³⁹⁶⁹⁵

Thursday, 19 May 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they have a very bad buzzing sound in the headphones and it's impossible to work that way. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's gone now, is it?

THE INTERPRETER: No, it's not gone, it's still there in all the booths.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the deputy clerk attend to that. There is a sound. We'll wait for a minute or two to see whether it can be fixed. In the meantime, I should say that the approach towards punctuality has to be addressed. It's not right that the Judges should be outside at 9.00, waiting to come inside. In future, we will come in, whether the guard raps three times or not, when we're ready. The practice that is followed here is totally contrary to what is followed in domestic systems.

We'll rise for ten minutes.

--- Break taken at 9.08 a.m.

--- On resuming at 9.15 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we're ready to go now. So proceed with your examination.

WITNESS: OBRAD STEVANOVIC [Resumed] ³⁹⁶⁹⁶

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

Q. [Interpretation] General, yesterday we broke off when we were discussing the legality of police action. I'm going to quote point 19 to you, where it says: "The superior is responsible for the acts of his subordinates if he knew or had reason to know that his subordinates are preparing to commit such acts or have already committed such acts and the superior did not take indispensable, reasonable measures to punish the perpetrators -- to prevent such acts or punish the perpetrators." My question to you is: Did the police take measures to prevent any criminal acts, and did it take measures to punish the perpetrators if it found out about a crime that had been perpetrated?

A. While staying in Kosovo and Metohija and contacting many senior and mid-level officials, I personally saw that officials at all levels in the police structure did everything within their power to prevent illegal acts. If they did happen, they were documented. Every effort was made to resolve them, to find the perpetrators, and to hand them over to the appropriate organs of the judiciary.

Q. Do you know of any case when such action was not taken or, rather, when anybody got off easy?

A. I said that very clearly: I'm not aware of a single case.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What would be the basis for your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, but I cannot hear any interpretation. ³⁹⁶⁹⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll try again. What is the basis for the information that you just gave?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear now, thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I asked what is the basis for the information that you just gave?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis for the information that just -- that I just gave is what I tried to say during my introductory remarks: That I attended many important meetings at the level of the state leadership, at the level of the ministry, at top levels, and at the level of the staff of the Ministry of the Interior in Pristina. In addition to that, I had very frequent contacts with police officials at different levels, and I was assured through all of these contacts that they were all very insistent on this, that the police should act lawfully. Not ever did I get even a minimal impression that anybody was not acting in accordance with the law let alone that the police had a plan to act not in accordance with the law.

Of course, to this I can add that there are many documents, and I hope that we will be able to look at them during the course of the day. These documents show what officials at different levels did and what kind of orders they gave to their subordinate units.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you profess to have a knowledge that would cover every possible infraction by a soldier and a policeman?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, of course that is not what I'm professing. What I said a moment ago does not pertain to individual isolated cases. Of course there were some such cases, and of course ³⁹⁶⁹⁸ measures were always taken whenever the police found out about any such case.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, you say that you know of no case where action was not taken. Can I turn that question around and ask if you know of cases where action was taken?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I know of such cases. There are many. Very quickly, I can remember at least a few such cases, and in our documentation there are certainly documents showing that the police did prosecute all criminal offences and anything else that was impermissible.

JUDGE BONOMY: And does your knowledge of such cases extend to cases where the police -- where action was taken against police officers for murder?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, it does extend to such cases. Off-the-cuff, I can remember at least four or five such cases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the outcome of these cases?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I do not know the ultimate outcome at this very moment, up to this very moment, but I certainly know that while the police were still in Kosovo each and every such case was dealt with to the very end as far as such cases are concerned; namely, the perpetrators were arrested, a criminal report was filed, and they were handed over, the perpetrators were handed over to the appropriate organs of the judiciary.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And were prosecuted where appropriate?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm quite certain that what was ³⁹⁶⁹⁹ within the ambit of policework was done fully. As for procedure before the judiciary, I'm not aware of the details, especially because I was no longer in the MUP and since we withdrew from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In relation to what you said, General, yesterday you indicated an overview in tab 76. On the last page of this overview are registered crimes with perpetrators known, perpetrators unknown, and then the number of resolved criminal cases. There are 12 -- or, rather, 18 policemen who had perpetrated crimes, and according to your records they were criminally prosecuted. Is that what you're saying in relation to the cases that Mr. Bonomy asked you about?

A. If I found the right page, on the last page of this tab, under number 11, there is the number of perpetrators of criminal offences who were found. And below that, horizontally, we can see how many terrorists, how many policemen, how many members of the army of Yugoslavia and how many civilians out of the total number. It can be seen that the number of perpetrators of crimes that resulted in death in the category under "Policemen" --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... translated as it has some bearing on the charges.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be placed on the ELMO.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I proceed? ³⁹⁷⁰⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are discussing the overview of security related incidents resulting in death that we analysed partially yesterday. On the last page, under number 11, we have the number of perpetrators of criminal offences who were found, that is to say offences resulting in death, and we have the different categories of perpetrators. I assume that column number 6 vertically pertains to the war period, and it is evident that the total number of perpetrators from the category of terrorists is 192, policemen 12; the category of members of the army of Yugoslavia also 12; the category of civilian persons, a total of 11.

Of course, other measures follow as well: How many criminal reports were filed, how many reports as such were filed, along with the charges, in terms of resolving the particular criminal cases, then how many charges were filed with civilian investigation organs and how many with investigation organs of the VJ, the army of Yugoslavia. These are only cases that resulted in death. In other tables, there are statistics involving other criminal offences.

JUDGE BONOMY: And can I take it it's not possible from this table to tell whether anyone was convicted and punished?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right, Judge. That cannot be seen from this table because that is not within the remit of policework.

JUDGE BONOMY: You say the police don't keep records of people who are convicted?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in principle they do keep such ³⁹⁷⁰¹ records, but that was not the aim of this particular table.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you're the man that should know whether policemen were convicted or not. Can you tell me?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really do not know specifically what the outcome in court was. I know of one particular case that is underway right now in the district court in Prokuplje, if I remember correctly, against a -- against a group of members of the reserve force of the ministry. These persons killed several persons in the area of Podujevo during the war. That I'm aware of. It's possible that other proceedings are under way as well, but I have specific information about this particular case, not about others, unfortunately. For already four years now I've been working outside the Ministry of the Interior, that is to say I've been in a completely different line of work. Of course, I believe that it is simple to receive such information within the next few days.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. As regards action taken by the police or authorised officials, as the appropriate legislation says, you explained during the first part of your testimony that authorised officials act in accordance with the law and without -- even without orders when they establish that a crime had been committed somewhere.

A. Yes.

Q. Was that the case in Kosovo and Metohija as well in terms of police conduct? ³⁹⁷⁰²

A. Yes. All authorised officials, regardless of where they are within the territory, are duty-bound to act in accordance with the law.

Q. In the police, are there control mechanisms for monitoring the legality of police activity?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it pertain to internal control only as far as measures taken by policemen are concerned?

A. Yes. Only internal control, but it is not final. That is not the last word as far as control is concerned. There is judiciary control over the police and, ultimately, civilian control over the police.

Q. Thank you, General. Tell me quite specifically what was done in order to prevent unlawful action.

A. In terms of preventing unlawful action in policework, I've already spoken about this up to a certain degree. Many measures were taken, and at every meeting what was highlighted was respect for the constitution and laws of the country and respect for international standards.

Q. Did you know yourself what the response was to certain unlawful acts committed by policemen?

A. The response was identical to that in all other cases of commission of crimes. We partly explained the previous table, and we saw there that specifically during the war a total of 12 criminal reports were filed against policemen involving particular cases that resulted in loss of life.

Q. Tell us, General, what was the attitude of the top echelons of the police in Kosovo and Metohija, the people with top responsibility in terms ³⁹⁷⁰³ of legality of police action?

A. The position of the top echelons of the police in Kosovo and in Belgrade regarding this question, legality of police activity, was of preeminent importance. I personally saw that this question was given appropriate attention at every meeting and was on the agenda of every meeting. I myself often went there in order to carry out certain tasks upon instructions from my minister. I never failed to convey what the state leadership and police leadership had to say, that in spite of the very difficult conditions involved, the constitution and law had to be observed, as well as international law.

I can say that what was dominant in these positions were two particular points that we conveyed to our subordinates, and they came from the position of the top echelons of the ministry, and had to do with the following: That the police in Kosovo and Metohija has to strictly distinguish between terrorists and criminals and other persons who are citizens of the state. The second fact is the fact that we are victims of terrorism and NATO aggression should not lead us astray into crime or anything else that is impermissible.

Q. General, in the past few moments, as you explained how the leadership police behaved in Kosovo and Metohija, including leaders of police units, commanders, and other police officials, could you now describe the approach of regular policemen to their work in Kosovo and Metohija and towards legality.

A. I always inspected units, when I had orders to do so, and I always used the opportunity to talk to individual policemen who were involved in ³⁹⁷⁰⁴ specific assignments. It was quite clear that all of them, apart from certain exceptions that I always mention, unless I forget, went to Kosovo and Metohija in the deep conviction that they were defending their country from terrorism, and they understood that as their professional duty and responsibility. And apart from the exceptions which we mentioned on several occasions, all of them were committed to the maximum to respecting all the relevant regulations and legislation governing policework, especially in those conditions.

Q. Can we conclude, however, that despite all the measures taken, there were crimes committed, and is it your testimony that whenever the police found out about such things, they always took legal steps against perpetrators?

A. Always, regardless of which category the perpetrators belonged to.

Q. You mean whether it was a civilian or a policeman or a soldier.

JUDGE BONOMY: There's a limit to the number of times the same general proposition can be advanced in slightly different language, that the police always took appropriate action. What I would like to see are examples of that, and they seem to be distinctly lacking.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Your Honour, is that a question for me?

JUDGE BONOMY: It's a comment on the way in which the same thing is being asked repeatedly without any specification at all emerging from the answers.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm just answering questions, and I really have no other way of answering the questions I'm ^{39705 BLANK PAGE 39706} being asked.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, I will now ask you some questions related to the events that are charged in this indictment and that involve loss of life.

MR. NICE: The exhibit -- or tab 76 that may or may not become an exhibit, it's another example, I think, of a document, if we look at it, that is not authored. We know almost nothing about the circumstances of its preparation. We can see that it's marked in the top right-hand corner A2 as if it's an annexure to some other document, but we don't know what document. Now -- and we know from the questions from the Bench and the answers to those questions that no other supporting detail is presently available to us.

