Milosevic Transcript 2005-06-16

⁴⁰⁸⁵³

Thursday, 16 June 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, in relation to the matter that you raised yesterday, if you wish, you should file a written motion setting out the areas of your complaint, and if the Trial Chamber determines that you were unfairly treated, then we will take appropriate action. You might also wish to advert to any course of action that might be taken in the event that you conclude that you were unfairly treated by the termination of your re-examination. Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins, who have experience in these matters, can assist you.

Yes, Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to say a few things for the record in respect of what you said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. It will be dealt with by -- by a written motion.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I ask for the witness to stay out for two short administrative matters related to how we deal with his evidence that don't need concern him.

As the Court will realise, in scheduling material and trying to provide material in a way that's easily managed, I'm perhaps discharging ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁴ duties that might properly have lain elsewhere, but it does seem to us that with Racak it's going to be helpful for the Court and for the other parties to have both Jasovic's material well scheduled and also to have material about Racak itself well organised.

Dealing with Jasovic's material, the Court will remember that I explained yesterday how we were provided not with material we sought but with other material, untranslated. We've sought to identify from that material any that touch upon the issue of Jasovic's evidence. We've found three such statements, one of which doesn't come from this witness but nevertheless relates to the named deceased, and so this chart is going to be reprinted. It's being reprinted, I hope, now and will be available to you with three extra rows, and I'll distribute that, but since I haven't explained it in detail yet to the witness and may not do so, I thought I would explain that in his absence, although I may deal with the content in his presence.

The second thing is the witness declined my invitation yesterday to read Racak papers to abbreviate cross-examination. I'll deal with that, the consequences of that, today. However, binders do exist that contain, so far as it's been possible for us to do, contain all relevant Serb-side statements on Racak at about the time. They're either existing exhibits or they're documents that this witness seeks to produce or they're documents sought to be produced by Stevanovic and over which -- in respect of which the Court has yet to make rulings. When I come to that part of the cross-examination, the binders will be available for the Chamber but I know the Chamber's often reluctant ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁵ to have in hard copy form documents that are existing exhibits and that would thus be duplicated but the binder -- if it's convenient, the binder will be available to you.

I should say two things by way of qualification. First, at the moment the binder includes all the documents we've been able to find from the Stevanovic collection that relate to Racak and putting them in this binder for completeness is without prejudice, obviously, to any submissions we might make about their being admitted in due course although my preferred option would be to allow them, I think, to stay in as documents for completeness even if our position on the balance of the documents is that they ought to be excluded.

Second, in her meticulous work on analysing the position of the Stevanovic exhibits, Ms. Graham informed me that she believes there are some of the untranslated documents that may cover the issue of what the Serb side said about Racak, and we simply don't have access to that material because there was so much untranslated material. So that although I've attempted to make these files comprehensive and I'm happy to make them available, there is the possibility that other documents will emerge in due course but that's through no fault of ours. That's all I want to explain.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you. Let the witness be brought in.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: DRAGAN JASOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: With Your Honours' leave, I'll continue my ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁶ cross-examination of the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honours, I have available binders of Racak documents that I'm happy to make available to the parties in Court or that I can simply lay on the overhead projector. They seek to be comprehensive. I suspect they won't be completely comprehensive but they're drawn largely from Defence proposed exhibits and also from existing exhibits in the case. If that would be convenient, I'll distribute them now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, while these bundles are being distributed and you may have a copy, of course, yourself, I remind you what you told us yesterday, if I'm correct in this, about the event at Racak, that it was an operation by the MUP. Is that right?

A. I said yesterday that I didn't know. Yesterday you asked me whether it was a police operation or a military operation. I said that I don't know. The previous witness who was here before me could probably explain that.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, in all these matters we're dependent on witnesses who come here, take the solemn declaration to tell the truth, and I wanted your assistance from your position at the police station. Help me with this: This was a major operation, wasn't it, a major operation?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I really cannot answer whether this was a major ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁷ operation or a minor operation. As a crime policeman, I had my own line of work.

Q. I suggest, Mr. Jasovic, these answers by yours claiming ignorance are dishonest and that a person in your position knew perfectly well that a major operation was under way and indeed you got involved in it. That's my suggestion to you.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I did not participate. I did not elaborate a plan of action. I was not familiarised with anything in terms of when this action would be carried out, that is to say between the terrorists and the MUP of Serbia, this clash. I told you that I had several supervisors above me. The head of the crime prevention police, the head of the Secretariat for the Interior, and it probably had to do with the secrecy of the operation involved. It is just a very narrow circle of people who knew and therefore I simply cannot explain. I couldn't know. But probably General Obrad Stevanovic could have explained that to you. He held that kind of position. He could have told you.

Q. Did he? I thought you didn't know what his position was except that he was the assistant minister.

A. Yes, yes. Yes, assistant minister. Assistant ministers of the Republic of Serbia are probably persons who hold very high positions.

Q. Can we just look very briefly at tab 35 if --

JUDGE KWON: Which binder?

MR. NICE: Sorry. In the binder we've just distributed. Let's call this the Racak documents. Tab 35. And if -- then if you can follow the tabs, please. The tabs are written on the top, I'm afraid - they ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁸ aren't physically tabbed - and it's right at the back. This is a short document, and I'm only interested in --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, does this already have an exhibit number? Because -- no, because --

MR. NICE: Yes. This is, I think, a tendered document under probably the Stevanovic --

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it must have a number, a potential number, and --

JUDGE KWON: It has a cross-reference in the index. It says D3.

MR. NICE: Very well. Thank you very much.

JUDGE BONOMY: Okay.

MR. NICE: I'll get my index out as well.

Q. The first paragraph of this document, which is apparently signed by Danica Marinkovic, says the following: "On the 15th of January --" it says 1991 but means 1999, and it says 1999 in the original. "On the 15th of January, 1999, I was informed by the duty officer of the Urosevac SUP that that morning in the village of Racak a terrorist attack had been carried out on a police patrol from Stimlje as they were searching for terrorists who had killed the policeman Svetislav Przic." Does that accord with your recollection?

A. If I understood this correctly, policeman Svetislav Przic was killed from an ambush near the village of Slivovo on the 10th of January, 1999, not the 15th, if I understood the question correctly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁰⁸⁵⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the impression that the witness does not have this Official Note in front of him.

MR. NICE: Yes, he does.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have the Official Note. I've been following it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He has it, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE:

Q. Is it your recollection --

A. Yes. Yes, I do have it, but Svetislav Przic was killed on the 10th of January, I think. The policeman Svetislav Przic.

Q. My question arising from this passage, which you can re-read again if you choose, is that the operation on the 15th of January was specifically triggered by the killing of Przic. Is that correct?

A. Most probably the operation was aimed at finding and arresting Albanian terrorists in the village of Racak. The last killing was the killing of Svetislav Przic on the 10th of January, 1999. In the period from the 15th of June, 1998, until the 15th of January, 1999, several terrorist attacks were carried out against members of the police. On these occasions, several members of the police were killed. Several persons of Albanian and Serb ethnicity and --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I clarify something with you, Mr. Jasovic. Have I rightly understood that your particular responsibility was the investigation of violent offences, particularly terrorist offences? Have I understood that correctly?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the orders of my supervisor, the ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁰ head of the SUP in Urosevac, I was carrying out the duties that I referred to yesterday related to the establishment of KLA staffs, their activity, on resolving crimes that had to do with terrorist attacks not only the village of Racak but also in surrounding villages. Also in the area of Urosevac and Kacanik.

JUDGE BONOMY: But Racak fell within the area for which you had responsibilities.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not only Racak.

JUDGE BONOMY: I understand. But Racak fell within the area for which you had responsibilities. It was one of the --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That was the subject of our operative work before what happened in Racak and after what happened in Racak, because the village of Racak belongs to Stimlje, and the police station of Stimlje is under the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Interior in Urosevac.

JUDGE BONOMY: And a lot of your work was to do with gathering intelligence about the activities of KLA active terrorists.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you're saying that in spite of all these responsibilities, you knew nothing about the operation that was undertaken at Racak on the 15th of January. That's your position?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that I heard of the operation in the village of Racak on the 15th of January, 1999. I did not know when it was supposed to be carried out. Of course on the 15th of January, I knew. ⁴⁰⁸⁶¹

JUDGE BONOMY: You've told us you didn't know who carried it out. You've told us here already you did not know who carried out that operation even afterwards.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not know because of the secrecy of the work involved. As I said, probably the head of the organ and the people working most closely with him knew. I did not know who headed this operation.

JUDGE BONOMY: And here we have a report from the investigating judge saying the duty officer at the Urosevac SUP is contacting the investigating judge about the matter. The duty officer, not some person in a senior position dealing with matters that would be regarded as secret.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the absence of the head of the SUP, the head of the duty service practically stands in for the head of the secretariat, not only in relation to this event but also in relation to burglaries and other crimes. The head of the duty service informs the duty investigative judge.

MR. NICE:

Q. And just to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a question. When did you first hear of the operations that took place in Racak on the 15th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard during the course of the day. I don't remember exactly what time it was, but during the course of the day of the 15th of January, 1999.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. ⁴⁰⁸⁶²

MR. NICE:

Q. And were you instructed, "There's been this big operation, Mr. Jasovic, with all your expertise, we want your help," or were you told, "We've done this big operation, keep your nose out of it"? What's the position?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, after the event in the village of Racak, it is only natural that at the request of the public prosecutor we carried out interviews. We started by carrying out interviews with persons who could offer necessary information about the village of Racak. I can say here with full responsibility that before what happened in the village of Racak we did have knowledge that in the village of Racak a substaff had been established, a civilian defence, that they established their own points, and I can also say --

JUDGE BONOMY: How many MUP officers did you interview, then, when you say you carried out interviews with persons who could offer necessary information about the village of Racak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were not MUP policemen. They were persons of Albanian ethnicity. I don't know whether the interpretation is right.

JUDGE BONOMY: How many MUP officers did you interview in connection with this matter?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot remember in relation to the event in the village of Racak.

MR. NICE:

Q. Shall we try and help your memory -- ⁴⁰⁸⁶³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁴

JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry.

MR. NICE: No, Your Honour --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, no.

MR. NICE:

Q. The answer to His Honour's question is none, isn't it? Null, zero, no single interview.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, this probably has to do with the circumstances of the event involved. Above me I had the head of the general department, the head of the crime prevention police, and probably if the policemen during the day were in action I could not speak to the said persons. In relation to the events in the village of Racak, whether the action was carried out and how and whether there were any consequences or whether there were not any consequences, they probably -- or, rather, not probably, since I was assistant commander myself before, they report directly to their immediate superior, whoever that may be, the assistant commander or whoever.

MR. NICE: Incidentally, the Court can find, if it's interested, a summary of the interviews - we'll look at them more later -- taken by this witness on the 16th, at page 3 of the schedule I've distributed.

Q. The answers to the questions you're being asked is to be found in this, isn't it: You and your colleagues and the investigative judge and everybody else involved as from the 15th were concerned to cover up this crime and try and find an excuse for it; correct?

A. That's not correct.

Q. Please now explain to me, in light of the questions you've ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁵ answered of His Honour, how it can be that you engaged to interview people as early as the 16th of January, informed of the event, cannot answer my question as to whether the police and the army were involved?

A. I don't know. I did not work out a plan in relation to this action. I don't know whether it was the police and military who took part in this. Probably the police of the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, yes, but as far as the army is concerned, I don't know.

Q. Who's concerned to -- why is there a concern to protect the army in this case, please, Mr. Jasovic?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't understand. I had my own line of work. I did not elaborate plans. This is a narrow circle in the secretariat who did this with regard to planning, actions, and things like that.

Q. Talking to the people the following day, talking to your colleagues, you never discovered that the army had been involved with tanks. Really?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I did not discover that. I'm telling you quite sincerely that I do not know. As for the police, I assume that they were there. The answer is probably yes because somebody had to go up there, but for the army, I don't know that.

Q. I'm going to show you a short passage of a film that we've viewed before. Just have a look at it please and listen to it.

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Now, you see, you heard -- first of all, Goran Radosavljevic, so far as you know, he's still alive, isn't he? ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁶

A. Well, I assume he's alive.

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know exactly, but probably he is, yes.

Q. And although the -- we have experience that the subtitles for this particular film are sometimes a summary of what is actually said, you heard Goran Radosavljevic say in terms that the VJ, the army of Yugoslavia, was driving the terrorists out of the village, and you heard him say that the operation lasted six hours.

Is this all coming as news to you, Mr. Jasovic?

A. Let me tell you quite sincerely. I'm hearing this for the first time. It's all news to me. Then and now, well, I heard about Goran Radosavljevic from the papers. I read about him in the papers. I don't know him to this day, just as I met General Obrad Stevanovic here in The Hague.

JUDGE BONOMY: But this -- Radosavljevic is -- he's a MUP official.

MR. NICE: Yes. He's the MUP official. But as Your Honours will have seen from the subtitles, he said in terms the army of Yugoslavia, he said "Vojska Jugoslavije."

Very well. Now, the Court may wish to look at tab 8, which is much earlier in the binder. I don't ask the witness to look at it because this is only in English but this is the reference on the basis of which I'm asking some questions.

Q. Can you help me, then -- I suspect the answer is going to be no, but can you help me with why as early as the 16th of January somebody ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁷ called Colonel -- Lieutenant Colonel Petrovic, when interviewed by a very senior member of the OSCE, General Maisonneuve, would be declining to acknowledge the involvement of the army? Can you explain - you were there - why that sort of thing would be happening?

A. If you're asking me, I can't give you an answer to that question. I don't know.

Q. You see, how can we find out, please, the name of the officer in charge of the VJ units attacking Racak, driving out the terrorists? How can we find his name? Can you help us?

