Milosevic Transcript 2005-04-27

³⁸⁸⁵³

Wednesday, 27 April 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I believe you had concluded your examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have a few more questions, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: A few more questions, yes.

WITNESS: DRAGAN JASOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. [Interpretation] I have a topic that is linked to the document that was supplied later yesterday, at the end, and something also to do with a document we had earlier.

Mr. Jasovic, would you take a look at tab 4 now, please. This is a criminal report. Do you recognise the document? It's at the end of the binder.

Is that another criminal report, and do you recognise the document?

A. Yes, I do recognise the document, because I can see from that same document that it -- the date is the 10th of October, 1998, in Stimlje. That is the police station in Stimlje.

Q. Yes, that's the police station you used to work in and which comes ³⁸⁸⁵⁴ within the frameworks of the secretariat in Urosevac; is that right?

A. Yes, the secretariat in Urosevac.

Q. Who compiled this criminal report?

A. The criminal report was filed by Destan Sabanaj, an inspector for homicide and sexual abuse.

Q. That is one of your inspectors, is it?

A. Yes, it's a colleague of mine. He worked as a crime inspector of the SUP of Urosevac.

Q. Here it says Captain Destan Sabanaj; is that right?

A. Yes, Destan Sabanaj is the name.

Q. Now, do you know what happened to the perpetrators who were apprehended?

A. "On the 10th of October, 1998, at around 10.00, 1000 hours, a group of armed Siptar terrorists, a terrorist gang of the KLA, launched an attack using automatic weapons and hand grenades against the family houses and members of the family of the household of Vebi Qerimi."

Q. You don't have to read it out to us. We can see it in the document. And when it comes to the criminal report signed by Captain Destan Sabanaj, he's an Albanian, and here we see the term used "an armed group of Siptar terrorist gangs."

A. Yes, that is indeed a criminal report compiled and filed by Destan Sabanaj.

Q. Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear from you with respect to the assertions about the derogatory term for Albanians, "Siptar," being used. ³⁸⁸⁵⁵

A. I can add here that in tab 2. -- or, rather, it's an Official Note - I think it was 2.30 - I indicated that the registered informer told us that a house would be attacked or, rather, the house belonging to the said individual, which was done on the 9th of October, 1998, this took place. And it was a man who had two sons. They were policemen. One worked in Lipjan, and the other worked in the police station of Stimlje. The third son worked in the administration in Lipjan, and the fourth son was an employee in the Municipal Assembly of Stimlje. So that was a motive, too, for the terrorist attack on his house and on the members of his family.

Q. In this criminal report we can also see that on location 164 casings were found of 62 calibre made in China, a pin and a safety lever of a hand grenade, also Chinese made. Very well. I apologise. Mr. Jasovic, just one more topic that I'd like to broach as briefly as possible. The SUP of Urosevac, was it authorised for the Kacanik municipality as well? Did it have competence over that?

A. Yes. The Internal Affairs department did come under that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I'd just like to draw your attention to point -- let me just find it. It's the same paragraph, 66. Two pages, under (i) -- two pages later, under (i), and this refers to the Kacanik municipality, it says: "In the period from March 1999 to May 1999 the SFRY forces and Serbia launched a series of massive offences against several villages in the municipality of Kacanik which resulted in the deaths of more than 100 civilians." And then it goes on to say that, "On or about the 24th of March, 1999, the village of Kotlina was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia. In the course of the attack most of the ³⁸⁸⁵⁶ houses were burnt down and at least 17 persons killed." That is 66 -- para?

JUDGE KWON: 66(L).

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 66(L)(i).

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What I'm asking, Mr. Jasovic, therefore, refers to the assertion set out in that paragraph, and it is linked to it. Tell me, please, Mr. Jasovic, within the frameworks of your operative duties, did you follow the work of the KLA in the Kacanik municipality?

A. Yes, that is true, and not only in Kacanik, as I've already said, but also on the territory of Urosevac, Strmac, and Stimlje, because Strpce, Stimlje and Kacanik come within the frameworks of the authority of the SUP of Urosevac.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I think it would be a good idea if we were to place this map on the ELMO perhaps. It's your copy. It's a copy I received from you, and it shows the position and location of Kacanik and Kotlina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let it be placed on the ELMO.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's page number 12, and you'll be able to see it on page 16 as well.

JUDGE KWON: It's Exhibit 83.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you see it? To the left. You don't have to look at the screen, actually, you can look at the map.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, further. Further. Yes. ³⁸⁸⁵⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have seen it, and I think the witness has located it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Kotlina is to the south of Kacanik, which means further down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Kotlina.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Kotlina, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you found it?

A. Yes, I've found it.

Q. It's right at the bottom of the map, on a level with number 16, the red 16. But we can see it.

Now, in the left-hand corner, you have the Macedonian border, do you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And here we have the kilometres, the scale. So can we see that it is in the border belt, approximately two kilometres from the Macedonian border?

A. Yes, it's in the border belt towards Macedonia.

Q. Thank you. Now, in this border belt, were -- was the terrorist KLA organisation very active?

A. From the statements which I collected in the interviews I conducted with Albanians, I learnt that in the village of Krivaja there was the headquarters of the so-called KLA, that is to say the 162nd Brigade, I think it's name was Agim Bajrami, and that the commander of the staff was Qamil Ilazi and that his nickname was Bali; and that in addition ³⁸⁸⁵⁸ to that, in the village of Kotlina I know -- and in another village, Pustenik, I do know for a fact that there were the substaffs of the KLA. In the village of Kotlina, for instance, the commander of the substaff was -- I think his name was Selim Kuci, and his deputy Miljanin Kuci. While in the village of Pustenik, the commander of the substaff was Ruki Suma. I also know on the basis of the interviews I conducted that in the village of Kotlina there was a KLA clinic, and I -- or infirmary, and I think that the same kind of infirmary existed in the village of Ivaja.

Q. All right. Can we then say that you were well-informed with the situation in the Kacanik municipality, which, as you said, comes under the competence and authority of your Secretariat of the Interior?

A. Yes. I knew it well because the KLA staff in Kacanik, for example, and in the village of Ivaja was formed later on if we compare it to the Stimlje area.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Robinson, as you know, this witness was included in the list of witnesses at the 11th hour, and I have a large number of documents which have to do with the activities of the KLA, the statements, in fact, that this witness took and which are linked to that area, the area where Kotlina is located, and it relates to para 66(L)(i) of the indictment. I didn't have the possibility of having them translated except the one, which Professor Rakic translated himself yesterday and which we supplied you with, so I'm going to go through the one you have been supplied with, and if you agree, perhaps I could put some of the untranslated statements on the ELMO for you to be able to just ³⁸⁸⁵⁹ gain a general impression of what kind of information they had at their disposal with respect to KLA activities in the region.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, just --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So this one --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: -- before that happens, the Court may want to remember that this witness became relevant specifically in relation to Racak and following notification of his presence in Court by the Prosecution. The accused didn't announce any earlier intention on the 65 ter filings to rely on this witness or to rely on him for the present purpose. Now, at an earlier stage in relation to another witness the Court said it was going to confine him to what was provided by the 65 ter. It's a matter for the Court.

Of course, if we go into another area of so-called crime base material with this witness, it will broaden certainly the nature of the inquiries that I will have to make and it will inevitably eat up some of the time that the accused had allocated indicatively by his earlier finding of evidence. It's a matter for the Court. I'm not going to object if the Court's happy to have it extended in this way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: My own view is that we should hear it. If a matter arises in relation to inquiries that you have to make, then you can make an appropriate submission, application to us on that point.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, when was tab 1.58 disclosed to the Prosecution?

MR. NICE: Yesterday, I think. ³⁸⁸⁶⁰

JUDGE KWON: Yesterday.

MR. NICE: Yesterday, sometime in the morning. I didn't take particular point on it then. I didn't know what was coming and I don't want to be seen to be taking technical points. But if we're going to be doing an enlargement the Court at least has got to consider the matter.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the statements that you are seeking to put into evidence through this witness, do they specifically relate to the incident in (L)(i)?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In tab 1.58, which I submitted to you yesterday and which has been translated, it has to do with this directly, because in that statement, which was taken on the 10th of March, 1999, as you will see, there is mention of a particular person or, rather, two persons who are on list L of the alleged civilians who had been killed by the police, and these are members of the terrorist organisation of the KLA. It will be quite obvious in the case of other witnesses too. So everything that is written here is quite incorrect. So it does directly bear on this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you going to call witnesses in relation to that incident?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As for Kotlina, I'm going to call a witness who has photo documents related to Kotlina. It will be quite clear how incorrect all of this that is written here is, and also it will ³⁸⁸⁶¹ be quite obvious what actually happened in Kotlina. This is a statement which was undoubtedly taken by Mr. Jasovic. With this witness, I shall go through his statement, and I just want a few things to be established in this way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you have any submission on this?

