³⁸⁴⁴⁵

Thursday, 14 April 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 8.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This Status Conference will shade imperceptibly I hope into the trial. We will sit first session until 9.35, a 30-minute break; then 10.05 until 11.40, another 30-minute break; and then 12.10 until 1.45.

This conference has come about as a result of something that happened, an exchange between Mr. Milosevic and myself some weeks ago. We were looking at the progress of the Defence case, and I remarked then to Mr. Milosevic that continuing at this same pace at the end of 150 days he would have had no more than 100 or 120 witnesses. Mr. Milosevic then commented to the effect that that only served to illustrate how unreal and unfair the entire system and entire allocation of time was in relation to him. I was, naturally, very concerned about that, bearing in mind that the Prosecution called about 300 witnesses. So I caused an inquiry to be made into the number of written statements utilised by the Prosecution in the presentation of their case, and the result of that inquiry is in a document that was circulated yesterday to all parties. It shows, Mr. Milosevic, that for the Croatia indictment, there were slightly more written statements than live testimony. And for the Bosnia indictment more than twice as many written statements as live testimony. And the Kosovo indictment, written statements exceeded live testimony by almost two-thirds. And looking at the three indictments as a ³⁸⁴⁴⁶ whole, you will see the figures on the second page. Total number of Prosecution witnesses, 352. Total number of live witnesses 114. Which means that only about a third of the witnesses testified live. The rest, two-thirds, gave testimony by way of written statements. And then, of course, added to that is the fact that a number of these witnesses had their statements admitted without cross-examination, some 15 per cent. So that would explain why at the end of the 150 days assigned Mr. Milosevic might not have adduced evidence from more than 100, 120, 130 witnesses.

It means, therefore, Mr. Milosevic, that you have to take account of what is open and available to you through the Rules by way of written statements, 92 bis, 89(F), and the other facilities that are open. I should say that as far as 92 bis and 89(F) are concerned, those matters are not entirely unrelated to some of the issues which are outstanding for consideration by the Trial Chamber as evidential questions raised by the -- by the Prosecution.

The Status Conference, of course, will be open to the parties to submit other points, but we don't want to -- to stray too far, and we have a limited time, and I thank the Prosecution for the notes which they submitted on the 13th.

I want first, though, to hear from the parties in relation to the opening remarks that I made in relation to the use of written statements by the Defence and the impact that that might have on the progression of the trial. I'll hear first from Mr. Milosevic, then Mr. Kay, then Mr. Nice. ³⁸⁴⁴⁷ Mr. Milosevic, any comments on the opening remarks? Or if you prefer to speak last, you can have the benefit of speaking last. It's a benefit in some -- in a particular sense.

We're not hearing --

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I assume if I say something now I can also say something later on, if I have something to say. And you indicated quite rightly, Mr. Robinson, in commenting on these figures, the figures that you presented in this internal memorandum, with the proviso that I should like to draw your attention to some other aspects of that interpretation.

In the total, as you yourself said, only one-third of the witnesses testified live, viva voce. I think that that goes to the detriment of the principle of the public nature of the trial and greatly so. I assume that Mr. Nice can respond to that by saying that all the documents are accessible to the public, of course, and that they can be placed at their disposal or, rather, that they are at their disposal being produced on the Internet and so on. However, the general public doesn't use that type of information, and it is only what is going on here live and what is stated here viva voce can truly be considered to be public and open to the public. So that you know my position full well. I would like witnesses who testify here to testify publicly.

And second, even this one-third of witnesses, we would have to look at how many of them testified in fact in closed session of the people ³⁸⁴⁴⁸ testifying viva voce, and based on an agreement with the Prosecution. So that that percentage, if taken that percentage into consideration, the overall percentage would be lower.

I think that this is a very vital question of principle, and I don't think that we should look at it simplistically. As far as the overall time is concerned, total time, you quite rightly presented my view, that is to say, that this just illustrates how little time I was given in the first place for all three large indictments, that is say, Kosovo, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the extensive indictments. And I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that parallel to calling witnesses I have to see and interview the witness beforehand, and the time for that is far shorter, incomparably shorter, in fact, than Mr. Nice has for his witnesses, Mr. Nice and his associates, of course. And this boils down to one meeting and a fairly short one at that and completely inadequate time for preparation. So this is very short time on all counts. And of course you can expect that I shall be asking for a prolongation of that time, extension of the deadline.

Now, with respect to the bill [In English] Use of time [Interpretation] mathematics provided by the Registry, I have nothing to say on that score. I assume that the people who have counted up the time are very responsible individuals and are keeping records responsibly. However, I should like to draw your attention to one aspect of this matter. In your decision, in your ruling, you said that with respect to the time that I myself have for the examination-in-chief the opposite ³⁸⁴⁴⁹ side has 60 per cent of that time, of the time I use, for their cross-examination, which would mean --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm trying not to get into that particular question today, and in fact the Prosecutor had been disposed to discuss that particular question, and we made a decision to the contrary. So let's not get into that question. We'll deal with that on another occasion.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that if for every ten hours that I have, the other side has six hours. And if you compare the figures, then you'll see that the balance has been upset. I expect you to do a minimum, and that is to look at my time in relation to the time used up by the other party so that we have the 10-to-6 ratio prevail as you yourself said. Otherwise, I am doing my best to use my time as rationally as possible, both in terms of preparation and in terms of my examination-in-chief and my questioning here, that it be useful so that you can see what actually happened and learn what actually happened. And I am bearing in mind the fact that we have accusations made here where everything has been turned topsy-turvy, upside down, or, rather, in which highly improbable things are being asserted. So it is quite justified for us to hear the witnesses, to hear the arguments put forward so we can gain an insight of everything that is going on. So that the time factor is not just a technical factor, technicality, it is a factor of essential importance and basic importance for asserting the elementary principle of truth. And in that respect, I expect you to have great understanding for ³⁸⁴⁵⁰ the work in hand and the time it requires.

So much from me. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Just considering the principal issue in terms of evidence when we're looking at the allocation of time. It is the written evidence, the oral testimony debate that really this centres upon. And during the course of the Prosecution case, the jurisprudence was changed at the Tribunal in relation to the use of Rule 92 bis and the development of Rule 89(F).

On behalf of the Defence, it has to be said that the use of Rule 92 bis and its procedures are more suitable as a Prosecution vehicle for the adduction of evidence. I think it would be fair to submit that that was a development within the Rules largely for the benefit of the Prosecutor, and its emphasis as a tool for the Defence has not really been something that has been fully countenanced in the cases before the Tribunal. It's not been something that is available for the Defence, not been something that was envisaged the Defence would avail itself of to a great extent. And the submission on behalf of the accused comes down to this: That as he sees it, the issues are best on his behalf heard through viva voce evidence rather than the use of the technical rules for the introduction of evidence in a written form which may suit the progress of a case for the Prosecutor.

As we're dealing with the narrow issue here, I put that before the Trial Chamber as a matter of consideration on the use of the Rules to, from his point of view, maximise what is available within this allotted ³⁸⁴⁵¹ period of time.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you not consider, Mr. Kay, that a lot of the evidence that is being presented in this particular case by the Defence is eminently suitable for presentation in writing? Just take as an example the witness we have concluded. The bulk of his testimony in chief could have easily been presented in writing because it was factual, and it could have been supplemented by questions on issues that the accused was concerned to emphasise and then it could have been cross-examined within a reasonable scope and concluded in probably a third or certainly a half of the time in which it was concluded. And it's a type of evidence that I suspect is in this case rather different from the scenario that you're envisaging, where Defence evidence of criminal responsibility might have to be presented viva voce. I understand the point. But I think this way this case has developed or evolved that there is evidence of a nature very similar to the Prosecution evidence that you are categorising as suitable for these two Rules.

MR. KAY: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down. Thank you.

MR. KAY: It's a resource issue for the Defence in relation to getting people to provide written reports. And I had experience of that when dealing with matters the end of last year on the Racak incident itself, asking for a report that could have been used, perhaps, as written testimony, or going through the Rule 94 bis channel. You're faced with a demand of, well, pay me for 300 hours.

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand. Again, I understand that point. But ³⁸⁴⁵² my problem with that is that that's rather an academic issue because the will isn't there to even start that process at the moment. Mr. Milosevic is not interested in following that course, so we don't know realistically what the outcome would be. It's -- you are dealing with and he material different situation for a number of reasons.

MR. KAY: Yes. I just flag that up, though, on this use by the Prosecution of the written methods of production of evidence against the Defence being able to. There is a resource issue and a time issue to get witnesses to undertake such projects. And in terms of supervision and work preparation to get a proper statement taken rather than an interview requires, and the Prosecution would no doubt acknowledge this, several people being involved in the process, facilities, resources to take a full and proper statement of 20 pages, say, as we've had from the Prosecution through various Rule 89(F) witnesses. It is difficult for Defence resources to often achieve what seems a very desirable and worthwhile way of producing evidence. There are practical problems that are faced. On the matter of the will, I can't deal with that, and I have to leave that to Your Honours.

Those are my observations on this narrow issue at this stage.

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

MR. NICE: Your Honour, not very much that I need to say on this topic. The Chamber should in our respectful submission stick absolutely to its original time allocation and the accused should be reminded of that because of two things. First, the potential to use written evidence has ³⁸⁴⁵³ been drawn to the accused's attention by the Prosecution and by the Court I think really from the beginning of his Defence case and various points throughout it.

Second, the accused persists in misunderstanding the reason for and value of public trials that happen in this court under the expansive adversarial system, even if they would not have necessarily have happened in other countries. And the purpose of open and public trials is to allow public supervision of the judiciary and the executive where the executive is involved so that it can be seen that what they do is fair. It is not to provide entertainment. Still less is it to provide an opportunity for propaganda.

Now, the accused is quite unashamed in saying that he's not speaking to you. He's speaking to a different audience. He's not indeed addressing matters necessarily forensically. He's addressing different matters through the medium of a public trial, the public nature of which is fully available.

For example, the accused correctly says that I would say the material is all available to those seeking to inquire into it, and so it is. And indeed in the Defence case or indeed in the case as a whole there's been very little closed-session testimony, far less than any or most other cases here. And therefore, if he persists in presenting his case on a false premise as to the value, significance, or utility of the public nature of the trial, then he has own himself to blame for the fact that he will not be able to get as much evidence in in the allotted and reasonable time as he otherwise could. ³⁸⁴⁵⁴ Turning to Mr. Kay's observations about the different utility of 92 bis or 89(F) for the Prosecution as opposed to the Defence. There may be some merit in that observation so far as 92 bis and what is referred to as crime base evidence. Not a phrase I've ever liked. Crimes, I suppose, is a better term. Where it could reasonably have been expected that the evidence would be unchallenged in whole or in part in the event that didn't turn out. But that argument says nothing about the general utility of 89(F) which can be used for absolutely any type of evidence, and indeed in our respectful submission should be. In my personal submission, should be in all cases and for nearly all evidence in all Prosecution and Defence in order to make the best use of the finite and limited resources of this Tribunal as a whole. So that there is absolutely no reason for the accused not to use 89(F) or 92 bis.

Mr. Kay is of course correct that preparing written statements takes some time. Two points or three on that.

First, and as a matter of fact, the Court has regularly enough -- I was going to use the word "court" but perhaps "detective" is a better neutral phrase, witnesses speaking from quite extensive notes and may have judged that to quite a significant degree the exchanges between the accused and the witnesses are -- follow a prepared format. Nothing wrong with that. But of course it's only a small step between prepared format with supporting notes and a disciplined written statement characteristically as the Chamber will recall from the Prosecution's side of about ten sides or less of fairly broadly spaced type. Second point: The accused is not in a position simply because he ³⁸⁴⁵⁵ has elected to represent himself to pray that in aid on matters where he should be assisting the Chamber to the most efficient use of time. He has associates. He has Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins there to assist him. It is well within his ability with his resources or with further resources that he can obtain and deploy to prepare written statements for all the witnesses that he seeks to call and to rely on the provisions of 89(F) which will of course impose a much greater burden on the Prosecution which will have to be cross-examining witnesses at a much more swift rate, one following the other.

So those are two -- two points that I would draw to your attention. If he chooses not to rely on 89(F), then that is his choice with consequences that will be determined by him. Your Honours, I should also make this point, and it's one of the points I touch in on the notes for this Status Conference: The more particularised the advance notice given by a party to another party of evidence to come the more it should be possible for cross-examination to be both prepared and limited. Not only will it be possible from time to time to make concessions and thus to eliminate altogether at a first read of a document something from the list of issues facing the Trial Chamber, but it should be possible and I think usually is to make better use of time in cross-examination. And that, of course, is particularly important in relation to evidence that is of an expert nature although coming in in the guise of factual evidence and other problems which I refer in the notes provided in advance.

I have nothing else, I think, to say on the narrow points raised ^{38456 BLANK PAGE 38457} so far.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, anything in reply? Briefly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. I see nothing to which there is any need to reply.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, on the notes that you produced, I'm not sure whether we have time to go into all of them, all of the points, but you might wish to highlight two or three.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm much obliged. It may help if I summarise the Prosecution's position in this way: Is of course very concerned about the overall length of the trial timetable. Potentially as it stands even more so were there to be any question of prolongation, and its concerns are not just either particular to the staff members or to the resources of the Office of the Prosecutor but much broader than that. There are many reasons why this trial should be brought to a timely conclusion.

With that in mind and with the assumption that we would invite the Chamber to say it is entitled to make that adequate resources will be made available to Office of the Prosecutor, to the assigned counsel and to the accused to meet any demands that the Trial Chamber makes of us as parties, we would press you to notify the accused and the rest of us immediately that steps to the conclusion of this trial will be seamless, that there will not be an expectation of or allowance for breaks between the end of ³⁸⁴⁵⁸ the Defence case, rebuttal, rejoinder. I omitted to deal with Rule 98, but any Rule 98 witnesses, closing arguments, written and oral, that it is in everybody's interests, and it is a major interest that a timetable should be set and requirements should be made of all of us that this case proceeds without breaks to its conclusion.

I have set out in the document which is an internal document but available of course to the parties particular mechanisms by which that should be done.

The second point which I've touched on already is that the only interest, the only legitimate interest that this trial has is the forensic interest of getting a fair result. It's not a case where there is any legitimate interest in the accused having more publicity of the type he candidly acknowledges he seeks. And with that in mind, I've set out some specific proposals for how the closing stages of this trial should be dealt with in order to assist the Court and to serve no other purpose, and in particular, how the accused should be confined firmly both as to written submissions under I think it's Rule 95, is it, closing arguments -- sorry, Rule 86, and as to oral submissions, and I would press the Chamber to consider the wisdom of that and to make preliminary orders now so that the accused knows he has to prepare a written argument that will deal with the legal and factual issues on a count-by-count basis, to assist the Chamber and to allow for responsive arguments from ourselves or assisting arguments from the assigned counsel if their involvement is requested.

Similarly, the issue of the accused giving evidence or making an ³⁸⁴⁵⁹ unsworn statement should in our respectful submission be confronted immediately for the following reason -- two reasons: One, the accused is already in default in respect of an order that he should announce whether he's on his own witness list. Two, if he is going to make an unsworn statement or give evidence, that will take some time. Time should be allotted to it, then deducted from the 150 days, and that will then put the Chamber in a better position to supervise as it can his use of the time dividing it between the three indictments.

And so we would invite the Chamber to deal with that as soon as may be or immediately to avoid the risk that the accused will simply push the Trial Chamber into a corner where it is obliged to give him more time, which is probably his sole interest at the moment apart from getting the evidence before you. One suspects that his underlying objective will be to get more time to make this trial last even longer than it's lasted already.

The third point I deal with at paragraph 15. This trial is proceeding at the pace of just over 12 hours of court sittings a week. By any international standards, that is of course a very short sitting per week. The accused's health was the reason for coming down to this low level of sitting. His health appears to have been robust but for a viral infection. We know the history of his health record and of the issues that led to the imposition of counsel, I think, and may have led to his now following the medical regime rather more precisely. There is every reason for the Chamber to reconsider the number of days sitting. And before the accused responds to that in a predictable ³⁸⁴⁶⁰ way, let me make the Prosecution's position quite clear. If the accused is able to sit five days a week, the fact that he chooses to represent himself is no reason for sitting any less. The interests of the Court, the institution as a whole, and the general public are in having this -- having this case determined in a timely way, and if he is now fit to sit either five or four days a week, then the Court can and in our respectful submission should proceed on the basis that he has the resources available to him should he wish to use them to enable that period of time to be used in court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is a matter that I raised some weeks ago and indicated that we had it under active consideration. I indicated that we were considering inquiring of the doctors whether the accused would be able to work one day more per week for perhaps three of the four weeks in a month. We do have it under active consideration, as I said, and we will make a decision on that issue soon.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful and pleased to hear that on behalf of the Prosecution.

