³⁹⁰⁴⁰

Thursday, 5 May 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yesterday you had just about concluded examining the witness on the allegations arising out of paragraph 66 -- 63(e), and I was suggesting that you might conclude with that, but you had other issues, you said, to raise. Can you tell me the areas that are left to be covered by your examination-in-chief?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I'll tell you. Just a moment. I want to complete this alleged point (e) or para (e), which allegedly speaks of expulsions, or alleged expulsions, and then -- and deportation, and just briefly the conduct of the police with respect to the attacks and the subordination of the police and the army from the experience of the colonel in Pec, and then what the police undertook to prevent cases resulting in death contained in the tables here, and just one question on cooperation with KFOR and UNMIK, and then I would like to go over some numerical facts and figures contained in the tabs, and then I have to dwell on another point. I'll tell you what it is straight away. Let me see. 66(k), in fact. Since the witness was on the spot in the area and it is the Dubrava prison, we have a tape that I would like to play, and it is part of the investigation, the investigating material.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That seems to be the most substantive outstanding area for you to continue your examination. Perhaps you should concentrate ³⁹⁰⁴¹ on that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will certainly focus on that, Mr. Robinson, however, I did wish to clarify all these other aspects.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let's begin.

WITNESS: RADOVAN PAPONJAK [Resumed]

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

Q. Colonel, you were describing yesterday what the centre of Pec looked like and the mass of people that had gathered there. You were there on the spot, were you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, please, how were you able to move around that mass of people? What were you wearing? What arms did you have?

A. Well, throughout the time, I was armed with just a pistol. I had my belt, my pistol, and the police uniform with designation of rank.

Q. So that means you were wearing your regular police uniform and the pistol on the belt is part of that, on your halter. Did you have any other kind of weapons?

A. No. I never carried anything like that.

Q. Were you escorted by a security detail from the police with some other weapons?

A. No, I was alone.

Q. So you were moving through this mass of people alone?

A. Yes.

Q. Was there any police cordon? You said there were very few ³⁹⁰⁴² policemen there, so indirectly perhaps we can conclude that there was a police cordon somewhere. Was there one anywhere?

A. No. The people were on the pavement and on the square, in the square, and there was free passage along the road, but nobody of the -- the police didn't assure that passage. There was just this narrow passage through which I could pass by in my car and reach the municipality building on the square.

Q. Very well. So you've described that to us. None of the authorities addressed the people. The people themselves spoke and said things over the megaphone?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did the citizens who had gathered on the square leave the square?

A. I can't really say they left the square. I can say that they would leave and come. There was a lot of coming and going. Some would leave, others would come in, and this wasn't something that took place in the space of an hour or two, it took several days.

Q. So you mean people were coming and going for several days?

A. Yes, precisely.

Q. And you said you saw buses but you said you didn't see any trucks; is that right?

A. No, I didn't see buses, but I -- well, I said I saw buses transporting people. I saw trucks, too, but I didn't see them transporting any people, although I didn't actually see what was under the awning, the tarpaulin. ³⁹⁰⁴³

Q. So tell me now, please, in point (e) it says in front of Prizren the Kosovo Albanians were forced to leave the buses, et cetera, et cetera. Now, did the buses regularly run between Pec and Prizren?

Q. There were a number of bus lines, regular lines, for example, ran from Djakovica-Pec, Belgrade-Pec, Prizren-Pec, et cetera.

Q. So that's what I wanted to establish. The Pec-Prizren line, for instance, did it run to Prizren or did it run to the Albanian border?

A. I don't know. I can't really say. I don't know what was going on in the Prizren area. All I can tell you about is what was going in my own area.

Q. Just tell me this now, please: What directions did the citizens leaving the area take? Where did they go?

A. They went in all directions. They went off in all directions; towards Prizren, through Decani and Djakovica and towards Pristina, towards Klina and towards Mitrovica, towards Istok, and towards Montenegro across Kula.

Q. So those were the four basic directions that you have to go to leave town, towards the north and Pristina. Some were going to the south-east towards Prizren, others westwards towards Montenegro?

A. Yes, and there's another way across Cakor and the gorge but that is a part of macadamised road surface and it's a fairly bad road so people tend to avoid it. The Serbs avoided it constantly because that was the terrain that the KLA held under its control and there were quite a number of abductions of both Serbs and Albanians there and the terrain was considered completely inaccessible security-wise. ³⁹⁰⁴⁴

Q. Yes. Let's just conclude. Now, are you saying that nobody, none of the authorities -- you said that the army wasn't even there, there were no soldiers there, that there was just policemen, so that nobody -- none of the authorities, including the police, didn't force the citizens to leave Pec. Is that what you're saying?

A. Precisely. That is precisely what I'm saying. And they couldn't have forced them either. How could you force such a large mass of people to leave? You couldn't. Anybody in my line of business would know that if you have 10.000 people, then ten policemen can't do anything with those 10.000 even if they wanted to. Not even 50 or a hundred policemen would be able to move, set this mass of people in motion if they didn't want to go and didn't want to leave. And that was our experience throughout when the mass demonstrations started in Kosovo and Metohija. We just weren't able to do anything like that, whatever police force or whatever strength we had on our side.

Q. Tell us now, how did the police behave in cases of air attacks? What did they do in those cases?

A. Well, in the case of an air attack, our first aim was to establish where it was happening, where it was taking place if it wasn't actually where we were able to see it. So to pinpoint the actual location, to reach the area as soon as possible, and to evacuate any wounded and injured if there were any, to offer assistance to them, and to secure the area in case of cluster bombs or anything like that. And after, to carry out an on-site investigation if that was possible. We weren't able to reach some of the areas and locations for a number of reasons. It was ³⁹⁰⁴⁵ either inaccessible terrain or it was under KLA control, the access roads I mean, so we weren't able to carry out on-site investigations on quite a number of places.

Now, we didn't file any criminal reports or anything of that kind. We merely took note of them, registered them, and that remained in the archives.

Q. Now, during the war, and I'm only speaking of your own experience, what you personally know from the Pec area and the secretariat, was there any resubordination of the police to the army?

A. Yes.

Q. With respect to which activities did this resubordination take place?

A. With respect to combat operations and combat activities, so if there was any fighting going on, any combat, the members of the police were resubordinated to the army and within the frameworks of providing security for those areas and taking measures for the sanitisation of the terrain as well.

Q. Very well. Now, in addition to that kind of activity, the police -- what other things did the police do?

A. The police went about its regular duties. If there was no fighting or no combat, then we would get on with our jobs. At the time, there was no significant combat in the area that I was there, so we were able to go about our regular business mostly.

Q. When our police and army forces were replaced by the KFOR forces, to what extent did the Serb population leave Kosovo and Metohija and when ³⁹⁰⁴⁶ did they do so?

A. From my area almost everybody left. In the area of Pec, about 1.000 inhabitants were left in the village of Gorazdevac and about 20 inhabitants in the village of Sokolac. All the rest left.

Q. At that time, were there any crimes committed against the Serbs?

A. Well, that was the reason why the Serbs left the area. After KFOR came, after they took over the territory, I was the person who conducted the hand-over with KFOR. They took over the territory. They guaranteed that they would provide peace and order and security and safety for all persons, but that did not happen. We saw ourselves that the members of the so-called KLA came in uniform at the same time they did. They patrolled the city. They were looking purportedly for Serbian criminals, as they said, actually members of the military and the police. They asked people to show their IDs. They broke into houses. Many people were killed. Over 50 persons were killed. Many women were raped and killed. Even children were killed and the elderly. People left their homes and left altogether. I got out on the 25th of June, that is to say 14 days after they arrived.

Q. What you described to us now sounds like chaos and mass crimes.

A. Well, that's exactly the way it was.

Q. Did KFOR carry out its duty? Did they provide security and safety for citizens?

A. No. They said quite openly to us that they could not guarantee any safety and security. This was sometime after the 20th of June, when endless columns of Albanians were going. They barged into houses like ³⁹⁰⁴⁷ savages. They took houses, they expelled Serbs from them. Then KFOR told us that they could not guarantee any kind of safety to us, and we left under their protection. These were convoys of Serbs protected by KFOR with tanks and armoured vehicles.

Q. We are now looking at this entire period that you're testifying about. In these documents there is a great deal of information. Can it be said that all the dead, either Albanians or Serbs or members of other ethnic communities, were found? Because you established in great detail all the individual cases that are involved.

A. It cannot be said that all the dead were found. Quite simply, we could not do that. We were not in a position to do that. There were a lot of places that were inaccessible to us. Also, members of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army would take their own dead away. They took the others, too, in the meantime, before we managed to arrive there. They did it for several reasons, but the main reason was that if we were to find the dead, we would identify them and then our attention would be focused on that. We would establish who this was and we would start criminal prosecutions. So that was one of the reasons. They also wanted to cover up their own crimes, so they hid the corpses of the killed Serbs as much as they could. Often we could not reach the sites because there was the danger of being attacked. So we had to carry out investigations while providing broad-base security for the actual sites. This was not only in 1998 and 1999, it was also in 1997. We would usually have to provide security in-depth at the site, and it was only then that the investigation team could arrive, either with or without ³⁹⁰⁴⁸ an investigating judge.

That happened in 1997 and throughout 1998. When the on-site investigation was carried out for the late Desimir Vasic, even helicopters were used to provide security in the area because it was so --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: May I intervene just very briefly. Mr. Paponjak, in the document we were considering yesterday, which was tab 1.4, you dealt with the deaths and the casualties in relation to armed conflicts. Can you have that just briefly in front of you. That document includes a number of incidents from the 25th of June onwards, through July and into August.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: These are accounts of incidents which were investigated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to have a look at all of this and see what it's about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 1.4 is a list of security related incidents resulting in death from 1 until the last number --

JUDGE BONOMY: My reason for asking you is that you were talking about the KLA being responsible after the 25th of June for a number of deaths of elderly people and children. Will these appear in tab 1.4?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for what we managed to establish and find out, that is all contained in this tab 1.4. But in other tabs there is information about persons who died and about who we do not have much knowledge. We have a chapter about abducted persons and persons who ³⁹⁰⁴⁹ went missing. We don't know what their fate ultimately was. However, since we don't know what happened to them for five years, we assume that --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no. Let's try to be specific, Mr. Paponjak. You have said that a number of elderly people and children were killed by the KLA after KFOR came on the scene, and I just wanted you to point to a few examples for me, if you could, from this document.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this document, number 225, the 12th of June.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm talking about after the 25th of June, which was the date you said chaos reigned.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] KFOR arrived on the 13th of June in the area of Pec.

JUDGE BONOMY: All the more reason for not dealing with the 12th of June.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But the 14th, then. From the 14th onwards. We can deal with this in order. Each and every one of these examples, there is at least one corpse involved.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you point to the children and the elderly people who were killed, which is the particular claim I'm concerned about. In other words, the idea that the KLA were killing children and elderly people. It's that point that I want you to deal with. I hope you're in no doubt about the point I'm actually asking a question about.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. From the concrete cases -- we don't have any information here about the dates of birth, but ³⁹⁰⁵⁰ if you deal with the concrete cases, you can see exactly who the elderly were and who the children were.

JUDGE BONOMY: See, my problem is it's not translated and therefore I'm looking to you for guidance on the document and I was hoping you could give me that quite quickly, but if it's a difficult exercise, forget it and we'll move on with the examination.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] By your leave, just one explanation. This document was not compiled for the Court, so perhaps it is therefore inappropriate. However, we can handle this very easily. We can look at all the individual cases and find the exact cases of this nature. This was done for our own purposes, police purposes. So we are just presenting it now as it is.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I proceed, Mr. Bonomy?

JUDGE BONOMY: Certainly, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, is it obvious here from this survey, in order to facilitate the explanation that Mr. Bonomy sought, from 229 onwards - and 229 is the date of the 14th of June, that is to say the date after the arrival of KFOR - up to number 285, which is the end of this list, all of these involve persons who had been killed? And according to the information you have, 56 persons were killed in that period of time that Mr. Bonomy was inquiring about, in the information that you have available. ³⁹⁰⁵¹

A. I can say that that is the lowest figure that can be looked at because there are a great many people who are still missing and we don't know what their ultimate fate was. At least 56 were killed.

