³⁹²⁷²

Tuesday, 10 May 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. McCormack, the Chamber is happy to see you here. In view of the assignment, we think that you should be here as often as is possible.

MR. McCORMACK: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And I'm sure it will be helpful to the Chamber when we come to the final stages of this trial. Thank you. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Would Your Honour just give me one minute.

WITNESS: RADOVAN PAPONJAK [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. I will have a couple of matters to return to in 1998, but let's move otherwise immediately to 1999.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm sorry we're a little delayed this morning, but it won't inconvenience you beyond this initial, I think -- it won't delay you further.

Q. You told us when giving evidence in chief, and I can't quote the precise words to you, that killing people in the course of dealing with terrorists was the absolute last resort, wasn't it?

A. That would be around it. The point was always to bring terrorists ³⁹²⁷³ into custody or to have the problem resolved in a different way.

Q. Who was Lieutenant Colonel Blagoje Djordjevic?

A. He was head of the police department in the Secretariat of the Interior of Pec.

Q. Look, please, at this exhibit, 319, tab 32. You have the original. You'll see this is a document which comes from Djordjevic, approved by your police chief boss, Borislav Vlahovic. If we look at --

MR. NICE: Mr. Nort, could you just show the last page of this document in English on the overhead projector, please. Nothing coming up on the overhead projector so far as I'm concerned. Thank you.

Q. So we see that it was compiled by Djordjevic, and then underneath that, Mr. Nort, approved by Vlahovic. So if we now go back, please, to the first page, we see something right at the top that relates to your territory. "Pursuant to the agreement with members of the Secretariat of the Interior in Djakovica and members of the Department of State Security of the SUP of the Interior in Pec and Djakovica ..." And then it says, "Ambush plan," under "Objective," "To prevent --" I'm sorry. We see under "Time of Execution" that it's forecasting ambushes to be set up from the 24th to the 31st of January, 1999, and this ambush plan then says as the objective: "To prevent the movement of terrorists on the above-mentioned local road, eliminate the said terrorists ..." Nothing about capturing them. What do you say to that? By 1999 it wasn't a question of capturing terrorists, it was a question of liquidating them, wasn't it, if you could? ³⁹²⁷⁴

A. First of all, I have to say that this paper that is before me was not signed by Blagoje Djordjevic, as you pointed out. Next, it wasn't signed by Colonel Borislav Vlahovic, and I have no idea what this is about.

Q. I'm asking you a question on the basis of this exhibit, and I'll ask you to look now at the next paragraph as well, "General Tasks." "Monitor the said road, as well as other local roads running from the direction of Jablanica and Bucane villages in order to spot in timely fashion the above-mentioned vehicles and any other vehicles used by terrorists, and upon identification of the vehicles and their passengers, use concentrated fire to neutralise and eliminate them."

A. I don't know. I cannot speak about this. As I said, this is a plan that I'm totally unfamiliar with. I'm totally unfamiliar with it being drafted by Blagoje Djordjevic, as you said, or signed by Djordjevic --

THE INTERPRETER: Or Vlahovic, rather, interpreter's correction.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but I am not aware of any of this.

MR. NICE:

Q. And finally on this document --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please. Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry.

Q. Finally on this document, Mr. Nort, page 3 in English, Roman V, "Preparations for Execution," for you, please, Mr. Paponjak. It's right, ³⁹²⁷⁵ isn't it, that one of the significant characteristics of those you described as the terrorists was that they used Chinese ammunition; is that right?

A. I don't know what you're talking about right now. Terrorists for the most part did use Chinese ammunition. That's what facts indicate. That is correct.

Q. You see under here "Preparations for Execution," and this is for execution in the elimination of KLA: "On the 23rd of January, 1999, the platoon leader and squad leaders of the PJP, together with sector leader from Celopek shall make a reconnaissance of the area and the ambush locations. The platoon leader of PJP shall provide grenade launchers and ammunition manufactured in China ..."

Why should your local organisation be demanding that elimination exercises should be done with weaponry of Chinese manufacture? Would that be in order to be able to cast blame for what happened on the KLA if things went wrong?

A. This is not the kind of assignment that was given at all. This material was probably drafted with that objective in mind. This is not a plan of the SUP in Pec.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if you could remind me how we dealt with the authenticity of this document. I think this is part of Mr. Coo's binder.

MR. NICE: It was found by the OTP in the police station at Pec in 1999.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. ³⁹²⁷⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm trying to understand the question you asked.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there evidence that the KLA used weaponry of Chinese manufacture?

MR. NICE: A lot of evidence that the weaponry and ammunition typically associated with the KLA was of Chinese manufacture. I can't point Your Honour, I'm afraid, immediately to an instance, but I think there's plenty of it.

Q. Mr. Paponjak, we haven't yet dealt with the heart of the allegation against those in Pec in authority at the time, namely that you and your colleagues engaged in straightforward and well-organised ethnic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I get a copy of this document that Mr. Nice has just shown to the witness now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let a copy be passed to Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: The accused will realise, of course, that it is an existing exhibit.

Q. You and your colleagues, Mr. Paponjak, engaged in straightforward and very well organised ethnic cleansing before the bombing -- organised before the bombing even started. You realise that's the allegation against you, don't you?

A. Perhaps there are accusations of this kind, but that's not true.

Q. Isn't it? And you did it under the supervision or instruction of ³⁹²⁷⁷ your superiors, tracking back to Belgrade and to this accused, let me make it quite clear. Do you follow me?

A. It's clear what you're trying to say, but quite simply that's not true.

Q. I'm going to summarise for you in just a few sentences some of the evidence we've heard with some dates, for your comment. On the 23rd of March, according to a witness Zatriqi, MUP officers from Pec took three of his buses which they later used to transport people from the city. On the 25th of March, according to the witness Sokoli, he saw police from Pec burning and looting houses. He was beaten by Serb forces. He was loaded on a truck and sent to Prizren --

MR. KAY: Should these be questions rather than speeches by the Prosecutor as to the nature of his case?

MR. NICE: I can turn them all into questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're putting these matters to the witness -- perhaps you should put them individually.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I can, but with your leave there's no need to do so. I've indicated that I'm just putting our case comprehensively and in the shortest possible time so that the witness can know the nature of the evidence. I suspect --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Put them collectively.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. So that Mr. Sokoli said he was beaten, loaded onto a truck and forced out; and finally, on the 27th of March, according to a witness Mr. Konaj, he was also kicked out, told by policemen that there was no ³⁹²⁷⁸ place for him to go other than to Montenegro.

Now, that's, in very short order, a summary of some of the evidence, and I want to know from you, Mr. Paponjak, whether you allow for the possibility of police officers in your town doing that.

A. No way.

Q. Sometimes it's possible that you have rogue elements in a police force doing bad things. Do you think even a rogue policeman could have tried to force Kosovo Albanians out of Pec?

A. What do you mean "wild elements" in the police? I worked with these people for years. I know them. Had anybody been wild, they would have been eliminated from the police in the way in which this was prescribed, by taking disciplinary action, et cetera. There was no one who went wild in the police. Since this gentleman said that the policemen took away three buses from him, he probably knows which policeman did that, and he probably gave their names, and then we'll know exactly whether these were policemen to begin with and how these buses were taken away from him and what happened to the buses. He certainly knew all the policemen in Pec because there weren't very many of us.

Q. All right.

A. You keep saying some policemen or some forces, but they know all of our names; our names, surnames, our other characteristics. They know who these policemen were, if they were policemen, and then it will be easy to track them down by name and surname.

Q. Come to that further, probably in a second, but no movement, then, of Kosovo Albanians by the police. Was there at the middle, end of March, ³⁹²⁷⁹ beginning of April, was there any organised movement of any part of the population by any force, police or military?

A. No.

Q. Because, you see, you've described the movement of people right at the end of March and the confusion in the centre of Pec with you moving the traffic on as sort of well-meaning but unfortunate chaos. Would that be about right?

A. That's right. There was quite a bit of disorder, rather, commotion in the roads. That's true. There were even bottlenecks on the road.

Q. Perhaps you'd be good enough, then, to have a look at Exhibit 319, tab 36, with me. And if I may say so, this is not a document that should have come to you as a surprise, for it's been published in easily available public material since 2001.

Now, this is an order, Mr. Paponjak, and if you'd like, please, Mr. Nort, to take us to the last page, we'll see that it's signed by Colonel Dusko Antic, so we can see whose it is. There he is. And now let's go back to the first page, please.

It's dated the 30th of March, 1999, Mr. Paponjak. What it says is this: "On the basis of the Supreme Commander's order on the declaration of a state of war and the moving of a part of the population out of the zone of responsibility of the Pec VO ..."

Would you tell us what "moving of a part of the population out of the zone of responsibility" means, since you've told us that there was no organised movement of any part of the population by any force. ³⁹²⁸⁰

A. Everybody who is involved in military or police work knows what this means.

Q. Well, you tell us.

A. During a state of war, combat activities are anticipated. That is to say that the population has to be moved out of the area of responsibility in order to protect their lives in case there is combat action. So --

Q. Mr. Paponjak --

A. -- at defence positions there cannot be any civilians.

Q. Mr. Paponjak, didn't I give you an adequate opportunity in the last question but three to tell us whether there was any movement of any part of the population? Didn't I give you an adequate chance to give us an account of this then?

A. You asked that in terms of the setting up of columns and whatever else there was, not in terms of the measures that have to be taken by the army and the police. This is an absolutely normal thing that is done in any situation where there is a state of war. Where combat action is anticipated, the population is moved out of the war zone. It is relocated. It's not moved out altogether, but it is relocated to safe areas, and that is done anywhere.

Q. I asked you in the clearest terms was there any -- was there at the middle, end of March, beginning of April, was there any organised movement of any part of the population by any force, military or police, and you said no.

Mr. Paponjak, this document shows you to be a liar, and you've ³⁹²⁸¹ lied throughout your evidence to this Court, haven't you?

A. I understand your wish to have that said and to say that. That's quite clear, and that's clear to everyone who is listening. I never lied, sir, not a single point in time. I understand that you have that kind of wish to say that, but no.

Q. How many thousand Kosovo Albanians, on your estimate, voluntarily left their homes between, say, the end of March and June of 1999, how many thousand?

A. I don't know. I was not involved in such estimates.

Q. What was the population of Pec before the conflict? You're a policeman, you might know that.

A. I might know had they taken part in the census. However, the Albanians did not take part in the census so we don't have this information.

Q. No idea at all of the number of police you were policing? Was it a hundred, or a thousand, or 5.000? You give us a clue.

A. If you mean estimates of the total population, what our estimates were, what my personal estimates were, I can give you that. However, I cannot give you any accurate figures. No one can. Estimates vary.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, just before we depart from that document, if we are, are you saying that no part of the population was moved out of the zone of responsibility of the Pec VO, or are you saying that there was a point at which a part of the population was moved?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot claim either. I assume that all the inhabitants, Serbs and Albanians, were relocated from all the ³⁹²⁸² positions that were taken by the army of Yugoslavia or members of the MUP of Serbia at places where positions were supposed to be organised in terms of personnel, equipment, where the defence positions were supposed to be. The population was relocated from these areas with a view to protecting their own lives. In case there are combat activities, civilian casualties wanted to be prevented.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm afraid I don't understand that answer. Were you not in such a position of responsibility that you would know one way or another whether this order ever came to be implemented?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Such measures were taken by commanders and leaders of units. That is why I was not in a position to know that. Every leader of a unit or commander of a unit organising his positions does that. That is why I assumed that this had been done indeed. When deploying his personnel, when fortifying the positions, digging the trenches, et cetera, the commander of the unit or the leader of the unit takes such measures. If there are civilians nearby, he has to relocate them to a different position, a safe position, and that is ultimately decided. My work was completely different. I don't even know where the positions were located.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry, I don't want to take up too much time, but I really don't understand that answer at all, because the wording of this order is the moving of a part of the population out of the zone of responsibility of the Pec VO. That's not just a movement a short distance away, that's a movement out of your zone of responsibility. Would you not know if that had happened? ^{39283 BLANK PAGE 39284}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It does not say moving out now in this document. It says relocation of the population. I don't know how it was translated in the document that you have in front of you.

JUDGE BONOMY: We don't need to argue about these words, but do you not have in Serbian the words "out of the zone of responsibility of the Pec VO"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It says "and relocation of a part of the population from the zone of responsibility," not "out of the zone of responsibility," and I would like it translated verbatim.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... it's the same.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, it's not the same. That refers to the population of that area. Relocation of the population of that area, not from outside. So relocation within the same zone. Moving out would mean moving people out of that area. Relocation, for instance, within this room would mean re-seating of a person, whereas moving out would mean that the person is leaving the room altogether.

JUDGE BONOMY: But relocation of someone from this room would mean moving a person out of the room.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

JUDGE BONOMY: It will remain a mystery for the moment.

JUDGE KWON: VO is a military organisation, Vojni Okrug, I assume.

MR. NICE: I think Your Honour is right.

Q. Mr. Paponjak, you heard me summarise the evidence of a few witnesses, and there have been other witnesses who have said they were forced out of Pec. In light of your answers to His Honour and to me, ³⁹²⁸⁵ would this be reasonable: There is no scope for them being even remotely accurate or honest in their account. Either they are completely wrong or you're completely wrong. Would you accept that? You were there.

A. I do not accept that.

Q. Well, there's no scope for them making an honest mistake of thinking they'd been forced out, thinking they'd seen houses being burned down by the police, of thinking that they had been threatened that had to leave or they'd be killed. There's no scope for genuine mistake, is there? Either they are wrong or you're wrong.