MR. KAY: Well, it sometimes arises that a witness comes with further information that can throw light on the events that are the subject matter of this trial, and it would seem to me that he's a valuable witness for the accused in that regard. The Prosecution to date have been reserving their position on cross-examination. That issue is yet to be determined. But if it is such important evidence, then the Trial Chamber no doubt can hear it and then decide how it is to be dealt with further on in the proceedings.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know anything more about the other statements? We're quite clear about this one, but you don't know anything about the others --

MR. KAY: No.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- or whether they have a direct bearing on that paragraph in the indictment.

MR. KAY: I haven't seen them. I've only seen our tab 1.58.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber unanimously will allow 1.58 to be adduced, and by majority it will not allow evidence from the other statements to which Mr. Milosevic referred. So 1.58, yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. ³⁸⁸⁶²

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, would you please be so kind as to look at tab 1.58. If you haven't got it, I can give you a copy straight away. This is the statement that you took on the 10th of March.

A. Yes. I haven't got a copy with me here, no.

Q. Is that it?

A. Yes. This is a statement that was taken on the 10th of March, 1999, on the basis of an interview conducted with an ethnic Albanian. I can confirm the authenticity of this document, because the said document was signed by the interviewed person as well as by myself and by my colleague Momcilo Sparavalo.

Q. All right. Please look at the content of this statement now, because it pertains precisely to this area, Kacanik and Kotlina. The person who gave the statement, he joined the KLA, didn't he?

A. Yes. As I can see at the very beginning of the statement, the said person stated that he voluntarily joined the KLA in the village of Ivaja, municipality of Kacanik, where the Main Staff of the KLA for Kacanik was located.

Q. All right. Towards the end of the first paragraph of the statement he said that he was issued an automatic rifle with ammunition while, he says, "I was not issued a uniform because there weren't any."

A. Yes. That's only logical. On the basis of statements, KLA members were issued with weapons, but I know that on the basis of statements, interviews, and notes, at first not all KLA members had uniforms of the KLA. ³⁸⁸⁶³

Q. All right. Is it not obvious from this statement that precisely in that area the KLA had 380 members?

A. Yes, I can see that.

Q. It says here, towards the end of the second paragraph, that the substaffs -- yes. In the village of Kotlina, municipality of Kacanik, and in Pustenik, Brava Mahala, municipality of Kacanik. So the substaffs of this group called the KLA were there.

A. Yes. The stubstaffs were in Kotlina and in Pustenik and Mahala Brava, municipality of Kacanik.

Q. All right. Can you read this last line on page 2, the last sentence from the beginning to the end. It says the substaff of the KLA in the village of Kotlina included 150 members of the so-called KLA. Can you see that?

A. Yes. He said that in the substaff of the KLA in Kotlina there are 150 members of the KLA, and also there was an infirmary where doctors worked, that is to say Doctors Naser Laci, and Xhevdet Cuni.

Q. All right. Please look at the next page. And I'm just going to ask you for some information. The one but last paragraph. The longish one on page 2. It says in the village of Ivaja in the so-called KLA, he says who was there with him, and then he mentions all their names, and then one, two, three, four, five -- in the fifth line, it says Miljaim Gani Loku from the village of Kotlina. Then it says who else from the village of Kotlina, there are others from Kotlina too. And then four lines further down Salji Vljasi?

A. Salji Bajram Vljasi. ³⁸⁸⁶⁴

Q. Yes. Please look at list L from the indictment. Please look at L, which has to do with Kotlina. Does it include the names of persons mentioned in the statement given by this member of the KLA whom you had interviewed? Can you see Schedule L now?

A. Yes, I see it.

Q. I could not identify more or, rather, my associates could not identify more than what I already said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, there are names that are in the list, and they are KLA -- presumably KLA members, but so what? So what? And this is a matter that I have to raise with you as to how the Defence is being conducted.

The allegation in (L)(i) is that on or about the 24th March, Kotlina was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia, and in that attack at least 17 persons were killed. But you don't answer that allegation merely by showing that there was KLA activity in Kotlina. You will answer that allegation, in my view, by bringing evidence from perhaps a member of the Serb -- Serbian or FRY forces who was involved on that day to say how the attack started and perhaps to give evidence, if that is the case, that the FRY and Serbian forces were responding to an attack by the KLA. So if you have that kind of evidence, that's what you must bring to refute or to throw a reasonable doubt on the allegation that is in (L)(i), because that is all you have to do to throw a reasonable doubt on the truth of the allegation in (i). ³⁸⁸⁶⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁸⁸⁶⁶ The allegation is that FRY and Serbian forces attacked and 17 persons were killed. You would refute that or throw some reasonable doubt on the truthfulness of that by adducing evidence that the attack was in fact started by the KLA and the FRY and Serbian forces were reacting to that attack and in the course of that attack 17 persons were killed. But you don't refute it simply by showing that there was KLA activity in the area, because I don't know that the Prosecution is denying that there was KLA activity in the area.

So if you have that evidence, then I hope you will be bringing it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can be sure I will be bringing it. Do not worry, Mr. Robinson. I will certainly do that. The burden of proof is on Mr. Nice in terms of all these assertions, but the roles keep being reversed here all the time. I have to prove that something that is being claimed is not true; he's not supposed to prove that it is true.

As for paragraph (L), which has to do with all of this and even more than that, look at this further on, "which resulted in the death of over 100 civilians." He talks about civilians. First of all, even that is incorrect in the very first sentence, and then he says in Kotlina 17 out of these 100 civilians. And there is constant reference to the members of the KLA terrorist organisation as civilians, innocent victims. The authorities of Yugoslavia or Serbia did not produce the terrorist organisation of the KLA. You could see for yourselves here the extent to which terrorism was active, how many persons they killed. You saw that from the interviews conducted by this witness how many Albanians ³⁸⁸⁶⁷ they took away, abducted, killed, not to mention Serbs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me make it absolutely clear that nothing that I have said rearranges the burden of proof. That's a very serious matter. The burden is always on the Prosecution. But whether they discharge the burden which is on them depends on the evidence which is adduced. We will have to assess the evidence which is before us. And they are very likely to discharge that burden if the only evidence that we are going to have is that there was KLA activity in the particular area.

I think you have adduce evidence which is much more specific. And I am glad to hear that you will bring it, though I am worried as to the time, because you still on Kosovo, and you're beyond one-third. And I am not inviting the perfunctory comment which you usually make in response, that this demonstrates the unfairness of the allocation of time to you, so please don't make that. But continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will not say that now. I will continue, Mr. Robinson. However, I wish to remind you that 1.000 soldiers and policemen were killed, and 1.000 soldiers and policemen who were well-trained, well-protected, were not killed by unarmed civilians in operations described here by Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... in my respectful submission.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Continue with the evidence, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us just establish this, Mr. Jasovic: Based on this statement, ³⁸⁸⁶⁸ on what is stated here as to what other persons were with him in the KLA, do we see the names of Loku Milaim and Vlashi Sali, which can be also found on Schedule L where they're listed as victims who died at the hands of the Serb forces, as is stated here?

A. Yes. The said person, in addition to other KLA members, also listed Eli Loku [phoen] and Vlashi Sali on the 10th of March, 1999, which is two weeks before the events in the village of Kotlina. These two individuals, Loku and Sali, can be found on the list of those who were killed in Kotlina on the 24th of March, 1999.

Q. All right. Let us not dwell on this much longer. Just a few more questions. Based on your answers, I took it, Mr. Jasovic, that you continue to have contacts with Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija in your present job, which is the same job that you have had for several decades now. Did I understand you well that you continue to have contacts with the Albanians from that area, from Urosevac?

A. Yes, that's correct. As I have stated yesterday or the day before, in the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac in Leskovac, we see Albanians of different background coming there. I said that a number of Albanians coming there express a wish to see me, and I accommodate them. And as a result of that, we are informed about what is going on. They're also informing us about what had taken place before we departed.