Perhaps I should flesh out in one sentence one other technical point arising from the possibility of rebuttal and rejoinder cases and our concern about it, and our concern that there should be - I've touched on it already - no interval between the close of one part of the case and the start of the next. It should all be seamless with no gaps of any kind. And although I can think of no phrase I would personally more enjoy delivering or no sentence than the sentence there is no application to call rebuttal evidence and I am ready to make my closing argument, it is ³⁸⁴⁶¹ but least probable that I won't be in a position to deliver that sentence. With that in mind, and given that the accused is under an obligation to present his evidence indictment by indictment, I would invite the Chamber to allow or encourage the presentation of filings on possible rebuttal witnesses periodically through the balance of the accused's case, perhaps most conveniently one after the close of his Kosovo evidence and one after the close of his Croatia evidence, in order to either rule on them before the close of the Defence case or at least to make some provisional decisions or to communicate some provisional decisions so that preparations can be made in order that there could be no argument that time would be required between the close of case and calling of rebuttal evidence, if any, once the final decision is made as to what rebuttal evidence, if any, might be allowed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you have anything more to add?

MR. KAY: Yes, on a number of issues. Can I tell the Court, because looking at point 7 of the Prosecution's submissions, assigned counsel not to address facts in closing arguments, we think that that would be very wrong and unfair if such a provision was to go through. We're in fact currently working on a response to the Prosecution fill-box, and so we're going through the evidence from the beginning and putting in an extra column onto their fill-box and responding to the arguments that they have put in there on evidential matters. ³⁸⁴⁶² It has to be done, and we believe it's a very valuable guidance for us to do for the Trial Chamber is as you go through it, and you'll see -- it's not a criticism of Mr. Nice, but there are vast passages of text that are replicated throughout, applied to counts and allegations, some of which bear actual -- actually no relevance to the evidence that was heard, and we feel the Trial Chamber would be led into error if it followed the Prosecution arguments without any other party putting in a counterweight.

On matters of law, we propose to put in a brief at the end of this on the legal issues so that we address the facts within the fill-box and put in a legal document containing legal argument as a separate vehicle. We've had several attempts over the last two months in finding a way of dealing with everything, and as we started one way we looked at an unwieldy document. We then went back to the drawing board and started again, and that's the approach we found most helpful, we believe, having been through various prototypes on the way to where we are now. And we've done it early because we realised that it would take time to work out the best shape.

So we feel that that would be essential for the Trial Chamber. Whether the accused puts in his own written argument or addresses the Court orally on matters of law and fact, that it would be helpful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. That is certainly the view which the Chamber takes. And in fact, I was considering issuing an order requiring the assigned counsel to prepare such a brief. We would definitely be helped by a brief from the assigned counsel on the legal issues which, of ³⁸⁴⁶³ course, can't be separated from the evidence, from the facts.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And I would rather hope that as the trial progresses assigned counsel would be taking notes of important issues that arise, some of which I have highlighted and which are in the interests of the accused, to raise points in that brief which the accused may miss himself.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because assigned counsel, from the experience which they have, may have a sharper eye for that kind of detail. So most certainly we will be expecting a legal brief from assigned counsel.

MR. KAY: I can say in fact we started this project in December. As I said, it took awhile to get the right shape because it's big, the subject we're dealing with, and we looked to providing narrative, and none of that really worked, we felt, and so we've gone into the fill-box area. So it's under way, and the Court will have a concluded document at the end. How much time there is between the close of evidence and the submission of final briefs will be another matter. I think that that's best -- best addressed nearer to the -- when we're looking at the rebuttal evidence so that we have a timetable for that, then, and a more realistic hold on the overall evidence.

We're also including within it as we progress issues, submissions on the evidence you're hearing from Defence witnesses and how that counters various Prosecution witnesses so that the Court has a map, if you like, of the issues from each witness, on a paragraph and count basis. ³⁸⁴⁶⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: So those are the matters that I raise. I don't know whether the Trial Chamber wanted to hear on additional matters, whether they wanted assigned counsel to submit any evidence independently. We've been discussing this matter between ourselves on whether there would be an expectation. We haven't developed anything or put anything before the Court to date, but it's been at the back of our mind. As yet we don't know the full extent of the Defence evidence, but we were looking at issues such as the use of 92 bis by us using transcript evidence from other trials at the Tribunal, if there was helpful Defence expert evidence. And we've again in December or -- no, before then, started reviewing experts in other cases that the Defence have called and whether we would independently put that in to assist the accused.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Perhaps you might want to submit a filing on that.

MR. KAY: Yes. If that's helpful to do so. Again, it's one of the issues we've been turning over as to where we go in relation to some of the evidence and issues in the case.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, are you in a position to assist at all in point 12?

MR. KAY: Yes, I am. I know the associate for the accused, Professor Rakic, has been dealing with this issue. He hasn't actually been here since the end of last year.

This is under way. I've actually made a draft and have this under hand first of all for the Americans. It may well be that something is ³⁸⁴⁶⁵ being issued next week for the US embassy as well as directly to the witnesses themselves, and I have worked on that in relation to Albright and Clinton. In relation to the UK witnesses, I have in fact met the legal advisor yesterday and to open up channels there. So this is an area I have gone into, appreciating the issues concerning the accused.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It should, of course, be addressed as quickly as possible.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because we wouldn't want to have an application, say a week before the end of the time allocated for the Defence.

MR. KAY: No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: An application to deal with these witnesses.

MR. KAY: I'm trying to be as conclusive and consult as widely as possible on number 12, and I actually started from my end at the end of last year, and as a result of things a few weeks ago decided to just get on with it myself and do research on the issues and to try and meet as much as possible observations that I had received from the US legal advisor Mr. Kay when I met him at the end of last year. So that -- that I hope will in respect of two of the concerned countries, those internationals, something that's concluded in fact within three or four weeks, and then look at the other outstanding internationals from Germany and France. There may be a few other UN figures within it, but it's under -- under review now. So it's not being left to the end. I've started on it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. ³⁸⁴⁶⁶ Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, first in relation to what Mr. Kay was speaking about now or, rather, in relation to the question that you put, I wish to remind you that in the month of February last year, through the liaison officer I provided a list of these witnesses. This is called the list of hostile witnesses starting with Clinton and all the others are there. So it's been 13 months now. Shortly after that, the liaison officer sent these letters to the respective embassies. The results and the replies have not been here yet. I drew your attention to that a few months ago. So there is no delay in relation to that that can be linked to any activity of mine. I acted in good time. Even before my half-time started I dealt with this matter. So please bear that in mind.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, I can't allow you to make a comment of that kind without a response on behalf of the Chamber. It is true you have raised that issue several times, but on each and every occasion that you have raised it, it has been pointed out that you have not followed the required procedural requirements. And as a matter of fact, the last time you raised it I told you that if you insisted on raising it without meeting the procedural requirements, I would dismiss the application, and I did so orally without prejudice to your right to resubmit a proper application meeting all the requirements. You're being assisted in this regard now by -- by Mr. Kay, and we expect to have an application in proper form. And once that application is made, the Chamber will give it all the consideration that it deserves. ³⁸⁴⁶⁷ It doesn't matter who the person is. If the requirements are met, the Chamber will issue a subpoena for that person.

You're being assisted now, and we expect to have a proper application in as soon as possible.

You may proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, as far as I can remember, precisely then when I spoke about it last time, that was a few months ago, I heard that Mr. Kay informed you here that he was working on it.

Now, as for what Mr. Nice suggested, I think that his suggestions are highly incorrect. His suggestion is to work without any breaks whatsoever. He claims, and I wrote that down here, that the aim of this accused is to make this last as long as possible. I think that with any common sense, no one could draw that kind of conclusion, that anyone can have that kind of intention of dragging things out. My aim is to present the truth, and that requires time. That is not identical to any other kind of aim of having this extended for as long as possible. That is nonsense.

Finally, as for this proposal of Mr. Nice's to increase the number of days here to over three days a week, I wish to remind you of the fact that you adopted that proposal on the basis of the request put forth by the doctors a few years ago. Since that had not been observed, you brought me to a situation in which I had deteriorated health problems which were then of a greater length than would otherwise have been expected. ^{38468 BLANK PAGE 38469} So if -- since we are talking about chronic cardiovascular problems here, during this year if my health has improved then this place should be advertised as a kind of spa for treating such problems. If you read what the doctors wrote about my health condition which was not any kind of excess. This was a lasting problem. It was quite clear that there could not have been any kind of improvement. Perhaps there only could have been a stagnation once it was ruled that we would be working three case a week. On the contrary. I have a request that is quite the opposite, to have longer breaks. Otherwise, you will not give me any opportunity of getting any rest whatsoever.

Even today under these conditions I can get some fresh air only on Saturdays and Sundays, because objectively speaking, during the week I have only those two days left to talk to witnesses, those two days when we do not work here. So it's only Saturdays and Sundays that I can get some fresh air.

The conditions are, therefore, highly unfavourable. That is why I believe and assert that this kind of proposal made by Mr. Nice is ill-intentioned.

There is another thing I wish to say. As for the list of hostile witnesses, I'm going to give it some more thought. But I think I will take Rudolf Scharping, the former minister of defence of Germany from that list, because in the meantime he made a statement to the effect that he had been manipulated. So it's not necessary really to establish who it was who manipulated him. It is those who should be held responsible for his manipulation that should deal with that matter. So I will probably ³⁸⁴⁷⁰ get him off that list, and this will be my contribution to decreasing the number of persons on the said list.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: May I make a couple of points relating to what my learned friend Mr. Kay said about the fill-box document and about factual submissions.

First, as the Chamber may recall, we are reformatting the fill-box document into the standard computer system that is operated by the OTP. Indeed it may be possible at some stage to offer to the Chamber, to the accused and indeed of course to Mr. Kay instruction in how that system, if it comes in the computerised system, can be used to retrieve evidence by various criteria.

I would, of course, be only too pleased to receive from Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins corrections or observations they want to make about the document before it's submitted to the Chamber because there's no need for the Chamber to be burdened with shortcomings that are not significant for final deliberation but that would otherwise be irritating, and I hope Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins feel they could do that. They are I know finding the document helpful.

Coming back from the details of that this: My observations about whether the assigned counsel should make factual arguments is one of principle. Once a person elects to present his case himself and find himself put in the driving seat to the extent that the accused has at his own request been put, then the factual case he argues is his case, and it may not be either right that there should be two factual arguments. It ³⁸⁴⁷¹ may not indeed be what he wants, and we've heard many occasions where he has diverged from arguments advanced by Mr. Kay. So on factual arguments, I would maintain the Prosecution's position that there is neither the need nor is it desirable that factual arguments should be advanced independently by Mr. Kay from those advanced by the accused. Of course if Mr. Kay prepares a factual argument, whether structured on the Prosecution's computerised recording of and scheduling of evidence and the accused says, "Yes, please, I'd like to present that as my argument," then all to the good because he takes the benefit of it and it would obviously go in. But if there are any freestanding factual arguments by the assigned counsel different from those advanced by the accused, the Chamber will be in the difficult position of knowing which case it is to respond to.

Fundamentally, as I say, a person who elects to conduct his own case is bound by the consequences of that decision insofar as factual arguments are concerned.

On the topic of internationals, I'm not quite clear from what we've been told whether my learned friends and the accused are working cooperatively together or separately. The assertion by the accused that he has sent letters requesting witnesses to at least two embassies is something that I may wish to return to, but I simply say I'm not in a position to know whether that's the case or not. Certain it is that the accused has been told on every conceivable occasion of the need to get on with these applications because of the time two of the governments concerned take to process them. As I've indicated, longer probably than ³⁸⁴⁷² already is left in his case between now and the end of the year. It would normally be longer than you would actually take to get these witnesses processed through two of the governments.

And lastly: If by himself or by Mr. Kay or Ms. Higgins he is seeking to call internationals of one kind or another, then I would press the Court to take that into account into the supervision of his allocation of time between the three indictments in the same way as I pressed the point in relation to his giving of his own evidence. Because any of these witnesses may take a lot of time, and late application to call them, whether by neglect of court rules or otherwise, should not operate as a way of forcing the Chamber to extend the reasonable period of time that it has allowed the defendant, the accused, to present his case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I did mention that and say that it would be unreasonable to make such an application a week or two before the end of the time period allocated. The Chamber would not accept that as a basis for prolonging the Defence case.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm obliged, and I have nothing else to say.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Of course the Chamber will be considering all these matters, and if it considers it appropriate will issue an order, but there are one or two matters which it might be useful to raise. If we are to extend the sitting days from three to four, we wouldn't do that without the benefit of advice from the doctors because, in the first place, we're sitting three days a week as a result of the ³⁸⁴⁷³ advice of the doctors, and we wouldn't change that regime without having their views.

But it was occurring to the Chamber, Mr. Kay and Mr. Nice, and Mr. Milosevic, that today we are sitting from 8.00 to 9.35, then 10.05 to 11.40 and then 12.10 to 1.45, whether that sitting period could not be considered as an alternative. We would end up with roughly three hours -- or two and a half hours per week more.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, that will not advance the hours that many of us come here in any event. So we can manage it; although I recognise the very considerable additional strain it would place on my immediate resource. But as I've already explained, if the Chamber makes demands it's up to the Office of the Prosecutor, the assigned counsel and the accused to find the resources that are available to them to meet those reasonable demands, and we will do that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is something that we would consider without necessarily seeking the advice of the doctors. If we are going to sit for an additional day or longer per week, we would certainly have to have the advice of the doctors.

Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: We're here already by then anyway, so it doesn't make any inconvenience to us. So it's not a problem at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's just an idea which has just occurred to us.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And there are a number of ramifications which would have to be considered. There is staffing and administrative ³⁸⁴⁷⁴ implications which would have to be considered.

MR. KAY: Sometimes the half-hour break during the course of the day gives you, well, obviously more time than 20 minutes, but I mean to say you can get more done in little preparations and things, copying of documents, circulation of documents, reading of documents in that time, which can be quite helpful on the day.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, that's the fourth day, then, which you're going to add but in a different way, in a roundabout way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It would not be as long as a day, Mr. Milosevic. It's just two and a half to three hours. A day is about four hours. Mr. Milosevic, there's one matter that I might raise with you. Mr. Nice mentioned the question of whether you would be giving evidence or making an unsworn statement, a matter addressed in our omnibus order of the 17th of June in which we said that the accused shall indicate whether he intends to give evidence, when he intends to do so, and how long he anticipates his evidence would take.

No time frame was set within which you should make that indication, but I ask the question of you now: Whether you intend to give evidence and when and how long do you anticipate it would take.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, meaning you do not intend to give evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do not intend to, no.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does that mean, then, that you would make an ³⁸⁴⁷⁵ unsworn statement?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've already made two statements and made an opening address, opening statement. And I don't want to testify because I would have to take the solemn declaration before an institution which I consider to be illegal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you haven't answered the question whether you will make an unsworn statement. Do I take it that you will not make any statement at all then?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As I said, I have already made two statements here and made an opening statement as well. And I have the right for my closing statement as well as far as I'm able to understand.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you do have a right to make a closing statement.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, if I can just interrupt.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I want to say I don't take the observations of the accused as an answer to a very clear question. But that drives me to link this point with one of the little points I made in my agenda for today where I suggested that at the closing arguments stage the greatest assistance would be given by a dialogue between the Chamber and the parties following the presentation of written --

JUDGE BONOMY: I thought we had been past that stage.

MR. NICE: I know, but -- that's what I suggested, that the parties would be obliged to answer questions. And I had that in mind when ³⁸⁴⁷⁶ I come back to say that here the Chamber asked the accused a very direct question and he really declined to answer it. I would press the Chamber to get an answer from him because it impacts both on the timetable and will also drive him to recognise that the time may come if my arguments on the agenda are there where he will have to enter a dialogue with the Chamber.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's the question you say wasn't answered?

MR. NICE: I'm not sure he's answered the question as whether he's going to make a closing unsworn statement. The first three answers --

JUDGE BONOMY: He has given a very clear answer that he is neither going to give evidence nor seek to make any other statement than a closing argument.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's my understanding.

MR. NICE: That's your understanding.

JUDGE BONOMY: And obviously closing arguments might lead to the Court having a hearing at which it wants further information from -- further submissions from the parties and that would be a matter for him at that stage to decide how he participated or didn't participate.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, if the understanding is -- if the understanding is that his reference to his closing argument is under Rule 86, I have nothing further to say.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, there are two matters I would wish to raise with you. On a rough calculation, as of today we are about one-third of the way through the 150 days. We're about 50 days now. And ³⁸⁴⁷⁷ that's a very rough assessment based on the earlier calculations. Can you give some indication of how far you are from the end of the presentation of the Defence case in relation to Kosovo?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we just clarify one point, Mr. Bonomy? Looking at your paper for the purposes of this present Status Conference, I see on it that up until now I have used a little less than a quarter, and this is what it says here.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 88, 360. So that would make it a little less than a quarter of my time.

