⁴²²⁶¹

Wednesday, 13 July 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll first give the ruling of the Chamber on the complaint by the accused.

The Chamber received a complaint from Mr. Milosevic that the Registrar had refused to allow him to meet with a prospective witness, Mr. Seselj. We ordered the Registrar to file a report, which he did, on the 7th July, and we have also had submissions from the assigned counsel and the Prosecution. The Chamber notes that the accused has already spent some 20 hours proofing Mr. Seselj. In paragraph 13 of the Registrar's report, he says that he would consider one further request from the accused to proof Mr. Seselj once his name appears on the witness schedule. Mr. Seselj's name now appears on the witness list. Accordingly, Mr. Milosevic should submit a request to the Registrar. The Trial Chamber notes that it does not consider any of the procedures set out in paragraph 17 of the Registrar's report to be contrary to its order of the 17 September 2003. However, it does consider unnecessary the disconnection of the phone and fax facilities of the accused for 24 hours after the proofing session. That's the ruling.

I turn next to the motion by Serbia and Montenegro, and we will go into a private session for that.

[Private session] ⁴²²⁶² Pages 42262-42270 redacted. Private session.

⁴²²⁷¹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: BOZIDAR DELIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may continue. Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. Before I return to the sequence of events, Mr. Delic, can you help me with one matter of methodology? The materials produced by the group of senior officers round the table included the statements of various people including your subordinate officers. How were those statements prepared by the individual officers?

A. As for myself personally, I wrote my statements several days. As for those persons who are in Belgrade, and there is three or four of them, they wrote their statements -- actually, we were in my office so they ⁴²²⁷² could have a look at the maps and the orders. They wrote their statements at their own places of work.

Q. And did they do, so far as you understood it, research and further reading at their own places of work?

A. Well, every one of them wrote their own statements to the best of their recollection and using this documentation that was from that time.

Q. And they brought a statement and -- let me just take one second. Do you understand the importance of this?

A. Yes.

Q. You're seeking to lay before the Chamber statements of people whom the Chamber may never see that go to show that the allegations of crime against this accused may not be established. So it's important for us to know precisely how the statements were prepared.

A. I don't understand what you're trying to say when you say statements that they had never seen. Who does this pertain to actually?

Q. Something in translation. I'm trying to explain to you the importance.

The statements that your colleagues prepared, you'll remember them, they come from Celine and Suva Reka and so on, are statements that it's being asked the Judges should look at and read and take into account in deciding whether these crimes have been committed, although they, the learned Judges, will never see the makers, or may never see the makers of the statements, the people who wrote the statements. So in those circumstances, it's very important to know how the statements were actually prepared. ⁴²²⁷³ Now, from what you've told us, but don't -- you know, don't say something unless you're quite sure it's correct. From what you've told us, the individual officers, your subordinates and associates, wrote their own statements; is that correct?

A. That is certainly correct. If Mr. Milosevic calls all these officers, they will all appear here at least for five minutes.

Q. Was there any question of the statements being prepared in a collective way, round the table, being written in a committee, anything like that?

A. Absolutely not. Everyone wrote his own statement. All these officers have had their obligation to guard state secrets waived by the government and they are free to appear before this Court.

Q. And having made their individual statements, was there any question of the statements being edited, corrected, added to by a supervising or central body, or did the statements that we've got -- or are the statements that we've got exactly as the officers wrote them?

A. Those officers wrote their statements and signed their statements. So by their signatures they confirmed that what is stated in the statements are their own words. I myself wrote my own statement, and I'm responsible for the statement I made.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, obviously this morning I'm going to have to abandon a large number of papers that -- pages that I might have turned to if we are to complete this witness's testimony before the summer break, allowing reasonable time for re-examination, and I'm going to make points very shortly, and I hope the witness will understand that short answers ⁴²²⁷⁴ will be of value to the Chamber.

We were at volume 2 of the exhibits, tab 104. I have one question in respect of tab 111, which is a recurring issue, but I need only ask it the once.

Q. Look, please, at tab 111. This is an apparently contemporaneous document coming from your motorised brigade, and there are two things about it. First, it is only an extract, you see? Now, why have we only been provided with an extract? Why haven't we been provided with the whole document?

A. This is not a document from my brigade. This is a daily report of the security organs for the 10th of August, 1998. This is an extract that pertains to my zone. It has to do with my zone.

Q. Very well.

A. And the accuracy is verified by --

Q. I'm going to ask you really to listen carefully to the questions so that we can save time.

May we take it, then, that the other parts of the report which we have not been provided with would relate to other parts of Kosovo?

A. Since daily reports of security organs are made according to certain points, there must be several points there, and they also pertain to other zones in Kosovo.

Q. The second thing on this document, and it recurs throughout the similar documents is, if we look down towards the bottom of the page on the original, and we can see it reflected in the translation, there are passages that have been redacted. We can see two such passages on either ⁴²²⁷⁵ side of the word "podaci" I think it is. Is this names of individuals that have been redacted in the way that you described yesterday?

A. These are names of informers of the security service, and that was blanked out in order to protect them.

Mr. Nice, you received this document in 2003, you as the Office of the Prosecutor. You got this in a completely different case, all these documents that are here, as far back as in 2003. Your investigator in Belgrade assessed these documents as relevant when they were shown to him.

MR NICE: Your honour, that's not something that we're in any position to accept at all, but I'm not going to debate it with this witness.

Right. If we just look perhaps very briefly at 136. And, Your Honours, just so that I can flesh out my last observation, yes, material was provided that related to wrongdoing or structures of the KLA, but the other material was not provided, that is material that relates to the allegations here.

Q. Tab 136 is a 9th of September 1998 document signed by Pavkovic, and it says in the middle of the first page in the English: "The foreign media and some journalists are putting forward a theory about the humanitarian catastrophe of the Siptar population, attempting to get world public opinion to put pressure on the Federal Republic and its leadership to halt MUP operations against terrorist strongholds ..." Is it really your view and was it perhaps, as it were, the collective view of the army that somehow the Albanians had completely deceived -- Kosovo Albanians completely deceived the world's press into ⁴²²⁷⁶ believing that things were other than they were?

A. Mr. Nice, you read a sentence and you stop midway. You're supposed to end the sentence. So you stopped in half sentence.

Q. You and a lot of the other witnesses take standard form responses to my questions. I don't know if you've been asked to do that, but would you please be good enough to listen to the question and answer it. If you want to give it a broader context, do, but please answer the question.

A. There was no humanitarian catastrophe. The foreign media reported very partially about the situation in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Now, my question, to which you did not respond, is was it your view and perhaps the view of the army that the Kosovo Albanians had managed to deceive the world's press?

A. This has nothing to do with Kosovo Albanians. Everything that was done in my country was done according to a scenario that was devised outside of Kosovo and Metohija and outside Yugoslavia.

Q. And who were the planners and who were the other conspirators or whatever it was that led to misunderstanding and deception of the world's press? You better tell us. We need to know.

A. It is well known who the persons who had power in the world were at the time. Everything that happened in my country is derived from America and partly from Germany. Do you want me to give you evidence to support that?

Q. No, but I'm interested to know what your view is. It can be taken further, if necessary, in the examination.

A. Mr. Nice, you don't want evidence but you want my view. My view ⁴²²⁷⁷ is totally irrelevant if there is evidence supporting what I'm saying. I want to answer your question by providing evidence.

Q. All right. Just identify what this evidence is, then, that shows America and Germany and everybody else, I suppose, involved was misleading the world about what was happening.