Q. You have information about 56 persons?

A. Yes.

Q. For a certain number of persons you don't have information?

A. Yes.

Q. So the number can only be bigger?

A. That's right.

Q. Tell me now, please, when looking at all the deaths involved, were all cases reported to the police?

A. I cannot say that they were. I assume that not all were reported. I cannot claim with any degree of certainty that all cases were reported to the police.

Q. All right. In relation to what you established and where you had information, were all criminal cases completed and could they have been completed?

A. They were not completed. There are still open cases. We cannot take any kind of action with regard to some of them, many of them, because we are not in the territory where these crimes had been committed. Persons we should interview are not accessible to us. We have no cooperation whatsoever with the police that is in charge of such work there now. We took initiatives several times in terms of working together. Many cases would have been dealt with properly. It would have been easier to identify the dead had we had this kind of cooperation. ^{39052 BLANK PAGE 39053} I found out here, and I saw some materials related to the exhumations and post-mortems carried out by the Spaniards. We could have perhaps easily identified these person. They haven't identified them yet.

Q. Colonel, you say that you proposed to cooperate with the police and to resolve these cases. Did KFOR and UNMIK show any desire to cooperate?

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... stop the accused spending his time in whatever he likes, but what is the relevance of all this, I respectfully ask.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You can say it goes to Article 7(3), responsibility.

Mr. Milosevic, what's the relevance?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You put the questions here, Mr. Robinson, to one of the previous witnesses as to whether they attempted to start some kind of cooperation. When I say "you," I'm not referring to you personally but one of you, rather. Did they try to establish some kind of cooperation with UNMIK and KFOR? So I'm putting the same question to Colonel Paponjak, because he said that they had attempted to cooperate. So I'm asking him whether UNMIK and KFOR displayed any wish to carry through such cooperation. He already said that not all the criminal cases were completed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Deal with it briefly, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he already would have answered by now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹⁰⁵⁴

Q. Did they show any wish to cooperate?

A. By way of declaration, yes. For example, specifically the killing of children in August 2003 in Gorazdevac. They said that they could not get to the area at all and that they could not establish contact with the persons involved. We suggested that we cooperate, and I suggested that two of my men join their team. However, we never managed to accomplish that.

The killing of these children is still unresolved, but we could not work together, although from our side we proffered two experienced policemen.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That point has been sufficiently ventilated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, let's try to deal with this as efficiently as possible, and let's look at the numbers involved, those that are in the second part of this document, the information on security related incidents resulting in death, et cetera, et cetera. It's a very long heading in tab 1, the one that we started looking at yesterday.

In tab 1.1, is there a list of all identified persons who were dead in this period from the 10th of June, 1999, to the 1st of June, 2001?

A. I've just received the list.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, in the index, which is all we have in English, the heading for this tab starts off "Lists of identified persons starved to death..." Is that a mistake in translation?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly. Certainly. It says ³⁹⁰⁵⁵ "List of persons who died," who lost their lives in that period. It must be a technical mistake in the translation.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us deal with this very briefly. Colonel, in tab 1.1, there is a list of all persons who were identified, and it's presented in two ways, as far as I can see; in terms of the case numbers, that is one of the ways in which this was dealt with, and then there's a list of names in alphabetical order.

A. Precisely.

Q. And then you have a list of cases involving unidentified persons in the same tab.

A. Yes.

Q. For the same period for the municipality of Pec or, rather, the area of responsibility of the SUP of Pec.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. That's 1.1. Now, tab 1.2. I hope that we will be able to establish very easily what the information involved is. First of all, let us clarify whether all this information is based on specific individual cases.

A. Yes, they are. However, I would like to make a remark here; namely, I can't say with any certainty that there aren't any discrepancies here, and I will explain.

This data was compiled on the basis of the so-called incident log that we keep at the police. The police can obtain information from any ³⁹⁰⁵⁶ citizen who can or may not identify himself. The police records whatever the citizen has reported and continues working to establish the facts in the case.

In this list, we have one case on record that we have not shed light on until the end, but I do know for a fact that the incident didn't really happen the way it was described. On this list of identified persons who found their deaths in armed conflicts, we have a list of 73 people. That is the list that we compiled on the basis of initial data. In fact, the number is not 73. It's much smaller. This case or some of these cases fall under the competency of army authorities. However, in this list we left the figures and the incidents that were reported to us initially. We believe it is better to err on this side, on the side of larger numbers. They can always be corrected if it proves necessary.

Q. Thank you, Colonel. That means that the police always puts on record any report they get, and it remains in the incident log so that later, if some additional information becomes available, it becomes useful in establishing facts. The police does not remove from its records even those things that seem incomplete until the file is closed.

A. Correct.

Q. Let us look at tab 1.2. I hope it has been translated by now. The one I just received is actually A/III. Anyway, these are figures, so it would be quite simple to look at them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we put on the ELMO this table from tab 1.2.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... in translation. I ³⁹⁰⁵⁷ don't know if the Court has. In fact, I think for the sake of purposes of the record, none of the documents to which this witness has been referred has been available in English translation thus far.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we have list A/III.

JUDGE KWON: 1.5. Yes. We received translation of 1.5 but nothing else.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says here A3/III. Well, I think it's quite possible to use this data too, because under tab 1.2, which I mentioned, we have information for the entire area of responsibility of the Pec SUP, and I stand to be corrected, Colonel, if I'm mistaken about anything. In this other tab, A3/III, we have this same kind of data for the municipality of Klina, but the last figure --

A. Yes, the last figure is correct.

Q. With the only difference that in one of them we have a breakdown by municipality, and in the other one we have breakdown by time period.

A. Correct.

Q. We could put this other table on the ELMO and then we can look at the figures. Do you have 1.2 before you?

A. I have overview A2/III. That's the one I have.

Q. That is 1.2. Is this the overview of security related incidents resulting in death that occurred in connection with armed conflicts in Kosovo and Metohija from 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001 in the area of SUP Pec by time period. First we have number of incidents and then the number of corpses. Up to the middle of 1998, that is the first ³⁹⁰⁵⁸ column, then until the end, the 31st of December, 1980 -- 1998. Second column, then we have from the 1st of January until the 23rd of March, until the beginning of the war. The fourth column is the period of the war, and the last column is post-war.

Could you put this table on the ELMO.

A. It seems to be already on the ELMO here in front of me.

Q. Now, regardless of the number of incidents, various incidents involve a varying number of deaths. Now we look at the number of deaths.

A. Yes. That is 606.

Q. That is the total. But we can also see it broken down by these various time periods.

A. In the first half of 1998, it was 42. In the first half of -- in the second half of 1998 it was 81. Before the NATO aggression, 18. During the NATO aggression 388, and post-NATO aggression 77. In total 606.

Q. In this 388, does this number include the 73 that you mentioned before?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Below that we see out of that Albanians and Others. Albanians in total, 318; and Others in total, 288.

A. Correct. "Others" include all non-Albanians; Serbs, Romas, and others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what are you seeking to establish by these statistics?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, Mr. Robinson, that ³⁹⁰⁵⁹ these figures are self-explanatory, because you can see from them both the ethnic structure, gender, and status. You will see under Status, terrorists, civilians, unknown, men, women, children in the category of Albanians; and in the category of Others you will see members of the army, members of the MUP, civilians, men, women, children. This is a very good table that shows how many people found their deaths in various terrorist attacks mounted by Albanians, due to NATO bombing, and in the course of perpetration of various crimes. This is a very important table indeed, from which one can see that practically none of the allegations - and I'm now speaking about the area covered by the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec, and we will later see about the entire Kosovo and Metohija - we will see that none of the allegations and none of the charges that the Prosecution is trying to make against the state authorities of Serbia are -- or the FRY are true.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... establishes that. It establishes that people died. It doesn't establish how they died or in what circumstances. There's no dispute that people died.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I have just said, Mr. Robinson, that for the most part you can also see from this table the circumstances of death. You can see, for instance, that there is a great disproportion between the number of Albanians and non-Albanians who died. Even if you doubt, if you have any doubts about what the colonel said about the number of 73 who were killed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. ³⁹⁰⁶⁰

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, in terms of structure, when we compare Albanians and non-Albanians, that is others, in your area you have 19 women who were killed in total and twice as many -- more than twice as many, 44, among non-Albanian population.

A. That is correct. You can see that clearly on this first page.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm not following that.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. It's very difficult for us to follow that without having the interpretation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Even if you set aside --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. The interpreters didn't hear the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. I can explain what is contained on the first page.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please do that so that we can all understand. And since we all see the numbers on the screen, use the pointer so that we can know what we're talking about.

A. Here it says, "Number of corpses by national structure, gender, and status." This column says "Number of Albanian corpses." The figure is 318. Albanians are subdivided -- that is, the corpses of Albanians are subdivided into terrorists, civilians, unknown. Terrorists, 73; civilians, 245; unknown, nothing, none.

Again, by gender: Albanians, men, 298; women, 19; children, 1. Then the number of other corpses by gender -- that is, the total ³⁹⁰⁶¹ number was 288. By status: VJ members, 62; MUP members, 57; civilians 169.

By gender: Men, 242; women, 44; children, 2.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but what I don't understand is this: What is established by this, by all these figures. People died. I don't think there is any question about that. The question is, in what circumstances did they die?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the next page you will find precisely that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the following page, Mr. Robinson, you have very clear statistics about that. If you turn the page, you will see "Number of corpses by circumstances of death and ethnic structure."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we have the number of incidents involved in terrorist attacks.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This whole block deals with terrorist attacks.

A. In 166 terrorist attacks, 238 people died. Out of that, 53 Albanians and 185 others. This is what we see here.

Q. Then we have anti-terrorist attacks.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who determines whether there was a terrorist attack? Who makes that determination?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On-site inspections were made on the spot. Investigating judges made on-site investigations, proper procedure was followed, criminal reports were filed, and criminal proceedings were instituted. ³⁹⁰⁶²

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, on the second page, column 5, which is the 1st of January, 1999, until the 23rd of March, 1999, that's the period immediately before the bombing, have I rightly understood that there were only two deaths from terrorist attacks in the first column, two in the next column, and two in the fourth column? That's a total of six during that three-month period.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: Remarkably peaceful then.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible that the competent authorities failed to qualify certain incidents as terrorist attacks. We have a problem in our law with the qualification of terrorist attacks. Some things are qualified as terrorism and others are not.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can we rely on the statistics or can we not rely on the statistics? You have to make your mind up.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, kindly bear in mind that in the fourth block on this page there is information about deaths that occurred in the course of perpetration of crimes. So certain things that were actually a terrorist attack could have been qualified as the crime of murder. One and the same act was qualified as murder rather than a terrorist attack.

When we had witness Gojovic here, a question was asked whether certain acts should be qualified as war crime or murder, especially multiple murder, which is a more grievous crime. That is up to the prosecutor how to qualify a certain act. But in this case we have 14 people killed. ³⁹⁰⁶³

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

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, when the evidence concentrates on dates which are not part of the indictment, I have to ask myself the question is there a reason for that? Why does the evidence not concentrate on the dates that are part of the indictment? Is it because there isn't any evidence to support you in that period? It would help me greatly, and I make the point I'm speaking for myself, if we could have clear evidence about the period covered by the indictment, and that's why I focus on these months immediately before the NATO bombing.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, as far as I understand it, the entire period is covered, and the fact that -- or, rather, what you're saying now confirms my assertions that I have to prove here that it is not -- that what is in the indictment is not correct and not Mr. Nice to show that it is correct, and here we see that it is not correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what I've just said to you. You have chosen to lead the evidence, and when you do that, it's up to you to lead evidence that's relevant. You can't, just because you're in the phase of leading your evidence, lead whatever you please whether it's relevant to the trial or not.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, could you please explain to me, then, how can it be irrelevant? How can what happened, for example, in the whole of 1999 be irrelevant, or in 1998, for that matter? In the indictment, they mention mid-1996. Here we have 1998, 1999, up until the 5th of June, 2001. So this whole period is relevant. ³⁹⁰⁶⁴

JUDGE BONOMY: The only period during which you could be found guilty criminally in this case is the period from the 1st of January, 1999, and indeed ending in June 1999.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Bonomy. If it is from the 1st of January, 1999, then that goes to the 20th of June, which means a vertical column number 5 and 6, and that is the most numerous, the highest numbers there, because in columns 5 and 6 you have a total of over 400 people resulting in death. So that is more than two-thirds of the total number.

