³⁹¹³⁹

Friday, 6 May 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 12.48 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Bonomy, being absent, Judge Kwon and I sit pursuant to the provisions of Rule 15 bis.

Mr. Paponjak, you remain subject to the declaration you made. And Mr. Milosevic, you may begin.

WITNESS: RADOVAN PAPONJAK [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

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

Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Colonel.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Yesterday, towards the end of the working day, we were looking at a tape, a video recording within an investigation, and it was filmed on the 19th of May.

A. Yes.

Q. You have already told us that that day, immediately after the bombing, you arrived as fast as possible on site, on the location.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Did you see anything characteristic on the footage, the footage we looked at filmed on the 15th -- the 19th of May? Is that what you saw when you were there, when you arrived on site? We can see that some of ³⁹¹⁴⁰ the pavilions had been destroyed. We saw smoke coming out of the building. We saw the rubble and the debris and bodies buried under it. Is that an authentic film of what you saw that day, what you came upon?

A. Yes. This is authentic. The film was taken by the crime technicians of the SUP of Pec when they carried out an on-site investigation on that day in the afternoon. I myself didn't see all the details when I went on site, all the details that I saw on the footage, because I didn't go inside all the buildings. But I did see the ruins that I saw on the videotape, and I also saw parts of those buildings. And I went into some of those buildings, into parts of them. I went into the administration building, for instance, and into something that was called the barracks for the shifts. And the -- when I saw the office of the warden of the prison, that was completely destroyed, and there were holes in the wall. The wall had been broken through, and the entire floor and all the tables and chairs were covered in debris, parts of plaster falling off the wall and so on.

As to the other details in the various pavilions, which is where the prisoners were put up, I didn't see them when I visited, but I saw them on the film.

I am sorry that yesterday we weren't able to see some of the details which I consider to be very important, vital. The technicians filmed some parts, some footage that we didn't view here last time, and that footage relates to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Paponjak, thank you very much. Mr. Milosevic, please direct a question to the witness. I don't ³⁹¹⁴¹ like at all these long narratives. Ask a specific question and get an answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, I'd like to ask you to be as brief as possible in your responses to my questions. Now, what do those parts of the videotape that we saw where we saw that the doors had been blasted off or, rather, broken into, and we saw the general panic of the prisoners during the bombing, that they tried to break down the doors from inside to escape.

A. Well, that was precisely it. And the technicians filmed this in detail, the manner in which the prisoners tried to leave the premises and succeeded in doing so. They forced open the door from the inside for them to be able to go outside, probably because they were afraid of the bombings. I didn't have the impression that they were trying to escape from prison; they were trying to save themselves from the bombs that would fall.

Q. Did you see the legs of the beds and various other objects that were used as levers and crowbars to break down the door?

A. Yes, that's it. It's described there, but we weren't able to see or hear it, although on the tape you can hear this and it shows it.

Q. Now, was it possible to complete the on-site investigation on that particular day, the 19th of May?

A. We did what we could under the circumstances during that one day, and the situation was fairly chaotic, and we expected to perhaps go back there and repeat the process. So we worked hastily, and I think that we ³⁹¹⁴² got through our job as best as could be expected under the circumstances.

Q. All right. Thank you. Now, do you know when the second attack started?

A. The second attack started on the 21st of May, as far as I know. Of course, there are detailed reports that we compiled, but off the bat I think it was the 21st of May, yes.

Q. And tell me whether there was an on-site investigation fully completed on the 21st of May.

A. No.

Q. Who conducted the 21st of May on-site investigation?

A. That was done by the investigating judge from the district court in Pec, and the team from the SUP of Pec as well.

Q. All right. Now, Colonel, what we find in tab 8, and the document is entitled Information or Brief on air attacks -- "Airstrikes of the NATO alliance on the penal and correctional centre of Dubrava at Istok on the 19th, 21st and 24th of May 1999, which resulted in fatalities and substantial material damage." That is the full title of the report which was compiled by your Secretariat of the Interior; is that right? Would you take a look at the document, please.

A. Yes, that's the document. This document was filed at the Secretariat of the Interior of Pec after it was dislocated. So that means that it was drafted in actual fact in Kragujevac.

Q. This report, is it based on all the investigative documents, the videotape and the reports of the investigating judge?

