⁴¹⁰⁷¹

Monday, 20 June 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I brought the cross-examination to a conclusion at 20 to 2.00 on the last sitting day of last week partly because it seemed a convenient time to end and realised on reflection that with your leave there are a few more questions I should ask for two distinct reasons. One, there are simply a couple of points that I ought to have put that I didn't; but two, when it comes to the discussion of the potential exhibits, our case is contained in documents, possible witness statements and schedules that may not be admitted as exhibits or otherwise documentary material in the case, and unless I put my case on the record in question form, then it won't be on the record at all. So with your leave, I would ask a few more questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: I'm much obliged. As to the translation of the medical documents, they are, I hope, on their way pretty well immediately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be brought in.

MR. NICE: And I will try to deal with this as succinctly as possible through the schedule. May the witness have the schedule.

WITNESS: DRAGAN JASOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued] ⁴¹⁰⁷²

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jasovic, I realised over the weekend there were a few more questions I should have asked of you and the Court has given me leave to ask them.

Would you look, please, at the schedule and you understand and remember the way the schedule is constructed. If we look on the first page, we see crosses in the fourth line of Sali Emini. Sali Emini is dead; correct?

A. Yes, that is correct.

Q. Sali Emini was, you say, an informant, but you produce no evidence of his being a registered informant, do you?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, as far as an informant is concerned, probably you could request that through official channels.

Q. You produce --

A. Or, rather, by our secretariat.

Q. Well, you remember that I asked you to produce your diaries and you didn't do so.

There's no evidence of what he was paid, if anything, for being an informant?

A. I said last time I don't know whether he was paid, but quite certainly our secretariat will provide you confirmation saying that he was an informant, and you can request that through official channels because, as I say, I wasn't able to bring that logbook or register with me.

Q. He's the alleged source of no less than 11 of your reports. Do you accept that? ⁴¹⁰⁷³

A. I can't remember exactly, but in my Official Notes he provided information in notes where his name is mentioned as well as in some other notebooks where it states that an interview was conducted with a person from the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality. I can't tell you exactly which one.

Q. The court record, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.10, 2.13, 2.15, 2.18, 2.19, 2.22, 2.30.

And significantly this, Mr. Jasovic: When you were first asked about 2.23, who we looked at last week in some detail, you initially gave a different name as the provider or different identity as the provider of this statement. You then provided the name of Emini and you then suggested that there were two sources for 2.23, although the document doesn't say as much. Can you explain why you gave different accounts of Emini's contribution to 2.23?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, because I have a large number of Official Notes at my disposal, information, and statements, however, on the first day I said -- well, I can't remember. I think the first day I said -- I was speaking about the male nurse, and the second day I said and -- or, rather, when I looked at this piece of information at my hotel, tab 2.23, the same knowledge was provided by two sources, the same information, which means the male nurse and the informant. They provided the same information.

Q. The piece of paper 2.23 doesn't remotely make it clear that it's two sources of information that you're relying on, does it?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I have the right to that in my Official Note or ⁴¹⁰⁷⁴ piece of information. I cannot mention a name at all, and I need not say. I don't have to say which sources provided me with the information, with the intelligence, because I didn't write down those Official Notes or notes for the purposes of this trial at all. So I have the right to do that.

Q. You see, we have some information, which is dealt with in the witness statement of one of the investigators, some confidential information to the effect that far from being an informant he may have not been a collaborator at all. This can be found in the investigator's note of Howard Tucker.

A. Well, I don't know which note you're referring to.

Q. Now, let's -- let's just look at page 1 of the schedule very briefly. If you've got that in front of you. You see Emini's name appears for two people here, but it's right, isn't it, that there is no signed document for Emini so far as informations dealing with Racak victims is concerned. There's no signature of Emini anywhere on those documents.

A. Well, Mr. Prosecutor, pursuant to our instructions and pursuant to the law on criminal proceedings, it doesn't say that persons that you conduct an interview with and compile an Official Note on should sign the document. Nowhere does it say that except a statement.

Q. If we look down to Zeqiri Sabit, the Court may wish to register that this one is signed although the statement-maker says that he was badly beaten, and it only deals with, because we've been as inclusive as possible in identifying possible connections to the KLA, and this ⁴¹⁰⁷⁵ identifies Ajet Emini as loaning a car to the KLA. That's the height of what's said here. So in this statement where it's said that Ajet Emini loaned a car to the KLA, he accepts that he signed it but he was badly beaten by you. What do you say to that concerning Sabit Zeqiri?

A. Well, it's not true that he was beaten, and I stand by -- well, I haven't got the statement in front of me. I'd like to have a look at it. But I stand by the statement.

Q. Very well.

A. If I signed it.

Q. Let's go to page 2 of the schedule. The only reference on page 2 as the Court will see is right at the top, Taib Maljici. I think the date is wrong. It's not the 1st of September I think it's the 18th of September but it's still in the correct place in the sequence. This is a statement by Maljici Taib, somebody we've been unable to locate at all. You say that in his statement he identified Mehmeti Bajram as the person who you saw in Laniste.

Your Honours, this is a case where we say there may be a mistake in identity.

The high point of your evidence about somebody called Bajram Mehmeti is you saw him in Laniste; is that correct?

A. Well, I wasn't in Laniste so how could I personally see Bajram Mehmeti in Laniste.

Q. If we go to page 3 of the schedule. The third and fourth rows relate to Sali Emini and none of those informations is signed. Likewise, the one about six or seven lines further on for the -- for 2.22, the 29th ⁴¹⁰⁷⁶ of December of 1998, that also is unsigned; correct?

A. Well, I said a moment ago that the person you interview doesn't -- that the person doesn't sign the Official Note or piece of information. I think that I was clear there. Regardless of whether it is an informant, a friendly contact or any other form of contact. So in the Official Note or piece of information on the basis of the interview the person conducting the interview doesn't sign the statement.

Q. The next one, --

A. The person who gives the interview doesn't sign the statement.

Q. Faik Ramadani, has denied that the signature is his, says he was beaten by you and saw blood on the floor. Do you follow?

A. That's not true. But Mr. Prosecutor, you're giving me some names and I haven't got the document in front of me. How can I answer your questions if I can't see those names? I don't know whether I actually conducted interviews with the persons you're mentioning now or not.

Q. Of course you don't have any recollection of them, do you?

A. Well, I cannot remember. I can't remember every individual. Probably I will remember some of them, but as I said, there were over 700 statements taken, whereas you're now asking me these questions, and I can't just tell you off the top of my head. I don't have the notes. I don't have the names, so how can I tell you?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you be in a better position to respond to the Prosecutor's questions if you had the documents in front of you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, of course I would have to look at the document first, whether I took a statement from the ⁴¹⁰⁷⁷ individual or not.

MR. NICE: We'll hand that to him, Your Honours. The --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness have the documents.

JUDGE KWON: I think we dealt with this signature during your cross-examination.

MR. NICE: We did, yes but [microphone not activated].

Q. 1.35, which we've recorded as referring to both Ragip Bajrami and Bajram Mehmeti -- in fact, the high point of your material about Ragip Bajrami is that he was at a checkpoint, and the high point of your material against Bajram Mehmeti is that he provided food; is that correct?

A. Well, I don't know. Let me take a look at the document and see what it says in the document. The fact is that both were members of the KLA.

Q. So you say. Well, just look at the detail, please.

A. Which tab do you say?

Q. 1.35. It was open at the right page for you.

A. At tab 1?

Q. It was open at the right page for you. 1.35.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the usher assist.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here I have Faik Ramadani as the person. Faik Ramadani. Is that what you're asking about?

MR. NICE:

Q. And if you look down on about the fourth paragraph you'll see that you claim that Faik Ramadani said that he saw Bajram Mehmeti at the checkpoint, in uniform with insignia and rifle. And if you go over to the ⁴¹⁰⁷⁸ second to last paragraph you'll see that you say of Ragip Bajrami that he goes to the houses of inhabitants and provides food.

A. Of course, Mr. Prosecutor. There's a terrorism here and aiding and abetting. And if he provided food -- well, he was a member of the KLA, and he was a member of the KLA --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- one person distributed food.

Q. How are you a member of the KLA by distributing food?

A. Well, this person doesn't appear only in this statement. He appears in other documents as well. I don't have them at hand here so I can't remember off the top of my head but --

Q. Can we look at the next one -- can you move on to 1.38, please?

JUDGE KWON: Pausing there, can I get an observation from the witness. If the usher could put this document on the ELMO, please. This is a commented B/C/S version of his statement, 1.35. Mr. Jasovic, do you see the -- a signature on the left bottom of the -- of Mr. Ramadani, which is written in Cyrillic letters? You said that this is a signature of that witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. That's correct, yes.

JUDGE KWON: This statement was shown to the -- Mr. Ramadani allegedly by Mr. Barney Kelly, an investigator of the OTP, and Mr. Ramadani signed his signature on the topside of this document, left. Could you see the top left? If the usher could show it. Yes. You see the note? You note Barney Kelly's signature and underneath you see Faik Ramadani. Do you think it is a signature of the same person? What is ⁴¹⁰⁷⁹ your observation on this matter?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can guarantee that the statement given by Ramadani Faik, and I explained this last time, that persons of -- middle-aged people, that is to say over the age of 50, usually sign their names in Cyrillic, in the Cyrillic script.

Now, as far as the statement of Faik Ramadani is concerned, you can carry out an expertise. Bring in a handwriting expert and somebody can ascertain whether it is indeed his signature or not. But quite certainly it is his signature, because I know all the individuals, all the people -- or, rather, I know that everybody of middle age tends to sign their names in Cyrillic.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just draw your attention to what you've just shown us on the overhead projector under Barney Kelly's signature. It says the name of this individual and it is written in capital letters. So quite obviously it cannot be his signature. Nobody signs their signature with -- using capital letters.

JUDGE KWON: We can see that. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Incidently, your observation that they choose to right in Cyrillic, the language of the Serbs, is a nonsense in the same way as your ⁴¹⁰⁸⁰ suggestion that they speak Serb. They speak Kosovo Albanian, don't they?

A. Well, that's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. Well, I don't remember whether he -- but as I say, generally elderly persons do know the Serbian language.

Now, as far as his signature is concerned, I'm not here to decide -- I don't decide whether he chooses to sign in the Cyrillic or Latin script. He gave his signature and placed his signature voluntarily.

Q. There is one other tiny point I wanted to deal with at some stage. I'll deal with it now before we return to the chart. Every one of these statements deals with the phrase "so-called KLA," a phrase you weren't able remember in Albanian last week. Can you remember it this week?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, I can't remember now either. I didn't give it that much thought.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. I know astatukja [phoen]. Astatukja, something like that, in that kind of term -- in those kind of terms.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... of course they didn't. That little phrase alone shows that all these statements are simply concoctions of yours, doesn't it?

A. That's not through, Mr. Prosecutor, because -- or, rather, they emphasised that it was their so-called -- that's what they called it. So they said that was their so-called, et cetera.

Q. 1.38, please - will you go to that - which is the statement of Ramiz Roshaj. This man says he was threatened but not beaten, and it ⁴¹⁰⁸¹ doesn't say that you were present, but if we just look at the statement to see what we've got here by way of completeness, under Muhamet Ismajlji's name the maximum that is said about Muhamet Ismajlji, this is on the second page of the English, towards the end of the B/C/S, is that he was a member, and can you see that? It's just a list of people. One of whom is Muhamet Ismajlji, said to be a member of the KLA in Malopoljce.

A. Musliu Muhamed, yes.

MR. NICE: So far as the other names listed, Your Honours, that is Jashar Salihu. Just to show the maximum possible completeness. If Your Honour looks at the earlier page, you'll see a Salihaj whose first name isn't known, and that's the only reason that's been included there. So it's not -- it doesn't amount to anything like a clear identification, and I don't need to ask the witness anything about it. Can we go to the next one but two. 1.40, Bahri Hisenaj. And Your Honours, there is an error in the chart on this page. There are two crosses, and if you would delete the red cross, the left-hand side of the two crosses and move it to the right so that they are one place to the left. These two crosses should be under the names of the Metushis, Arif and Haki, and they're included there again for completeness simply on the basis that there's a reference to something happening outside the house of the brothers Metushi. That's all. So it's not any more than that.

Q. This man, as I say, Mr. Jasovic, says that he was beaten, and the most he says --

A. The person certainly wasn't beaten.

Q. And he says -- apparently in his statement he says that they -- ⁴¹⁰⁸² that the KLA members have a security force stationed in a house, a store owned by the Metushis. That's the limit of what is said.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, I don't follow. I don't see any crosses in Hyseni Bajram.

MR. NICE: We're looking at --

JUDGE KWON: The first item on page --

MR. NICE: We're on page 3, and it's -- and it's 1.40, just before the horizontal black line or three entries before the horizontal black line.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: And then it's the left-hand cross that should be deleted and placed to the right. That would then make an entry for the two brothers Metushi. The statement shows no more than the allegation of the use of a store of the Metushi brothers, and that's the only reason we've put them in there for completeness.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: And the last --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, what's the point you're making about the statement shows no more than. You've done this with one or more of the statements. What is the point?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the point is this: That when we you look at the last one before Racak, which you'll see is Sherif Sadiki who is himself deceased, so we haven't been able to inquire into that potential statement-maker, but all he says is that there was a brother outside the house of Sherif Sadiki, i.e., a KLA brother. So then if one reviews all ⁴¹⁰⁸³ the pre-Racak material, three points emerge. That's the reason I'm dealing with it.

And can we then just with that look at -- well, now I'll just deal with it in this way:

Q. Sherif Sadiki, do you understand him now to be dead?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for the witness.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because if I take a look at my documents --

MR. NICE:

Q. Our information is he is now dead. Do you challenge that?

A. I can't say either yes or no because I don't know. I can't remember this name and surname, Sherif Sadiki. So how can I claim anything?

What I can tell you about the statement of Bahri Hisenaj, it is stated clearly here. I can tell you that in front of a bridge in the village the KLA members have their security checkpoint from which they opened fire at the members of the police. They were also located in a shop owned by Metushi from the village of Racak. As for this other person, I really can't tell you off the top of my head whether this person is alive or not.