JUDGE BONOMY: Please now return to your examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In terrorist attacks, Colonel, how many people died? How many were killed in the terrorist attacks, for which I hope we have provided explanation as to how they were qualified and categorised.

A. The number of people who died was 166, or, rather, there were 166 attacks and 238 people were killed. Of that, 53 were Albanians and 185 were other.

Q. Yes. Now, in the anti-terrorist activities --

A. Yes.

Q. -- 35 died; is that right?

A. In anti-terrorist activities, and I'm trying to place this on the overhead projector here --

Q. Anti-terrorist activities, 35 persons lost their lives, and including KLA members, all Albanians. ^{39065 BLANK PAGE 39066}

A. Yes, that's right. Now we come to the NATO bombing figures. Twenty-four there --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Colonel, could you explain to me, what are the features of an anti-terrorist activity? What is a typical anti-terrorist activity?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A typical anti-terrorist activity is an activity on the part of the police force which is planned and organised, a planned and organised action on the part of the police to repel or deblock a terrain. So it takes place based on a plan devised in advance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right, a terrain occupied by terrorists. That's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to give evidence about any of these anti-terrorist activities? What actually happened during any of these activities? I'm not talking now about the figures which you have here.

Because, Mr. Milosevic, it seems to me that that's what would be important and helpful to your case, as I mentioned yesterday. If you have evidence of an anti-terrorist activity carried out by the police and during that activity Albanians and civilians were killed and there is a charge in the indictment that relates to that particular activity, then that's very relevant and helpful. But I'm not sure that we are helped very much by statistics which show how many people were killed in anti-terrorist activity. We need to know the precise circumstances ³⁹⁰⁶⁷ surrounding that activity, and that is what would enable the Chamber to determine culpability. But the mere statistics are not helpful, because they don't indicate the circumstances. We need evidence as to the circumstances in which people died.

Continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, we have documents standing behind these figures on the basis of which these figures were devised. So if we say that 35 persons were killed, or terrorists were killed during anti-terrorist activities, that means that we have documents on the basis of which that was established.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Colonel, is it the aim of anti-terrorist activities to liquidate or to arrest the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks? What was it?

A. Well, it was never our goal to liquidate them. That goal does not exist within the police force as such.

Q. So when you launch an anti-terrorist activity, your endeavour is to apprehend the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks, and deaths incur if there is resistance and if the perpetrators shoot at the police and there is counter-fire from the police. Is that the situation that occurs mostly?

A. Yes, precisely.

Q. Now, we have the NATO bombing column. 144 persons lost their lives there.

A. Yes. 145 deaths. Of that, 96 were Albanians, and the rest, 48. ³⁹⁰⁶⁸

Q. Right. Fine. Now we come to crimes. 148 persons killed there.

A. Yes. Of that number, 118 were Albanians, and others 30.

Q. Then we come to other or miscellaneous. I don't understand what that actually means, but we won't dwell on that.

A. In different other events, in different instances.

Q. I see. There's a death through suicide, deaths in hospitals, et cetera, et cetera, that kind of thing.

Right. Now, can you tell us, please, since you yourself were the leader of collecting and classifying this material, you were in charge of that, from this, from the material, can we see how deaths were incurred, how these people lost their lives? Is that what they show, these documents?

A. This was compiled on the basis of the documents that we have in our possession. So we collected the documents, classified them and processed them statistically, and from the tables we have lists, and the lists deal with individual cases, individual incidents. And in each case, we have the corresponding documentation provided by the investigating judge or based on our own notes or collected in other ways.

Q. Now, in the -- in block number 4, it says the number of on-site investigations, and we see that the number there is 126. That's quite a lot less than the number of incidents.

A. Yes, it is completely disproportionate, but the reason is that on-site investigations quite simply could not be conducted because there were 229 to begin with, and 216 on-site investigations. 298 is the figure. ³⁹⁰⁶⁹

Q. Now, do you think that is a high percentage or not?

A. Yes, it is a high percentage, and this was done thanks to the efforts of the investigating judge and organs in general.

Q. We see that in most cases the on-site investigation was conducted with the presence of an investigating judge; is that right?

A. Yes. 126 were just the police there, and one which was incomplete.

Q. And we see that 174 cases there was no on-site investigation. Could you tell us why? What were the reasons that that wasn't able to be done?

A. Because the situation was unsafe. It was unsafe for the people who were supposed to carry out the on-site investigation, because of attack or their impossibility to reach the scene of the crime. And I said that certain on-site investigations had to be conducted with the assistance of helicopters, for example.

JUDGE KWON: Excuse me, Mr. Milosevic. Can I hear from the witness a bit more about the murdered people by crime. I heard that there are 148 people who were killed in all, but in particular, I see there are 108 people died during the period of war. Among them, most of them are Albanians, 93 people. And 18 and none others, non-Albanians. Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What are those crimes, and do you know the circumstances, how these people were killed? So I assume that those Albanians are killed possibly by the local Serbs or -- including paramilitaries. Do you have any idea on this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question. We ³⁹⁰⁷⁰ started doing this work, that is to say, after analysing the incidents resulting in death, criminal acts were against Albanians, and we wanted to investigate and see what happened there.

In this figure 93, the 93 figure which is the subject of our attention here, we include the figure of 73 unidentified persons for an incident in which we were -- which we were not able to check out but we nonetheless included it in the table. And in that event, according to some information that I have which need not be absolutely correct, there might be less than 20. So this figure could be reduced by 50 straight away, and then it would make it 40-odd.

Now, these were different types of crimes. For example, a father killed his son, a husband killed his wife, and all that is included into that column.

Now, I myself don't remember whether we have a case where a Serb killed an Albanian in this particular section. I can't remember anything like that. But of course, if I were to look through the documents, that I would be able to tell you quite clearly.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Colonel. I think that's the furthest I can hear from you.

Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, here we see the figure of 144 for persons who died in the NATO bombing. How many bombings did NATO effect in your area?

A. I don't know the exact figure, but about 100 sorties. ³⁹⁰⁷¹ Ninety-seven, I think. That is another fact that is contained in the documents.

Q. Here we can see that overall in the NATO bombing 144 persons lost their lives in your area, in the area of your SUP.

A. Yes, that's right. And this figure of 24, number 24 for the NATO bombings, number of NATO bombings, that refers to more serious cases with consequences; but otherwise, attacks with bombings, there were 97 of those, or thereabouts.

Q. And we're just talking about your particular area, the area comprised by your SUP; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did the bombing have the worst consequences?

A. The worst consequences of the bombing were in the Dubrava prison, the correction centre, and at Savine Vode. In the Dubrava correction centre, about 100 persons lost their lives, and at Savine Vode, I think the figure was 24.

Q. Let's just go back for a moment to the question of crimes, criminal acts, as raised by Mr. Kwon. How many on-site investigations were conducted in respect of those crimes? Do you have those facts and figures?

A. As to number of on-site investigations conducted, this refers to all on-site investigations. So we haven't distinguished how many for crimes, how many for anti-terrorist activities or NATO bombings, et cetera. So during that period of time, 33 on-site investigations were conducted by investigating judges, 13 by the police, and another was ³⁹⁰⁷² partially conducted, which means a total of 46.

Q. Very well. Now, do you think there are any other -- that there is any other characteristic information that we can comment on here, anything else of interest?

A. Perhaps I could draw your attention to the facts and figures as to the number of persons or bodies interred, buried, and what crimes were solved.

Q. Where do you have that information as to the crimes solved?

A. That's on the last page.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have allowed you to question the witness on these untranslated documents as a courtesy to facilitate your examination, and also because the same courtesy was extended to the Prosecution during its -- the presentation of its case, but I have to say that it's very difficult for me to follow what is in the document. One can see the figures, but the -- what the figures are -- relate to is not translated, and it's -- I pick it up from what you say and what comes through the translation, but it does -- it is really very difficult, and I wonder whether it is the best course. It's a matter which I'll discuss with my colleagues, to have the evidence presented in this way, even though we did the same thing in relation to the Prosecution when the passages were relatively short. But let us see whether we can get beyond the documents now and move on to Dubravica.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, as to this particular document and any other documents that the accused may seek to put in in support of it, I reserve my position. I don't think there was any occasion in the course ³⁹⁰⁷³ of the Prosecution's case where material of this kind was relied on for this kind of extensive examination, and I observe that what we've probably been having is as close to an expert analysis of other material. I'm not quite sure what we've got until I ask a few questions of the witness but I may say I reserve my position on this material. I'm certainly not going to be able to cross-examine in detail on it, not the least because it's untranslated but for other reasons as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're right in relation to the Prosecution not having documents of this kind, statistics, not translated, but we certainly extended the courtesy to the Prosecution in relation to other kinds of documents which were short, and that was done quite frequently.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you Mr. Robinson. I just wish to draw your attention to the following: These are official documents of the Ministry of the Interior which were compiled and verified by the new authorities on the basis of all the information available.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you have missed the point. Let's move on. Let's move on quickly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, could we finish tab 1 now. I've already said to you yesterday that this is a single document that was subdivided to -- into six groups, 1.1 to 1.6. It was subdivided, but it is still a single document and it contains information about all ³⁹⁰⁷⁴ the deaths involved in this period from the 1st of January, 1998, to 1st of June, 2001. This is a list of all the incidents involved. It contains all the statistics. It's an official document. The author -- well, no, not the author, because several persons were involved. But it is a verified document.

JUDGE KWON: To better understand this statistics, given that we have an English translation of tab 1.5, could you briefly go through that document.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it may help if I make my position clear now, I think. If, for example, the large tab, 1.4, is to be relied on as supporting material, but in fact if any of these tabs are relied on as supporting material one of the other, and if the summary or whatever it is at tab 1 itself, the information are to be advanced as exhibits that can be produced, I would urge the Chamber to rule otherwise. It is wholly unrealistic to think that I or anybody on my team or the Court will be able to get back and to look at in detail, for example, 1.4 after the witness has left the court. It will be unrealistic to think that we'll ask for the witness to come back to be cross-examined on this material, and the material will simply be put in without ever being understood or considered in the course of evidence or in advance of cross-examination. It's the accused's fault that this material is not available in translation. It may well be, actually, his fault that he didn't prepare this material for production by service of a report in advance. I can't deal with this material, and I would invite the Chamber not, either automatically or in due course, to allow it to be admitted as ³⁹⁰⁷⁵ evidence. It doesn't help the Chamber and is going to burden us with material we can't consider.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have a lot of sympathy for your submission, Mr. Nice, as I am having a lot of difficulty with it, and 1.4 is exceedingly long. But what we have done in the past, Mr. Nice, is we have marked the documents for identification pending translation, but I believe the point you are making is that examination is being carried out on the basis of the untranslated documents.

I'm going to consider this matter with my colleagues.

JUDGE KWON: But as far as tab 1.4 is concerned, did you not say that you would not oppose to admitting it when it was being dealt with yesterday?

MR. NICE: I didn't opposed yesterday's. I wanted to see what was going to be dealt with in evidence by the documents and because I've always attempted to be as easy-going and generous with the accused as I can, and I'm not going to stop, but I simply can't do the job for which I'm engaged. I can't give the assistance to the Chamber, and Your Honour's quite right that we sometimes admit material like this pending translation and then the document goes in when translated. My point is that that shouldn't happen in this case because it is unrealistic to think that we'll ever get back to this material in a meaningful way, and the consequence is that the witness will have given evidence without being properly examined as he should be, and there's nothing I can do about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider the matter.

[Trial Chamber confers] ³⁹⁰⁷⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll allow Mr. Milosevic to continue examining on the documents, and we'll rule on the Prosecution's submission at the end of the examination.

JUDGE KWON: And I misread some dates and figures in tab 1.5, so you don't have to deal with that. I withdraw my request.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just clarify one more thing for you. While you were conferring now, I looked at tab 1.4. Mr. Bonomy put questions that had to do with persons killed after the 14th of June, 1999. Out of -- or, rather, from 221 or 229 to 285, those were the relevant incidents. That is to say 37 incidents altogether -- no, sorry, 57 incidents altogether, and that's what I said when Mr. Bonomy put his question. However, it is not a question of 57 dead persons. It is 57 incidents. In some incidents there were two dead persons involved, in some there were four, in some there were none.

