⁴¹¹⁸⁶

Tuesday, 21 June 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic to continue your re-examination.

WITNESS: DRAGAN JASOVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I will continue immediately, but let me ask you first and foremost for a particular piece of information. Mr. Robinson, there are a great many documents here from General Stevanovic and Witness Jasovic. When do you think you would be able to look at these exhibits? You left that for later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We plan to do that very soon.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to complete the information, we're actually awaiting the translation of the submissions from the -- from your associates on that. I believe that has now come in, so we should be attending to that very soon.

Yes. Please go ahead.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In this binder that pertains to Racak, in tab 7 there is yet ⁴¹¹⁸⁷ another report which I hope you have in front of you.

A. No, I don't.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could a copy please be placed on the ELMO. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I hope you have it now.

A. Yes.

Q. This copy of yours in the Serbian language, is it legible? Mine is quite illegible.

A. Well, I don't think this is really legible either.

Q. Can you read the date at least? Up on the top you can see "Urosevac," and you can see the date.

A. I think the date is the 16th of January, 1999, up here. Yes, the 16th of January, 1999.

Q. Can you see the heading?

A. I think it says up here the MUP of the Republic of Serbia, but I cannot see --

Q. On the English translation we can see that it's MUP, Operational Centre of the MUP, the staff for Kosovo and Metohija. All of that is mentioned here, then Kacanik, Stimlje, Strpce, Djeneral Jankovic and Glogoscica. These are different police stations that were sent this document. That can be seen from the English translation. I can't read it in Serbian either.

Now, look at the heading. The heading is rather legible.

A. "The report on developments and events on the 15th of January, ⁴¹¹⁸⁸ 1999."

Q. Does it say the 15th or the 16th? I think it says the 15th.

A. Well, maybe it is the 15th.

Q. If not, perhaps we can place it on the ELMO and we can have a look at it together because we can see the 16th typewritten up on the top of this survey.

A. Yes. The 16th of January, 1999.

Q. Whose signature's down at the end?

A. The head of the shift of the duty service of the SUP of Urosevac.

Q. All right. The head of the shift of the duty service of the SUP of Urosevac sent this survey of events for the 15th. And then point 1 states --

A. Yes, point 1 states --

Q. Something that has nothing to do with Racak. Item 2 is also -- and then on the second page there is a survey of what happened in Racak, also rather succinct. And the rest pertains to other events. Can you read this survey of events in Racak?

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jasovic, just before you do that, could you also have in front of you tab 5 from that binder, and can you compare the part you're now being asked to read on tab 7 with tab 5 from the second paragraph and tell me if they are identical.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't read this part from tab 7. You mean tab 7, the second paragraph. It says: "The 15th of January, 1999," if that's the passage you mean.

JUDGE BONOMY: Starting at 0300 hours, yes. That's the third -- ⁴¹¹⁸⁹ it's on page 2 of --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't found it.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's headed "Other events and developments" in tab 7. The part you've just been directed to by Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It says here: "Other events and developments," on this page, this dispatch. "Other developments and events." The rest is rather illegible, what it says.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does it look to you identical to tab 5 from the second paragraph?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The second paragraph, as far as I can see here from tab 7, well, I don't really find it very legible.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You didn't understand Mr. Bonomy. He's asking you whether what it says in tab 7 -- whether what it says in tab 7 is identical to what it says in tab 5.

A. I cannot read this paragraph from tab 7 and that's why I cannot give an answer to this question.

Q. In all fairness, I can't read it either.

A. I can't read it.

Q. Can you read this tab 7 at all?

A. Well, this second page is illegible, the one I have here.

Q. All right. We will not torment ourselves with that any longer then. At any rate, in tab 7 from what can be seen is a survey of what happened on the 15th of January, sent by the head of the shift? ⁴¹¹⁹⁰

JUDGE KWON: If the Court deputy could print out Prosecution Exhibit 211, then the witness can read it. It's tab 7. We can proceed at the moment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. I hope that the rest is legible.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Look at tab 9 now. In all fairness, you have nothing to look at in tab 9 because it was only given in the English language. It hasn't been translated. But this is a note from a meeting. The head of the Ministry of the Interior in Urosevac. It was held in Urosevac at the Secretariat of the Interior.

I'm going to put some questions to you. Mr. Nice claimed that the army was involved in what happened in Racak. Here it says who was present at the meeting. Under (J) is Colonel Bogoljub Janicevic. It says Janicijevic, but that's a mistake.

A. Yes, it's a mistake. It's Janicevic.

Q. He's chief of the MUP secretariat. Then there's Brigadier General Maisonneuve, head of this centre from Prizren, then the deputy head of the centre from Pristina, and an interpreter.

On page 2 -- or, rather, could we have it placed on the ELMO, because it's just in English.

(G) is Gilbertson. (J) is Janicevic, and it says what they were talking about. We will start from line 10: "[In English] Who are the involved VJ?

"Janicevic: Who says they were? ⁴¹¹⁹¹ "Gilbertson: OSCE saw it. US KDOM saw it.

"Janicevic: VJ op checkpoint only."

JUDGE KWON: The monitor should show the second -- next page.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Have we got it at all on the monitor now? Let me just have a look. Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Janicevic says the army of Yugoslavia is only at the checkpoint. Can you see that? Further on the question is: "Do police ever op --" operate, I assume -- "with the army of Yugoslavia? "I may not have that information.

"Any prisoners taken?"

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's past time now for a question, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Have you ever heard, Mr. Jasovic, since you worked at the Urosevac secretariat, that in relation to Racak any military unit was engaged?

A. A few days ago at this trial I said that I have never heard of this, and I never heard of members of the army of Yugoslavia being engaged in Racak.

Q. Then he asks him, M, I assume it's Maisonneuve -- if we look at the previous page, yes, it's Maisonneuve: "[In English] You were in charge of 100 policemen?

"If it is of your concern, yes." [Interpretation] Now, the second one, Gilbertson, says: "[In English] We just left the VJ. They put all the blame on you. Were they with you or not? ⁴¹¹⁹² "Janicevic: We were not with the VJ."

[Interpretation] Gilbertson asks: "Police were the only ones to do anything with this operation?

"[In English] Janicevic: I guarantee you it was only police taking activities to stop or eliminate terrorists." [Interpretation] So the words uttered by Janicevic, is that consistent with what you knew?

A. What the then chief, Bogoljub Janicevic, said is consistent with that. I know that the police took part in this operation. I didn't hear about the army participating.

Q. According to what you knew, was that a fully legitimate operation of the police or not?

A. Well, as to this question, I assume --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... the Chamber might like to remind itself that when I asked about this tab, recognising it was in English, I confined myself to asking this witness whether he should think of any reason why Janicevic should deny the involvement of the VJ, and he said he didn't know the answer and most likely his former boss could answer. I'm really not sure these questions are doing anything except spending time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The witness knows nothing about this, as he said so, I think. Move on to another area, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice told us about the question that he asked, whether there was any reason, and I can tell you that the army was not involved there at all, and were it involved, I don't see why ⁴¹¹⁹³ anybody would be concealing that.

MR. NICE: The one thing that this accused cannot do is tell us anything, and I would invite the Court to restrain his attempts to use interventions and observations to do that which apparently he is not going to do, which is to take the solemn declaration and give evidence. And if he wants to ask the witness the questions that deal with -- that I dealt with which show the presence of the army, that's another matter, but simply to deal with something this witness can't deal with, which is what his boss said contrary to that evidence, is a waste of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to another area, Mr. Milosevic. You're not to answer. Mr. Milosevic will ask you another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] His boss or, rather, the right person who is in position to answer, has given an answer, and I just read it out. It's in this record that I just read out.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let me just cover tab 15. This is the tab pertaining to which Mr. Nice claimed that some people had been executed.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you please read out the information. It is legible, completely clear. Since in the third line of the English translation it says "were executed." That's what it says here, "executed." Would you please read out the Serbian text. ⁴¹¹⁹⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I detect once again diminishing returns setting in. There comes a stage in your re-examination when you have obviously exhausted the topic. There is no obligation to go on, and certainly if you go on in this manner, it will be terminated. You have already spent a day and a half or two days re-examining the witness. If you have no further questions of a proper nature to put to the witness, then stop. Otherwise, the re-examination will be terminated. You're wasting time.

We have been here for, what, about half an hour, and you have not asked even two questions that are worthwhile.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, in this information, the document entitled "Information," it is stated what are the grounds for suspicion concerning a terrorist group led by -- by Sadik Mujota, who apparently was liquidated in Racak on the 15th of January. Would you please tell us what is this group suspected of having committed? Do you have the first page, where it says that there are reasonable grounds to believe that this group led by Sadik Mujota committed a number of terrorists acts regulated by Article 125 of the criminal law of Yugoslavia?

A. Yes, that's right. That's what it says here.

Q. All right. As far as I can see here, we have 1, 2, 3, 4 bullets here, 5, 6, 7, 8. Does this information in fact detail what kind of a person this is and what has this person committed?

A. Based on operative information, we learned that Sadik Mujota from ⁴¹¹⁹⁵ the village of Malopoljce, Stimlje municipality, together with his terrorist group, committed a number of crimes of terrorist attacks in the territory of Stimlje.

Q. All right. The first bullet, can you read out the first word.

A. The first word is "The killing of Mihajlovic Sinisa."

Q. All right. So the first word is the killing or the murder. And then further on it says the wounding as well. So the first one is murder. And then what about the second bullet, just read the first word.

A. Murder of Jankovic Sasa.

Q. All right, murder as well. What about the third one?

A. Murder of Aluri Nazmija.

Q. All right. So in this case an Albanian was killed. What about the fourth bullet?

A. Murder of Djordjevic Ranko.

Q. The fifth one?

A. Murder of Resani Miftar.

Q. The sixth one?

A. Murder of Gasi Enver.

Q. The seventh one?

A. On the 10th of January, the murder of Przic Svetislav, policeman.

Q. And in the last line, what does it say there?

A. "Sadik Mujota, together with his terrorist group, participated in the setting on fire of the houses of members of Albanian minority in the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, so that on the 11th -- 18th of November, 1998, at around 1730 hours they set on fire the house of Bitiqi ⁴¹¹⁹⁶ Xhemajl in the village of Racak."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Stop a minute. Stop a minute. What is the purpose of this questioning, this line of questioning, Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The purpose is to establish that a document entitled "Information" was submitted on liquidation of a terrorist who had committed seven murders and that this person was killed in Racak. This is what the police learned, because they were unable to identify everyone at the time when these people died. Later on, they identified this person and established that this person had committed seven murders that police was aware, and of course many other crimes. So this Information discusses the acts committed by one of the persons killed in Racak.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, is this a regular procedure, to compile a document entitled Information about such persons?

A. Yes, that's right. That is the regular procedure. This Information, document entitled "Information" tells us about the person who participated in terrorist attacks.

Q. All right. And in tab 16, we have the Daily Bulletin, particularly quoted by Mr. Nice, where the head of the shift, sergeant first class, drafted a note on a conversation which we were able to see in the English text provided by the Verification Mission. Therefore, can we see here already on the second page that all of those persons mentioned by the Verification Mission are listed here as well? ^{41197 BLANK PAGE 41198}

A. Yes.

Q. Except it says "Dilbertson" instead of "Gilbertson," and then Maisonneuve and so on, as well as the chief of the Urosevac SUP. So is this actually the Serbian note about that meeting, that same meeting?

A. Yes. Naturally the chief of the Urosevac secretariat was fully authorised to conduct meetings at this level and have conversations.

Q. All right. Are you able to establish that this note, this document, is longer or shorter than the English version?

A. Well, I think that this one is more complete, based on the description.

Q. What was supposed to be the role of the sergeant first class? Was his role simply that of a note-taker or note-writer or was he also participating in the conversation?

A. Well, most likely the chief of the secretariat took part in the conversation and then he conveyed to the head of the shift what to put in in the note describing the events of the day. I assume that such meetings are held at a higher level and then the chief of the secretariat authorises somebody to write up such documents.

Q. Yes, Mr. Jasovic, that is not in dispute here; it's quite clear. I'm asking you, what was the role of the head of the shift? Was it just to write up the note or to do something else?

A. Well, his duty was to put in the document, describe all of the events which took place on the day when he was on duty.