Q. You see, you told us last week about the number of people identified before Racak occurred, and if we look at this chart where we have included every conceivable connection to the KLA that we can, what it comes to is this: That if we put Sali Emini's unsigned material on one side, we have somebody who lent a car, an uncertain identification of ^{41084 BLANK PAGE 41085} someone called Bajram Mehmeti. We have the provision of food, and we have one allegation of Ragip Bajrami being at a checkpoint. We have an allegation of somebody, Muhamet Ismajlji being a member, we have a suggestion that two brothers' house may have been used by the KLA, and we have the evidence of one brother being outside -- one KLA brother outside the house of Lufti Bilalli, and that is all we have. Do you follow that, Mr. Jasovic? You are in --

A. I wasn't able to follow all that. What I can tell you is that the informer provided authentic and true information which can be confirmed by tab 2.30, because the informer told me that the house of Qerim Imedi [phoen] would be attacked because he had three sons serving in the MUP of Serbia. And that exactly materialised three weeks later. You're now putting a lot of questions to me, so I definitely cannot follow all that.

Q. And the other thing that then follows from our chart is this: That Sali Emini who you say provided this material before Racak suddenly doesn't feature again. He doesn't turn up in relation to the Racak victims at all after the Racak event itself. Can you explain that?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, he appears before the event and after the event, I can't remember the exact date and up to which month, but I know that I spoke to him on the phone the last time in late May of 1999. I couldn't tell you now off the top of my head. If I were to look at the documents, I probably would be able to tell you. I don't know the exact date when I spoke to him last.

Q. Then the next thing I wanted you just to confirm is this: We looked last week at number 1.45, which contains some alleged detail of ⁴¹⁰⁸⁶ what happened at Racak. You remember that was people found in the KLA yard, and I explained to you that they were found elsewhere. If you turn to 1.54, which is Avni Metushi and you look to his statement which is at the end of tab 1.54. And if the Court goes to the third page in English, and if you, Mr. Jasovic, go to the second page, halfway down.

This witness is alleged in the statement to have said that on the 15th of January he came out of a house during the fighting in the street and he saw Sadik Mujota in uniform with a sniper rifle and his son. All right? But apart from that detail and from what we looked at in 1.45, none of your statements from these alleged volunteers says a word about the events of Racak on the 15th. Can you explain that?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, based on this, one can see that the statement was not extorted from the statement giver. One can see that --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- everything was stated voluntarily.

Q. Very simple question. Very simple question. You are investigating --

A. Please tell me the passage. I wasn't able to find the passage with that text.

Q. In your statement, it's on the second page, it's halfway down, and it begins "Dana, 15 January 1999," and it just deals with seeing Sadik Mujota. But my question is -- you found it?

A. Yes, I found it.

Q. And apart from what we looked at in 1.45 and despite the fact that ⁴¹⁰⁸⁷ you were seeing people on the 16th, 17th, 20th, 23rd of January, and so on, no one gives any detail of what allegedly happened in Racak. You were investigating the event. Can you explain why not?

A. Can you please clarify the question? You mean about the 15th of January, how that transpired on the spot? Is that what you mean?

Q. Yes. How did you, an investigator, seeing people from Racak, seeing people who had been involved and suffering and left dead and so on, can you explain how you only got these two statements that say anything about what happened at Racak? One of them we looked at, 1.45, and said is -- we suggest to you is completely wrong and made up, and the other one, 1.54, has one sentence. Can you explain how the investigating --

A. That's not true. It's not true that this was invented. I don't know if this involves two statements or more statements. I simply can't remember. But this statement is authentic as far as I am concerned and true, what this person stated. My colleagues and I who took this statement stand by it because this is what was indeed stated. I can't now tell you why he did not explain how the event actually unfolded. I don't know. I don't know. I couldn't tell you.

Q. And if you look at the chart, we've already looked at it mostly, but if you look at it, please, I'm going to run through it very quickly. My suggestion to you is that claiming to have got identification of all these Racak victims as early as the 16th from Mustafa Afrim who it is suggested was beaten, Rama Shaban on the 16th who I suggest to you was beaten, and Muhadin Xheladini on the 17th who was forced to sign by seeing blood on the floor, I suggest that those three as an example are just ⁴¹⁰⁸⁸ examples of statements that you've --

A. That's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. That's not true. This is simply your opinion, but it's not true. It's not true. Why don't you prove it to me that he was beaten and beaten up? Why didn't he report that? If he was indeed beaten, why didn't he report that to my superiors, and later on, after our departure, why didn't he report that to the KFOR and UNMIK and other competent authorities?

I can tell you now that you extorted a statement from him, but that's not true.

Q. I'm grateful --

A. It's not true that it was taken under any duress.

Q. Please. Make good your assertion that I, or it may be we, I don't know what you mean, extorted a statement from him. Just explain that to me.

A. I am explaining that the statement was taken accordance with the Law on Criminal Procedure in prescribed form. And I can confirm the authenticity of that statement. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

Q. You've chosen to make an allegation against either me or the investigators of the Prosecution. You said that a statement has been extorted. Please make good your suggestion.

A. I'm not claiming, Mr. Prosecutor, that you extorted these statements from the witnesses, but, I understand these people. I understand why they had to deny their own statements. That's quite natural, because otherwise they would have had problems. ⁴¹⁰⁸⁹

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. They would face adverse consequences, they and their families.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Jasovic, don't you, that there's no allegation that I've put to you that isn't based on material that has been provided to me from our investigators or other sources, none. Now, you were able to make an allegation against me with absolutely no material to back it up.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm not sure if that's exactly how he intended what he said to be interpreted. He says: "I can tell you now that you extorted a statement from him, but that's not true." In other words, he may be saying that's a mere allegation. "It's easy for me to say it."

MR. NICE: I'll move on. I can't pursue --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true.

MR. NICE: If that's the view the Court wants to take of this, I shan't take any more time.

Q. Let's look at page 4 of this schedule. You see -- if you look at --

A. Mr. President is quite right.

Q. Let me make it quite plain to you, Mr. Jasovic, I don't accept that interpretation, and I think you were only too willing to make an allegation without any foundation but I'm going to move on from there. If we look at page 4 of this schedule and if we cast our eyes down, 2.23 and then 1.5 --

A. I am not prepared, Mr. Prosecutor. What I'm prepared to say or, ⁴¹⁰⁹⁰ rather, to inquire how come these people did not report these cases after our departure to competent authorities and so on? Why wasn't this reported to our superiors? Because the statement with Afrim Mustafa was taken on the 16th of January, 1999. So they could have reported that to our superiors or perhaps to UNMIK, to KFOR, to other institutions after our departure.

Q. As for dealing with your superiors or any part of the police force, shall we just look back and see what had been the practice of the organs of the police and indeed of the judiciary for those who even managed to get complaints on? Can we go just very briefly back to volume 2 of your materials if the Court has it, at tab 21. I'll read it out to you. It's part of a human rights report. It happens to concern a policeman called Jasovic, probably not you, in fact it doesn't appear to be you, because it comes from somewhere else. And this was as long ago as 1993. It can be found at page 19. And on this occasion -- do you remember this incident? This was two police officers and it was in Prizren. The pathologist was Dobricanin and --

JUDGE KWON: Tab 21?

MR. NICE: Tab 21 at page 19.

JUDGE KWON: Is it --

MR. NICE: I'm so sorry. In which case we'll lay it on the overhead projector, if we've got it, exhibit 1.45, and I can lay my bit on the overhead projector. Very easy to do. I wasn't expecting to cover this, but since the witness makes the observations he does.

JUDGE KWON: Part of "Under Orders." ⁴¹⁰⁹¹

MR. NICE: Yes, it is. No, it's the next -- it's the next exhibit. I'll give the exhibit number in just a second. Could you just lay that on the overhead projector.

Q. This is from a Human Rights Watch report. It's about an officer called Jasovic and another officer called Kosovic who beat someone to death. Next page, please. They were incited.

Now, next page, please, Mr. Nort. On the indictment which cited them for beating the man who died with blows on his feet and palms of his hand, what happened at the trial was that policemen greeted the accused warmly. They had a short trial. For killing someone in detention they were sentenced to three years' imprisonment and then immediately released on appeal. Who knows whether they were ever re-imprisoned. No one would be able -- with the culture of police violence that prevailed in your country at that time, no one would go and complain to superiors officers, would they? It would be inviting yet more violence. Do you remember this police trial with somebody the same name as you?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, first of all what you stated previously is not true. Secondly, I've no idea what trial you're talking about. You are now putting some documents to me and I know nothing about them. I don't know what happened, what transpired. Based on what I can see, it says here the 23rd of November, 1993. I have no idea what this is about.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was provided from the book ⁴¹⁰⁹² which is in English. I think it would be only proper to have this read out to Mr. Jasovic, the quotation that was just read out to him, because the only words that he can understand here, the only word is the word Jasovic. So he needs to know what Mr. Nice is claiming.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no idea what this trial was about.

MR. NICE:

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that as long ago as 1993 policemen such as your fellow-named policeman Jasovic who killed people in custody could reasonably expect a warm court hearing and release on appeal after a short sentence. Does that fit with your understanding of the way the police were able to operate in Kosovo in the mid-1990s?

A. Mr. Prosecutor, you're asking me questions now and I don't know this policeman Jasovic. I don't know about this case. I don't know where this happened. I simply am unable to answer. You are putting some documents to me that I know nothing about.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the document on the ELMO says that they were sentenced to three years in prison but immediately released.

MR. NICE: Yes. Pending appeal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Pending appeal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The question that you put --

MR. NICE: Sorry, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- said released on appeal you meant they were released pending appeal. ⁴¹⁰⁹³

MR. NICE: Pending appeal. And it's part of Exhibit 205, a Human Rights Watch report.

Can I have it back, please, Mr. Nort, and I'll just rapidly deal with the rest of the schedule.

Q. Because if you'll be good enough, please, Mr. Jasovic, to look at page 4 of the schedule you'll see as we can all see that following what you claim were your successful results on the 16th and 17th you then get very, very full returns from 2.23, from 1.50, from 1.51, all of whom claim that their statements are untrue. 2.23 we've dealt with. 1.50 we've dealt with. He denies the statement was his in any form. 1.51 says that he was beaten and forced to sign his statement.

You needed this material and you forced these statements into existence one way or another, didn't you?

A. That's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. That's not true, not at all. I've stated here a number of times that I know why they refused to confirm the authenticity of their own statement, Official Note, or any other document. I am telling you now that no statements were extorted. There was no duress. No force was used against them let alone torture. This information, as far as I'm concerned, is true and authentic.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, would you just state again why in your view they refused to confirm the authenticity of their statements.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor -- Mr. President, I know because after we left a number of Albanians were killed precisely for those reasons. I can't now recall all of the cases, but let me tell you, ⁴¹⁰⁹⁴ their families would first of all be isolated, ostracised, which would be the hardest possible thing for an Albanian family. They wouldn't be able to marry off their children.

Second, their security, their safety would be endangered. And I know the customs of Albanians. They value the safety of their families very highly, and this is the reason why they cannot confirm the authenticity of their statements. To this day there are families that are involved in a blood feud, and there's a vendetta. I'm stating this with full responsibility.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You say that you are aware that a number of Albanians were killed precisely for those reasons. What reasons?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, let me explain this briefly. After we left, the former KLA members joined the secret police, KZK and other extreme organisations. The secret police conducts checks on the ground, and in order to obtain information about Albanians who provided information to us, who were friendly with the Serbs, who were friendly with the SUP members and Albanians who refused to join the KLA. I can tell you in this particular case my informer contacted me in late May of 1999 and told me on the phone, he said, "I'm being threatened by Albanians, Dragan." I told him to go into hiding and that it wouldn't last longer than three days. However, he was brought into Kosovo from Macedonia on a false pretext, and he was killed in front of his family home in Stimlje.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You also said earlier in response to a question from the Prosecutor that none of these Albanians who claim that they were ⁴¹⁰⁹⁵ beaten made any report either to your superiors or to UNMIK.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, no, because most likely UNMIK would forward that to the Ministry of the Interior, and I would be interviewed regarding that. If indeed these persons, as they are claiming, went to speak to the competent authorities in Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. The people about whom you're making these extraordinary allegations include medically qualified people, schoolteachers. You understand that, don't you?

A. I don't know all of their professions. Once again, you are putting questions to me that I can't answer. I interviewed people.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- of various professional backgrounds.

Q. We've had evidence -- not evidence. There's material that I put to you in part that I must summarise a little more to the suggestion that people were electrocuted. The medical person who has been spoken to produces this as the photograph of one person who had electrodes placed on his feet. Does that resemble what you saw done to people in custody? Your Honours --

A. That's not true, Mr. Prosecutor. I don't even know who this is about. I'm not sure about the authenticity of this photograph. I'm telling you, it's not true that any of them were subjected to electrical shocks. ⁴¹⁰⁹⁶

Q. We can find reference to electrocution at 1.33, 1.43, 1.54 and independently in the report from 1995 and independently from Defence witnesses -- or one Defence witness in KLA case here, the Limaj case. So that's at least five different sources for electrocution. Can you explain that?

A. All I can say is that it's not true that any electrical shocks were administered. I don't know what I need to tell you about 1995.

Q. We've got baseball bat allegations coming from independently from 1.51, 1.53 and 2.23 at least independently. Can you explain how three different people spoken to on different occasions without being able to contact each other refer to baseball bats? Can you explain that?

A. It's not true that there were any baseball bats. I never held a baseball bat in my hand, and I didn't even have an official baton in my office let alone a baseball bat.

Q. Finally, Mr. Jasovic, just this: There's a lot of evidence before the Court it would be for the learned Judges to decide in due course but from cartridge cases, bullets, other forensic scientific findings, there's a lot of forensic scientific material to show that the people died where they were found, that they had been ambushed or simply shot defenselessly. Your investigation didn't deal with the forensic scientific findings at all, did it?

A. I worked in the office using information about the movements, activities, numbers, and potential perpetrators of terrorist attacks. That's what I worked with.

Q. Simply concerned fraudulently, criminally, and as necessary to ⁴¹⁰⁹⁷ provide bits of paper that suggested those who died in Racak were members of the KLA and that's what you did.

A. That's not true, Mr. Prosecutor, what you're putting to me. I stand by all of my documents, all Official Notes, all documents entitled information and so on. These are the documents I consider to be authentic and accurate.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the translations will be with us in about five minutes. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Milosevic, I expect a disciplined re-examination, and you must use your best efforts to avoid asking leading questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Robinson. I think you should have told Mr. Nice that he should behave in a disciplined way in terms of his own examination because what we saw in respect of Mr. Jasovic could not be called that, that's for sure.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... anything. Were he in breach, I would have brought that to his attention and I would have disciplined him. Proceed.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, if misquotation and distorting statements is not in breach, statements that are not based on anything but false testimony, then you would be right.

Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Just now, as you were finishing your examination, you explained once again what you did. Since I wrote this down, I'm going to remind you of what you said. You said that you had the task to ^{41098 BLANK PAGE 41099} establish the number of KLA members and the quantity of weapons they had; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's right. Our operational work was geared towards the movements, activity, equipment and personnel levels of the KLA as well as the possible perpetrators of terrorist attacks because there were several such attacks.

Q. All right, Mr. Jasovic. Within the apparatus of the Ministry of the Interior there were different people involved in different assignments. Did I understand you correctly? Your task was strictly geared towards finding out the names, the personnel levels, and identifying members of the KLA; is that correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. How many statements in relation to that? How many interviews? How many friendly connections? How many interviews, as you call them, give me a very precise answer, how many of these did you conduct in order to establish the number of KLA members and the places where they were?

A. I can say to you that many interviews were conducted with persons of Albanian ethnicity. On these occasions, over 700 statements were taken, and several Official Notes and pieces of information, as I already said, in relation to the activities of the KLA.

Q. Were you involved in any other work except for seeking this information that you described as your strict assignment that you were working on?

A. I can say specifically that from 1998 onwards I and my colleague Momcilo Sparavalo were strictly involved in this particular work that I ⁴¹¹⁰⁰ referred to.

Q. In the course of this work of yours, did you take part in any anti-terrorist action in the field using weapons? Were you involved in a search mission? Were you after perpetrators of crimes in any similar way?

A. Again, I'm saying for myself and my colleague Mr. Momcilo Sparavalo we did not take part in a single anti-terrorist action.

Q. All right. Does that mean, Mr. Jasovic, that all these questions that Mr. Nice put to you when he presented maps to you, various locations where bodies were allegedly found and things like that, is that all beyond the scope of your own work?

A. I said to the Prosecutor that questions were put to me here. They were imposed on me, and they do not belong to my scope of work at all, and I could not answer them at all. I didn't know how to answer them.

Q. At one point in time you said that you felt uncomfortable. Is that what you said? Why did you use this expression that you felt uncomfortable? What did you mean?

A. Well, I felt uncomfortable because several times I had to say I don't know, like what Bogoljub Janicevic and Danica Marinkovic said to each other or not. And then Rosja, whether he was in the building of the secretariat or not, and things like that. I mean, I really don't know. There are several questions of this kind. And of course you feel uncomfortable in that case, especially in front of this Trial Chamber, to answer that way several times, "I don't know."

Q. All right. So you felt uncomfortable because you didn't know the answers to these questions, or were you uncomfortable because you were ⁴¹¹⁰¹ hesitant to present what you did know?

A. I would have said anything I know. I felt uncomfortable because I did not know the answer to the questions put to me.

Q. And the questions that were put to you and that you do not know the answers to, are they outside the scope of the work that are engaged in?

A. That's a fact. And these are questions that would have to be put to higher supervisors, that is to say to the head of the secretariat or people closely working with him.

Q. All right. Mr. Jasovic, we saw that you were a crime inspector and nothing more than that?

A. That's correct.

Q. As a crime inspector in 1998 and 1999 you had the exclusive assignment of finding out the names, the quantities of weapons and the localities where members of the KLA were. Did you have any other assignments?

A. Specifically in 1998 and 1999, I and Mr. Sparavalo did not have any other assignments.

Q. All right. Mr. Jasovic, you testified here before I ever heard about you. In the Limaj case. You testified in the Limaj case. Mr. Nice informed us here that the persons whose documents appear in the Danica Marinkovic case is here at present and testifying. So you did testify in the Limaj trial?

A. Yes, that's true. And I was a Prosecution witness in the trial against Isak Musliu, Limaj, and Bala. ⁴¹¹⁰²

Q. All right. I'm going to read part of the transcript to you from that case that has to do with questions that were put to you by Mr. Nice's side. Very briefly.

JUDGE KWON: Is it not in closed session? Mr. Nice?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just let us check whether it was in public session or in closed session.

MR. NICE: Some of it was in closed session. I think the majority of it was in open session. It would be for the accused to deal with this. But the parts that were dealt with in private session were largely related to registered informants or not, I think.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, was this in open session, the parts that you intend to put to the witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Robinson. It absolutely could not have been in private session judging by the nature of the matters that were dealt with. I'm going to quote it to you.

Q. Unfortunately I have the transcript only in English, but it will be interpreted for you so you will hear what was said. Yes. It says here -- thank you, Ms. Anoya. I wish to thank -- it says open session in parentheses. Witness Dragan Jasovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [In English] By Mr. Black.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR. MILOSEVIC:

Q. [In English] "Question: I understand, yes, thank you. Mr. Jasovic, when you took a statement or made an Official Note, did you ⁴¹¹⁰³ consider it important that those documents be accurate?" [Interpretation] Your answer: "Answer: Yes." "[In English] Question: Why?" [Interpretation] Your answer: "[In English] I was not working for myself. If I wrote something that was untrue, I would be deceiving the secretariat of interior affairs, and in my view this was a great and important institution. Mr. Jasovic, did you ever force witness to give you information?"

A. Never.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, Mr. Milosevic is merely quoting now some passages from the previous testimony in the Limaj case, and after quoting I expect he'll be putting a question to you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, it coincides. I mean, it matches what you said here. Here also you said "Never." "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... such mean things." [Interpretation] That's precisely what you said then, too. Your spontaneous reaction now is the same. "[In English] Did you ever mistreat witness in order to get information?" [Interpretation] [No interpretation] "[In English] No." "Mr. Jasovic did you investigate an incident differently depending on whether or not the victim was a Serb or an Albanian or from some other ethnicity?" [Interpretation] Answer: "[In English] The Ministry of the Interior, the secretariat of the interior in Urosevac regardless of ethnic origin, religious affiliation or whatever always treated every case equally because there was division in the Ministry of the Interior." ⁴¹¹⁰⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's time for a question now. Having quoted those passages from Limaj, what is the question you're putting to the witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more thing. It says did -- the question is, rather: "[In English] You told us about the ministry of the interior but I'm interested in you personally. Did you personally investigated incidents differently depending on whether or not the victims might have been a Serb or an Albanian?" [Interpretation] And your answer: "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... both Albanians, Serbs, Roma, or any other persons of any ethnic group."

Q. [Interpretation] What you said about the way in which you worked, what you stated in response to questions put by Mr. Nice's side, does that differ in any way from what you stated here about your own conduct, about the conduct of the police, and about your work in the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac?

A. There is no difference involved whatsoever. I will always tell the truth. What I said there is what I'm saying here. You quoted my words regardless of whether it's an Albanian, a Serb or a Roma, lawful action was taken against every person if the said person acted in contravention of the law irrespective of ethnicity.

Q. A large number of statements were put to you here, a large number of statements given over the past several days in 2005. Are you aware of that fact?

A. You mean statements ...

Q. That were taken by Mr. Nice's investigators. That were taken now ⁴¹¹⁰⁵ in 2005.

A. Yes, I remember these statements. A few days ago, the Prosecutor presented them here.

Q. All right. When you conducted your official duties in respect of which you are testifying here, that is to say when you collected statements from potential holders of information about the KLA, when did that take place, Mr. Jasovic?

A. As for persons of Albanian ethnicity, I have to say this yet again, statements were taken from persons during the course of 1998, that is to say before what happened in Racak, and after what happened in Racak, and these are persons of Albanian ethnicity who wished to cooperate, voluntarily wished to cooperate with the organs of the Republic of Serbia. So these were informers, friendly contacts, and necessary information was taken from persons who were brought into custody by the place.

Q. When you refer to the set of documents that you compiled as interviews and that are contained in the documents of Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic, were these documents sent to Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic?

A. Documents were not sent to Danica Marinkovic for the purpose of this trial but in order to send in knowledge about the KLA staffs, the quantity of weapons they had, the possible perpetrators of attacks, et cetera in Racak.

Q. When were these statements sent to Danica Marinkovic, those statements that you took from a number -- I'm not going to say a large number or a small number, but a number of statements that you took? When ⁴¹¹⁰⁶ was this sent to her?

A. I cannot remember exactly but all these statements of mine were sent to the head of the secretariat so that they could be analysed and presented systematically. I cannot remember the date. This procedure goes through the head of the crime prevention police or the head of the secretariat itself.

Q. All right. At any rate, can you recall the year?

A. After what happened in Racak in 1999.

Q. Were all statements forwarded, then, those that were taken before and after Racak that could shed more light on Racak or only those that were taken after Racak?

A. These are statements taken before and after what happened in Racak in order to put the pieces together of everything that happened in Racak.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, I have to draw your attention to this fact. All the documentation of Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic and these that are included in the Jasovic binders testify to the proceedings that were carried out at the time when the proceedings were carried out. All the documents. And none were compiled for the purposes of these proceedings here. All the documents that --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... Your Honour, this is commentary. It's not evidence. The accused is giving evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

MR. NICE: -- and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- You must avoid comments of that kind.

MR. NICE: And may I make the point clear in case the accused has ⁴¹¹⁰⁷ missed it, although he is trying to produce in quantities through different witnesses documents about Racak he hasn't yet produced a witness who is able to deal with them or any with investigation. That's what we've been pursuing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic, with your questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What Mr. Nice said is not true. Investigating Judge Danica Marinkovic was the investigating judge who was in charge of the proceedings about Racak. So for the umpteenth time Mr. Nice is not telling the truth. And also, Mr. Robinson, since --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want to have any more of this cross-talk between the accused and the Prosecutor. Let us get on with the trial. Let us get on with the case. Let us get on with the re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. In order to be able to continue examining this witness, could I get a copy of the statements that Mr. Nice showed here? Could they be placed before the witness and before me in the Serbian language?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: No. There's no potential to translate everything into the Serbian language. The accused knows that perfectly well. He has been provided with more than that he would normally get in the sense that he's been provided well in advance with volumes of the materials that I would be cross-examining on, it happens to be in English, and he's able to read English and deal with it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that this is no answer. Secondly, I don't think it's correct either, because there are a ⁴¹¹⁰⁸ few witness statements here, and Mr. Nice claimed that they were protected witnesses, K56 or whoever. And this is probably a member of the MUP of Serbia from Urosevac. His name is protected. And not even theoretically could he have given a statement in the English language. He would have had to have given the statement in Serbian.

MR. NICE: Can I just help there with -- in case the Chamber's not immediately familiar. Investigators in this Tribunal of course have to speak either English or French, and they deal with witnesses and potential witnesses, they therefore deal via the medium of an interpreter where necessary. The materials produced as witness statements are always produced initially in English. In certain circumstances they are translated into B/C/S but not at this stage of proceedings. They are translated into B/C/S when they're served as part of materials on an accused who is being indicted as part of the confirming materials. At this stage, cross-examination, material of this kind would never in the ordinary course of events merit translation, and there simply aren't the resources to deal with it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is there a rule or a practice governing this matter? Mr. Kay?

JUDGE KWON: There should be no way that he's not aware of this. Witness statements are taken in English.

MR. KAY: Yes. The statements should be taken in the language of the speaker. That's the procedure.

JUDGE KWON: We've done the Kosovo case, and all the Prosecution's statements were taken in English and they were later translated into ⁴¹¹⁰⁹ B/C/S.

MR. KAY: As I understand it, the original interview was in B/C/S, and a translation of the interview would have subsequently been carried out and put into a statement form into English.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, in what language was the original interview done?

MR. NICE: The statements are -- or interviews are conducted in English via the interpreter, so it goes English question or English whatever it is, invitation to say something. The witness then replies in B/C/S. It's then translated into English, and typically the investigator who will have a laptop or notepad will write down the answer. The document -- the statement produced will then once tidied up or completed be read back through the interpreter to the witness concerned who is in a position to correct it, check it, or amend it. He then signs the document on the basis that it is indeed an English-language statement. There are one or two exceptions. One or two people, I think, have insisted on documents being made available to them there or then which of course is very time-consuming, in their own language. One in particular in this case who took that course, the leader of the KLA in Racak. I've temporarily forgotten his name. Shukri Buja made that demand. But other than that, for the entire duration of, I understand it, of this Tribunal's life and for reasons of practical good sense and necessity, statements are taken in the language of the investigators and read back via interpreter --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is the accused not entitled, in terms of the ⁴¹¹¹⁰ preparation of his case, to the statements in his language? How will he carry out his re-examination properly?

MR. NICE: When material is served as part of the confirmation material, it comes to him in the form -- in translated form. That's different. After all, the material he's getting now is material he wouldn't normally be entitled to get in any event. It's just cross-examination material that I would like to be exhibited but I'll see what happens on that application in due course. But this is not material to which he's entitled in any language other than the language it comes in.

JUDGE KWON: But you agree that if this exhibit witness statements are to be exhibited you will disclose them to the accused in B/C/S.

MR. NICE: Well, again, exhibits of course typically come in whatever language they come in which would be English.

JUDGE KWON: But the witness statements are different.

MR. NICE: Witness statements if they're served under 66(A)(ii), I think, are different but that's probably all.

But, Your Honour, I have no objection to the material if it comes an exhibit. Of course. I'm only too anxious for it to be translated at that stage but there simply isn't time now with the huge pressure on CLSS. We would happily send everything to CLSS for translation the minute it comes our way. If we did that we'd obstruct nearly every case in this Tribunal. At the moment, for example, the translation into this accused's language and from it is being devoted to his case and his defence evidence. ⁴¹¹¹¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: These are not 66(A)(ii) witness statements. These are statements that you have collected for the purpose of your cross-examination.

MR. NICE: Cross-examination, Your Honour, yes. Absolutely.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the position is this: You're not entitled to have these particular witness statements in your own language. They are not 66(A)(ii) witness statements. These are statements collected by the Prosecutor for the purpose of his cross-examination. If they are going to be exhibited, then there is a requirement for them to be translated.

If you wish to have a particular statement looked at by the witness, then it can be placed on the ELMO and the interpreters will translate it.

Proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you have heard that these statements were taken for the purposes of your cross-examination. Did you hear that? Have you heard about that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you happen to notice that the statements were taken for the purposes of the defence of Limaj where you are testifying as a witness for the opposite side over there?

A. Yes.

Q. So for the purposes of your cross-examination and also for the ^{41112 BLANK PAGE 41113} purposes of the Limaj Defence.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me this, please, from your experience: In view of the fact that you have been in Kosovo for a long time, you know the KLA, you know the situation there, how far can they -- I'm not talking about Mr. Nice's investigators. I'm talking about the members of the KLA defending Limaj. How can -- how many Defence witnesses for the Limaj trial can they bring in who are going to testify whatever they're asked to testify about, whatever they're asked to testify?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not a proper question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you heard Mr. Nice say to you that there are 50 people who claim that you beat them.