A. Well, probably you could through a representative of the army of Yugoslavia, the competent authorities. I don't know how I could be of assistance to you otherwise.

MR. NICE: The Court may also find similar material on page -- on the following tab, tab 9.

Q. Bogoljub Janicijevic was the chief of the secretariat, wasn't he?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. Was he the man to whom you answered?

A. Yes. He was the superior officer, the head of the Secretariat of the Interior for Urosevac.

Q. Can you explain -- and this is, if the Court is looking, at the second page of tab 9 and towards the bottom. Can you explain how or why the police at Urosevac, in the form of Janicijevic, would be lying on the 16th of January about the involvement of the VJ and saying that this was only a police action?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I really don't know how to explain this. I can't ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁸ give you an explanation and explain the words of the then chief of SUP, what he said.

Q. Let me make some further suggestions about the chief of the SUP.

MR. NICE: And for this the Chamber will need to take another binder, and it's in the Jasovic papers at tab 10.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yours or the Defence?

MR. NICE: Ours. I'm so sorry. Prosecution binder tab 10. And the witness will have to listen to me read it out because it's not translated.

JUDGE KWON: Binder 2.

MR. NICE: Binder 2. I'm grateful.

Q. Now, a matter of detail about Janicijevic: He was an active member of the accused's party and a delegate to the Serbian parliament, wasn't he, or is that wrong?

A. I know that he was a delegate in the Serbian parliament, but whether he was a sympathiser or member of some other party I really don't know. All I know is he was a delegate of the Assembly.

Q. I see. You don't know what party he represented. Really?

A. Well, it's not up to me to ask senior officers who -- which party they belong to.

Q. Well, now, the statement that we're looking at, a redacted statement of somebody who is identified as SS376, explains that as early as the arrival of Danica Marinkovic - paragraph 18, for example, for the Court - there was a delay in the process of investigation of this crime, of this event. Can you explain why on the 16th there was a delay beyond ⁴⁰⁸⁶⁹ what would normally be expected of an investigative judge?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, with respect to why there was a delay, because on the spot Mrs. Danica Marinkovic was there. She was on the scene and so was the team of the Urosevac SUP. They were on location, including crime inspectors and crime technicians. And so probably they would be able to provide you with an answer to this question.

Had I been on the spot, on the scene, I would probably be able to give you an answer too.

Q. Well, this material, available to us in the form of a redacted statement, explains, at paragraph 29, that Marinkovic didn't initiate an investigation until authorised to do so by Bogi Janicijevic. Now, that would be quite irregular, wouldn't it, for the investigative judge to be subordinate to Janicijevic?

A. That is true. It would be irregular. However, I do not know whether that was the case. I could not give you an answer whether that was actually so. But, yes, it would have been irregular had that been true.

Q. Is the reason that this happened that there was a representative from Belgrade present in the police station controlling Janicijevic?

A. I don't know whether there was a representative from Belgrade present at all.

Q. I've already suggested to you that Djordjevic was there and was on the phone to Sainovic. Was there somebody else there whose name can't be given or identified but who actually came from Belgrade? Think about it, please. Or are you going to tell us this was an entirely ordinary day and ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁰ you were simply sat in your office, taking statements?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I wasn't in the office of the chief of SUP, Bogi Janicijevic, for me to be able to know whether Rodja was there or somebody else or anybody else. I had my jobs and duties to attend to, which I attended to pursuant to orders from my superiors down the chain of command. I didn't know who entered the office or left the office of the chief of the secretariat Bogi Janicijevic, because I see it says "Janicijevic." It's "Janicevic," not "Janicijevic."

MR. NICE: If the Court comes back to paragraph 15 of the same statement, you'll see the supporting material that justifies the last question that I've been asking.

Q. Very well. We'll go back to the -- you claim ignorance of all these matters, but we'll go back to the Racak documents, and if we --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is indicating paragraph 15 of the statement, which is in English, and the witness, as far as I know, doesn't speak English. So it would be proper for him to read it out to the witness so that the witness can know what he's saying. He just asked him to take a look at paragraph 15.

MR. NICE: I'm very happy to read it out, although it will take a little time.

"When we --" the witness says this, potential witness says this: "When we arrived at Stimlje police station, outside there were some policemen and they told us we had to go to the second floor. We didn't ⁴⁰⁸⁷¹ have any conversations with them other than that. Inside was Bogi Janicevic, Urosevac chief of police. Although we knew each other from before floor, Bogi is what I know him by --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice you may be reading a little too fast.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, yes. "-- and I don't know his full name. Another guy there, first and last names unknown, I didn't know, but I understood from Danica Marinkovic that he was from the State Security Office Belgrade. After that Bogi Janicevic told us he had to wait -- we had to wait in Stimlje because the situation was not secure. It wasn't possible to make any inquiries or investigations..."

Q. Now, that's the evidence of the man being there, and we've got the evidence of Marinkovic being stopped from making her investigations by Bogi. Do you have any recollection of that?

A. Well, I can't remember because I wasn't there. And most probably Bogi Janicevic, well, he's alive to this day, and I'm sure he would be able to explain the course of events. How can I explain them to you if I wasn't there?

Q. Very well.

A. Where Mrs. Danica Marinkovic was and Bogi Janicevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice is confusing the witness. Even this witness that has been blacked out, the name of who has been blacked out didn't say that he stopped the investigation. You heard Danica Marinkovic. She said that she arrived in the police station of ⁴⁰⁸⁷² Stimlje first and that after Stimlje she went to Racak, whereas here it says that it wasn't secure in Racak and that's what Danica Marinkovic said, precisely that, but she went to Racak nevertheless but wasn't able to conduct an on-site investigation. She testified about all that here, whereas Mr. Nice is asking why Janicevic stopped --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he's putting what is in paragraph 15.

MR. NICE: May we -- since the accused raises it - and I want to save time but I'll take as long as is necessary on this topic - paragraph 27 of the same statement. If the accused would like to follow it as I read it.

Q. Incidentally, before I come to this passage, paragraph 25, the witness refers to some dark-skinned men in blue camouflage who he thought may have been Serbian Gypsies or a Serbian Gypsy group. Do you remember those, with different uniforms?

A. This is the first time that I hear about this, that they were dark uniforms and that the Serbian Roma had put those uniforms on. That's the first time that I've heard of anything like that.

Q. Paragraph 27 reads, and I'll read it slowly enough for everybody to follow: "Something very unusual, and that was that Danica Marinkovic was waiting from the signal from Bogi Janicevic, who was in civilian clothes, when to start the investigation. I know this because I asked Danica Marinkovic why we were waiting to commence the investigation. She said that she was waiting until Bogi Janicevic told her to start. It is unusual, because when the investigating judge comes to a crime scene, the investigating judge has the authorisation to conduct the investigation ⁴⁰⁸⁷³ according to the law ... The investigating judge is in charge of the scene, and it is very unusual for her to be waiting for instruction from someone else. There was no shooting going on at this stage. Bogi Janicevic and Danica Marinkovic in conversation two or three times ... The state security guy, who was also in civilian clothes, was there. He didn't converse with anyone. He just observed."

He wasn't seen to converse with anyone by that witness but he was there apparently to observe. You tell us, please, if you know nothing about the incident, how usual or unusual would it be to have a state security man from Belgrade in your offices - this is at Stimlje, not at Urosevac - in your offices at an operation like this? How unusual?

A. I don't know. Once again I can't give you an answer because I don't know. I don't know which witness said this. I don't know whether a member of the state security was there at all, and I don't know the kind of conversation they had, that is to say Judge Danica Marinkovic and Bogoljub Janicevic. So how do you expect me to answer the question when I wasn't there and I don't know all the particulars?

Q. All right. Answer me this question: How many times did somebody from the state security of Belgrade come down to be involved in one of your investigations; regularly or irregularly or never?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, to my office inspectors of the state security would come who were from the area of Kosovo and Metohija. They were all mostly from Urosevac, the ones who came to see me.

Q. Let's move on, please, in the Prosecution's Racak binder, the binder I've distributed this morning, to tab 19, which is about halfway ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁵ through, I think, a bit under halfway through.

Now, if you would -- if Mr. Prendergast would display the sheet numbered 3 on the overhead projector.

And if you, Mr. Jasovic, would go to the last page for you of this document and to, I think -- yes, the last paragraph, the second part of it.

This is a document apparently prepared on the 18th of January, and it provides a summary of events. And in the paragraph we're looking at on the middle of English page 3, it says this: "Trenches were found on the surrounding hills, and in the trenches were shovels and picks used to dig them. On both sides along the whole length of these trenches were Chinese-made ... bullet casings from automatic weapons. At the top of a hill called Vis, we found a bunker covered by timber with a wood-burning stove. Right next to the bunker was a machine-gun nest protected by sandbags, and in front of the sandbags were a mount for a Browning anti-aircraft machine-gun and a larger number of ... bullet casings. A military groundsheet and parts of a military uniform and civilian clothes were found around this bunker, and in the trenches were quilts..." and other items. "Bullet casings from a light machine-gun ... were found..." Next sentence: "A wheelbarrow in which earth was loaded and picks were used to dig the trenches ... were found..." Next sentence: "The bunker had a machine-gun opening aimed at the neighbouring hill. All the bullet casings found... were taken for further testing, and the civilian clothes and parts of the military camouflage uniform were taken because they were material evidence ..." ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁶ Now, does that accord with what you --

JUDGE KWON: It is tab 19, Mr. Milosevic. The newly offered binder from the Prosecution. It's originally D4.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, this is by the 18th of January. Does this account given seem to fit with your understanding of events?

A. This whole account -- Mrs. Danica Marinkovic drew up a report on the -- about the on-site investigation, and on the basis of interviews, as I've already said, with persons of Albanian ethnicity both before and after the events in Racak, I do know that trenches, bunkers, and communicating trenches were dug. I do know that they had a large quantity of weapons that they disposed of. And she described what she found on the spot.

MR. NICE: If Mr. Prendergast would be good enough to take one of the two maps. I'm sorry not to have warned him earlier. It would probably be sufficient if we lean it against the window rather than put it on an easel since I forgotten to get you to bring one. It's the other one.

Q. Now, I trust you can read a map, can you, or an aerial photograph, read and understand it?

A. Well, I'll try.

MR. NICE: If the video booth would be good enough to use the camera to focus on that to save time as we haven't got an easel erected.

Q. Can you look, please, at the map that's beside you or displayed on ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁷ your screen. Do you understand how that is Racak? Makes sense to you, does it?

A. I think that this place above Stimlje. I worked as a policeman in Stimlje from 1975 to 1981, and Racak is to the south-west of Stimlje or the west of Stimlje.

Q. Well, if you'd look at the map, and you can take a minute to do it because there's only one question I want to ask you but I want you to have it in mind for the rest of the questions I ask you. Look at it on the screen or beside you.

I'll tell you what the evidence is. The evidence is that the position marked 5 is a trench where some 20-odd bodies were found, and the other markings - now I can't see it but I can roughly remember - I'll have to look at it again very briefly - the positions marked 3, 4, 2, 1, and so on, if you look at them - you can have it back now - are amongst places where other bodies were found, sometimes three men, sometimes a man and somebody else, all quite some distance from the trench. You see? So that there were bodies at the position marked 5 and bodies found dead at all those other positions a long way away, or a considerable distance away. Now, if you can understand that. Can you understand that? Bodies found at position 4, 3, 1, 2, and so on.

Now, please tell me: First, from the document you've just read which comes from Marinkovic, any explanation of whether weapons were recovered from those outlying places of death?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I wasn't on the scene so I cannot answer. I cannot tell you where the bodies were found and the weapons were found, ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁸ what exact spot. There was a team that was on location together with Danica Marinkovic, and they would probably know. Had I been there, had I been on the scene, I would be able to answer your question.

Q. You see, Danica Marinkovic didn't conduct an investigation into this. She wasn't instructed to. Were you instructed, with all your interest in terrorism, to conduct an inquiry into this?

A. Not specifically. In view of the fact that before the event in the village of Racak we worked operatively to throw light on the terrorist --

Q. Before I move on to my next question --

A. As I was saying -- I apologise. There's some interference in my headsets.

Q. As you've explained -- so there is in mine. As you explained earlier, you interviewed no policeman or, come to that, member of the army about how people were killed, did you?

A. As to the circumstances, let me say that the interview with the policemen was probably conducted by their superior officers.

Q. I think my question was quite easy, but I'm going to ask you to answer it.

A. Well, linked to the circumstances of the event in Racak, as I say, I did not conduct interviews with policemen.

Q. And you heard Goran Radosavljevic on the tape that we looked at explain that they got orders for the liquidation of terrorists, not orders to get people in for investigation. It all fits together, doesn't it? ⁴⁰⁸⁷⁹ This was an operation to liquidate those people in Racak. It was not in any sense an operation to investigate them.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, to conduct an investigation, well, I said a moment ago that it would be normal for an investigation to be conducted after every event. Not only the event in the village of Racak, but any event it would be normal to conduct an investigation if -- that is to say to conduct interviews, to talk to persons who are thought to be able to provide information about the event that took place. Now, as for Mr. Radosavljevic, I cannot explain here what he said. I don't know what he said.

Q. He did say that they had orders to liquidate the terrorists, didn't he?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know.

Q. Can you turn now to tab 20, and I would like you to look at the original. That's in the latest, today's filing. It's a document that came from Stevanovic.

MR. NICE: I've been seeking a translation of it for I don't know how long, sometimes giving it a higher priority than at other times. I never had one, I don't know what it means, but out of completeness I think the witness may be able to help us. Maybe it will solve the problem. It's a document he can interpret for us.