Q. All right, Mr. Jasovic. Let us continue. Mr. Nice in the last few days particularly emphasised how unlikely it is for someone who -- of ⁴¹¹⁹⁹ an advanced age, to be a member of the KLA. Would you please take the book that we looked at yesterday published by the Albanians, and let us just go over several examples of persons whom they included in the list of their heroes. We are not now dealing with Racak, we are dealing about the allegation that somebody of an advanced age must be a civilian. Would you please open up page 51, please.

A. Yes, I found it.

Q. Can you please tell us, in what year was the fifth person from the top born?

A. Hamit Halit Lladrofci, born in 1920.

Q. And died in 1998?

A. Yes, that's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I haven't found it.

JUDGE KWON: From the bottom.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] From the bottom.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Oh, I thought from the top.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So if we deduct 20 from 1998, what do we get?

A. 78 -- or 76.

Q. 78, Mr. Jasovic, certainly.

A. Yes, yes, 78.

Q. Very well. All right. Let's take a look at page 55 now.

A. I've found it.

Q. The last person on the list.

A. Ilaz Bali Hyseni. ⁴¹²⁰⁰

Q. Born in what year?

A. 1915, killed in -- or died in 1998 in Kaqanoll.

Q. Does that mean that he was 83?

A. Yes, he was 83. 98 minus 15.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this a document setting out KLA members or Albanians who -- UCK.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is their book, Mr. Robinson, the book that I received from the opposite side. This book contains the names of the fallen heroes, as they call them, members of the KLA who were killed, fallen heroes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Everybody in this book, in this document, is a KLA member, as distinct from just an Albanian. That's what it says?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, you were able to see the cover page of this book. You can have that translated. I don't have the translation. I have it in the Albanian language only. But you were able to see that there is the UCK written on the cover page, and we can also see the emblem. It states very clearly that this is the book on the fallen members of the KLA.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation].

Q. What does this mean, Fenikset e Lirise, Fenikset e Lirise?

A. The Phoenix of Freedom.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Please move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Then please look at page 66.

A. 56? ⁴¹²⁰¹

Q. No, 66. The third person from the top, born in 1926. So he was 74, 72, killed in 1998.

A. Yes, he was 72.

Q. All right. Let us not continue with this, but Mr. Jasovic, based on your experience, were you familiar with any cases where some very old people or some very young persons, in fact minors, were members of the KLA?

A. Yes, I know about that. The KLA was not a legal institution that applied the same rules as the army, because the army, for example, takes people 18 and up only. In this case, anybody who was fit, who was able, could join the KLA.

Q. All right. Very well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... question. Upward limit. Upward age. What is the oldest that you're aware of?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there are no rules. I don't know who the oldest was, oldest KLA member. I can't remember. But as for the KLA generally, I said that only able people were -- they might be somebody who is 70 but quite capable and able, if I can put it that way. So there are no strict rules according to which a person joins the KLA, say, from the ages of 15 to 55, or any such specifications. Anybody who was able or capable could join.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you able to give a name of a very young person or a very old person that you were aware of as a member?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The KLA members -- well, let me take the example of Afrim Musliu from the Belinc village. They were young ⁴¹²⁰² then, very young guys. Afrim and his brother, they were young men. I can't remember. Well, they were about -- under the age of 20 certainly.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. Very well. Now, we saw in this book a person who was 83 years old. Mr. Jasovic, you received, as it says here, a partial translation of a statement by a protected witness who is to be found in tab 9 of Mr. Nice's documents. I'm going to quote just one point from that partial translation, because the others were ones that Mr. Nice quoted to you. It is point 47, in fact, of tab 9. But since it wasn't translated very precisely, I'm going to read it from the English, point 47, because in the translation it says, "Jasovic in 1997 and 1998," whereas in paragraph 47, it says: "In 1997/8/9." So one year has been left out in the translation. He "concentrated on members of the KLA, which he referred to as terrorists, whom he called terrorists, in the area around Stimlje, Urosevac, and the villages of those two municipalities." So here it says that you were concentrating on that. And was that your job precisely as a crime inspector, to learn as much as you could about members of the KLA during those years?

A. Yes. 1998, for instance, with the appearance of the KLA staffs and headquarters that were set up. Within the frameworks of my line of work, I worked together with my colleague, and one of my assignments was to connect all information linked and related to the KLA. And as I said earlier on, information about their activities, movements, how many of them there were, what weapons they had. So our operative work was focused on throwing light on them and finding the perpetrators of possible ⁴¹²⁰³ terrorist acts that had been committed.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasovic.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, if we're moving on from any reference or further reference to the book "Fallen Heroes," the Chamber will recall the limited questions I felt able to ask of this witness in relation to it, because of course he knew nothing of its compilation. And the Chamber will also recall that in the questions I asked I in no sense accepted that all those described there were in any sense active members of the KLA. I explained through questions to the witness that materials can be found, indeed I think about tabs -- tabs 8 and 9, I think -- or no, not 8 and 9. Materials can be found showing the problems there were with compilation of this book and the reasons why people's names might be in it, but in light of Your Honours' questions, it is not put in on the basis that the Prosecution accepts -- it's not put in at all, but it's -- if it is to go in as an exhibit, it's not accepted by the Prosecution that the people named there are automatically members of the KLA.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, what is it then?

MR. NICE: It was a document that it was thought appropriate because of course it provides some significant material to indicate that people may be members of the KLA, but there are also other reasons for names appearing there, at least on the material coming for us; pension and matters of that sort, people wanting their names there because they want to be registered as heroes, whatever their contribution. And so it would be incorrect to rely on the document as in any sense an admission by the Prosecution that somebody in that book is a member of the KLA. ⁴¹²⁰⁴ Notwithstanding that, I've drawn to your attention the fact that there is a coincidence between those listed there, for example, and those identified by Shukri Buja, but then there is a non-coincidence between those identified as civilians and three of the names found in the book.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You won't be seeking to have this exhibited?

MR. NICE: I'm content to have it exhibited in due course, but we'll have to consider exhibits much more generally. I don't object to its being exhibited, we made it available to the accused in order to help him, but by doing that we're not saying that the document is in some way authoritative of who was or was not a member of the KLA at the time of their death.

JUDGE BONOMY: Has the introductory narrative been translated?

MR. NICE: It hadn't. I don't think it's been translated into English [microphone not activated]... There are those in Court who can help you, including the witness, with what it says.

JUDGE KWON: I remember a part of Mr. Shukri Buja's evidence where he said that not all the KLA members were engaged in combat operations. Some of them were only involved in administrative matters or something like that.

MR. NICE: Well, that's indeed --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone please Mr. Nice. Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: My apologies. That is indeed correct, but in a recent statement dealing with this book, and with other matters which you can find at tab 7 and there's another at tab 8 that deals with it, you can find his further qualification for categorisation of people in this book. ⁴¹²⁰⁵ If necessary and -- this evidence can be called at a later stage in the trial if it becomes sufficiently critical.

JUDGE ROBINSON: There's a fairly long introduction. Perhaps that would throw some light --

MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour, the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- on the status of those whose names are included.

MR. NICE: Well, that can always be translated, and we can possibly look at it on the overhead projector now through this witness. I should explain again, and I think I explained earlier, there are some other books which we made available which are individual biographies of some of those who are named in the general index, biographies with photographs. We've gone through those in particular to see if we can find any of the three people described in Schedule A as civilians having a detailed biography that would show how they died at Racak, because obviously that would be potentially interesting and favourable to the accused. They don't show, as far as we've been able to discover in those subsequent biographies, and we've been unable to unearth anything favourable to the accused in those subsequent biographies where more detail is provided, but all the material's available to him for him to deal with as he wishes, subject to the limitations on the material as Shukri Buja describes it.

We --

JUDGE KWON: Is this the same material we dealt with during the -- Mr. Stevanovic's evidence? I remember we once -- we saw similar material ⁴¹²⁰⁶ which was disclosed under the regime of 68 to the accused.

MR. NICE: I think it -- we may have dealt with it with Mr. Stevanovic, and certainly I think it had been disclosed at that time.

JUDGE KWON: What I remember is Phoenix of Freedom, or something like that. We saw the similar --

MR. NICE: I think so, yes. I'll check that. Reminding that Court that although it was nominally provided under Rule 68 that was out of an excess of concern for the accused not necessarily knowing that something was available in open sources.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The introduction should be translated.

MR. NICE: If the Court so decides, we'll get it done.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And we ask that it be translated.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson -- yes, it's on. I can -- Mr. Nice mentioned the testimony of Shukri Buja. I don't have time to deal with his testimony now, however, you can glance through his statement and you'll be able to see that they endeavoured to introduce names restrictively and not on an extensive basis; that is to say, not to put somebody on the list that just happened to die somehow but whom according to their criteria deserved and merited being on the pages of that book of fallen heroes. So that that gives me quite enough reason to believe that these are exclusively fallen KLA fighters, those who fell in battle. And anyway, we can establish that later on. But it's quite clear why, and I'm very surprised to see why Mr. Nice, who provided me with this book, now suddenly has some reservations to make. The only thing that can be said ⁴¹²⁰⁷ is that it is probably not complete and comprehensive. I'm sure there are more names.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Jasovic, let's try and save as much time as possible now. You were asked by Mr. Nice whether you knew anything about the visit of General Djordjevic to the SUP of Urosevac. Now, please, do you remember what General Djordjevic was?

A. General Djordjevic was there in the capacity of deputy minister of the interior of the Republic of Serbia, I believe. I think at the time he was chief of the sector for public security.

Q. Right. As chief of public security, was General Djordjevic the immediate superior to the chiefs of the Secretariats of the Interior in the whole of Serbia?

A. Yes, of course that's true, that's correct.

Q. Tell me now, then, is there anything unusual in the fact that the immediate superior should tour the Secretariats of the Interior, should visit the Secretariats of the Interior in the field, or would it be unusual if he were not to visit them?

A. It would be unusual if he did not visit them and tour them.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... referred you to his superiors. So this is, although expressed in an alternative format so as not to be strictly speaking leading, is effectively a leading question on a topic that the witness has said in earlier testimony he can't help with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he can ask the question. ⁴¹²⁰⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said I didn't know whether he visited the secretariat in Urosevac that particular day, the day you specified. I don't know that. That's what I said I didn't know. But, yes, it is customary and usual that he can come any time to tour the Secretariat of the Interior, pay them a visit.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a minute, please. I have one more tab of Mr. Nice's to get through, and he focused on it especially. And that is tab -- the last tab, in fact, in this binder of his. It is 2.23. That is the number which it goes by, and it refers to a statement by Adil Zymberi, if I'm reading it correctly, if I'm reading his name correctly. They interviewed him and questioned him with respect to all the statements he provided, and you have here as a supplement your own information at the end. If you could take a look at that, Mr. Jasovic, the report at the end.

A. Yes, I found the report or information.

Q. It is dated the 20th of January, 1999. Have you found that?

A. Yes, I have. It says report/6-99 of the 20th of January, 1999.

Q. Tell me now, please, Mr. Jasovic, since this is rather a lengthy report, and in the statement of Mr. Zymberi, which as we can see was taken on the 29th of May, 2005, can you read when the statement was taken? Do you see that date, the 29th of May, 2005? Can you see that?

A. Zymberi Fadil. The date is the 29th of May.

Q. 2005.

A. Yes.

Q. And you took the statement on the 20th of January, 1999, did you ^{41209 BLANK PAGE 41210} not?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me this now, please, Mr. Jasovic: Can you remember the circumstances under which you took the statement, which as I can see is a very detailed one, very extensive, comprehensive, contains many facts. And Mr. Nice's witnesses here said that that was the job you were engaged in, collecting information of that kind.

A. I can't find Fadil Zymberi's statement.

Q. It's at the end. Try and find it, please. Towards the end.

A. I don't seem to have my statement except the statement which he gave to the investigators or, rather, this seems to be my statement in English.

Q. But you must have a photocopy of the version in Serbian. I'm sure you do somewhere.

A. I have this information dated the 20th of January, 1999. As for Fadil Zymberi's statement, I haven't got it.

Q. Is that Fadil Zymberi's statement, the one that you had from the 20th of January, 1999?

A. It's tab 2.23. And this is a particular piece of information containing information about the whereabouts of the KLA. This information was proffered by the informer and a male nurse.