Tell me, please, is it possible for the Limaj Defence or, rather, those who stand behind the Limaj Defence should collect 50 or 500 or 5.000 testimonies to say what they would like to hear them say?

A. In the month of April in this trial I said that --

MR. NICE: I don't see how the witness can answer this question either. I mean, it's speculative, query relevant, all sorts of other -- probably tendentious.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I agree. Don't answer the question. I agree it's tendentious, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, can you clarify for me which statements could Mr. Milosevic be referring to when he talks about statements taken for the Limaj Defence? Have you produced any of these? ⁴¹¹¹⁴

MR. NICE: Yes, we -- well, not for the Limaj Defence. If Your Honours remember in volume 2 --

JUDGE BONOMY: No. His point is the Limaj Defence.

MR. NICE: Yes, it's true that I refer to Limaj Defence witnesses who made statements that I used in cross-examination.

JUDGE BONOMY: They're here, are they?

MR. NICE: They're part of volume 2. They start -- just a few of them. Tab 19. I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich. Your Honour may remember on looking at them -- not 19. I think it's actually -- oops. No, it's not 19. It's a little earlier than that. It's 16 I think, or 15. And Your Honour will remember that at one stage I identified tab -- no, tab 40, actually. I identified as being made for the Limaj Defence, and I think it was the accused drew to our attention, or maybe it was Your Honour, or His Honour Judge Kwon, that the title made it clear that it related to the Milosevic case and I explained that. When you go to tab 16 you'll see that the one is -- there is a statement that relates to the Defence of Limaj.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are these the only two?

MR. NICE: There's the third one --

JUDGE BONOMY: 17.

MR. NICE: 17 as well which I --

JUDGE BONOMY: And 18.

MR. NICE: And 18. I think I referred in all to three and omitted to deal, because it wasn't necessary, with one of them and I extracted parts of what they said in each case. ⁴¹¹¹⁵

JUDGE BONOMY: And these were taken by the Prosecution team, were they?

MR. NICE: Some and some. The statements were either hand prepared in the course of -- whether it was work in the Limaj Defence or by the Defence lawyers. So that if you look, for example E at tab 14 you'd see a handwritten document that was provided to the investigator Mr. Kelly, and then if you look at 15 you'll see that Mr. Kelly reviewed it and wanting to tidy one or two things up added to it. 16 appears to be specifically prepared for the purposes of the Limaj Defence and made available to us.

17 I think is another one that was simply made available to us it certainly wasn't taken by us, otherwise it would have had a caption to that effect.

And 18, again it was simply provided to us, taken in 1999.

JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.

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

--- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I continue, Mr. Robinson, we can see here or, rather, from the transcript as I read it out, from the Limaj trial, that Mr. Nice's side endeavoured to show the credibility of this witness, to show he was credible, whereas here Mr. Nice is trying to bring into question his credibility. So he's changed sides with this ⁴¹¹¹⁶ particular witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a matter in which -- on which you can address at the appropriate time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] When some of these statements were quoted over these past days, do you remember that it was read out to you "When I saw Jasovic testifying against Fatmir Limaj I gave the statements," et cetera, et cetera? I'm paraphrasing now, but words more or less to that effect. Do you remember?

A. I remember the Prosecutor quoting those words to me a few days ago.

Q. All right. Now, do you have any idea about the purpose for which the statements were given which were designed to challenge your credibility date to go 1999, to impeach you?

A. Well, I do have an idea --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... how can this witness have an idea about the purpose for which statements were given?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. The witness can't help you on that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How do you mean he can't answer when I quoted what the witness said, when he saw him testifying in the Limaj trial, fighter of the KLA, et cetera, et cetera?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I understood you to be asking him what was the purpose for which the statements collected by the Prosecution were given and which were designed to challenge his credibility. But I don't see how the witness can assist you as to the purpose for which the Prosecutor ⁴¹¹¹⁷ collected the statements.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he heard himself why the person who allegedly now is testifying to challenge his credible, because he saw him testify in the Limaj trial. That's very specific.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed with your next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, we have heard here a number of times a question raised as to whether there was a report of any kind which was submitted with respect to the event in Racak at the topical time, material time, and by the organs in question. Do you remember that?

A. Yes. . I do remember a question like that being asked of me.

Q. All right. Now, since you worked in the area for a number of years, even in the Stimlje municipality to which Racak belongs for a time, if I recall correctly; is that right?

A. Yes, from 1975 to 1981.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, tell us, how many inhabitants does the village of Racak have, roughly speaking? I don't expect an exact figure from you, detailed statistics, but roughly.

A. I think it's a large village has been between 250 to 300 households.

Q. What does that mean, 250 to 300 households? How many inhabitants would that make it?

A. Well, I can't really say, but say 2.500 to 3.000 inhabitants.

Q. All right. Fine. So up to 3.000 inhabitants. Would that be ⁴¹¹¹⁸ right?

Now, if in the village of Racak there were several dozen people, can we say that the village before the event in Racak that all the inhabitants had left? Would that make it all of them?

A. On the basis of the interviews that I had and all the notes and documents that I looked through, during the month of May this year I was able to see that when the terrorists, KLA terrorists, appeared in Racak and when they proceeded to arm themselves that the locals of the village knew that they would have problems, that there would be problems, that there would be clashes and conflicts between the terrorists and the police. And the local inhabitants left to go to more peaceful places. Now, in some of these statements, afterwards I happened to read that the locals of the village, that the KLA would take their food and that the KLA would seize their passenger vehicles and the machinery for repairing and building roads, for example.

Q. All right. Now, what about the inhabitants of the village? Did they move out before these events?

A. In the statements which I have, or the notes which I have, in December 1998 it says that in Racak between 10 to 15 families stayed on in Racak. However, specifically for the 15th of January, I do not have any such information, any information about that, and I really couldn't say how many households there were.

Q. All right. A moment ago, you said that their vehicles were seized and their food was seized and all the rest of it, all the other things you mentioned. ⁴¹¹¹⁹ Now, Mr. Nice presented you this morning with your tab, tab 1.35, where he claimed that from a quotation towards the end of the statement it would emerge that a certain person provided food to the KLA and that they assisted them in that way. So I'm going to read out that quotation from the statement so that we can see whether it was somebody who provided food or whether there was any other functions that person performed. And this is what it says in tab 1.35, the tab mentioned by Mr. Nice a moment ago, but he didn't go on to quote from the document. It says the following here: "To the locals of the village of Racak, in the houses --" I'm not going into the exactitude of the Serbian language here, but anyway: "Bajrami Ragip came to the houses of the villages of Racak and he ordered each of the households what food they should provide and supply and then he would take the food and take it away." Now, this individual who went from house to house, to each of the households, ordering them what they were to supply, is this considered to be somebody who provided food or was this an official representative of the KLA doing the work he was doing as is stated here?

A. As far as I'm concerned, he was a member of the KLA because he was with the KLA and in addition to the staffs of the KLA the civilian defence was set up too.

Q. All right. But I'm taking this critical word. It says: "Who to every household would order which foodstuffs were required." So who is it who would be in a position to issue orders to households?

A. Well, nobody can order anybody anything. What we're dealing with here is the fact that the KLA ordered the local inhabitants, specifically ⁴¹¹²⁰ of this particular village, what they were to do, not only to provide food but also to provide money for the purchase of weapons and other needs, over requirements.

Q. All right. So this person issuing orders on the part of the KLA, must he have been a member of the KLA performing this function?

A. Well, of course. That would be quite normal and natural, because apart from the KLA who else would there be? What other organisation or political party would be able to issue orders like that?

A. So was his primary activity, the fact that he provided food for the KLA or that he went from house to house ordering the inhabitants what they were supposed to do?

A. Well, at the meeting itself, the meeting that took place in the mosque, the villagers were ordered to come up with money and foodstuffs and everything else that the KLA needed.

Q. All right. Was that the reason for which most of the inhabitants moved out of the village?

A. That was one of the reasons.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, to go back to the questions that had to do with whether a written report existed or didn't exist about what actually happened in Racak.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, before we reach that position and just for clarification, the previous answer on the question of families moving out referred to notes which the witness says he had. Now, it may be, and I've been trying to track it down over the last couple of minutes, it may be that the notes he refers to as existing in December 1998 showing that ⁴¹¹²¹ 10 to 15 families stayed in Racak are some of the statements we've got here, but I can't immediately remember which ones. If not, then he's referring to other documents that haven't been made available to us yet. It's on line 25 of page 44. That's all right. We've found it. Well, I've found one reference, and it would appear to be 1.35 again.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your point is what, that --

MR. NICE: My point was to know what the witness was referring to when he was referring to notes, but it appears he may be referring to 1.35, in which case we have the material.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, we're dealing with facts here, and I was asking the witness how many inhabitants the village of Racak had, and his answer was between 2 to 3.000. At the time of the police operation in Racak, you yourself were able to see that there were several dozen. So that makes it about 1 per cent of the 2 to 3.000, or 1.5 per cent perhaps.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's your next question?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, let's take a look at the binder prepared by Mr. Nice about Racak. I don't have time to dwell on all the papers that binder contains, but let us now take a look at tab 5, for instance, which he provided, and I'm very pleased to see that we finally have an authentic document which was not placed at my disposal, I didn't have at my disposal. Would you please take a look at tab 5.

A. I haven't got that tab in front of me, I'm afraid. ⁴¹¹²²

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be passed to the witness.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, it is not true that he has not -- he had not this one at his disposal.

MR. NICE: Your Honour is absolutely right. It was an exhibit provided by Eric Baccard, tab 16 of Exhibit 156 and separately produced, I think, as tab 27 of 320. The only thing that's new about tab 5 is the particular translation, I think, because there were -- there were more than one version of the translation in existence. And I read from and therefore relied upon the official translation which has the ERN number 03046070 in the top right-hand corner rather than earlier and draft translations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you have that dispatch now before you?

A. Yes, dated the 15th of January, 1999.

Q. Very well. All right. So the date is the date of the event in Racak. Does it say on top "The Ministry of the Interior, Urosevac, number 402/98." The date is the 15th of January, 1999, Urosevac. Is that the date when the event in Racak took place?

A. Yes, that's correct. That's when the events in the village of Racak occurred.

Q. Do you remember when Walker came to Racak?

A. I couldn't really remember when he came.

Q. Who was this dispatch sent to? Let us first take a look at who signed it. At the very end on page 3, what does it say?

A. The then chief of SUP, Colonel Bogoljub Janicevic. ⁴¹¹²³

Q. Very well. So he sends a report to the ministry. The chief of SUP sends a report to the ministry. The SUP of Urosevac, does it have territorial jurisdiction over this location in Racak?

A. Yes, that's right. It is stated here that it is also sent to the administration of the criminal investigation department.

Q. What I'm asking you is whether they have territorial jurisdiction over Racak.

A. Yes. Because Racak belongs to Stimlje and Stimlje comes under the jurisdiction of the SUP in Urosevac.

Q. All right. Who was this dispatch sent to?

A. To the Ministry of the Interior, Republic of Serbia, criminal -- administration of the criminal investigation department, the operative operations centre in Belgrade, as well as the MUP staff for Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. All right. So the chief of the secretariat in Urosevac sends a dispatch to the Ministry, to the administration of the criminal investigation department, to the police administration, to the operations centre, and to the MUP staff in Kosovo and Metohija, which is located in Pristina. All right. Now, let us see what is stated here. What do it say in the very beginning?

A. Overview of events, phenomena, and activities in the Urosevac SUP on the 15th of January, 1999, from 0300 hours to 1830 hours on that day.

Q. All right. Read on.

A. On the 15th of January, 1999, in 0300 hours, the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, was blocked off in order to capture and destroy a ⁴¹¹²⁴ terrorist group concerning which we had information that in the territory covered by Urosevac SUP it carried out a number of terrorist attacks with lethal consequences. At 06 -- at 6.30 in the morning, the village was placed under siege by the team of Urosevac SUP. On the left side of the road, the Siptar terrorist gangs opened fire from a rocket launcher and infantry weapons. The fire was responded to. The terrorists withdrew before the police advancement, constantly firing at them.

Q. And then?

A. The fight with the terrorists went on until 1530 hours, and from the village the policemen were shot at from the Browning 12.7 millimetres and from mortars. The terrorist group was attacked -- was liquidated with the maximum effort on the part of the police.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's time for a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, is it stated here what was the objective when the police entered Racak? What does it say in the second passage after the words "Stimlje municipality"?

A. The second passage?

Q. Yes. The first passage has only two lines, and then the second passage.

A. Yes. On the 15th of January, 1999.

Q. Yes, that's right.

A. In order to capture and destroy the terrorist group concerning which --

Q. Yes, that's right. Concerning which. We have all that ⁴¹¹²⁵ information.

Further on does it say that from the direction of Stimlje, which is the direction from which the police entered the village, the terrorist -- terrorists opened fire at police members?

A. Yes, that's right. From a location called Cesta. We had information concerning that earlier.

Q. I'm not asking you about that. All I'm asking you is is it stated here that as the police entered the area it was fired at?

A. Yes, from a rocket -- hand-held rocket launcher and infantry weapons.

Q. Very well. Was it clear to everyone that there was a KLA terrorist group in Racak?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you know very well these questions beginning "Was it clear" end up as leading questions.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, as the Court will appreciate, having no other witness to deal with the investigation, I did elicit through this witness answers on what the material revealed to a policeman. So I don't, of course, seek to deny the opportunity to the accused to re-examine on that basis, but any re-examination on the basis of the facts in light of his expressed ignorance this morning of matters beyond the narrow remit he says he and Sparavalo had might be not justified, but it's obviously a delicate matter and I'll leave it to the good judgement of the Court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue? ^{41126 BLANK PAGE 41127}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, I will now show you -- or, rather, quote to you only a segment of the testimony of Shukri Buja here, which is on page 6366 of the transcript. He testified on Thursday, the 6th of June, 2002. So on page 6366 --

A. I don't have that document.

Q. That's right. You don't have it. I will read it out to you. Everybody else here has it, has the document.

He was asked about the number of soldiers, as they call them here, the soldiers of the KLA. And in line 3 they say: "[In English] Yes, it is true that there were 47 soldiers in the positions near Racak." [Interpretation] On the following page, Judge May ask: "[In English] Just a minute, if you're going to make allegations of that sort one by one. First of all, did you show the investigator your base or headquarters in Racak?"

[Interpretation] And then the witness -- "[In English] The witness: Yes."

[Interpretation] On the following page, 6372, he mentions Mehmet Mustafa. And then in line 17 says: "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... soldier for KLA."