A. I know that I am right, and I don't know what they were thinking and why they were doing what they were doing.

Q. The trouble for you is there are two problems for you and one of them is this: Your answers to me and your recent answers to His Honour Judge Bonomy simply don't get round the fact that when you were asked in specific terms, "Was there any organised movement of any part of the population by any force?" you said no, and on your latest answers that itself would be untrue and, therefore, a lie.

A. No. No. Here again, the reference is not to moving by force. It is a reference to a relocation or moving for the purpose of protection of those people. They're moving from a place where their lives could be in jeopardy.

Q. Now, tell us this, because you've been able to help the accused and the Court with a certain amount of conjecture from time to time about people being shot while trying to escape from Dubrava and things like that. The Court's heard a lot of evidence about people being compelled to ³⁹²⁸⁶ give up their identification documents at borders when they left for Albania, sometimes for Macedonia. What conceivable reason was there for police, maybe from your own authority, taking, perhaps as gifts, the identification documents of these departing Kosovo Albanians? What reason could there be for that happening, Mr. Paponjak?

A. You have now give us -- given us an account which is very difficult to follow. First of all, you said I helped the accused by saying that people were escaping from being shot at.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you know -- let's just deal with this. No, Mr. Paponjak, just wait.

You've known about this indictment for years; correct?

A. To every direct question you will receive a direct answer.

Q. Yes. You've known about this indictment for years.

A. However, in your questions --

Q. You've known about this indictment for years. You referred to it in one of your signed documents as an exhibit. You've known about this document for years; yes or no.

A. That is not in dispute. The indictment has been in existence for years.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you have known for years, as has everybody else interested in this conflict, that it is alleged the Serbs kicked the Kosovo Albanians out of their country. You've known that for years.

A. Known about the allegation.

Q. You have known, because of course you looked at the indictment, or ³⁹²⁸⁷ someone in your team did, and you will have heard the evidence in preparation for this case, that one of the major allegations, because it's an important bit of evidence, is that Kosovo Albanians were compelled by police and military to hand over their documents of identification, their car number plates, and so on. You've known that.

A. What does that have to do with my testimony?

Q. Answer the question, because you're giving evidence. You have known that.

A. Yes, but I can't know about these allocations.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... is this: When I ask you a very simple question to give your explanation for something that you've known about for years and you must have turned your mind to, why do you choose to take time with a long discursive answer? I want you to tell these Judges what conceivable reason there could be for Kosovo Albanians to hand in or to have taken from them their documents of identification. Will you now please answer that question.

A. I don't even know the documents were taken from them. I have nothing to do with Prizren, which seems to be your claim, and you are trying to put to me now that I knew about it, and you want me to comment on something I know nothing about.

Q. This much is true and obvious, isn't it: Despite knowing all these allegations for years, your documents, which I must suggest are a sham, your documents show no investigation into these allegations of any kind, do they?

A. That is not in the jurisdiction of the Pec SUP, and we cannot ³⁹²⁸⁸ investigate into things that allegedly happen in some other area.

Q. Don't think, by any chance, there's a touch of bureaucracy in your answers, do you? Don't you have an imagination or an idea of things that happened outside the area of your SUP?

JUDGE ROBINSON: He has answered the question, Mr. Nice. Let us move on.

MR. NICE: Very well.

Q. Tell us, then, please, this: Why did Zoran Aleksic leave the territory of the former Yugoslavia?

A. I don't know.

Q. You certainly know who he was, don't you? Don't you?

A. I don't know which Zoran Aleksic. But if you mean -- let me think. Zoran Aleksic was one of our employees. We had a person by that name, yes.

Q. So you did. After all, if all the -- if all the inhabitants of Pec should know all the policemen, then certainly all the policemen should know all the policemen, and Zoran Aleksic is one of them. We can just see him, just so we can be quite sure that he exists, on, for example, tab 20.2, only one of a number of examples. Shall we look at that, tab 20.2. Just put it on the overhead projector. Actually, here it is. Have my copy. Just see it. Just see that his signature's there. Signs off on one of the documents. I can't tell you what it is because it's not translated. Doesn't matter.

What is he, a captain, or was he a captain?

A. Yes. ³⁹²⁸⁹

Q. And you know almost --

A. Yes, he was.

Q. You know that having what -- did he move with you from Kosovo to Kragujevac or was he deployed elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia?

A. I don't recall at this moment what happened to him, where he was transferred, but he was from the section of crime investigation.

Q. And when did you become aware that he'd left the territory? Again, the -- this is such a small territory that you'd expect people to know the policemen, you must be able to give us some clue as to what happened to him.

A. I am afraid my answer will have to be a little longer again. The Secretariat of the Interior of Pec had 800 employees, organised into sections. Within a section you have chiefs and heads of departments, and they are in charge of the employees under them. There are several departments - at least three - so you have chiefs of departments and his deputies.

I, as head of the secretariat, rarely had the opportunity to deal with individuals except in very exceptional cases. Normally I had no knowledge about any particular individual. At the time, the situation in Pec was very chaotic. It took us several months to relocate and find a new location and find accommodation for our employees, whether with family or otherwise. And as people found a way to move to the new location, they reported back to me and continued to work in Kragujevac.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... which is my immediate concern. ³⁹²⁹⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's coming to that. You're coming to that now, Mr. Paponjak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I cannot give you any information about hundreds of other employees either, because I was not in charge of any individual in particular. My job was to organise conditions of work in a new place, and chiefs of sections or departments reported to me about their employees and their lines of work. Perfectly by chance I know that Zoran Aleksic relocated to Cacak because he lived in Cacak, but I learned about that through private channels more than official ones because I myself coming from Cacak.

MR. NICE:

Q. Tell us what you learnt about him and about his onward movement from Cacak.

A. I know that he lived in Cacak, that his father lived there as well, because I visited his father at home several times, and I know that at some point he left the service and moved out of Cacak.

Q. Did he leave the service, Mr. Paponjak, because he was concerned to tell the truth about and to blow the whistle on the Pec policemen and he was hounded out by threats?

A. And who was allegedly threatening him?

Q. Other Serbian policemen.

A. Zoran Aleksic had a perfectly normal, good relationship with me and he never told me anything about it.

Q. Now, let's move to another topic. At the beginning of June of 1999, you were still in service in Pec, weren't you? ³⁹²⁹¹

A. Yes.

Q. If there was an operation in Pec at the beginning of June of 1999 to dig up the bodies of people who had been killed by Serbs between March and June, involving the police, you would have known about it, wouldn't you?

A. I probably would.

Q. Yes. Right. Now, please tell the Judges when it happened.

A. I don't know that it happened. You are now trying to put it to me that it did happen.

Q. Let me suggest to you that the following at least were involved in this operation: Your head, Boro Vlahovic; a man called Bato Bulatovic; Milojevic Mladen and Zoran Stanisic, those last two being respectively head of the criminal division and chief of the technical division of your police. They and many others, no doubt, were involved in digging up the bodies and sending them off to Batajnica in Serbia. You knew about it and you were involved, and I'd like you now please to tell the Judges a bit more about it.

A. All right. While you're at it you can say that I dug them up personally. Nothing like that happened, and I didn't participate in it.

Q. Well, may we take it, then, that if in due course there is evidence to show that bodies were dug up at the time that I've suggested, with the assistance in particular of the traffic police, that's something that you would have known of?

A. I cannot say anything of the sort because it did not happen. I didn't know anything about it, and even less could I say that I ³⁹²⁹² participated myself.

Q. How many Kosovo Albanians do you say were killed by Serb forces in the course of the bombing campaign between March and June of 1999?

A. I have said more than once already that Serb forces did not kill Kosovo Albanians.

Q. Not one solitary Kosovo Albanian; is that right?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Well, I'm not going to take very much of your time or the Court's on that, but just again look at one picture, please, in the book "Under Orders," which as I said yesterday makes the point that all the crimes alleged against -- not all, many of the crimes alleged against those ethnically cleansing in Pec were well documented.

MR. NICE: Just the photograph, please, and the caption.

Q. Here's something. Look at the photograph, please, and I'll read the caption slowly so you can follow it: "Witnesses identified the man on the right as Nebojsa Minic, known as 'Mrtvi' ('Death'). He is implicated in the extortion and killing of six family members in Pec on June the 12th. On the left is Vidomir Salipur, a Pec policeman and alleged head of the Munja gang, who was killed by the KLA on April 8, 1999. The date and location of the photograph are unknown."

Did you as a policeman remain totally ignorant of the person known as Nebojsa Minic who is dealt with in great detail -- or some detail in the pages of this book? Did you remain ignorant of him throughout?

A. I know Vidomir Salipur, who is on the photo here. I don't know the other person. ³⁹²⁹³

Q. And is it right that Vidomir Salipur was head of something called the Munja gang, which was a paramilitary group that went around and killed people. Is that right?

A. I said loud and clear that it was a policeman, Vidomir Salipur. I don't know what gang you are referring to in connection with this policeman.

Q. No investigations into the sort of allegations that we see in this publicly available material by your police force in exile, was there?

A. We had no reports or other information about this. I don't know where this material is coming from and how this photo was made in the first place.

Q. Thank you very much. We've had evidence from the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, through a witness, that on the 12th of April, a total of some 3.600 refugees from Istok and other municipalities arrived at Montenegro. From your sighting of the chaos in the centre of town when you were directing the traffic, or whatever you were doing, does it seem sensible to you that some 3.000 people from the neighbouring municipalities of Istok might have found their way to Montenegro on the 12th of April?

A. What do you mean do I find it reasonable?

Q. We have to have a picture of what you were doing, Mr. Paponjak, and as far as I can understand it - forgive me if I have got it wrong - you were doing your best in town to control the traffic and to help people move along the roads. You must, as an experienced traffic policemen, have had some idea of the numbers of people you were dealing with. Do you ³⁹²⁹⁴ think for all these communities under your general control some 12.000 might have found their way to Albania by -- sorry, to Montenegro by about the 12th of April? That's all. Does that seem reasonable to you?

A. Why wouldn't they have been able to find their way?

Q. And another 2.000 going to Montenegro. Does that seem about right, from what you saw?

A. The direction towards Montenegro was overcrowded all the time because it's an uphill road. You have to go through the Kula pass, movement is very slow. People travelled in ox carts, cars tractors and on foot. That thoroughfare was very busy. There were bottlenecks, but the column was moving.

Q. Well, I've given you a chance to answer the question and I'm going to move back, as I said, to one event in 1998. We looked at it in tab 1.4 yesterday, and this is the Salihaj incident. You took us to 1.4, number -- I thought it was number 56. Perhaps you will remind me of which number it is for the Salihajs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 59.

MR. NICE:

Q. Would you be good enough, now that we've got 59 --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. We've got 59 on the overhead projector, perhaps read it out for us. It's not very long. That's the only way we can see what you say there. Read it out for us, please. ^{39295 BLANK PAGE 39296}

A. It is an incident that happened in Susica, Istok municipality, on the 9th of August, 1998. "On the 9th of August, 1998, around 600 hours, a terrorist attack was carried out against the police patrol of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in the village of Susica, Istok municipality. Members the police responded to the fire and on that occasion killed eight members of the KLA, namely, Saban Salihaj, Hisen Salihaj, Abedin, Miljazim, Isa, Hisniju; Arben and Gashi Nazmi, who carried out terrorist attacks against citizens and members of the MUP in that area from May to August, 1998. On-site investigation was performed by investigating judge of the district court in Pec, Veselin Trajinovic. External examination of the corpses was performed by Dr. Milivoje Stijovic. The corpse was turned over to the family for funeral upon orders of the investigating judge. Report KU number 270/98, 291, 291 and DR/98 were submitted to the district public prosecutor of Pec."

Q. And that's it, is it?

A. Sorry: "Attachment case file with records number A/III-59."

Q. We have that case file here with us today?

A. Not here, not today. Behind short reports like this are case files in our archive. There are about 1.000 such case files.

Q. You see, your very bare report that you rely on here in this document doesn't tell us, does it, which of these alleged terrorists was 75 years old. Can you tell us which one it was?

A. I don't know any of them, but in the case file there are the records of the on-site investigation and various other notes that are attached there. ³⁹²⁹⁷

Q. I'm going to suggest to you that one of them was 16 years old. You can't deny that, can you? You haven't got any material to back up your brief summary.

A. The material isn't here, but the material does exist and you can receive it.

Q. And I can also suggest to you, because it's reported and documented elsewhere, that one of the women was abducted and her body, she having been killed, was only found later, days later. This wasn't an attack on terrorists. If it involved one member of the KLA, it was a revenge attack carried out by police from your police station. Who led the attack on these so-called terrorists? Was it you?

A. First of all, not a single woman was abducted or killed. Secondly, it wasn't an attack --

Q. How do you know that?

A. Well, from the official documents, from the records compiled by the investigating judge relating to her on-site investigation and other official notes.

Q. Is this one of the files you've reviewed in detail or did you leave this one to the team, or do you know about it personally, Mr. Paponjak? Which is it?

A. Looked at a videotape from the on-site investigation.

Q. What did that show? Did it show the 16-year-old or the 75-year-old? Did it show the slit throats?

A. No. I don't recall that.

Q. You don't recall anything that's inconvenient, do you? That's my ³⁹²⁹⁸ suggestion to you as to your evidence in general. You've always got an alibi for anything that's inconvenient. Isn't that the reality of how you've been giving evidence?

A. What you've just said is not true. The unfortunate images we saw here, some of which I saw when I was on the spot. So the footage we saw here is also unfortunate or, if you like, inconvenient, but I don't deny them.