Q. Have a look at this document. We don't have a translation of it. One hasn't been provided. Unless Ms. Anoya has got one. No. So before you leave the witness box, you tell us what this is all about. ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁰

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's nothing in tab 20. I assume that this is Mr. Nice's tab 20.

MR. NICE: Tab 20 of this morning's document. If the accused has trouble finding it ...

Q. Now, this is what we've been provided by Obrad Stevanovic in -- blocked in some 4 or 500 documents, and it may relate to the issues I've been asking you about, so since you're the only witness I can turn to at the moment, help me. What is this?

A. Based on what I can see here, this is a document drafted by criminal investigation technicians, something from their scope of work. There is a form here and then photographs which are not clear. So I couldn't tell you what it is about.

Q. Does it --

A. The photocopy is rather bad.

Q. Does it have something to do with the finding of weapons? That's what I'm interested for your assistance on.

A. The image is quite bad, so I couldn't tell you what it is about. The photographs are not clear.

Q. Okay. Keep going on to the end of the document because there are some lists at the end.

A. A list, a report on crime investigation. Then I see 0.4. A crime technician would be in a better position to explain this than I am. The only thing I can see here is that the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac, criminal investigation department, forwarded to Judge Danica Marinkovic photo documentation made on site, and then there ⁴⁰⁸⁸¹ follows a list of equipment found in the village of Racak, the date 18th of January, 1999, report on --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- crime investigation completed on site, and then there are some sketches. What page did you tell me to look at it?

Q. Does it say anything about where the material was found?

A. It says here a list of equipment found in the village of Racak on the 18th of January, 1999. Under 1, military shirt. 2, camouflage military jacket. But it doesn't say here where this was found. I assume there is a report indicating this, but I can't really go into whether there is a report on these issues or not or where these objects were found in exactly which spot in Racak. It says here winter coat, hat, and so on.

Q. Very well. Now, the next thing that I want you to deal with chronologically, to save some time, is better found in the Prosecution's earlier bundle, volume 1. And if you would go, in the bundle that Mr. Prendergast will hand you, to the end, to 2.23, you'll find a statement that you took on the 20th of January, or a statement you claim to have taken. You see that statement?

A. Tab -- which tab?

Q. Tab 2.23, right at the end of the first volume.

JUDGE KWON: It's part of tab 5.

MR. NICE:

Q. Yes, tab 5, right at the end. You have that now. Just familiarise yourself with it.

A. I don't have any statement of mine -- ⁴⁰⁸⁸²

Q. Right at the end.

A. -- under 2.23.

Q. Right at the back.

A. Yes. However, this is not a statement. This is an information, if we're looking at the same document.

Q. Well, tell us where you got the information from, then, please.

A. If we can go into private session, please, just like we did last time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁰⁸⁸³

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁴

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if you could remind me of the linkage of this man with the report written by this witness.

MR. NICE: The identification process, the connection to the male nurse is the source we used to track down a person.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. And this person, let me explain to you, Mr. Jasovic, says the following: That he lived in Ferizaj until March of 1999 -- I beg your pardon. Paragraph 6 in the English. In June he was living in Ferizaj, moved there at the end of May because it wasn't safe to live in Racak. Now, just pausing there for a minute.

Remember I asked you yesterday whether the police had attacked and burnt down a large part of Racak. Thinking back, it's true, isn't it, a large part of Racak was devastated by the police in 1998.

A. I don't know about a large part of Racak. It is possible that the houses were damaged during the conflict between the Albanian terrorists ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁶ and members of police. It is probable that a couple of houses in the village of Racak were damaged then. What I said was based on the statements that I took and on the interviews with Albanians.

Q. I suggest that that's as dishonest an answer as many others and you knew full well that Racak had been laid waste in part by the police, and intentionally.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I disagree. From my point of view, that is not true. There were no intentions on the part of the police -- or, rather, what they intended was to find the perpetrators of terrorists acts, to find them and arrest them.

Q. Now, this same person, having left Racak for Ferizaj, returned only a couple of occasions to Racak, the first occasion being a couple of days after the massacre and the second on the day of the funeral, or some of the funerals, on the 11th of February.

Do you remember the day of the funeral, the 11th of February?

A. I don't remember the date. You mean the date when there was a funeral in the village of Racak, when those who were killed in Racak were buried? I don't remember the date, but I remember it was in February.

Q. And this person says that it was before that date, before the date of the funeral - paragraph 7 - on the 5th, with another person travelling towards Stimlje from Ferizaj, they were stopped at a police checkpoint, asked for identification and then told to go immediately to your police station, indeed escorted there. Does that accord with what was happening at about that time, checkpoints and people being brought in for questioning? ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁷

A. Mr. Prosecutor, as for this particular person, what I can tell you is that on that day he came to see me on his own will, voluntarily. His wife also came on several occasions. I think that she was a nurse. I don't remember her name. They came several times to inquire about the murder of her father, and so did her husband. They wanted to know who killed her father and the father-in-law of the male nurse. They came several times. They wanted information from us. They wanted to see how far we got.

Q. What date is it you're saying that they came to you?

A. I don't know. I don't remember what date it was. What I remember is that they came several times, even before the events in Racak, because his father-in-law -- or, rather, her father was killed, I think in late 1997, in front of his house in the village of Petrastica, and they came to inquire about the information we managed to get about the victim.

Q. You see, he goes on to explain how on this day, which he says is the 5th of February, on arrival at the police station he saw people being beaten by the police. He was interviewed in a room on the second floor by you. Didn't know you at the time and didn't know your rank. You were in plain clothes and you were in company with another man with a long moustache, so that would be Sparavalo --

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I missed the date. What date did you say?

Q. 5th of February. He said that in --

A. You mean in 1999?

Q. I do. And he says that in your room there were baseball bats behind the door and bloodstains on the wall. This was a place where ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁸ people had been and were being beaten. Do you remember that?

A. It's not true that they were beaten, and it also is not true that he was there on the 5th of February. I can see here that this information was compiled on the 21st of February, and what I can confirm is were he to confirm his allegations here, he would face serious problems, as would his family. They would be ostracised.

What I'm telling you here is the truth. It is true that he came on the 20th of January.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, that's always going to be your account, isn't it, that everybody else, everybody else is lying except you and that everybody's prepared to -- that's your account, isn't it? But you see, this man's no longer there. He doesn't live there any more. No one to ostracise him. Now, explain.

A. I don't know where he lives now.

Q. No, I'm telling you that.

A. He has his relatives. He has family in Racak, close relatives and also distant relatives. So it's not just that he alone would face consequences. He also wants to spare his close and distant relatives any potential consequences. I'm very familiar with the customs among the Albanians.

Q. I see. So he goes on to explain how the conversation you had with him was about picking up the body for the funeral, although he was shown some photographs of bodies for identification. Does that make any -- does that stir any recollections of yours?

A. I did not have the photographs of corpses. I'm telling you, the ⁴⁰⁸⁸⁹ last time I talked to him was on the 20th of January, 1999, and I don't know what photographs of corpses you are referring to. I'm telling you the truth.

I can also understand him for giving such a statement.

Q. It's very convenient, isn't it, to have an unsigned document from somebody who, to your knowledge, had left the country?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, the Ministry of the Interior is entitled to compile various Official Notes, reports, information, and so on based on the conducted interviews, and I continue to do that to this day.

Q. Can you look at --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, is it -- I've only been reading these quickly, but is it correct to say that the statement that you now have either acknowledges -- or either says that a person was not in the KLA or, alternatively, says that the witness doesn't know whether the person was in the KLA and that on no occasion does he actually confirm membership of the KLA?

MR. NICE: I think that's probably correct for this witness.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE: I mean, some -- some statements do and some statements don't.

Q. Take a look at something. I'll track it down. Take a look at this one. To save time if Mr. -- If Mr. Prendergast would just take this and show this to the witness and lay it on the overhead projector.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, please correct me if I'm wrong: Did the witness agree that this man is the very male nurse? ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁰

MR. NICE: We can only tie him down by the evidence that I think you'll find in tab 3. And if you remember, we sought names and details and we were provided with nothing further. No, not tab 3. Tab 2 it must be, Ms. Murtagh who explains the circumstances of finding this witness. That's in your tab 2, and it's at paragraph 9.

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't have a tab 2. Tab 2.1 but --

JUDGE KWON: Binder 1.

MR. NICE: Binder 1, tab 2. Prosecution's documents, binder 1, tab 2. It's expressed very barely there, but I can answer His Honour Judge Kwon's question in this way in amplification of paragraph 9 which says that she identified the witness at tab 2.23 from information provided to the Court during the Jasovic testimony, and she then gives the name. And without giving the name, in answer to His Honour Judge Kwon's question I can state what the position is.

The provider of the information was described as a medical technician from the village whose surname the witness could not recall but whose wife was from Petrastica village in Stimlje and whose father died on the 28th of November, 1997, his name being Dugolli. Ms. Murtagh travelled on the 17th of May, to Petrastica, located the Dugolli family -- it may be that I must ask for the Dugolli family to be redacted and maybe we can go into private session while I conclude this answer or explanation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted) ⁴⁰⁸⁹¹

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could I say something? I said to Mr. Prosecutor that the source of information was the registered informer and the male nurse. So the information came from two sources of information, not just from one person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁰⁸⁹²

Q. Now, that may be new. We'll have to check the transcript to see whether this is new, but just tell us, if it was your registered informant, who is that by name?

JUDGE KWON: We are in public session.

MR. NICE:

Q. But is this the one who is dead?

A. Yes. Yes. Killed by Albanian terrorists.

Q. Any need to protect his name? I thought so. Yes.

A. My concern are his children. I believe that it would be necessary to protect them. His children live there.

Q. I think we've had his name already, but --

JUDGE BONOMY: It was in private session.

MR. NICE: It was in private session. Very well.

Q. I'll come back to that in a second, but I'm going to ask you to deal with a little problem, if you'd be so good, Mr. Jasovic, with the Court's leave, before any break. We've had evidence -- and I'll give you the detail of it after the break. We've had evidence that there were two houses in Racak where people were waiting on the night in question, or where they were gathered together on the night in question. The occupants of one of those houses was driven into the gully, on the evidence, and executed. The occupants of the other house all escaped. Do you follow my analysis, my summary of part of the evidence thus far? Do you follow it?

A. Yes, yes. I am following you.

Q. What I'm going to ask your help with is this: Given the police ⁴⁰⁸⁹³ view that everyone in Racak was KLA, can you explain, please, how all those people who were in the other house and who escaped are not subject of reports by you that they were members of the KLA, whereas a large number of those who were taken to the gully and killed are subject to such reports? Can you explain that odd feature to me?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, now when I look through my documents I claim to you with full responsibility from the list of killed persons in the village of Racak 14 persons were members of the KLA, and that's the information that we had before what happened in Racak. And for 16 persons we had information after what happened in Racak. Now that I've read the materials, I claim to you with full responsibility that I have found an additional 81 persons that were members of the KLA, because the first staff was established in the village of Rance and the village of Racak. When, rather, the staff in Racak was established, all the persons from Rance transferred to Racak, the village of Racak. And I saw that out of these 81 persons, 74 were from the village of Racak, 7 were from the surrounding villages - I don't know, I think from Petrovo.

Let me tell you one more thing: In the village of Racak, in my opinion, not 40 people lost their lives, as it says in the indictment, 45 persons would be the number. Because Sadik Mujota was also killed , Mehmet Mustafa, Kadri Sulja, Ahmet Kaciku, and Skender Sharri. And we have knowledge, information that all these persons are members of the KLA. Now it is not clear to me why these bodies were not among the bodies in the mosque. I am stating all of this to you here with full ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁴ responsibility. I know that Ahmet Kaciku is the name of the main street in Urosevac. Now, that's the truth. And I have more material, more documents. I'm going to bring it to you, Mr. Prosecutor. I didn't manage to photocopy it, I am sorry. You can have a look at all of that, and you can assure yourself of that.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, your memory seems to be very good at the moment. Forty-five persons, 40. You remember this all. Do you remember what you saw in the mosque, do you? Do you remember what you saw in the mosque?

A. I don't remember what I saw in the mosque. I don't understand. Those persons were not among the 40 persons identified. I was not in Racak, but there were 40 bodies in the mosque. But these bodies were not in the mosque. I compare that on the basis of the list of identified persons.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time for the break. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.35 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Just to tidy a couple of things up. So far as His Honour Judge Kwon's question about connection is concerned between the person and the person identified, the Court will find at the end of the statement made to the investigators by the person concerned at 2.23 his own summary of the history that ties him to the evidence given by this witness.

Tidying up a point and an answer to His Honour Judge Bonomy about ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁵ what the statement said about membership or not of the KLA, we'll see more of that with other statements in due course. Indeed, there are identifications of KLA people, there are explanations for the perceptions of people as members of the KLA, and there are both -- and there are denials of people being active members of the KLA, three categories, and we'll see it in different statements.

JUDGE BONOMY: But are there any in the first category in this particular statement was all I was concerned about.

MR. NICE: I think probably not, no. There's a very great number.

JUDGE BONOMY: My comment was confined to that statement.

MR. NICE: Very well.

Q. Before I turn to the question I set up by providing a document to this witness, Mr. Jasovic, your last answer was long and fulsome and speaks of a good memory. Over the break have you been able to remember anything else as a result of the questions I asked you, for example about the involvement of the army or anything of that sort, thinking back, or is it all still a blank?

