⁴⁰⁵³⁸

Tuesday, 7 June 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.13 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you're on your feet.

MR. NICE: I had thought I'd finished yesterday. On review, there was one particular small point that I should have put in terms, it being part of the case against this accused, and it arises from a document we've already looked at and that would take a couple of minutes. I was also provided last night, as a result of publicity given to the testimony of this witness, with two documents clearly of importance, documents that undoubtedly should have been provided to us pursuant to requests for assistance, assuming the documents are what they appear to be, and I would, with leave, ask questions about those two documents. It won't take very long but they are on a central issue dealt with by the witness yesterday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Nice, but before you do that there's a matter that I have to raise with you. It has to do with the video recording that was played last Wednesday, the 1st. That was done with the Chamber's approval, but nonetheless it was in breach of an order issued by this Chamber on the 11th of May granting protective measures. Were you aware of that?

MR. NICE: I'm grateful for advance warning of this problem which we were provided with, and I've been able to review the history. If there ⁴⁰⁵³⁹ was any violation of the order, it was of course accidental and unknowing. I say "if there was a violation of the order" for this reason: The order was directed to the Defence, not to the Prosecution, and was limited in the relief it gave compared with what was sought. But in any event, because the issue wasn't conscious one way or the other, that may be a technicality.

The position is that the team dealing with this case made all appropriate inquiries of both investigators and lawyers in the other case and was not alerted to the existence of any then existing restriction on use of the video at all. That may be because, of course, the need for protection had by then completely passed. The need for protection relied on by the Prosecution in its application in the other case related to a particular individual, and the concerns for that individual were then already matters of history. Had it not been, it wouldn't have been possible to rely on the video at all.

So that inquiries were made; the existence of this order did not come to our attention. In those circumstances, what was done was done without knowledge of any potential breach or violation. In any event, it may be that technically there is no violation because the order was directed to the Defence and not the Prosecution.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In any event, the Chamber issued an order yesterday which you must have seen.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In which we indicated that in light of the widespread publicity, the Chamber was minded to lift the restrictions. ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁰

MR. NICE: There is absolutely no resistance to that order by either those prosecuting this particular accused or indeed by anybody else in the office.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Ms. Higgins.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, the view of the assigned counsel is that it accords with the view taken by the Trial Chamber in this matter, given the circumstances.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Very well. We'll issue an order lifting the restrictions.

Mr. Nice, proceed.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

WITNESS: OBRAD STEVANOVIC [Resumed]

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

Q. Mr. Stevanovic, just two points I'm going to raise with you this morning unless, of course, you've got answers to any of your queries, but that will come later.

Dealing with the Skorpions and their engagement in Kosovo and in respect of the Cvjetan prosecution of which we spoke yesterday, you said this in evidence: "I claim that these two men -" that's the two accused - "belonged to the reserve force of the special anti-terrorist unit and they could not have belonged to any kind of paramilitary group. They were only as individuals members of the reserve force of that unit." Do you remember saying that? ⁴⁰⁵⁴¹

A. Well, I think that's roughly what I said.

Q. I want you to look at two documents that I'm going to suggest to you show beyond any doubt that the Skorpions were formally subordinated at the time of the Kosovo conflict, documents that came to light yesterday as a result of publicity given to your testimony and the subject of draft translations, and formal translations will be provided in due course. If you'd be good enough, please, to look first at the document that is headed "Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Organised Crime Directorate, O, Strictly Confidential." And if you will turn, please, to the second page in the Serbian version you will have, you will see that it is signed by Radovan Knezevic. You know who he was?

A. Yes, I know.

Q. And I'm going to have to read most of this. It reads as follows: It's addressed to the Prokuplje court, so that's the court where these men were being tried.

It says that: "The Organised Crime Directorate acted upon your request in regard to collecting needed information, for the purpose of conducting a successful investigation against ... Cvjetan Sasa and Demirovic Dejan..."

Next point: "... established the following: The accused -" and they're named - "were members of the 'Skorpions' unit during March 1999. "The unit 'Skorpions' was founded as a unit of volunteers and had 128 members.

"The commander of the unit 'Skorpions' was Slobodan Medic, also ⁴⁰⁵⁴² known as 'Boca', and his Deputy was Manojlovic Srdjan, also known as 'Srle'.

"From the members of 'Skorpions' the following members have been identified by their nickname: Vuksic Zoran, also known as 'Zuca'; Djukic Zeljko, also known as 'Brka'; Medic Dragan, also known as 'Guljo'. "On 25 March 1999, the 'Skorpions' unit was transferred to the reserve formations of SAJ MUP, with the agreement of Colonel-General Vlastimir Djordjevic, the head of the Public Security Department of MUP at that time, and it was sent to Prolom Banja for further engagement. "On 27 March 1999, around 1800, Simovic Zoran, the commander of SAJ Beograd at that time, went to Prolom Banja in order to take the unit 'Skorpions' under his command.

"Upon the arrival in Podujevo, Simovic and Medic went to the premises where SAJ was accommodated and they found there Stalevic Radoslav, the commander of the Pristina SAJ at that time. "Medic remained at the premises where SAJ was accommodated and Simovic and Stalevic went to OUP Podujevo, for consultations on further engagement and on accommodation of the members of the reserve formations of the SAJ - the unit 'Skorpions.'

"During their stay in OUP Podujevo, Simovic and Stalevic heard several long firearms sounds from the direction of the location where the unit was to be accommodated.

"Upon his arrival at the place of the incident, Simovic was informed that several members of the reserve formations of SAJ, the 'Skorpions' shot at women and children, the inhabitants of Podujevo. ⁴⁰⁵⁴³ "From the active formation of SAJ the first person who arrived at the place of the incident was Vucelic Spasoje, also known as 'Vuk', who was at the time the commander of the platoon for support of SAJ, and currently deputy commander of SAJ MUP.

"The first aid to the wounded ..." was dealt with. "After this event, Simovic gave orders to Medic to bring back all members of his unit under his command from Podujevo to Prolom Banja, which Medic did." Now, that's the first document. I suggest to you that that document makes it as clear as can be that the Skorpions were entirely formally subordinated to the SAJ of which you were at that time the commander.

A. Let me first answer the second part of the question. Never in my life have I been commander of SAJ nor have I ever been responsible for them. I only had contacts with the SAJ if I directly conducted training with them. But of course if this text is correct, it confirms the first part of your statement, but I am seeing this document for the first time, and I'm coming face-to-face with these facts for the first time. I told you yesterday what I found out from the newspapers, and I brought the newspapers because I thought it was my duty, and whenever you wish me to I'll show them to both you and the Trial Chamber.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... I accept your first point. It's my error. They were subordinated to the public service part of the MUP of which you were a senior officer. The SAJ in particular were commanded by Zivko Trajkovic. Would that be correct?

A. Yes, that is correct. The commander was Zivko Trajkovic, but I ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁴ would add that concerning the other facts I presented yesterday, I still maintain they are true. Regarding the procedure for admission into the reserve force, and as to what I said that --

Q. Very well.

A. -- admitting any units as such from any other category or structure is something not envisaged by the law.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... briefly and has one missing passage in it. That can be distributed. It's already been distributed, I think. And this comes -- goes to the assistant minister of public security, Djordjevic, and is signed indeed by the commander Zivko Trajkovic, and I'll read the first three and the last four shorter paragraphs.

This document subject to the report of engagement of reserve formations for the need of the SAJ says this: "During the year 1998, the number of the members of special anti-terrorist units of MUP of Republic of Serbia significantly decreased because of the number of wounded and because of the transfer of SAJ Novi Sad to the State Security Department. "Because of these reasons, it was necessary to strengthen SAJ with a certain number of reservists for the purpose of conducting combat activities against Siptar terrorists.

"With agreement of the head of the Public Security Department and the headquarters of MUP in Pristina, 128 members of the reserve formations were engaged, who were put on the list of the reserve formations of SAJ. These members were led by Medic Slobodan, with whom the members of SAJ had been fulfilling certain tasks on the territory of Slavonija, Baranja, and ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁵ Western Srem.

"The reservists were activated on the 25th of March, 1999. They were given the uniforms of PJP and the formation long arms from the Police Directorate of MUP. They were accommodated in the hotel in Prolom Banja where they were supported by SUP Prokuplje. The reservists did not leave the premises of their accommodation until 28 March 1999." The photocopy we have received, and we can see it in the original, would appear then to have a part of a sentence missing. I needn't read the long sentence. If the Court would turn to -- the long paragraph -- the second sheet, and if you please would turn to the fifth short paragraph from the end, which is still on the first page, I pick it up in this way: "Upon his return from Podujevo, the reserve formations remained there until 8th of April when they were sent back to Novi Sad, i.e., to Sremska Mitrovica.

"Apart from the engagement on the 28th of March 1999, these members of the reserve formations were not engaged. They remained in the hotel in Prolom Banja and none of them left the accommodation premises, nor entered the territory of Kosovo.

"During their stay in Prolom Banja, Colonel-General Pavkovic visited, met with the members of the reserve formations, and talked to Slobodan Medic.

"Again, the need arose for the activating reserve formations, and on the proposal of Zivko Trajkovic, the commander of SAJ, and with the agreement of the headquarters in Pristina and the head of the department, 108 members of the reserve formations, led by Medic Slobodan, were ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁶ re-engaged.

"The members of the reserve formations came on the 26th of April, 1999, in the area of accommodation of SAJ in Kosovo Polje and immediately got involved in search of the territory and in the fight against the terrorists in the sector Jezero Mount, under the SAJ command and together with other active members of region. Their engagement lasted until the 9th of May, 1500 hours, when they returned to their places of living. They are still included in the list of reserve formations and worked exclusively under the command of the SAJ."

That, then, from the commander. This document makes it absolutely clear, as Mrgud told us in evidence and as I suggested to you yesterday, that they were engaged, they were withdrawn after the incident involving Cvjetan, and they were re-engaged, all under the SAJ. Do you challenge that?

A. Of course I challenged that all day yesterday because I had no information whatsoever about the facts presented in this text. Now I see that these two documents were signed by people, two people whom I know personally, and I do not doubt that they presented correct facts here. The signatories of these two documents probably don't know, however, that a unit as such cannot be transferred into the reserve force. What the law envisages is that an individual can be accepted into the reserve force according to the procedure prescribed by law. Another pertinent fact is that if a decision had been made at all to admit a whole unit, which of course was not envisaged by the law, that decision could not have been made by the head of department. That would ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁷ have had to be a decision of the minister, and that is something we don't see here. And that is my opinion, of course, not an assertion.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Stevanovic, is that perhaps not a reason why in the third paragraph of that last letter mention is made of 128 members of the reserve formations being engaged, and then in the last -- second last paragraph 108 members of the reserve formations were re-engaged, so that the individuals were engaged, in accordance with the law to satisfy the provision that you are talking about?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, engagement on a particular task is one thing, but the previous question was recruiting the reserve force to belong to the police force. Recruiting reservists in 20 police unit is stipulated by law, and it's done at a lower-level unit, whereas the engagement of a reserve force for a particular assignment, mobilisation, conditionally speaking, is really up to the head of the actual service.

The text or, rather, the first part of the quotation you referred to, the formulation is right. Members of the reserve force. It doesn't say the reserve unit of the police or a reserve unit of the police.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, in view of the amount of time I've already taken, I'm not going to discuss this matter more with this witness but there is one point I want to put to him, and only one.

Q. You understand, Mr. Stevanovic, that I don't accept that -- I'm suggesting to you that you have complete knowledge of all these things at the time. And if we look at this last document, we see that reservists were given uniforms of the PJP. ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁸ You may not have been in charge of the SAJ, but you were indeed the commander of the PJP at the time, weren't you?

