⁴⁰⁹⁶²

Friday, 17 June 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you continue, just to note that we are in receipt of a filing from the head of the interpretation unit with regard to that disputed passage and its interpretation, and the English transcript should be corrected to read: "All the people who are members of the KLA would open fire from the fortifications in the direction of the police."

I believe you would have received that. Mr. Milosevic is to be thanked for his intervention.

WITNESS: DRAGAN JASOVIC [Resumed]

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, I was dealing with death in custody yesterday, and I'm going to continue with that theme for a short while. Kacanik was also an area broadly within your interest, yes?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, what I can tell you is that the Kacanik area is an area that I have much fewer information than for the Stimlje area, because in Kacanik area it was peaceful practically until --

Q. Very well. ⁴⁰⁹⁶³

A. -- until --

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't hear the month.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And therefore I have fewer information concerning this area.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'm cross-examining from a document to be found in volume 2 your materials at tab 9, page 9 of 17.

Do you remember an incident in mid-1998 when, in fact, it was Serb policemen who killed another Serb policeman in the Kacanik area? Policemen concerned who did the killing were Ljubisa Boskovic and Slobodan Jankovic. So it was Serb on Serb. Do you remember that?

A. Mr. Nice, it's not true that one Serb policeman killed another Serb policeman. As far as I can remember, that case took place in a village. I can't remember the name of the village right now. I remember that it was a criminal offence from Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the then Yugoslavia. It was the criminal offence of terrorism.

Ljubisa Boskovic is somebody I know. I think he was assistant commander in the Kacanik organ of the interior.

Q. Well, how, then, if he wasn't the killer does he feature in this case? How do you know what case I'm talking about?

A. I remember that case while back in Urosevac, and I know for a fact that he was not the killer.

Q. No. How does he feature in the case at all? I've asked you about a killing of Serb on Serb. I suggested there was a killing by Ljubisa ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁴ Boskovic. You know the killing. You say he wasn't involved. What killing was I referring to? You see --

A. You told me yourself that a Serb policeman killed another Serb policeman. I don't remember such a case.

Q. Well, then how can you connect it with --

A. I told you that.

Q. -- Boskovic? Come on, help us.

A. You yourself mentioned that he was killed by Ljubisa Boskovic. You mentioned his name.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Ljubisa Boskovic did do the killing, did he?

A. No, that's not true. I'm telling you -- I'm stating with full responsibility that it is not true.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... very helpful, Mr. Jasovic, and I'm going to put my last question in this way: There was a case of Serb killing Serb. Danica Marinkovic got involved and said the thing should be dealt with as if it was an act of terrorism by the KLA. That's the way it was hushed up, and this accused sent a telegram along with other dignitaries praising the deceased policeman for his bravery. And that's the way things were in Kosovo in mid-1998; correct?

A. No, that's not true, Mr. Nice. I apologise. I feel quite uncomfortable in having to say this, but you keep putting questions to me that are outside of the scope of my work. I can tell you about things based on the documents that I have. I cannot answer questions on behalf of the Urosevac SUP or the chief of the criminal investigation department ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁵ because that's persons were involved in handling all of the matters in the jurisdiction of the secretariat.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, what was the name of the Serb policeman who was killed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm telling you frankly I can't remember his name. I just can't. It's been seven years. That was in 1998, and it's 2005 now. So it's been seven years, and I can't tell you.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Moving to tab 10.

JUDGE BONOMY: What was the --

MR. NICE: Sorry, Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: What was the exhibit number or the document number?

MR. NICE: It's document 9, and the history can be seen at page -- I think I said --

JUDGE BONOMY: This is 9 in volume 2.

MR. NICE: 9 in volume 2.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's fine, thank you.

MR. NICE: And it can be found at page 9.

Q. If we can then go to tab 10, another person who had direct contact with events at the time, SS376 as he is known. And on page 11 of this document. Sorry, page 12, paragraph 64.

This potential witness came to your police station where a body was being removed in about 1993 or 1994, and on that occasion found a body who was said to have committed suicide by jumping from the fourth-floor window. Do you remember anything about that, an alleged suicide from the ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁶ fourth-floor window in 1993 or 1994.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I feel quite uncomfortable again, but I have to tell you, I have to reiterate that I do not remember that case. On the fourth floor were the offices of the members of the state security.

Q. It's quite a big police station. Let's have a look at a picture of it. It's quite a big station so we can have an idea of what it looks like look. The overhead projector doesn't need to be produced. But it gives us an idea of the scale of the building. This is the building where you work.

Now, the fourth floor we can see, and the third floor we can see. And we can see the scale of the enterprise, but if prisoners or people detained are alleged to have committed suicide from the fourth floor window it's not a usual -- at least I hope it's not a usual event, Mr. Jasovic. Presumably it's a matter of concern to a police force. Now, do you have no recollection of any prisoner dying in or from custody at this police station?

A. I do not remember. I'm stating with full responsibility this. You told me that he had jumped off the fourth floor. I'm claiming with full responsibility that I do not remember the case.

Q. I'm not saying he jumped off the fourth floor. I'm saying that the cover story was that he committed suicide from the fourth floor, and I'm asking for your help with what actually happened. Can you help?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, if I remembered this, I would have told you. However, I do not remember, and I feel quite uncomfortable about not remembering. I wasn't involved in this case, and I do not remember it. ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁷

Q. Tab 11, then, please, K56. And on this document, this is another of your colleagues. First of all, is he -- is this colleague of yours right at paragraph 25 in saying that official police documents were burned before you decamped from Kosovo?

A. I can say what pertains to my internal documentation that has to do with terrorism cases. This is what I brought with me, and I don't know what happened to the rest of documentation. There were various fields of work, investigation, search, homicide, sexual offences, and so on. So I couldn't tell you anything about this issue. The head of the organ would probably be able to tell you. I really didn't follow this issue, whether this had been burned or not.

Q. Well, I'm going to move on from that to 1998. There's a document that I'll just lay on the overhead projector. I only have one copy of it. It's a report, if we can read it in English, from the Humanitarian Law Centre in 1998, and it deals extensively with police violence and brutality, but let's just read two passages and see if something as recent as 1998 is in your recollection.

It says here that somebody called Rexhep Bislimi, a Human Rights activist and former prisoner of conscience, died at Pristina hospital on the 21st of July, he having on the 3rd of July been the subject of a district prosecutor request to investigate on charges of seditious conspiracy. He was arrests in Urosevac on the 6th of July, taken to the prison in Gnjilane, transferred to the hospital. His body was covered with bruises. His arm was broken. Photographs were taken. And three ribs were fractured. ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁸ So he died from a beating, it appears, in the police station. Do you know anything about Rexhep Bislimi?

A. I don't know the person Rexhep Bislimi. I don't understand what was said in English, but you said that the person was sent on to the district prison in Gnjilane.

Q. Do you want to say that the district prison killed him? By all means do if that's the reality.

A. No, no, that's not what I want to say. No, no, no. I don't know whether this person was killed. But if we're talking about Gnjilane, members of the state security in Urosevac came under the security services centre in Gnjilane. What I'm trying to say is that the operations officers of the state security in Gnjilane most likely worked with these persons. I don't remember any Rexhep Bislimi, and I don't know what to tell you and I feel uncomfortable once again.

Q. Uncomfortable.

A. Well, I don't know how to answer. I wasn't kept abreast. I didn't take part in that work. I don't know anything about it.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... of which we've seen a picture it was possible for these terrible things to be happening that I've recounted to you and you not to know about it? Is that what you're you going?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know that in the police station in Urosevac terror was used or violence or that there were people who were killed there. I don't know about that.

Q. The next part of this report that relates specifically to your ⁴⁰⁹⁶⁹ police station is at the bottom of the page and it says this: "According to the Prizren branch of the Kosovo Committee for the Protection of Human Rights, Maksut Caflesi from Belobrade village died on 23rd of August after being tortured by police in Urosevac. His brother stated that Caflesi was stopped and beaten by police on the Prizren-Urosevac road. He received no medical attention in Urosevac and was subsequently transferred to the Pristina hospital where he died."

The report goes on: "Biljal Salja, a 47-year-old teacher and member of the ethnic Albanian Social Democratic Party, died at Urosevac police station on the 29th of August. He was arrested on the 28th of August together with his son Agron, who was released later that day. Agron heard had I father's cries when the police interrogated him. On the 30th of August the family was notified that they could take over Salja's body from the Pristina hospital morgue." Right. What's your state of recollection about those two deaths in custody?

A. I did not interview these two persons, and I'm telling you frankly I don't remember any of those two cases. Neither do I remember that they were dead at the police station in Urosevac.

Q. You remember these cases, Mr. Jasovic, and it maybe you were the officer involved and you're uncomfortable --

A. Mr. Prosecutor, no. No.

Q. You're uncomfortable --

A. It's not that I'm uncomfortable. I don't remember.

Q. You see, we have it again available -- ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁰

A. I guarantee that you can go in and verify. I was not involved in any of those cases, neither in these ones that you mention nor in the previous ones, and I'm stating this very firmly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, how many prisoners could the -- or can the Urosevac police station hold at any one time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I entered the detention room only twice way back when I was the assistant commander of the police station. So I don't really know that room, and I couldn't tell you whether it was two by three or two by four metres. I really can't remember because it was back in 1980 something when I entered that room only twice. I'm telling you the truth. There's no reason for me to conceal anything. Whether it was two by three metres, I don't know. It was a detention room across from the office in the secretariat premises, and I couldn't tell you whether 20 or 30 persons could fit in. I'm just not sure.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So it's the detention room where persons would be held.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. It's a detention room in -- on the ground floor. As I said, across from the office of the duty officer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You don't know the size of the detention room at your police station?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't really tell you. I don't know the exact dimensions, the width and the length.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. ⁴⁰⁹⁷¹

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, Mr. Jasovic, by 1998 the police state that you were operating was one in which you had impunity. You could act without fear of consequence; is that right?

A. No, that's not right. I acted in accordance with the law. I'm a professional, and I have a status of an authorised official. So it's not true that I would be afraid had I used violence, terror, had I overstepped my authorities.

Q. Well --

A. The law was the same for me and for other colleagues of mine.

Q. Not only were you -- I'm sorry, Your Honour?

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, did you ever arrest anyone?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not take part in operations. I never took somebody into custody or arrested somebody. I can guarantee that.

MR. NICE:

Q. Not only were you a violent man but by 1998 and thereabouts you had become committed. Your former colleague - tab 9, page 7 of 17, paragraph 25 - describes how you would take people's passports away in the interests of the Serbs. Do you remember doing that? Taking passports away from people to stop them travelling?

A. That's not true. That's not true. Persons who were taken into custody or persons who came in to provide information voluntarily would not usually come in with their passports. I did not go out in the field or stop people in the streets to take their passports or their documents ⁴⁰⁹⁷² away.

Q. You --

JUDGE KWON: Could you locate the passage again, please.

MR. NICE: Certainly. It's tab 9, and it's at paragraph -- page 17, I think I said -- well, that must be wrong because there's only 16 pages. It was indeed page 7, paragraph 25.

Q. You see, another way in which you showed your political commitment was your distress at people buying land from Serbs, at Albanians buying land from Serbs. Do you remember -- remember having anxiety or distress about that?

A. It's not true that I was distressed. What I can say about this is that there was the law limiting the sale of real property that provided that if a number of Serbs, residents of one street or so on, wrote a petition, certain measures had to be taken in keeping with the law, and I think that there was also a misdemeanour set forth there.

Q. I see. So you got involved in those offences, did you? Despite really being interested in terrorism, you did get yourself involved in misdemeanours concerning land sale, did you?

A. No. I personally was not involved in misdemeanours. Criminal complaints or misdemeanours are generally filed by police members.

Q. I must move on. Tab 12 of the same volume of materials, and Dr. Xhela Recica who we referred to yesterday. Were you aware that this doctor was being a record of those who were tortured in your police station?

A. I told you yesterday or the day before yesterday that I don't know ⁴⁰⁹⁷³ that physician, although I do know a lot of Albanian doctors. However, do I not know him, and I do not know about that.

Q. Well, if you'd like please to have -- the Court would like to very swiftly cast its eye over, first of all, the page that begins on the top right-hand corner K0505383, which is the notes he made. If you could just make that available to the witness. Mr. Nort, coming your way. Lay this on the overhead projector, please.

You see, this doctor, as from 1991, kept carefully in Latin records of people who came to his practice, he having been thrown out of his job as a doctor earlier. Do you know anything about this doctor at all?

A. I have said already that although I know quite a few Albanian doctors, I don't know his name and surname.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I don't know who he is.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... eye down the name -- just do it for 1991 and then we'll do it for 1998. Just cast your eyes down --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think it would be fair to the witness to show him documents in a language he understands.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Nice, this is not -- where is this from?

MR. NICE: The doctor kept records in Latin about injuries suffered by people coming to him complaining of what they'd received at ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁴ the police station. No, we haven't translated it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's on the ELMO and it will have to be sufficient --

MR. NICE: I'm grateful.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- interpreters translate it.

MR. NICE: Well --

JUDGE KWON: Did they not write in hand? It's not a handwritten document.

MR. NICE: No.

JUDGE KWON: He kept it on computer.

MR. NICE: He converted it to a computer.

JUDGE KWON: Converted?

MR. NICE: I can't remember the details of what he said about that, but it was certainly written in hand and then stored in typed form, yes. He made up a logbook. We can find that in his statement which comes before it. It's paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement at page 3. "I wrote the diagnosis in Latin," paragraph 9, "I recorded such detail on a protected sure file on my computer. I would write a report on the patient visit, describe his injuries, diagnosis and treatment, and I would add in more details about how they described to me how they received their injuries."

This is part of his record. I was going --

Q. Mr. Jasovic, if you'd look please at the document on the screen, all I want you to do, please, is to cast your eyes down the names which ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁵ you will be able to read, starting with Behxhet Hyseni, then going to Milazim Murati, Afrim Xhafaj, Ahmet Hoxha, and so on. Just tell us, do you remember dealing with any of these people -- it's a long time, 1991, but I just wondered if you'd just like to see if any of these names are familiar to you and then we'll go and do the same thing for 1998, reflecting that there are continuous entries throughout the time. Any of those names familiar to you? Any?

