the gravest crimes, as you can see here, the mass murders that they had committed.

And what is claimed here is --

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't see that we need to deal with the detail of this. It's clear from the document that these men were sentenced to the maximum sentence available and from that alone it's easy to judge the gravity of what they did.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could you please admit tab 58 into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in tab 59, there is the statement of Bekim Mazreku.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not translated, so we'll have to mark it for identification.

JUDGE KWON: Do we need it at all?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What does it deal with?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what the investigating judge can tell us, the investigating judge who conducted the investigation. There's no need for me to say anything.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In tab 59 is the record of the ³⁷⁸⁹² interview of the second accused person, Bekim Mazreku, who together with Ljuan Mazreku was a suspect, and ultimately he was convicted of the crime of terrorism. In this record, it states that I as investigating judge interrogated him, and he made a statement as a suspect in the presence of his Defence counsel, an attorney, and in the presence of an interpreter. He described in detail how he became a member of the KLA terrorist gang, all the things he did as a member, and finally, he mentioned that he took part in the execution of civilians on the hill of Klecka. In the briefest possible terms, that is his statement.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Are you going to admit this into evidence? Or if it's not translated, do you want it marked for identification only? Did I understand you properly?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mark it for identification.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you. Can we now look at tab 61. This is a video clip.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this also relates to the incident at Klecka, the video?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely. This is the videotape that shows -- or, rather, that is very, very substantive.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It will not add anything.

JUDGE KWON: I would like to move on to tab 63, which seems to have a new issue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am going to move on to tab 63 when the time comes for it. ³⁷⁸⁹³

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. We don't want to see the video.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I just wish to note that this is a videotape on which indeed it is well documented what kind of atrocious crime had been committed. Then I'm just going to ask the Judge -- all right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm just going to ask Judge Marinkovic what happened to the Mazreku brothers who were convicted to 20-year prison terms for this crime.

A. They were released. They were set free. They were provisionally released.

Q. Who provisionally released them?

A. They were released with a group of Albanian detainees. How and for what reason, I don't know.

Q. When you say that the authorities released them, are you referring to the government in Belgrade?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since you don't want to watch this video clip, I'm going to move on to my other questions or, rather, another subject.

Mrs. Marinkovic, in paragraph 66 of the Kosovo indictment, it says: "On the 22nd of May, 1999, or around that date, in the early morning hours, a --"

JUDGE KWON: It's 66(k). ³⁷⁸⁹⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, 66(k).

JUDGE ROBINSON: You might have told us that, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I omitted to do that. I told you that it was paragraph 66. I did say that, but I omitted to mention that it was subparagraph (k).

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. So at any rate, Mrs. Marinkovic, in subpargraph (k), it says: "On or about the 22nd of May, 1999, in the early morning hours, a uniformed person in the Dubrava prison complex (Istok municipality) announced from a watchtower that all prisoners were to gather their personal belongings and line up on the sports field at the prison complex for transfer to the prison in Nis, Serbia." That is what is written here in paragraph 66(k). "Within a very short time hundreds of prisoners gathered at the sports field with bags of personal belongings and lined up in rows to await transport. Without warning, uniformed persons opened fire on the prisoners from the watchtower, from holes in the perimeter wall, and from gun emplacements beyond the wall. Many prisoners were killed outright and others wounded."

I have quoted this to you. Mrs. Marinkovic, is any of this correct out of all of this that is written here?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. Lay a bit of foundation than that, Mr. Milosevic. Find out whether she investigated this, how was it brought to her attention, and so on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I am going to establish that, too, how she found out, although what I read out looks like a cheap ³⁷⁸⁹⁵ thriller film.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That itself is a very cheap shot.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- this is incredible, what it says here in 66k.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just move on and lay the foundation for the witness to provide the information, the evidence that you need in relation to paragraph 66k.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What is your official link to this event, what happened at the Dubrava prison in Istok? What is your official link to what happened at the Dubrava prison in Istok? Because Istok is not in the territory of the district court in Pristina.

A. My official link in relation to what happened in Dubrava is the following: Those days, from the 21st onwards, for three or four days NATO bombed and targeted this facility. A large number of employees and detainees were killed and wounded. A number of wounded detainees were transferred to Lipjan, to the facility in Lipjan, which is under the jurisdiction of the Pristina district court.