So the number of dead that can be seen from this survey from the -- from incident number 229 on the 14th of June to 285, the number of deaths involved is much larger than the number of incidents, because in most cases it is one, but in some there are two, some involve seven deaths, and some involve four. So please bear that in mind. In this list in tab 1.4, all incidents involving deaths were included, and these are the result of all the statistics that were processed. And the relevant authorities in Serbia have accompanying information for each and every one of these cases. I believe that it is clear enough why this is important, and these are official documents at that. ³⁹⁰⁷⁷ A few moments ago, you mentioned that you received a translation of tab 1.5. Tab 1.5 is a list of security related incidents resulting in death from the 10th of June, 1999 to the 1st of June 2001. In those two years, only in the area of Pec.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please, Colonel, take a look at this tab 1.5.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, you don't have to deal with that. Let's move on. I said I would withdraw my question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Fine, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, let us move on to tab 2. In tab 1, you provided information. Let me not repeat this time and again, it has to do with your area of responsibility of the SUP of Pec. It is information about crimes committed against Albanians. This includes most of the answers to the questions related to Albanians as victims.

A. That's right.

Q. Since you are the signatory of this particular brief as well and since you are testifying here now, please be so kind as to look at the information that you provided in tab 2 in this brief. You say on page 2 and in paragraph 2: "The police acted in accordance with the law and treated all citizens equally."

Did the police treat all citizens equally regardless of whether they were Serbs, Albanians, Roma, or anybody else?

A. Absolutely.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it is necessary occasionally to see the ^{39078 BLANK PAGE 39079} lighthearted side of things. We've now reached the following interesting form of examination: A witness writes down some observation which is clearly a general conclusion with or without any ability to make such a conclusion. Because it's in a document, the accused is then able to lead the conclusion to him. Well, it's a valueless question and would be a valueless answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's an exceedingly leading question that you asked.

JUDGE BONOMY: The index -- can I ask you again about the index to this because it's the only English guidance we have. 2. -- So tab 2 is described as "Information on criminal acts committed on the loss of Albanians." Now, that can't be an accurate translation. What should it be?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These are crimes whose victims are Albanians. Mr. Paponjak presented here --

JUDGE BONOMY: Are they all deaths of Albanians in every case?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not deaths in all cases, but they are crimes in each and every one of the cases. So it's crimes committed against Albanians.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And then in tab 3, crimes committed against Serbs. Then in tab 4, crimes committed against the Roma. Then in tab 5, terrorist acts against the police. So that -- against the Albanians, against the Serbs, against the Roma, against the police. Then after that, information about registered security related ³⁹⁰⁸⁰ incidents concerning missing persons and abducted persons from the 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001. In all fairness, kidnappings continued after that but we do not have information about it here. So when it says crimes against Albanians, it means that the injured party involved are Albanians, regardless of whether they had been killed or whether their property had been looted or whatever. Since you said that the question and the answer were totally irrelevant now, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I quoted a paragraph from this brief which is an official document and where it says that the police took actions in accordance with the law, treating all citizens equally. I did not put a leading question. I quoted what the document says, and on the basis of that, I put a question to the witness who is sitting here right now, whether the police treated all citizens equally, because I wanted to double-check what is stated in this document is true.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You should have asked the witness, "How did the police treat citizens?" and then he would have answered, perhaps, "They treated all citizens equally."

But it's time for the break. We're well beyond that time. We'll take a break of 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹⁰⁸¹

Q. Colonel, on the next page where we have an analysis of data, we left off at this brief on crimes against Albanians. It says in the area of the secretariat, a total of 208 -- 1.289 crimes were committed, after which 303 against Albanians.

A. 190 with perpetrators unknown, and 104 with known perpetrators.

Q. It says 302 criminal reports were filed, out of which 198 against unknown perpetrators.

MR. NICE: I don't know where the accused is reading from. If he could help us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Where exactly are you, Mr. Milosevic, in the document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am now in tab 2. That is information or a brief on criminal acts committed against Albanians.

JUDGE KWON: Page 3 of tab 2 put on the ELMO. I think it's the first page -- first paragraph of that page.

MR. NICE: And can I --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is an analysis of data, that is the sub-heading.

MR. NICE: And can I suggest if the accused going to take the witness to a paragraph, rather than the accused read out his own summary of it, it would be easier for all of us if he gets the witness to read the paragraph and we can make notes about it ourselves, but it's very hard both to pick up a paragraph in the Cyrillic script and to hear and accept the accused's summary of it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. That's a useful -- ³⁹⁰⁸²

JUDGE KWON: Next page. Yes. That should be 2. I see the number 1.289 there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. That is the page in front of you, Colonel.

A. Yes.

Q. How many criminal reports were filed concerning these criminal acts?

A. That is in paragraph 2 of this -- under this sub-heading. 302 criminal reports were filed, including 198 against unknown perpetrators, 104 against known perpetrators, and 191 reports as supplements to criminal reports after the crimes have been solved and perpetrators identified. That is common. If you file a criminal report against a known perpetrator, the case is eventually solved and an additional report is filed to the Prosecutor.

Q. Explain just one more matter here. In paragraph 1 you say that a total of 303 criminal acts were perpetrated against Albanians, and you said -- you quoted from paragraph 2 that 302 criminal reports were filed, which means that one report was not filed.

A. Yes, because we established that it was a case involving NATO bombing, so no criminal report was filed.

Q. Very well. Out of the total of crimes against Albanians, how many perpetrators were caught on the spot?

A. In the police, we call it catching somebody red handed, and we had 86 such cases caught in the act.

Q. What is the structure of solved cases? ³⁹⁰⁸³

A. 27 terrorism, 14 thefts, 33 aggravated thefts, robberies 9, aggravated robberies 3, and we have 2 crimes that are qualified as causing general threat to safety.

Q. Did you establish -- did you identify the perpetrators in the cases of crimes against Albanians according to their ethnic structure?

A. That is one of the parameters that were of interest to us in our investigations. In 67 per cent of cases, perpetrators were Albanians, Albanians that committed crimes against Albanians, whereas in 23 per cent of cases the perpetrators were Serbs.

You will notice that there is another 10 per cent missing. Those 10 per cent are accounted for by others.

Q. You mean Roma, Muslims, et cetera.

A. We didn't record it because it was of no particular interest.

Q. Did policemen, when they were taking measures to protect citizens and their property during the state of war, arrest any Serbs for committing crimes against Albanians?

A. Policemen arrested all Serbs whom they established to have committed crimes against Albanians. 70 Serbs were placed in detention for committing such crimes against Albanians. Among them was a director of a company who was caught in the act of committing a crime against an Albanian. So we did not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity. Instead, as soon as we identified a perpetrator of a crime, we arrested him or her, these people were brought into custody, and proceedings were initiated against them.

Q. Did you have any criminal proceedings instituted against a member ³⁹⁰⁸⁴ of the police?

A. Yes, there have been such criminal acts. Criminal reports were filed against four regular policemen and three reserve policemen. I can say that these policemen, too, were arrested and placed in detention regardless of the fact that they were policemen. They committed a criminal act, criminal reports were filed, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, I understand you are following this information or report, but for us it's difficult to distinguish what is your comment and what is the report, what is written as the report here. So if you could ask the witness to read the -- the paragraph and then ask question, if any.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was precisely trying, Mr. Kwon, not to indulge in commentary or leading questions but to elicit information from the witness.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Still, Colonel, please read paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 -- no, sorry, let us say fifth paragraph, beginning with "Perpetrators of criminal acts..." and the following couple of paragraphs.

A. "The perpetrators of criminal acts are Albanians in 67 per cent of the cases." That is the fifth paragraph under the sub-heading. "And Serbs in 23 per cent of the cases. Members of the police, while taking measures to protect citizens and their property during the state of war, placed under arrest 70 Serbs for crimes committed against Albanians. This number includes one director of a state-owned enterprise. Four criminal ³⁹⁰⁸⁵ reports were filed against policemen from the regular force and three against policemen from the reserve force."

Q. Why did you make this distinction among the seven policemen who were the subject of criminal reports?

A. We were interested in the structure because reserve policemen are not professional policemen. They are reservists, as we call them. In other words, citizens who had been trained for police work, and as the need arises and upon orders of the minister, they may be engaged for security work for a certain period. So these are not professionals but people who have had some amount of quick training for this kind of work.

Q. What is written in the paragraph that follows?

A. "On the basis of a well-grounded suspicion that these persons have committed criminal acts, members police -- members of the police have turned over to military authorities 75 persons belonging to the reserve force of the army of Yugoslavia, accompanied by an Official Note."

Q. You mean to say that you didn't arrest these people?

A. No. We would find these people wearing uniforms which were not our uniforms. We knew they were not policemen. We would turn them over to the army for them to go on investigating and to establish whether they were their own members, because they needed to be identified.

Q. The next paragraph speaks about attempts of joint action -- read that out.

A. "Attempts at joint activity between the police and the military police did not yield the results that were expected for the reason that military policemen were from the reserve force, insufficiently trained for ³⁹⁰⁸⁶ this kind of work. In addition, this force included individuals whose earlier record indicated criminal conduct. The situation was considerably improved after the arrival of regular units from the military police."

Q. Did that change eventually?

A. After the state of war was proclaimed in the territory of the Pec municipality, military policemen of the reserve force were mobilised, and their commander was also from the reserve force. They initially did not perform very well, because they were sometimes required to act in relation to their own neighbours and they found that difficult. They did this very clumsily. But later, we started working at joint checkpoints, joint patrols, et cetera, and they started functioning much better.

Q. Read on.

A. "There were no cases in which the police released or acquitted criminals or cases where criminals were tolerated. On the contrary, all perpetrators were subjected to appropriate legal measures. The facts speak unequivocally to the fact that the police undertook all legal measures against all criminals regardless of their ethnicity or the unit they belonged to."

In light of arrests made against Serbs, negative comment appeared among the Serbian population to the effect that Serbs were being persecuted during the state of war. The MUP staff in Pristina and the commanding officers of the SUP did not make any orders to enable the perpetration of criminal acts. On the contrary, the orders were to suppress any sort of criminal activity and to undertake urgent measures against perpetrators. ³⁹⁰⁸⁷

Q. About this, I want to ask you, does this refer to Serbs who committed criminal acts?

A. Yes. The citizens thought that they were being unjustly treated. They were being bombed on the one hand, and they were perhaps expecting the police to help them. And then they thought it unfair when we arrested their own neighbours for theft or such things, but we were just doing our work and we were arresting criminals.

I came to Pec from Cacak. Cacak is populated entirely by Serbs. And then I find myself in a totally different environment where things are completely different. In Cacak I would have never had such a problem. So we tried to explain to the population that our action is directed against criminals, regardless of a whether a person is a Serb, an Albanian, a Roma, or other.

Q. Colonel, did you have a single case wherein a Serb who was known to have committed a criminal act was tolerated, released, got off scot-free?

A. No.

Q. Very well. Let's now move on to tab 2.1, which is a review of the crimes against Albanians. Can you give us brief comments, because this is just statistics taken out of the documents.

A. I'll try and place this on the overhead projector.

Q. Right. Let me just ask you this: How many on-site investigations were conducted?

A. In 105 cases on-site investigations were carried out by the police pursuant to authorisation from the investigating judge, 56 by the ³⁹⁰⁸⁸ investigating judge himself, 46 by the organs of the army of Yugoslavia investigating organs, three there, partial on-site investigations in eight cases, and no on-site investigations in 190 cases. The crime documents were compiled for 102 cases.

Q. Thank you, Colonel. Do I need to comment on tab -- or, rather, would you like to comment on tab 2.2, because articles of the Criminal Code are listed, or of the Criminal Code of Serbia in view of the different crimes and the categorisation.

A. I think this is more or less clear if you compare it to the provisions of the Criminal Code and the crimes listed. 62 is terrorism, for example. Article 125 is the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is the crime of terrorism and there are 62 such cases. Then another example, 141 or 2, that was something else. But 46 of the Criminal Code of Serbia is murder, killings, and there were 23 cases of that. Then article 47/19 refers to attempted murder. There were five of those. 53 are bodily injuries. Article 53 refers to bodily injuries of the Criminal Code. 103 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia are sexual crimes and rapes. Then we have a series of crimes against property. 165 is theft. There were 43 of those. Article 166 of the Criminal Code of Serbia was grave aggravated assault. 868 was robbery with violence, et cetera.