A. I cannot remember the names. I cannot remember the names. It's 1991, as you say. I don't know --

Q. All right.

A. -- on what grounds they were perhaps brought to the SUP. I'm saying perhaps. I don't know. I don't know whether this is an authentic document.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... good enough to turn on to what is on the foot --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What was the diagnosis in relation to, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: Various. And my Latin is of very indifferent quality, but you can get it if necessary. But you can see various descriptions of abrasions, bruising, I think, contusions, and it may be fractures as well. We haven't had them all translated. Time doesn't permit. But they are complaints coming from Ferizaj police station, for the most part or all. And if Mr. Nort would be good enough to turn to what is at the foot of the page, page 28, we'll see the first there, and I'll only bother with the first of I think it's eight pages and a total of -- a total of 83 people complaining in 1998. ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁶

Q. But perhaps if you'd be good enough when page 28 is there - thank you very much - just run your eyes down the first 14 names of people who complained of mistreatment at your police station.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All of them seem to be contusion on the head and body.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. So you see let's just run down these names Nijazi Kadri Shabani, Hyzri Beqir Sejdiu, Xhevat Abdullah Raci, et cetera. Keep your eye down the page. Any you can help us with?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On what basis is this medical report linked to the police station? I don't understand that. People go to doctors for various reasons. On the basis of what does Mr. Nice claim today in 2005 that these people had been at the police station and beaten there?

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's asking the witness this question, and if the witness can answer, perhaps a connection within established.

MR. NICE: If it would help the accused, and if when he has the time to do so, but he's had this file to help him over the weekend, since last week, he's had it over a week, if he goes back and consults the statement of the doctor at the beginning of this tab he'll find the answer to his concerns.

Q. Any names that you recognise there, Mr. Jasovic?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot remember these names. I cannot. I ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁷ cannot remember.

Q. If we go on, then, in -- I'm going to come back to the doctor at a later stage where his materials are more easily dealt with, but I want to deal very briefly with some other materials we have about you, Mr. Jasovic, and these are statements of a different kind. First of all, tab 13, Your Honours. In fact, I'm not even sure I need trouble with tab 13. Oh, yes. No, I must deal with tab 13. Were you aware that there was a man called Ruzhdi Jashari? Do you know that man's name?

A. The person Ruzhdi Jashari is someone I do not know personally except that I know that he keeps being mentioned in the statements as a member of the KLA.

Q. And also a member of -- well, whether he's mentioned in the statements or not, I don't know. But he's also a member of the Council of Human Rights and Freedoms.

A. No, I haven't heard of that. I think he was a journalist, too, some correspondent of some paper.

Q. Well, people came to him with their own handwritten complaints. And with Mr. Nort's assistance we'll turn in this tab to top right-hand corner page 505193. This is in tab 13, Mr. Nort. Rapidly, please, if you could, 505193.

There is an original handwritten version of this lying behind it, but just hand this to the -- Mr. Nort, if you would just hand this please -- no. 515 -- 93. Sorry. 5193. And can you hand this to the witness. Thank you very much. ⁴⁰⁹⁷⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 64 is before 97.

JUDGE KWON: It's not filed in an orderly manner.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. Sorry about the --

JUDGE KWON: I think paginating of typed document and handwritten document go --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: -- separately.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, this is a document that was handed in, handwritten by the person concerned, bearing the date the 8th of June of 1998, and it says this: "At 1030," he deals with his, the circumstances of his detention which were brutal. But then he says: "At 1030 they took me and another man, six of us, aged 20 to 25, to the police station in Ferizaj. There they have beaten us brutally like animals until they got us inside the facility." He lists the various people who were detained. "They asked us," he goes on, "do we know who killed the policemen?" There was a policeman who had been killed. In the end they took our personal data and said that we should give our weapons in by Saturday." "To me personally," he says, "they injured my left eye, bleeding in my jaw and my rib. My wife has injuries to her head." And we see the name of the man at the top, Mehdi Sopaj. An example of somebody who writes his own complaint in 1998 and hands it into the Council for Human Rights. Do you have any recollection of Mehdi Sopaj being dealt with like this?

A. I don't know. The person did not come for an interview to see me. ^{40979 BLANK PAGE 40980}

Q. If we go on a --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask --

MR. NICE: Sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, on which floor of the police office was your office?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the third floor, number 59. The third floor, number 59.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, will you be seeking to call any of these informants in your rebuttal?

MR. NICE: In rebuttal I will be seeking to call, if necessary, the producers of statements, and if the ruling of the Court is it has to be also not just the same level of hearsay as may be allowed at the moment to the accused, then I'll, if necessary, call the complainants themselves. They're alive. I have no problem with that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm beginning to form a view about the importance of these statements if we are to be able to form a view, an accurate view of the entire issue.

MR. NICE: These people will all be available, and I've only got one more in this connection -- this is of people. If Mr. Nort could go on and find a page which is 5196.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us just -- let us just clarify one thing, Mr. Robinson. These are not even second -- this is not even secondhand evidence. This is thirdhand evidence, statements. This is: "[In English] Complained in my presence and I certify the documents and I give to investigator Kelly are true copies of the original ⁴⁰⁹⁸¹ statement."

[Interpretation] So he gives a statement that some Albanians had given statements to him, and Mr. Nice is bringing that in now as evidence without witnesses, without making statements, without cross-examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I wasn't inviting an argument on the issue.

MR. NICE: I only make this comment, not to be thought difficult but just to alert the accused to where we stand, the level of hearsay is identical with the level of hearsay when Danica Marinkovic introduced via the medium of this witness statements of other people. So it's the same level of hearsay.

If you'd like to take out the page that follows this, Mr. Nort, and make that available to the witness and we'll read the English version.

Q. This, Mr. Jasovic, is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you have another objection?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. In relation to the mention of Mrs. Marinkovic now. Danica Marinkovic, investigating judge, explained here that she took statements in the presence of the public prosecutor, the accused or, rather, the suspect and the lawyer of the suspect concerned. So if that is at the same level --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. This is not the time to debate that.

MR. NICE:

Q. If we look at this statement, this is somebody who came back to the Council for Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms in Suva Reka from the ⁴⁰⁹⁸² village of Laniste wanting to add to an earlier statement that he'd given. And he said this: "During the time I was in the improvised prison, in a private house in Ferizaj which was close to the technical school," where he was held as a hostage, he experienced inhuman tortures that the Serbian police and military used. "They used the most barbarian means, including electric shock, with one and only one intention ..." This comes from a man called Osman Halili.

Now, do you remember Osman Halili?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't remember this person. But if you have a document, if you have his statement, I will see what he said in the statement except that I see here that he gave this statement on the 9th of August, 2004. I have the statement here in Albanian given in Suva Reka.

Q. You see, electric shock as a method of torture by your police station is referred to in a number of sources coming independently. Do you have any comment on that? How could it be that people from different sources and in different ways complain of electric shock?

A. It's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. There were no electric shocks. I still don't understand what kind of electric shocks these are. It's not true. I claim to you with full responsibility that there is no truth in that, in this kind of thing, electric shocks and electricity in general.

Q. The next tab, tab 14, is a statement made for the Defence in the Limaj case and produced initially to the representative of the defendant there, but can I just ask you for your assistance with this. You can have a look at the handwritten version of it if you want to. In our version it comes at the foot of page 1. ⁴⁰⁹⁸³ This man, whose name we can see -- do you know the name, Adem Selmani?

A. I don't have the text.

Q. It's coming your way. You will have to cast your eyes down I think --

A. Yes, I have his statement in the Albanian language. I see here Adem Selmani.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: The title to this, Mr. Nice, doesn't suggest that it was done for the Limaj case.

MR. NICE: If I'm wrong -- you're quite right, it doesn't. Let me just check on that.

I think -- Your Honour's quite right to observe the inconsistency. Although it came to people in the Limaj case it was made available to us in the course of the investigation.

Q. And what it says, you see, and I'm afraid the handwriting isn't very easy to read, and I can't immediately find the passage --

A. I have the text in Albanian.

Q. Yes.

A. And I cannot read the handwriting although I understand the language.

Q. I'll read one passage, or two passages, actually from this statement. It's a man called Adem Selmani and it's at the foot of the English page 1. He says of his time at a school where he was detained in May of 1999 that when he arrived at the school you and Nebojsa Djordjevic ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁴ and Sparavalo were there, that you took him, that's Adem Selmani, to classrooms and corridors.

Now, is it right that you were using a school for the purposes of detaining or interviewing people in May of 1999?

A. The school was not used or a school was not used. And secondly, I did not leave my office to go to schools. I don't remember this person. I just see that he gave a statement on the 13th of May, 2005, or, rather, this statement. So obviously he could have complained to KFOR, UNMIK after we had left, and to other organisations that are in charge in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. He alleges that you beat him, ordered them to sing Serb songs and to kiss this accused's picture. Did you do what?

A. First of all, we did not beat him. Secondly, we did not make him sing Serb songs. And thirdly, I did not have the accused's picture in the room.

Q. On the second page in English of his statement he alleges that as to the Pranvera bar, which we spoke of, I think, yesterday. Do you remember the Pranvera bar?

A. Yes. I said previously that due to fear of bombing we were dislocated from the secretariat in Urosevac. So the general crime department was at the Pranvera cafe.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Which means spring in Serbian.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- and that's where we worked from. ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁵

Q. He says two things about the people who were detained there. First he says that they were beaten up and electrocuted. I suppose you can just simply say that that isn't true.

A. Yes, yes, that's true, that's not true at all. I have no idea what kind of electrocutions or electric shocks you're talking about.

Q. He goes on to say that when things got a bit dangerous you policemen would run away from the bar leaving the prisoners behind and they couldn't leave the building because it was mined. The first statement is clarified in a statement taken by Mr. Kelly - yes, by Mr. Kelly - "mined outside the building." Was that building, that Pranvera cafe, mined in order to keep people inside when you wanted to?

A. There is no truth in this, Mr. Prosecutor. I never fled from my office, neither I nor my colleagues. That is total -- a total invention. What kind of a silly thing is that, that I leave people in a cafe and that I run to save my life? There is no logic in this.

Q. All right. Just a couple more points on this type of material --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, in the third line of this statement there's a reference to a place S-h-t-i-m-e. Now, is that meant to be Stimlje?

MR. NICE: Yes. These places frequently have alternative spellings.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, was -- was use made of a school in Stimlje for police purposes of any kind?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know, Your Honour. I don't know if it was used, because during the NATO bombing I had not gone to ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁶ Stimlje at all.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you know the name Emin Duraku?

A. Emin Duraku? I know there is a street by that name in Urosevac, but I don't know exactly in which part of town. Emin Duraku. There is a street by that name.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Mr. Nort, if you could hand the witness the statement in his own language or in a language he understands from tab 16 and lay the English version on the overhead projector, starting, please, with the second page of the English version, which is the end of the document and then we'll come back to an earlier passage. But --

Q. And if you'd like to look, please, in the document before you, which is coming your way, Mr. Jasovic, at the end of the original. This man, Avdi Hysenaj, explains that he saw you on the television testifying against KLA liberators who brought freedom to his people. He was appalled because you were the one who had tortured them and you had the courage to sit in the courtroom in order to cover up your crimes and that maybe led to his identification to the lawyers who made him available to the Prosecution to deal with.

His statement, Your Honour, you'll see -- if we then come back to the first page of the statement, he says in summary about what happened to him on the 1st of February of 1999 when he was taken to Stimlje police station to begin with and then was put in a jeep and taken to Urosevac where you were said to be looking for him.

So Avdi Xhevat Hysenaj, tell us about him. ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁷

A. I don't know this person. And what you've been saying that I worked in Stimlje, too, of course citizens of Stimlje and Urosevac know me. I don't know this person. I can't remember. If you have his statement, can you show it to me and can I have a look?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. And let me see what he stated.

Q. It's the statement that's before you. This is what he stated, and you can follow it with us.

A. Oh, yes, his statement. But that he came to see me at the Secretariat of the Interior, I don't remember that and I cannot remember.

Q. Well, let's see what he said. Middle of the first page. Having been taken to Urosevac where you were looking for him "they ordered to me to get in where I was originally provoked by a Serb policeman whose name was Qeda or Cedo." Do you know such a policeman?

A. I know Cedo but not in Urosevac. He did not work at the police station in Urosevac. He worked at the police station in Stimlje. You can see from that what kind of statement this is.

Q. Okay. Very well. It goes on to say this: "Subsequently seven to eight policemen immediately started to beat me up without control. After a while, a policeman came from the upper floor and referred to them saying that Inspector Jasovic wanted to see me. He," that's you, "asked me why I was bleeding. I replied 'Your policemen beat me up.' He then asked me why have they beaten me up and why hadn't I admitted when I was asked. I told him I did not know what to admit. I would tell them if he knew. ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁸ Jasovic told me that if he asked me questions would I have answered those. I told him I would answer if I knew anything. 'You have to answer if you want to see your children again, otherwise at 2400 hours we're going to cut your head off,' said Jasovic."

Now, any recollection with this man Hardin -- I beg your pardon, Avdi Hyseni?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't remember. I never looked for this man. I could not dream of that, that he was in the ground -- on the ground floor of the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac. I cannot remember this person, really. Is there a statement of his? Then I can have a look at it and see what this person stated.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I have no idea. Me looking for him?

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... what he says you did. And he says that: "He told me if I wanted to live I should go to Petrove, and Laniste and bring you," Jasovic, "the KLA list and information about their weapons" or you'd kill him. You asked for KLA names of Petrove village. The witness told you that he knew nothing as he lived in Stimlje since his home had been burnt down. He didn't have any contacts with the village. You, Mr. Jasovic. Asked him who burned down his house and he explained it was burned down when the Serb forces entered the village of Petrove, and at that you became revolted. You started beating him, referring to him words such as "you asked for it" because this is not Kosovo, this is Serbia.

He also on leaving -- being allowed to leave the police station ⁴⁰⁹⁸⁹ had a medical certificate, although it hasn't been I think made available yet to us.

What do you say about that? Did you get upset with these people, saying that this was Kosovo, not -- Serbia, not Kosovo?

A. I never used words like that. Everything that he said here isn't true. And I state now, too, if that was the case why didn't he complain after we left. Because there were international representatives in Kosovo and Metohija. He could have done that. And I don't know whether this individual came to see me at all, was with me at all. If you have a document or a statement, I don't know. Probably if the individual was -- had that person been there, if he was there, if I had taken -- interviewed him, I would have made a note, and I and my colleague Mr. Sparavalo were always together.