Among these persons who were transferred to Lipjan, they were given medical treatment and hospitalised. Three died overnight due to the wounds that they had sustained. That happened on the 24th of May, 1999. And then the following day I was informed, as the investigating judge, ³⁷⁸⁹⁶ that there are three persons who died due to their wounds, and I went to the scene in order to carry out an on-site investigation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, and what did you find there?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I went to the VP centre at Lipjan, the official there informed me that a number of individuals from Dubrava had been transferred to Lipjan where they were given medical assistance. Those who were more seriously wounded and injured were transferred to the Pristina hospital, and the other three individuals died, having succumbed to their wounds. I drew up a record and minutes of what I found on the spot, and I name all the three individuals with all the particulars and issued an order to the Institute for Forensic Medicine to carry out post-mortem on those bodies to establish the cause of death. So all three bodies were transferred to the Forensics Institute in Pristina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And what was established in your investigation, Mrs. Marinkovic?

A. These three individuals, these three detainees had succumbed to the wounds and injuries they sustained from the NATO aviation forces, that they -- it was bombs that were falling on the facilities in Dubrava.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, the fact is that the injured detainees were transferred to the hospital. Is that true and correct?

A. Yes.

Q. From what I read out in the indictment, it would emerge that they were executed and those who were not killed and were injured were taken to the hospital. Is that what would emerge, having read that? ³⁷⁸⁹⁷

A. Yes, but that is not correct.

Q. Did you have any knowledge at all about the bombing of the Dubrava prison, not only on the 22nd of May to which this paragraph 66(k) refers to but the 21st of May, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th of May -- or rather, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th of May; four consecutive days. Do you know about that?

A. Yes, I do, I know about that, I have that information, because afterwards I saw a colleague, an investigative judge who did an on-site investigation. He tried to do that on the 21st, wasn't successful, so he tried on the 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 5th, and then he drew up an official report and minutes, having conducted the on-site examination, and he sent me a copy for me to make the link between those events, the things that happened during those days, and the rest. And my colleague who did the on-site investigation was injured as well along with the other people who were injured and wounded on that same day.

Q. All right. Mrs. Marinkovic, now for what days do you know there was bombing by the NATO Air Force of that Dubrava complex?

A. It started on the 21st. The 21st of May. And on that day in the afternoon hours it went on towards evening. So the investigating judge was prevented from doing his job. He tried again the next day, but the NATO bombing continued on that day too.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, you just mentioned a moment ago the links between the minutes of your on-site investigation or, rather, of that on-site investigation and your own case. Is that contained in tab 63? Is that the record and minutes contained in tab 63? ^{37898 BLANK PAGE 37899}

A. Yes, it is. That is the record of the on-site investigation. It has a number 97/99. That is the number of that document.

Q. Thank you. In the upper left-hand corner, it says the Republic of Serbia, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, record of on-site investigation, and then what follows is this: It says the duty investigative team in Pec led by Judge Bojic on the 21st of May, 1999, at 1245 went to the location to carry out on-site investigation. Then we have the mention of articles of the Criminal Code. On the basis of information from the MUP in Pec that on that day in the morning from 8.20 a.m. to 10.20 a.m. NATO Air Force bombed the detention centre Dubrava at Istok and that an unestablished number of persons lost their lives in -- on the occasion and considerable material damage was incurred. And then it says, taking part Zoran Stankovic, crime inspector; P. Ilincic and Ristovic, crime technicians. The investigation started at 12.50 -- or, rather, "The investigation started at 12.50."

Mrs. Marinkovic, can we see from this document, and here we have an explanation of what was done, the steps taken. It starts off by saying it was a sunny day when the investigation was carried out and that security was provided for the scene of the crime as soon as the bombing stopped at 10.30. And persons were evacuated and hospitalised, the people who were wounded and injured. It says the deputy prison warden, et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁷⁹⁰⁰

Q. According to this investigation, does it record what they found on the spot, and does this record of the investigation conducted -- or, rather, the day before the day mentioned in 66(k), can we see the consequences of the bombing, the results of the bombing? And we see here that a number of prison staff were wounded and injured. Can we see that from this?