Q. Did I understand you well that what you were trying to say just now was that you keep receiving information from these visiting Albanians and that information pertains both to the time period before the 10th of June and after the 10th of June? ³⁸⁸⁶⁹

A. Yes, that's correct, because before the 12th of June, 1999, we had a lot of terrorist attacks. And talking to these Albanians, we acquire information about the perpetrators of those acts.

Q. In these conversations and information that flows to you now, do you compile notes and reports based on the information that you receive now, the ones similar to what we saw?

A. Yes. We write down both Official Notes, reports, and we also have several written statements that we have taken.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, in relation to the -- to this particular matter, do you have a recollection of the person or persons who gave you the information of the names? I'm talking about the ones from yesterday, rather. We had reserved consideration of that matter. You were to review the matter overnight.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Out of a total of 30 Official Notes and reports, I remember the names with persons I talked who supplied information for 20 [as interpreted] of these documents. However, in eight cases, I worked together with Mr. Sparavalo, and I should probably need to speak to him about that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I heard 22.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, 22. ³⁸⁸⁷⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There is a mistake, both in interpretation and in the transcript, most likely. The witness said that out of 30 Official Notes, he can list now 22. Not 20 but 22. And as for the remaining eight, he cannot remember the names, but since he worked with Mr. Sparavalo on them, he assumes that Mr. Sparavalo would be able to help you, but he has the 22 names now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That makes it clearer. Do you have a list to show how these names relate to particular statements?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a list.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In private session. In private session.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁸⁸⁷¹ Pages 38871-38875 redacted. Private session.

³⁸⁸⁷⁶

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE: Your Honours, the evidence of this witness was first forecast and dealt with six sitting days or five sitting days ago, on the 14th of April, when Your Honour indicated that you would hear from the witness, it was then expected, on a Tuesday to come, cross-examination to be postponed to a date to be fixed. There's been an interruption since then occasioned by the ill health of the accused, but the position remains the same, that I'm not in a position to cross-examine on this material today and would need a significant period of time sufficiently to explore it in order properly to fulfil my functions.

Summarising the position, we now have as potential exhibits, because I realise final decisions about admissibility are being deferred, we have about 90 or thereabouts statements and reports of which well in excess of 20 deal quite specifically with matters relating to the Racak count in the indictment, the other, whatever it is, 70 or so documents dealing with allegations of KLA activity generally. The Chamber's obviously going to be assisted by the clearest explanation of Prosecution position on all this material, and for that, as I say, a significant amount of time will be required. I would ask that cross-examination be postponed, and I'm happy to deal with the period of any postponement in one of two ways; either to bring you up-to-date from time to time with the time I expect to seek or to need, or alternatively to have a fixed period of time now that might be subject to further application. ³⁸⁸⁷⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: I did say that cross-examination would be postponed.

MR. NICE: To a date to be fixed, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider it. Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: The Prosecution, of course, have had 90 per cent of these documents within their archives anyway. The tabs that are translations actually come from them, and so this is part of the materials that is available to them, has always been available, and the materials that they should have considered in the first place concerning the activities of the KLA in Racak area, which has been a primary issue within this case.

It's clear the witness wouldn't finish in cross-examination today, and it may well be a preferable course for Mr. Nice to cross-examine him for the rest of the day, then release the witness, allow him to return, obtain his notes, and come back in a fairly short period of time and Mr. Nice resume his cross-examination on another date with the witness having brought his original materials with him.

Just dealing with other matters, there are witness delay issues occasioned if the cross-examination is forestalled, because the next witness is very short indeed, a witness dealing with a crime incident that is in a narrow period of time, and the witness after that, there has not been a waiver issued by the time that was originally agreed to enable him to give his evidence. That's the witness Paponjak, which was dealt with some time ago, and the waiver was expected last week, but the board ³⁸⁸⁷⁸ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁸⁸⁷⁹ dealing with waivers simply didn't deal with his case last week, as we've been advised by the embassy here.

But it seems to me the Prosecutor should be able to deal with this witness if he's challenging what he says. All this material has been with them for a long while, unless it has not even been considered in the construction of their case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If there is to be a postponement, the time should not be long because we'd like to deal with it when the evidence is still fresh.

MR. KAY: This is the fear of everyone, that's it's difficult to take up the thread at a later -- later stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you -- do you wish to say something?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was just waiting for the microphone to be switched on.

Yes, Mr. Robinson. I really don't see a single reason for treating this witness differently than other witnesses, and you would be doing so if you're asking for a postponement of the cross-examination. For 20 -- it's been 20 days since this whole binder was handed over to Mr. Nice. The witness has testified here. I see no reason to postpone the matter any further.

A moment ago, Mr. Kay said that it was possible to provide these translations because Mr. Nice already had them. So there's no justification for making the witness come back again. The mention of additional notes is something that the witness will ³⁸⁸⁸⁰ do his best to find and to send to the Registrar, as you said. It wasn't linked to the examination-in-chief, and it doesn't represent any impediment or obstacle to Mr. Nice going ahead with his cross-examination, especially since, as I understood it, most of what the witness has said he isn't challenging. But it's up to him, it's up to him to say that. So I don't see any reason for us to postpone the cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I am simply not in a position to cross-examine a witness unless I have a position to take in relation to all this material.

Now, as to the witnesses concerned, I need to have a position on whether what they -- what the witnesses, the statement makers, I need to have a position as to whether what they say they stand by or not and there may be many other inquiries that have to be made.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The accused makes the point that you've had this binder for 20 days. You mentioned five working days.

MR. NICE: I said five sitting days and I gave the dates. Twenty days is nothing like enough to deal with an inquiry of this scale. This is a very major inquiry that will have to be made. Let me make it quite clear that the accused has also had this material for a long time, served on him, or whatever percentage of it was served on him by the Prosecution, and never indicated that he was going to rely on it because he didn't put it in the 65 ter material. So it wasn't something that we should realistically expect that he was going to rely on. It came up because of the to and fro of the evidence about this witness starting with Marinkovic. ³⁸⁸⁸¹ Now, so far as the present position is concerned, present evidential position, three statements have been explored in some detail and the witness has already been cross-examined on the basis of those three statements in another case. I'm not intending particularly to explore those same issues with him until I've had the opportunity fully to consider what my position has to be.

Now, I simply can't go further. It wouldn't be responsible for me to do so. And it was made quite clear that cross-examination would be postponed.

The accused having sought now to rely on this material, which -- and indeed it's not only available to be him because it was provided by the Prosecution as Rule 68 material, but we understand also obtained by him because he spoke of a receipt independently, he having obtained it and given no earlier warning that he was going to rely on it, I must be entitled to the time to deal with it. It's also possible that this material may lead to some concessions. I simply don't know. But now that it's been -- being relied on, I need a chance to investigate it.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think, Mr. Nice, the point Mr. Kay was making was that one might have assumed that the Prosecution had indeed considered the significance of this material and already formed a view on it since it's been in your possession and that for that reason this shouldn't be coming as completely novel input, and therefore if time is to be allowed at all, and indeed cross-examination wouldn't necessarily finish today, then the period should be a short one.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, as to -- ³⁸⁸⁸²

JUDGE BONOMY: No doubt your investigations have already commenced.

MR. NICE: Well, they have to an extent, although of course I was dependent on how the accused was going to put his case, I was dependent on limited resources, and also I was dependent on knowing who the anonymous sources were as to tab 2.2 and the various subtabs there, some of that is anonymous. Now it's not.

But resources are not infinite so far as the Prosecution is concerned, and in the time that's passed since leave was first given to call this witness and then leave in the -- an explanation given --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not infinite, Mr. Nice, but they are comfortably sufficient.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, absolutely not. If I may say so -- let me just give you an example. In a sense this shouldn't be being done in the presence of the witness, but it probably doesn't matter. The investigation that took place, I think it was over the Easter break, to deal with the position of three of these statement-makers -- perhaps the witness should withdraw.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let the witness leave the courtroom.

[The witness stands down]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, before I return to my theme, just let me make --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It should be made clear that the witness is not dismissed.

MR. NICE: No. And it should, of course, be clear to the accused ³⁸⁸⁸³ that -- I'm sure he understands that what passes in the absence of the witness must in no circumstances be communicated to the witness by himself or by his associates.

Second point, before I forget it. I made clear a couple of days ago to Ms. Anoya, I think it was, that I would not be seeking to do any cross-examination at the end of this witness's evidence and I think I communicated that elsewhere as appropriate.