Q. That's all I need deal with insofar as -- I beg your pardon, there's one other tab I must deal with and it is tab 19. If we can look at that very briefly.

This tab goes back to the material provided by the doctor, but it's in this form. Some of it's been summarised and indeed translated. So if Mr. Nort, if you could hand to the witness -- maybe actually on this occasion it may be easier if you bring it to me. Probably save time. Thank you very much.

You understand, don't you, Mr. Jasovic, that I've turned your attention to various sources, witnesses in other cases, reports to doctors. We've looked at reports from human rights organisations, and we've started to look at the very people you say you took statements from, ⁴⁰⁹⁹⁰ and they provide a picture of violence and death at your station. Now, here is a summary report prepared by the human rights organisation in Kosovo, and if the overhead projector has the first page and you have the first page, it's a summary of Serb violence against Albanian civil population during the war from the beginning of 1998 to June 1999. And as to people killed, it says that in the municipality of Ferizaj, 124 people were killed by Serbian police, army, and paramilitaries during the war. And it then goes on to say that six persons in 1998, nine persons January to March 1999, 101 persons March to June 1999, and it goes on to deal with August and into 2000. Now, do you challenge that as many as six people were killed by the police in 1998 as is summarised here? We can look at the supporting documents if we have time, but I won't do it at the moment. This is a human rights organisation preparing statistics from various source that it sets out later. Do you challenge it?

A. I do challenge it. I don't know and -- I don't really know what the answer to that question would be. I don't know how to answer.

Q. The final point on those reports, and we don't have endless time of course, and it's this and it relates to a point I made to you earlier. The same organisation, you see, dealt with its overall area, which is the population as we can see of Ferizaj area. Population of Ferizaj and Kosovo in general have suffered --

A. Ferizaj, Stimlje, Kacanik and Lipjan -- well --

Q. You see, what this body records, and it says this: "I've examined these patients," he's dealing with people who have been injured in police ⁴⁰⁹⁹¹ custody in the Medicus and Dr. Xhela private clinics. That's the doctor we were talking about earlier. And the analysis includes 449 cases from the following municipalities. Then he breaks down the municipalities between Ferizaj and the other relevant municipalities within his area. And do you see what the results of the statistics coming to this human rights organisation are, that Ferizaj makes up 82.6 per cent of the complaints.

Remember I said to you at an earlier part of the questioning that your police station was a particularly violent police station? This report's right, isn't it? It was a particularly violent police station.

A. That's not true. In addition to our area, we see the other areas, Vitia, Lipjan, Pristina. Lipjan belongs to the Pristina area, Gnjilane, and so on.

Q. Yes. And look at the statistics of returns for those areas, ill-treatment in custody. Your police station tops the list in every conceivable way.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can't -- don't know how to answer your questions. I think superior officers would be able to answer your questions. They have the statistics. I was a crime inspector, a policeman. I really don't know how to answer these questions for Pristina.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. For -- and so on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The statistics for Ferizaj relate to one police station or to several? ⁴⁰⁹⁹²

MR. NICE: My understanding is it relates to the Ferizaj police station. Whether that includes Stimlje I'm afraid I'm not immediately alert to. But I can find out. I think -- I think it's probably the municipality.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does that include Urosevac?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Shtima belongs to --

MR. NICE: I'm afraid these places always have two names. Ferizaj is Urosevac.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is it one or several police stations?

MR. NICE: As far as we know it's one municipality and police station.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In Urosevac there was one police station, public police station, and for the traffic police and other police station for the traffic police.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the point I think is clear because four -- four entries down we're back to Stimlje, and I think that's Stimlje again.

JUDGE BONOMY: What's the tab number for this?

MR. NICE: This is tab number 19. And I've got one more question to ask on tab 19.

JUDGE KWON: Page?

MR. NICE: And the part of tab 19 it's a sort of second block of materials or third block. I'm afraid they're not page numbered.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, page 1.

MR. NICE: Third block, page 1. With all the supporting analysis thereafter. With your leave I'll just come back to the first document I ⁴⁰⁹⁹³ was showing him from this tab because there is one other question I should have asked him. And if he'd have the original and if the Court would be good enough on the first part of this tab to go to page 3, and if Mr. Nort would display page 3 in the English on the overhead projector.

Q. And if you, Mr. Jasovic, would go to the second page of the document you have. You'll see a block a paragraph headed 1998, which ends with these five lines: "Many political and human rights activists have been imprisoned and sentenced during the months of June and July of this year 1998. These include -- then there's Cen Dugolli, Sylejman Bytyci, Yiber Topalli, Xhavit Zariqi, Agim Recica from the LDK." And then NKMDLNJ activists Bislimi, Ferizi, Zymberi, all sentenced by the Serb installed court up to 15 years in prison, whereas Bislimi, Rexhep Bislimi, Cen Dugolli and Bilall Shala were tortured to death in Serbian prisons. And in the next paragraph dealing with murder of activists, it says: "After their imprisonment those three men, having been tortured severely and in different brutal ways by Serbian policemen and inspectors, died in prison. Bislimi, an activist, arrested on the 6th of July, died on the 21st in prison in Pristina. Cen Dugolli, arrested on the 21st of June, died on the 17th of August in prison in Pristina. Bilall Shala, arrested on the 28th of August, died 48 hours later at the Ferizaj Urosevac police station. Tortures proved by photographs that were taken after their deaths. These were murders without trial. Right. Your police station involved. What do you know about the deaths of these three men?

A. What I can say first here is that none of these individuals came ⁴⁰⁹⁹⁴ to me for an interview. I can't say anything. I assume that these individuals, well possibly, possibly they had been for an interview in the state security sector. That's my assumption. So I can't really say anything about them. I don't know. I didn't talk to the individuals. I don't know whether they were detained or not detained, nor do I know whether they were in the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac at all.

Q. So yet again if it's true that these police -- these deaths happened in or following custody at your police station you know absolutely nothing about it. Is that really right?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, in detention as you say, in custody, the room they were told in there were no deaths. Prove to me that anybody was -- died in that room, in the detention room. I think I've already said that.

Q. Not necessarily in the detention room itself, Mr. Jasovic, you know this, but after the treatment they received there in your office and elsewhere or when they fell out of the window or when they were thrown out of the window, you know nothing of that, do you?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, in my office they didn't fall out of the window. In other offices I can't say. Now, you want me to tell you something about the entire secretariat, what happened in the whole secretariat. I had my line of work, so I can tell you about what I did. And I said a moment ago as well that it would be the superior officers who would be better placed to answer that question, who deal with matters of that kind. How I do know whether they were taken into custody, whether they were on the premises of the secretariat or not.

Q. Mr. Jasovic we're going to turn to another topic, I think I've ⁴⁰⁹⁹⁵ dealt with volume 2 of our materials.

MR. NICE: Can I ask the Chamber to take again the binder of Racak materials. I thought I may have concluded with that but on review overnight I think there are things I ought to draw to the Court's attention and indeed to the witness's attention in our search for an account of what the Serb side said and what this witness can help us with. And I know that these ones are not tabbed with proper tabs. They're tabbed at the top. And if the Court would be good enough to go to what is marked as at the top tab 5, and I'm afraid there is -- yes, there is. There's a Serb language version for the witness. If that could be made available to the witness, please, Mr. Nort. It's at the end of -- I think Mr. Nort will need help with this, actually. Don't worry, we'll hand you the documents separately. If he can have tab 5 English on the overhead and tab 5 original for the witness.

And if you'd like to go, first of all, to the last page of the English and the last page of the Serb.

Now, the reason we're looking at the last page is just for this reason: The typed document or it may be a faxed document or whatever appears to be signed by someone called Janicevic but it's considerable Bogoljub Janicevic. Do you have any doubt that this is indeed your superior officer?

The English is wrong. The original is right.

Q. This comes from your superior officer, yes?

A. Mr. Janicevic Bogoljub at that time was the chief of -- yes, chief of the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac. ⁴⁰⁹⁹⁶

Q. If Mr. Nort you could now come back to the beginning of this document, page -- the first page, page 1 of it.

If you'd like to follow this with me, please, Mr. Jasovic. Oh. In a second.

This is a document as you're reading it and we can follow it, the Judges and I, we'll wait for public display, dated the 15th of January. So the same day.

What it says under the first paragraph is that measures were taken to seal off the village with a view to capturing and destroying a terrorist group.

No question of arresting, detaining, or interviewing, was there? It's capturing and destroying. Right? That's the words that he uses.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The word that is used in the Serbian language in this telegram from the chief of SUP is in the -- with the aim of apprehending, it says. With the aim of apprehending.

MR. NICE: And --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No destroying? There is no destroying.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Then it says "and destroying" but apprehending or capturing. Mr. Nice insists on capturing and destroying. Here it says apprehending. And the liquidation of a group implies in police terms --

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- apprehending.

MR. NICE: No interpretation by the accused. Thank you. ^{40997 BLANK PAGE 40998}

Q. You see, you remember yesterday we heard from -- on the television programme Goran Radosavljevic saying how they received orders to attack to destroy terrorists and indeed he later used the word liquidate. This document, Mr. Jasovic, speaks then of capturing or apprehending and destroying a terrorist group. Did you understand that to be the purpose of this exercise?

A. In the aim of capturing and finding -- you see, the police never aims at destroying a terrorist group. It is to find them, to uncover them and capture them, the possible perpetrators of attacks and so on.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... like that, Mr. Jasovic. Use your own brain and language, please.

Let's go to the next paragraph which begins: "The battle with" --

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot understand that what is called for is liquidation of a terrorist group. I know that it should be uncovered and deprived of liberty, taken into custody.

Q. Liquidation means killed, doesn't it? It's quite simple.

A. To deprive of liberty doesn't mean to kill.

Q. Liquidation means to kill.

A. I don't know.

Q. Don't you? Well, let's look at the next paragraph and see if you can help us.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, Mr. Prosecutor, you're putting me -- you're giving me a telegram, a dispatch, signed by the chief of SUP, Bogoljub Janicevic. Now, I cannot comment on his telegram. I ⁴⁰⁹⁹⁹ don't know I'm a crime policeman. I cannot comment on something written by the chief of SUP.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, the paragraph that begins starting at 0300 hours on the 15th of January, could you read the first three lines or the first sentence of that, please?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "On the 15th of January, 1999, starting at 0300 hours, measures were taken to block off the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, with a view to capturing and destroying a terrorist group which, according to our information, had committed a number of terrorist attacks with lethal consequences in the territory of Urosevac."

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.

MR. NICE:

Q. Shall we now look at the next paragraph to assist us with our understanding of what liquidate, or "liquidirana" [phoen], I think it is, means. This paragraph reads as follows, doesn't it: "The battle with the terrorists lasted until 1530 hours. During the search of the village fire was opened at police members from a 12.7 millimetre Browning and a mortar. The terrorist group was liquidated with maximum effort on the part of the police."

Liquidated meant killed, because that's what happened to them. Correct?

A. The word liquidated means liquidated, killed.

Q. Thank you. The next paragraph --

A. Or to kill. ⁴¹⁰⁰⁰

Q. The next paragraph deals with the accidental -- or the injury of ricochet suffered by Bojan Trajkovic. But next paragraph, and I only draw this to attention for two reasons, one, some interest, it refers to a horseshoe ambush was applied in the blockade, and it was laid between the villages of Luznica and Rance, behind terrorist trenches and connecting trenches. During action by the unit and attempts to arrest members of the terrorist gang, so here is a reference to arrest, these fell into the ambush. "The terrorists opened fire at the same time and after some hours of fighting they were liquidated. Even though they had been called on to surrender, none of the terrorists wanted to do so." So in this paragraph we have a reference, I don't accept that it's in any sense accurate, but we have a reference to attempts to arrest, and the use the word "ambush," and the use of the word "liquidate." Does this fit with your recollection of what you were told by your colleagues?

A. The place of Luznica does not belong to the municipality of Stimlje or Urosevac. I don't know where that place is located at all. I don't know about this ambush, and I can state that I -- this is the first time I hear of it. I don't know about this operation at all.

Q. Then apart from the fact that we see the next sentence again begins with the word liquidate or has the word liquidate. The Court would go over to the second page in the English. And if you, Mr. Jasovic, would go over to the third page in the Serb version. We see towards the bottom of the English page and at the top of your page: "Seven persons were taken into custody to be interviewed on the issue of terrorism and were ⁴¹⁰⁰¹ turned over for further work to the OSL of the Urosevac SUP ..." So this must be you. Terrorism, people to be interviewed, seven of them. Who were they?

A. Well, I don't know. I can't say off the top of my head. How would I know who those people were? If I have a document shown me, then I could perhaps tell you, or if you know something about them or I could see in the statements, but like this I really can't say. I don't know what happened six years ago. It wasn't just one document. As I said, there were a large number of documents.

Q. Well --

A. There's no need for me to hide who the people were if I knew who they were.

Q. Were you provided for the purposes of your work with any witnesses to interview as early as this day, the 16th of January? Were you? Were you provided with anyone to interview?

A. Well, I can't remember the date. If I were to look at the statements, perhaps, then I could tell you. But datewise, well, if I have statements linked to the date the 16th then certainly I did conduct the interviews. But if there are no statements I just can't remember.

Q. And do you remember the question you've been asked before? Was there any person interviewed to give an account of how the killings actually happened? We've got this statement from the chief of police which is obviously a summary of some kind or pretend summary of some kind. Have you got any statements from any witnesses?

A. I can't answer that. The chief of the secretariat here, it was a ⁴¹⁰⁰² telegram by the then chief of the secretariat, a dispatch by him.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... please tab 15 in the bundle.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, were the events at Racak regarded as -- as an important stage leading to -- ultimately to the war, to the bombing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't say, Your Honour. I couldn't answer that. I don't know how to answer that question, whether it was an important stage leading to the NATO bombing. I really can't say. I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you mention to me or name to me any other incident where 40 or 45 people died and you then had the opportunity to interview witnesses from the scene of the events that led to their death?

A. I am telling you -- well, I can't remember whether in some other incident more than 45 people were killed. As I said yesterday, I -- as for the 15th of January, 1999, I didn't come to the individuals who were eyewitnesses in the village of Racak.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, could you answer my question? Can you name me another event where 40 to 45 people or a large number of people were killed and you then had an opportunity to interview the witnesses or some witnesses to that event?