A. In relation to members of the military, I still have a blank in my memory.

Q. Now, would you look, please, at the document that's displayed on the overhead projector. It's perfectly positioned, and it happens to be one -- unfortunately, I think I've now -- I think this is 1.16 in the Jasovic binder, and we can see that it's a statement dated, or allegedly dated the 19th of September of 1998, but I'm interested, please, in the handwriting at the top right-hand corner. Whose handwriting? ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁷

A. Let me just give this some thought. This is not my handwriting for sure. This is a statement which was faxed to Colonel General Djordjevic. This is probably one of the chief's handwriting, either for general crime or of the other crime prevention department. But obviously maybe the head of the crime prevention police. I'm not sure, but there is a high degree of probability, because this was a statement that was sent on to him or, rather, this general.

Q. Do you recollect that you were having to provide information to Djordjevic? It's Radoslav Djordjevic, isn't it?

JUDGE KWON: It's a Defence exhibit.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My information was forwarded to my supervisor, to the head of the organ, for further analysis and processing. I don't know who the head of the organ sent these statements to.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, it's Colonel General Djordjevic, is it, at this stage, rather than colonel?

A. I said colonel general.

Q. Very well.

A. I did say colonel general.

Q. Was he, to your knowledge, putting either your superiors or indeed you yourself under pressure to provide material of this kind?

A. Not on me for sure. I don't even know him. It was only once that I saw him, when I was at that prison in Lapusnik. Once in my life. That's the only time I saw him. I really cannot answer whether he exerted any kind of pressure on the head of the secretariat. ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁸

MR. NICE: Your Honours, before I part from this, and just to assist you in case you encounter the same curiosity that I did, this inscription or "to General Djordjevic" in one format or another turns up on several of the original documents provided by the accused through Jasovic. It also appears sometimes in translations of documents where you won't find it on the original. That reflects the fact that, if you remember, some of these documents had already been in existence and had been translated, so that when the originals were handed over, CLSS discovered an existing translation. They made that available. They probably didn't appreciate that there was this one -- this one item that existed in the version they'd seen which didn't exist in the other version. It's a curiosity, but nevertheless we have the witness's answer on it so far as this document is concerned, which he did peruse. And my analysis of the documents is that -- sorry, we provide the translation, not CLSS, Ms. Dicklich informs me. But it appears that these documents can be found, or these writings to Djordjevic can be found both before and after Racak.

Q. Would you now turn in the binder distributed this morning, the Racak documents, to tab 33, which is towards the end. It's in this format, a document sought to be produced via Stevanovic. And if the witness would like, please, to look at the Serbian original but the overhead projector displaying the English. Thank you.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do we find the Stevanovic number somewhere, to keep track of this?

JUDGE KWON: It's tab 397 of Stevanovic binder. ⁴⁰⁸⁹⁹

MR. NICE: I have to express gratitude tinged with some other emotion at His Honour Judge Kwon's fingertip knowledge of exhibit numbers, but I better not try and ingratiate myself to the Court. Ah, they're on our index. In which case then I think I'm going to withdraw all these emotions and transmit them to Ms. Dicklich and Ms. Graham. But it's of great benefit in this sometimes difficult work to have people with such knowledge one way and another helping us out on matters of detail. Right.

Q. Who wrote this document? Can you help us?

A. I can't see a signature on this document. I cannot explain that. I can't see who signed it. I cannot explain. How could I know? Probably -- well, I don't know. I assume - this is just an assumption - but probably the head of the organ. I don't know. I can't see a signature.

Q. All right. Let's just look at a couple of passages. Let me explain to you: This has been provided by the accused through one of his witnesses, and since it's a document that apparently relates to Racak, I'm seeking your assistance. But let's look at the very first paragraph. It reads as follows: "In order to arrest the terrorist group which carried out an armed attack near the village of Slivovo on the Stimlje-Urosevac road on the 10th of January 1999 at 0830 hours on the official vehicle of the Urosevac SUP --"

A. "Official vehicle."

Q. "-- M616-424, carrying the Stimlje police station deputy commander Nenad Mitrovic, Stimlje police station officer Svetislav Przic and Stimlje police station reserve force member Miroslav Zivic, during which the ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁰ policeman Svetislav Przic was mortally wounded ..." Just pausing there. Was it standard to send just two policemen to arrest a terrorist group?

A. I would not know how to answer this question. These are assessments by higher officers, probably the head of police would be in a position to answer. I don't know that.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the other microphone please be turned on for the witness, thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, as you explained to us, and in particular His Honour Judge Bonomy, you were dealing with terrorism for many years, or some years. My question was: Would it be --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone. The interpreters cannot hear the speaker.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you start again, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm saying that this is a completely incorrect interpretation of what it says here, and as for Mr. Nice's mocking, that is a question of his professional level. This is not a question of two persons being asked to arrest terrorists. This is a pretty long paragraph saying, with a view to arresting a terrorist group which carried out an armed attack near the village, et cetera. And it ends by saying that on the morning of the 15th of January, the action ended by dealing with a group in Racak. So this entire paragraph is quite clear. ⁴⁰⁹⁰¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the point now.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think that's correct, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: It may well be correct --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: It may be correct, and if so, there's no point to be made.

Q. But just help us, please, from your knowledge: What was Przic and Mitrovic doing on the day that Przic was killed?

A. Well, they were doing their jobs. I cannot explain this because there are these patrol sheets listing assignments that people get from the chief of the police station. I cannot state what they were doing exactly on that day.

From 1986 I have not worn a uniform, so I have not been kept abreast of what the uniformed police were doing.

Q. Well, I may return to that point a little later, but my principal interest in this document can be found later on. We'll just summarise for your benefit what the various paragraphs say as you haven't seen the document before. It asserts in the second paragraph 110 policemen were assigned with -- to carry out the operation. It makes no reference to the army.

The next paragraph deals with information about the Main Staff of the so-called KLA.

The next paragraph deals with the start of the police operation. The next paragraph deals with the advance of the police into the village and being fired on, firing back. ⁴⁰⁹⁰² The next paragraph says that when entering the village and throughout their search they were subject to gunfire. The next paragraph, at 1510 the terrorists fired sniper rifles at Trajkovic which ricochetted and hit a spare automatic rifle magazine on his chest.

Next paragraph - thanks, Mr. Prendergast - equipment of the police, including an armoured vehicle.

The next paragraph deals with the police using stated weapons "to repulse attacks exclusively against terrorists," it says. Next paragraph, when the police force members were approaching Racak and attempting to capture members and terrorist gangs and inviting them to surrender, the armed terrorist groups refused to surrender, and firing heavily, retreated from the village towards Krsina hill and the village of Luzhnice, the village of Rance, and the village of Petrovo and Stimlje.

Next paragraph, despite pursuit and appeals to surrender, the terrorist group refused to surrender and kept firing. Next sentence: "The terrorists fiercely attacked the approaching police from the previously prepared trenches and bunkers." Then these bits in detail: "Forty Siptar terrorists, most of them wearing uniforms of the so-called KLA, were liquidated in the said exchange of fire." "By capturing the trenches and bunkers used by the Siptar terrorists --" in fact, I'm going to ask you if you wouldn't mind, please, just to make sure that our translation is accurate on this, to read out loud when we find it the Serbian -- ⁴⁰⁹⁰³

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you ask the question --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- can I ask you, if that account of the event in Racak is accepted, what, if any, offence or crime would have been committed by the Serbs?

MR. NICE: I think that's, if I may say so, not a question that's it's possible to answer in quite a yes/no way, but obviously depending on the degree to which this account was established as being true or possibly true, then it might affect culpability. But let me say straight away the simple approach of this account is not accepted, and it's not going to be under any circumstances the version I forecast arguing for at the end of the case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not your case.

MR. NICE: No, absolutely not. I mean, there are parts of it that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I know it's the Serb version, but I'm asking you because it may be that the Chamber might accept that version.

MR. NICE: Well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have two versions.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we'll wait and see, and I will make my position quite plain, if I haven't made it plain already, as to why this version is one that should be ultimately rejected. Let's see if we can find the paragraph in the Serb version that we want to follow.

Q. Can you tell me, please, Mr. Jasovic, what page we're on in the ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁴ Serb version for the passage I've taken you to?

A. You mean this part where Mehmet Mustafa's house was investigated?

Q. No. I --

A. You read very fast. I could not really follow everything. I've been trying to follow, though.

Q. Can you find the passage that begins -- the paragraph that begins, "By capturing the trenches and bunkers used by Siptar terrorists."

THE INTERPRETER: The microphone is not on again.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you are speaking, speak into the microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to assist the witness. It is the third paragraph from the bottom up on the second page of the Serbian text.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I've found the paragraph. Yes, I have found it now.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Could you -- please, Mr. Jasovic, would you now read that paragraph slowly enough for the interpreters' assistance, and we'll follow it in our English version.

A. "Taking trenches and bunkers that were used by the Siptar terrorists." Probably Siptar terrorists. "Members of the police in them, in addition to the mentioned corpses, found and took away 36 automatic rifles, Chinese make, one machine-gun Browning 12.7 millimetres, two machine-guns, 1.802 bullets of different calibres, 6 hand grenades of Chinese make, two hand grenade bags, one hand-held radio transmitter, ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁵ Fisher Price is probably the make, one pair of binoculars, one rifle cleaning kit."

Q. That's as far as I need you to go on that paragraph. And the original Serbian text makes it absolutely clear that the weapons, including the 36 automatic rifles, were said to have been found in the trench where the bodies were found. Clear?

A. I mean, it's clear what it says in this paragraph. I can give an answer.

Q. To what question? I haven't asked you another question yet.

A. All right.

Q. Now, let's go on in the rest of this anonymous but apparently authorised summary. The next paragraph - follow me and I'll go a little more slowly - refers to an on-site investigation. The next paragraph deals with developments of events and the problems for the on-site investigation.

The next short paragraph deals with withdrawal of the police to Stimlje police station.

The next paragraph deals with what happened at 1830 in the evening of the same day, with a hand grenade apparently thrown at a vehicle. Then the next paragraph says this, and I'll read it in English but please follow it in the Serbian. It says: "Because it was impossible to conduct a comprehensive and thorough inspection of the site and on-site investigation in the Racak village sector, and because it was impossible to secure the site where the terrorists were liquidated, during the night of the 15th and 16th of January, 1999, terrorist groups from the village ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁶ of Petrovo and Malopoljce gained access to the terrorists' bodies. It is therefore possible that the terrorists manipulated the situation and dressed the liquidated terrorists in civilian clothes, removed personal documents and the bodies of persons who were not from the area of Stimlje municipality or the Republic of Serbia, or in other ways manipulated with the bodies."

First, you're the investigating policeman: This is mere conjecture or explanation or excuse. There's no witness or other hard evidence to support this proposition, is there?

A. That's not right. I would like to explain here. It was stated correctly here, as I said previously, that in the conflicts 45 persons died. I'm stating that with full responsibility. I don't know how, but my information is that they were buried on a hill near the village of Malopoljce, the municipality of Stimlje. I'm saying that on the basis of operative information, that is to say on the basis of statements.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. The suggestion that bodies had been redressed, that bodies had been moved, is at best speculation or justification or something like that because there's no evidence for it, is there?

A. You see, as far as the removed bodies are concerned, Sadik Mujota, Mehmet Mustafa, Kadri Sulja, I'm saying this on the basis of documents, statements, they were seen in the village of Racak, at positions around the village of Racak, with automatic rifles, and then it depended on the need involved. Sometimes they wore uniforms with KLA insignia, and ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁸ sometimes they were seen in civilian clothes as well. It depended on the assignment they had.

JUDGE BONOMY: Why don't you just answer the question that you're being asked.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I've been explaining this. Through the statements we see that members of the KLA sometimes moved about in uniforms with KLA insignia and sometimes in civilian clothes. It is a fact that they were armed with automatic weapons.

JUDGE BONOMY: The question on this occasion is what evidence is there that on this particular evening, the night of the 15th and 16th of January, 1999, KLA terrorists interfered with the clothing of dead bodies who remained within the mosque?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably there are reports from policemen from the actual area. I don't have information of this kind, and I could not give answers here. Police officers from the actual area probably compiled this information on the basis of reports. I could not explain it in any other way.

MR. NICE:

Q. But, Mr. Jasovic, even reading the paragraph, it says nothing about reports. It says only it is therefore possible that terrorists manipulated the situation. If there were reports, it would have referred to them.

A. I am saying probably, probably. I don't know. Because policemen on site, when they compile a report, they are duty-bound to send the report to their immediate superior. In this specific case, the head of ⁴⁰⁹⁰⁹ department in the police.

I have not seen these reports, but my assumption is that it is only natural that after completing an assignment one compiles a report and sends that report with regard to that particular event.

Q. I'm going to stop you. You have seen no report, no witness statement, no piece of evidence to support the possibility that bodies were manipulated in the way described in this paragraph, have you?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, what I am saying is that I didn't see the report and didn't see what you're asking me about now.

Q. All right. Let's go through the rest of this document which I want your help with. I'm just going to give you the paragraph summaries so that you can turn to it if you need to.

The next paragraph deals with the 16th of January on-site investigation, and it says nothing about recovery of weapons, nothing -- nothing about recovery of weapons.

The next paragraph deals with the on-site investigation team being attacked.

The next paragraph turns to the 17th of January and Sasa Dobricanin's visit.

The next paragraph deals with the on-site investigation team and being fired on. The next paragraph points out that -- how the on-site investigation team was impeded, I think.

The next one deals with the same general topic and with other problems.

The next paragraph turns to the 18th of January and the on-site ⁴⁰⁹¹⁰ investigation team made up of Danica Marinkovic and others. It goes to deal with the next paragraph with what the Siptar terrorists, as described, did.

We're then on to a paragraph about police force numbers responding to the attack. There's then the finding of 40 bodies, including one female, in the village.

