³⁹⁷⁸⁶

Wednesday, 25 May 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're to continue your examination-in-chief. The witness has been here four full days, and we should be concluding his examination-in-chief today.

WITNESS: OBRAD STEVANOVIC [Resumed]

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

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell us, please, where the new cemetery was in relation to the village that the soldiers, according to this note, showed to the crime technicians who went there.

A. That new cemetery, according to the note that we read out, was near to the village, in the immediate vicinity.

Q. The fact that the authorised officials from the Ministry of the Interior --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... and for us just to be reminded of the document we're looking at.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what document are we using now? ³⁹⁷⁸⁷

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is the Official Note from tab 404, which we were quoting from at the end of business last week.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. There is a translation of this single-page document. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] We've already quoted from the document, so I don't want to waste time there. I'm going to ask the general a few questions about it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what -- the fact -- or, rather, what the officials found at the end of the village, was it a mass grave or a larger number of individual persons buried?

A. Quite obviously it wasn't a mass grave. It was a number of people buried individually in one location, and we can call it or refer to as a new cemetery.

Q. And what did the officials of the Secretariat of the Interior think about the age of the cemetery and on what grounds?

A. Well, based on the fresh mounds, the officials concluded that it was a new cemetery, recently dug.

Q. Now, when and where, or rather, when and why did they leave the cemetery?

A. They left the cemetery in a very short space of time. That is to say they spent very little time there because somewhere nearby, as it says in the note, some shooting could be heard from automatic weapons.

Q. And what did they conclude about the religion of the people buried in that cemetery? ³⁹⁷⁸⁸

A. They concluded that the people buried there were Muslim, and they were able to deduce that on the basis of the tombstones and the way in which the bodies were facing, the graves were facing.

Q. Once that cemetery was discovered in Izbica, who did the police inform about that?

A. The police informed the district prosecutor in Kosovska Mitrovica.

Q. Now, tell us, General, when one establishes a body, even in wartime, and nobody knows whether the person was killed in combat or in some other way, is a criminal report filed and then criminal proceedings or, rather, an investigation undertaken as a result?

A. Yes. Either a criminal report is filed or the authorised public prosecutor is informed about the event.

Q. And tell me, please, who does the district prosecutor -- who did the district prosecutor in Kosovska Mitrovica turn to when these -- the cemetery was discovered?

A. The district prosecutor went to see the investigating judge of the District Court in Kosovska Mitrovica.

Q. We have here in tab 405 a proposal for an order of exhumation, and it is dated the 31st of May, 1999. The current number is 59/99, and we're dealing with tab 405, the next tab.

A. Yes, that's right. This is a document of the district public prosecutor in Kosovska Mitrovica where they refer to the court and propose exhumation, and an order for exhumation which comes under the competence and the authority of the investigating judge.

Q. So the process is that the district prosecutor proposes to the ³⁹⁷⁸⁹ investigating judge or, rather, to the court to issue an order of exhumation and that the -- each individual case must be investigated for the cause of death to be established. In addition to that, if it is possible to determine the identity of each individual, take the paraffin glove test, make a note of the clothing worn, and that a complete record should be compiled and sent in, and this document is dated the 31st of May, 1999?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. So the prosecutor proposes all the steps to be taken that I have just read out.

And what was the decision pursuant to this request that the investigating judge in -- of the district court in Kosovska Mitrovica made?

A. He accepted the proposal by the district public prosecutor and did indeed issue an order for exhumation, which we find in tab 406.

Q. So tab 406 is the exhumation order issued by the investigating judge of the district court in Kosovska Mitrovica; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. It says here "Exhumation Order" and are all the points listed that you mentioned?

A. Yes. In points 1 to 10, it states specifically what steps are to be taken pursuant to this exhumation order and the event that took place itself.

Q. In order to save time, I'm not going to take these points in detail one by one, the different points in the exhumation order, but since ³⁹⁷⁹⁰ you have them in front of you, as I say I'm not going to take it point by point, but can you tell us whether this order contains quite literally all the necessary steps which are customarily taken and must be taken once an investigation of this kind is unleashed?

A. Yes. This order is the kind of order containing all the measures that are generally taken faced with an event of this kind,

Q. Now in the procedure on the part of the state organs, in this case the police and the court, was anything omitted in the general procedure necessary to conduct an investigation?

A. I think from the next few documents that we can see that due to the circumstances some of the measures that were set out were not sufficiently -- or carried out as exactly as would otherwise have been possible had the circumstances been different.

Q. Tell me before we go on, when was the exhumation actually conducted pursuant to the exhumation order?

A. I don't know the exact day, but it should have been the 2nd of June, if I remember correctly. The exhumation, that is, including all the attending steps as stipulated by the order itself.

Q. And where were the exhumed bodies transferred to and how many of them were there?

A. They were transported to Kosovska Mitrovica, and there was a total of 101 exhumed bodies.

Q. Was an external investigation conducted first of all?

A. Yes.

Q. And was a post-mortem carried out? ³⁹⁷⁹¹

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And who carried out the autopsy?

A. The experts for autopsy from the Medical Military Academy in Belgrade.

Q. When and where were the bodies buried, the ones that were found?

A. The bodies found in Izbica, once the post-mortem had been carried out and all the steps pursuant to the exhumation order, were buried in several cemeteries of the Kosovska Mitrovica and Vucitrn municipalities immediately after the autopsies were carried out.

Q. On that occasion was a report compiled of the crime scene investigation?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, here in tab 407 do we have a report on the field forensic examination which was compiled on the 2nd of June, 1999?

A. I've found it. Yes, that's the report.

Q. Tell us, General, what in this report on a field forensic examination, to be found in tab 407 as we've just said, what does it say about the conditions under which the exhumation was conducted and the other steps that were taken pursuant to the exhumation order?

A. This report states that the exhumation itself was conducted under very complex conditions with the risk of attack from terrorist groups, in fact. So that when the exhumation took place and the examination took place, there was an attack that was launched and one soldier was wounded.

Q. Tell me, all the members of the team, were they able to go about their business or did they have to deal with their own safety and ³⁹⁷⁹² security?

A. Both. They had to see that they were safe and secure because of the conditions surrounding the exhumation process itself.

Q. Tell us, General, what was omitted? What steps were omitted or only partially implemented in view of the prevailing conditions, that is to say that they were under fire in that particular location?

A. Pursuant to the order, they were supposed to mark the gravesites in the same way, in a uniform way, as well as the bodies and all the other documentation. However, due to the circumstances, this was not done in all cases. That is to say the graves and the bodies were not marked in all cases, but it states quite clearly in the reports which body was found in which grave. Apart from that, through force of circumstance once again, the conditions prevailing, prints of the capillary lines were not taken and the so-called paraffin glove test was not done. Possibly something else was omitted but those are the two points that come to mind now.

Q. Now, in paragraph 3 of this report, in the description, and I'm going to skip over the fact that it was pursuant to a written order from the court, it says that: "In the Muslim cemetery, which we can -- the character which may be deduced from the names and surnames inscribed on individual gravesites, as well as the fact that the head is turned southward, toward Mecca, 101 gravesites were counted and marked on the chart. The investigating team was able to read inscriptions with the names and surnames on 45 mounds, or gravesites, of which two gravesites bear merely the following markings: CE and Ljavdim. In relation to the ³⁹⁷⁹³ inscription CE, which was also barely legible, no hypotheses can be offered with respect to its origin or meaning. The inscription 'Ljavdim' may be the name of the body buried there and it is in fact a name which occurs frequently among members of the Albanian minority, but it may also mean 'glory to him,' 'glory be.' Also, of the inscriptions that could be read, it was noted that there were five where in addition to the name and surname there was also the inscription of 'UCK' or 'KLA.'"

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question, Mr. Milosevic? Mr. Milosevic, what's the question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell us, General, with respect to the identification process, was a detailed report compiled or, rather, can we see that in this report? Does tab 407 mirror that?

A. In actual fact, an individual review was carried out and compiled of all the bodies and gravesites, and you can see this on page 2, 3, 4, 5, up to the middle of page 6.

Q. Now, on page 1 is there any explanation given as to the circumstances under which this assignment was carried out? And I'd like to draw your attention to the last paragraph in which it states, among other things: "We should like to mention that while carrying out our task we were not able to adhere to the plan of work fully and the order in which the procedure was conducted, so that point 4 of the order was not carried out satisfactorily or fully." So I'm asking you whether an explanation is given for that, because it says here: "... because the Muslim cemetery in the village of Izbica is located in the heart of the ³⁹⁷⁹⁴ territory which until recently was under the control of the terrorist OVK, some elements of which apparently have not yet been neutralised."

A. Yes, that's right. This talks about the problems that the team for exhumation encountered on the spot, and this explanation begins on the first page and ends in the first third of the second page.

Q. Are there any characteristic points here from which we can see under which conditions, under what kind of conditions they worked?

A. In the first page, under sentence 1 we see: "During the exhumation the security detail of the investigation team came under strong fire from infantry weapons and until the investigation team left the site one soldier was wounded." And of course we see later that it caused certain problems in the exhumation itself.

And on page 2, we see a more detailed explanation of what the problems were and on which points the order was not fully executed, accompanied by a reasoned explanation.

Q. Can we read here, among other things, that the graves were marked and some even had bunches of flowers on them?

A. Correct.

Q. And there were inscriptions of names.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, to what issue in the indictment is this evidence related?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is related to para -- to the paragraph which explicitly mentions Izbica. I'll find it for you.

MR. KAY: 66(g).

JUDGE KWON: I have difficulty following this evidence. What I ³⁹⁷⁹⁵ understand is that police received an information from Internet website, but they were not able to find the mass grave. Instead, this is what they have found. But one time I understand the general referred to tab 17. This mass grave -- this grave is located in Kosovska Mitrovica, and you mentioned a place in Pusto Selo. There I have some confusion. If you clarify that, please, General.

THE INTERPRETER: Witness, microphone, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, your microphone has to be activated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will repeat. The last day of my testimony I did indeed mention Pusto Selo in order to explain that the aerial photograph of the alleged mass grave refers to that village, and it was almost identical. Since we do not have such a photograph in the tab for Izbica but we have a photograph in the tab dealing with Pusto Selo, I just wanted to show the photograph to see what it looks like because the two are almost identical.

Here it is in the tab for Pusto Selo.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 420.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's 420. We had a similar aerial photograph for Izbica. We don't have it in our tab here, but I know that there exists one.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's still not clear; where is this evidence leading?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this paragraph 66(g) is something that serves as a basis for a charge of murder. It says that ³⁹⁷⁹⁶ at least 4.500 villagers from Izbica and the surrounding villages took refuge in a meadow. From what it says here, we see that the men were allegedly separated and then killed. All that the general here is saying, and what we can see from the documents, refutes this claim because the documents speak of the way in which those villagers in fact lost their lives. And we also see that the authorities, the judiciary and the police authorities, also conducted an extensive investigation and established first that it was not a mass grave, second, that those were individual graves, and they started an investigation.

So the question arises there is a single thing, a single element --

JUDGE ROBINSON: How do the documents speak of the way in which the villagers in fact lost their lives, as you say? That's not clear to me. Which is the issue here. And that's the issue; how did they lose their lives? The indictment alleges that they lost their lives as a result of action taken by the forces of the FRY and Serbia, but how do these documents indicate otherwise?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, for example, I quoted from the first page a moment ago where it says clearly that this locality is in the heart of the territory that was until recently held by the KLA, which had not been neutralised by that time yet, and we know that from the fact that they shot at the investigation team. It is reasonable to assume that members of the KLA buried the people who were killed on their side in fighting with the forces from Serbia. There is not a single element to prove the claim made by Mr. Nice. If there were 4.500 villagers, there ³⁹⁷⁹⁷ couldn't have been only 100 men among them. That's impossible.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if that's your case, that's your case, but it does require a big leap to get to that conclusion, it seems to me.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know in which way one can reach the conclusion stated in 66(g), namely that the people were killed. It says that men were separated from women and the men were killed. If there were 4.500 villagers, there couldn't have been only 100 men. It simply doesn't hold water.

And second, we see it was in the heart of the territory controlled by the KLA where fighting was going on. There's no single basis for --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. I merely wanted to find out what your case was on this issue and you have explained it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] One should be also guided by certain conclusions regarding the fact that the police conducted an investigation. Why would the police have to conduct an investigation if it had known how those people had died? Why would they have done that? They wanted to obtain some information of what really happened, and that's why they investigated.