A. On the basis of statements, I cannot remember having had information where more than 45 people were killed. On the basis of the interviews conducted with persons of Albanian ethnicity.

JUDGE BONOMY: I find it quite difficult to understand why you can't remember one way or the other whether you interviewed people after ⁴¹⁰⁰³ the events at Racak.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I talked to individuals of Albanian ethnicity. I conducted interviews or information, conversations, but I said that I didn't -- for me to talk to policemen, which I didn't do, then I would need one of my superiors, a boss to tell me to do so.

JUDGE BONOMY: We're not dealing with that at the moment. We're dealing with seven people who, according to this report, were taken into custody at Racak. Now, I find it difficult to see why you can't remember whether you interviewed these people or not in custody.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I say with full responsibility that I don't know the names of the people who were taken into custody, and I can't say off the top of my head. I'm not saying whether I did or did not. I can't remember the names of the individuals, quite simply, because it's been more than six years since that time, and I can't remember if there are statements. If you can show me statements that I conducted an interview, I would be able to tell you what the person stated in his statement, but I say with full responsibility that like this I just don't know. I can't remember. There's no need for me to hide these facts. If I did conduct an interview then I did, but I'm just saying that I really can't remember.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you consider yourself to have a normal memory?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the passage of time here involved has been more than six years. Now, if the persons were taken into custody, perhaps they weren't taken into custody and brought to me. Perhaps it was the state security sector that took them into custody. ⁴¹⁰⁰⁴ I just can't remember. I think my memory is normal.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, if I might be of assistance. May I be of assistance to you and the witness? Here in tab 1.44, there is a statement by an individual which was given on the 16th of January, for instance. Perhaps you can have a look whether that's it. The witness himself said that he took 700 statements of that kind, and you can follow the statements with their dates. They are his exhibits.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... to those very shortly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: In any event and for my own purposes. I don't know if the Court's looking for a moment. I'm --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We are going to take the break now. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.33 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, before we return, I have just two or three little details I want to be sure I understand. These statements that you say were made to you voluntarily by individuals who came into the police station or were brought to the police station, is what appears in the statements what they dictated to you or is it what they said and you ⁴¹⁰⁰⁵ reformulated it?

A. That's not true. What they stated is written in the statements.

Q. There's not, for example, any significant missing questions that we need to know about to understand the statements, for example, you saying, "Tell me if so-and-so was a member of the KLA"? Was there that sort of questioning?

A. At the beginning of the interview, as the person is a resident of the village, was a resident of the village, we mostly asked the person about the following: Are there any members of the KLA in that village or in surrounding villages, and could the interviewee give us the names. And then in the course of interview further on we would ask whether these persons participated in the terrorist attacks and so on.

Q. I see. But the names just came out completely voluntarily in answer to the most neutral question. Is that your evidence?

A. These were not neutral questions. If the interviewee was from Racak, then I would ask, "Are there any KLA members there? Who are the members? Are there any trenches dug out, communication trenches, and so on. This is regular procedure of the organ of the interior.

Q. But did you ever press any with, "But isn't so-and-so a member of the KLA?" Did you ever do that?

A. Listen, my method of work was as follows: If the interviewee gave me several names, then I would go back to establish for certain whether the names were right, whether these people were indeed members of the KLA or not.

Q. Second little detail. When the statement was typed up, is it your ⁴¹⁰⁰⁶ evidence that the statement was read over to the person? I think you've told us it was, but just to be sure about it.

A. Every statement was dictated by me to my colleague, Mr. Momcilo Sparavalo, who typed it on the typewriter.

Q. And was it read to the person?

A. The statement was either read out or was given to the interviewee to read it himself if the person in question spoke Serbian well.

Q. And then they all happily signed these statements; is that right?

A. Upon learning of the contents of the statement, they would sign the statement voluntarily, which in my view was normal, because these statements were taken from them without any kind of coercion. There was no extortion of statements.

Q. And nobody ever objected, for example, to the use of the little phrase "so-called KLA" in all the statements that you produced, did they?

A. No. I never came across a case where somebody objected.

Q. Because of course it wasn't they who said to you, "Mr. Jasovic, my son was a member of the so-called KLA," it was you who added the words "so-called," and they never objected; is that right?

A. No. I never added. They themselves would use the words "the so-called KLA," the illegal organisation.

Q. Let's just follow that. Every one of these Albanians whose statement says "so-called KLA" has a conversation with you where they say, "Mr. Jasovic, my son was a member of the so-called KLA." Is that what you're telling us?

A. I'm telling you that we interviewed people who had been brought ⁴¹⁰⁰⁷ in, and they themselves would tell us that the so-called liberation army of Kosovo had been established, and we would have problems.

Q. You need to go no further with that answer. I'm only too happy to hear you give it, and we'll move on to something else. A tiny point. Stimlje had its own police station and Racak fell within Stimlje, a police station which had a very low incidence on the records of police violence. Why was it that Racak people were interviewed and dealt with by you at your police station?

A. At the police station, we did not have the criminal investigation department or division. Such matters came normally under the jurisdiction of the criminal investigation division, and the Stimlje office came under the Urosevac SUP. The law on the internal affairs specifies precisely what matters come under the police.

MR. NICE: Mr. Nice, the validity of your point about "so-called" may depend on how that term is used in Serbian. Maybe it doesn't have the same connotation as in English.

MR. NICE: We'll find out.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it depends on its connotation also in Albanian, not just Serbian.

MR. NICE: Indeed it does. I'll deal with the point if I can a little later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I know if there is a difference, we can rely on Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, if there is a difference we may expect contribution from Mr. Milosevic. ⁴¹⁰⁰⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Contribution, yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, as a policeman of some experience, you will confirm this general truth: That crooks and criminals and conspirators seeking to cover up crimes often fail to cover their tracks sufficiently, don't they, and that's how you catch them?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I interviewed - I apologise - generally not criminals or prisoners.

Q. I see. Well, let me suggest to you, because I want it to be quite clear, I suggest to you that you, your chief, Danica Marinkovic, Goran Radosavljevic, the unnamed head of the military, Djordjevic, Sainovic, and others were and acted as common criminals in an attempt to disguise what they had done, no doubt on behalf of this accused, at Racak, but that you didn't successfully cover your tracks. I shall now explain to you why I say that. Do you understand the proposition?

A. I understand your question, and that is not true. Except for the former chief of SUP, Mr. Bogoljub Janicevic, and Mrs. Danica Marinkovic, whom I accompanied once to conduct on-site investigation when the commander of the Kacanik police station was killed, I know these persons only officially, through official contacts. I met her on that day. Otherwise, I heard about them but I don't know them personally.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I don't desire to linger with this witness on what is tab 9, but dealing with things sequentially, the Chamber may be interested in it, and my question to the witness derived from it is this: ⁴¹⁰⁰⁹

Q. Can you think of any reason why Janicevic, your boss, as early as the 16th of January of 1999, should be denying the involvement of the VJ in this operation?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know the answer. Most likely my former boss would be able to answer that.

Q. Well, is the answer this, and I question you about it, the Chamber will find reference to it in Exhibit 446, that as early as June 1998, a plan had been organised involving Lukic, Gajic, Trajkovic, Radosavljevic, and others to deal with terrorism, as it was described, but without invoking a state of emergency situation? And without a state of emergency situation, it would have been improper to involve the army. Now, thinking back, and I realise you'll claim that you're in a lowly position, but is that the truth, that this accused or whoever decided not to have a state of emergency and, therefore, the use of the army to deal with so-called terrorism would have been improper? Does that fit with your recollection?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I apologise once again, but I can't answer that question either. How would I know when these people were above me? They were my superiors, and they did not inform me about everything.

Q. Well, then let's come back to somebody who is nearer your level, and tab 15 of the bundle coming your way in Serbian on the overhead projector in English, we see a document dated the 17th of January from Bogoljub Janicevic, and it's dealing with just one small part of the history, and I suggest it's a part that everybody knew needed to be covered up but only a very small part. ⁴¹⁰¹⁰ Now, you see, this statement or report on the 17th of January focuses on -- well, let's read it:

"Sadik Mujota, son of Murat, born on the 20th of February, 1943, in the village of Malopoljce, in the municipality of Stimlje where he lived, and his daughter, who was actively involved in the so-called KLA, were executed on the 15th of January ..."

Why was his teenage daughter executed?

A. Sadik Mujota and his daughter, just as his son, Jasic Mujota [phoen], and I'm telling you based on conducted interviews and statements, they went from the Malopoljce a village and joined the KLA in the village of Racak because the son of Sadik Mujota is married to the daughter of Mehmed Mustafa.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I am telling you. I'm answering.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... tell us so that we may know what this teenage girl did that merited execution. Please.

A. I don't know what she did. But I know that she was a member of the KLA.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I don't know. I don't have information to the effect that she committed murders.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would like to ask you to tell me where I can find this document. Mr. Nice, at tab 15, and said this was a report of the 17th of January, 1999. ⁴¹⁰¹¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a document entitled "Information."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is that in the Racak binder?

MR. NICE: It's in the Racak binder and he can find it at the top right-hand corner if he wants to. It's got 03066453. Sorry, in his version.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In his version.

MR. NICE: It's -- it's K0225863. And I can make my version available if it's going to save time. I'm grateful to Ms. Anoya.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, if I may suggest to you answering I know someone is a member of the KLA may not be very helpful?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, if I may suggest to you that answering I know someone is a member of the KLA is not going to be very helpful. Or may not be very helpful. Would you now please tell the Court what the teenage daughter of Sadik Mujota did on the day of the 15th or had done on days before to merit her execution?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I think I was brief and to the point. I don't know what her activities within the KLA were. All I can tell you is what I know based on the statements. I know that she was a member of the KLA and that from Malopoljce village she went to Racak and joined the KLA there together with her father and her brother.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You know that she was executed on the 15th of January? ⁴¹⁰¹²

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know based on the statements. I think that I even said so yesterday or the day before yesterday. I mentioned the five bodies which were not in the mosque in Racak.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... in the original is --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's precisely what I wanted to mention. In this document, no execution whatsoever is mentioned. No execution is mentioned. It says here: "On the 15th of January, in the operation aimed at finding and capturing Siptar terrorist members, Sadik Mujota, born on such-and-such date in Malopoljce where he resides, just as his daughter who was an active member of the so-called KLA." So it doesn't say here that anybody was executed.

Mr. Nice --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That would be a very serious mistranslation.

MR. NICE: I'm not see sure, Your Honour. Let me ask the witness a few questions, if I may.

Q. You've used the word "liquidated" earlier today, Mr. Jasovic, hadn't you?

A. I didn't use the word "to liquidate." I was simply reading out a passage from a dispatch.

Q. You explained to us what it meant, and it meant to be killed, didn't it?

A. That's true.

Q. And it doesn't -- ⁴¹⁰¹³

A. To liquidate means to kill.

Q. And it doesn't mean, for example, to be killed in a car accident. It doesn't mean to be killed as a result of natural causes. It doesn't mean to die as a result of falling off a mountain. It means to be killed by the process of liquidation, which is in the circumstances of a single killing probably the same as execution. Do you agree?

A. To liquidate means to deprive of life, literally. Naturally, not in a traffic accident or something like that, because if there is a traffic accident, then a person cannot be liquidated simply they -- it would be described as being killed in a traffic accident.

MR. NICE: Your Honour --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'd like to have the B/C/S put on the ELMO, that first paragraph, so we can have it translated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Should I read this out?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please read it out, the interpreters.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says in the heading, "Information."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Go ahead, interpreter, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, the witness should read it out in B/C/S and then we would interpret into English.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. Yes. Can't you just read it from the -- from what is on the ELMO?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we can, but the professional rules generally indicate that somebody should read it out and we should interpret. ⁴¹⁰¹⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's follow the professional rules that the witness reads it and the interpreters interpret. Go ahead, Mr. Jasovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Information. On the 15th of January, 1999, in an operation aimed at locating and capturing Siptar terrorist gangs in the territory of the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, Mujota Sadik, son of Murat, was liquidated. He was born on the 20th of February, 1943 in the village of Malopoljce, Stimlje municipality, where he resides. Also liquidated was his daughter who was actively involved in the so-called KLA."

Should I read on?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, that's enough. Yes.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Now, we know what "liquidated" means, if there's any difference from execution, but I'm not concerned to pursue that. Perhaps you'll tell us what this teenage girl who ran to her father when she was to be killed on, I think on the available evidence, what she had done to merit liquidation.

A. Mr. Prosecutor, all I know regarding her was that she was actively involved in the KLA, that she was a member of the KLA. I was not there on site --

Q. I want detail. I want detail from you as to how this teenage girl was liquidated and why. Don't you?

A. I don't know how she was liquidated. I was not there on site. I was not present there. How would I know? ^{41015 BLANK PAGE 41016}

Q. That's it. How would you know? Well, let's explore this document which claims to be a report from your boss. If a document of this kind comes into the possession of the police, or they realise these things have happened as soon as the 17th of January and that a young teenage girl has been killed, would that be a matter the police should inquire into separately to see if her death was justified or, for example, an excessive zeal by a policeman or soldier? Is this something that should have been inquired into?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, normal procedure is to investigate each case. After the events in the village of Racak, we focused our operative work on the events in the village of Racak, all of the events.

Q. I'm taking the Judges and this accused through the available material that we've got, chronologically, that shows what you forces of -- well, police and justice department did, and my suggestion to you is that the focus on this young girl and writing her off as a KLA activist as early as the 17th of January is simply a reflection of the fact that you knew there was no justification for her death, and you'd get caught out if you didn't try and say something about her being an active KLA member. Would that just about fit with your boss's approach?

A. Mr. Nice, that's not true. I told you several times and I can repeat that she was a member of the KLA.

In the statements, as for her role in the KLA, based on the interviews I wasn't able to find out what exactly was her role and what were her tasks.

Q. Did you try? ⁴¹⁰¹⁷

A. Through the interviews, yes, I did try.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Not just regarding her.

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

A. In the interviews conducted with these persons, and I can't give you the names of these persons because I don't remember.