A. Yes, and based on the statements of eyewitnesses as well, given to ³⁹¹⁴³ the authorities.

Q. In the last paragraph on page 1, it says that the second NATO airstrike - and this is linked to the question that I asked you - "was on the 21st of May, 1991 [sic], from 0820 hours to 1020 hours, with multiple airstrikes, dropping 20 bombs of great destructive power."

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And mention is made here that the deputy warden was killed in the attack and a member of the federal parliament as well, the federal parliament deputy.

A. Yes. Nexhmedin Kalicanaj is his name.

Q. Right. Nexhmedin Kalicanaj. Was he an Albanian?

A. Yes, he was. He was an Albanian. He was a federal deputy in the federal parliament.

Q. Of Yugoslavia, you mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. And then it goes on to say, and this is something I wanted to ask you about, it says that six persons -- "Six seriously wounded convicts were hospitalised at the General hospital in Pec."

A. That's right.

Q. And an employee, a lady by the name of Tanja Repanovic was also wounded. She was an employee of the prison.

Q. And how many people were killed during that attack?

A. We weren't able to establish that that particular day.

Q. But there was a lot of destruction; right?

A. Right. ³⁹¹⁴⁴

Q. And we could see that during the first airstrike on the 19th of May there was a lot of destruction, but if we compare that to the 19th of May, then this second bombing was far stronger with far more destructive power and almost all the buildings were destroyed, which wasn't the case on the 19th of May during the first attack, and you can see that clearly on the tape, on the footage.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may we now have the second portion of the tape played, which was filmed on the 21st of May during the second attack that the witness has just mentioned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How long is this portion?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This tape lasts a total of six minutes, 20 seconds, but if we play fast forward, it will take about a minute and a half, not even that long. A minute, I'd say.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let it be played.

[Videotape played]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can see the date, the 21st of May, at 11.56. The bombing lasted from 8.20 to 10.20.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pay attention to the prisoners there.

This is clear, shrapnel damage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: When was this tape made, Mr. Paponjak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This tape was made on the 21st of May, 1999, on the spot, on the site.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The same day as the attack.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. After the attack. On ³⁹¹⁴⁵ the 21st of May, 1999.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who made it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The tape was filmed by the crime technician of the department of the crime police of the SUP of Pec.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to say how long after the airstrike it was made?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you can see that on the tape. You see the time recorded when this footage was made. I can't tell you now, but if we analyse it, it's easy to establish. We are in -- at a disadvantage here because we're playing the whole footage fast forward.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It says exactly in the report on page 2 the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In the report itself, you can see that the air attack started at 0820 hours and went on until 1020 hours, and the on-site investigation was started, as we can see once again from the report, at 1245 hours, the on-site investigation itself with the presence of the investigating judge. The police had to go out on-site earlier on because that is customary. The police arrives on site first, and then the judge arrives later, because the police is able to get there faster.

It says here on page 2 of the report that new air attacks were carried out and the on-site investigation had been interrupted at 1400 hours. And then it says that the Investigating Judge Bojic, sustained light injuries, it says, and that around 20 missiles were fired in those raids. ³⁹¹⁴⁶

A. Yes.

Q. And then it says on that same day from 1700 to 1805 hours and then from 2310 hours over 40 missiles were fired in a continued airstrike. Was that the most widespread bombing that day?

A. Yes, and this observation as to the light injuries sustained by the judge is probably not correct from the medical aspects, but it was a shoulder bone, a clavicle bone fracture, and that is why we put light injury, although the judge wasn't able to work after that, and he wasn't able to move around. I saw him on that particular day. So perhaps it would be classified differently.

Q. Here it says on the following day, the 22nd, at 0610 hours, that there was an attack with several missiles and that the hospital was hit, which is in the KPZ compound, and that the boiler room, the motel, the administration building, the motor pool, and almost the entire infrastructure were destroyed on that occasion.

A. Yes, that was established by the people that went on site on the 21st. They know what was destroyed then. And then later on when they went on site they knew what the damage that was done subsequently was.