First of all, we see from these documents that they searched for seven days to find the village in the first place.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, [no interpretation] -- [Interpretation] When this indictment was being written --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are to proceed with your ^{39798 BLANK PAGE 39799} examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I did continue with any examination. I will let the general see this, and you can even put it on the overhead projector.

Mr. Robinson, in the first indictment, which was written -- you know the dates -- it was sometime in May --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, proceed with your questions. You've already given the explanation. I mean, what we make of it is a matter for us. I was merely trying to understand the case you were presenting. Proceed with your questions. We're trying to conclude this witness's examination-in-chief today.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In the beginning of the second third of second page in this report under 407, it says, speaking of the marks, distinction marks found, it says that at the Muslim cemetery in the village of Izbica, not only people from that area were buried but also from other localities. That runs completely counter to the allegations in the indictment, but it supports the claim that it was people killed in the fighting.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have instructed you to proceed with your question. I have instructed you more than once to proceed with your questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, this list of persons who were identified, does it coincide, if you had occasion to compare the two lists, does it coincide with the list given as a schedule in the indictment? ³⁹⁸⁰⁰

A. Yes. I did have an opportunity to compare the two lists, the schedule from the indictment and the list of people who were assumed to be identified, and I noticed considerable differences. Fifteen to 20 names coincide. In this list, there are other names that are not listed in the schedule, and the schedule, on the other hand, contains some names that are not included in this list.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, yes.

MR. NICE: This exercise having been done in advance of testimony, I expect that a schedule or similar exists showing the match and the non-match of names. It would be helpful to have that. The Chamber will remember that we had similar problems with Racak. The Prosecution landed up doing the work that should have been done by the accused, and with this number of documents for me to deal with, I really don't have any spare resources to turn to exercises like this. So if the witness or the accused has a schedule to reflect the last answer that was obviously known to be an answer coming, we would be grateful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you have any schedule that explains the discrepancy?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, we believed that it is sufficient to provide this entire record from tab 408, and if you allow me, I will read.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So beginning with page 2, starting with body 1 until the end, and that's body 101, you have the list of those identified and not identified. And among the identified in the first ³⁹⁸⁰¹ third of page 3 you have Racaj Saban Ramadan, coincides with the name in the schedule. Isufi Zenelj coincides, Dibran Hadzi, Hoti Rrustem also coincides, Thaci Dervis --

MR. NICE: I can't follow it this fast, I'm sure the Court can't, and if the accused had the courtesy of looking at the Court, he would see that the Court is still trying to find documents as indeed am I.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your presentation would have been facilitated if you had prepared a list. If you are going to proceed as you have been doing, you have to proceed more deliberately, more slowly. I'm still trying to find the documents. Wait a minute.

MR. NICE: Finally, the accused was reading from the B/C/S version, which is in Cyrillic, and therefore it's probably rather harder for English readers to follow the names in Cyrillic than in the Latin script, and it may assist the Court and it may assist me if the accused would be good enough to work from the English version, there now being a translation, and using page numbers of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will consider the best way to deal with this evidence.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, have you been following this evidence?

MR. KAY: I've been trying to, but I think we all need some help as to where we're going to see the issue of the names.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask the witness. General, if you can indicate some of the discrepancies, and then I'm going to ask -- I'm going to instruct the accused, with the help of ³⁹⁸⁰² Mr. Kay, to prepare a list and present it to the Court. General, can you indicate, looking at Schedule F and the list which is in Exhibit 407, some of the discrepancies in the names.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honour, I cannot at this moment. I know very well that when I compared the two lists I saw where they overlapped in 15 or so cases. I know that I found names on this list that do not exist in the indictment and the other way around. However, unfortunately, I did not deal with the question systematically. What I'm saying now is quite certain: It can be done, but it requires a certain amount of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So you are not in a position to even name the 15 which overlap? Because that would be helpful.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have them marked, 18 names that overlap. From this document in tab 407, 18 names overlap with the schedule in the indictment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Give us the 18 overlapping names, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. On page 3 of this document, in the beginning of the last third, Racaj Saban Ramadan, then a few lines down, Morina --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, we are looking at the English version. Could you identify the corpse number or the English page number. If you could identify the corpse number, it would be easier for us to find it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not mark the English version, only the one that is in tab 407 in the Serbian language. So unfortunately, I cannot help you with that. Perhaps during the break this ³⁹⁸⁰³ can be sorted out.

JUDGE BONOMY: On the Serb version it would appear that the corpses are also numbered. Can you not relate the name to the number of the corpse? That's good enough for us.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I saw that the corpses were numbered by hand, so I simply don't know whether it was one of my associates who put these numbers from 1 to 101 or whether that's the version that you received too. It must have been one of my associates who simply dealt with --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. The document we have in Serbian has 1 to 101 in typewritten numbers, in Cyrillic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're right. You're right. You're right. One of my associates simply wrote the numbers on the margin of the text so that it would be easier for me, but I see it now in the text itself.

So number 30 in the Serbian version, that is Racaj Saban Ramadan. Then number 35 --

JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ...

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Number 35 in the Serbian version. Then number 36, number 39, number 47, number 49, number 55, number 59, number 60, number 69, number 72, number 74, number 82, number 83, number 84, number 86, number 88, and finally on the last page, 93. Those are the names that overlap with the names in Schedule F.

JUDGE KWON: For example, the last one, Salja Tahir Zumber, where do you find in Schedule F of the indictment? ³⁹⁸⁰⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Salja Tahir Zumber. Now we're going to look him up. Salja Zumber. On the last page -- on the last page of this list in the indictment, the second one. The second name on the last page. Again, there are no numbers.

JUDGE KWON: This is "Zumber" and the indictment says "Zymer."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is probably a technical discrepancy, a mere typo, but he was found here, according to his identity card and his personal identification number. That is how the names were matched.

A total of 18 overlap from tab 407.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to point something out to you, Mr. Robinson. When we compare the first indictment to the second indictment, 70 names contained in the first indictment are not contained in the second indictment. I can give you the first one where all the names that do not appear in the second indictment at all are marked in red. Then you can look at the second one where I marked in red - or, rather, Professor Rakic was kind enough to do that - a large number of names that are not contained in the first indictment. Indeed, one wonders how this was established, except from KLA sources. It's only the KLA who could have given this kind of information.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the second indictment which is the final indictment, so they benefited from their experience. The Prosecution, that is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Robinson, I think on the ³⁹⁸⁰⁵ basis of information received on killed members of the KLA, and it's only the KLA that could have provided these figures to them, no one else. How else can you explain the fact that all the victims are males? This is a cheap, senseless explanation that men with separated from women. That is something inconceivable to anyone in Serbia.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, please tell me, do you have any information about anyone separating men from women and executing them anywhere or at any situation in Kosovo?

A. I have no such information.

Q. Do you have any information as to any kind of execution of civilians or military or whoever?

A. No. I have information about crimes committed by policemen, soldiers, and civilians.

Q. All of the persons for whom you have this information were arrested and handed over to a court of law; is that right?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: I suppose I ought to make the point that those last three questions, the first two general in the extreme and effectively tendentious or leading and the last one clearly leading, just don't add at all to the material of value before the Chamber. But if the accused chooses to use his time in that way, I'm not going to stand up and object every time he does it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I don't know whether ³⁹⁸⁰⁶ it's a leading question when I ask whether all persons for whom it was established that they had committed crimes were handed over to the authorities, to the judicial authorities. I assume that the general can give a qualified answer in terms of yes or no. He could have said that the answer was no.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I didn't stop you. Just proceed with your questions so that we can conclude this examination. It's far too long.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I agree on that with you. It is very long, but there are very many documents.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in tab 409 there are some sketches, a sketch of the cemetery, I believe. Yes, yes, at the end of tab 409. And also photographs.

A. Yes.

Q. There are colour photographs there. We've already had a look at them. Can we place these on the overhead projector. Mr. Bonomy said that there were some numbers on one of these colour photographs, numbers from the on-site investigations. Here on the photographs numbers can also be seen. I can't see where they are now. These are close-ups, the colour photographs.

So on the original photographs, did you establish, General, that they all have stamps of the Ministry of the Interior, and XVI - have you checked this? - does that correspond to the SUP in Kosovska Mitrovica?

A. No, I did not check that in the meantime because I was mindful of what I was told, not to communicate with anyone while giving testimony, ³⁹⁸⁰⁷ but if need be, I can do that.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the colour photographs we can clearly see how the graves were marked. It is much clearer than on the black and white photocopies. If you're interested in seeing them, they can be placed on the overhead projector.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, we do not wish to have them on the projector.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are these the same photographs? Are these similar to the ones in --

MR. NICE: We don't have colour copies unless there are some coming our way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, at least you should point out the correspondence between the photographs you have presented and those in tab 409, which have numbers.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How should I put this? They were taken by the same police unit, that is to say the Secretariat of the Interior of Kosovska Mitrovica. My associates received them from the same source, that is to say the Ministry of the Interior. It can be seen in the photographs that they overlap and how. For example, photograph number 7 is totally identical or almost identical to this colour photograph, if you place it on the overhead projector, because you can see that that is photograph number 8. Photographs number 7 and 8 show the same type of marking, and the same general appearance of the graveyard is there. You can see that they were all buried individually. That can be seen on black ³⁹⁸⁰⁸ and white photographs where every tombstone is marked in a certain way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let's proceed now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in 66(g) it says -- it says everything that I've already quoted to you, that on the 27th of March, 1999, the forces of the FRY and Serbia shelled the village of Izbica, that at least 4.500 villagers from Izbica and surrounding villages took refuge in a meadow. The men were separated and executed. We saw that it says here that 116 were killed. And then I'm drawing your attention to the rest of the text in subparagraph (g): "Also on 28 March, 1999, the women and children gathered at Izbica were forced to leave the area and walk towards Albania."

Now, what is derived from this text is that the men were executed, shot, and that out of a total of 4.500 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question? It's not the time for comments.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is as follows --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, my question is if the men were executed and the women and children deported and there were a total of 4.500 persons, 100 were men only, allegedly, who buried these people if the rest were deported?

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic. That's a speech. If you carry on in this way, I'll have to terminate the examination-in-chief. That's not a question. That's a ³⁹⁸⁰⁹ comment you can make in your closing address.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on these identified persons do we find markings from which we can see which place the people buried came from?

A. On some of these the geographic area is noted, which should be the place they had come from. I remember a place called Lejocina [phoen] and some others on the tombstones.

Q. So places are written up which are not Izbica; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Well, I'm not going to ask you any more questions about that particular tab.

Now, in tab 410, we have the reports on the individual --

MR. NICE: Before we move on to 410, the colour photographs clearly being distinct from the black and white ones, for good order, if they're going to be produced in due course, might they simply become part of 409? We're likely to forget it if we don't deal with it now. It seems to me, apart from the one the accused referred to, the others don't match photographs and are additional, therefore. I'm not, by suggesting this, conceding their admission, but I would have thought the better course would be for him to amend his file at this stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, they can be considered in relation to 409, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just want to say for the record that I'm not claiming that the black and white photographs are copies of these here but that these are additional photographs which have on the ³⁹⁸¹⁰ back the number of the Ministry of the Interior, and they were all taken in the same location, and you can establish that, that they were all on the same site, or at least some of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on. At least one matches, but let's move on. We'll consider their admission in relation to tab 409. Tab 410, is that translated? It's a very long --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, all the individual reports on identified and unidentified persons are here. The translations exist of one identified and one unidentified, because there was no need for all these reports to be translated, so just two for purposes of illustration.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's what I see, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And we can see here how the authorities functioned, what their work was. And it would be superfluous to translate all of them. So we have one identified and one identified translated and all of them were either one or the other. So this is a pattern --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- according to which the officials worked.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on. Do you want us to look at one, one that has been translated which is illustrative of the others?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's the whole point. Each individual case is documented. There's a document for every single one.

JUDGE KWON: Does the document say how the person died? ^{39811 BLANK PAGE 39812}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, let's ask the general what documents are contained and what points are referred to.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this tab we have 101 complete report on the findings of the body. Each report contains two pages. The first page, which is titled Report on the discovery of the body, the date of discovery, the time, the place, et cetera, who the officials were who took part in the exercise, and a brief description of the corpse. And then we are referred to page 2 and the second part of the form which makes up this complete document. And in continuation, the word Identified or Unidentified is underlined, and in principle, when reports of this kind are compiled, we tend to underline unidentified regardless of the fact that there is a name on the document because this implies subsequent investigation to check out the facts found on the grave site or confirming them or refuting them. And then at the end it says where the body was buried. That's page 1.