I have indicated when Mr. Robinson said that wasn't the topic of our discussion here today, I did say that with respect to your ruling that the ratio should be, as you said, that the opposite side would have the right to use 60 per cent of my time. So for all of my ten hours, 6 hours, the ratio of 10 to 6 and vice versa. For every six hours used by Mr. Nice, ten hours that I use. Ten of my hours. So as you can see, according to the arithmetic so far, without entering into the time you previously allotted, because the Prosecution in cross-examination says here 58 hours, 43 minutes, et cetera, et cetera. So let's say 60 hours. Let's bring it to a round figure. So with respect to their hours, I -- that should give me 100 hours already that I should have had 100 and not 88 because it is in the ratio of 10 to 6. That's the portion that you yourselves set. So in that respect I assume that you're going to make the right corrections using basic arithmetic at least. And I should like to say straight away here and now so that you ³⁸⁴⁷⁸ don't say that I have overstepped my time that I am going to ask for more time, because without a doubt I will need more time in order to hear the relevant witnesses for the indictments of that been stipulated here. And that is in the interests of justice and fairness, and not in the interests of using up more time or prolonging the proceedings as Mr. Nice said, that that's what I was trying to do, to drag it out. Please believe me, I don't take any pleasure in prolong -- in my association here with Mr. Nice.

JUDGE BONOMY: I wonder now if you'd be good enough to address the question I asked you, and that was if you could indicate how far you are from the end of the presentation of your case in relation to Kosovo. In other words, how many more hours do you think it will take to present that case?

JUDGE KWON: And if I can add this: The statistics in relation to time used by you was taken as of 10th of March. I'm afraid you've passed one-third already by now. I'm not sure about the exact data.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I take that on board, Mr. Kwon, absolutely, what you've just said. But I'm just using the statistics that I have available, the facts and figures available. I don't wish to make, to construe anything else and to do my own additions. But I realise there is a time lag between the time that the statistics were presented and the time that we hold our discussions here. But if you have the available statistics, then that's sufficient to have a discussion on this. Now, Mr. Bonomy, I can't answer you were question exactly as to how much more time I need for Kosovo. All I can tell you is this: That ³⁸⁴⁷⁹ I had planned my timing and my schedule, and in doing so I thought that I would be using a little more than a third of my time for Kosovo, a little more, but not half my time which I have at my disposal.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. And the second matter that I wish to raise to you is in relation to point 14 of the document produced by the Prosecutor. We are conscious of your right to present your defence as you see fit, and we're also conscious of the fact that the preparation of very detailed 65 ter summaries would have been a considerable burden at the stage of the pre-Defence case stage. However, the tendency recently has been for you to produce fairly brief lists of witnesses. I'm not complaining about that. That -- because of the time the witnesses take creates for me no problem. It may create certain difficulties for the Prosecutor. But it did strike me that it might be possible for you to produce better summaries of -- of the evidence you intend to lead from these witnesses in these little lists that you give us on a weekly basis. For example, it's pretty useless to be told that a witness will give evidence about personal knowledge of events in Kosovo. And it would help us a great deal to know what he will be giving evidence about, but I'm almost certain that it would assist your presentation of your defence case if you were to identify in advance what these issues are. Indeed, I am quite certain that we would be able to give greater assistance in directing the attention of the witness to the really relevant issues in the case if we had a better summary in advance.

Now, is there a possibility that you could amplify these summaries in a way that would be of assistance both to the Trial Chamber and to your ^{38480 BLANK PAGE 38481} own presentation of the evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, certainly there is, yes. And I have no reason, apart from the time constraints, for me not to do that. So I'll do my best to give more complete summaries, to amplify my summaries. Yes, because this is a rather scant description, and you're quite right when you say that it's not sufficient when you read that a witness will testify to his own personal knowledge about the situation in Kosovo. That doesn't tell you a great deal. I quite agree.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So I will do my best. I shall endeavour to go about this in a better way or, rather, to give you more extensive summaries.

JUDGE BONOMY: And sorry, there was -- there was one other matter I did omit to remember initially.

Point 13. For exactly the same reasons, Mr. Milosevic, in both your interests and ours, from the point of view of a proper assessment of the evidence, it would be helpful if you could identify now - I don't mean this minute; I mean fairly quickly, in the next few days - the expert witnesses, those who are properly classed as experts who will be called by you throughout the trial, so that we can make adequate arrangements for the production and consideration by the Prosecutor of the reports of these experts.

Now, would you be able to produce an indication of the expert evidence that you are likely to lead without committing yourself finally but likely to lead in the course of the remainder of the trial so that we ³⁸⁴⁸² can try to develop a programme for the preparation of any necessary witness reports?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. Bonomy. And I'll do that through my liaison officer.

Now, as far as the summaries are concerned to which you pointed, please bear in mind this: The Trial Chamber stopped working when the opposite side stated that they had finished, and that was a time when I was in bed. And I was given six weeks to provide you with a list of witnesses and evidence and exhibits, and that is why the summaries are as brief as they are.

Now, I assume that there are better conditions for the summaries to be written in a more useful way for you and for the list of witnesses, et cetera.

JUDGE BONOMY: I hope I made it clear to you that I understood that there were good reasons why these -- these summaries came in the form they did initially, and I'm grateful to you for considering improving the situation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I believe we are at the end of the Status Conference, and we will take a break now for 30 minutes and resume with the trial at 10.00.

We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 9.29 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, I was trying to remember were you on your feet on this issue? ³⁸⁴⁸³

MR. KAY: Mr. Nice had finished and I was to reply.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: And it was -- I won't take long doing it as I made my primary submissions yesterday, but it's as a result of the questions of -- or comments by His Honour Judge Bonomy concerning the fairness of it as to what is happening with this witness.

Since those observations by His Honour, we have been able to read the transcript of the proceedings in which Jasovic has given evidence in the other trial, the Limaj trial, and it is clear that the Prosecution are calling him as a witness of truth. They did not challenge his account of the matters and were putting him forward to the Tribunal as a witness upon whom the Court could rely.

Within this courtroom, it is the intent of the Prosecution not to approach the witness in the same way. The Prosecutor is an indivisible organ. That's why it's called the Office of the Prosecutor. And in my submission it is unfair to the accused, and I'm drawing on the fairness that is within the articles within the Statute of the Tribunal for the Prosecution merely because the accused is calling or seeking to call this witness to then adopt a contrary point of view having called him as a witness in another case. That is unfair to this accused. And it's simply done on the basis that because an investigator or Mr. Saxon went to see the three witnesses over the weekend and took statements in which they denied that the content of their statements was true and they made allegations of forgery or oppression against this witness that the simple word of that witness has been taken. There has been no investigation by ³⁸⁴⁸⁴ the OTP on this matter. It has gone no further than the assertions of those witnesses. And it was clear to call of us in relation to the deponent who said that his signature had been forged and he hadn't signed it that it seemed certainly at first blush looking at it that it was the same handwriting and that it may well not have been a truthful assertion, but none of those issues have in fact been investigated by Mr. Nice and the Prosecutor. They've just gone into further than saying, Mr. Milosevic wants to call this witness, it's on this basis, we oppose. We don't. We're not prepared to accept anything that he calls on his behalf without even looking into it, or even interviewing Mr. Jasovic about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are the issues in Limaj in relation to which the witness testified the same as the issues in relation to which he would testify here?

MR. KAY: Yes. It's about his knowledge of people who were members of the KLA and his investigations as a police officer in the Orahovac area, Stimlje area. So it's his conduct as a police officer, and he's being called on that basis.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, I don't think I suggested it was an issue of fairness. I was asking whether it was appropriate for this to happen, and that means, I think, that if it's an issue at all, it's not an issue necessarily of admissibility. Indeed it may be a situation in which the evidence has to be led for aught yet seen, but I still have this idea in my mind that the Prosecutor has to take a stand at some point one way or another. It may not be now. It may have to be later, once the evidence -- or the witness's evidence has been explored in two ³⁸⁴⁸⁵ proceedings. At that stage he can't, as I see it, have it both ways. You can't imagine, for example, in a domestic jurisdiction. I see no difference here. A situation here where a police officer is charged with serious crimes against honesty or against the administration of justice and the prosecutor in that country presents that man as a truthful witness in another trial. I just can't envisage that situation occurring when he is the subject of allegations of perverting the course of justice and dishonesty. However, it may be that these have to be explored more fully before that decision is taken. I don't know.

MR. KAY: Yes. I noticed Your Honour's word "appropriate" and so I then thought, well, how do we fit this into the jurisprudence when there are no guidelines which is why I went to the articles and to me it then became, if I was writing a text, a fairness issue where I was placing this that it's unfair. And we all know in domestic jurisdictions where cases have been overturned or stopped because there's been a contrary position concerning a police officer in one trial and his evidence in another. And it does seem that the Prosecution are prepared to shoot from the hip on an issue concerning this accused, Mr. Milosevic, and make assertions without investigating them. We all saw the handwriting of the statement. It was mentioned why don't you get a handwriting expert. But none of those investigations were pursued to get to the bottom of him as a witness. And he has been called in that trial as a witness of truth. So on those issues may -- may I make those points before the Court in addition to the ones I made yesterday, which I won't repeat.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. ³⁸⁴⁸⁶

MR. NICE: May I -- sorry, if the accused is going to contribute, there's one matter of correction that I'd like to make at some stage and perhaps later would be better if the accused is going to speak.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, without going into all of these procedural matters, I would like to remind you of something that is undoubtedly evident.

When it comes to this witness, you had an opportunity to acquaint yourself with many facts concerning the terrorist activity in 1998 and 1999. This terrorist activity, the killing of people, ambushes, abductions of Serbs, Albanians, killing of policemen, troops, both Serbs and the Albanians, all of this has been discussed and presented here at length. Now let us see who are we dealing with here. Jasovic is a police inspector who based on the documents I placed in this binder that I wish to tender into evidence collected, gathered facts at a time when the community or the state was dealing with terrorist activities in Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, at that time he collected facts on the terrorist activity in Kosovo and Metohija in order to identify members of the Kosovo Liberation Army which publicly announced its terrorist acts. He did that in order to identify the members of this organisation so that the police could arrest them and have them face the justice.

I'm now putting a very simple question to you: Is there a single police force in the world which in the course of identifying members of a terrorist organisation collects false or wrong information that can be of ³⁸⁴⁸⁷ no use in order to reach or to locate these members of terrorist organisations?

He interviewed many individuals, and based on these interviews, many details emerged about individuals who were members of the terrorist organisation in an area where this inspector worked. He was an inspector in the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac which covers the municipalities of Stimlje, Racak, Petrovo Selo, Malopoljce, meaning the precise area.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, there are examples the world over of police forces fabricating cases against terrorists. It's an important area of miscarriage of justice in some of the most renowned systems in the world.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, you have to have something else in mind. This is an attempt by police to reach, to locate these terrorists. How is the police going to reach these terrorists if it is using wrong information? The particular people that the police interviewed, most of them were not even indicted or arrested. No. They were simply interviewed in order to gain information. And then the policemen would draft a note based on that, and this document would be given to somebody to sign it. There were always two police officers drafting or writing these notes.

Since all of these official notes have been translated, you will see for yourself that they contain a large number of facts, that many facts can be identified and cross-checked from various sources based on the fact that a lot of other people had been interviewed. ³⁸⁴⁸⁸ In addition to that, I would like to stress that all of this activity took place in 1998 and 1999. Therefore, it has nothing to do with any potential witnesses in this case or with the -- with Rule 92 bis. These are the documents which were created in the course of duties of police officer who in his attempt to collect as many facts as possible about the terrorist organisation and the perpetrators of the most grave crimes created these notes precisely in order to identify, locate, and arrest these perpetrators.

Therefore, this involves a whole series of activities which were undertaken in order to apply the law and to act in accordance with the law in the course of police activities aimed at locating and apprehending these people.

Therefore, there are a large number of interviews here. I even drafted a table, rather not I myself but my associates who went over these statements, and concluded, for example, that out of 40 persons who were killed in Racak and who were identified, 30 of them are mentioned in the statements of the persons interviewed as members of the KLA. One person is mentioned in as many of nine statements of various persons. Some of them are mentioned in fewer statements. Some are mentioned in five, in four, in three, most often in three or two statements, and there are some that are mentioned in four and in nine statements. Therefore, one can see very clearly that this is very relevant information which sheds light on a very important aspect of trying to establish what exactly happened in Racak.

Gentlemen, you have to bear in mind that I have been accused by ³⁸⁴⁸⁹ the opposite side for murder of these 40 people in Racak, and I maintain that none of the policemen who participated in the activities in Racak ought to be accused of murder because this was a police action. Shukri Buja who was a commander there explained to you that at a time when the police was entering Racak it was exposed to a very heavy machine-gun fire started by precisely members of the KLA. Therefore, you can see that it was a very grave conflict. And here in these documents, you can see that in Racak itself, in Petrovo, in Rance and in surrounding villages there was a very wide presence of the KLA which was very active. This is precisely -- these are precisely the issues covered by this police officer in his work.

In addition to that, based on the interview I had with him, you will be able to see that in Urosevac where he served as a police officer in the SUP there, there were several police inspectors who were Albanians. They performed the same duties. Some of them later on perished after our forces withdrew from Kosovo and Metohija. You will see that even now this inspector maintains contacts with Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija from his current place of work. He continues to maintain contacts. Therefore, it is completely logical to have this witness heard here. In addition to that, Mr. Nice said, and I noted this down, that in this trial it became apparent that are reasons to doubt Jasovic's claims. I'm not sure that it became clear. I did not see it clearly for myself. What I saw is that Mr. Nice presented three statements here, three statements taken last week from three Albanians who claim that they had been forced and so on, that they had been under duress and so on. ³⁸⁴⁹⁰ Gentlemen, let me tell you that there is not a single person who -- who lives today in Kosovo under the KLA terror and who will go on to admit that he or she had given some information to the police concerning the KLA activities. Not even the families of the KLA victims from that period of time dare testify about how their dearest and closest had been killed because they are afraid for their lives. Therefore, this is not a case where we have witnesses who could confirm what they had said, because then they gave a statement to the police of their own free will.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think we have got the gist of your submission.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, one of the submissions that Mr. Kay made related to the evidence of a person commonly known as Captain Dragan.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And Exhibit 391. You said nothing on that subject.

MR. NICE: No. That was --

JUDGE BONOMY: I've had a look at part of the transcript in relation to that, and while it seems confusing to say the least, it does appear that something in the order of 10.000 or more documents were introduced in the space of a moment or two in the course of his evidence. On a different interpretation they weren't introduced but I gather the general understanding is they were.

Now, what have you to say about that? How does that differ from what's being proposed here?

MR. NICE: I think these documents were introduced as a resource ³⁸⁴⁹¹ for consideration later going to show where particular people may have been at the time that they were engaged in combat. That was the purpose.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's the difference between that and what's proposed to be done with the documents we're now considering?

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, first of all, there is not a question of where individuals fell or were involved in combat. This is a much more focused issue as to whether particular people identified as victims were members of the KLA, they having been identified as victims in the indictment. So it's a much more focused issue, and it doesn't go to the generality that might be proved by a mass of evidence of individuals fighting in particular places under particular banners. So it's different to that extent.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have difficulty seeing this distinction. What's the difference between evidence that says these people are KLA fighters and evidence that says these people are Serbs who have fighting in Bosnia and Croatia? What's the difference?

MR. NICE: The two points I've made. One is it's a mass of evidence which would be beyond being called individually and is properly dealt with on this basis until challenged and disproved. And it goes to show not particular events. It goes to show the generality of where people were fighting. And turning it to the role of victims named in indictments whose particular status has to be proved not because, for example, the generality of people in the KLA operating in particular ways at this time might need to be established and indeed of course is conceded in the most general terms but for quite specific purposes related to ^{38492 BLANK PAGE 38493} particular counts in the indictment. So there are distinctions, significant distinctions.

And where you've got a mass of evidence of the kind that's produced by Dragan that is beyond being dealt with individually, the Chamber is entitled to apply a different approach, bearing in mind that if the issue was ever challenged, either specifically or generally, the method of adduction of the evidence would be a matter of weight, and we have yet to see the degree to which, if any, that material is going to be challenged. Not material, the conclusions that we might invite to be drawn from that material which I think has hardly been considered in detail since.

If it is challenged, then we'll have to wait to see what if any value there is in that material. But it may not be challenged because it may actually be that the accused's case on that point is not counter to the general effect of the evidence. It may be a matter of interpretation of the legal consequences of what was happening.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, while I've read the evidence the case, I have to confess that these 10.000 or whatever pages have not been the subject of my scrutiny as yet. But can I take it from all you've said that there's no point here about these being documents which were prepared by someone whose interests or against whose interests they are now being used? There's not that distinction involved here?

