³⁸⁰²⁵

Thursday, 7 April 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I understand there is a point that you wish to raise.

MR. NICE: A very short point. It seems it's probably our duty for one reason or another but a little hard to decide precisely on which ground to ensure that the accused is aware of a rather odd coincidence of events that happened yesterday before he concludes his dealings with the present witness.

The Court may not know this, alternatively it may have already heard it from other sources, but the person Dragan Jasovic, who is one of the -- one of the officials who took the statements that are, amongst other issues, in issue with this witness - so for example, he's the named officer in tab 52, the statement of Afrim Mustafa - was giving evidence yesterday in this court and indeed in this very room, called by the Prosecution in the Limaj case. Not known to us in advance, he's been giving evidence, I think, on Monday and Tuesday. He's still in the building, still in the town and will be in the building again this afternoon, his cross-examination at the hands of one defendant having concluded and cross-examination being set to continue this afternoon. So there it is. He is a person who has been called by the Prosecution in another case, and he happens to be here in town at the moment. ³⁸⁰²⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the information, Mr. Nice. Let the witness be called.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: DANICA MARINKOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may continue with your cross-examination. Sorry. Mr. Milosevic to re-examine.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. In relation to the information just provided by Mr. Nice that Mr. Jasovic, who is one of the authorised officials appearing in tab 52, as he said --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, had you wished to comment on the matter, I would have thought you would have commented on it before. Nonetheless, continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if there's any controversy with regard to the fact that Jasovic took the statement or if you think that there's any problem in this regard and if you intend to accept Mr. Nice's objections, I'm not opposed to having Mr. Jasovic appear here and being asked a question or two as the authorised official who took the statement. That would be the first time I see the man, of course, because I don't know him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That will be a matter for you, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson. If he's here, he can appear, as far as I'm concerned, so that I can ask him about that. It's just a detail. Perhaps it will take a minute or two. ³⁸⁰²⁷

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you wish that person to -- to appear, then you should inform the liaison officer and ask her to have the necessary arrangements made for him to testify, and we can organise for him to -- to be interposed so that he will not be inconvenienced severely. And you should do this by the break.

Would you, Mr. Nice, then, be -- what would your position on that be?

MR. NICE: I don't know. I only heard some of the cross-examination yesterday which gives rise to matters about which I'm very interested but which might well require further consideration by us. In any event, the witness is due to be cross-examined this afternoon and I don't know whether that's going to extend into tomorrow, but I felt it probably my duty to make sure the accused knew what the position -- the rather unusual position was.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I shall also be dealing with this witness when we come to look at the exhibit position at the end of this witness. So may I suggest we deal with things sequentially but the accused is now in possession of the knowledge I thought he ought to have.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Milosevic, take charge of the matter. Consult with the liaison officer and make your decision. Inform us as soon as possible, and no later than the first break, however. Please continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. ³⁸⁰²⁸ Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Mrs. Marinkovic, yesterday Mr. Nice questioned you about your husband's participation in the protests that had to do with the position of the Serbs.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. He said literally that it was quite clear that you took part in activities aimed at supporting my policy against the non-Serbs. That was the definition used by Mr. Nice. Do you know about this? Throughout that time in Serbia, was there any policy against non-Serbs?

A. No.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, since you're a Macedonian, you're not a Serb yourself, tell me, you personally, since you're a Macedonian and since you have lived and continue to live until the present day in Serbia, have you ever had the least bit of a problem due to the fact that you're a Macedonian rather than a Serb?

A. No, never. I never had any problems.

Q. Throughout this time of crisis and wars in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 all the way up to the Dayton agreement in 1995, are you aware of any persecution of Muslims, Croats, or some other national minority in Serbia in any way?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Nice said that the protesters from Kosovo went to Vojvodina to bring down the Vojvodina government, as he put it. Do you know why the protesters from Kosovo went to different towns throughout Yugoslavia ³⁸⁰²⁹ during those years, that is to say the years we're talking about, that is; 1988, 1989? Or, rather, I think that most of these activities took place in 1988. Why did they go?

A. Since I lived in Pristina at the time, that is to say in Kosovo and Metohija, at that time the Serbs organised these protests so that the rest in Serbia, Vojvodina included, could see how poor their status was in Kosovo and Metohija, that they could not live because of the violence that was launched at that time by the Albanian separatists against the Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. At that time they were second-rate citizens. They had no rights. They could not take part in government. They could not get employment. They could not present their status and the fact that they were oppressed there. At that time, all of us who lived there had the feeling that we were living in Albania rather than in Serbia. Very little was known about that in other towns. That is why the Serbs raised their voice, because they could not take the separatists' terror any longer.

Pressure was brought to bear against the Serbs in different ways, and a great many Serbs moved out at the time. They left Kosovo and Metohija in order to protect their families, especially their children. I can say as a parent, as a mother - at that time I had two children - that I and the other Serbs who lived in Kosovo and Metohija had to take our own children to school and to meet them in front of school after their lessons because Albanian children would attack our children and bully them. Albanian separatists were bringing pressure to bear and exercising violence against us, and that is why the Serbs wanted to tell the mother ³⁸⁰³⁰ country Serbia what was going on so that the state, Serbia, could take measures to protect them against Albanian separatists. I'm telling you this as a citizen who lived in Kosovo and Metohija and who felt that throughout my stay there.

Q. Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic. Apart from these reasons, that is to say seeking to have their own rights exercised and drawing the attention of the Yugoslav public to their bad position, were there any other reasons why Serbs went to towns throughout Yugoslavia and held these rallies?

A. There was no other reason. Everybody knows, whoever is listening to this now, Albanians and Serbs, that I'm telling the truth.

Q. Thank you, Mrs. Marinkovic. We're not going to dwell on this subject much longer because we have to save time. Now I would like to put some questions to you in relation to what Mr. Nice asserted; namely, that there were tortures in prison. So briefly, the subject would be torture in prisons in order to obtain statements under duress from some prisoners. Was there any torture in prisons?

A. There was no torture in prisons because that is prohibited by law, and it is not allowed.

Q. I'm not asking about what the law says and whether the law bans that. There is no doubt about that. I'm asking you the following: In spite of the fact that this is prohibited by law, was there any torture in prisons that you're aware of?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Nice said here that it was the police that tortured prisoners. Please explain this to us: When a prisoner is in prison or if a person is ³⁸⁰³¹ remanded in custody as a detainee, does the said person have any contact with the police?

A. No. A suspect, after having been heard by the investigating judge and after having been detained if there are legal grounds for detention, the police has no further contact or any jurisdiction with regard to the said person. The said person then falls under the jurisdiction of the district prison, which has its own rules and its own Code of Conduct. As regards everything that has to do with the status of detainees, that falls under the prison officials where the said detainee is.

Q. What about the employees in the prison, the prison guards and other persons employed there at the correction facilities? Are they employed by the police or the Ministry of Justice?

A. They are employees of the Ministry of Justice because district courts fall under the Ministry of Justice.

Q. So the staff working in prison, including guards in uniform, are not members of the police force. They are, rather, employees of the Ministry of Justice; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. I'm going back to my original question: Can they have any contact with the police in prison?

A. No.

Q. Have you ever heard of any incident when a prison guard interrogated a prisoner?

A. No.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in your documentation, in your capacity as an ³⁸⁰³² investigating judge, you dealt with statements given by detainees; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, since you explained that, when statements are taken from detainees, in addition to yourself, the Prosecutor is present, the Defence attorney for the suspect, an interpreter, and I assume a clerk taking notes. Was this the usual practice in every case when such statements were taken?

A. Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Maybe I've misunderstood, but the statements were put to you yesterday. Were they all taken in your presence?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it has been put to you that you're always present when statements are taken.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the statements that were put to me yesterday were not statements made by suspects or accused persons. These were citizens who were giving statements at the SUP, whereas I take statements from suspects and accused persons.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Judge Marinkovic, tell me now, these statements made before you in your capacity as investigating judge and in the presence of the Defence attorney, the Prosecutor, and the other officials involved, are they correctly taken in all your records of investigation? Are these statements only the ones that you took in the presence of all these persons, or was anything ever added to these statements? For example, it ³⁸⁰³³ was said here that some statement was given under duress. So since this could not have taken place in the presence of all these five people, could anything be added to what was said to you in the presence of all these five officials?

A. I entered in the record, in the notes, only what the person who was making the statement said. When the person would present his defence, I would dictate that to the note-taking clerk, and that is exactly what the note-taking clerk would type out. Then the record would be read back to the suspect, and I'd always ask whether the said person agrees with everything that became part of the record, and that is what it means when it says that the said person takes the statement and accepts it as his own, and the person has to sign every page of the statement. Also, the interpreter who was present has to sign every page, I have to as well, and also the recording clerk.

Q. Mr. Nice gave a few statements here or, rather, records of examinations of detainees. In all cases except for one, what was established was light bodily injuries. I don't have to actually count them now. Five, six reports by the commission, the medical commission. In one case, the medical commission established that no injuries were found. So we're going to leave that particular record aside. So in a few cases, light bodily injuries were found.

As an experienced investigating judge, can you say what can be the cause of light bodily injury in the case of detainees, injuries established by a medical commission?

A. Well, you know what? That could mean that the person fell in the ³⁸⁰³⁴ prison premises, and it's -- it's a mere fall that can cause such injury. I'm saying this from my practice, from my experience. In relation to that, I gave instructions for the doctors to describe the injuries involved and to say how grave they are.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, when you would get a request or if you would be warned that a detainee had been injured, did you ever not give orders to a doctor to examine him?

A. As far as I can remember - it's been a long time now - I always acted on these written requests, and I always sent instructions to the prison administration for the said person to be examined by a doctor.

JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Excuse me. Judge Marinkovic, I couldn't follow that part of your evidence. How were you able to conclude that -- you don't like the word "conclude." How could you find out that those prisoners just fell in the premises of the prison?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I would just assume that that's how light bodily injury occurred in view of my years of experience in these cases. That is usually how light bodily injury could take place. It's just an assumption, but I cannot establish it for a fact.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

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

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Were there any cases of the prisoners coming to blows amongst themselves in prison? ³⁸⁰³⁵

A. Well, things like that did happen.

Q. And what could have been the reasons for light bodily injury, for example?

A. Well, what you just asked. They might have had a fight amongst themselves and then hit each other with their fists, and then this would result in that kind of injury during a brawl.

JUDGE BONOMY: The ones we heard about yesterday were all, according to the doctors' reports, inflicted by a heavy blow from a blunt heavy mechanical implement. We were talking yesterday about clearly described injuries. They're called minor, I assume, because there were no broken bones involved, and there was no suggestion that these were caused by fights or accidents or anything of that nature. So why don't we deal with actuality and deal with the questions that were actually asked yesterday rather than speculation and -- about matters that were never addressed in the cross-examination at all.

MR. NICE: And Your Honour will also remember that yesterday I raised with the witness the question of whether she had a particular matter in mind, whether she had delayed examination until the injuries faded was the other way the matter was put.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you please answer the question put by Mr. Nice. He asked you yesterday - I don't remember your answer - but did you delay the investigation or examination until the injuries had faded or anything like that? ³⁸⁰³⁶

A. No. That's not true. That's not correct. It's just the administration that takes awhile, all the paperwork through the court, the prison, to make an appointment for a medical examination at the institute when they have a free space. Otherwise, there was no reason for it to be deployed or prolonged.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How much time would elapse usually, Mrs. Marinkovic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't tell you exactly but roughly -- well, it depended from one case to the next, depending on the workload. Because when you send in a request to the prison authorities it is up to them to organise it, because from a prison to hospital it's quite a distance. I don't know how many kilometres. So you have to organise the transport, you have to find the guards to escort the detainee and take him to hospital, and then you have to make an appointment at the hospital itself in advance to have a free slot. And once you have made an appointment, then the detainee is taken there. It might be a week, ten days, 15 days, depending on the organisation and the facilities in those two institutions. It doesn't depend on me. But as I say, there were no urgent cases which required emergency measures where life or limb was at risk.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, one point again. The Court has yet to decide about the admissibility of the medical certificates, but it has both the requests which are dated and the report of the examination, which are dated, and the Court may notice a coincidence with dates; namely, the ³⁸⁰³⁷ requests and the examinations are actually on the same day.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can just thank Mr. Nice. If this was done on the same day, then when the Defence counsel tabled a request, the examination was carried out straight away so there can be no question of delay or postponement.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't see the dates yesterday. I didn't pay attention to that. I don't know whether there was the date or whether I was told in the Serbian version.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Mrs. Marinkovic. Now, tell me, as an experienced investigating judge yourself, as all these cases were classified as light bodily injuries, for anybody suffering light bodily injuries can we say that they were beaten up at all?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I don't see how the witness can answer that properly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I assumed that in practice, in the practice of an investigating judge, they would be able to assess whether somebody had been beaten or not on the basis of what we've been saying here.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mrs. Marinkovic has constantly told us it is not her job to draw that sort of conclusion.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move on to the next question, then. ³⁸⁰³⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, yesterday --

JUDGE KWON: Just a second, Mr. Milosevic. I have further points to clarify once again. Could you wait, give me a minute. Mr. Nice, you said that the request of the -- the request and the report of the examination are dated on the same day?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: I think the medical report was done in December 1994, and the further complaint -- ah, yes. Complaint was made at a later stage.

MR. NICE: Complaints made later. The chronology is, as the Prosecution would advance it, to take the particular example, but any of them, number one, Aliu Isak, a complaint by a lawyer made a month before, application for examination made on the 22nd of December, examination conducted on the 22nd of December, complaint by lawyer to judge of non-compliance with his request and complaints comes later in 1995.

JUDGE KWON: The point I'd like to clarify is that whether there is a further examination according to the -- this complaint, is this witness's position that she's not in the position to answer that question because she has not the records in its entirety or not?

MR. NICE: That I'm not sure. I think she'll have to answer that.

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Marinkovic, can you answer that question, whether there is a further examination according to the complaint filed to you and various institutions saying that his client was beaten up again in February 1995? ³⁸⁰³⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was like this: I can't really say now because I don't have the complete files with me. If I had the case files in front of me, I'd be able to see, because it's all there, all the papers, all the documents. For each of my actions note was taken and there is a written trace of what was done.

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

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Ms. Marinkovic, yesterday Mr. Nice asked you something about an investigation you conducted about the formation of an illegal MUP in Kosovo and Metohija. Do you remember that? Do you remember those questions?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you conduct the investigation with respect to the organisation of this illegal MUP or the illegal police of the Albanian separatists in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Yes.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, are you waiting for the interpretation to appear on the transcript? I can see that we have a pause between question and answer.