Now, in form 2 on page 2 in the upper right-hand corner, we see the number of body, in keeping with the minutes and records previously, and a personal description of the corpse and what the corpse was wearing. Of course there is -- we do not find a description of the elements that represent part of the autopsy or external examination, which comes under forensics and the forensic experts. That is their job. And as we've said, that was done by the team from the Medical Military Academy in Belgrade. And we don't include those documents here; it is the army that has the forensic reports.

JUDGE BONOMY: The answer to my question is no. Thank you. ³⁹⁸¹³

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You would be right, yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, is it a component part of this investigation and the steps taken to have a -- and the collection of photographs, the photo documentation, compiled for each individual case to be found in tab 118; is that right? Would that include that?

A. For each individual case, that is to say for each grave, we should have a photograph of the grave site and a photograph of each individual body. But in the report that we looked at at the beginning of today's testimony, quite possibly that work was not completed. But anyway, most of those photographs do exist and are to be found in tab 418, if I understood you correctly, and that is the big binder.

Q. This is supplementary documentation. There's no text. It's just photographs, and that entire binder, tab 418, ranges from 1 to 101. So these are all the photographs.

A. All the photographs, yes. Mostly there are more than one photograph for each casualty.

JUDGE KWON: The numbers in the picture, which appear in the picture and upper right corner of this tab 410, does this match with the number in -- with the corpse number which we saw in tab 407?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That would be logical. I can't confirm that just now, but that would be logical, yes. We can see that the first photographs are marked with number 1 or, rather, the first is number 1 and the last is 101, so I think that I can confirm that that is indeed the case. ³⁹⁸¹⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in view of this extensive investigation, on-site investigation, the exhaustive descriptions, the proceedings on the part of the prosecutor, the investigating judge, the photo documentation and everything else, all these documents and all these steps taken, can it be linked with any assertions that those persons were executed?

A. Absolutely not. On the basis of all my knowledge, I would say that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a proper question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, when all these activities were taking place, was there any knowledge whatsoever that some crime had been perpetrated there? Did anything lead you to suspect that?

A. The overall police investigation and the forensic investigation was there to establish that, and the procedure is still ongoing, to establish or refute.

Q. Now, under those circumstances, you were in Kosovo for a large portion of the war, did the investigative authorities and police, could they have done anything else, taken any other steps in this case?

A. In my opinion, they did the maximum that was possible, given the prevailing circumstances, because the essence of this is that this material serves as a basis, and the case is still open. It's not a shut case yet.

Q. Very well, General. Now, during the identification process, did ³⁹⁸¹⁵ they use information from the uniform information system, data system?

A. Yes. I think that tab 412 shows us that.

Q. We'll go on to that. What system is this, General? Could you explain that to us.

A. A uniform information system of the MUP of Serbia is a database about all citizens of the Republic of Serbia, including all personal data about the citizens, including their status, whether they have passports, IDs, driving licenses, et cetera. So in that system, in that database we would find every single citizen of the Republic of Serbia and information about them.

Q. In tab 411, we have several extracts from this uniform database, or unified database. Could you take a look at that, please, tab 411. There's several examples there.

A. Yes, I've found it. It is the single database that exists.

Q. And here we have information about every citizen --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me confirm this. We have one page translated, the first page. Is the reason the same as in the previous tab, this is illustrative of the others?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's the same. Just the names are different. And I'd like to ask the witness which information, what data we have.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In this system, does the system contain data on all the citizens of Serbia?

A. Yes, it does. And here we can see from each of these examples the ³⁹⁸¹⁶ basic data, the kind of information. Of course, if additional information is needed, then that can be retrieved as well, with respect to ID cards, any weapons, weapons permits or things like that, driver's licences and so on. And here we can see the type of personal data that can be found in the database.

MR. NICE: Small point, Your Honour: I know we normally try to display on the overhead projector, for those viewing, documents when we're going through a document-heavy part of the evidence. If there is a spare copy and if it could be done without delaying matters, it might make the evidence more intelligible to those viewing this publicly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll bear that in mind. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tell us, please, what this data contains. We have basic data, and then it says at the end: "Do you wish to continue investigation into this individual?" And then the search can continue. So what information does this contain?

A. The first point is the personal registration number for each citizen, then the surname, the father's name, and the first name, place of birth, employment or profession, the blood type, the ID card, identification card, where it was issued, et cetera, and place of residence and when that place of residence was reported. So these are basic data on each individual. Plus the address. Yes, plus the address.

Q. And then anything else you can go in to search and find other relevant information? ³⁹⁸¹⁷

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when we're talking about this uniform database, let me ask you something not related to Izbica but to the database system itself. With the existence of this database system, would there be any sense in taking away personal documents at the border crossing to prevent Albanians leaving Yugoslavia to go back? This is another thing that has been bandied about in this room here and that was referred to by those who represent Mr. Nice's side.

A. That would be nonsensical to confiscate somebody's IDs and thereby prevent him going back to the country. There are daily instances in which people in third countries tend to lose their ID documents. This doesn't mean that they can't come become to the country.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just explain: Why would it be nonsensical to do that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it would be nonsensical, in my opinion, Your Honour President of this Trial Chamber, because all the citizens of the Republic of Serbia are recorded, in addition to other methods, in this general database system. So it would be inconceivable to believe that if we take away somebody's ID papers, that he -- that person would not be able to return to the country.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I see. Thanks very much. Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, was an Official Note compiled on the burial of the bodies found in Izbica? ³⁹⁸¹⁸

A. A number of Official Notes were compiled, as far as I remember, as many as there were places where the burial was conducted.

Q. Let me just draw your attention to tab 408 where there is an Official Note that was compiled on the 7th of June, 1999, and we can see that it was the secretariat of Kosovska Mitrovica, and it is taken in order. It was compiled on the 7th of June by the official of the SUP of Kosovska Mitrovica with respect to the exhumation of 101 bodies on the 4th of June. Did that take place after all the investigation work was completed?

A. Yes.

Q. And then it says on the 4th of June we have one location, the bodies buried there, then another location on the 4th, and then on the 5th, et cetera.

What does this second Official Note mean, the one that was done in Kraljevo subsequently by forensic workers?

THE INTERPRETER: Please give a reference. Mr. Milosevic is reading very fast from something.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the precise reference? The interpreters have asked.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm speaking again about tab 408 that contains two Official Notes, one containing information about the location where all these bodies were buried, and the second one shows that the police always updates information and tries to find even the smallest error, if any, in order to correct it.

So two years later, in this case number, it says Dibrani Djevdet. ³⁹⁸¹⁹ That's the name. The number 7 is registered properly in the document, and then it says in the last paragraph on page 2 of the subject document, instead of "An inscription was read at the grave site UCK Dibrani Djevdet," and so on and so forth, it should say "No inscription was found at the grave site and the search did not produce any documents." Is it proof that the police tried to correct errors and update information?

A. Yes. They always try to correct previous conclusions which do not correspond to the reality, and this is a reflection of that.

Q. They also mention some error with numbers. It says: "Bodies numbered 48 and 58 are listed in the previous note as disinterred from grave number 61." In regard to body number 48, it should say exhumed from grave site 41. In any case, the file isn't closed until the complete investigation has been finalised.

A. That's correct.

Q. Let me see. General, in all the places where exhumations were done, were there appropriate reports compiled with photo files?

A. Yes.

Q. Can we find them in tabs 412 to 416?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well. I hope there's no need to leaf through these tabs except to note that both the reports and photo documentation were compiled during exhumations.

A. Correct.

Q. I'm not going to quote 66(g) again. I hope you still remember it because I quoted it several times. Let me ask you: Did you and other ³⁹⁸²⁰ members of the Ministry of the Interior, when you were searching for Izbica and when you were taking these investigative and forensic steps and other measures, know about these allegations?

A. We did not.

Q. So at that time you were completely unaware of any indictment or any allegations?

A. I can't say that for certain. Maybe we knew about the indictment, but we certainly didn't know about these specific allegations. We might have known about the indictment.

Q. Because this one was brought on the 24th of May. Did the search for Izbica begin by that time?

A. Correct.

Q. Did the search for Izbica begin before the 24th of May? That's the date of this indictment.

A. I believe it started a couple of days prior. I believe that page was found on the Internet and broadcast on some TV.

Q. I'm not asking you about this photograph, I'm asking you when the search for Izbica began; before the indictment or after?

A. Before, if the dates you gave me are correct.

Q. Did you have occasion to look at the list of names in Schedule F? Did you see all of it? And do the names correspond with those in the indictment? Did you notice any discrepancies?

A. I told you already that I compared these two and that there are certain discrepancies.

Q. The information that was obtained during the previously described ³⁹⁸²¹ investigation, does it point to different conclusions than those stated in the indictment?

A. All the information that we had, including the information we have in these tabs, point to a different course of event to the one described in the indictment.

Q. Was it possible for these deaths to occur during fighting between KLA forces and the security forces of our country?

A. I think that is incontestable. First of all, we can see from the photographs --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You have exhausted Izbica. Move on to another area.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would only like to hear the end of this witness's answer to my previous question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. All the questions you have asked are leading, although I've allowed them. Mr. Milosevic, you present a novel experience for me in comparison with the jurisdiction in which I practice. One would go through an entire trial and not hear one objection on the basis of a leading question being asked, but here the Prosecutor is always on his feet because it is more the norm than the exception for you to ask leading questions, particularly in this phase of your examination where you are closing off.

My ruling is that you must move to another area. You have exhausted Izbica.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ³⁹⁸²²

Q. Following the suggestion of Mr. Robinson, dear General, we will move to another subject, which is also covered in the allegations made by Mr. Nice. Let me see which paragraph that is. It is about the Dubrava prison, 66(k).

General, do you have any knowledge about the bombing of the Dubrava prison or about evacuation of prisoners or something similar?

A. Yes, I am aware of that.

Q. And were you personally engaged in the events related to the bombing of the Dubrava prison by the NATO forces in May 1999?

A. I was personally engaged in the action of evacuation of prisoners from the Dubrava prison towards Lipjan.

Q. Do you remember how many inmates there were in the prison before the bombing?

A. More than a thousand but less than 1.100, I would say.

Q. Do you have a general idea what -- on what kind of charges these inmates were convicted, what kind of crimes they had committed?

A. Crimes of terrorism, illegal possession of weapons, and the criminal act of association for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities. Yes, I did know.

Q. We have relevant exhibits in tabs 202 to 210. I will now ask you a series of questions about the basic facts concerning these events and then about your personal involvement.

General, tell me, please, who was in charge of the security detail in the prison?

A. The security service of the prison itself. ³⁹⁸²³

Q. You mean is that the service charged with the execution of sentences and all the accompanying services?

A. Yes. It belongs to the Ministry of Justice of Serbia.

Q. According to your information, how many projectiles were used in the NATO airstrike on the Dubrava prison?

A. I believe the airstrikes went on for three days, off and on, from the 19th to the 22nd May 1999. And the prison was hit with several dozen projectiles, maybe over 50, 60, maybe even more, I'm not sure. But certainly not less.

Q. General, in tab 202, can we find one excerpt from the chronological report on these events compiled by the prison authorities? It goes date by date; 19th of May, 21st of May.

A. Yes, it is an excerpt.

MR. NICE: On this document, I hear the way it's been introduced as an excerpt from a chronological history. If that history relates generally to this topic, to have been provided with a selective excerpt might be unsatisfactory and it would be helpful to know if we are going to be provided with the full document. And again, with 400-odd documents to deal with in cross-examination that I hope will not exceed two days, I'm simply not going to be able to pick up all these points later on. So may we know whether this is an extract of a document that's going to be provided or made available to me in full?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a reasonable question, Mr. Milosevic. The chronological report to which reference is made, where is it? Will it be adduced as evidence here? ^{39824 BLANK PAGE 39825}

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You have already received it. That is the complete chronological report that we have reviewed here. I believe it is still -- I don't know if we have it among the tabs for General Stevanovic, but we certainly had it among the exhibits presented through the chief of Secretariat of Internal Affairs for Pec, Mr. Paponjak. That was the report on all incidents involving loss of life. This is just an excerpt from the same document which you have a copy of in it's entirety.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, if it is already evidence here, then it should have a number.

I see we are past the time for the break. Have that matter investigated during the break, Mr. Milosevic. Perhaps the Prosecutor can assist, and Mr. Kay. We'll take a break for 20 minutes.