A. I was not commander of the PJP at that time. I said that several times. Indeed it can be seen that they received PJP uniforms. However, PJP uniforms are a technical issue. Of course you can see that the police administration handed this out, but I was assistant minister whose line of work included the police, but in spite of all of these facts, I assert that I'm not aware of any of these facts highlighted here except for those that I referred to yesterday, namely that I knew that they carried out a crime, that they were returned the very instant and that a criminal report was filed, and I knew that later they were arrested or, rather, detained and brought before the relevant judicial organs. Those were the facts that I was aware of. As for the other facts contained in this document, I really was not aware of them.

JUDGE BONOMY: Again, Mr. Stevanovic, just so that I'm left in no doubt about this, the PJP fell somewhere under your responsibility; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The PJP was an independent, ad hoc unit, or, rather, in the plural, several units, within the public security sector. It was the police administration that carried out administrative work for the PJP, and among other things, I was in charge of the police administration as assistant minister.

JUDGE BONOMY: And does the same arrangement or did the same arrangement apply in relation to the SAJ?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The SAJ was not under my ⁴⁰⁵⁴⁹ jurisdiction. It was not linked to the police administration. They were a permanent standing unit within the public security sector.

JUDGE BONOMY: And yet it does appear from these documents that they fell within the province of the responsibility of Djordjevic, who was or is described, I think, here, as the head of the public security department of the police.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That's correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: However, the date and the context under which this letter is written is not clear upon its face, and usually a commander will send this kind of letter or report to the minister and it will be copied to assistant minister. So if you could tell how or why it was addressed to the assistant minister. Was it because he was head of the public sector?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely due to that fact, that this specific assistant minister is at the same time the head of the sector, the public security sector. However, that does not mean that the same letter was not sent to the minister, although I'm not sure about that, of course. I can only assume that.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Were you aware at the time --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Were you aware at the time of the Cvjetan court proceedings of ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁰ Djordjevic preparing materials to forward to the court?

A. No.

Q. You know that you're described as being in charge -- for example, in something like "Under Orders" you're described as being the officer in command of the regular police throughout Kosovo at the time. Is that an incorrect description of your real role?

A. That is not a correct description of my real role. I already referred to my real role, and I wish I knew whose description this was.

JUDGE BONOMY: Again, for the sake of clarification, could you remind me of your relationship at the time, that's 1999 I think is the crucial part here, the first half of 1999, your relationship in the hierarchy with Djordjevic. I understood you to be in equivalent positions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. Both of us were assistant ministers. And at the time, we were directly responsible to the minister. Of course he had broader responsibility than I did because he was in charge of the entire public security sector as head of the public security sector.

JUDGE BONOMY: So when Djordjevic is described by Trajkovic as the head of the public security department -- no. He's not so described, is he? The impression --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He should say that. We can see from the heading that this was sent to the assistant minister, head of the public security sector. That's what it says in the address of this document. ^{40551 BLANK PAGE 40552}

JUDGE BONOMY: Is that not a description that can also be given to you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No. I was not head of the sector. I was one of the three assistant ministers who were not heads of sectors. There is only one single head of the public security sector.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Who do you say was in charge of the public security in Kosovo in the first half of 1999?

A. Well, I've already explained that the system of command and control in the police in Kosovo and Metohija was that of peacetime, with the exception of the fact that the MUP staff was established to combat terrorism. And also, units were seconded to help the units in Kosovo.

Q. Please, just help me if you can. If you can't, we'll move on to my last question on another topic.

Which person was in charge of the public security police in Kosovo in the first half of 1999?

A. There is not a person who had separate powers in terms of the functioning of the police in Kosovo. It's the minister. It's the head of the secretariat -- the heads of secretariats and the head of the sector, and parallel to that, the head of the staff.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you were in charge, and your suggestion that you didn't know who Medic was and you didn't know about this investigation is, I would suggest, absolutely ridiculous. That's my suggestion to you. ⁴⁰⁵⁵³

MR. NICE: Mr. Nort.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not correct, Mr. Prosecutor, rest assured, and the investigation will prove that. The investigation in Belgrade is very intensive, and you will be assured that that will be proven and it will be proven that I have spoken the truth.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we will, of course, pursue by our request for assistance these documents and anything else associated with them given the somewhat central issue on which they now touch -- which they now touch.

My last outstanding issue that I meant to raise relates to the diary at page 106. It's a very small point. The -- not a small point. It may be an important point but it's a point that I must put to this witness. If the Court -- it's Exhibit 404. The witness has the original before him. The Court will probably remember the entry, it's the "no corpse, no crime" entry where the word at the top -- Exhibit 440, I'm sorry if I gave the wrong number, which has at the top the words "president." The witness told us that this was something that happened in the presence of one president who, he offered, either this accused or Milutinovic. 440, page 106. The no corpse, no crime meeting, the word "president" at the top, the witness's evidence that it was either this accused or Milutinovic.

JUDGE KWON: He said possibly this accused.

MR. NICE: Possibly.

Q. And I must make it quite clear to you, Mr. Stevanovic, the following: This document and your evidence reveals beyond any doubt, in ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁴ my suggestion to you, that it was this accused at whose meeting you took these notes, and that you know that. What's your answer to that?

A. I have already answered that that is what most probably happened. I cannot claim with 100 per cent certainty now who the president, without any name or surname, is, but I said that it is most probably the president of the FRY, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic.

Q. You have, I'm going to suggest to you, throughout your testimony said everything you possibly can to help this accused and if there was anyway you could respectably urge that this was another president --

A. That's not correct.

Q. Very well. I've made my point. I needn't repeat it. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Unless there is answers to the questions that the witness took away with him about the documents, that's all I have to ask him. If he comes back with answers to those it might be that I would seek leave to ask him questions, but that's all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I just inquire, Mr. Stevanovic, have you received any answers yet?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have received unofficial answers from the persons that I communicated with. These answers or, rather, this verification, which has not been completed yet, confirms what I said, that 11 persons from three documents were never employed by the Ministry of the Interior.

As for an official answer, I have been instructed to address the National Committee for Cooperation with the Tribunal and the legally ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁵ prescribed procedure. Obviously I overestimated my possibilities, and I overlooked the legal procedure envisaged by law, and for that I apologise to the Court. But it has been established that those persons were never employed by the Ministry of the Interior. I have unofficial corroboration of that.

When I return, as any citizen, I will apply to receive such an answer officially. That is what my knowledge is for the time being, unofficially. Of course, the Prosecution can do that as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: By what means did you receive the answers?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I telephoned some people at lower levels, and I know that they follow people, members of units and so on. No one could confirm to me that these persons were ever members of the Ministry of the Interior. Of course, this check was not complete, but I expect that through official procedure this can be confirmed officially as well.

The newspapers are here. I shall submit them to the Registry and you will see for yourselves that what I said yesterday at the outset of the session was true.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We'll return to that if necessary. Mr. Milosevic to re-examine, and you must endeavour, Mr. Milosevic, not to ask leading questions. Questions beginning with "Is it clear that..." "Is it logical that..." and so on, unless ingeniously phrased, are bound to be leading questions.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Stevanovic, yesterday, let's first deal with ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁶ this, Mr. Nice put a few questions to you in relation to Racak.

A. Yes.

Q. Yesterday -- or, rather, in the exhibits there are a great many documents that have to deal with Racak.

A. Correct.

Q. Not only now when you were preparing for this testimony, when these documents were compiled, but even at the time when you were in Kosovo and Metohija or in Belgrade, as assistant minister and as a general of the police, did you have occasion to familiarise yourself with a large number of these documents?

A. I did familiarise myself with many documents, especially the circumstances involved in these events that were compiled by a particular working group. I'm not sure that I actually saw every operative information, Official Note, and the like.

Q. All right, General. No one expects you --

A. Of course.

Q. -- to be familiar with each and every detail of each and every particular case. But now when you had a compilation of these documents before you - as you know, they are contained in several of these big binders - did you have occasion to look through all of them?

A. I looked at all the documents. Everything I read in the documents fits into what I know from before about Racak.

Q. General, all these documents that are contained here in the binders that have to do with Racak, are they official documents of the police and of the judicial organs or, rather, official documents related ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁷ to what happened in Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. There is no secondhand information there or rumour. These are only official documents that were presented?

A. That's right. Official police and court documents. There are no newspaper articles, opinions of various persons, et cetera.

Q. All right. General, from these documents that we presented here in part, was it quite certain that in Racak there was a KLA unit?

A. That was beyond dispute.

Q. From the documents and notes and collected information contained in these documents before the 15th of January, 1999, when there was a clash between the police and terrorists in Racak, was it established that in Racak there was a KLA unit?

A. That was --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you're falling into error already and on an issue that is controversial. You can't lead on that. "Was it established in Racak that there was a KLA unit?"

MR. NICE: For this passage of the evidence, I'd urge the Court to have in mind, in ruling on the accused's questions, the level of ignorance of the documents that it was established lay in the witness yesterday. He had -- he was given many opportunities to identify documents on particular topics and he declined every invitation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So, Mr. Milosevic, reformulate or move on to another issue.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I asked the witness ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁸ quite unequivocally whether he looked through all the documents that are here, and there are a great many of them. The witness cannot be expected to know them all by heart. I asked him whether he reviewed all the documents that were presented here in relation to Racak, and his answer was affirmative. I assume that there is nothing leading about that question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but you have said in the last question, "Was it established in Racak that there was a KLA unit," and that is certainly leading.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Robinson. I shall rephrase that.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. During the examination-in-chief, General, did we have on the table and did you see documents that were created before the event in Racak and that refer to a terrorist group in Racak?

A. Of course I saw these documents. I can also add that I had knowledge and information about that, that the group of Racak is constantly threatening the Stimlje-Dulje road on the road between Pristina and Prizren and the road to Urosevac. The key problem was on this regional road between Pristina-Prizren, and the Crnoljevo pass was under threat all the time, and there were a lot of casualties among the police and the army. All estimates showed that the group came from Racak and from surrounding villages whose names I cannot recall now.

Q. General, did we have a document here, a press release of the Ministry of the Interior from that particular day, the 15th of January? ⁴⁰⁵⁵⁹ Do you remember that?

A. I do remember that. There was a press release.

Q. What did it say?

A. If I remember correctly, it said that an anti-terrorist action was carried out in connection with the activity of that group, and the consequences of the activity of that group that were reflected in at least one killed policeman just before that event. I think it was the 10th of January, that that was the date referred to.

Q. Did it say anything about the Verification Mission of the OSCE in that press release of the 15th?

A. It said that as regards that police activity, the Verification Mission was informed or they were present, I'm not quite sure now. I remember that the picture I saw was there too.

Q. Now, you say that you also remember the images showing?

A. The presence of the verifiers on the spot.

Q. On the spot in Racak. Mr. Nice put some questions to you that had to do with your knowledge in this regard, that these were terrorists. Did you have an opportunity to listen to the testimony of their commander, Sukri Buja, who testified here?

A. I think I remember, but I do not recall any details. I remember that I think he said that he opened fire, that gunfire was opened from a heavy machine-gun.

Q. Precisely. Your memory serves you well. Buja Sukri also confirmed that fire was opened at the police, from a heavy machine-gun at that. ⁴⁰⁵⁶⁰ In the documents from the on-site investigation, could you see that a great many trenches were dug and also that there were other things done that indicated that there had been fighting there?

A. From the images at the time of the on-site investigation, it was quite clear --

MR. NICE: As the Court will understand, I'm only two happy for the accused to use as much time as he can given the percentage that I have to achieve, but does this arise in any way from cross-examination? And if it doesn't, should it be permitted or should it be stopped? It's a matter for the Chamber.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if we are going to look at it that way, then it's quite clear that an enormous number of questions put by Mr. Nice does not arise from the examination-in-chief at all, and yet you did not interrupt him. In addition to that, you could have noticed that Mr. Nice often made statements, and you never interrupted him. I don't know why you make this kind of selection and why you have a completely different attitude to the questions that I'm putting.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I reject that suggestion of any kind of selection on the part of the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber has dealt with you fairly.