Q. All right. You saw that Fadil Zymberi is challenging a series of information contained --

MR. NICE: No --

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴¹²¹¹

Q. -- in this --

MR. NICE: -- incorrect summary and the witness is indeed revealing the history of this document. The witness gave two different accounts for the source of this document. As I think I heard one of the Bench say, there is no statement from Zymberi, so it is not correct for the accused to summarise the position as a statement of Zymberi. This document, whatever else it may be in light of the two answers in the course of his evidence given, or explanations given by this witness, is not an apparent statement of anybody, and it doesn't divide up, if there were two sources of information, who provided what.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks for the correction, Mr. Nice. It's headed a report, or Information.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm afraid that it's a misunderstanding. I am not saying that this Information - because that is actually the heading of this document, it is Information, not Report - I'm speaking of Zymberi's statement contained in tab 2.23 that you have here in English. Zymberi Fadil gave his statement on the 29th of May, 2005. So I asked the witness when this person gave the statement. In his statement, he brings into question what is contained in this information. So I wish to confront his claims in the Information with the knowledge of the witness contained in the statement and also what he included in this piece of information.

Mr. Nice also gave a summary of statement here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So the statement -- I think we have it now. The statement is the first document in 2.23. The second document, yes. The ⁴¹²¹² first is a summary.

What is the specific question now?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Since the witness does not have Zymberi's statement and this summary of statement of Zymberi, because it's in English and that has not been translated for him, and it is actually different from what he states in his Information, I think it would be a good thing for him to compare Zymberi's summary of statement to the positions contained in his Information and to say who it is that is telling the truth or, rather, that he testify to what the truth actually is.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just say something?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The male nurse, there's probably a misunderstanding here because even now I cannot remember the name and surname of the male nurse. I've simply forgotten his name and surname. Tab 2.23 relates to two sources. Two persons gave me information; the informer and the male nurse. Even now I cannot remember the name of the male nurse because I saw him only two or three times. I cannot say whether his name is Fadil Zymberi and whether he's the person who gave the Prosecution a statement. He said that he's a male nurse, probably he is that person.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. It's not for you to establish what is probable or likely, Mr. Jasovic. Your information is very extensive, and it contains a great deal of information, and he confronted that with Fadil Zymberi's ⁴¹²¹³ statement, who claims that did he not say some of the things that are contained in your Information.

Where in this Information of yours do you claim that you learned this from Fadil Zymberi?

A. The person lives in the village of Racak.

Q. Wait a moment. In your Information, is it stated anywhere that you got this information from Fadil Zymberi? That's what I'm asking you.

A. No, it's not written there. As I've already said, I can compile an Information without giving the names of the persons who provided me with information.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, Mr. Nice claims that you got this information from Fadil Zymberi, who denies that. So I'm asking you, did you get the information from Zymberi or did you get it from some other people?

A. I got it from a male nurse. Even now I cannot remember whether his name is Fadil Zymberi. That is why we have this misunderstanding, because I cannot recall his name.

MR. NICE: Again, I'm sorry to interrupt, but with this line of approach to re-examination, it's necessary to nip things in the bud. On the 27th of April of this year, this witness gave the following unqualified explanation for tab 2.23: He said the information was provided by a nurse from the village of Racak whose name he couldn't recall, but he could state that the male nurse was married to a woman from the village of Petrastica, Stimlje municipality, that his father-in-law I think is called Dugolli, killed on the 28th of November of 1997. Those coordinates were pursued by the investigator Ms. Murtagh. This person was ⁴¹²¹⁴ the unique identified person who resulted from the information provided by this witness on the 27th of April.

Association of the material with another person came at other times, but on this occasion he was quite specific. And the Court will have in mind --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: The Court will have in mind, if it's looking at the witness -- or proposed witness statement in tab 2.23, that the last paragraph of the witness statement sets out his account of his own history, which matches that given for the person concerned by this witness on the 27th of April of this year.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I took note of your comment, Mr. Nice, about this type of re-examination, because I'm getting very concerned about the manner in which the re-examination is conducted. I have spent 37 years in adversarial proceedings, and I have never witnessed re-examination of this length, no matter how long the cross-examination is. Mr. Kay, maybe you can tell me if you have seen re-examination last one day or two days. I've never seen it, no matter how long the cross-examination is. Re-examination is simply for the purpose of rehabilitating your witness, dealing with important points that arise out of cross-examination. And I have to consult my colleagues about this as to whether we are discharging our duties properly. The re-examination should not last two days. That's an abuse of the entire process. The re-examination should be conducted in the same way it would be conducted in Jamaica or in Scotland or in England or in ⁴¹²¹⁵ Canada, in countries which have adversarial proceedings. Re-examination is not to last a day or two days. It's abusive, and I will consult with my colleagues in the break as to how to constrain this kind of re-examination.

JUDGE KWON: I would say even shorter in civil law countries as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Judge Kwon. Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Yes. One of the problems is that -- and it's necessary in the terms of the constraints we face. Mr. Nice, in his cross-examination, was able in an almost seamless way to bring Your Honours in by way of comment, often not solely directed to the witness, and tie up issues of argument and presentation that was in his interest that he wanted to make time and time again. I didn't do anything about that, but it was obvious to me that there was a form of presentation that was in the form of speech as well as questioning. One understands the limits that we have in terms of time, and sometimes a message has to be got over in a way that requires a degree of latitude, and it may be that some habits that have been brought into the questioning of witnesses are necessarily copied and reflected by the Defence in the way sometimes that Mr. Milosevic has to present his points which he feels need to be tied up so that Your Honours understand it, and that seems to have been a practice that has been developing in the questioning of witnesses.

That's all I have to say about it. ⁴¹²¹⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. Mr. Milosevic, how much longer do you plan to spend?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope I finish before the end of this session. If Mr. Nice were not interrupting me all the time, I would have finished by now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I take that -- I doubt that, but let's move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot ask the witness now to read the text in English, but I would like to draw your attention to the following: In relation to this Information that was provided by the witness, dated the 20th of January, 1999, and that somebody marked according to paragraphs, please look at the summary. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine paragraphs from the bottom -- I haven't even gone on to the other page, and then the other page one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine -- 18, 18 paragraphs contain the same phrase.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, listen to this, Mr. Jasovic. Listen to the phrase: "[In English] He stated he is not the origin of the information." [Interpretation] So in 18 paragraphs contained in this Information, or more, I referred only to 18, but, no, there are more. Again towards the end there are more. Not the origin, not the origin, and so on. So --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, the Chamber has difficulty locating the paragraph. Could you do that again?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. Take the first document ⁴¹²¹⁷ from 2.23. Fadil Zymberi, OTP Summary of Statement. And then -- and then look at the bullets on that page. Nine bullets, counting from the bottom. In all of those nine paragraphs it says that he is not the source of information. And on the second page this is referred to in ten or 12 further bullets, that he is not the origin of the information in that paragraph.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now I'm asking you, Mr. Jasovic, if he claims that he is not the origin of information for at least half of this Information that you provided here, could you explain to me whether you simply invented what is contained in this Information or did you receive information from a trustworthy source, a source that is reliable enough for you to include this in an official Information?

A. The fact is and the truth is that this information that I compiled I got from the male nurse and from the informer. As I said last time, this information came from two sources, that is to say two persons.

Q. I would particularly like to draw your attention to the following, that he says concerning paragraph 30 -- I'm going to read it in English so that I won't make a mistake: "[In English] In paragraph 30 he states that contrary to that stated in tab 2.23, he does not know if the persons mentioned therein were KLA members."

[Interpretation] Now, that is on page 3 of your statement. It is marked as paragraph 30. It says: "In addition to the aforementioned members of the so-called KLA, the following were also in the village of Racak," and then there is a long paragraph containing at least 30 names. ⁴¹²¹⁸ Did you invent that, Mr. Jasovic, or did you receive this information from your informer or any other source? Can you explain that?

A. We did not invent this information, neither I nor my colleague Momcilo Sparavalo. We received this information from a male nurse and from our informer. For me this information is trustworthy and truthful, because these persons appear in other documents as well as members of the KLA.

Q. All right. I'm not going to deal with this any longer. I just wanted to indicate the quality of the evidence that Mr. Nice compiled in 2005.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know how that works in that system of yours that you keep referring to all the time, Mr. Robinson, but if somebody is not a source of information, then how can that person deny information that is contained in documents?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to our instructions, we can compile Official Notes or this kind of information without referring to the name of the source, of the person that we talked to without revealing the details of that person.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you about what Mr. Nice said. He even went as for as to say that General Djordjevic exerted pressure for you to provide this kind of information. Please, is there a grain of truth in what Mr. Nice is claiming?

A. I don't understand this at all, that General Djordjevic could exert pressure on me or anyone else for us to invent information, to make ⁴¹²¹⁹ it up. Not only General Djordjevic, anybody.

Q. Mr. Nice also took as an example your tab 1.16, where one of the statements -- never mind, but 1.16 is your tab. And somebody wrote in hand on the top of the page "For Colonel General V. Djordjevic." What does that mean?

A. That means that most probably the head of the organ of the secretariat in Urosevac forwarded this note or information to General Djordjevic, which is only natural, because --

Q. All right. Mr. Jasovic, have I understood you correctly? Can I infer that if the head of the organ deems a particular piece of information of particular interest he sends it to his superior, and that is General Djordjevic?

A. In addition to General Djordjevic, it's also the head of the MUP -- the staff of the MUP for Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. All right. Mr. Jasovic, in these statements and in what Mr. Nice said, you were accused of having beaten people. Then you were presented with some kind of text of a certain Council for the Protection of Freedoms and so on.

Over all those years, some NGO, some Council for the Protection of Freedom, some individual who was allegedly mistreated in the police, did anybody ever file a complaint against you or other members of the Ministry of the Interior in the secretariat in Urosevac?

A. No complaint was certainly filed against me. As for others, I cannot say. But I can say one thing here, that from the very beginning of my work, the then-head of secretariat Jusuf Karakushi commended me and ⁴¹²²⁰ gave me citations, and others after him, and that can be confirmed.

Q. In tab 16, in a statement given by one of Mr. Nice's witnesses, this witness claims that you threatened him, that you threatened to chop his head off, and as it turned out later, you let him go. Is there a shred of truth in what Mr. Nice put to you?

A. No, no truth whatsoever, Mr. President.

Q. Mr. Nice said that somebody was beaten in February of 1999. In February of 1999, was there the European Mission of observers present as well as the OSCE Verification Mission?

A. Well, we know that the Kosovo Verification Mission arrived in the fall of 1998, and I think that they left in February of 1999.

Q. March of 1999, Mr. Jasovic, not in February.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So if nobody complained to our organs, as Mr. Nice claims, did they have occasion to complain to the organs of the Verification Mission or the EU Monitoring Mission?

A. Yes, certainly they had occasion.

Q. I'm asking you that, Mr. Nice [as interpreted]: Do you know of anybody complaining to the members of the Verification Mission or the EU Observer Mission?

A. I never heard about that.

Q. Mr. Jasovic, you saw all of these documents, the facts; you were there in the Urosevac SUP. Do you remember, when it comes to weapons, weapons such as heavy machine-guns, plain machine-guns, hand grenades, so on, how much of that was found in the village of Racak? ^{41221 BLANK PAGE 41222}

A. As I've said last time, quite a large quantity was found in the village of Racak when the on-site investigation was conducted. All of that weaponry was brought in into the hall of the Urosevac SUP.

Q. Was that clear that that weaponry was used to conduct combat?

A. Well, that's a fact.

MR. NICE: Totally inadmissible leading question and I should remind the Court that this witness, so he told us, was never present in Racak himself, although I had material to suggest that he was. But no doubt he can always make that clear if it's going to be of any value.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's -- that was leading --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was not present in Racak.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I asked you about the weaponry because this was confiscated by your secretariat. Mr. Nice claims that the members of the Mother Teresa Association were killed in Racak. In your police experience did you ever hear of members of the Mother Teresa Association firing from heavy machine-guns, throwing hand grenades, and possessing all of that weaponry?

A. I never heard of the members of the Mother Teresa Organisation or Association firing or possessing all of that weaponry.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Jasovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't have further questions, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE KWON: But there existed -- Mr. Jasovic, there existed an ⁴¹²²³ association which is called Mother Teresa Association there?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I heard about that association, the Mother Teresa Association, but I don't know whether it actually existed in Racak. I know that there was that association in Stimlje.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Jasovic, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good-bye, Mr. President. Thank you to everybody.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, would there be other documents that you would wish to have exhibited other than what you have specifically referred to?