A. Well, yes. I'm bearing in mind the interpreters. They have asked me to speak more slowly so I'm looking at the monitor and once the translation finishes there, then I give you an answer.

Q. Ah, I see. I thought that was it. That's the transcript. The interpretation is quicker, so you don't have to make that long a pause, to ^{38040 BLANK PAGE 38041} save time.

The case was against how many suspects?

A. Eighty-nine individuals in the pre-trial investigation phase, and that was the requirement made by the Prosecutor.

Q. And the indictment was raised against how many individuals?

A. The indictment was against 72 persons. May I just take a look and make sure? Yes. The indictment was against 72 individuals.

Q. And how many of those were found guilty at the end of the trial and the proceedings?

A. Sixty-nine were found guilty, having committed crimes specified in the indictment.

Q. Tell us, please, in those activities, the activities they were charged with and found guilty of, and they not only represent the criminal act of association, as was suggested, but it was also procurement of weapons, included procurement of weapons and certain other actions that were dangerous to individuals and society as a whole.

A. In the course of the investigation, on the basis of the statements of persons interviewed and on the basis of the proof and evidence that I amassed during the investigative phase, we were able to see that not only did they work to prepare this illegal MUP, but they also worked on the procurement of weapons illegally, and in order to do so they visited areas in the area of Macedonia, towards Macedonia, because they were not able to procure weapons and import weapons from Albania illegally.

THE INTERPRETER: They were. Interpreter's correction: They were able to import weapons illegally from Albania. ³⁸⁰⁴² Could the accused repeat his question, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Everything they did to prepare and form the illegal MUP, they represented this and wanted it to appear as if it was a sort of trade union work.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, that's what Mrs. Kandic says in some of her articles. And what was established during the investigation? Was it trade union activity or was it some other form of activity?

A. During the investigation that I conducted, we established that they had in fact been working illegally to set up hostile -- a hostile association. Prior to previous instructions from the government in exile and at the initiative of that government, they were working to form and establish centres of public and state securities in seven towns all over Kosovo and Metohija. They had established their network of associates which worked to collect information about monitoring the police and army of Yugoslavia and monitoring individual inspectors as well and their work. They also monitored Albanians whom they considered to be collaborators of the police and collected information, and that information was coded and sent to the government of Kosovo, Kosovo Republic. The information was collected and amassed by being introduced into computers under codes. They were encrypted and then they would send them on both to the government and the President Rugova, their President Rugova, and also to their Assembly. These were all illegal organs parallelly formed and parallel to state institutions that existed at that time.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, you said that Albanians were monitored as well ³⁸⁰⁴³ and surveillance organised of Albanians as well whom they suspected as being collaborators and collaborating with state organs. Now, these individuals whom you say they treated as being collaborators of Serbia and Yugoslavia and who were under surveillance by this illegal MUP, were they -- did they run any danger? Were they open to danger?

A. Yes, they were. By working on the investigation, the information that was gathered with respect to surveillance of these individuals, by force of chance once again I myself as an investigating judge went on site to look into a case of two Albanians whom they considered to be collaborators of the Serb police force, and they were killed. Those two persons were killed. One was a porter who worked in the municipality building or the municipality building in Glogovac and a postman working in the post office in Glogovac. Those were the two people in question. One man's name was Ymer Lako, and the postman was Mustafa Kurtaj. With respect to those two individuals, I went to conduct an on-site investigation and there is a record of that. Ymer Lako was killed in 1998 --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... once again, and I have to observe that although the Court will remember we were faced with whatever it was, just under 40 files, I explained I'd look at parts of one of them, and I looked at it for the purposes essentially dealing with the treatment of the prisoners by -- or the accused -- hands of this witness. I went into the detail hardly at all.

If the Court wants to hear the details from this witness, so be it. I will have to deal with the material, or I may choose to deal with ³⁸⁰⁴⁴ the material with another witness but I certainly haven't gone into the substance of the police trial in any detail at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I agree with both points made by Mr. Nice, Mr. Milosevic.

Mrs. Marinkovic, if you're going to read from a document, then that should be brought to the attention of the Court so we can know what it is and make our own determination as to whether it's appropriate for you to read from it.

Mr. Milosevic, I think you are going a little wide of the mark here, and you are in fact raising matters that did not arise in cross-examination. As Mr. Nice said, he cross-examined this witness as to her role in the treatment of prisoners that were subjected to her care, and I believe this is -- this is wide of the mark. So move on to another topic.

In any event, I think you are spending too long on the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, what are you reading from? Tell us first of all.

A. I'm reading from tab 1 that has been distributed to everyone. That is my short overview of the cases in which I was investigative judge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Just let us know before. If you're going to read from a document, let us know what you're reading from.

MR. NICE: And we have the translation of this this morning, so I'm afraid it hasn't been possible for me to review it in any event. ³⁸⁰⁴⁵

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we don't have the translation at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Tab 1.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I wish to draw your attention to one thing. The questions I'm putting now to Judge Marinkovic do not relate to the treatment of prisoners. That issue was dealt with before. These questions deal with the claim of Mr. Nice that the regime prosecuted trade unions, in support of which he provided the text by Natasa Kandic. This illegal MUP was represented as the trade union of Albanians, of Albanian policemen, and the result of that was the death and killing of some Albanians.

The information gathered concerned persons who allegedly collaborated with Serbia, and these people were later killed. So this was obviously not a trade organisation, as Mr. Nice tried to present it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you have dealt with it sufficiently.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you tell me now, Mrs. Marinkovic, so this was an illegal Ministry of the Interior, established by Kosovo separatists. Did you know that a parallel schooling system, a parallel health care system were established, and other parallel institutions, including political ones? Do you know that?

A. Yes.

Q. The organisation of parallel schooling, health care, and any other - how shall I put it? - non-aggressive activities, were they ever prosecuted by the police or the judiciary?

A. No. ³⁸⁰⁴⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing any more questions along those lines. Move on to another topic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, among the things Mr. Nice presented yesterday, there was a document that is the letter to the Serbian public sent by a great number of people including nine bulleted points expressing certain demands. It starts with, "Dear Sirs."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to draw your attention, gentlemen, to this translation into English which is provided along with the Serbian text. It is not actually a translation of that text.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I made clear yesterday -- I made it clear that it was not a translation of the text in the newspaper article in which the petition was, I think, photographed, but was a text from another newspaper and it contained just the relevant nine points. I also made it plain at that stage that because the witness at that stage was really denying any knowledge of the petition, that I wasn't going to press ahead with questioning her about it. It happened that later, despite her earlier answers, she seemed to have rather full recall of it. And if the accused wishes to bring the petition in, so be it, but my intention was, in light of her not remembering the petition, to deal with it with a later witness. So the accused may be wasting time unless he wishes that the petition should now be dealt with by her, in which case I'm happy for the document to serve the purpose, and the only purpose I would rely on was the format of the petition and the nine points for which ³⁸⁰⁴⁷ there is a translation in English but from a different newspaper.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what exactly is the point you wish to raise? Mr. Nice didn't rely on the document, so it's difficult to see how anything could arise from it. You would have to persuade us that the question that you wish to raise arises in some way.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you weren't seeking to have this document admitted?

MR. NICE: I wasn't. I was going to mention today when we come to exhibits that, as far as I was concerned, at the time I'd withdrawn it. Although I was going to observe, as I already have, that the witness seemed to have acknowledged it's rather better later, but so what?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to draw your attention to the fact that this exhibit as presented with the English and Serbian texts, the English and Serbian are actually quite different. May I continue, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't understand the point you just made. Is this a different document? I see. Okay. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The English text is a translation of some article from the Borba newspaper, whereas the Serbian text is an open letter published in the Nin magazine. Those are two different things.

JUDGE KWON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not going to deal with this ³⁸⁰⁴⁸ anyway, because Mr. Nice is not tendering it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, just a few things in relation to these statements we received yesterday, statements that were taken from a number of persons who had previously given statements to authorised officers at the time of the incident in Racak. I'm not certain that I will go in the same order as yesterday, but I would like to go through them briefly. Mr. Nice provided the statement of Emini Shemsi, which is understand 47, and this Emini Shemsi said that he had been beaten by baseball bats. Do you remember that?

A. You mean the recording, the video that I saw yesterday?

Q. Yes. That's what he said. Several video clips were seen yesterday, and this person said on the screen that he had been beaten by baseball bats.

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in Kosovo and Metohija, have you ever heard of anyone playing baseball and have you ever seen a baseball bat in the entire Kosovo and Metohija?

A. No. I have no idea about this game, and I have never seen that bat. I don't know what it looks like.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Americans will be disappointed to hear that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I am not interested in sports. As a woman, I have a lot of other things to do. And I have never had occasion to travel to the United States.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁸⁰⁴⁹

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, another statement we have here is that of Muhadin Dzeljadini, who says that he did not wish to sign his previous statement, but after seeing blood in the basement, he got frightened and signed anyway. Do you remember who took this statement from Dzeljadini? I mean, which SUP took the statement?

A. I don't have the statement in front of me, but it was taken by the authorised officers of SUP Urosevac.

Q. Have you ever been to SUP Urosevac?

A. I have.

Q. Well, if you have, were you able to determine whether there are any rooms inside that SUP where detained persons were beaten?

A. No. The place where I visited, where I waited for the investigative team to arrive and to accompany me on a on-site investigation, I was not able to see anything of the kind.

Q. Mr. Nice said that it was well known that under the regime of that time some prisoners were tortured. Do you know whether after the 5th of October, when I was no longer president, anyone was released from prison apart from Albanian terrorists? Was there anyone to release?

A. As far as I know, only Albanians were released.

Q. Were Mazreku brothers among those released, the people who -- the bothers who incinerated those people in Klecka?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, Mr. Nice said that through a combination of circumstance - and I believe this relates to tab 52, I can't remember exactly at this moment -- which was that tab that one of the authorised ³⁸⁰⁵⁰ officers taking the statement was Jasovic, was that 52?

A. Yes.

Q. We were informed that he was here yesterday.

JUDGE BONOMY: My understanding was that he was the interviewing officer in all of them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So much the better. I can't remember which is which. I'll look at the tabs.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe it was always two persons together who took the statements.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, but this particular one testified in Limaj case yesterday and we will call him too. Now, tell me this: In this statement, he said that he had not signed the previous statement, that it was not his statement therefore.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I would require a handwriting analysis, because we have handwriting on both statements that can be compared in the statement of Mustafa Afrim, although it must be said that in this last statement given last week he tried to bend it to the left a little to make it look a little different, but I would demand a handwriting analysis to be performed so that we can establish the truth, whether this is really his handwriting on the statement of the 16th of January, 1999, or not. It is pretty obvious to me that it is the same signature.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish to call a handwriting expert, ³⁸⁰⁵¹ Mr. Milosevic, that's a matter for you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I will set it aside.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, you indicated yesterday that it was likely that that would be done anyway.

MR. NICE: It's a course that's obviously open to us to deal with.

JUDGE BONOMY: It would be helpful if a person could be identified to do it. The accused could be consulted about that person and just one analysis was done and we were all agreed to proceed on that basis.

MR. NICE: If we reach that position, but I'm going to ask for discussion about exhibits generally in any event first.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not experts in handwriting, but we can look at the handwriting ourselves. That happens frequently in some jurisdictions.

Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now I would like to ask you this, Mrs. Marinkovic, because he claims now that somebody signed the statement for him. Look what he says in the statement. "Since I live in Racak village --" Do you have this statement in front of you now?

A. No, I don't.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the usher to provide this statement to the witness. It's tab 52.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let tab 52 be provided to the witness.

JUDGE KWON: Are you referring to tab 52 or the statement taken by ³⁸⁰⁵² the Prosecution?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both, actually. The Prosecution, though, has only statements in English. I have this statement in English as well, but it makes no sense to give it to Mrs. Marinkovic because she doesn't understand English.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Mrs. Marinkovic, please look at this. I will only quote from point 3 of this statement, which was taken by one of Mr. Nice's investigators or employees on the 3rd of April.

In point 3 it says that he started to scream and yell at him, saying that he was a member of the KLA. In this statement which he signed and now is trying to disown that signature, does it say anywhere in that statement that he was a member of the KLA?

A. No, no. And I noticed that straight away yesterday.

Q. And now please look at this statement, because it is rather specific. It is not broad or general, nor does it refer to general issues. He says: "Since I live in Racak village, I know and I saw with my own eyes that the substaff of the KLA in Racak village is located in the house of Mustafa Suceri Sefa. The commander is Afet Bilalli, Musliu Shefqet is his deputy."

It's the very beginning of the statement. There are no paragraphs here, actually.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the question that you wish to put?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁸⁰⁵³

Q. So the question is: Since quite a number of specific facts are cited here, can we surmise that the authorised officers who took the statement from him just dreamt up these things and made him sign?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's not a proper question at all, and you well know it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, the facts collected in relation to the situation in Racak in general, do they coincide with these assertions as to who the commander of the substaff was, who these different persons were, I mean all the information obtained through them?

A. The facts that this citizen Mustafa Afrim presented in his statement do coincide with the other statements that were taken in relation to what happened in Racak, and we found quite a bit of material evidence on the ground as well.

Q. If we look at the tabs pertaining to the statements of these witnesses who now say that they gave them out of fear and one person says that he didn't even sign the statement because it's not his signature, is it obvious that these statements largely overlap and in terms of other matters they do not overlap depending on --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. That's -- that's a comment, it's a leading question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Mrs. Marinkovic, in the second paragraph of his statement, it says that "Members of the KLA in the village of Racak have ³⁸⁰⁵⁴ checkpoints in the following places: In front of the bridge in Racak, next to the asphalt road on the right-hand side of the former shop of Mustafa Metus, at a place called Cesta, on the hill above the old people's home..." and so on and so forth.

Is that what was indeed established there?

A. Yes. Yes. Many citizens who were interviewed confirmed this fact, and we actually saw it on the ground because the old people's home had been targeted by the terrorists, and there were visible traces from projectiles on that building.

Q. All right. In his statement, he says that he was told that he was a member of the KLA. In this statement of his in 1999 it does not say that he was a member of the KLA. He mentions that they forced him to touch some wires.