I'm going to allow you to put the question at this time. Go ahead. ⁴⁰⁵⁶¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So --

A. Well, I can just continue with my answer. From the pictures, you could see that in the area around Racak and surrounding hills that there were a lot of -- there was a lot of fortification that had been prepared by KLA members, and at the on-site investigation we could see that the on-site investigation team and the policemen providing security were shot at. They opened fire. That's what I saw on the picture.

Q. Yesterday, Mr. Nice showed you some photographs. Do you have any idea who took those photographs?

A. No. And that's why I asked the Prosecutor, and if I understood him correctly, he said that it was international organisations. Perhaps I'm not remembering it correctly.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, do you know when the photographs were taken?

A. No.

Q. Do you know whether a single photograph of those photographs was taken on the day the event occurred or whether they were taken later on?

A. No, I don't know anything about that, when the photographs were taken or anything like that, or who took them, for that matter.

Q. And do you know whether anybody was able to take photographs on the day the event occurred?

A. Well, all I know is that it was a day when the police, after the operation, did not have control over the area, and all I can do is to assume who could have taken those photographs, given the period of time, ⁴⁰⁵⁶² that is to say after the operation started up until the police was withdrawn from the region of Racak.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, in the documents that were presented here, is there evidence and proof of the fact that a paraffin glove test was taken and that orders were issued for the paraffin glove test to be taken which was supposed to show whether anybody shot --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you cannot ask the question in that way, "Is there evidence and proof that a paraffin glove test was taken?" I mean, that is virtually putting the answer into the witness's mouth.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it's a generally known fact, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Nice tried once again to explain something along the lines of the fact that civilians were killed there, and even the sparrows know today that it was a clash between the KLA and the police.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, did you cross-examine on the paraffin glove test?

MR. NICE: Not at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not allowing that. It doesn't arise. Move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in the cross-examination, Mr. Robinson, he asked the witness whether --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I've stopped you. I've already ruled. Move on to another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴⁰⁵⁶³

Q. Did you hear the testimony of Adam Bo, the German journalist who investigated how a boy was killed?

A. I think I did, yes. I think so. And if I remember correctly, there was a break in some sort of hedge and something along those lines.

Q. Well, yes, that is what it was about, but did his testimony indicate that there was fighting there or that there was killing of civilians?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I would hate to think that you are being deliberately mischievous and in breach of the Rules of the Court, because if you are, the Trial Chamber will take certain steps. If you cannot conduct the re-examination in conformity with the Rules of the Court, in particular with relation to leading questions, the re-examination will be terminated, and I must make that very clear, because practically every question you're asking is in breach of the Rules. The witness must give his testimony, give his evidence unaided, unaided by you, and that's the purpose of the rule prohibiting leading questions in examination-in-chief and in re-examination.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, can I add one point? Reassuring though it is to hear how good the witness's recollection is of the evidence he's reviewed, he's not here to comment on evidence that others have given earlier, and that's one of the various things the witness is trying to do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, as a high-ranking officer of the police force who, as you said a moment ago yourself, had at his disposal these documents here ⁴⁰⁵⁶⁴ having to do with Racak, is the conclusion that you draw from all the material facts of what you learnt from the documents --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm stopping that. "Is the conclusion you draw..." that is going to end up as a leading question. You may ask him what is the conclusion that he draws, but you're not to tell him the conclusion. Do you understand?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's just what I was going to do.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That was not indicated by the way you formulated the question at all, Mr. Milosevic. You're being very insincere. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, take a look at how I started asking the questions in Serbian and then you'll see whether I'm sincere or not.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, General, tell me, in view of the fact that you were at a high-ranking position in MUP and you looked at all this information and went through it, what conclusion did you draw about the events in Racak, about that particular event on the 15th of January, 1999, in Racak?

A. Well, the conclusion can be reduced to several theses. In Racak, the police was attacked by terrorists while they were doing -- going about their lawful duty.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I interrupt there, and can you tell me, what is the basis for that statement?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis for that statement is all ^{40565 BLANK PAGE 40566} the information that I have, both orally immediately after the event, and --

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have a statement from any police officer to the effect that that's what happened?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not have a statement by a policeman, but I do have a report about the entire event, and it is to be found in the documents that are to be found here.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did the police, General, have any knowledge at all about the killing of civilians in Racak?

A. No, not in that operation itself, but it did have knowledge about killings, including civilians and, of course, policemen and soldiers on the roads which are very close to Racak.

Q. General, had the police killed anybody there, would proceedings be taken as provided for by the laws and provisions of our country?

A. Of course.

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, I don't understand that. I thought the police killed 40 people. So what proceedings were taken by the laws and provisions of your country to investigate that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, let me say there's a terminological programme [as interpreted]. The police did not kill. If you use the word "kill," it means kill with intent, premeditated killing, whereas the police applied force to which it has right to, and the ⁴⁰⁵⁶⁷ consequence of that force being applied was the death of these individuals.

JUDGE BONOMY: That is not my understanding of the word "kill" in English. It may be a different situation in B/C/S, but kill is kill. You can kill someone accidentally, you can kill them deliberately, you can kill them negligently, you can kill them in all sorts of ways, but killing means destroying life in English. Is it different in B/C/S?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Serbian, and as I understand it, they are different things. Somebody can lose his life as the consequence of a killing, or it can be the result of the legitimate use of force. So in Serbian there are some differences. I apologise if there are not in English. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

And let me add with -- in a response to your question, I read a report which was compiled by a working group which had the task of investigating the circumstances surrounding the event and to draw conclusions from that. I have said, I think on two occasions, that I assume that there are statements by leaders and individuals who took part in that operation, however, I do not have them here.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do we have the working group report here?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think we quoted it in answer to one of the questions that was asked. We quoted the conclusions from a report by that particular group, I believe.

JUDGE BONOMY: Working group, a working group. All right.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁰⁵⁶⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in view of the fact that you are an educated man in your profession, do you know that casualties in war conflicts between the armed formations of two sides is qualified as killing or the result of a war conflict?

A. Well, that was the sense of my response to the Judge a moment ago. In our language, killing is either within intent or chance, and -- and manslaughter. And of course the consequences of war effects are not considered to be killings when loss of life is incurred in wartime.

Q. Let us make an assumption. I don't want to ask a leading question. The conflict between a police unit and a terrorist group, for instance, from which -- which leads to death, death of a number of individuals, can it be considered, according to any provisions or anything, as killing?

A. It can as an excess if there was intentional killing of anybody outside the provisions provided for by law governing the use of firearms, but the killing of terrorists in a clash between police and terrorists in principle cannot be considered as murder.

Q. All right. We won't deal with this question of Racak any more except for one more. Let me ask one more question. Does a single document which is provided in these two binders about Racak, are they documents which did not emanate from the regular work of the Ministry of the Interior or the Judiciary?

A. I have not seen any other document, any document outside those two categories of documents that you just mentioned. ⁴⁰⁵⁶⁹

Q. Very well, General. Now let's deal with your diary.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, which of the tabs is the working group report?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I'll try and find it during the break. There are many exhibits, but I can't tell you just off the top of my head now, and I'll ask one of my associates to look through the documents and try and come up with that and I'll hand it over to you after the break.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, we're now going to deal with your diary. Mr. Nice calls this a diary. Have you got it in front of you?

A. Unfortunately, no, I do not. I haven't got it among my documents.

Q. Well, you ought to have it.

A. I haven't managed to find it. Which tab is it?

Q. It's tab 17 -- or, rather, binder 17, tab 440.

A. Yes, I have it now.

Q. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Nice says that this is some sort of diary of yours. Is it a diary or an agenda?

A. Well, it's not a diary. It's an agenda, a notebook in which I noted down certain theses, some of my own thoughts, some of other people's thoughts. There are, of course, some personal notes as well, quite apart from my job. ⁴⁰⁵⁷⁰

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are we in private session?

JUDGE KWON: No, we are in public session.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry about that. May the passage be redacted from public display, going right back to the beginning of that question.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁰⁵⁷¹ Pages 40571-40581 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁰⁵⁸²

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We're ready to get the tab numbers now, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In connection with Racak, Mr. Bonomy asked for tab numbers related to the activities of the police.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, the working group report. I don't want to be involved in a wild goose chase.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's very specific.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is a set of documents that begins with tab 395, which contains a plan of implementation of operative and tactical measures and investigative steps regarding the incident in Racak village, and it says on the last page the working group of the MUP, and three MUP officials --

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

JUDGE KWON: Binder 9.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, continue, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, have you found tab 395?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. Does this tab contain the plan for the implementation of operative and tactical measures and investigative steps drafted by the working ⁴⁰⁵⁸³ group?

A. Yes. That is the plan that we analysed to some extent.

Q. Very well. Did this working group consist of high-ranking police officials?

A. Yes. We can see that from their signatures and names at the end of the document.

Q. From the signatures, names, ranks, and titles, the positions they occupied.

According to what you know, was this plan implemented, and is it the case that in these tabs 395, 396, 397 we find a clarification of the circumstances under which the crime of terrorism was perpetrated in Racak, Stimlje municipality?

A. Yes. That is tab 396.

Q. The chronology follows in tab 397. Is this an entire set of documents related to the event?

A. Yes. These are the documents of this working group, as far as I know.

Q. Did these documents arise from a careful review of all the facts related to the event?

A. Well, the high level of this working group should be a confirmation of very careful, professional and meticulous work in studying this incident.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is 397 signed by anyone?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is precisely what I noticed just now. It seems the last page of the document is missing. This is the ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁴ document I meant when in response to previous questions I mentioned a report of the working group.

JUDGE BONOMY: What about 396? Is it complete?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot claim one way or another, but it seems that it, too, is incomplete.

JUDGE BONOMY: 396 ends with the words "The following plan is hereby adopted," and then nothing follows.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's correct. That's correct. And from that I conclude that it is incomplete.

JUDGE KWON: Should the plan be tab 395?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The plan is 395, and that one should be complete. It has the last page, and it has signatures, at least in my copy.

JUDGE BONOMY: And who are the signatories?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in my copy, at the end it says MUP working group, head of department of criminal investigation police, Major General Dragan Ilic; and then head of department in the public security sector, Mioljub Nikolic; and head of the forensic and technical centre, Vladimir Aleksic. And you can see copies of their signatures.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. We have the translation.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we were in private session. Had you finished your questioning for the private session? If not -- if you have, then we can remain in public session.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think we can remain in ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁵ public session. We will now go back to this agenda of General Stevanovic. However, before I do that, I wish to draw your attention again to tab 400, which follows these 5, 6, and 7, and it contains the press release by the Ministry of the Interior on the 15th of January, 1999, saying that measures were taken concerning Racak and that the Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE was informed about the measures. This is dated the 15th of January, 1999. It doesn't say yet what had happened. It just says that measures were taken and notified to the KVM. It indicates that the measures taken were related to the terrorist group that was active there and that they were notified.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Move on to your next area of re-examination.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, this agenda of yours, does it represent your notes which you could have in any case made available to anyone who was interested in events and activities related to your work from that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me not ask only general questions. I'll ask only one: Do these notes contain anything that in your opinion is not consistent with our regulations, that in any way casts doubt on the regularity of policework and the state authorities in Kosovo?

A. I am certain that there is nothing of the kind.

Q. Very well. We will now go through some of these quotations. I have no time to deal with the entire agenda, but let us just gain a general picture from these notes of yours. ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁶ Please turn the page ending with numbers 380. That's the ERN number. These are the only numbers I think that are in sequence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... proceed.

JUDGE KWON: Give us the English number, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, the English number.