Q. Where we would find a record of the questions you asked and the efforts you made to find out about this unfortunate girl?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, while conducting interviews, the persons who came in to give statements simply told me that she was a member of the KLA but did not elaborate on her role, on her tasks within the KLA. I did not acquire such information.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, may I ask you whether in your opinion would the -- would her active membership of the KLA by itself be a sufficient reason for her liquidation, for her being killed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, first of all, I'd like to refer to some other things. Her father, Sadik Mujota, was well-known. Previously he had raped females -- Albanian females.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm sorry to stop you, but I just asked whether in your view the active membership of this girl would be a sufficient reason for her to be killed. Never mind about her father. Would the active membership of any person in the KLA be a sufficient reason for that person to be killed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it would not constitute a sufficient reason. I don't know what was the course of the operation ⁴¹⁰¹⁸ conducted there. It was not the task of the police to kill or liquidate. The task was to locate and apprehend.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, do you have the name of this daughter of Sadik Mujota?

MR. NICE: Yes, certainly. It's Hanumshah.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Hanumshah. I will assist you. Hanumshah.

JUDGE KWON: She does not appear in the list, Schedule A of the indictment.

MR. NICE: No, she doesn't.

JUDGE KWON: Is she one of the five dead persons whose body was taken by KLA members and buried in KLA cemetery.

MR. NICE: Maybe one of nine. But Your Honour is right, she was taken away. We can find a reference to her. I won't disturb the line of documents --

JUDGE KWON: She appear at all in "Fallen Heroes" or the "Phoenix"? Sadik Mujota may appear.

MR. NICE: Sadik Mujota may appear.

JUDGE KWON: But not his daughter.

MR. NICE: No. And Your Honour, we will find a reference to her in tab 1.50. And I don't invite you to go to it now because we may look at it later in any event. But the limit of identification of her is as someone who Sadik Mujota brought with his three sons to the KLA substaff in Racak village. That's it. There's a bit more. Claiming that they ⁴¹⁰¹⁹ were previously in the so-called KLA in Malopoljce, Petrove, and Rance village and came to the so-called KLA in Racak because somebody's daughter was married to Sadik Mujota's son. But that's the limit. We'll look at it a bit more later.

Q. All right. Now, then, Mr. Jasovic, what you're -- I'm going to move on from that topic?

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you are --

MR. NICE: Yes, I am.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- can I ask you one thing. Whose translation is it we have in this --

MR. NICE: It's an official one.

JUDGE BONOMY: An official one. Thank you.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, it's not for me to say but it may well be that the -- it's a question of the context of the use of the word.

JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, indeed. Indeed.

MR. NICE: And we'll see the word "liquidari" [phoen] or liquidate used quite a lot. We're going to look at another one almost immediately, and if the Chamber would be good enough now to go to tab 16 in the developing story.

Q. And I turn to my observation to you, Mr. Jasovic, as a policeman of experience. One of the problems about --

JUDGE KWON: Before moving on this, I -- because I note this is new document. Could we ask the witness whether he can help with the authenticity of this document. ⁴¹⁰²⁰

MR. NICE: Which one, the previous one, Your Honour?

JUDGE KWON: No, tab 15.

MR. NICE: Tab 15 is a document produced by -- through -- unless you don't want me to identify --

JUDGE KWON: Your index says it's new. Could you check it again?

MR. NICE: It says it's new. Then it -- my reading of the format of it is that it actually comes from Stevanovic documents. But if it says it's new, Your Honour is quite right to invite my query of it.

Q. Could you help His Honour, please, Mr. Jasovic? Do you recognise this document? Do you recognise its form?

A. I haven't got the document in front of me.

JUDGE KWON: Show him the signature so he can recognise the signature as well.

MR. NICE:

Q. Yes.

A. This is the head of the shift of the duty service. I'm sorry. You mean the handwritten signature.

Q. Yes. That's what His Honour is interested in and so am I.

A. I could not recognise the signature, but I assume that this information was sent further on to the state security sector in Urosevac, because we forwarded such information to them as well. I cannot recognise the signature. Probably it was the head of the department or his deputy who received it. That's my assumption.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Who -- what tab is this? I cannot seem to find it. ⁴¹⁰²¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second page.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's get the tab number for Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: It was tab 15, the document he was previously looking at.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the same one you're looking at.

MR. NICE: The same one.

JUDGE KWON: The signature seems to be the one by this recipient, not Janicevic, because it's dated 27th.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: This document is dated 17th, not 27th.

MR. NICE: First of all, I think -- I will just confirm with Ms. Dicklich, but I am pretty sure that the index may be in error on this occasion and that the document came from the collection of Stevanovic documents, because if you come back to look at the cover page.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. NICE: It is probably familiar in format, and it just -- but it's going to be a problem to track it down. But I don't that its genuineness is challenged by the witness.

JUDGE KWON: Why don't you move on, then.

MR. NICE: I will. I'm grateful. Can we go on to tab 16.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not challenging this document.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we go on to tab 16. The English can go on the overhead projector with the witness having the original. And before we look at this, Mr. Jasovic, one of the problems for criminals is that sometimes ⁴¹⁰²² their junior partners can't be relied on to keep their mouths shut and sometimes they let things out, don't they?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, Ms. Dicklich says tab 384 of Stevanovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's not right, Mr. Prosecutor.

MR. NICE:

Q. Because if we look at the end of this document, we'll see here that this document comes from a corporal first class, Dragan -- is it Cumpalevic or Cumpalevic?

A. Yes. This is the head of the shift of the duty service of the police station in Urosevac who during his work from 00 until 2400 hours he --

Q. Very well.

A. -- compiled a bulletin of everything that happened during his shift, which is only natural, and the date is the 16th of January.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. And all the main events are there.

Q. -- and we'll just see a couple of things that I want your assistance with. First of all, on the first page at the bottom of the page, please, under paragraph 1, and on the first page for you on paragraph 1 it observes - four lines up from the bottom of the page - that 12 people were brought into custody regarding interviews regarding terrorism and were handed over to the officials at Urosevac police for further work. So that's 12 people you had to interview. Could you tell us, please, their names and point us to the records of their interviews? 12 people apparently interviewed by you or others in your police station. ⁴¹⁰²³

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I do not know which persons were brought into custody. And if they were brought into custody, apart from me, members of the state security would have talked to them. If I knew their names, I would tell you.

Q. I see. So there may be a whole additional separate body of material from people who were interviewed who actually saw events at Racak on the day. Is that what you're suggesting to us? And that haven't been made available to us despite our requests as Prosecutors or through this accused? Is that what you're suggesting?

A. Well, I don't know. I don't know what the persons involved are. I haven't managed to find the paragraph that you read.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I don't know which area they came from.

Q. The first paragraph and, if you look -- or it may be -- no, it's the -- I beg your pardon. It's on the second -- it's on the top of the second page, and it's at the end of that paragraph where we see about ten lines down the figure 12, about 12 people were brought in from custody -- into custody. Do you see that?

A. It's a poor photocopy.

Q. Again, it was provided through Stevanovic. That's the best we can do.

A. In order to conduct an interview with relation to terrorism, 12 persons were brought SUP Urosevac ODB Urosevac. I don't know. I don't know.

Q. Very well. You don't know. ⁴¹⁰²⁴

A. I don't know. Let's see. During the reporting day -- I don't know where these persons are from.

Q. Let's go to the top of the second page, Mr. Nort, and stay where you are in the text. And it says this: "Between 1100 and 1200 hours on the 16th of January, contact was made between the representative of KDOM (centre head Vel Dilbedson) and the chief of the Urosevac SUP." So with that in mind, we'll just go down on the English a little over halfway down the page, please, and we'll see what is said. If we look just in the middle of the screen, and you'll find this on the same page that you have been looking at but I'm afraid -- I'll read slowly so that you can track it.

"They were also told that the KDOM in the person of Vel, they were also told that at about 500 metres from the trenches a Browning 12.7 heavy machine-gun had been set up by the terrorists ..." Now, if you look on your page, Mr. Jasovic, you will find that about three-quarters of the way down. Have you found it?

A. You're asking me?

Q. Yes. Have you found it. On your page it's about three-quarters --

A. Yes, yes, I've found it. Yes, yes. "About 500 metres away from the trenches there was a heavy machine-gun, Browning 12.7 millimetres."

Q. "That had been set up by the terrorists who used this to fire continuously at the police who were in action."

Now, because of the problems about the use of the word -- the particular word and I know what the word is in the text, but you read for ⁴¹⁰²⁵ us the next sentence, please. Just read it out and then it will be interpreted.

A. "Who were opening fire all the time at the police force that was advancing," if I read it properly. "After having searched the village, the police forces in face of fierce resistance from the terrorists who were dug in occupied their positions, during which process several of the terrorists were liquidated while some of them withdrew in the direction of Krsina hill. A small number of policemen" --

Q. Carry on reading for yourself. I'm happy for you to do it to the end the paragraph.

A. "Several of the terrorists were liquidated. Some of them withdrew in the direct of Krsina hill. A small number of policemen neutralised the Browning fire and brought it to the centre of the village of Racak where there was a team to carry out an on-site investigation led by investigating judge of the Pristina district court Danica Marinkovic, and the deputy district public prosecutor Ismet Sufta. They were also told that the police did not pursue the terrorists further than the trenches and communications trenches towards the woods, apart from one group of policemen that was sent to eliminate the Browning fire. Having accomplished their task, they returned to the village -- to the centre of the village under heavy fire as they withdrew." It's almost illegible here. "Due to this --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- "the on-site investigation team ..."

Q. That's enough for me. Again, as we saw in a document yesterday, ⁴¹⁰²⁶ the report of the crime at this stage deals with events at the trenches. It deals with the possibility of people going to the place where the machine-gun was, but there is no suggestion of the terrorists being pursued further than the trenches and communications trenches; correct?

A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know. I was not on the site. I was not there and I cannot --

Q. Please, Mr. Jasovic. Please listen to the question. Try and help us. You have come here with I can't remember how many hundreds of documents. On the basis of those documents some assistance it is said is being given to the Judges. Here is some more documents from your police station at the time.

My question to you was on the basis of -- well, this passage written by the corporal does not reveal any question of the terrorists going beyond the trenches apart from those who went to eliminate the Browning fire. Simple question.

A. Well, it's a simple question. I can see what is written here. I cannot say had I been on the site itself, but this bulletin was compiled by the head of shift of the duty service. I cannot speak on his behalf because I don't know. It's probably the way it's written here but I don't know.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I was not involved. I was not on the site itself.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, this is reflecting events that occurred on the 16th, is it?

MR. NICE: No -- well -- no. This is -- the document reflects a ⁴¹⁰²⁷ meeting on the 16th.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE: And it's setting out, in fact, what the KDOM mission was told.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is that right, in fact? I understood that to be how you set it out, but I wonder if in fact that's correct.

MR. NICE: If Your Honour looks, say, ten lines down when Vel asked what type of police action this was he was told that this was a typical police action undertaken in order to capture a group of terrorists and so on, and then it goes on into an extended narrative. But I think Your Honour will be reassured by the reading of the beginning of the next paragraph which is of significance and which indeed I'm going to ask the witness to read to us. The next paragraph towards the foot of the page.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. Would you, Mr. Jasovic, please be good enough now to read the next paragraph, just the first two sentences.

A. You mean the continuation of what I had read out a few moments ago?

Q. Starting with the next paragraph that begins with -- begins with the --

A. Could you tell me the first words?

Q. Two lines up from the bottom of the page. "Vel," I can't do the next, I'm afraid, "was interested."

A. It's on the last page. ⁴¹⁰²⁸

Q. No. It's at the foot -- right at the bottom of the second sheet and it's two lines up and it begins "Vel." Two lines up from the bottom.

A. It says "Bel" here. That's what --

Q. I thought this was in Cyrillic.

A. That's why I was confused.

Q. But it's in Cyrillic. Don't you read Cyrillic?

A. I know, but this photocopy is so poor that the letter looks like B rather than V. That's why I'm telling you that.

Q. Please read it for us.

A. "Vel was interested solely in who had planned the police action, what equipment was used to carry out the action, whether or not there had been policemen from elsewhere and why the army took part in the action. He was told that the police planned the action and that it was police forces alone, not the army, that took part in the action. When he insisted on the name of the person who led the action, he was told that this was not the subject of this conversation. When we were asked if we were working independently or on someone's orders, the reply was given that everything was done pursuant to the legal obligations and regulations that derive from the constitution in order to protect citizen's lives and property. When a comment was" --

Q. You see, your comparatively junior colleague, corporal -- is it Cumpalevic or Cumpalevic?

A. Cumpalevic.

Q. Your fairly junior colleague Corporal Cumpalevic in the vernacular let's the cat out of the bag, reveals the truth, because he explains that ⁴¹⁰²⁹ Vel wanted to know about the army, but he was told, not the truth, he was told that the police planned the action and that it was the police forces alone and not the army that took part in the action. Because this is a report, isn't it? This is a bulletin of what's happened.

A. This is the daily bulletin of what happened on the 16th of January, 1999, during his shift, yes.

Q. Why -- can you help us --

A. It's a report on all events and incidents, yes.

Q. Again, same question. Why was it necessary for someone in your general area of interest, coming from on the -- whatever day it was, why was it necessary for this man to lie about the involvement of the army to the international community?

A. Which man? Who is lying? What are you saying?

Q. Well, Cumpalevic --

A. I didn't understand.

Q. -- is recording that in this interview with KDOM, Vel, the man from KDOM, was extremely interested in knowing what part the army took, and he was told that it was the police forces alone and not the army that took part in the action. Why did he do that? Can you help us?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know. I don't know whether this Vel or Bel, whether he talked to the head of the shift of the duty service. Possibly he talked to one the superior officers and then the superior officer told the head of shift of the duty service to record that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes. ⁴¹⁰³⁰

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let us not mystify anything. It is quite clear from the text that this corporal, first class corporal, first class corporal, junior corporal, put in this --

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] -- in this report of his - this is very relevant - a note about the conversation that was held between the chief of the secretariat of Urosevac with Bel. That is why --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, as with many of the points that you raise, these are matters you can take up in re-examination. It doesn't render the question impermissible. You can take it up in re-examination and make your point there.

MR. NICE: Right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I understand what you're saying, Mr. Robinson. But I would like to say that the question is wrong. There was no conversation between this sergeant first class and Vel. The sergeant first class recorded a conversation that was conducted by the head of the secretariat with Vel. That is why he says what Vel asked and what was -- he was told. He is just the note-taker.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

MR. NICE: That's what I've been suggesting. I hope if I haven't it's clear from the document.