Q. Let's turn, then, to imagery, and let's go to Dubrava. Just remind ourselves that the documents on Dubrava are tab -- tab 8, and the supporting material is on -- much later on; tab 46.

MR. NICE: File 7, if the Chamber is interested in reminding itself what is contained there.

Q. I'm going to ask Ms. Dicklich to play, in order to save time, the Dubrava tape that the accused has produced in parts, and I'll make some propositions as the tape is being played and then ask the witness questions at the end of each section.

Q. Mr. Paponjak, you appreciate, don't you, that there is no dispute but that NATO bombed the prison on the 19th of May. You understand that?

A. Yes. That's not something that is challenged.

Q. Do you understand that there has been regular assertions by NATO, indeed by witnesses - I'm not going to take you through it all - that Dubrava prison was used as military or police or special police base in the period leading up to the conflict and indeed during the conflict? You understand that's always been asserted?

A. Possibly that is what is said, but that was not the case, and ³⁹²⁹⁹ probably it was the terrorists that planted that information on NATO.

Q. You appreciate that you've already told us you've never been to Dubrava prison yourself before your visit on the 19th, and therefore you have no personal knowledge of what the prison complex was used for; correct?

A. We, I didn't inspect the prison, but quite certainly we didn't have any of our forces there.

Q. So any witness who says that there were forces operating from there or from near there has got it completely wrong; is that right?

A. Probably.

Q. The first tape which we'll now --

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE: We're using Sanction, by the way, Your Honours, for this.

Q. The first tape that we -- sorry, the first part of the tape relates to the 19th of May. On Sanction. We'll make sure it's working for the Court.

MR. NICE: Do Your Honours have it being displayed?

Q. And what we see is that this is an apparently proper document with -- showing the bodies carefully numbered. The video is timed 16:37, 16:38, and dated.

In your experience as a police officer, this would appear to be a proper forensic video of a scene of crime; correct?

A. That's it, yes.

Q. As we move on, we see there's quite a concentration - and I'll ask ³⁹³⁰⁰ Ms. Dicklich to move on and find it - of the damage that was done, in particular the prisoners breaking down the doors. We'll find that a little bit later. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. The point is an obvious one and is made in publications which reveal the prisoners spending an hour and a half to break down the doors. Why did nobody let them out? Do you know? Why did the guards not unlock the door and let them out?

A. I simply don't know. Maybe the guards had moved away and gone into safety to protect themselves from the bombing.

Q. They couldn't be bothered to go -- did you not inquire? Did nobody inquire as to the guards, How come you didn't let the prisoners out? How come you let them die where they were bombed? Did nobody ask that?

A. Why should I be the one to ask that?

Q. Well, if you wouldn't be the one to ask it, tell us who should have asked it and then we'll see if it turns up in anybody else's report. You went there. You're a senior policeman. You've come here to give evidence about Dubrava. Forgive my asking you how it comes that nobody bothered to ask why they weren't unlocked before their hour and a half scramble to get out.

A. At the time of our arrival, they weren't on the premises any more. Why would I then ask why nobody had let them out if they weren't in there in the first place when I arrived?

Q. Well, you see, in your tab 8 you record the fact that as soon as ³⁹³⁰¹ the attack was over the police and medical team came to the site. Yes, no inquiry as to that.

Let's move on to the 21st of May. That's the second video. And to remind everybody, there were two phases of bombing on the 21st of May; morning and then later on. This one, again we see it's a properly prepared video. It's got a date. It's at a slow-ish, measured speed. It's got a time on it, 11:57 we can see at the moment. And is it right - you've seen this slowly and asked us to look at it slowly - it deals with the damage to the infrastructure, a hole in the wall near the heating plant; is that right?

A. That's right, yes.

Q. It does show, I think, the prisoners. It shows the prisoners against the wall. And we've had evidence that after the bombing, after the first bombing on the 19th, we've had evidence that the prisoners were kept in the yard overnight, it being obviously safer so far as potential bombing is concerned, to be in the open and not in a building that might be targeted. You know nothing to counter the evidence that the prisoners were taken out after the bombing on the 19th and allowed to sleep in the yard thereafter, do you?

A. I don't know about any of those facts.

Q. So the fact that there were found in the open air mattresses and bodies is consistent with the mattresses having come out after the 19th and not being brought out for any other purpose than for people to sleep on after the first bombing, correct?

A. That just means that they were there. Now, whether they were let ³⁹³⁰² out or they got out themselves is a matter of speculation, and I'm sure that those providing security for the prison would know the answer to that.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, just give me a minute and we shall be able to get there, but it's quite difficult to select small passages from a long video. There we are. Now, I think -- there we are.

Q. This is a part of this video, the video on the 21st, the time is -- I can't quite see, but it doesn't matter. And over by the wall, though, we see lots of people moving around in comparative freedom. Do you understand that would be the prisoners?

A. I do believe they are.

Q. Let's now move to the -- and we know that this, then, ended. People -- there were journalists there, I think, and everybody ran away, apart from the prisoners, maybe, when the bombing began again. And we then come to the third video, which is -- let's have a look at it. The first thing to notice about this video, Mr. Paponjak, and I'd like your comment on this straight away, is it hasn't got a date on it. Can you explain?

A. Well, probably at the time the date recorder wasn't switched on or a different camera was used, because it was filmed over several days. So perhaps a different camera was used.

Q. Just pausing there for a minute. You made the point that it was important for your people to be at scenes like this immediately after things had happened, and as you were on the 19th and as you were on the -- not you, I mean collective you, were on the 21st. You're now trying to ³⁹³⁰³ suggest, although you have no evidence of it, that there was further bombing on the 22nd and 23rd. If there was such bombing on the 22nd and 23rd, can you explain why the MUP didn't go and look at it?

A. Well, you couldn't make anybody go, force them after what they had experienced on the 21st. Who could you find? And who would be the person to make them, force them?

Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer. I want to check with you whether it's imagination or reality. Have you got any statement from anybody saying that? Have you got a police report saying, "I, Captain So-and-so, tried to get people to go to the prison and they wouldn't go"? Have you? Or are you making it up as you go along, Mr. Paponjak?

A. I'm not making it up. You asked my opinion, and I'm giving you it.

Q. I didn't ask your opinion. I asked you to explain something. You're the man who has come with all the documents and all the reports. You claim from time to time to have looked at parts of the supporting material. If there's any ambiguity in my questioning, let me clarify it. I want you, please, now to point to a single piece of material that suggests efforts to go and inspect the bombing on the 22nd and 23rd were thwarted by fear. Do you follow the question? Let's have the answer.

A. I've just said to you now I would not be the person to send anybody there, after what the on-site investigation team experienced on the 21st, for as long as there were planes flying overhead and for as long as there was bombing, because that would have meant that I was sending people to a certain death. ³⁹³⁰⁴

Q. So let's understand this. When you went -- when whoever went to take this video on the 24th, had you established a direct line of communication with NATO so that they told you there was going to be no more bombing? Had Jamie Shea rung you up to say that's it for bombing of Dubrava prison?

A. No. I assume that at that time there were no flights and so the people monitoring the situation had ascertained that there were no flights.

Q. How could you know about that? You didn't know about the early ones until they happened. How could you know? You're making it up as you go along, Mr. Paponjak, aren't you, because you'll do anything to try and help this accused.

A. Do you really think that we didn't have any reconnaissance teams and teams to monitor the situation and report back about flights and the general situation?

Q. Is that evidenced in the Dubrava file? Can I find it so that we can check it out?

A. That has nothing to do with the Dubrava file.

Q. Can we press on with this video. One of the things about it is that the video shows - and I'm not asking you to do it now because it would take too long - very little change in the damage to buildings when compared with the earlier 21st. For example, we have a couple of stills, if you want to have a look at them we can put them on the overhead projector, for the 21st and the 24th. Perhaps we could just do that now. Stop the thing for the second. ³⁹³⁰⁵

MR. NICE: This is to make a point, I don't need them to be exhibited.

Q. Would you look at these two of the heating plant, I think it is. One shows the 21st. It's a still from the videos. You have to trust us on that. Can we see that on the -- we're still on Sanction, I'm afraid. So you can just switch to the overhead projector. There's one on the 21st. Let's have a look at the one on the 24th, if it is the 24th. The other one, please, Mr. Nort. Very little difference in the damage to the principal buildings of interest, was there? Was there?

A. Do you want my comment?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Well, a civil engineer should perhaps take a look at this and give you an answer, not me.

Q. That --

MR. KAY: Just of interest, the Prosecution's own case, the witness Jacky Rowland said there was a significant change in the buildings from her visit from the 21st and when she arrived on the 24th, which is in her statement.

MR. NICE: Yes, there was one -- there was one building indeed which was damaged. We can come to that if you want to have a look at it, and I know that His Honour Judge Kwon's interested in looking at the canteen. Yes. But also the damage that Jacky Rowland saw is consistent with damage by grenades that may have been thrown. Can we go back to Sanction, please. ³⁹³⁰⁶

Q. Now, when we look at this video without the date, and we're playing it in its realtime, I think, at the moment. This doesn't have anything about it, does it, of the sort of professional nature of the first two videos. It starts off fairly slowly but gets rapidly much faster in its survey of bodies. Do you remember that, Mr. Paponjak?

A. I wasn't there at the time. I assume that they were trying to film it all as soon as possible to be able to leave the area and that they were planning to do a more lengthy job later.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... area? I thought you'd told us that they would no doubt have found it safe to be there knowing there were no flights. Why would they want to leave the area?

A. When they arrived it was safe, but there was always the danger of planes flying overhead again.

Q. Can we just turn now to a few particular details. What does this show? What does this show?

A. I'm trying to recognise what it shows but I can't.

Q. Was that the canteen with the hole in the ceiling but no bodies underneath? Was it?

And here's the canteen again. Actually, you can see it again. There you are, the canteen damage but no sign of any bodies being killed as a result of that bomb. You can see the tables and the chairs. Any comment on that?

A. No. I wasn't there on that day.

Q. Now let's look at the -- well, you've brought this video and apparently you can say something about it and I'm going to ask you at the ^{39307 BLANK PAGE 39308} end what you can say about it, but let's have a look at some of the bodies with dates on them. We again have stills. I think we can just satisfy you as to -- here's a body, and here is the still from the body. I can lay it on the overhead projector.

It's clear, isn't it, that the naming and date of death of bodies was recorded by other people at the prison, prisoners and so on?

JUDGE KWON: We can't see it. The ELMO is not working.

MR. NICE: ELMO, please.

Q. We can see here that this one, Eminazeri -- it's not very clear as we can see it but we can hand a copy in. The date here is given for death at Dubrava of the 23rd of May. Did you notice that as you reviewed this film?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that this is improper because Mr. Nice claims that that is the date of death, whereas it can be the date at which the body was brought up from the rubble. It can be any other date. It doesn't say that it was the date of death. It just says the 23rd of May. Perhaps it was the date when the body was filmed, for example. And he starts out from the assumption that it was the actual date of death.

MR. NICE: Shall we just look at --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What did the witness say in answer to that? Did you have a comment on Mr. Nice's question about the date, that ³⁹³⁰⁹ it was the date of death?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I tried to say that I don't know what it means or who wrote this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Mr. Milosevic, the point you have made can also be made in re-examination.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, we've got copies of this for the Chamber and it may be to save -- we haven't. Sorry. But I'll hand one in. You can see on the screen that the last word is "Dubrava." So we've got, Mr. Paponjak, a date, and you've got the accused's intervention to help you with your imagination, we've then got a name, and then we've got some figures. And what language is that all written in, please?

A. Well, I don't know whether this will be something from my imagination again but I said clearly yesterday that these markings need not mean that we wrote them. I don't know who wrote them, and that was my answer of yesterday.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Albanian?

A. I assume that it is, because --

Q. Looks like it was written by a Kosovo Albanian prisoner about another prisoner. And if we look at another one -- we'll take one for the 22nd. Perhaps just lay it straight on the overhead projector because I want to finish, if I may. I've got only one more question, I think, about this video and I'm done before the break, if the Court may possibly indulge me with a couple of minutes.

Here one for another body, you see, which isn't the 23rd. This is ³⁹³¹⁰ the 22nd, if Mr. Nort can turn it round so we can see it. That's helpful. And again you see it has date, name, and it says "Dubrava." There's a format to the way these things are done. These show the dates upon which these people died, and one of them is the 23rd, and there are a couple more that are the 22nd.

A. I say again that I don't know what this refers to. However, have we not clearly shown with this that we worked according to the correct procedure and that we took note of every detail and that it is not part of a conspiracy for hiding the facts, as you put it, but that this is how things stood. I don't know what this refers to. I don't know who made this note, but the crime policemen took photographs of it as they found it.

Q. You see, you have referred to Bojic's document dated the 22nd of May where he refers -- it's tab 46.3 -- where he refers to later reports that the bombing happened up to the 22nd of May at 6.10 in the morning. Even assuming the date of that report by the investigative judge is accurate, which I don't accept -- I don't accept. Even assuming it is, that couldn't possibly account for a killing on the 23rd when, as your own documents show, there was only overflying. Could it? And there is no --

A. What has that got to do with the killing?

Q. You see, what I'm going to suggest to you is that those who engaged in the wanton killing of many, many prisoners at Dubrava must have persuaded you and the other authorities to cover up their crime by trying to make it seem as if it was a later bombing that had done the damage. Do you understand? ³⁹³¹¹

A. I do understand. However, the death of the prisoners was the result of the bombing. That is incontestable and can be seen from this.