While I have no desire to burden the Court or myself with additional material, given the time that's going to pass between the conclusion of today's sitting and the resumption of sittings next week, it is open to the accused, alerted as he has been by my observations and by observations from the Court, to provide between now and then material that will give more substance to what these schedules are about. And I should make it clear that I'm reserving my position to object to the production of any of this kind of material on the grounds of its unreliability as thus far evidenced.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice, and Mr. Milosevic is no doubt grateful for the advice that you have given him. You may wish to follow it, Mr. Milosevic. Ultimately it will be a matter for the Chamber to determine what weight to attach to evidence of ³⁹⁷⁰⁷ this kind. Continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. With regard to this question, General, this table in tab 76, is it an official document of the Ministry of the Interior?

A. Yes, it is an official document of the Ministry of the Interior, and I am partially familiar with this marking A. The letter A is designate -- designates all cases involving death; murder, et cetera. So whenever you see the mark A, that relates to cases involving death. We have other documents marked by other letters, and they refer to other cases.

Q. Now, taking into account this last remark made by Mr. Nice, I understand the need to lay the foundation and deal with authenticity, but you have heard testimony here from one chief of secretariat in Kosovo and Metohija, and he dealt with cases and the situation related to one secretariat and its area of responsibility. General Stevanovic is dealing with the entire Kosovo and Metohija. There is a limit to the amount of detail we can go into when dealing with such tables and figures of this type. It would be rational, I believe, for us to present all the underlying documentation that served as a basis for preparing this, but if you believe that is necessary, I can ask that all the documentation supporting these numerical indicators, all the underlying cases, be provided to this Court for your consideration.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's a matter for you. Proceed to your next subject area.

JUDGE KWON: General Stevanovic, could you read the title of this ³⁹⁷⁰⁸ tab, tab 76, to us again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The title reads: "Overview of security related events involving loss of life that occurred in connection with armed conflicts in Kosovo and Metohija in the period from the 1st of January, 1998, until the 1st of June, 2001, in the area of Kosovo and Metohija, broken down by period -- by time period."

JUDGE KWON: General, do you have any idea why, then, the period from 2nd of June to 31st of December, 2003, is included in the schedule?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Only because of the fact that incidents involving loss of life continue to be monitored in Kosovo and Metohija to this day, as I mentioned in the answer to the previous question.

JUDGE KWON: It is not mentioned with the title. The title says the period up to 1st of June, 2001, and the schedule expands to the period of 2003. So can I take it somebody edited the schedule at a later time? And who did it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not think the table was edited. I believe it is a technical omission. A title from a previous period was used in a new table.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Go on, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon, this particular period from the 1 January 1998 to 1 June 2001 ends with a column 7, and then with the passage of time, in all likelihood, the next column was added when updating the date with --

MR. NICE: The accused really mustn't be allowed to start giving ³⁹⁷⁰⁹ evidence, speculating and suggesting things for the witness. If the witness can't answer the question, the accused certainly can't.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the kind of evidence that would be helpful in relation to this matter that arises under Article 7(3) is evidence that would show a stage-by-stage approach of the authorities in the treatment of an infraction by a soldier or a police officer. The infraction is committed. What is the next step? A report is made. What is the next step? It is sent to the judicial authorities. What is the next step?

The Article doesn't actually require punishment. It requires that reasonable measures be taken to punish the perpetrators. So the important thing is to show the application of a judicial procedure to the information that an infraction has been committed. The general's evidence is helpful to a certain degree, but it is at a level of generality, such a level of generality that I think its assistance may be called in question. But it's a matter for you to determine how you present your case.

Of course, if you can present the kind of evidence that I have outlined, you should, and I would advise you to.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. Robinson. Let me just remind you, however, that during the testimony of General Gojovic, evidence of precisely such a stage-by-stage approach was presented for all cases that were within military jurisdiction. And we can obtain data concerning all these cases involving the police as well, but I have to note that the jurisdiction of the executive government ends at the point ³⁹⁷¹⁰ when the perpetrator is delivered to the judiciary.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, maybe I can be of assistance, with your leave.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am partially familiar with all the documents under these tabs. I haven't had time to read them all since the trial began, but I know that these papers contain at least several cases of the kind that you mentioned, cases wherein a policeman committed a murder and was subjected to the appropriate procedure. I believe we will reach, eventually, such documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Utilise the break, and when we return maybe Mr. Milosevic will find it appropriate to lead you to that kind of evidence.

Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I just wish to draw the witness's attention to the fact that he may use the documents under various tabs. They are located on his right side. And just as everybody else is able to look up potential exhibits, the same possibility is also open to the witness. And I will ask the witness, because I have not had any contact with him since the beginning of his testimony, to find, if he can, specific documents during the break so that we can look at them together.

I will now come back to the question that I just asked.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you have occasion, General, to read this indictment? ³⁹⁷¹¹

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Did the police have any knowledge about incidents involving loss of life; in other words, about all these murders and killings cited in the indictment?

A. Until the publication of the indictment, the police was aware only of some incidents involving loss of life that are covered by this indictment. Specifically, the police was aware of the incident in Racak, the incident in Izbica, the incident in Kotlina. It had some information about some of the events in Suva Reka. I cannot remember any more.

Q. Did you have information about Dubrava, for instance?

A. Yes, Dubrava too.

Q. And now tell us, please, if these other incidents, apart from those that you said the police had information about before the indictment, if these other incidents were not included in official police records, what can that mean?

A. That can only mean that until its withdrawal from Kosovo and Metohija, the police had no information about them whatsoever, including such information as is available from the indictment.

Q. What do you think would have been the likely course of action by the police had it had information about such events?

A. I believe the police would have acted in the same way in which it proceeded with regard to these other events that it was aware of and generally with regard to all the other events involving loss of life.

Q. How could the police react to the incidents that are covered by the indictment? ³⁹⁷¹²

A. We said that yesterday. Until the beginning of the war, the police took appropriate action in at least 1.500 cases involving loss of life.

Q. General, does that mean that if action was taken in 1.500 cases involving loss of life that are not covered by this indictment, would there have been any reason for the police to fail to take action in other cases that are included in the indictment?

A. No other reason apart from the fact that we were not aware of them. We had no information, no reports.

Q. So regarding these events that are not cited and regarding police action in those cases, I will ask you some questions later. Now I would like to ask you something about the incidents cited in the indictment that you were aware of. We will follow the sequence. That is, let's begin with the incident in Racak.

General, let's be specific. I'm not going to ask you questions about your knowledge of that event, the event in Racak, but we'll move on straight away to the documents that have to do with Racak and that have been tabled as exhibits here along with your testimony. So in respect of Racak, in the exhibits we have -- actually, the exhibits are to be found in tabs 240 to 262.

JUDGE KWON: Give us the number, the binder number.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] They are binders 7, 8, and 9. From 260 until 402. Tabs 260 to 402. I apologise. It was 6.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think we're all ready now, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹⁷¹³

Q. General, have you found the exhibits that relate to Racak?

A. Yes. They are rather lengthy and to be found in two binders next to me.

Q. Could you tell us what binder it begins with, and tab.

A. It begins with tab 260 and ends inclusively with tab 402.

JUDGE KWON: Binder 7.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, looking at this binder, in tab 275, for instance, we have a list from the on-site investigation. Could you tell us what documents 260 to 275 inclusive include with the list of the on-site investigation. What do all these documents refer to, 260 to 275?

A. In these tables, and you can see the contents of the binder at the beginning, you have the criminal reports for the crimes of terrorism which were filed, if I remember, before the event in Racak took place against unknown perpetrators and specific known perpetrators.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, is there any translation for any of these tabs? If there isn't any, why is that so?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assumed that the translations did exist, because all the documents were given over for translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there any translation? I'm asking the court deputy or the ...

[Trial Chamber and court deputy confer]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to find out if these documents were presented to the Translation Unit for translation. I'd like to find out, if they were presented to the CLSS for translation, when were they ³⁹⁷¹⁴ presented? Because we cannot continue in this manner with untranslated documents.

I understand, Mr. Milosevic, they were presented last Friday. That is not sufficient lead time, as you well know. That's barely a week ago. How do you expect CLSS, even with the favourable treatment which I understand you receive from them, to complete the translation within the period of a week?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is not what I expect, Mr. Robinson, but judging by what I know, my information, these documents were sent in far earlier, which means that the documents were submitted for translation, if what you say is true, when General Stevanovic almost started his testimony. There is not a single document which was not sent in for translation since General Stevanovic has been here, and he's been here for quite some time now, so it must have all been before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to consult with my colleagues, because this practice makes the work exceedingly difficult.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, just before we deal with this matter any further, perhaps you could clarify one thing for me. Racak involved MUP officers; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And in the region of 40 or more Albanians were killed. Is there in existence a MUP report about what happened, or are there reports by MUP officers about what happened?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I was not in Kosovo ³⁹⁷¹⁵ and Metohija, and I was informed about the whole event from daily reports, one of those daily reports being the one we saw yesterday. I can't say at this point whether there are any concrete reports by MUP officers about the event itself. Possibly some documents are to be found in this very long file and binder, but since the very beginning of the event, the entire case was dealt with by the legal organs, the judiciary, and we have documents --

JUDGE BONOMY: Answer me then this very simple question, because I thought you were familiar with the documents, but it would appear that you're now going to be asked to engage in a fishing exercise through the documents, but answer me this question: Who was the MUP officer in charge of the MUP contingent at Racak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, it was Goran Radosavljevic who at that time was the assistant head of the staff in Pristina.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: In view of the discrepancy in information we have received as to when these documents were submitted to the CLSS for translation, I'm going to take a break of five minutes, and the court deputy will inquire from CLSS when the documents were submitted for translation as we cannot continue to operate on the basis of a practice that makes a nonsense of the procedural requirements that are designed to facilitate the smooth running of the Court's proceedings. So the court deputy is to find out when they were submitted and who submitted them. ^{39716 BLANK PAGE 39717} We will take a break for five minutes.

--- Break taken at 10.07 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The court deputy has been working very hard to try to provide the information that I sought. The matter is fairly complicated. She has not yet concluded her investigations. What we'll do, Mr. Milosevic, is to allow you to lead evidence on some of the tabs which you consider to be very important to your case. So we'll allow you to lead evidence on those tabs that you consider important. We'll have them placed on the ELMO since they're not translated.

When the Court deputy's investigations are concluded, the Chamber will announce the position that it will take.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may I give an explanation which I think would be useful with respect to the problem that has arisen and that we're faced with as far as translations are concerned?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Briefly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, just very briefly. It is not the fault of my associates, neither is it the fault of the translation service. It is a question of having an unrealistically brief period of time for the witness's documents, and all the documents have been here for more than a month. There is just too much material. And Professor Rakic has told me that the translation service could not take in more than its quota of 1.000 pages per month, and that was the situation when they were translating the documents for Witness Paponjak. So it's not that they ³⁹⁷¹⁸ don't wish to accept more material nor that the documents are not at their disposal but they don't have the capacity to follow the dynamics of the testimony with the enormous amount of material.