JUDGE KWON: Or the date.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, unfortunately -- let me just see.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may assist.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 8th February, 1999. Have you found this ERN number 0172380? On this page there is a date. That's the 8th February, 1999.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says in the first, second, third -- eighth line, eighth line, "Repair" or "improve the national -- the ethnic structure of the police force in Kosovo." That's your handwriting; would you read it.

A. When you -- you mean where it says "reserve force"?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the first -- I see. 22?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't understand. What are you asking me?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see "Correct the multi-ethnic composition of the police in --" et cetera. Is that what you're referring to?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This sentence in the original says: ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁷ "Correct, or rectify, the multi-ethnic composition of the police in NP -" it's probably Novi Pazar - "Kosovo and Metohija and SU," and that certainly means Subotica.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. What is the point of this note which you used as your own reminder?

A. We had, conditionally speaking, a certain problem with an unfavourable ethnic composition of the police force in Kosovo and Metohija, in the SUP of Novi Pazar, and in the SUP of Subotica, so our objective was to improve the ethnic composition of the police force in the sense of including more Albanians, Muslims, and Hungarians.

Q. So that is a commitment of your force.

A. Yes. The strategic commitment of the MUP.

Q. Very well. Turn the next page, the 9th February, 1999. It says "The federal government."

A. Yes.

Q. It says "Session for the Commission of Cooperation with the OSCE."

A. Yes.

Q. And what does it relate to? It says: "Racak corpses." What was it about?

A. Well, that is obviously a matter for that session. I probably attended it and they discussed Racak and the incidents in Racak, but I could not assert with any certainty in more specific terms what the subject of discussion was. It was the 9th of February. It was probably believed even then that the issue of Racak was topical. ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁸

Q. But this was a session of the Commission for Cooperation with the OSCE?

A. Yes.

Q. On the next page on the same sheet, without any date but it is typed as the next page, it says: "Focus on." Will you read this, the writing that follows. You will find it more easily, it's your handwriting.

A. It says: "Focus on: Protection of roads, facilities of special importance, settlements and facilities where Serbs gather." Second item: "Detection and arrest of perpetrators of terrorist acts."

Q. Stop there, please. Was it the general task of the police, as you say here, to detect and deprive of freedom perpetrators of terrorist acts, or to kill them?

A. Well, this note here confirms what I repeated several times already: Not killing but detecting and depriving of freedom perpetrators of terrorist acts. That's what is written here.

Q. What are these pivotal tasks?

A. Planning intervention directed at certain hotbeds, including preparations for building obstacles on axes of entry of the military component, probably ground component, on the ground.

Q. What was meant here was probably the possibility of aggression by ground forces.

A. Probably. And the last bullet is "Implementation of all measures related to the OSCE," and it is slightly harder to make out what follows ⁴⁰⁵⁸⁹ in the brackets.

Q. All right. Further on, when it says "Characteristics of terrorist activity."

A. Yes.

Q. "Presence in certain parts of the territory and a fully tolerant attitude of the OSCE representatives."

A. Yes, that's what it says. It says: "Characteristics of terrorist activity are still: Additional organisation, equipping and arming." The second one is: "Presence in certain parts of the territory, with a fully tolerant attitude," probably "of representatives of the OSCE."

Q. All right. And then "Other characteristics" you mention. More frequent acts of terrorism?

A. Yes, and I say in inhabited areas.

Q. "Increased number of murders of members of the Albanian national community."

A. Yes. And then further on it speaks of the situation in police units.

Q. Does it say "Strength stands at 10.021"?

A. Yes, that's right. That's in line with the Clark-Naumann Agreement in Belgrade or, rather, Djordjevic-Byrnes.

Q. When you move on to the next page, is the first sentence, "All obligations towards OSCE should be carried out"?

A. Yes. That's what's written here.

Q. Does it say here: "In Paris the representatives of the Kosovo Albanians" -- I can't read this word -- "and in our -" something illegible ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁰ - "are terrorists."

A. Yes, here it says in Paris there are representatives of the Kosovo Albanians, and the rest, it's hard for me to read it. "Representatives of Kosovo Albanians" is under quotation marks, which would mean that they're terrorists or something like that. I'm not sure really.

Q. And then it says: "The army of Yugoslavia has to have deterrence activities."

A. Yes. That is the usual primary objective when there is a threat of aggression.

Q. Was that all in line with the measures that were taken then?

A. Absolutely.

JUDGE BONOMY: Was that a record of things said by someone else?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Possibly, because in the heading it says "Probably Minic," or "Milic." I don't know who Milic could be, though.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Where it says "All obligations towards the OSCE should be carried out"?

A. Yes. Before that it probably says "Minic."

Q. All right.

JUDGE KWON: That item starts with the -- a note, you said, "Chaired by M. Milic." Second line from "federal government." Do you note it? February 9, it says "Federal government. Session of the Commission for Cooperation with the OSCE, chaired by M. Milic."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's incorrect. It's ⁴⁰⁵⁹¹ probably Milomir Minic, because I do not know of a Milic. I simply don't know a person with that surname. Perhaps I have forgotten this very moment. But, of course it doesn't mean that all of the notes are his. These notes on the previous page are quite certainly mine.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, could you please move on ahead to 384, please, 384. It says the 11th of February, 1999.

A. Yes.

Q. There's a lot of text there. It's very dense. I don't want to dwell on it very long. It would require a lot of time, though. On the right-hand side --

A. Yes.

Q. -- it says: "Main attacks --"

THE INTERPRETER: "Main tasks," interpreter's correction.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And then it says: "Protection of security of the republican citizens."

A. Yes.

Q. "Combatting terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija is the topmost security and political task." Is that what it says here?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the next: "In the field of SK." What is SK?

A. "Suzbijanje kriminaliteta," "crime control."

Q. All right. You can make any abbreviations you like, I'm just asking you what that means. So it means in the area of crime control. ⁴⁰⁵⁹²

A. That's right.

Q. And what is KD?

A. Criminal offences. Probably combatting crime. Criminal offences jeopardising the health, property, and lives of citizens. That's the first one. Should I read on?

Q. Well, all right. It all pertains to curbing crime.

A. Yes.

Q. And what is the last one here? "Combatting crime, attitude towards --"

A. "Injured parties." That was a very important thesis at that moment, to devote more attention to injured parties in any criminal offence.

Q. Further on it says: "In JRM." That is law and order?

A. Yes, public law and order.

Q. "Ensure normal life of the citizens and the normal functioning of the institutions of the system."

And then it says: "In the field of traffic security, traffic safety."

So are these normal, regular police tasks that were discussed? What meeting is this from?

A. I think that this is from a meeting that I had at the SUP in Jagodina on the 11th of February, 1999. This is a meeting I held with the leaders of that municipal Secretariat of the Interior.

Q. All right.

A. This was my reminder for that meeting. ^{40593 BLANK PAGE 40594}

Q. If you move one page ahead, you talk about improving efficiency in work.

A. Improving the level of legality in work. I wish to draw your attention to that, as well as the reputation of the service, conduct, and appearance.

Q. One of these bullets says, in the middle of the page: "It is not important what we think about ourselves."

A. "We must always take care about what citizens think of us. We must always heed what citizens think of us."

I wanted to say that it's not important if we perceive ourselves in a positive context. That doesn't matter. What matters is what citizens think of us and how they perceive us. I wanted to draw your attention to that domain pertaining to the relationship between the citizens and the police.

Q. So this is your instructive meeting with --

A. The leaders of the SUP in Jagodina.

Q. All right. Please look further on. 387 is the page. From the second --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the date for that one, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It says here the 11th of February, 1500 hours. "Analysis of work."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And now on the right-hand side you say: "In spite of a series of problems, there is an immeasurable contribution of the POL to the creation ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁵ of conditions for bringing about a lasting solution --"

A. "Peaceful solution."

Q. "-- peaceful solution to problems in Kosovo and Metohija." And then you say: "Cannot be resolved by policework."

A. Yes.

Q. So you say that problems should be resolved in a political manner. Is that the point of what you're saying?

A. Yes. The policy of the ministry that we received through the minister, and that is that the fundamental way of resolving the crisis in Kosovo and Metohija is peacefully through democratic means, that the problem cannot be resolved by policework, and that the police only has the role of enabling the creation of minimal conditions for resolving problems through peaceful means.

Q. All right. And then on the next page you talk about general primary tasks. It pertains to the same meeting, I assume, because there's no other date. There is nothing there. So it is general primary tasks; improving the overall efficiency of work in all lines of work?

A. Yes.

Q. Improving the level of legality in work, the reputation of the service, its appearance and conduct.

A. Yes. It's similar to the previously mentioned theses.

Q. Then "Upgrading the objective level of responsibility of top personnel. Organise a systematic approach to all tasks. Looking to the future."

A. Yes. ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁶

Q. And then you talk about primary line tasks, "the protection of security R and citizens." That's probably of the republic and citizens.

A. Yes.

Q. "Suppressing terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija," and then the next bullet is "Crime prevention."

A. Yes.

Q. "Public law and order." "Curbing or, rather, preventing criminal offences which directly threaten the lives, health, and property of citizens."

A. Yes.

Q. And then "ensuring a normal life for the people and the functioning of institutions."

A. The functioning of institutions.

Q. What does it say here at the end of this page? "The police must through lawful work --" I cannot read this.

A. I can. "The police must through lawful work --" oh, I'm sorry. "Returning inter-ethnic --" I can't read it.

Q. "Trust --"

A. "Trust and confidence," if I see it. So it's the role of the police in restituting inter-ethnic tolerance and confidence. That's the gist of it. I cannot read this but I remember those theses of mine.

Q. When you look at the next page, in the fourth bullet you can see: "Through proper and lawful work the police should bring back inter-ethnic confidence," something along those lines; right?

A. Yes. ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁷

Q. And on the left, it says: "Efficiency and lawfulness in every --" I cannot read this. "In all work"?

A. I cannot find this. "Efficiency and lawfulness in work." But I don't know what kind of work.

Q. And then there is page 390. It ends with 390. That is the 14th of February at 11.00.

A. It should be a similar meeting but in Novi Pazar.

Q. No. It's the senior staff meeting of the minister.

A. Oh, yes. Yes, I can see it up here now. And then Novi Pazar is up, further up.

Q. It only says: "An analysis of work was carried out." And then on the 14th, it says: "The minister's collegium," or senior staff meeting.

A. Yes.

Q. And then the members of the minister's collegium are mentioned here; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there anybody outside the MUP who was present?

A. No.

Q. No.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what are you seeking to establish by this evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm seeking to establish, because these are personal notes from the work notebook of General Stevanovic, the extent to which these activities were really in line with state policy, as he also wrote it down here, and in keeping with lawful ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁸ measures taken by the police in every way.

Although Mr. Nice wishes to prove something different, we are going to deal with all of his quotations.

May I proceed?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You're still remaining with the diary?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're still remaining with the diary, or the agenda, as you call it?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. This is an agenda. It's quite obvious. I already asked the general.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You say here the minister.

A. Yes. These are supposed to be his theses, what follows.

Q. All right. What does he say here? "We will do everything to resolve Kosovo and Metohija in a peaceful way."

A. Yes. That's what it says in the third bullet here, third asterisk.

Q. "However, if the country is attacked, we shall defend ourselves."

A. "Regardless of how strong the enemy may be."

Q. On the right-hand side, does it say this: "We have -- our orientation is a multi-ethnic Kosovo"?

A. Yes. It says: "Our option is a multi-ethnic Kosovo."

Q. Option, right. But it doesn't matter, it means the same. "Our option is a multi-ethnic Kosovo," it says. Right. "We must avoid a civil war." Is that what it says as well? ⁴⁰⁵⁹⁹

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Fine. And then something Mr. Nice went on to quote from that same meeting where it is established that everything should be solved peacefully, that our option was a multi-ethnic Kosovo, that we should avoid a civil war, and then it says: "Our enemies Kandic, Biserko," Mr. Nice quoted that. Why did that -- was that position circulated at the time amongst you?