MR. NICE: Well, no, I -- this particular witness produced them in an administrative way for other purposes as part of his so-called charity, I think, and simply to recall where people had been engaged. So there is ³⁸⁴⁹⁴ no particular issue as to his having an interest to serve, that's true. Incidentally, Ms. Dicklich advises me that a representative sample was admitted as exhibits, but I don't think anything turns on that because it's the principle that Your Honour has in mind. I'm happy to deal with it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'm unclear about what it was you have to say. But there are -- different interpretations might be made of it. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Yes, to be specific, and I'm very grateful to Ms. Dicklich. The CD itself was marked for identification as 391 tab 1 and then tabs 2 to 8 of 391, a representative sample, were actually admitted. But, Your Honour, I'm don't -- I'm not going to -- that's just as a matter of detail. Your Honour's point which I must deal with remains of course for consideration.

But apart from the factual differences, apart from the fact that we don't yet know to what extent, if any, there will be a real dispute between the parties over the underlying facts of these documents because it may actually be a matter of interpretation in law of what if anything flows from that that will be the defendant's -- or the accused's interests. There is this significant difference that here we are looking at identified individuals of manageable numbers identified as victims of particularised crimes.

And, Your Honour, if I can turn to the couple of points I would wish to make arising from the things that the accused and Mr. Kay have said. ³⁸⁴⁹⁵ It is now clear that the accused is relying on these records to show that some 30 of the victims were active members of the KLA. I haven't yet got through to finding 30 such names. I just tell you what the latest check if I'm able to -- Your Honour, just give me a minute. So far we've only identified, I think, one person clearly on the list who is named. There may be confusion as to other names arising from the multiple naming of -- or the different naming of individuals, and it's going to be a large exercise in analysis to find out first of all what these statements purport to say. Obviously Mr. Kay's table would be of assistance as would -- sorry, the accused's table would be of assistance if he wants to provide it. But at the moment we are not in a position to understand 30 named members of the KLA.

But if there are as many as 30 named, then this is clearly something that the Prosecution has got to investigate, because for the same reason as I've said on several earlier occasions, if the investigation turns out to require some concession to be made by me then of course I'll make it and as soon as I possibly know that's my duty. And the arguments that are raised by both the accused and by Mr. Kay to which I'll turn simply highlight the need for the witnesses themselves to come and give evidence about what they knew of KLA membership. And I say that notwithstanding the accused's generalised assertion that no one in Kosovo at the moment is going to tell the truth about these things because that simply is an assertion he cannot realistically make, but I make it also because Mr. Kay's observation when he said it would be unfair for us to take a contrary view means that I'm ³⁸⁴⁹⁶ basically obliged -- a point I made yesterday but I must emphasise, I'm basically obliged on his analysis to accept all these statements as gospel, simply because this witness has been called in another case, something I plainly cannot do. So they are all of these arguments this morning point yet again to the desirability on important matters or the necessity on important matters to go to the live witnesses first and not to consider hearsay or secondhand hearsay, all of which support the argument to exclude the evidence.

But Your Honour, can I add just a couple more points. First of all, I quite understand Your Honour -- His Honour Judge Bonomy's concern about the possible need for a prosecution office ultimately to take a single view on a particular witness. Whether that applies in these cases is a matter that would in our submission require a little more careful consideration of all the circumstances, not least as exemplified arguably in this or these very cases because what may be said by witnesses about one side of events may be more likely to be acceptable than what they say about the other.

So that I turn to this point, dealing with the examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of Jasovic in the other case. He was not being asked about the same topic as he's being invited to come and give evidence here. He was being invited in that case, as I understand it, to give evidence about the Serbs as victims essentially in a case which was charging Kosovo Albanians. So of course he in his position with his background, it may be argued, I'm not going to make this argument, but it might be argued would be more likely to be telling the truth about all ³⁸⁴⁹⁷ that.

Now, he was then cross-examined by counsel who had already raised arguments about the mistreatment of prisoners at the police station, again as I understand it. He was then cross-examined on the basis of the statements that we then obtained and had to be handed over and on the basis of other material going to show misbehaviour at this particular police station.

And in re-examination, which I suspect would commend itself to this Chamber as a model, in re-examination the -- unless I've missed something, runs from page 5452 to 5453. He was asked four questions of a general nature, none of which I think can really be said as aimed at rehabilitating him on the particular point of the cross-examination about mistreatment. So that whether the Prosecution in that other case were taking a position specifically on the issues that would arise in this case is far from clear.

Your Honour, when my learned friend says that we shoot from the hip, I really think that is a little bit of flourish that isn't justified. When this material was raised with us, what did we do? We went and inquired into it in the only way that was available to us at the time. We brought it back, handed it over to all the parties including as necessity to the other case as soon as we could and any other exercises that may be possible will be dealt with as soon as can be, but I'm not quite sure what else we could have done.

And in this case, were this witness's evidence were allowed to be given in principle or at all over our objections, there would be a great ³⁸⁴⁹⁸ deal of investigation to be done before I could responsibly take a position on the questions I should ask him.

JUDGE BONOMY: Let's assume for the moment, Mr. Nice, that the purpose of the evidence was to show how the system worked and that the product of the system led to the Judges being informed that there was significant KLA activity in and around Racak. Would you quibble with the evidence being used for that purpose?

MR. NICE: I doubt if I would because, after all, as the accused himself has explained to you, a witness we called explained the role of the KLA in Racak and indeed explained who fired the first shot on the morning in question. And as the Chamber realises from our indictment and opening and pre-trial brief, recognition --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. This is completely incorrect. This is quite incorrect. I mentioned Buja Shukri, the commander from the KLA from Racak who was a witness here, and he was the one who fired first in Racak. Not this witness. This witness was not in Racak at all. He's not testifying about that at all. Please bear in mind the fact that these are official documents of the relevant authorities about what they knew at the time concerned. And the direct link to this witness is the fact that he was the one who collected this knowledge and compiled official notes about them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, if we then take it just a stage further to test where we end up, where does the -- the issue about how these statements were obtained fit in? It may be said it doesn't matter. The ³⁸⁴⁹⁹ authorities are getting this information and it doesn't matter whether they're getting it from policemen acting properly or improperly, or it may be said that somehow or other there is a link between this false information, allegedly false information coming in, the activity of the police officers who obtain it, and the criminal responsibility of the accused. Now, is there an issue of that sort surrounding the evidence of Jasovic if all he gave evidence about was the extent to which statements were obtained and submitted to the Judges?

MR. NICE: Going back two points. The accused completely misreads what I was explaining. I was explaining --

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you need to clarify that now.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. The second thing is my position in answer to Your Honour's question was that I doubt if I would object to evidence coming from a witness like this given the generality of reported KLA activity, and that remains my position. I doubt if I would if it was restricted to that. I would of course have to check before I could completely waive it through that it was right to do so, and my means of checking it would be probably different in their intensity because of the comparatively less significance for the purposes of this case than the significance of evidence that goes to the heart of a particular indictment -- a particular count in the indictment.

So, for example, to expand on Your Honour's question and my answer, if the evidence is adduced simply to show that, yes, there was extensive KLA activity in a particular region at a particular time and I ³⁸⁵⁰⁰ happen to have the vaguest suspicion, guess, or even more that the evidence may have been obtained unsatisfactorily but nevertheless the evidence happens to be accurate, there's not a lot of point in my burdening the Chamber with any relevant issue.

JUDGE BONOMY: What if it goes, though, to the point of saying that the Judges -- the authorities were informed that as many as 30 of the victims in Racak were reputed to have KLA links?

MR. NICE: Well, if that's what is going to be suggested was the effect of this witness's evidence, then I think a great deal more inquiry would be required of us, because if his integrity is open to doubt and having statements to suggest that he has obtained evidence improperly, is quite enough to raise the question of doubt. If there's evidence to show or material to show that his integrity should be doubted, then we are exploring or we would land up in a position of having to explore a police system that matches not at all the ideal standards to which we would all wish to aspire for our own countries and would mean quite inevitably that we would invite the Chamber not to accept at face value for purposes of the accused's state of mind the passage of information between one questionable organ and another within this overall system. We'd have to look at it a great deal more in detail.

Now, in fact, the accused hasn't said in terms that that's the purpose I think for which he wants this information. He wants it to show that these people were KLA, which goes right to the heart of a count in an indictment. It was Mr. Kay who advanced in a slightly different formulation from Your Honour's, the possibility that it goes to the state ³⁸⁵⁰¹ of mind of the accused, but I can see Your Honour's formation as being significant, and correct me -- not correct me, I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, what Your Honour is suggesting is that if this information came however erroneous or however incorrectly elicited from deponents, it could justify an attack that would be criminal if it was better informed. I can see that as an argument. But I'm not in a position on -- to concede that it would be right for the evidence to go on that basis without a great deal more investigation.

But, Your Honour, we would need it to be absolutely clear one way or another the purposes for which this evidence is being adduced, and here I repeat a phrase I've used earlier and on several occasions it's the accused's case. He wants this evidence to show that up to 20 people of those killed in Racak were KLA activists, and that's central to a count in this indictment, and that's why I say, going back to my earlier observation, that it shouldn't be adduced other than by the witnesses themselves.

Now, I don't know if I've met Your Honour's various concerns. If I may say so, I've -- I understand them better than perhaps I did yesterday when I was last addressing them, particularly the point about the Prosecution taking a position, and I would invite you to allow that argument to be put back for general consideration, and my suspicion is that the -- or my guess is that the parties in both trials will -- and in respect of both witnesses invite a fuller consideration of the overall state of the evidence possibly in both trials before accepting that we are driven to the position in this particular type of case where we have to ³⁸⁵⁰² take a single stand. But that's for a later argument. As to the last point Your Honours made about the evidence coming in for particular purposes about the accused's state of mind and not being admitted, if that's the implication, for the truth of the content about the victims at Racak, that itself would require specific pointing by the accused that's where he's going and would still itself require of me or of those assisting in the Prosecution detailed investigation. And then --

JUDGE BONOMY: But because you would have to investigate the alleged corruption of the system, it would not be a basis for excluding this evidence. That goes to the heart of this case. Much more to the heart of the case than the facts of Racak do.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour is right that it might not go to -- might not be a basis for excluding the evidence, if it's only to be admitted on the narrow basis, not the accused's basis. But I would still need time before I could deal with it in cross-examination for all the reasons I've advanced, not the least that I'm simply not in a position to -- I'm not disposed to nor really I think allowed to take positions on evidence until I know it's justified to take such a position. A matter of detail just going back to Dragan's evidence. I'm helpfully reminded by one of my colleagues that Dragan's organisation was largely dealing with, I think, undisputed facts like date of birth and place of death, allegedly undisputed but that sort of fact. And although there are many things that could be said about and indeed probably adverse to Dragan, in this particular role he was, as I've suggested, running something like a charity after the events dealing with what happened to ³⁸⁵⁰³ people.

Membership of the KLA at the hands of the Serbian judiciary is production of material by a party that may well have an interest particular to the events in this case.

Thank you very much.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Trial Chamber's decision is that Mr. Jasovic may be called. We will make a further decision as to when he can be called and whether his evidence will be restricted to particular areas, and that decision we will make very soon, perhaps by tomorrow. So Mr. Jasovic doesn't need to be here today, Mr. Milosevic, and you should call another witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [Microphone not activated].

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't hear that.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. The interpreters still cannot hear the accused.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is your microphone on, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, it is on now. I said I call witness Kosta Bulatovic.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So help me God on this day. I solemnly declare that on behalf of my own honour that I will speak the truth and nothing but the truth before this Tribunal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit. ^{38504 BLANK PAGE 38505}

WITNESS: KOSTA BULATOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin.

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

Q. Good morning, Mr. Bulatovic.

A. Good morning, Mr. President.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, first of all, please tell us where and when you were born.

A. I was born in 1937 in the village of Dobrusa, municipality of Istok in northern Metohija. That is on the road between Pec and Kosovska Mitrovica. It is 12 kilometres away from Pec.

Q. Thank you. Tell us briefly what schools you completed and where.

A. I completed elementary school in Vitomirica [Realtime transcript read in error "Vitina"] Near Pec, and secondary agricultural and mechanical school in Vinkovci in Croatia. Then I completed a higher school for the organisation of work in Belgrade, so my profession is engineer of professional safety.

Q. Just to correct the -- correct the transcript. Vitomirica is the place near Pec. In the transcript it says Vitina which is a completely different place.

A. Yes. And it's far away from there.

Q. Where did you work after your education?

A. The first employment I had was in a factory in Pec and then at a sugar factory that was still under construction then in Pec. After that I ³⁸⁵⁰⁶ got a job in the agricultural cooperative in Kosovo Polje, and then in the agricultural industrial combine of Kosmet Export in Pristina.

Q. During the Second World War, during the fascist occupation, your family was in Kosovo and Metohija where you all lived then; right?

A. Yes, in Dobrusa.

Q. Tell us briefly what happened to your family and your village during the fascist occupation of Yugoslavia and that area where you lived?

A. Well, when the occupiers came to Kosovska Mitrovica, they divided it into three zones. The occupiers divided it into three zones. The German occupation zone was in Kosovska Mitrovica, and Pec was the Italian occupation zone. So we were under the occupation of the Italian army. Since the Serb people were outlawed in Kosovo and Metohija, there were individual killings first and ultimately entire villages were attacked. Many villages throughout Metohija were torched in this way. There are very few villages that weren't. Only a few where the population was mixed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Bulatovic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for His Honour, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Bulatovic. Mr. Milosevic, kindly bring the witness to relevant evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. How many houses did your village number and was it a Serbian village?

A. Yes, it was a Serbian village. It had 384 houses to be exact, ³⁸⁵⁰⁷ Serb houses.

Q. Was your house set on fire?

A. Yes, it was. And when we fled across some meadows --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I indicated the witness should be asked questions that are relevant, that will adduce relevant evidence. This is not relevant evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is a very short introduction for us to see how the situation developed in general terms. So I'll get through that very rapidly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have had this kind of evidence before, this introductory, this historical narration.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'll ask you this, then, Mr. Bulatovic, not of a historical nature, my next question, but in view of the fact that you said your house was set on fire, did you and the rest of the Serbs who were expelled from Kosovo and Metohija, did you ever come back after the war to live in your village?

A. Yes, we did. But that was before we were banned from returning and when the ban came into the force by the provisional government before the war had been -- had ended Popso Sljadovetrovic [phoen] signed this ban.

Q. And tell me what was life like after the end of the war.

A. Well, --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No more. No more questions on that. I am not ³⁸⁵⁰⁸ allowing any more questions on that. I am not allowing any more questions on that issue.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic.

A. Yes. Go ahead.

Q. Tell us, please, what was the relationship between the Serbs and Albanians for several decades after the war? What I'm asking about is all the time after the war during that period of time while you were living in Kosovo and Metohija.

A. Well, in our village, a local board or committee was set up after the war, and the president was Ramalija [phoen] and somebody from a neighbouring village. Of the 380 houses none of the Serbs could be president of this board or committee which tells you what this new political thought on the part of the Communist Party was like.

Q. All right. Tell me about the general relationships between Serbs and Albanians.

A. Generally speaking the relationship between Serbs and Albanians immediately after World War II were tolerant. There was tolerance. They weren't bad, but the more time passed after the war the more the relations deteriorated. For example, workers -- farmers' cooperatives were performed in Serbian villages. I don't know of a single Albanian Siptar village who had -- which had farmers' cooperatives of this kind.

Q. All right. Now, you say that international relations -- inter-ethnic relations were good. ³⁸⁵⁰⁹

A. Yes. At that time we could say that they were good.

Q. Now, to the best of your knowledge and experience when did these relationships begin to deteriorate?

A. They began to deteriorate after 1948, and the inform -- informbiro, when the population from Albanian began coming in under the guise of fleeing from Enver Hoxha's regime. They came to settle in Metohija and later on Kosovo. So this led to the first disturbances amongst the Serb population.

Q. And what happened next? What was the next stage that you considered to be characteristic for raising tensions in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. The next stage came when there were individual acts of violence and killings of certain people, and this led to disquiet among the population, especially when they learnt that Serbian land was being bought up, especially in the Decani, Djakovica and Prizren area and that this land was then given to the emigres from Albania.

Q. All right. And was 1968 a characteristic year in any way?

A. 1968 was a characteristic year because there was an outpouring of demonstrations on the part of Albanians, pro-fascist in character, calling for slogans, reading Kosovo Republic. That was the motto of the demonstrations, that slogan.

Q. And that was in 1968, was it?

A. Yes, that was in 1968, when Tito was in Bugojno. And from there he sent a delegation, a party delegation to Kosovo to attend the ceremony there, and they were transported to Pristina by helicopter to quell the ³⁸⁵¹⁰ situation.