JUDGE KWON: Before we break, can I make one observation. Mr. Milosevic, we had enough, more than enough evidence on the bombing of NATO, on Dubrava prison. Speaking for myself, what I'd like to hear from the general is that what happened on 22nd and 23rd of May and the bodies with gunshot wounds. That's the critical evidence. Bear that in mind in the next session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are adjourned for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, according to the reports that you received -- ³⁹⁸²⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind the observations of Judge Kwon and concentrate on that area.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry, I'm not receiving any interpretation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. The witness is not receiving any interpretation.

Yes. Are you now hearing? Yes. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, bearing in mind Mr. Kwon's observation, do you know exactly when the Dubrava prison was targeted? Please look at tab 204. That contains information about NATO bombing of the Dubrava correctional facility.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Is there any translation for this?

MR. NICE: Your Honours, there are no translations. I've inquired of the associate -- not -- Ms. Anoya, whether she knows when these documents are going to be available in translation because it's particularly important for me that I'm able to explore the Dubrava documents but at the moment they aren't available, but I shall certainly want to go through them in one format or another with this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do we have any information as to when the translations of these documents will be available? Does the court deputy have any information on this? Or do we have any information as to when ³⁹⁸²⁷ they were submitted for translation?

Mr. Milosevic, when were they submitted for translation?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, a lot more than a month ago, Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not receiving any interpretation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the information from the court deputy is that the documents were received by the ODM on the 19th of May, less than a week ago and not a month ago as you said.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I really do not have any other information. There aren't any new documents ever since the general's been here, and he's been here for quite awhile now. All the documents have been submitted for translation. How records are kept of this is something that I really cannot say.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not certain what the Trial Chamber is to make of this procedure. Apparently the explanation may be that they were submitted more than a month ago in bulk.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have something from the -- we have a statement from the court deputy which says that the documents received by the ODM on the 19th of May are the following tabs, and there are quite a number, and the one that we're looking at here, which is tab 20 -- 204 is among those received on the 19th of May. ³⁹⁸²⁸ It is for you, Mr. Milosevic, in the light of this information, to explain to the Chamber why we should allow you to lead evidence on this document at all since it was only submitted a week ago. You are in charge of the management of your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the documents were handed over when I said they were. However, there is no doubt when the translation service is overburdened they return documents and then they again record the date when they take them back in as the date when they were originally admitted. They do not record the original date when they were first taken in, only the date when they were returned yet again after they were taken back.

For the record, I wish to draw your attention to something that is obvious. Mr. Robinson, several times here you pointed out that I have a privileged position because they are translating 1.000 pages per month for me, which is not the case in any other trial. I would like to draw your attention to the following: That I received from Mr. Nice at least 600.000 pages, according to his records. If I were to have the equivalent number of pages to proffer, then according to this privileged position of mine, 600 months would be needed for the translation of all of that. That is to say 50 years. Therefore, you can only be guided by these comparative mathematics in order to draw this conclusion: That 1.000 pages per month is a privilege and how that is a constraint on the possibility of adducing evidence in any way.

I would like to say to you that, for example, for witness Momir Bulatovic, the documents were handed over last year. Last week I was ³⁹⁸²⁹ informed that half of them have not been translated yet. I respect the fact that the translation service is working at its own pace. They're working very hard, but within the scope of their possibilities. However, that certainly is not in line with the pace of presenting evidence, especially if we look at the amount of documents handed over to me by the other side, and especially when you compare this to the fact that an enormous number of these documents were not even translated into Serbian to begin with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I think what you say may be true, that you handed the documents in in bulk over a month ago. The Translation Unit would have returned some of those documents to you because of their workload. But what is not clear to me is why, if they returned documents to you and you knew that you would need this document for evidence at a particular time, why did you not ensure that that document was returned to the Translation Unit for translation in time for this witness's evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was informed that Professor Rakic, who is here now and who has been here for over a month, always made an effort to accommodate the translation service. He always tried to tell them what the priorities were. The extent of his success is limited by the scope of the translation service's possibilities, and things get out of his control and my control.

This admission of documents and then returning them and so on and back and forth, that is something that is complicated, and on the other hand it's not in our hands. It's not in my hands or his. ³⁹⁸³⁰

JUDGE BONOMY: I have to make it clear that I see this matter quite differently. There is no evidence at the moment that satisfies me that any of the documents we're looking at were submitted in bulk and then returned by the ODM. But even allowing for that, even if that is correct, the question that has to be addressed is why the documents were submitted again, if it's again, for translation on the 19th of May and why you, as the person presenting the documents, cannot given us an explanation for that, why you're not able to say that they were returned to you and that they were again sent in for translation on the 19th of May. Instead of that, you create a smokescreen by referring to Bulatovic, which has got nothing to do with the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment relates exclusively to when these documents that you now seek to produce for Dubrava prison were submitted officially in the proper way for translation, and you failed to give any explanation of why that was on the 19th of May.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The documents are resubmitted because they had been returned. Had they not been returned, they would not be resubmitted to begin with.

I mentioned Mr. Bulatovic as an example of the great burden on the translation service. There is this limit, and that absolutely does not keep up with the pace of the evidence presented here and also the pace at which witnesses are called.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question remains, Mr. Milosevic, why was this document, and a number of other documents, too, only resubmitted on the 19th of May? ³⁹⁸³¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Probably because that was when the translation service could admit them. They're on standby all the time.

MR. KAY: If I can just assist. There is a thousand-page limit. There are a large number of documents that have been put forward for certain witnesses who are to come, such as Momir Bulatovic. That creates a pressure on the system. If they're working on those documents, they can't work on current documents. But those documents in relation to Bulatovic have to be presented in a timely fashion. Documents then get returned and they have to go back into the system in batches. A witness such as this will be covering a number of important items, but it goes in in batches, and unfortunately something like the Dubrava prison went in on the 19th of May batch. The problem is the capping procedure of 1.000 pages.

So it is right it was submitted on the 19th of May, but it's a bit like hospital waiting lists in my own country which caused a difficulty. There may be a waiting list of only 48 hours, but it depends when you're allowed to book it.

So the request went in some time ago, it being returned because of the 1.000 cap. It creates a problem on the numerous exhibits that he has.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So what is not clear, Mr. Kay, is -- are you saying, then, that Mr. Milosevic has no control over when the document is submitted or resubmitted?

MR. KAY: No, he has no control. He's in the prison, so in fact it's actually done by people on his behalf.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I know he has associates, I know that, but I ³⁹⁸³² mean --

MR. KAY: And the court liaison. But the thousand pages is such a small amount in relation to this particular trial that it does create pressure in the reproduction of his documents as well as working on documents that are to be produced in the future.

JUDGE KWON: The fact is that the translation unit has been always working in its full capacity. The issue is the matter of priority. So the question is whether the accused could have done that kind of arrangement properly.

MR. KAY: It would have occurred this way: That if the Dubrava prison documents had not been translated, the Izbica documents would not have been translated. It really is quite -- quite circular in its manifestation in relation to this number of files. And no one's criticising the translation department. It is realised and the accused appreciates that they work very hard, it is the allocation of resources, and the point he makes is I bet the Prosecution are not subject to a thousand-page limitation each month, which is a fair observation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: They're not?

MR. KAY: They're not subject to a 1.000 page limitation every month.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, all of these remarks are of some relevance to this issue, but it may be you've not seen this report and you should see it. It should be given to you. But it is interesting to note that among the documents submitted for translation in relation to this witness, there were 323 which had already been translated by the service, and of ³⁹⁸³³ these 125 of them had already been translated for this case. So very little assistance is apparently given by the accused in identifying any priority in translation or even identifying documents which are essential. So there is an another side to this story, and it becomes even more important when you bear in mind the submissions you're making about the difficulties that face the translation service.

MR. KAY: That does meet my sympathy and I do understand -- understand that, and I wouldn't try to make an argument in response to that in relation to documents that have already been translated, which is why they now have the screening process, so that people can track these documents. But they aren't the translation department. They are, of course, another department that has been set up as a screening process, and no one wants the waste of resources of things being translated twice. Finding where those copies of previously translated documents are, if they're not exhibits in this case already, is another matter. They may be with someone else's archives or papers in relation to the Prosecution, I don't know. But it is a problem.

I was talking last week about it and wondered if the embassy from the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro could not assist here by supplying at least three support staff in relation to translation for Mr. Milosevic, that they be working here continuously. They would have people of sufficient linguistic ability, knowledge of English, to be able to input such resources into this Tribunal to assist.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I make two points, one built on the last and designed to be helpful, and the other a correction. ³⁹⁸³⁴ The Prosecution was heavily dependent on the use of draft translations. Had it been necessary to have everything translated by CLSS, we wouldn't have reached the position we're in at all, it wouldn't have been possible. Of course there's an unevenness, sometimes, in the quality of translation but we can live with that. And the accused, knowing the problems that he was going to face, together with Mr. Kay could have and arguably should have considered at an earlier stage using draft translations. The Court may remember that at one stage in not only this case but another case made use of a university, Novi Sad, where certain categories of documents were put out for translation because of the burden of translation on this Court.

The corrective point is this: When the accused seeks to compare the thousand page limit, if that is the limit for him as opposed to the limit for CLSS generally and for us and the material we produced to him, of course a very large part, probably at least half of the material produced to the accused by us, was material that could have been favourable to his case and that it was our duty to provide him in order to help him. He has no such duty do provide material to us and is only concerned with translating material positive to his case. I remain, of course, clearly of the position that this material is likely to be helpful to the Chamber and in particular may well be helpful to His Honour Judge Kwon's concerns because they are broadly contemporaneous documents, if they are what they appear to be, and I know that there's at least one or two of them that I wish to refer to. So my concern is only how we can get the material before you. ³⁹⁸³⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: I notice that 204 is short, three pages. Perhaps that -- we could have that placed on the ELMO.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, Your Honours, just one other thing. In the same as I was grateful to Ms. Dicklich for drawing our attention to the reality of our use of draft translators, it's only fair that I should also caution the -- caution -- alert the Chamber to the fact that tab 22, if you turn to it not now but perhaps later, would appear to be an example of CLSS being burdened twice with the production of the same document because there are two CLSS translations for the same document in tab 22, and that's not the only occasion that's been happening.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're saying that was translated twice?

MR. NICE: It would appear so because there are two CLSS translations and it's the same document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So the screening process failed. I believe that the Chamber has a duty to investigate this matter with the CLSS and also to investigate the possibility of the kind of help that Mr. Kay referred to. If that is possible, I think it would be very helpful.

JUDGE BONOMY: I agree with the latter point, but I have to say I understood the matter had been investigated and we had the report in front of us and it's on the basis of that that I've been dealing with the matter.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I think in the light of all the information that is before the Trial Chamber, I would be reluctant to take any action ³⁹⁸³⁶ that is inimical to the accused because the information is at this stage unclear in my view. I think what we have to do is place the document on the ELMO. It's relatively short and the interpreters would be able to offer a translation of those parts of the document, Mr. Milosevic, which are important and relevant.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. But before I place the document on the overhead projector, I should like to ask you to clear up one point about the return of documents. I really don't have the time to go into this question of sending out and taking back the documents. I assume that if I have tendered documents and received documents that are to be tendered I think that I've done the job. I can't go back and select documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping you. I want to make this position quite clear: The documents may be returned to you once you send them in bulk, but you have an obligation then to identify to the CLSS on a priority basis those documents that you will need for a particular witness. So it is not enough for you to say you send all the documents in. Once they're returned to you, you must then identify for the CLSS those that you need to be translated on a priority basis, because you know when your witnesses are coming.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, well, I don't send out documents that I don't need the translation of. So if something is linked to the testimony of General Stevanovic, for example, then it goes without saying that once the documents were handed over, then they will be used during his testimony, and we know exactly when he's going to testify. So ^{39837 BLANK PAGE 39838} there are no documents that I sent in that need not be translated. So I don't know what this priority refers to, then, whether they're going to use one part of the documents -- or we're going to use one part of the documents one day and another part the next day. That doesn't change anything; they have to be translated, and there's no danger of them being translated twice. And what Mr. Bonomy said, that there were a lot of documents translated, that is quite true, because translated documents mostly refer to Racak in this part of the case, but they weren't translated twice nor were they sent in for translation twice.

JUDGE BONOMY: As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Milosevic, you're on notice that it's up to you to justify the introduction of untranslated documents and therefore you will have to have an explanation. It's for you to record whether documents have been returned to you, whether life has been made difficult for you by the CLSS. It's not for us to investigate that. And if you fail to satisfy me, then my inclination may be to refuse to consider the document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, for this particular document we'll proceed as I indicated. Let it be placed on the ELMO. That's 204.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May we see page 2, not to waste time. It's a brief document, piece of information about the bombing, a report on the bombing. And it is linked to Mr. Kwon's question earlier on. He said he was interested exclusively in the 22nd of May, because here we have listed all the instances of bombing.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, in paragraph 4 on page 2 of this document, and it's a very ³⁹⁸³⁹ brief paragraph, could you read what it says, General, please.