A. That position -- well, I've already explained. It was there amongst us because of the fact that the organisation or organisations led by these ladies, as I've already said, were one-sided and biased, in our opinion, in presenting the facts, and we had quite different information as to what the facts were.

Q. For example? Give us an example.

A. Well, it's difficult for me to remember specifically and quote an example, but I assume that it was a question of certain accusations with respect to some specific events, most probably, and in regard of that, the results of the investigation were quite different from them from what we found ourselves.

Q. So you're discussing that at the senior staff meeting, the collegium of ministers? You were able to speak amongst yourselves frankly, and you knew whether what you were talking about is correct or not?

A. Yes, it was certainly correct, and I assume we can see that the minister stated so loud and clear here.

Q. On the following page -- I can't find the ERN number, but when you ⁴⁰⁶⁰⁰ turn the page, 392 I believe is the ERN number. It's placed in different positions on the page so I'm not able to follow, but that seems to be the ERN number, 392 being the last digits. You say "For the minister's collegium." That's the heading; is that right?

A. Yes. It would mean that this is an aide-memoire for the collegium.

Q. So you were preparing for this senior staff meeting and writing down the basic points, the basic theses that you wished to set out.

A. Yes.

Q. Fine. And then you say that in UP, that is to say the plan of preparations for what should be taken with respect to a possible NATO aggression.

A. And the UP means "Uprava policije," the police directorate.

Q. And then it says: "From airstrikes to the entry of ground forces." Was it common knowledge that a ground aggression was expected?

A. Yes. That was common knowledge, and it was always taken into account when making every assessment and contingency plans.

Q. Right. Thank you. Take a look at 394 now, please. ERN number 394, last digits.

There is no date here, however, it does say: "Crime also a priority." Is that right? That's what the minister says. "Priority Kosovo and Metohija. Crime also a priority." Is that what it says?

A. Yes.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's page 42. ⁴⁰⁶⁰¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now I'm going to skip over some of the following passages. Now, please, take a look at page 402, 172402. On the right-hand side, it says: "The police --" at the beginning of the page, on the right-hand side, it says: "The police in Kosovo and Metohija are fully observing the agreement on the OSCE mission." Is that what it says?

A. Yes. That's under number 1, the first point.

Q. What else does it say after that? Read it out, please.

A. The second thesis, it says: "In this regard, the police protects the security of the mission members."

JUDGE KWON: Page 51.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And then the second point: "Informs the mission about events and actions." Third point: "Enables the mission to move around without hindrance." And the fourth point: "Allows the mission to monitor the work of the police." Yes, that's right, "to monitor the work of the police."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And then it goes on to say: "This does not, of course, mean that in individual cases the police does not make mistakes," because it says, "We're getting in general complaints."

A. Yes. "That, of course, does not mean that in individual cases the police does not make mistakes."

Q. What does it say after that?

A. "Every case reported will be investigated in detail, the measures prescribed by law taken, and will inform --" I'm not quite sure what it ⁴⁰⁶⁰² says there. That's rather illegible. But anyway, I think it says "will inform the person filing the complaint." That's what it should mean.

Q. And what does it say after that?

A. "The event must be reported," probably to the district police station in the area. The time, place, description, the damage incurred, persons present, and so on.

Q. All right. Fine. So that, then, is the end of February. Is that all in keeping with what you described about how the police works?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. All right. Fine. Now look at page 408, please. Just briefly, on the left-hand side, it says here: "At a meeting of the ministers." It's the 1st of March. "Meeting with minister. The situation is becoming more complicated in Kosovo and Metohija. The opening of Kacanik, movement of civilians, violent conflicts."

Does that, then, indicate the problems that are caused by the activities of the KLA or some other problems?

A. Well, quite obviously it refers to KLA activities. The opening of Kacanik. It cannot mean us opening Kacanik but that some problems are opening up there.

Q. Of course. And what does this "movement of civilians" mean?

A. That the civilians are on the move, are moving. That's what that means. And that's the beginning of March, if this date is correct.

Q. Very well. On page ERN 416, last digits, under number 1 on the left-hand side, it says: "A number of meetings to -- in support of the peaceful resolution of the Kosovo crisis --" I can't read the rest of ⁴⁰⁶⁰³ that.

A. It says, "without problems and against the aggression."

Q. All right. Fine. Now take a look at page 419, ERN number. What does it say there? It's a meeting of the provisional Executive Council in Kosovo and Metohija. It says: "The police in case of an aggression on the Republic of Serbia will take the following steps." And what does it say?

A. Yes, that's right. It says: "Intensify the struggle against terrorist forces in all their -" perhaps strongholds or something like that, a similar word.

Q. All right. Fine. And then it says: "Intensify the protection of populated areas"; is that right?

A. Yes. And then it says -- the second point is to step up protection of the main roads.

Q. So we're talking about stepping up protection of inhabited populated areas as being one of the police tasks; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, we're taking this one by one, in order, and we come to 421. I can't really see what the date is to which this refers. However, it says here on the left-hand side: "Prevent looting. Conduct toward civilians." Under 6, it says: "Movement of civilians." So in what sense is movement of civilians mentioned here?

A. In view of the fact that it's a problem, that it's something that's taking place, happening.

Q. And then on the right-hand side you are quoting somebody as ⁴⁰⁶⁰⁴ saying: "Now when we are the victims, we mustn't be criminals. We mustn't commit crimes."

A. Yes. I assume that I quoted that quotation as something that the minister said.

Q. So that's something the minister said, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he say that to draw attention to the people that everything must be done pursuant to the law, or in some other sense?

A. Exclusively in that sense because we really did become the victims and we felt there might be some kind of retaliation and he insisted that nothing like that must be allowed to happen.

Q. On the next page, 422, it says here: "Military courts urgent. Criminal reports for the detained. Announce the verdicts, the judgements."

A. Yes. I think that was a position that I put forward at one point, but I'm not quite sure.

Q. And then it says: "Detailed clearing up of the battlefield."

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Then it says: "Movement of civilians." Now, what does that mean, "movement of civilians" there; in what sense?

A. It's always in the same sense. Whenever that is written, it means the problem of the movement of citizens.

Q. All right. The next page, number 23. We have -- I can't quite read this, but it says something "towards Kacanik."

A. It says: "Columns towards Kacanik." ⁴⁰⁶⁰⁵

Q. All right, fine. And then what does it say?

A. I can't make it out. I can't read what it says here. "Get the civilians away." I can't -- I can't read what it says here.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, what does it say after that? It says "From KM towards Montenegro," I assume.

A. I assume that that refers to those same columns. From Kosovska Mitrovica is the KM.

Q. Right, Kosovska Mitrovica. Fine. Now, on the next page --

JUDGE KWON: Staying there, staying there, after KM, it says: "Military police at the border turning them back," and you put a question mark there. Could you explain that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. Well, we were thinking along those lines, and when I testified whether they should be allowed to go there or whether they should -- should be stopped from coming, or use force. That's what I said several times, whether force should be used to prevent them from leaving or to allow them to leave and thus get away from the war zone. And then of course it speaks about activities of stopping them, returning them, and so on.

JUDGE KWON: So did the police consider that returning them back is problematic at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, of course not. The police wanted and the army wanted them to stay where they were, but it was assessed that turning them back could be problematic for them and that the police could be held responsible if something happened to them; if they were bombed or if they fell casualty in any way. ⁴⁰⁶⁰⁶

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Fine. Now, on the next page, 424, you speak here on the right-hand side of a series of -- you have a series of points. It says "ATA." That's anti-terrorist activity, is it?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you have "Law and order."

A. Right. Law and order for joint patrols, the patrols of the army and police. That's what is meant there.

Q. All right. Fine. Then we have "Crime prevention."

A. That's right.

Q. And what does it say in brackets?

A. I can't read it, it's not legible.

Q. And then it says: "Protection of civilians - disarmament, disarming."

A. Yes.

Q. And then it says clearing up the terrain - "asanacija" is the word used, of -- then we have court jurisdiction, then we have volunteers, then it says: "There are no volunteer units."

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. General, could you explain that to us, please. What does this mean?

A. The concept of volunteers was frequently used mistakenly and was used to explain the reserve force. The reserve force. So I wrote down my thoughts on the subject there, that is to say that the concept and notion ^{40607 BLANK PAGE 40608} used here implies the presence of groups who should not be in Kosovo. We cannot tolerate the presence of volunteer units in Kosovo. That's what that means.

Q. Right. Fine. Now, please, could you comment 426, page 426 on the right-hand side. If you want to do so, you can give us more comments, but what it says at the end: "All police action. All police action in K and M."

A. "All police actions in K and M --" "All police operations in K and M were directed solely again the terrorists, not against the Albanians who are citizens on a footing of equality in their own state."

Q. Very well. Fine. Now, on the following page, 427, it says: "For the meeting." Is that your preparation for the meeting?

A. Probably for a meeting. I can't actually see which particular meeting.

Q. But regardless of which meeting, what does it say here? "Preventing looting, stealing, and criminal offences, together with the Yugoslav army and independently."

A. Yes, that's right. Anybody can detain the perpetrator of a crime, of a criminal offence, and I've already said that in response to a question. Then it goes on to say: "Remand in detention for up to 30 days," and we mention wartime provisions in that regard.

Q. Now, please, on the right-hand side there, at the end of the -- bottom right-hand side, there are different tasks and assignments that are enumerated, and then the Yugoslav army and arrests. It says: "Relations with the VJ and arrests." What does that mean? ⁴⁰⁶⁰⁹

A. Joint patrols and all perpetrators of crimes to be apprehended. Everything that I've explained. We decided that the police can arrest a soldier if a soldier commits a crime, and the vice versa; the army can take into custody a policeman if a policeman commits a crime. And that is pursuant the Criminal Code; anybody can arrest the perpetrator of a crime.

Q. All right, and then at the bottom of that page, it says what "with the VTO"? That is to say how do you cooperate with military territorial bodies; is that right?

A. Yes, VTO, military territory -- territorial organs.

Q. Yes. And then what does it say? "Search for graves"?

A. Yes, that's right. And searching for mines, anti-tank mines, infantry mines, and so on.

Q. And then what does it say?

A. Records of those killed, evacuation, and so on. Mass graves, it says. Rest periods for the personnel.

Q. When did you jot that down, mass graves, in what sense?

A. To identify them and so on.

Q. On page 430, you say: "The protection of people and property, the basic work of the police." Is that what it says?

A. "Basic task," it says, "basic tasks."

Q. Ah, right, yes, basic tasks. Protection of people and property as a basic police task. And then on the left-hand side it says something, "Property, movement of civilians." What does that refer to? That is the 16th of April. There's a date there, 16th of April, 1999.

A. Could you help me out here; is that on the left-hand side? ⁴⁰⁶¹⁰

Q. Yes, the left-hand. It says, "vehicles, property, movement of civilians." You're quoting someone, I don't know who.

A. Actually, if I read this right, what is cautioned against is wilful behaviour of civilians, the police, the military, et cetera, related to vehicles, property, blank certificates, et cetera.

Q. Yes. Yes. I had the impression that you were quoting someone because there's a colon there.

A. Yes, but it says, "wilful behaviour."

Q. All right. So why is wilful behaviour indicated here?

A. To have in mind that problem and to prevent it.

Q. So that is mid-April 1999. Next page, 431. That is the 22nd of April, 1999. Number 2, it says -- could you please read this.

A. "Legality in conduct." It should probably be in conduct as such and measures taken, but that's it. Basically, the police is responsible for law and order and crime prevention, especially in populated areas. "We request increased engagement of the military police in suppressing wilful behaviour in crime by military personnel."