MR. NICE: The -- out of our binders, out of our two binders does Your Honour mean?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, other than --

JUDGE BONOMY: You've got three binders now.

MR. NICE: Correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you've also tendered other material.

MR. NICE: Certainly.

JUDGE BONOMY: We need to identify what it is you're seeking to --

MR. NICE: Yes. Can I make our position clear? I'm going to seek to exclude all the Jasovic materials as unreliable and falling below a level that should be admitted. If that application succeeds, then little or none of the material that I've been relying on would be material I'd ⁴¹²²⁴ want admitted. Some of it might be valuable independently of the cross-examination of the witness, but if there's any question of the materials of Jasovic being admitted as evidence in this trial, then I would seek to have nearly all our materials admitted. I realise the Chamber may be against me in principle on, for example, the statements taken in accordance with its earlier rulings but I'll nevertheless make that application, but the other materials I think might be of value but the one would depend, in a sense, on the other.

It had occurred to me that so far as the admission of the Jasovic materials are concerned, written submissions might be helpful but I'm entirely in the Court's hands. And if there were to be written submissions, could I respectfully invite the Court to consider as a -- on this particular occasion, inviting or demanding written submissions with the possibility for short, focused oral submissions when they've all been presented. Because I think it's quite an important issue and it might benefit from five or ten minutes from all the parties when the written submissions are in, rather than, for example, written submission and then replies and that sort of thing.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we want to have a -- identify a reasonable time for the parties within which to make their submissions. Can I hear from you on that?

MR. NICE: Yes. I would obviously hope to have staff to turn to it if -- pretty well immediately, but seven days might be optimistic and I prefer two weeks. ⁴¹²²⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think that's too much really. Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: Yes, it's too long.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: We should really be dealing with this by oral argument so that we can move on. The trouble is when we're -- the case moves on, we're going back to deal with these arguments that take two or three days to draft and put everything together in a proper way. Meanwhile, one's dealing with the new witnesses and other issues, and it's very difficult for the case to keep its forward-going momentum, and we are ready for our oral argument on the issues, which are very current, very pertinent. We've heard the evidence, we know what the conflict is about in the courtroom, and if both sides were given ten minutes to deal with oral argument on the admissibility, that might assist the Trial Chamber more than having more filings and more delay.

That's my submission on the matter. As far as the compendium of Racak materials goes, the single volume, I think there's only one document that didn't come through in the form of a previous exhibit that was referred to in evidence. That seems to me a helpful matter, to have all the documents in one place, because it was becoming very difficult to trace many of the Racak documents in dealing with Racak issues, and that might be a useful aid to the Trial Chamber. They may have made their own compendiums already, we were putting that together, but this seems to me to be a useful collection, if we could get that out of the way. ⁴¹²²⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that this would not fit in any system, what Mr. Nice is doing. You know very well he was the one who proposed to have this witness give evidence when I didn't even know that this witness existed. I accepted that, the witness came to testify, and brought with him original material created at the time of the events, contemporaneously.

You gave Mr. Nice one month to prepare for cross-examination, and then Mr. Nice brought in some statements taken in May of 2005 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just comment on the particular issue at hand, written statements -- written submissions on the exhibits. If so, how long; or just oral arguments?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am categorically opposed to written arguments, written submissions. I think that it is a normal procedure to have exhibits admitted during the testimony of the witness, to have them admitted or to deny their admission. I think this is normal procedure. And let me tell you right away I'm not going to write any written submissions on that issue.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In my system, yes, Mr. Milosevic. I understand that in some civil countries the admission is done at the end of the case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In that case, in your system you can do as you please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, what we are to decide is what is the best course of action in the particular circumstances of this case.

[Trial Chamber confers] ⁴¹²²⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is the Chamber's ruling on this matter: If the Prosecution wishes to put in written submissions on the question of exhibits, it may do so, but it must do so by Monday of next week, and then on Wednesday of next week we'll have -- we'll hear oral arguments on the questions.

If Mr. Kay wishes to put in a response, then you may do so, but there's no obligation to do that.

We'll have a brief oral hearing on Wednesday of next week for arguments on the exhibits.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What about all of these documents and exhibits which were used during the testimony of General Stevanovic? There are some 17 binders of documents, and I'm afraid that we will have too great a distance from his testimony. And this pause that we're making between the testimony and the admittance of documents really leaves a very open possibility for misunderstanding and problems later on. Mr. Nice just said that there is a binder about Racak. Yes, that's right. That's within Mr. Nice's documents. And within General Stevanovic's documents there are two Racak binders, and so on and so on. There is a great number of documents used during the testimony here that you said would be considered later.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's a good point. We don't want too much time to pass between the witness's evidence and the admission of exhibits relating to that evidence. We have that in mind. ⁴¹²²⁸ What has held up our consideration of Mr. Stevanovic's exhibits was the translation of the submissions from your associates. We expect to deal with that sometime next week.

We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.04 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, who is your next witness?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My next witness is General Bozidar Delic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And with what matters will he be dealing?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] General Delic will be testifying about all the activities of the army of Yugoslavia under his command. And for your information, he commanded very important units of about 14.000 men who controlled some 140 kilometres of the state border and several towns in-depth, as well as many, many villages which comprise the area of those towns and relates to all the events that are vital in 1998 and 1999.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Bear in mind, of course, the requirement that the evidence be relevant to the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am bearing in mind the fact, Mr. Robinson, that Mr. Nice during many of his examinations and assertions, he spoke about a pattern of behaviour on the part of the army of Yugoslavia, some kind of pattern on the part of the army and the police of Serbia. But now I'm just going to speak about the army of Yugoslavia. And with reference to that, it's very important to see what that pattern of behaviour looked like and how the army of Yugoslavia behaved, what the ⁴¹²²⁹ army of Yugoslavia did throughout that period of time in order to be able to see that in fact everything that Mr. Nice is implying when he uses the word "pattern" in connection with the army activities is just not true or correct, and you will have a chance to see what the army did over a continuous period of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So the evidence of this pattern may not necessarily relate to particular incidents in the indictment.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] They will relate to specific assertions, incidents, et cetera, and the overall behaviour and conduct of the army and units under his command throughout the material time that he's testifying about, the time relevant for what Mr. Nice is claiming, because you can't hide behind general phrases any more as to what somebody did or didn't do if there are specific data, concrete facts about the conduct of the Yugoslav army and how it acted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And just the last question: His evidence will be confined to this issue of pattern?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Not only to that but to concrete events and his knowledge of them, of the overall situation in Kosovo and Metohija or, rather, the knowledge that a commander of such a large body of men can have or has. So therefore, it will relate to all the events that are tied in to Mr. Nice's claims and allegations, and of course his witnesses too.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Kay, I wonder if you can assist me. It may be impossible, but I was trying to identify any evidence so far of the involvement of the 549th Motorised Brigade, which appears to be a relevant ⁴¹²³⁰ army brigade, in any specific event charged in the indictment. Are you able to tell me if there is any such evidence? So far I'm unable to find any.

MR. KAY: I'm unable to do that just off the top of my head because the indictment refers to "Serb forces," as the Bench will know. It would have to be something that will have to be looked at. It's not something we've been picking out as a point when going through the evidence, so I can't take that any further, I'm sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: I found it referred to in events that are not in the indictment --

MR. KAY: Right.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- and serious events at that, but none that appear to actually be in the indictment. But however, if later you can assist, I would be grateful.

MR. KAY: I will do.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, before the witness comes in, this not being in any sense his responsibility, documents, the position is that we've now got an index of 629 A documents, so it's obviously in excess of that number, which is more in number even than Stevanovic produced. So far as we've been able to judge, none of them was listed on the 65 ter listing of exhibits, and we've made inquiries to see if it's said that any of them were listed 65 ter, and it appears probably not. The material was first provided in B/C/S on the 14th of June, and Ms. Dicklich had to arrange for all of that material to be copied and ⁴¹²³¹ scanned in order to process it because of the format in which it came in. Since then, translations have been coming in daily so that it's now 269 with English translations and 310 without.

It would, of course, be possible for me to mount an argument saying that all of this written material should be excluded as in defiance of or in breach of your earlier rulings, and particularly attractive as a possibility to do that, given the time that the accused's evidence is taking and the problems that we've articulated in writing that will be forthcoming with the 150-day time limit generally. However, I recognise that within the documents produced there are some documents that I would want to rely on, insofar as I've been able to have the advantage of an assessment of them so far, there will be some documents that I would want to rely on in cross-examination. But in dealing with this witness, I would ask the Chamber to recognise the difficulties that we are placed under and difficulties that may become apparent with particular documents if they're not in translation at the time the witness comes to deal with them. We have done, as with all other witnesses, everything we can to assist in the presentation of the material, but there are limits to how far we can or should go.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what is the explanation? What is the explanation for these documents which you intend to exhibit not being on the 65 ter exhibit list?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, my explanation is this: First of all, the fact that I had an exceedingly short period of ⁴¹²³² time to supply the documents on the first list; and the second explanation is that it is not unusual and that Mr. Nice would send in many documents post festum, later on during the course of his examination. Now, as far as the assertion that he made that he received it on the 14th of June, I cannot be of assistance to you there except to tell you that all the documents or, rather, all the exhibits which go with General Delic's testimony were sent in on 20th of April, which means two months ago.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But is the position that not even one of your proposed exhibits was on the 65 ter exhibit list?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot confirm that because I wasn't in a position to compare all those facts and information. But I did draw your attention to the fact that many archives were inaccessible to me and that my associates only managed, after a long period of time, to come by certain documents which are relevant for the Court here, to be presented here. So when they came by the documents, they became accessible, and without exception all of them were sent in on the 20th of April.

[Trial Chamber confers]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to add something, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I wish to add is this: Many of the documents are documents which Mr. Nice's office does have because General Delic sent them in as an expert in the Haradinaj case. ^{41233 BLANK PAGE 41234}

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can see you're familiar with all the standard arguments, Mr. Milosevic.

Mr. Nice, can you comment on this? Mr. Milosevic says that the documents were sent on the 20th of April.

MR. NICE: Absolutely I can comment on that, and it's one of the three points I wanted to make. The documents may have been provided to Registry, none of them was provided to us until last week; and indeed a second point is that when collections like this are provided by the accused, he retains a control over their provision to us until the last minute so that we aren't necessarily getting the complete collections, we're only getting what he's finally approved to pass. Now, there may be forensic reasons for that happening in light of one or two documents that, as it were, slipped through in the Stevanovic materials. We can understand from an entirely forensic point of view why he might want to do that, but the fact of the matter is the materials were here in April. If they'd been provided to us in April, we could have at least started working on them because of course we do have B/C/S readers, and we can start the process of analysing them even though only with a limited number of our team members. So that's the answer to that point. The last point I wanted to make is this: Mr. Saxon, who has been getting to grips with the documents at this stage rather more in earnest than I have, has identified several, or it may be many, stamped with a stamp that indicates they were provided by the VJ, presumably to this accused, from their archives in October 2002. So getting on for three years ago. ⁴¹²³⁵ Those are the points I wanted to make.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That partially puts paid to your contention, Mr. Milosevic, that many of these documents were not accessible to you. Well, the Chamber's ruling is as follows: Mr. Milosevic, you must make a written application by tomorrow for the addition of all of these documents that you intend to exhibit, a written application for them to be added to the exhibit list with an explanation as to why they should be added.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, with respect to what Mr. Nice said a moment ago about tactics, let me tell you straight away I have no tactics to keep back any documents. From the moment the documents are handed over to the Registrar, every document is accessible to Mr. Nice's office, or can be accessible. So I never made any requests to hold back any documents and not to hand documents over to his office. The question is the speed at which this is done, whether this is done only once the documents have been translated or whether they supply them with untranslated documents, I don't know. That is out of my hands. But let me repeat here and now, and this holds true for everything, that everything that was handed over to the Registrar can be provided to Mr. Nice's office straight away. I have no need to keep anything back or make any delays in handing over the material.