Returning to the nuts and bolts, the three witnesses who were the subject matter of the investigation over the Easter break required a mission of a total of something like seven days for an investigator and five for the lawyer concerned. As it happened, at inconvenience to them. But that's the inevitable scale of exercise required by consideration of material like this if it's done on the particular basis it was done then. Now, I'm not at all sure at the moment, because I needed to hear the witness and form a view, what will be the nature of the investigation I must make, or I must have made on behalf of the Prosecution, but it is bound to be substantial. There are, as I say, over 20 statements or reports that identify as KLA activists people mentioned in the Racak count. If there is any truth or substantial truth in what those statement-makers are recorded as saying, then there might be implications for this particular count, and it is absolutely essential that the Prosecution takes a considered position before it starts to cross-examine this witness, and indeed I repeat, I'm not in a position to do so today. So I would invite the Chamber to say that the appropriate course is to adjourn the cross-examination completely, and for a significant ³⁸⁸⁸⁴ period of time because that is what will be required to deal with material that simply wasn't listed by the accused. Indeed, I notice also, of course, he didn't list either 1. -- the last document we were looking at today either. None of this stuff was listed when it could have been. If he had listed it, different approaches might have been taken.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Thank you, Mr. Nice.

MR. KAY: Just to add one matter. This is plainly Racak investigation material. This should have been investigated years ago. We get a lot of newspaper articles and press reports and everything there is from the media, but this is hard evidence that should have been investigated. It's been with them for a long period of time. That's the sort of material that should be considered in a trial like this, original evidence, and that is our point in opposing this application for an adjournment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be brought back.

[The witness takes the stand]

JUDGE ROBINSON: It was the Prosecutor who first brought the potential for this witness to give evidence in this case, and when he brought that to the attention of the Chamber, it was observed that the person had not been listed on the 65 ter list. Principally for that reason the Trial Chamber then indicated that cross-examination would be postponed, although we would hear examination-in-chief. The Prosecutor was, therefore, entitled to rely on that statement from the Trial Chamber of the postponement of cross-examination. However, the extent of the ³⁸⁸⁸⁵ postponement is another matter.

This is material that was undoubtedly in the possession of the Prosecution. In the interests of the continuation of this trial, the efficient continuation of the trial, the Chamber has determined that the period should be a short one, and the witness will, therefore, return for cross-examination on Tuesday, the 17th of May. That week we are sitting Tuesday to Thursday, the 17th to the 19th.

That's the Chamber's ruling.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I ask a question, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to be given an escort, because I was a witness in the Isak Musliu and Fatmir Limaj trial for the Prosecution.

JUDGE ROBINSON: To be given an escort? Could you clarify that? What do you mean by "an escort"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for security reasons, an escort.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you mean for the period between now and the 17th when you return?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, linked to my testimony in the accused's trial Isak Musliu and Fatmir Limaj.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, I'm still not clear as to what you mean by an escort. Over what period of time and where? ³⁸⁸⁸⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I tell you in closed session, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, in private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁸⁸⁸⁷ Page 38887 redacted. Private session.

³⁸⁸⁸⁸

(redacted)

[Open Session]

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: ZVONKO GVOZDENOVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you may begin.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. ³⁸⁸⁸⁹ Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Gvozdenovic.

A. Good afternoon, Mr. President. How are you doing?

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, please tell us, first of all, where you're from, where you lived, where you went to school, et cetera.

A. I was born on the 1st of December 1957, in Skopje. I lived in Pec.

Q. Did you always live in Pec and work there?

A. Yes, throughout my stay there, I lived and worked in Pec.

Q. What is your family status?

A. Right now my family situation is a very difficult one. I used to have four children. A young daughter died, and the bandits, the terrorists, killed my son Vukosav in Kosovo, and I have a 14-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old son now.

Q. I am mindful of the fact that you are a victim, Mr. Gvozdenovic, so I am just going to put questions to you that are absolutely essential. Tell me, do you know how intensive the activities of the terrorist organisation KLA were in Pec and in the surrounding area in 1998?

A. Well, let me tell you. They were very intensive, but I cannot say that they were the KLA. They were actually bandits. They were bandits gone astray. You know, it's different when you call them an army. They were bandits. What they did is something that no one would ever do, and I cannot call them anything else.

Q. I understand that, Mr. Gvozdenovic. I used the term "KLA" because -- ³⁸⁸⁹⁰

A. All right.

Q. -- because they used it and that is how they were discerned. But of course they were terrorists. No doubt about that. Tell us, Mr. Gvozdenovic, in that area, where were the most intensive conflicts between our security forces and the KLA?

A. As for the town of Pec, I'm going to talk about that, it was about five kilometres away from Pec.

Q. Oh, from the centre of Pec it is five kilometres away, Loxhe?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any knowledge about the terrorist activities of the KLA against the police at that time?

A. Yes, of course. I know about that. As a matter of fact, after every killing that was committed against the members of the police and the army, I attended their funerals. I can even give their names, if it is absolutely essential. In Loxhe, a terrible massacre was committed over Serj Imperovic [phoen], Mirka Radunovic [phoen], and some other policemen. All of them were policemen, and the police has this in its own files.

Q. What were the relations like within the community, the interethnic relations, relations among people in general?

A. From the fall of Rankovic in 1966 until 1999 when they carried out this cleansing, the relations were very bad. I can tell you that. From one period to another, they became worse and worse.

Q. You said a moment ago that there were major disruptions in these relations in the 1960s.

A. Yes, yes. ³⁸⁸⁹¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁸⁸⁹²

Q. And you brought that in connection with the removal of Rankovic.

A. Yes.

Q. What were the consequences? What happened? How did the members of the Albanian national minority behave and how did the Serbs behave?

A. Well, let me tell you. The Siptars, of course, after the fall of Rankovic, at least that's what they thought at the time, they thought that their time had come to shine. From the first demonstrations they had in 1968 until the demonstrations in 1981, the only objective of the Siptars was quite simply to cleanse Kosovo from the Serbs, and I think that they really succeeded in doing that.

Q. All right. What was characteristic of their behaviour at the time from the 1980s onwards? What happened? I'm just referring to Pec, where you lived throughout, as you said yourself. Did people leave their jobs or were there any boycotts?

A. Boycotts, yes. Yes, indeed. But as far as the year 1974 is concerned, when they got their own constitution, at that moment we the Serbs really got into a position that was unenviable then. You had to know the Albanian language in order to be able to get a job. So the Siptars were turned into a majority, and there was this majority rule. In order to be able to work, you had to know the Albanian language.

Q. I'm just going to deal with the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999 now. Do you remember that in town, at the end of 1998 and the beginning of 1999, was a presence of international monitors felt there, and what do you know about that?

A. Yes. The verifiers came, headed by Mr. William Walker, at the ³⁸⁸⁹³ beginning of October. They were present. They came, in fact, to monitor the situation. However, we can see ourselves how they monitored it then and how they're monitoring it now.

Q. Where were they staying?

A. They were staying near Salib Nana, towards Bijelo Polje and near the railway station and near that motel there. Believe me, I can't remember the name just now.

Q. Did they employ local staff?

A. Yes. Yes. It was Siptars. As for the Serbs, I really don't know, but there were probably very, very few of them. But all younger people among the Siptars worked for them. For what reason, this is something I really don't know.

Q. Were they present in Pec in mid-December 1998?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Please could you describe what happened on the 14th of December, 1998.

A. On the 14th of December, 1998, a terrible unheard-of crime was committed, unheard of in the 20th century. I must say that even the ETA and IRA, major terrorist organisations in the world, never did any such thing. Where there were children involved, there were no terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, but in Kosovo, in the -- on the 14th of December, this was a crime that can only be compared to the Smerica [phoen] crime from the Second World War in Kragujevac. These were bandits. No army would do that, not even the KLA as we call them now.

Q. You are now talking about what happened in Pec where your son was ³⁸⁸⁹⁴ killed.

A. Yes. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we please just play videotape number 1, tab 1, very briefly.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's just another brief clip that we can play immediately in order to save time, and then the witness is going to comment on both.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that will do. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, let us just deal with this. The second clip that we saw was a recording of what happened before the murder in Panda; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The second clip, does it not show that when the forces controlling the state border clashed with the terrorist group that was coming in from Albanian into the territory of our country?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... all that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: These are two clips without any soundtrack, so it's impossible to know from viewing them and trying to listen to them, if there's any soundtrack, what they say, and really the witness should be ³⁸⁸⁹⁵ asked neutral questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. "Does it not show," clearly leading. Reformulate the question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I'm going to reformulate the question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, what does this clip show where dead persons can be seen, weapons in the snow, what we saw here just now? What does this show?