For the record, you're reading from some notes, and you produced a book from your briefcase.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us know what you're reading from, General, if you're going to read.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm reading from a book written by Mr. Wesley Clark, who was also a witness in this courtroom. It's called "Modern Warfare." I would like all of this to be reflected in the transcript.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'd prefer not to take our time with this. He's identified his source, it's a public source. He can identify the pages if he wishes, but I would have thought it would be appropriate, now knowing his state of mind, to move on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I don't find all of this very profitable at all.

MR. KAY: It arises from the questions. If you're going to ask questions like this, you're going to get answers. I remind the Prosecution that one of their witnesses said the same thing. Witness Stijovic gave evidence on the 5th of September 2002, and in answer to Judge Kwon's questioning of him he said there were the staged processes by which the Kosovo Albanians had periodically brought their issues to the ⁴²²⁷⁸ world attention. But if you're going to ask questions like this, you're going to get answers like that, and you have to be careful. You just can't cut the witness off.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, move on to another topic.

MR. NICE: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Can we move to -- I think we've looked at tab 154, so if we can move now to volume 3, which I can deal with very swiftly. I can deal with -- yes. Indeed, I'm wondering if I need -- I think -- no. I think possibly -- oh, yes. Perhaps just one -- one reference to tab 216. Now, this is the --

JUDGE ROBINSON: This is a video, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: That's right. And I'm looking at my notes in respect of that and that's why I'm opening it there, and I'm reminding the Court about it in sequence, but that's all.

Q. This is the video, is it not, Mr. Delic, where people were seen to have been killed and then there were the survivors who were in the snow. Is that the correct video that I'm dealing with?

A. Can we see that video?

Q. Do you remember the video, the video in the snow? And your evidence about it --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If he doesn't remember it, then he's entitled to see it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course I remember, but is that the video dated the 14th of December, 1998? ⁴²²⁷⁹

MR. NICE:

Q. This is the video where there were three events in the morning, 2.30, 4.00, and 5.30, and this was the video where the KVM attended, and your evidence, I think, was to the effect that they had a chance of talking to the surviving KLA prisoners. And my simple question to you is this, and it's not one of great weight but I'll just deal with it for detail in light of the evidence we've got: I didn't see, I think, on the film that we saw personal contact between the KVM and the prisoners. Do you remember that there was in fact shown no such contact?

A. I remember everything that was shown on that video. There is no contact or no conversation on that video, but the verifiers can be seen, and the prisoners next to them.

Q. The evidence that we've been given, I think, is to this effect: That the prisoners were taken away. They were young prisoners. Indeed they were described, I think, in the Prosecution evidence, as showing signs of being unwilling in what they were doing, and they were subsequently seen in detention but sometime after the 15th of January of 1999 by the witness Ciaglinski. Does that accord with your recollection, that the KVM may have been allowed to see these prisoners but at a later stage and talked to them then?

A. Mr. Ciaglinski was not there on the spot. There were two teams from RC1 Prizren. They talked to the prisoners. Those prisoners were not as you describe, young boys or young men, whatever you called them. Mr. Ciaglinski talked to them, but that was in the military prison in Nis, perhaps 15 or 20 days after the event when they were transferred to -- ^{42280 BLANK PAGE 42281}

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... very much?

A. -- martial courts.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... recollection of events, you are indeed confirming the evidence that General Drewienkiewicz gave to the effect that they were seen in prison. Thank you. Can we look, before we turn from 1998, at clip 15 of the video Serb Version of the Split, and this is another --

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have to protest against this alchemy that Mr. Nice is using. He is noting that the witness confirmed the testimony of Mr. Ciaglinski about what he had seen in prison, but he's not allowing him to say anything else. In fact, the witness refuted the evidence given by Ciaglinski, who lied, just as Ashdown did, and we saw exactly what happened with the prisoners in the footage. I cannot understand that the truth is being allowed to be twisted like this.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't see why you won't let me get a word in edgeways, I'm not confirming what Mr. Drewienkiewicz said. I'm not confirming what he said, but I can confirm that Mr. Ciaglinski was in Nis. But I'm not confirming his testimony related to the prisoners.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That clarifies the matter.

MR. NICE: Thank you. Yes, Your Honour. I've heard Your Honour's point but I'm not going to press because we don't have time. Could we look just then, please, at clip 15 of The Serb Version of the Split. ⁴²²⁸²

[Videotape played]

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, that's Pavkovic talking about Ambassador Walker, and he says that the biggest deceit was that they were able to bring in new forces, that is new forces in breach of the October agreements. Does that accord with your recollection, that it was possible, as Pavkovic says, at the end of 1998, to bring in these additional forces in front of Walker's nose, as he says?

A. In my zone there were no additional forces apart from my own forces. There were only my own forces and the forces of the MUP based in that territory.

As for Mr. Walker, we knew what his role was, and we had proclaimed that gentleman persona non grata. However, under the pressure of the international community, he stayed there, not to help our country but to prepare an aggression against it, and he accomplished his mission successfully.

He had a lot of experience from Latin America, from Salvador where he prepared and --

Q. Understand, Mr. Delic, this is not responsive to my question which was about bringing in additional forces, and we have your answer on that. But is this passage of the film Serb Version of the Split a passage like the others that you've seen before?

A. It's possible that I saw this excerpt before because General Pavkovic appeared on many documentary programmes.

Q. You have no reason to doubt, do you, what your commander said was ⁴²²⁸³ the reality at the end of 1998?

A. No. No. This did not happen in 1998. In February, we already knew that an aggression against our country was a certainty. This was going on in the first days of March and in the middle of March when we knew that an aggression will certainly be mounted against our country.

Q. Very well. It's not just a question of not doubting what Pavkovic says, you actually know what he says is true, but I put the wrong date. It's a little later on. Correct?

A. As far as my zone is concerned, what I said is true. No additional forces came in. What General Pavkovic said relates to the period of March.

We are military professionals. Of course we would not allow ourselves to be surprised. Regardless of the fact that the United Nations did not approve an intervention in our country, it was being prepared in our immediate vicinity.

Q. Pause there unless there's a part of my question you haven't answered.

A. I have answered all your questions.

Q. As well as preparing, if you say it was February or March, early March, for the consequences of --

A. End February until the middle of March.

Q. What preparations had you made for refugees and other --

A. For the refugees?

Q. What --

A. At that time in Kosovo there were no displaced persons. ⁴²²⁸⁴

Q. At what time were there no displaced persons?

A. At the time you are referring to. Before the aggression there was only, in the area of Drenica, a number of internally displaced people whom the terrorists would not let return to their villages. There were no other displaced persons. Everybody was in their homes in their villages.

Q. On that point and since you raise it, just have a look at this document, please.

MR. NICE: This was part of Exhibit 234. And if Mr. Prendergast would be good enough to go simply to the table on the fourth page and display that on the overhead projector.

Q. What you're being invited to look at, Mr. Delic, is a document published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the table, I'll read out the title so that you can hear it: "Kosovo displacement statistics from March 1998 to the 24th of March, 1999." And what it deals with is displaced persons in Serbia, then in Kosovo, then in Montenegro, and then it deals with refugees.

Staying with the second column, it suggests figures of 24.000 in March 1998, 17.000 in April, for Kosovo, and then running down through 1998 we come down to 200.000 displaced in October, 175.000 in November and December, and then 190 in January, 210 in February, and then rising in March.

Do you -- you were on the ground. Do you accept in general terms that those statistics prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are correct?

A. I will now be talking about my own area. This is not shown area ⁴²²⁸⁵ by area. It's shown for the entire Kosovo and Metohija. In my area, there were no displaced persons. Everybody returned to their villages. I know there was a number of displaced persons, especially in the area of Drenica, but if you take the entire population of Drenica and gather them in one place, that would still be four times less than the figure indicated here.