For example, for Momir Bulatovic, the Witness that I have been moving forward constantly precisely because the exhibits haven't been translated yet, although they were all sent in last year -- well, last year, December, if truth be told. But anyway, I have extended that deadline for the witness because the translation service had to deal with the documents for witnesses coming before him. So that this is time constraint, and the translation service just cannot get through the enormous amount of material and provide us with the exhibits we need. When I have all the exhibits, it is of course in my interest to have them all translated as soon as possible and handed over to the translation service. So their capacity is as it stands.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let us proceed now. Let us proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few general points before we go ahead.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in tab 260, according to the description, are they all the documents that the Ministry of the Interior possesses, of the Republic of Serbia, with respect to the event in Racak? Are they all there? And documents which were later on put into the subsequent tabs, 261 to -- onwards?

A. Yes, that's right. Tab 261 -- 260 is a list of all the documents ³⁹⁷¹⁹ that exist and that were later classified in the different tabs.

Q. Do these include criminal reports with respect to terrorist activities? That is the first chapter of the documents. And then the second chapter deals with investigation, the investigation carried out; and the third chapter, KLA documents relevant to Racak; and the fourth chapter the information and intelligence gathered and the law on criminal proceedings. There are many of those documents. Chapter 5 are documents which relate to operative information.

A. Yes.

Q. So all that is contained in tab 260. Chapter 6 deals with analyses.

A. Yes.

Q. Analysis of security related events. And 7, reports, including forensic reports, court reports, various statements with respect to Racak, and all the other documents.

A. Yes.

Q. Are these all official documents, then, of the Ministry of the Interior, the court organs, and the crime technicians' reports and services? We have a set of photographs, lists with all the investigation that went on. I don't have to enumerate all that now.

A. Yes, that's right. That is just one case that was entered into the statistical review and overview we looked at earlier on. It has the number -- each document has a number with the A. I have explained what the A refers to.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, for our requirements here, I'm going to ³⁹⁷²⁰ use -- or, rather, ask for Mr. Robinson's indulgence, and with his help I should like to ask that a document be placed on the overhead projector. Let me just get the document out. It is tab 400. Could you find tab 400, please. I assume that it is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Binder 9.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- readily readable. No, tab 400. Tab 400. I don't know how you came by binder 9. Oh, yes, binder 9. That's right, you're quite right. Binder 9, tab 400.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. It's on the ELMO. Let us hear about the provenance first.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is this a press release of the Ministry of the Interior?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it issued on the 15th of January, 1999, that is to say on the day when what happened happened in Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. Please, let us see what it says now, this press release. I'll read it out. It's very short.

"On the 15th of January, 1999 -" that is to say the same day when the press release is being issued- "the police took measures of blocking the village of Racak, municipality of Stimlje, with a view to finding and arresting members of a terrorist group which on the 10th of January, 1999, carried out a terrorist attack near the village of Slivovo, and in this attack Svetislav Przic, a policeman of the police station in Stimlje, lost his life. The members of this terrorist group carried out several ³⁹⁷²¹ terrorist attacks in the area of Urosevac, and they involved the killing of seven members of the Albanian national minority. The Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE was informed about the measures taken." General, even when the consequences were not known as yet, the ministry issued a press release stating that they had blocked the village in order to isolate the terrorists.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You are giving the evidence there. You're giving the evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then I'm going to ask the witness.

JUDGE BONOMY: The point's destroyed by the way in which you put the question.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, can I make this point: In a sense it builds on a question by His Honour Judge Bonomy, a question that reflects our own interest, where's the original material? Where's the original report on any event.

To produce a press release from a party that may be an interested party is really to produce a self-serving statement. What we're always looking for, especially if material to be provided in this method is going to be limited, is the best source material, and may I simply make this observation at this stage to assist the accused who seems to be having difficulties now conducting his Defence and might, in our respectful submission, be well advised to turn to Mr. Kay for guidance. This -- this material, or some of this material may well be material we've been trying to get from the authorities under requests for assistance that has been ³⁹⁷²² denied us over the years. And if this material contains raw material or contemporaneous raw material, it's really to that material that any advocate presenting this part of the accused's case would be concentrating.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If it were favourable to his case.

MR. NICE: Indeed, if it were favourable to his case one would expect that to be the first document to which an advocate would turn, not a press release, which is always capable or subject to criticism and scepticism.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Proceed.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I had no intention to lead. This is a self-explanatory document. Mr. Robinson, it is dated the 15th of January. That's when what happened happened in Racak. That is an indisputable fact.

JUDGE BONOMY: What it doesn't say is that "We are issuing this document before we know the full consequences of what happened at Racak," and your question was, "Does this prove that the government announced this before the full consequences were known?" That's where the leading element came into the question. It was about matters which are not actually in the document.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, please help us clarify something. Was it known that in the area of Racak there was a KLA group that had carried out a series of killings in that town? ³⁹⁷²³

A. Yes, that was known.

Q. Were any measures taken because of that?

A. Yes.

Q. What kind of measures?

A. Specifically, police action was taken to find and arrest members of the group, the terrorist group that was in the village of Racak.

Q. This police action in terms of finding the terrorist group that was in the village of Racak, was the Verification Mission of the OSCE informed about that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how come a clash occurred in the village of Racak?

A. I know from the information that I received while I was in Belgrade and I know it from the materials that I later on read about that action.

Q. Can you tell us more specifically how this clash occurred in the village of Racak on the basis of the information that you had and the events that occurred on that day?

MR. NICE: I would invite the Chamber first to require from this witness identification of the sources of information and production of them if they're in written form. We've been going around the issue of -- in the Defence case, the issue of Racak without ever descending to a particular document that sets out the history as perceived or asserted by the MUP. His Honour's question drew the answer about Goran Radosavljevic, and the Chamber will remember that indeed we've seen Goran Radosavljevic in a clip from The Fall of Milosevic explaining what he did, a clip that ³⁹⁷²⁴ wasn't admitted into evidence although the whole transcript of the interview that that man had with the OTP has been provided to the accused, and that's about as near as we've got, I think, to raw material constituting an account, apart from the reports that are maybe partial and selective that were put in through Marinkovic.

And I might as well tell the Chamber, because there's no point -- there's no advantage to me in keeping this from you, and I don't seek advantage, we are engaged in a process, because we think it will help the Chamber, of trying to find all the Serb side contemporary sources, and there may be further ones in these untranslated documents, that will eventually assist you if the accused doesn't do it himself. But this question, in our respectful submission, which may be pointed at the same general topic, should only be allowed to be answered if he can identify his sources and produce those in writing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I certainly agree with the first part. General, tell us the sources of the information that you have.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, I was assistant minister of the interior, which is a known fact, and I was in Belgrade. Every major operation that was carried out by the police in Kosovo and Metohija and every important event that happened in Kosovo, regardless of the police, was the subject of daily urgent reports received by the minister and the assistant ministers. On the very same day I knew that this action was being planned and carried out, and the same day I was aware of the content of this press release.

In addition to that, since the said event assumed the proportions ³⁹⁷²⁵ it did, I always tried to follow closely from Belgrade everything that was going on, because this particular event received a great deal of media attention, as you know.

I can also assist by saying that towards the end of this binder there are a few documents which clearly indicate what the preceding history of this event is, what specifically happened on that day and what happened during the following days until the case was closed, so to speak. Of course, I can show some other tabs, too, if you think that I'm the one who should do that.

JUDGE BONOMY: What are the documents you say are in the folders here, binders here, which say what happened on the 15th of January? You can take us to these, can you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honour. I just need a few seconds to have a look at what I have at hand right now. Tab 394 is called "Analysis of previous security related incidents that caused --"

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you for documents that record what actually happened on the 15th of January.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tab 397 is entitled "Report on the chronology of events in the village of Racak." Perhaps it would be best to have a look at that document, because quite a bit can be found in there; what happened beforehand, what happened during the actual operation, and what happened later in respect of the on-site investigation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be placed on the ELMO. ³⁹⁷²⁶ Mr. Milosevic, you must be familiar with this document. Let the witness direct his attention to those passages which will show us what happened on the 15th.

Tell us first, General, about the document itself; who prepared it, how it was prepared.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is an integral part of the case file that has to do with what happened in Racak. It clearly shows that it has the form of a report as to what preceded the event, what measures were taken during the event itself and in its immediate aftermath. Most probably it was drafted at the MUP staff in Pristina and exceptionally perhaps it could have been done at the MUP secretariat in Urosevac which was the secretariat that was locally in charge of the area. And certainly it constituted an integral part of the appropriate report or the accompanying document through which this was sent to the ministry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Was it not part of the practice in your office to put some indication on very important documents like this of who was responsible for compiling them, just a reference initial or something to locate the person responsible?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is customary for this kind of document not to have such elements, but it is usually an integral part of a daily report or an accompanying document, and then it is attached to such a document and sent to an appropriate person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's part of a larger document. Presumably at the end of that larger document there would be the initial or the signature of the person who prepared it. ^{39727 BLANK PAGE 39728}

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said during my previous answer. I said accompanying document. Probably there was such a document, usually on one page only, very brief, and it would usually say, "Please find enclosed," et cetera, et cetera, and then the title of the document would follow. Of course, I do not see such a piece of paper here in this file, but possibly it was part of the daily reports that we mentioned. Certainly when this event occurred it was included in the daily report that the staff provided the following day to the ministry in Belgrade.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So rather than being at the end, it might have about at the beginning, but you can't actually pinpoint the cover page.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I cannot identify that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The document is about five or six pages, and there are dates --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- so it does appear to deal with the day in question. The question is how to approach it since it's not translated. It's translated?

JUDGE BONOMY: I have the translation.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we certainly have a translation of this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're trying to find the translation.

JUDGE BONOMY: The last document was also translated.

MR. NICE: Yes, the 400 was translated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We -- I received some translations recently, so ³⁹⁷²⁹ I'm checking.

MR. NICE: To save time, I can make my unmarked copy available now, if that will save time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Judge Kwon and I will share that.

JUDGE KWON: That can be put on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: What I find surprising is that you can't tell us what this document actually is. It looks important, and your position, I would have thought you would have known what it actually was.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If this question is addressed to me, I can answer, Your Honour. Of course I know what this is about. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue if I said that I wasn't aware of it.

JUDGE BONOMY: I know that you say that you know what it's about. What is not clear -- well, what I thought you were in doubt about was what the document actually was; who compiled it, for what purpose, what it was supposed to be, and it's disappointing that you cannot tell us that.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only provided an alternative answer. I'm certain that it is a document that was drafted in the secretariat in Pristina or, alternatively, in the secretariat of Urosevac, which was the one that had jurisdiction.