Mrs. Marinkovic, since you're an investigating judge, if we're talking about electric shock -- how should I put this? When a burn is sustained during electric shocks, I mean, do these burns remain or, rather, the scars, do they remain permanent?

MR. NICE: The witness has no experience of torture or people being tortured so I'm not sure how she can possibly answer a question about the effect of electric shocks.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I agree. Mr. Milosevic, that's time wasting.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, not electric shocks, but as an ordinary citizen, I can say on the basis of my own experience, too, if you burn your skin, I mean, there's always a scar, and I've experienced that ³⁸⁰⁵⁵ myself in everyday life.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you might as well ask me the question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mrs. Marinkovic. Do you know whether any police authorities used any devices for torturing prisoners? Specifically I'm asking you about electric shocks, to use the expression used by Mr. Nice.

A. I'm not aware of any such thing.

Q. Did you ever receive any complaints from any defence attorneys of any accused person that some kind of electric shocks were applied in the case of his client?

A. No.

Q. This is a document that was compiled in Urosevac. This is more than two months prior to the outbreak of the war. This person says, at the end of the third paragraph in his statement, that one of the persons who was working on a computer and finally one of them said, "Let him go, he's a child."

So, Mrs. Marinkovic, they said let him go, he's a child. Since we're talking about a town where there's normal life, I mean it's not some remote backwater, had he truly been exposed to some kind of electric shocks, could he have addressed the judiciary organs, the government, the president of the municipality, anybody?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you continue in this vein, we are going to terminate the re-examination. The witness can't help you very much on this statement. ^{38056 BLANK PAGE 38057}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you wish to refute it, there are other means open to you to do that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not refuting it. It's Mr. Nice who is refuting it, in his own assertions and through his exhibits.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice asked you yesterday, Mrs. Marinkovic, in relation to Racak whether you interviewed the inhabitants of the village of Racak when you came there. Do you remember the question?

A. Yes.

Q. In the village of Racak when you came there, when you finally managed on the 18th, as you explained to us, to get in. You made several attempts. First you tried to get in on the 15th and then the next day they wouldn't let you get near when Walker was there and then you had to withdraw again and then ultimately you managed to get in on 18th. Were there any citizens there who you could have put questions to?

A. No. The village was abandoned.

Q. So in addition to -- except for those 40 corpses you found in the mosque, there was not a living soul in the village; is that your assertion?

A. Yes.

Q. You then toured the environs of Racak.

A. Yes.

Q. And you wrote about trenches, casings, bunkers, and so on and so forth. Were there any other corpses except for those that you found in ³⁸⁰⁵⁸ the mosque?

A. No.

Q. The representatives of the OSCE were with you; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody mention that there were some other bodies there too?

A. No. In relation to this, I can say that after that, when the corpses were supposed to be handed over to the families, I had several conversations and contacts with the local villagers and the representatives of the mosques both in Racak and in Stimlje, with the representatives of the verification mission who were in charge of Stimlje and Urosevac. We met and we discussed the hand-over of the bodies. On all those days, whenever I went to Stimlje, none of the citizens who were in contact with me mentioned anything new, saying that they were eyewitnesses or that they had anything to add. They had the opportunity of doing so because we talked to them at length, and then after that the members of the families came to Pristina to get the bodies. So they had ample opportunity. If they had something new to offer, they had several occasions to talk to me and also to address higher instances than myself; the OSCE, the representatives of the mosques, and people from Stimlje.

I have notes about all these contacts I had with them for days and all the names of the persons I contacted are listed there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a moment. Just to go back to the question Mr. Milosevic asked you as to whether there were any persons in the village when you went there on the 19th to whom you could put questions, ³⁸⁰⁵⁹ you said there were no persons there to whom you could put questions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 18th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: On the 18th. But as I understand your testimony, even if there were persons, your testimony is that, according to your procedures, you would not have been able, you would not have had the capacity to put questions to those persons; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But I could only record their names and then give them to the prosecutor.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, during your examination-in-chief, you indicated that the names did not match the persons who were killed in Racak, that is, and the persons whose names are listed on Mr. Nice's lists. Mr. Nice asked you about this yesterday and his suggestion was that Albanians often change their names. Can this fact that the names do not match be due to changes of names among Albanians or is it simply a mismatch?

A. The names on the list in the indictment and on my list do not match.

Q. All right. Now I'm going to ask you something very briefly in relation to Mr. Nice's questions that had to do with the prison in Dubrava. So you had official contacts with what was in your territory. Isn't that right, Mrs. Marinkovic?

A. Yes.

Q. When persons from the Dubrava prison were transferred to your territory through the municipality of Lipljan, which is under the district ³⁸⁰⁶⁰ court in Pristina, you then went to carry out an on-site investigation. We showed all of that through the exhibits. Do you know how many prisoners and detainees were transferred from Dubrava prison to Lipljan or to some other prisons?

A. I don't know the exact figure, but I know that a great many were transferred, those who were injured and those were not injured. That is to say that all the detainees from Istok were transferred to Lipljan, because Dubrava, the prison of Dubrava was completely destroyed and it was not possible to stay there any longer.

Q. All right. When you say "a great many," what do you mean by "a great many"? What is the order of magnitude? I can understand that you cannot give us the exact figure now, but what is the order of magnitude? What is a great many: 100, 200, 500? How many prisoners, approximately?

A. Well, I cannot give you an exact figure now, but it must be around a hundred. Now, I cannot say whether it's a bit more or a bit less.

Q. All right. I hope we will be able to establish that. On page --

JUDGE KWON: Mrs. Marinkovic, how many did you interview among them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not interview them because on the day when I was there, people were still in shock and stressed out. They were given medical assistance. But we agreed with the prison administration that once these persons recover, a few days later those who were not in prison but those who remained in the Lipljan prison would be interviewed in order to be able to find out what it was that happened in Dubrava. ³⁸⁰⁶¹ So later on, after that, I received information that a number of detainees were interviewed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you have the opportunity to see the statements of these persons? Mr. Kwon asked you about this just now. You did not interview them, but did you have the statements of these detainees as to what happened?

MR. NICE: I restricted my questions for want of time to the mere confirmation that she was dependent on the material of her colleague and I left it there. My recollection is, and we can look at the transcript, there have been several questions asked indeed by the Bench about the circumstances in which the colleague had produced his material, problems about the dates and one thing and another. It seemed to me that that was the appropriate way to leave it, given that I have to make a selection of the topics I'm going to cover. I confirmed with her that she hadn't spoken to the three eyewitnesses that were relied on by -- surviving eyewitnesses relied on by the Prosecution, and I left it at that. It doesn't seem to me very much scope for re-examination.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. She confirmed that she's not well aware of the happenings in 22nd and 23rd -- oh, no, 23rd and 24th. Proceed. Ask another question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson [as interpreted]. But she explained that she did not interview these persons, but she did say yesterday during her cross-examination that statements had been taken from these prisoners. ³⁸⁰⁶²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So do you know anything about these statements, Mrs. Marinkovic?

A. In relation to these statements, I know about them because during the break I had, I checked the court files regarding these statements. Whether they were in the court and whether we had them. I found the statements, I photocopied them, but since I'm not in contact with the Defence, with Mr. Milosevic's advisors, I have those statements and I can offer them to the Trial Chamber in order to clarify the situation and everything that happened in Dubrava. Because the prisoners who were in Istok and who had been wounded and injured wrote these statements in their own hand and explained what happened in the prison of Dubrava; from the beginning of the bombing, how the bombing took place, how NATO planes targeted the area, what it was that was targeted. So if the Trial Chamber believes that it could be of assistance in order to clarify the situation in Dubrava, I can now offer you these documents into evidence if you wish.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, you said that the Prosecutor who was in charge of this investigation is in 65 ter witness list of the accused.

MR. NICE: Yes. I think I said that. I think we checked that last time. Yes, he is. And I'm just trying to look at yesterday's transcript. If the witness says that she spoke of statements being taken, then I'm not going to challenge that, but I'd like just to check it. But even if she did volunteer it in answer to the very limited questioning that I put of her, that doesn't let those statements in. I haven't seen these statements that she's going to rely upon. ³⁸⁰⁶³ They might raise exactly the same sorts of issues or different issues from the kind I've had to raise with the three statements that we were able to deal with over the break. So on two grounds -- or three grounds, I would invite the Chamber not to consider allowing in this material at this stage.

And if it does, I might have to ask for leave at some later stage to cross-examine this witness on them if there's no other witness I can deal with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you would be entitled to. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Just calling up the record myself on the LiveNote and I've just found the passage where Mr. Nice, questioning the witness, said: "... to deal with a couple of other things. So far as Dubrava Prison is concerned, you interviewed no survivors other than the ones you say who were injured and moved into the location ... You interviewed no other survivors, did you? No, yes, right. Just let me say, and you didn't wait for me to complete my answer, since a large number of people were injured, I did have the opportunity of -- and that people had been moved, I did have an opportunity of seeing them, however, I wasn't able to talk to them directly because they were under stress..." The witness gave further details. "We agreed with the prison authorities to talk to the people in question so that they --"

THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is invited to quote question and answer when quoting from the transcript.

MR. KAY: "We agreed with the prison authorities to talk to them, ³⁸⁰⁶⁴ to the people in question, so that they could tell them what had happened while they were in Dubrava in the prison there." And then: "You produced your colleagues' report which we've looked at on the last occasion we were here ..." And it's referred to the fact that he didn't speak to any of the survivors who had given evidence in this court. "I don't know who these people were," the answer is. So it's clear that there were statements that were taken as part of an investigation, and that is what this particular witness is offering the Court at this stage, which arose from Mr. Nice's cross-examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It could be produced later, through the --

MR. KAY: They could be marked for identification now, as we had done in the Prosecution case, if you remember, when documents were produced; marked for identification, and then dealt with by the more appropriate witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. I think that's the appropriate course.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may I be heard on that? Actually, the answer that -- I've found it now myself. She was asked specifically if she interviewed no other survivors, and her answer was no. And then she volunteered as much as to say we agree that the prison authorities -- with the prison authorities to talk to the people in question. As a matter of fact, she doesn't go on to say what the process was and the topic changed from there. If she had said something about "and took statements," then I might at that stage have asked for them. I really must press that the time has come to draw a line in this ³⁸⁰⁶⁵ extensive re-examination and to say that this is yet another example of the accused trying to get material in in re-examination that I simply wasn't on notice to deal with and haven't dealt with and, what's more, didn't deal with because I took the specific decision. In order to be economic in the use of time, that this was a topic that I would not trouble with because of the way it had been dealt with in chief, which I simply underline, so that --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, the -- if they're marked for identification, no questions are asked except to confirm that these are the statements obtained the way the witness got them. You then have the advantage that you've got them rather than hoping they'll turn up before the witness who comes to speak to them turns up, and you have the additional advantage that they won't get in unless the witness comes and speaks to the way in which they were prepared.

MR. NICE: That's true. I accept the practical good sense of that as a proposition which accords in practical effect with what I'm asking then, that the matter not be covered in re-examination, so I'm grateful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will mark them for identification, and Mr. Milosevic, then you will seek to produce them through the appropriate witness.

JUDGE KWON: Give the number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, for the record, Mr. Nice has explained that he didn't know about the statements and then couldn't take them into consideration. I assume that from the statement by the witness that you could have heard that I didn't know about the ³⁸⁰⁶⁶ statements either because the witness found them subsequently. So I don't know what it actually says in those statements. I wanted to ask her to read out the names and to read out what it says in the statements. But if you consider that this should be introduced in some other way, then so be it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. That's our decision, and we'll take the break now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Robinson, the witness that was mentioned by Mr. Nice a moment ago with respect to tab 52, will he be able to appear now or not? Because I don't want to detain this witness any more. I have no more questions for witness Mrs. Marinkovic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, whether that person comes as a witness doesn't affect Mrs. Marinkovic. If you are finished your re-examination, and you should be, then she can go. Let me finish. And it's not very clear to me that that person would be able to come immediately after Mrs. Marinkovic. You would need to -- to speak to that person, no doubt, if you're going to call that person as a witness. You would have to work through the liaison officer and make the necessary arrangements.

So as I said before, we'll give you the 20-minute break to have that discussion, and if you wish to call that person as a witness, then the person will be called at the -- at the earliest opportunity.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I had one more ³⁸⁰⁶⁷ question just briefly, not to keep the witness until after the break. May I ask it now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mrs. Marinkovic, in Schedule 1, page 57 of the indictment, we have the names of persons, as it says, killed in the prison in Dubrava, whose names are well known, and then we have 26 individuals listed there. Do you know how many people lost their lives during the bombing of the Dubrava Prison?

MR. NICE: This doesn't arise. I asked no questions on this topic and if it wasn't dealt with by me he cannot ask questions about it in re-examination. Had this topic been covered in chief, I might have taken a different course in cross-examination of this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mrs. Marinkovic, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may leave when we are adjourned. We are going to adjourn now for 20 minutes. Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

--- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, on the question of the admissibility of exhibits.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. Before I turn to the exhibits that I would seek to produce, can I invite the Chamber to consider the position of all those exhibits bearing the name of Dragan Jasovic - I'll give you ³⁸⁰⁶⁸ the numbers of them in a second - and invite you to decide that they should no longer be or should not be exhibits in this case. They are -- I've forgotten the number of the overall exhibit, but within this last witness's exhibit they are tabs 46 -- it's D290. Tabs 46, tab 47, tab 48, tab 51, tab 52, and tab 54.

My application is based on the grounds that -- as follows: For hearsay to be admitted - we've travelled -- travelled this road before but I must set it out - the material has to be reliable, has to be indicia of reliability. The Chamber will also have in mind, although it's not determinative of this issue, but will have in mind that Rule 95 also specifies the exclusion of evidence obtained by methods which cast doubt upon its reliability or if the admission is antithetical to or would damage the integrity of the proceedings.

A very brief reminder of the recent history of similar exhibits would be to the following effect: That with Andric, interviews were produced and are exhibits, counter-material in the form of video recordings of one of the people interviewed explaining and thus denying the content of the interview rejected. In Lituchy, interviews admitted but a statement taken by one of the people interviewed admitted as a Prosecution exhibit.

And we then turn to this last witness. Looking at those two previous examples, in Andric the person whose words the accused seeks to rely on, that is the person interviewed, was interviewed by a journalist, not by the witness. In Lituchy, the person whose words the accused seeks to rely on, i.e., the person interviewed, was interviewed by Lituchy. In ³⁸⁰⁶⁹ this last witness's case, the person whose words the accused wishes to rely on was interviewed not by the witness, not at all in the witness's presence, but by someone else who simply handed the document to the witness in some way.