There's then the reference to after the on-site investigation Mustafa Mehmeti's house being searched and various items being found there.

There's then a visit to the trenches and for the machine-gun nest. There's then a reference to the kitchen where they -- of the depot where they went.

Then the 18th of January there's the movement of the bodies from the mosque, and with the last sentence: "It was confirmed that these people were known to the police as members of the terrorist so-called KLA who had launched armed attacks on members of the MUP ..." The next paragraph deals with 1230 on the 18th of January and with the death of somebody outside these events. And then it says: Based on the above analysis of events --" next paragraph -- "and the conduct of the police, we can draw the following conclusions." Thank you, Mr. Prendergast. Next page.

"There were a number of terrorists attacks ..." Next paragraph: "The result of these terrorist attacks is one police force member killed and three wounded.

Then it says this: "The police --" no reference to the army -- ⁴⁰⁹¹¹ "intervened and used weapons for personal safety to repulse the attacks," and then it says while they were performing their duty the police force members were under heavy fire.

Next paragraph: Didn't overstep authority. Last paragraph: Intervened and used firearms in accordance with the law.

So if we now go back to the paragraph I asked you to read for us, you'll find in the English at page 3, it's claimed that 36 automatic rifles were found with the bodies in the bunker, and what those of you covering up this crime overlooked, I would suggest, or one of the many things you overlooked, was that because bodies were found all round the village, if they'd been fighting there should have been rifles beside them, and those rifles would have had to be collected. And what -- and this is my suggestion to you: That you along with Danica Marinkovic and all the others, covered up this crime but overlooked the fact that you should have recorded the collection of rifles from these other places. I showed them to you on the map. What do you say to that?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, that is not true. And as far as the location, the site, to say that I'm trying to cover up something, that's just not true. I worked honestly and properly, did my job properly. Now, as far as the site is concerned, the location and where the weapons were found, I really cannot explain because I wasn't on that particular site. I do know that a large quantity of weapons was found and that they were brought into the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac. Now, as to everything that was on the location and the place, I ⁴⁰⁹¹² really can't say where the bodies were or anything.

Q. Tell me, Mr. Jasovic, if there was an event with deaths happening at different places, and if one side was asserting that this was a battle but the other was saying it was a massacre and people were killed in unarmed state, would it be appropriate for the local police force to inquire of the soldiers or policemen engaged how they had killed the various people found in distant locations? Would that be an appropriate thing to do?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I am telling you that it wasn't a massacre, that there were armed members of the KLA --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... answer my question.

A. -- that is true --

Q. Mr. Jasovic, would you please be good enough to answer my question. Please listen to me. I'll repeat the question and I'd like you to answer it. And I'll try and use the same words and then you'll be able to understand it.

If there was an event with deaths happening at different places, one side saying it was a massacre and the other side saying people were killed when unarmed, would it be appropriate for the local police to inquire of the soldiers or policemen engaged how they had killed the people found at distant locations?

A. Probably -- well, I can't give you an answer to the question, because as to assessments, it is the superior officers that can give you an answer to that. I don't know what happened in that location. And I had my line of work, and I performed my duties within that line of work ⁴⁰⁹¹³ and where my superiors sent me.

JUDGE BONOMY: I find that an astonishing answer. You've been asked a very simple question. If you have got two directly competing accounts of how an event happened, one saying it was a massacre and the other saying that it was a genuine combat in which people were killed as part of the combat, have the police a duty to investigate these competing accounts; and you say you don't know the answer to that. Is that what you're saying to us?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know. Probably. Of course, every event is investigated. But it should be the --

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]...

MR. NICE:

Q. It may be, and don't let me put words into your mouth --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You're asking the question of an inspector who was not in Racak, and the document that you're looking at now is the report of what happened and what the police established. That's precisely it. And let me remind you that this is part of a set of documents which were provided with General Obrad Stevanovic's testimony and that there was a working group --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the question was a permissible one. We have the answer.

Proceed, Mr. Nice. ⁴⁰⁹¹⁴

MR. NICE:

Q. Don't let me put words into your mouth, Mr. Jasovic, and think very carefully about this next question, but is it your evidence and your understanding, then, that all the people died, with their weapons, in roughly the same place?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have -- well, probably -- what I'm saying, from the list of persons killed in Racak, 30 were identified as being members of the KLA, and for them I can say that they carried weapons, firearms. But I can't say once again whether -- well, through the statements you have the names and surnames of the identified persons, members of the KLA.

Q. I'm going to hold you to your observation and make you justify it. You can say, you said, that "from the list of persons killed in Racak 30 were identified as being members of the KLA, and I can say that they carried weapons, firearms."

Right. Justify that observation.

A. Yes, yes, that's right. Members of the KLA. Well, as for these 30, I can say for the most part that they carried weapons, because I'm answering your questions here on the basis of Official Notes and so on, official pieces of information and reports.

Q. Were you seeking to say that they were carrying weapons on the night of the 15th of January or were you saying something else?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, on the 15th of January, I was not in that location. People can tell you that who were there.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. But I cannot. ⁴⁰⁹¹⁵

MR. NICE: The Prosecution Jasovic binder, second binder, tab 10. No need for this to be shown to the witness, it's only in English.

Q. But you see, Mr. Jasovic, as you understand, as a result of your material being relied on by the accused, further investigations have happened and further people have become available. And Witness SS376, potential witness 376, was present at various parts of these events. Now, at paragraph 29, he recalls that Danica Marinkovic said it was impossible to start the investigation because bodies were all over the village.

Now, he goes on to say that she hadn't received the signal from Bogi Janicevic to start the investigation, but the truth is that it was known to the police - and I must suggest this to you - it was known to the police and all of you dealing with this event that bodies had indeed been killed all over the village, as Danica Marinkovic may be ultimately shown to have said. What do you say to that?

A. I say to that that it is not true.

Q. So what's your account, then, on where the bodies were found; all in one place? I thought I gave you a chance to deal with that but have another go.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. Mr. Nice is constantly, when referring to part of the text read out by the witness himself, trying to distort what it says, and he keeps mentioning the critical word, "died in the same place," which is not what it says here. It doesn't say that ⁴⁰⁹¹⁶ here. It says quite the opposite, that they met their death in different places.

So I'm not giving instructions to the witness. This witness was asked to read --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... try and rehearse the witness. The witness -- let me just check this.

Q. Do you remember reading out a passage of this apparently official but unsigned report?

MR. KAY: May I just make -- it is in the plural in that passage that was read out. Mr. Nice has been constantly referring to one place, but it's in the plural, if you read the text.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Back in tab 33 --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Sorry. Where we were looking at that report. And I did not want to interfere.

When you go to page 3 in the English, the one, two, three, fourth paragraph down, it's in the plural.

JUDGE KWON: Plural of trenches and bunkers?

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think that's ever been in any doubt or dispute. We have the witness's answer to the last question, that he says that that's where bodies were found, in spite of other -- and that's to be ⁴⁰⁹¹⁷ compared with other evidence about them being found in places other than trenches and bunkers. That's how I understood the cross-examination. If I've misunderstood, it can be dealt with in re-examination.

MR. KAY: That's why I have said nothing, but there is this issue in how the question was being put.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just put the question again for me.

MR. NICE: First of all, I'm going to try and find the way the passage was -- find the way the passage was read by the interpreters. I'm afraid I'm having a bit of trouble finding the page number. If anybody gets there before me, perhaps they'd give me the page number.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone. I'm afraid we cannot hear the accused. Could he speak into the microphone or --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to draw your attention that in front of this paragraph not only are trenches mentioned in the plural but trenches, communicating trenches and bunkers, three types of facilities, fortification, which, as you can see, were placed throughout the village, in the plural, and covering several dozens of metres.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I asked Mr. Nice to reformulate the question.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated] ... when he sees difficulties coming, that's an observation I make after months of listening to it happen. Second, I will return to the question. Third, I'm just going to remind us all exactly what the passage of the evidence given earlier -- it's at page 48 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've asked Mr. Nice to do ⁴⁰⁹¹⁸ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁰⁹¹⁹ something. Let him do it. When he's finished, if you have a point, you can make it.

MR. NICE: The interpretation provided by the interpreters was: "Taking trenches and bunkers that were used by the Siptar terrorists, members of the police in them, in addition to the mentioned corpses found and took away 36 automatic rifles," et cetera.

We then came to the end of that passage, so the plural of trenches and bunkers had of course been used in the translation provided for us as in the earlier English version provided, and I asked this question: "The original Serbian text makes it absolutely clear that the weapons, including the 36 automatic rifles, were said to have been found in the trench where the bodies were found. Clear?" He said: "It's clear what it says in this paragraph," to that question. And it goes on from there, and I don't think we returned to that issue until a little bit later. Now, the question that I'm asking the witness now, I'm not sure I can find it again --

JUDGE BONOMY: 53 until 54.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

Q. "It's claimed that the 36 rifles were found with the bodies in the bunker. If you want bunkers in the plural, we'll say that. It's claimed that the 36 automatic rifles were found with the bodies in the bunkers and that those of you who were covering up this crime overlooked, I would suggest, that because bodies were found all round the village if they had been fighting there would have been rifles beside them." That's what I asked you. Did you understand my question? ⁴⁰⁹²⁰

A. What I can say is this: In this passage, it says taking bunkers and trenches and --

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak slowly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And took away 36 automatic rifles.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're being asked to speak more slowly by the interpreters.

JUDGE KWON: And if he could repeat his answer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Repeat the answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the paragraph, it says the following, as far as I can see: "Taking the trenches and bunkers which were used by the Siptar terrorists, members of the police, in addition to the corpses, found 36 rifles, automatic rifles of Chinese production, and other weapons." And also it says, "In addition to the corpses, a large number of casings of different calibre were found which the terrorists used to shoot at the police with."

Now, I didn't understand the question by the Prosecutor. Could he repeat his question, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, for the last time, to repeat the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. Your understand is that the weapons were found where the bodies were said to have been found, at trenches and bunkers, singular or plural, doesn't matter, but that's where the weapons and bodies were found; correct?

A. The corpses weren't found in one place in the conflict between the ⁴⁰⁹²¹ police and the --

Q. Don't -- Mr. Jasovic --

A. -- the Albanian terrorists.

Q. -- don't make the mistake of tailoring your evidence to interventions by the accused. Give us your answer. What does this document provide us and what did you understand the position to be, that -- listen to me: That the weapons and bodies were found in the same place, the trenches and bunkers where the bodies were found; correct?

A. I cannot see that it says in the same place here. Taking of trenches and bunkers where, in addition to the corpses found, there were weapons which were found and confiscated, 36 rifles, et cetera.

Q. That text, that --

A. I cannot see here that they were found in the same place.

Q. -- the question I asked you earlier and that's the question you answered earlier and that's what this Serbian text reveals and that's why I asked you to read it out carefully. You're simply trying to change an account to meet a difficulty.

Let me explain this to you, Mr. Jasovic: The other places we looked at on that map - in fact all of the places; the gully itself and all the other places where three men were found together, single people were found to have died - not one of them had a trench there or a bunker. Can you explain from the documents you've seen, if explanation is possible, an account of how people died at places other than with trenches and bunkers? Can you?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, let me repeat again: I wasn't on that location. ⁴⁰⁹²² You're giving me the chronology of events in the village of Racak. I wasn't there, so I cannot explain how, where, what. Probably the people who took part in the conflict with the Albanian KLA terrorists, that is to say the policemen that were in this clash, could explain that to you. All I can do is to stand by my documents related to my line of work. I don't know whether you understand that. I was very brief here. It doesn't say who signed this chronology of events for the Racak affair. This is the first time that I see this piece of paper.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, when this matter was first raised, the question was: "The truth is that it was known to the police, and I must suggest this to you, it was known to the police and all of you dealing with this event that bodies had indeed been killed all over the village, as Danica Marinkovic may ultimately be shown to have said. What do you say to that?" And your answer was: "I say to that that it is not true." Now you say you don't know.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that it wasn't true in a number of places. I said that it wasn't true what the Prosecutor said, that the corpses were found in one place. I wasn't there on the spot. Mrs. Danica Marinkovic was. She was the head of the investigating team and the team of people who were there.

I wasn't on the site myself, so I can't say specifically. I don't know if I'm making myself clear enough.

MR. NICE:

Q. I want to take a -- I will move to another point, to repeat it, ⁴⁰⁹²³ and in case it's a bad point, to give you a chance to deal with it. The point is this: As you remember, I explained to you the evidence is that there were two houses in which people were hiding from the army and the police. They were both directed to the gully, but one group was fortunate enough to escape, and they survived. The other group was massacred in the gully, on the evidence.

The group that survived, unless we've missed the names from your latest pile of documents, which we haven't been able fully to analyse, but the other group are not shown to have been members of the KLA at all. I'll just read out the names on the evidence that we've got so that you can go away and do your homework, and if you can find a document, that's fine. Not fine, it's of interest, but I don't want to take a bad point. Rama Beqa, Hamdi Beqa, Ekrem Hajrizi, Bashkim Hajrizi, Gjylferi Jakupi, Selve Jakupi, Lirije Jakupi, Shpejtim Jakupi, Shqipri Jakupi, Shefqet Jakupi, Sabahate Musliu, Hasime Musliu, Ilaz Imeri, Lulzim whose last name is unknown, Hyzer Emini, Hanumsha Emini, Imer Emini, Mervet Emini, Blerim Emini, Hysni Emini, Azemine Emini, Enver Emini, Haki Emini, Hazir Emini, Ilir Emini, and Antigona Emini, Shemsi Emini, Ragip Emini, Ismet Emini, Xheme Beqa.