Q. Did you continue to live in Kosovo Polje after those demonstrations or did you decide to leave it and move out and settle somewhere else?

A. At that time we did think about leaving Kosovo, but we considered on the basis of the party conclusions, the conclusions made by party forums both in Serbia and Kosovo and Yugoslavia, that this would not repeat itself. We were given promises that this would not happen again, that there would be no more violence, nor would Serb lands be taken over forcibly or Serb houses taken over and other people settling in when they began to destroy houses and roofs were destroyed and so on. Then cautions were issued. Warnings were issued as in Vucitrn that this should not be done any more but these acts continued with unabated tempo.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, how long did you yourself live in Kosovo Polje.

A. I lived in Kosovo Polje until about 1993 when I moved to Pristina.

Q. You yourself are from Kosovo Polje and you say you lived there until around 1993 and then moved to Pristina. So that's quite near, is it?

A. Yes. It's seven kilometres away.

Q. I see. Seven kilometres. Right.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly be asked to pause between question and answer. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're both being asked to observe a pause between question and answer, Mr. Bulatovic and Mr. Milosevic, in the interest of the interpretation. ³⁸⁵¹¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if this witness has evidence about the matters in the indictment, and I see from the 65 ter statement that he's to testify as to police and other armed activities during the war in Kosovo in the period referred to in the indictment. Bring the witness to that area. We have heard a lot of the background. We have sufficient background information on the matters leading up to the conflict. And if he is to testify about the military and police and armed activities in Kosovo in the period mentioned in the indictment, then let him do that immediately and don't waste time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, what you've just said can only be a typing error, because Mr. Bulatovic is not testifying about police matters. Perhaps you said politics and there was a typo error or something like that. But as far as the political situation in Kosovo is concerned and everything that went on, that's it. And among other things, Mr. Robinson, I should like to remind you that this witness here, Kosta Bulatovic was mentioned several times here in this courtroom as one of the leaders of the Serbian resistance movement and as a Serb nationalist. And he has spoken about the political situation in Kosovo and Metohija, and we see -- we shall see whether these qualifications are justified or not.

Some groups in Kosovo were mentioned here a number of times. Kosta Bulatovic and others were mentioned in that regard, especially ³⁸⁵¹² during the cross-examination when Mitar Balevic testified, that witness. So we now have the man, Kosta Bulatovic, and he will be able to tell us about all those events. But he had nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the police and is not testifying about police matters.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I merely read what is in the -- in the 65 ter. Perhaps it's an error. But in the witness schedule for this week it says, "Personal knowledge of military police and other armed activities during the war in Kosovo in the period referred to in the indictment." So I'm not certain whether that is a faithful transcription of what is in the 65 ter, but it does mention the police. In any event, I want the evidence to concentrate on the activities that are referred to in the indictment. We have had enough background information.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, you were a witness of the demonstrations both in the 1980s and 1990s in Kosovo. Tell us briefly, please, what effect did those demonstrations have on the conduct of the Serb population in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Well, I'll be brief. Both in 1968 and in 1981, the demonstrations were the same, identical. And identical demands were made. They did not differ in any way except perhaps in the distribution of the people taking part in them. They were destructive in character, and of course as a minority nation in the province of Kosovo and Metohija, the Serb people were very much afraid because the authorities of the Kosovo and Metohija ³⁸⁵¹³ government or Serbia and Yugoslavia did not take any radical steps to address the situation and to prevent it and to bring law and order into the area to prevent any repetition. The leadership was expected to do that. The people expected them to do that, but it did not. It failed to take steps, and then the people were in a quandary what to do. And then at a meeting held in an old school building that has since been destroyed in Kosovo Polje, it was destroyed so that it should not be a monument to the first word spoken against terror against the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija at a meeting of the working people of Yugoslavia, because we have the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Yugoslavia, and I got up at that meeting. I was the first to get up and to criticise violence in general, and in particular I addressed the provincial organs and authorities. Neither the committees nor the state administration took any steps at all to combat violence and the perpetrators of violence. So the people accepted this, and as an honest citizen and individual, the people saw me and believed in me, and it -- why did they believe in me? Because the authorities this failed to take radical measures to deal with the situation. Then they wouldn't have needed Kosta Bulatovic or any other individual.

So in a way, I became that first individual. I was not a leader of any kind. I was an ordinary citizen just as you see me here before you today. Nothing more than that. The only thing was that I publicly came out and looked truth in the eyes and told the organs of administration and the League of Communists of Kosovo and Metohija what I thought and what was situation was like. ³⁸⁵¹⁴

Q. And you yourself, were you a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia? You were not, were you?

A. I was for eight years, from 1958 to 1967, when I left the League of Communists for precisely these reasons, the reasons I am setting out here today at The Hague Tribunal.

Q. What was it, Mr. Bulatovic, that you said that gained support from the citizens who heard you or, rather, let me put it this way: Can you in the briefest possible traits focus on the main points and elements of your speech? What was it you said?

A. Well, I said the following --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to stop this. I'm going to stop this. Mr. Milosevic, I'm not satisfied that this is helpful. Mr. Nice, the accused made reference to a particular witness who mentioned Mr. Bulatovic.

MR. NICE: Balevic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In what areas?

MR. NICE: Well, I think it's -- he's right that at that time we were exploring this general history, the period between 1966 and 1984, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and the matters were reasonably fully explored there. Somewhere I've got a transcript of the Balevic evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is of course referred to in particular paragraphs in the indictment, I imagine.

MR. NICE: Only by way of background matters, don't forget. And it's the background that's been adduced by the accused that we have been responding to and indeed content to respond to in a part because we accept ³⁸⁵¹⁵ that it's relevant to understand the accused's subsequent behaviour. But Your Honours will know that we have suggested as a starting point for any relevance 1966 or 1974, moving rapidly through to the mid-1980s as the points upon which we should be focusing attention as the earliest potentially significant points.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just being shown by Judge Kwon the transcript where you said, Mr. Nice: "I'm grateful to hear Kosta Bulatovic is going to come. It will probably allow me to tailor the questions I'm going to ask this witness." Balevic.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, at this stage of the presentation of your defence, I personally find much of this inappropriate coming at this time. It is true -- it is true that particular issues were raised in relation to some background matters, but the question is whether we haven't heard enough of this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: When was this speech made, Mr. Bulatovic? What year was that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was in 1983, thereabouts. It was after the demonstrations. We had to wait for the decisions of the state, what they were going to do after the demonstrations of the Siptars in 1981. So it was a year after or barely a year after the death of Comrade Tito.

Now since they took no steps at all, then certain groups went to ^{38516 BLANK PAGE 38517} complain to Belgrade. Some groups went to the republican organs, for example; some went to the federal organs. At that time I was not -- not a functionary, didn't take part in any of that up to this meeting, but after the meeting I did. We went to complain to the Serbian authorities, especially when the cemetery in Sipolja was desecrated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask, Mr. Milosevic, is he going to testify at all about the Kosovo conflict in the 1990s?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not about the conflict itself, no. Immediately before the conflict he was hospitalised in Pristina where he underwent treatment, and in the course of the conflict he was transferred to another hospital for rehabilitation. However, he can say something about the general conditions in that period of time. However, I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Robinson, to the fact that in the course of the testimony of Mr. Mitar Balevic, and I'm not saying that Mr. Balevic specifically named him, but in the course of Mr. Balevic's testimony, Mr. Nice pointed out that there existed a group of Serb nationalists led by Kosta Bulatovic, currently sitting before you. He also mentioned Miroslav Solevic and some other special role that they played, and this has to do with count 76, about which I will ask the witness later, because he attended that meeting as well. This is count 76 or paragraph 76 in the Kosovo indictment.

At any rate, Mr. Nice claimed that there was a group of Serb nationalists there led by this very Kosta Bulatovic sitting across from you.

May I continue? ³⁸⁵¹⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think that this will be too long.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, you have been proclaimed or portrayed as a man in conflict with authorities, some kind after conflict with authorities. However, based on my conversation with you, I did not conclude that there was indeed some kind of a conflict. However, you just mentioned a case in the village of Sipolja.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. In the evidence we are tendering through you, we have only two exhibits. One is a letter of residents of the village of Sipolja, and the other exhibit that we will discuss later is your personal request to move out.

Now let us turn to this case in Sipolja. Please take a look. I think you have tab 1 before you.

This is a letter which did not suit the then authorities. They did not look favourably upon it. And I will ask you to explain the reasons for that. This letter was signed by 18 citizens on the 30th of March, 1982, and it was delivered to the municipal authorities, provincial authorities, and republican authorities. So your municipality, province, and the republic.

What is it that the residents of the village of Sipolja described as a problem? What did they petition the municipal and provincial authorities for? It is stated here that they wished to inform both the ³⁸⁵¹⁹ municipal, provincial, and the republican organs and ask for "protection that is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. We believe that our parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and others who are resting in peace in their graves should not be attacked."

Is this the essence of the letter?

A. It is. May I elaborate?

Q. Yes, please go ahead.

A. All right. Mr. President, Mr. Robinson, gentlemen: "We, the Serbian residents of Sipolja village were shocked to hear the news that our cemetery had been desecrated on the 28th of March, 1982. A group went to the cemetery and established that indeed 13 tombstones had been knocked down and damaged. Several days prior to this, wreaths and everything else in the cemetery that could be set on fire was torched."

JUDGE ROBINSON: There is no need to read it because we have the letter in front of us. If you have a specific question in relation to it then you may ask it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. A very specific question which has to do with the atmosphere in Kosovo and Metohija at the time, Mr. Robinson.

The cemetery was burned town. They are complaining to the municipal, provincial, and republican authorities and precisely because they were complaining they were labelled as the enemies of the state and Serb nationalists. Is that the consequence that ensued after you complained to the authorities?

A. Yes, that's precisely the truth. And following that the cemetery ³⁸⁵²⁰ in Bresje and Donji Petric was destroyed and the village in Petkovci was erased, was ploughed over. This can be found in the book Sleepless Night on page 216, a book written by Bogosavljevic. That was on the day when you listened to what the citizens had to say in Kosovo Polje.

Q. All right. Mr. Bulatovic, who dictated the creation of such an atmosphere in which after complaining quite rightly so about an injustice you were labelled as Serb nationalists, people who were enemies of the state? Where were you qualified as such, by whom, by what type of authorities?

A. I was qualified as such by the municipal and provincial authorities of the province of Kosovo. And the grounds or, rather, what we established was that the -- those who defended the terror in Kosovo were those who served in the organs. They wanted to shut down not only me but the entire nation. They didn't want anybody to complain because at the time there was a one-party system in Yugoslavia. We did not have a multi-party system in Serbia at the time. That was introduced only when Mr. Milosevic came to power. In those days we had the dictate of just one party, and they wanted to intimidate not only me but the entire Serb population in Kosovo and Metohija. They had the stance that those who didn't like it could simply move out.

Q. All right. So this is an original -- this is the original letter. Nothing else was sent by you to them?

A. No, nothing else.

Q. All right. So in addition to this letter, what else was done in addition to you being qualified as Serb nationalists for sending this ³⁸⁵²¹ letter? What else was done? Did somebody react to that? Did somebody try to provide any assistance?

A. No. There were simply decorative conclusions reached at the municipal and provincial committee to the effect that they would settle accounts with these enemies, that they would chase them into a foxhole and that they would do this and that. However, they did nothing. All of that was a simple lie.

When you listened on the radio and when you read in the press what the authorities of the province were doing, you would have an impression that something is being done. What we asked for was not to be granted any greater rights in Kosovo and Metohija, no. We simply wanted to be equal with the Siptar nation and everybody else. There were Roma living there, Macedonians, Turks, and so on. We did not ask for greater rights. We simply wanted to be equal with them. And if this qualifies me as a nationalist, then yes, I'm sitting here before you and you can condemn me.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. What was the reaction of the Serb leadership to that? Did you go to Serbia to complain to somebody there?

A. Yes. A group went to see the president of the Presidency whom we addressed as Comrade Ljubicic. He was a general. A group of people went to visit him and to acquaint him with what was happening in Kosovo and Metohija. However, nothing was done. They promised they would look into it, do this, do that. However, nothing came out of it. The following year another group in which I was went to see Dusan Ckrebic who was the president of the Presidency of Serbia. We spent two hours with him and informed him about many instances of violence and ³⁸⁵²² various methods that were used and covered up by authorities. The authorities kept threatening but did nothing.

Q. All right. So you went to see Nikola Ljubicic who was the president of the Presidency and later on that office was occupied by Dusan Ckrebic, and you went to see him as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And he listened to you attentively and promised he would help?

A. Yes, he said he would help, but he said that Serbia had no competencies in the provinces because the provinces were not any more under the jurisdiction and competencies of Serbia, and the only thing they could do is to kindly ask the authorities in the province to see whether they would be willing to do something about it. Yes, that's how it was. However, we left empty-handed, left Belgrade and went back home.

Q. All right. Since this had to do with the Serbs and Montenegrins, you also went to Podgorica to complain to the authorities of Montenegro?

A. Yes. I gave the initiative for us to go to Montenegro because I was hoping that they would have understanding for us as there were some Montenegrins living in Kosovo and Metohija.

We went there and we did not see the then president of the Central Committee Culafic but were seen by two other people including Djoko Kovacevic. This dialogue that we had was taped on a videotape. There were eight of us in that meeting. They listened to us attentively, didn't promise us anything specifically, just said they would inform the Central Committee about this.

However, as we were returning -- or, rather, upon our return to ³⁸⁵²³ Pristina, we learned two days later about what was reported that we had said there and then they threatened that they would --

Q. Whom did they send this text to?

A. Yes, I understood. They sent this text to the provincial committee of the League of Communists of Kosovo. At the time, the province was not called Metohija because that referred to the lands owned by church and monasteries.

Q. In that statement of yours when you met with the leadership of Montenegro, what did you say, because you told us that after that meeting you were threatened by authorities that you would be arrested.

A. What they minded was not what was said there but the fact that we went to see them. They wanted to intimidate us so that we wouldn't go any further with this initiative. This is what they minded. The material that they read about the individual instances and so on was completely truthful.

Q. Did you say there anything else other than what you had complained about earlier?

A. No. We kept repeating the same story like parrots. However, nobody wanted to listen to our sad complaints.

Q. After that, after your visits, these consecutive visits to presidents of the Presidency of Serbia, Ljubicic and Ckrebic, and later on your visit to the leadership of Montenegro, did any changes occur afterwards?

A. Well, I don't know how to tell you. They would start issuing various threats saying they would put an end to this, and for a month it ³⁸⁵²⁴ would be quiet. One wouldn't hear anything about the terror. However, afterwards, things would go back to normal. Violence would erupt. Terror would continue. People would be overcome by fear. At the time it wasn't allowed to state publicly things that I was stating, and people would come to my house because they believed that I was some kind of a powerful person who could solve the problems. However, I was just an ordinary citizen like everybody else. I had no special powers.

Q. All right. In all of these visits that you made, you did not skip the provincial authorities?

A. No, no. As for our relationship with the provincial authorities, we did not address them in writing, no. We sent our people to them to inform them that we would have a meeting held that day and so on. And they would send their people from the provincial administration, and their people attended all of our meetings and gatherings. Nothing was done without the presence of authorities. And if somebody can prove otherwise, then they can see me.

Q. All right. So you say that they attended all of your meetings and gatherings. And are you here referring to representatives of Prosecution authorities?

A. Yes. Provincial and municipal authorities would come to our meetings.

Q. So these representatives, were they also -- were they both Serbs and Albanians?

A. Yes, it was always a mixed composition. There would always be ³⁸⁵²⁵ Serbs and Albanians in that group.

Q. All right. What do you know about the petition that was sent by 2.000 Serbs in 1985? This was a petition published in the press.

A. In 1984 when we realised that nobody really helped us, nobody really paid attention to our complaints, we said, all right, let's write a petition. And the text of this first petition was not published anywhere because only 78 Serbian citizens signed it. People didn't dare sign such documents, gentlemen. Therefore, we decided not to submit this petition. A year late where we realised things were not going well for us, we met once again to discuss things with Dobrica Cosic, the writer, because we were so desperate. We went to the state. We went to the party. Nobody would pay attention to us, so we went to see this writer and he told us, "Whatever you did, you did this wisely. You addressed yourself to your state, to your leadership, to your authorities, and that is the proper procedure. This does not involve any kind of illegal activities." And he said, "Why don't you write a petition?" And I said, "Yes, well, we did write a petition but only 78 people signed it." And he said, "Why don't you write a new petition and include all your requests about what changes ought to be implemented. And I think that the terror that the Serb population in Kosovo was exposed to has increased and people have realised it. So why don't you go ahead with this." So we indeed did, and 2.600 Serbs signed this petition. When the journalists asked the MPs in the Assembly of Yugoslavia about the number of signatures, they said 2.016, and there were also some other figures given, whereas the actual figure was 6.200. ³⁸⁵²⁶ And, Mr. Robinson, let me tell you, that later over 86.000 residents of Serb ethnicity in Kosovo and Metohija signed this petition as well.