Q. Very well. Then we have another piece of information. In the penultimate paragraph of the report, it says on the 23rd of May 1999 NATO aircraft flew over the KPZ area. Consequently, there were no security conditions to take measures to rescue and evacuate the inmates or to conduct investigations, which means that the following day they flew over the area but didn't target it on that particular day, the 23rd of May, but because of that you weren't able to continue your investigation, were you? ³⁹¹⁴⁷

A. No, we weren't, and it was very difficult for us to ask anybody to approach the area, because the people had survived the attack, the investigating judge was injured in the attack, much of the shrapnel was flying through the air and so on, and it was difficult to expect anybody to go on site next day while the planes were still flying overhead.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Was it the same set of buildings that were damaged or attacked and damaged on the 21st as on the 19th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a set of buildings with a fence around them, and there are a few buildings outside the walls, outside the fence. I saw on the first day that at the entrance the building was damaged, and then the so-called barracks of the guard is the next building. I saw that.

On the following days, other buildings were damaged within the walls. So on the 19th, some were damaged. On the 21st, a number of other ones and others that were more seriously damaged. And then after that, when the teams came on the 24th and the 25th, they saw that even those that had not been damaged on the 21st had been damaged then. So you could follow in stages how the facility was systematically destroyed, and that can be seen clearly from this tape.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Paponjak, staying at the same paragraph, you said that on 22nd there was a NATO airstrike and several missiles were fired, and on 23rd NATO aircraft flew over the KPZ area. Where did you base this conclusion? Does it mean that on 22nd and 23rd did the investigating team remain in the compound? ³⁹¹⁴⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it did not remain. But on the 21st they established what had been damaged on that day. And when they came on the 24th, they saw what else had been damaged in addition to what they had seen previously on the 21st.

It is on the basis of that that they came to the conclusion that the boiler room, motel, administration building, motor pool, et cetera, were destroyed later because this was not destroyed on the 21st when they came before that. I don't know how else I can explain this. If this glass is on this desk today and if I come two days later and if I see it on the floor, broken, I will have to conclude that it was broken after I left, within those two days before I came back again. And there is no other way this could have been done. It was only due to the bombing.

JUDGE KWON: How do you know that it was done by NATO bombing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because it could be heard that bombs were falling in that area. That's three kilometres away from Istok.

JUDGE KWON: My question is as to the source of your information. You said the investigation team didn't remain in the detention unit, and then still you are saying that there was NATO bombing. From whom did you hear that, or what is your basis of your report? That was my question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 24th of May, SUP teams came to the site yet again, and they established what it was that they found on site. The situation they found then was considerably different from what the situation was on the 21st.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹¹⁴⁹

Q. Colonel, they were on the 21st -- they were there on the 21st too. Now you're talking about what happened between the 21st and the 24th.

A. Yes.

Q. Please take a look at this. Tab 46, please. You have documents --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, are we going to leave the tab 8 now, or are you going to come back to it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 8 is information from the police, whereas tab 46 is what fits in with the information from tab 8. So for the purposes of this particular examination, it is one entity, Mr. Kwon. 46 is the minutes of the on-site investigation dated the 21st of May.

Could you please put this record of the on-site investigation from tab 46 on the overhead projector, and could we deal with it briefly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In the record of the on-site investigation, on page 1, it says: "The duty on-site investigation team of the Pec district court and Investigating Judge Vladan S. Bojic on the 21st of May, 1999, at 1245 hours went to the scene --" That's exactly the same time mentioned in the SUP record, that the investigation started at 12.45. That is the third paragraph in tab 8, the third paragraph on tab 1, and it says the Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic started the on-site investigation at 12.45.

There is another sentence in tab 8 that I have not read out in the third paragraph. "The on-site investigation was attended by dozens of ³⁹¹⁵⁰ foreign and Yugoslav journalists." So at the time when the on-site investigation was carried out on the 21st of May, tens of journalists from home and abroad were present.

Is that the information that you have, too, Colonel?

A. Yes.

Q. According to the information I have here, journalists were present on the 21st and on the 24th.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. In this record of the on-site investigation, it says that on the basis of information provided by the MUP, the time was established when the bombing took place, from 8.20 until 10.20, because the investigating judge came at 12.45. He said then that a certain number of persons were the casualties of this, and that great material damage was sustained. He also mentioned that Zoran Stankovic, forensic inspector, and two forensic technicians, Ilincic and Ristovic, were present in addition to the judge.

Was one of these technicians the person who was taping this event?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. At the end of this first chapter, number one is description of the scene, items and traces, he says: "According to the police report, the site was secured immediately after the bombing ceased at 1030 hours, and nothing was altered prior to the beginning of the on-site investigation. The following seriously and slightly wounded were evacuated for hospitalisation," and then those persons are mentioned, those who were evacuated. ³⁹¹⁵¹ And at the end of that paragraph, it says: "20 high impact aerial missiles were fired. An unknown number of prisoners were also wounded in these operations."