Q. All right. Could you please look at the next page.

A. I have it.

Q. What's this on the left-hand side, the slanted note? "Rodja"? It's pretty illegible here on my copy.

A. I cannot read that.

JUDGE KWON: "The men from Sid are coming in PJP uniforms."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, uniforms PJP. ⁴⁰⁶¹¹

MR. NICE: Could Your Honour assist me with the page number? I haven't found it.

JUDGE KWON: 86.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. And what does it say here?

A. "The men from Sid are coming in PJP uniforms. Uniforms for local security." And I don't know what it says as the third line, the third bullet.

Q. What does it pertain to?

A. I don't know. I don't know what it is specifically. Probably that they were coming and bringing uniforms. "Unity," "Jedinstvo." It could be the Jedinstvo factory that makes uniforms. It's under quotation marks.

Q. Now look at the right-hand side, please. The right-hand side seems quite interesting. It says: "From the very beginning," and it says so in block letters: "Treatment of civilians who are returning."

A. Yes, that's quite clear.

Q. And then what does it say underneath?

A. "Army -- the army should say where it is not possible. We, too --"

Q. What is that? Could you please dwell on the first one. Does it mean where the military positions are they cannot -- they should say where they can and cannot?

A. Well, the objective here is for the army to say which are the locations where they cannot return, to which they cannot return. ⁴⁰⁶¹²

Q. And then what does it say: "We should provide them with protection"?

A. "We should provide them with protection provided that they hand in weapons, do not take in terrorists, do not hinder the movements of the police, assign local security." Those were the three theses for discussion with these civilians. Of course, protection was always guaranteed to them irrespective of these theses.

Q. And what does it say under number 2: "Refugee columns"?

A. "Refugee columns. Secure refugee columns. Discretionary checks of persons, vehicles, and cargo."

Q. And then?

A. "Going out over the border not en masse." "Not en masse," that's what it probably says. "Suspicious ones should be detained, processed, kept, arrested." It is a reference to persons who would be interspersed among the civilians and who are obviously suspects.

Q. All right. That is the end of April. Were there less border crossings at that time?

A. Yes, of course. Of course. That's my recollection.

Q. All right. If you look at the next page, it says: "Asanacija," under number 3, sanitisation. "Columns of refugees," and then "asanacija," sanitisation. What is OKP?

A. That is departments of crime investigation in secretariats. And then in brackets, it says: "(Investigating judge, office of the prosecutor.)"

Q. In relation to sanitisation, activities are mentioned here of the ⁴⁰⁶¹³ departments of the -- of crime investigation, of investigating judges and prosecutors?

A. Yes.

Q. And then it says, "Immediately after taking a territory," and then line.

A. Yes.

Q. That means that immediately after a territory is taken, the crime investigation department, the investigating judges and the prosecutors act on this, that is on sanitisation.

A. Yes, that is the meaning of that thesis. And then you can see further on, "Instructions of the investigating judge, burial, individual documentation," et cetera.

Q. What's the rest? "Refugee columns."

A. It says, "Traces of refugee columns." I've already explained that. Abandoned vehicles, objects, roads that were blocked in that way, et cetera.

Q. All right. 4 is property. We'll skip over that. And what is 5? I cannot read 5, it's not legible enough for me.

A. "Legality" is the heading.

Q. All right. I couldn't read that word.

A. "Ban on torchings, ban on violence against civilians --" and it's very hard to read the rest.

Q. All right. Now, on the next page there is a reference to volunteers. Please, let's see what this is all about and whether you can remember and whether you can assist with clarifying this. That is 434. ⁴⁰⁶¹⁴ On the left-hand side, number 14. It says: "Report, notes on," and then --

A. Yes. "On behaviour of volunteers." That's what it says.

Q. What kind of volunteers were they? Volunteers who established some kind of units or volunteers within?

A. If it's the volunteers, then it's those who were within the army ranks.

Q. All right. And then on the next page, under number 1, you quote persons who were taking part in the discussion, I assume.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. And it says?

A. "Bogi," who is probably Janicijevic, and it says: "Problems with volunteers and wilfulness." That has to do with what was said earlier on.

Q. Oh, the remark is identical, right, but at a different time?

A. Yes, at a different time.

Q. On the same page there is another reference to volunteers. Somebody else is speaking about that.

A. There is somebody else who is talking it in the same sense.

Q. This person who was speaking says: "Torchings out of hand."

A. Yes. He is saying that he cannot put the problem under control.

Q. And then it says: "Local self-government."

A. "In Kosovska Mitrovica is not functioning."

Q. There's no date here. What is the time frame? To which period does this refer, this note of yours?

A. I really don't know. The previous date is the 24th of April. ⁴⁰⁶¹⁵

Q. All right. All right.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell us what that's all about?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am sorry. In relation to what?

JUDGE BONOMY: Who was -- who was doing the torching that was getting out of hand?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was stated here as an obvious problem that cannot be placed under control. So I do not have a precise answer. The only thing I can say is that it is obvious that this kind of problem was present in that area. Obviously he is stating that with concern, not with support, not supportive of that phenomenon. And in a way he is critical of the local self-government, because otherwise it would not be logical to have any kind of criticism vis-a-vis the local self-government.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. There's a few of them who are talking about this. This says: "Bogi - problems with volunteers - wilfulness."

A. Yes.

Q. And then another one, the second one also says volunteers?

A. Yes.

Q. On torchings that are out of hand?

A. Yes, they're obviously talking about problems in their own area.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are these likely to be Albanians who are torching something or is it likely to be someone else? Can you help us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Of course there's no reference to Albanians here. There's no individual reference at all. There is only ⁴⁰⁶¹⁶ a reference to perpetrators of such criminal offences.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do we know even who was being torched or what was being torched? Whose property or whose persons were the subject of these incidents?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, certainly we do know -- or, rather, the person who is reporting about that knows.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on this page are there statements of individual police officials who are talking about wilfulness, torchings and actually the commission of crimes?

A. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: About that, do you note the title "Keeping up morale"?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: These crimes might have been perpetrated by the police officers or volunteers.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, certainly suspicions are moving along those lines, too, but I don't think that has anything to do with the other bullet. Perhaps it does.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's time for the break. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, before Your Honours do, may I raise two very short administrative matters that it may be convenient for the Chamber to decide on before it reconvenes.

First, exhibits for this witness, might be it convenient if all ⁴⁰⁶¹⁷ parties prepared written submissions? We feel we could provide a tabulated version, I think for both sides' potential witnesses by the end of the week. Would that be a more convenient and better use of time?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am attracted to it. I will discuss that with -- Ms. Higgins?

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, in terms of the Prosecution documents that they seek to put in, I'm prepared to deal with them orally. And to make observations on the collection of the documents. So it's in Your Honours' hands.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider that.

MR. NICE: And the second point, Your Honours, is just, again, we have received a number of inquires from Mr. Kristan, who of course is expecting to be recalled, and is trying to fix his diary, I think, to accommodate us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll consider that too. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, these two comments that you noted down in your agenda related to the behaviour out of hand. Tell me, how did the officers attending those meetings react to those problems? How did they approach them?

A. We can see, it's quite evident here, that lower-level leaders are ⁴⁰⁶¹⁸ pointing out these problems. And it was obviously the position of the leaders in the staff that these problems must be urgently stopped or prevented, and of course the perpetrators of what had already been done must be detected.

Q. Please look now at page 437. You made a note here. I suppose this, too, is your handwriting. It looks like it was written when you were leaning the paper on something unstable. It says: "For discussions with Lazarevic."

A. Yes.

Q. Under item 3, it says: "Sanitisation, clearing up the terrain, Dren village - Zubin Potok."

A. Yes.

Q. What does it says here?

A. It says: "28 corpses buried without --" I don't know this abbreviation -- "procedure." It should be legal procedure.

Q. It looks to me like "civilian."

A. Well, that's possible. "Civilian" is what it looks like, but it doesn't associate me with the right word to use.

Q. And then towards the bottom, it says --

A. It says "Prizren."

Q. Pusto Selo.

A. "Pusto Selo, note submitted to the district public prosecutor." I've already explained this.

Q. That's the end of April 1999.

A. Yes. This is a note to which this aerial photograph was attached. ⁴⁰⁶¹⁹

Q. And then on the next page, marked ERN 438, it says: "Aide-memoire for the meeting."

A. Yes, that's what it says.

Q. Please try to read this. It's not very legible to me.

A. This is really hard to read.

Q. Under 1, it says --

A. "Aggravated circumstances." And then it says: "They are better organised and more persistent." Next line: "We do not have strong --"

Q. It says "stronger support."

A. Yes, you're right. "Stronger support" is what it says. "Airstrikes," and then next line: "Civilians (with them terrorists.)"

Q. What does it mean, "Civilians," and then "(terrorists with them)"?

A. We see from the heading "Aggravated Circumstances." It is difficult to resolve problems with terrorists if they are intermingled with civilians. That is something I explained many times, the intermingling of terrorists with civilians.

Q. Why was that an aggravating circumstance, something that made things harder?

A. It made things harder because the police could not take measures against terrorists if they would endanger thereby the civilians. And I explained several times that in such situations the police refrained to the maximum from taking any repressive measures, although it would have been logical to arrest terrorists.

Q. I'm trying not to ask leading questions, although I understand you very well. Is it the case that the police avoided opening fire if there ⁴⁰⁶²⁰ was a danger of hurting civilians?

A. That is something I said many times, and that is indisputable.

Q. On page ERN number ending with 439, that's the page on which Mr. Nice questioned you, I'm interested only in this one line on which he questioned you quite extensively. It says: "Left the country 900.000." Is it 900.000 or 90.000? Something seems to be crossed out here. Is that what you wrote?

A. Well, this number doesn't look like it. I never heard the number 900.000. This second 0 is a bit problematic, because it seems to be crossed out. It seems to be 90.000.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it in your handwriting?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I said several times I'm not saying that this could not be my handwriting, it is, but some details, some letters were shifted or corrected. I said the sequence of the pages is not correct. I said that there's handwriting that isn't mine, such as when the pages are marked, or in several other places, but generally speaking, this is my handwriting.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... appears to be different from the remaining four, and certainly different --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is different -- I mean, the first and the second 0 are different from the other three. The first is too small, and the second one is too big and has something that looks like a hook that is unintelligible.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. But could you tell us with any certainty that you ^{40621 BLANK PAGE 40622} wrote the number 900.000 yourself?

A. I don't think I did.

Q. Then at the bottom of this page, it says: "Crime control."

A. Yes.

Q. And below that it says: "Residence." What does that refer to?

A. I already explained that this relates to the activity of registering placing of residence of displaced persons in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Then you have ERN number ending with 440. That's the 4th of May, 1999. It says: "Minister," then underneath, "Political part," and then it says, "Return of refugees. Return of the ICRC and the UNHCR." Is that it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is it that follows below ICRC and UNHCR?

A. I can't read it. The copy is very bad. It looks like "Agreement with Albanians." Maybe "Renewal of negotiations with Albanians."

Q. No. That doesn't seem to be it. Is it perhaps the agreement about local police?

A. I really cannot identify it unless it is "Renewal of negotiations," meaning political negotiations. I really don't know what it means, what it could mean. Or maybe talks.

Q. Very well. On the next page, 441, it says: "President," and then below that, it says: "Crime." I cannot read the other word, but at the bottom it says: "The state must adhere to the law." Is that what it says? ⁴⁰⁶²³

A. Yes, in that last line.

Q. And what is this previous line; "Crime," and then I can't make out the following word.

A. Well, it may be "paramilitaries."

Q. Yes, "Crime, paramilitaries," and then what does it say below?

A. I cannot identify the little bullet point just underneath.

Q. And how about this sentence: "The state must adhere to the law"? Does that have anything to do with crime or paramilitaries?