Q. Very well. Colonel, in tab 2.3, did you provide a list like the general list in tab 1? Is this a list of the crimes committed against Albanians in the period between the 1st of January, 1998, until the 10th ³⁹⁰⁸⁹ -- until the 10th of June, 1999?

A. Yes. Each chapter, first of all, contains a list, and the list was compiled on the basis of individual threats, basis, that is, and it contains a short description of the case of what happened, and on the basis of this list the tables were compiled because that's statistics as derived from the list, and on the basis of the list and the tables we compiled a brief report that you will find at the beginning of each chapter, and it is the general picture of the conditions under which the work was done, the circumstances of the crime itself, and a brief analysis which the individual encountering the case for the first time gains a general impression of it, of what happened.

So the information or report is a general overview, the tables are statistics, and number 3 is the list with individual incidents and events on the basis of which the other two were compiled. Now, in the archives or, rather, the records of the SUP of Pec, there are cases and files for each of these crimes, acts. Some of them are larger in scope, the document is more lengthy. Others are shorter documents, and depending on what we were able to find.

Q. Very well. So this list was compiled for each of the cases and incidents. We see that they were all against Albanians, Serbs, Romas, police, et cetera, et cetera, so different types. Now, Colonel, can we from these documents that you have provided for us in the tabs, can we see from those the specific examples? And by taking those examples, can we see how each case was dealt with, as you've just explained it to us? That is to say that they are recorded -- the ³⁹⁰⁹⁰ cases are recorded in the SUP of Pec, and you have brought with you just a number of examples, have you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. So here we have a comprehensive or fairly broad examination of the cases for a number of victims. Now, I'm going to ask you, depending on what we find in each of the tabs --

JUDGE KWON: Just a minor --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just take a look.

JUDGE KWON: Just a minor qualification. Tab 2.1 and 2.2 are identical in my binder and the Presiding Judge's. I would like just to check whether it is the case with other people in the courtroom.

MR. NICE: It's identical in ours, so far as I can see.

MR. KAY: Not in ours. We've got up in the top right-hand corner B2/III for 2.1, and 2.2 is B3/III.

MR. NICE: No -- sorry.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, that number differs but the content of the statement is --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I explain? May I explain? B2/III, that is to say tab 2.1, contains a review of the events by the time periods, whereas B3/III, that is tab 2.2, is according to the municipalities, Pec, Istok, Klina. They are collective figures. The collective -- the end figure is the same, the end figures, however the rest is different.

Now, as an example --

JUDGE KWON: I note that. ^{39091 BLANK PAGE 39092}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since you spoke about the different cases, the detailed ones, we have here examples of lists relating to individual cases. We have a case which relates to the killing of Djordja Belic, for example, the killing of Desimir Vasic. So they're two Serbs. Then we come to Alia Rizah, an Albanian.

MR. NICE: I don't know where we're reading from.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just pinpoint the particular document.

MR. NICE: And since the accused has been giving an explanation of the document, he seemed to have been speaking about 2.3 and seemed to be saying, but I may have misunderstood him, that 2.3 wasn't all the supporting document of its category but was a selection. I find that hard to believe it must -- could be right, given that it's apparently a document prepared as part of a report and it has sequential numbers, so I'm completely confused.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough in what I'm asking the witness. We went through tab 2, and the witness said that each of the numbers contained therein are supplemented by the case, whereas the entire file on each of these numbers and cases is to be found at the Secretariat of the Interior of Pec. Now, as we have some cases here, that is to say in tab 20 - so it's no longer tab 2, it's tab 20 now - and some other tabs following that one, and it is in binder number 5 of the seven binders.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So as I was saying, in tab 20, Colonel, in tab 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, ³⁹⁰⁹³ and 20.4, do they contain detailed documents about the killings in this case -- the killing in this case of Belic Djordja? Do you have that binder?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the witness may be provided with the binder to keep in front of him for the time being.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, this relates to the 12th of January, 1998. When you come to the end of this case and you make your closing submissions to the Chamber, what are you going to say that this establishes in relation to this trial?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is what this establishes --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milosevic, please. Microphone for the accused, please. Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, let's clear up one point: If I were to go through all the documents and all the information that the legal organs have at their disposal and in their possession, that would be a vast quantity of documents. Here we have taken documents from the secretariat of Pec, just a number of cases which illustrate the cases that have to do with Albanians and Serbs and from which we can see that an identical -- they were dealt with in an identical way. The police, the investigating organs acted identically when it came to the killing of Albanians and the killing of Serbs. That is why I would like to draw to your attention the fact that we could have had several thousand or at least 1.200 or whatever number of cases when it comes to Albanians, and then just as many when it comes to Serbs and the Roma and policemen, soldiers, and so on and so forth. However, we have taken a set number of ³⁹⁰⁹⁴ cases and incidents by way of example to show you the kinds of cases we had to deal with. For example, Belic Djordja in the tab I said, or Rizah Alia, who was an Albanian -- the first man was a Serb -- or the Kuci Skender case, or the killing of Djuka Adem and Djuka Bakir, they are all Albanians, or the case of Sukaj Cerim, another Albanian, or Vasic Desimir, a Serb. So we have taken a cross-section of cases including both Serbs and Albanians. We also have the killing of six young men in the Panda Cafe, which is contained in several of the tabs.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have to make the same comment as I made earlier: I have difficulty seeing how this will assist me to determine whether criminal acts were committed between the 1st of January and the 20th of June, 1999.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm in the Court's hands as to whether the accused presses on with this, but if he does, I'd be assisted by knowing whether 20.1, which is dated apparently the 12th of January, 1998, is something we should be cross referring to a sub-entry, as it were, in tab 2.3. I have may have completely misunderstood the potential for connection, but in tab 2.3, the nearest I can get to the 12th of January is number 10, which is the 12th or 13th of January, and so far I haven't been able to pick up, I think, the -- the name Belic Djordja. So I'm a little confused as to how these things correlate if at all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] To clarify matters: We're not talking about the links between tabs 2 and 3 and tab 20. What we're talking about is placing the evidence before you that the police and the investigating organs acted identically in cases when -- of Serb killings ³⁹⁰⁹⁵ or Albanian killings. They dealt with the cases in the same way. The same documents were compiled, the same procedure followed, and there was no difference, and this is a number of examples --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, the answer may lie in the fact that 2.3 deals only with cases in which Albanians were victims, and then we have all these other tabs which deal with others. So it may be that this one can be found in another of the summaries, I'm not sure.

MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour, I'm grateful. I've been moving -- I'm grateful and I've been moving towards that inference myself. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Milosevic, let me understand. You say the significance of this evidence is that it shows that the police did not discriminate against Albanians; they treated Albanians and Serbs equally.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Correct. And when it came -- in cases of perpetrators and victims alike. That of course does not relate to the entirety of the testimony but just the tabs that I've quoted. The entirety of the testimony refers to the overall conduct of the police, the alleged accusations of deportation, expulsions, and so on and so forth. But when we're talking about investigations that were conducted pursuant to crimes committed and conduct with the -- towards the perpetrators of those crimes or the victims of those crimes, the police acted in equal fashion both towards the Albanians and the Serbs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And what would you say in answer to Judge Bonomy's query as to why 1998? Is that to show the history, that there was a history of non-discriminatory treatment? ³⁹⁰⁹⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The history of non-discriminatory treatment can exist for decades prior to that, but if you take a look at 1998, for example, when there was no war, the police acted the same way when it came to conducting an investigation of killings as it did during the war. Quite simply, the police has no other way of conducting its investigations and doing its job but acting in accordance with the law governing internal affairs, on the basis of laws and provisions. It acts the same way in wartime and in peacetime when it comes to treating the perpetrators of crimes or the victims of crimes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us try and conclude this part of the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, I believe that these examples speak very tellingly of the facts mentioned by the witness, namely equal treatment of Serbs and Albanians. That is why I ask that you admit these tabs. Tab 20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, include documents related to the killing of Djordja Belic. In tab 21, with all the subtabs, not to read them all out, documents related to the killing of Desimir Vasic. In tab 23 for the killing of Rizah Alia. In tab 28, the killing of Nazif Basota. In tab 33, the killing of Dalibor Lazarevic. In tab 36, 7, 8, 9, et cetera, policemen Radunovic Mirko and Prelevic Dejan. Is this the incident that you referred to yesterday?

A. Yes, yes. What happened in Lloxha.

Q. All right. This tab is related to documenting the claims that the colonel made in relation to what happened in Lloxha. The attack launched by the KLA from Lloxha against the police and against Pec. Then there are ³⁹⁰⁹⁷ documents related to the abduction and killing of Srdjan Perovic and Milorad Rajkovic. That is tab 36.

And further on with the subtabs. Then tab 37 is the killing of Skender Kuci, or rather, Kuci Skender. And 37.1, 37.2, 37.3 --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... notice of it. I notice that, in case the accused wants to make use of it, that there seems to be something in English -- oh, sorry, 36.17, I think, but frankly I'm just unable really to follow what's being advanced here. The Chamber may want to have in mind that even if this material was already translated, the conclusion that the material shows equality of treatment between one ethnic group and another is something that would have to be explained by the witness either from his own knowledge or in some way acting as an expert, and it would not be a conclusion that the Chamber could realistically expect me to deal with in cross-examination without advance notice. So that for several reasons, one piled on the other, this material cannot, in my submission, help the Chamber. Whether there's anything that the accused can elicit from the witness other than just listing the documents to go to make his point is a matter for him. I'm not going to stand in his way. But as things stand, this is just unmanageable material.

JUDGE ROBINSON: At the moment he's listing the documents that he would like us to admit, and so we'll hear that and consider that at the end of the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I hope that both you and Mr. Kwon remember full well how many times I was in this situation ³⁹⁰⁹⁸ that masses of documents were dealt with very rapidly, that a cart would be brought in with bundles and bundles of documents, and I did not raise such objections. After all, the weight of this evidence in terms of what Mr. Nice delivered here is non-existent. So you will have to appreciate all of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just continue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, I will dwell on tab 38. Tab 38 has to do with the killing of two Albanians, Djuka Adem and Djuka Bakir. Please look at tab 38.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 38, we have three tabs, actually, that have to do with the killing of Djuka Adem and Djuka Bakir. First there's a criminal report. In tab 38.1 an Official Note, and in 38.2 information about everything that happened.

Was that customary procedure in terms of establishing who the perpetrators were, and is that the usual treatment of victims?

A. Yes. This is absolutely customary procedure. The criminal report shows how we learned of this event, then the measures taken afterwards are described. That is to say in the early morning hours Shabani Ramo reported to the duty service of SUP Pec by telephone that on the right-hand side of the local road between the village of Trebevic and Pec two bodies were found.

JUDGE BONOMY: Who were the perpetrators in this case?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have a criminal report before us and what we established. We did not find the perpetrators. They have not ³⁹⁰⁹⁹ been found. A great number of perpetrators of such criminal agents have not about found. Perhaps we identified them in police terms, but we could not take any action because they were inaccessible.

JUDGE BONOMY: In these examples that you're presenting to us, do we have any specific cases, the papers for specific cases where a Serb was established to be the perpetrator of the killing of an Albanian?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I have to say that I did not select these documents and bring them here. These documents --

JUDGE BONOMY: Could you just please answer the question I've asked. Mr. Milosevic has a limited amount of time.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot say anything to you off-the-cuff whether such cases are included here or not. I did not make a selection of these cases.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, a few moments ago you said that you did not manage to apprehend the perpetrators. Was it clear here that this was a terrorist attack, that they were the victims of the KLA, these two Albanians?

A. It was absolutely clear to us, but we could not bring into custody the perpetrators because they were not there.

Q. Do you know that these two killed persons had a brother, Xhafer, who they slaughtered after KFOR came?

A. Well, these two were also killed on account of Xhafer Djuka. That's the point.

This family, Djuka, they were what was termed "loyal Albanians." Xhafer Djuka from that family was a high-ranking official in the ³⁹¹⁰⁰ municipality, in the Executive Council of Kosovo and Metohija. They were well known as loyal Albanians, and then the terrorists could not harm him at that point in time, so they killed two members of his family. Later on when they had the occasion, they killed him too.