We are not going to dwell on the description of the area itself, but he, too, says in this record of the on-site investigation that dozens of representatives of the media were present, and they left the site in several vehicles afterwards.

A. Later on, there were some stories around that, why the journalists left in such haste. Our conclusion was that they hastily departed in order to report as soon as possible.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please speak one at a time, note the interpreters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So they were not afraid of the bombing --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you look at the transcript, you'll see that the interpreters are asking you to speak more slowly. Please observe a pause, both of you, between question and answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall do that, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please look at the last paragraph of this record. It says: "From the walls of the compound that are now in ruins, frequent cries for help can be heard. The guards of the correction facility who survived the relentless bombing seem very upset and afraid. The objective is to relocate the casualties whose body parts could be seen under the ruins. During a conversation with the KPZ warden in an improvised tent, the ³⁹¹⁵² bombing started again. The on-site investigation was stopped." So on that day, the 21st, the investigation was stopped?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And then on page 2 there is a heading "Continuation of on-site investigation," and then the explanation is provided for this, that the same on-site investigation team again on the 24th of May, 1999, with the Pec deputy public prosecutor, Slobodan Radovic, to the scene and continued the on-site investigation.

A. That's what I was saying. What was established previously and what was established then, and it's on the basis of the difference that it was established what happened in the meantime.

Q. "The terrible consequences of several days of bombing revealed -- were revealed during the visit. In the prison canteen there was the awful site of dozens of dead prisoners. There was an opening, several metres in diameter, in the ceiling and roof of the canteen, through which sky could be seen. Parts of aerial bombs could be seen in the grassed areas and were removed from the scene by forensic technicians." Did you see this on the recording? Even the markings can be seen on the bombs and the numbers of the bombs.

A. Well, we've been deprived of a lot of information because the tape was fast forwarded.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I bear in mind the fact that the entire video footage of one hour, 50 minutes was tendered into evidence. So whoever wishes to view it can do so, and you will also have occasion to view it in greater detail, and now with your approval, it ^{39153 BLANK PAGE 39154} was just fast forwarded.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that is so.

JUDGE KWON: I'd like to intervene once again. This tab 46, is it a comprehensive report written by the investigating judge who conducted the on-site investigation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: But in this tab 46, there's no reference at all to the bombing of -- bombing of NATO on 22nd of May or the flying of NATO aircraft on 23rd of May, which is -- which you reported in tab 8. The question I put to you just before was what is your basis for this -- of this information? Because we couldn't find any reference to that in tab 46.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating judge describes the situation that he found on site and the kind of information he possibly received from us about the site.

As for the events concerned, the bombing, that was recorded by appropriate teams of the Ministry of the Interior and the army of Yugoslavia. Such recordings were made, such reports were sent to the Ministry of the Interior from the terrain, and the Secretariat of the Interior from Pec reported further on to the staff and to the Ministry of the Interior. On the basis of such dispatches and reports, the information brief that we read was compiled.

The one we read from the previous tab was not made only on the basis of the on-site investigation but on the basis of statements made by all persons who took part. This is a record of the on-site investigation ³⁹¹⁵⁵ carried out by the investigating judge. So in the material there are several dispatches, telegrams, notes, and reports, as well as statements made by the direct participants.

JUDGE KWON: Can you remember -- yes, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Tab 46.3 may assist Your Honour. Last sentence of the note.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In this note about the continuation of the on-site investigation, he says that the terrible consequences of several days of bombing were revealed, and he states that there were tens of killed prisoners in the dining-room area, and that forensic technicians were taking parts of aerial bombs as well.

Then he proceeds as follows: "The on-site investigation team left the scene together with the reporters. The on-site investigation was stopped at 15.10." And then further on, on the 25th, the on-site investigation continues. They went to the spot again, and NATO aircraft were again flying overhead. "In the absence of basic safety conditions, I ordered the forensic technicians to sketch, photograph, and then video the scene as quickly as possible. I then ordered that all the killed be removed from the scene, and after being retrieved from the ruins, they were taken to the Albanian cemetery in the village of Donja Susica, several kilometres away from the spot in the direction of Kosovska Mitrovica via Zubin Potok. After the removal of all the bodies I ordered ³⁹¹⁵⁶ that each one be photographed and fingerprinted individually. At the same time, I ordered an external examination of all the bodies, which was performed by physician M. Stijovic, a specialist surgeon employed at the Pec general hospital. The whole process lasted until 1000 hours on the 26th of May this year.