A. Logically so.

Q. And on the right page that's yet another meeting of the 5th of May.

JUDGE KWON: Was that the president's comment, and who was the president?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, I can't tell you with any certainty. I suppose it is the president of the FRY, Slobodan Milosevic, and it would be logical for these to be his points. Or maybe I prepared these points, but I never participated in the discussions at the president's office. I really cannot tell you at this moment.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. "Crime, paramilitaries." The next word cannot be made out, but the last line is clear: "The state must adhere to the law."

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you intend to go through this entire document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wish to go through only a ⁴⁰⁶²⁴ few more. I'm skipping entire pages because the entire document shows in a way the continuity of one and the same type of conduct. There is no change of conduct in terms of treatment, legality, multi-ethnic Kosovo, treatment of Albanians, treatment of refugees, et cetera. For instance, 443 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the fact that you want or that you are seeking comments from the general on particular items? You could easily just identify those items which you say confirm your proposition that the authorities acted properly and in accordance with law. It's a very tiring exercise and I'm finding it a bit soporific.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, it may be -- if I can just interrupt the accused for a second, it may be worth observing that the accused has gone through not just the entries I went through, not related to the purposes that I relied on. I haven't interrupted thus far and don't wish to stop him doing what he's doing, but I shouldn't like the Court to think that the entries that he has turned to, which I didn't deal with at all, are necessarily going to be accepted on the basis that they're now being advanced. I will be simply left in the position of having to deal with them by argument, whereas if they had been raised in chief I would have dealt with them in cross-examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The general point that he's seeking to establish was certainly dealt with overall by you in cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Absolutely right. But then when it comes to interpretation of particular entries I'm left to argument at the end of the day. ⁴⁰⁶²⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. What I'm raising with you, Mr. Milosevic, is whether we need to go through the entire document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Nice dealt with this, and he qualified it as a diary, as authentic, and all the rest of it, so in that diary everything that is written I consider to be relevant, because it shows a very continuous, from start to finish, conduct on the part of the police, the behaviour of the police and the conduct of this witness, his attitudes, the positions of his colleagues, and so on and so forth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. Let us proceed quickly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm trying to get through it as quickly as possible and move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, 443 is the next page, the ERN number. You go on to speak here of your notes, these are your own notes, and instructions which you have for the meetings with the heads of department. Does that coincide with what you said, that pursuant to instructions from the minister, you held meetings with the chiefs?

A. Yes, I did attend the meetings but I didn't convene them or preside over them, hold them.

Q. All right. But let's see what the main tasks are. Under number 1, it says reporting residence.

A. Yes.

Q. "Returning weapons, taking charge of populated areas." And number ⁴⁰⁶²⁶ 2, what it says, legality?

A. Clearing up the terrain, sanitisation, we've already spoken about that. Izbica, criminal offences, isolation, return of weapons, and so on. Urgent end to burning, and that emanates from the previous problems that were highlighted by individual heads of secretariats.

Q. All right. And what does it say under number 3?

A. "Preventing illegal activities."

Q. At the very bottom, does it say: "Criminal prosecution"?

A. Yes, that is what it says at the end, but I was reading the two lines above that.

Q. Help us clarify what it says at 444, "Meeting with SUP chiefs." And then it goes on to specify the tasks.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just before moving off that page, can you help with number 3, which you did speak about, and the reference to the PJP platoon.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The PJP platoon is mentioned, and I was thinking what that could mean. Perhaps it meant to pinpoint a platoon who -- which would be in charge with preventing illegal activities and not take part in the other assignments. Otherwise, the second point is: "Staff changes, criminal -- criminal persecution," and then in a special point the rest is set out.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So 3 is preventing illegal activities.

A. Yes, that's right. And to prevent crime, prevent illegal activities. Possibly it means pinpointing a special unit of the PJP to deal with these issues without taking part in the anti-terrorist ⁴⁰⁶²⁷ activities, just to focus on these issues here.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you help also with number 6 and number 7?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these are units within the PJP. The 88th Detachment of the PJP was a detachment which had certain specials, such as snipers, divers, bellyologists [sic], paratroopers, et cetera. But it was never properly established. And the 122nd Intervention Brigade were two separate detachments of the police, but I don't know what context -- in what context they were placed and why they're included here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Now, since our attention has been drawn to that, it seems to me that there is quite considerable difference both in the handwriting and in the number 6 introduced here if you compare it to the rest of what it says on page 443.

A. I didn't pay attention to that, but --

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that was straightforward leading, really.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not pay attention to that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I think Your Honour's attention was diverted at the time that the accused turned to the question asked by His Honour Judge Bonomy with a leading question about handwriting, and it really invalidates or reduces any value to the answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. The proper course would have been to direct the witness's attention to handwriting and ask him for a comment on both. ⁴⁰⁶²⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I'm asking. I didn't pay attention to that, but when Mr. Bonomy indicated that to me, then this point 6, judging by the handwriting, seems different from the rest of the page, and I've just --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, Mr. Milosevic. I told you. I was giving you guidance as to how the question should have been formulated so as not to be leading. You point the witness to both handwritings and then ask him for a comment on them, if he has one.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. General, do you have any comment to make? Take a look at this page.

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is -- has he already commented? He hasn't. Okay. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't pay attention to that, but now that I see it, point 6, at least the first word I couldn't accept as being written in my own handwriting because obviously it's a different pen, quite obviously the way in which the syllables are written is different, so I would express doubt that point 6 was written by me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What about 7? What about 7?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, 7 seems to be more like my handwriting.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. But can you remember looking at this note, these notes ⁴⁰⁶²⁹ here, the entry? I know that a lot of time has gone by, but can you remember what this might refer to?

A. I really don't know what it could refer to, but I do know that this detachment with the snipers did exist within the composition of that detachment, but I don't know what it refers to exactly. Whether it means that they should come or whether I should just bear that in mind, take note of that with respect to some other activity training or whatever, I really can't say. I don't know.

Q. On this page -- rather, page 444, I'm interested in just a few matters. 80B: "We have to restore peace." 80B: "In order to create peace, everybody to do their job, public law and order, security."

A. Yes.

Q. "Serbs do not kill old women and burn --" what does it say here? Burn what? What does it say here?

A. Well, that's what it says, more or less, but it's very difficult for me to decipher it.

JUDGE KWON: Empty houses?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Yes, "not burn empty houses." So that person who was reading this seemed to understand it better.

A. Yes, that would be consistent with the meaning. "Burn empty houses," I think that that is what it says, yes.

Q. And what about the mention of the KLA here? "The KLA has launched an all-out attack." What does that -- and then underneath that there's something in brackets written in very small letters. I can't read it. ⁴⁰⁶³⁰

A. I can't read what it says in brackets either but I can confirm that what you read out does in fact say that.

Q. And at the bottom, the three lines, I'll do my best to read them: "Somebody used the opportunity to kill and loot," and I can't see what it says after that. Can you?

A. No, I can't read that.

Q. What can you read? What can you make out?

A. Well, when you read it out I can recognise it. I can read this now. "Somebody took advantage of the occasion to --" or "used the opportunity to -- for killing and looting." But after that word, I really can't make anything out.

Q. Now, on the next page --

JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... I'd like to hear the comments on that passage. Somebody taking the opportunity to kill somebody, what do you mean by that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't say. I'm giving thought to the entire context in which this is written, this sentence is written, and trying to make out what that meant.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says here: "Somebody took the opportunity to commit murder, or to kill and loot, and they --"

A. I don't remember thinking that thought.

Q. And then it's very legible on the next side, if it is the following page of that same agenda, very nicely, neatly written and quite different from the previous writing, it says: "Violence was made ⁴⁰⁶³¹ impossible, prevented." That's at the end of the sentence. Is this your handwriting? Can you read it, perhaps?

A. Well, I think it is my handwriting.

Q. What does it say, then?

A. Perhaps it says: "Energetic action on the part of the police has prevented violence."

Q. Yes. "Energetic work by the police has prevented violence."

A. Yes, that's it.

Q. And under number 2: "Putting the Albanian population in order."

A. "Of the Albanians is being organised." "Boraviste," "residence." Clearing up the terrain or sanitisation. Hand-over and take-over of villages. It probably has to do with the activity related to putting order into the Albanian population with respect to recording their residence, and so on.

Q. And what about sanitisation or clearing the terrain?

A. Probably in the sense that where the army and police leaves, that the population, that the citizens can come back straight away, and the hand-over and take-over, we know that means, so there are no complaints along those lines.

Q. Very well. Now, at the bottom, it says: "There are no private wars." What does that refer to?

A. Well, it means to prevent voluntariness and self-will and anarchy of all types linked to crimes, criminal offences, and that kind of thing, because it was considered that individuals, volunteers were engaging in their own private wars and that that had to be prevented and that any such ⁴⁰⁶³² behaviour should be dealt with.

Q. Now, 446 page there. Mr. Nice asked you a number of things. 172246 is the ERN number, 446 being the last digits. I think it says here that it's page 82, but you say that that is not your pagination in the -- 446 is the typed out ERN number. It's on the next page. Have you found it?

A. Yes, I have, yes.

Q. Well, what did you say with respect to page 82?

A. I was saying it's 82 that I have, but that is not my writing, so I didn't write that number 82 for the page number there.

Q. Right. Fine. Now, Mr. Nice, yesterday especially asked you something to do with what it says here on the left-hand side under 1, dealing with the area, then recording of residence and weapons and everything else from the UP [phoen] it says in the B/C/S. What does that refer to?

A. It is the decree or provision governing the recording of residence.

Q. Right. Now something that Mr. Nice asked you, I don't know whether it was anybody else from the Trial Chamber, the asanacija, sanitisation or clearing up of the terrain. And then underneath, what does it say? "We must know the truth," is that what it says? "We must know the truth."

A. Yes. "Each case must be solved Izbica - Buha." That's what it says.

Q. "Izbica - Buha," does that mean that he is put in charge of ⁴⁰⁶³³ investigating the matter or what? In the context, what would you say in this context?

A. Yes. That means, as I explained it yesterday, that Buha should undertake all steps to establish what happened there and whether what we heard about had actually happened, that he should take part in establishing the facts of what happened in Izbica.

Q. Then Mr. Nice went on to ask you this: He asked you about a list that he provided yesterday in English. It says: "Schedule F, Persons known by name killed at Izbica [In English] 28 March 1999." [Interpretation] And then we saw there that a certain number of those individuals were to be found or had been found, or it is stated that they were found in Serbia.

Tell me now, please, General, all this business around clearing up the terrain in Izbica, was that conducted in such a way as to enable everybody to be identified and that exhumation take place, photographing take place, and all the rest of it?

A. Yes. I explained all that. In these exhibits here, we find documents which relate to this entire case, including photographs taken of all the victims found in that grave site, and there are also sketches and diagrams of the persons individually buried in several cemeteries in that region.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, take a look, please, at this whole binder. I don't know what number it is, what binder it is. I've made a note of it here, but I can't read -- I think it says 11, binder 11. But the whole binder is one tab, and it is tab 418. A single binder for a single tab. ⁴⁰⁶³⁴ The whole binder is a single tab, 418. It's Izbica. Yesterday, Mr. Nice claimed that this was done with some kind of excavator in order to destroy the corpses. Does this entire binder contain photographs of all of those who were taken out, and can it be established on any photograph that the corpses were destroyed in this way?

A. Yes, I remember. These are photographs of all the corpses found at the cemetery in Izbica. They were photographed there from number 1 to number 101. Sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes even four photographs.

Q. All right, General. If all these measures were taken, then, as instructed, and it can be seen throughout this binder how the police worked and how the police forensic experts worked - let this not be a leading question - how can this be linked up with the efforts made by the police in general with regard to such measures?