Q. I'm sorry, incontestable. Thirty people with gunshots going through their heads, going straight through their bodies. That's caused by bombing, is it? And if so, would you like to explain what kind of bomb it is that lets off ordinary bullets? You see, we've got pathologist evidence on this, Mr. Paponjak. You may not have known that.

A. What kind of bullets?

Q. Bullets that come from guns. I haven't got the dimension of the bullet with me, but that's not an answer to the question. Can you tell me, please, what kind of bomb lets off bullets -- I think we've got one going through somebody's head, from here, down through his body and several other pictures of them going through -- I can give you the pictures, if you like. Would you like to see them? If you really think that would help you, and I don't want to go over the break, but I can show you the photographs, or some of them, of the evidence that we have in this case going to show how some of these people died.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I may have to defer this until after, but it will be the only thing I will defer until after apart from one part that I'd like to play straight away to the witness before we come to Baccard's evidence.

Q. Can you just look at this bit of video, please.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE: Go back. That will do as well but just let's go back a bit. ³⁹³¹²

Q. These are the technicians, apparently, filming. Stop there. Did you see a gun in that technician's hand?

A. I don't know whether that's a technician or a member of the security force or what.

Q. It appears to be the group of people who have gone round photographing these bodies. You're a policeman. You were there at the time. You know the uniforms. Who were they? Police, special police, paramilitary? Who were they?

A. If you go back a bit and stop the film, maybe I can recognise them, but it would be nothing strange if the technicians or the others had guns in their hands. This last individual was probably a technician from the investigating team, and we were able to see a uniformed policeman a few seconds ago. The technicians are also authorised personnel from the Ministry of the Interior, for example, and it is not unusual for them to carry rifles in war situations because they can be attacked when arriving, when leaving, and on the spot itself as well.

Q. There are no weapons seen on the people taking the video on the 19th, were there? They were ordinary technicians. What's happened by this date?

A. But they were not recorded when getting out of vehicles. I don't think we have anything like that recorded. They must have had weapons on the vehicles that day, too, because it was quite customary and it was a normal thing for everybody to carry rifles as soon as they went out into the open, out of town, but also when they went to town too. There was a situation of war. There were attacks coming from all over, terrorists ³⁹³¹³ were everywhere. So it was quite natural for them to be armed with rifles, too.

Q. See, what we see in this video is a video of people with mattresses in an area where they've been made to line up, been shot, where others had been pursued on that on subsequent days and attacked with grenades as they had been on the first day, and all the injuries that we can see on this video are consistent with that. Some killed in the bombing, some killed by things like grenades, and some shot. And that's my question to you, and answer that, please.

A. Employees -- employees of the crime investigation police of the SUP of Pec carefully investigated this, carefully looked at this video footage. There is nothing on this footage that would indicate that these people had been shot, as you had put it. The conclusion that the experts reached on the basis of the available material is that this was a consequence of the NATO bombing and nothing else.

Q. I'm going to finish with --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I think we're going to take the break now. This must be a convenient time. I think we are five minutes beyond. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Paponjak, we've moved on from -- in the compilation video, ³⁹³¹⁴ from the part that had the men with guns at the car and the video of the bodies in the prison to the last part. It's on a freeze-frame at the moment, and you'll see that we're back to a version that has a date, 25th, and a time on it, and this is the funeral.

JUDGE KWON: And Sanction again.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honour. Sanction.

Q. Now, this shows the bodies, one by one. You've produced this video. I want some help from you, please. First of all, to your knowledge was it all Kosovo Albanians who were buried on this occasion or were there any Serbs there?

A. All who were found were buried there. All the corpses that were found, that is.

Q. Were they all Kosovo Albanians?

A. I believe they are.

Q. They were fingerprinted, weren't they, for the purposes of providing identification, because one of your reports shows that.

A. Yes. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And it's clear that there was, under your discrimination between times of anxiety when you might be worried about bombs coming and times of calm when you weren't, it's clear from this video that the video-takers were under no great pressure of time on the 25th. They're taking a very measured video. Yes?

A. Yes. This was out in an open area that was not a target of aerial attacks, and that area was not expected to be targeted even if the planes were to fly over. ³⁹³¹⁵

Q. Who made the decision not to examine the bodies for cause of death?

A. I don't know about the bodies not being examined.

Q. Well, you see, we've got -- oh, I see. Well, please, then, take us through your material and show us where is the analysis, documentarily recorded, body by body, showing of what they died.

A. I think that the cause of death can be established only by carrying out a post-mortem, and there was no time for post-mortems or were there any possibilities for doing that because post-mortems were carried out in Pristina.

Q. Well, even if there wasn't time for full post-mortems, we can see from the photographs of the bodies their clothing wasn't even moved save for a few who had their trousers pulled down for some reason. Who made the decision not even to examine them sufficiently to discover whether, as was subsequently discovered in respect of 37 per cent of them, that they'd been shot?

A. A decision to carry out a post-mortem is always -- is always made by an investigating judge, according to our law. It's not that the law enforcement agencies decide on that. It was the investigating judge who examined the bodies and decided to have them buried.

Q. What's his name or her name?

A. There is a record of the on-site investigation here, signed by Investigating Judge Vladan Bojic.

Q. Well, he was injured, of course, in the blast on the 19th or 21st -- 21st, I think. Who made the decision and where's -- where's the ³⁹³¹⁶ document that I can find that explains the decision-making process that led to these bodies being buried so quickly without any examination for cause of death?

A. Although wounded, Investigating Judge Bojic went on carrying out his obligations, which is not the only case that this was done. All lightly wounded persons continued working. Only when hospitalisation was indispensable did a person not going on working.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... decision? Where is the document that shows his decision? This is all your material, all these binders. You tell me where I can find it.

A. On page 2 of the record of the on-site investigation, which is among the documents here. That is tab 46. 46.1, that is.

Q. Go on.

A. I can read that out to you if you haven't got it translated.

Q. Which is the bit that explains everything? We've looked at parts of this document before, the flying over of planes and all that sort of thing, but where is the bit that explains his decision-making to have these bodies buried without inspection?

A. When the investigation continued for the second time on the 25th of May, 1999, in the absence of elementary --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have a specific reference in the document where this --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's have a specific reference.

MR. NICE: Tab 46.1 page 2 in the English, and it's towards the foot of the page, under the heading "Continuation of the on-site ³⁹³¹⁷ Investigation." You've got the files. Otherwise I can ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What was ordered was photographing the site and later on recording by video camera. "Then I ordered that all the killed persons be relocated from the site, and after getting out of the rubble, to be relocated to the Albanian cemetery in the village of Donja Susica, a few kilometres away from the site in the direction of Kosovska Mitrovica via Zubin Potok. After the relocation of all the corpses to the mentioned place, I ordered the photographing and fingerprinting of every corpse individually. At the same time, I ordered to have an external examination of all corpses, which was carried out by the physician M. Stijovic, a specialist surgeon employed in the general hospital in Pec. The entire process went on all the way until the 26th of May at 10.00."

Q. Just pause there.

A. A total of 93 bodies were taken out of the KPZ.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice stopped the witness when he was supposed to read out the last sentence only and that is relevant in terms of the question that was put. It reads as follows: "After carrying out all the ordered crime investigation procedures, I ordered to have the burial individual of bodies carried out in a legally prescribed way."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's on this second page, yes.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to the accused. ³⁹³¹⁸

Q. You see, Mr. Paponjak, when people are trying to cover their traces, they sometimes say things that they shouldn't or fail to say things that they should. Here we see, I suggest to you, an example of that, because Mr. Bojic suggests indeed that there should be, in his report, should or should have been external examination of the bodies. Can you please show us on this video or in any of the records that you've produced that there was external examination of the bodies by Dr. Stijovic? Can you show it to us?

A. Why do you claim that he didn't have that carried out?

Q. Look at the video. You've looked at it at great length. You explained to the Learned Judges how it would be a good idea for them to do the same.

Here they are fully clothed save for a few. You can hear the earth mover in the background digging the graves. Where is there the evidence that these bodies were examined for cause of death? It's not on the video, and I'd like you, please, because there are so many untranslated documents, it may be there, to take me to Dr. Stijovic's reports that show the cause of death for these unfortunate people.

A. That is in the documentation of the court of the investigating judge. We don't have that document because that document was not relevant for us at that point in time.

Dr. M. Stijovic, specialist, submitted his report to the judge, not to the SUP Pec.

Q. You see, what did it show -- or is this something where you can't help us because it's the responsibility of another ministry? What did it ^{39319 BLANK PAGE 39320} show for those 37 per cent of the victims who died from gunshot wounds? Can you help us?

A. We don't have any such thing.

Q. How do you mean you don't have any such thing?

A. I mean the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it says here the whole process lasted until -- that's 1000 hours on 26 May this year. I'm interested to find out, to ascertain how long would that process of external examination have lasted if it started on the 25th of May.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. The video we are seeing now was taken on the 25th.

MR. NICE: It's in the afternoon. If the time there is right, it's in the afternoon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That would have been the examination of 93 bodies.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can you help His Honour Judge Robinson, please, Mr. Paponjak, with that?

A. I cannot because I really don't know about that. I was not present there all the time. I was there perhaps for half an hour only at the stage when the burial of the corpses had already started.

Q. So that the burial of the bodies started within how long of your arrival?

A. The burial was already under way.

Q. And tell me, did you see Dr. Stijovic there kitted out with a ³⁹³²¹ white or a green coat and rubber gloves, working in a tent or something like that, examining the bodies, did you, or did you just see the bodies put into the grave fully clothed?

A. On the spot itself I saw the bodies, I saw a tractor, or was it an earth mover that was used to dig the graves, and I saw a significant number of people there, perhaps about 15 of them. There was no tent there.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, can I take up one point further?

MR. NICE: Of course.

JUDGE KWON: The last sentence of this tab, Mr. Paponjak, tab 46.1, says: "The forensic documentation represents an integral part of this record." What does it mean? Does it mean that Dr. Stijovic's report is included in this documentation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not what it means. An investigating judge orders different participants to carry out particular actions. The forensic documentation, as it was called here, is what we have in the case file. That is what we have. The other participants who carry out certain activities submit their report to the investigating judge, not to us. We are only part of the team on site that is carrying out investigation activities. There are experts engaged by the investigating judge who submit their reports to him. We don't have the reports of Dr. Stijovic for those reasons, and perhaps some other reports that the investigating judge has. What is contained here is only what we have.

JUDGE KWON: It's very difficult for me to understand that while ³⁹³²² you are able to bring here the record of on-site investigation written by Judge Bojic that you are not able to bring here the very important report of Dr. Stijovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigating judge usually submits his record to us. In some cases, it so happened because we have records of judgements, we also have the actual texts of the decisions, but we don't have the other documentation. They don't submit that to us.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, Mr. Paponjak, you were there early on -- by the way, what was a traffic policeman, if you were a traffic policeman, doing at an event like this?

A. What do you mean what he did?

Q. You were a traffic policeman. What were you doing at a scene of crime investigation and burial of this importance? Was there a lot of traffic to direct?

A. There wasn't a lot of traffic, but it's right by the road.

Q. Well, were you on patrol and you just happened to sort of pop in to the grave site or were you there for a purpose?

A. No, no. I was there for a purpose, of course, but I wasn't on patrol.

Q. Well, what was the purpose of the traffic inspector being there? What was your job?

A. I didn't have any specific task in this respect, no specific job. I just stopped by for a brief period of time to see what was going on. ³⁹³²³

Q. Just out of interest, to see what was going on?

A. I did not have any specific assignment in relation to that.

Q. And what about the first time when you went there? Was it on the 19th? Did you have any job then?

A. Again, no specific assignment. The bombing was on. Those of us who happened to be there heard about it and went to the site itself.

Q. You see, if we go back to your answers when I asked you about what happened on arrival and what you saw and you described the bodies, the tractor and the burial, if I asked you the question, "From your own knowledge, from your own observations was there any external examination of the bodies that you saw," your answer would be?

A. Had I seen it? The answer would have been that I did not see it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Paponjak, can I clarify something? It may be me that has misunderstood earlier evidence. What exactly was your position in the office in Pec?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Pec I was head of the department of the traffic police.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. That does clarify it. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. And I return, with that question and answer in mind, to an earlier topic, and then I am completely done.

You will remember that I suggested to you that you were much more implicated in events than you revealed, possibly in relation to the Salihaj family, and certainly in relation to the movement of the bodies from Batajnica. I want you to have a few more details to consider about ³⁹³²⁴ the movement of bodies.

First, did you know and is it right that the movement of bodies was aimed at avoiding the detection of crimes? No bodies; no crimes. Did you understand that?

A. I understand that that's what you're asking me. However, that is not something that I knew, and it's not correct anyway.

Q. Secondly, I'm going to suggest to you, and let me make it clear this will emerge within a couple of months, in my suggestion, in a public report, so think carefully: Were you aware that bodies from Pec were found in sites 3 and 5 at Batajnica as long ago as 2002?

A. No.

Q. Are you --

A. May I explain? Will you let me explain what I knew about that?

Q. Of course.

A. Some kind of removal of bodies was referred to in the newspapers. From the newspapers and from television, I found out that allegedly these bodies were found. Now, when was that? It was in that year. And nothing else. We did not receive any information about this, let alone that it was bodies from Pec that were found there.

Q. Between December of last year and April of this year, Judge Dilparic has been the investigative judge dealing with this, and so far more than 50 bodies from those Batajnica sites have now been identified as coming from Pec. Are you aware of that?