"A total of 93 bodies were removed from the KPZ. "After all the forensic work had been done, I ordered the individual burial of the bodies in the manner prescribed by law." And then he establishes that all observed and identified traces of the actual incident were processed and noted in an adequate way with forensic methods appropriate to the conditions and circumstances at the time. The forensic documentation represents an integral part of this record. That is to say that the forensic documentation does accompany this report.

Now, could you please look at tab 46.2. This was 46.1, so now we're moving on to 46.2. 46.2 --

JUDGE KWON: We just received the translation of that tab.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Here, the authorised official of Pec, there are two of them, Zoran Ljusic and Miroslav Ristovic, who compiled this Official Note on 21st of May, and they go on to explain what can be seen from the entrance as they move around the various premises, including the wall and the prison compound, and he said that the most substantial damage was visible on blocks 13, 12, 7, 2, 3, 4, and especially block 5, which means six pavilions, six blocks which house the prisoners. And according to them, ³⁹¹⁵⁷ they were seriously damaged, especially pavilion number 5, which is the seventh pavilion, which is the special supervision block. "Large craters are visible in the upper parts of the construction of the above buildings.

"However, while the on-site investigation was being conducted, there was another attack by aggressor planes, so that further on-site investigation was suspended."

And then they say that on that occasion, Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic was seriously injured at the time when one of the bombs exploded.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're virtually giving evidence now. We need to have questions put to the witness so we can have the evidence in the proper form.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This Official Note which I have just read out passages from, when was it compiled, Colonel?

A. It was compiled immediately after the event itself and was tendered to the dossier, the file. This kind of Official Note is one of several in this -- on this particular case. This one refers to the damages incurred and the way in which the on-site investigation was interrupted and the wounding of the investigating judge.

Q. And when was it compiled?

A. On the 21st of May, 1999.

Q. So everything that we have read out was drafted that day, was it? ³⁹¹⁵⁸

A. Yes.

Q. All these seven prisoner pavilions, or blocks, that was observed on that particular day, the 21st of May; is that right?

A. Yes, precisely.

Q. Now, in tab 46.3, we have another Official Note. Who compiled that one in tab 63.3, Colonel -- 46.3?

A. That was compiled by the Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic, in Pec on the 22nd of May, 1999. That means that that was the day that Vladan Bojic, the investigating judge, compiled that Official Note.

Q. Now, tell us what it says. I don't want to read or, rather, testify here instead of you. What is it that Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic noted in his Official Note the 22nd of May?

A. Judge Bojic observes that: "During the on-site investigation at the Dubrava prison near Istok on the 21st of May, 1999, beginning with 1300 hours right up until almost 1340 hours, together with the on-site investigation team, I was exposed in the most direct way possible to the NATO bombing. On the large fields of the prison, there was no refuge, no shelter, and the projectiles were falling several metres or dozens of metres away from me."

In paragraph 2, he says that: "This terrible situation lasted for some 40 minutes, and during that time some 15 to 20 aeroplane bombs were launched. This pushed us to the limits of our psychological endurance, but with a number of other men, the deputy from Istok, Mr. Pantic, I endeavoured to evacuate the people. I was blown by an explosion. I was thrown some ten metres by an explosion, and after I lost consciousness for ³⁹¹⁵⁹ a short period of time, I left the location with the group of people who were with me. I sustained a light concussion and contusion of my left clavicle bone and shoulder. I proceeded to vomit and bleed from the nose. My shoulder was seen to medically and immobilised with bandages and I was given an injection of Trodon for the pain."

JUDGE ROBINSON: If all the witness is going to do is read the statement, I mean, we can read it. If you have questions to put, then put them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, all right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I did have in mind the question raised by Mr. Kwon a moment ago about the source of the information pertaining to the NATO bombing, what shows that this was NATO bombing. Here we see from the report by the investigating judge that while he was on site in the location, that the bombing went on. It lasted while he was there. We can see that from the first paragraph where he says that there were bombs falling all over the place, and then in paragraph 4 he says, "On that day the bombing went on until 1500 hours and I was personally able to see it from a building on the premises of the Istok service where we put up provisionally." Now, how is -- far is Istok from the KPZ?