In a village near Orahovac I submitted the text of the letter and the petition written by Kole Shiroka. I submitted this written by Colonel Filipovic, and we submitted this to Kole Shiroka who was an Albanian highly positioned in the government. Later on, they found the text of this petition as a result of which on the 2nd of April, 1986, I was arrested.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. Let us pause here. So this petition was published in the press.

A. Yes.

Q. So how come you were arrested because a text of the petition published in the press was found on you?

A. They believed that if they arrest me, they will shut up everyone else in Kosovo and Metohija. Nobody else would dare speak the truth. All those who didn't like the situation could simply leave. That was their position. And this is why all of this all came about.

Q. All right. You say that you were arrested in order to intimidate other -- others who signed the petition.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just let the witness answer this question and then we'll take the break for 30 minutes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have here the text of the petition, and with your permission, Your Honours, I can read it to you so that you can see for yourself that it contains nothing that is aimed at ³⁸⁵²⁷ any other nation or ethnic minority. All we wanted is to be granted equal status, equal to what our neighbours and other residents had. And this was the multi-ethnicity that we sought, the multi-ethnicity that the entire world insists upon. This was not a case of ethnic cleansing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it in Serbian, the petition?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Serbian.

MR. NICE: I think I'm in a position to provide an English translation for you later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. When we return we'll have a look at that.

We will adjourn for 30 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 11.41 a.m.

--- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, if the document that I have in translation is the same as the document from which the witness was just about to read, I'm happy for it to be available. It comes printed in a textbook as so often these documents are rather than the original version, and the Court might think it prudent to ask the witness it read perhaps from the first paragraph to check that we're on the same general --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll do that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With due apologies to you and the witness, for purely technical reasons can I receive information about ^{38528 BLANK PAGE 38529} Mr. Jasovic? Can he testify on Tuesday or are you going to decide on some other date? It would suit me if he could testify on Tuesday, and Mr. Nice will have enough time to read all of his documents.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, have you confirmed with the Victims and Witnesses Unit whether Mr. Jasovic would be in The Hague to testify on Tuesday?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] He can be in The Hague, no problem.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, in response to the accused's observation that I will have time to read the statements, two points. First of all, the scale of my preparation and investigation depends on the ruling that the Court is going to make, but even so, apparently reading go the statements fully - I've only skimmed through some of them - is, you know, a very considerable time-consuming exercise, and as it happens every minute of my time between the close of business today and start of business on Tuesday is already fully committed, including the weekend, to work at the Tribunal, so that I can't devote any time to it. But the principal problem is that we simply don't know what level of investigation will be required.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We might decide to hear him in chief on Tuesday, postponing the cross-examination, and tomorrow we will give a decision as to whether the evidence in chief would be confined in any way.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that's always a possibility. I've indicated earlier that it's one that I've tried always personally to avoid because of the build-up of outstanding cross-examination and having to ³⁸⁵³⁰ revisit earlier testimonies --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think this is the only case we had.

MR. NICE: No. It happened the other way around in the Prosecution case quite a lot and having to go back to issues and remind ourselves is not very satisfactory.

Also -- well, it does mean that there will be no time for me to consider your ruling and the terms of the admissibility between the ruling and the calling of the witness. But I -- otherwise I can't object to evidence being given in chief if I have postponed cross-examination, but I encourage the Chamber to make a different decision if it can. Of course it may be that the accused's problem is he simply doesn't have any other witnesses. If that is his position and if he says so candidly that might help the Chamber. I have to say that we haven't received an up-to-date list of witnesses, and there is some uncertainty in our mind as to who comes next, another problem that we're going to have to face with our resources between now and Tuesday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you have any other witnesses?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One who was on the list got sick so he won't be able to testify immediately. He will testify somewhat later. But the rest are fine, and we can take them in the right order. And Jasovic is on the list too.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Will it be inconvenient for Mr. Jasovic if we were to take his testimony in chief on Tuesday, postponing the cross-examination, so that he would have to return? ³⁸⁵³¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that that would not really cause any special problem. He could come back.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Well, then, what we'll do is hear Mr. Jasovic on Tuesday in chief. Cross-examination will be postponed to a date to be fixed, and tomorrow we will indicate by order whether the examination-in-chief is to be confined to any particular area. Now we go back to Mr. Bulatovic and the petition.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I saw this paper that Mr. Nice distributed. That's not the same petition. This is the petition of the intellectuals of Belgrade. And already on page 1 reference is made to the following: In October 1985, 2.016 Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija sent petitions to the Assemblies of Serbia and Yugoslavia respectively. So there is only mention of the petition that Mr. Bulatovic is speaking about, but Mr. Bulatovic's petition is from January 1986. Also, it is addressed to the Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Serbia in 1986.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. You say it's not the same petition, so we can't rely on this. We'll then have to have the petition read, those pertinent parts, so that they can be translated. What is it that you wanted out of the petition?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wanted only -- I mean, I did not even include the petition in my exhibits because it was generally known. What I wanted to get out of it was anything that could be qualified as ³⁸⁵³² Serb nationalism, something that the leadership in Kosovo and Metohija could respond to in such a forceful way as they did and qualify it the way they did. So my question would be whether there is any such thing contained in the petition.

Mr. Bulatovic has the petition here in this book that was published.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Bulatovic, is there anything in the petition that could be qualified as Serb nationalism?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There isn't, Mr. Robinson. The text of this petition sought to rectify everything that was wrong in society so that we would be brought onto an equal footing with others, other peoples in Kosovo and Metohija, the Siptars in particular in Kosovo and Metohija. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't need to have it read. If Mr. Nice wishes to cross-examine on it, then he can of course.

MR. NICE: May I possibly trouble the witness just for the cite of the extract from the book at the moment because if it's not the version that I've laid before you I'll possibly be able to find it between now and next Tuesday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please return it.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, did you sign this petition?

A. I am the first signatory of this petition, Mr. President. ³⁸⁵³³

Q. All right. Tell me, since you are the first signatory --

A. Yes.

Q. -- was this an expression of your autonomous position of you who wrote and signed this petition, or did you receive some instructions from some authority or some organisation or some individuals in terms of how you should draft it?

A. I wish to say before this Tribunal, as I swore that I would speak the truth, we drafted the text of the petition. We ordinary people, ordinary citizens from different walks of life. We were not lawyers. We called a journalist to help us, Rajko Djurdjevic from Kalidzerica [phoen] near Belgrade, and he finalised the text for us, and I typed it out and I put my address on it and I was the first person to sign it. And you can see that in the book that Mr. Nice has right now.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Bulatovic, how was this petition received in the Yugoslav public?

A. In a negative way among certain forms, especially in Kosovo and Metohija and also at the level of the federation. It was qualified as some kind of revival of some kind of Serbian nationalism in Kosovo. How was it that we were seeking to have an equal position in Kosovo now? Are you not equal? That's what they were saying. They thought that what was being done in Kosovo and Metohija, that is to say, this terror and the tacit support of terror by the authorities was something that should not be changed in the society.

I don't know if I was clear when I said this.

Q. Yes, you were quite clear and that will suffice. ³⁸⁵³⁴ Tell me, you said that together you wrote the drafts of this petition and you wrote it. Who else was involved in this with you in preparing this petition?

A. This petition, in addition to myself, was prepared by Bosko Budimirovic, Solevic. The text of the petition, in addition to myself it was prepared by Milo Maslar Popovic [phoen] who is here on this picture. Would it be possible to put on the overhead projector the picture of all these men so that the Court can see them? So they can see that these are ordinary citizens. All these complaints that were coming from the grassroots, that is something that we wanted to put down in this text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think we wish to see the photograph, Mr. Bulatovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, I see. All right. All right. It's for you to decide.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You mentioned Solevic Budimirovic. Your name was mentioned, Solevic's, Budimirovic's.

A. Yes.

Q. And some others who were the core of all of this. Perhaps it would be better if you were to explain how they described you. Was all of this related to preparation of this petition?

A. Termed us Serb nationalists but not in terms of nationalism but in terms of chauvinism, hatred, and there was none of that, because a nationalist is a person who defends his people and who loves his people, and a chauvinist is a person who hates all other people and love only ³⁸⁵³⁵ their own people, and they were trying to say we were the latter.

Q. All right. As for these people you mentioned along with yourself, did you set up an informal group in order to meet and to organise your work, et cetera?

A. Mr. President, there was no group. All of this was spontaneous because I was the first one to speak up about this violence in public. People kept coming to my home all the time. There were streams of people coming in from all over Kosovo and Metohija. Kosovo and Metohija is so big. It has -- it covers an area of 10.804 square kilometres. So can you imagine people coming from all over to see me? And who was I? I was never in any kind of government. I wasn't even on the workers' council in my factory. I was just an engineer who did his own job in the overhaul department. I was head of the department for a while, and also I was chief of the rolling stock of the company for a while too. And there were Siptars and Turks and Romany who were employed there at the time. And I would like to say publicly before this Tribunal that if we look at my entire career and my entire life, I was born there, and I lived there for 62 years. If there is anyone who has a single word to say, let them speak up and let them send a telegram or whatever to this Tribunal and say what it is they have to say against me.

Now, if I bother people because I can speak up and say publicly something is wrong, that is a different matter.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, you lived in Kosovo for a long time and you mentioned that you worked with people belonging to different ethnic groups. Let me single out of the Albanians now. Do you believe that ³⁸⁵³⁶ there is a single Albanian who you put in harm's way in any way?

A. Heaven forbid. I was brought up by the Bulatovic family and that is the biggest Serb clan, and we are the descendants of Vojvodan Niksa, and the town of Niksic in Montenegro today was named after him. And we are supposed to speak in a humane manner and we are supposed to treat people in a humane manner. Because if I do harm to somebody else, I'm also in another way harm my own family and my own country. That is how we were all brought up, and that is why we always got into trouble because we could not fit into all these things that were happening here and there. We move along a straight line.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, in relation to all of this, when these petitions were made and we see later there was this petition of the Serb intellectuals --

A. Yes.

Q. -- and you said that you addressed the state authorities in Serbian and Montenegro in the municipality in Kosovo, et cetera.

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any improvement in terms of redressing all these situations on account of which you protested?

A. Mr. President and gentlemen of the court, nothing was improved. And that was the problem. When you saw the public media and you saw what the leaderships of the province were saying, you would think that it would be all honey and milk in Kosovo and Metohija, but nothing was really done. They had some personnel changes within different structures of government. The policy remained the same. And it was the political postulates that ³⁸⁵³⁷ were the problem. It wasn't the problem of whether it was Kosta Bulatovic personally who was there or some other person who was there.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. Just before we took the break you mentioned that you had been arrested.

A. Yes.

Q. How did that happen and why?

A. I was arrested on account of this petition that is now in this book that Mr. Nice has right now, and the reason was that they wanted to stop me in a way. They thought that if they would stop me if they did not let me speak in public any longer nobody else would protest in Kosovo and Metohija.

People were moving out. Whoever could sell his land, his property, his house, whatever, people were selling it for peanuts, and they were moving onto central Serbia because they were trying to get away from this territory. They thought that that trend should continue. I spoke in public, and I was the initiator of this document, this petition, so I was a hindrance to them from this political point of view, not from any other point of view.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. This arrest of yours, did it receive any kind of publicity?

A. Yes, it did receive publicity. There were reactions. I was in detention in Prizren.

Q. Tell me, why did they arrest you? How did they explain this?

A. Because I was spreading a rebellion among the people, inciting the people to rise, but they did not mention the petition because they wanted ³⁸⁵³⁸ to conceal what they themselves were doing. And then tens of thousands of people assembled around my house and I never knew all these people. And then it turned out that I was in Prizren. I did not know what was going on outside, and then there were tens of thousands of people who were gathering there. The masses did not disperse within three days and nights. And then they were they were afraid that there would be an all-out rebellion among the people and that there would be some undesirable consequences of all this of altogether different proportions and that is why they released me ultimately.

Then the then President of Serbia, Ivan Stambolic, the late Ivan Stambolic now, he came to Kosovo Polje on the 6th of April. He made a speech there in front of the cultural centre, and this is characteristic of politicians from these times of communism. The people were not happy with that. And then during his speech people would start chanting, "Kosta, Kosta." That bothered him quite a great deal, and he was wondering who this Kosta was and who was it who was disrupting their political game. He promised that measures would be taken like all other leaders from the province promised. And he gave promises on behalf of Serbia, that further violence would be prevented, that all of this would be stopped, that there would be an alleviation of the situation, that we'd continue to live together as brothers, et cetera. However, when he left nothing changed.

And after a year, after a bit more than a year, after he left or, rather, the following day after he left, several thousand people went to the Sava centre in Belgrade. I have a photograph from that gathering here ³⁸⁵³⁹ too. And an old man, aged 83, speaks here. Since I cannot place it on the overhead projector, let the Court see this. This is Bozo Markovic from the village of Batusa. That is where they cut off electricity right now. Well, this old man died in the meantime, but he's the one who spoke at the Sava centre now, and I happen to have his photograph here with me. After that, a little over a year later in fact, Zoran Grujic - he's a doctor of science -

Q. Wait a minute, please. Before you go on to tell us about Zoran Grujic, tell us this, please. Mr. Bulatovic, how long were you in prison on that occasion when you were arrested?

A. Three days.

Q. Right, three days. And then there was this rally by the people and you released; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you ever arrested on another occasion?

A. That same year on the 20th of June 1986 I was arrested in the village of Baric, not far from Obrenovac. Because on that day the people from several villages in Kosovo and Metohija, there was an exodus of these people towards Serbia and Krusevac, and the police stopped this exodus. They stopped them and there are photographs to bear that out. We can take a look at them here or attach them to the rest of the evidence here showing that the police stopped them at Kosovo Polje and did not allow the people to carry on in that direction. And for that reason, I was arrested there because anything that happened after I first spoke out in 1983 or 1984, whenever that was, I think it was 1983, everything that happened in ^{38540 BLANK PAGE 38541} Kosovo and Metohija after that I was the scapegoat every time. Everything else was considered to be fine in the state, but this was the one element that led to discord. So I was arrested, and all this was at the end of November or the beginning of November 1987. You arrived I think after Zoran Grujic was expelled from Kosovo, I believe, and they burnt down five of his houses in Kosovo Polje that he and his brother had there. And you can see the remnants of the walls of those houses. But he he's now the director of the commercial bank in Gracanica, that same Dr. Grujic now.

Anyway, the people rallied in front of his house, and because they were protesting why he had to flee to Belgrade and the people said why don't you go over there --

Q. Just a moment, please, Mr. Bulatovic. You say that the people rallied around Zoran Grujic's house to protest for the fact that he had had to flee to Belgrade. That was the reason they were -- had gathered there; is that right?

A. Yes, that is right. That's why they gathered there. Now let me tell you what happened there. When I arrived I came across Mitar Balevic and a member of the communal committee of Pristina, Pavle Jovanovic; he's died in the meantime. But he was an activist, he was a decent and honest man from our village and our general area. Anyway, they were there to talk to the people to decide what they were going to do and then somebody put forward a proposal, that is to say, Svetozar Grujic village, that they said we called Ivan Stambolic to come last year but he did nothing. ³⁸⁵⁴² Now we're going to call you. You were the president at the time of the Central Committee of Serbia. I believe so. We -- somebody proposed that we call you and that was the decision made, let's call this man Milosevic. He was not generally known to the public at large at that time.

But anyway, you had come from the Municipal Committee and had nothing to do with Kosovo but we decided to call you. That's where the decision was made, and Mitar Balevic always the president of the local committee from Kosovo Polje took it upon himself and pledged before those people there, he guaranteed that he would inform the Central Committee of Serbia about all the goings-on and the decisions made and that we would request that Slobodan Milosevic come to Kosovo Polje at the invitation of the populace.

And on the 20th, I believe it was the 20th of April you yourself. Arrived somewhere in the afternoon you arrived in Kosovo Polje. You went on foot from the centre of Kosovo Polje, the central cultural centre there and to the Aca Marovic music school building. You got up onto the stage there and addressed the people. There weren't too many people, just about 10.000 people. And when you delivered your address the people were not satisfied, Mr. President, with your speech, with what you were saying there Mr. President.