[Interpretation] Do you remember that name, Mehmet Mustafa from your notes?

A. I remember that name, Mehmet Mustafa, because it appears in a number of statements and Official Notes. I also remember that in his ⁴¹¹²⁸ house there was a substaff of the KLA in the village of Racak.

Q. Now, in relation to what is mentioned in the report of the chief of the secretariat, dated the 15th of January, namely that they opened fire, at the bottom of the page 6381 it is stated: "[In English] During the Serbian assault from Cesta and the burst of gunfire from the 12.7 from the bunker, they started -- started filing out of the base at Racak gorge and outside the house Mehmet Mustafa and Sadik Mujota were killed. Beqa and Nazim Kokollari which was also known as Budakovc. Some soldiers managed to move towards our position. They faced the Serbian fire." [Interpretation] And then they mention Mujota Mustafa, Syla Kadri, Nazim Kokollari, Ali Beqa, Skender Jashari. Mr. Jasovic, based on the testimony of Shukri Buja, is it clear that as the police entered Racak it was fired upon?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, "Is it clear that." Again, leading. I think you're perfectly capable of putting proper questions.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, as the police entered the village of Racak, who opened fire based on everything that you have learned so far?

MR. NICE: The witness can't deal with that. He's already said he doesn't know the facts. He barely knows the documents. He had a very narrow remit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think you're going to be helped by that answer, Mr. Milosevic. Ultimately the Chamber will have to decide that matter. We have the evidence before us. ⁴¹¹²⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In that case, Mr. Robinson, as the witness was asked several times whether there were any written reports back at the time when the event was concluded, let us just see what is stated in this dispatch. The encryption is not that important. PC131/19/152, and then this says time 1952 and so on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So at 1952 on that day, the chief of the Secretariat of the Interior sent a report to the ministry, to the administration of the criminal investigation department, to the police administration, and to the operations centre with a brief description of everything that took place. Is it something that can be seen based on this document or not?

A. Yes. We can see here that the dispatch was sent on the same day at 1952.

Q. Very well. All those various photographs, claims as to where the corpses were found, what happened and everything else that you saw, do you know when those photographs were made? When was that filmed? When was that established?

A. The photographs are not familiar to me at all. I don't know when they were taken or distributed to anyone.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, may I ask you whether this is the only report of the Racak incident of which you are aware?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In addition to this report, several days ago I was able to see the chronology of the events in the village of Racak, just several days ago. ⁴¹¹³⁰ I don't know. I didn't really study the Racak case, the documentation starting with the on-site report and investigation and so on, except for the fact that I conducted operative work in order to shed light not only on what happened in Racak but also other cases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In the normal course of events, is it the chief of the SUP, the colonel, who would be the person to make such a report?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Either the chief of the SUP or if so designated by him it could be either the chief of the criminal investigation department or somebody else. However, in this particular case I don't know who wrote this dispatch. It is not really for me to know who wrote this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you misunderstood the question. However, I will try to clarify it for you.

Is there a territorial, an organisational unit above the Secretariat of the Interior when it comes to territorial jurisdiction?

A. Well, the SUP was in Urosevac, the base, the main office.

Q. All right. The SUP in Urosevac. So any other SUP in the territory of the Republic of Serbia, do they directly report to the ministry as is stated here in this report?

A. Well, the chief of the secretariat naturally reports to the establishment above him.

Q. All right. Now, in this case, in the territorial and organisational sense, what institution comes above the secretariat in Urosevac here? ⁴¹¹³¹

A. Well, the secretariat in Pristina in the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade.

Q. Very well. The chief of the secretariat in Urosevac, is he the superior in that organ and in that territory?

A. Yes. And the secretariat covers the territory of Strpce, Stimlje, and Kacanik.

Q. All right. Yes, we know that. Between the secretariat and the ministry, is there a unit in between these two?

A. No.

Q. All right. Now that you've mentioned this chronology which can be found in tab 33 of Mr. Nice and could also be found in the judgements of General Stevanovic --

JUDGE KWON: Before we are moving off, while we are staying on this tab 5, Mr. Jasovic, my colleague Judge Bonomy raised this issue some days ago. This dispatch is saying that seven prisoners were taken into custody to be interviewed on the issue of terrorism and were turned over for further work to the authorised officials of Urosevac SUP and DB of Urosevac.

What I find very odd or even unreliable with respect to your answer in this regard is that it should be you who should have interviewed these seven people, but your answer is that you don't just -- you don't remember it. You said you don't remember the names of these people, but what is important is not whether -- not whether you remember the names of those people but whether those seven people were ever turned in for that interview. ⁴¹¹³²

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said, because it's been over six years, that I cannot remember. These persons were perhaps handed over to the state security sector on the fourth floor. I really cannot remember. There is no reason. If they had been interviewed by me, I would have said so. Possibly --

JUDGE KWON: No. If these seven people were interviewed by you, I see no reason for you not to remember the fact, because that Racak incident is so -- so important one. It's very -- so heated debate was going on on the Racak incident. So I don't see any -- there could be any reason for you not to remember it. Am I correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know, Your Honour. I would have told you the names and surnames, really, of these people, but I cannot remember. It's been six and a half years. I cannot remember. Perhaps I was not the one who interviewed them. It was members of the state security sector who also processed such individuals. I don't know. There's probably a report sent to the duty service or, rather, by the duty service in terms of where these individuals were sent.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. I don't think I can get further than that.

Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. This sentence that Mr. Kwon referred to is towards the very top of the last page of this report. Can you read it out?

A. "For the purpose of an interview related to terrorism, seven ⁴¹¹³³ persons were brought in, and they were handed over for further processing to the OSL in Urosevac and the ODB in Urosevac. Am I supposed to read it further on?

Q. No, that's all.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, SDB not ODB.

Q. It says seven persons were brought in for an interview. Is that what it says there, Mr. Jasovic?

A. Yes. It says that seven persons were brought in for an interview. And that they were handed over to officials, authorised officials of the SUP of Urosevac and the ORDB in Urosevac.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, with regard to each and every individual that you interviewed, every friendly contact you had, any person who was brought in or came of his own free will, did you write up the person's interview or an Official Note?

A. Naturally. A statement was taken and a note was compiled or another information document. Now, what it says here, I mean, I cannot say.

Q. I'm not forcing you to say anything that you don't know, Mr. Jasovic. I just asked you very specifically whether in every case when you interview an individual, for example, in this kind of case when a person is brought in to you for an interview in respect of terrorism.

A. Yes.

Q. Would you compile a note about that or would it happen that you would not compile a note about that?

A. That could not happen because the person had been brought in and ⁴¹¹³⁴ then most probably I would take a statement from the said individual.

Q. All right. So you'd take -- you'd take a statement. If this statement had been taken, would it have to be among the statements of yours that were presented here?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. Can you identify any of these persons among these statements? Was there anyone that you interviewed on the 16th, 17th, 18th? Have you got any such individuals?

A. On the 16th and on the 17th, I remember because now as I looked through this documentation I saw that, but I cannot remember anything about the 15th. Had I taken a statement or compiled a note then, it would probably have to be here.

Q. Can you help us with this, what it is that you have here from the 16th or the 17th? Had these persons been brought to you in the evening of the 15th, that is to say before 1952 when the document was compiled? Would you have interviewed them that same night or tomorrow morning or when? I'm asking about your practice.

A. It's not only practice, because there was no suspicion -- specific suspicion why this person would be detained had this person not taken part in any kind of terrorist action. So once a person like that is interviewed, the person is released. That is to say, the said person goes home. And if the person is brought in on the 15th, then the interviews would be conducted with all the persons on the 15th.

Q. All right. Among these statements, do you have any that pertain to the 16th, for instance? ⁴¹¹³⁵

A. I think so, because I remember that the Prosecutor put this to me in relation to Afrim Mustafa. I can't remember now. I can't remember the other names.

JUDGE KWON: Shaban Rama.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I'd have a look at the documents, I think it was for three or four persons that the Prosecutor mentioned this to me. Was it Emini Shemsi?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right, Mr. Jasovic. In these documents of yours that you submitted, I'm going to ask you about them in individually, because I assume that this can pertain only to them if they were with you. You say that perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't.

A. It says on the top of the page when the person was brought in and when the interview was conducted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm not sure that the accused isn't by one strategy or another trying to lead. There's nothing in these materials I think either produced by the witness or the material on which I cross-examined to suggest being taken in on the 15th, which is what is being suggested in this document dated the 15th. The witness has already said he doesn't know the name of the people who were brought in, and he's been asked that question several times by me and now more recently by Judge Kwon, and to try and force these people who were seen on the 16th and 17th or who were said to have been seen on the 16th and 17th into this bottle is a form of a leading question and it's an exercise that is, in my submission, a waste ⁴¹¹³⁶ of time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this sentence from the report of the head of the SUP says with a view to an interview pertaining to terrorism, seven persons were brought in, that's what it says, and they were handed over for processing to the authorised official of the SUP and the ORDB of Urosevac. So with a view to an interview pertaining to terrorism. Those are the words here. That is a general statement. And that is why I'm asking, in relation to this interview pertaining to terrorism, I have here tab 143, which is dated the 16th of January, was that the interview pertaining to terrorism? That's the question I'm putting to the witness.

In document in tab 143 dated the 16th of January --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... the interviews.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness says that he doesn't know whether he interviewed precisely one of the individuals mentioned here, but then no one is mentioned by name here. It is only "Interviews pertaining to terrorism" that are mentioned here. My question is whether this interview is an interview pertaining to terrorism.

A. In the dispatch it says interview pertaining to terrorism.

Q. And this tab of yours, 1.43, interview pertaining to terrorism. Would that be it now that you look at it?

A. Yes.

Q. And 1.44, which was also taken on the 16th of January, is that ⁴¹¹³⁷ also an interview pertaining to terrorism?

A. Yes.

Q. Let us not go any further to 17, et cetera.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] At the same time, the time coincides. Interviews are conducted in relation to terrorism. The sole assignment that this witness had, as he explained it, was to find out the names and surnames of members of the KLA, their deployment, the weapons they had, and that is what he was doing. He cannot link up the mention of these seven individuals, but we see that on the 16th and on the 17th again there are interviews conducted that pertain to terrorism. There is no doubt about that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ...

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, are you alluding that these witnesses are maybe part of those seven people taken from the scene?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's not that I'm suggesting that, but it cannot be excluded altogether. And secondly, it doesn't say that these persons were brought in from the scene. There is different information contained in this dispatch. It just says here that seven persons were brought in for interviews pertaining to terrorism. They could have brought in anywhere. It doesn't say that they were brought in from the scene at all.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Jasovic, do the people in DB, ORDB, take witness statements as well?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they do. As -- just like members of the public security sector take statements, then it is also ⁴¹¹³⁸ members of the state security sector that take interviews from persons or they also compile Official Notes with regard to such interviews.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, go back to the previous page in -- with a view top interviews pertaining to terrorism, seven persons were brought in. It says that on the top of the last page.

A. Yes.

Q. What does it say in the preceding passage on the previous page? Just read the last paragraph.

A. "During the night, between the 14th and 15th of January, 1999, members of the police station in Strpce held certain places in Susici and Gornje Bitinje, and during the reporting day the persons who held the mentioned places and the observation points were not attacked by terrorists."

Q. So it says that there were no terrorist attacks against members of the police who were at those places.

And on the next stage -- on the next page it says seven persons were brought in for questioning about terrorism into the SUP.

A. That's what it says in that dispatch.

Q. But does it say anything that they were brought in from the scene in Racak?

A. No, that's not what it says here. It's possible that the police found them somewhere else, in Stimlje or wherever else.

Q. All right. All right. So if you look --

JUDGE BONOMY: The English translation says that seven persons ⁴¹¹³⁹ were taken into custody. Is that an accurate translation from the original document?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sir, it says here: "With a view to interviews pertaining to terrorism, seven persons were brought in." It doesn't say that they were taken into custody. It says that they were brought in, and then the rest follows.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you're quite clear that if they were brought in in these circumstances on the 15th, they would be interviewed on the 15th. That was the answer you gave earlier.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. And --

JUDGE BONOMY: You wouldn't have any authority to hold them in custody?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if the person is not a suspect, a crime suspect, we cannot keep them in detention.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These persons were brought in. My opinion is that they were immediately taken for interviews.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. When we read this dispatch here, it starts with the following words: "Survey of phenomena, activities of the SUP on the 15th of January, 1999." And then that is great deal about Racak until a paragraph where there is no mention of Racak.

Look at this, please, the previous paragraph, the second paragraph on this second page, the second one from the bottom. Can you read that?

A. "On the 15th of January, 1999, members of the RPO ^{41140 BLANK PAGE 41141} Gornje Nerodimlje held two particular positions in the region of Jezerce and members of the SUP Urosevac observation points in the area of the village of Crnoljevo and the Crnoljevo pass."

Q. All right. These are localities that are not Racak that are mentioned here now.

A. Yes. The village of Jezerce in the area of the village of Crnoljevo.

Q. Yes. But not the village of Racak.

A. Yes, not that.

Q. And now during the night Susici and Bitinje were the places where they held positions. Is that the village of Racak or not?

A. No. They are in the municipality of Stimlje -- or Strpce.

Q. And then it says that there were no terrorist attacks?

A. Yes.

Q. And only in the third paragraph it says with regard to interviews pertaining to terrorism a number of individuals are brought in, et cetera. So the subject of Racak is dropped altogether, Jezerce, Crnoljevo, Bitinje are referred to and seven persons are brought in for interviews with regard to terrorism. Are these seven persons linked up to Racak in any way?

A. Well, it says here, "With a view to interviews pertaining to terrorism seven persons were brought in for further processing." I don't know where these persons were brought in from. I could assume --

Q. All right. All right. Mr. Jasovic, is what the first paragraph of this dispatch says being challenged? ⁴¹¹⁴²

A. On the first page --

Q. On the first page. You read it out so I don't lead you in any way. Start with the text.

A. It says here: "A review of all events for the 15th of January, between 0300 hours to 1830 hours."

Q. So this all refers to Racak except for the last paragraphs before the end which refer to Jezerce, Crnoljevo and so on. And then the next refers to Susici and Bitinje and only the third one after that relates to the seven persons and the interview; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Then I'm not going to deal with that material anymore sent by the chief the secretariat to a higher authority. You mentioned the chronology of events in tab 33 and Mr. Nice asked you some questions and said whether there were two policemen who intervened. So I'm now going to ask you to take a look at tab 33 yourself. It's the chronology of events. Mr. Nice dwelled on that chronology during his cross-examination for some time. Have you found it?