Now, I think that's the list of people who were lucky enough to escape. You may well have material going to suggest that they are members of the KLA and it hasn't yet been produced to us, but if there is no such material, can you explain the oddity that the one house that's massacred is shown to be KLA and the one house that escapes is not?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. ⁴⁰⁹²⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be given some information. Where is Mr. Nice reading those names from, these individuals who allegedly had escaped from a house? Where does he find them, in what document?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: In an analysis of the evidence in the case, and I'm not in a position to turn to a single document at the moment. If it's material, I'll turn up the detail. My colleagues have provided the material from the evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's already in evidence.

MR. NICE: I understand so, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not in a position to identify any specific place where it may be found.

MR. NICE: Not at the moment, but we'll do it -- we'll do it later.

Q. May I have an answer to the question, Mr. Jasovic? If it's the case. I mean, you --

A. I'm looking at the names and surnames of these individuals. I can't remember whether any of these were KLA members. I can't remember that. To the best of my recollection -- well, I don't know. I don't think -- well, with the information that I have, at least. You can ask, Mr. Prosecutor, but, well, I haven't paid attention to the names but I'm looking at them now.

Q. One of them is one of your informers. 1.51 is Shemsi Emini, I ⁴⁰⁹²⁵ think. So you should know that name.

A. Which one? What did you say?

Q. Shemsi Emini.

A. Well, if that's what it says, then most probably that is the case, but as I say, I can't quite remember now.

Q. Or one of your alleged informants. Right. Let's look at a few more things about this history before I turn to the individual statements, as I am afraid I must. But --

MR. NICE: And the Chamber will find my questions derived from the materials in volume 2 at this stage of the Prosecution's Jasovic binder. And I can immediately return to a point that the witness dealt with when he listed members of the KLA who were found at Racak. Are you aware, Mr. Jasovic, that evidence has been given that indeed members of the KLA were in Racak, that indeed members of the KLA were killed and that their bodies were taken away the same night by the KLA. Are you aware of that evidence?

A. I'm not aware of that. However, now as I was reading the documents, in Leskovac I learned that in addition to those 40 another five members of the KLA died in the same clash. These were members of the KLA whose names I listed earlier. Based on the statements I took, my notes and information, I was able to derive these five names.

Q. I'm putting to you now things provided to us by somebody called Agim Kamberi, who is the village leader in Racak and was a resident at the time. Is there anything you want to say adverse about Agim Kamberi before I explain what I can put to you coming from him? ⁴⁰⁹²⁶

A. As for that particular person, I have no comment, either a positive or negative one, simply because I don't remember the person.

Q. He makes the point that at the time, several time in Racak were actively engaged in the Mother Teresa Association and that in that capacity they would have provided food to the KLA.

MR. NICE: The Court will see this under -- on the document if you've opened it at tab 6 and -- sorry. Before I come to that, Your Honour will see that at number 8 this is an example of a KLA person who died being identified by a witness, but the point about Mother Teresa picks up at number 11 as an example where it's said that Nijazi Zymeri was one person who was an active supporter of the Mother Teresa Association, as was, I think, one or two others are dealt with in terms.

Q. Would membership of the Mother Teresa Association excite such anger on the part of the police that you would categorise them as KLA members?

A. I don't know whether there was Mother Teresa Association in Racak. I know that there was civilian defence within the KLA structure which collected donations to buy food and other necessities. I'm not aware that there was such an association in this village.

As far as I can remember, I think that there were some foreign humanitarian organisations delivering food to Racak. I believe that that was in the fall of 1998, but I'm not sure.

In several statements it is stated that Albanian terrorists basically confiscated from the villagers the food items, and that was one of the reasons why the Racak residents moved from that village to other ⁴⁰⁹²⁷ more peaceful locations.

Q. I'm not sure that you actually answered my question, though. Would membership of the Mother Teresa Association lead to you categorising people as members of the KLA?

A. I don't know. I don't know anything about the membership. I simply don't remember and I couldn't answer that question. You know, I took a lot of statements. If I were to go through all of those documents in their entirety, but otherwise I couldn't answer your question.

JUDGE KWON: Can I ask -- can I take up that question further. Assisting the KLA, is it criminal, according to the law of Serbia at that time? Not being a member, just assisting the KLA, such as food, et cetera? Is it prohibited by the laws?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is a crime of assisting terrorists by providing fuel or other necessities. Yes, there was such a criminal offence.

This pertains to the members of the KLA, but I couldn't explain whether it would be a crime if -- if the KLA members received humanitarian aid through some legal humanitarian organisations. I really wouldn't know about that. But based on the documents, I can tell you the following: The necessities were delivered to them through regular channels, to the KLA, because they built roads and there were roads connecting their village with surrounding villages.

JUDGE KWON: Were the family members of KLA even prohibited from offering such assistance as food? Would they be -- would they be ⁴⁰⁹²⁸ prosecuted for offering such assistance?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They wouldn't. Family members could not be members of the KLA unless they actually joined the KLA.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I shall certainly be now referring myself to the schedule. I have the updated version if you'd like it for distribution, and although I don't want to flood you with paper, if it would be helpful to have it now rather than later with the two additional -- three additional rows on it, we can do that. And I also make one available to the witness --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let it be distributed.

MR. NICE: -- even though it's in English. He can understand the logic of it. I'll explain it to him briefly.

Q. While it's being distributed, look at this document. Take it out of the folder. Take it out of the folder, please, Mr. Jasovic. You'll see that it lists along the top -- if you look at the top, you'll find the names of all those people your materials suggest may be members of the KLA. Do you see the names starting at Bajrami Ragip and Beqiri Halim and so on. And then going down the left-hand side it identifies your alleged sources of information, starting with Bajram Hiseni who it is said gave a statement or information on the 9th of July of 1998. It then runs down this page and down subsequent pages chronologically. You'll see that the grid has crosses marked on it for who has been identified by whom, so that if you look at the third, fourth row, you'll see that somebody called Sali Emini is said on the 11th of ⁴⁰⁹²⁹ August of 1998 to have identified Bujar Hajrizi and Myfail Hajrizi as members of the KLA. This is a document available for use if it is of use. Now, if we turn to the man Lutfi Bilalli, is it right that the -- this is number 14 on the other document that the Court may be looking at, is it right that he was a co-village leader who assisted the KLA by giving them food?

A. As for Lutfi Bilalli, I can tell you this: Once the substaff of the KLA was established, so was the civilian defence of the KLA. Civilian defence was not only in charge of collecting money in order to procure food, necessities, fuel, and so on. The person in charge of civilian defence was also in charge of placing checkpoints. He, as the head of civilian defence, was the one who allocated, who would man those checkpoints during daytime or night-time. We had such checkpoints -- or they had such checkpoints in Racak itself and around the village.

Q. My suggestion to you on the basis of the material available to us is that he may indeed have been a person in charge of some matters of civilian defence but that that's as far as the evidence allows it to go, apart from your statements, and he was a provider of food to the KLA.

A. It wasn't just the food, Mr. Prosecutor. In addition to food, this also involved the following: I forgot to mention that the head of civilian defence also took care of fortifications. He was in charge of all the work regarding digging trenches, communication trenches, bunkers, and so on. He was the one who assigned persons to man certain checkpoints in order to monitor the movements of policemen and so on.

Q. But there would be no -- even assuming you're right on that, there ⁴⁰⁹³⁰ would be absolutely no excuse for liquidating, to use Radosavljevic's word, to liquidate somebody who manned a checkpoint unless he fired first, would there?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, the police did not have a task to kill, to liquidate. No. They went out to locate and arrest the persons who were suspected of having committed terrorist acts.

Q. I thought you knew nothing of the operation. So you don't know whether they went there to liquidate or to arrest, do you?

A. Sir, while I was still in uniform, I know that according to the law it is not the task of police to go out and kill or liquidate.

JUDGE BONOMY: This is what I don't understand about your evidence at the moment: When you're given a chance to answer a question, a general question not specific to this occasion, you avoid it for some reason. Now, the general question that was asked here was simply if someone was in charge of a checkpoint, that alone would not justify killing him unless he fired first. Now, why don't you just answer that question, in the round, in general, without reference to anything specific here? Can you answer it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, unless the person in question is resisting, is putting up resistance, there is no reason to liquidate that person, unless they're putting up armed resistance.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's move on to somebody else --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. ⁴⁰⁹³¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Here in these charts, Mr. Jasovic's name is mentioned in several cases. I'm not sure that he can fully understand that because all of this is in English, and I don't think that it is acceptable to provide documents in English to the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the specific parts that were mentioned, I think, would have been translated.

MR. NICE:

Q. Let's, if we may, turn to the next one I'd like you to look at, please. If you look at the top row, Mr. Jasovic, you'll find Hakip Imeri. See him, he is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 along from the top. Hakip Imeri. Have you got him?

A. Yes.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... the first page, he's not referred to there, so if Mr. Prendergast takes us to the second page, he's not referred to there; if he takes us to the third page, and if you go to the third page, please, you'll see a big black line. The big black line means the event of Racak.

And on this page Hakip Imeri comes to be mentioned as somebody who died in Racak, and there he is mentioned on the 16th of January as a member of the KLA. We then turn over to the next page. He gets a second mention, Mr. Hakip Imeri.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Has he found it?

MR. NICE: I don't know. Have you found it there?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed slowly in view of the fact that it's not ⁴⁰⁹³² in his language.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

Q. Have you seen that -- there it is -- you were there -- right the first time. Did you find the cross that shows that Hakip Imeri was identified apparently by Mustafa Afrim -- immediately under the black line, Mr. Prendergast, where you're -- that's right. To the left. It's about one, two, three. It's the right hand of those five crosses. So he was identified there.

And if we go to the next sheet, we can see the top of the next sheet where we can see the names, he's identified in the statement of Fadil Zymberi on the 20th of January 1999. So he was identified twice. What do you know, Mr. Jasovic, about Hakip Imeri? What do you know about him? Your statements say he's a member of the KLA.

A. I don't know the person in question.

Q. You see, this man was mentally ill. He wasn't capable even of looking after himself. So perhaps you'd like to tell the Court, please, what you say Hakip Imeri was capable of doing for the KLA.

A. I don't know whether he was mentally ill.

Q. Well, let's take a -- I see. You don't know anything about him at all, do you?

JUDGE KWON: Why don't we offer him the --

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

JUDGE KWON: If you would like to hear the answer, witness's answer right now, it's fair to offer him the statement.

MR. NICE: I'm only too happy, but of course they're in English ⁴⁰⁹³³ and I'll read the whole statement out to him. He can have it --

JUDGE KWON: No, his statements.

MR. NICE: Oh, certainly his statements, Your Honour, yes. I'm only too happy to do that.

JUDGE KWON: If he could be reminded.

MR. NICE: It will take some time but I realise this witness has to take some time. I'm quite happy to do that. And if you'd like to see first of all, then, 1.43, which you can conveniently find in the Prosecution's bundle 1 of 2, Mr. Prendergast, because we can then see what the -- 1.43.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, it's time for the break.

MR. NICE: Yes, I understand that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll --

JUDGE KWON: And why don't we give him the relevant tabs and read them through the break.

MR. NICE: He may prefer to rest at the break but it's up to him.

JUDGE KWON: Why don't we offer him -- could you point that tab number.

MR. NICE: Yes, this one is 1.4 -- it's in -- in the Prosecution's bundle of documents for cross-examination, volume 1, tab 2, at 1.43; and the second one is to be found in the same volume at 2.23.

JUDGE KWON: Those will be offered to the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The court deputy will see to that. We'll break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m. ⁴⁰⁹³⁴

--- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The answer to His Honour Judge Kwon's question about the list of people found in the other house is it was in the statement of Drita Emini, a witness who was taken 92 bis, Exhibit 174 at pages 11 and 12 of the document.

The witness has now had an opportunity of looking at 1.43 and had already, of course, been taken in part through 2. -- the other relevant document, 2.23, in which this particular man Hakip Imeri is mentioned.

Q. I repeat my question: What, if anything, do you know about this man, Mr. Jasovic?

A. I don't know anything about Hakip Imeri. I don't know the person.

Q. You see, his name was mentioned first by somebody, 1.43, to whom we'll return, and then secondly by the person who gave a very long list of names, you say, and who we considered earlier today. But let's come back to 1.43.

MR. NICE: If the Court's having got the Prosecution's binder or the original binder open at 1.43, there are a couple of things that I should deal with.

First, there is a very clear and potentially significant translation error in the English at the second sheet, which is marked page 3. And if the witness would like to go in the Serbian to the last page and to the last substantive paragraph, and if indeed it can be laid -- if the Serbian can be laid on the overhead projector, then the interpreters can confirm the error. ⁴⁰⁹³⁵ The paragraph -- the paragraph in English on what is numbered page 3 at the bottom. At the bottom. It's the second page of the document. Reads: "I heard that the following members of the so-called KLA were arrested during the fighting on the 15th of January." Strike out the words "were arrested." The witness will confirm that in the original the words "liseni zivota" mean "lost their lives."

The second bit of housekeeping for this tab is that the Court will remember that it proposed the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you get an answer for that?

MR. NICE: Sorry.

Q. I'm right, am I, that it means "lost their lives"?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Thank you.

A. "The following members of the so-called KLA lost their lives," and then the names follow.

MR. NICE: Next bit of housekeeping: The Court will recall in respect of this next information that was first dealt with at the time of the evidence of Danica Marinkovic that it proposed we took a certain course of action, that action's been taken, here is an analysis document that I'm going to distribute that you may wish to place at the end of 1.43 and I'll deal with it in questioning with the witness, and there's also a revised index coming, but the document itself, which will be self-explanatory as soon as you view it, should be lodged at the end of this block.