Again, Andric and Lituchy to some degree tangential. This material not tangential at all. If it be the case that a significant number of the people in gully were ever shown to be members of the KLA, then not only would there be consequences -- possible consequences for a count in this indictment but, bearing in mind the significance of the Racak event and the history overall, there might be rather broader implications. So this is important material potentially. I should, incidentally, say because it's something that I must ensure the accused knows, it's a definite parenthesis before I forgot it: The Chamber will recall that some of the evidence upon which we really to prove that people in Racak who were killed were not members of the KLA was someone called Shukri Buja. He -- and it's another of these interesting crossover realities of prosecuting all sides of a conflict. He has been a witness in the Limaj case on matters other than Racak. He was called by the Prosecution, but he was actually turned hostile by the Prosecution, and that's something that we're going to set out in a Rule 68 notification so that the accused, if he has missed it already, doesn't miss it. But you should know that before we move on.

I come back to my theme: The Prosecution's position with all these categories of statements is that they should be excluded. Alternatively, if they are admitted, that then the counter-material should ³⁸⁰⁷⁰ go in in order, as it were, for the time being to neutralise it, to neutralise its value for the truth of its content. But our base position, and I should also observe that these matters are under applications of two different kinds before Your Honours at the moment, but our basic position is that when material of this kind is produced, especially this last witness, for the truth of its content, the appropriate course would be for the person on whom the accused wishes to rely and who in all cases are available to be called and dealing with the particular witnesses subject to the tabs of Exhibit 290 to which I have referred, the Court will know that my learned friend Mr. Saxon and Investigator Jonathan Sutch went down over the course of what would have been a holiday. They found, without too much difficulty, three. One was recorded as dead, and the others they couldn't find in the time available.

I should tell you also this: That they took careful steps to ensure that there was no inter-witness contamination, and indeed, as I'm informed, that when the witnesses were approached and spoken to and the topic of interest revealed to them, at a very early stage, with little or no prompting, they explained the circumstances that are subsequently set out both in the videotaped interviews of which we've seen very short extracts and in the summarised but signed statements that are before you. In short, looking at the Defence exhibits, our position is this: If you have two statements from the same person saying A and not A, saying one thing and then the reverse, then it would be quite impossible, in the absence of more, to choose between them and to say that one was reliable. This would apply as much to us, now that we know of the existence of the ³⁸⁰⁷¹ statements upon which the Defence relies if we wish to rely on our statements in written form, as it does to him. So that our position, Your Honours, to consider is that these statements as the accused would wish to produce them on an important matter simply do not have, in the light of the material we've now been able to provide to you before the close of the witness's evidence, they do not qualify as reliable and should not be admitted.

The consequence of admitting them, it is said, is little different from the consequence of admitting hearsay in the Prosecution case, a proposition with which I respectfully differ -- from which I respectfully differ.

First, the various examples of hearsay relied on in the Prosecution case were subject both to our shouldering the responsibility of establishing reliability, which we did in all cases, and where admitted was subject either to express arguments by my learned friend Mr. Kay, then amicus, arguments by the accused, and sometimes by simply, on each of their parts, concession that the exhibits should be produced. And this matter is dealt with in an annex, to some degree, to one of the recent filings by the Prosecution with which the Chamber may be acquainted. So that in fact in the Prosecution case the test for reliability was turned to and satisfied before the material was admitted. Here, the accused has not, in our respectful submission, done anything to satisfy you to the sufficient extent of the reliability of this material upon which he would seek to rely, and we would be left with these witness statements and any others adduced in the same way of ^{38072 BLANK PAGE 38073} importance with the following, I would invite you to say, unusual if not bizarre consequence: If the accused if able to call a witness such as the last witness who can produce a statement handed to her by a second party, I am barely able to ask any questions of the witness. Indeed, I was almost stopped from asking any questions of Ms. Marinkovic yesterday about the statements and the counter-statements, if I can so describe them, that I produced.

If the statements then go into evidence, the following two odd consequences follow: One, if the matter is crucial or critical or even very important, I am obliged to make efforts to call the people, and yes, I could call these three people who have made statements over the last weekend, so that the person who seeks to rely on what they say doesn't call them and I do so that he can just cross-examine them, but more than that, the accused thereby gains an automatic extension of time for his case. Indeed, one could argue, by extension, that his best course if these statements are ruled admissible, would be to get the balance of his evidence wherever possible produced in statement forms, either handed to the witness or handed via an intermediary to the witness, in goes the evidence, and I'm told, well, if you don't like it, you've got to call the witness and then he's got to be to be available for cross-examination by the accused. It has, in our respectful submission, reached that potentially concerning position and we would invite you very seriously to reconsider it, to reconsider the position about these exhibits. Now, Your Honours, on questions of reliability you have the three statements, each of which were taken, and I can, of course, only explain ³⁸⁰⁷⁴ to you what has been explained to me by Mr. Saxon and Mr. Sutch as to the circumstances but I hope that you will accept that, but we also have other material going to show unreliability and I invite you to look, for these purposes, without deciding on its admissibility, at this document Spotlight 16. And as we turn to it can I take a minute of your time to make something clear which I hope is clear but which may not be clear. The Court, and I understand why, is inclined to accord to a judge or a policeman coming from the former Yugoslavia the level of respect, deference that such an office holder in another country must justifiably attract. I must make it plain the Prosecution's view -- not the Prosecution's view, but the Prosecution's submissions on this general topic, if relevant, and if it needs to be argued on evidence in due course, will be that the police and the judicial system was acting as an arm of politics and must ultimately be considered at least potentially in that light and accorded no special deference. And indeed, if there is something if not concerning at least interesting about the degree to which this Court, in its efforts to be fair, super fair to this accused, excludes on the basis of potential unreliability sometimes the material of its own investigators who come here to meet the highest standards of human rights conduct, rejects that material because they may be thought to be partisan simply by working for the Office of the Prosecutor or the ICTY, and would be prepared to accept this material from the man Jasovic against whom there is now signed material going to show that he did the things asserted against him.

With that observation in mind, can we look at Spotlight Number 16. ³⁸⁰⁷⁵

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move onto it, you could help me, I think, to understand part of what you're saying. There's a lot of Prosecution evidence about, for example, persecutions, forcible transfer, and so on, which comes from reports compiled by interviewing refugees, and the reliability question, I assumed, was whether this was a genuine document in the sense that people went out and compiled it in the way in which they said, and that gave it a certain quality that enabled it to be admitted. I didn't understand that the reliability issue was whether all the witnesses who gave their stories were reliable. I thought that was a matter for the Trial Chamber to assess when it came to evaluate all the evidence.

And similarly here, when you have a judge carrying out an investigation and gathering the material that others have prepared, I assumed the reliability question was, was what actually happened in the investigation, not whether people were tortured in the course of the carrying out of the inquiry. That was something we would have to assess on a different basis. Now, your submission doesn't proceed in that way. You're mixing all aspects of reliability together and saying we've got to make a judgement about the quality of the evidence in our ultimate consideration before we decide whether to admit it or not.

MR. NICE: I certainly hope I'm not mixing questions of reliability. In dealing with Your Honour's question in the like two parts: Where material was produced at the Prosecution's hand, Human Rights Watch reports, OSCE, matters of that sort, there was extensive evidence given by the compilers of the circumstances in which and of the ³⁸⁰⁷⁶ disinterested character in the part of the staff employed the materials obtained. Sorry, it's a long and unattractive sentence but you know what I mean. They give evidence that their staff were drawn from here, there, and everywhere and were properly trained and that they produced the material in a routine and satisfactory way.

Now, it may be, to pick up Your Honour's potential distinction, that in allowing the evidence in at that stage, both issues of reliability were in everybody's minds, that then the method of production being directly shown to be reliable, that is to say this is -- these are the questionnaires, they were prepared by my staff, they were processed and I took overall responsibility for the compiling of the report, as one of the witnesses might have said. But also, that if you have hundreds of witnesses -- or not witnesses, hundreds of people answering questions and an overall conclusion in the form of composite reports of the kind we've seen being prepared, then there is sufficient indicia over all of reliability of the content for it to be relied upon as to the truth or the general truth of its content.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker be asked to speak into the microphone.

MR. NICE: Certainly, and probably to slow down, but ... I apologise if I get carried away a little bit.

So my recollection -- I suppose we'd have to look at the arguments more fully to check whether the distinction that Your Honour draws was in our minds, but with that distinction in mind, I think that the documents were dealt with for reliability on both bases at the time. ³⁸⁰⁷⁷ Now, reliability here is on the following basis: I have assumed reliability so that, in the absence of more evidence, the Court can rely on this or may rely on this for the truth of its content. Let me say at once if the Court says that even though these documents are produced there is no question of the Court relying on the content at all without more, either coming from the named witness and the named people or something to that extent, why, then, my application would be unnecessary. But there could be no purpose on the accused's part, and I don't think that he urged otherwise, for his adduction of this material other than to go to show the people in the gully or elsewhere killed in Racak were fighting members of the KLA. That's why he wants this material in, and that's why it is potentially important for the reasons that I've given. Your Honours, if I can return to the theme of the material going to show that material produced by Dragan Jasovic should not be adduced, you have the three statements but can I invite you also to look at Spotlight 16, and with my observations about the police and judicial system generally in mind, can I also explain to Your Honour that in countries where -- it can sometimes be that in countries where police and judicial systems occupy politicised positions, organisations that have the courage to operate according to human rights norms that are acceptable are extremely important sources of information.

This one -- and it's more than possible that I will apply to call somebody from this organisation if it's judged appropriate and helpful. This one is headed by Serbs, and you can see from another document that its leader has cited, someone prepared to take grave personal risks in ³⁸⁰⁷⁸ order to preserve standards, you may conclude.

If you will be good enough to go to the index, which is the second page, you'll --

JUDGE BONOMY: What's the standing of this document in our debate, though? Because I've written on it, when it was dealt with yesterday, "Nothing established from this document."

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour --

JUDGE BONOMY: Now, what's the status of it for us to consider at this stage?

MR. NICE: At this stage I'm inviting you to consider it entirely de novo as if I'm bringing it to you for the first time on an argument about reliability of Jasovic's material.

JUDGE BONOMY: How can you do that?

MR. NICE: This is a published -- Your Honour, I can and I'd be grateful if I can expand on it even if Your Honour rules against me in due course.

This is a document published in February 1995 by an utterly respectable human rights organisation.

JUDGE BONOMY: So you say.

MR. NICE: So I say. And if you'd be good enough to look, please, at the index, you'll see that 3.3 document of February 1995, page 15, I think it's actually page -- it is page 15, relates to electric shocks at Urosevac police station, and you'll bear in mind that the witness alleged that she'd had no complaints of torture of any kind, and if you look at this well-known publication, what I'm taking you to is but one sample of ³⁸⁰⁷⁹ what is said here was established from 195 people who were interviewed. And at page 3. -- at page 3.3 on page 15, at the foot of page 15 and then over to page 16 --

JUDGE BONOMY: This is 1994 you're talking about.

MR. NICE: 1994.

JUDGE BONOMY: What is the relevance of that to the evidence that we were considering yesterday?

MR. NICE: It's the same police station, and it shows, if Your Honour would be good enough to allow me to explain, it shows, apart from recorded systematic use of violence, it shows at the very police station an 18-year-old, and I turn to page 16 --

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

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may continue.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll hear from the others on this document.

MR. NICE: Yes. On page 16, then, from the same police station in 1994/5, which is, for example, the time of the police trial that the witness did deal with and, more materially, is the same police station as these three people were interviewed at, we see and Your Honours can read it quickly, more quickly than I can read it at acceptable interpretation speed, an account from a young man being beaten and electrocuted at the police station by the police.

Now, if that is material, published material, contemporaneous with the events described, or fairly contemporaneous within an overall study ³⁸⁰⁸⁰ that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What year is this?

MR. NICE: 1995. And if I can take Your Honours back -- I don't want to read out the gory details of the electrocution -- and incidentally, on the previous page, page 14, there is police brutality at the Urosevac farmer's market, so there is another incident in the same area. If Your Honours would, for speed, be good enough to come back to the cover page or the front page, the centre spoke with 165 persons who claimed to have personal experience with politically or ethnically motivated searches, arrests, or detention. A large majority also described torture or instances of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during questioning by the Serbian police in Kosovo. In a number of these cases allegations of mistreatment at the hands of the police were confirmed by medical reports signed by ethnic Serb or ethnic Albanian doctors. It was impossible to study all the cases brought to the attention of the centre field researchers. In-depth documentation and analysis were made of only a relatively small proportion of the large number of cases recorded, and so on. So that's the basis of this report. Now, Your Honours, as I say, I'm happy for these purposes to treat it, and indeed should treat it for these purposes, as freestanding material, starting afresh. The Defence offers the tabs 46 and so on into evidence. I'm in a position to say, but here is a contrary statement of three of these witnesses, not only denying the content or the material part of the content of their statement but explaining how the statements were taken by the named officer. ³⁸⁰⁸¹ I point to you other published material going to show a pattern of violence, including violence and torture at the police station concerned. The Chamber asks itself the question: For the purposes of producing important evidence through hearsay material, can the Chamber be satisfied that there are sufficient indicia of reliability in both the categories that His Honour Judge Bonomy referred to, and my respectful submission would be that it could never conceivably be satisfied as to the important element of reliability, that is to say, the content of the statements for the truth of their contents.

And so my request to the Court is to reconsider the production of those exhibits and to rule that they be not admitted. Before turning to our own exhibits and the consequences one way or another for that --

JUDGE KWON: Pausing there, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: What you are asking of us now is to agree with you that the judicial system of Serbia at that time was part of politics.

MR. NICE: I'm not asking you to agree with that yet. Of course not. But I am making it quite plain what the Prosecution's position is, which is why it may be necessary, if witnesses like this are called, to explore the matters by all the material available according to the rules of admissibility of this Tribunal.