Q. Xhafer Djuka was a member of the provisional executive council of Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Well, yes, I think that was it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, have you ever been involved in the investigation of a case where a Serb was shown, proved, to have killed an Albanian?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not. I do not recall any such cases, as a matter of fact.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You talk about the territory of the municipality of Pec.

A. Yes.

Q. Rather, the SUP of Pec.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Please, what is contained in tab 40, because there is quite a bit of documentation in tab 40. 40.1, 40.2, 40.3 referring to unidentified corpses at Volujacka Cuka, and that is the basis for this entire case. Please take a look at tab 40. There is also scene of crime investigation documents from the village of Volujak. What do you know about this case contained in tab 40?

A. It was established that the remains of a skull had been found, and some bones, at a location called Volujacka Cuka. The on-site ³⁹¹⁰¹ investigation team went to the crime scene and established that a skull and some bones were found. This was in a pit underneath a rock, about 20 metres deep, and the dimensions were 15 by 10. The remains of five corpses were found there. That was the assumption. Just before that, this locality was under the control of the so-called KLA. After the terrain was deblocked, these remains were found there. The human remains were sent for expertise. The expertise was carried out. The case file was not closed. After that, a state of war followed. The case file has not been closed yet, and just recently members of the UNMIK police continued working on that location, and I managed to read in the newspapers just a few days ago that about 20 corpses were found there.

Q. All right. Is this a Serb mass grave?

A. All the facts on the ground indicate that, but we did not manage to identify the victims. We did not manage to find out who they were by name.

There are several details that indicate that they were Serbs; partly because of their clothing and partly because of some of their bodily characteristics. Albanians and Muslims would be eliminated therefore.

Q. All right. Colonel, please, in order to keep things as brief as possible, we have an entire binder here -- rather, two binders, 5 and 6, containing many documents pertaining to both Serbs and Albanians. They are provided as examples of treatment of criminal acts involving loss of life. And all of this is contained in your information and tables; is ³⁹¹⁰² that right?

A. Yes. And it can be noted with certainty that the procedure applied was equal, equal in each and every particular case. Absolutely the same. These are procedures that cannot be side-stepped or avoided even if somebody wanted to do it.

Q. All right. Before we move on -- I will try to deal with Dubrava immediately, but before we move on to Dubrava, I would like to go back to the first binder again. Tab 2.4 contains information or, rather, a brief about forced deportations of Albanians, their persecution on racial grounds, and taking away their personal documents, their IDs. Colonel, tell me now, how was this brief compiled, this brief entitled "The forced deportations of Albanians, their persecution on racial grounds," et cetera?

A. I already explained that these documents were categorised according to a uniform methodology provided by the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia. One of the chapters here marked as "ch" or "dj," I'm not sure exactly.

Q. "Dj," the letter "dj/III."

A. Forced deportations of Albanians, their persecution on racial grounds and taking away their IDs. The SUP of Pec was entrusted with this assignment.

Q. All right. The ministry asked you to provide all information about forced deportations?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you provided the information you had? ³⁹¹⁰³

A. Yes. We acted accordingly. We compiled all the information we had and wrote this brief.

Q. And now I would like to ask you to read out what it says in this brief of yours. I see that you signed this brief.

A. Yes.

Q. Please. So --

A. The title is "Brief on the forced deportations of Albanians, their persecution on racial grounds, and taking away their identification documents." That is the heading.

The information provided is not correct, and then what follows is what was established. The members of the Verification Mission --

Q. All right. I don't know whether this was translated or not.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't have a translation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Would you want the Colonel to read this out? It's only two pages.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, not all of it. Direct him to particular passages which you consider to be significant.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, you have already explained that you had received a request to provide all the information you had about the deportation of Albanians, the exception of their IDs, et cetera.

A. Yes.

Q. So the conclusion of your secretariat from the people on the ground is that these data are not correct. That is the point?

A. Yes. And then in this brief we go on to explain what we actually ^{39104 BLANK PAGE 39105} knew about this, and that's it.

Q. It says in paragraph 3 from below: "The culmination of all this is the gathering of Albanians in the centre of Pec on the 27th of March, 1999, around 1000 hours, where individuals appealed to people to leave the area of Pec. At the gathering point, they brought their vehicles, buses, trucks, tractors, and freight vehicles. Great crowds formed, and normal traffic was disabled. After the rally had finished, Albanians set off in different directions in vehicles and on foot. These directions were Pec, Kula, Montenegro, or Pec-Decani-Djakovica, in the direction of Albania, or Pec-Pristina for those who were going to Macedonia."

A. Well, in the area where I was located, there was no traffic allowed for buses, tractors or such. In the area where I was, there were no such vehicles, no such traffic. It's possible this happened in some other parts of town.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the passage that you just read, we have it translated that individuals appealed to people to leave the area of Pec. So I wanted to ask Mr. Paponjak, who were these individuals appealing to people to leave Pec?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not know that. I do not even know the Albanian language, and I don't know the people who were talking.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Of what ethnicity were they?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I suppose they were Albanians, because the Albanian language was the only language spoken there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it was Albanians.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Serbs spoke Serbian. Serbian ³⁹¹⁰⁶ was the official language. And generally speaking, a certain number of Serbs knew the Albanian language but mostly Serbian was used as the official language. Some of us didn't know any Albanian at all. I myself know about ten words.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This report was written by you and based on what you saw.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. What I saw I have told you today. I did sign this report, but the report was drafted by the competent team who compiled this whole documentation. I will explain to you the structure.

This team consists of heads of departments. The head of department is something like a manager. We have sections for the uniformed police, for the traffic police, crime investigation police. Maybe I will forget some. We have sections for information, computers, analysis. The chief of the secretariat only signs the report drafted by this team. So I didn't personally write this report. It is my subordinated heads of departments who are professionals in particular lines of work, because somebody has to sign.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you tell us on what information would the, as I understand it, the head of the department who prepared the report, have based the conclusions?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He would do that on the basis of interviews with various people, with various policemen, various civilians, based on operative sources, using all channels that the police normally have for obtaining information. The sources vary in nature. They also ³⁹¹⁰⁷ use Official Notes, official reports, interviews, and all this is cross checked, double checked with operative sources.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, does this mean that within your Secretariat of the Interior when this report was compiled many people were engaged from all sections you have in the secretariat?

A. Absolutely. We engaged the best professionals who were available at that time.

Q. People who were on the spot in Pec at the time.

A. Yes, people who are locals and who are working in the SUP of Pec.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Paponjak, can I take it that the raw materials of this -- for this information is kept in Pec? For example, the interviews these people had with the people at the time.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This raw material, as you termed it perfectly well, is at the secretariat there. This is only a compilation, a summary of all this information.

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

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Can I point out to you that the raw materials of this kind is much more important than the one you presented, which is related to 1998 or something like that, because this is a direct answer to your charges of the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In my mind, this is also material from the ground because it comes from official bodies reporting from the ground on the ongoing events.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You may continue, Mr. Milosevic. ³⁹¹⁰⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Here on page 2 of this brief, it says: "Albanians moved in whichever direction they wanted, and the police did not restrict their movement. The police treated them professionally and correctly."

A. Yes.

Q. This group who filed the report noted this, and you confirmed it.

A. Yes, absolutely.

Q. The next paragraph is very short, only two lines. It says: "It is typical that Albanians departed even from rural areas which the police had not entered for a long time before." I repeat: "It is typical that Albanians left even rural areas which the police had not entered for a long time before."

The coverage of the territory by the police was only 10 to 15 per cent.

A. Correct. This whole area was surrounded for the most part by the KLA. Major settlements for the most part. They were under the absolute control of the KLA.

Q. How can you then explain that Albanians left even the villages which the police had not entered for a long time? They hadn't even shown their faces there for a while. Why did these people go to Macedonia?

A. It may seem illogical to you, but it's perfectly clear to those of us who were there. We all felt safer with them around rather than with them gone. If they go, then we remain as a clear target. If a bomb falls, we will be the only ones to be hit. So we actually wanted them to stay. ³⁹¹⁰⁹

Q. You say in this brief that the police did not restrict their movement, that the police treated them professionally.

A. Well, we couldn't prevent them from going, but we didn't really want them to go because if they leave, the territory would remain not only ethnically pure, it would be professionally pure, because only the police and the army would remain as a clear target. However, we couldn't restrict their movement, and we couldn't prevent them from leaving because we had no right. We would be exposing them to danger and death if we had.

Q. Then it goes on to say that: "In places where Albanians were grouped, the police took measures of security to prevent crimes by individuals or criminal groups, Banjica, Prekale, Djurakovac, Istok municipality; and Glodjane, Pec municipality.

A. We did whatever we could to help them. We provided food and even water in those areas where we had some control. I saw Banjica and Djurakovac with my own eyes and I haven't been to Glodjane, I must say.

Q. It says here in paragraph 6 from the top: "Catholic Albanians did not leave the territory. Instead, they remained where they were, in Glodjane, Pec municipality; Djurakovac, Kos, Drenje, Istok municipality; Zlokucane, Renovac, Leskovac, Budisavci and Stup, Klina municipality. Their priests contacted with the police and required greater police presence or more frequent police presence in areas populated by Catholics in order to prevent the entry of terrorists into the village."

A. Catholic Albanians, and they were the majority population in these areas, in these villages, did not support the so-called KLA in the previous years. There were very few Catholic Albanians who joined the ³⁹¹¹⁰ KLA. And in the previous period, such as 1998, they physically abused and exerted pressure on Catholic Albanians for these reasons. We have supporting documentation for all of this. We have their statements and reports. Not only from Catholic Albanians but also from Muslim Albanians. Now, at this point, these people were still remaining in their villages. They demanded police protection from the terrorists because now, in the state of war, they could only expect greater torture, and the police did provide them with this protection, and so did the army when the army showed up later.

I talked to some people who were there, who had come from Cacak, and they told me that the Catholics, the Catholic Albanians, had welcomed them very cordially because they saw them as allies. And you can find any number of such people in the former Yugoslavia.

Q. Very well, Colonel. In paragraph 4 from below, it says: "In its activities, the police treated all citizens equally. It did not instigate Albanian departures, nor did it carry out any maltreatment or abuse. The police did not search houses, flats, or other premises to force Albanians to leave their homes. It is true that in the preceding period, with a view to suppressing crime, the police acted in a law-abiding way and searched houses and premises of certain criminals regardless of their ethnicity with a view to detecting criminals and incriminating objects. The police did not, however, undertake such activities for at least 30 days prior to the departure of Albanians from the area," which implies that the cause of their departure is not the action of the police.

A. Correct. ³⁹¹¹¹

Q. Because it says here precisely that for at least 30 days --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... combining comment and question. It's not an acceptable mode of proceeding. What is the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well, Colonel. Did the police wish the Albanians to leave that area or not?

A. No. Furthermore, the figure quoted here is 30 days. In actual fact, we hadn't gone anywhere near their homes for perhaps two or three months prior, and I'll explain the reasons.

After the arrival of the Verification Mission, we were required to give advance notice to the Verification Mission of every action we intended to take, and we did so through interpreters. We were stricken by the fact that sometimes we would go into action, go to a house where we knew we had good chances of finding a perpetrator or a weapon, and we would find nothing. And we realised that in some way our information had leaked to the perpetrator, who had enough time to run. So we did not have any success in such cases, because the perpetrators obviously had received some signals. I'm not saying that the verifiers notified the targets of our actions, but there were many other peoples involved, such as interpreters, who were, for the most part, Albanians. Therefore, we gave up this sort of action, and we only proceeded in cases where we received immediate reports of something that had just happened.

Furthermore, we had absolutely no reason to want them to leave. ³⁹¹¹² The police, as well as the army, wanted them to stay because it was in our own interest. One of the basic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the break. We'll take a break now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

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

Q. Just to complete the tab we were dealing with, 2.4. At the end of the information or the report, it says, with respect to what you were saying a moment ago, and I'm quoting the last paragraph on the penultimate page: "It is quite certain that the police and most of the Serb citizens did not wish the Albanians to leave the territory. With their departure, many private firms were closed, the turnover of goods was decreased, and the threat of bombing was greater. In all this, the staffs and the MUP was informed on time and it was stated that legal measures exclusively should be resorted to to secure and protect the people and their property."

So when it says that it was ordered, what does that mean? The orders were received by the MUP and the headquarters; is that right?