A. Yes, I've found it. "Events in the village of Racak" it says here.

Q. All right. Fine.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope that the interpreters have the original text. And if not, could they be provided with the original text.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the original be passed over to the ⁴¹¹⁴³ interpreters. Well, let it be placed on the ELMO.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Place it on the ELMO, please. Just that long first paragraph, because that's the one we're going to be discussing. Can we have the Serbian version as well, please. That's from the Racak binder, tab 33, and the title of the document is "Chronology of the events in the village of Racak." We have it on the overhead projector.

I hope that the interpreters can follow this on the ELMO, that they can see and read from the document on the ELMO. If not, then please maybe they -- may they be given a copy, but that depends on them.

THE INTERPRETER: We have the Serbian on the ELMO.

JUDGE KWON: Proceed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, when you see this long first paragraph, and I'm just going to read -- would you just keep focused on the first paragraph with the overhead projector, please, don't move it around. I'm just going to read the beginning and the end of the paragraph, which is one single sentence although it takes up a third of the page, and this is what it says: "With the aim of arresting the terrorist group," that's what it says, the first five words. And then if you skip all the rest of it and come to the one but last line and continue reading, it says: "On the 15th of January, 1999, in the early hours of the morning, an operation was perpetrated with the aim of apprehending and depriving of liberty or arresting the terrorist group in Racak." Now, Mr. Jasovic, everything in between, is that just stating what ⁴¹¹⁴⁴ the terrorist group did?

A. Yes. The fact is that a number of terrorist attacks had previously been carried out in the main road from Stimlje-Crnoljevo and also on the main road of Stimlje running to Urosevac.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, can we conclude from that, and I'd like to ask the interpreters to look at the paragraph, that that whole sentence, which starts off by saying that the aim was to arrest the terrorist group, now, what are the reasons stated in the middle of the sentence? Does it give a reason? The attack on a vehicle, on an official vehicle with police markings where one policeman was killed. Is that what it says?

A. Yes. An armed attack carried out on a policeman of the SUP of Urosevac, 6624.

Q. Which one police man was killed. Is that what it says?

A. Yes, and the number is given M 616-424.

Q. And there is another person mentioned here.

A. There were two other men.

Q. Yes. But it says when Przic Svetislav was lethally wounded, a policeman was lethally wounded, and then an NN criminal report was filed, et cetera. So that is one reason, one of the reasons for the activities in Racak.

Now, is another reason mentioned here because of frequent armed attacks on members of the police force and the police station at Stimlje. Is that also what it says? Is that another reason that is mentioned?

A. Yes.

Q. Then it goes to say: "And the kidnapping of a large number of ⁴¹¹⁴⁵ citizens loyal to the Republic of Serbia?" Is that also what it says? Is that another reason, yet another reason?

A. Yes. Kidnap a number of people Serbs, Albanians, Roma, et cetera. Then it says: On the basis of operative information that from the basis of the headquarters of Stimlje in the village of Racak. Is that what it says?

A. Yes.

Q. So we have here listed four reasons for which the blockade is being perpetrated; the attack on the vehicle where one person was killed; frequent armed attacks on members of the police; third, the kidnapping of a large number of citizens; and, fourth, information about the staff or headquarters in village of Racak, of terrorists in the village of Racak?

A. Yes.

Q. So all these four reasons, are they enumerated and stipulated as reasons for which the activities in Racak was undertaken?

A. Yes. You have all four reasons stated there.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Mr. Robinson, this is a very unwieldy and lengthy sentence but it is just one sentence, after all.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, linking up what it says here or, rather, comparing, Mr. Jasovic, what it says here in this chronology with the report that we read out a moment ago about the daily events where 80 per cent of the reports were devoted to Racak sent in by the head of SUP, can we see that what is stipulated coincides or what is said different? ⁴¹¹⁴⁶

A. Here the allegations and what is stated coincides. They are the same.

Q. Now, would you read out on page 2, please, paragraph 4. It begins with the words "prili komna stupanja." [phoen]

A. "When the members of the police force arrived in the village of Racak and their efforts to see that the members of the terrorist bands are -- gangs are arrested with an appeal that armed members of the terrorist group should surrender, when this appeal was refused they withdrew from the village of Racak. While firing strongly they withdrew to the village of Ruzica, Rance and Petrovo in the Stimlje municipality, along with heavy fire."

Q. Would you read out the next paragraph, please.

A. "In addition to the fact that they were running after the individuals and appealed to them to surrender, the terrorist groups continued to engage in strong fire. The terrorist attacks the police with great force from previously prepared trenches, communicating trenches and bunkers. In the said exchange of gunfire, 40 Siptar terrorists were liquidated of which the majority were wearing uniforms of the so-called KLA."

Q. All right. Then it goes on to state what was found, what kind of weapons, et cetera.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, does it say here that all this was found in one location, on one spot, or in several locations?

A. You mean at the bottom there referring to weapons? ⁴¹¹⁴⁷

Q. Yes.

A. By taking control of the bunkers and trenches used by the terrorists, the members of the police in addition to the said corpses found and confiscated, et cetera, et cetera, in several places.

Q. Now, does it say they were killed in one locality or in several localities?

A. Well, I couldn't read anywhere that it says they died in one place, in one spot.

Q. Mr. Nice presented to you a number of photographs and markings where the individuals or bodies were found. Now, to the best of your knowledge, was anybody -- did anybody from the Verification Mission take those photographs and make those markings on that particular day or on some other day?

A. I don't know about that. I'm not aware of that. I saw that for the first time when I was shown them, shown these photographs, by the Prosecutor earlier on.

Q. All right. Now, take a look at the following page, paragraph 3, please. We'll just read that out. We don't have time to dwell on this for too long.

A. You mean because it says about the impossibility, "spogananucustje." [phoen]

Q. Yes.

A. Do you want me to read it out?

Q. Yes.

A. Because of the impossibility of carrying out a comprehensive ⁴¹¹⁴⁸ detailed analysis of the on-site investigation in the village of Racak and because it was impossible to provide security for the spot where the terrorists were liquidated, during the night the 15th and 16th of January, 1999, the said corpses of the terrorists remained accessible to terrorist groups from the village of Petrovo and the village of Malopoljce so that there is the possibility that the terrorists manipulated -- with the liquidated terrorists and changed their clothing into civilian clothing, confiscating their personal ID papers, and the bodies of persons who were not in the area of Stimlje municipality, and that they took away the bodies or in some other way manipulated with the alleged corpses.

Q. Without going into everything that could have happened here, the possibilities of what could have happened, can we say or, rather, from the event up until the time that somebody from outside - and when I say "outside" I mean our investigating organs or the Verification Mission or anybody else came on the spot - did at least 24 hours go by before that occurred, without entering into what they might have done with the bodies or might not have done. We're not challenging that between the event and between anybody turning up on the spot that at least 24 hours elapsed. Would that be correct?

MR. NICE: How does the witness know? He wasn't there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to answer that, Mr. Jasovic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think I understood the question fully in the first place. Could I be given a --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴¹¹⁴⁹

Q. It says here: "During the night between the 15th and 16th," and you read what it says here, "Because it was impossible to provide security for the place where the terrorists were liquidated in the night between the 15th and 16th of January the said corpses were accessible to the terrorists from the village of Petrovo and Malopoljce." So overnight. Was somebody there in except for the member of the KLA? Was anybody else there except for the members of the KLA?

A. Well, there were no police there because the police had withdrawn.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, do you happen to know when the Verification Mission arrived in Racak?

A. Well, I really can't say. I don't know when it arrived exactly.

Q. All right. Well, we have facts about that, information about that, so it's not contested. But at any event, I'm asking you as a crime inspector yourself, is it possible to manipulate -- would it have been possible to manipulate bodies in the space of 24 hours overnight if they were left there?

A. Well, not by the police but by the KLA members, yes, that was possible.

Q. All right. Fine. I'm not going to deal with that document any more or with these tabs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why by the KLA members but not by the police?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because the police had withdrawn. And I'm saying this because when last time I said that I had knowledge and information in addition to the 40 from Schedule A, that there were five other individuals who in the clashes between the Albanian ⁴¹¹⁵⁰ terrorists and the police had been killed. I know that the policemen withdrew, had withdrawn.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 3 of that same binder, Mr. Nice made a statement for the public -- provided a statement, sorry. Provided a statement. It's in tab 3, Mr. Jasovic.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 3 of what, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This binder on Racak provided by Mr. Nice. It's the binder where it just says "Racak documents" on the binder. "Racak documents" is the title. The same one from which we took tab 5 and tab 33 that we analysed just a little bit ago.

JUDGE KWON: Is it not a video segment?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This is the last page where it says: "Statement for the public." 7.3. A copy of the statement for the public dated the 15th of January, 1999.

MR. NICE: Tab 4.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Tab 4.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you found that, Mr. Jasovic?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What's the date on the document?

A. Ministry of the Interior, the 15th of January, 1999, Pristina.

Q. Was that the date of Racak event?

A. Yes. That was when the event in Racak took place. ⁴¹¹⁵¹

Q. Is that the same date when the chief of the secretariat reported about the event in Racak?

A. Yes, the same date, 15th.

Q. And it's stated in this document as well.

A. Yes.

Q. Please read out just the first several lines.

A. "On the 15th of January, 1999, the police took measures in order to block the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, in order to locate and arrest members of the terrorist group."

Q. No need to read further on because it lists their activities and so on. They killed seven members of an Albanian community and so on. Just read the last sentence.

A. "Member of this" --

Q. No, no, the last sentence.

A. "The Kosovo Verification Mission of the OSCE was informed about the measures taken. Their information service was informed."

Q. Thank you. I will not dwell on this any longer because it is very time-consuming. Now, I will follow the order of the questions put to you by Mr. Nice concerning which I made notes.

In the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr. Nice showed you a report about torture, or perhaps he just mentioned that report. I have to apologise to both of you for not noting that down accurately, but it concerns the torture of a young man in 1994.

Do you remember any kind of torture taking place in your police station or in the Secretariat of the Interior at any time and particularly ⁴¹¹⁵² in 1994, because this is what you were asked about.

A. I do not remember anything about that event, that case. In addition to that, I have no information indicating that any torture took place in the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac.

Q. All right, Mr. Jasovic. Urosevac is not a very large city, is it?

A. No. I think it has about 70.000 residents.

Q. All right. How many people worked in the Secretariat of the Interior?

A. I couldn't give you the exact number, the total.

Q. I mean the building itself. I don't mean the entire territory under the jurisdiction of the secretariat, because it covers four municipalities. I just mean the building, the building of the Secretariat of the Interior. How many people approximately?

A. Five to 600. I'm not sure. I'm not even sure of that.

Q. When I ask how many people worked in the building, I don't mean the policemen who were beat policemen, who were in patrols and so on. I just mean how many people had offices in the building of the Urosevac SUP.

A. Well, 100, 200. Once again, I'm not sure. This is an approximation.

Q. All right. All of these questions that I put to you have just one single purpose. Mr. Jasovic, if such an incident did indeed take place, torture of people and so on, would you have known about it?

A. Yes, certainly, because I started working in 1975. That was when I was first employed by the Secretariat of the Interior.

Q. All right. Mr. Nice said here that Serbia was a police state ⁴¹¹⁵³ where torture was administered, where police abused their authority. I'm not quite sure how he termed that, but at any rate, he used the phrases indicating that a large number of unlawful activities took place. He quoted the reports of the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and so on.

A. I know that Serbia was not a police state.

Q. All right. I will put now on the overhead projector the report of the Human Rights Watch. Let me just explain to you what it is about. I will put it on the ELMO in order to ask you whether some of such cases took place in Urosevac or in some other police stations in Serbia. I will give you Human Rights Watch report for 1998, which pertains to 14 cities in the United States. So this is a report of the Human Rights Watch for the United States in 1998. That was the year when, according to Mr. Nice, you engaged in torture, beating, and so on. It was even mentioned that somebody died in the police station.

All right. I will ask the usher to put this on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you intend to put, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I wish to put on the ELMO the Human Rights Watch report pertaining to 14 cities in the United States in 1998. This report discusses torture, murder, and specific cases. I want to ask the witness whether anything similar occurred in Serbia, whether he has any knowledge of such cases taking place in Serbia. And then I want to ask him about the Amnesty International report pertaining to Germany and analysing police abuse; and then Great Britain, again police abuse; France, police abuse and so on. I want to ask him ^{41154 BLANK PAGE 41155} whether anything similar took place in Serbia, because Mr. Nice brought here Human Rights Watch report detailing how somebody was killed in a police station in Serbia.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not relevant --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Very well, Mr. Robinson. It doesn't even need to be relevant.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, just on one matter before I lose sight of it, you were asked about the incident in 1994, which is relevant, and this was an alleged incident of torture in the offices -- well, in the building of the Urosevac SUP. And you were asked a question: "If such an incident did indeed take place, torture of people and so on, would you have known about it?" And your answer was, "Yes, certainly, because I started working in 1975."

Now, is that your position, that if an incident of torture of any kind took place within that building you would know about it? Because that was not your position last week.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I'm saying is this: If there was some grave incident, I probably would have learned about that from my colleagues.

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

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, certainly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, I will broaden the scope of my question. Had such a case really took place? I'm not asking you whether you would know about that, but, rather, do you think that the entire Urosevac would have -- ⁴¹¹⁵⁶ would know about that?

A. Certainly. Not just about a major case. Even a minor case would become known throughout the city.

Q. A case of that nature where somebody was killed or tortured in a police station in such a small town as Urosevac, can something like that be concealed at all?

A. No. It's impossible to conceal something like that, that somebody was killed in a police station.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Were you not asked about an incident in which a man was thrown from the fourth floor and died and you said you didn't know of that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's what I'm saying now, that I don't know of such a case. And that's what I answered when the question was put to me. I probably would have heard about it had there really been such a case.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, where is the building of the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac? Is it in the centre of Urosevac? Is it on the outskirts, in an isolated place?

A. It is outside of the centre of Urosevac in the direction of Stimlje near the railroad tracks.

Q. How many --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are well past the time for the break. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.21 p.m. ⁴¹¹⁵⁷

--- On resuming at 12.44 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the accused, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, yesterday Mr. Nice showed you a photograph of Racak and two lists of names.

I will ask the usher to put this on the overhead projector. One has a list of names, many of which are marked green, which means that they are mentioned in your documents as members of the KLA, whereas the other one is a list of names of persons who were in a house and not mentioned any further, and allegedly those who are not mentioned any further remained alive.