I mention it because there may be in the Chamber an assumption that a judicial or police system is entitled to some credit beyond that to which the evidence may show this one is entitled, and therefore I'm ³⁸⁰⁸² inviting you simply to have in mind our position so that no witness starts with special credit and that there should be no special deference paid to witnesses of the kind we've just seen on account simply of the position that she held, and indeed I asked some opening questions that marked the distinction between, for example, that witness and others named in this case who have been dealt with as people whose evidence could not be accepted in written or other form. Investigators. Investigators that we know about, she was given every opportunity to say anything she liked about them, are unimpeachable, it would appear, by reputation. She has been the subject of many allegations. We only looked at some of them because we didn't have time. The allegations made by lawyers, and I may, if necessary, apply to call one of the lawyers who dealt with the police case. But also other public allegations of an extraordinary kind, if not founded on some accuracy on the part of those reporting to them -- to the people recording them.

All I desire is that there should be no special credit given to what is said to be a functioning judicial process or a functioning police service.

JUDGE KWON: It is still for you to prove.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, respectfully, no. This Chamber has to have and has to develop a real understanding and view of what happened in the former Yugoslavia. And the problem is, and it is a real problem for a Court that can only hear material adduced in the adversarial system, that it may invest institutions in other countries with qualities with which it's familiar from its own experience, and there may be no reason to do ³⁸⁰⁸³ that. And I'm simply inviting the Chamber to be careful to establish a level from which it starts to assess the evidence. But Your Honour said it's for me to prove that. Respectfully, no. We --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The real view, Mr. Nice, that you would want us to have of the judicial system can only be one that is based on evidence.

MR. NICE: Precisely so. But when His Honour Judge Kwon says the burden's on me to prove that, I can only prove it through witnesses called to assert the contrary, which is why I took some time, to His Honour Judge Bonomy's disquiet yesterday, in trying to get to the witness who took every opportunity it may be to extend answering, to show allegations of some of those that we have available made against her and supported in part by the material coming from doctors. So that -- I needn't repeat myself.

Yes, if it's material to explore this in detail and to establish it in detail, then it has to be done by evidence and I'll go further with that with other witnesses. I've gone some way already. My urging on the Court is not simply to give artificial credit to one institution crediting it with qualities that that institution simply may not have. And I repeat, there is something slightly curious, it may be, in giving credit to, if Chamber was so to do, to a judicial and police system in the former Yugoslavia thus to allow this type of statement in when it has said as against its own investigators -- not its investigators, that would be the accused's characterisation; the investigators of the Office of the Prosecutor because they are, in a ³⁸⁰⁸⁴ sense, working for a party so-called, that they're not to be credited with reliability when everything about the creation of this institution and the work of the investigators here shows that they came here to work for and do work for the highest standards of modern humanitarian law and, what's more, are engaged, as everybody else here is, not in prosecuting just one sector of society but looking at investigating and prosecuting all of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Nice, you're making too much of this point.

MR. NICE: Very well. I was responding to His Honour Judge Kwon's question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber only acts on the basis of the evidence before it except where presumptions are permissible according to law.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I was responding to His Honour Judge Kwon's question, and Your Honour's explanation of the position in a sense reinforces my position: There is no presumption of credit -- I can express it in Your Honour's terminology: There is no presumption of credit in favour of material produced by this particular system.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Or against.

MR. NICE: Or against. Neutral. I entirely accept that until evidence is available to show one way or another. So in our -- in our submission, the statements produced reinforced by this version of Spotlight should drive the Chamber to the conclusion that if the accused wishes to rely on the words of the people interviewed, ³⁸⁰⁸⁵ then it's those people who should be called, not by us in our time or in an extended rebuttal case, but by the accused in his time. Your Honour, then can I make the obvious point about the consequences of your decision on this application for material we've adduced or sought to adduce. If the evidence is excluded, then obviously the videos and the interviews produced would not be subject of an application to be produced. It would be unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the Chamber rules against me, and I'm not encouraging that in any sense, I'm just allowing for that possibility because I cannot make this application any more strongly or with any more force and concern than I do, but if it rules against me, then in the same way as the Lituchy counter-statements were allowed in I would invite the Chamber to state that the counter-statements of the three witnesses and indeed the counter-videotapes, which have only be viewed in part but can be viewed in full, should be available to the Chamber for consideration. I can deal with other exhibits --

JUDGE KWON: Can I ask a technical question in relation to that. Why did you not try to produce it pursuant Rule 92 bis while you could have done that?

MR. NICE: You mean over the weekend.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. NICE: First of all, we wouldn't have had a legal officer down there who could have taken the statement. If necessary, we can deal with 92 bis later, but we always need a legal officer or a judge down there. These exercises aren't that easy. They take a great deal of organisation, ³⁸⁰⁸⁶ and as it were it's difficult enough to find the people and then to find --

JUDGE KWON: I think I understand that.

MR. NICE: And also there's the question, and we can serve it under 92 bis, and we may do that if it ever becomes necessary, but can I -- Your Honour actually triggers me to think of something else which I've been meaning to say: That the Chamber would also want to have in mind that all this material that the accused has produced through the particular three witnesses but through this last witness has come to our attention at the last possible moment, his intention to rely on it. Now, if we'd had advance notice of detail and so on and so forth, we might have been able to do a great deal more. We might have been able to find those other interviewees who are probably alive, but we couldn't. With future witnesses who may be invited to produce the same material we simply may not have the time or the success that we've had with Andric, Lituchy, and this witness. And indeed with this witness had it not been for the happenchance of the Easter vacation almost certainly we wouldn't have been able to present you with material as valuable for the exercise of judging reliability as we have.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are these the exhibits you say were not included in a Rule 65 ter disclosure?

MR. NICE: As I understand, none of this was --

JUDGE BONOMY: Why don't you object to them then?

MR. NICE: I drew it to your attention right --

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, you did but unless you tell us that you object ³⁸⁰⁸⁷ because you'll be prejudiced, then it's difficult to take a firm decision against at least considering the position, but --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, with great respect, two or three answers to that. I've taken objections along the way. I've made efforts and applications to limit the scope of the accused's evidence. They have all been -- they've been by and large nearly all rejected and I've made it clear that my anxiety is not to limit him by reason of his own amateur status as a litigator; I'm anxious that if material may assist the Chamber and he wants you to see can go in, it should go in. So I have to balance things but I have always tried to draw to your attention this.

JUDGE BONOMY: We had a brief discussion, though, about 65 ter and the absence of material from the disclosure at the stage -- at the beginning of the evidence of a witness. Now, it may not -- was it Gojovic or was it this witness?

MR. NICE: It wasn't this witness. It may have been Gojovic, and there --

JUDGE BONOMY: And there was a warning given to the accused at that stage.

MR. NICE: There was a warning that the accused would be kept to the terms of his 65 ter, but of course the 65 ters are so narrow, are so general they pretty well encompass anything.

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. But as far as the material, the exhibits are concerned, they should be disclosed. At least, the existence of the material and the fact that it may be relied upon should have been disclosed. ^{38088 BLANK PAGE 38089}

MR. NICE: Should have been disclosed.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE: Plus the fact that we ought to have had some notification -- it's impossible for us to work without some notification of the detail of what a witness is going to rely on by way of exhibits if he relies on a 65 ter summary as broad as these are, and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you might also have in mind that in the Prosecution case the Chamber was fairly lenient in relation to disclosure of exhibits in relation to the Prosecutor.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, there are two important answers to that question. First, the Chamber was generous in the sense that where documents had not been produced -- had not been identified in our 65 ter list, they were not the subject either of objection by the accused, the amicus, or exclusion by the Chamber, correct. But secondly, the Chamber will recall not only that all exhibits wherever possible were provided in advance but they were regularly provided twice; once generally and then once specifically as long in advance as it was possible for the accused to have once we knew what was going to be relied upon. Of course the general generosity -- I'm not sure it's actually the right word, but the general generosity of approach is one that I've also had in mind in limiting my objections. I simply don't want to be, and I don't want to be seen as somebody who is confining an amateur litigator like this accused by technical provisions, and it's a balance I have to draw between taking that -- that strict position and an overeasy one which perhaps His Honour Judge Bonomy is wondering whether I've taken in ³⁸⁰⁹⁰ relation to these exhibits. But that's what I've been trying throughout to do, and it was with that in mind, just dealing, for example, with the question of general admissibility, that we raised with you, for example, scope of evidence in a few early motions and then explained quite specifically that if you ruled against us, then we would regard that as helpful for our future approach, and it seemed to us that the general drift of the Chamber's rulings was to be inclusive and generous, and that guides me in the approach I take.

But nevertheless, it's only by chance that we've been able to lay before you material showing that this evidence is unreliable or doesn't have the indicia of reliability upon which it would be appropriate to rely.

Your Honours, I made reference to --

JUDGE BONOMY: The rule -- sorry.

MR. NICE: Yes, of course.

JUDGE BONOMY: I've had a look at the rule while we've been going on, and it's -- it's rather the other way around. "No evidence shall be admissible if obtained by methods which cast substantial doubt on its reliability or if its admission is antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the proceedings."

Now, the trouble is that the evidence you submit as indicating the method by which it was obtained casting substantial doubt is not really evidence at the moment. It didn't come in as part of the Prosecution case. It's part of an investigation carried out, and it's -- I have difficult with its status. ³⁸⁰⁹¹

MR. NICE: Well, its status as evidence formally may be for ultimately -- for later consideration, but -- and I drew Rule 95 to your attention as one of the overriding Rules of the Tribunal, but the case law rulings, coming from Tadic, I think, on the admissibility of hearsay material all requires generally satisfaction with indicia of reliability. And, of course, if we look at these particular statements, we can also have in mind that one of them on our information, one of the makers of the statement is now dead, so that that would have to satisfy, if produced in the normal and other way, would have to satisfy conditions set out in one of the Rules of the Chamber to which we would have had an opportunity to reply and deal with in detail had we been given notice. Your Honours, I referred to a recent filing dealing with the basis of admissibility of certain Prosecution hearsay material that was relied upon by the assigned counsel in their pleading. I simply draw to your attention that it is, in case anybody wants to discuss it, it is confidential because part of the material referred to in it was, I think, in closed session, but I don't desire to go into it in detail now but it's there for you to consider.

Your Honours, that's all I say on my basic submission. Would it be help if I just to turn to the documents we've looked at?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: There is the article by Natasa Kandic, the later article which made an allegation against the last witness. I would invite the Chamber to say --

JUDGE KWON: You are referring to B92. ³⁸⁰⁹²

MR. NICE: B92, yes. I would invite you to say that that is material that by the very fact of its being published in the environment with which you're becoming or are familiar, is material going to the witness's reputation, and although she of course denies it, it's something that you should know exists.

As to the next document, it was the petition, we've dealt with that this morning. I'll deal with that with a later witness. We then had a complaint --

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry. I'm trying to catch up.

MR. NICE: Sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you.

MR. NICE: We then had one -- I think four documents at least relating to Fazli Balaj, the lawyer and his clients, a complaint by him the telegram to the Ministry of the Interior, the complaint by the lawyer to many organs, including the judge and others, about torture, and the ten medical certificates, and I'd invite those to be admitted. The witness dealt with them.

The next document was the Spotlight report number 16. Without reference to its value simply as a publicly available document in the previous discussion and for want of time, and I have to observe that this witness was capable of taking a lot of time, I did my best to be fast but limited success, a part of this was put to her, not all of it but I would have done if I had had more time, in particular on page 23 as a public expression of the nature and purpose of the 1994 criminal proceedings over which she either presided or in which she was involved, and this is a ³⁸⁰⁹³ public document, it's part of our case on the functioning of the judiciary at that time, and I'd invite the Chamber to admit it for that purpose. I would now also invite the Chamber to admit it for the purpose of showing that there were indeed public complaints of torture, notwithstanding some of the recent answers of the witness where she said no such complaints were known of by her effectively. We then come to the six exhibits, the three videos and the three statements, which I would seek to be admitted on the same grounds as in Lituchy unless the Chamber accedes to my application to exclude all documents bearing the signature of Dragan Jasovic. And then, finally, there is this document which the Chamber will recall, the note by the Prosecutor concerning Racak which was -- it's still not translated. I'm not sure whether it should qualify as a Prosecution or a Defence exhibit. The witness produced it, voluntarily read parts from it, and I simply obliged her to read the full context, but I think one way -- or I respectfully submit, one way or another it ought to be before you as an exhibit. I'm neutral as to on whose account. Your Honours, if I can help you further.

JUDGE KWON: No doubt you will wish to exhibit medical reports from Pristina faculty of medicine.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KOWN: There's ten of them.

MR. NICE: There's ten of them, yes. I thought I had already mentioned them. If I haven't, it's my oversight. Yes, the ten medical certificates. That is the fourth of the four documents concerning ³⁸⁰⁹⁴ allegations of torture by Isak Aliu, in respect of Isak Aliu. Your Honours, I'm sorry to have taken some time. I gather from Ms. Dicklich that by taking that time I've currently now gone over 50 per cent if we add administrative time to the time I took whereas my own cross-examination was well within the 50 -- well less than the 50 per cent, but there it is. Thank you.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honours, if I may address the points in turn that Mr. Nice has raised, starting firstly with the statements taken by Dragan Jasovic.

The Court has or should have in mind at the start that the witness was an investigating judge, as His Honour Judge Bonomy has already stated, and that these documents are part of her court files; documents that were not prepared for this litigation but prepared way back for the purposes of other investigations that came into her hands.

The documents, as Your Honours will have seen, had official stamps upon them, and this Tribunal admits hearsay evidence pursuant to the Rules of Evidence in this Court, and therefore in my submission, in our submission, it's clearly an example of evidence that should be admitted and that a professional Bench will then accord weight to in due course. Mr. Nice has referred to Rule 95, and in our submission, there has been no evidence to establish or throw substantial doubt upon the reliability of the statements. It has been material that has been used as ammunition in cross-examination and therefore Rule 95 does not come into play, in our submission, in this instance.

There is a clear mechanism for the Prosecution to deal with the ³⁸⁰⁹⁵ statements and the contents of the statements. That mechanism has been referred to on several occasions and can be found in Rule 85(A)(iii), the rebuttal phase of the case.

Clearly the Prosecution have to be in a position by the end of the case where they will then decide and take a view on the most important statements and the important witnesses to call during the rebuttal phase, but in our submission, the statements that are produced or, rather, were taken by Dragan Jasovic relate to important evidence on Racak and the presence of the KLA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: To seek to call.