I was superior at the level of the ministry. I only visited the area occasionally, and I have difficulty answering questions that deal with the technical level.

This is a very voluminous material, compiled by a number of various people, and I am aware of it only in general terms. It would have ³⁹⁷³⁰ been different if a specific task group had been appointed to draft this, which I don't believe was the case, but this is the material that was drafted just after the event happened, and we can present it at a later stage. And there was a plan, perhaps, for action to be taken after the event.

JUDGE BONOMY: How do we tell when it was drafted, sorry?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is possible indeed that the last page is missing here, because we obviously can't see the date on the document.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if it assists, I'm not going to object to the reading of this document at this stage. Its production may be another matter, but for my own reasons there are some parts of it that I have an interest in in any event.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But reading the entire document would take too much time.

Mr. Milosevic, can you direct the witness to those areas of the document that would provide information as to -- as to what happened. It's entitled "Chronology of events in the village of Racak."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly, Mr. Robinson. I was waiting for you to receive answers to your questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, is it clearly indicated in this document what the aim of police measures in Racak was on the 15th of January, 1999?

A. That is indicated already in the first line of the document.

Q. What does it say? ³⁹⁷³¹

A. With -- in order to arrest the terrorist group, and so on and so forth.

Q. And at the end of this passage, what can we read? It says in order to arrest a terrorist group, it follows an explanation of what kind of terrorist group it was, what they had done, and the passage ends with the words?

A. "On the morning of 15th January, 1999, the action aimed at arresting the terrorist group in the village of traffic commenced."

Q. Does it say which unit was engaged to undertake police measures against this group in Racak?

A. We can see that in paragraph two at the very beginning of the passage.

Q. According to the information contained in these tabs, operative information, Official Notes, et cetera, do we see that police was aware of the numbers, the numerical strength of this terrorist group in this area?

A. In the documents contained in these tabs, we have clear indication and clear information about the numbers involved, but I do not know the exact number of members of this terrorist group.

Q. In view of the number that we can find here -- and by the way, during the testimony of Witness Jasovic, we saw documents that indicated that in this area there were between 80 and 120 members of terrorist groups. I know that it can be found in reports pre-dating the 15th. So my question is: In view of the presence of this terrorist group in Racak, would the use of a police company that numbered perhaps 15 [as interpreted] be adequate to the task? ³⁹⁷³²

A. In my estimate, yes.

Q. [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: There's something I'm not clear about. You were asked whether in view of the presence of this terrorist group would the use of a police company that numbered 15 be adequate, and you said yes. What was the actual size of the -- the group that was assigned to Racak, or have I misunderstood? I think the previous information was that a company of 110 policemen were assigned. Yes?

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not -- no translation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to --

THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The interpreters apologise. It was the wrong channel.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am receiving the English interpretation and that's interfering, but I cannot hear Serbian in my headphones. Yes, I can hear the B/C/S booth clearly now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not mention 15 men. I mentioned the 15th of January. I didn't follow the transcript, though. I was just asking, would the use of a police company of 110 men be adequate from the police point of view to the task.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the clarification, because the transcript referred to a police company that numbered 15 as being adequate, which was why I raised the question. That was the translation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is an error, because 15 is less than a squad. It certainly couldn't be a company. ³⁹⁷³³

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We see a reference here, General, in paragraph number three of this document, to the notorious Sadik Mujota. Do we see why he was notorious?

A. Yes, we can clearly understand that from the text below. He had committed several murders of policemen, and he had kidnapped a large number of citizens.

Q. Do we see from the document when this operation began?

A. We can see that from the next paragraph. It says it started at 0300 hours.

Q. Can we see when fire was opened and who opened it first?

A. We see that in the next paragraph, which says that fire was opened when the police were advancing towards the village of Racak from the direction of Stimlje.

Q. Who opened fire?

A. The terrorists, of course.

Q. General, did you have occasion to listen to the testimony of the commander of that zone of the KLA, Mr. Shukri Buja, when he testified here?

A. I believe I did, but not in its entirety.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Robinson, that Witness Shukri Buja, who testified here for the side of Mr. Nice, confirmed in cross-examination that they had opened fire from a heavy machine-gun at the police as the police was coming into Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]. ³⁹⁷³⁴

Q. It says here that fire was returned. Do we have a description here of all the weapons from which fire was opened at the police as they were coming into Racak?

A. Yes, in the same paragraph, that is the last paragraph on page 1.

Q. In the last paragraph I would like to draw your attention to what is written on the first page.

A. Yes, I can see that.

Q. What is written there? Does it say: "Strong fire was opened at police force members from heavy -- from mortars, hand-held rocket launchers --"

A. "Browning 12.7-millimetre light machine-guns and infantry weapons."

Q. That is at the very end. One policeman was transferred to the clinical hospital centre in Pristina. Is that written there?

A. Yes, in the last paragraph at the bottom of the page.

Q. Does it say how the police entering Racak were armed?

A. Yes. In paragraph two on the second page.

Q. Did the police use any heavy weapons in Racak?

A. We can see from this text that the heaviest weapon was a machine-gun of 62-millimetre calibre, and we see from the previous paragraph that they had anti-aircraft machine-guns and other higher calibre weapons.

Q. General, in view of all these facts, can we speak about any disproportionate force used against the terrorists in Racak?

A. If we look at the weapons used on both sides, we can certainly not ³⁹⁷³⁵ talk about any disproportionate force.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, by the way, the accused has for the second time in the course of these proceedings characterised the evidence of Shukri Buja in a certain way. I'm not sure that it's an accurate characterisation. The evidence can be found on pages 6313 and thereabouts and, the Chamber may recall, speaks of first shots being by way of warning shots.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But coming from who?

MR. NICE: From the KLA side but as warning shots.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Please proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I remember the questions I asked very well. I asked at whom those shots were fired, and Shukri Buja answered at the Serbian police, and I'm sure it can be found in the transcript.

What could warning shots mean if they are fired at somebody? I really can't understand. If you are firing at somebody, that means you're firing to kill, not to be -- not to warn the person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us avoid the comments at this stage. Move on, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what do you find especially typical and characteristic in all this, to cut the long story short?

A. In the fourth paragraph on the second page, we can see the stage-by-stage progression in the use of weapons, including calls to the terrorists to surrender. The terrorists refused to surrender while at the ³⁹⁷³⁶ same time retreating towards the villages of Luznica and Petrovo in Stimlje municipality.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just direct us to the passage. Oh, I see it now, yes. "Despite appeals to surrender," yes. Yes, continue. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Certainly in the next paragraph we see that 40 terrorists were liquidated, most of whom were wearing the uniforms of the so-called KLA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, tell us if we can read in this paragraph which you quoted from that the police was shot at from trenches, bunkers, and communicating trenches prepared in advance?

A. Yes, clearly.

Q. Could you indeed establish later that that was indeed so, that there were bunkers, trenches and communicating trenches, including this heavy machine-gun nest?

A. Yes, I could establish that although I was not on the spot myself.

Q. Is there anything else here that you believe to be particularly characteristic?

A. The next paragraph speaks about the quantities of weapons found, and after that paragraph there is a passage dealing with the work of the team preparing for an on-site investigation and all the following action.

Q. Let us now turn to the very end of the document, where it says at the -- in the middle of the page: "Based on the description of actions taken by the police earlier, one can conclude --" and so on and so forth, and then it says in the penultimate line: "During the use of firearms, ³⁹⁷³⁷ the police force did not overstep their authority. The police intervened and used firearms --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. The usher has not yet placed it on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. General, would you please read these last couple of lines or perhaps something else that you deem necessary, but certainly those lines at the end that I started quoting.

A. The last three lines of the concluding part of this document read: "In their use of firearms -- in the use --" "During their official action, the police was constantly under strong fire from various weapons, various heavy weapons, from various facilities, and they were forced to use weapons themselves."

Penultimate line: "In their use of firearms, the police force did not overstep their authority."

The last line: "The police intervened and used firearms in accordance with the law, gradually, selectively and correctly." This seems to be the end of the document.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, in view of the fact that it all seems to have happened fairly early in the morning, with the consequences which you've just outlined, why do you think the press release made no reference at all to the deaths of terrorists, even in a vague way, but recorded the death of the police officer who died?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this point, I cannot say when the statement, the press statement was compiled. Possibly it was drafted in ^{39738 BLANK PAGE 39739} the early hours of the morning, when people went to work. The police usually in its first statements does not give out any specific information, like the number of victims and similar information and data, until they are reliably established, because specific figures or concrete data can give rise to unrest among the public, particularly if they are proved to be incorrect later on. It is only on the basis of a subsequent investigation that one would be able to see the exact number of casualties, their structure and so on. That is, of course, my opinion based on my experience when press communiques of this kind are drafted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, now, with respect to what Mr. Bonomy just asked you, in what sense in this statement for the public of the 15th of January is the death of the policeman mentioned?

A. I assume that the death of the policeman --

Q. Don't assume, please, but take a look at the document.

A. Yes, if I take a look at the document I'll be able to tell you. The death of the policeman is mentioned here, of a policeman, and the event took place on the 10th of January, and the death of the policeman was one of the reasons for the action.

The death of the policeman was not mentioned during the operation itself, but it is mentioned as a cause or pretext for the action to go ahead.

Q. Do you happen to know whether when the police entered Racak there were any OSCE verifiers there for them to be able to see what happened in Racak? ³⁹⁷⁴⁰

A. I know full well that they had been informed, and I saw on some footage or a picture the presence of their vehicles immediately after the operation and during it.

Q. You mentioned several documents which you considered to be important. I really do not have a list of what -- which of those have been translated and which haven't. Could you just point out the most important documents to us now, please, because you spoke of the chronology of events and indicated the plan of action in similar situations and the important documents in these files, in these binders. So which documents did you have in mind? Which documents would you like to focus on?

A. For example, tab 396 is a document which relates to throwing light on the circumstances under which the crime of terrorism was committed, dated the 10th of January, and referred to in this statement in which a policeman was killed.

Q. It's not only an elucidation of the circumstances referring to the act of terrorism on the 10th of January but the 15th of January, 1999, in the village of Racak as well. That's what it says, doesn't it?

A. Yes, but that is linked with the intervention. So here we have an explanation of the cause, and then in the second paragraph they go on to describing the event in similar terms as we found in the previous document.