A. Paragraph 4 page 2, you say.

Q. Yes.

A. "NATO bombing was repeated from 1700 hours to 1805 hours and then again at 2310 hours, and on the 22nd of May, 1999, at 0610 hours. A total of 48 air bombs were launched."

That is paragraph 4.

Q. Right. Now, that part of the information refers to the 22nd of May and the bombing that took place on the 22nd of May. Now, do you know what facilities within the prison were hit during the bombing when Dubrava prison was bombed from the 19th to the 22nd of May?

A. As far as I know, all the facilities were hit of the prison, all the buildings.

MR. NICE: It may be helpful if, even at this stage, answers to general questions of that kind which bring forth answers "As far as I know..." are qualified so that we know what is the source of knowledge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a point that you make generally, Mr. Nice. It's of course open to you in cross-examination to test the witness on those matters.

But let us hear, General, what is the source of this information that you just gave?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My source were the officials in the SUP of Pec through which I was interested in knowing, learning about the consequences of the bombing because I was in the SUP of Pristina or rather, the MUP headquarters there. So it was logical for me to want to ³⁹⁸⁴⁰ be informed about that because the bombing was frequent with a lot of projectiles dropped.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, since you yourself were at the MUP headquarters, did you receive information about all the bombings in Kosovo and Metohija that took place from the police authorities depending on whose territory the bombing took place?

A. The headquarters of the MUP of Pristina received daily reports from all the SUP offices about each specific bombing that they were able to identify.

Q. And through that information did you also receive information that all the buildings of the Dubrava prison were bombed?

A. Yes. On the basis of that information, and when I personally asked, I was given oral information.

Q. General, how many persons were killed in those attacks, and how many prisoners were there among them?

A. About 100 persons were killed, perhaps give or take two, plus or minus two, and I think that most of those people were prisoners, with the exception of one individual, and he was the deputy warden of the prison who also lost his life in one of those bombings, I think the second or third instance of bombing.

Q. And do you know how many people were wounded?

A. A little less than 200 persons were wounded.

Q. Tell us when and who issued the order about the deployment of the ³⁹⁸⁴¹ police in order to evacuate the prisoners.

A. I personally conveyed by telephone the order from the minister that pursuant to a request from the Ministry of Justice that they give assistance to the evacuation of the prisoners, but the head of the staff of the headquarters, I think on the 23rd, sent out an order ordering the SUP of Pec to give their assistance to the officials of the prison in Dubrava and transfer them to Lipjan.

Q. Now, take a look at tab 207, please. Tab 207 contains a dispatch, a telegram. The number is 132. It is from the staff of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia in Pristina. The number of the dispatch is 132 and it's dated the 23rd of May, 1999, to the head of SUP Pec, and then it says: "On the 24th of May, 1999, in Istok, at the latest by 9.00, to organise the evacuation of all the prisoners in the -- to the Lipjan prison facility with maximum security measures to be observed. And if the need arises, to have buses secure the location for an investigation," and it is signed by the official of the MUP staff. And then -- so that is the dispatch.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question? You're not giving the evidence, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is -- I quoted the document, it is a photocopy of the dispatch. The question was who issued the order to engage the police in the evacuation process? And the general explained to us that it was issued by the staff of the -- or headquarters of the SUP of Pec and this proves -- tab 207 proves that that is correct, where we can see the order ³⁹⁸⁴² in dispatch form issued to the Pec SUP.

Now, General, when did the evacuation actually take place?

A. The evacuation took place as planned on the 24th of May.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, can I ask you, before or at the time of the evacuation were prisoners -- were a number of prisoners shot in the prison?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean before the evacuation or --

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Either that or during the evacuation.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I absolutely have no knowledge of any fact of that kind nor do I know about anything of the kind now.

JUDGE BONOMY: Your evidence is you've no information that any prisoner at Dubrava prison in the course of the latter half of May was shot.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't have any information to that effect.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: General, did you follow the evidence of Mr. Paponjak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I was not able to because I was prohibited from doing so because I was waiting to testify myself.

JUDGE KWON: Did you happen to hear about the escape attempt of the inmates?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time I did have some information that that -- that the possibility of an escape was there, but I didn't actually hear that the escape actually was attempted, that it ³⁹⁸⁴³ took place.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Picking up on this question raised by Mr. Bonomy as to whether anybody was shot, whether anybody was killed at the prison, I have here two sheets from the exhibits of Mr. Nice. One has the ERN number of 03030802, and the last numbers of the other one are 0807. These are reports by the Spanish forensic team tendered by the other side. If they are available, they could be put on the overhead projector, but I have only one copy.

There is a stamp, Ministry of Justice Forensics Institute, Cartagena: "[In English] -- the organs that are already decomposing, and this cause would be shock wave." "... we must find the cause of death that would act upon the organs that are already decomposing, and this cause would be shock wave."

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm going to read this first in order to ask the question, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. [In English] Working Hypothesis --

JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness says he has no information about anyone being shot. That's the end of the matter as far as he's concerned. There's no point in putting forensic material to him since he knows nothing of the matter. ³⁹⁸⁴⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, it says here in exhibit under the number I gave, very clearly: "At this moment the rest of the deaths [In English] would have occurred as a result of use of short and long firearm, grenades, et cetera, in order to suppress the massive escape."

JUDGE BONOMY: I repeat, the witness knows nothing about an escape attempt, therefore there's no point in asking him about it. This is a stage for questions, not for submissions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the general is qualified to answer my question. He said that he is not aware that anybody was killed attempting to escape.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. But my question, General, is this: If somebody had been killed attempting to escape, would that have qualified as a murder or would that have been a legal use of firearm? Do you have any evidence --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic -- don't answer that question. It's an improper the question. The witness can't answer that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nice very frequently asks hypothetical questions of a much more general character than this question of mine. So the Spanish claim that somebody was killed trying to escape. I'm just asking if somebody had, would that have been a legitimate use of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have ruled. I am not allowing the witness to answer a question as to whether in his view a certain action would have qualified -- would qualify as murder. Ask another ³⁹⁸⁴⁵ question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't what hear anything more about it. Just move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, just for the record, I didn't ask the witness's opinion. I'm just asking him what the regulations stipulate in this regard.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're beginning to test my patience. Either you have a proper question to ask or we'll stop the examination-in-chief now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what forensic examinations have been performed in relation to the dead in Dubrava, and who ordered such examination?

A. It was the investigative judge of the district court in Pec. What was done was to compile the forensic examination reports, external examination of the bodies was performed. Upon orders of the investigating judge, the competent police authorities participated in the burial of bodies and the compiling of the criminal investigation and forensic reports.

Q. Was this incident in Dubrava treated as a secret? Was the investigation confidential or was it open to the public?

A. There was no secret. All the materials are to be found in these binders.

Q. According to your information, during the performance of the on-site investigation was the press present on many occasions in Dubrava? ³⁹⁸⁴⁶

A. Yes, the press was present at least once, possibly on more occasions.

Q. Tell me, after the arrival of the KFOR and UNMIK in Kosovo was it at all possible for our authorities to continue their investigation?

A. Further investigation by our authorities was practically impossible.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I emphasise, Mr. Robinson, that in tabs from 202 until 213 we can find the documents related to Dubrava so that -- let me just take a moment. No, I can't find -- yes. It's in 202 until 210. I'm not going to dwell on that any longer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in the indictment there is reference to Suva Reka as well. What information do you have regarding any incidents involving loss of life in Suva Reka?

A. According to my information, there were incidents in Suva Reka involving loss of life, and in our materials here two such incidents are cited.

Q. Do these cases concerning Suva Reka exist in tabs 214 until 259?

A. Yes. They begin with 214, and the last one is 234.

Q. Thank you. 234, then. Now, nothing is to be found here, or maybe I cannot find any point of contact regarding police action concerning Suva Reka incidents. Is it the case that some of these incidents relate in any way to 66(d), which says that: "On or about 26th of March, 1999, in the morning hours, forces of the FRY and Serbia surrounded the vicinity of the Berisha family compound in town of Suva Reka." Then the same claims are ³⁹⁸⁴⁷ made, that people were separated, arrested, et cetera. Does anything to be found in these tabs relate to Suva Reka incidents?

A. I tried to find -- in fact, I tried to compare the allegations made in the indictment with what we know about Suva Reka incidents, and I found nothing in common except that both refer to Suva Reka.

Q. You seem to have a large number of documents concerning Suva Reka. How can it be possible that none deal with what is described in the indictment?

A. If the police had known anything that might match the allegation in the indictment, an investigation would have been performed and report made. This incident from the indictment involves a much larger number of victims, and it is simply impossible that it would have been overlooked. And we have a lot of documents, indeed, ending with tab 259. One batch ends with tab 234, and the other batch ends with 259.

Q. Let us assume that this event really happened. I believe we even heard testimony to that effect. Do you have an explanation as to how it was possible for the police not to be informed about this event? How come they never learned about it?

A. There are many impossible explanations. It could have been --

MR. NICE: That sounds like speculation. We are in the curious position that apparently the accused and/or the witness and/or the accused's associates have put together a considerable quantity of material that may be contemporaneous and therefore may -- or comparatively contemporaneous, and that therefore may be of interest to the Chamber for what it reveals. Sadly, either little or none of it is translated, and so ³⁹⁸⁴⁸ as opposed to the Chamber having the assistance of this material - and at the moment I don't know how much assistance I'm going to derive from it - it's being asked to listen to mere speculation from the witness. It doesn't seem to me very helpful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. I will not allow the last question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right, Mr. Robinson. Then I won't deal with Suva Reka any more. But I hope it is obvious --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... report? Is there a police report, General, on the investigations which they carried out in relation to Suva Reka?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Presiding Judge, in these several dozen tabs that I named, there is evidence about police investigation about these two incidents in which the total number of victims was 17. A complete police report is available, and most of the bodies were identified. We can see those documents starting with tab 215, ending with the tabs I already mentioned. But I already said it is difficult to link these two cases with the incident alleged in the indictment. There is not a single surname of Berisha among the identified.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps the police investigated a different incident.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The police investigated the incident that it was informed about; in fact, two incidents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's not clear to me where your evidence is leading. If you have specific information on the basis of ³⁹⁸⁴⁹ police reports which contradict or attempt to contradict the evidence in 66(d), then that is what you should be putting forward.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, all these tabs dealing with Suva Reka represent evidence that the police investigated every incident known to them, and the general explained that the only cases they didn't investigate were the ones they didn't know about. There is not a single reason to conclude that the police had any ulterior motives to investigate one incident but not to investigate another. The only possible reason was that they didn't know about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you have concluded adducing evidence on Suva Reka, then proceed to the next area of your examination-in-chief.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I only rise to make perhaps an obvious point but it's a problem that obviously concerns us. If this material has nothing to do with the allegations, then it should simply be excluded because it's irrelevant, or could be excluded because it's irrelevant. But if on finally being provided in translation the accused wishes to raise some argument that the content of this material actually goes actively to disprove our case but by then the witness is gone, it will have been impossible properly to cross-examine on the material and to make what might, for all I know, very valuable points for the Prosecution arising from it. I'm in this dilemma: If I seek to exclude the material, which would be to take a candidly adversarial approach, I may be denying either ourselves the opportunity to have material that could be of value. I may, more significantly, be denying the Chamber the benefit that it might find in its search for proof or truth from this material. It really ^{39850 BLANK PAGE 39851} is extremely unsatisfactory that this material is not translated and that the accused takes no regard of the Court's observations about translation and just brushes it aside. It's as if he'd -- it's as if he disregards altogether the very difficult task that the Chamber is doing and that it can do most effectively on the basis of material that is contemporaneous when it exists.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to determine how you present your case. If you're seeking to rely on any of these untranslated documents, if the document is relatively short we can have it placed on the ELMO. If you believe it is relevant and helpful to your case it may be placed on the ELMO and the interpreters can translate it.

[Trial Chamber confers]

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in paragraph 19 it says: "A superior is responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates if he knew or had reason to know that -- if he knew or had reason to know that they were about to commit such acts or had done so, and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators."