A. Yes, that's right. From this record, we can see in detail what the investigating judge did on that particular day and what he found, what he established, the persons wounded and injured and the other details. Everything is set out here in detail in this document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: It's time for adjournment, but, Judge Marinkovic, what was the relation of yours with Judge Vladan Bojic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The relationship is that we're colleagues, and we're both investigating judges. He works in the Pec district court, I work in the Pristina district court. But as to -- as linked to this case, he carried out the on-site investigation, and I carried out the on-site investigation for the individuals who were wounded and who because -- succumbed to their wounds. So we completed this case with my records and with his records, with my minutes and with his minutes, so that you could gain an insight as to what happened before, why they were transferred from Istok to Lipjan. So you have my records, my record of the on-site investigation where you can see which individuals succumbed to their wounds, and then there is the information given by the ³⁷⁹⁰¹ VP centre at Lipjan, the warden there, and we can see from that report how death incurred with those three.

JUDGE KWON: So all you did is to have a -- have interviews with those wounded transferred to Lipjan?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: So you didn't receive the information or report from your colleague, Judge Bojic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I received the record on -- of the on-site investigation, a written document, the minutes compiled on the spot.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, those records, that record of the event which Judge Marinkovic received from her colleague is to be found in tab 63, because she had to complete the case. It was the same incident, and that's why I mentioned it in tab 63. That's why I brought tab 63 out. And the date is the 21st. Of course there was bombing on the 22nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th as well, a series of consecutive days of bombing. But already on the 21st, that's when it started, and in the following days we can see what happened in the Dubrava prison. So this refutes one of the charges in the indictment.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In tab 64 is my own record of the on-site investigation.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But they're linked together. They've been incorporated.

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's why I wanted to take 63 first ³⁷⁹⁰² and then go on to tab 64. It's a set.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will take the adjournment now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, we left off dealing with tab 63, which is the record on the on-site investigation of the prison in Dubrava. I'd like to draw your attention to the second half of the third paragraph. It explains that it is a case of bombing and that damages can be seen to the hotel, the administration building, and so on through a small metal gate. We can note completely or considerably damaged facilities where the detainees were housed. With the guards' help, direct projectiles were seen to have hit pavilions 1, 2 and 3, the reception pavilion and the classrooms for re-education.

In the next paragraph, it says: "An investigation -- the investigation was attended by dozens of foreign and domestic media reporters who after a short stay quickly left the place, going off in a number of passenger vehicles."

And then it says: "From the direction of the walls of the prison, we can hear --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is it that you wish to ask?

JUDGE BONOMY: It also doesn't say in the English version that the journalists left the place. It says they were removed. ³⁷⁹⁰³

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they do not have a copy of the English text.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't look at the English text. I don't known what it says there, but here it says, "After staying awhile, they speedily left." "Udaljavaju" is the word used. This is an official document. Moved. "Sa Udaljavaju" is what it says.

THE INTERPRETER: The "sa" word makes the difference, interpreter's note.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in conducting your investigation -- you went to conduct your investigation with people in hospital and then became acquainted with the overall event, and you had this as an official document and included this record in the complete set of files; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And then at the bottom of the page, in Serbian it says: "While talking to the prison warden, there was repeated bombing. During a conversation with the KPZ warden in an improvised tent, the bombing started again." And then it says, continuation of on-site investigation on the 24th of May. It's a very brief continuation, and it says that the terrible consequences of a number of days of bombing could be seen. In the prison canteen there was an awful sight of dozens of dead prisoners. There was an opening of several metres in diameter in the ceiling of the roof of the canteen through which the sky could be seen. Parts of aerial bombs would be seen in the grassed areas and were removed from the scene ³⁷⁹⁰⁴ by forensic technicians. Even as the initial procedures of the on-site investigation were being undertaken, NATO planes began to fly over the spot again."

And then it says that the on-site investigation team --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- and the reporters left the scene.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is this, it has to do with the continuation of the on-site investigation on the 25th, because it says that he ordered --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're continuing the reading. Ask the question. The document is in front of us. We can read it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you only partially -- in your official capacity had only partial overview of this situation, as you were informed by this official document and report or record. Did you have any other information about the bombing of the Dubrava prison on the 22nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of May?