Q. Would you please read out the second paragraph of the document that you have before you now.

A. The second paragraph reads as follows: "On the 15th of January, 1999, in the early hours of the morning, with the intention of ³⁹⁷⁴¹ apprehending a terrorist group who had killed policemen Svetislav Przic, they blocked the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, the approach roads to the terrorist groups from fortifications, trenches and so on, attacked the police using automatic rifles, mortars, et cetera, at the approaches to the village. On the occasion the policeman Goran Vucicevic was wounded and a number of MUP vehicles damaged. The police responded to the gunfire and broke up the terrorist group on that occasion. A number of terrorists were killed."

And then it lists the weapons that were confiscated on the occasion, and of course after that we have information about the investigation.

On paragraph two, page 2, it is clearly stated that the beginning of the drive to apprehend the terrorists, the Kosovo Verification OSCE Mission was informed, which was present on location.

Q. Yes. And the footage that we saw by Reuters, we saw the police entering the village and two jeeps on the hill above Racak, orange in colour, that belonged to the Verification Mission. General, do you consider that it would be important to indicate another document to us? We don't have the translations, unfortunately.

A. I would like to single out tab 395 as well. It is a plan for the implementation of operational and tactical measures and investigative operations with respect to identifying the terrorist group, its members and activities in the area of Racak village.

Q. Does it say here "Plan for the implementation of operational and tactical measures -" and the number is 52, the 20th of January, 1999, is ³⁹⁷⁴² the date, is that right - "with respect to throwing light on the act of terrorism..."?

A. I don't recognise what you're reading out. I see. You mean the title page. Yes, the title page. It says "Plan for the implementation of operational and tactical measures and investigative operations -" the number is 52, dated the 20th of January, 1999 - "with respect to throwing light on the circumstances under which the act of terrorism was committed on the 10th of January," et cetera.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... come from?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't understand you. Do you mean the tab or the origins of the document, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the origins of the document, this document.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately I have to repeat myself and say that this document is in the official MUP files. What we have is a copy of that official document stored in the MUP. And in the upper left-hand corner they have A/6-025. That is the number at the top there, on the left. And perhaps this is a good occasion for me to repeat and explain what I've already said with respect to the document analysed. So the title page -- without the title page it would be difficult for us to recognise and establish what number the document is recorded under and the date, and I had a problem there. But if you look at the title page, then you'll see that the document does indeed have a date and a number to it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Right. Now, let's explain what the plan is about. It says: ³⁹⁷⁴³ "Plan for the implementation of operational and tactical measures and investigative operations."

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Now, General, it would be very useful to us all if you were to explain to us what the operational and tactical measures were and the investigation conducted because it is the plan to implement those measures; operational, tactical, investigative, and so on.

MR. NICE: Before the answer comes, unless others' documents are different from mine, we don't have the cover page in translation which exists in Serbian, and one can see from the cover page in Serbian that the -- there are two parts to the document, the attachment or whatever they are. One is the plan and the second one is a document we don't seem to have. So that the title page may be of some significance, and the other document may need to be identified.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is your copy of the plan preceded by a letter dated the 20th of January?

MR. NICE: In English, no, I just have the plan. I have the plan like this. It starts with the heading "Plan."

JUDGE BONOMY: Two pages after that I have a letter.

JUDGE KWON: I'm surprised. You don't have the translation of Plan, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: No, we don't. I just have three pages starting -- headed "Plan," but that's clearly not the complete Serbian document which is preceded by a cover page.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have that plus a letter which obviously ³⁹⁷⁴⁴ accompanied the plan, dated the 20th of January.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there a reason why Judge Kwon and myself have not been provided with translations?

MR. NICE: But the document His Honour Judge Bonomy has doesn't accord with the original either, because the page that I'm missing from the original is not a letter, it's a short document that has a handwritten part to it identifying two probable annexures.

JUDGE ROBINSON: As you're in a mood to assist, Mr. Nice, you might let us have that copy.

MR. NICE: That's what I'm missing in translation. And that identifies, as I hold it up, the two parts of the document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can see that in the Serbian.

MR. NICE: But we don't have that in English.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What has been written in in hand here says "Plan," and after that it says "Elucidation." But in this tab, apart from the handwritten word "Plan," I don't see the next part, the elucidation of circumstances. So I assume that the document contains both the plan and how light was thrown on the event.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you explain to us?

A. This cover page obviously contains two documents. If you take a look at it, the first document is within tab 395 itself. The second document, relating to the elucidation of the circumstances, is tab 396.

Q. I see. Fine. We seem to have cleared that point up now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, it's being copied. ³⁹⁷⁴⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This plan, General, of implementing operational and tactical measures, as far as I can see, contains several groups of tasks and assignments.

A. That's right.

Q. The first group of tasks, under 1, identifying the terrorist group, its members and activities in the area of Racak village; is that right? Is that what it is?

A. Yes. Quite obviously this plan is composed of two parts. The first is I, which relates to operational and tactical measures taken by the police force; and II --

Q. I just see Arabic numerals. I don't see Roman numerals.

A. Well, the Roman numeral is just above the Arabic number, to the left. We have I and then 1, and then page 2 is II, and it relates -- as I said, I relates to tactical measures taken by the police and operational ones, II steps taken in which the police cooperates with the pertinent organs.

Q. Very well. Let's go back to I. What do those measures contain? It says here: "1. Identifying the terrorist group, its members and activities," et cetera.

A. Yes, that's right. So the first task is to identify the terrorist group as well as its measures and its members and its activities in the area of the village of Racak. And then there is a further breakdown. A is the group's organisation --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you. We will not proceed until -- ³⁹⁷⁴⁶ we will not proceed until Judge Kwon and I have the English translation.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would like to note that they don't have the translation either.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, let the interpreters also have translation.

THE INTERPRETER: Thank you, for the interpreters.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, did you hear what I said? I said we'll not proceed until Judge Kwon and I have received translations.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I did hear you. I heard you very well, but I understood that you had received a copy in the meantime.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, we haven't. What page are you -- what page are you on now, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The first, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. May we just look at the structure of the document. It is divided into three parts, denoted with Roman numerals.

A. Maybe even four, four parts.

Q. Ah, yes, four parts. Now, with respect to the steps and measures undertaken, I, identifying the terrorist group, its members and activities in the area of Racak village.

A. Yes, that's right. And those are classical police operational and tactical measures.

Q. Let's just go through the different chapters. Let's go on to II ³⁹⁷⁴⁷ and then you'll be able to explain to us. Part II: "Acting on orders from the investigating judge in the district court of Pristina," and then pursuant to orders by the public prosecutor, district public prosecutor. So then we have the police, then the investigating judge, then the district public prosecutor.

A. Yes. The whole thing is the police, but in the first part the police acts independently and then, secondly, pursuant to orders from the investigating judge, and in part III pursuant to orders from the district public prosecutor.

Q. Thank you. Now we have the translation and we can go ahead and see what this is all about.

A. I, what was planned, under Arabic 1, is "Identifying the terrorist group, its members and activities in the area of Racak village," and then that is divided into theses, that is to say, how those tasks are to be realised, and the people in charge of realising that task are listed. We see that the implementers, that is A and B, are the MUP staff in Pristina, Urosevac, and in Gnjilane.

Q. You mean the local centres.

A. Yes, we have the centre in Gnjilane and the SUP centre in Urosevac.

Q. So this is about the organisation of the group. A is the group's organisation, and B are the material established facts?

A. Yes, that's right. Later on, we see that we have crime identification and the corpses of the terrorist group, identification of the members of the groups based on the photographs found on site, and the ³⁹⁷⁴⁸ establishment of previous terrorist acts by looking -- of the terrorists by looking at the case files, so on. And under B it is the staff in Pristina and the crime investigation department. So the implementers are the same under V -- under C.

Q. What does the OE mean; operative evidence? Operative evidence of the state security; right?

A. And then the other records that are kept, the first --

Q. Part of these documents, the documents which were established later on and checked out later on, are they on the list of documents that you quoted in tab 260 which provides a list of all the documents that relate to Racak?

A. Yes. That tab, or the first group of documents do contain excerpts of concrete documents from the state security department and the crime files and records relating to public security.

Q. I'm asking you that because I want to link up what we see here when it says documents provided in the files, and you said that the list is to be found in tab 260; is that right? The list provided according to go the groups as we quoted them.

A. Yes, that's right. And this plan quite obviously was the basis or one of the bases for the compiling of the entire file or dossier.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I proceed?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, haven't we had enough of this -- this plan?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it was my understanding that the witness had a few more things to say in relation to this document, ^{39749 BLANK PAGE 39750} those that he considered to be of significance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So far as your case is concerned, why do we need anything more?

JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed, what is the relevance of this to the case?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume, Mr. Bonomy, that it's relevant to see how the police, in accordance with regulations and their duties, acted in this particular case. When all of this is cross-referenced with the data that you have in these binders, then it is quite clear that this is a clash between the police and a terrorist group in the area of Racak and the inaccurate assertions made in that paragraph - you know which one it is - where it says that the police committed some killings there. Those were no murders. These were persons who got killed in a clash between a terrorist group and the police. And you will allow that that is quite different from murder.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, I take it that nobody in the MUP thought that it might be worth investigating the activities of the police on this occasion? Nobody found it odd that there was nobody killed on the Serb side and 40 people killed, perhaps more, on the other side, that there were no prisoners apparently taken? No one thought, in the MUP, that that might merit at least a cursory independent investigation, did they?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the document that we analysed a few moments ago, elements can be seen that show how the police acted on that day according to this chronology of events. These facts lead to the conclusion that the police really acted there the way they ³⁹⁷⁵¹ would have acted in any similar case. That is to say that it had been established that fire had not been opened before the police unit was attacked, and all the other facts that I don't wish to repeat now because they're all contained in the document we quoted from a few moments ago.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, at the end of the document, in tab 397, there is a sentence that we quoted. "The members of the police did not overstep their duties." Does that mean that before this kind of thing is stated an investigation had to be carried out in order to see whether authority had been overstepped?

A. That is what this conclusion should be based on. And in the preceding text they were explained.

Q. And then it says: "The police intervened and used firearms in accordance with the law, gradually, selectively and correctly." So in response to Mr. Bonomy's question, did it -- did anybody want to have this checked? Doesn't it emanate from here that it was checked and that this was the conclusion reached?

A. Yes, that is what stems from that statement.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, after that pointless leading question, let me make it clear that I would be interested to see how that investigation was carried out. It's that investigation, not the investigation into the terrorist activity after the event, that seems to me to be most relevant to the Defence.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in order to have something like this written in a ³⁹⁷⁵² document --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you understand the point being made by Judge Bonomy? It's one thing to cite, as you have done --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do understand.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I haven't finished. It's one thing to cite, as you have done, a statement showing the result of an investigation and which exonerates the police, but that may be seen as self-serving, and that is why it is important to get information about the actual investigation. These statements may be dismissed as being self-serving.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, you can discard whatever you wish, but I assume -- I am, rather, putting a very specific question to General Stevanovic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can this kind of statement be inserted in a document without previously establishing whether it is correct?