A. What is shown here is that Albanian separatists wanted to -- and bandits wanted to get into the territory of Kosovo. Those were not the first border crossings. Let me tell you, this happened quite often even earlier, that this was an organised terrorist gang that tried to get weapons across.

As far as I remember, and I remember well because there was satellite TV where I worked at the time, we saw on the BBC and CNN how our army dealt with this operation. This is military, so I don't want to go into that.

Q. All right. I just wanted to ask you whether there is any relation between what happened then and the crime that was committed in Panda.

A. Let me tell you, there are some indications as far as two cases are concerned, what happened at the border and on the 4th of October, 1998, when again there was an attack launched at a hospital where Siptar bandits were as patients. See what we are like? We were even treating them. We were giving them medical treatment. Then a group, I don't know ³⁸⁸⁹⁶ what this organiser of theirs was called, I think his name was Jakupi but the police will know that, and then in that hospital a woman with another member of her gang tried to set free these wounded persons who were in hospital. However, the police security detail that was there to guard them reacted. She tried to throw a hand grenade but she didn't manage to do so, so they liquidated her. Mirveta [phoen] was her name. She got killed, and this other person was wounded, this other bandit who was with her.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I be clear? Were you in this hospital observing this happening? What is the basis on which you're able to tell us this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, of course I wasn't at the hospital, but there is --

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, at the moment I don't understand the basis of which you have this information, and it would be helpful if we knew that so we could assess what value it might have. But that's not your fault. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, believe me, there is police information. There is military information, then there is OSCE information from Mr. Walker, and then the ambassador, please help me with the name, the French ambassador who was there. Please. I mean, they were there. They were all there then.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, I asked you whether any link was established ³⁸⁸⁹⁷ between this clash with the forces that were securing the border and the terrorist group and the crime in Panda.

A. There probably is a link. They sustained major losses, and they probably had to do something for their mentors in order to prove their loyalty.

Q. All right. Tell me, who was in Panda at the time of the attack?

A. Mirza Sabovic, the owner of the cafe Panda, was in the cafe, together with his brother-in-law Lazovic. That's their cafe, and they live upstairs, so their wives were upstairs.

Q. Who was in --

A. In the cafe itself, you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. There were 13 of them. I was working that evening when this attack occurred. According to this information, there were about 13 persons in the cafe.

Q. How many young boys were killed then?

A. Six boys were killed then. My son Vukosav Gvozdenovic, my Kum Svetislav Ristic, Ivan Radevic, Dragan Trifunovic, Zoran Stanojevic, and the young boy Ivan Lazovic only 14 and a half years old. I must mention Vlado Loncarevic who was wounded then and who is still suffering severe consequences of that, and Mirsad Sabovic, the owner of the cafe, who was wounded in the foot.

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, please look at tab 2 and tell us, does it contain a report on the on-site investigation that was carried out in Panda after this? ³⁸⁸⁹⁸

A. Ah, yes, yes.

MR. NICE: No translations into English have been provided.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, why?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To tell you the truth, Mr. Robinson, I don't know. I believe that all of this was translated. However, this is a report on the on-site investigation that was conducted there. Perhaps you can mark it for identification. Let's see what it contains.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is becoming, as far as the presentation of your case is concerned, the norm, and it is unacceptable. I'm not satisfied that you make a sufficient effort to meet the procedural requirements of the Tribunal.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I really cannot make an extra effort in order to make translations.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You can't even explain. Was it submitted for translation as it should have been?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It should have been submitted, Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I observe that none of the documents is translated except in relation to some photographs. This is a flagrant breach of the procedural requirements, which are there for a particular reason. It's to facilitate the conduct of the proceedings in an efficient manner. I'm not going to allow it. You can have the witness give evidence -- give so much evidence as he can, but I'm not allowing any of these. It's just once too often. ³⁸⁸⁹⁹

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, please open up tab 3, and with all my apologies for forcing you to look at these photographs.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and can I forecast a similar difficulty arising with the next witness, who deals with Pec. In respect of that witness, we have received three lever-arch files of documents, almost none of which has any English translation. However, in those documents there are many photographs of a potentially distressing kind.

The Chamber will probably recall that in the Prosecution's case there was no effort made to use material that might in any way sensationalise or excite the imagination unnecessarily, and it may be that at this stage of this witness's evidence, before we look at what's shown in the tab, as the accused wishes, some thought should be given to the relevance of both this witness's evidence and what I forecast to be the intended evidence of the next witness.

The Pec Panda cafe killings were dealt with by at least three live witnesses in the Prosecution's case, as well as being detailed in such books as "Under Orders" and "As Seen, As Told." The relevance of the killings to this indictment may lie in what followed from them, there being expressed uncertainty as to the precise cause or perpetrator of the killings at the time.

One's of course reluctant to take a point like this where the father of one of the young men killed in the cafe is before you, but ³⁸⁹⁰⁰ before time is taken and before air time is taken broadcasting potentially distressing photographs, I would invite the Chamber to check whether this evidence about the Pec Panda killing is truly relevant, and the decision made here may have an effect in relation to the following witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You say it's not relevant. Are you saying that?

MR. NICE: I'm questioning its relevance because it's not a fact of the indictment. It was dealt with. It's well before this Court and the public that there was this very serious, terrible event, of course, whoever was the perpetrator. The question is what is this witness going to add to what we already know?

JUDGE BONOMY: What do you accept about who the perpetrator was?

MR. NICE: The evidence is unclear, or not clear.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. I return to my last point. If it's material to know that and if this witness can add to that body of at present uncertain material, then I --

JUDGE BONOMY: You have indicated that what happens thereafter may be relevant. Are you then saying that who did it is not relevant?

MR. NICE: It may not be relevant, actually, because -- no, it may not be relevant. It's the perception and what follows from the perception that is significant, as a matter of fact. But in any case, that's my invitation to the Chamber before we go down the road that I think this accused is likely to be taking us with this and with the following witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. ³⁸⁹⁰¹

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll allow you to lead evidence on it. You were going to have displayed the photograph which is in tab 3?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. The translation is here. And could this please be placed on ELMO.

As for the remark by Mr. Nice as to the relevancy --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... whether it is really necessary to have these distressing photographs displayed. We can see them. What purpose is served by having them displayed on the ELMO? What forensic purpose?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It does have probative value and weight, Mr. Robinson, in order to show the extent of and brutality and savage conduct exhibited by somebody who burst in and killed the children. And if the father sitting here does not object to this being placed on the ELMO, then I don't see who else should be objecting. Let the witness decide. If the witness says that it should not be placed on the ELMO, I will agree with that decision.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. Go ahead. Go ahead and ask -- put the question to the father.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, the photographs that are on the ELMO now, do they show the victims of this crime in the Panda cafe?

A. Yes. This is my son Vukosav and Dragan Trifunovic.

Q. Where were you when this crime occurred? ³⁸⁹⁰²

A. At that time I was at work in the Mozart cafe. I worked there as a security officer.

Q. When did you hear about this event?

A. I heard about it at 8.00 or 8.15, 8.20. My Kum had called me and said that something terrible had happened at the cafe and asked me where my late son was, and I said he's probably at home and then she [as interpreted] said, well, you will have to go to the hospital, something terrible has happened.

I see to Mr. Nice everything concerning this event seems to be irrelevant. It looks as though there are good bandits and bad bandits and that this was done by some good bandits, apparently. What is especially dramatic is that when this happened, our police immediately blocked the entry leading to Kapisnica [phoen] and the approaches leading into the town towards hospital precisely so as to avoid any potential clashes and physical contact between them and the Serbs who were naturally revolted.

When I arrived, the owner of the cafe was waiting for me there. He took me to the hospital. There were a lot of people in front of the hospital, about 3.000 people. Nobody dared tell me what happened. Nobody could summon up the courage.

I went in and asked whether my late son was alive. Nobody could tell me anything. I went upstairs where they were lying. When I saw the sight, I could not watch it. I just realised that it was him lying there with his friends.

The two injured persons, one of them was my Kum who, ³⁸⁹⁰³ unfortunately, later died in Pristina, and the younger, Zoki, the other wounded person and they were transferred to Pristina where, unfortunately, they later died.

Q. All right. Please tell me, did the members of the Verification Mission go to this site?

A. Yes, Mr. Walker came for just a minute or two, just looked at it and left. There was another man, a German there. I apologise to the Trial Chamber for not being able to tell you his name, however, it is written down somewhere in the MUP.