Q. You see, the figure --

A. These figures are quite exaggerated.

Q. I see. You say the figures are exaggerated. We had a Prosecution -- a Defence witness, Primakov -- I haven't got the exhibit to hand, we'll find it -- the Russian senior politician who prepared -- who was party to reports that were tendered at the United Nations, showing very large numbers of Albanians displaced in the second half of 1998. I'll get the figures if I can.

Do you not accept that there were very large numbers of people displaced internally in the second half of 1998 in Kosovo even if not in your area?

A. When you say a large number, I would like you to specify. What do you mean by a large number?

And second, I would like to hear whether the state authorities of the Republic of Serbia participated in the collection of this data. I'm saying again these figures are overblown by about four times.

Q. Very well. That's your answer. We're going to move on. If we just look at Exhibit 252 - it will only take a second. Tab 252, I beg your pardon. ⁴²²⁸⁶

JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you do that. Mr. Delic, if these figures were correct, and obviously if they've been produced by both the Prosecution and the Defence, then -- if that's the case, then considerable weight has to be given to them at least in our deliberations before deciding what to make of them. If they were correct, could you explain why in October 1998 there could be as many as 200.000 displaced persons in Kosovo?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I have been trying to tell you that these figures are not accurate. It is not in dispute that there were some displaced persons, and I told you in which areas, which parts of the territory, but the figures are exaggerated. The thing that is in dispute is why these persons were outside their villages. In the area of Drenica, it was the KLA that had control, and they didn't allow people to return to their homes because they had another mission. That mission was to create a humanitarian catastrophe. In other areas it was different. In my area, people did return to their homes. In Eastern Kosovo, there was not a single person outside their home. In the area of Podujevo, same thing. So the only critical area was Drenica, which was under complete control of the KLA.

The territory under the control of the state authorities had no displaced persons. Everybody had returned to their homes. In territories under KLA control, the population was being kept outside their homes, and that's the way they spent the winter, but all of that was done with a particular goal in mind.

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, I appreciate it's difficult to answer a ⁴²²⁸⁷ hypothetical question when you obviously feel so strongly that the factual position you're stating is accurate, but what we're talking about here are not statistics derived from the United States. They're not statistics derived from Germany. They're statistics provided by the United Nations, and according to Mr. Nice's recollection, confirmed by Mr. Primakov when he was here. But beyond what you've said, you can't help me any further?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have already said everything I could tell you about my area of responsibility. I just asked Mr. Nice if a single state authority of my country had participated in the collection of this data. It is obvious that that was not the case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the report that we see --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- on the ELMO, does it say what criterion was used to determine a displaced person?

MR. NICE: We'll deal with that in just a minute.

JUDGE BONOMY: You see, just to conclude the debate from my point of view, that may be the very -- the most valid point you've made here on this subject, Mr. Delic, that your state didn't collect the data, and indeed the other states that you don't trust didn't collect the data. We're talking about data that were assembled apparently independently, and that's why I'm so interested in it, because I appreciate that one may not give as much weight to evidence presented from someone who has an axe to grind in the dispute.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I wonder if I could help by asking Mr. -- asking Mr. -- ⁴²²⁸⁸

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, please. I did not say -- or maybe you did not understand my evidence correctly. I just asked whether those independent teams of the United Nations included representatives of any state authority of my country. Perhaps a non-governmental organisation, or maybe the Red Cross, but from my country. That was the only thing I wanted to know.

MR. NICE: If Mr. Prendergast would be good enough to put the first page of this exhibit on the overhead projector, we may get some assistance.

Q. That's a letter dated the 5th of February, 2002, to Mr. Blewitt, the then deputy prosecutor. It comes from Neill Wright whose materials are part of the evidence in this case, and I'll read slowly to you the relevant paragraphs, Mr. Delic.

"Your office has been asked to explain -- has asked for my assistance to explain the data published ... in 1999 ..." Next paragraph: "As part of its mandate to protect and coordinate the delivery of humanitarian aid to persons affected by the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, UNHCR has been responsible to collect from time to time data about the number and condition of displaced persons and refugees so affected. Ordinarily, UNHCR publishes this data." He then deals with his own position. In the next paragraph after that, he says this: "As in its operations worldwide, UNHCR relied on a variety of sources to compile statistical data linked to the Kosovo refugee crisis. In addition to the data collected by the UNHCR field staff, we also used, after reviewing it for reliability and accuracy, ⁴²²⁸⁹ information obtained from local government officials, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations in the area."

Next paragraph you may want me to read, and I do: "It should be understood that some of the data relating to refugees or displaced persons quoted by UNHCR is based on estimates, and not actual head counts." But he then goes on to deal with not internal displacements but refugees. So that's his explanation. Field officers, Red Cross, non-governmental organisations, but also local government officials. Now, can you help us further with His Honour Judge Bonomy's question, if it be the case that the figures were --

A. Yes, certainly. Some things are becoming clearer to me now. While on the ground, I toured Albanian villages as well, because there were few Serbian villages anyway. There was not a single Albanian house where I didn't see from five to 20 tons of flour and five to 20 big oil jerrycans of 20 to 200 litres. Now, I would like you to tell me what is the criterion for adequate supplies of these staples per person, because I couldn't understand at the time why Albanian houses held such large quantities of flour. Whereas earlier they used to buy it for their own money, at that time they were getting it from the United Nations in the form of aid. Large amounts were spent on aid. Everybody who was in Kosovo was able to see that while refugees were going to Albania, in addition to their own tractors they also had --

Q. Are you really telling us, just so we can understand it, that being confronted by United Nations statistics explains to you something that had been puzzling you since 1998? Is that what you're saying? ^{42290 BLANK PAGE 42291}

A. My family, too, is now refugeed in Serbia, and I know what is the ration received every month by every displaced persons. What Albanian families received in their villages at the time were humungous quantities of food, and that is why I believe that this number is exaggerated. And I'm telling you again, in my area of responsibility, which was very large, there were no refugees.

Q. You connect the excessive provision or the generous provision of aid by the United Nations to corrupted United Nations figures of statistics. Is that what you're telling the Court?

A. All right. You sometimes use strange language. Even in this text that you read, it says that the statistics are based on estimates, not actual head counts, which means that somebody reported that a certain number of refugees existed in a certain area, and based on that estimate aid was allocated to the area in question. The aid also benefited the terrorists.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I don't think I'm going to be able to take that any further in the time available, and unless the Court has questions on it I have one more question of the witness at this stage on this topic.

Q. Expecting as you did aggression, as you describe it, from NATO, you must have expected either refugees or an increase in the existing numbers of displaced persons and refugees. Am I right about that?

A. In every war, regardless of where it's going on, there are refugees.

Q. Given the army's duty as one of the authorised bodies of power and so on, what plans were made to deal with the refugees that you would ⁴²²⁹² inevitably have been expected to be caused by a NATO aggression?

A. There are other authorities primarily in charge of the refugees. The job of the army is to defend the country, but there are other institutions in the country, starting with local self-administrations through humanitarian organisations and other to deal with refugees. The task of the army is primarily to defend.

Q. Am I right to this extent: You personally, for example, expected there to be refugees?

A. Yes, I expected refugees, but I did not expect those refugees to head towards Albania. That part of this scenario was not familiar to me.

Q. If you look briefly at tab 252, you'll find that it's the second of the two extracts from security reports. One of several, but certainly another one.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm not going to raise again the various issues we've raised on admissibility and so on of this document, but simply to note that it runs between the 16th of December and the 15th of January, 1999.