MS. HIGGINS: To seek to call, yes, Your Honour. To seek to call indeed. They refer to important evidence concerning the presence of the KLA and the incident in Racak, and Your Honours may also have noted that some of the tabs actually precede the Racak event itself. I think tab 48, for example, refers to the 12th of January, 1999. The summary of our points and submissions on this phase of the evidence is that the Court has already made a decision. It was admitted and it is a special example, a special category of court files that have been rightly produced by an investigating judge. Dealing next in turn, if I may, with the three statements that were subsequently taken by the Office of the Prosecution on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd of April and the three videos that accompany the statements, I'd like to make the following few points: Firstly, that these statements have absolutely no connection to the witness Ms. Marinkovic herself. Unlike the Mr. Lituchy scenario, she did not interview the three -- any of ³⁸⁰⁹⁶ the three men originally or have any connection to the taking of their evidence at that stage and is, therefore, unable to comment upon the substance of their testimony. Again, the statements deal with central allegations, but they constitute classic rebuttal evidence and fall into the same category.

As a minor point, it was noted by ourselves that some of the questions in the video clips were in fact clearly leading. One of the questions asked by Mr. Saxon was: "Were you asked or told to touch the wires?" And so we raise that in addition to the points already raised in relation to the way in which parts of the statements may have been taken. So we would seek to argue that these statements are not -- should not be admitted at this stage of the case and should be reserved for the rebuttal stage, an argument which Your Honours have heard on several occasions before.

Can I deal briefly with the Spotlight report number 16. As Your Honours have seen, this report was produced by an NGO, the Humanitarian Law Centre, in English and was not produced in the witness's language, and in our submission constitutes a comment on the trial referred to in Defence tab 4. The report is a classic example, we submit, of other people's research and ideas and has no probative value or relevance to this witness's evidence and the Kosovo indictment. It is, importantly, material that was not adopted or spoken to by the witness. She was asked whether the magazine analysis was accurate, and her response to that was to want to go back to the original documents, the indictment and the original source papers. ³⁸⁰⁹⁷ It therefore has no probative value and is in fact potentially dangerous to admit this document which contains comment by an NGO of a particular stance with particular views, and to submit that it should be admitted de novo is, in our submission, inappropriate. There are particular mechanisms for the admission of evidence, and in our submission, this does not fall within any of the categories for it to be entitled to be admitted.

Moving on to B92, what appears to be an extract from a website, a website article, this was not produced in the witness's language. In fact, she had said that she had never seen it before, and again, it's written by the head of the NGO Humanitarian Law Centre, Natasa Kandic. The document was used by Mr. Nice to ask the witness about the Fehmi Agani case in which she was not the investigating judge, and she clearly said she had nothing to do with that case.

Your Honours will recall that one very serious allegation was put to the witness from the document. In fact, the allegation being that she had ordered several men to be killed. This allegation was not supported by any other material by the Prosecution, and it was denied vehemently, and her presence was denied in relation to the allegation. Again, Your Honours, in our submission, it's the document which falls into the category of contents not adopted by the witness, and importantly, material which includes inappropriate comment by the author about the witness herself. It adds nothing to the witness's evidence that was given in this trial. Understandably, maybe used for ammunition, but nothing beyond that. ³⁸⁰⁹⁸ Your Honours may recall that Mr. Milosevic did re-examine on this document in order to deal with the allegations that were raised by Mr. Nice, and this raises a related point which I would like to bring to Your Honours' attention, that being that when the decisions on the admission of exhibits are left to the end of the testimony of a witness, it does raise problems for the accused, Mr. Milosevic, to know what he has to deal with in re-examination, and we have observed that perhaps an amount of time has been taken up in re-examination which need not have been taken by Mr. Milosevic if an earlier decision about admissibility had been taken at the outset. I make those comments in addition to my comments on admissibility.

Your Honours, if I may then briefly deal with the remaining documents. Firstly, the complaint of the defending lawyer and the accompanying telegram and subsequent complaint.

Subject to any observations, of course, that Mr. Milosevic may have on the admissibility of this material, we make the following submissions: These documents were presented to the witness and she attempted to deal with them. She addressed them, and they relate to the events referred to in tab 4 of the Defence exhibits. In our submission, it's a category of documents that could be dealt with in terms of weight by the Trial Chamber, bearing in mind, of course, that only partial records have been made available or available to the parties. Similarly, the ten medical examinations fall into the similar category. And finally, dealing with the Prosecution's Official Note concerning Racak that was produced by this witness, there is no objection to that document. It was ³⁸⁰⁹⁹ produced by her and given to the Court.

We are concerned by the length of time that has been taken in concern -- with the Prosecution's comments concerning the admissibility of these documents in that it seems to us to be more appropriate that decisions on admissibility of exhibit material be dealt with when they arise so that we avoid the length of time that has perhaps been taken up on these matters, of course important matters but matters which could be perhaps dealt with more swiftly.

Your Honour, unless I can be of any further assistance, those are my submissions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. First of all, I wish to say something about a very sweeping, one-sided, even irresponsible, I should say, statement made by Mr. Nice that the judicial system of Yugoslavia was an extended arm of politics. The question is whether the courts ruled according to the law or apart from the law. As you could see in these documents --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I want you to confine your remarks to the question of the admissibility of the nine documents that we are -- that have been referred to. This is not the occasion to respond to Mr. Nice's remarks about the judicial system.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nice put this forth as a general objection for denying the credibility of the court records and files of the Yugoslav judiciary organs. So that is a question of admissibility, and how. That is why the question is that if we have ³⁸¹⁰⁰ court records here of judicial organs presented by a witness who is an investigating judge who worked on this, if then there is general -- a general challenge to the judiciary system, then one would have to provide evidence that this judiciary did not function according to the law, which cannot be proven on the basis of these court records. On the contrary; they only prove that the courts did function on the basis of the law. Also, there has to be evidence, then, that the criminal laws and the laws in general in Yugoslavia were not good to begin with and that there are some kind of distorted provisions that do not exist anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Nice referred to the trials to -- the trials of illegal police structures. If you establish through the court records that this was a structure that dealt in arms smuggling and murder, and that is what the witness said here, too. I would like Mr. Nice to say where, in which country a Criminal Code does not punish such activities, those that result in murder, arming, et cetera. So he either has to prove that the Criminal Code is simply wrong or that the courts did not work in accordance with the law in order to dare criticise or object to the judicial system in Yugoslavia.

Secondly, he says that he is challenging tabs 47, 46, 48, 50, 51, and 54. Always there are two authorised officials on each document, and then Mr. Jasovic appears as one of them. Please, let us just compare two things: Mr. Nice spoke of a test of reliability, and he even said that I did not meet the required criteria when giving this evidence. I believe that the test of reliability has indeed been met, because these are ³⁸¹⁰¹ official records of the investigating judge who is giving evidence. Secondly, these are court records that were created on the 16th of January, as is the case in tab 52. Some were created before the 16th of January, and so on. So these are official records that were compiled by authorised officials and official files that are part and parcel of the investigation process conducted by the witness. They were compiled at a time when they could not have had anything to do with the current proceedings here.

Mr. Nice confronts this with three statements taken this week which indeed have something to do with this -- these proceedings. They were taken by his co-workers. When you take into account statements that were taken on time and became part of court records and that at that time there were no proceedings like the current ones, and when you take into account, on the other hand, these three statements which do have something to do with these proceedings, and how, because they were taken on account of these proceedings and in order to refute these official records, then it is quite clear that they cannot be considered on a footing of equality at all, because official records are one thing and everything else is another thing.

As for the report of this organisation of Mrs. Kandic's --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, may I ask you specifically whether you object to the admission of the three statements taken by the Prosecution over the weekend, the Easter weekend.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Absolutely. This is a malicious procedure, taking statements six years later only for the purposes that ³⁸¹⁰² can be obvious to anyone. If we -- if we all have to be aware of the situation in Kosovo and Metohija and the terror that reigns there, we would have to know that there is not a single Albanian there any longer who would give you a statement that would be to the detriment of the interests of the KLA. They have killed so many of them that their families do not even dare speak of their next of kin who had been killed. So I'm truly surprised that Mr. Nice dares speak about the reliability of the judicial system of Yugoslavia, and he takes as reliable something that is stated in the darkest days of terror in Kosovo, a terror imposed by the KLA, and everybody knows about that. Many people hear this. This is being telecast. Everybody knows what the situation is like in Kosovo. In that situation these statements are absolutely worthless. I think that it is even not serious to proffer such statements. Secondly, you asked a few minutes ago whether there was any point in showing that these persons were members of the KLA, that there was a KLA presence in Racak. Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kwon, at that time Mr. Bonomy was not here, but you do recall that the witness whose name Mr. Nice mentioned a few minutes ago, Buja Shukri, who was one of the commanders in Racak, here during the cross-examination, he was a Prosecution witness, he himself said that they were the first to open fire at the police from a 12.7-millimetre heavy machine-gun, at the police who were entering Racak. How can there be a question mark concerning the fact that the KLA was in Racak? Well, Shukri himself confirmed this, not to speak of all the other testimonies that are referred to here.

So I think it is quite clear that these tabs, that is to say all ³⁸¹⁰³ these statements that Jasovic compiled and that Mrs. Marinkovic as investigating judge included in her records at the time when this was taking place, when it was contemporaneous in 1999, these statements meet even the most rigid criteria of reliability tests, whereas I believe that the statements taken yesterday and the day before yesterday and the conditions under which they are taken and from the persons from which they are taken cannot be acceptable at all.

As regards different writings of Mrs. Kandic, let us leave aside the fact that this is propaganda. This is not even hearsay evidence. Quite simply, these are writings about all sorts of things that can compromise the authorities in Yugoslavia, and paper can suffer anything. She even wrote here that Danica Marinkovic, the investigating judge who was testifying here, ordered the police to kill a group of Albanians. And this was even referred to in the cross-examination. Can anyone conceive of such a situation? If such things were to be taken into account as something that merits due consideration, I believe there can be no end to this kind of thing.

I'm saying all of this publicly. Everybody can hear this. She -- Natasa Kandic is a highly compromised person in Serbia because of such writings. This therefore has no weight and should not be taken into evidence. After all, General Gojovic, when he was confronted with a similar thing, he suggested to you that if you care about your own credibility, you should not be dealing with Mrs. Kandic. Furthermore, Mr. Nice said that there was much abuse, once again referring to the Spotlight writings, and so on and so forth. Gentlemen, ^{38104 BLANK PAGE 38105} you here had the opportunity of seeing that, and in this specific case it was Judge Marinkovic but it can happen to any investigating judge, did have an opportunity of getting a complaint from one of the Defence counsel of one of the accused and that she issued orders that a medical examination be conducted.

Now, if what Mr. Nice said were true in the 1990s, and he mentioned 1994 and 1995 about some instances of torture, then the following question arises: How come that at that time -- it was peace at the time, there was no, no extraordinary situations in Kosovo and Metohija at the time, how come then, given that situation in the towns in which this happened, nobody filed criminal reports about having been abused by the police, that they had overstepped their authority, and so on and so forth? Perhaps there are reports of that kind. I don't know that there is a single police force in the world where individuals do not overstep their mark, especially in situations of crisis. But if we're talking about torture and abuse, how come these people did not file criminal reports to the authorities telling them that such-and-such had happened, when we have on the other side an example whereby criminal reports were filed on the basis of which Danica Marinkovic made certain decisions and so on and took certain steps. And Mr. Nice said that even medical material confirm assertions about the judiciary. Medical reports confirm quite the opposite assertions, and that is what Mrs. Marinkovic said. She said as soon as a complaint or request came in from a Defence counsel, it would be her -- she herself who would order that a medical examination be conducted, which shows precisely that she was working according to the ³⁸¹⁰⁶ letter of the law and working according to the professionalism of a judge. And he used an expression, he said, "You have ten reports on torture." So he uses those terms and creates an atmosphere who, for the layman, might appear to be the truth. So those ten reports on torture - I haven't counted them all, but anyway in nine of them it says that what was found was light bodily injury and that in one case no injuries were found at all. Therefore what right has Mr. Nice to speak about ten reports about torture or this I don't know. I should like the public to assess this and it is up to you to assess this. I have seen no ten reports on torture, although he brought that up and used it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, no jury.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is. There is indeed, Mr. Robinson. There is a jury. Yes, there is. The jury is the entire world public. And the advantage of the 21st century is that nothing can be hidden.

And finally --

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is a public trial, but when I say there is no jury, I was really responding to your remarks about a particular purpose behind Mr. Nice's presentation of his case, as if that were to impress a layman. There is no layman here as the trier of facts. We are professional Judges. It is for that reason that I reminded you that there is no jury here.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, it is not my intention to undermine your professional knowledge, and I do not think that Mr. Nice had the impression -- had the intent to impress you, because you have seen ³⁸¹⁰⁷ the documents and they're not documents about torture, you can see that for themselves. But he does have the intention of impressing the public because we are talking about a propaganda war here that is still ongoing and has been ongoing for the last 15 years. And part of that is the activities of Mr. Nice with qualifications that he makes and which cannot be supported.

Secondly, Mr. Nice --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We now know that you have an intention to impress the public.

Will you be terminating your comments shortly, Mr. Milosevic, because we are well past the break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I will, Mr. Robinson. I don't want to underestimate your powers of perception, but since you have said that Mr. Nice wanted to impress the public, then I would have to reassess my assessment of your capabilities of noticing things, if I can put it that way.

Mr. Nice very often refers to witness statements, the statements of witnesses, and you can find people like that in their thousands in Kosovo and Metohija who will be ready to say that I came by at night to slaughter people.

Gentlemen, they are witnesses who, despite the material facts which we were able to see and had in evidence, how many dead people after the NATO bombings in the centre of Pristina, the columns of refugees, and a series of other things, claim that they had nothing against it, that they had absolutely nothing against it. It didn't affect them. The only ³⁸¹⁰⁸ thing they were doing was fleeing from Serb forces. Now, if you have material facts and assertions of that kind, then you yourselves and the public at large can assess what kind of witnesses they have before them. So I consider that this evidence provided by Mr. Nice should not be accepted. I agree that the notes of the Prosecutor with respect to Racak ought to be included because they are court files and speak of what the prosecutor did. And with that, I have completed what I wanted to say. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: Six sentences, with Your Honours' leave. There is no explanation given by either Ms. Higgins or the accused as to why important witnesses of this kind haven't been called in person -- important people of this kind haven't been called to give evidence. The preference for indirect testimony on important issues is not explained. The point that the material of the accused has already been admitted made by Ms. Higgins must be met in this way: When I'm presented with material so late, I cannot know what position to take. I work as hard as I can to establish what position I should take. I don't take positions, as I explained earlier, without having a reason to do so. Thus I simply can't. If he brings an exhibit in now and I know that you're likely to admit it because it falls in a certain category of document, I can't say it is unreliable without some cause for saying that.