Put this on the ELMO, please.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, since I was unable to find it anywhere, would Mr. Nice be able to tell us based on which -- based on what he claims that the people whose names are marked in green are the people who were in Racak during the events. Where did he acquire that information and based on what is he claiming that these people were in Racak?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure whether that is a matter for Mr. Nice to --

MR. NICE: No, Your Honour. But as a matter of assistance for the accused, he will find that the evidence source is dealt with at the top of each list. ⁴¹¹⁵⁸

JUDGE KWON: So the marked ones are those who appear in the statements taken by this witness.

MR. NICE: Sorry, yes. The highlighting is all -- what it is the accused -- derives from what it is the accused wants to put in by way of exhibits. The evidential source for the general proposition that these were the people who were killed in Racak is part of our evidence, and the source of that is shown at the head of the list.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's not what I asked, Mr. Robinson. The names on the list on the left, which can be found in the exhibits provided by Mr. Jasovic or for Mr. Jasovic, I know the sources for these names because the source is in the interviews collected by Mr. Jasovic as an authorised official. What I'm interested in is the list on the right. Mr. Nice claims that these are the people who managed to escape. Based on what is he claiming that these people were in Racak at all.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, may I correct the position because I couldn't see because of the size of the type on the screen. I thought that it had actually been added to the list but in fact it was a handwritten note for me.

The source of the material on the right is Exhibit 174, which is Drita Emini's statement, and it's pages 11 to 12 of that. I think actually I read that out last week. The source of the material on the left is Exhibits 209, pages 4 to 5 of that Exhibit, and also Exhibit 187, pages 2 to 3 of that. But the accused's immediate concern is met by ⁴¹¹⁵⁹ Exhibit 174.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So there you have it, Mr. Milosevic. Exhibit 174, pages 11 to 12.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. That means that the statement of a witness is the basis for claiming that these civilians were in Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, do you know anything about group which was in Racak and allegedly left Racak in the course of this police operation on the 15th of January, 1999?

A. Based on the interviews conducted, I have no such information.

Q. Very well. In that case, we will not need the list which is on the ELMO now any longer.

Mr. Jasovic, based on the comparison which was made here, in relation to 30 persons, which can be found in Schedule A of Mr. Nice, you noted down in your statements that they were members of the KLA. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I remember that, and what I stated is correct.

Q. All right. I have a list with 30 names here. Based on the statements, if you're able to tell us that, that's fine. If not, we'll go back to your statements.

So in relation to persons which can be found on Schedule A of Mr. Nice, before the 15th, in the statements collected by you, how many of these persons based on your work were members of the KLA? What were you able to establish? ⁴¹¹⁶⁰

A. We have information concerning 14 persons indicating that they were members of the KLA before the event in Racak, that is to say before the 15th of January, 1999.

Q. All right. Would you be able to show us now in which of your documents the persons mentioned there are -- appear as well? Let us start with Rexhep Bajrami -- Ragip Bajrami. Would we be able to establish that?

A. Yes, we would. I just need to see the documents.

Q. Based on what my associates were able to find, his name is mentioned in tabs 1.35, 1.50, 1.51, and 1.54, that is to say in four statements.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, whether this arises from cross-examination I don't know. The scheduling of this material ought to have been done in chief but wasn't. We've done it on the chart which we've made to be as inclusive as we possibly can, even to include people who shouldn't be there at all, and if there is any challenge to the chart's accuracy the Chamber might find that more helpful than simply a rehashing of the same sort of material at great expense of time and without the assistance of a document to help us all have it stick in the memory.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What are you seeking to establish, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm trying to establish that as the witness indicated himself, he as an authorised official drafted certain documents, conducted interviews and so on, and based on that he was able to establish that the persons mentioned in Schedule A of Mr. Nice, that 30 of them out of 40 appear in his statements as members of the KLA. And ⁴¹¹⁶¹ during examination-in-chief, I provided that list to you in order to assist both you and Mr. Nice and make it possible for you to compare the names, draw charts, and see the tabs in which these names appear.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice -- I'm sorry. Mr. Milosevic, the question is being dealt with about this chart being offered by Mr. Nice, and I don't think you would agree with the comments made by the Prosecutor, but the note where these 30 people appear in what statements, as for that I don't think you have any opposition.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Haven't you already dealt with this matter in chief?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] During the examination-in-chief, it came out that out of 40 persons found in the mosque, 30 of them were mentioned as members of the KLA in different documents of Mr. Jasovic. That is what was established. But during the cross-examination, Mr. Nice presented some statements that he compiled over the past several days where some of that is being challenged.

Now, I would like to establish that even in these statements that were compiled in 2005 there are some things that are not challenged. Some names, rather.

JUDGE BONOMY: We have an exhibit which is D296, which I think you're referring to, which sets out the 30 names and the various documents that they're referred to. Now we have that.

If the object is to show that in Mr. Nice's statements there is agreement with some of the material, then you would need to identify for the witness the statement you want him to look at, because I doubt if he's ⁴¹¹⁶² going to be in a position to pick out statements on the basis of a general question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Let us now have a look at this. I think Mr. Nice -- it says on the 26th of May, 2005. There is a facsimile of an Albanian book, the 26th of May. That's what it says here in the introductory part. "[In English] Pursuant to Rule 68 related to Kosovo." [Interpretation] Yes. And, inter alia -- well, there are a few things there in relation to Kotlina, some other parts, but there is the book there, KLA, that Mr. Nice did present here during his cross-examination, with KLA emblem. I don't have a translation here because the book was presented only in Albanian. However, names don't have to be translated.

Could someone please be so kind as to remind me of the name of the book?

JUDGE KWON: Are you referring to a book named "Phoenix"?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that's it. The front page is 00088063.

MR. NICE: I think the book is in translation titled "Fallen Heroes."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's the book that Ms. Anoya has now. Yes.

All right. Could a copy of this book please be placed before the witness.

I just need to say one more thing. This book certainly is not complete, and it is yet to be established what is missing. However, even ⁴¹¹⁶³ this incomplete version of the book supplies sufficient information.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, did you manage to open the book?

A. Yes. I have the book open here now.

Q. Very well. Now, please look at page 20.

A. Yes, I see page 20.

Q. Afrim Syla is the fifth name there, 1999, Racak.

A. Afrim Syla.

Q. All right. It's in Albanian, and I don't know how to read Albanian. But is this one of the participants of Racak?

A. It says he was born in 1975 in the village of Racak, and he lost his life in Racak in 1999.

Q. All right. That's what it says with regard to each and every individual that I'm going to draw your attention to. So do you know the name? They included it this book of theirs that they called "Fallen Heroes."

A. I don't know about that.

Q. It's not among the 30 names you gave?

A. I think it's not among those names but I'd have to have a look.

Q. All right. But they did put the name here. Now, please look to two pages on, page 22.

A. Yes.

Q. Yes, I have. Line 6, does it say Ahmet Kaciku, again, 1999 Racak?

A. Yes, Ahmet Kaciku, born in 1964, a member of the KLA. I have information about him. ⁴¹¹⁶⁴

Q. All right. This is from their book?

Q. Yes. But I need to point out that this person was not among the bodies in the mosque.

Q. All right. And the next page, the second one from the bottom does it also say Racak, 1999, Ali R. Beqa?

A. Ali R. Beqa.

Q. Is he also in Racak?

A. Yes. Lost his life in 1999 in Racak.

Q. All right. The following page, the fifth person on the list, again got killed in 1999 in Racak. That's what it says?

A. Yes, Alush Mustafa, 1999 in Racak. He was born in 1966.

Q. All right. Now look at page 40.

A. I found page 40.

Q. The fifth person again Racak 1999; is that right?

A. Yes. Enver Rashiti. He appears as a member of the KLA in various statements.

Q. Well, that's what they say here, too, that he was killed in Racak.

A. But again he was not among the bodies found in Racak. In the mosque, I think.

MR. NICE: I'm having some trouble following the page references but I couldn't find that on page 40. Oh, up from the bottom.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 40.

Q. Page 40, the fifth name on the list. Again lost his life in Racak.

A. The fifth name from the bottom. ⁴¹¹⁶⁵

Q. Yes.

MR. NICE: Again, I'm sure the accused will have remembered as we spend time on this that so far as those who are named, if you turn to page 5 of the schedule, we've already identified those who appear in this book so far as we've been able to analyse it. There are three of them. And so far as other people are concerned, including those who on Shukri Buja's evidence were taken away, and there may be others, they are barely relevant. So that you have the three names here of those on the book. You can see, for example -- let me just identify the three ones so the accused follows it although I explained it earlier. If you work your way up from the bottom, one -- on page 5, turning the page on one, two, three, four, five, six, seven up you've got Osmani Sadik appears on the list of "Fallen Heroes." The next one up above that is Lufti Bilalli, three down from the top. And the third one is the top one, Bajrami Ragip. So those are the three who we've explained appear in this book.

The accused is quite right that the book as apparently served under Rule 68, but as I have explained that was out of an abundance of generosity. It wasn't necessary to serve it under Rule 68, but nevertheless it was thought in the circumstances better to ensure he had a copy of it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I've got a copy of the book and I've already quoted things from that book to you, not from any notes from Mr. Jasovic. Mr. Nice says that they found three, and I'm going to find other names in this book for you now and all of them lost their lives ⁴¹¹⁶⁶ in Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please look at page 58. There are two names from Racak on that page. Lost their lives in Racak in 1999. This is page 58. The fifth name down the list Islam Neziraj, Racak, 1999, lost his life. And the seventh name from the bottom upwards, Ismajl Luma, 1999, Racak, lost his life. That's only on page 58. Two additional ones. So Mr. Nice says they found three names from Racak but that's incorrect. Had they had a careful look at this they would have found a lot more names from Racak.

MR. NICE: That's not what I said. We found three of the names of people on list A. It's quite clear that there are other names and it's quite clear in the various materials that we've presented for the accused to read if he wished to that there are various mechanisms by which names may come to be in this book. We focused simply on the three names that come from list A and that are on this book. That's all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, when Judge Danica Marinkovic testified, you saw that her information about 40 casualties from the mosque do not coincide with Mr. Nice's information. If he already gave me this book about the Albanians who lost their lives, I'm only guided by two particular reference points. One is 1999 and the other one is Racak. I'm just quoting the names of those who lost their lives in 1999 in Racak. And there was one single event of this kind, and there are a great many more of them.

So now look at page 62, Mr. Jasovic. ⁴¹¹⁶⁷

A. I found it.

Q. The fourth one from the bottom. Does it say Kadri Syla, 1999, Racak?

A. Yes, that's what was. Kadri Shyqeri Syla lost his life in 1999 in Racak.

Q. All right. Now, look at page 65. The year is 1999 again. The tenth one from the top, the 11th one from the bottom.

A. Lufti Bilalli. Also killed in Racak. I found him, Lutfi H. Bilalli.

Q. All right. Look at page 67.

A. I found it.

Q. The eighth one from the top, Mehmet Mustafa, 1999, Racak?

A. Yes, I found him. Mehmet Zemun Mustafa.

Q. He is not on list A either, but he lost his life in Racak too. It's obvious here.

A. Yes. But his body was not among the ones in the mosque.

Q. All right. Look at page 75 of the book. Have you found it?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. The fourth one from the top also got killed in Racak and his name is Nazim Tokolari [sic].

A. Nazim Kokollari.

Q. All right. Got killed in 1999 in Racak. Nexhat Ramadani on the following page, in 1999, lost his life in Racak?

A. Yes, in 1999 lost his life in Racak.

Q. He's the fifth one down the list. ^{41168 BLANK PAGE 41169}

A. Yes, I found him.

Q. Lost his life in Racak. All right. Now you move on to page 80. The third one is Ragip Bajrami in 1999, lost his life in Racak.

A. Yes. Ragip J. Bajrami, in 1999 lost his life in Racak.

Q. All right. Then on page 90. I don't know how to pronounce the name. Skender is the first name but I cannot read the last name. The eighth one from the top, 1999, Racak.

A. Skender Qarri, and he is mentioned in statements.

Q. All right. Look at page 93 now.

A. I've found it.

Q. So on this one single page you have three names of persons killed in Racak in 1999. The seventh one, Saqir Berisha, 1999, lost his life in Racak. The tenth one, Saqir Z. Berisha, 1999, Racak. And then three names further down, Shefqet Muhadini, also 1999 in Racak. So on this one page only you have three persons who lost their lives in Racak in 1999.

A. Yes. But also in the statements they are mentioned as KLA members.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Is it necessary to go through the statements, Mr. Jasovic's statements, to find those names, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't see much purpose. Whose exhibit is this? Is this --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. NICE: It's not an exhibit --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. This is Mr. Nice's exhibit. ⁴¹¹⁷⁰

MR. NICE: It is a public source document which was made available to the accused in light of this general inquiry. I can tell you this: That at one stage I certainly had done the exercise of checking all of the names that Shukri Buja acknowledged had died in the course of the Racak event, and I think they can all be found in this list. They're the names that the accused has been reading out. We then found the three that feature in this list. And that may not account for all of the names but that, I think, accounts for the majority of them.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, please look at page 107. The last one on the list on that page is Sadik Mujota, Sadik Murat Mujota, 1999, lost his life in Racak?

A. Yes, I found him.

Q. On the next page, then, 108. The previous one was 107. And now on 108, the first one on the list is Sadik Osmani, again 1999 in Racak?

A. Yes, I've found it.

Q. So in this book, which does not have to be complete, and it most probably is not complete, have you perhaps remembered the number of members of the KLA that got into their book were ones killed during the police action in Racak?

A. I cannot tell, but say it's between ten to 15.

Q. All right. It's all been reflected in the transcript now so it's easy to compare.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me get your -- what's your submission on this, the exercise we've just gone through, very briefly. ⁴¹¹⁷¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That shows that there was a clash between the police and the KLA in Racak. That is what their book shows, as they say, "Fallen Heroes" as they call it. The Shukri Buja testimony shows that and so does the report by the chief of the secretariat dated the 15th of January. And it is also shown by the MUP statement of the 15th of January and the chronology that has become an official document of MUP of the 15th of January. So the reasons that are enumerated for police intervention were multiple terrorist actions resulting in death, et cetera, et cetera. The police entered. It was fired at and here we have the results. That is what it shows.