Q. And this is an extract again, is it not, Mr. Delic? It's an extract, isn't it, selected by someone?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Now, we've seen, and I don't need to go through it again -- we saw in the previous example of an intelligence report like this that the radio operators picked up everything, including the movements of Serb forces, police forces, things like that.

A. What is your question? ⁴²²⁹³

Q. Am I right that the radio operators who prepare reports like this are able to rely on incoming signals, not just from KLA people but also from police forces, VJ forces in their area of observation?

A. Certainly. The equipment does not distinguish between various signals. It just monitors everything on the air.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... material is therefore written down.

Now, we've seen yesterday in the little visual aid we looked at how near Racak is to your area of operation, but one way or another can we be satisfied that material of the type provided in this intelligence extract must have been prepared covering the events at Racak? The police would have been sending signals, the army would have been sending signals. The intelligence listeners would have recorded it, so there must be a similar document somewhere dealing with Racak, mustn't there?

A. Yes, but if such a document exists I am not aware of it. However, when reports are being prepared there is a certain system to them, a format. There is an item dealing with terrorist forces, and that's one section. There is another section dealing with the forces of Albania, then a separate section dealing with communications within our army. That is the entire document, and we see here only one segment dealing with terrorist communications.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I don't know whether the Court's --

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

--- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m. ⁴²²⁹⁴

--- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. I have an objection to make, Mr. Robinson, to the fact that Mr. Nice, in examining the witness, presented an observation or claim which leads the witness to misunderstand the question, to lead him astray.

Mr. Nice claimed that this matter with respect to the refugees was confirmed by the former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Primakov, and this claim was taken up by Mr. Bonomy and also asked a question following on from that, and that is just not correct or accurate. On page 3361 of the transcript from the testimony of Premier Primakov in November 2004 - the page number was 33961 - he quotes a report from the UN Secretary-General and says the following: "'According to the UNHCR [In English] estimates, there could be up to 50.000 displaced people in Kosovo who have been forced from their homes into the woods and mountains.' "Are those figures that you were able then and are you able now to accept?"

[Interpretation] The answer that Mr. Primakov gave is this: "I simply don't know. [In English] If that's the report of the Secretary-General, and if he's quoting some figures, then they must be based on the information that was available to him. But the question of whether I agree with each of these figures or not is out of place -" out of place - "because it is absolutely not within my competence as a witness to confirm or not to confirm something that is said by the Secretary-General in his own report." ⁴²²⁹⁵ [Interpretation] Therefore, I should like to ask you to make this kind of manipulation impossible, not to allow it, and it is something that Mr. Nice resorts to fairly frequently.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What I'd like to have confirmed is whether Mr. Nice did put a question to the witness on the basis that the UNHCR figures had been -- had in fact been confirmed by Mr. Primakov.

MR. NICE: No, I don't think I did. I think I was rather more cautious in the way I expressed it because I knew that it was documents we were putting in, I didn't have them to hand, through Mr. Primakov which were documents that went to the United Nations and were participated in by the Russians, and that's the reason I put them in through him, and that was certainly what I was attempting to explain in short form and then acting from memory.

I have the documents here which we can -- or some of them which we can find at tab 16 of Exhibit 795, which is, for example, a report of the United Nations Security Council prepared pursuant to Resolution 1160, and it's this sort of document that I had in mind which refers to figures of displacements of 20.000 people in October 1998, 200.000 -- a reference to the UNHCR's estimates of 200.000 in Kosovo, 80.000 in neighbouring countries, and so on.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the point was put this way: "We had a Prosecution -- a Defence witness, Primakov -- I haven't got the exhibit to hand, we'll find it -- the Russian senior politician who prepared -- who was party to reports that were tendered at the United Nations, showing very large numbers of Albanians displaced in the second half of 1998." So ⁴²²⁹⁶ that suggests he was party to the preparation of these reports.

MR. NICE: Party, but as a senior politician. I wasn't suggesting that he was a statistician nor was it ever my intention to do so.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it may be I also read too much into your question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, now that the matter has been clarified and the witness has heard the answer that was given to Mr. Nice when he cross-examined the witness, would the witness want to say anything in relation to the answer that he just gave? I would give you an opportunity.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All I can say is this: The assertions made by Mr. Nice did mislead me, and I consider that that is improper. I stand by what I said, that the number of refugees was much, much smaller and that the number of refugees was greatest in territory under KLA control, which is the Drenica area, and that on the territory controlled by our own forces everything was done to have the people return to their own homes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, let us proceed.

MR. NICE: And just on that last point, the report that I've just been reading out, you see, which is contemporary to this extent, it's dated the 3rd of October 1998, says of Drenica the following: "These operations --" it speaks of the forces intensifying their operations in an offensive in Drenica and it says, "These operations have reportedly resulted in the displacement of some 20.000 additional people." Does that fit with your recollect of events at the time? ⁴²²⁹⁷

A. The Drenica area is outside my area of responsibility. As far as the October period that you mention is concerned, the combat operations had ceased by then, because that was the time, between the 8th and 12th of October, when an agreement was reached about the Verification Mission, and that can be checked out in their reports. So at that time there were -- there was no fighting on any large scale at all except for sporadic incidents, attacks on roads, ambushes, and the laying of mines, that kind of thing. And I've already said -- I said in the previous days that the plan against the terrorist operation, which had five stages, began in July or, rather, the end of July and the beginning of August, and it ended at the end of September, and by the end of September the main terrorist bands had been crushed, and after that control was established on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Drenica was a special area, a separate region which, due to the configuration of the terrain and because of the large number of terrorist groups there that were located, that area was always problematic from the aspects of territory control. So --

Q. Does 20.000 sound about right to you?

A. Yes, up to 20.000 would be all right.

Q. Were you aware that Mr. Primakov was a member of something called the Contact Group whose very duty it was to monitor what was happening in Kosovo?

A. Please. All I know is that he was a member of that Contact Group. But anything else related to Mr. Primakov is not a question you should be asking me. I quite simply don't know his duties and assignments and what ⁴²²⁹⁸ he did in Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Can we move on, then.

MR. NICE: I'm not going to ask, Your Honours, any further questions about volume -- at least, I don't think I am, about volume 4, but you may want to keep it because it covers the period about which I'm going to ask questions and the witness may want to refer us to one or two entries in it.

I'm going to refer to this document. I'm not particularly asking it to be exhibited, but knowing the problems on looking back at proceedings when documents are not identified, might it be sensible to give it an identification -- a marked for identification reference so that whenever I refer to it I can use that reference and if we re-read the transcript we'll know what I'm talking about, but it's up to the Court entirely. If you're happy with aide-memoire, I'm -- I'll try and use a standard term, and we'll use the term "aide-memoire" if that assists.

Q. Looking at the aide-memoire, if you'd be so good, north-east of your marked area of responsibility --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't see any basis at all for Mr. Nice to introduce a document of this kind which can only be his own personal aide-memoire. It's not a document of any kind. It can just be his own aide-memoire but has nothing to do with the document. He can construct a million such similar documents.

MR. NICE: The -- ⁴²²⁹⁹

JUDGE KWON: That's why we're calling that an aide-memoire.

MR. NICE:

Q. If we look at the north-east sector of the thing shown --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure why he wouldn't be able to use it, Mr. Milosevic. I don't understand the point.

MR. NICE: I might well produce more of these if they're useful. We've already produced some, Mr. Saxon reminds me.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Mr. Nice, in the cross-examination, can pose specific questions to the witness, just as I did, with respect to I think about some 20 witnesses whose statements General Delic challenged, beginning with Ashdown right down to those two protected witnesses of his, always concrete. However, this kind of list of all possible documents, all and sundry, cannot be placed before the witness because that would require an enormous amount of work on the part of the witness for him to be able to grasp the contents of the testimonies, to read the transcripts and to find responses to what is being brought up now.