Lituchy, the suggestion is that this witness, unlike Lituchy, is unable to comment. Yes. On her evidence. Thus I'm simply unable to cross-examine the material in any way. Where has the adversarial system, ³⁸¹⁰⁹ with which we are obliged to work gone? I cannot meet the evidence, I cannot deal with it.

The Agani allegation was put very carefully by me, my duty to put, especially if I intend to call evidence on it later or seek to do so, and I put it in terms of could she think of any reason why police officers would make those allegations about her?

The suggestion of calling the evidence in rebuttal was topsy-turvy. Important evidence that could have been called by this accused by calling the witnesses, completely topsy-turvy, non-adversarial world.

Shukri Buja, yes, the Prosecution called evidence about the activities of the KLA in order to give the Court a full account. Mrs. Kandic, the accused went through this document - I'm grateful for Ms. Higgins reminding me of this - in great detail. That's the short document from B92. The Court may care, if it finds it helpful, to see the risks she personally has to take in what is a dangerous environment. Finally, before I come to two other observations, light bodily injury, I've dealt with that. The allegation against the witness was quite clear. Light bodily injury only showed because she had intentionally delayed the examination process. As His Honour Judge Bonomy observed it was a blunt instrument injury.

In general, the accused could have been calling the policeman who led the attack or whatever it was at Racak. Popovic, identified as the military person who explained to Maisonneuve that the army shelled Racak. Radosavljevic, the man who on the videotape says in terms he went in in a ³⁸¹¹⁰ joint operation with other forces. He doesn't. He calls this evidence and hopes to get it by you.

JUDGE KWON: Just a correction. I don't remember Mr Popovic said. The army shelled Racak. It is MUP with Praga and tank support.

MR. NICE: Your Honour is quite right, it's Praga and tank support, but that -- well, I'll have another look at it, but in any event, I'm grateful for that.

The accused acknowledges in terms that he's using this court to speak to a worldwide jury. I'm sure that Your Honour's observation about my intentions were in order to lighten the atmosphere the accused was creating, but let it be quite clear I not only am concerned to keep the atmosphere of this court as calm as it may be, and that's one of the reasons I'm as non-interventionist as I have been, but I have drawn to the Court's attention the very real concerns that there are for the region about the use of the public access this accused has, and of course I have absolutely no intention or desire of impressing the public in the way that the accused suggested.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, why is it that the argument you've advanced doesn't apply to Popovic?

MR. NICE: It always could have been raised. Maisonneuve was provided -- if it was said that this was unreliable -- Your Honour is quite right, I don't challenge the source of the --

JUDGE BONOMY: Surely you'd do the same as you accuse Ms. Higgins of, turning it topsy-turvy by saying the accused could call Popovic.

MR. NICE: He could call Popovic now because Popovic is a -- ³⁸¹¹¹

JUDGE BONOMY: That's an accident of the order in which the case is presented. It's no more than that.

MR. NICE: Yes, but if Your Honour is referring to the fact that evidence was given of what an involved person said, it would always have been open - and this is the way the procedure works - for the amicus, as Mr. Kay then was, or for the accused to say, well, this is an important piece of evidence and its reliability is not established, therefore, please exclude it.

Nothing to stop them doing that. That they didn't do.

JUDGE KWON: And for the record, I have to make a correction. It was K6 who referred to Petrovic, not Popovic.

MR. NICE: Petrovic. Yes. I'm sorry. Your Honour, thank you very much for the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll adjourn now for 20 minutes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Please, before we adjourn, in the interests of time, the liaison officer informed me that with this possible witness Jasovic, that she can come into contact with him only after 2.00 p.m. and that she'll do her best to make an appointment for him to see me tomorrow afternoon. That is why I should like to ask you to issue orders to give me the transcripts from yesterday's and today's testimony of Mr. Jasovic for me to have a look in order to prepare. I'll just need an hour with him tomorrow afternoon at the most.

MR. KAY: I'd better tell the Court that some of his evidence is in closed session, and we're drafting something to try and deal with it ³⁸¹¹² today and get an application in before the other Trial Chamber for release of those transcripts that are in closed session and any exhibits and other materials there may be.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is for that Trial Chamber to --

MR. KAY: Yes, under the Rules.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it is for that Trial Chamber, not this one, to order the disclosure of that testimony.

MR. KAY: He's still currently giving evidence as well and is being cross-examined by one of the Defence counsel.

JUDGE KWON: His public session can be accessible to anybody.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Milosevic, we heard your submissions on that point.

We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.58 p.m.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness take the declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: SLAVISA DOBRICANIN

[Witness answered through interpreter]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And, Mr. Milosevic, you may begin. ³⁸¹¹³

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

Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor Dobricanin.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Professor, tell us, please, where and when you were born.

A. I was born on the 10th of December, 1937, in Prokuplje.

Q. And where did you live and where do you reside now?

A. From 1953 to 1999, I lived in Pristina. I am now temporarily residing in Krusevac.

Q. And when did you leave Kosovo and Metohija?

A. On the 26th of June, 1999.

Q. And what education have you had?

A. I graduated from the faculty of medicine. Labour medicine was my specialisation, and forensic medicine. So that is my education. I have a Ph.D., a doctorate in medicine. Otherwise, I'm a doctor of science, and I am regular professor teaching forensic medicine at the faculty of Pristina, temporarily residing in Kosovska Mitrovica, or, rather, the faculty is located in Mitrovica.

Q. You are also an author of textbooks in forensic medicine for students studying the subject?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us, Professor, where have you worked, briefly, your CV?

A. From December 1965, having completed my military training, I worked at the infirmary for labour medicine and the Elektroprivreda Kosovo firm. I worked there until 1973 when, at the invitation of the ³⁸¹¹⁴ state organs, I moved to work in the field of crime technology in the laboratory for forensics of the then-Secretariat for Internal Affairs in Pristina, and at the same time, I was the head of the health service. And in 1983, after receiving a Ph.D. and everything that came to pass afterwards, I started working at the faculty and the Institute for Forensic Medicine. From 1973 until 1972 [as interpreted], I was assistant professor at that same faculty, although I also worked in the SUP.

Q. When were you elected full professor?

A. I was elected full professor in 19 -- I'll tell you exactly, just a moment. In 1987 or 8.

Q. Thank you, Professor. The key topic of your testimony has to do with the events in Racak, and the date is from the 15th of January, 1999. And in this list against me, in paragraph 66(A), is described in the following way, I'm going to read it out to you: "On the 15th of January, 1999 -- on or about the 15th of January, 1999, the village of Racak (Stimlje municipality) was attacked by forces the FRY and Serbia. After shelling, the forces of the FRY and Serbia entered the village later in the morning and began conducting house-to-house searches. Villagers who attempted to flee from the forces of the FRY and Serbia were shot throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building but were discovered by the forces of the FRY and the police. They were beaten and then they were removed to a nearby hill where they were shot and killed. Although the forces of the FRY and Serbia killed approximately 45 Kosovo Albanians in and around Racak --" "altogether" the word was to begin with, not "although," and then it goes on to say that ³⁸¹¹⁵ those persons killed who are known by name are set forth in Schedule A which is attached as an appendix to this indictment. Professor, I'm going to ask you very concrete questions, but before we go on to my questions can you tell me whether what I have just read is true, on the basis of everything that you know?

A. No, it is not.

Q. Tell me, please, where were you and what were you doing when the event of Racak took place on the 15th of January, 1999?

A. I was working at the institute with my colleagues. I was working on autopsies because there were a lot of civilians and policemen who had lost their lives, and soldiers, due to the bombing and the activities of the terrorist KLA, so we had a large number of corpses to deal with every day. So we had to do post-mortem examinations from early morning until night. We were very busy with this work at the Institute of Forensic Medicine when the information arrived that we had to go on the spot to Racak because something had happened there, some fighting or something I didn't know anything about specifically, but I prepared to go on site to conduct an examination.

Q. And when did you set out for the village of Racak for the first time?

A. On the 7th [as interpreted] of January, 1999. I think it was sometime around 7.00 in the morning, perhaps a little earlier.

Q. Tell us, please, how did it come about that you went to the village? Who called you and why?

A. I was called by Mrs. Danica Marinkovic, the investigating judge of ³⁸¹¹⁶ the district court in Pristina. She asked me to go with her and the deputy prosecutor and the crime technician to carry out an on-site examination in the village of Racak where, according to certain information which had not been checked out until then, about 40 to 45 Kosovo Albanians had been killed in fighting, in combat.

Q. Now, did you happen to go to on-site examinations when asked to do so by the investigating judge?

A. Yes, very frequently.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down and make pauses between question and answer. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic and Professor, the interpreters are asking you to slow down so that they can follow you. Observe a pause between the question and the answer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Professor, who else in addition to Judge Danica Marinkovic and yourself went off to conduct an on-site examination to Racak?

A. The deputy district prosecutor. His name was Dragan Zivic, and the scene-of-crime officer went with us, men who are accustomed to carry out scene of crime investigations, as well as the policemen who provided security for us and escorted us. I don't think there was anyone else up until Urosevac, whereas in Racak, when everything ended, the observers went with us as well.

Q. And where did you arrive first en route to Racak?

A. We arrived at the police station in Stimlje.

Q. So you say you arrived at the police station in Stimlje. ³⁸¹¹⁷

A. Yes.

Q. Right. And who received you there at the police station?

A. The police station we were received by the head of the SUP, chief of SUP in Urosevac. Bobi Janicijevic was his name. I don't know his first name. He was called Bobi Janicijevic.

Q. Right. So you were received by the chief of the Urosevac SUP, his surname was Janicijevic. Now, tell me, did he -- you receive any information as to what had happened in Racak from him?

A. Well, all he said to me and the investigating judge and the others was that on the 15th of January there was fighting in Racak between the police forces and members of the KLA, and that in that fighting approximately 40 - they didn't have an exact figure at that time - that 40 members of those terrorist forces had been killed.

Q. And did Mr. Janicijevic tell you anything about the situation in Racak and the surrounding area before this event came to pass, this event of the 15th of January?

A. Well, I knew myself that next to Racak and along the road running near Racak, that you couldn't pass by that way, and that had been the situation for several months, because the communication lines towards Suva Reka and Prizren and Urosevac and the road running from Pristina to Skopje, well, were held under fire and was often attacked, civilians passing by in their own cars were often under attack. So that quite simply we ceased to travel that way. When the need arose for us to do any post-mortems or go to the Court in Prizren, we had to use another route. And we were cautioned of this situation by Mr. Janicijevic, who told us ³⁸¹¹⁸ that it was from that village and from the hills around the village that there was frequent shooting and that people or, rather, policemen were frequently killed and wounded in that locality.

Q. And did Mr. Janicijevic tell you anything about the immediate cause or pretext for the police operation in Racak on the 15th of January?

A. The immediate pretext or cause was the killing of two policemen and attacks on the police force in that general area.

Q. And what, according to Mr. Janicijevic was the object of that police operation?

A. The object of that police operation was to repel from the village the terrorists who had come in there from different locations. According to his statement and the statement of others, that was a centre of a terrorist unit, a terrorist unit of the KLA. And it was the assignment of the police force to repel them back across the hills to the mountains and lakes, Klecka and all that general region. And quite simply that the headquarters that had existed there to be done away with.

Q. And did he tell you anything about the fact that the army had taken part? Did they mention the army?

A. No. To the best of my knowledge, the army had not taken part in this operation. He said it was exclusively a police operation without any army there, any soldiers.

Q. What about you yourself? Did you have anything to go by and to conclude whether the army took part in this operation or not?

A. I didn't see a single soldier, nor did anybody enter that area generally, or no army vehicles either. ³⁸¹¹⁹

Q. All right. Now, since you're a forensic expert, if the army had taken part, would there have been army officials there?

A. Yes. The military investigation organs would have been there and my colleagues from the medical military academy would have taken part in the autopsies for Racak.

Q. Did Mr. Janicijevic describe the actual events that took place in Racak?

A. In the briefest of terms. He told me and Mrs. Danica Marinkovic what he could. He -- I wasn't interested in the details but what he did say was that it was an operation that started in the early hours of the morning and that there was heavy fighting and that members of the KLA had been killed.

Q. And what did he tell you about the casualties in that event?

A. He said that they were members of the terrorist KLA organisation which had been troubling them and causing great problems in the village and in the surrounding areas, in other villages close by, close to Racak, and that they had to launch this operation to deblock the roads and the communication lines and to prevent future terrorist operations.

Q. Did he tell you anything about the weapons they had seized during the operation?

A. Before we arrived in Stimlje, when we went to SUP - and that was the 17th of January - it was the SUP of Urosevac, in actual fact, I saw the weapons there in a room. There were a lot of automatic rifles, Kalashnikovs, and so on. There was a 12.7-millimetre machine-gun. I know the calibres very well, it's part of my job and profession. And then ^{38120 BLANK PAGE 38121} there was a Browning too.

Q. Very well. Now, before this event, in view of the fact that you were always involved in medical examinations of the deceased in your institute, do you know how many KLA were present in the area?

A. Everything I'm saying is based on the policemen's stories when they brought in the corpses, and I learnt that that was an area, there was a feature that was dominant, an elevation between Drenica and Jezerska Planina of Klecka, the mountains there, and other villages in the area, that was a stronghold of the terrorist organisation and that there had been severe fighting there before and that they had tried to repel them from the area, however it was very difficult and a large number of policemen were killed from Drenica and along that general mountain ridge in the proximity of those villages and Jezerska Planina next to Urosevac.

Q. Did you meet anybody else at the police station in Stimlje?

A. At the police station in Stimlje, some ten minutes after our arrival, a general entered. He introduced himself as being the British general, John Drewienkiewicz was his name, with an interpreter, or two interpreters, I assume, or one might have been an interpreter and another young lady was there, I don't know in what capacity, but he introduced himself. He said, "I am the famous General John Drewienkiewicz," although I'd never heard of him before. He was very arrogant in his conduct towards us at that time, and I have very unfavourable memories when he started issuing orders and telling us that we couldn't go to Stimlje and that in Stimlje the only people that could go to Stimlje was the investigating judge. ³⁸¹²²

Q. Do you mean Stimlje or Racak?

A. I mean Racak. I apologise. I mean Racak. That we couldn't go into Racak and the only people that could accompany the investigating judge was I myself, possibly, without an armed escort and that he couldn't guarantee security, but that if anybody were to shoot at the inhabitants of the village of Racak, he would personally take Mrs. Danica Marinkovic to The Hague.