And then Solevic as the president of the conference of the 17th local commune shouted out from amongst the crowd - he was close to the stage but he's taller than me - he said, Comrade president we didn't call you here to listen to a monologue. We invited you here to hold a dialogue ³⁸⁵⁴³ with you. That means that we want -- want to tell you our problems and then you can relate to that. And you responded. The meeting was over. You said Wait for me in four days time, elect your representatives and I'll be back. That's what you said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, put specific questions. And I would be grateful for shorter answers, Mr. Bulatovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, so I addressed the citizens. You have explained to us now that Solevic said he didn't wish to listen to a monologue but he wanted to enter into a dialogue. And I said very well, then. You elect your representatives because you can't have a dialogue at a rally but I'll be back and then we'll be able to hold a dialogue. That's the truth of it. And did I come back in four days' time?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, I'm now going to read what it says in para 76 of the Kosovo indictment with respect to that particular rally that took place in April 1987. I'm going to skip over where it says that I've been elected as chairman, et cetera, et cetera, in 1986. And then they go on to say "In meetings with local Serb leaders and in a speech before a crowd of Serbs, Slobodan Milosevic endorsed a Serbian nationalist agenda." Now, I'm going to ask you something quite specific. Did you have any agenda at all, any kind of agenda at that meeting? You were at the cultural centre meeting in Kosovo Polje where I spoke. You were there, weren't you? ³⁸⁵⁴⁴

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Now I'm asking you: Did you have any kind of agenda, any kind of agenda at all?

A. We had no kind much agenda except what we set out in the petition asking us to be treated on a foot of equality with the other nations and nationalities living in Kosovo and Metohija. Our overall demands were reduced to that one demand and there was no agenda. No programme of any kind. You listened. 70 people presented their problems.

Q. But tell me, what was the purpose of that rally of that meeting? Was it for you to hear me or for me to hear you? And what in fact was the object of the meeting? You had elected your representatives and the cultural centre was pack jammed, it was full.

A. Mr. President, it was like this. We had our expectations. We expected the people who had been harmed in any way or disadvantaged in any way or where violence had been committed against individuals in Kosovo and Metohija that they should tell you of their troubles. But we also expected of you, believe me, we wanted to hear you tell us whether there was any hope, whether the leadership of Serbia would do anything to help us, otherwise that there would be a collective exodus. And let me say before I go on - and this is something that doesn't exist in my statement - we saw that we were left to -- blind forces that nobody was going to help us. Mr. Robinson, we went in groups. I, for example, went to Paracin with Anko Djuro Bauk and Bosko Mirovic and we went to see the mayor there to see whether he could do anything to help us, give us some social land, social land where we would be able to build ³⁸⁵⁴⁵ our houses and move out of the area we lived in and to move there to avoid this general exodus. So that was it.

Q. All right. Let's go back to that rally in Kosovo Polje. You were at the cultural centre in Kosovo Polje on the 24th of April, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. What happened there?

A. As soon as the meeting started, the rally started, you could hear a lot of noise and some sort of moans. And Mitar Balevic said Comrade President, that's how we addressed you at the time, outside the situation is very tense. People are debating. You must go outside and calm them down.

And you and Asim Vllasi went outside together. I did not go outside. I remained in the hall.

Q. All right. So aim note going to ask you about any of that further what happened outside because you say you weren't there yourself. And we were able to see what happened on the tapes here?

A. Yes I listened to the tapes too, yes. Yes, yes. Quite right.

Q. Anyway, the situation did calm down. The meeting went on throughout the night.

A. Yes, until 6.30 a.m.

Q. Do you remember how many people took the floor at the meeting?

A. Over 70, certainly. Now the exact number I really do not wish to hazard a guess. But certainly over 70.

Q. And can you tell us how the meeting evolved? Was it peaceful?

A. Yes, peaceful, with dignity. There were no excessive situations. ³⁸⁵⁴⁶ Everything was set out nicely. You were there; Azem Vllasi, president of the provincial committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was there; Kole Shiroka, the late Kohl Shiroka was there. He was the representative from the federation. He was there. Then there was Haliti what's-his-name, the president of the Municipal Committee of the League of Communists of Pristina. And with them they had several other people escorting them.

But you were in the first row I was in the seventh row and I was able to see all that very well. I wasn't a speaker at the meeting, of course, because I personally was not harmed or didn't have any adverse things happen to me, so I didn't want to speak up although perhaps if I was in another country I might have spoken up, but I didn't want to focus on my observe problems. I wanted to let the people set out the general problems, the problems they were having.

Q. Very well, Mr. Bulatovic. Now before I ask you any more questions, I'd like to draw your attention to a document here. It is to be found in tab 2. It is your request; right?

A. Yes.

Q. It says here that you addressed it to the council of the 16th and 17th local communes of Kosovo Polje; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it also says that this demand or request --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You sent this on the 12th of November, 1987, did you not? ³⁸⁵⁴⁷

A. Yes. It was seven months after you had been in Kosovo Polje yourself, roughly.

Q. Very well. Now, tell me this, please. Can we see on the last page here that you addressed this to the alliance of the 16th and 17th Local Communes of Kosovo Polje?

A. Yes.

Q. That you also sent copies to the regional conference of Kosovo Polje? We can see that as well. The action conference of the local commune?

A. Yes.

Q. The organisation of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia of the 16th and 17th Local Communes, the District Conference of the People's Alliance of Kosovo Polje, the conferences of the local communes in Kosovo Polje, all sub-branches in Kosovo Polje. All in all taken together, all these are the addresses that this was sent to. They're all in Kosovo Polje, and at the end it says "To the people to whom I belong and the public for information."

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Because you wanted this to be published?

A. If the need arose, yes.

Q. Let's just briefly now deal with what you set out here and what your demands were.

You say, for example, the following: You wanted to be allowed to leave your place of residence, and you stipulate in the last paragraph on page 1 that you were unlawfully arrested on the 2nd of April, 1986 and ³⁸⁵⁴⁸ released on the 5th of April, 1986 with the explanation a mistake had been made in your case; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And that all further prosecution would be discontinued?

A. Right.

Q. However, there were complications later on - I don't want to enter into those now - you described them anyway. And then in September you wrote to the leaders and all the Albanians, Kole Shiroka, Azem Vllasi, Rahman Morina and Dr. Ragip Halili, you addressed them, requesting that your case be closed. Shiroka was in the federation; Vllasi in the province; Morina and Halili, president of the Municipal Committee of Pristina; is that right?

A. Yes, that's quite right.

Q. After that, you say that on the -- you addressed them on the 8th of September, and on the 10th of September, that is the last paragraph on page 2, I'm going to read it out: "On the 10th of September, the inspector from Pristina came to see me in the company, the state security inspector, with a request that I come with him or that I go myself to the provincial Secretariat of the Interior because some comrades from the republic and the federation needed to talk to me about something."

A. Quite right.

Q. I went there with him to the office of Comrade Bozovic where the comrades from the Republic of Serbian Federation were, and I talked to them.

Who were those comrades? ³⁸⁵⁴⁹

A. Well, I think the man from the federation was Raukovic, that that was his surname, Raukovic.

Q. What organs were they from?

A. They were from the state security organs.

Q. Right. So they were security people?

A. That's right, yes. And Savic was from Serbia.

Q. Then you go on to say: "They said that I was the organiser of the gathering of the Serbian people in Kosovo and demanded in future that I should not go to such gatherings or speak at them because my presence and my speech aggravated the crowds and many who did not even know me. I answered that I was not any sort of organiser of the gatherings because it was the worries and troubles that were rallying those people. And as far as my speeches were concerned, I stood by them because I only spoke the simplest truth about what was being done against that people in Kosovo and that I did not persuade or instruct anybody to any gathering or speech-making."

A. That's the truth of it.

Q. I promised them then I would not go to gatherings or speak about anything whatsoever and that they --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, time for a question. You're not in a reading class.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Witness, you then promised that you wouldn't go to any gatherings, that you wouldn't even speak, and did you do so? Did you go ³⁸⁵⁵⁰ to gatherings? Did you speak?

A. I went to gatherings and I did speak. I went to Niksic to attend a gathering of that kind and I spoke there. And at home, when I came back from the interview in Pristina, there were a 150 to 200 citizens gathered there. When I had been taken to Pristina by the state security. Now, the next day I called Bozovic up and told him to send his men and asked them why the people had gathered there and what they wanted. The next day there were about 2.000 citizens who had gathered there, and then I had to come out before them and to address then publicly and to explain them -- to explain to them what had happened and to ask them to go home. I said that things would get better, would improve. So I persuaded my people by using this ruse to calm the situation down. That's what I had to tell them.

Q. So you had to convince them to go home; is that right?

A. Yes, to go home. That's the truth of it.

Q. And then here in your demands where you ask to be allowed to move out, you go on to say that after the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of April while you were in detention the citizens rallied in front of your house. And you said: "I ask you, how could I have organised any kind of gathering in Kosovo Polje from prison?"

So you're justifying yourself because of this rally. Now, was this rally something that was unlawful which would need justification?

A. No, it was not illegal or unlawful, Mr. President and Mr. Robinson. They were methods. They didn't know what to do, so this was the method they chose, whether to liquidate me physically or let me to ³⁸⁵⁵¹ leave the territory. However, at that time they placed a ban on anybody leaving Kosovo without requests put in to the local commune. That is why I addressed this to both the local communes of Kosovo Polje, this request of mine. So the people had gathered there because of the troubles they had encountered. We all had the same troubles and problems. We didn't know what would become of us.

Q. Now, in this document where you asked to be allowed to move out, on page 4, paragraph 1, you say that pressure was exerted on your family: "My family has also come under pressure..." you say. And then you go on to speak about your daughters and how they were mistreated.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Was that something that happened only to you at the time or did it happen to other people as well, to anybody else in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. It happened -- it was the order of the day. It -- they wanted to silence me in a way, and these were -- this was one of the methods they applied. I have no words to express what went on during that period of time in Kosovo.

Q. All right. So you then complain why a certain official who was either a Serb or Montenegrin; I can see by the surname.

A. Stijovic.

Q. Yes, Stijovic. He's not an Albanian. He labelled you as speaking from nationalistic positions and then in response you say at the end of that second paragraph: "In defending my people and demanding their rights, only on the basis of full equality in Socialist Yugoslavia, I am also defending other peoples, demanding their rights, only on the basis of ^{38552 BLANK PAGE 38553} full equality, without which there can be no 'brotherhood and unity'."

A. Yes, that's what I always said and publicly at every single meeting. And precisely because of the fact that they couldn't find anything wrong with something like that to lock me up and to have me do hard labour, I was a very difficult adversary for them in the ring.

Q. Very well, Mr. Bulatovic. So you advocated nothing but equality. You did not want greater rights. Was that the position of other people who together with you wrote petitions? Was there any incitement of animosity towards Albanians or any other national community in Yugoslavia?

A. Mr. President, Mr. Robinson, I maintain here with full certainty that I tried to educate everybody who came it my house, who came to my offers, who stopped me in the street and in all kinds of other places. I always told them that if we do anything bad or say anything bad against the Siptars, Romas, Turks or anybody else living in Kosovo and Metohija. That by doing so we would indirectly become enemies of our own people and nobody who held such beliefs should come and see me. So they knew it. I told them, I would disown you. I would not speak to you again if any of you dares to say anything extreme. It is true that we are threatened, it is true that we are subjected to terror. However, we have no other country but Serbia and we cannot flee our own country. We have to be tolerant. We have to live here in such a way as to spread tolerance and in such a way as to force the state leadership to do something about this, not individuals.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. We will skip over several years, after which there were constitutional amendments in 1989. I assume that you ³⁸⁵⁵⁴ remember that.

A. Yes.

Q. You are no constitutional expert, therefore, I will ask you nothing about constitutional amendments. I simply wish to ask you: How did you as a citizen in Kosovo and Metohija see these amendments and changes based on what you experienced, based on your talks with your neighbours and friends, and tell us how did Albanians view these amendments?

A. In a normal way. The initial period, when these amendments were introduced, was a calm one. There were no incidents. There was no violence immediately. However, after some time lapsed, all of a sudden Albanians started leaving their offices, their companies, Mr. Robinson. We ordinary citizens were surprised. We were wondering how is it. It was so hard to get a job and once you did get a job, why would you leave your job? How would you support your family if you had no job? We could not understand that they were being funded, from other countries, from other states, through other channels that are known only to them and I know nothing about. So we were wondering where were all these huge funds coming that enabled them not to work but live well. The living standard of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija and that of Siptars in Kosovo and Metohija was very different, and it was more beneficial for them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Bulatovic, you have said that you wondered how the Albanians could be leaving their jobs because it was so hard to get a job. ³⁸⁵⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you could not understand that they were being funded, "from other countries, from other states, through other channels only known to them, and I know nothing about them." So what is the source of your information that they were being funded?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They -- the newspapers wrote about that, namely that they were being funded from the Middle East flew drug trafficking channels and arms trade. This is what our papers are writing about and probably press in other states as well. This is the only source of information for me. I don't have an intelligence agency to inform me.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Mr. Bulatovic, so you told us about this phenomenon, namely that many Albanians were leaving their jobs for reasons known only to them. Do you know that in their political circles at the time it was advocated that they ought to boycott their jobs and other aspects? Do you know anything about that?

A. Yes, I do. On one occasion Kacusha Jashari and Azem Vllasi practically publicly called them to boycott which surprised the entire Yugoslav public.

Q. All right. Mr. Bulatovic, please tell us, was there anyone in the state leadership or anyone among Serbs in Kosovo urging Albanians to leave their jobs? Was there anyone firing them, dismissing them from their jobs? You lived there at the time. Do you know of any cases where they were dismissed from their jobs by Serbs, not Albanians? ³⁸⁵⁵⁶

A. God forbid. If such an information existed, then it needs to be specified as to where, when and how. This is a tremendous lie.

Q. Do you know anything about the establishment of parallel structures in health services, in education by Albanian organisations?

A. I know that they pulled out students from schools and took them to private homes where they organised schooling for them. I saw that in Obilic. There was a house there where they had their school where their students went. They taught them there. The circle of those who supported boycott of all views of public life was spreading. We at the time did not know that they had -- that they were receiving assistance from outside. There were Albanians who were good neighbours of ours, good colleagues. We worked together. We had no kind of problem between us. However, such Albanians did not receive support. Rather, those who wanted to spread error and violence received support. That was the faction that received support, whereas the other faction was neglected, and this is why in this latest war they came to kill all of those individuals who supported friendly relations with Serbs and good neighbourly relations.

Q. Where did you get this information that they were killing certain of their own?

A. Well, I have a story that was published in this paper where a man in Brolic was moved from that place -- that's not -- in the municipality of Decani, and later on moved out to Montenegro. This man and his daughter were killed subsequently. And this is the man who had excellent relations with the Serbs. They had nothing but respect for each other. ³⁸⁵⁵⁷

Q. And you believe he was killed because he had a positive attitude towards Serbs?

A. Yes. That is published in the newspaper called Tanjug.

Q. No need to quote. We know that those people who had any sort of positive attitude towards Serbs were punished.

A. Yes, that's absolutely true. And they know it better than anyone else.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... leading questions recently. Perhaps he could be subsequently reminded.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes, the tenancy to lead is still there. You have to avoid leading questions.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, in the course of these ten years starting in 1989 until 1999, there were constitutional amendments in 1989?

A. Yes.

Q. And you spent the entire time in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Yes, until the 26th of May, 1999.

Q. Very well. And you worked throughout that time?

A. No, I was retired, Mr. President.

Q. Since when?

A. Since 1993.

Q. You had numerous contacts with Serbs and Albanians?

A. Naturally. They were my neighbours. They lived in my ³⁸⁵⁵⁸ neighbourhood. And when I was brought from hospital to the apartment in Pristina, even Albanian neighbours came to visit me when I was sick.

Q. Very well. So during those ten years, do you know of any cases where Serbs dismissed Albanians from work or in any way discriminated against them?

A. I saw from 200 to 500 people every day. I never heard such information. And if anybody possesses such information, they should acquaint me with it.

Q. All right. Where were you when the aggression on Yugoslavia started?

A. On the 19th of March, 1999, I was involved in a very serious accident, traffic accident, and I was in the orthopaedic clinic of the hospital centre in Pristina. I was -- I had been operated on and was in intensive care, and the bombing started on the 24th of March when I was in still in intensive care.

Q. All right. And in late May you were transferred to Igalo?

A. Yes.

Q. But that entire time you spent in the hospital?

A. No. I was in the hospital for about ten days and then I went to Nis for rehabilitation there and then I returned back to my apartment.

Q. All right. During those ten days that you were in hospital, did you observe what the ethnic composition of the doctors and patients were in that hospital?

A. Mr. President, just like before the aggression, that was the composition while I was there. The same people were there. ³⁸⁵⁵⁹ Here, you can see this arm of mine. It was treated by an Albanian doctor, healed by an Albanian doctor. There were many Albanians there. There was a Turkish nurse there who administered treatment. And they behaved normally even though rounds were falling left and right. There was nothing wrong there while I was there. I don't know what happened afterwards.