Q. Now, please tell us, what was the reaction of the Serb in Pec to this event?

A. I have to tell you, in view of the nature of this crime, I have to tell you that the Serbs behaved with dignity. They did not want to blemish in any way through their behaviour the death of these victims. And I want to thank the citizens once again for a very dignified memorial service that was held.

Q. When was the funeral held and the memorial service and who attended it?

A. The funeral was attended by Patriarch Pavle and some 30.000 citizens from Pec. Anybody who was able to come came. People came despite the blockades, despite the fact that they were risking their lives in order to express their condolences and share with us the pain.

Q. After the event, did you go regularly to the graveyard where your son and his friends are buried?

A. Yes. Two years later, I went to the graveyard. ³⁸⁹⁰⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁸⁹⁰⁵

Q. You went there two years later. Why did you wait for two years?

A. Well, that's completely obvious. We even went to see Mr. Gelbard, asking him to enable us to visit this cemetery. He promised us he would. However, for some unknown reasons, Mr. Gelbard never contacted us in order to help us go to the cemetery.

Q. So it was only two years later that you managed to go to the cemetery?

A. Yes.

Q. When did that take place?

A. That was in 2002. And I have to tell you that when we arrived, we found a terrible site.

Q. You mean you went to the cemetery where all of these young men were buried?

A. This is the Orthodox cemetery in Pec.

Q. And what did you find there?

A. We found a terrible sight there at the cemetery. Toppled tombstones, Zoki Stanojevic's tombstone and Janko Bradovic's [phoen] tombstones were destroyed. We managed to raise again one tombstone and the other we didn't manage. The crosses were broken. You can see a cross in one of the pictures. When we went there after the funeral in 2002, there were no crosses or anything there.

Q. All right. You said that this can be seen on the photographs. There is no need to translate that. That's in tab 6.

A. It seems that everything needs to be translated for them.

Q. What you're trying to say is that when you arrived two years ³⁸⁹⁰⁶ later, the cemetery was destroyed; the tombstones, the crosses, everything was damaged.

A. Yes, that's right. I have to tell you that the Italian soldiers who were there as security escorts and who videotaped all of this, they were crying. The Italians videotaped all of this.

Q. And you were forced to go to the cemetery under the protection of Italian security troops.

A. Yes, and they treated us very fairly.

Q. Did anybody give you an explanation for that, how it was possible that something like that happened?

A. Well, we don't need really an explanation. Nobody guarded the cemetery. When they were able to kill these children, why wouldn't they be able to destroy the tombstones? Nothing is sacred to them, nothing that is Serbian. You know yourself that in 1981, they set on fire the Pec patriarchate, and that was the first sign.

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, based on what you know, after the KFOR arrived, were any other Serbian children killed in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Yes, that happened in Gorazdevac.

Q. Gorazdevac is a village that you know well?

A. Yes, quite well.

Q. When did that happen in Gorazdevac?

A. I think -- I'm not sure any more because there were so many events, that I couldn't really follow in view of all my problems.

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, you were in the village of Bijelo Polje?

A. Yes. ³⁸⁹⁰⁷

Q. What happened in Bijelo Polje?

A. In that village, when we arrived the first time there, they already started building houses for the Serbs who were supposed to be returning there. I have to tell you that these people are working under very difficult circumstances. However, they are very enthusiastic. What happened was terrible, and that happened on the 17th of March, and everything that they had built was torched, destroyed. And unfortunately, the last time I was there in the cemetery in Pec, on a religious holiday, I saw that these people are exhausted. I really have no words to describe it. The circumstances they live under are so difficult. They're practically living in a ghetto.

Q. Can Serbs return now to that area?

A. Well, let me give you my opinion. This is my personal opinion, nobody else's. It would be very difficult for them to return.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... interrupt but I wonder the relevance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not relevant. Move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, you said yourself that throughout the time you were in Pec and you were present in all these events, you were there.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with respect to the events in Pec, deportation is mentioned, the deportation of Albanians during the NATO pact aggression from Pec, their deportation. Do you know anything about the deportation of ³⁸⁹⁰⁸ Albanians from Pec?

A. As far as I know, there was no deportation. I personally was there. I was there myself. And since the Siptars accepted NATO as their liberators, they probably had two goals; one was to show their humanitarian catastrophe, and the other, for some reason they know, that the Serbs should be the targets of the NATO bombs.

Q. Very well. Mr. Gvozdenovic, you consider there was no deportation. Now, let me ask you something else. Do you happen to know whether there were any -- there was any agitation on the Albanian side for Albanians to leave Pec?

A. Certainly. I was present. I was in the post office as a security detail and I met several of them and asked them why they were leaving, and a few of my friends told me that people were going from house to -- prompting them to leave and not to talk to me. So I was present. I heard about that and saw that, and of course in the 40 years that you spend living there, you are bound to have Albanian friends, and they --

Q. These people told you, did they, that they were going round houses, prompting people to leave and join up with their compatriots?

A. Yes. And I know that my neighbours gave their keys to some elderly Serbs to look after their houses, their homes and property, to prevent them from being looted and set fire to. So that happened in my own street. I know about that personally. I can't tell you about other things, but I'm telling you about where I was and things I know based on that.

Q. Were you in Pec throughout when all this was going on, the whole ³⁸⁹⁰⁹ time?

A. Yes, yes, I was.

Q. Did you see any violence towards Albanians in Pec during this period of time?

A. Please believe me when I say that not a single -- and actually, the police were also surprised to see people going out onto the streets. There was general chaos that reigned, but they did their best to convince people not to leave. However, this was a chain reaction, and you couldn't stop it. It was a snowball effect.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Mr. Robinson.

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

Cross-examined by Mr. Saxon:

Q. In the town of Pec, you lived in a dead-end street called Pariska; isn't that correct?

A. No, Pariska, Pariska Street.

Q. Pariska Street. My pronunciation was wrong. And for a period of time you sold newspapers in a kiosk; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. During the 1990s, you were also a member of a political party called the Serbian Radical Party; correct?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Were you a member of any other political party?

A. Yes; the Serbian Renewal Movement. ³⁸⁹¹⁰

Q. You mentioned that the Albanians in Pec had two goals when they left the area after the NATO bombing began, and you said the first goal was to show the humanitarian catastrophe that had befallen them; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, so following up on that logic, then, the idea would be to -- for the members of the Albanian community to leave their homes for a while, go to a place like Montenegro or Albania, and wait for circumstances to be more convenient for them to return home; right? That would be the logic of this goal?

A. Well, I don't know what their logic was.

Q. Well, if Albanians were voluntarily leaving their homes, can you see any reason why they would burn their own homes? Can you see any reason for that?

A. Well, let me tell you I'm sure that there was a reason. If they burnt their houses, then they would have ascribed this to the Serbs, perhaps. That might be one of the reasons.

Q. And if they looted their own property? Can you think of a good reason for looting one's own property and destroying one's own businesses?

A. No. I said that most probably -- I can't actually say for sure, tell you about something I didn't see. On our side I'm sure that there were people who abused that kind of thing and looted a Siptar house, but I'm talking about my own street where my neighbours, the Siptars, would give people their keys to look after their property, their homes. Isn't that proof enough that they had trust and confidence in our people?

Q. Well, you see, we've had some other proof in this case. There was ³⁸⁹¹¹ a report that was submitted in this case that was called "Under Orders." This is Exhibit 145. It's a document produced by an organisation called Human Rights Watch. And it said that -- and I'm reading from page 290 of this report, where it was said that, "Within the first week of the war, an estimated 90 per cent of Pec's ethnic Albanian population had been forcibly expelled."

You didn't see any of this activity where you were?

A. I don't understand your question. Can you repeat it, please?

Q. My question was quite clear. The same report on the same page said: "The ethnic cleansing operation in Pec was among the best organised in Kosovo, with buses waiting in the city centre to take people south towards Albania." Are you saying you didn't see any of this activity? Is that your testimony today?

A. I -- if you listened to what I was saying carefully, then I said that this was going on in front of the post office and in the centre, and so that day or the following day I didn't see a single bus nor truck parked. And I've been telling you very clearly our police, our people, whenever they could, did their best to influence the Siptars, their compatriots, to prevail upon them not to leave because the Serbs know full well what population exoduses mean. They had many displacements themselves and know full well what that means and entails.