A. I explained that in this case the police worked, to the best of my knowledge, completely in accordance with the law. Of course, the military organs in charge also took part in some of these measures, including forensic experts, forensic doctors from the Military Medical Academy. Yesterday I did not see any trace of any excavator on these photographs, and I don't know any details about this, but I don't know whether it's possible at all.

Q. All right. What was done here, it's not one single measure that was taken but 101 measures, as you said. 101 bodies were photographed. Can this be linked up in any way to the intention of any level of government to conceal anything that was done? ^{40635 BLANK PAGE 40636}

A. This absolutely cannot be done -- cannot be linked up with any intention to conceal anything. Finding any of these bodies outside the grave or cemetery where they were buried is totally illogical, as far as I'm concerned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You were asked a question earlier and I'm not certain whether it was answered, which is: "Can it be established on any photograph that the corpses were destroyed in this way?" A reference to the excavator being used to disinter the bodies. And then the answer which comes below is, "Yes, I remember." So I'm not sure what that "yes" means.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure even now, but it's quite certain that all the photographs that I saw - of course I'm not an expert - but there's not a single element that could lead me to believe that this was done in the way that the Prosecutor explained.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. Thank you. Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a record of where the bodies were re-interred?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. In these documents here.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you direct our attention to that, then, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found it. I need just a moment to find my way.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, it's all of binder number 10. It pertains to Izbica and the documents. 11 contains only photographs.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Tab 412 gives the report of the ⁴⁰⁶³⁷ scene and also the burial of the bodies. And also, there's a sketch with photographs.

I think that the documentation on these same questions pertains to documents through tab 417.

JUDGE BONOMY: So can you point me to a page where it tells us how a body or any number of bodies were re-interred?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, in tab 412 there is the interment of 15 persons, and in 413 a report on the burial of 20 persons, then in number 14 about the burial of yet another number. Every time records were made; 15, 25, and 16.

JUDGE BONOMY: But it's not just one page. Are these -- are these tabs translated? The first page in each one seems to be, but are the other pages translated?

MS. HIGGINS: The other pages appear, Your Honour, to be photographs. There's a first page translation of the report face, followed by photographs of burial sites, it appears.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, but on the next page there is always a sketch of the scene, and then in tab 412 we can see a sketch of the scene, the Muslim city cemetery, the Municipal Assembly of Kosovska Mitrovica, and then you can see the stamp of the Ministry of the Interior on the top, and also a sketch where who was, and their names too, names of the interred persons. I don't know if you can see that in tab 412. The heading is "Sketch of the scene, Muslim city cemetery." The date is the 4th of May -- no. I can't see this. Is it May or is it June? It seems to be the fifth month. That is May. ⁴⁰⁶³⁸

JUDGE BONOMY: The 4th of June is the date, but what I would like to hear from the witness is what this document tells us, what he understands it to say.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you mean tab 412 and the tabs that follow?

JUDGE BONOMY: 412 as an example. What does that actually tell us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a document of the criminal technical department of the SUP in Kosovska Mitrovica that says where the bodies found in Izbica were buried, and this was done on orders from the investigating judge.

JUDGE BONOMY: Now, that says: "Burial of 15 bodies"; is that right?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you say that the plan then tells us where the 15 bodies were buried.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Now, which document tells us about the -- when they were first exhumed? Which body tells us about that -- which document, rather, tells us about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a document that speaks of that, too, but I have to find it somewhere.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, I can't find my way that quickly, but is that tab 410 where it says: "Report on finding a body, a corpse. Total 101." Same ⁴⁰⁶³⁹ binder. Then there is a sketch of the cemetery in Izbica where they were found. In 409 there's a list from 1 to 101, and 410 there is a report.

A. 410 is individual reports on each individual corpse that had been found, while tab 407 should speak of this, although I'm not quite sure at this very moment.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, can you remind me what evidence is there -- direct evidence, I don't mean evidence of where bodies may have been found, but is there any direct evidence relating to subsequent events at this cemetery?

MR. NICE: I'm not aware at the moment - that doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist - of any evidence dealing directly with this cemetery. I'm just confirming the source of our material for the material we put on the map and in the chart that suggested a distribution of bodies in various local cemeteries as well as elsewhere, and indeed was going to make the point that the Prosecution doesn't necessarily challenge the interment of bodies in these subsequent cemeteries, although it's more interested in the ones in Serbia.

The evidence of what happened at the original disinterment came from the witnesses who saw that happening, and that's where we got the evidence of the use of an excavator, not of course for the purposes of destruction but for the purposes of -- absolutely not destruction, for the purposes of removal.

JUDGE BONOMY: These documents we're looking at at the moment indicate that 101 bodies were buried in various cemeteries, is that right, locally? ⁴⁰⁶⁴⁰

MR. NICE: Correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: But your records indicate that some of these bodies have been found elsewhere.

MR. NICE: Correct. And we haven't yet done or been able to do a complete reconciliation between these documents and any other materials that we have, but -- and some of this material, as the Court may remember, has only come in since the close of the Prosecution's case.

JUDGE BONOMY: That clarifies the state of the evidence, which is what I wanted to know. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, General. There are sketches of where they were found here and documents about each individually exhumed and examined body and then documents containing diagrams where everybody was buried.

A. Yes.

Q. General, since all of this is so well documented, in whose interest would it be to disinter someone and then re-inter them in Serbia?

A. I tried to explain this as a mystery. I really have no explanation for this. Who would do such a thing, namely to disinter persons who had already been buried and where post-mortems were carried out, why they would be disinterred and taken 400 kilometres away from that place.

Q. Do you know that the news on this transfer of bodies appeared once I was already in prison?

A. Yes, I know that. I found out from the media.

Q. In the indictment it says that survivors testified as to what had ⁴⁰⁶⁴¹ happened or, rather, Mr. Nice claims that survivors testified about what had happened, and in the indictment it says that survivors had been deported. Did you have the opportunity of reading that?

A. No.

Q. All right. Then I'm not going to ask you about that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] At any rate, Mr. Robinson, both cannot be the case.

JUDGE KWON: General, do you happen to have that page of your agenda still? Page 82 of your handwriting.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: The last three lines of bullet point 2, titled "Crime prevention," says like this -- did you find it? "Masks/kill," and with a -- back again: "There can be no private wars. The responsibility for civil conflict must not fall on the police."

Could you clarify the meaning of these passages? I'm interested in particular "Masks/kill."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's as if I saw this for the first time. It says: "Deprive of life."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. And what is between "mask" and "deprive"?

A. There's sort of a slanted line. Absolutely I cannot give an answer. I do not remember having jotted this down, or I have no idea what this would refer to. As if somebody who was wearing masks, should be deprived of life? But this is an impossible formulation. And it looks as if this were added on in some kind of small lettering, although I could ⁴⁰⁶⁴² say this was my handwriting.

Really, it is quite legible, just as you read it. It does not say "kill," it says "deprive of life."

JUDGE KWON: You gave some explanation as to the meaning of private wars to my previous question. Given that, can I take it that some volunteers with masks took the advantage of that chaotic situation to -- to do something bad?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is one of the possible theses, but even if that were the case, I certainly would not have written down "deprive of life," even in such a case. I'm sure of that. And I do not recall that we had any persons with masks. Absolutely not. Some parts of uniform were not worn properly, and then there were different bandannas and whatever, and that was something that was opposed, but I don't remember anyone operating in Kosovo with masks.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to ask the parties a question. It has been occurring to me what -- what weight is to be given to the diary or agenda and the questions and answers on it? Because so much of it appears to be guesswork, and because a lot of it is not legible. So in determining what weight should be attached to it, Ms. Higgins, what would your submission be?

MS. HIGGINS: Ultimately, Your Honour, I can only say that the document has to be viewed in its entirety. Evidently someone from the translation unit has been through the document and been able to tie up an English version, which the witness has also been able to assist with. And the Trial Chamber ultimately will have to view in its totality the ⁴⁰⁶⁴³ evidence that has been given from the witness, and as Your Honour observes, some of that is general and the Chamber in due course will have to deal with the generality. Some of it has been specific. I'm afraid it's one of those occasions where the weight will be determined by the totality of the evidence in the round. I'm not sure I can assist further than that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, how should the Trial Chamber approach the question of the weight to be attached to the diary in light of all the circumstances?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think the logical answer, Mr. Robinson, is, since we are talking about personal working notes, that we look at what the witness says about them. I think that is the most relevant.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking the question because so much of it can't be -- is not legible. And then you ask a question, and he -- he surmises. He makes a conjecture as to what he thinks it says and what it means. That's the difficulty I'm having with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, maybe that is true of some individual words, but I thought that those parts that the witness was able to read was indubitably legible. I'm not, of course, as able to read his handwriting as he is himself.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you have a point there. In respect of those parts where the writing is legible and he can read it, and it is his writing, then he can say what it means. ⁴⁰⁶⁴⁴ Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The interest which I took in cross-examination were entries he always acknowledged were in his hand. Those entries can be considered individually as supportive of various aspects of the Prosecution's case.

There is, of course, one issue of interpretation in respect of "back-breaking" or "perfidious" which has yet to be dealt with. In fact, it's not an easy problem, but that apart, they were all quite clear. That's the value I place on the document.

There are other entries that I might have turned to, with unlimited time, but didn't, and I will refer to those in argument. As to the generality of the document, the accused is entitled to seek the benefit of the document if he can find in other entries matters to assist him. They haven't been cross-examined on by me but I've made that point already. So our submission is individual entries can be considered in isolation certainly where the handwriting is clear, and that's the way I've cross-examined.

While I'm on my feet, just to amplify my answer to His Honour Judge Bonomy, one witness who deals quite comprehensively with this matter is Draga, and although we may not have done a reconciliation of bodies in the various grave sites that have -- are referred to, the process of identification followed exhumation by UNMIK and by Serbia and reflects death certificates issued following those exhumations.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: As for translation issue, you don't have a position ⁴⁰⁶⁴⁵ against -- the same page, "remove traces of violence against civilians," which was corrected as "property."

MR. NICE: No, I don't have -- as far as I know, we have no point on that one. It's only the other one which we're waiting for the report from CLSS, and in any event there are other issues that I may have to touch on in other evidence -- with other evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the adjournment. Before we adjourn, I should say that -- just let me finish. On the first point raised by Mr. Nice, Ms. Higgins, although we would very much like to hear you in Court, we are going to require that submissions be put in writing in relation to the question of the admissibility of the various documents.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, regarding your question, namely to what extent this can be used as evidence, I believe that the answer is that to the extent to which certain things are repeated very clearly on many occasions in the agenda, consistent protection of refugees, consistent treatment and attitude to certain issues, the conduct of the police as directed by general policy and things that can be followed very clearly from this text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. You say they establish a culture of propriety, proper conduct. I understand the submission. With regard to the other point raised by Mr. Nice, that's the witness Ivan Kristan, we'll give a decision on that tomorrow. ⁴⁰⁶⁴⁶

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So submissions in writing for the admission of the documents.

MR. NICE: And we'll prepare both submissions in tabular form to assist. It may be, if we get them done in time, that the parties can use them electronically but if you want them by the end of the week they may have to prepare their own because we may not have got it done in time for them to use our tabular form.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I kindly ask you not to require from me to provide any other documents or arguments than are presented here. I have provided a huge volume, 17 binders including more than 500 exhibits, plus questioning of witness on those exhibits. I don't know what other arguments I am supposed to present for the admission of those exhibits.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think the Chamber has decided to utilise the procedure suggested by Mr. Nice because it has obvious advantages. I think were we to have an oral hearing, it would take a very long time, Mr. Milosevic. You have associates. You have the assigned counsel. So get to work.

We are adjourned until tomorrow at 9.00.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 8th day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.