Now, as far as your request is concerned that I should make a written application for --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not a request. It's an order. It's an order of the Chamber. If you intend to rely on these documents, you must ⁴¹²³⁶ apply in writing to have them added to the exhibit list. You're in flagrant violation of the Rules, and not for the first time. In the meantime, we'll proceed hearing the evidence, but by tomorrow you must have a written application for the addition of all of these documents to the exhibit list, with an explanation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I understood it that by handing over the documents and their lists this was done, that is to say is that what you're asking now was fulfilled by handing over the documents linked to the testimony of this next witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will not comment on that. You're seeking to make a mockery of the proceedings, Mr. Milosevic. Call the witness. We'll deal with the witness today, but as from tomorrow any document on which you intend to rely must be included in a written application to have the documents admitted, with an explanation.

Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Your Honours, one matter just to assist the Court entirely differently, on the issue of the 549th Motorised Brigade: Witness K41 gave evidence at length in September of 2002, 6th of September 2002, on the operations of the brigade in the Prizren-Orahovac-Suva Reka area, used by the Prosecution in relation to paragraph 54 of the indictment, Article 7(1), criminal responsibility, and paragraphs 55. I'm talking to you as I'm doing a search. Paragraph 56. The issue of widespread and systematic would obviously arise. Paragraph 66, killing site overview. He's in the Prosecution fillbox document. As it's within Orahovac-Suva Reka area, it may be one of those units that the Prosecution ⁴¹²³⁷ are relying on under the general title of "Serb forces."

JUDGE BONOMY: What I've been trying to do is make the link between the specific reference to that force or that brigade in the evidence and any of the particular crime sites that are labelled, but I can't make the link. I see the point you're making.

MR. KAY: It's there.

JUDGE BONOMY: I do have the evidence of K41.

MR. KAY: I do remember Maisonneuve referred to this brigade and the particular general and spoke of the qualities of the general. This isn't because of an excessively prodigious memory but merely the fact that it was a topic I was looking at fairly recently in relation to other research.

JUDGE BONOMY: And again I have -- you have identified the two principal witnesses that I seem to have identified.

MR. KAY: Yes. Ms. Higgins has found Maisonneuve on 29th of May, 2002, when he gave evidence.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be brought in.

MR. NICE: Just while that's happening and in light of the earlier discussion, we will now seek provision of documents relating to the forthcoming witness Bulatovic, which are even more voluminous in number, and we'll try and get them as soon as they are possible in order that we can process them as early as possible.

In response to Your Honour's other inquiry, Bela Crkva is also within the area of responsibility. ⁴¹²³⁸

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit.

WITNESS: BOZIDAR DELIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may begin, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

A. Good morning, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. General, would you please tell us where you were born and introduce yourself generally, in the briefest terms, the outlines.

A. Your Honours, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Bozidar Delic, major general of the army of Serbia and Montenegro. I was born on the 20th of February, 1956, in the vicinity of Djakovica in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Tell us briefly what education you've had and your professional experience.

A. In addition to the military academy, which I graduated from in 1987, I went to the command staff school as well of the army of Yugoslavia and the national defence school of the army of Yugoslavia. That means that with regard to training and education, I'm on a par with a doctor of science, Ph.D., strategy, operations and tactics. I was also a lecturer ⁴¹²³⁹ at the tactics department of the military academy, and my professional title is docent.

Q. Thank you, General. Now, what were you during the war in Kosovo?

A. During the war in Kosovo, I was commander of the 549th Motorised Brigade, which was located in the garrisons of Prizren and one battalion was detached and located in the Djakovica garrison.

Q. General, you have a map beside you. Would you please show us and indicate your area of responsibility.

A. On this map we can see my zone of responsibility. Part of it cannot be seen here but my area of responsibility started from the Morina border post on the state border between --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... unless the audiovisual booth films it for me, if the board is at that angle.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let that be done.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My area of responsibility on the state border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Albania, Morina, the border post of Morina. Then along the state border to the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Republic of Albania, and the Republic of Macedonia. Then the state border with the Republic of Macedonia and -- that is to say between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Macedonia all the way up to the Peskovi mountain top on Mount Sara. From Peskovi on Mount Sara, the pass of Prevolac, Mount Osman, then Sar-Planina, Bukova Glava, then east of Suva Reka, Precevsko Brdo, then the pass of Dulje, Luznica, and at the ⁴¹²⁴⁰ north-east to Klecka, about one kilometre. Then east of Malisevo about two kilometres, then along the valley -- along the valley of the river to Beli Drim. Then the valley of Decanska Bistrica, here to Ljumbarde, the village of Ljumbarde, and then Lake Radonjic, Erecka Suka, and back to the Morina border post on the state border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Albania.

What I showed now is peacetime area of responsibility. In the war there was wartime area of responsibility which included a considerably smaller territory than what I showed just now.

Q. General, which towns and villages -- I'm actually referring to big towns and -- that belonged to your zone of responsibility in war and peace?

A. In addition to Prizren, where the command of my brigade was, there was also Dragas, Suva Reka, Orahovac, Djakovica. But in Djakovica there was another brigade too. So as far as control over Djakovica, from 1997 onwards I did not have Djakovica under my control, although it was within my area of responsibility.

Q. General, throughout 1998 and until mid-June 1999, were you in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. Yes. Throughout 1998 and 1999, I was in Kosovo and Metohija with one exception, about two months when I would spend weekends with my family in Belgrade.

Q. When you say two months, how are we supposed to understand that, that once in every two months you would sometimes go to visit your family?

A. Yes. Say every two months I'd spend two or three days with my ⁴¹²⁴¹ family.

Q. Thank you, General. Now, throughout that time that you were there and where you commanded your brigade, and you explained what your area of responsibility was, what happened in Kosovo and Metohija in 1999 and before that in 1998?

A. Especially taking into account 1998 and 1999, particularly in 1998, there was an escalation of terrorist activity. Although terrorism is a specific phenomenon, that is to say terror that reigned in Kosovo and Metohija over centuries, 1998 was particularly characteristic because the number of attacks against civilians, members of the Ministry of the Interior and the military, escalated, and by the 30th of November, it --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you reading from a document?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a little notebook of mine, just there in order to aid my memory in terms of dates, whatever, but if you wish --

JUDGE ROBINSON: When did you make those notes?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: He said in the hotel.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Over the past ten days.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. If it aids you, you may use the notes that you made.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. NICE: Though it may not arise, presumably on the basis that they will be available for inspection by us if we wish to have a look at them. ⁴¹²⁴²

JUDGE ROBINSON: If they are not personal notes, I see no reason why they shouldn't be.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. Of course. There is no problem whatsoever.

In 1997, as far as I can remember there were 70 terrorist attacks over the entire year. Until the 30th of November 1998, there were about 1.470 attacks.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you indicated just now that there was a sharp rise in terrorism in 1998, an escalation of terrorism. You were there. Why did this escalation of terrorism occur in 1998?

A. In 1998, if we were to look at the individual months of 1998, in January and February, in view of the situation as it was in Kosovo and Metohija, were the usual thing. There were a few attacks then. However, from the month of March onwards, there was a particularly large number of attacks against civilians, a large number of attacks against members of the MUP.

As for the army of Yugoslavia, the attacks on the army of Yugoslavia were launched only at the state border during those first few months.

As for attacks on the military, they did not happen at that time. That is to say, barracks were not attacked, and the army was in-depth as far as the territory is concerned.

Q. General, who carried out these attacks already in the late 1990s?

A. Although terrorist groups have been present in Kosovo and Metohija ⁴¹²⁴³ with different ideologies but always with the same objective in mind since the Second World War, in the 1990s an organisation appeared. We call it the KLA, although the first part of its name doesn't sound right. "Ushtria Clirimtare e Kosoves" is its name in Albanian, or, rather, the Kosovo Liberation Army.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You didn't answer the question asked by Mr. Milosevic. Why was there an escalation of terrorism in 1998. Are you able to say why there was an escalation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can explain, however, that will require some more time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, very briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We would have to go back to 1995, to the Dayton agreement. The Albanian delegation expected that they would be invited to Dayton, to the United States of America, and that at these talks the Albanian issue would be raised as well. However, that did not happen. Although the Albanian delegation was present, they were told that in Dayton it is only the problems of peoples who were in conflict in Bosnia were being dealt with. They were not in a conflict, and practically there was no place for them in those talks. I think that a diplomat from the State Department who said that, if I remember correctly, his name was Robert Perrina.

In a way, this was a green light for a crisis to start in Kosovo. So from 1995 onwards, there has been a sharp rise in the number of terrorist attacks. In 1997, I already mentioned how many there were, only about 70, whereas in 1998 there were 1.470. ⁴¹²⁴⁴ Quite simply, they wished to force the international community to deal with that purported problem of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in the briefest possible terms, can you tell us what you know about this organisation you mentioned, the UCK.

A. The UCK, or the KLA, is a terrorist group with a very strange ideology. Even certain international officials spoke about that. Its ideology was created by an illegal movement from the beginning of the 1980s, that is to say from 1982 onwards. To be more specific, that was called the People's Movement of Kosovo.

MR. NICE: Before we move on, the witness's evidence is coming to the borders of expertise. No report's been served, of course. But for these last few observations, which are clearly not sort of nuts and bolts matters of fact with which the Chamber may be more concerned so far as this witness is concerned, it might be helpful to know on what he's relying for these expressions of clear opinion.

I'm not anxious to put -- or have the Court put particularly strict parameters around evidence of a witness like this, but nevertheless as we are going to hear evidence, or if we're going to hear evidence of this kind, it would be helpful to know what his sources are.

JUDGE ROBINSON: For my own part I don't find it to be -- the witness of an expert nature, and I wouldn't stop the evidence on that basis.

Proceed.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This terrorist group, as I've ^{41245 BLANK PAGE 41246} already said, had a strange ideology. It can be said that it moved in two directions, basically. It's a fascist Stalinist ideology, because part of that group was made up of the remains and the heirs of the fascist ideology from the Second World War. The persons who belonged to the SS division of Skenderbeg, to the Balists, that was that group. The other group were the hard-core Stalinists, supported as far back as the days of Enver Hoxha, and then Sali Berisha continued to support them. That was that group.

That was the ideology of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Did the KLA have any political party or movement backing it?

A. The KLA did not have a political party. This movement or, as they called it, the Popular Movement of Kosovo, the MPK, was created by persons who, after attempting to topple the constitutional order in 1981, fled to Switzerland and Germany. They created this movement of Kosovo, the Popular Movement of Kosovo. Balli Kombitar is the fascist organisation that it basically belonged to.

Q. General, in Kosovo and Metohija, apart from the KLA, was there any other terrorist organisation?

A. There were several terrorist groups in Kosovo. However, there was an organisation that was called FARK, in Albanian it is called Forcat e Armatosura e Republikes se Kosoves. This armed formation first appeared in June 1998 in Kosovo. It spent about three months in Kosovo, and it reappeared in 1999. This armed formation belongs to this illegal government of the Republic of Kosovo that was headed by Bujar Bukoshi. ⁴¹²⁴⁷ These units were established by the minister of defence in this illegal government, Ahmet Krasniqi, who was killed, I think, in Albania on the 23rd of September, 1998

Q. General, what was the difference between the UCK and FARK? What were their goals?

A. As far as goals are concerned, their goals were the same, identical; that is to say, bringing down the constitutional order of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and separating the territory of Kosovo and Metohija from it. However, their approach was different at different times. The KLA only espoused brutal force, and they used it even against their fellow countrymen who thought different, and Serbs and other Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija.

On the other hand, FARK, Rugova's FARK, that is to say Rugova on the one hand, advocated a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem over the longer term, and on the other hand through his illegal Ministry of Defence from the 1990s he advocated military organisation and also preparation for an armed uprising in Kosovo.

May I just say one more thing? In 1993, the first minister of defence in that illegal government of Kosovo, Hajzer Hajzeraj, together with like-minded individuals, conceived the first plan for an armed uprising in Kosovo and Metohija. This plan involved gathering weapons in Albania and establishing 100 platoons and 200 companies in Kosovo and Metohija, establishing several brigades that would be grouped in two corps; that is to say, the Metohija Corps and the Kosovo Corps.

Q. General, based on their activities, their conduct, was that a ⁴¹²⁴⁸ terrorist organisation or could you qualify it in some other terms?

A. Beyond doubt the Liberation Army of Kosovo was considered, and using all parameters can be considered as a terrorist organisation. As I've already told you, its very rapid spread and expansion in Kosovo was a result of the use of brutal force or, as we call it, "the Kalashnikov strategy."