Q. You said that this was going on in front of the post office. What was going on in front of the post office and in the centre? What was going on? ³⁸⁹¹²

A. People had gathered there. They didn't know where to go. They were being -- the Siptars were forcing them out of their houses. Now, who would leave their homes just like that, without any reason? They had to do so under duress. They were coerced to do so.

My house was set fire to, but I went -- if my house was set fire to, I would go back.

Q. So it's your testimony that there was a group of Albanians who were forcing other Albanians to leave their homes and go to Albania; right?

A. Yes, precisely that. That's precisely what I'm saying.

Q. Well --

A. There were decent, honest Siptars there who wanted to carry on living there together with us but we know the politics where it was created. You know that better than me, I'm quite sure.

Q. Speaking of politics, let's just try to step back for a minute, and if you were an Albanian organisation trying to force people to leave their homes for political purposes, for purposes of political power, do you think it would be in your political interests to burn down those homes and their businesses behind them?

A. Sir, even if I was an Albanian, I would never advise that to anybody or tell them to do that. That's completely beyond all reason.

Q. Let's assume that what you're saying is correct, that Albanians forced Albanians to leave their homes and go to the border. Can you think of any logical reason why the Albanian population at the border would feel compelled to leave all of their identity documents behind? ³⁸⁹¹³

A. I wasn't there, so I can't talk about that.

Q. Did you know a man named Ndrec Konaj in Pec?

A. No.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'd like to ask the usher's assistance, please. If we could have a copy of Exhibit 3, map 6 placed on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. SAXON:

Q. This is a map produced by the Office of the Prosecutor showing routes that Kosovo Albanian citizens took when they left the city of Pec. You can see there is a green line heading to the north and then to the north-west into Montenegro, and we also see a green line heading south to the town of Prizren and then to the west again to the Albanian border. Do you see those lines?

A. Yes.

Q. Ndrec Konaj testified to this Chamber -- and, Your Honour, I'm referring to Exhibit 112, and trial transcript 3778 to 3781 from the 25th of April, 2002. Mr. Konaj explained how he and his family were forced to leave their homes by Serbian police in the town of Pec, that homes were being set on fire by Serb forces, and that -- that they were placed on buses in the centre of Pec and then taken to the town of Prizren or close to the town of Prizren and subsequently put on other buses to the Albanian border, and that the Serb police in Pec not only organised this bus transportation but even provided the drivers of the buses. Are you saying you didn't see any of this activity?

A. Well, I don't know how it turns out now that the person that told ³⁸⁹¹⁴ you that and when I told you what I saw, that you believe him to be right. That's how it would appear, wouldn't it?

Q. Do you know a man named --

A. Do you have proof of those buses? Were they filmed deporting those people, the trucks or whatever? Do you have any proof and evidence to show us?

Q. Do you know a man named Besnik Sokoli?

A. No, I don't know him but I've heard of him. I've heard of the name.

Q. Besnik Sokoli testified in this courtroom on the 27th of February, 2002 - and this is at pages 1144 to 1155 of the transcript - and he describes how Serb forces were looting and burning homes in his neighbourhood in Pec, forcing residents to flee, how he began to walk with his family from Pec to the Montenegrin border, but then he was stopped by Serb police and told to go back to Pec because buses had been arranged to carry the Albanian population to Albania, and he subsequently walked back to the centre of Pec where there were thousands of Albanian citizens gathered, and during the course of the 27th and 28th of March, 1999, these thousands of people were placed on buses and driven to the Albanian border via Prizren.

Is this all new to you?

A. I state again, do you have a picture today in the twenty-first century of those buses, of those trucks, showing the people being deported? Am I telling lies or am I telling the truth? All you're doing is showing me a map and making me look at the route they took. Everybody ³⁸⁹¹⁵ knows the route they took and what was going on and what happened and why they left. If you listen to me carefully, I explained that. They had two goals for leaving. One-- or two reasons: One, to show to the world their humanitarian catastrophe, and secondly, that the Serb people should be exposed to NATO bombing. That's the whole point of it, but I don't think you want to listen. You have your own -- well, things that suit you.

Q. And after the end of March 1999, there were virtually no Albanians left in Pec; correct?

A. Why don't you ask me whether after 1999, when KFOR entered, there was a single Serb left who had lived there for centuries? They had lived there for centuries. You keep asking me about the Siptars, whereas you know why I'm here and what you should be asking me about. You're asking me about the Siptars' deportation and I've told you why.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Gvozdenovic, you must answer the questions to the best of your ability.

MR. SAXON:

Q. I'll repeat --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, the questions are being repeated non-stop. If he asks a question, we can move on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If we find that they're repetitive, we'll say so.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

MR. SAXON:

Q. The question is after the end of March 1999, there were virtually no Albanians left in Pec; correct? ³⁸⁹¹⁶

A. As far as I know from sources -- now, I wasn't able to bring in all the documents with me because I didn't know that's what we would be discussing and that you were going to ask me that. I would have brought you documents from the post office where I worked, where the Siptars on that day, before the Italians arrived, they suddenly appeared. Three thousand pension slips were handed out. Can you imagine? Three thousand people turned up to receive their pensions from the state of Serbia that they never recognised.

Q. Sir --

A. So I don't know where they were until that time.

Q. Sir, would it be fair -- would it be fair to say that you feel some hostility towards the Albanian population of Kosovo?

A. I really don't know how you came to that conclusion. I told you nicely that when I worked in the post office I had friends and sat with them and talked to them and tried to dissuade them from leaving their native town.

Q. We'll talk about how you --

A. It's something that I wouldn't wish upon even my greatest enemy.

Q. We'll talk about that in a moment. Do you know a man called Edison Zatriqi?

A. Well, the surname is familiar but not the name, because there are many people with the surname Zatriqi in Pec.

Q. Edison Zatriqi owned a bus company in Pec in 1998 and 1999. It was called Flamingo Tours. Does that ring any bells?

A. Yes. Yes. He was a neighbour of mine, yes, from Flamingo Tours. ³⁸⁹¹⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ³⁸⁹¹⁸

Q. Did you have any -- any problems with Mr. Zatriqi's integrity?

A. He was a well respected citizen of Pec, as far as I know, and I think one of his sons worked in the state security service.

Q. Well, Mr. Zatriqi testified in this court on the 25th of April, 2002 - and this is at page 3807 to 3808 of the transcript, and it's Exhibit 113 - and Mr. Zatriqi testified that on the 23rd of March 1999, the day before the NATO bombing campaign began, he was forced to turn over several of his buses to Serb policemen and that he subsequently saw his buses and buses being -- and buses owned by other Kosovo Albanian transport companies, he subsequently saw these buses being used to transport Kosovo Albanians to the border.

Did you hear anything about that?

A. No. Truly I haven't heard about that, so I can't tell you about something I didn't see. All I'm telling you of is what I personally saw and where I personally was, and I stand by every word I say when I talk about things like that.

Q. Well, during your direct examination you talked about a lot of things that you didn't see, but I will move on.

Mr. Zatriqi's buses were burned at the end of the war. Do you think that would be in Mr. Zatriqi's benefit to burn his property himself?

A. I tell you again, I didn't see it, and I can't talk about things that I didn't see.

Q. Do you think it would have been in the -- to the benefit of the KLA or, as you call them, the bandits, to burn the property owned by Kosovo Albanians such as the buses owned by Mr. Zatriqi? ³⁸⁹¹⁹

A. I didn't see that, so I can't see whether they were bandits that set this on fire or what.

Q. You were a reserve police officer, weren't you?

A. No. I worked in providing security for the post office and a private pizzeria, Pizza parlor.

Q. The truth is you know full well how the deportation of Kosovo Albanians from Pec occurred because you took part in it, didn't you?

A. I don't understand the question. How do you mean "take part"?

Q. That you were a member of a paramilitary unit, and in particular you took part in the deportations of Catholic Albanians living on a street called Boro Vukmirovic in the town of Pec after the start of the NATO bombing campaign in March 1999, didn't you?

A. No. How could I have been in a paramilitary unit if I worked as a security detail for the post office? There is documentation to bear that out. This is quite amazing. I don't know who supplied you with that kind of information. Can you show me the document showing a photograph of me deporting anyone, or is there a single Siptar here who testified ever mention my name and surname? Can you imagine? I'm a parent who came in here to talk about the violent killing of my child, and you ask me whether I deported somebody.

Mr. President, this is really beyond all reason.