Q. Now, let's move on and back to the statements that you've taken and that you say are valid, properly taken statements. Because Your Honours will find if you if you use the Racak documents at all that I've had integrated into them the various statements ⁴¹⁰³¹ taken by this witness at the appropriate place in the chronology, but since I think this is the last time I need refer to the Racak documents, it may be helpful if we, although you can find this statement at tab 18 in the Racak documents, if we move back now to the chart and to binder 1 of the cross-examination materials, and the Chamber again may find the chart of assistance. And the Chamber will be possibly assisted by just casting an eye on page 3 of the chart in light of the accused answers about witnesses he saw in order to observe that immediately after the horizontal black line of Racak statements were allegedly taken in the manner described, two on the 16th, one on the 17th, and then over the page, 20th and 23rd, at least statements of relevance. And it is one to those that I'm now going to take you. It's the one on the 17th of Muhadin Dzeljadini, and we can find him at 1.45 in volume 1 of the materials. And I'd like the witness to have this document with him. So it's this binder of materials, binder 1. It's tab 2, and within tab 2 it is 1.45.

Can we take the chart off the page -- off the overhead projector. The right-hand column maybe need not be revealed, but ... Sorry, if I said tab 2, wrong. Tab 5, and within tab 5, tab 1.45. I'm very sorry.

If you'd like to look at the very back of this tab, you'll find there it is, the statement. And if we could put the English on the overhead projector.

I'd be grateful, please, for your careful and considered explanation for how this statement came to be given. Can you help me? ⁴¹⁰³²

A. Are you asking me, Mr. Prosecutor?

Q. I am. I want your careful and considered explanation for how this statement was given.

A. The statement was taken on the 17th of January, 1999 from Dzeljadini Muhadin, from the village of Racak, municipality of Stimlje. I don't know whether the person was brought into custody or not, but I see that he was interviewed, that the said person was interviewed. In the statement, he mentions where the KLA staff is, and he even mentioned Mustafa Mehmet, 60 years old, and he says: "A month ago I saw him in Racak with an automatic rifle." And I personally said that it is a shame for an old man to be part of the KLA, and he started cursing me and told me to go away. And also he says: "I can further state that the daughter of Mehmet Mustafa is married to Sadik Mujota's son from the village of Malopoljce." And then he says: "During armed operations on the 15th of January, 1999, the following KLA members were killed in the yard of the KLA substaff: Namely Sadik Mujota with his daughter whose name I cannot -- I do not know but who was in the KLA together with her father. They both live in the village of Malopoljce." "Shaqa Shaqiri from the village of Racak in a camouflage uniform with KLA insignia.

"Enver Rashiti, from the village of Racak, a member of the KLA in the village of Laniste."

Q. We'll come back to the last names in a second. But just pausing at Shaqa Shaqiri, we have some ambiguity -- there is some ambiguity so far as that name is concerned. Do you know this person by any other name? ^{41033 BLANK PAGE 41034} Could it be Shakija Berisha [phoen]? Could it be Suceri Ismajli Sula? Do you know?

A. No, Prosecutor. Let me tell you. You see, when interviewees came, they would give names of this or that kind, because one family can have two or even three surnames. Shaqiri Shaqa, for example, Kadri Syla also appeared as Ismajl Sula. As for Shaqiri Shaqa, he also appeared with different names, but I can't remember now looking at the statements.

Q. Well, I gave you two possible alternatives. I'll ask you to consider them again. Shakija Berisha or Suceri Ismajli Sula. Is it either of those names that was this man's other name?

A. Shyqeri Sula is one name, and I think there's another name and surname of Shaqiri Shaqa. That's another one.

Q. Are you saying that Shyqeri Sula is not this man?

A. No.

Q. Very well. Let's go on then with the rest of the names. Enver Rashiti. Go on.

A. Rashiti. Do you want me to read?

Q. Yes. Go on.

A. From Racak who was in the KLA in the village of Laniste, Stimlje municipality. Ismajli Kadri, from the village of Racak. Lufti Bilalli, son of Hasan, from the village of Racak, in charge of KLA logistics. Zymberi Sherif Nijazi, from the village of Racak, also in charge of KLA logistics. An individual whose first and last name I cannot recall, except he is from the Kacanik municipality, a member of the KLA, was killed while he was in a forest about 200 metres away on guard from KLA ⁴¹⁰³⁵ substaff in the village of Racak. The commander of the substaff for the village of Racak, Afet Bilalli, son of Hasan, was seriously wounded and taken to an unknown place for medical treatment.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... happy to go through the rest of it but that will do.

Now, this person Muhadin Dzeljadini, how did he come - try and help us - with the assertion that these one, two, three, four, five, six men were KLA members and were killed in the yard of the KLA substaff?

A. Muhadin Dzeljadini, that he provided the names of the individuals who were killed, members of the KLA, he learnt about the said persons because he lived in the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, and I cannot see that they were killed in a house here. It just says during armed conflict on the 15th of January, 1999, in the yard of the substaff, the following KLA members were killed.

Q. Yes. It's quite detailed. And you see, we've been looking for an eyewitness, but don't let me put words into your mouth, think and give a considered answer, how was it that this person gives what appears to be an account of the location and circumstances of killing of six members of the KLA?

A. He is putting forward, as he gave his statement, that on that day he was on the spot.

Q. So let's -- and again please don't fall into any unintended trap of saying what you think I want you to say. I want you to take your time. Are you saying, then, that this man had firsthand knowledge and gave you a firsthand account of what he'd seen? ⁴¹⁰³⁶

A. Here I couldn't be specific and give you an answer because it says here during the armed conflicts on the 15th of January, 1999, in the yard of the KLA substaff the following persons were killed, and he states the names of KLA members.

Now, it is my assumption that he was on the spot, but I can't remember, and here in this paragraph it's actually not explained, or he heard about it from someone.

Q. You see, the alternative, which is what this man says in his statement, is that he was taken to a room which he says was 51, but that's maybe the way he read it, where you were in charge. He told the men that on the 16th he was in Racak and had helped move bodies to the mosque, that he'd seen 45 bodies including one that was decapitated and that when he told you about the decapitated body he got beaten with a stick. Did that happen?

A. That's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. And I'm not in office 51 as he says in that statement of yours. So how could he say 45 when there were 40 in the mosque?

Q. I see. And then he says, the next paragraph, that he went to a smaller room. Then you sent him to the basement where he was placed in a room. There were other men present. And later on in the basement efforts were made to make him accept that somebody named Sadik Mujota had a rocket launcher. Do you remember anything about that?

A. I do not remember. If he did come to talk to me, there's no logic that I would tell the policemen to put him in the basement. After the interview was conducted, he was released. ⁴¹⁰³⁷

Q. He explains that after the interview or the encounter he was given a document to sign which he signed at least because of the blood he saw in the basement of Ferizaj and that he didn't sign it voluntarily and that it's not accurate. See? He says that it's inaccurate, this statement, in a couple of particulars. In particular, he says that Nijazi Zymberi, we look at him, that's the last of the names, was not a member of the KLA. I says he didn't know if Lufti Bilalli was a member of the KLA. You see? He confirmed that Bajram Mehmeti, who we haven't focused on, and Mehmet Mustafa were members of the KLA. So he says the statement's inaccurate. Now, did you give this man a statement to sign that you wrote out?

A. The statement is correct. Everything he said was put into the statement. The statement was read back to him, and I can confirm the authenticity of this statement because next to me there was Momcilo Sparavalo and Amanovic Darko as I can see. And Dzeljadini Muhadin signed the statement of his own free will.

Now, I understand the man, that he doesn't want to confirm the authenticity of his statement. That's quite normal because he'd have problems if he were to do so.

Q. One of the problems for criminals who do things like -- and it's criminal to make up a statement and attribute it to someone else, seriously criminal, is that they can't necessarily know what other evidence exists at the time they present a forged document like this, Mr. Jasovic, and this is part of your undoing, I'm going to suggest to you, because let's look at the list of names.

Sadik Mujota. Was he in the KLA? Yes, he was. But he didn't die ⁴¹⁰³⁸ in the yard of the KLA substaff.

Shaqa Shaqiri. We don't know the name. It's ambiguous. We'll move on.

Enver Rashiti. Yes, he was a member of the KLA, but he died at the bunker.

Kadri Ismajli. Yes, he was a member of the KLA, and he was killed near the bunker at not at all at the ravine.

Now, perhaps you'd be good enough to look with me, Mr. Nort, at two photographs from Exhibit 156, tab 7. First this one. Overhead projector, please. And then this one, Mr. Nort. Leave that one on the overhead projector and come to this one, please, Mr. Nort. You see, while you were preparing this statement on the 17th of January, you may not have known this, but photographs have been taken of the ravine and it's been possible to connect the names of the people there with the bodies that are shown, and far from dying anywhere near the KLA substaff, Lufti Bilalli died in the ravine.

Next picture, please, Mr. Nort. And Zymberi also died -- Nijazi Zymberi also died at the ravine. How can you explain, then, please, this voluntarily statement containing these two factual errors?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, on the basis of the photograph, I don't know the place this person was killed at, on the basis of this picture. I stand by the statement that was voluntarily given to me by the individual whom I interviewed. He presented those facts to me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So you don't agree, then, that they died in the ⁴¹⁰³⁹ ravine, these people?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by the statement. What I can say is that Dzeljadini, as Muhadin Dzeljadini said. So I stand by that statement, what it says there. I and my colleagues do.

Q. Are you speaking for your colleagues here today or just for yourself?

A. I'm speaking in my own name here today, but I am conscious and guarantee that my colleagues will confirm that, because there was no use of force here at all or coercion, duress, statement given under duress or anything like that vis-a-vis this person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you recognise any of the bodies as -- who was the first one, Mr. Nice, Lufti ...

MR. NICE: Lufti Bilalli.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Can you show him Lufti Bilalli's body.

MR. NICE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know Lufti Bilalli. I never --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you moving to something else, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: Yes, I am.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE: Well, I've got to ask him a couple more questions about these photographs but that's all. ⁴¹⁰⁴⁰

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, the statement that we've been looking at, is that a -- is it fair to describe that as typical of the statements that you took in connection with your work in general in relation to terrorist activities?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This statement from this individual, I think it is an authentic statement. Now, as far as the picture goes --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no. I'm not asking you whether it's authentic. I'm asking you whether it's typical, whether this is just a good example of the sort of statement you took in the course of your work in relation to terrorist activities.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I took statements as I described, as I said, on the basis of the Criminal Code in the form prescribed.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's -- I'm about to ask you about that, but I just want to know that this is a fairly representative example of the statements you took, this particular one.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the most part the statements were taken in identical fashion, in the same way.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Now, what was the purpose of taking this statement?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean? Could you clarify what do you mean? How do you mean?

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I don't want to put words into your mouth. I want your answer. You see, police officers may be taking statements for the purpose of instituting court proceedings or reporting the matter to an examining magistrate or it could be for other purposes. Now, what was ⁴¹⁰⁴¹ your purpose for taking this statement?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This statement was not taken for the purpose of this trial but after the event in the village of Racak, which is quite normal, at the request of the public prosecutor an interview was conducted with a number of individuals who could provide the necessary information linked to the event in the village of Racak, specifically the activity, movement, numbers, weapons of KLA members.

JUDGE BONOMY: But a number of people are referred to in this document who were not killed at Racak.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a statement given voluntarily by Muhadin Dzeljadini. He gave it voluntarily of his own free will, and he specified the place where the said persons were killed.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. But if you go over the page to the end of the -- towards the end of the statement, is there not reference there in the second last paragraph to people who were not killed at Racak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean here where it says "a month ago in the village of Racak"?

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "A month ago in the village of Racak, near a place called Cesta, two members of the KLA were injured or wounded, Mehmet Agushi, and a person from Kacanik." On the basis of the statement, I can say that we have -- that in the KLA in the village of Racak there was an individual from Kacanik, but I'm not sure, although I think that that said individual was killed in a conflict, and I think his name, I am not quite certain, if I were to look ⁴¹⁰⁴² at the material I would know, I think his name was Xheman Beqiri [phoen] or Beqiri Xhemali [phoen] or one -- or a similar name, I'm not quite certain of the first and last name of the man.

And the place called Cesta is above the old people's home up above Stimlje. It is a place belonging to the village of Racak in actual fact.

JUDGE BONOMY: So if you go to the earlier paragraph at the top of the page was everyone there killed in Racak? The paragraph immediately before that. One was everyone there killed in Racak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean the first paragraph above all the names. Sadik Mujota, et cetera, is that what you're referring to?

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. It includes Bajram Mehmeti, Mehmet Agushi. What was their fate?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't found the paragraph. I'm sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Immediately before the part that we were looking at a moment ago.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for Mujota Sadik, he was killed --

JUDGE BONOMY: No. Just go above that you'll see a reference to Idriz and Bajram Mehmeti.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see, the brothers, Idriz and Bajram Mehmeti, and Mehmet Agushi.

JUDGE BONOMY: Were they killed in Racak?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for Bajram, I don't have any information about him. However, for Idriz think that it does appear in ⁴¹⁰⁴³ one of the statements but I'm not quite sure. And as for Mehmet Agushi, I have no information that he was killed.

JUDGE BONOMY: What, then, did you -- what did you do with this statement once you had taken it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean, what did I --

JUDGE BONOMY: It's a simple question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The statement. Well, on the basis of the statement, we continued our work, operationally speaking, with relation to Racak. And with the statement, well, the statement was passed on to the chief of the Secretariat of the Interior, the state security sector, and the chief decided what he was going to do with it, whether he was going to send it on to the MUP staff for Kosovo and Metohija in Pristina.

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, it's so unclear about -- in detailed matters. It doesn't tell us whether the person giving the statement saw him -- personally saw any of these events. So that's why I'm asking you what the purpose of the statement was.

You can take statements in different ways depending upon the purpose for which you take them. Now, what was the purpose of this statement? It wasn't for criminal prosecution, it would appear. What was its purpose?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The purpose here, well, the said individual wasn't a member of the KLA. The purpose of the statement was linked to the event in the village of Racak.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is that the best you can do? ⁴¹⁰⁴⁴

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Linked to the events. Linked to the staffs. Probably linked to how come if he was on the spot, how the event took place, linked to arms, weapons, the numerical state, how many. I can't remember all the details now.