A. Well, the public information media and the -- and television broadcast everything from the spot, so I saw their broadcasts.

Q. Did you also see footage of the bombing itself?

A. Yes, I did. It was all broadcast over television.

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me. Mr. Milosevic, are you planning to call Judge Bojic as your witness in the future or not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't tell you exactly. I can't remember the list of witnesses in total, but if necessary, if need be, I ³⁷⁹⁰⁵ will call him. Why not?

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Marinkovic, to the question by Mr. Milosevic that -- whether you have any information about the bombing of the Dubrava prison on the 22nd, 23rd, et cetera, then I'm not clear about -- with your answer. Are you aware that there was bombing on 22nd and 23rd?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that was common knowledge. You heard it straight away. You learnt about it. Information would come in as to which facilities and area was bombed.

JUDGE KWON: We have evidence that there were bombings on 19th and 21st of May in Dubrava prison. I'm specifically asking whether you are aware there was bombing on 22nd and 23rd.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this: I can't remember the days exactly. I know about the events, that there was bombing, but when I went to the VP centre at Lipjan, the detainees talked amongst themselves and said there was bombing before I conducted my on-site investigation on the 25th, the few days before that. There was great panic because there were a large number of wounded and injured amongst them.

JUDGE KWON: Are you aware that the prisoners who were not wounded were transferred on 25th to Lipjan prison? Did you interview one of the -- interview with those prisoners as to what happened?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not on the 25th; the day before. The 24th was the day they were transferred and I arrived on the 25th at the VP centre.

JUDGE KWON: Those were those prisoners who were wounded by the ³⁷⁹⁰⁶ bombing. Okay. So I wonder whether you can help us with this: If you take a look at tab 63, Judge Bojic had investigation on 21st and then 24th and 25th. Why did he not conduct any investigation on 22nd and 23rd?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. I read somewhere -- his Official Note dated the 22nd of May, 1999, after the record on the on-site investigation, it says: During the investigation on the 21st of May, 1999, beginning at 1300 hours to 1345, he was with the team, and then according to later information the bombing was continued that same day between 1700 to 1800 hours and then 2310, and then on the 22nd of May - that's the last paragraph - on the 22nd of May at 0610 hours a total of 48 bombs were dropped.

JUDGE KWON: So it is clear from the document that he didn't conduct any on-site investigation on the 22nd. It is only through later reports that he became aware of the fact that there was allegedly a bombing on 22nd.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Official Note of his indicates that he was not able to go on-site that day because the bombing continued. That's how I understand it.

JUDGE KWON: And do you happen to hear the result of post-mortem of those who were killed by this bombing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the details of the post-mortem, no.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, the 65 ter list of the witnesses does include Vladan Bojic, according to Ms. Dicklich. ³⁷⁹⁰⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, with respect to your question, I should like to draw your attention to this document, the document quoted a moment ago by Mrs. Marinkovic where she mentions the 25th of May, et cetera. Take a look at the second paragraph of that Official Note, where it says that, "There was an explosion that threw me ten metres or more. After I lost consciousness briefly -" because he says that the bombing was repeated - "with the group I left the site. I had brain concussion and contusion of my shoulder and rib and clavicle and I had nose bleeding. I had medical attention, I had medical care and my shoulder was immobilised. I had to receive three injections." So quite obviously he was injured on that day. So it would be difficult to expect him to go able to go out on the spot for an investigation the very next day. But we can see that he went back on the 24th of May again.

So when you link up those facts, put it all together, then in peacetime a judge wounded in that way wouldn't go to work for at least a month, whereas this man went to conduct his investigation on the 24th, and he said the terrible consequences of the many days of bombing and then goes on to describe that the roof of a dining hall was blown open and there was an opening several metres in diameter in the ceiling and roof of the canteen, as he says, and you can see the sky and people injured. I'd like to tender tab 63 into evidence now, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. ³⁷⁹⁰⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us now take a look at tab 64. On the 25th you compiled this record of the on-site investigation, and that is for the area -- or, rather, it comes under the area --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... aware of that no translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 64, not translated, Mr. Milosevic. It is short, so let's put it on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you compiled this record on the 25th, on the premises of the district prison Pristina, the Lipjan department where, due to NATO bombing, there were three detainees who were transferred from the Istok -- they were killed. And then this is signed by the SUP inspector and the crime technician. And then you list the names of the detainees, the prisoners who were doing their prison terms. The bodies were transferred to the Institute of Forensic Medicine. Was that done according to your order?