A. It cannot be inserted otherwise. It is the result of measures taken in order to establish these facts. Of course, in the preceding section some of these most relevant facts are referred to. The investigation probably involves a series of notes as to who said what, but obviously it's not contained in here. However, the result of this kind of investigation is this assessment, and it is in accordance with the regulations on the use of force.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, we don't even know who made the assessment, never mind have some of the material that indicates how the investigation was conducted. Do you understand our anxiety to see what ³⁹⁷⁵³ actually went on following this event to investigate it? And it's as if the Defence is conducted to dance around the issue and avoid engaging on the issue that the Court really wants to hear about.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, could you help me: What important issue this is that I've been dancing around?

JUDGE BONOMY: How the conduct of the police was independently investigated following Racak.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course I could have taken part in -- or, rather, had I been able to take part in preparing these documents, I would have been in a position to give an answer to that question of yours. I would have asked for individual statements about interviews conducted with individuals, and I probably would have brought them here.

I personally think that this report should be trusted. Of course when the police completes a particular action, these documents show that then the judiciary organs become involved, and the police investigation itself cannot affect the judicial investigation, the investigation carried out by the court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Stevanovic, with all due respect to you, that's a smokescreen because you know perfectly well there was no judicial investigation of the conduct of the police on this occasion. So please concentrate on what matters here. You've heard the Prosecutor already say today that they've been trying for years to get their hands on the material that relates to this and are grateful to see some of it now percolating through. You're in the ministry. You must have some ³⁹⁷⁵⁴ knowledge of why it has been so difficult to get to the material that will tell us the answer to these questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, please bear in mind what I showed you here, that is to say, a certificate related to a request put in by my associates, that after I submitted this request it took 14 months for me to obtain the documents that I asked for, and that is what is contained in that certificate, because there wasn't the least bit of a wish to make available to be me documents that would be helpful to me. So all of 14 months had to go by before we received this documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.40 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, do you know whether a court investigation was carried out in relation to what happened in Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that forensic expertise was carried out as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether during the court investigation or during the forensics expertise it could have been concluded that there was any kind of execution involved?

A. I was not aware of anything like that.

Q. Are you aware that Professor Dobricanin, who testified here as a ³⁹⁷⁵⁵ forensic expert in view of the bullet direction, fully rejected the possibility that death was due to execution?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you know better than that. You know better than that. "Are you aware that so-and-so fully rejected..." Really, that --

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

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, when you say that you're aware there was a court investigation, are you saying there was a court investigation into the conduct of the police?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I wish to say that there was a court investigation in relation to the actual event.

MR. NICE: My concern about the previous question was that a question suggesting that Professor Dobricanin testified as a forensic expert doesn't fit with my recollection of the circumstances in which he gave evidence and is clearly aimed at extracting answers from the witness built on the confidence he may feel at that incorrect summary of the position evidentially of Dobricanin.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. He testified as a fact witness, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is correct, Mr. Robinson, that Professor Dobricanin testified as a fact witness here. However, during the cross-examination, he gave very precise answers to Mr. Nice's questions that had to do with the presentation of facts that were later established as to where the casings were, as to where the bullets were, ³⁹⁷⁵⁶ and he answered --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Nice's point is correct that you misrepresented his status in testifying here. Now, proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Robinson, I assume that what is written should be beyond any reasonable doubt, so I'm going to ask the general about 66(a) as it is worded in relation to Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in view of all the facts you have --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic. Let us find 66(a). And bear in mind you can't ask him to answer the question which is ultimately for the Chamber to decide. You may, however, ask him about particular aspects, but you can't ask him to answer the question which it is our duty to answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm just going to ask the general to answer questions that he can answer on the basis of the reports he received.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Here in paragraph 66(a), General, it says: "On or about the 15th of January, 1999, in the early morning hours, the village of Racak was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia. After shelling, the forces of the FRY and Serbia entered the building later --

THE INTERPRETER: The village, interpreter's correction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- later in the morning and began conducting house-to-house searches. Villagers who attempted to flee from the forces of the FRY and ³⁹⁷⁵⁷ Serbia were shot throughout the village. A group of approximately 25 men attempted to hide in a building but were discovered by the forces of FRY and Serbia. They were beaten and then were removed to a nearby hill where they were shot and killed. Altogether, the forces of the FRY and Serbia killed approximately 45 Kosovo Albanians in and around Racak." I'm asking you, on the basis of all the facts and all the knowledge that you have, whether this is accurate.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's exactly --

JUDGE BONOMY: That's a pointless question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is exactly what I said you could not ask. You may ask him about particular aspects of the allegations. There are several aspects to that allegation in 66(a). As to whether the allegation is true or not is a matter for us.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I would respectfully say that the witness can't answer questions about this allegation, even broken into parts, because he wasn't there, he wasn't a witness, he hasn't even been the analyst of materials. He can only and should only deal with matters that are within his knowledge, and he can't express any opinion, in our submission, on the substantive allegations made in 66(a). While I'm on my feet, can I repeat an observation for the Chamber to consider perhaps at later stage. Does not the presentation of this part of his case by the accused, if it is in the way it is because he doesn't understand the procedure and cannot deal with the procedure, show the need for more intervention of the assigned counsel with witnesses of this complexity? I invite the Chamber to consider that. ³⁹⁷⁵⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. As to the first point you raised, we do take in hearsay here. It may not be of much value. But, Mr. Milosevic, you need to bear that in mind. The witness can only provide an answer to questions relating to specific areas on the basis of information that he received. We have had evidence from witnesses who are much closer to this event, and very little will be gained by you by getting second and third and fourth-rate hearsay on this particular matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson. I will reduce this to only a couple of questions. However, in view of what Mr. Nice said that Mr. Obradovic was not even -- Mr. Stevanovic was not even an analyst of the information --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. -- I have to ask you, Witness, whether you analysed the information and reports that you received?

A. I have reviewed most of the documents in these binders. I cannot remember them by heart, each and every one, because it is a very voluminous file, but I was informed immediately after the event in Racak of the course of events.

And coming back to one of your previous questions, I want to add that I personally called Mr. Dobricanin on one occasion when the reports by Mrs. Helena Ranta came in, and I asked him, "Doctor, is there any evidence that these people could have been massacred and executed?" And he answered, "Looking at autopsy reports --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: His evidence on that can't improve on the ³⁹⁷⁵⁹ evidence that we got from the professor. There is no point the witness providing that evidence. We have already heard from the professor.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In relation to certain matters you have covered here analysing previous documents, since the allegation is being made here that FRY and Serbian forces came in the next morning after shelling, I would like to ask you, was any military unit involved in Racak?

A. Not that I know of. All the information I have indicates that fire was first opened at the police unit that was advancing towards the village and then fighting ensued.

Q. Very well. Looking and quoting from documents that we have reviewed recently, you listed the weapons that were available to the police unit engaged in Racak. Do you remember that? It was about an hour ago.

A. I remember.

Q. This police unit in Racak, did it use any artillery weapons that could be used for shelling?

A. According to all my information, no.

Q. Do you have any knowledge that there was any shelling of Racak prior to the entry of the police forces?

A. Absolutely not, if what you mean by "shelling" implies artillery or mortar shells. According to all I know, fire was opened against terrorists only from weapons that we listed in one of the previous passages, and the highest calibre of those weapons was 7.62 millimetres on an APC, and that cannot be qualified as shelling even in theory. ^{39760 BLANK PAGE 39761}

Q. 7.62 millimetre from an APC? It seems to be the same calibre as from an automatic rifle.

A. Yes, it is the same calibre but it is a different profile of the rounds.

Q. So there was no shelling?

A. No.

Q. According to all your information, there was no shelling?

A. There wasn't.

Q. Did anyone report to you or did you get any information that would arouse suspicion about a possible execution?

A. No, apart from maybe media reports, foreign media reports. I saw nothing of the kind in all the official documents from the judiciary or the police.

Q. We saw from one of the previous documents that a police company was involved numbering 110.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a regular police unit? Yes or no.

A. That was a company from the special police units, as I explained previously.

Q. In view of such a structure of the police unit involved, would it have been possible for the whole thing to result in any execution of either KLA or civilians?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that question. It just invites opinion.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, when you say there was nothing to ³⁹⁷⁶² arouse your suspicion that there had been a massacre other than press reports, are you saying that there was no formal notification of concern from the OSCE?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not aware of any OSCE official notification addressed to ministries. There may have been such notification to the Ministry of the Interior. All I know are media reports.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When you say media reports, do you mean the statement made by William Walker?

A. Yes. That's primarily the one I mean, because it was followed by a number of different comments.

Q. General, among these exhibits we have from tabs 260 to 402, 142 documents related to Racak. On the basis of all these documents -- or, rather, in all these documents can we find any grounds for the allegations made in 66(a)?

A. Well, I based all my answers on the documentation in these binders and all the information I had in view of my official position in the service.

Q. Are there documents here that include forensic reports and the results of the paraffin glove tests that were made on the corpses of those found in Racak?

MR. NICE: This is not a particular subtle attempt to turn this witness into an expert to get him to express an expert opinion on a range of documents without providing us with the courtesy of a report or any ³⁹⁷⁶³ other analysis into those documents which, what is it, 140 -- 142 documents. This line of questioning, in my respectful submission, should not be permitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The last question which he asked was whether there are documents that include forensic reports and the results of the paraffin glove tests. That's a question of fact. He can answer that. If he proceeds any further, we'll attend to that.

You can answer that question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did have knowledge that on the corpses of certain individuals the paraffin glove test came positive, and I know from my profession the meaning of that test, but I did have such information.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in the position you were in in the police force or, rather, in the Ministry of the Interior, or perhaps in the staff of the MUP in Pristina, was there any suspicion present that any policeman might have committed a crime in Racak?

A. No. We had no such suspicions.

Q. If there had been such suspicion, would a separate investigation have been conducted on what transpired?

A. Certainly.

Q. Did you conduct an investigation in every single case when there was a reasonable suspicion?

A. Yes, certainly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I would like to ³⁹⁷⁶⁴ produce these tabs related to Racak.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What tabs are these?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you are willing to admit them. From 260 to 402, all of them including documents related to Racak. As the witness confirmed, in each and every case these are official records of the police, forensic reports including photographs, fingerprints, and all kinds of information such as Official Notes, et cetera. Official records of the Ministry of the Interior.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, on that point.

MR. NICE: The short answer is that I'd invite the Court to make no such decision at the moment in any event. I was just looking for binder 7. Yes, I've found it.