This organisation was called a terrorist organisation by certain international officials as well. I think that Mr. Gelbard, an envoy of the US State Department for the Balkans, in February, if I remember it correctly, on the 22nd of February, 1998, in Pristina, said that the KLA was undoubtedly a terrorist organisation and that the United States strongly condemned terrorist activities of this organisation. He stated this in a meeting with the Albanian representatives. I know for a fact that Ibrahim Rugova was there, as were some other prominent Albanian leaders.

Q. General, your experience from this period of time in 1998 and 1999 when it comes to armed activities of this organisation, did it only entail conflict with terrorism or anything else?

A. Based on everything that was happening on the ground, based on everything that I experienced personally since I was born in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and I know the mentality of the Albanian people well, so judging on all of that, I can say that this was a conflict with terrorism and terror.

Q. In briefest possible terms, tell us, what were they waging struggle for? ⁴¹²⁴⁹

A. In briefest, terms, if I were to give the briefest possible answer, then I would tell you that they wanted to detach the territory of Kosovo and Metohija and annex it to the territory of the Republic of Albania.

Q. General, you brought with you the videotape which was recorded at the oath-taking ceremony in the vicinity of Djakovica in July of 1998. Could we see the footage, please, and would you please identify the persons seen on the tape.

This can be seen in tab 1.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't show it yet.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let the video be played.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the oath-taking ceremony of the KLA in the vicinity of Junik in Djakovica municipality. The man reading out the text of the oath is Hajdin Abazi, nicknamed Lum Haxhiu. He's a teacher by profession, born in the vicinity of Gnjilane. In 1998, he was in Junik serving as a kind of a spokesperson of the units in the Dukagjin operative area.

Members are taking an oath stating that they would fight until the last drop of blood or, rather, until they are united with the Republic of Albania.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. In 1998, what I wanted us to see is what concerns ⁴¹²⁵⁰ their goal, which is unification with the Republic of Albania, and we could see that in this footage.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, let us please look at the next video footage, which is also the oath-taking ceremony of those who have the same goal, showing the same person.

Would you please play the tape.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that the same month, June of 1998?

A. Late May or early June.

[Videotape played]

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is that the same person?

A. Yes. We can see Hajdin Abazi here. He was widely known there as Lum Haxhiu. Here he is with Mr. Holbrooke in Junik. The man carrying shoes here is called Sefedin Kuci, former JNA officer.

This is Lum Haxhiu.

Q. All right. Thank you.

A. We can see some leaders here. Veton Surroi was on the footage. He was -- he attended the meeting as well.

Q. All right. So in 1998 they pledged in their oath to unite with Albania. This was just several months after Mr. Gelbard claiming -- claimed that they were a terrorist organisation. And we could see a representative of the US administration with that same person advocating unification with Albania. They were together in Junik. ⁴¹²⁵¹ Now let us see something relating to the bringing in of weapons, and let us see who the veterans of the KLA are.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would you please play the following tape.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this person comes from the Krasniqi family. He is an Albanian. This is a typical manner in which weapons arrived in Kosovo. This is also the area of Junik. We can see Mr. Clark here.

We can see Mr. Holbrooke here. Mr. Clark here was referred to as the KLA veteran, whereas Mr. Holbrooke was called "Golden Kalashnikov."

MR. NICE: Your Honour, that last clip was clearly an amalgam of different events, I think, unless it was itself was a film or documentary, I don't know what it was. It might help if we know what its number is so we can find out what we're dealing with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, was that one continuous clip or was it a collection of different events? Or can the general say?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can say. If you wish, I can answer.

This is one film and only certain segments have been abbreviated, cut, because the entire film runs for longer than an hour. In Belgrade, I saw this film at the Commission for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal. Since Mr. Tomanovic, the attorney-at-law, put in a request to be provided this film, he was the one who made this abbreviated version. ⁴¹²⁵² This film was also shown on several TV stations in my country. I believe it was also broadcast here in the Netherlands.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. We saw the last clip and saw that it had Dutch subtitles. You were able to see that there are several clips. One refers to the oath-taking ceremony and unification with Albania in June of 1998, and then in the next clip we saw how those people met and talked with Mr. Holbrooke in July of 1998. And then in 1999, we saw them greeting Mr. Clark as the KLA veteran and referring to Mr. Holbrooke as the "Golden Kalashnikov." So this describes the political background of the events which later on Clinton's administration tried to depict as a reaction to some humanitarian catastrophe, and there was none of that in 1998.

MR. NICE: Evidence coming from the accused; wrong place.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you able -- Mr. Delic, are you able to put a date on the last segment of the film?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the date, it probably exists on the tape. I don't remember the date, but I know that this was the donors' conference during the elections in the States, the donors' dinner during the last elections in the States, in honour of Mr. Kerry.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: In honour of whom?

JUDGE BONOMY: John Kerry. So that means it was in the year 2004.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This was a fund raising dinner in honour of Mr. Kerry. It is obvious here that this person whom we can see on the screen right now made footage in 1998 and 1999 about these ⁴¹²⁵³ visits to Kosovo. Also, the meetings with Albanian diaspora in the United States was filmed as well, and then the last segment comes from this fund raising dinner.

So I understood this to be a film that this person filmed about himself and about the activities of Albanian immigrants in America.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, in order not to visit a very distant past, in view of the fact that the struggle against terrorism has been going on for many years, I would like us to focus on 1998.

Would you please describe the document entitled "Excerpt from the annual intelligence report on electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations" for 1998, which can be found in tab 4. Would you please first tell us how you obtained this document, and is it a reliable, proper document?

A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic. I found that. So this is the excerpt from the annual intelligence report on electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations for 1998. This excerpt, or this annual report was compiled by the 52nd Company for electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations within the Pristina Corps. This is a perfectly valid document. This is the company who performed these tasks for the purposes of the Pristina Corps. Some of the members of this company were located in my barracks in Prizren and also in another barracks in Djakovica. ⁴¹²⁵⁴

Q. All right. So this is an excerpt from the annual report on electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations for 1998.

A. Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Would you please take a look, General, as I asked you to explain, please take a look at several segments which I underlined in this report. We excerpted just several pages here.

On page 30 that is here as the first page, it says: "On the 13th of May, following two or three days of inactivity, the terrorists' radio communications suddenly increased in intensity as did terrorist actions." Would you please be so kind and read it yourself.

A. Yes, I saw that. On the 13th of May, it says: "Following two or three days of inactivity, the terrorists' radio communications suddenly increased in intensity as did terrorist actions. There was a period of inactivity during the visit of the American representative Richard Gelbard following which the number of the attacks against the members of the RS MUP increased in several places in Kosovo and Metohija, on the Pristina-Pec and Pristina-Djakovica roads. We discovered a new frequency - 154.570 megahertz."

Q. What about the 14th? Please read out just the bits that you believe to be most important in this document.

A. On the 14th of May --

Q. General, bear in mind that you have to read slowly to allow the interpreters to keep up with you.

A. On the 14th of May, and it says here specifically from 2240 hours to 2315 hours, there was intensive conversation between two speakers. ⁴¹²⁵⁵ They were Guri-3 and Ekoj, the speakers. From this piece of information -- or, rather, from this conversation we are able to conclude the following: That one of these units should prepare for an attack on a police patrol and that that should take place somewhere in the Drenica region but that on the following day in the evening they would receive an exact message and that someone should go to the railway station for destruction, it says.

After the attack -- after the fighting, rather, the group should take care and look after itself, not to enter into any difficult situations.

So that was the conversation. Guri-3 is one of the participants in the conversation. In Serbian, "guri" means "stone."

Q. You mean in Albanian.

A. Yes, I meant Albanian. Slip of the tongue. And the Serbian translation of "Guri" is stone, and he was one of the very active participants in this radio communication.

Q. Then this goes on to the 14th of May where it says that the terrorists, after the attack, were surrounded by strong forces.

A. Yes.

Q. A group of terrorists from -- what does this P/Z mean? Kodra, what that's that? It's the call-sign Kodra?

A. Yes, I remember that. I even remember the attack. It was in my area on the 14th of May, and it was one of the attacks on the police patrol in a place called Zrze. At the crossroads of the Prizren-Djakovica roads and the local road running towards the village of Ratkovac. ⁴¹²⁵⁶ And you can see here that the terrorists say they were surrounded by strong MUP forces and that they are seeking reinforcements and assistance in the form of men and ammunition.

Q. All right. Now take a look at the following page. What is happening on the 10th of June? A bus is mentioned that was expected. They were expecting a bus, it says.

A. Yes. This is about a bus which was supposed to bring in the money they had gathered for the purchase of weapons, ammunition, and other equipment.

Q. Now look at a few paragraphs further on. On the 17th of June, what does it say there? There's mention of some consultation at the headquarters in Drenica.

A. Yes, the village of Dobri Dol is mentioned, north of Iglarevo.

Q. At that time, General, did you have any information and intelligence about the existence of any kind of headquarters in Drenica in that village of Dobri Dol?

A. The intelligence we received electronically through the radio matrix spoke about the fact that one of those staffs or headquarters of a high level was in Drenica and that one was in the surrounding area of Djakovica. Later on it was the Dukagjin Operative Zone.

Q. Now, what does the 21st of June speak about, about an expected attack on a police checkpoint at Rudnik?

A. Yes, that's right. The village of Rudnik, that means along the road from Pec to Mitrovica. And there was a police checkpoint there, and on several occasions the checkpoint was attacked. ^{41257 BLANK PAGE 41258} Here it says that there was grouping taking place in the Mamusa village - that's my area - where there was to be a meeting of the KLA leaders. That seems to be a little strange. Well, strange. Actually, Mamusa is inhabited -- 80 per cent of Mamusa inhabitants are Turks, a Turkish population. They are the autochthonous Turks, as we call them. And most of them are in the Prizren municipality and they are only to be found in this village of Mamusa.

Q. Could you explain to us why this is strange, why this appears change to you, whether because the Turks were not members of the KLA or for some other reason.

A. We have no cases of any Turk being a member of the KLA. But as I say, the place was chosen because nobody would expect a meeting to be held at a place like that, and they felt they were safe, they'd be safe if they were to hold the meeting there.

Q. Now take a look at the next page, 33.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind that we already have a lot of evidence from your witnesses on the KLA as an organisation, its origins and so on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I am bearing that in mind, Mr. Robinson.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, please, would you move on, let's do this as quickly as we can, and just indicate the most characteristic points so that I don't have to quote from the passages. But I have jotted them down for myself, but I'm sure you will select your own. ⁴¹²⁵⁹

A. At the beginning of page 33, the 28th of June, something that happened in Prizren linked to my own barracks there. This participant whose name was Korizi, around my barracks constantly from 1997 right up until the end of the war, they monitored the movement of the army, and every vehicle leaving the barracks compound, reports would be sent, and on that day goniometrics showed us that on the 28th of June right near the barracks at a warehouse for construction material this person Korizi was to be found. We called the police and attempted to find him. There were some unfinished houses that were being built in that area, under construction. And as you can see here, it says there was an unsuccessful search conducted by our security organs because he managed to take refuge in some bunker and weren't able to find him.

Now, following on from that report, we can see --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you intend to go on at some length, I think we should take the break now. It's past the time for the break. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Yes. Just on the other matter again of relevance, Witness K32, who testified 17th, 22nd of July, 2002, had important evidence on the activities of the 549th and evidence concerning this witness, specific evidence concerning this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just bear in mind the point where we ended so we can take it up when we return. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, just one matter, nothing to do with this ⁴¹²⁶⁰ witness who can indeed withdraw, to do with something that ought to be covered in private session, with your leave.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In private session?

MR. NICE: Yes, please, but nothing to do with this witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session, yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴¹²⁶¹

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, before I continue with the examination-in-chief, may I give you a piece of information, and this is it: I have checked out with Mr. Tomanovic what Mr. Nice mentioned, that on some documents they're dated 2002. Those are dates which signify the time when the copy was made and confirm that the copy is an authentic representation of the original within the same institution, that is to say the general staff of the army of Yugoslavia. My associates, with respect to the activities of the units that were under the command of General Delic, received at the end of last year, that is to say 2004, at the end, over 10.400 documents which they had to look through, and then of those 10.400 documents, which of course it was impossible to present here along with the testimony of a witness, they reduced that number to 620-odd documents. So that that was the time needed to do that, and I should like you to bear that in mind. Of course, that includes over a hundred videotapes, and they selected just 20 of those, about 20. A great selection had to be made because only six per cent of those documents were selected to be presented here of the 10.400 documents that were in existence, as I said. And as far as Mr. Nice said, that there were some A markings along with the number, there was an A, A always refers to the English translation, so it is not a new document. If the number is, say, 333 of the original document, then 333 A would be the English version, the English translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what you just said you can include ⁴¹²⁶² in the document which you must present tomorrow by way of explanation.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on page 33 of the report we were dealing with, at the bottom, towards the bottom of the page there is a date there, 21st of July 1998, and it says that they continually monitored the movement of our forces and kept checking the situation at the positions they had seized. Who is the "they"? Who monitored whom? Tell us a little about that in greater detail.