MR. NICE: Maybe the accused can be made to understand what we're doing and I can get on.

JUDGE BONOMY: Does the witness need to have it?

MR. NICE: He doesn't need to have it.

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm happy to have my copy, and if Mr. Milosevic doesn't want the witness to have one, then that's fine.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's simply a document to assist the witness and the Chamber in understanding the evidence. I don't think ^{42300 BLANK PAGE 42301} there is any sinister purpose behind it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I really -- this document, this piece of paper doesn't really mean anything to me. I can keep it here beside me but it is of no importance as far as I'm concerned. But while we're on the matter, Mr. President, at the end of business today -- yesterday, you know that I asked for a point to be pinpointed with respect to Mr. Ashdown's position and location, and I did my homework related to Suva Reka. So if you want me to present this to you now or at the end of business today, I would like to tell you what I was able to do with respect to Mr. Ashdown's territory from the Suva Reka area.

MR. NICE: Well, we'll certainly --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We'll come to that later, General, certainly.

MR. NICE:

Q. Can we now, then, go to the question I was asking a long time ago. Javor and Luznica, were they in your area of responsibility? For those looking at the aide-memoire, north-eastern section, north-eastern perimeter. Were they in your area of responsibility?

A. I don't have to look at the document. What period are you referring to? Just tell me that.

Q. January 1999.

A. At that time they were under the responsibility of 223rd Mechanised Brigade -- 243rd Mechanised Brigade.

Q. Are you aware the following reported in "As Seen, As Told" at page ⁴²³⁰² 354 in the English version, that on the 14th of January, there was reported tank, mortar, and heavy machine-gun and small-arms fire near those villages but that the OSCE were denied access to the area? Do you know anything about that? Just yes or no, and if you say no, we'll move on.

A. I've already told you that that was in the area of the -- of responsibility of another unit. No, I have no knowledge of that.

Q. Let's then now go, for those looking at the aide-memoire, further south to Jeskovo, February 1999. Remember the position about saying anything that would identify the witness K32. K32 has told us that in February 1999, there were a large number of soldiers and policemen surrounding Jeskovo and that he saw you in the village. Is he right about that, or may he be?

JUDGE BONOMY: Before the witness answers that, the aide-memoire does not refer to that witness.

MR. NICE: No, Your Honour is quite right. It refers to K41. There's another reference that should be in there. The aide-memoire is not --

JUDGE BONOMY: So the question is as intended.

MR. NICE: It is as intended, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

MR. NICE: It's been difficult to try and get all references in.

Q. Is he or may he be right about that?

A. Are we going to refer to the tabs --

Q. If you wish to. ⁴²³⁰³

A. -- from my exhibits?

Q. Yes, if you wish to, take us to it.

A. Certainly. Let's look at the map. It is the 11th -- just let me make sure of the date. Tab 324.

Q. That takes us, therefore, to volume 5.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, while we are locating the document, the witness yesterday said that K32 had been three kilometres away from him. Is it referring to another place?

MR. NICE: That's another incident.

JUDGE KWON: Another incident.

MR. NICE: That was the incident of the shelling of the house, if Your Honour remembers.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. NICE: No, it wasn't here. And I'll point you to it in a second.

Q. Yes, have you found the map? Which is the tab you want us to look at?

A. So you're talking about Jeskovo, are you?

Q. Yes.

A. Then that is tab 324. Tab 325 is the map, and tab 326 is the report.

Q. Well, now, the date may have been uncertain in the mind of the witness, so do you say that the only time that it could have been in Jeskovo was in March? Is that what you're saying?

A. Well, Mr. Nice, I was in command of that unit and I was in ⁴²³⁰⁴ Jeskovo. So that was on the 11th of March.

Q. Very well. Now, if it's the 11th of March rather than an uncertain February, is it the case that the witness K32, although you're not going to say anything to identify him here in Court you say you know or you know who it is, is it possible that he saw you in the village?

A. That is not possible, and I've already explained why once. He could have seen me in the evening, after the end of the operations when the unit was gathering its forces up in Zagradska, the Zagradska area, and all the units went back to the Prizren barracks, prepared to go back. And all the units rallied round that point who had taken -- which had taken part. So I'm indicating where the witness was and where I was. This is the axis. This is the general direction of the unit of that particular witness, and he moved along in this direction, took this route, and the collection point was in the Zagradska area. I was here, and on the map you can see the mark denoting my command post. So I moved along towards the village of Jeskovo and through the village of Jeskovo directly and took the road back before it became dark to the Zagradska area where the whole unit amassed. And in that region, we had the observers from the Verification Mission, and on the 12th they did an on-site investigation in the village together with the MUP members, the MUP team. And I've already told you that the commander wrote about this event, the commander of the unit, of the Siptar 125th Brigade, the Siptar terrorist forces, and his name was Zafir Berisha, the commander, and he writes this on page 299 in his book "The Road to Freedom."

Q. We don't have that as an exhibit, and let me just complete what I ⁴²³⁰⁵ want to raise with you by way of Prosecution evidence. The other witness, K41, who speaks of similar, not identical number of soldiers but a large number, 700, he says, in positions near Jeskovo with police units, says that you were overheard to say that, "We should not -" that is the soldiers - "let a single person remain alive." That's what's been given in evidence. True or false or a misunderstanding or what?

A. Mr. Nice, I have told you a number of times that I am a Serb officer and a Serb officer would never be able to say anything like that, especially not by myself. That is a pure fabrication on the part of the soldier, and it didn't only come from his mouth, it wasn't uttered only from his mouth. He was prepared to say something like that, things along those lines, and I've already said that that soldier was three kilometres away from that spot.

Q. If you want to make that assertion. Prepared by whom?

A. Well, Mr. Nice, you coach your witnesses, prepare them, and the preparations and coaching went on in Kosovo and in other places. Your witness was a protected witness, and in my state he is on the wanted list. There is a warrant out for him.

Q. If you want to make that sort of assertion about coaching witnesses, do you want to identify the material upon which you rely to make such an assertion?

A. All I want to do is to tell you this: Your witness is telling an absolute untruth, and there is proof to back that up, to back up the fact that he is giving false information to this Court.

JUDGE BONOMY: That is a separate matter and one that we can ⁴²³⁰⁶ easily deal with, but what's the basis for saying that the witnesses are coached?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Witness K41, after having committed a crime in my country, fled. He escaped. He was in the -- and went to K32 and hid there for several months in K32's home. And in the same kitchen where K32 was prepared is where K41 was prepared or coached as well. And the motive of -- for his testimony --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Delic, your statement was "Mr. Nice, you coach your witnesses." Now, what's the basis for that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise to Mr. Nice.

JUDGE BONOMY: Because the point you do make, the point you try to make about the witnesses getting their heads together is a perfectly valid point, and it gets clouded when you make unfounded allegations. So it would be helpful if you restrained yourself on that score.

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, it may well be that the same investigator took both witness statements. That -- I think it's probably the case. But if you now want to suggest that to your knowledge an investigator coached witnesses, please will you tell me on what you base that.

A. I said everything I wanted to say linked to that particular witness and to connect it to his testimony. I don't want to claim even that your investigators are preparing witnesses in -- with ill intention, but there are structures which are -- which prepare witnesses, coach witnesses, and K32 was prepared for testimony in Pec. I'm telling you now he was prepared in Pec, and this was done by certain individuals, by ⁴²³⁰⁷ Albanians.

Q. Well, now, you must understand - we of course have the advantage of the transcript - that your last answers on this are completely inconsistent. You were initially prepared to challenge either me or by inference those working for me as having coached witnesses. You've now withdrawn it and come with a different account which would never have justified making the allegation against the Prosecution and said it was done by Albanians.