Therefore, this shows that it is not true that it was civilians who were massacred there as Walker lied, but that it was a case of the conflict and clash between the units and the KLA with the police. That's what it shows, all of that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The reference to Racak in this document, does that mean in your understanding that they died in the Racak incident that we are concerned with?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Without doubt. Without doubt, because with that book of theirs it always says Racak 1999, and that's the only conflict that happened in Racak in 1999. In Racak in 1999, there were no other clashes or conflicts. And they're all listed in their book. Now, in the report or reports by Mr. Jasovic, there are 30 of them, and as many of them coincide and match with Mr. Rasovic's [as interpreted] reports, this shows the untenability of Mr. Nice's thesis that Mr. Jasovic forced his informants to tell him that those persons were ⁴¹¹⁷² KLA members when Albanian sources in fact confirmed that they were indeed members of the KLA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: Can I just help to this degree: It was nine soldiers, or KLA soldiers, who were said to have died in Racak according to the evidence of Shukri Buja. Their names I can read them out but they can alternatively be found in Exhibit 212, and those names all do appear in this list. Those are some of the names that the accused has been reading out. So that's never been in issue as between the Prosecution and the Defence.

The assertion that this was the only incident in Racak where people lost their lives is simply inaccurate, again I think according to Exhibit 202, but it's not for me to go into detail now. But in any event either all or nearly all of the names that the accused read out as being in this book are either covered by Shukri Buja's own evidence apart from --

JUDGE ROBINSON: In Racak in 1999.

MR. NICE: Yes. That's right, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're saying there's evidence of other --

MR. NICE: There's another death a couple of days later, a few days later. We haven't focused on everything. So there it is. Three names here in the list of those who the Prosecution assert are civilians appear in the book, nine names who the Prosecution have always accepted died as active members of the KLA also appear in the book, a total of 12, ⁴¹¹⁷³ and I'm not sure the accused read out more than 12.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Proceed with your questions now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I read out 20 names from the list. I've just counted them all here. I had a marker here, so I was able to count them, and as we have the transcript, then you can see for yourselves. And I really don't see how anybody could question this exhibit written by the Albanians themselves relating to their fighters who died, who were killed in Racak. So in that sense, I think that these auxiliary tables of Mr. Nice's can serve him but they can't serve as a piece of evidence because they were purposely compiled and shaped to distort matters. But not to have to go through all the statements which Mr. Nice secured in 2005 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you should not make a statement like, that they were purposely made to distort.

MR. NICE: And --

JUDGE ROBINSON: There's no warrant for such a statement.

MR. NICE: And, Your Honour, perhaps if the accused wishes to make such statements, and we always acknowledge that we may have missed names, if on the statement that shows that the people from the other house or that four out of the five survivors from the house that was driven to the ravine are on the statements of this witness, then that would be for the accused to deal with. But as I recall it, this witness when first asked about the names from the other house said according to his recollection none of them did feature as members of the KLA. He seemed to have a ⁴¹¹⁷⁴ recollection of the names at that time as the Court will recall. This proposition by the accused is an outrageous one. I have simply dealt with in a dispassionate way the evidence to meet the evidence of this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your next question, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, just with respect to what Mr. Nice said just now. You heard the piece of information whereby the village of Racak had over 2.000 inhabitants. Mr. Nice claims that along with this group, quite obviously a KLA unit, there was according to this list some 30 civilians there. And that is based exclusively on the statement of a female witness. She could have written that there were 500 of them or whatever. There is -- are no other facts saying that there were other people there except for the KLA members. And if there were, there could have just been a couple of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. We have had the submissions from both parties. Ultimately these are issues of fact that the Trial Chamber will have to determine. Thank you both.

Please proceed with your next question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice, in 2005, in the past few days, managed to collect a large number of statements which refute the membership of -- the membership of many of the KLA members and the statement taken by Jasovic, although Jasovic took the statements in 1999 whereas these statements were only made in 2005.

But nevertheless, in order to save time and not to have to go through all the statements one by one, let's place this list on the ⁴¹¹⁷⁵ overhead projector that was shown a moment ago by Mr. Bonomy. And I have highlighted in marker pen those members who were not even challenged by the witnesses in 2005. And there are about 50 of them, too. Here you have it. Here you are. You can make a copy of the document and then we can compare it with the statements collected by Mr. Nice just now. So not even in those statements do these odd-50 from A Schedule are they being challenged, let alone the ones that are referred to in the book that is so-called "Fallen Heroes"?

JUDGE BONOMY: The number -- the number 50 has been used twice in the transcript with reference to this list. There only are 30 on the list. Do you mean 15?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I did not say 50 at all. I said about 15.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] You can take a look on the overhead projector.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So you have marked those who even appear in the 2005 statements where their membership in the KLA is not being contested or challenged. Can we see that on the overhead projector?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. With the proviso that Bajrami Ragip, for instance, was not mentioned in this and it is mentioned in the "Fallen Heroes" book. And what has been added in writing, that's not mentioned either, but it is certainly mentioned in other places.

So these are the ones which not even in the statements that ⁴¹¹⁷⁶ Mr. Nice in 2005 managed to collect are not contested as having been members of the KLA. That's it, that's a component part of the transcript now. It's part of the transcript so I assume we can move on.

MR. NICE: There's nothing unchallenged about this and it's all going to be a matter of rather more detail than the accused might like. One's got to look -- I'm just doing the first example. If you look at what's on his list as number 3, it may be that one's got to look at the text quite carefully but the report as I read it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 has 14 names before it gets to the name Lutfi Bilalli, and the investigator's notes for this potential witness says at the beginning of page -- of tab 1.44. The witness states that the information regarding the first 14 names is essentially correct, although he's never seen any of them in uniform and carrying guns. He doesn't recall speaking about the last two names. So that this highlight by the accused that he would like to become part of the record would seem to be something that's got to be looked at rather more carefully. I'll see if I can do the same for 1.5 while I'm on my feet. But I'm simply not going to allow things to go by on the nod in the hope that they may form a part of an inaccurate record.

1.51 is said to be an acknowledgement of Bajrizi Buja. It may be; I simply don't know at the moment. But if we look at that one, unless I've missed it at the moment, I can't see where the statement provided to the OTP investigators deals with that particular person at all at the moment and so on.

So this is -- this simply can't be dealt with in this summary ⁴¹¹⁷⁷ way. It's got to be looked at more carefully. And it may be that many if not all of these highlights don't accurately reflect that which the accused is proposing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I could enter into the details, but that would take up too much of our time. However, from their own book I read out 20 names and you can compare them. And as far as these names go, they are not challenged even in the statements which for me are completely worthless because they were taken in the year 2005 in order to test the credibility of this witness. But they too cannot escape those observations or, rather, an identification of these individuals.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, would you please repeat what categories of persons you took statements from?

A. I took statements from persons who wanted to collaborate with the -- and cooperate with the authorities of the Republic of Serbia voluntarily from informants, friendly contacts, and from persons we brought in from the field.

Q. All right. Fine. Now, tell us this: Do you know anything about the fate of individuals that you call your friendly contacts after KFOR arrived? That is to say, their fate after the arrival of KFOR, the fate of individuals whom you consider to be friendly sources?

A. Well, in that case I can say specifically that the son of a friendly contact was kidnapped and his fate and destiny are not known. As an informant, he is assumed to have been killed by KLA members. ⁴¹¹⁷⁸

Q. All right. Now, shows us, please, on this tab, tab 4, or I'll try and find it. Maybe that would be a better way of going about it. On page 3 you have Emini Sali, the name of Emini Sali.

A. May I have the tab, please.

Q. It's tab 4. It's that spread of Mr. Nice's with the columns. I think there's a mistake there because looking at the binder, Mr. Nice's binder, it is one of two, the first of two, tab 4, and tab 4 is the table. Have you found it?

A. Yes, I've found the table.

Q. Take a look at page 3 of at that table now, please. And in the middle of the page you'll find the name of Emini Sali somewhere. And he identified for you a number of KLA members.

A. Yes.

Q. Was he an informer of yours?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. What do you know about his fate?

A. Well, as I've already said, he lost his life in 1999 after we left, in July or August of 1999, in fact.

Q. And who killed him?

A. He was killed by KLA members.

Q. And how do you explain the fact that the KLA members killed him?

A. Well, I -- the reason for that I explain that as I said earlier on that at the end of May 1999, I was told over the phone or, rather, he told me over the phone that he was being threatened allegedly by some Albanians, and I quote his words. He said, "It has leaked out. I don't ⁴¹¹⁷⁹ know how but the news has leaked out that I collaborated with you." That's what he told me.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you carry out investigations into his death?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, specifically I conducted interviews with persons of Albanian ethnicity who came to Leskovac to carry out different administrative business, to see to administrative business. And there is a case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, now, in the comments here alongside the table, next to Sali Emini's name it says something in brackets, "Confidential IN", if I'm reading it correctly. Does that mean that some detail with respect to Emini must be raised in closed session, in private session, or can I ask Mr. Jasovic the question in open session about that particular notation?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let me hear Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Well, it simply means that that information coming to us was itself confidential and can't, I think, be taken further.

JUDGE KWON: What Does "IN" mean?

MR. NICE: "Investigator's notes" is what that means. It's a matter I raised in cross-examination briefly with the witness and I can take it really no further. But it was confidential information provided, and in those circumstances it was appropriate to ask a question or two about it but no more. I didn't even ask it in the terms that are set out there because I realised that the source of my information was confidential and I put it in the most general terms this morning. ⁴¹¹⁸⁰

JUDGE ROBINSON: This gentleman suffered at the hands of both parties.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, we're in no position to say more than we have said. I note that none of the supporting material for the recent answers by this witness have been made available to us. We simply no that the man is dead.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, Mr. Milosevic, in open session.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I wanted to put a question precisely similar to what you just said, that he suffered at the hands of both parties. It says here: "Native of Racak, opponent of KLA leaders, murdered by Albanians after the war." That's what it says here. And then it says that he was detained and beaten by Serbs previously. I want to ask the witness whether he knows anything about what is stated here, these observations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It is stated here, Mr. Jasovic, that he was opponent of KLA leaders, murdered by Albanians after the war, and previously detained and beaten by the Serbs.

A. No, that's not true that he was previously beaten and detained by the Serbs. No. He is a man who worked in the home for old people, and the truth -- the only truth in it is that he was killed by the KLA members in July or August of 1999. How could they have been able to beat my informer? That's not clear to me.

Q. That's not clear to me either. It says here, and I don't know, maybe Mr. Nice will challenge this, but at any rate, Mr. Nice claimed that ⁴¹¹⁸¹ Osmani -- Sadik Osmani was a teacher.

A. I don't know what his profession was.

Q. Well, Mr. Nice claimed that Sadik Osmani was a teacher. He said that a teacher in a context very unfavourable to the Serb side, and then on and on. And then on page 20441988, we see the identity card, or rather, a form based on which an identity card was issued to Osmani Sadik. This is the ERN number assigned by Mr. Nice's side. And in the form the occupation indicated is a farmer.

Do I need to put it on the ELMO, this sheet of paper? Most likely it will be necessary.

See we have it here. Sadik Osmani, regarding who Mr. Nice claims that he was a teacher.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would you please put this on the ELMO, and then I will ask Mr. Jasovic to read out the occupation entry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be placed on the ELMO.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let us take a look at this.

A. Osmani Sadik, occupation a farmer. This is something that he filled himself, this form, based on which an identity card was issued. This was done in order to have the identity card issued. This is the form on the issued identity card.

Q. Very well. Can I have that back, please. All right. You explained to us why the KLA killed him. Now, please tell us what happened to Sali Emini? Was that the unavoidable fate that anybody who as it became known provided information to the KLA met? ⁴¹¹⁸²

MR. NICE: Also, I think the third or fourth time we've gone over the same territory.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: "Information to the police."

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will allow the witness to answer it, but, Mr. Milosevic, we have gone over this matter.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I can tell you is that that's how it was done. As I told you previously, in the territory of Kacanik municipality, there were a number of Albanians who were killed precisely for those reasons.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice asked you, Mr. Jasovic, about the secretariat in Urosevac being housed for a time during the war in the spring tavern called Pranvera. Is that right?

A. Not the entire secretariat just the general crime department.

Q. Why did you move to that tavern that department?

A. That was during the NATO aggression and there was a fear that the building of our secretariat would be bombed.

Q. All right. Do you know were all buildings of the secretariat vacated because there was a danger they could be bombed?

A. Yes. Precisely for those reasons all these buildings were vacated.

Q. Mr. Nice said that a witness had claimed that this is where you interviewed Albanians and that upon leaving the building you mined the entrance in order to prevent them from fleeing. ⁴¹¹⁸³

A. No, that's not true that we did that. I heard that for the first time from the Prosecutor.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you relocated your department and moved it to that tavern. Did it ever happen that you left your temporary premises there leaving some of the persons who had been brought there for the purposes of an interview?

A. No. That's not true. Not only I but also none of my colleagues would do anything like that.

Q. Very well. Here you had occasion to become familiar with a whole series of documents, photographs about people being beaten. Were you able to see that? Was it shown to you by Mr. Nice?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. In these photographs, did you see anything, including persons you might recognise or anything else that would indicate that those persons were beaten in the premises of the Urosevac SUP?

A. No. I did not see anything that would indicate that these persons were abused or beaten in the premises of our secretariat.

Q. All right. I'm asking you again. Had these -- or had people been beaten in the premises of the Urosevac SUP, would you have known about that?

A. As I've told you previously, in the offices where I conducted interviews, there was no use of force let alone torture.

Q. Very well. Mr. Nice also quoted to you a statement of one of the persons interviewed, and I wrote down verbatim what he quoted. He said that you had said to him, "This is not Kosovo. This is Serbia." Do you ⁴¹¹⁸⁴ remember Mr. Nice quoting that to you?

A. Yes. I remember the Prosecutor quoting that.

Q. All right. I'm just asking you whether you remember that, that allegedly you had said, "This is not Kosovo. This is Serbia." Was that how it was put?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, tell me, Mr. Jasovic, is there a single Serb out there who will not say that Kosovo is Serbia? Kosovo is Serbia. Is there a single Serb who would claim otherwise?

MR. NICE: This is a statement, I think, not a question, and anything that begins with the line of questioning "Now, tell me, is there a single Serb out there who will not say something," is either tendentious or completely leading.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm obliged to agree once more with the Prosecutor, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is not a question of value at all. I think you will have to reformulate it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you heard Mr. Nice quoting the words of an alleged witness to you who said that you had said to him, "This is not Kosovo. This is Serbia."

A. What I can say to that is this: It is true that Kosovo and Metohija is within Serbia. I as a professional, as a crime inspector, ⁴¹¹⁸⁵ never uttered such words, because I conducted an interview in order to gain information about the activities of the KLA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: On that note of territorial certainty, we will adjourn until 9.00 a.m. tomorrow.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 21st day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.