The short answer is I'd invite you to make no decision at the moment. A slightly longer observation is that it must be unacceptable to try and put in this quantity of detailed material with the cursory and unacceptable method of examination we've seen so far. The next point is more substantial and detailed, the Court may wish to turn its attention to tab -- as an example, to tab 263 -- no, 260 -- yes, 263 will do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What binder?

MR. NICE: Binder 7. If the Court has a look at 263 as an example and casts its eyes to the bottom right-hand corner of the document, it will see a couple of familiar names.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have a translation? I don't have a translation. ³⁹⁷⁶⁵

MR. NICE: This one doesn't matter because the Court will be familiar with the names at the bottom right-hand corner of 263. There are a very large number of documents bearing these two signatures. This part of the collection, that is the early part, and also much later. We haven't done -- at least, I haven't done a complete check. Certainly so far as the later documents bearing these two names are concerned, they are simply duplications of what's now in the Jasovic binder, and the admissibility of those documents is specifically on hold, and in my submission must remain on hold until that witness comes back for cross-examination, which looks now not likely to be until the week after next.

In any event, the admissibility of material like this must be tested against the requirement of reliability of the Court's Rules, and I intend, when I have a chance, which I haven't so far, to review and consider these documents --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, is this the same kind of document that is in the Jasovic documents that are on hold?

MR. NICE: 263 is, I think, the same kind of document, and for most of the documents bearing the signatures of these two men they are actually identical documents which are to be found in the Jasovic binder. Parenthetically, I observe it's possible that the accused is piling in for translation documents that have already been translated or been presented for translation before. I don't know the answer to that. Although in the same parenthesis I observe that many other documents I think produced in these 17 binders may have been produced earlier in the Marinkovic ³⁹⁷⁶⁶ documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just hearing the legal arguments because we have already decided that the admissibility will be determined at the end of the witness's testimony.

MR. NICE: Yes. So I would ask the Court, for all these documents, to put the position on hold, and I think admissibility of these documents may be a somewhat detailed exercise of consideration later on.

JUDGE BONOMY: But may I observe, though, Mr. Nice, that you can't really have it all ways if one of your basic propositions is that if all of this had been submitted and certified by the ministry, then we could have considered it. Now, subject to the problem of timing, which I do understand because of the when it's coming in, what is the real difference between that, apart from a little weight, in the same material being presented by a senior official of the ministry and saying that these are all genuine records of ours?

MR. NICE: If the documents are relied upon for their truth, then the question of their reliability is a freestanding issue.

JUDGE BONOMY: But the questions were quite carefully framed. Ultimately when Mr. Milosevic asked the question, "Was there anything in the material you --" or at least, the witness answered it this way: "There is nothing in the material I saw to indicate a reason for investigating the police at Racak." Now, rightly -- that's an answer that we would have to evaluate, but it's not based on a statement, an assertion of the truth of the facts. It's based on, "Well, I've investigated what material there was and there was nothing to indicate that in that ³⁹⁷⁶⁷ material." Now, that is -- seems to me a perfectly legitimate approach to the document.

MR. NICE: Does that in itself -- I'm sorry I shouldn't ask a question.

But Your Honour's observation would suggest that answer in itself might permit in 142 documents.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's possibly so, because I don't see the distinction at the moment between that answer letting them in and the certificate from the ministry letting them in, except the only difference being the timing, that if you get them well before the oral hearing, you have a chance to consider them and deal with them, but it may be very difficult to deal with that volume of documents coming at this stage, which is a separate matter, I think, from the authenticity of the documents.

MR. NICE: Two points there: When I drew to Your Honour's attention that we required as long ago as 2001 production of these documents and hadn't received an answer from the ministry, receiving some documents at later stages in other -- by other routes, I wasn't saying that merely the production of the documents to us in answer to a request for assistance would make them admissible in Court in anybody's hands. Documents coming to this building in The Hague doesn't mean they automatically go before this Court in an adversarial process, because one side or the other has to justify their admission. The process of admitting a document or having a document admitted as an exhibit is first get it; second, look at it to see how it helps you; and third, then seek ³⁹⁷⁶⁸ to put it in as an exhibit. And simply to have a volume of material here and then to ask a generally negative question: "Have you looked at the entire archives of Serbia and Montenegro?" "Yes, I have." "Is there anything in them that supports the suggestion X in the Racak allegation?" "No, there isn't." And for that to allow the entire archive go in cannot, in my respectful submission, be correct. The documents have to be one by one admissible according to your Rules -- or our Rules. And so I would press the Court to make absolutely no decision at the moment about these documents until it's heard the cross-examination and seen what points may be made about them.

Secondly, the difficulties of dealing with the document is a separate issue and one that may well justify exclusion of documents certainly from now on. I have been extremely, I hope, accommodating within the limitations of the resources available to me but I cannot go on being accommodating where there's a risk that important points to assist the Chamber are likely to be missed through the late presentation of material.

Now, this material came in, I don't know, ten days ago in part in an untabbed mass. Rather than wait for the tabbed documents, we used resources to try to analyse what we'd received. And while that actually is a very time-consuming exercise, wastes a lot of time, because it's then almost -- it's not impossible but it's extremely difficult to connect what we analysed to what then comes in in tabbed form. We then, I think like the Chamber, got four volumes and then at the later stage the remaining whatever it is, 13. Ms. Dicklich will correct me on the figures. They ³⁹⁷⁶⁹ came in in tranches, one after the other.

And it simply hasn't been possible at the moment to analyse many of or certainly not most of -- untabbed we got on the 28th of April. I'm grateful. Longer ago.

It hasn't been possible to analyse many of or most of the untranslated documents, and with the resources available to me it's going to be difficult in the extreme to have any analysis on which to work by the time I start the cross-examination of the witness. And the time, in my submission, has come when this late provision of documents may or must sound in the non-production of exhibits, but can we put it all back, please, until the end of the cross-examination? The Chamber can be quite confident that within the limits of my resources everything is being done to make up for the shortcomings of the presentation by the accused, and either none or very few of these exhibits were mentioned in the 65 ter list either, for what that's worth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice.

MR. KAY: Can I make some observations which are material.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: And it's material to the evidence that the Trial Chamber is hearing.

The accused is charged with Article 7(3), command responsibility. The actions of subordinates within the ministries and the actions of policemen involved in the investigations produce material evidence that are relevant to his criminal liability, and that's one of the big issues that has to be considered by this Court in relation to this material and ³⁹⁷⁷⁰ the individual criminal liability of the accused. So producing materials from the archives through this witness who works at the ministry is a perfectly proper adduction of evidential material before this Trial Chamber. The fact that it is large and voluminous is completely and utterly irrelevant. He is charged with superior responsibility, and that's going to involve large amounts and collections of documents relating to individual crimes out of necessity. He's not an individual charged with hands-on criminal responsibility but for the conduct of subordinates, and that inevitably is going to involve the production and analysis of materials such as this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think that it is very reasonable that everything which relates to the charges of the indictment and the cases relevant to that should be admitted as exhibits. And what Mr. Nice said, that I accumulate material to have them -- and have them translated doubly, the office for the management of documents, which automatically excludes any -- it automatically excludes any document which might appear for translation as an error and be submitted a second time for translation. So the translation service has its own way of preventing such things happening, that is to say a document being tendered twice for translation.

Now, as far as the other matter that Mr. Nice brought up here, this is a criminal report that we're dealing with that was filed on the 16th of July, 1998, and which, as far as I can see, in all its facets was compiled pursuant to the provisions. It is indeed an official document. ^{39771 BLANK PAGE 39772} There are many documents like that among the 143 tabs that you have seen, and all of them, I assume that some of them would be able to indicate any unlawful action on the part of a policeman or someone in the organs of authority in order to confirm that what Mr. Nice says is true. But quite the contrary; all these documents testify to the exact opposite. And the witness is testifying that the police acted contrary to what Mr. Nice said. He even says that there were no criminal acts on the part of the -- that even if certain policemen did engage in criminal acts, steps were taken to prosecute them. So all these stories about the alleged responsibility of the commanders and leaders in the police with respect to the events that are contained in the indictment that I'm charged with is shown not to be correct on the basis of the documents and the testimony of this witness, and therefore all the documents deserve to be introduced into evidence. There could have been many more of them, and there might be many more of them indeed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: As the Chamber had indicated at the beginning of this witness's testimony, questions of admissibility will be decided at the end of the testimony, and that will apply to these documents. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, I'm not going to deal with Racak any more. That is one example of what is contained in paragraph 66. I'm now going to ask you ³⁹⁷⁷³ questions with respect to the knowledge of the police or information of the police about the alleged mass grave in Izbica.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What paragraph is that of the indictment?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's paragraph 66(g).

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, before I move on to my specific questions, I'm going to read paragraph 66(g) out to you, which says as follows, and I quote: "On or about the 27th of March, 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia shelled the village of Izbica, Srbica municipality, with heavy weapons systems. At least 4.500 villagers from Izbica and surrounding villages took refuge in a meadow in Izbica. On the 28th of March, 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia surrounded the villagers and approached them, demanding money. After the forces of the FRY and Serbia stole the villagers' valuables, the men were separated from the women and small children. The men were then further divided into two groups, one of which was sent to a nearby hill, and the other was sent to a nearby streambed. The forces of the FRY and Serbia then fired upon both groups of men and at least 116 Kosovo Albanian men were killed."

That's the first part. So we have 4.500 villagers set apart, divided into groups. I think there were 116 men, the rest were women and children of the 4.500 villagers.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, lay a foundation for the reception of evidence on this matter from this witness. We know he wasn't there. Let him tell us how he came by any information which he's going to provide to us. ³⁹⁷⁷⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what knowledge did you have, what information did the police and you personally have about the alleged mass grave in Izbica?

A. At that time, I was in Pristina myself, and the first news about this alleged grave in the place called Izbica we received or learnt by following on the Internet or some foreign television station. So the first information that reached us, that reached the staff and headquarters of the MUP arrived in the latter part of May 1999, in the third quarter, through aerial photographs that were published over the Internet or which were shown by a foreign television station.

Before that, we knew nothing about the event that you have just described. We had absolutely no information and data about it whatsoever.

Q. That means, General, that the police saw this on the Internet. They saw mention of a mass grave in Izbica. That was the first information reaching the police force; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And what steps did you take following that, then?

A. In keeping with standard police practice, our first task was to check out the information. And in checking out the information, the first step was to find the location that was called that way. And let me say straight away that we spent, I would say, at least seven days, a minimum of seven days, perhaps more, looking for the exact place with that place name. We engaged people who knew the area well. We didn't know what part of Kosovo territory it was located in. All the SUPs, all the staffs were ³⁹⁷⁷⁵ taken up with the business of locating the site. And I know that the journalists accompanied the police in their search. And after a certain amount of time had gone by, we managed to find the particular place, and after we had found the location we continued our normal standard police practice.