A. We received a certain amount of information that some bodies had been identified and that they were handed over at the checkpoint to ³⁹³²⁵ families from Kosovo and Metohija. That is true, and that is contained in our documentation.

Q. Well, it must be my mistake, but let me see if I follow this. You're now acknowledging, because I've mentioned the investigative judge, that you were aware that Pec bodies had been found in Batajnica.

A. That pertains to what you asked about, December last year. The first question was 2002 or, rather, 1999, or whatever the year you mentioned was. I'm giving you a precise answer to the question that you put to me.

Q. So while you've been sitting there, you have at all times known that bodies from Pec had been identified as found in Batajnica and indeed had been returned to their original Pec family members. Yes?

A. Those are not bodies from Pec. These were identified persons from the area of Pec.

Q. Identified persons from the area of Pec?

A. Yes.

Q. When I asked you questions earlier this morning, and we'll try and find the precise answers you gave so that you can consider them, did you not think that I might have been referring to bodies from the area of Pec?

A. Well, now it seems that on the basis that a person was identified who had resided in Pec, that this body was transferred from Pec itself. I don't know what you meant. I told you quite specifically that we received information that bodies that were identified as being bodies of former residents of Pec were returned so that they could be buried properly. But that does not mean that they were found in Pec and transported from there. ³⁹³²⁶ They could have arrived from other places too.

Q. When I asked you questions earlier this morning about movement of bodies from Pec to Batajnica - we may not be able in the time to find the quotes - but you made it clear that you knew absolutely nothing about this, didn't you?

A. Yes, absolutely nothing about any removals.

Q. So when you now tell us that you knew about the return of the bodies, may we take it that your first answer was inevitably some form of lie?

A. You cannot convince anyone of that. Those two have nothing to do with each other. I know nothing about the relocation of bodies, but I do know that some bodies were returned. They were found somewhere, they were identified as being those bodies, and they were returned. Again, that has nothing to do with their movement.

Q. Let me help you just with a few of your answers about bodies from Pec to Batajnica. You challenged me, saying, "While you're at it, you can say I dug them up personally. Nothing like that happened, and I didn't participate in it." And later you said, "I cannot say anything of that sort," when I suggested to you that you'd been involved, "because it didn't happen. I didn't know anything about it. Even less could I say that I participated in it myself."

You were trying to mislead this Court --

A. That's right.

Q. You've been trying to mislead this Court and you've been caught out because I presented you with the evidence you didn't think I would ³⁹³²⁷ have, namely that the investigating judge has already reported to you on bodies moving from Pec to Batajnica. You've been caught out, Mr. Paponjak.

JUDGE KWON: Can I also remind you that you had said that, I quote, "We did not receive any information about this, let alone that it was bodies from Pec that were found there."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. We were talking about bodies that had been transferred from Pec. To date, no such information exists. It was announced in public that the bodies had been returned to families. And the Prosecutor cannot allege that I said I didn't know about it. However, we have no information that bodies had been dug out from cemeteries and transferred to Serbia. We have some information that some bodies were identified and returned to families. There is no link with reburial. It doesn't mean that those bodies had been buried in the first place.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is what I understand the witness to be saying, that while there may be evidence that bodies were found in Batajnica and returned to families in Pec, there is no evidence that those bodies were removed from Pec, dug up from Pec and taken to Batajnica. That's what I understand him to be saying. That's understandable. Just to correct something in the transcript. When you said to the witness, "You are trying to mislead this Court," the transcript has the witness as answering "That's right," but to be fair to him, you had not finished the question.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Your Honour. ³⁹³²⁸

Q. Mr. Paponjak, His Honour explains that your answer is comprehensible or capable of being comprehended, but I'm going to suggest to you that your answer is nonsense. Perhaps you'd like to explain, please, how bodies killed in the course of the events between March and June of 1999 got themselves up to the air force base in Batajnica near Belgrade so as to be buried along with other bodies that had been dug up in various parts of Kosovo and transferred to hide the evidence? Can you explain that for us?

A. That still doesn't mean they were dug up in Pec --

Q. Where were they dug up?

A. -- as you tried to put in my mouth.

Q. Where were they dug up?

A. That's something I don't know.

Q. Let me go back and give you a last chance to think about this. Amongst other sources of information, forensic scientific, there's your fellow policeman Zoran Aleksic, who was driven away because he was prepared to tell the truth about you and your colleagues. Do you want to think again about whether you along with Vlahovic, Bulatovic, Milojevic Mladen and Zoran Stanisic were involved in this? Do you want to think again about that?

A. There's no need to think about something I know.

Q. Very well.

A. I am telling you again that I did not participate in that, even if it happened, nor do I know of such a thing happening.

Q. And just to be quite clear, the role of the traffic police in the ³⁹³²⁹ event, amongst others, was that they were engaged in identifying the corpse -- corpses to be moved by gender and age, it being part of the plan to leave behind bodies that were KLA and to take away bodies that were innocent victims. Do you follow me? That's the suggestion as to what you and your particular group of police were doing.

A. That is simply ludicrous.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Than you, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, any re-examination?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do have re-examination, Mr. Robinson.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel.

A. Good morning.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you are going to re-examine, I want a disciplined exercise re-examination. It's confined to matters arising from the cross-examination. No leading questions, and it must be of a reasonably -- a reasonable length.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, I should have made this point clear before sitting down: As to the exhibits, although as I indicated I would ask questions about them without prejudice to their admissibility, it will be my argument in due course that the evidence given by this witness shows that the documents should not be admitted. He has no sufficient firsthand knowledge of the details he's referring to. He's relied entirely on the unidentified authorship of others. He's never been able to give detailed answers when asked, and this falls below the level of evidence ³⁹³³⁰ acceptability set by this Chamber. I thought I ought to make that clear before re-examination.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, first of all, to reply to what Mr. Nice just said, Colonel, when you said on several occasions that you had not written the documents that you had signed, when you said you had not written them, did you say that in order to explain that you cannot know every detail by heart or to say that you cannot stand by those documents and their authenticity?

A. We prepared those documents together, I mean the team that prepared them, and I participated in the preparation of this underlying information. I didn't mean to say that I don't stand by those documents. I stand by every document because it was the work product of a team of which I was a part, so I do absolutely stand by each of these documents because it is the result of joint work, and I signed them, of course, as head of Secretariat of the Interior.

Some of the examinations were not performed by me, which is only natural. Many incidents were processed by forensic policemen and scene-of-crime officers, but we had the documents available when we prepared these reports. I did review certain case files in which I was personally interested in, or professionally interested in, and I know the details, but there were other cases which were not the subject of my professional interest, and I had no opportunity to explain this before.

Q. I'm giving you this opportunity now. So all these case files that now exist in the relocated Secretariat of the Interior of Pec were ^{39331 BLANK PAGE 39332} prepared under your leadership?

A. Yes.

Q. Did all the documents, did all the underlying documents pass through your hands and the hands of your associates who participated in the preparation of these documents?

A. Yes. Some of them even contain my handwritten notes in the margin.

Q. Let us just complete this. On whose orders did you prepare these briefs or information that were prepared in the Secretariat of the Interior in Pec and in Kragujevac?

A. The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice suggested that you prepared this in order to help me. Who headed the Ministry of the Interior when you received those orders?

A. Mr. Dusan Mihajlovic.

Q. Mr. Nice mentioned here that some people have already testified here. Did your Secretariat of the Interior follow the evidence given in this trial?

A. I did not check that.

Q. Very well. You said that since you received the assignment to prepare this you were also provided with the methodology and the required headings. Those people who gave you orders to prepare these documents, are they the same people who sent me here?

A. Well, that seems to follow.

Q. Very well. Can we then assume that those people wanted you to do ³⁹³³³ something to help me?

A. There is no grounds for such an assumption.

Q. Very well. Now, look at this: A subject of considerable examination by Mr. Nice was tab 2.4, "Information about the forcible deportation of Albanians, their persecution, and acception [as interpreted] of IDs and personal documents." Was that one of the headings that were given to you by the Ministry of the Interior?

A. Yes.

Q. So is that the reason why it was included, as one of the required headings according to the orders of the ministry?

A. Precisely. We could not change that.

Q. Does this attachment, which is mentioned in para 7 and refers to one of the counts in the indictment, means that you had the task of compiling all the information about deportations, the taking away of IDs, et cetera, to respond to these charges?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it mean that you were not doing it to help me but, rather, to help Mr. Nice in order to prove his case?

A. Well, that's the way I understood it, but it can be understood differently as well.

Q. So if it is required to compile all information about deportations of Albanians on ethnic and racial grounds, et cetera, et cetera, did you give orders to your team to gather all the information related to deportations of Albanians, persecution on ethnic and racial grounds, et cetera? ³⁹³³⁴

A. Yes.

Q. And what was your conclusion? Is your conclusion reflected in the sentence that says "This information is not correct"?

A. Yes.

Q. I appreciate what the interpreters are telling me, that I have to make a pause between question and answer.

Is it then clear that your assignment was to provide information concerning cases in which Albanians were the injured party and that you did precisely what you were asked?

A. Correct.

Q. Were you required, and we have documents here from which we can see that, such as one document in particular which refers exclusively to cases where Albanians were victimised, were you required by the Ministry of the Interior to provide information first about those cases where Albanians were the injured party? Was priority given to Albanians or Serbs, Roma, and others?

A. We were asked as a priority to provide this information concerning Albanians and later concerning cases involving Serbs.

Q. Later, when you were required to provide information about forcible deportations and persecution of Albanians, you were also required to provide information about crimes against Albanians.

A. Yes.

Q. And you were not required to provide information about crimes against Serbs?

A. That was not required. ³⁹³³⁵

Q. How long was it before you were required to provide information on crimes against Serbs?

A. Considerably later. I cannot tell you exactly now.

Q. Was it after you completed compiling information on crimes against Albanians?

A. Correct.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice asked you in particular about one brief which concerns security related events involving loss of life from the 1st of January, 1998, until the 1st of June, 2001, in tab 4. He only asked you about item 59, which you quoted in its entirety, and there's no need for me to read it again. I suppose you well remember that it concerns a summary. I'll quote only one part, which says, "Members of the police responded to fire." That follows after the sentence about the attack on the police patrol. It also mentions that eight KLA members were killed, quoting names.

Mr. Nice asked at one point -- in fact, he claimed that those people had their throats slit. Do you know anything about that, and is there any information that reality is different from this summary?

A. What throats? What throats were slit? That is absolutely incorrect.

Q. So this entire file A/III, item 59, has a case file behind it for every item, including 59?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have case files numbered including lists of victims in alphabetical order? ³⁹³³⁶

A. Yes. That is the underlying information that we used for this report.

Q. So for this entire documentation that you exhibited here, there are underlying dossiers and case files for every incident, every case.

A. Precisely.

Q. Does that mean that each of these documents under each of these tabs is an official document of the Ministry of the Interior, officially signed and stamped, together with all the underlying case files?

A. Of course. We couldn't work any different.

Q. Very well. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I will ask you to exhibit these documents, especially if we have in mind that Mr. Nice is exhibiting documents from secondhand, fifth-hand sources such as books including "Under Orders" which have no evidentiary value at all. We are talking here, on the contrary, about official documents and forensic documentation obtained during investigations. So if you make any comparison in terms of validity between various documents tendered here, you must bear in mind, of course, that official documents certainly have priority over the documents provided by Mr. Nice, especially documents provided by BBC, including their reports.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, Mr. Paponjak, where do you come from?

A. From Rudo.

Q. What did you say?

A. Rudo. ³⁹³³⁷

Q. What do you say? Where are you from?

A. Rudo.

Q. So you are from Rudo. And I am from Pozarevac. And now look, in this document that Mr. Nice tried to explain to you in the Serbian language, and that is document military district Pec, which says "moving part of the population from the zone of responsibility," does that mean population that is native to that area?

A. Many people here know the Serbian language better than I do.

Q. It's clear that if they were to relocate, they were to be relocated outside this area.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... tend to forecast leading questions --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll allow him to finish. Finish the question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This first sentence here, does it read: "Moving out part of the population from the zone of responsibility of VO Pec, military district Pec," and then goes on to say, "with a view to proper functioning and normal life in the zone of responsibility." Let me not ask a leading question: What does this mean, Colonel?

A. It means what I tried to explain when asked by Mr. Nice, by the Prosecutor: This was to regulate the relocation of the population from those places where their lives could have been in jeopardy, such as positions of the army or the police to a different location that is safer. ³⁹³³⁸ That is all there is to it. This is not about deportation or moving out, it's about relocation.

Q. Please. Is the purpose of this measure to protect population or to deport it?

A. These are protective measures that are applied by all military units expecting to come under attack, expecting to be involved in combat activities.

Q. Very well. I hope we've clarified this. Now, let us shed light on some of the other issues raised by Mr. Nice regarding the Dubrava prison. Mr. Nice mentioned tab 7.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just give us that tab number again, the one which deals with moving out of or moving from or --

JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 319, tab 36.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have the tab number, Mr. Robinson. This is something that was introduced by Mr. Nice in cross-examination. That is his exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Exhibit 319, tab 36. I'm going to ask that it be passed --

MR. NICE: Ms. Dicklich provided him with a copy, so ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask that it be translated, that the interpreters translate it for us.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the Philip Coo binder, I understand.

MR. NICE: Yes. We have single versions of it for ease of ³⁹³³⁹ handling.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to have a Serb version placed on the ELMO so that the interpreters can translate it.