A. Yes.

Q. You say that the spot was photographed and will -- the photographs will be part of the record. You also write that the deputy prosecutor did not attend because he could not be notified in time. At this moment, it is not important.

During this on-site investigation, did you interrogate? Did you hear anyone on the spot as to how those inmates were killed?

A. I conducted an interview with the personnel of the prison, and ³⁷⁹⁰⁹ there is reference to Commander Novica who, on the previous day, on the 24th of May, was there around 1500 hours when a large number of injured prisoners were transferred to the district prison in Lipjan, prisoners who were wounded during the bombing.

Q. And now since you ordered, in this case of lethal consequences, you ordered forensic expertise to be performed, under tab 65 we have letters sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia notifying the death of a convict. We have details of three persons, personal details. In the first letter, it says: "Death was caused by blast wounds in the chest and extremities that caused massive bleeding. The injuries were caused by shrapnel during the bombing of the penitentiary correctional facility in Istok."

In the second letter, the cause of death again is bleeding due to injuries from the bombing.

The third letter deals with Gani Morina, another inmate, death caused by bleeding from injuries in the chest and limbs, injuries caused by shrapnel during the bombing of the penitentiary correctional facility in Istok.

In all three cases, the corpse was undergoing forensic expertise in Pristina in the clinical medical centre.

In all of these three letters, we have official records of the deaths of inmates recorded.

A. Yes. This is according to the regular procedure envisaged by the law on criminal procedure. When an inmate or any other person would die, the competent investigating judge issues an order for a post-mortem to the ³⁷⁹¹⁰ Institute of Forensic Medicine in Pristina. Based on the post-mortem, the cause of death is established. Findings in writing, together with the records of on-site investigation and other evidence and accompanying material, is forwarded to the public prosecutor. A case file is created for each such case, incident.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I tender these documents into evidence, tab 63?

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll mark them for identification.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not the correct tab number. 65.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... before you proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, over this period which is considered relevant here, 1997 and 1998, you performed a large number of investigations related to terrorist acts; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us, how many investigations did you complete that involved terrorist attacks in 1997, 1998?

A. There was a large number of cases because there were many investigations against suspects involving this particular crime. I cannot give you a number. I interrogated dozens upon dozens of suspects, persons suspected of this particular crime, and I have great experience in working ³⁷⁹¹¹ on these cases.

Q. We will go back to these investigations shortly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I would very much like to save your time and mine. I will ask Mrs. Marinkovic the following: Is it the case that in tabs from 4 until 44 where we stopped when Mr. Robinson said that we had to move on to Racak --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, don't go back to the matters that -- on which I said I would not allow you to continue examination.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you, Mrs. Marinkovic, in these tabs, from 4 to 44, do we have case files or, rather, parts of case files which you personally investigated?

A. Yes, part of those cases on which I worked on.

Q. But in any case, in these tabs we cannot find a single case in which you were not involved personally?

A. Correct.

Q. So all of these tabs are yours?

A. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I suggest that these tabs should be admitted into evidence because they relate to investigations conducted by investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic personally. I kindly ask you to admit them into evidence so that I can save time without asking her questions on each case one by one. I would ³⁷⁹¹² like to avoid spending a lot of time on these questions, although this is only a small portion of investigations conducted by Judge Danica Marinkovic relating exclusively to crimes committed in her area of competence.