A. As I've already said, all movements of the armed forces and the police, whether from their barracks or along the roads, the communication lines, were monitored from set positions, and reports were sent out to the KLA headquarters and other KLA positions in-depth, in the rear, about the movements of every column and even every individual military or police vehicle.

Q. Thank you, General. Now on page 41, paragraph 5, the date there is the 25th of April 1998, there is a dialogue between somebody there. Now, who is this speaking and what is that all about?

A. Page 41, you said.

Q. Yes. Paragraph 5.

JUDGE KWON: What is the date again?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The 25th of April.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here quite obviously we're dealing with a conversation between two KLA members, and the first says: "Many Serbs are moving out of this area here." ⁴¹²⁶³ And the second person says: "Just let them go. We don't need them here, this is ours."

Then the first person: "Yes, if we keep on frightening them like this, no one will stay."

Number 2: "Many army and police members' families have moved out of Djakovica recently. When the other Serbs find out about that, they're going to leave too."

Number 1, the first speaker: "Don't talk about anything on the phone, because the Serbs can hear it. They can get the information. Tell Ruzda to say nothing over the phone. Did you get the money?" And then the line breaks off there.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On page 42, paragraph 7, we have the 8th of June, 1998, as the date, and we have somebody's words saying: "We were told here in Switzerland that everybody from 18 to 55 to put on --" "We were told here in Switzerland that an order was issued for everyone between 18 and 55 to put on a KLA uniform." Who is this speaking? What's this about?

A. Another participant in a conversation monitored, calling up from Switzerland, calling one of his relatives, and he's asking whether that piece of information is correct, that the KLA is mobilising one and all and making lists for all the individuals in Kosovo and Metohija, especially in the villages, of individuals ranging between the ages of 18 and 55.

Q. A little in front of that the date is the 11th of May, and it says: "The KLA is everywhere, some of us are here, too. We'll get there ⁴¹²⁶⁴ from Germany in no time. We hear the vicinity of Decani is full of our people. Be careful about what you do, we don't want to die for nothing." What does that refer to?

A. That is also a conversation. One person was from Metohija and the other person was in Germany, and they were having a conversation.

Q. Now, on that same page --

MR. NICE: The interesting problematic area here: The witness doesn't produce this material himself. It seems we're now firmly in the area of some kind of intercepted material. We didn't produce material, I think, in this way. We produced intercepts properly sourced and evidenced with reports in advance. Not foreshadowed by the 65 ter summary, no report. How am I going to deal with it? Is this confidential or secret material of a kind that's going to be available to me, or are we going to get this report and nothing more? Another example of the real difficulty of this accused determinedly not serving material like this in advance with reports, not using the provisions of 89(F), and leaving the Prosecution in a very restricted position so far as assisting the Trial Chamber by cross-examination in due course is concerned. The Chamber may decide it's outside the area for which this witness is most likely to be helpful; that's a matter for the Chamber.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the witness has indicated the origins of this document, and he said that it was a unit which dealt with electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic equipment and said that part of that unit was located within the frameworks of his own unit. He indicated the source of the material, so we're dealing with ⁴¹²⁶⁵ information and intelligence that a specialised military unit came by by listening in to the radio communication going on among the KLA terrorist organisation, and the witness explained all that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What isn't clear to me, Mr. Milosevic and the witness, is what puts this witness in a position to offer an interpretation as to these passages in the intercepts?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I hope, Mr. Robinson, you notice that the witness very often says, "This happened in my vicinity," or "in the vicinity of our barracks," or words to that effect, or "we called up the police to find the perpetrators," the individuals, and the police were unsuccessful in their searches, and so forth. But I'm going to ask the witness now to give us any additional information if he feels it necessary how he comes to be in a position to be able to provide us with explanations with respect to this report and these excerpts about electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you add anything to that, General?

A. This is an annual intelligence report, and annual intelligence reports are compiled at the end of a year, calendar year. However, they would not have any value as far as I was concerned as a piece of information and intelligence had I just received them at the end of the year. What happened was this was on a daily basis. Whenever necessary, from one minute to the next, from one hour to the next, I would receive information and intelligence coming in which was of vital importance to me about the units or parts of units. One was in the barracks in Prizren and ⁴¹²⁶⁶ the other in my barracks in Djakovica. And the information provided was even more detailed. Of course, we weren't able to include all the pieces of information and intelligence in the annual report itself.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you explain, Mr. Delic, why the dates jump about in the -- they're not all in sequence.

JUDGE KWON: Just once. If you could take a look at page 38 in B/C/S, Mr. Delic. The bottom of the page ends up with the report dated 13th of December. You follow? And we are -- and we are missing page 40, and then from page 41 it begins with 20th of April. Is this a document which is contiguous? Can you explain that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. This report contains many more pages, and it also involves many different areas. One of the areas are the intercepts of conversations between terrorists. What you see here is not really followed by the dates. I have the opportunity of seeing the entire report. These are dates that have to do with terrorism. But probably because the legal advisors asked for this unit to provide something which would be of interest and which pertained to my area of responsibility primarily, that is probably why they selected these particular pages. And that is why there are these interruptions, in a way.

JUDGE BONOMY: But that doesn't deal with the question that's being asked. It goes to December and then we're back in April on subsequent pages. Now, what's the explanation for that?

JUDGE KWON: Given this is an annual report.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My only explanation of this could be ⁴¹²⁶⁷ is that this report follows dozens of different areas, and that is why there can be this kind of page difference, because there were excerpts from different areas that pertain to my zone.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, it's now -- it's now, in my submission, quite clear this evidence shouldn't be allowed in. In the Prosecution's case with intercepts, there was a careful and meticulous presentation with either evidence of who had listened to the intercept and a setting out of the circumstances, or the intercept itself available. Here we've got some selection of material, apparently made by the accused's associates. The witness himself hasn't made the selection, so he's in no position to say whether it's representative or not. We haven't got any of the intercepts themselves. We haven't got anybody who says they listened to them and wrote them down. How can it be of any value to you?

In the circumstances, where there are apparently 600 exhibits and where this witness may have matters of detail on issues in the indictment to deal with, can we not move on?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, does this go to admissibility?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Kay, please.

MR. KAY: In the Prosecution case when we had issues of admissibility of the intercepts, the Prosecution initially presented that evidence in the forms of just transcripts and eventually, because the evidence concerned the acts and conduct of the accused, were forced to bring evidence that was more proximate to the production of the materials into evidence, and the Trial Chamber will remember the particular witness ⁴¹²⁶⁸ who gave evidence about those intercepts.

In this case here we're not concerned with evidence that is relevant to the acts and conduct of the accused, more peripheral evidence dealing with the background to issues within the case, which seems to arise from this report that was produced in 1998 demonstrating the existence of this kind of material and what it displayed in terms of background at that time to events that were happening within Kosovo. In our submission, for the limited purposes that this evidence goes towards the indictment, it is relevant evidence as far as it goes to the case, and in those circumstances --

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the limited purpose?

MR. KAY: It's the background to the indictment, the strength of the KLA, the KLA activities, and the policy of the KLA which arises within this report. And for those purposes, this witness is giving evidence about these materials which apparently were in the possession of the VJ at that time in 1998 and the issues that they were aware that the KLA were involved in conducting. And in that regard, the state of mind of the commanders of VJ brigades, such as this particular witness or other witnesses, is obviously relevant to issues concerning the state of mind of the accused in 1998, which is when I take --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice says that the witness himself didn't listen to the intercepts. He didn't write the -- down -- he didn't write down the passages, the transcript.

MR. KAY: He wouldn't have, and no one expects a general to have been involved in that particular form of event. What he is, he's ^{41269 BLANK PAGE 41270} producing materials that go to the state of mind, if you like, of the general and other -- other members of the VJ, and by that the state of mind that is relevant for this accused in relation to issues within this indictment. This is part of the materials that was in existence at the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Just to remind the Chamber, it's not a question of the Prosecution being forced to do something. What happened was that intercepts were produced to witnesses who, as with all intercepts, listened to the intercept in their entirety. The witness was either able to say something about who the people speaking were or sometimes about the context, or both. The intercepts were then marked for identification, and the Chamber's standard was that it was required that we produce a witness or the witness who could deal with the provenance and the technicalities and mechanics of provenance of the documents otherwise marked for identification. That's the standard that the Chamber set, and there's no reason why it should be any different. They didn't all concern the acts and conducts of the accused specifically; they contained a wide range of matters, including his own acts and conduct.

Second thing is, this is clearly a selection. We don't know the criteria upon which the selection has been made, and I'm not going to be able to ask the associates about it, and I'm not going to be able to ask this witness about it either. ⁴¹²⁷¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber was minded to require that a better foundation be laid for the admission of this evidence, but bearing in mind that the witness has given evidence that he read these transcripts, we believe that a sufficient foundation has been laid, and we'll hear the evidence accordingly.

But, Mr. Milosevic, bear in mind that we already have evidence on the background leading up to the conflict. This is repetitive. If you must deal with it, then deal with it as briefly as possible and let's move on to another matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall try to save time, Mr. Robinson, but you saw from what the witness said at the very beginning that he commanded units that covered a very big part of the territory, and many of the accusations levelled have to do with things that happened precisely in that part of the territory. So we have to see what the military knew and what the military did in that part of the territory where Mr. Nice claims certain things happened the way he formulated it and the way he saw it.

As for this remark made by Mr. Kwon or, rather, this observation made by Mr. Kwon, there is no doubt that it wasn't my associates who made these cuts in these reports. In the first part, it has to do with specific events, and it goes all the way to the end of December. And then on page 41, there are communications between them and there are direct quotations. Then again, in terms of dates, again they go back to 1998. As for Mr. Nice's remark that he always tried to explain who and how obtained these intercepts, I hope that the witness explained very ⁴¹²⁷² clearly that this was done by a special unit of the army of Yugoslavia through electronic surveillance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I did not call on you to speak. I had ruled in your favour. If I am going to rule in your favour having heard Mr. Nice and Mr. Kay, I don't call on you, so you don't need to address the issue any more. Let's move on.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now that we're on page 42, General, in this paragraph that has to do with the 8th of June, the one that you already quoted, when Switzerland was mentioned. At the beginning of the paragraph it says: "The electricity poles that were knocked down - if anyone asks, tell them the Serbs did it."

And then 2 is probably the other interlocutor: "You have a rifle, you don't care if you get killed."

1: "We were told that within two weeks a decision will be made for international troops to enter Kosovo. We were told here in Germany that all of us must voluntarily donate 1.000 Deutschmarks respectively for Kosovo."

What does that show? He mentions what was said to them. He's speaking from Germany, and he's saying that they were told that international forces are to enter Kosovo. What is this all about?

A. In this first part, Mr. Milosevic, since at the beginning of the year a considerable part of the territory of Kosovo and Metohija came under terrorist control, the main transmission lines were broken down between Kosovo and Metohija. That's probably the reference that was made. ⁴¹²⁷³ And in this second part, this is a well-known fact: In Germany, Switzerland, and other Western European countries, it was already Bukoshi's illegal government that imposed a tax, and until 1998 it was 3 per cent of all the income of all Albanians, and later it was raised to 5 per cent. In addition to that, the KLA levied its own tax depending on the income of each and every Albanian, and this fund was called The Homeland Is Calling. Those were the contributions that were used for buying weapons later on in Albania and other countries.

Q. General, and what is mentioned here, that they were told that within two weeks' time a decision would be made for international forces to enter Kosovo. Did that have anything to do with the intensification of their activity?

A. Certainly. I saw in several sections of these reports that people, Albanians in Western European countries, are telling those that are in Kosovo and Metohija that they should persevere for another week or two and that there would certainly be an intervention by international forces.