We have here an act regarding Suva Reka, and you told us about the information you had, and you explained that all the cases, all the incidents that the police knew about were investigated. Could it have happened that the police knew about something without starting an ³⁹⁸⁵² investigation and without taking measures to prevent it or to punish perpetrators?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can't allow that question, Mr. Milosevic. It's inviting speculation.

What you can do in relation to Article 7(3) is to adduce evidence that shows that the police carried out investigations. You have been doing that. It's then for the Chamber to determine whether the ingredients in paragraph 19 have been substantiated. You can't ask the witness to speculate in the manner that you have been doing. You have to adduce the evidence. Adduce the evidence which in your view supports your case, and we will make a decision on the basis of that evidence.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, evidence here is that the police did investigate what they knew about. The general is explaining that what is contained in this indictment is something that the police could not have investigated because they simply did not know about it. The evidence here shows that the police acted in accordance with the law concerning matters that they were aware of. How could they act in accordance with the law about something that they had no idea about? I cannot prove --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's your case. That's your case. And perhaps the Chamber will agree with that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is very hard to prove that the police did not know something that they did know. I mean, how can someone prove that he didn't know something that he didn't know? There is evidence that the police investigated what they knew ³⁹⁸⁵³ about, so isn't it logical to assume that had they known --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this is not the time for speeches. Proceed to the next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. We will continue to deal with the accusations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, 66(l)(i) pertains to Kotlina. (l)(i), it has to do with Kotlina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Kotlina.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what it says here: "On or about the 24th of March, 1999, the village of Kotlina was attacked by forces of the FRY and Serbia. In the course of the attack, most of the houses were burnt down and at least 17 persons were killed. Some of those killed were captured in the woods, executed, and then thrown into wells. Explosives were thrown on top of the wells."

General, do you have any knowledge of what happened in the village of Kotlina near Kacanik on the 24th of March, 1999, when a few persons lost their lives?

A. I do have some knowledge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And the basis for the knowledge that he has.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to answer, Mr. President?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. I see the transcript -- I should correct that. What I said was, "And the basis for the knowledge that he ³⁹⁸⁵⁴ has."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have this knowledge from my conversations with the then head of the SUP in Urosevac and also from the insight I had in the case file established by the Urosevac SUP concerning matters that they did know about.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, I read out to you a description of events that is contained in this paragraph 66(l)(i). Does this description of events correspond with what you know of what had happened in the village of Kotlina?

A. This description from the indictment does not correspond to my knowledge and does not correspond to the facts of that case.

Q. What was the core of the case from Kotlina on the 24th of March, 1999?

A. The event in Kotlina can be described as a conflict between the police and army on the one hand and a terrorist group from Kotlina on the other. It occurred while the terrain was being searched. This was being carried out in accordance with the plan of the border units of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. All right, General. In tabs 211, 12, and 213, are there documents of the Ministry of the Interior related to Kotlina?

A. Yes.

Q. Or, rather, not about events in the plural but about the event in Kotlina.

A. Yes, those are the three tabs concerned. ³⁹⁸⁵⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to ask him about 211, let it be placed on the ELMO. We have a translation?

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand we just received translations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, could you please explain first what kind of documents these are. I'm talking about tabs 211, 212, and 213.

A. In tab 211, we have a document of -- that is sent to the judge of the municipal court in Urosevac, and attached thereto is photo documentation of the on-site investigation. It is an integral part of the on-site investigation record. That is tab 211.

Q. General, when was the on-site investigation carried out?

A. The on-site investigation report is not contained here, as far as I can see, but this document shows that it was carried out on the 24th of March, 1999.

Q. Who carried out the on-site investigation?

A. This document also shows that the investigating judge of the municipal court in Urosevac, Ljiljana Milicevic -- or Ljilja Milicevic, carried out the investigation.

Q. Did members of the SUP of Urosevac take part in the on-site investigation?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Was the on-site investigation completed?

A. No, it was not.

Q. Why was only a partial investigation carried out? ³⁹⁸⁵⁶

A. A partial investigation was carried out due to security reasons, because obviously there was a danger from attacks by terrorist groups. This can be seen from tab 213 in a way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you say when -- when was the on-site investigation carried out; the same day, the 24th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The same day. That fact can be seen from the date of this document contained in tab 211, because the technical documents are provided on the 24th and the event concerned obviously took place on the 24th, so the on-site investigation obviously took place on the 24th too.

That can also be seen from tab 212, the date of the report of the forensic examination of the scene. That document also bears the date of the 24th of March, 1999.

Q. General, you just mentioned the document in tab 212. This is a report on forensic examination of the scene.

A. Yes.

Q. So how was the event described?

A. It was described as terrorism. That could be seen from paragraph one.

Q. And what kind of steps were taken? What does it say here?

A. In paragraph five it says the scene was examined in detail, photographed and filmed, traces of items were found, and that is what can be seen here.

Q. All right. Now we are going to have a look -- or, rather, can we see from this why the MUP unit came to Kotlina on the 24th of March, 1999? ³⁹⁸⁵⁷

A. Their objective was to search the area in the border belt, according to the plans of the group of the army of Yugoslavia in charge of border control.

Q. How far away is Kotlina from the state border?

A. I'm not sure exactly what the distance is, but I'm sure that it is in the border area.

Q. In the area of providing security for the state border.

A. Yes, in-depth security of the state border.

Q. In this action of providing this kind of security did members of the army take part in it as well?

A. Yes.

Q. After the on-site investigation, what was done with the corpses of the persons who had been killed?

A. Obviously the corpses were not gathered or transported. They remained on site. And according to this document, we are not aware of what happened to the corpses subsequently.

Q. Could you please explain what can be seen from the photographs from the site itself. As for this event in Kotlina an on-site investigation was carried out, photographs were taken, and they are contained in tab 212.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I suggest, gentlemen, that these photographs be placed on the ELMO so that everyone can see them. I'm going to ask the general to explain each and every individual photograph or, rather, what can be seen on each and every individual photograph.

JUDGE KWON: Before we see these pictures, can you find the names ³⁹⁸⁵⁸ in this document of those who appear in the indictment, Schedule L?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think -- or, rather, we can ask the general, but I think they weren't identified then at all and an on-site investigation was carried out in terms of what had happened. The date matches fully. And the event occurred, and there is a report on the on-site investigation and examination and on the scene itself.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. The identification of corpses obviously had not been carried out due to security concerns, because the corpses remained on the scene.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You explained that the on-site investigation had not been completed.

A. That's right.

Q. What was the reason why it had not been brought to an end?

A. Security reasons.

Q. So this is the 24th of March. This is Kotlina. And these are the allegations contained in the indictment that I read out to you.

JUDGE KWON: Could you elaborate on the security reasons? I don't follow that. And I don't understand why the people were not aware of the -- what happened with the corpses.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I mentioned security reasons during my testimony, this primarily refers to the danger of being attacked by terrorist groups. Obviously here when it is said security reasons, that is the kind of danger that was meant. That could certainly be seen better from the on-site record of the investigating judge. Regrettably, ³⁹⁸⁵⁹ it is not contained in these documents and probably -- it's probably in the investigation files. The investigating judge carries out the on-site investigation and he or she is the one who decides whether it has to be interrupted at a point and then mentions in his or her report the reasons why it had to be interrupted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, can we now please have a look at these photographs. In the photographs that can be seen here, on the first page that was presented here in this collection of photographs -- could you please place that first page on the overhead projector. These are photographs 1, 2, and 3.

A. Yes. Every one of them has a caption too.

Q. All right. Let me just ask you something in relation to what was established in the quotation that I read out to you from the indictment. These photographs 1, 2 and 3 show a few houses; is that correct?

A. Well, houses can be seen, but whether it's a few, I don't know.

Q. All right.

A. As far as I can see, at least four can be seen.

Q. Yes, in the background, and then there's one here.

A. Well, several houses can be seen. That's my answer.

Q. All right. Can you see a burned house on that photograph?

A. Of course I cannot see a burnt house.

Q. On photograph number 1, does it say, "A broad view of the house where, according to the equipment found, the headquarters of the KLA were probably there"? Is that right? ³⁹⁸⁶⁰

A. Yes, that's right. That's what's written in the caption.

Q. And then the second one, a close-up of the house where the KLA headquarters most probably were for the village of Kotlina. And then the next caption reads -- I can't read it. It's not very legible.

A. Probably equipment and arms. I think that's what it says.

Q. All right. Now, in the indictment that I quoted to you, is this logical that most houses were burned --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not "is it logical," Mr. Milosevic. You can't ask him whether it's logical.

Mr. Milosevic, do you have witnesses whom you will be calling in relation to these specific incidents who are closer to the incidents than the general? I ask that question because in my view the general is too far removed from the incidents to be very helpful to your case, and if you have witnesses who are closer to the incidents - for example, the persons who carried out the investigations - that would be much more helpful to your case. But it seems to me the general is very far removed. But it's a matter for you.

For example, the allegation in the indictment that some of those killed were captured, executed and thrown into wells, if we had evidence -- if we had somebody who could tell us as to whether there were any wells on the site.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this documentation from the on-site investigation refutes the allegations made in the indictment, definitely so. First of all, we can see that these houses were not burnt down. That's the first point. ³⁹⁸⁶¹ Secondly, we'll come to the wells. They weren't wells at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let's come to it after the break. It's now time for the break. We'll adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.39 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone. Microphone.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We were discussing paragraph 66(l)(i) about the fact that during the attack or -- houses were allegedly burnt down. And Kotlina is also mentioned in another paragraph, that is to say in paragraph 63 of the indictment, (k)(i). So paragraph 63(k)(i) says on the 8th of March -- on or about the 8th of March, attacked and partially burnt the village of Kotlina. On then on the 24th of March, attacked again with heavy weapon systems, et cetera, et cetera. And it says at the end, not to have to read through everything it says, but it says: "Before departing Kotlina, forces of the FRY and Serbia burned the remainder of the village." So what is alleged here is not that most of the houses but the remainder of the village was also burnt, which to all intents and purposes means practically every house was burnt down. And here we see photographs taken on the 24th of March, the investigation on that day, where we can see houses without any traces of burning at all.

So does this in any way be brought in connection with the correct, alleged assertions in the indictment? Are they correct?

A. Of course not. ³⁹⁸⁶²

Q. Now, how was it concluded that in the house that appears on most of these photographs, which was filmed from the outside -- photographed from the outside and the inside, on what basis do you conclude that the KLA had its headquarters there?

A. Well, quite obviously that conclusion was made by the equipment and weapons that were found in that particular house.

Q. Tell me, please, what was there of equipment, ammunition and weapons on the 24th of March in the village of Kotlina? And I'd like to draw your attention to tab 212, which provides a list of the weapons and ammunition and equipment found on the 24th of March in Kotlina, Kacanik municipality. Here we have 31 things that are listed, 31 items or groups of items.

A. It's difficult for me to find that list. Probably at the end of the photograph section.

Q. Yes, that's right. At the end of the photograph section there's one more page, and what does it say? What was found there?

A. It says equipment and weapons described from numbers 1 to 31 inclusive, and it begins with sleeping bags, nine items or nine pieces; soldiers' bags, nine pieces; green rubberized trousers, et cetera; overalls, three; then 26, we have Chinese produced bombs; sanitary material, 20 pieces of that; semi-automatic rifles, eight pieces, made in China again, with ten rounds of ammunition. 29, the Stajer rifle, M-95; and 30 and 31 is ammunition, 7.62 millimetres for 224 clips, and ammunition 7.62 for an automatic rifle, 2.347 pieces of those. Now, does that list match the photographs ranging from 4 to 10 and ^{39863 BLANK PAGE 39864} 21 to 24?

A. Yes, it is an attachment to the set of photographs.

Q. At the beginning of tab 212, in the explanation that is given of the report on forensic examination of the scene and in noting what was observed and what is to be found on the photographs, what is shown on the photographs --

A. Yes.

Q. -- it says, and that is at the beginning of the first third of the list on page 1 after the title page, it says bodies found in -- "View of bodies found overlooking the village of Kotlina in the immediate vicinity of a shelter in a well." So this mentions shelter and well. And then views of bodies found overlooking the village in Kotlina, one of the bodies photographed in the immediate vicinity of the well, and then second near another shelter which was in the form of a well. Now, why according to these documents, were most of the dead -- did most of the dead bodies appear on photographs 11 to 17, and why are they in the close vicinity of a hole which was shaped like a well?