A. Yes. Dispatches were sent to us and they were distributed later on and were sent to all the persons involved towards the different departments and then the departments would send them on. So these orders came from the ministry down to the MUP and the headquarters, and all the employees were well-versed in the procedure which was in fact standard ³⁹¹¹³ procedure.

Q. Thank you, Colonel. Now, do you have an idea, since this refers to the mass departure of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, from the beginning of the bombing, do you have any idea and information about how many Serbs left your area, left the area which was your area of responsibility, Central Serbia and into Montenegro or further afield to third countries?

A. I don't have any precise information about that or indeed for Albanians after either, but a large number of Serbs also left. The women and children left, and the elderly left, too, and the Serbs, military-able men, stayed in the territory to protect Kosovo and Metohija and protect their own property as well, and that should the need arise, to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorists storming their houses and exerting violence. And if there were any NATO force aggression on land, to deal with that too.

Q. Thank you. Now, let's dwell for a moment on this -- on the same kind of information that you compiled for Albanians. You said that you compiled reports, and that is found in tab 3, on crimes against Serbs and Montenegrins, that a similar report or the same kind of report was compiled.

A. Yes. That was drafted at a later period. The crimes against Serbs were not incorporated in the first stage. We didn't deal with that. But later on, we were asked to compile that kind of information, that is to say crimes against Serbs, where the Serbs were the injured party, and so we proceeded to compile information of that kind in the second stage of ³⁹¹¹⁴ our work.

Q. All right. Now, could you explain this to us: You were asked to compile a report on damages against Albanians, crimes against Albanians when? When was that? When were you asked to do that?

A. Well, I don't know when that was exactly but it was during the first stage, in the first phase, in related incidents resulting in death and then crimes against Albanians, to the detriment of Albanians, that is, and all the rest of it. Then once we completed that job, then we were asked to look at crimes against Serbs. And that can be clearly seen by the fact that this chapter is B asterisk, so that was added subsequently in the markings.

Q. Right. So you gave priority to crimes against Albanians, and when you completed that task, you looked at crimes against Serbs.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Let's take a look at tab 3.1, now, please. I'm not going to dwell on at that tab for too long. It gives us a review of the registered crimes against Serbs, the number of crimes filed and registered. The total number is 403. Where the perpetrators were known, it was 26 of those cases, and perpetrators unknown in 377 cases. And here the ratio between known and unknown perpetrators, when we come to crimes against Serbs, is, as I can see, less favourable than in the case of Albanians.

A. Yes, that's correct, because the perpetrators were inaccessible to us for the most part and we weren't able to solve the case or throw enough light on the cases. And the structure of the crimes shows you what they were about later on and why, what happened. So 320 crimes pursuant to ³⁹¹¹⁵ Articles 125 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is terrorism. Those acts were committed, and terrorists don't act publicly and openly, nor are they accessible to us, especially not to us in Kosovo and Metohija at that time because they were organised in units and they were just out of reach.

Now, of the 403 crimes committed, 320 were terrorist crimes, crimes of terrorism, and all the rest, the other crimes, were in 83 cases.

Q. All right. So this is to be found in tab 3. Now, tab 4 is the list of crimes against the Roma. Was that compiled and drafted along the same lines, the same methodology used there?

A. Yes, but that was devised even later. That report was compiled much later.

Q. And there, too, we have a very bad ratio between known and unknown perpetrators. That is to say there were many more unknown perpetrators. Out of 55 crimes, in 48 of the cases the crimes were crimes of terrorism; is that right?

A. Yes. The Roma didn't even come to report crimes like that immediately after the crimes had been committed, but later on we learnt about these crimes, so we -- our information about that came subsequently, post festum, after quite some time had gone by; several months or even several years in some cases.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, in these cases, or the statistics you've given us, rather, do they cover all crimes committed in the area either against Serbs in tab 2 or against Roma -- sorry, Serbs in tab 3, is it, and against Roma in tab 4? It's all crimes? ³⁹¹¹⁶

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All crimes are included for which we gained information either by the fact that the injured person came to report them or in the line of duty or from anonymous callers or other sources, operative links or whatever.

JUDGE BONOMY: And they are not confined to crimes allegedly committed by Albanians.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

JUDGE BONOMY: So we will see in there, will we, examples of Serbs being found to be the perpetrators of these crimes, either against Serbs or against Roma?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We even have such examples on the list here. We even have rapes perpetrated by policemen, and that is shown.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. With the crimes you deal with here against Serbs and Montenegrins, did you provide or have you provided -- I can't find it. All we have here is -- well, let me see.

In the report in tab 3 relating to crimes of Serbs and Montenegrins or, rather, against Serbs and Montenegrins, who the perpetrators were ethnically speaking, the ethnic structure of the perpetrators?

A. Yes, and you'll find that on page 2 of the report. ^{39117 BLANK PAGE 39118}

Q. Can you find it for us, please, and quote, quote us some examples.

A. At the beginning of the first page it says 476 perpetrators of crimes were uncovered. In Pec 75, in Istok 60, and in Klina, 341. The largest number of perpetrators uncovered were the members of the so-called KLA, 442 of them, who had committed crimes under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This figure of 442 relates to the perpetrators, not the number of crimes. And the other perpetrators were civilians, 32 of those, and one member of the active or reserve police force. And the ethnic break-up is the following: 454 Albanians and 22 were Serbs and Montenegrins.

MR. NICE: May be my oversight but I'm not following this. I'm not sure --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Of 3, tab 3.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Oh, yes, I've found it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the period from the 20th of June, 1999, to the 1st of June, 2001, only 99 criminal acts were registered, and it is certain that that wasn't the final number because we do not have knowledge of all crimes perpetrated. By simple comparison without any detailed analysis, we arrive at very interesting conclusions on the degree of jeopardy that national communities were under, or ethnic communities were under. Of the 1.282 [as interpreted] crimes committed in the region of the SUP of Pec - and I'll skip the figures how many in Pec, how many in Klina - of the 1.289 crimes committed in the Pec area, 303 were committed against Albanians. That comes under tab B. 403 were committed against ³⁹¹¹⁹ Serbs and Montenegrins; and as to the other crimes, they were crimes against property, either state owned, socially owned, or against those owned by other ethnic groups. With respect to the number of inhabitants, the Albanian community figure in around 85 per cent of the cases, and only 23 per cent of those are crimes committed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That will do, thank you. But I don't think I have to emphasise, Mr. Robinson, that I would like to have these exhibits admitted into evidence. They have been done very systematically, and each of these documents contains a list of the crimes committed with the names of the perpetrators and are therefore official documents which have been signed and stamped.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's a pity that that question wasn't actually answered. The question was the ethnic make-up or composition of the perpetrators. I don't think you dealt with that at all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought that the question had been answered.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 476 perpetrators were uncovered, of crimes. That is stated at the top of the page, first paragraph. 75 in Pec, 60 in Istok, and Klina, 341. The largest number of criminal perpetrators were belonging -- belonged to the KLA, 424, who had committed crimes under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Yugoslavia, and the other perpetrators were civilians, 32 of those, and one member of the active or reserve police force. And the ethnic structure was as follows --

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... all right.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The ethnic structure was as follows: ³⁹¹²⁰ 454 were Albanians, and 22 were Serbs and Montenegrins.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Thank you, Colonel. Now, do you have similar information for crimes against the Roma?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Who were the perpetrators and the ethnic structure of them?

A. There were even less Serbs and Montenegrins in crimes against Roma. For the most part the perpetrators were Albanians.

Q. And following the same methodology, you compiled a document that is found in tab 5, a list of terrorist acts against the police force, members of the police. And a list is provided there of all the crimes committed where the subject of attack were policemen.

A. Yes, that's right. But let me explain that that wasn't done pursuant to orders from MUP. That was done pursuant to my own orders, at my request, because I was interested in having all the attacks against the police compiled in one document, in one place. And I don't think that you'll find information like that in other secretariats. If the chief of SUP wasn't interested in things like that, then you won't find them there.

Q. All right. Now, information about all the previous tabs must exist in other SUP archives too.

A. Yes. And in the Ministry of the Interior, a copy of all these files and cases and documents, a complete dossier, a complete file for Kosovo and Metohija, a general one exists at the ministry which is a collection of all the files of the individual Secretariats of the Interior ³⁹¹²¹ in Kosovo and Metohija, and in each secretariat you will have the files for that particular area.

Q. Thank you, Colonel. Now, in tab 6, you provided with us a document which relates to abducted persons and missing persons as of the 1st of January, 1998.

A. Yes.

Q. And then you have 6.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So it's very comprehensive. Could you tell us, please, just briefly, about these documents relating to abducted and missing persons.

A. This area of our work and expertise will be something that will have -- will be ongoing for a long time to come, because there are many people who have been listed as missing, Serbs and Albanians alike, whose fate we don't know about. The Ministry of the Interior or, rather, at the level of the federal organs, it's difficult for me to keep track of all the names of the different states and communities, the community of Serbia and Montenegro, there there's a commission set up for persons missing, and there's a commission like that in Kosovo and Metohija. Now we have started to pool our efforts in that respect and work together. And all the events that took place in 1998 and 1999, a lot of people went missing of all ethnic groups; both Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Roma, et cetera.

The largest number of abductions, if not all of the abductions, are a form of terrorist activity on the part of the Albanian extremists, and their goal was to instil fear and insecurity in the population, to create a mood in which nobody could see their future in Kosovo and ³⁹¹²² Metohija. Also, their movements were limited. Morale was low, to lower the morale of the citizens and the police. And they wanted many Albanians to join the KLA and to set aside resources to fund the KLA.

MR. NICE: The witness is now giving the most general conclusions. We've already established that their reports are based on the work of others, not on his own work. It may be helpful to know that, rather than having to return to all these points in cross-examination, that when he says things like this he's speaking from his own experience, and if so what, or alternatively, on the basis of others. I can't see it obviously in the reports.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm minded to say, Mr. Nice --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... cross-examination, but I'll ask the witness: The information you just gave, is that based on your own knowledge or did you gather that from other sources?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Part of this comes from my own knowledge, and another part was compiled on the basis of documents analysed, such as the report on the missing persons. Under this there are specific case files. Part of this is the result of the work of the working group. I was part of that working group, and certainly I had a contribution to the work of the working group as well as other team members who provided their own contributions. And included is the material also from specific case files. This report does not reflect the personal position of any particular individual. It is the result of work ³⁹¹²³ of the working group, consisting of professionals who had specific case files to work with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have said, Mr. Paponjak, that the goal of the KLA, the extremists, was to instil fear and insecurity, but I had gathered that their main goal was independence.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the ultimate goal. But the objective of abductions of which I have just spoken, they worked along many lines, but I was just trying to explain why they abducted people. If you have an area from which both Serbs and Albanians and Roma and others are disappearing, vanishing into thin air and nobody knows what happened to them, a general feeling of insecurity is created. People do not dare to leave their homes. For instance, they announce that after 1400 hours, children coming from school will be abducted. So people don't send children to school and they lock themselves up in their homes. This is the general atmosphere of fear created.

And after that, precisely for this reason, many Serbs and many Albanians left Kosovo altogether. I know this because even my own policemen, my own subordinates, as far as back as 1998, asked me for leave in order to take their families away. I don't know what else I can tell you about this.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] At the very beginning, we established that this witness is testifying both on the basis of his direct knowledge and on the basis of facts and documents that were ³⁹¹²⁴ available to him ex officio in the position in which he occupied. So if we have before us the chief of the Secretariat of the Interior, which covers several municipalities, it is his duty to have information coming from the entire area. He is in his job receiving reports, receiving information, and in certain instances he was personally present when certain incidents took place, such as the day when masses of citizens flooded the centre of Pec. But he is also presenting to you the work product of teams of policemen who are working under his leadership.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know in which other way I could present this evidence. He, as the leader of this team and direct participant in the work, is testifying to the work product.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think Mr. Nice's concern was to ascertain how he gathered that specific piece of information, and he has answered, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This part about abductions we have clarified enough, I hope. In tab 7, you have information about events related to and the consequences of NATO bombing in the territory of SUP Pec from the 23rd of March to the 10th of June, 1999.

This document enumerates all these incidents. Does it cover all the incidents, in fact?

A. Yes. Correct. This information was compiled according to the same methodology. It contains the textual part as well as tables and a list of all the incidents that occurred as a result of NATO bombing on the ³⁹¹²⁵ territory of our secretariat.