Mr. Delic, those two answers simply cannot co-exist honestly, can they?

A. I have already apologised to you, Mr. Nice, because very often -- but very often you do try and put words into my mouth, some of your words into my mouth. So I have said what I said in connection to those two witnesses. I said it's -- over the past two days, and if we want to discuss those witnesses we can do so on the basis of evidence and proof. So I have evidence and proof about what they claim and we could go through those documents now.

Q. You say I put words into your mouth. Just one minute. First of all, is that the sort of reply to my questions that anyone has suggested to you you should make?

A. You are asking me very unclear questions. I was irritated by the fact that you kept insisting on certain things, and I'm certainly not claiming that you personally are preparing witnesses, especially not witnesses of this kind, of this type who lie in Court.

Q. When you gave the answer you did, the question that led to it was ⁴²³⁰⁸ my setting out basically the simple evidence that K41 had given, namely to the effect that you had said, "Don't let a single person remain alive," and I said, "Is that true or false or a misunderstanding or what?" Now, you're now saying that that question put words into your mouth. It didn't put words into your mouth; it asked you a question, Mr. Delic. I want to know why in answer to such a question you came back with the assertion that he'd been prepared and coached.

A. Mr. Nice, throughout the past few days during your cross-examination, you've been using different methods and different approaches to questions and very often improperly so, even perfidiously. You've posed your questions in that way very often.

Q. You must press on with --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Delic, you need to restrain yourself. The use of the word "perfidiously" is unfortunate. Mr. Nice is an officer of the Court, and he must operate within the rules and procedures of the Court, and also importantly within the certain ethical constraints which apply to him, and so that was why he reacted as he did when you said he coached witnesses. That's a serious allegation. And to say that he's putting questions perfidiously is another -- another matter that goes to his professionalism. So I have to ask you to restrain yourself.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, Mr. Delic, every time in the course of the last few days that you've tried to raise an issue about the form of a question, I've taken you back to the precise words, which is something we can do with the transcript. And there are two points that I'm going to make to you. The ⁴²³⁰⁹ first is that these reactions of yours actually reveal that you're caught and that you're looking for a way out when you know you have no honest way out, and that's why you resort to this line of attack on me or the investigators or anybody else.

Now, that's the suggestion. Do you want to comment on that?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Once we get the answer to this, Mr. Nice, I'd like you to move on.

MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You've put it well, Mr. Nice. That is your assertion. I can only smile at your assertion. I have no comment.

MR. NICE:

Q. Very well. And moving on as I do, I nevertheless want to revert to -- I may do. Let me just read my question.

I'll press on. The evidence given by these two witnesses which has you instructing that no person should be left alive is true, isn't it, and that's why you've reacted in the way you have.

A. Again, I've said it: That is your opinion, and that is absolutely incorrect.

Q. Within the papers that you've brought to this Court, which are the contemporaneous documents that can assist us as to what actually happened? Is it just document 324 or are there any other documents?

MR. KAY: Can I just raise a matter here? What date are we dealing with? The Prosecution witness is asserting February. The Defence witness says this is March I'm dealing with and it's the 11th and 12th of ^{42310 BLANK PAGE 42311} March.

Is the Prosecution changing their case that it's not February and it is March or are they saying that it happened in February? Let's be precise, otherwise we're going to be meandering for ages and getting nowhere.

MR. NICE: The characterisation is quite inappropriate.

MR. KAY: Excuse me. The Judges will say whether my characterisations are inappropriate and we don't need any insulting in this courtroom.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, what date are you referring to?

MR. NICE: I made it clear that it was an uncertain February, on the record, and I made it clear to the witness that if there was only the one occasion when they were in this place and it was March and he could, as it were, show that, then that may very well be the incident to which the witness is referring who didn't have the advantage of contemporaneous records of any kind to date it. The witness went on, as the Court will recall, to identify an event and indeed to accept the presence in the area of one of the witnesses, and I've been working on the basis that that is the incident that the witnesses were referring to and that the present witness is referring to.

MR. KAY: It makes a difference as to whether it's February or March, whether it can be accepted, whether the witness was in the area.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's clear to me that the Prosecution are now relying on the date that the general says his brigade was there. But am I right in thinking that this incident is not actually referred to in the ⁴²³¹² indictment?

MR. KAY: Your Honour is perfectly right, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Which struck me as peculiar.

MR. NICE: As to the general allegations, it's there and it's very serious so far as this witness is concerned.

Q. And if I may, Mr. Delic, apart from this particular document, 324, do we have any other contemporaneous documents, your log or anything of that kind, that can be produced from your briefcase that will cover this incident?

A. All the most relevant evidence is here in tabs 324, 325, and 326. So if your witness is talking about February, then I can only say that in February, in that territory, nothing was going on, and my unit was not there in February.

Q. Well, in March, following the incident described in your tab 324, were any prisoners taken? You might want to look at 8.1. I don't know if that helps us. 324, paragraph 8.1.

JUDGE BONOMY: 324 is an order, as I understand it, and 326 is the analysis that follows the event.

MR. NICE: I think we should look at 326 --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 325 is a map.

MR. NICE:

Q. 326, as His Honour suggests, it may be the report. Is that the document we should be looking at?

A. We can have a look at all three documents parallelly. They were all written at the same time, and they're all relevant. ⁴²³¹³

Q. And were any prisoners taken? Look at the top of -- in English, the top of page 2 of the document of the 12th of March.

A. It says here exactly in the document whether there were any prisoners or not, that is to say in tab 326.

Q. It says no prisoners were taken.

A. There were nine fatalities, there were no prisoners, and there were three wounded members of our own forces.

Q. But no losses, no fatalities in your forces.

A. Three wounded.

Q. Is this loss of nine with no prisoners consistent with your having given an order that no person there should be left alive?

A. Those are your insinuations. I never issued such an order, not in that occasion or ever, on any other occasion.

Here in the village of Jeskovo there was a special unit of the 125th Brigade, a special unit in black uniforms. Throughout the fighting that went on, they kept saying, "Allahu Akbar," "Allah is great," in translation. That meant that fighters like that never surrendered.

Q. Can we look at the bottom of English page 2, and for you the third paragraph on the second page, please, Mr. Delic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, can I just ask the witness. The group that you were encircling, what was its strength? How many constituted the group?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, we believe that no one from that group got out of the encirclement. Our assessment was that there were between 25 and 30 of them. However, since this group had the task to ⁴²³¹⁴ mobilise the population in the surrounding area, part of the group was probably staying in other villages, like Zur or some other village in the area.

Also, there is reference here to our own estimate regarding the strength of that group. However, at that moment we came across only nine of them.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If nine was killed, no one was captured, that would have left about 20 or 21 unaccounted for.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those were members who were not encircled on that day. They were elsewhere.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see, yes. So the nine who were killed represented the totality of the number that you were -- that you were encircling at that time; is that so?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, you've told us you were expecting 30. In his evidence, a long time ago now, K41 said that he saw no return fire but it was expected, he believed, a total of 30 was killed. He didn't have access to contemporaneous records.

I would suggest to you that the nine that were killed in the expectation of there being 30 were killed because you gave this order that no one should be left alive.

A. What you're saying is a point of your own that is totally unfounded. I would just like to get a document out now to show what the OSCE says about that and what the commander of the Siptar forces says ⁴²³¹⁵ about that. I've already showed it once here.

I'll have to look for it during the break, because right now I can't find it. However, if you remember, I have already presented it to you. Even the names of these people are mentioned there. The OSCE gave its own report in terms of verifying that incident.