A. Most probably because the hole was used as a shelter. And according to the information that I received from the head of SUP Urosevac - and he received that information from people who went on site - it was absolutely -- there was no question of wells. There were just two holes, and they were connected by a tunnel, underground tunnel, and used as shelters for protection and shelter against any possible firing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How did the SUP get its information, this information? ³⁹⁸⁶⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The SUP received that information on the basis of these photographs and also on the basis of the fact that the SUP employees took part in the on-site investigation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you see, Mr. Milosevic, this bears out the point I made prior to the break, that the general is very far removed from this. If you had as a witness somebody who went to the site and who could speak to the shape of this hole and whether it was a well or not, that would be much more helpful. Of course we take in hearsay evidence here, but if you have better evidence than can be provided by the general, then you should provide it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, in the event that the accused continues to rely on these photographs, they're not entirely clear in black and white and if there are any better versions, so I can understand exactly what they depict. They're not entirely clear as they appear in black and white.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's perfectly true. Would you have any better versions, Mr. Milosevic?

JUDGE KWON: Picture number 19 and 20.

JUDGE ROBINSON: 19.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have any better photographs. These come from the on-site documentation, and these are photocopies of the original photographs taken then.

Now, as far as the assertion goes of whether it was a well or not --

JUDGE KWON: The general has a better version. Could you place ³⁹⁸⁶⁶ picture -- pictures 19 and 20 on the ELMO, please. Yes, that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is on top is the hole, or well. What is at the bottom?

JUDGE KWON: Could you read that part.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Photograph 20, it says under it: "A close-up of the second shelter described in the form of a well." So the upper one probably is the first well or first shelter in the form of a well, and the second one is the second shelter in the form of a well.

JUDGE KWON: So this picture was taken from the top, from above. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously.

JUDGE KWON: The one we see in the second picture there is a ladder to climb up.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on this photograph, the one mentioned a moment ago by Mr. Kwon, can you see some ladders on a completely dry bed of this well-shaped structure?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. There's no water there, is there?

A. No, there isn't.

Q. Now, in the documents themselves, in the documentation from the ³⁹⁸⁶⁷ on-site investigation carried out, it already says that it is -- we're dealing with shelters in the form of wells.

A. Well, that's what it says, because a well would imply the existence of water, at least a minimum quantity of water.

Q. Now, next to those bodies were there any weapons that were found that those people used in the clash between the -- them and the army and police? And I'd like to draw your attention to photographs 17 and 18 in that regard.

What does it say underneath photograph 17 and 18?

A. Under photograph 17, it says: "A close-up of the bodies found with the weapons and equipment which the people had with them."

Q. And photograph 16, what do we see there? What does it say?

A. "A view of the bodies found above the village of Kotlina in the close vicinity of the second shelter in the form of a well."

JUDGE ROBINSON: General --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- the proposition that a well must always have water at the bottom is not borne out by empirical evidence. There are some parts of the world where wells are dry for a large part of the year. Even rivers may be dry.

Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in this documentation of the on-site investigation, these holes which it is stated were joined by tunnels and they were qualified as shelters or wells -- ³⁹⁸⁶⁸

A. It says they were shelters in the form of a well. So the well is a description of the shape of the shelter.

Q. How, then, can you comment what I just read out a moment ago? Let me repeat: Some of the persons killed were caught in the forest, killed and thrown into wells, and that explosives were thrown in later on; the wording in the indictment.

A. I have no knowledge of that at all, and these photographs indicate bodies. You can see corpses that have not been thrown into a well. And of course it is difficult to assert this, but we can say that we -- no such traces can be seen in this well shape, and these photographs were taken on the 24th. It would be normal after the clash and not before the clash.

Q. Can we have any doubt that the photographs were taken after the clash?

A. No, of course not. There can be no doubt on that score.

Q. General, now recently we heard testimony here by a SUP employee of Urosevac, Dragan Jasovic, who on the 10th of March, 1999, took a statement from an Albanian by the name of Becir Shefqet, and I have that statement here with me. Do you know of this statement by Becir Shefqet?

A. I have read that statement.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Can we have the reference to the tab?

JUDGE ROBINSON: The reference, Mr. Milosevic, to the tab?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is D295, tab 148. And you have the translation in front of you. 159 is the tab number. ³⁹⁸⁶⁹

JUDGE KWON: 138. We received a courtesy copy again.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I haven't received a courtesy copy. It may be duplicated in the tabs of this witness. If the accused could identify which one it is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon. Mr. Kwon, I'm afraid that perhaps what I said wasn't translated properly. It is D295 of tab 158. The tab number is 158, not 138. 158 or 1.58 tab.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So in this statement, which was taken on the 10th of March, which would make it two weeks before the event in Kotlina took place allegedly, at the end of paragraph 2 it says the main headquarters of the KLA in the village of Ivaja, 380 members and substaffs of the KLA found in the village of Kotlina and the village of Pustenik of the Kacanik municipality.

And then from the beginning of the last paragraph in his statement, it says the following: "The substaff of the KLA in the village of Kotlina," I don't know which building it was housed in, all I know is that the commander was Selim Kuci from Kotlina, and his deputy Miljanin Kuci from the same village. And the substaff of the KLA in Kotlina was where the main health infirmary was with Sevedin Kuci [phoen], and Fatin Loku [phoen], doctors both from the village of Kotlina. They worked there. The substaff of the KLA in the village of Kotlina numbered 150 members of the KLA.

And then on page 2 it says, in the penultimate paragraph, that in ³⁹⁸⁷⁰ the village of Ivaja, it says who was with him, and then it says Miljaim Loku from Kotlina. Miljaim Loku from Kotlina is mentioned, and Sali Bajram Vlashi too from Kotlina.

Have you seen that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, these two individuals, are they to be found in Schedule L, which enumerates the persons killed in Kacanik?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the witness, please. Could the witness's microphone be switched on, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I'd like to draw your attention to Schedule L, which contains the name of Miljaim Loku and Sali Vlashi, who according to the statement given by Shefqet Becir on the 10th of March, 1999, were members of the KLA precisely in that area.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. [No interpretation]. [Interpretation] I seem to be receiving the English interpretation on the B/C/S channel, and the B/C/S channel is number 6. There must have been a technical error there.

But as I was saying, our state organs, regardless of the fact that we're dealing here with a clash between our forces and the KLA, after that event, did they take all steps provided for by the law which are generally taken in such circumstances?

A. The steps were taken as were possible, given the prevailing circumstances. ³⁹⁸⁷¹

Q. Can we see those steps, those measures very clearly in this case file which contains the report of the on-site investigation in Kotlina?

A. Yes, we can see them in this case file, but we could see them even more clearly if we had the on-site investigation report drawn up by the investigating judge of the district court in Urosevac.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the witness has made my point: Better evidence would come from the investigating report.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I don't know if I really need to take the time to explain that, but this on-site investigation report and the photographs are not hearsay. They're all dated 24th of March. I suppose it casts a grave doubt indeed on the allegations made by Mr. Nice in the relevant paragraphs. I really don't know what other evidence you may require if this is not enough.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us look at the Official Note in tab 213. That is from SUP of Urosevac. They made an Official Note concerning the incidents in Kotlina, again as part of a review of all incidents, because it was made in 2003.

A. Correct.

Q. What is written in this Official Note drawn up by SUP Urosevac?

A. The reason for conducting the search of the terrain is stated. It also states that a special police unit from SUP Urosevac took part. I already said that a field search was conducted on the orders of the group for the in-depth security of state borders of the Yugoslav army. Combat activity occurred between the police and Yugoslav army on the one hand and KLA terrorists on the other, and according to unverified information, 22 ³⁹⁸⁷² unidentified terrorists who were active in the vicinity of the village of Kotlina were killed.

We see again the same formulation; namely, for reasons of security, only a partial investigation was conducted by the investigating judge of the municipal -- of the district court, rather, Ljiljana Milicevic, including a whole team, including the prosecutor and the team of the Urosevac SUP. A criminal investigation and forensic reports have been created. Further treatment of the bodies and place and manner of burial are unknown.

This is case number 73/03, dated 6 June 2003.

Q. As to the reasons for conducting this field search, what is written here?

A. Well, it says following frequent -- increasingly frequent terrorist attacks on the road Urosevac-Kacanik-Djeneral Jankovic, which passes through the Kacanik gorge. So these increasingly frequent terrorist attacks were the reason.

A. Yes.

Q. And here we have an Official Note reflecting this.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm expecting this witness's examination to be concluded today. This is in keeping with your own projection.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. I'm afraid, however, it won't be possible. Kindly point out any irrelevant matter that I may raise, because I'm really not intent on wasting time here. ³⁹⁸⁷³

JUDGE BONOMY: You've just gone over tab 213 for the second time. It was a pointless exercise.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I regret, Mr. Bonomy, if I went through tab 213 for the second time. I did not have that impression.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just one question: Do you have any information at all about the incident alleged in the indictment where in the village of Padaliste, Istok municipality, that is subitem (f), it says on the 26th of March, forces of Serbia and the FRY attacked Padaliste village, and entering the village, they shot at houses and locals who attempted to flee. So it is alleged that the forces entered the village and fired on villagers who attempted to flee.

A. I have no information about that incident, but through a combination of circumstances I know that it is not in the Istok municipality but in Srbica municipality, and it has 700 to 800 locals, about 100 households.

Q. If that is so, would you have any explanation for the fact that exclusively members of one family were killed, all with the same surname? If Serbian and Yugoslav forces entered a village and fired on houses and villagers, how is it possible that only members of one family were killed?

A. I've already said I have no information about that, but this description of events sounds unlogical bearing in mind the facts I've just stated.

Q. You say that the police knew nothing about this event.

A. Correct. It did not have any information about it. ³⁹⁸⁷⁴

Q. I understand your answer.

MR. NICE: Before we move, and for my assistance, I'd be grateful if either the Court or the accused or the witness can identify the -- going back to Kotlina, could identify the second of the two names from D295, tab 1.58 that are on Schedule L. I've been able to identify one, which was Miljaim Loku, but of course the LiveNote transcript doesn't always pick up names at this stage, and I would be assisted if I could learn what's the second name.

JUDGE BONOMY: The other one was Sali Vlashi, which was the last one. And this came from the evidence of Jasovic. This is all repetitive evidence from a previous witness who already covered it.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

THE ACCUSED: [No interpretation].

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're not getting any translation.

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear anything. Can you get the interpretation now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So the full name we find in this Becir Shefqet statement is Selim Bajram Vlashi, and it's on the list of those killed. Sali Vllasi, that is what is written. So therefore neither in connection with the Padaliste village or in relation to other incidents alleged here there was no investigation, you say, for the reason that the police had no information about them.

A. Correct.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please tell me one ³⁹⁸⁷⁵ thing: According to the rules of your jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction applied here, how is one to prove negative facts such as that somebody didn't know something? How can you prove that the superior didn't know about something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... taken up now, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only asked about this in relation to General Stevanovic's testimony, because he has information about all the incidents in Kosovo and Metohija and spent a long time there, and he's testifying that not a single criminal act went uninvestigated or unpunished.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may very well have satisfied -- you may very well satisfy us that the charge is not proven so far as 7(3) is concerned. You have been adducing evidence as to the propriety of the conduct of the police, that they follow a system, they carry out investigations when they get reports. It's for us to draw certain conclusions from that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us then go through a couple of more questions. You said that in 1998 and 1999 in Kosovo and Metohija the police registered over 1.500 incidents involving loss of life that are not encompassed by this indictment.

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, why is this fact important?

A. This fact is important, first of all, because it shows that there is no reason whatsoever for the police to act differently in regard to ^{39876 BLANK PAGE 39877} incidents cited in the indictment if they had information about them. There is really no reason why we would have not acted upon the Berisha incident in Suva Reka had we known about it.

Q. So you did act in 1.500 cases, and you acted strictly in conformity with the regulations, and you didn't take action in the case of several incidents quoted here because you didn't know about them.

A. Correct.

Q. And in principle --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- how did the police act --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Judge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I wanted to ascertain whether the 1.500 cases had any bearing upon the charges in the indictment. Can you speak to that?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the fact that action was taken in 1.500 cases confirms my claim that the police did act in all incidents that it knew about, and acted in keeping with the law. It bears no logical --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Closing argument, not now. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, how did the police act -- and other state authorities, for that matter; how did they act in incidents involving deaths?

A. In the same way as they acted in the case of Izbica and in every ³⁹⁸⁷⁸ other case that I have so far explained.

Q. General, you brought here as an example, as an illustration, a number of documents relating to Pusto Selo. Can you describe the application of these procedures in a specific case, for instance, the case of Pusto Selo? How did the police find out about the mass graves in Pusto Selo near Orahovac, and what action did it take?