JUDGE BONOMY: It wasn't for the great Serbian inquiry into Racak either. What was the purpose of taking the statement? If you can't answer, then I will trouble you no more.

MR. NICE: Before we break, Your Honour, just ask two supplemental --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The purpose of the statement, Your Honour, the purpose of the statement -- because before the event and after the event or before the event we knew that a KLA staff was set -- had been set up in the village of Racak. The purpose of the statement was, and that is -- this is normal, linked to the activities and movements of the KLA members, their numerical strength, their weapons. It was linked to the events in Racak, whether he knows anything, whether they were on the spot or not.

Now, here, on the basis of this sentence I cannot state a view as to whether he was there or whether he had heard about it, that on the 15th of January, 1999 these persons were killed, the persons listed below were killed and so forth.

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, that makes it sound as if it was for intelligence purposes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, at the request -- at the request of the public prosecutor, and that's quite normal. Interviews are ⁴¹⁰⁴⁵ conducted with individuals who can provide the necessary information about the events in Racak.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you now telling me this was done at the request of the public prosecutor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably. At the request of the public prosecutor.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, yes or no. Surely you must know whether this was taken at the request of the public prosecutor or not.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have -- Your Honour, it's like this. We have the right according to the Criminal Code if an event took place, happened, and if proceedings are under way to apprehend the perpetrators, we have the right to gather information and intelligence from citizens able to provide us with relevant information about the event concerned.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: I know the time, but may I ask a couple of questions before I complete with this particular statement.

Q. And following on from His Honour's question, would you be good enough to take the schedule and, Mr. Nort, try and not to display the right-hand column in case there's anything sensitive there. But would you show, please, page 3 and the foot of the page where we see the three statements that you took on the 16th and 17th of January. And just to remind you because you haven't had much time to familiar -- put it on the overhead projector.

This is a grid or a table that shows which of your interlocutors ⁴¹⁰⁴⁶ is supposed to have identified which of the people killed in Racak. Foot of the page, please, last three lines. Thank you. Whole page if we can get it apart from the right-hand column. Whole page, please, if video booth would help us. Thank you. Focus out, please. No, out. Thank you. More, more, more, more, more. That's fine.

The purpose of these so-called statements, Mr. Jasovic, was to try and provide some justification, however slight, for killing people in Racak, and we see that as early as the 16th you bring with you a statement from a 16-year-old identifying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. A very successful, as they would say for the shooting of game, bag, wasn't it, to get on the 16th evidence that all those people who died were members of the KLA?

A. It's not true, Mr. Prosecutor, and I can say here that before the event in the village of Racak, from the list of persons killed we had 14 persons. We learnt that they were members of the KLA, whereas for 16 individuals we learnt post festum.

Q. You've got the statistics at your fingertips, but before I finish with that proposition, I'd just like you to confirm because I'm afraid I will have to question you a little after the break, does it remain your evidence --

A. No problem.

Q. Does it remain your evidence, Mr. Jasovic, that you simply asked people who were the members of the KLA and they gave you the names, or did you press them in some way into naming people who had suffered in Racak? Tell us. ⁴¹⁰⁴⁷

A. I -- the interviewed persons, I asked them straight away what was new in the place they lived in, and in our conversation he would say, "Well, armed members of the KLA turned up," and I would follow on from there. And that was normal for me to follow on to what he said and say, "Do you know the names of the KLA members? Where are they? What are they doing," that kind of thing. So that's the kind of interview I conducted.

Q. Your questions should -- your questioning should produce from the witnesses all the names of known KLA people, not restricted, for example, to those who simply happened to have suffered death at Racak. Yes?

A. In the interview, the interviewee, up until the 15th of January, until the event happened in the village of Racak, quite normally they would provide the names of the KLA members. After the event in the village of Racak, and this is quite normal, in our conversation he gave me the names of the KLA members who were killed in the clash between the police and the Albanian terrorists of the KLA.

Q. And dealing with this particular witness statement, so-called, I'm going to suggest to you there's no reason for you to know this, that when this man, Muhadin Dzeljadini, was seen by the investigators from this Tribunal, he wasn't shown any photographs of people in the ravine or anything of that sort, and he challenged, as members of the KLA, Bajram Mehmeti and Nijazi Zymberi and expressed ignorance as to the position of Lufti Bilalli. We find that those two certainly didn't die where he is said to have said they died. That's because you made that statement up and attributed it to him, isn't it? ⁴¹⁰⁴⁸

A. That's just not true, Mr. Prosecutor. I stand by the statement ability authenticity of that statement. I can confirm that, because the statement was signed by the interviewee, the person interviewed, and I know about Mr. Sparavalo there. So I didn't think that up. I would have no reason to invent that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will take a 20-minute break.

--- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, other evidence or material coming from the Serb side suggests that it was thought that Racak was occupied on the 15th by KLA members and by nobody but KLA members. Was that your understanding?

A. Members of the KLA were in Racak.

Q. I hope my question was clear. The understanding, according to people like Goran Radosavljevic in his interviews, both with the television company and indeed with us, because he's still alive, and other sources suggest that the belief of those mounting this operation was that there was only KLA in the village. Did you understand it to be the case that there were only KLA in the village when the attack was started?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, on the basis of the statements that I have, and I think that I have already said this, in the village of Racak, well, I don't know. I looked at a statement at the end of December. There were ten or 15 members -- families, rather, left in the village of Racak. The rest moved out of that village and moved to other villages where it was ⁴¹⁰⁴⁹ peaceful and where there were no clashes between members of the police and the Albanian KLA terrorists.

Q. On the 15th, help us, is it your understanding that there were civilians living there, or was it your understanding that it was only the KLA living there?

A. Again I'm telling you, perhaps there were ten to 15 households there. I'm talking on the basis of statements, on the basis of documents.

Q. That would be extremely important, wouldn't it, to use care and proportionate force in mounting an operation to arrest people who were suspected of killing one policeman?

A. I don't know what happened on the spot, and I cannot give any answers with regard to the actual site.

Q. If an operation is mounted in an area where it is known that there are civilian families and maybe some members of the KLA, it is extremely important to use proportionate force against the suspected KLA for fear of killing innocent civilians. Simple proposition. Do you agree with me?

A. I could not fully agree with everything. The police went out with the objective of finding and arresting the perpetrators from the KLA.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you had secondary education. You've been a policeman for how many years? 20 years or something. Did you not understand my question?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you understand my question or not?

A. Well, could you explain it to me, the question?

Q. Let me ask you this: Do police owe any duty of care to innocent ⁴¹⁰⁵⁰ civilians who may cross their paths when they are investigating crime?

A. Well, it's only natural. Civilians are one thing, and members of the KLA are another thing.

Q. So that on this operation, where you yourself know that there were families in residence in Racak, it was essential that care was used and only proportionate force was used against the people believed to be KLA; correct?

A. You see, it is only natural that one should take good care of civilians.

Q. Can you explain then, first of all, in these circumstances why on the evidence civilians who escape -- male civilians who weren't killed were those who escaped? They weren't escorted out by the police or the army. They weren't told they could go. They had to escape. With civilians resident, can you explain that to the Court?

A. Well, I wouldn't know.

Q. Wouldn't you?

A. I don't know whether they escaped or not because I was not there. I was not on the spot.

Q. Hadn't you investigated it, Mr. Jasovic?

A. I conducted interviews about everything, but I did not get to such information with the persons who were providing me with information.

Q. You knew, of course, that some men had escaped, didn't you?

A. I didn't know.

Q. Didn't you?

A. Because I didn't know -- because at that time I didn't know. ^{41051 BLANK PAGE 41052}

Q. An investigation into KLA at the time of Racak would presumably have a greater interest in those survivors who were still terrorists than in those people who had died who were terrorists, wouldn't it? If it was a proper inquiry, you'd be interested in knowing which terrorists were still around. Yes or no?

A. Well, it is only natural that during the investigation we geared our operational work throughout the investigation towards the events in Racak.

Q. Again, if my question was too complicated, I'll make it simpler. One, just yes or no, was this a general win investigation into terrorism? Yes or no?

A. There was a genuine investigation into terrorism in order to establish the truth.

Q. Two, did you have an interest in knowing who out of the people still alive in the Racak area were terrorists or members of the KLA? Yes or no?

A. Yes. I was always keen on finding out.

Q. I'd now like you to look at a few photographs. We'll see what your state of knowledge is. First of all -- these are all from Exhibit 156, tab 7. Have a look at that.

And if the -- if Mr. Nort could take the plan that's there, we could use that as well. The large plan.

You can use whichever you find convenient, Mr. Jasovic. Now, here's an aerial photograph, and the plan's going to come and be placed, I hope, beside you so we can look at it if necessary. ⁴¹⁰⁵³ That one, please.

Take your time. The legend is in English, but you can see names. And you can see something called Sadik Osmani's house. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I can see that.

Q. Then you see something to the right of that which is described as crime location 3, scene 7, with a pointer. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. Looking at the map and with your knowledge of Racak, can you -- can you relate the photograph to your knowledge of Racak on the ground? Can you understand the photograph?

A. I understand. I see the village of Racak, and you told me that this was Sadik Osmani's house.

Q. Very well. Are you aware that at the point which happens to be described as crime location 3, scene 7, was somebody called Drita Emini's house?

A. I could not be aware of that. How could I be aware of that? I don't know.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... look at another photograph which -- if we look at that photograph, you'll see that a road comes down on the plan and then bears round to its right but on the plan or the photograph turns slightly to the left, passes a couple of houses and then turns to the left.

So we'll now look at the next picture, please. These are all available for the Court. They all come from the bundle. So that's the bit of road that bears -- comes down and turns left. ⁴¹⁰⁵⁴ And I'm just going to explain to you a couple of things about the evidence and then I'm going to ask you a question.

People from Drita Emini's house, men and women, were taken out, separated. The women were put in the house this side of the little junction. The men, badly treated by the police, were eventually instructed to leave this area and go somewhere else. That's the state of the evidence. Do you understand?

A. Yes, I understand what you have said to me.

Q. They were instructed to go to Bebush Hill, which is the ravine where 20-odd bodies were found. But on the evidence, as they came down this road, they were able, because they weren't sufficiently pursued by the police, to separate into different places and escape. Can we look at the next picture, please. This picture from the same exhibit shows the other house we were looking at, Sadik Osmani's house. You see? Which is not very far away. They would have come to this area, the men from Drita Emini's house, and they would have found themselves in this area, and then we see in red something that's the route up to the ravine, the ravine where everybody, 20 people, were found dead. All right? That's what the evidence shows. The men went from Sadik Osmani's house and they went up to the ravine and they were killed. All right?

Do you understand what I'm explaining to you?

A. Well, I understand what you're explaining to me, and I see this.

Q. Very well. Now, let's have a look at this and I'll distribute this to everyone. ⁴¹⁰⁵⁵ We've prepared a couple of visual aids in two sizes. The video booth will have to come out of focus a little to get the whole thing in, if it can. Not out of focus, zoom out or whatever the phrase is. Right. We've gone back to that first picture, you see. Look again, crime location, 3, scene 7. Men compelled by the police to come down the road on instructions to go towards Sadik Osmani's house where they would have gone on the route to the hill where people were killed. But those men escaped. The men from Sadik Osmani's house were driven up to the ravine and they were killed. That's what the evidence suggests. I now want your help with the following. Would you look, please, at the left-hand list. Do you see the list on the left? Do you see the list on the left?

A. Yes.

Q. These are the names of the people who went from Sadik Osmani's house, Ragip Bajrami, Lufti Bilalli, Bujar Hajrizi, and so on. Numbers 1 to 22. Do you see the names?

A. I see the names.

Q. Yes. Those are the men who on the evidence went up to the ravine and were killed. All right?

Now, would you look to the list on -- on the right. This list is the list of the people who were in the basement with Drita Emini in her house who were driven out and instructed to go to the hill, the same hill where the other men were killed. Rama Beqa, Hamdi Beqa, Ekrem Hajrizi, and so on. 34 names but they all escaped. Understand? Those are the names of the men who escaped. ⁴¹⁰⁵⁶

A. Who escaped. I understand.

Q. Let's go to the left-hand list again. Underneath the first 22 names there are five other names. Of the men driven up to the ravine from Sadik Osmani's house, five survived and indeed two have given evidence at this Court. You see? Five names: Ali Agushi, Bilall Avdiu, Imer Imeri, Nesret Shabani, and Rame Shabani. Okay? Do you understand this summary of the evidence?

A. Well, I cannot understand the summary of the evidence because I was not on site.

Q. What I want your help with since you're the person taking the witness statements is this: If you now look at these lists, you'll see that some of the names have been shaded in green and other names have been left unshaded. See the difference?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you have come to this court. First you came with a very large volume of materials in a binder, and we looked at it on the last occasion and on this occasion. You then brought another bundle of material, untranslated. Look, over here.

A. Yes.

Q. Look. Please look at me. This is what you brought. More statements --

A. Yes.

Q. -- containing more names. We have gone through those statements to find out who it is who is named as KLA and who it is who you have never named as KLA. ⁴¹⁰⁵⁷

A. I cannot remember just off-the-cuff.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... work for you. Unless we've made an error in our reading of these statements, and it's always possible, of the 34 people who escaped from Drita Emini's house, only one, number 14, has been named as a member of the KLA. If we turn to the left-hand list. Of those who died, every one has been named in a statement allegedly produced voluntarily by you as a member of the KLA. Every one but three. Every one but three. We can see numbers --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, Mr. Milosevic has a point.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the impression that the witness does not understand at all what Mr. Nice is asking him. It was not explained to him that there is a legend down there, that green is --

MR. NICE: I'm always concerned that when the accused intervenes it's probably with a purpose. Can I continue with the question, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me assure the witness. Mr. Jasovic, if you do not understand anything, you must say so.

MR. NICE:

Q. If we look at the first left-hand list with the 22 names, all - just follow the names down - all but numbers 9, Ahmet Jakupi, 12 Xheladin Jakupi, and 19 Sukri Saliu, are said in statements produced by you to be members of the KLA. And Your Honours you will see we have the statements identifying where they are to be found.