MR. KAY: The accused is adopting the same procedure that the Prosecutor did in relation to Dr. Baccard, whose evidence I've just been reminding myself of in the transcripts. If you remember, Dr. Baccard came to court and produced in fact I think over 15 files, two of them on Racak and the crime-scene investigations relevant to the indictment, and those were -- those files contained materials often prepared by others, but he supervised the preparation of materials, and they were introduced into evidence through that witness and became part of the exhibits in the case. Those files were not gone through in a great deal of detail. In fact, Dr. Baccard gave evidence in shortly under a day, if I remember correctly, and in the hands of the Prosecution, Mr. Ryneveld, I think he only had about a session and a half. But that's how the evidence was introduced.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. I knew that would have been your submission.

Mr. Nice, Mr. Milosevic is adopting your procedure. What do you say?

MR. NICE: I say it would be quite wrong to allow these files in for several reasons. Dr. Baccard was an expert and there was a report served in advance so there was the opportunity to consider the supporting material. That hasn't happened here.

But second -- second, we had a discussion some weeks or a couple ³⁷⁹¹³ months ago about the appropriateness at this stage of the trial of documents being effectively pointed to but no individual item of relevance being drawn from them, and I'm not sure how that discussion ended then, but it would be my submission now, as then, that this is an unsatisfactory way to proceed.

But third, an entirely different feature arises now in the Defence case that I have to deal with, and indeed I am alerted to the fact that I have to deal with it because I've just seen with considerable disappointment the latest calculation of time taken where, despite my efforts to cut cross-examination to 50 per cent of examination-in-chief, and I've succeeded in several witnesses, and I by my own calculation have never gone over two-thirds of the total time taken by the accused, we appear now to have been reaching 86 per cent of time in cross-examination and administrative matters.

Now, if files whatever it is, 4 to 40 something, are put in, if they have some value, I've got to be able to consider them, and if there's something in them that I've got to cross-examine on I have to be able to cross-examine on them. Sorry --

JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, I don't think these documents would play any role in proving what's contained there, the truth of the content. Rather, it could have some role in proving that there was such investigations.

MR. NICE: Well, then, do we need more than her statement on that? I haven't, I have to confess, in the time available, I haven't gone through them. I haven't had an opportunity to do so. ³⁷⁹¹⁴ But the principle is also to be borne in mind, under the present time limits -- I spend nearly all my time thinking about and looking at the clock -- and when it comes to cross-examining a witness, we have to make careful selections of what from a range of issues we are actually going to be able to deal with. That is the reality. That means that the more material that is formally exhibited, the more issues there may be that I'm simply not able to explore. And so for that reason amongst others I would invite the Chamber to say that it shouldn't burden itself with this quantity of paper, and it should simply hear what's been said about it by the witness. It's always possible, I suppose, if I challenged her summary of the position the material might come in in re-examination, otherwise it can simply stay as produced to us for inspection but not as an exhibit.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: These are official records of investigations carried out by the judge, and we'll admit the tabs 4 to 44 on that basis. The question as to their worth is an entirely different matter, Mr. Milosevic. What we make of it is another issue.

JUDGE KWON: Subject those tabs untranslated being marked for identification.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The untranslated tabs will be marked for identification.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I add to that, if it provides any assistance, that it's important to distinguish between the credibility of an investigation in itself - in other words, the integrity of the individual ³⁷⁹¹⁵ who carries out the investigation - and the quality of the material that's presented in the course of the investigation, and the latter of these is a quite separate matter which Judge Kwon has already indicated his own view on, and I have to say that, as matters stand, I have great sympathy with that view.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was my understanding that you admitted these exhibits into evidence, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic.

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

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: Regardless of the observations I made just a couple of minutes ago about the need for us to be very selective in matters that we cross-examine on, I invite the Chamber to consider the desirability of adjourning now, without penalty of time to us, to start next week. Of course I've got questions I can ask, but the Chamber will recognise that material that's been given today is probably one of the items of material that will have to have a priority in my ordering of subjects that are likely to be of interest to the Chamber and that, for a whole range of reasons, I'm absolutely not in a position to deal with any of that today, not least because I'm not going to be found here challenging things or ³⁷⁹¹⁶ challenging the witness on matters unless I've got good cause to do so. So --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we, in the exceptional circumstances and in the light of the importance of the evidence - Racak is one of the important matters in the indictment - and for those reasons we'll take the adjournment now and resume on Wednesday, the 6th of April at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.25 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 6th day of

April, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.