MR. KAY: I don't happen to have Mr. Coo's exhibit bundles in my pocket, which I remember were very extensive. I wonder if there are English language versions, that they could be distributed to Your Honours and myself.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we had an English language version this morning. That's the problem. It's suggested that the translation is wrong.

MR. KAY: Yes. I wouldn't mind seeing that as well so that we can bear it in mind, if it can be distributed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have in front of me both what I just read out from a Serbian text when I was examining the colonel, and I have the English translation that was provided together with this when Mr. Nice tendered it. The English translation is incorrect. Instead of saying that this population -- it says -- [In English] "Moving of a part of the population out of --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I know you're gifted linguistically, but I'd prefer to have it placed on the ELMO so that it can be translated. Could you pass over the Serbian version. Put it on the ELMO, and we'll ask the interpreters to translate it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. May I just ask the interpreters something, because as expert, they can testify, too, I ³⁹³⁴⁰ suppose.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want any evidence on it, Mr. Milosevic. Just let the interpreters translate what they say. What paragraph is this?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is the second sentence at the very beginning: "Moving part of the population from the zone of responsibility." Would you please lower it a little. [In English] Down, down. Just the opposite direction. [Interpretation] No, scroll it up a bit. That's it.

You see here the second sentence says: "And moving or relocating part of the population from the zone of responsibility of the military district of Pec with a view to proper functioning of the entire life in the zone of responsibility of the Pec military district." Whereas the translation says "moving out."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I want you to be quiet. Let the interpreters do this translation for me again. The interpreters, please. Just read the text.

THE INTERPRETER: From which part, Your Honour? Where do we start? Somebody should read it for us to interpret.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can't you see what is on the ELMO?

THE INTERPRETER: From the beginning, it reads --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: -- "First command of the military section of Pec, strictly confidential."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can skip that. ³⁹³⁴¹

THE INTERPRETER: Sub-heading "Functioning of life and order."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Skip that.

THE INTERPRETER: Next paragraph: "Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Commander proclaiming the state of war and the relocation of a part of a population from the zone of responsibility of the Pec military district with a view to proper functioning of the entire life in the zone of responsibility of the Pec military district, I hereby order..."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is all. So this interpreter interpreted this correctly. It should read in translation "from the zone," whereas the document provided by Mr. Nice says "part of the population out of the zone." That is not a possible translation. It is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: She also said "relocation," which has some significance too.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well except -- well, okay. I'm afraid I remain subject to the same problem as I had before, that "from the zone" is, as I understand it, exactly the same "out of the zone." I don't see the difference unless there's some particular word in Serbian in this context where "from" means "of," the population of the zone. But to relocate a part of a population from a zone simply means to me out of the zone, but it may be a problem of translation that is extremely difficult to deal with.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I asked the witness precisely for this purpose, "Where are you from, Mr. Paponjak?" And he answered, "From Rudo." ³⁹³⁴² In the Serbian language, you say, "I come from this and that place," just like you said "from the zone."

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, people say that in English also, that I would be from Scotland. I understand that entirely. But I would never talk about the population "from" Scotland. I would always talk about the population "of" Scotland, and that's where I have the difficulty.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So the reference here is to two words that were mistranslated. The reference in the original is to relocation, which was mistranslated as "moving out." And it further says "out of the zone." Those two combined change the sense completely. The witness, however, explained exactly what this was all about. I asked the witness what the purpose was, protection or maltreatment, and he answered protection. Of course, this was always the main purpose, to protect the population.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have no difficulty accepting that the correct translation of the word is "from," but it remains a matter of interpretation now what that whole sentence actually means, and that's for us to deal with at an appropriate stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, Mr. Nice mentioned tab 7. In tab 7, there is a brief about the consequences of NATO bombing in the area of responsibility of Pec. I don't have to read the entire document, because it pertains to the ^{39343 BLANK PAGE 39344} entire period of aggression.

Tab 7 contains the documents as they occurred chronologically from item 64 onwards. Istok, Dubrava. Then the 19th of May from 8.20 until 10.20. And then there is the actual case reference and everything else. Then you come to point 60, Istok Dubrava, the 21st of May, paragraph 65, and then the times are given.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Then we come to 66. Yes, 66. Istok Dubrava, the 21st of May at 17.50 hours.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And then it goes on case file, et cetera. And the people killed are mentioned in all cases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: As a matter of fact, I don't know whether the Chamber wants to be sensitive to this: I didn't cross-examine on this document, I think, at all, not least because I didn't have a translation of it. I cross-examined and asked a few questions about tab 8, but I didn't cross-examine about tab 7. Indeed, if it had been translated I might have wanted to do so, but I didn't have it, and I didn't do it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let us hear the question so we can determine whether to allow it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that you will recall well that Mr. Nice insisted several times upon the times when the prison was bombed in his cross-examination, all the times. And now I have ³⁹³⁴⁵ pulled out tab 7, and I do remember him mentioning tab 7. But if he didn't read it, I accept that. But it is legitimate, because he asked questions about the times of the bombings of the prison.

JUDGE BONOMY: Tab 7 doesn't have any times on it. Is it tab 7.1 perhaps, or 7.2, or some later one?

MR. NICE: It's 7.2, I think. And it's very -- this is a real good example of how not having translated documents is problematic. Of course I can see, looking at them now, that various dates related to Istok Dubrava are referred to, didn't form part of the accused's evidence in chief, and in the absence of an English version to deal with, I didn't prepare on the basis of it. So there it is. I don't know whether when I see an English version there would be any points I would have wanted to take.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But it would arise. Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in tab 7, point 64 is Dubrava prison from 8.20 to 10.20. Then 65, once again Dubrava on the 25th of May from 0830 hours to 1030 hours. Point 66, Dubrava, the 21st of May, around 1750 hours. That's 66. Then we come to 67 chronologically, Pec, Branovacko Brdo [phoen], which has nothing to do with Dubrava, but already when we come to point 68, we have Istok Dubrava the 21st of May from 2340 to 2345 hours. Then we come to 69, Istok Dubrava, the 22nd of May from 1300 hours to 1500 hours. And those are all -- that is to say, from 64 to 69 inclusive, we ³⁹³⁴⁶ have all the events, all the instances of bombing of Dubrava prison with the exception of point 67, which was inserted there chronologically between 66 and 68 but does not refer to the Dubrava prison. Now, Colonel, is this the customary and usual way or normal phrases that are used, the customary phrases, if I can put it that way? But let's clear one point up first: On different days sometimes more people were killed, sometimes less people were killed by the bombing. It wasn't that when the bombing took place and we have recorded, as we have seen from point 69 -- 64 to 69 inclusive - how many does that make? - five or six instances of bombing, not the same number of people died on all the bombings; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. Now, can you notice --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. One that's out with the area that we've looked at already is number 69. Now, what does it -- what does it actually say, Mr. Paponjak? What does the report number 69 say?

THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

JUDGE BONOMY: You'd better hold on. I'm getting no translation for this.

THE INTERPRETER: Can you hear the English channel?

JUDGE BONOMY: I can now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Start again, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The bombing of the Dubrava correctional centre with a number of projectiles, persons were killed, several persons were killed, wounded seriously or less seriously, and ³⁹³⁴⁷ material damage was done to the prison. A report was sent to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia. In the three days of bombing 100 persons were killed and another 140 persons were wounded seriously or less seriously. An on-site investigation was carried out by the investigating judge from the district court of Pec with cooperation from the employees of the SUP of Pec. Crime and technical documents were compiled, a scene of the crime recorded and video footage made and an Official Note compiled. Sixty-seven bodies were fingerprinted for identification purposes. Twenty-six of the bodies were not fingerprinted because of the decomposition of the bodies. The corpses were buried individually pursuant to the laws and regulations. Video attachments 1/X, 2/X, 3/X, 4/X and 1/XI. So those are the partial videotapes per day of the bodies. And the case number is J/369.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does it not actually say what happened between 1300 and 1500 hours on the 22nd of May?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: What does it say happened then?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, at the beginning it says --

JUDGE BONOMY: Please let the witness answer the question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says in the title, under number 69. "Istok Dubrava, the 22nd of May, between 1300 and 1500 hours."

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but what does it say happened? What you read was the bombing of the Dubrava correctional centre with a number of projectiles, persons were killed, several persons were killed, wounded seriously or less seriously, and material damage was done to the prison. ³⁹³⁴⁸ A report was sent to the ministry. In the three days of bombing, 100 persons were killed.

What I'm trying to find out is what it says actually happened between 1300 and 1500 hours on the 22nd of May, and it would appear it doesn't deal with that. Now, can you clarify that for me?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the basis of this, I can't clarify that point.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, these first few lines, do they refer to that day the 22nd of May between 1300 and 1500 hours? That is to say that the penal and correctional facility was -- of Dubrava was bombed, et cetera, with several projectiles and that the report sent to Serbian MUP --

JUDGE BONOMY: This is no way to conduct a re-examination. The witness has already dealt with a question put in an open way by me and says he can't explain it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, looking -- I'm sorry to interrupt, but looking at the answer of the witness and trying to compare what one can track from the translation to the original by reference to numbers which we can all follow, he volunteered an observation about partial videotapes per day of the bodies which I suspect does not appear in the text, and this is clearly a document and may be a document I would have wanted to ask questions about in light of the material we have been supplied with and, of course, in light of the answers that the witness has himself given about the impossibility of there being a video, an on-site investigation ³⁹³⁴⁹ on the 22nd. Because you'll remember that's one of the days when they were all too frightened to go, and yet here there appears to be one. So there's a lot of material that should have been available to us in translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, one more question before the break.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, in all of this, in all these points, from 64, 5, 8, 9, and so on, do we find the same terms used and the same phrase, "the bombing of the penal and correctional facility of Dubrava," et cetera, et cetera, and then "several persons were killed, wounded," et cetera? Are the first three sentences or phrases the same? When it says that several -- a number of persons were killed, were wounded either seriously or less seriously, it's the same phrase, the same turn of phrase used in all these points for the Dubrava prison, although we have actually established that at some time -- that sometimes more persons were killed, sometimes less. So how come these same phrases were used in all the cases? What is the official terminology that you used to express things like this?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, so many leading questions in that last effort from you. One doesn't know where it is leading to. The last question is: What is the official terminology used to express things like this? Can you answer that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] With your permission, I'd like to answer the comment made by the Prosecutor. Everything that was added subsequently, after saying that a report was sent to the MUP of Serbia, ³⁹³⁵⁰ relates to our collective knowledge gathered about each particular event, because that is the latest report on the bombing which is a compilation of all the knowledge we had. That is why it contains information about fingerprinting, videotaping, and all the rest of it. So this is the last time that the bombing was mentioned, and it mentions the consequences of the bombings, all the consequences. I understood the Prosecutor to say that there was an on-site investigation and these were attachments on the basis of that. An on-site investigation wasn't conducted on that day but the video attachments 1/10 to 4/10 and 1/11 are the complete tapes to be found in the files on that case.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Colonel, in point 69, para 69, the first four lines, do those refer to the event that took place on the 22nd of May? Is that a standard form?

A. Yes, that's right. That is standard.

Q. Whereas all the rest refers to the cumulative information gathered, that particular case and the previous ones. Can that be seen from the text? That's what I wanted to clear up.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you yourself said --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll stop here now and take the break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m. ³⁹³⁵¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you had a look at all these items, from 65 to 69, with the exception of 67, which does not pertain to Dubrava? The same sentence was used time and again: "Several persons were killed or -- and sustained serious and less serious injuries."

A. Yes, that is a general formulation that was used because the exact number was not established.

Q. That's the only thing I wanted to establish. So there is no difference in this description of events from day to day. The same sentence is used every time, that is to say, "Several persons," et cetera.

A. That is right, because it was not known how many. And then finally there is paragraph 69, which brings all of this together.

Q. Colonel, do you know whether all facilities of the Dubrava prison were hit during these airstrikes?

A. Yes, all of them were hit.

Q. Was there a single facility within it that was not hit during the aerial strikes?

A. Not a single one.

Q. You said that at that time there were over 1.000 convicts or accused persons there; right?

A. Yes. I said that there was a total of 1.004 detainees or prisoners.

Q. In a facility where there are 1.004 detainees, if all facilities within that compound were hit, is it reasonable to expect that -- about ³⁹³⁵² this many to be killed or wounded? That's less than 10 per cent.

A. Well, that's what I thought.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's leading. That has to be reformulated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So all the facilities within the compound were hit, and there is a total of 1.004 prisoners there. Ninety-five of them were killed. Are those the facts that were established?

A. Yes, that's right. Those are the facts that were established. Ninety-seven killed persons, or perhaps a bit more, I can't say just off-the-cuff now.

Q. Mr. Nice showed the dining area where there are no corpses, and before that did you notice a part of the dining area where there were several corpses, before that on the tape?

A. Yes. There is such footing on the tape as well.

Q. If a bomb fell in through the ceiling of the dining area, would it jettison the corpses away from that spot?

A. Yes. It is only logical that they would be killed and that the bodies would be thrown elsewhere.

Q. In tab 46.5 - there wasn't any need to translate this because it was taken out of the white book - is there -- are there some photographs there from the prison of Dubrava?

A. Just let me just try to find this. ³⁹³⁵³ I'm afraid that this is not it.

Q. 46.5. That's where the photographs are.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I place these photographs on the ELMO now, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you pass it to the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found this now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you please be so kind as to place on the overhead projector some of these. You don't have to put all of them on. From 322 onwards, just briefly. From page 322 onwards. But that's not it. Now we've got the photographs. Next, please. Next, please.