Q. What happened after your stay at the hospital? You went someplace else?

A. Yes. I went to the rehabilitation centre in Nis where I was treated by Dr. Koljevic.

Q. We don't have to go into details.

A. And then afterwards I was sent home, spent there ten days, and Dr. Popara ensured that there be an ambulance car to take me to Igalo, to Montenegro, to the coast, because I wasn't able to go there any other way. And this is where I was when the Kumanovo agreement was signed.

Q. All right. You as a person of -- who lived in Kosovo and Metohija, who was a citizen of Kosovo and Metohija and who experienced himself all kinds of inter-ethnic relations that existed in Kosovo and Metohija, please tell us how did you see the police activity in 1998 and 1999?

A. I saw it as something quite normal and natural. A number of Serbs had been killed starting with Djordje Bjelic who was killed on the steps and then there were two people killed in Mejolic [phoen], and the killing of Serbs started to be very widespread which means that the police had to go out and intervene. They had to block traffic to prevent the terrorists ³⁸⁵⁶⁰ from moving about. They killed policemen in Glogovac. Seven or nine policemen were killed at the roadblock. A relative of mine, Bulatovic, was taken out of the train and killed, and his wife watched from the train.

Q. All right. You had contact with many Albanians. What was the position of the Albanians that you communicated with during the NATO aggression? What was their position with respect to NATO aggression?

A. Let me tell you something. Their reaction was not a bad one, Mr. President, and I would be unfair if I said otherwise. They said the same thing that we did, that this was no good no good either for Serbs or for Albanians and that it would lead to nothing. However, these were Albanians who were not members of this fascist-like organisation, and I could not be friends with anybody else.

Q. All right. You remember that Serbs were going in large numbers to take part in demonstrations in 1988 and 1989. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. What do you know about these cases of Serbs going there? Were there any leaders who urged them to take part in that or who asked you from Kosovo and Metohija to travel to other cities to demonstrate?

A. No, not at all. We did this on our own. We first went to Novi Sad because Krunic and the Vojvodina leadership were quite a hindrance to constitutional amendments in Serbia which were supposed to put the provinces under the jurisdiction of Serbia. So we attended those rallies. We went to various cities. And ³⁸⁵⁶¹ simply speaking, Mr. President, we went to organise rallies in those cities so that our people could let everyone know about what was going on in Kosovo and Metohija. The press at the time wrote very little about Kosovo and Metohija, and if they wrote something at all it was not written on the front page.

So we didn't know anybody, Mr. President. Did you know any of those people from Kosovo Polje? Did you know anybody from Kosovo? We don't know anyone either. The only person that we knew in Belgrade was the person that I went to see in Belgrade because I was the first one to go. I first went to Zarija Matilovic [phoen]. I went to Batric Jovanovic. These were people who were MPs, who were deputies in the Assembly. In the west you call them congressmen. So I went to see them in order to inform them about the situation, to show evidence about what was going on.

Q. All right. In those rallies organised by Serbs in 1988 and 1989, was the main reason for organising these rallies to inform the public with what was going on or did you have perhaps some other goals?

A. No. That was our only goal because we wanted the people to realise what was going on. For 50 years they've been telling us that there was brotherhood and unity there, that everything was cream and peaches. However that was not true. Only we knew what we suffered. Nobody could believe that. Nobody could even fathom something like that.

Q. All right, Mr. Bulatovic. Was there any violence in any of those rallies?

A. This is the first I hear of it. ³⁸⁵⁶²

Q. I'm asking you. Was there?

A. I never heard of any violence. And if somebody claims otherwise, tell me.

Q. Very well, Mr. Bulatovic. I have no further questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Bulatovic, you have testified that you got along very well with Albanians when you were in the hospital, you were visited by Albanians.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. Outside of the hospital as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have had evidence of this kind before. So what really caused the conflict in Kosovo? If there was this brotherhood and everybody was getting along well, what really was the trigger for this conflict?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The trigger of the conflict was their programme, their fascist-like programme, because a large number of Balists, fascists who had sided up with the fascists, with the Italians. They simply moved on to the partisan units. They were taken over by the partisan units. They accepted to become members of the then Communist Party of Yugoslavia. At that time they behaved very honestly, very decently. They were quite simply very loyal at the time, at the beginning.

At that time, Mr. Robinson, there weren't any major problems. Perhaps somewhere, but that happens in any country and that could be tolerated. However, as we moved on from the Second World War, then these worms started squirming and they were receiving some kind of support. ³⁸⁵⁶³ We first felt this wave after the Cominform Resolution in 1948.

JUDGE ROBINSON: They whom? The Albanian people or a party --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, no. Terrorists. They're terrorists. Yes, yes. They had some kind of support from the outside. We always thought that it was Albania. They did have some support from Albania because they did transfer their open people across the border who were allegedly escaping, fleeing from the regime of Enver Hoxha. And then people kept silent about and they said well, all right, since they don't want this dictatorship of Enver Hoxha, let them come. And our state even bought property from the Serbs and gave them this land. However, when herds of cattle, horses, sheep were brought in, when they came with their families and when our television started showing this, that Albanian was moving en masse to Kosovo and Metohija, then we all started wondering what we would do? What would happen to us? And the terror was stepped up. That's how it all started.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I omitted to ask for these two exhibits only in relation to Mr. Bulatovic to be admitted into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be D294.

JUDGE ROBINSON: D294 for both. Yes. Yes. Mr. Nice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, you resigned the Communist Party in 1967, and -- ^{38564 BLANK PAGE 38565}

A. That's correct.

Q. -- because of Rankovic's removal in 1966? Was that the trigger?

A. No.

Q. How --

A. No.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... removing of Rankovic?

A. Well, how did I regard it. Rankovic was removed because he clashed with Tito and Kardelj.

Q. What was it then that led to your giving up the Communist Party in 1967?

A. Oh, to leave it? Ah, I'll tell you all about that.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Yes. Briefly. In tab 2, when Rankovic was removed, then the leadership of the province including Fadil Hoxha thought that that was the right moment to replace all the top people in Kosovo and Metohija, who were Serbs at the time, to be removed from these high positions. Can you hear me, Mr. Nice?

Q. Yes, I can.

A. Yes. They removed these people, and then they came across my manager where I worked as a worker. Dusan Samardzic from Gornja Dobrnja, he was the best manager, probably, in the entire Kosovo Export Company. He was in charge of crop production. When they dismissed him and when they forced him to retire, well, that was the case that led me to protest against that and that very evening, at that party meeting I left the party. I said that this party was pursuing a policy that was condemned ³⁸⁵⁶⁶ and that I didn't want to be its member. Now, that's what is correct.

Q. From that moment onwards, were you concerned that the Serbs were being under-represented, underprotected in Kosovo? Was that your anxiety?

A. No. It was persecution, people being removed from their positions and jobs. This kind of cleansing, ethnic cleansing, what they did on the 17th of March last year. That's the kind of action it was.

Q. Then we move forward to the great constitutional changes of 1968 to 1971 embodied in the constitution of 1974. Were you one of those who found this constitution that didn't favour Serbs particularly offensive?

A. One hundred per cent. That constitution was the root cause of all troubles, because then the Republic of Serbia was brought on a position of inequality in relation to the other Yugoslav republics. It was practically dismembered.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Judges have heard a lot about --

A. Oh, all right.

Q. Like it or not, that constitution was brought in by the then legal government, wasn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. And it gave Kosovo Albanians, because of their majority in the province, both power through representation and some expectations.

A. Yes.

Q. And from that moment on province both power through representation and some expectations.

A. Yes. ³⁸⁵⁶⁷

Q. And from that moment on, Serbs, including you, were dead set on reversing those constitutional changes; correct?

A. No. That is not correct.

Q. Well, I mean -- you may say and --

A. At that time, I did not interfere until the vandalism started. When they started vandalising cemeteries, killing Serbs. That is when I raised my voice. Before that, I did not engage in this thing. I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Nice, and it would have been silly for me to meddle in constitutional affairs.

Q. I'll just go back to the question. From that moment, that is from the 1974 constitution, there were Serbs who were dead set on reversing the constitutional changes. You subsequently associated yourself with that movement.

A. No. No. There was no such movement. This is a lack of proper information. It's as if the previous provincial committee wrote it for you. This is false information.

Q. We come to the mid-1980s, passing over the demonstrations of 1981. I may came back to that next week; I may not. But would you accept, just in the most general terms, that there were any violations of the human rights of Kosovo Albanians in the course of the mid-1980s?

A. Towards the Albanians? Is that what you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. Violation of the rights of Albanians? Was this done against the Albanians? I don't understand the question.

Q. I'm asking whether you accept that. Do you accept that? ³⁸⁵⁶⁸

A. By who? Were they giving trouble to themselves? I mean, Mr. Nice, they were the majority. They had power in their hands. How could they act against themselves? This is a bit of a difficult question, isn't it.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Rejecting that as a proposition and I'll come back to that if necessary next week.

A. Very well.

Q. Now we can move very swiftly through the history because I don't challenge the account you give in general terms. We have your 1985 petition, your meeting with Ljubicic --

A. Yes.

Q. And then we have the 1985 --

A. Yes, yes.

Q. The October 1985 petition that we've seen. We haven't got it translated so we'll look at it next week. Then there was another petition and we've distributed it already -- I'm thinking it was the one that you were talking about. I'd ask you for a few comments on that. So if the Chamber's got that document, I'm not sure that I've got a version of this at the moment in --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the one in the document The Destruction Of Yugoslavia.

MR. NICE: Yes. I think I have a Serbian version of that. I'll make the Serbian version available to -- maybe he's got it. He's got it in his red book. Just look at this petition, please.

Q. Just look at this document, please. Have you got a document there ³⁸⁵⁶⁹ in Serbian, Mr. Bulatovic, coming your way?

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

Q. Here it comes.

MR. NICE: Put that on the overhead projector, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is Cosic. This has nothing to do with me.

MR. NICE:

Q. This was -- well, Cosic was the man who advised you, wasn't he?

A. Yes, yes, to address the legal authorities and to write a petition, yes. But not what this gentleman brought here, no. Here's the petition right here. I have the text of the petition right here. And the text of the petition is supported by prominent public figures who supported it. October is my petition.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure we're talking about the same petition, Mr. Bulatovic. Just follow what the Prosecutor is asking you.

MR. NICE:

Q. The 1985 October petition we'll look at next week when we've found an English version of it or got it translated. That was followed by a January 1986 petition signed by a number of Belgrade intellectuals, and you'll be provided with a Serbian version of that.

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Prendergast has got that --

A. Here it is.

Q. The usher is going to hand you that. And on the overhead projector we're going to read a few passages of this. ³⁸⁵⁷⁰

MR. NICE: If you'd go to the next page, please, Mr. Prendergast.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here it is. It's right here the petition.

Q. This petition starts off by reference to the October 1985 petition, sets out in the second paragraph down that: "The petitioners were amazed and dejected by the authorities' reaction to this petition, by the threatening response by officials in Kosovo and by the attitude of the highest Serbian and all-Yugoslav authorities."

Then, Mr. Bulatovic, if you go over two paragraphs and if we go to page numbered 50 at the top left-hand side --

A. Line.

Q. -- Mr. Prendergast. You will see a paragraph that begins: "The political condemnation of the Petition has therefore moved us, the undersigned, to turn to public opinion with an appeal to support its demands for a radical change --"

A. I haven't got that.

MR. NICE: Can I have the Serbian version handed to -- made available.

Q. And you'll find it -- it's about five paragraphs down and the paragraph begins "The political condemnation."

A. But that's not it. That's not it. This is the petition.

Q. Mr. Bulatovic, I'm not talking about your October 1985 petition. We're going to deal with that if at all when we've got it translated next week.

I'm dealing with a different petition which is the one which was ³⁸⁵⁷¹ drafted by the intellectuals, signed by many of them, in January 1986, and it's this paragraph where --

A. I've got it right here.

Q. And you may find it helpful to follow it in the larger --

A. Ah, this is right.

Q. There we are. Now, at the end of the paragraph you're looking at, it says this, four lines up: "Only the protectors of the --"

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I receive a copy of that?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: It should be attached. It should be attached to the back of the English-language version that was distributed earlier. For the accused's assistance in the Serbian version on page 44 I think towards the bottom.

Q. I read: "Only the protectors of the tyrants have changed. The Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany have been replaced by the Albanian state and the ruling institutions of Kosovo. In place of forced Islamisation and Fascism there is Stalinised chauvinism. The only novelty is the fusion of tribal hatred and genocide masked by Marxism."

These very strong expressions or views coming from the intellectuals, we may look at the signatures later, were these the expressions or views that you discussed with Cosic when he advised you on your petition? ³⁸⁵⁷²

A. No.

Q. Were these the sort of views that were current amongst those Serbs who had the interest to reverse constitutional change?

A. We, Mr. Nice, were in favour of constitutional changes that would bring us onto a footing of equality with all others -- and also in Metohija bring us onto a footing of equality with all others in Kosovo and Metohija and in Serbia. We did not work on any kind of text. We wrote our request, our petition, and it was attacked. Then these people supported our petition.

They are well-known democrats from Serbia. They are not Stalinists.

Q. Can we look at the next paragraph to see the sort of material that was being broadcast or -- yes, distributed and broadcast, because I'm going to ask you about this, it creates the environment in which you and the accused came to operate.

So we come to see in the next paragraph: "The methods have remained the same: The old poles now carry new heads. The new Deacon Avakum is called Djordje Martinovic, the new mother of the Jugoviches - Danica Milincic. Old women and nuns are raped, frail children" --

A. That's correct.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... this material, help us if I've got this right, Mr. Bulatovic, you would say this is an accurate contemporary description of life in Kosovo, or do you think this might have about it the whiff of propaganda?

A. No. This is correct. When he says here the blinding of cattle, ³⁸⁵⁷³ that's true. They blinded a bull from the monastery of Devic. And when they were interrogating the young man who did this, he said I did that because the bull is a Serb bull. I think that's quite clear.

Q. Two more references from this document and then I'll be done it. The next paragraph but one says: "Under cover of the struggle against great-Serb hegemonism, a rigged political trial of the Serb nation and its history has been going on for decades. The first goal is an ethnically pure Kosovo, to be followed by further conquest of Serbian, Macedonian" --

A. Correct.

Q. -- "and Montenegrin territories." Now, was this the prevailing belief of Serbs, that all Serbian territories were going to be attacked --

A. Yes.

Q. -- by Albanians?

A. Yes.

Q. You were really going to make your fellow Serbs believe that Albania was going to take over Serbia? Is that what was the prevailing thought?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Bulatovic has nothing to do with this petition. This petition was written by Serb intellectuals as it says here. It was written by academicians, professors, et cetera. He has nothing to do with that petition. He spoke ³⁸⁵⁷⁴ of a petition that preceded this one.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes, he had nothing to do with the writing of it, but Mr. Nice is addressing certain factual situations that are referred to and the witness can speak to that.

MR. NICE:

Q. We move on. But let me just make sure I've really understood the belief at the time being advanced and circulated, that the Albanians were going to take over Serbia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Was that what you really all believed and were suggesting might happen?

A. But it happened, Mr. Nice. You helped them.

Q. Very well. Let's look at the next paragraph that begins with the words "the absence of law," but we can go down to the end of this paragraph where we see yet -- I say yet another reference. We see a reference to the coke bottle case of Djordje Martinovic described as "a crime hard to find" -- "even among crimes it would be hard to find a crime like this."

And if we go on, if you would be good enough, two more paragraphs we see: "Everyone in this country who is not indifferent has long ago realised that the genocide in Kosovo cannot be combatted without deep social and political changes in the whole country." Now, that's the material. We'll have to look at the translated version of your earlier petition when we get it by next Tuesday. What I'm going to suggest to you is this: That the environment into which you took this accused as a leader was an environment poisoned by propaganda. Do you accept that? ³⁸⁵⁷⁵

A. No. We did not call him as any kind of leader. We called him as the president of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia just like we called a year before that, a year before him, Ivan Stambolic. So don't -- don't call that any kind of leader. Don't. You're speaking in a highly tendentious way.

Q. In case there was a confusion in the translation of my question and the use of one particular word, let me rephrase the question in another way so that you can deal with it before if the Court so decides we break.

By the time of the Kosovo Polje meetings and by the time of the events of the following year in which you and others were involved, there was a movement created by Serbs, including the intellectuals like Cosic, reflected in this sort of document that was poisoned by propaganda. That's my question to you.

A. That's not correct. There was no movement that was created or was anyone ever elected any kind of leader or whatever. All the people were the leader. Everyone was guided by his own trouble and they expressed their troubles in public, and if what you are saying is what you are saying, let it be, but I disagree with it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Convenient moment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll stop for the day. We'll resume tomorrow morning at -- we will resume on Tuesday. Tuesday at 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day of ³⁸⁵⁷⁶ April, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.