Q. Who was sent to find the village, then, and to check out the truthfulness of the allegations about this alleged mass grave?

A. First of all, we asked all the SUPs in the territory to see if the place was located on their particular territory, and then it turned out that they thought it was on the territory of the secretariat in Kosovska Mitrovica, and we focused the search on the secretariat of Kosovska Mitrovica, that particular area and that secretariat, because there were indications that the area was there, and a patrol was sent, and after that relatively long period of time, the patrol managed to find the location but they found that it was not the case of a mass grave, as had been alleged, but a freshly dug grave.

Q. When you say "freshly dug grave," you mean individual graves; is that right?

A. Yes, I mean individual graves, relatively new ones.

Q. All right. Now, when they found that site, were the crime officials that went there, did they make a record of what they had found?

A. Yes, they did. And if I remember --

Q. Let me help you out, General. Was that the Official Note that is found in tab 404?

A. Yes, that is precisely that Official Note. ³⁹⁷⁷⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: And what binder is that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll tell you in just a moment.

JUDGE KWON: Ten.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is binder 10, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, may we have this Official Note placed on the ELMO. Could you place it on the ELMO, please, General. It's just a short note.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let it be placed on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what is the date of that Official Note?

A. The date is the 27th of May, 1999.

Q. And what does the Official Note contain about the source of information about the existence of mass graves -- a mass grave in Izbica?

A. At the very beginning we can see just what I said. The news published on the Internet, in relation to a notice posted on the Internet that, "In the village of Izbica, the SO of Srbica, there is a 'mass grave.' We were dispatched in our capacity as authorised officials to check the veracity of those assertions. For security reasons, when setting out to perform our task, we used a circuitous route across Rudnik, Rakos, and Glina. On our way --" my copy is rather illegible. But it says, "On our way, we --"

Q. Let me help you out there because I have a better copy, it appears. I'm sorry that you were given such a poor copy, photocopy, but this is what it says -- actually, let me ask you the following question: The officials of the SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica, authorised officials ... ³⁹⁷⁷⁷

A. Well, if it's important, I can read the contents. I've deciphered what it says.

Q. Yes, go ahead.

A. So it says: "In the village itself we met ten soldiers and asked them whether they were -- whether they knew about the existence of a mass grave. They just shrugged their shoulders but they directed us on a downward path to the outskirts of the village where there was a new grave site, cemetery. We passed a large yellow object, and in the region of the last houses to the left, we came upon this cemetery. Judging by the appearance of the graves and grave mounds, the level of the earth covering them, the inscriptions on them with the names of those who had been buried there, and the direction in which the head was pointing, that is to say southward, it was indisputable that this was a Muslim cemetery of recent date. The location itself does not have the appearance of a grave unless there is indeed another place. We emphasise that we did not have the means to obtain more pertinent information from anyone. We left the location in haste because automatic gunfire was heard nearby. Upon our return, we did not see any soldiers in the village." That would be more or less the contents of this Official Note, which explains what I said a moment ago in response to the question I was asked.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is the address of the Internet site recorded somewhere?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I personally saw some -- a picture, but it's not contained in the binder. But I have a similar picture about ³⁹⁷⁷⁸ the same event in another village, and perhaps you can see some of that there.

I assume it was the same site and the same net, network.

JUDGE BONOMY: And will we get the Internet site address when we come to that matter? I mean, it's an obvious thing for a policeman to note down, you would think.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We will receive the photograph and the text, attending text. So there is a copy of the photograph that was shown on the Internet, and it clearly states there Pustocelo [phoen]. It is probably tab 419 or 420, I presume.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, were there any locals in the village, any villagers, when the members of the MUP went there with the task of establishing what kind of mass grave it was?

A. To the best of my knowledge, when they went to check out the situation to see if there was an alleged mass grave, this patrol didn't come across any villagers.

Q. And do you have any information about -- just let me take a moment to find this. I have received information from Professor Rakic that on the film which we have but I didn't intend to show because it just shows that the place -- well, what the general said a moment ago. They looked for the place, the journalists looked for the place, and so did the police, and General -- the general said it took them seven days to find the location. ³⁹⁷⁷⁹ Now, the film that was shown by television was -- found one place called Izbica but it doesn't seem to be the same Izbica, and there's a satellite aerial photograph and we'll be able to find that. Mr. Bonomy asked for it, I think, a moment ago. So we'll find a reference to that, its number and so on, the aerial photograph. I don't want to spend time on that just now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did you have any information as to the state that the houses in the village were in when the crime investigation team arrived?

A. I personally did not have any precise information to that effect, but I assume there was nothing unusual there then.

Q. All right. They found a cemetery there.

A. Yes.

Q. Photographs from that cemetery, are they contained in tab 409? Could you please open tab 409.

A. Yes. This is actually a photo file on the location of that cemetery.

Q. Does this tab contain 16 photographs of the village and the cemetery?

A. Yes. At the end there is also a sketch of the cemetery itself.

Q. All right. There are photographs of the village in this tab, then photographs of the cemetery, and finally a sketch of the graveyard itself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who took those photographs?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, who took these photographs? ³⁹⁷⁸⁰

A. The service, the technical service of the police station in --

Q. Were they the ones who compiled this note?

A. The team that was involved was from that service.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And when were they taken?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While carrying out the on-site investigation in Izbica. But that will probably be seen from another tab.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, photocopies are provided in this tab of these photographs of the cemetery, and the visibility is very poor. I have photographs here that are in colour, the actual photographs, and I would like to have them played on the overhead projector, a few photographs from the actual scene, from this tab 409. You can identify them if you compare them to the black and white ones. If you put them on the overhead projector as black and white, you can hardly see them, they're barely discernible.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you wish us to see in these colour photographs that we are not seeing in the photographs here?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, an expert could probably see all of it in these photographs, too, but it is going to be much clearer on the colour photographs. For example, you will be able to see what is written there. On the black and white ones you cannot see at all what is written. So some you will be able to see the writing on the tombstones.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you can show them in any order you wish, these photographs. Oh, black and white again. Ah, yes, it has to be focused. ³⁹⁷⁸¹

A. Obviously this is a close-up of one segment of the cemetery with one of the tombstones, where it clearly says -- where you can clearly see what is written.

Q. I would just like to draw your attention to the date. Could you please read out the date.

A. Obviously, the 11th of May, 1999. Again this is a close-up of one particular grave. The only thing I can read here is the abbreviation UCK.

Q. Can it be focused a bit? Can you see the date here?

A. I personally cannot see it. Oh, but in all fairness, the 10th of May, 1999.

Q. The 10th of May, 1999. I can read it myself. I can see it on the screen.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell me which -- can you tell me which photograph in the binder that is?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It seems to me, Mr. Bonomy, that that is on photograph 14, except that what we are seeing is a close-up of this board that was like a tombstone, like the previous one on number 13, but we can compare them, we can compare the photographs.

JUDGE BONOMY: But they don't look the same photographs to me, unless we're seeing only a restricted part of them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, only a part, of course, because we are viewing a close-up now.

Well, now on the projector you can't see anything. Everything has gone dark. ³⁹⁷⁸²

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this black and white photograph, number 14, I can see the abbreviation on the top of the tombstone. But obviously this is a photograph of the same spot but it is a close-up rather than taken from a distance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The abbreviation I see are in much bolder letters than the rest of the writing, the abbreviation UCK. Would there be any significance to that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What is of significance is that UCK is inscribed there. It certainly was not done by the policemen. It must have been somebody else. And then there's the date, the 10th of May, 1999.

On photograph number 14 --

JUDGE BONOMY: My photograph 14 has a cone with a number 4 on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] These numbers 4 and 3, I assume, are the numbers that were placed there by the forensic technicians when they were actually taking the photographs.

JUDGE BONOMY: Where is it in the photograph on the screen if that's number 14?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I'm not saying it's the same photograph. I'm saying it's a photograph of the same object at the same locality. If you have any doubts as to whether it's the same place --

JUDGE BONOMY: So we're now looking at photographs of which we don't have copies, and as long as I know that, then it would save me wasting time looking at the copies. ³⁹⁷⁸³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. I will try to establish --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, part of the difficulty here is that the witness can't help very much. He never visited the site.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the witness clearly said when they found out via the Internet that there was a new mass grave near Pristina, he explained what a great effort they made to find the locality in order to establish what was actually there, because regardless of who they receive information from, the police are supposed to check it out. In this case, they got from satellite a piece of information that was actually broadcast by NATO. It doesn't matter who broadcast it. What matters is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you. I have stopped you.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm not sure that this witness is saying anything about this photograph or is in any position to do so. The photographs were produced by the accused and that's all we know about them. I'm doing the best I can to help. I'm looking at Schedule F in the indictment, if that's what the accused is concerned about, to see if I can connect the name on the gravestone, wherever it may be found, to the name in that schedule, and I can't find it at the moment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, on my understanding, the witness is telling us that these are official photographs, and unfortunately that perfectly straightforward evidence is being undermined by confusion over what photographs we're actually looking at.

MR. NICE: Of course if the witness is able to say that he ³⁹⁷⁸⁴ produces them, knows where they came from, and can testify to all those matters, fine. But as it looks, they came from the accused's hand, were additional to the photographs in the exhibit that the witness did produce, and as far as I can see, don't specifically relate to the issue in hand, which is Schedule F of the indictment. That's as far as I can help.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, please be so kind as to look at the back of these photographs that you have. Please look at the back of these photographs. Is there anything there? Are there any markings there? What is that?

A. That is the seal of the Secretariat of the Interior; is that right?

A. Yes, Republican Secretariat of the Interior.

Q. All right. So that is the stamp of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia?

A. Yes, the ministry -- it's easier for me to read it on this screen. The republic of Serbia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Belgrade, and of course a number too. The Roman numeral, I assume, denotes the organisational unit involved, that is to say, the Secretariat of the Interior in Mitrovica. Of course I'm not sure. But the stamp of every secretariat bears the wording "ministry" within it.

Q. Please look at the rest --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this should be your last question before we break for the day.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, General. This stamp of the ministry, does it show that ³⁹⁷⁸⁵ this is part of the official documentation concerning the locality that can be seen here?

A. This stamp would have to mean that this -- these photographs were developed by some unit from the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. I would just like to ask you something, to establish something that's not very difficult for you. If you look at the number, will you establish what secretariat this is? You can check it out, can you not?

A. Of course it cannot -- it can be checked, but of course at this point in time I cannot say whose exact number this is. As far as I can see, the number is 56.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have to conclude today's evidence.

We will adjourn until Wednesday of next week, 9.00 a.m. We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.44 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 25th day

of May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.