These are the effects of the air bombs; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. All right. Next, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this in relation to? You are not at large in re-examination. What does it arise from? If you can't establish that, I will not allow it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to Mr. Nice's question. He put not only one question but many questions as to whether post-mortems were carried out in order to establish how persons got killed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Could we have the next photograph, please, in relation to the question put in cross-examination by Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic, and what do these photographs have to do with that ³⁹³⁵⁴ question?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, if you'd please look at the next photograph, you'd see.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have to explain to me how the question which you're asking relates to an issue that arises from cross-examination. I'm waiting for the explanation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you look at the next photographs, you can see quite clearly that there are several corpses there, on the one down here and the next ones, where people obviously got killed in the bombing. My question is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but how does that relate to any issue?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It relates to the questions put by Mr. Nice in relation to the doctor who examined the corpses, and he asked whether post-mortems were carried out, examinations, et cetera. My question is related to that question put by Mr. Nice; whether the authorities there, where it was quite clear how a person found his or her death, do they carry out post-mortems nevertheless? Please look at the next photograph. If a person is taken out of rubble after --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: You can ask the question, but we don't need the assistance of the photographs.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it may -- incidentally, been looking at the photographs and the accused may be confused and it would be unfortunate to confuse anyone else. These all relate to the 19th of May. ^{39355 BLANK PAGE 39356} They can be matched to the film and there is no challenges to that they died or how they died.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If we want to establish exactly what this pertains to, it pertains to the 19th and 21st of May. On page 319, that is at the beginning of tab 46.5, it says that 95 persons were killed and 196 were wounded. That is the information contained at the very beginning. It pertains to the 19th and 21st of May.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you, Colonel, during --

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you ask, are you telling us that any of these pictures relate to a period other than the 19th of May? That's the photographs in particular. Are you saying that any one of these relates to later than the 19th of May? That's the pictures of bodies.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I cannot say specifically which date these photographs pertain to, but at the very outset, at the beginning of this document that was published as the white book, from page 319 onwards there is reference to the 19th and 21st of May. Now, what pertains to the 19th and what pertains to the 21st or some other day is something that I cannot say. But obviously these pictures were taken in the prison in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, and you can see how many persons were hit.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice has made the point that you can tell from the video shot after the 19th of May that these bodies relate to the 19th of May. Now, do you dispute that?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. ³⁹³⁵⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is all on the tape from the 19th and the 21st of May, and everything else is on the tape, too, pertaining to other dates. The tape is an exhibit, and it's from the investigation that was carried out, and I cannot just say off the top of my head which body pertains to which date.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, it may be that photograph 4 relates to the 21st, I'll get the copy of the white book and examine it, but as to the bodies, Your Honours' understanding of my position is clear.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic, proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I have a very simple question: In this brief concerning the effects of the NATO bombing, you gave a series of cases, 97 cases of bombing in the area of responsibility of your Secretariat of the Interior.

A. That's right.

Q. Wherever there were casualties in these events, and when this was established immediately after the bombing, was a special investigation carried out or were post-mortems carried out, or was it obvious how these people had lost their lives? Was it customary for post-mortems to be carried out in case of bombing victims?

A. No, it wasn't customary.

Q. Why? Can you explain that?

A. First of all, I said that it's for the investigating judge to decide whether a post-mortem would be carried out or not. It was probably obvious to the investigating judge why -- how this was done, and therefore there was no reason for this to be carried out. Also, in those situations ³⁹³⁵⁸ it was virtually impossible to carry out a post-mortem. It was virtually impossible to find a forensic doctor who would carry that out.

Q. Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Paponjak - excuse me - do you happen to know when this white book was published?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the exact date, but I think it was published sometime in 2003 or somewhere around there. I'm just saying this off-the-cuff.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. The white book was published in 1999.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you've got it here. You've got the white book here.

JUDGE KWON: I'm just wondering why this does not say the bombing on the 22nd, on page 319.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I did not participate in the elaboration of this book.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a few more questions in relation to Dubrava. You were asked whether there was any military target within the compound and in the immediate vicinity of the prison.

A. Yes, that question was put to me.

Q. Is there any military facility or any military piece of equipment or vehicle, an APC, a truck that was destroyed in the prison or near the ³⁹³⁵⁹ prison during the bombing?

A. No. No. There weren't any military facilities or military equipment there.

Q. All right. Mr. Nice asked you about tab 9, too, which is a very voluminous piece of information. 9 and 9.1. 9 is the text, and then the entire list is 9.1. That is a detailed piece of information about the terrorist organisation and the terrorist activities. That's contained in the heading "Information about terrorist organisation and terrorist activities and the effects of terrorist activities carried out by the KLA in the territory of the SUP of Pec."

He put a question to you, to read the first paragraph on page 1. "Albanian separatism and extremism in the previous period" is the sub-heading and then he asked you why you needed 1878 [as interpreted] and the Prizren League and all the rest of that in the first paragraph. Colonel, as far as I can see, this entire history, including the Second World War, ends by the middle of the first page, as far as I can see.

A. That's right.

Q. These few lines at the very beginning, were they given by way of historical background for further developments or in order to describe something, or was it intended to be some kind of historical text?

A. This was done so that whoever would read it would find his way and know more about it. There was no other reason. This information was compiled for our own purposes.

Q. For the purposes of the police with a historical background of ³⁹³⁶⁰ events, and very quickly they move on to the 1990s.

A. Precisely.

Q. The question about the parapolice, which starts from the middle of page 4 --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, this is a document that particularly interested and concerned me but which there was simply not time to get a translation. I was indeed hoping, had time moved more swiftly -- time moved more slowly and I moved more swiftly this morning, to have returned to it if I could have found passages. However, I only cross-examined in the event on the opening passage, and it is completely unsatisfactory for a document of this kind to be examined item by item without the Court having the complete document to look at.

I know from those who have reviewed it what my general propositions about this document would be, and the Court will need to look at it in -- as a whole, given both the single question I was able to ask and, I think, the single question that came from the Bench yesterday, to see if there is any value in the re-examination now intended.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have some sympathy for the Prosecutor's submissions, but let me hear first, what is it that you're seeking to establish?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] With this examination, I wish to refute Mr. Nice's claim that this is irrelevant. He wanted to diminish the value of this document, which is a very comprehensive and detailed overview of terrorist activity in the area of the Secretariat of the ³⁹³⁶¹ Interior of Pec from the 1st of January 1998 to the 1st of June, 2001, as we can see from the heading. And the very fact that the first few sentences provide a historical background was used by Mr. Nice to diminish the value of a document which contains a wealth of good information. This is a typical attempt to treat condescendingly documents which could be valuable exhibits by saying simply that this is not relevant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you never used this document in your examination-in-chief.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It was used by Mr. Nice in cross-examination with a view to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: He only used the first -- number 1, the first part, which has to do with history, and you're now seeking to utilise the rest of the document, which in any event is not translated. I will consult with my colleagues.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll not allow it. Move on to another question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In connection with Dubrava, just a few more questions, please. You mentioned that you did go to that cemetery in Rakos where Dubrava inmates were buried.

A. Yes, I was there.

Q. Was it a cemetery even before the inmates were buried there?

A. It is a Muslim cemetery in that village.

Q. Is it the case that during the war other persons were buried there, persons who got killed in combat and generally during the conflict ³⁹³⁶² that took place in the area?

A. Of course. Of course they were.

Q. Mr. Nice said that some bodies were dug out from their graves there, bodies that had the marks of bullet wounds. Did those bodies include some of persons who died from being shot?

A. Of course.

Q. Mr. Nice asked you why the burial was so hurried, and we have here a document prepared by the investigating judge who ordered the burial. Was there a danger of contamination, of contagion involved during those days? Was the burial indeed hasty?

A. No. It was done in the only way possible. The bodies were already undergoing changes due to decomposition. They were decaying, and that was the only reason why it made no sense to delay their burial. But they were not buried before proper procedure was observed and every action prescribed by the law taken.

Q. Was any omission made in that procedure, including fingerprinting, examination, et cetera?

A. No. There was no omission.

Q. I will no longer come back to these photographs. Mr. Nice further asked you why, after relocating to Kragujevac, you continued to work on the gathering of information concerning these crimes. He said verbatim, and I noted it, "Since you knew you were not coming back ..." Do you know that according to Resolution 1214 it was envisaged that our army and police should return immediately after takeover by the KFOR? Immediately, not several years later? ³⁹³⁶³

A. That is correct. And to this date, I'm not sure that we are not going back.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice asked you whether anyone, anyone from the outside, and he even mentioned Bosnia, whether anyone trained people from Pec. Do you have any knowledge that anyone from Pec had gone for some training in Bosnia?

A. No.

Q. Do you have any knowledge that any policemen, and you knew all the policemen, ever attended some training in Bosnia?

A. Nobody ever.

Q. Mr. Nice asked you to tell us your opinion on the allegations of the president of Human Rights Watch from Pec, and according to what we saw from the ELMO, I read the name. It was Mr. Demaj. Did you ever hear of a person called Demaj who was president of the Human Rights Watch from Pec?

A. No. I know no such person. And by the way, what he said there he could have said in Pec, and he could have reported everything to the police if he had anything to report.

Q. Since Mr. Nice insists that the work of Human Rights Watch is public, is it possible that the activity of Mr. Demaj is public, that he is president of Human Rights Watch in Pec while you know nothing about it?

A. No, that's not possible. If there were any abuses by the police, then he could have come straight to us and reported. He could have reported it to any commanding officer. If there was anything happening that was out of order, it would have been logical to report it to me or the commander of the police. ³⁹³⁶⁴

Q. Mr. Nice presented several allegations of maltreatment of Albanians by the police. You told us that since Pec is a small town, the citizens knew all the policemen working in Pec.

A. That's correct.

Q. Would it then be logical to expect this president of Human Rights Watch, if he's talking about police abuse, to state the name of the policeman?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your questions are provocatively leading. I believe that you know that you are leading. "Would it then be logical..." We have been through this before. You're telling the witness the answer to the question. It's abusive, and you must desist, otherwise, I'll stop the re-examination. If you're not able to ask questions which are not leading, then it means that you're not competent to carry out the re-examination. It's a matter for you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice also claimed, basing himself on information provided by Human Rights Watch, that in 1993 there were some paramilitary groups in Pec. Do you know anything, anything at all about any paramilitary group in Pec in 1993 or around that year?

A. There was no such thing, and I don't know anything about it. There were no paramilitary groups in the context in which the question was asked. It's possible that there were some paramilitary groups up in the mountains, in Cicavica and such like where terrorists were being trained, but there were no Serb paramilitary groups. ³⁹³⁶⁵

Q. From what Mr. Nice quoted from reports of the Human Rights Watch, there seem to have been allegations about a paramilitary group in Pec even owning a barracks.

A. That's not possible. That's preposterous.

Q. Would it have been possible for a paramilitary group to exist in Pec and even have a barracks without you knowing?

A. That's simply impossible. Anyway, the person who made this allegation could have designated the barracks involved. Just throwing this allegation about without specifying the barracks makes no sense. I have said several times today if there was any police abuse by a specific policeman - and a case was mentioned today of a policeman who requisitioned some buses - then it would have been normal to say exactly who it was, and the policeman must have issued some papers in exchange for these buses.

Q. Mr. Nice also quoted this gentleman from Human Rights Watch saying that police took money from shop owners in Pec. Do you know of a single case wherein the police in Pec took money from shop owners?

A. I know nothing about that. If money was taken from some shop owners, then the representative of this organisation could have stated which policeman did that by name.

Q. Mr. Nice said in cross-examination that people were arrested because they assembled in order to talk, to discuss. Do you know of a single case when, let us say an Albanian because in this case we are discussing mostly Albanians, do you know of a single case where an Albanian was arrested because a group had assembled to talk? ³⁹³⁶⁶

A. No. If that had been the practice, then the entire town of Pec would have been under arrest, because everybody gathered to talk.

Q. Mr. Nice mentioned a lawyer, Adem Bajri, from Pec, who, as he said, defended 200 political prisoners starting with 1990. Do you know of any political prisoners in Pec from the time when you arrived there in the 1990s?

A. No. I don't even know what the term "political prisoner" means.

Q. There was a small misunderstanding at one point here, and Mr. Bonomy told me to pick that issue in re-examination. Namely, Mr. Nice asked you with regard to the illegal SUP whether you knew that your colleagues, Albanian policemen, members of the illegal SUP, had been arrested.

Were any of these people who were members of the illegal SUP your colleagues at any point in time?

A. I can't say that anyone was my colleague if he was a member of the so-called illegal SUP or illegal MUP of the Republic of Kosovo. They would come to perform an on-site investigation after we performed ours, and in some cases they even arrived before we did, and they conducted examinations. That almost always happened in situations where Albanians were involved. They never conducted an on-site investigation where Serbs were involved.

Q. Very well. Do you know any of the policemen who had been regular policemen before in the SUP of Pec and who were later arrested as members of the illegal SUP?

A. I don't have all the information about all the people who were ^{39367 BLANK PAGE 39368} arrested, but there was a story circulating that Serif Shala had been arrested. He first worked as a regular policeman in the SUP of Pec before leaving the service, and he was one of those who were arrested as illegal SUP members.

Q. Do you know of anyone from the regular SUP of Pec who was arrested later as a member of this illegal MUP?

A. No, I don't. I know there was a trial, but I don't know about the outcome because I didn't follow it.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice showed us yesterday on the ELMO a document that wasn't distributed, by the way, which he said was a report by some military source, a military document concerning the 25th of May, 1998.