Q. If you would be good enough to go with me, as I suggested, to the second page of document tab 326, noting on the way that you had six tanks present, double barrelled anti-aircraft guns, we see that your ammunition is at the bottom of the page, used amounted to 1.656 7.62 millimetre bullets for an automatic rifle, 600 7.62 millimetre bullets for an M-84 machine-gun; is that right? Then some 120-millimetre shells. Is it 18? I think that's the way one reads it. 13 82-millimetre shells, 16 90-millimetre shells, 19 100-millimetre bullets, seven impact rifle grenades, seven M-75 fragmentation hand grenades. And you make the point, and you may want to reflect on this, it may or may not help you, I'm not sure, that the command -- this is the top of page 3, please, Mr. Prendergast: "The command of the selected forces was achieved through a joint command of the MUP and VJ forces ..."

Now, is that quantity of weaponry consistent with an effort to take prisoners if possible and to kill only if necessary or is that consistent with an all-out assault on this place at any cost?

A. According to the information we had, there was a special KLA unit there, the best trained, the best equipped terrorists, who were ready to fight to the bitter end. Surrender was not an option for them. These men who were in black uniforms, who trained together with Mujahedin, I already ⁴²³¹⁶ said that throughout the fighting "Allahu Akbar" was the only thing heard from their ranks. No one ever surrendered. They all died from infantry fire. Nobody died from our artillery fire.

I found it. May I put this on the overhead projector, please? There are only three sentences that the commander of --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm going to read it slowly. I hope it will be interpreted.

"On the 15th of March, I heard quite a bit of touching information. I heard of the heroic death of many comrades, heroes who had proven themselves earlier on. These were the following heroes: Hunjan Rajepi [phoen], Beskim Suka [phoen], Hajdra Sala [phoen], Feri Susurri [phoen], Tahir Gashi, Skender Latifi, Umerdin Cengaj [phoen], Ajadinje Zahiri [phoen] and Hamed [phoen] Thaci. Those are soldiers of the special unit of the 125th Brigade of the operation zone of Pastrik and this was truly a great loss because the fighting went on at a distance between 15 and 20 metres."

Now let me show you what the OSCE wrote, with your permission.

MR. NICE:

Q. The document you were looking at was? Just tell us so that we know.

A. The document that I just read out is from the -- from the book of the commander of the 2nd Battalion of the 125th Brigade, Zafir Berisha. The book is called "The Road to Freedom," and it's on page 99.

Q. All right. ⁴²³¹⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the OSCE document that you are now going to read from?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document is from the fund, from the Humanitarian Law Fund, "As Seen, As Told," but it pertains to the perceptions of the OSCE mission.

MR. NICE:

Q. And you've obviously got -- have you got the whole of that document with you, by the way?

JUDGE KWON: Did we not see them?

MR. NICE: Yes, Your Honour, but he's got it in B/C/S, which I was looking, actually, for this morning.

JUDGE KWON: I think we saw that on the 5th of July.

MR. NICE: Yes, the B/C/S version of that.

Q. Go on, please.

A. Mr. Nice, I saw that you had that book the other day. You held it in your hands.

Q. Not in the B/C/S version, you see. Go on.

A. Well, I hope somebody is going to translate what I'm going to read out, because I do not have the English version.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, please speak slowly, more slowly, for the interpreters.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "In the beginning of March fighting broke out around Hoca Zagradska to the south-west of Prizren. Around 200 ⁴²³¹⁸ persons left on the -- left the village on the 11th of March and went to the north towards Prizren but the police stopped them. During the ceasefire, the displaced persons returned to their village, but the fighting was renewed and about 100 persons left Hoca Zagradska again and went north.

"During the operations of the security forces on the 11th of March, the villagers of Jeskovo, that is further into the mountains to the south-east of Hoca Zagradska, left their homes and returned a few hours later. After heavy bombing by the combined Serb forces that used tanks and armoured carriers, artillery and mortars, some houses were in flames. It has been reported further that the KLA responded to these attacks with an attack in the area of Zociste, near the road between Suva Reka and Orahovac in the Orahovac municipality, using mortars and heavy machine-guns. During most of these operations the OSCE-KVM did not have any access to the region. The Regional Centre of the OSCE and the KVM in Prizren commented on the situation, saying that the KLA had infiltrated into Jeskovo, a previously abandoned village, about a week before that. The inhabitants of Hoca Zagradska informed the OSCE-KVM about their concerns and the KLA withdrew. The OSCE-KVM informed the KLA that the local population and the security forces considered their presence in this area to be a provocation. In addition to all of that, the OSCE-KVM in Prizren recorded that the Serb forces during this fighting limited fighting to Jeskovo only, to the south of Prizren. Other villages had been occupied but not damaged.

"On the 12th of March, the police called the OSCE-KVM teams to ⁴²³¹⁹ visit Jeskovo, the village that was in the focus of the police operation of the 11th of March. The verifiers saw the bodies of seven armed men in black uniforms of the KLA. According to statements made by the police, they were killed by fire from sidearms during the security operation. Teams could not establish whether the members of the KLA were killed in places --"

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have the text back on because it was way too fast. The bottom of the page, please, interpreters note.

JUDGE KWON: Interpreters are asking to see the bottom of the page.

THE INTERPRETER: "The teams could not establish whether the members of the KLA were killed in places where they were lying. The verifiers were also showed a small calibre mortar with ammunition prepared for use --" and then the text goes on.

MR. NICE:

Q. 340 on the English version. There's only one page difference. Everything you've told us, Mr. Delic, including the expectation that these people would fight to the death, does that fit with your giving the order that everybody should be killed, which is what the witness says?

A. Mr. Nice, I said a few moments ago that you are putting some of your words into my mouth. I never said and not a single army officer would have said that all people should be killed. Please never repeat that again. That was not my order. That is a lie uttered by your witness. ^{42320 BLANK PAGE 42321}

Q. Now, if we look at the top of page 3 of the document that you drew to our attention, and indeed have in mind what the OSCE said about the presence of the police as one source, you referred to this as being through a joint command of the MUP and VJ forces. Well, now, this is a different use of the words "joint command" from the one we'd been looking at earlier, but how did it operate? Who ran things when you had a joint operation like this under a joint command or through a joint command?

A. Mr. Nice, I have to deny what you're saying straight away, because what you're saying does not correspond to reality. There was no Joint Command. When it says that there is singleness of command, that means that the commander of the police forces was next to me, that he and I were in one place, that I commanded my forces and that he commanded his forces. And I was there. You were not there, and you don't know about that.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... trying to in a sense help you, but you react as you do. I said that the use of the words "joint command" here is different maybe from the other sense. Let's go to the original text, if you'd be so good, please. Lay it on the overhead projector and just read out the words that refer to joint command and see how it comes out in translation.

MR. NICE: So that will be, if you lay the Serbian text on the overhead projector, please, Mr. Prendergast, then above "Conclusions" it's one, two, three -- it's just about a third of the way down the page, where it says -- begins with the word "Komandovanje," then something or other.

Q. So perhaps you'd just read that out for us, please, Mr. Delic, the ⁴²³²² single sentence that begins with "Command," is it? I'm not sure. We can see exactly how the words are used. There we are. Can you just read that sentence, please.

A. "Commanding of the envisaged forces was unified by the Joint Command of the forces of MUP and the VJ and was safe and timely."

Q. So can you just help us, because we may -- none of us have military experience, or we may -- or I know some of us have military experience. In circumstances of such danger, do you not need a single person to be in charge?

A. As a military professional, I believe that in all such situations it would be a good idea, but in order for that to happen certain decisions need to be made. Thus there is an Article 16, an Article 17 in the law on defence that envisages the possibility, but only in a state of war, of that kind, but it is provided for only as a possibility. And because that is so, appropriate decisions or directives have to be adopted for it to happen on the ground.