Now, if he look at the bottom of that list, of the five men who happened to be fortunate enough to escape, only one, Rame Shabani has been ⁴¹⁰⁵⁸ the subject of any suggestion that he was a member of the KLA and the other four are never mentioned in your statements. Can you explain, please, how it is that it's only the subject of two exceptions it's only the survivors -- it's only the dead who are identified as KLA and that the survivors are not? Can you explain that to us?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I stand by my statements. Persons who were interviewed voluntarily mentioned these persons in their statements. There are also Official Notes and there is information. Official Notes about conducted interviews with informers, friendly connections, or acquaintances.

Q. Mr. Jasovic --

A. These persons are not only contained in the statements.

Q. You're bound to say that, but I want your help with a logical problem. Let me suggest to you this as I've suggested before. These statements were produced for another purpose entirely. They were produced to create a record of alleged KLA membership for certain purposes, and after Racak, the purpose was to cover your tracks and to cover the illegality and the known illegality of this attack. That's why these statements were prepared. Am I not right?

A. You are not right and it's not true. Because in addition to the statements, there are Official Notes and there is information.

Q. Nothing was ever done with these statements. Nobody was ever prosecuted, charged. There's no investigative reports, nothing. The statements were simply left there to provide a fig-leaf of cover for the ⁴¹⁰⁵⁹ gross criminality in which you were a part.

A. It's not true. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm claiming with full responsibility that that is not true. I fully stand by the Official Notes, the official information, by the statements that were not taken under duress, that were not taken under torture or with using any kind of violence.

I understand these people, that now they did not want to confirm the authenticity of their statements because they'd have problems.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... quite understand that something in the region of 20, 30, 40, 50 people, doctors, everybody is wrong and you're right. We understand your position, but I want your help with this logical problem.

How, if you were investigating living and dead KLA members with an obvious interest in the survivors, how can it be that people from two different houses destined for the same fate in the gully are divided up in this way, that the survivors, with one limited exception, are not shown to be KLA members? How can that be?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know whether they were in the same house, whether it was the same ravine. This does not prove to me that that's the way it was.

Q. Just a couple of questions on individual witness statements so-called, Your Honours, and with your leave I wasn't put my case in this --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: I won't put my case in each and every witness ⁴¹⁰⁶⁰ statement. They're summarised on the chart and it's available in the materials, and it would take some time. But can we go back please in the materials to 1.49, Naser --

JUDGE KWON: Before we are moving off, if we are going to leave 1.48, I know it is very of significant importance that a witness whose name is Dzeljadini allegedly said that two members -- Bilalli and Zymberi was killed in yard of the KLA substaff. If it is true, does it mean that the two bodies might have been possibly moved overnight? Or if it is not, then this statement was taken for a purpose of covering up. Am I right?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes, absolutely right.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Do we have the yard of KLA substaff as one of the crime scenes?

MR. NICE: No. There's a crime scene near to it but not, I think, actually at it. Just let me --

JUDGE KWON: But there were some persons who were killed at substaff.

MR. NICE: Not actually at the substaff I take it. Yes. No. It was actually a good distance up the road from the KLA substaff that was the nearest seen of crime, and it's number --

JUDGE KWON: If you are able to indicate the place in the map.

MR. NICE: May Mr. Kelly just have a sight of the other map, please.

JUDGE KWON: While we are waiting, two further clarifications. As for daughter of Mr. Sadik Mujota, is she not the one who appears in the schedule under the name of Hanumshah Mehmeti, one of the two females? ⁴¹⁰⁶¹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I explain? I could explain.

MR. NICE: No, two different people.

JUDGE KWON: Two different people.

MR. NICE: I'll just deal with the first question, if I may. If Mr. Nort would take the map back.

Indeed, Your Honour, I should have drawn your attention straight away to the legend on the map. If you look at the map, between -- at the bottom between -- you'll see that square symbol, the code of which is indeed that it's their headquarters. I don't have it up at the moment. We can have a look at that. Can we have the audio booth play the -- display the picture of the map, please. Thank you. Can we get that? Right. If Your Honours look at the bottom of the map, you'll see between 1 and 2 a square block with a square shape in it. That's the substaff headquarters, and therefore the only scenes of crime were some distance away from the yard at either points 1 or point 2.

JUDGE KWON: So it's not noted as one of the crime scenes.

MR. NICE: Not at all, no.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And the last point is you dealt with Exhibit 446 at one time, but you didn't identify the tab number. You could do that later, just for the record.

MR. NICE: Right. Can I come back to that? Can we come back to tab 1, the following tab. It was tab 6 of 466, Your Honour. Can we go back now to tab 1.49, which we were looking at the day before yesterday. The Court was provided, I don't know if it's still got -- I'm sorry the witness was provided with certain translations of ⁴¹⁰⁶² this statement, and we had looked at some of them. Your Honours, unless the paper exists in -- it may exist, happily, in the bundle of materials that is our volume 1. Can the usher find that, please, and see if it's there logged in 1.49? If it isn't, we'll have to do without the translations and I'll read the entries to the witness. Have you got a passage of translations there, Mr. Nort? Is that all in English, Mr. Nort? Here we go. Here you go, Mr. Nort. This will do. That for the witness. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14.

Q. We looked at paragraph 8 in the English two days ago, I think. Paragraph 9 on the overhead projector in English, please, Mr. Nort, reads as follows by this witness: "We were taken to the cells in the basement where we were made to take off our shoes and our belts. They took my watch and my wallet with 300 Deutschmarks which I never saw again. I was repeatedly hit on my head by four police officers. The walls of the cells were covered with blood with palm prints in the blood. There was also a lot of human hair there as well. One policeman said get a gun, I want to kill them. Another got a baton and we were beaten on our arms, legs -- hands and legs. I screamed, but my brother did not. Around midnight or 1 a.m., I asked if I could have some water. I was told all I could have was a bullet by my forehead, for your forehead. He said, 'This is not the place. You should be in Albania.'"

Was that you, Mr. Jasovic, who said all of that?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I am saying to you with full responsibility that this person came to see me of his own free will, voluntarily. It wasn't once that he came to see me. He came two or three times. ⁴¹⁰⁶³

Q. He didn't fall down, did he, while he was in the police station, or have an accident or anything like that?

A. How is it possible that he fell when he reported at the desk where the policeman was and it was the policeman at the entrance desk, the reception desk who told me there is such-and-such a person who wants to see you and this is what I'm stating with full responsibility.

Q. Paragraph 10 reads: "Around 3.00 a.m., two police men came in and beat us again. One spoke Albanian, and I did not recognise him. He said, because you are from the Mujota family it's difficult for you to get out of here.

Around 7.00 a.m. They came and took my brother first. I didn't know what was going to happen to him. Fifteen to 20 minutes later they came for me and sent me to Jasovic's office again. He said, have you thought about all this? I said, I have nothing to think about and he said he would send me to Nis. I assume he meant Nis prison. Then Sparavalo said, you'll never get out of this office because there is no God in this office. I asked if I could have something to eat and somebody brought some food. I don't know who. He said you will either tell the truth or I will kill you.

Jasovic asked who the commander of the KLA was in Malopoljce and how many soldiers there were in the KLA. I answered I don't know any of this."

Does that have a grain of truth in it or no truth? You tell us.

A. There is not a grain of truth in this. I told you, I remember that the second time he came he brought a document -- or, rather, he asked ⁴¹⁰⁶⁴ me to help him with some document. I've forgotten now. As for this particular person, I claim with full responsibility that this is not true. But I understand the man. This man was not a member of the KLA and probably now he has to justify himself in some other way so that he would not suffer any consequences.

Q. Paragraph 13 reads as follows, follow that please: "I did sign a statement while I was detain at Ferizaj on the second day but I did not see anybody compile this statement nor did anybody take notes while I was being interrogated. I was just presented with the statement to sign. I don't know who or how the statement was compiled. Investigator Murtagh has shown me a document. I recognise my signature. I was forced to sign this statement and I was told by Jasovic if I didn't the only alternative was death. I could hardly see the page where I had to sign because my eyes were so swollen from the beatings. I do not understand the Serbian language. This document has been read to me in Albanian today. I do not accept this statement and what's written in it. I don't know. I remember Jasovic said he would write a statement himself even if I didn't say anything and he said that he would sign it himself." Is that what you did?

A. That's not true. It's not true here what -- that he's complaining about me and my colleagues. I tell you that there is just one truth, and I say with full responsibility that the truth is that the individual came to see me voluntarily, and I even remember that when I was busy I asked him to wait outside for two or three minutes in the hall. So we talked both in the office and outside in the hallway. And I know that the second ⁴¹⁰⁶⁵ time he came he asked me to help him with something related to a document, and I would be lying here if I would say it was a matter of a passport or ID or some other document. But I understand him. I understand why he doesn't want to confirm the authenticity of his statement.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... when he was released he went to see a doctor in Ferizaj because his hands were swollen. His arms and hands were swollen and black. He was given injections and medication for the pain. He couldn't see very well and read as a result of the beatings and he had continuing problems.

How about that then?

A. All I know is that he was neither beaten. No force or violence was applied to him.

Q. Well, we've got a little document from the doctor dated the 4th of February, 1999. The Chamber can see it. I'm afraid it's in Latin and hasn't been translated, but it's towards the end of the bundle from Dr. Xhela. We can put it on the overhead projector, please. Quick. And then one more.

MR. NICE: That's why I asked you if the man -- I'll get these translated, Your Honour. I'm so sorry they haven't been done already. It should have happened whatever language they're in.

Q. Can you account for this man going with problems to the doctor for bruising of any kind?

A. I can't explain here, but I guarantee that no force was used, no violence at all towards him. I can't take this document as being an authentic document. I can't accept that. ⁴¹⁰⁶⁶

Q. I asked you about this doctor before, whether you had anything against him. You said you didn't. Have you changed your mind?

A. Well, I don't know the man. I don't know him. But if here what we're discussing is that the doctor issued this document for him. I don't know what the injuries were. I don't know the man. I never met him, so I can't say.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will see in the materials there is another document coming from a later date 2004 which constitutes an update of the position, but again perhaps the witness can read it for us. I want his help with one other piece of language.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the top it says Naser Mujota, 19. The next digit is 7 or what, the last digit is 5. 75 I think it says.

MR. NICE:

Q. Just read on. Read it for us and we'll have it in translation.

A. Well, in Latin it says -- this is Latin.

Q. And the bottom bit?

A. At the bottom it says in Albanian "ka nevoje per vizite," no need for control. "konsultative te mjeku" that is and Albanian interpreter's note, "ordinar ne Slloveni." No need for control. It says Basri Ibrahimi at the bottom, an orthopaedist. Basri Ibrahimi, it says, orthopaedist.

Q. In Albanian "edhe matutje" and so on. Can you just read that out and we will have that, please.

We're not getting a translation.

THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading it out in Albanian so we have to rely on your Albanian colleagues. ⁴¹⁰⁶⁷

THE INTERPRETER: Loss of consciousness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you want me to read it again?

THE INTERPRETER: Loss of consciousness. And further up it was: He needs further consultation.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can you read all of the Albanian starting at the beginning --

THE INTERPRETER: Yes. He needs further consultations with the doctor.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He complains of pain within the lower extremities. He has pain -- pains in his head and loss of consciousness.

MR. NICE:

Q. See, this man went to the doctor the same day and has been suffering, he will say, continuing problems as a result of the beatings you gave him there and then. True or false?

A. What I can see is that the date is the 15th, 2004.

Q. Very well.

A. 15th of June. 15/06/04. And you say he went the same day.

Q. No, the first document is dated February 1999.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he say he was beaten by the witness?

MR. NICE: Paragraph 8 where he said to the police officer -- I'll read it again. He was beaten, dragged upstairs, recognised one of them having seen him on -- clearly on television testifying here, knew him as Dragan Jasovic.

Right. If I can have those documents back. I'm sorry about the ⁴¹⁰⁶⁸ lack of translation. I'm get that tidied up for everybody's records. And I -- Your Honours, I hope that I may be excused in the circumstances putting the detail of all the allegations about all the other witness statements.

As to the distribution of alleged identification of people as KLA, that's shown on the chart. The points I would have made about there being very low incidence of reference before Racak is obvious from the chart. I should have explained, if the Court would be good enough to look at the chart, that the revised version has some entries in black type, and those are the entries that simply come from the latest batch of documents that we did our best to review in the absence of interpretation or translation. They can be found at and only after Racak on page 4 in the statement attributed to the chief of police.

And I only have one or two more questions of this witness and then I am done.

Q. First of all, one question. Since you speak Albanian, what is the Albanian -- please say in Albanian the appropriate word for "so-called."

A. Let me just take a moment to think. I can't remember the word just now. You know, six years is a long time, and I haven't been contacting with -- that is to say, I haven't spoken Albanian for six years.

Q. But yet all these men, on all these statements, whenever they use the word KLA, preceded it by a word that you've been able to record in Serbian as "so-called." So what's the word in Albanian? Can you really not help us? ⁴¹⁰⁶⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

MR. NICE: Assistance is likely to be forthcoming --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness answer first, Mr. Milosevic. Yes. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the most part, most of them knew Serbian, and they mostly said -- they called themselves that way. They are an illegal organisation and referred to them so-called, and that was the context, because most Albanians know Serbian. Most of them do.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, first of all, that proposition is false. They nearly all spoke in Albanian and very few in Serbian. Keep thinking. Have you got the words for "so-called"?

A. Well, I can't remember just now. As I said not just now, but I'll probably remember it in a while. As I say, for six years I haven't --

Q. How about "te eksteemiteteve te poshtme" [phoen]. Does that seem about right?

A. I don't know. I can't be specific. But you can't pronounce the word as an Albanian would pronounce it. They have a special way of enunciating, of saying certain words and letters.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you were throughout this period, and particularly in 1999, you were the real mechanic of the police state that delivered this accused's policy in Kosovo, weren't you? In beating up Albanians.

A. That's not true. Not true. Neither is true. It is not true.

Q. And in joining wickedly with people like Marinkovic and police officers and the other soldiers in trying to cover up an attack on ⁴¹⁰⁷⁰ civilians which you all realised was quite inexcusable.

A. That's not true. It is just not correct and true, and I say that with full responsibility. That is your opinion.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will not start the re-examination now. There's a hearing this afternoon.

We will adjourn until Monday, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.42 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 20th day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.