A. It's about three kilometres. And I came across them there in that office on that day. I remember that well. When I entered the office, they were lying down on the floor, and I was surprised and said, "Why are you lying down as if you had been struck down by typhoid fever?" They were in a terrible situation. They were vomiting and so on. ³⁹¹⁶⁰

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... growing sense of weariness. I made it clear yesterday that we accepted, of course, that there was bombing, as we have done from the beginning, on the 19th and 21st of May. I'm really not sure where the accused is going, or thinks he is going, with this line of inquiry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what are you seeking to establish? Because there is no dispute that there was bombing.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, do you accept that there was a bombing in the morning of 22nd?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Not on the 22nd. Our information is the 19th and 21st. Whether the 21st goes into the 22nd is not something I'm presently aware of. I might be able to check it between now and Monday.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one point.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With respect to the remark made by Mr. Nice that he does not challenge the fact that there was bombing, that bombing did take place. There is a difference there between what was quoted here from the report or Official Note by the investigating judge, and there are 93 bodies, corpses, in that Official Note as a result. So it's not a question of the fact that there was bombing. This document shows that 93 persons lost their lives in the bombing, were killed by the bombing. And more people were killed than that number. Let me remind you that Judge Marinkovic showed us the files of three people who died in hospital in Lipjan as a result, and here we see that one person succumbed ³⁹¹⁶¹ in Pec, at the hospital in Pec, and I think that the colonel said something about that in his testimony earlier on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So, Colonel, tell us --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, don't proceed yet.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I understand Mr. Milosevic's case is that the number of persons listed in Schedule J as having been killed in the prison may very well have been the victims of the bombing, and to that extent the evidence as to the bombing is important, and evidence as to the number of persons killed. We don't have the names, but I think the evidence is relevant.

MR. NICE: Indeed if that's what it goes to, but there's been a very general narrative on matters that are not in issue. But it's a matter for the accused how he spends his time so far as I'm concerned.

MR. KAY: The indictment specifies the early hours of the morning of the 22nd of May, and we've seen the note in 4.3 that I directed Your Honour's attention to in relation to that time.

JUDGE KWON: We appreciate that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, are you going to bring any evidence which will be more specifically related to the names of those persons in Schedule J?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I was not able to find, and I can ask the colonel now whether our organs have at all all those identifications. And please bear in mind that these Official Notes ³⁹¹⁶² were compiled on the 25th and 26th, the tab 46 ones, which means just ten days before the war ended and the events. So our organs withdrew after the 10th of June, which means that they were not in a position to continue conducting a detailed investigation as to the names. However, what I wish to demonstrate here is that the organs of power and authority did everything in their power as provided for by law, given the circumstances, they did everything in their power that they were able to do. So please look at tab 46.4 now, which shows the crime technician photographs of some of the bodies of the -- as a result of the NATO aggression. And this was done in Pec on the 26th, is it? Yes. It says in handwriting the 26th. Pec 164/8 is the number, and the date is the 26th of May, 1999, and it says Pec. That is the handwritten entry. Then you have all the photographs stamped, the photographs of persons killed on that spot. And this is an official document of the deaths that resulted during the NATO bombing, ending with the 26th when this report was compiled. And in the second part of that tab, you have the fingerprints that were taken, identifying the number of the corpse and the number of the fingerprint so as to link up the fingerprints with the photographs of the bodies.

So the authorities did all they could, and their activity was interrupted on the 10th because they were no longer able after that date to be in possession of the relevant facts for them to be able to continue their investigation.

However, if you take a look at this next footage, part 3, we have something filmed on the 24th of May, which is -- won't take up too much ³⁹¹⁶³ time if it is fast forwarded, and we have footage of the 25th of May as well, which shows how the bodies were buried. Every individual, every corpse was filmed by video camera before burial. You hear a description by the official of what can be noticed, and then every corpse is given a number, and then it is further processed, the legal steps to be taken in that regard.