In the area of the Secretariat of the Interior of Pec, the NATO alliance made a total of 97 airstrikes; 47 in Pec, 31 in Klina, and 19 in Istok. These airstrikes were made at different hours, with a surprise effect; 74 in daytime, 23 in night-time. All of these incidents caused deaths, casualties, created fear and concern among the citizens for their own lives and property, mass departure of all the citizens, including Albanians, and restricted the movements of all citizens. Targets of bombing: 36 military --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please say from what he's reading, give us a reference.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. From the data you are reading, we see that there were more civilian targets that were bombed than military targets.

A. Correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: From what are you reading? Is it a document which we have or another? Is it tab 7? Tab 7.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is tab 7.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Brief on incidents related to and consequences of NATO bombing on the territory of the secretariat of Pec." It is marked J/III. It is now on the ELMO as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Robinson, bear in mind ³⁹¹²⁶ that I want this entire tab exhibited, obviously because we have no time to go into all the details. I heard when the witness mentioned the number of airstrikes, and I just asked him whether there were more civilian or military police targets, and the answer was that there were more civilian targets hit.

I therefore submit the request that this tab be exhibited, among others, because it also relates to official documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm becoming concerned now about the length of your examination-in-chief. You had scheduled this witness for five hours, but we have gone well beyond that. This is the end of the second day. You will conclude -- you will conclude --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Quite correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- your examination-in-chief today.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think so. I am also concerned that it's taking long, but unfortunately there is a lot of material. However, this material could be the subject of testimony of 20 or 30 witnesses, so by dealing with it in this way, I'm actually saving time, especially when it comes to official documents that provide direct insight into the facts testified to by this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... conducted it in that way. Nonetheless, let's move on.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, in tab 8, we have information about airstrikes by the NATO on the correctional centre of Dubrava in Istok. This is a brief on ³⁹¹²⁷ the airstrikes effected on the 19th, 21st, and 24th of May, 1999. And the title goes on to say, "... causing death and great material damage." This is tab number 8, and I kindly request that we take just a brief look at it.

So, Colonel, where exactly is this correctional centre?

A. The Dubrava correctional centre is in the village of Dubrava, east of Istok, three or four kilometres away.

Q. We will just deal with a few brief questions. How many prisoners were there in May 1999?

A. The precise figure is 1.004.

Q. What type of prisoners were there?

A. Persons who were arrested, detained, charged, or convicted for the most grievous crimes committed in that period; terrorism, association for the purpose of engaging in hostile activity, murders, and other grave crimes.

Q. Well, where were the prisoners accommodated?

A. In pavilions, the so-called residential pavilions, within the perimeter of the detention centre, the correctional centre, which is fenced in by a wall.

Q. In other words, just like a prison.

A. It has an open part and a closed-in part, but all the prisoners were in the fenced-in part.

Q. Very well. Did this correctional centre have security provided by the MUP, by policemen?

A. Policemen did not guard this correctional centre because the ³⁹¹²⁸ security and the enforcement of prison sentences is in the competence of the Ministry of Justice. However, the Ministry of the Interior kept the correctional centre under close attention in view of the fact that it contained a lot of persons who were of great interest to us, from the security point of view, as well as a great number of terrorists. And we thought that in the circumstances of the NATO aggression and the bombing, they might try to break out and release their own people, or the terrorists might attack in order to release their own people. So we conducted surveillance to see if there were any movements of terrorists toward the prison to release their own members.

Q. I understand that, but my question was actually geared to find out whether the police were guarding the prisoners or did the prison have its own security guards who were under -- who were in the employment of the Ministry of Justice?

A. The latter.

Q. And you did not have access to the inside of the prison?

A. No, we didn't.

Q. Do you have any direct knowledge about the events that happened at the Dubrava prison from the 19th to the 24th of May? Do you have direct knowledge? That's my question.

A. I have direct, firsthand knowledge, because in certain instances during those days I was on the spot at the correctional centre of Dubrava. For instance, on the 19th of May.

Q. When did NATO make its first airstrike on the Dubrava prison?

A. The 19th of May. ³⁹¹²⁹

Q. You mean the day when you were there. Did you arrive just after the airstrike or were you there during the airstrike?

A. I arrived as soon as I found out about the airstrike, together with some other policemen. We came in order to take all the steps that it was our duty to take, and we proceeded accordingly.

Q. That is consistent with what you told us earlier about police procedure in case of airstrike; you would immediately go on the site, and you did the same in this case?

A. We did.

Q. How many persons were killed on that first occasion, during the first airstrike on the 19th of May?

A. Three convicts. Three convicts whom we identified; Abdulah Tahiri --

Q. Don't read any names now. We won't go into detail. On that occasion you identified three casualties. Is it possible that there were more casualties on that first day?

A. It was not impossible to establish the exact number that first day.

Q. How many persons were wounded that day that you established?

A. Five; two guards and three convicts, three inmates.

Q. Were they given medical assistance?

A. They were first taken to the medical centre in Istok, and after that, to the hospital in Pec.

Q. We are now talking only about the 19th of May.

A. Yes, between 1400 and 1500 hours on the 19th of May. ^{39130 BLANK PAGE 39131}

Q. Was there any on-site investigation then?

A. Yes. It was done that day.

Q. Who did the on-site investigation, and who attended it?

A. Since this event was immediately notified to all the competent authorities, the investigating judge from Pec failed to come, but the investigating judge from the district court in Pec came and the president of the district court came.

Q. Was there any video and audio recording?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did that?

A. Stills and video recordings were made by scene-of-crime officers of the police section of the SUP Pec.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to tender a recording from tab 50. That is only the part that refers to the 19th of May. I hope that Professor Rakic has made all the arrangements for this recording to be played, and after that I would like the witness to comment. After that commentary, we will see recordings from the 21st of May and another clip from the 24th of May.

MR. NICE: Unless the accused has made arrangements to reduce the time that these videos take, I think they're about two hours altogether.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that so, Mr. Milosevic? Is the length of this video two hours?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The total length is 1 hour, 50 minutes, Mr. Robinson, but I wished to ask them to be played in fast forward, because that is a possibility. Plus, we have a transcript which ³⁹¹³² has been provided to the interpreters --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this a video of?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This video, as the witness just explained, is part of the official documentation from the on-site investigation. Would you please bear in mind here that Mr. Nice had brought several witnesses speaking to the same event, the event in Dubrava, and spoke about it completely inaccurately. This video recording could replace many witnesses, and I hope you understand it relates to a specific charge in the indictment, that is para 66(k).

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I know 66(k), but I don't understand why I have to suffer a video of one hour.

I'll consult with my colleagues.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just before you confer, please. I also had a problem of time. This recording, when fast forwarded, shows quite enough, although without sound. And when it's fast forwarded, you can see it all within 12 minutes, and you can see the ruins, the debris, people buried under the debris, their hands and feet sticking out. You can see the effect of the bombing, the casualties, people killed. And the recording, once it becomes an exhibit, is available to anybody who wants to see it later. It is, however, a recording made directly on the spot during the on-site investigation. It is not a photo montage. That is its precise value.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the videotape will establish, in addition to the testimony of this witness, and I hope the testimony of ³⁹¹³³ other witnesses, too, that what it says here in this charge, in paragraph (k), is incorrect, because, Mr. Robinson, what has been written here is this, that hundreds of prisoners were taken out and executed by some sort of forces who were there, and you will be able to see from the documents and the facts that there was large-scale bombing, that people were killed as a result of the bombing, and that what it says, therefore, in the indictment is absurd, is an absurdity.

And I would just like to ask you to bear in mind one thing: A moment ago the witness said that there were 1.000 prisoners. There is material evidence showing that over 750 were evacuated into another prison, that several dozen were hospitalised who were wounded, that almost a hundred were killed. Now, imagine, Mr. Robinson, somebody executing a thousand prisoners and then taking the wounded and injured to the hospital and 80 per cent sent to other prisons, et cetera, et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. The question which I asked which is not in the transcript was what will be established by the video that is not otherwise established, and it is to that that Mr. Milosevic replied. I'll consult with my colleagues.

JUDGE KWON: If you could assist us further. The indictment against you alleges that killing happened on 22nd and 23rd, but this video refers to 19th. So what can be established by this video in relation to the indictment charges?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, what can be established is this: That the allegations in the indictment are not correct, because from the videotape you can see that there was bombing on the 19th and that ³⁹¹³⁴ there were dead already on the 19th, and there you have a videotape which relates to the 21st of May, which was filmed on 21st of May where you can see likewise the consequences. And then there's another tape made on the 24th of May, and the tape is always -- you always film after the bombing. The bombing went on from the 19th, I think, to the 24th or 25th, for several days, successive days.

JUDGE KWON: But either video does not say anything whether there was a killing on 22nd and 23rd. Is it right?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, of the course it speaks about killings, we can see that the killings resulted as the NATO bombing of the prison whereas something quite different, quite absurd, is being alleged here in the indictment.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Fast forward, 12 minutes, so we'll finish just before the break.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. But with the proviso that we don't see all 12 minutes at once, that we can take a look at the 19th of May, first and have the witness tell us something about that, because he was there on that day, immediately after the attack. He left after it. And then we can take a look at the 21st of May and the third part afterwards, the 24th of May one.

So the filming always take place after the event. There is an investigation, and then the tape, the footage, is part of the investigative process and documents.

[Trial Chamber confers] ³⁹¹³⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's have the tape played, please.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can clearly see the date there, it is 16.03, 19.5.1999. 16.03 is the time. That's on the 19th. You can see enormous holes, apertures on the roofs of buildings, the rubble, the debris. All the windows were blasted. There's smoke coming out of the building and the one opposite. All that is the 19th.

You can see the traces of shrapnel, of bombs that exploded in front. That's quite obvious too.

And these are the prison premises. You can see the bars. The pavilions with the prisoners were directly hit.

The staircase and stairwell is destroyed. That is footage of the unfortunate people.

In this indictment, the man who can be seen here was allegedly executed by the police.

He's missing half his head. You can see the knee protruding of one of the other people buried under the rubble. There's part of an arm here, or hand, of one of the other unfortunate people. You can see the dormitories.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With this fast forward we seem to be losing quite a lot of the important elements. We don't have the volume, sound, and what we have been talking about, the fleeing of the prisoners ³⁹¹³⁶ from the premises and the way in which they were doing this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes. You can see that they tried to break down the door in their panic during the bombing.

A. That's right. And as I know this videotape, the soundtrack says how they tried to do this, and the crime technicians tried to show that. They used crowbars.

Q. You can see the crowbars here, the levers and the forced door.

A. I hope that at least that portion has been translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Corpses once again. Take a look at this. This person is missing a head.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Faster forward. There is nothing gained from showing us these ghastly pictures.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is part of a bomb. You can see the serial number even here.

MR. NICE: The Chamber will probably recall and might be assisted to be reminded that of course there is no challenge to the fact that there was NATO bombing both on the 19th and the 21st of May, and I can provide details of the number of sorties and the number of bombs, if asked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: The number of casualties would be different.

MR. NICE: Yes. That's a matter of evidence, because after all -- well, it's all a matter of evidence, but information as to the number of -- the dates and number of sorties and number of bombs comes from NATO and it's not -- it's still a matter of evidence but it's somewhat clearer than ³⁹¹³⁷ -- clear evidence, if you want it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, gentlemen, would you please bear in mind the fact that in attachment J, Schedule J, as it says in paragraph (k), you have a list of those allegedly executed, and there are 26 on that list. Our organs established over 90 killed in the bombing in Istok.

And we're now going to follow that up.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, can you just give us your brief comments of the footage we've just seen.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic. There are several matters. One is a question -- the first one is a question of timing, because we have to adjourn now. And when we resume, I'd like to have specific questions put to the witness rather than to ask him to comment generally. Specific questions about the matters that are at issue.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have another matter scheduled for hearing tomorrow morning starting at 9.00, but the parties are to be ready --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That was yesterday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- the parties are to be here in the event that we are able to start this case at 10.00. So the parties should be here in readiness to recommence the hearing at 10.00. There is no certainty that this will take place, but the parties are to be here and to stand in readiness.

We are adjourned until tomorrow. ³⁹¹³⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is it certain that we won't begin before 10.00? Is that a certainty?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That may not be -- that may not be a certainty. But you don't need to be here until 10.00.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m. sine die.