A. This is really a good illustration, but first let me deal with these tabs. But in addition to that case there is a number of other cases, especially where perpetrators of crimes are policemen, soldiers or reserve policemen, and they are under this tab.

Speaking of Pusto Selo, we have had occasion in this session to see an aerial photograph, a satellite photograph of an alleged mass grave, and that is tab 420. Below this picture it says "Alleged mass grave." So somebody brought this photo to the headquarters with a caption "Alleged mass grave." Below this we see something written - I believe this is my handwriting - "This needs to be checked out urgently."

Q. Wait a minute, General. You are very meticulous in your formulations. Do you think or do you know that it is your handwriting?

A. It is my handwriting.

Q. So what did you write there?

A. "This needs to be checked out urgently. Go on the site, conduct as required an on-site investigation and take all the necessary measures." And the second bullet is: "Clean up."

Q. Now explain: All of this regarding Pusto Selo is in tabs 419 to 433. ³⁹⁸⁷⁹

A. Yes.

Q. General, you got this information from the satellite, basically?

A. Yes.

Q. And your first reaction was to have it verified. So what is to be seen in these tabs 419 to 433? What did you establish?

A. We can see the sequence of steps taken by the police in concert with all the other competent authorities, such as the judiciary. We see in 421 that an Official Note was drawn up and submitted to the district prosecutor.

In 422, we see that on the basis of that Official Note the district prosecutor's office issues orders to the SUP in Prizren to gather additional information.

Also, in tab 423, the district public prosecutor submits to the district investigating judge an exhumation -- sorry, submits a letter asking for an exhumation order to be made. And we can see this exhumation order under 424. Furthermore, we have two supplements to this exhumation order.

In 425, we can see that the district prosecutor's office and the Secretariat of the Interior in Prizren received a report on the exhumation conducted in Pusto Selo. In the attachment, we see that 96 bodies were exhumed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: To what paragraph in the indictment does this evidence relate?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It relates to the general conduct of the police. We took one specific example. You had the example of Izbica, ³⁹⁸⁸⁰ which is in the indictment. You have Pusto Selo, which is not in the indictment, but in terms of its effects it is basically identical. The General has been saying that there are 93 casualties there.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 96.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 96. What kind of action is taken and how the procedure evolves, the procedure conducted by the police.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic. Wait a minute.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. We -- I'll allow the evidence even though Pusto Selo is not in the indictment since that you're seeking to establish that there was a culture of proper conduct in the police.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, please. We really have to save time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want you to spend a lot of time on it. You have adduced the evidence in relation to Pusto Selo, which is not in the indictment. I've identified how it might be relevant and helpful to your case. Move on. Don't dwell on it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Then we're not going to dwell on Pusto Selo any longer.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So the entire course of the procedure applied is from tab 419 to 433; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any other examples? You yourself, do you know of ³⁹⁸⁸¹ any other examples where you familiarised yourself with matters, where you actively participated in the resolution of issues?

A. I can give a few examples of victims who were civilians and perpetrators belonging to different categories of persons. I can give a few cases of that kind.

The first case is the killing of a few civilians in Podujevo. This was committed by reservists from the ministry. The case was elucidated, criminal charges were filed, and as I've already mentioned, court proceedings are under way in Serbia right now. I also know of the case of the Bljakcori family. I think that this is the month of May. The perpetrators are members of the active police force. The case has been resolved. The perpetrators were arrested. They are in detention. At this moment I don't know what the outcome is, whether the proceedings are already underway. I'm sure they are.

Then there is the case in Orahovac where the victims were also three civilians and the perpetrators were the following: One member of the active police force and one member of the reserve police force. I also know of the case in Zegra [phoen], near Gnjilane, where the victims were against civilians and the perpetrators of the crime were members of the army. That was resolved as well. The perpetrators were arrested and handed over to the military judiciary. I'm also aware of the case from Kosovska Mitrovica. Again the victims were civilians. The perpetrators were members of the reserve force of the JSO. ³⁹⁸⁸² Of course the perpetrators or the participants in security related events involving loss of life were NATO, and even members of KFOR after they arrived, after the 20th of June. I know of a few such cases too.

MR. NICE: Your Honours. The family name has given too rapidly for me to write down and it hasn't made it onto the LiveNote. I wonder if the witness could be invited to spell it out. He says, I also know the case of a family, I think that's the month of May, the perpetrator's a member of the active police force, the case has been resolved. If we could have the family name, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, can you give us the family name.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Bljakcori is the last name. It is hard to pronounce the L.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Bljakcori.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I also know of the name of the Albanian politician Fehmi Agani, an Albanian politician who was killed. Unfortunately, that case has not been resolved and he was killed on the same day when this family was killed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. In all of these cases that you mentioned so far, they were elucidated, they all happened during the war, and members of the active or reserve force of the police or members of the military were the perpetrators in all these cases. Were all the perpetrators arrested in ³⁹⁸⁸³ all these cases that you were aware of and were proceedings initiated?

A. Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Have any of these proceedings concluded?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that I do not have any information of this kind ever since I haven't been in the Ministry of the Interior. I know for sure that the first trial I mentioned is underway right now in the district court in Prokuplje, if I remember correctly.

JUDGE BONOMY: It must be relevant to whether a system is a reliable, genuine system to see how it operates all the way through, but you can't tell us the completion of, the outcome of any of these cases?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm just talking about the time when I was, in a way, responsible for that. My claim is that all the perpetrators were arrested, they were all detained, criminal charges were brought against all of them, and they were all handed over to the relevant judiciary organs.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I hope it's quite clear here that the domain of the executive government ends with the arrest of the suspects and once they're handed over to the judiciary. General Stevanovic does not have to testify about the behaviour of the court authorities, the judiciary. However, it is obvious that the police carried out their duties. They arrested the perpetrators, handed them over, brought criminal charges against them. So I think that it is clear what the executives' attitude was. ³⁹⁸⁸⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, so far as Article 7(3) is concerned, the aspect of the article which deals with punishment would relate not only to arrest but also to the process which might result in punishment. It doesn't actually require that there be punishment, but it certainly requires that a certain procedure, a certain process must have been gone through which could have resulted in punishment, and that is why the outcome of the cases is important. The general may not be able to give that evidence, but I'd like to assure you that it is evidence which is relevant to Article 7(3).

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the general's testimony. I don't understand. I personally do not believe that any proceedings that were initiated were not brought to an end. I cannot believe that. Although, according to our constitution --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, this trial cannot proceed on the basis of your personal beliefs.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I don't know whether that's only the case in Yugoslavia or in all other countries as well, but in our country executive government, including the president of the republic, does not have the right to interfere with the judiciary and its conduct. The balance of powers and the separation of powers are a key principle of the constitutional order. That's the way it is in most countries with a democratic system of government.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have told you what in my view Article 7(3) requires. Let us proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. ³⁹⁸⁸⁵

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In these tabs, 151 and 152, is there any information related to these killings in Podujevo, the ones you mentioned?

A. Yes. Tabs 151 and 152 relate to what happened in Podujevo. 151 is an abbreviated version of the actual event, and 152 is the criminal report.

Q. We see here a photocopy of the original of the criminal report; right?

A. Yes.

Q. The 23rd of May, 1999, is the date.

A. Yes.

Q. The tab is 152. The criminal report is against an ethnic Serb. I cannot see exactly here in what capacity these persons were.

A. Yes. Perhaps it's not very clear, but they're members of the reserve force of the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. All right. That is in relation to the assertions you made here with regard to the measures taken.

A. The last paragraph says -- actually, Cvijetin Demirovic and others, who are perpetrators for the time being, were members of the reserve force of the SAJ.

Q. All right. That is proof of what you have asserted.

A. Yes.

Q. Of course, the case involves a lot more documents but this is only the criminal report.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice. ³⁹⁸⁸⁶

MR. NICE: Tab 152 suffers two shortcomings. First, it hasn't got a translation; second, it's incomplete. It clearly ends at the end of the first page without the second or second, third, or how ever many other pages being provided.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One page. One page. I have just one page and yet another one.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm just trying to find the tab. 152, it's not translated.

MR. NICE: And unless I misunderstand it, it doesn't appear to come to a conclusion, it just ends at the end of page 1 with no page 2.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How many pages are there in this tab, General? Is the tab complete?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Mr. Presiding Judge, the tab has two pages. That is the complete document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may we --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have one page.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, since the general has both pages, can he please place them on the overhead projector?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the second page.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, could you please show the first page as well. It's important to see what this is all about.

What kind of a document is this? Tell us that first.

A. This is a criminal report. ³⁹⁸⁸⁷

Q. Dated?

A. The 23rd of May, 1999.

Q. What does this stamp on the right-hand side mean?

A. The -- the district public prosecutor's office in Prokuplje -- you can't see it very well here, but I think it's Prokuplje -- a stamp showing that the document was received.

Q. The secretariat in Pristina submitting this to the public prosecutor's office. So the secretariat submitted the criminal report, filed the criminal report, and the prosecutor's office received it. Now, tell us, what is contained here? Against who is this criminal report and why?

A. Against two identified perpetrators belonging to this unit.

Q. Identified perpetrators who are members of the police force.

A. That's right.

Q. Please show the second page. Let's deal with this as briefly as possible, please.

Is that the last page?

A. Yes. The signature is by authorised officials, which is the usual case anyway.

Q. Can the stamp be seen here and the signature?

A. Yes. All of it can be seen. And in the one but last paragraph you can see that the persons were arrested in Novi Sad, and so on and so forth.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's the allegation against them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That could be seen here on page 3 -- ³⁹⁸⁸⁸ in paragraph three, page 1. Because of the suspicion that he had committed the crime of murder, Article 47, paragraph 2, subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Code, against Seljman Gashi born in 1931; Amdi Duricia, born in 1928; Fitnete Babani, born in 1963; Tahiri Idriza, born in 1930 - all of them from Podujevo - and 15 other civilians, women and children, that have not been identified so far.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we go on now?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll have to stop at 1.43.

MR. NICE: Can we have a copy today of the second page, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. A copy of the second page should be made available to the Prosecutor and to the Chamber. That will be the responsibility of the court deputy.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what is your knowledge concerning the bombing of the bridge in Luzane near Podujevo?

A. I was on site right after the bombing.

Q. You were there yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. The documents with respect to that, are they to be found in tabs 153 to 157?

A. Yes.

Q. And in 154, do we have a note on the on-site investigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Followed by an Official Note?

A. Yes. ³⁹⁸⁸⁹

MR. NICE: This is NATO bombing. I don't object to it being led, but is it relevant?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Explain the relevance, Mr. Milosevic, and then we'll have to stop.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The general was there personally. Otherwise, this is a crime against --

JUDGE ROBINSON: To what aspect of the indictment is it relevant?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's relevant because the indictment -- none of the indictments, none of the indictments was raised against crimes perpetrated by NATO in Yugoslavia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If that is the only basis, I will rule it out. If that is your only explanation, it is ruled out. We'll take the adjournment now.

Mr. Milosevic, I had expected you to conclude today. In taking a decision on this matter, I must have regard to the practice which we followed in the Prosecution case where no time limit was placed on the Prosecutor for his examination-in-chief. However, you did indicate that this witness would have taken 12 hours and you're now well beyond that. You've gone over 20 hours. When will this witness's evidence be concluded?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll try to go through this as efficiently as possible. I have a number of questions left, and I hope to finish tomorrow.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're going to take all of tomorrow?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am afraid that I will. ³⁹⁸⁹⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'd like to see you work to conclude this evidence in chief by the end of the second session.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I see that the accused is not disposed to be particularly communicative, however I should alert you to the fact that although he gave an oral summary explaining the topics he intended to cover, I understand informally that, in addition to those topics, he may intend to cover the role of the MUP in Croatia and Bosnia. Arguably, rather relevant and considerably more relevant than much of the material that's occupied the first few days, but it might be helpful to know if he's going to attempt to cover that material through this witness, although there may be no document contained covering it in the voluminous materials provided.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, last week you gave me a list, and I wrote them down, of the outstanding areas to be covered in this witness's testimony. The information which Mr. Nice received, no doubt from reliable sources, do you intend to deal with the role of the MUP in Croatia and Bosnia?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course. I wish to hear the answers of this witness in relation to questions pertaining to the presence of members of the Ministry of the Interior in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the territory of Croatia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have any relevant documentation in relation to that proposed evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have no special documents except for the general's personal knowledge in this respect. ³⁹⁸⁹¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll see the extent to which the general can provide relevant evidence on that.

We will take the adjournment now and resume tomorrow at 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 26th day

of May, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.