Q. Now, if you're looking, please, at the statement 1.43, the ⁴⁰⁹³⁶ statement of -- you say, the statement of Afrim Mustafa, in this statement he purports to identify Hakip Imeri as a member of the KLA. Is that right?

A. Where can I find the name Hakip Imeri; on the first page or elsewhere?

Q. You can find in -- it's at the foot of the first page in English, and in the Serbian it's about eight lines up from the bottom of the first page. Xheladini, then it says Hakip Imeri.

A. Yes, Haki Xheladini, Hakip Imeri, son of Imer. Yes, I've found it.

Q. Now, this statement was said to have been signed by Afrim Mustafa. Do you remember that?

A. I can confirm the authenticity of the statement taken by me because it was signed by Mustafa, Afrim Mustafa, Mr. Sparavalo, and myself.

Q. As you know, because you've been cross-examined by this -- about this in another case, this young man says that he was taken to the police station --

A. Yes.

Q. -- he was assaulted one way and another by you and your colleague, screamed at, and electrocuted. Do you remember that? Until one of you said, "Let him go. He's a child."

A. That is not true. First of all -- I don't know if my microphone is on. First of all, I don't know, I don't remember, and it doesn't state so whether the said person was brought in or not. It just says here that ⁴⁰⁹³⁷ the interview was conducted with Afrim Mustafa. Based on the statement, I can see that he stated where the KLA staff in Racak was, then he mentions about 80 members of the KLA there, he mentions checkpoints, and one checkpoint in a place called Cesta, and so on.

Q. You see, nothing, according to your account of how you dealt with him, to make his signature anything other than a normal signature, is there?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, this is his signature. No force or coercion were used, nor was his statement extorted from him.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... looked at the signatures, forensic scientists, and he's found differences so that he can express no opinion one way or another whether it's by the same person, although he allows for the possibility of forgery because of the differences. What do you say to that?

JUDGE BONOMY: What on earth could that establish?

MR. NICE: It's in the document that I just provided.

JUDGE BONOMY: It may do, but how on earth does it challenge the answer the witness has just given?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it doesn't necessarily --

JUDGE BONOMY: Everything's possible in this world, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Everything's possible and handwriting experts are perhaps regularly found to be unable to be conclusive, but they certainly don't find it's the same signature and they do find differences.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what I read the opinion as saying. It says no opinion can be reached whether the signatures Q1 and Q2 were ⁴⁰⁹³⁸ written by the author of the reference signature. Surely that doesn't lead you to interpret it or phrase it in the way you've just done.

MR. NICE: "No conclusions can be reached," it says, "whether questioned are written by the same. The differences observed -" second paragraph but one - "between the questioned signatures and the reference might indicate forgery when found in contemporary reference signatures and confirmed in the originals ... If, however, signatures (or other handwriting...) from Afrim Mustafa dating from the same period as the questioned police statement contained similar letters..." and then it goes into detail. I respectfully suggest the way I phrased it was to allow the possibility and it was fair.

Q. We may turn, please, now to the next person I want do deal with, and would you please look next or consider next with me, Mr. Jasovic, Nazmi Imeri. Now, if we look at the chart, and Mr. Prendergast I know will help us, Nazmi Imeri is about one, two -- ten lines across from the left. It doesn't feature on the first sheet. Doesn't feature on the second sheet.

On the third sheet we see he features beside the name of Ramiz Rosaj, 1.38, the statement of the 6th of January, 1999. So before Racak. And then we see his name features on the next sheet, in the alleged statement of Shemsi Emini of the 11th of February of 1999. This is another person -- well, I'll deal with that later. So two references to this man.

What can you tell us, please, if you can remember anything, about the involvement of Shemsi -- of Nazmi Imeri. What did he do? ⁴⁰⁹³⁹

JUDGE KWON: I didn't follow.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry, my mistake.

JUDGE KWON: It appears before the Racak incident?

MR. NICE: Yes. On the third sheet he appears in the statement of Ramiz Rosaj.

JUDGE KWON: Is it not Muhamet Ismalji?

MR. NICE: Have I got the wrong line? I'm so sorry; Your Honour is right and I'm wrong. It's only therefore in Shemsi Emini on page 4. My eyes were following the wrong line.

Q. So this man is named in Shemsi Emini, 1.51. If you want to look at 1.51, of course you can. Would you like to see that statement again?

A. Yes, I would like to see it, because I can't confirm the authenticity of my statement otherwise.

Q. 1.51 coming your way, or you can get it out of the binder. And Nazmi --

A. Imeri Nazmi.

Q. -- is listed as person you have seen in the uniform -- wearing uniform. In the village of -- not you, the alleged maker of the statement.

A. Well, I --

Q. It's in the second paragraph, and he says: "In the village of Racak, I saw the following people in uniforms."

A. Jakupi Anuhi [phoen].

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Jasovic -- or, rather, Mr. Robinson, in the Serbian translation it doesn't say in the village of ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁰ Racak. It's just a question of language, linguistics, because the paragraph, the passage begins in the Serbian, "In uniform...", "u uniformna."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found it now, yes. Armed with automatic rifles in the village of Racak. He saw them personally because he lives in the village. And he enumerates a number of names there, among them Nazmi Imeri.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'll tell you what the alleged maker of this statement says about the statement and see your comments. He says that this was on the day of the funeral, where he was picked up, taken to the police station, and beaten with baseball bats for about ten minutes, questioned, and then beaten again.

At one point he says they mentioned Ragip Bajrami and asked if he was a member of the KLA and he said -- the alleged statement maker said no, he's a civilian. He knew that Ragip Bajrami was killed in Racak but didn't dare mention that.

Did you beat this young -- this man?

A. What police station? I don't which place --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... did you beat this man born in 1967?

A. That's not true. It's not correct. But I wanted to answer your question. If he went to the funeral in Racak, he could not have been in Urosevac, arrested and detained in Urosevac.

Q. The circumstances of his detention, since you raise it: On the ⁴⁰⁹⁴¹ 11th of February he wanted to go to the funeral. He was driving through Stimlje. He was stopped with another young man, or another man, by the police. They said they were going to Racak. They were detained. They were taken to the police station at Stimlje, to a garage, handcuffed, forced to stand against the wall, the policeman saying, "Where is your gun," they saying they didn't. The policeman saying they were terrorists and members of the KLA, they denying that. Replied he had nothing to do with the events in Racak and hadn't lived there since August of 1998. Eventually he was taken, he says, to the station in Urosevac, interrogated in a room by several policemen to whom he said he was in Racak. So one of them said this: "How is it possible that you're from Racak when all the people were killed there?"

If you want the circumstances, those are the circumstances. What do you say to that?

A. I say this: I don't know whether it mentions here that the person was beaten in my office or what or something else. He -- in my office, physical force was certainly not used, or any other means of coercion vis-a-vis this individual.

Q. Well, the reason it's linked to you is because you've produced the statement, the witness, the potential witness has been seen, and that's the account he gives. But now that you've refreshed your memory from the statement you took, perhaps you'd like to help me again. What do you say was the role of Nazmi Imeri?

A. Nazmi Imeri, his role, well, he was a member of the KLA, and Emini Shemsi says uniforms with KLA insignia, armed with automatic rifles in ⁴⁰⁹⁴² Racak. I saw them next -- and in addition to Nazmi Imeri, he names another -- some more individuals. And we know that members of the KLA with automatic rifles, we know what their role is. All the people who were members of the KLA from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police --

Q. Oh, did they? You know about that, do you?

A. Well, on the basis of statements. Yes, they were members of the KLA, according to this statement. In the village of Racak --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- they were all members of the KLA from Racak. They weren't static. They moved around. Racak, Rance, in that general direction.

Q. Well --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you, in which statements was it said that all the people who were members of the KLA from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have over 700 statements, and in the statements, looking through the material, I happened to notice that, in addition to other things, it says that KLA members were detained and that they had opened fire, and I'm taking an example, from Racak towards the main road of Stimlje- Moljevo [phoen], for example, or from another direction, from the direction of Rance and Petrastica. They're villages on the left-hand side and right-hand side of the road.

JUDGE BONOMY: This is all about Racak, isn't it? And you're saying that there are statements to the effect that all the people who ⁴⁰⁹⁴³ were members of the KLA, from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police.

Now, which -- which --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, members. Well, I can't remember now in which statements and the names and surnames of the people who, on the basis of the interview, gave statements.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's the sort of --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have --

JUDGE BONOMY: It's the sort of thing you would expect to see in a statement from a police officer who was under attack, but I wonder if it's the sort of thing you would expect to see in statements from the people you were taking statements from.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can tell you the truth quite sincerely, that in over 7 -- in over 70 -- 700 statements, there are statements to that effect which say that.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, these are crucial, crucial to this case, and you're telling us you know of their existence and they haven't been produced for the Defence in the case?

Give me an example of a person who has made such a crucial statement that everybody in the fortifications at Racak who was a KLA member was firing at the police.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not saying specifically for the event in Racak, because KLA members from the village of Racak opened fire. They weren't static, as I said. They gave assistance to members of the KLA in Rance, for example, and in other villages. ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁴

MR. NICE:

Q. Did you understand His Honour's questions to you? Did you?

A. I understood the question.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. The very fact that they were members of the KLA, or a person was a member of the KLA, meant that that individual or those individuals had the goal and task of waging or, rather, they organised themselves for a guerrilla warfare, for waging guerrilla warfare.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Jasovic, you said in answer to the question, you said, I cite it now: "All the people who were members from the KLA, from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police." Is it the description of what happened on 15th of January?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I say that a member of the KLA has the role of opening fire towards the police, opening fire at the police and at Serb citizens and at Albanians who didn't wish to join them.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, I'm confused. Are you saying that a member --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- had the role to do this or that it was actually done?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, members of the KLA formed their staff, and it was formed with the task of -- with the task of launching armed action, armed operations to gain political goals for an independent Kosovo. ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's still not clear to me what you're saying. Are you saying that is how the KLA operate? That's how you expect them to operate? I thought earlier you said that you had statements to the effect that all the members of the KLA opened fire.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the members of the KLA opened fire and launched terrorist attacks on the main road running from Stimlje. You come to the village of Racak first, but I'm taking a look at our area, including the Urosevac area up to Crnoljevo and the right and left-hand side of the road.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think there is a very small nuance of difference here leading to confusion. Mr. Kwon read out and said members of the KLA opened fire, I think he said, which means that something happened in the past tense. Whereas the witness, in describing what members of the KLA did, said they would open fire on, as a general rule of conduct. They would open fire and they would attack and they would shoot at civilians, which means they did in fact fire at civilians. But he didn't link this to one event but to their conduct in general. He was speaking about their conduct in general and said that the KLA opened fire or would open, and so on, and that people were killed as a result of that, policemen, civilians and others.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understand what you're saying, but is that consistent with his saying that he has statements to that effect?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know that. I can't say. ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁶ You'll have to ask him that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, can we then go back to the transcript to see exactly what the witness said?

MR. NICE: The transcript, which of course is all in English --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can we get that in Serb?

MR. NICE: That will take some time, because you have to get the tape for the answer. It may be possible to do it overnight.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can it be done while we wait?

MR. NICE: I think not. I'm not aware of anyway --

JUDGE BONOMY: This is pretty crucial.

JUDGE KWON: If the interpreters can assist us.

THE INTERPRETER: In what way, Your Honour? We don't remember what we said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll have to get the Serb transcript, and if it's not available now, then how soon would that be available?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's not the transcript, of course, it will be tape itself, and that can, I think, be done overnight without any trouble. The question, as I follow it, is the question of His Honour Judge Bonomy at 84, page 84, line 1: "Are you saying there are statements to the effect that the people who were members of the KLA, from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police?" To which the witness is recorded: "Yes, members --" "Well, I can't remember now in which statements, and the names and surnames of the people who, on the basis of the interview, gave statements." It's that passage, I think. ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁷

JUDGE KWON: No, his original answer appears at page 83, from line 6.

MR. NICE: Yes, of course.

JUDGE BONOMY: That can't be checked by listening to a tape at this minute?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay. I understand it can't be done now, but as soon as we have the tape, Mr. Boas, that would be tomorrow? All right. We'll check to see, because Mr. Milosevic has indicated that there is a nuance which is causing the confusion and the word "would" should be there.

Proceed, Mr. Nice, and we'll try to resolve this later.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, just one last question on this. And again, don't be tempted to give an answer in light of any observations by the accused. Just tell us, when you answered my question, "All the people who were members of the KLA, from the fortifications opened fire in the direction of the police," and said that that was on the basis of statements, were you describing the position so far as Racak was concerned?

A. I was saying in general terms that in the statements, the people that I conducted interviews with, that they would give the names of KLA members, saying that they were armed with automatic weapons. And then after that, they said that the stated individuals from the KLA opened fire - I'm taking an example - from the direction of Racak, for instance, towards the main road, at the police, and from the Petrastica and Crnoljevo direction, that they opened fire. ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁸

Q. So regardless of the resolution of the particular language problem over the passage that you've spoken of, is your present position that there are no statements that actually cover what happened, no statements dealing specifically with what people in Racak did?

A. I didn't understand the question. Could you explain what you mean.

Q. There are -- there are no statements by witnesses suggesting or showing that people in Racak fired on the police and the army.