And then she asked him, "And what will happen, General, if they should happen to shoot at us?" And his answer was, "The same will happen because you provoked them, and I will take you and detain you and take you to The Hague in that case too."

After hearing those words, Mrs. Danica Marinkovic stopped talking to him and ordered us to set off towards the village of Racak.

Q. Very well. He told you thus that you couldn't go to Racak.

A. Yes.

Q. The investigating judge decided to go to Racak nevertheless. Do you know why the investigating judge decided that way?

A. In addition to the threats that he issued at the office in the police station in Stimlje, this same gentleman, Mr. Drewienkiewicz, told us when we left the office and when we were setting off to Racak that the -- we couldn't go, but the investigative judge felt that she was the only one who was competent to go and who was authorised to go, and moreover, required to go under the legislation of Kosovo and Metohija and the Republic of Serbia. So she acted in accordance with the law that prevailed in our country, and I believe she was right. ³⁸¹²³

Q. Thank you, Professor. How many people and how many vehicles did you have in that group that set off to Racak?

A. There was investigative Judge Marinkovic, leader of that group, deputy district Prosecutor Dragan Zivic, I as a doctor. There were scene of crime officers, I don't know how many. I remember that one of them even had a camera, a video camera. There were many policemen who were guarding us. We took several police vehicles of the Pinzgauer type, I believe they're called, and we set off in a motorcade. We passed by a hospital or a hospice for handicapped persons, taking a village road, and as we came close, we could see the mosque. I knew it was a mosque, it was clearly marked, and that's where we stopped awaiting further information as to the security situation.

Q. So what happened? Did you establish that it was safe to go on?

A. I personally saw in Racak that there was life, there were people, that it was not completely vacant. Around the mosque there were some men and women moving, although I must say I have very vague memories of that.

Q. From what distance, Professor?

A. It could have been 700, 800 metres, perhaps a little more. At one point volleys of automatic fire came down upon us, and we bent down behind our cars. That was the only shelter we could find. It seemed to come from everywhere at the same time. I couldn't estimate where it was coming from exactly. And after awhile, when the fire died down a little, when it abated and when the security situation stabilised a little, we agreed that we should go back to Stimlje because there were no proper conditions to conduct an on-site investigation, so that's what we did. We returned to ³⁸¹²⁴ Stimlje.

Q. So that was it for the day. Which day was that?

A. The 17th of January.

Q. And when did you finally manage to get to Racak? When was your next attempt to go to Stimlje and Racak?

A. I went to Stimlje on the next day, the 18th of January, around 10.00. That was the day when this whole story with General Drewienkiewicz took place. It didn't happen the first time, on the 17th, but on the 18th, and it is on the 18th that what I just described happened. Sometime around 10.00, after talking to General Drewienkiewicz, we set off - it was by that time 11.00, I believe - towards Racak.

Q. What kind of police escort did you have?

A. We had a police escort including several cars, some of them armoured. We personally travelled in a Lada Niva vehicle which had only one windshield in the back that was armoured. And when we finally arrived at Racak, there was nobody, nobody there to be seen unless they were hiding in their houses.

Q. So when you arrived at the village, there was no one.

A. No.

Q. Was there anything to indicate that the village had been shelled? Because you remember what it said in that paragraph of the indictment that I quoted.

A. No, there was no sign whatsoever that there had been shelling. There was not a single house that was damaged, at least from what I was able to see, and I toured a lot. ³⁸¹²⁵

Q. Where in Racak did you find corpses?

A. We had previously received information that morning that there were bodies in the mosque in Racak. And when we entered the village of Racak, we turned left, as far as I can remember. We came to the same mosque that I had seen the previous day. We saw the vehicles of OSC observers, orange vehicles.

So when we arrived there, we talked to OSC observers. Our escorts and the scene-of-crime officers entered the mosque. There was a police officer who was standing in the middle of the mosque. Inside the mosque, our scene of crime officers had already started marking the places where the bodies were lying. The bodies were lined along the walls of the mosque, and there was a line of bodies in the middle of the mosque. All the bodies were clothed. Some did not have any shoes. Some faces were covered by kerchiefs, some were covered by Albanian flags.

I came up to a body that was the first in the row next to me to see what kind of injuries it presented, and it happened to be a person whose head had been completely destroyed. Fragments of the skull were lying nearby, next to the body. I covered the body. I toured the mosque to see all the bodies to see if there were any injuries that could have been sustained immediately after death. I didn't notice anything of the kind.

On one body I saw an incision in the stomach. I didn't look any more. I indicated to Judge Marinkovic that they should be transported to the Institute of Forensic Medicine, and she gave appropriate orders. ³⁸¹²⁶

Q. How were they dressed, those people who had been killed?

A. On the spot and later, the Institute of Forensic Medicine, when we performed post-mortems, we saw the bodies were dressed in dark coloured clothing; black, navy blue, dark brown, and that was not surprising. I'll explain why.

In all the work that I performed in those years on the ground and at the institute, I worked with a lot of bodies of casualties of the conflict which had not been called war at the time, and I know that they wore green clothing and dark clothing -- dark clothing. That was the usual clothing worn by units of people who were self-organised to guard their villages.

I have my information from lots of people who brought in these bodies. Those are some facts that I was able to ascertain, among other things, while performing my post-mortems.

Q. Just one thing. You said that the upper part of the body was dressed in black, navy blue, dark brown. You're not talking about uniforms, are you?

A. No. The only thing that was specific to Racak, lots of them wore heavy boots wearing the mark Ozel, two dots above the O. Some of them had belts that looked like military belts. And on the bodies with which I worked at the institute, we found, although very rarely, some uniforms marked KLA, and what was very interesting was that not everybody had emblems and insignia. Some had something on the cap or on the sleeve or on the breast pocket, and it was only in Malisevo that we found bodies dressed in complete uniforms. ³⁸¹²⁷

Q. When you say you found a total of four bodies dressed in uniform in your entire time there, that means that that was the total of bodies wearing KLA uniforms?

A. Yes.

Q. That means that the other bodies did not have uniforms on them.

A. Correct.

Q. Tell me now, you mentioned that some bodies were covered by Albanian flags and some were not. Why did you emphasise that? Does that have any significance in view of your experience and knowledge about these things or did you mention it just by the way?

A. It does have significance. Even before the conflict, on all the persons who died in Kosovo, Metohija as fighters, their bodies would be found covered by Albanian flags. Sometimes just the head, but usually the entire body. It was an honour given to them as people who had died for the freedom of Kosovo.

This was just an indication, because in this case, in the case of Racak, there was only three or four flags, not more.

Q. If I understand you correctly, you did not examine the bodies immediately apart from uncovering a couple of bodies before covering them again to view them in greater detail at the Institute of Forensic Medicine.

A. Correct.

Q. How long was your on-site examination, if I can call it that?

A. Ten to 15 minutes, not more.

Q. Were you able to make any conclusions during that first immediate ³⁸¹²⁸ examination or viewing, although I do bear in mind that it was a very short time and a very superficial examination. Were you able to conclude anything about the cause of death of these persons?

A. The cuts in the clothing that I noticed - and I have great experience with this - told me that the injuries were caused by gunfire, gunshots mainly in the head, in the chest and the abdomen, and that great damage was done to internal organs and the brain. This was the sort of blitz examination, the conclusions of which were later confirmed by post-mortems.

Q. Apart from concluding that these persons were shot, were you able to conclude something about the distance from which it was fired or the direction from which it was fired at the bodies?

A. No, not at that moment.

Q. What was the condition of the bodies?

A. In view of the low temperatures that prevailed during those few days, and I have to say the bodies were found four days later, they were quite well preserved from what I could see, and I was able to observe faces, hands and feet. The smell was not too strong and decomposition had not gone very far. And later when we transported them to Pristina, to the institute, we indeed were able to see that they were rather well preserved, better than if they had been kept in some other conditions.

Q. Why didn't you take longer for this examination?

A. We had been delayed by this talk with Mr. Drewienkiewicz. We were delayed from the start. It was getting dark, and we knew that after arriving, we should not linger because the way back was going to be ³⁸¹²⁹ difficult, too, and the roads to Stimlje and further on was difficult as well.

Q. Did you hear anything about the identification of these persons on the spot?

A. There were some comments that I could hear, but I didn't pay too much attention. Some people saying that some bodies were already identified and that some of them belonged to earlier -- people earlier identified as KLA members.

Q. Were OSCE observers present?

A. Yes, they were with us all the time.

Q. Were there journalists as well?

A. Yes. There were two of them, and there was a camera there as well. I don't know who was filming and for whom.

Q. You said that all the bodies were numbered by scene-of-crime officers. Were they also photographed on the spot in the mosque?

A. Yes. They were photographed, and they were numbered 1 to 40. It was done on the spot by scene-of-crime officers.

Q. What was then done with the bodies?

A. Mrs. Marinkovic issued orders that the bodies be loaded on the truck and transported to the Institute of Forensic Medicine. We set off through the village, through those narrow streets where the fighting had taken place according to our information, and when we came close to the trenches, we heard explosions from mortar shells, I suppose. It was something very powerful. And the policeman who accompanied us found out that the truck with the bodies was fired at from mortars in an attempt to ³⁸¹³⁰ destroy the truck and the bodies in it. However, the truck driver very skilfully avoided this fire and continued his way to Stimlje, which is very close, as I said earlier.

We did not attach any particular importance or significance to this at the time while we were touring the trenches. We were just surprised. We couldn't understand. We couldn't think of any reason why anybody would fire at the truck. It was a pretty unique situation where we had to fight to preserve the bodies instead of preserving life, and it was a true fight for the bodies.

Q. You said that the bodies were transported on a truck. Who loaded the bodies onto the truck?

A. The policemen who were present. They were the only people who could be used for doing that work. There was no one else there. The crime scene officers accompanied us when we transported the bodies to Pristina.

Q. All right, Professor. Tell me, on the basis of your later findings, once you carried out the autopsies, could you conclude that while the bodies were not under your supervision somebody had affected their state in some way?

A. There were no visible signs of any kind of body removal. I don't know. If I were on the scene immediately on the 15th, we could have had a lot more information, and we could speak with a great deal more certainty as to whether the bodies had been manipulated. However, we did find something which was very important and which showed that for quite awhile the bodies had been outdoors. We found the traces of teeth of various ³⁸¹³¹ rodents, starting with rats and then even foxes. And also of some bigger bodies, perhaps -- bigger animals. Perhaps it was wild dogs or wolves or whatever.

Q. All right. Where did you go when you left Racak?

A. I accompanied Mrs. Marinkovic, the investigating judge, who went to a house right below the hills where we found the trenches later. We entered the premises. I saw a great many scattered things there belonging to KLA members. They took pictures with weapons. I saw an Albanian flag and also documents, lists scattered about. I really was not very interested in this. I was just interested in seeing what headquarters looked like under such circumstances. However, I went out and I looked at some of the smaller rooms on the side next to the headquarters. I found a mess hall, a dining hall with a long table and dishes that were used for serving food. I found a kitchen and white coats that were probably used by cooks and the like. Then I found a warehouse where there were many packages coloured -- that were yellow, and it said "US Aid" on them or something like that. And those were packages that we found everywhere in Kosovo when the police would seize something, when there would be some fighting. And sometimes in the pockets of participants in the conflicts we would find such packages. There were quite a few packages there. We also found some sacks with flour, sugar.

In the upper part of the yard there was a bakery that could be seen from the distance. And also there were some buildings, but I don't know what their purpose was.

Q. All right, Professor. You described to us now, let's just dwell ³⁸¹³² on this for a few moments, that you saw a dining-room. It was some kind of a room for collective meals, if I understand you correctly.

A. Absolutely.

Q. You said there was a long table and benches.

A. Yes.

Q. For how many people was this, approximately?

A. Well, to give a rough approximation now, there were two benches, one on each side. Perhaps 30 or 40 people. Say about 30 people could sit down and have lunch there.

Q. All right. What you saw there, that is to say headquarters and these materials, you saw the dining-room or, rather, a mess hall, then cooks' clothing, warehouses with food. Did this look like a type of barracks to you?

A. Since I had completed my military service and since I was a reserve officer, that's exactly what it looked like to me.

Q. Where did you go afterwards from these KLA headquarters?

A. We went to the left side of the village a couple of hundred metres and we came across a bunker -- I'm sorry, a trench, rather, that had been dug in the soil that actually had a lot of sand and rocks in it. Then there was a path going upwards, bending a bit to the left and then coming back in the form of a horseshoe towards the mid part of that ridge. We saw there an area that was covered with these sacks, and underneath there were some wooden boards. This looked like a bunker. Right next to the place we saw a hole that had been dug, perhaps about one metre 20, 30 centimetres deep, and then it was about two metres wide. I ³⁸¹³³ saw in that hole a lot of casings, 12.7 millimetres. I again stress this ammunition, I saw it many times due to my own professional work. And there was also a kind of wooden tripod. That's what it looked like. Since I saw that machine-gun at Urosevac on the previous day, this was actually an auxiliary tripod for the Browning 12.7-millimetre machine-gun. I can say that from that spot the entire village of Racak can be seen out in the open. The communication -- rather, the road that goes to Racak and to the centre of Stimlje, rather, part of the road going towards Crnoljev and then via Suva Reka to Prizren. Also, a long part of the road from Pristina to Skopje, and part of the old road which is between Stimlje and Urosevac. So this is a dominant feature that was exceptionally good for someone who would want to follow all of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll have to stop today. Professor, it's the end of the day's proceedings --

JUDGE KWON: Can I ask a question before we adjourn? Doctor, my understanding is that you are a medical doctor, a medical expert. Do you have also an expert --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: -- knowledge in military weapons? So can you really identify an auxiliary tripod for the Browning 12.7-millimetres machine-gun or something like that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely yes, Your Honour Judge Kwon. I've been doing this kind of work for 30 years. I worked in the technical service and there was a ballistics lab within it, and I always worked on these ballistic problems when murders were committed by a ³⁸¹³⁴ certain weapon. We would even try to ascertain the distance, and we did whatever else it took in order to identify the weapons concerned. I am rather well-versed as far as weapons are concerned generally speaking. I used to be a good hunter myself and things like that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Professor. We will resume tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m. to be reconvened on Friday, the 8th day of

April, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.