Q. Thank you, General. On page 49, the date is the 26th of September, 1998. It says: "From unofficial Siptar sources we found out that there are currently more than 5.000 members of the KLA." Whose knowledge is this?

A. This is already the month of September. This comes from several intercepts. That is how this fact was arrived at. If I'm allowed to say a few things here that are very important. Our estimates showed that in the month of September, after the ⁴¹²⁷⁴ anti-terrorist drive carried out by the army of Yugoslavia and the forces of the Ministry of the Interior, those anti-terrorist actions were in accordance with a particular plan and they went on for two months. The number of terrorists was 25 to 30.000 in the month of June and July, and it was brought down to only 5.000 then. Many of them threw their weapons away, and a number crossed over to Albania.

So in the month of September in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, according to our estimates, there were about 5.000 of them.

JUDGE KWON: General, how do you know the source of this information as to the number of KLA in the several intercepts?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said that this is an annual report and that it was made on the basis of daily reports. So probably on the basis of several pieces of information that showed that the number of members of the KLA in that period was brought down to about 5.000.

As for our own information, through our security service we had information daily about the KLA. And independently from this, our estimate was that after the anti-terrorist drive in Kosovo, there were --

JUDGE KWON: My question is not the number of KLA but the source of information. This passage specifically refers to the unofficial Siptar sources, but you referred to several intercepts.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE KWON: My question was how do you remember that this was based on several intercepts?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here from unofficial Siptar ⁴¹²⁷⁵ sources. That is to say intercepts, intercepts of conversations taking place between Siptars at home and abroad when they were discussing this.

JUDGE KWON: Very well. Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on page 50, the 28th of September reads that Siptars were advised, if they were running away, to go in groups of 1.000 or 2.000. What kind of information is this and how was that obtained?

A. This information also came from intercepts, from radio contacts between the KLA members and their channels that were surveilled by the 52nd Company.

Q. Under the 3rd of October on that same page, it is stated that: "Information was released that NATO had completed its operations for using technical equipment for firing on Serbian targets in Serbia." Please tell us, what did the reports for that date, the 3rd of October, state?

A. This refers to the information to the effect that NATO had completed its preparations for firing on Serbian targets. Then it also mentions the number of planes that had already been prepared to that end and then what members of NATO provided planes for such activity.

Q. And before that, on the 1st of October, it reads: "Siptars who used to be KLA members continue to leave the territory of the FRY, mostly to Albania, but there are cases of some of them moving to Hungary" through certain channels. Is that something that you knew at the time?

A. After the anti-terrorist drive that was completed on the 28th of September, 1998, part of the Siptar population and the vast majority of ⁴¹²⁷⁶ the KLA members left the territory of Kosovo and Metohija as did all members of FARK, which were organised in three -- which had been organised in three brigades and were located in the Dukagjin area.

Q. General, under the 4th of October it says that the KLA soldiers were trained in Tirana, Kukes, Korca, Gjirokastra, Durres, and Oruga. Do you know anything about that?

A. Our information, the information that we had within the army of Yugoslavia dating back to 1991 indicated in what locations members of the KLA and members of terrorist groups were trained in Albania. So this information listed here under the 4th of October is -- was nothing new. It simply confirmed the information that we had previously.

Q. All right. On page 51, the date of 17th of October is listed, and it says here that a conversation which took place between a Siptar from the Netherlands and a Siptar from Kosovo and Metohija was intercepted. What is this about? What are they discussing here?

A. It simply confirms what I stated previously; namely, that one of them who was a member of the KLA and the other person, who was in the Netherlands, the first one said that almost half of the KLA members from Kosovo and Metohija were in Albania and then says that the majority of their leaders, and then under quotation marks "were loaded 'with money.'" And then further on for the 17th of October, it is stated that based on the agreement signed in Belgrade in October, NATO planes, reconnaissance planes, started flying over Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. On the same page, under the 22nd of October, it reads that Solana reached an agreement with Macedonian Prime Minister on the possible use of ⁴¹²⁷⁷ NATO bases for operations on the territory of Kosovo. What does this report contain and how did you obtain this information?

A. This was obtained in the same manner. I think that this is a widely known fact, a fact that was known to the public in general.

Q. General, on page 22, under the 2nd November of 1998 -- on page 52, it is stated that all Serbs who have remained in villages should be driven out and that they will take revenge against anyone who fought against them, including Siptars who did not want to take part in conflict. And then they warn their relatives abroad not to come this winter because war would break out again in the spring. Who stated this and what does this refer to?

A. Once again, this deals with the members of the KLA, starting in March. The Serbian residents living in over 80 villages where they constituted minority left their properties and moved into towns. So this here refers to the Serbs who remained in villages, and at least in my area of responsibility very few such Serbs remained. And according to this they had to be driven out as well. And that Siptars who did not want to take part in combat, because there were such individuals and such villages, and those who refused to return weapons in September and October, that they would face drastic consequences and measures, which is exactly what happened later on.

JUDGE BONOMY: The question you were asked is who said this. What's the source of it?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The source is the same; intercepted conversations between Siptars who were members of the liberation army. ⁴¹²⁷⁸

JUDGE BONOMY: Perhaps you'll excuse me for saying it doesn't look at all like that. It's not in quotations, which most of the intercepts are. It's a reference to "they" rather than an individual, and it's talking about warning their cousins abroad. Do you really know where that came from? It also, by the way, follows a reference to press comments on the previous page in relation to the 30th of October.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, my request in relation to this particular item was, in light of the witness's answer, was to the effect, can I please be provided by the accused with the intercepts, and all of them, on which this document is based. It will take some time for me to review them, but I'll try and find the resources, and then I'll review them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The intercepts must be provided to the Prosecutor. Are they available?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have nothing but this report. I asked the general when the report was compiled, and he said that this was the report for 1998 drafted by this reconnaissance unit, and the unit could have only drafted this based on the information it gathered in the course of listening in on the radio communications. So this was compiled in late 1998, and it concerns their activity for 1998. This is the unit that regularly does this type of work.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying they're not available? Because all of this will go to the weight that the Chamber will attach.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not saying so. Perhaps they are available. I don't have access to archives of such units. I didn't even have these documents until my associates obtained them. But undoubtedly ⁴¹²⁷⁹ this is a document that was compiled at the time based on the information collected by that unit. They must have had thousands and thousands of pieces of information flowing to them, and they included in their report what they believed to be most important for their report for 1998.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's what you say, but there's no evidence at the moment of when this was compiled.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This was stated by the witness that this report was compiled for 1998. I heard him say that.

JUDGE BONOMY: For 1998. What we don't have is evidence of when it was compiled.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, can you assist, please? Can you give us explanations concerning this material?

A. This activity, electronic reconnaissance and anti-electronic operations, is an activity that goes round the clock, 24 hours a day. The information is provided instantaneously to everybody who might be interested in the information and to whom the information pertains, because otherwise they would be valueless and would not be subject to use unless they were provided instantaneously.

The annual report compiles or uses the bits that were typical or were important. Everything else, the other bits of communication between the participants, if it was unimportant, did not enter the annual report because the objective of this report is to conduct an analysis of work, an analysis of developments in the electronic field, analysis of new frequencies used by terrorist forces, and if possible, to conduct ⁴¹²⁸⁰ identification of participants, meaning the commanders of the KLA units, their staffs.

JUDGE BONOMY: The question you're being asked is when was the report - the report - compiled?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I have reviewed the entire annual report, I can tell you that it was compiled or drafted probably in early January 1999.

JUDGE BONOMY: You know that. You know that it was drafted in January -- early January 1999, do you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the army of Yugoslavia, generally all analyses are completed at the level of the units up to the level of the brigade in January; at the level the corps, that's done in February; and at the level of the army of Yugoslavia, that's done in March. Since this is a company, that's the level of this unit, this is a company within a corps, then it is certain that this analysis was done in January based on all daily reports from 1998.

JUDGE BONOMY: And how available is the report once it's completed?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This report was sent by the company for electronic reconnaissance to the corps command, which is the superior command, and then to the communications sector and sector for informations and electronic activities within the general staff of the army.

JUDGE BONOMY: It must be classified in some way, is it? What classification does it have?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think that this was ^{41281 BLANK PAGE 41282} classified as strictly confidential.

JUDGE BONOMY: No higher than that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, certainly not higher than that. Above that there is only the state level classification, and this document does not warrant that type of classification, the state secret classification.

JUDGE BONOMY: Even though it discloses the extent to which you were able to listen in to the activities of the KLA?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've already said in how many copies this report was done. Since my last post before retiring was acting chief of the operations administration, which is the administration making or drafting all orders for the army command. Therefore, I know very clearly what warrants state secret classification or strictly confidential classification or internal document. This falls in the strictly confidential category.

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have the complete document with you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw this document in Belgrade in 2002, but I don't have it with me.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour forecast perhaps what I would be asking is that I would like to be provided with a full copy of the report up to pages 33 and then the missing pages 30 -- whatever we've got missing, 32 and 33, I think, is it, 34 and 35, and then 39 and 40, and everything else. There's obviously now no -- on the witness's explanation, there is no grounds why we shouldn't receive or be allowed to see all of the report ⁴¹²⁸³ along with the original intercepts.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, are the original intercepts available?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As for the original intercepts, that could be verified through the general staff. I'm not informed about this, but as for the material, I think we can obtain all the missing pages. However, there is a part of the report which most likely the general staff would not provide, and I can tell you in private session the reasons for that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴¹²⁸⁴

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴¹²⁸⁵

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴¹²⁸⁶

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴¹²⁸⁷

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he's -- we're in open session.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think he's suggesting the missing pages, the incompleteness of the document, suggests that it is entirely unreliable.

MR. KAY: The issue of the missing pages is perhaps capable of explanation by the Defence, and the general has attempted to explain that. His assertions as to unreliability are just general assertions he's making against the Defence using this document. The general has tried to deal with that and has given an explanation. He's established that it's probative and relevant to the extent that the material in 1998 is relevant to the trial, but the issue of unreliability is just being asserted by Mr. Nice without any foundation.

MR. NICE: I'll just respond to that in this way: First of all, I'm going to carry on asking for material that's necessary to allow for the possible timely cross-examination of a witness, but if a responsible advocate appearing for this accused wanted to turn up with part of a document of which the other part was going to be subject to protection or with being withheld by a party, he would make that -- make that position ⁴¹²⁸⁸ clear to the Chamber straight away. If he was going to produce a document based on intercepts, knowing that the intercepts weren't available to him, he would make that clear to the Chamber straight away so that the Chamber could know from the beginning what were the limitations on the document and its potential shortcomings.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Remember Mr. Milosevic is not a professional advocate.

MR. NICE: No, I understand that, and it's with that in mind that I've been slow to object to this document and wait and see what was going to emerge from the questions and answers of the non-professional advocate and his witness, but that's actually the standard that we ought to have in mind, and it's with that in mind that when we reach this position, I make the requirements and requests that I do. They either serve as quite legitimate requests to have underlying material that one would expect to be provided or they serve to show that the material is in its present form simply unreliable.

The timing of my request, I could, of course, simply wait in a process that's going to clearly be extended with this witness, until the moment when I ask him questions, I then say to him, Can I have the intercepts? He says, Yes, they are available but it will take a week to get them. Too late. Far better that I make the request now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is the Limaj case here? A Status Conference. Fifteen past two. We'll have to adjourn now, Mr. Milosevic, and I will allow you to speak first thing tomorrow. ⁴¹²⁸⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just 30 seconds.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. The document is authentic. The general confirmed that. The excerpts start with page 30, not because someone wants to hide the first 30 pages but because it was thought that they weren't relevant for the purposes of these proceedings, for proving anything here. So the fact that some pages are missing has nothing to do with the claims being made about challenging the authenticity of the document at all, and the witness himself has confirmed its authenticity. As for Mr. Nice's statements that I can access those documents before him, that's absolutely not true. My associates have informed me that the office of Mr. Nice received the documents having to do with 1998, having to do with the activities of the units under this witness's command more than a year before them, and this was in 2003, and I mentioned that. So if Mr. Nice needs anything and needs to access anything, he can request it from those who will provide him with it before they provide me with it, and he cannot tell me what I -- what excerpts I'm going to present here as evidence and exhibits. That's up to me. It's my affair.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we're going to adjourn now. We will resume tomorrow morning at 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day

of June, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.