MR. NICE: It was an existing Prosecution exhibit, as the accused will recall.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You heard that, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I heard that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you notice that in this document -- in fact, Mr. Nice said it was a military document.

A. Yes.

Q. In May 1998 in Kosovo, were there any military missions?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. There were probably some foreign military missions. Did you notice that it is written in this document that they had stated -- that's exactly what it says, I noted it, that term was used -- the people they found there told them? ³⁹³⁶⁹

A. Yes.

Q. That's what they say. Did you notice that there was a description of a man wearing ammunition belts for a Kalashnikov?

A. Yes.

Q. Who carried ammunition and who was armed at the time? Was it the KLA or civilians?

A. It's a matter of course that it was not civilians. Who is armed? It's the KLA and the terrorists.

Q. Can we in fact see from this document that it was the KLA who told something to this mission?

A. Yes.

Q. We see from the description that this mission learnt about something from KLA members.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So in this case, Mr. Nice and Your Honours, you are accepting as an exhibit something that is provided as secondhand information by the KLA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a few more questions, Colonel. Mr. Nice also said that the Albanians thought that they would be killed if they failed to leave. Now, tell me this, please: At that time, the material time that we're discussing and the time that you testified about and said that a large number of Albanians gathered together in the centre of Pec and that they left going off in different directions, now, was anybody killed? Was a single Albanian killed during that period, during those days?

A. No. And we could -- were convinced of that looking at the list. ³⁹³⁷⁰ We were able to see that.

Q. Very well. One more question now. Actually, it was a question that Mr. Nice asked you with the fact that Albanians were allegedly deprived of their ID cards by the police. Did you or any of your colleagues, or any other policemen, for that matter, whom you happen to know, or any soldier whom you know, did they ever confiscate documents from Albanians?

A. No. It wasn't in our interest to confiscate documents. It was in our interest for people to possess documents so we could ascertain their identity to know who we were dealing with and who the people were. So there would have been no logic in us confiscating documents from people because we're the people issuing documents to citizens.

Q. Thank you, Colonel. I have no further questions for you.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. May I ask the interpreters just to return to that issue of relocating the people from or out of the zone. Could it be translated in any of the following ways: Relocating the people in the zone, relocating the people belonging to the zone, or relocating the people of the zone, or indeed relocating the zone people?

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly request that we have a look at the original again. All the examples are possible, however. The word used is "iz zone," meaning "from the zone." If it were "of the zone," it would be "stanovnistvo zone." But we suggest a proper expertise by the CLSS service. ³⁹³⁷¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, with respect to this, I'd like to draw your attention to another few aspects of that particular sentence. The question here is of the population. It refers to the population - the word is "stanovnistvo" - and not to Albanians per se. That's the first point.

The second point is this: In that same sentence it says that it is relocation in the interests of proper -- so that -- the proper functioning of life. Therefore, in the interests of the population. So that the explanation given by the witness is that this whole matter was undertaken in order to protect the population from the effects of armed activities, and that's the only explanation that can be deduced from that particular passage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I thank the interpreters. We'll consult the CLSS.

Mr. Paponjak, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for giving it. You may now leave.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

[The witness withdrew]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I repeat my request to have these exhibits tendered into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to consider that now. We're going to consider the exhibits now. ³⁹³⁷² Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: May I repeat my argument, or state my argument that all of this material should be excluded. In addition to the more fundamental argument, this is an example of the impossibility of dealing with material without full and complete advance translation, for there is simply no realistic prospect of any of us returning to deal with these documents, exhibits in detail now that the witness has left, and no question of anyone seeking to have him come back, as far as I'm concerned. The fundamental objection comes from the mouth of the witness himself, and I'll give you, I think, two or three quotations of things he has said. I said to him, "Let me restate my question with the addition of one other clause. When you signed off all these documents in 2002, save and so far as the documents related to traffic police, you were in no position from your own knowledge to underwrite or guarantee the accuracy of those documents at all, were you?" To which he replied, "On the basis of my own personal knowledge, I could not."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we have in this Chamber and in this Tribunal accepted evidence from witnesses who, in your words, cannot underwrite or guarantee the accuracy of documents which they present.

MR. NICE: Quite right. But we have to look at the detail of what comes from this witness to see which side of the acceptability line this material falls.

He went on to say in answer to this particular question that for the head of the secretariat to be able to find something according to my question, it would appear he'd have to check every detail himself, to ³⁹³⁷³ interview each criminal, to read through each of the documents. And the Chamber will recall that he made it quite plain that he'd done little if any of that at the time whatever the questions in re-examination, and that contrasts sharply with the position of those who have come to produce the large compilations who not only gave a detailed account of the method of preparation but also explained, I think, in each case that they had themselves done checking and verification of the material. He doesn't even suggest that he did that himself.

Another of his answers was to this effect: "I did not personally compile any of these pieces of information. I said somewhere along the lines that the head of the Secretariat of the Interior can be equated with a manager." So he doesn't compile any documents. He doesn't interview any individuals. That's not his job. He doesn't study any documents. All he does is sign documents in his official capacity as an official. Now, that is completely different from and well short of any of the evidence that we've produced of this broadly, it may be very broadly, similar kind, and I would invite the Chamber to say that it simply falls the wrong side of the line, and very far the wrong side of the line.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You say he doesn't study any documents. What do you mean? You mean he hasn't read the documents?

MR. NICE: That's what he said. And he once more made it pretty plain he hadn't studied any of the documents. He claimed passing knowledge, for example, to one video at one stage, to the Salihaj papers, but --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, did you -- did he say that he didn't ³⁹³⁷⁴ read the documents that he had signed?

MR. NICE: He didn't say he hadn't read the documents he signed. He signed them. Although he certainly made it plain in relation to one of them that he hadn't drafted it himself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

MR. NICE: The Chamber has got to distinguish, of course, between the informations, that's the cover documents which are the sort of general conclusions and the supporting material, there's been a general pattern to all of that, and it was the document which referred to The Hague indictment that he was quite anxious, you may have concluded, to create a distance between. But he made it clear in his own answer: It's not his job. He doesn't study documents, all he does is sign documents in his official capacity as an official.

And the Chamber will have remembered, observed today the quality of his knowledge of detail. For example, when the accused took him, without my conceding that it was even remotely appropriate to do so, but he did, to 7.2 point 69, a fascinating entry given that, as we now see, it comes on the 22nd of May, apparently, was clearly intended to support the accused's case on bombing on that date and yet deals with the burial of the bodies that on any reckoning occurred three days later. So that we have fundamentally flawed supporting material that the witness knew nothing about and didn't prepare. He was unable or unwilling to take the opportunity to name the people who compiled these documents, because I gave him that opportunity but he needed his rest and we left it at that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can it be said, Mr. Nice, that any of the ³⁹³⁷⁵ witnesses that you presented to produce Human Rights Watch "Under Orders" studied the documents that they presented?

MR. NICE: I don't have immediately to hand the full detail of their account but in each case their supervision of methodology was a great deal more detailed than this, and as I recall went into saying that they checked the underlying workings and material upon which they compiled their books, yes.

This is completely different, and it is totally remote. He simply basically ultimately says, well, there was a group of people, they prepared a report and I signed off the cover documents. If you add that to the problems of translation, it's our respectful submission that this material simply shouldn't be admitted, and it will serve as an extremely helpful reminder to the accused that if he wishes to admit or have admitted material of this kind, not only must it be translated but its justification to be admitted must be more properly rooted.

Your Honours, before I sit down may I make an entirely separate point dealing with the NATO bombing of Dubrava prison. I had a document that there was no point in putting to the witness because he wouldn't have been able to acknowledge it or deal with it, and therefore I didn't put it to him and waste time, but I do have a document that sets out from NATO the acknowledgement of the bombing on the 19th and 21st of May, with a list of the projectiles or missiles that were used on those occasions. It's in answer to a detailed question. It's a matter for Chamber in due course whether it would like to see it. ³⁹³⁷⁶ I can, of course, go through the process of trying to produce it in the rebuttal case, but that case is already becoming concerningly large in contemplation and I'm also aware of the fact that by the time we get through to it a lot of time will pass. So if the Chamber's interested in seeing NATO's reply to the question of what bombs were dropped on those days, I have it.

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

MR. KAY: In considering this matter, it's worth looking at what is the essential investigative evidence produced by the Prosecution in relation to the crime scene of Dubrava. That evidence was produced by Dr. Eric Baccard who just put four files into the courtroom and answered about four questions, which I have here, as to gunshot wounds and explosive wounds, saying that 37 per cent of the people had gunshot wounds and over 40 per cent had explosive wounds.

In his four files was contained a video taken by someone else, Jacky Rowland, who subsequently gave evidence, a detailed report by Spanish investigation team concerning the identities of corpses, which was none of his material or work, he just supervised the production of it into the courtroom, and then a detailed report by a Danish investigation team concerning the crime scene itself.

Inside that report, there is material from someone described as a witness who gives descriptive events as to what had taken place and what was the -- what formed a basis for the investigation by the Danish team. That person isn't even named, he's just described as being a witness who ³⁹³⁷⁷ describes a massacre taking part in one part and guides the Danish team around the building.

As an example and a matter of reference, if you go to tab 9 of Exhibit 165, a document which is headed K0173927, under paragraph 3, has tactical information and sets out there what the witness states happened. So presumably the Trial Chamber will view this attaching what weight it feels appropriate. It won't be regarding it as being evidence taken under oath. And that's exactly the same set of circumstances we have with this witness Mr. Paponjak, who is coming into court in a very similar position to Mr. Baccard who produced a load of files from various other teams he had nothing to do with himself and just presented conclusions upon. It's actually the content of those files that is the important evidence in the case.

We objected to that at the time, and it was ruled as being admissible evidence. Certain parts were taken out, such as the summarising statements by, for example, an investigator, Mr. Stewart, Nigel Stuart. That was taken out of the exhibits. But the content remained before the Trial Chamber. And the process undertaken by the accused in his Defence here is not dissimilar at all to that of the Prosecution.

A large number of the exhibits are in fact prepared contemporaneously in 1999. One can see that from the materials. And the video that was produced is original material and exactly similar to that of Ms. Rowland who was the Prosecution witness whose film of the scene was sought to be brought into evidence and was successful by the Prosecution ³⁹³⁷⁸ to be produced as an exhibit as being contemporaneous film of the time. So in my submission, the accused should be entitled to rely upon this material in exactly the same way as the Prosecutor was permitted to produce similar documentary evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't think any of the comments made by Mr. Nice can be acceptable, because after Mr. Nice, precisely because in the cross-examination he raised those questions, I clarified with the witness, that is to say -- or, rather, what he meant when he said he hadn't read. Does it mean that he hadn't read the details or that he stood or did not stand behind what it said then? He said that he stood behind all the documents in full that he signed, that he looked through them, that he had a series of cases before him to which the documents refer, which means that he stands by them in every respect. Mr. Nice would have it appear that Mr. Paponjak is somebody who said he signed these documents like a robot, anybody put in front of him by one of his staff. On the contrary, Mr. Paponjak is head of the Secretariat of the Interior for Pec, was at the head of the team, and he said that although he didn't write the documents himself that the whole team wrote them and worked on them, that he nonetheless controlled the team, signed the documents once he was convinced, to use your term, that beyond reasonable doubt the documents did in fact contain all the relevant facts and data and that they were grounded in the documents that the SUP had in its possession. So in every respect, he was the competent ³⁹³⁷⁹ authority to testify about those documents.

Mr. Nice says what is the basis for having them admitted into evidence? Well, the basis is that the witness was here, he was sitting in the courtroom; he was in Pec throughout, he was at the head of the team throughout working on these matters and compiling the documents, and because the witness is the person who signed all the documents that he testified about here. And Mr. Nice was not able to challenge any of the arguments put forward. So these are official documents belonging to the police force for the material time when the documents were compiled. So I don't think there is a single reason for not admitting those documents into evidence as exhibits.

Mr. Nice also mentioned, for example, that there were attachments to the documents which the witness did not use on time. Now, these attachments mentioned by Mr. Nice are to be found in the tabs. So the witness might not have thought of referring to a tab or a document in a tab, but anyway all the attachments and attending material, whether they were used in response to the questions or not, have been disclosed and were placed within these binders before the witness started his testimony. So we cannot say for some documents that were before you, whether translated or not translated, that somebody wanted to skim over them or forget them altogether. The fact that the documents were presented in itself testifies to the fact that the intention was to tender them into evidence and to have the contents of those documents considered by you. Otherwise, as to the fact -- the comment made that it wasn't translated, I explained the difficulties we had in translating the material. So that ³⁹³⁸⁰ argument can only be an argument in favour of something being admitted into evidence subsequently, once it has been translated, and to have them marked for identification in the meantime and not as an argument per se.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Generally the documents the Chamber found to be relevant and sufficiently reliable to be of probative value, and therefore they would be admitted. The question of weight to be attached to them is another matter.

So there are three categories. Those documents that were translated will be admitted. Translated -- if they were used, those documents that were translated and which have been used in evidence are admitted.

Those not translated and which were used we'll mark for identification pending translation.

The third area, the documents that were not used will not be admitted. That comprises tabs 9, 11 to 19, 24 to 26, 28 to 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 47 to 49.

That's the ruling of the Chamber. We are adjourned until --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in relation to your next witness, Mr. Stevanovic, I'd asked you to give us an indication as to the areas of the indictment to which the evidence will relate so that we can plan and prepare and follow the evidence more clearly, and I'd like you, first thing, to spend about five minutes telling us about the -- telling us ³⁹³⁸¹ about that.

We are adjourned until tomorrow, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.53 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day

of May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.