A. There are statements to the effect that the KLA members from the village of Racak fired towards the main road at the police, shot at the police at the main road. And in this specific case with respect to the event in Racak --

Q. Which statement --

A. Well, I don't know.

Q. That won't do, you see.

JUDGE BONOMY: We're talking about -- let's make it clear. We're talking about the 15th of January only, and we're talking about the incident only, and we're looking for statements in which it is said members of the KLA actually fired at the police.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can see now once again, just to hold the transcript there. Can we hold the transcript on the screen, just three lines? "[In English] KLA opened the fire." [Interpretation] That's ⁴⁰⁹⁴⁹ what it says. He didn't say they opened fire. He said they opened fire in a continuous present. "[In English] Opened the fire." [Interpretation] "Were opening fire," not "opened fire." "Were opening fire," not "opened fire." And he said a moment ago "were opening fire"; the present continuous tense was used.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that just makes it worse because the question is very --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Past continuous.

JUDGE BONOMY: The question is very clear. The question is: Are there statements in which witnesses said to you, or even a witness said to you, that on the 15th of January, from fortifications in Racak, members of the KLA opened fire on the police?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't remember, and I can't say in advance. I have a large number of statements. I can't tell you in advance, give you a yes or no whether there were or were not. I can't remember, because there's been a great deal of time that has passed since then, six years. So until I look through the entire material, I couldn't really give you an answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance, Mr. Bonomy?

MR. NICE: I would propose not.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, the --

JUDGE BONOMY: If you can point -- if you can give me the name of the witness and the tab number of the statement, yes. If not, no.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll give you the name of the witness who said that members of the KLA, on the 15th of January, in Racak ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁰ opened fire at the police. The witness testified here, and the KLA commander was Buja Shukri who under oath here testified and said that they opened fire.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what we're dealing with. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of what's going on here. What's going on here is a search for statements taken by this witness, Mr. Jasovic. Now, did he take a statement from Shukri Buja? Did he?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, but --

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is there a single witness who said that, that's what you asked, and I'm telling you that, yes, there is one.

MR. NICE: Can we turn -- with Your Honours' leave, I think --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Just dealing with this particular witness who we're looking at, 1.51, he explains that he had to sign the statement and was then released. Was forced to sign the statement. No doubt you'll challenge that. He doesn't deal specifically with whether this particular man who is listed in his statement is or is not a member of the KLA. Do you understand? In his statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, he doesn't know, probably doesn't say, doesn't express opinion one way or the other, about whether Mr. Nazmi Imeri is a member of the KLA. But you've had him, in a statement, saying that he's in uniform.

Mathematics, I don't know whether you're good at it or not, but 99 take away 22 is 77, isn't it? ⁴⁰⁹⁵¹

A. That's right. 99 minus 22 is 77.

Q. Yes. Would you like to tell, please, what a 77-year-old, born in 1922, was doing in a KLA uniform? For that's the age of this man who died at Racak. Do you follow me?

A. I don't know what individual you're referring to.

Q. The man we've been talking about who you've said, in defence of this accused, was a member of the KLA at the time he died at Racak, Nazmi Imeri. He was 77. Tell us, please, what he was doing.

A. I don't know what his age was, and Emini Shemsi voluntarily gave a statement, as did Mehmet Mustafa. At the time he was 60 years old, and it was in his house that the staff was to be -- was located, and he was seen with a rifle at this Cesta place.

Now, this man Shemsi Emini does not describe what he did. He just describes him as being a KLA member. I don't know this Nazmi person. I don't know him.

Q. All right. Let's look at one other before I turn to another topic. Would you take your chart, please, and look to the second name, Halim Beqiri. He lost his life at Racak on the night of the 15th of January, 1999.

We'll just trace what we know about him from your materials. Nothing on the first sheet, nothing on the second sheet, indeed nothing before Racak on the third sheet. On the fourth sheet we see he's named in one statement, Nazmi Imeri's statement. Do you see that? Perhaps you'd like to look at that.

We'll look at his statement, which is the statement of -- it's 1.5 ⁴⁰⁹⁵² but it's also 1.56, but in our bundle I think it will be 1.5. 1.50, rather, 1.50. So if you'd like to have a look at the statement that you took from this particular alleged potential witness Namzija Zimeri, and he speaks of Halim Beqiri, apparently.

A. Nazmi.

Q. Just look at the statement and satisfy yourself.

JUDGE KWON: In the middle of page 3.

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

Q. And in a great list of people, you identify this person, Halim Beqiri. Do you see the name there?

A. Yes, I found him.

Q. Tell us what he did.

A. He was a member of the KLA.

Q. What did he do?

A. It doesn't say that here in the statement, what he did, as far as I can see.

Q. Easy to list people, isn't it? Sure he wasn't too old to be an active member of the KLA? Was he another 77-year-old?

JUDGE KWON: Did he say that Halim Beqiri was a member of the KLA in this statement?

MR. NICE: We certainly take it that that was the reason and that's what he's just told us. He's read his statement. It's what he intended to record.

Q. This person was in the KLA, was he? It's your statement, tell us.

A. Just a moment, please. Yes, "I personally know that the so-called ⁴⁰⁹⁵³ KLA in the village of Racak included the following persons," and then he goes on from Bilalli Afet further on.

Q. So there he is. Member of the KLA. Sure he's not too old for the job?

A. I don't know when he was born.

Q. He was 13 years old, or thereabouts. What was he doing for the KLA when he lost the balance of his life to Serb police or soldiers? What was he doing?

A. I don't know what duties he had, because the person who gave the statement does not refer to his role in the KLA.

Q. Well, let's review -- let's just review what the alleged provider of this information says about the circumstances in which this statement listing so many members of the KLA took place, what the circumstances were. It's in English, so you can have it to look at, but the Judges have it at the beginning of 1. --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, you have the age of his brother Halim Beqa?

MR. NICE: Not to hand, but I may find it. I'm afraid I don't have that to hand. I'll try and look that up.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. The witness says that on a morning in February he received a phone call from the police in Stimlje, saying that he should go to the municipal building and speak to the police. He went there with his brother, provided identification, told they couldn't travel further but to go to Ferizaj, to follow the police. They arrived at your police station, went ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁴ to the third floor, where they found there were just -- they were just two of some 20 people, all brought there under similar circumstances. He saw two people who he can name, Naser and Ali from Malopoljce, and they were held on the third floor until about 4.00 that day when they were taken away for an interview.

He was spoken to by you and a further person whose name he can't recall. He was interviewed for about two hours, shown photographs of people who he was told had been killed, and these were indeed of people already dead. He was distressed on seeing a picture of his deceased brother Nijazi.

The events of August 1998 in Racak were discussed with him, including the discovery of medicines at his brother's home. The drugs were -- prescription drugs were indeed found there. This was a matter that concerned you. He was asked whether the people shown in the photographs were members of the KLA. He recognised most, if not all of the people, and that none of them were KLA members. He particularly remembers being shown a picture of Lutfi Bilalli, a person upon whom, as we'll see from the records, you focussed a lot of attention. You then said, "You cannot know him. He's the biggest separatist. He's a member of the KLA military police." Was that your view of Lutfi Bilalli?

A. That's not true. I understand this person for not wishing to confirm the authenticity of his statement. I understand him. Again, I can say in his case that his own life would be in jeopardy, the lives of his family would be in jeopardy, he'd be isolated. ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁵

Q. Let's just go on.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you answer the question, though, which was that you said to him, "You cannot know him, he's the biggest separatist. He's a member of the KLA military police." And you were then asked, "Was that your view of Lutfi Bilalli?" Was it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not true that that's what I said to him. First and foremost, as for --

JUDGE BONOMY: Let's go back to -- okay, I understand that. Was it your view of him?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not correct. That was not my view, because Lutfi Bilalli was not a member of the military police. Lutfi Bilalli was head of the civilian defence. How could I say anything else if he was head of the civilian defence? It can be seen here that --

MR. NICE:

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... was then taken the following day in a Land Rover by you to the mortuary and introduced to Danica Marinkovic. Do you remember doing that, for the purposes of identification of bodies, although it didn't happen because I think the smell of the bodies was too strong, but still? Do you remember taking him to the mortuary and introducing him to Danica Marinkovic?

A. I did not, and I do not remember taking him there. I do not recall doing that at all.

Q. He was taken back to your police station. The following morning he returned again, was placed in a conference room, and eventually forced -- obliged to sign a document - he accepts it's his signature - the ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁶ contents of which were entirely alien to him. Just made it up.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, it can be seen here that it was on the 5th of February that the interview was conducted and that the person signed that statement on the 5th of February, that the person was not kept overnight.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm going to turn from tab 6 -- oh, yes. I'm going to turn from tab 6 because we can't cover, obviously, everything and I've got to put the case about most of these statements to this witness one way or another but I have other things to deal with as well.

Q. If we can look briefly at tab 7. There's just one detail. This may not be able to help me, but if you can, so much the better. Are you aware of the publication called "Fallen Heroes" which records members of the KLA who lost their lives in the conflict?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. I'll just hold them up so you see them. We've got extracts from them. They look like this. They're published works. Do you see them? Are you aware from your knowledge of the territory and the attitude of the people and the consequences of being recorded as a member of the KLA that in some cases people who died, not as fighting members of the KLA, their families would want them recorded in such books as members of the KLA in some cases?

A. I don't know about that. I never saw this book.

Q. Are you aware from your knowledge of the territory generally that those who lost their lives in these wars and are recorded as so doing sometimes get financial benefits or, rather, their families get financial benefits if it's shown that they were fighters and warriors? ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁷

A. I don't have that information.

Q. Very well. I take no further of your time on that, but that's -- the Court can see -- if the Court wants to see the particular case of the Prosecution on this point, it's in tab 7, and it's at paragraph 22. I turn to tab 8. Were you aware of somebody called Afet Bilalli?

A. I did not know him. It's only on the basis of statements that I know that he was commander of the substaff of the KLA for the village of Racak.

Q. Correct. And, therefore, you would accept that he would be a person knowing who was active warriors for the -- or fighters for the KLA at the material time?

A. Well, yes, probably since he was commander he knows the names and surnames of the men on his unit.

Q. One particular person I just want to deal with with him. I've dealt with the substance of what he says through other witnesses as well. Sadik Osmani, he was a member of the Mother Teresa Humanitarian Association, wasn't he?

A. I don't know.

Q. He was a schoolteacher. Did you know that?

A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that because I don't know the person.

Q. Would you accept that if a village like Racak found itself under attack - and we're dealing with unusual social circumstances in Kosovo by comparison with, say, this part of Europe - if a village like that was under attack, people would go and gather in the house of an individual ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁸ rather than leave themselves in their own individual houses? Would you accept that would be a standard reaction?

A. Well, I cannot really give an answer to that.

Q. Very well. I turn, then, to the general circumstances. I asked you some questions about it yesterday under the heading of police state. Now I'm going to return to that topic for this reason: People at your police station, faced with the prospect of signing statements or not signing them, would have to take account of what they knew of the regime of the police in Kosovo, wouldn't they?

A. Well, that's not right. The persons signed their statements voluntarily.

Q. And I'm going to suggest to you that you and your colleague or colleagues knew full well that people coming to the police station would be in fear because there would be a general reputation attached to your place station of great violence, and particularly to your police station.

A. Well, it's not true, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. Isn't it? Tell us how Ismajl Raka died.

A. This is the first time I hear that he died.

Q. What do you --

A. I don't know who he was interviewed by or whether he was interviewed by anyone.

Q. You assume that somebody died following an interview. I hadn't asked you that. I just asked you a name, and I asked you how he died.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, that was not my assumption, that someone died. I don't know. I said specifically about him that I don't know. I'm not ⁴⁰⁹⁵⁹ aware of that case at all.

Q. How many people died in police custody at Urosevac during your time there?

A. This is a room, a room for detention, and I know that not a single person died in that room, in the detention room.

Q. I'm not concerned about the room for the time being. I'm concerned with how many people died while at or immediately following a spell at the police station during your time there. How many?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. No recollection of people -- this is in tab 9 at page 7, paragraph 26. No recollection of 1995 or 1996 when this man Ismajl Raka, on a Saturday, left - and I use a neutral word - the fourth-floor window of the police station? No recollection of that?

I'm reading, let me remind you, from the statement of a former colleague.

A. I do not remember that. Members of the state security worked on the fourth floor, and I do not recall this case.

Q. I don't mean to be flippant, but does it mean that if the body goes from the fourth floor past your floor you would never have heard about it? Come now, Mr. Jasovic. If this happened -- and we'll be able to approach it in another way: If this happened, it would be, surely, a memorable event, that if somebody falls from the fourth floor of a police station to his death. Do you have no recollection of this? Think a little harder.

A. I'm telling you sincerely that I do not recall and that I'm not ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁰ aware of this case, because I cannot talk just like that if I don't know something.

Q. The same colleague of yours speaks of somebody from the family Kurti, K-u-r-t-i. Do you remember that family?

A. The last name Kurti is one that I remember, but I don't know any family by that name. Probably I remember that last name from statements, but I cannot recall what my actual recollection is.

Q. Did the man you interviewed by the name of Kurti simply become one of the disappeared after your interview? Did he just disappear after you'd interviewed him?

A. I don't remember that this person was with me. If there is some documents stating anything, please let me have a look at it. I cannot answer questions here just off-the-cuff.

Q. That is in tab -- tab 9 -- sorry. Yes, tab 9, at paragraph 38, page 10, in English.

MR. NICE: I'll conclude as rapidly as I can tomorrow, but I'm sorry that the matters are so detailed that I've had to be some time, and we'll deal with the language problem as soon as the tape's available. I don't know if the Court -- I'm happy to go on, but if the Court is looking for --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll stop, but I was just noting that the witness is to be shown tab 9.

MR. NICE: It's in English.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's in English?

MR. NICE: Yes. ⁴⁰⁹⁶¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Tomorrow. We stand adjourned until tomorrow, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 17th day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.