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, it's your testimony today, then, that you took absolutely no part -- remember you are testifying under oath today -- that you took absolutely no part in the deportation of Kosovo Albanian citizens in Pec? Is that your testimony? ³⁸⁹²⁰

A. Yes. How could I have taken part in something when I worked as a security detail for the post office? You can find proof of that, that I provided security for buildings and facilities that were being safeguarded from being stormed by terrorists or bands of gangs. So we were providing security for socially-owned and state-owned property. And there are documents and lists to bear that out. I did shift work. You can see my shifts. This is quite ludicrous. I don't know where you get that from.

Q. And as a person who worked in security matters, occasionally you had to travel around, didn't you?

A. No. My house was quite near from my work, place of work, so I didn't need to use any transport.

Q. But the post office you worked at, that was in the centre of Pec, right?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. It's your testimony today that you did not see any systematic deportation of Kosovo Albanian citizens from the centre of Pec in March of 1999? Is that your testimony?

A. I'm telling you again, while we were working, until I left work, when I come in the evening to take up my shift and duty, take over duty from the person before me, I would go round the facility, tour the facility. So when I toured the facility, I would meet my friends the Siptars when that happened.

So let me repeat: I talked to them and I tried to dissuade them from leaving their homes. And let me tell you again, we Serbs know full well what it means to leave your homes. And I wouldn't even wish it upon ³⁸⁹²¹ my greatest enemy. So I keep repeating this same thing to you. I would like to see proof and evidence of my deporting anyone. Really.

Q. Who did you try to dissuade from leaving their homes? Can you give us a name?

A. There were a lot of them, and I don't want to give the names of those people now because there can be repercussions. There can be repercussions. There are specific people in that respect. I don't want to put anybody into a difficult situation.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, may we please move into private session for a moment?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will move into private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ³⁸⁹²²

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. SAXON: Are we in open session?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes.

MR. SAXON:

Q. You testified previously that you were never a member of the reserve police; is that correct?

A. During -- or, rather, 1979 I did my military service, and as a reservist, I was involved with the military but then there were more Siptars there then so they were the ones who were in command. I don't know why you're asking about this. Everybody knows this very well.

Q. My question is very simple: Were you ever a member of the reserve police in Pec? Yes or no, please.

A. No, no, no. The reserve police, no.

Q. Well, I'd like to show you a document.

MR. SAXON: Perhaps this could be distributed, marked for identification and given to the Judges. A copy can be given to the witness, please. Okay. If a copy could be placed on the ELMO, then.

Q. You can take a look, sir, at the very first page. This is a document entitled "Formational posts of the reserve police department detachment (local community) Centar."

Momir Radulovic is the commander, Stefan Stanjevic the deputy ³⁸⁹²³ commander, and Dragan Vucinic assistant of the reserve police detachment. A little bit further down, it says Slobodan Zivkovic, the commander of the 2nd Company Puhovac, and then a little bit further down we see the first platoon at Patrijarsijska street. I'm sorry for my pronunciation, or lack thereof.

On the next page we see the 2nd platoon at Patrijarsijska Street, and a bit further down we see two groups of names, and in the second group, at number 6, we see -- excuse me, at number 7, we see the name Zvonimir Gvozdenovic. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. That's you, isn't it?

A. No. There's another Gvozdenovic in Pec. First of all, I do not live in Patrijarsijska Street. We have already established I live in Pariska, and there is major difference involved.

Q. This platoon is the platoon for Patrijarsijska Street. Is there another Zvonimir Gvozdenovic living, or who lived on Patrijarsijska Street?

A. No, but let me tell you I do not understand at all how my name got there, because I worked at the security for the post office, so I could not have been in this group at all. Everybody knows that very well. Would a state company allow me to go to some kind of paramilitary unit? And after all, these were not paramilitary units the way you want to portray them.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Saxon, is the first name of this witness Zvonimir or Zvonko? Are they the same one? ³⁸⁹²⁴

MR. SAXON: It's my understanding that they are variations of the same name, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: Could you clarify that with the witness.

MR. SAXON:

Q. Your formal name is Zvonimir, isn't it, sir, your formal first name?

A. Yes. Yes, yes.

MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I have no further questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

MR. SAXON: I would ask that this be entered as an exhibit, Your Honour, if this is the appropriate time.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be 867.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. And I believe we have some photographs, if the accused wishes to have them exhibited. We'll do that later. Any re-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one question, not to keep this witness any longer. I'm just going to put one question so he wouldn't have to stay during the break as well.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. Mr. Gvozdenovic, you explained a few moments ago that you worked at the post office.

A. Yes.

Q. If I understood you correctly, you said just now that towards the very end of the war, 3.000 Albanians came to receive their pensions at the post office. ³⁸⁹²⁵

A. Yes, yes.

Q. You said that in response to what was said that the Albanians were driven out of Pec.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. From who did they receive this pension at the post office?

A. Well, it's well known; from the state of Serbia, not Albania.

Q. So pensions are received once a month, right?

A. Yes.

Q. So on this same day, they all came and took their pensions?

A. Yes, yes. Documentation is there and all of this can be established.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Gvozdenovic.

A. You're welcome.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, Mr. Milosevic, do you want to have the photographs exhibited, and the video?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] By all means. By all means. I tendered all of it. And also you can take the on-site investigation report and have it marked for identification, and also the other documents that you refused to admit because they had not been translated.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE KWON: I'm not sure whether we exhibited the previous witness's binder as D295, and we'll reserve the next number for the schedule, reference schedule, and then give this binder the next number.

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. So D296 will be reserved for the schedule, and then D297. ³⁸⁹²⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Have you given numbers for the video and the photographs?

THE REGISTRAR: [Microphone not activated]

JUDGE ROBINSON: 297?

THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 297, tab 1, tab 3.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. As we had indicated before, Mr. Milosevic, the untranslated reports will not be admitted.

Mr. Gvozdenovic, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to give it, and you may now leave.

And we are adjourned for 20 minutes. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.42 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your next witness.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Radovan Paponjak is my next witness, Mr. Robinson, but now during the course of the break I established that he is not accessible. Professor Rakic informed me that last night an official from the Victims and Witnesses Unit in his presence said to Mr. Paponjak to be prepared at 2.15 to be transported to the prison in order to be able to see me. According to what Mr. Rakic knows, he went to church. He could not get in touch with him over the telephone, and he dialed both his mobile telephone number and his hotel. So he is not available, but through no fault of his own. As I said, last night the official concerned told him that he should be ready at 2.15 to be taken to see me at the prison. ³⁸⁹²⁷ I am prepared to question him, but unfortunately, he is not here now.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, is that the same witness as you thought had not been given clearance to give evidence?

MR. KAY: Yes. That's Paponjak anyway, but he could probably have been dealt with by Mr. Milosevic for an hour until anything material to that issue was dealt with, then we've got the intervening week for the waiver to come through. So I think a decision had been taken just to get on with it and deal with him, which was my view anyway.

JUDGE BONOMY: So why -- well, you probably can't answer this, but why would Professor Rakic not make it clear that the arrangement was inappropriate?

MR. KAY: I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: The explanation don't make much sense to me at the moment.

MR. KAY: No. Perhaps -- I think these are unrelated issues. I think they're not merged in any way. There was this other problem, but as a technical hitch on the waiver, the decision was made just to get on with it, which was in the interests of the trial.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, perhaps Mr. Milosevic can explain why Professor Rakic wouldn't make it clear that that was not an appropriate arrangement, that the witness would have to be here today.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot give an explanation. I only received this information from Professor Rakic, that your official ³⁸⁹²⁸ from here told Mr. Paponjak to be ready today at 2.15 at the same time when he informed Jasovic and Gvozdenovic that they should be ready in the morning in order to be brought here. That is the only information I have, and I received just now during this last break.

I did not ask Professor Rakic any additional questions because I didn't think that there was any need for me to put any other questions to him.

May I just add that Professor Rakic tried to reach him by phone. In his hotel room there was no answer, and his cell phone is off. He tried to reach him from here.

All in all, Mr. Paponjak is not absent through any fault of his own.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, regrettably, we'll have to adjourn. We will lose -- we will have lost about an hour and 15 minutes. Mr. Milosevic, in future, I think all the -- all the arrangements must be made to ensure that your witnesses are present, within reason, of course. It's a little unclear to me why the witness is not here, notwithstanding the explanation that you have given. But we will adjourn, and we will resume on --

MR. KAY: The 3rd of May is the new date, we believe. 4th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: On Wednesday, the 4th of May. We will resume on Wednesday, the 4th of May, at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day of

May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.