So what I want to demonstrate is that the authorities did everything in their power to identify the bodies, to make records of them, to photograph them, to take their fingerprints, and to designate the spot where they are buried. You will see all this on the videotape and that there were 93 of them. All 93 corpses can be seen in order as they were processed and buried, numbered, et cetera. And the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: This goes to what, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- burial places. I am demonstrating and proving that it is a case of the victims of NATO bombing, as it says in those documents, and it proves that the police did everything in its power to identify those bodies, because it filmed them, took their fingerprints, gave them numbers, and marked the places of burial. So that all the facts should be safeguarded for further processing, facts which the police and the investigating organs and the investigating judge had in their possession at the moment. There is not a single fact that has not been saved and safeguarded.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me wait for the transcript. Are these the persons in Schedule J?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This document does not have a single ³⁹¹⁶⁴ name. So Schedule J could only have been compiled later, at a point in time -- at the point in time when they were conducting this, only a few of the names of the corpses were known, and I did not compare those few names with Schedule J, because it is quite obvious that there was very robust bombing. As you can see, seven pavilions were destroyed, and you could see for yourselves the consequences of the bombing. And note was taken that 93 bodies, corpses, were pulled out from under the debris.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll see the video, and then we'll have to adjourn.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are mattresses that you can see, blankets. This is a member of the investigating team uncovering the blankets that were covering the bodies or, rather, uncovering the bodies with the blankets.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How much more of this do we have to endure, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's very short. It's a short video film, and fast forwarded in this way, I think it's almost over.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that the dining hall, the canteen?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you read what it says on the notes?

A. Well, if it was shown slowly, normally, at normal speed, then of course we would be able to read that, yes.

JUDGE KWON: Did people die where they lie here, where the corpses ³⁹¹⁶⁵ were?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see that for yourself.

JUDGE KWON: Can we see any evidence of bombing there inside the canteen?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I know that it is difficult for you to watch footage of this kind. It is very difficult for me, too, but if you do look at it carefully, then you would be able to glean a great deal from this footage. Maybe it's a waste of time for you.

JUDGE KWON: So can I take it that at this time of filming the bodies were not moved from the place where they died?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that. I cannot know that, whether they were moved or not. That is the site where they were found when the investigating crew arrived on the spot, on the scene.

JUDGE KWON: So I was wondering, many of the inmates died outside, in the field, as we saw it.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, I'd like to draw your attention, and we'll come to that in my questioning, but you saw a great many mattresses and blankets outside. When the first destructions took place, they left the premises and took them outside so that they could sleep out of doors. It was the end of May, after all.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... enough of that today. We must call a halt to it sometime.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you know that that is not permissible. ³⁹¹⁶⁶ We have to adjourn now, and we will resume on Monday at 9.00 a.m.

MR. NICE: Two very short administrative matters, with your leave. First, would the Court be good enough to admonish the witness not to speak about his evidence with anyone else. I think such a warning hasn't yet been given.

And the second thing is this: Timetabling ahead, this witness will plainly be likely to consume most of Monday and possibly some of Tuesday of next week. The next witness is scheduled for 12 hours examination-in-chief, which would take us well into the following week, and it's realistic to think that in the ordinary course of events cross-examination would consume at least the rest of that week. Jasovic is currently due to attend here on the 17th, which is Tuesday week, by which time indeed my inquiries will be concluded, so no problem with that, however, I may -- I who have to deal with Jasovic, and I really must deal with him, may not be able to be here for one or more days of that week.

It would seem to me that any such problem, if it arises, could easily be met by indicating that the next witness will simply be heard and Jasovic can come back maybe at the conclusion of his evidence, which will be about two weeks' time. Otherwise --

JUDGE ROBINSON: At the conclusion of --

MR. NICE: The next witness. Yes. Which will be about two or three weeks' time, yes. And indeed, the Jasovic cross-examination may be, I haven't yet finally concluded, quite substantial, and it would be inconvenient and probably distracting to interpose it in the middle of the ³⁹¹⁶⁷ substantial evidence of another substantial witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I won't make a decision on that now. We'll consider it and give a decision later.

JUDGE KWON: And you will not seek the postponement of cross-examination of this witness.

MR. NICE: No, no. I will deal with this witness on Monday. And I would hope, unless the accused is going to be much longer, I would hope to finish him on Monday so that Stevanovic can start on Monday, but we'll have to wait and see.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you Mr. Nice. We're adjourned. May I just say to the witness before we rise, Mr. Paponjak, you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody, and that includes, of course, the accused person, between now and Monday when you return. Do you understand that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do understand that well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 9th day of

May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.