This was happening in March, and the sentence reads as I read it, and it implied that the commander of the MUP forces and I should be in the same place together, as we were on a number of occasions earlier.

Q. Very well. May I just have sight of either the extract of the B/C/S version of "As Seen, As Told" or the whole copy of it if you've got the whole copy there, please, just for one reason? I'll hand it become almost immediately. Thank you very much.

JUDGE KWON: Just -- can I clarify the translation of this document. It was translated as this: "Command of the envisaged forces ⁴²³²³ was unified," while the transcript said -- no, no, our document says "was achieved." Is there any nuance, difference of nuances in that?

MR. NICE: It's "command of the envisaged forces was unified" as opposed to "command of the selected forces was achieved." I think that's the divergence. Maybe, as so often, it depends on the interpreter. And, Your Honours, just to clarify something that was concerning Mr. Kay and that explained why I allowed for different dates for the incident in the evidence of the witnesses, our researchers remind us that K41 spoke of the incident in February, K32 spoke of it being in March. So that they gave different periods in any event.

Q. One last question on this topic and I'm going to move on. Apart from this document that you've shown to us, Mr. Delic, these two documents, are there any other documents that you've got with you, logbooks, daily records, intelligence reports, et cetera, et cetera, that cover this event?

A. Mr. Nice, I have said this a couple of times before: A war diary is kept only during the war. This was not wartime. There is an operations log which is kept every day by the duty operations officer. That operations log exists. I don't have it with me but it exists in Belgrade. I searched for it in the archives unsuccessfully, but I failed to find it only because our archives are bogged down by the huge number of these documents, but I will continue looking for it anyway because I need it myself.

There is documentation to confirm that it has been transmitted to the archives, but in the past two years I have not been successful in ⁴²³²⁴ finding it. It exists, therefore. But it is not so detailed as the reports are. It just says that on that day the unit was engaged on such-and-such an axis, and if there were any losses, the losses are identified and named as well as those who were wounded, in the briefest possible terms.

Q. Would radio traffic have been logged by a radio operator at headquarters listening in to what was being said?

A. Mr. Nice, the duty operations officer has equipment monitoring what is going on on the ground, and if there is anything relevant, he reports it to me, but he cannot monitor several different waves at the same time. He can only follow traffic on one airwave that was designed -- designated by the command. He takes notes as instructed, and he executes my orders or invites other commanding officers as necessary. As far as monitoring of radio traffic is concerned, that is something that could only be done by one unit, the company for electronic surveillance and anti-electronic operations, but normally there is all kind of traffic on the air, communications among terrorists, among MUP forces, and among army units.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Delic, is there any circumstance in which in your view it would be justified for an officer such as yourself to have given the order which the Prosecution says that you gave to your forces to ensure that no one was left alive?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the rules of service binds all soldiers from private to the highest ranking commander to execute each and every order of their superior except for orders which ⁴²³²⁵ would constitute a crime. So if I should ever have ordered civilians to be killed, which is completely nonsensical, no soldier and no officer would have carried that order out because they are equally bound by the law, as I was. And the rule says that if they, nevertheless, receive such an order, they should report it to the superior commander, bypassing the immediate level from which they got the order.

There is another mechanism in place, another line, another chain of command, namely the security organs, which independently follow all the developments in the unit. We had a security organ in our unit as well. They are not reporting to me. They report along their own chain of command. Their only duty to me is to bring to my attention incidents in the unit, if any, to provide me with certain information -- something is going on with the headphones. They also have the duties. They work on combatting crime. They have the duty to report to me any data regarding possible crimes in the unit, but they are linked, in terms of chain of command, to their own superior command.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So you're saying, then, that you cannot conceive of any situation in which you could have given such an order?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am prepared to sign my own hundred year sentence to imprisonment if I ever uttered such an order. That is an order that could not cross the mind of a professional officer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the difficulty for me with the answer, which I must say I had expected to be much simpler, was that it appeared to be ⁴²³²⁶ confined to an order relating to civilians and the question wasn't. The question was whether you could ever conceive of a situation where you would give the order which the Prosecution claim you did, and that's a much wider question, I think, than the one you've answered.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, that's inconceivable and impossible.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Why would that be? Why would that be now if you're tracking not civilians but insurgents?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, you can fight an enemy as long as they are holding weapons. As early as in the first year of the military academy and then throughout my military training, I was taught Geneva Conventions. From the moment when somebody lays down their weapon, he is no longer considered as a soldier, and you're not allowed to fight him. He is a prisoner, and it is very precisely envisaged and stipulated what you may do with a prisoner.

We have gone through various tabs here --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Mr. Nice, proceed.

MR. NICE:

Q. We observed from the passage of the Humanitarian Law Fund's book, as you describe it, "As Seen, As Told," that there was no certainty that the bodies had died where they were found. There is another record which I'm just sending for, but I know what it says - at least I'm pretty sure I know what it says - and I'll read it to you and we'll then get it for the overhead projector. The blue book, which was a contemporaneous record, ⁴²³²⁷ said the following: "Yesterday's fighting south of Prizren appears to have subsided." The group, RC1, as it's called, "was invited by the MUP to investigate the results of that fighting." This is an entry for the 13th of March. "Seven dead KLA were found on the outskirts north of Jeskovo and had apparently died from small-arms fire. All were dressed in black overalls with an AK weapon near each body." Now, thus far, does that accord with your account of what happened?

A. Well, that tallies with what is written here.

Q. Very well.

A. The on-site investigation was done on the 12th. As for the mission, they insisted that --

Q. Pause there. I want to read you the rest of the entry. If I may. The book is coming down. Because it's said -- it went on to say the following: "One of the bodies had an entry bullet wound in the centre of the forehead with an apparent attempt to cover the head with foliage. None of the bodies appeared to have died in these positions but had been carefully laid out on their backs with weapons placed nearby. It is believed that the bodies may have been 'imported' from elsewhere." Now, was there any question of the bodies being laid out in positions, with weapons placed nearby, for the mission to view?

A. That is not true. There's no need. The bodies were just retrieved from the brook. The terrorists had tried to escape through a mountain brook where the water was about 50 centimetres deep. It was the time of year when the snow melts. And practically walking on all fours, ⁴²³²⁸ because you can't swim in that brook, it's too shallow, they tried to leave the village. They ran into an ambush which was about 20 metres away from them, and all of them were hit, all but four -- or, rather, all but two. There were all hit while they were still in the brook. After that, they were carried further on by the water for several metres. One of them stopped at a bend. Some other bodies were carried a bit further away. We just retrieved them from the water and laid them on the grass, and then we continued to look for their weapons. We knew they had automatic rifles. They had an Armbrust, and in the house where they had been located earlier there was a mortar and a large amount of ammunition.

So the only manipulation with the bodies was to retrieve them from the brook and lay them on the ground.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Delic, in which direction from Jeskovo does the brook flow?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It flows -- if you look at this here. If this is Jeskovo, it flows this way, because this is Prizrenska Bistrica river, and the brook flows into the river.

JUDGE BONOMY: So we need that for the record. Which direction is that? Tell us whether it's north, south, east, or west.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. That brook flows north-west and into the Bistrica -- Prizrenska Bistrica River.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. KAY: Before we rise, Your Honour, just to correct an impression on the date that Mr. Nice gave you concerning the evidence of ⁴²³²⁹ K32. This is to be found at transcript page 8232, and Mr. Ryneveld gave the date as a leading question, mid-March. He said to the witness: "Let's skip ahead now to about mid-March of 1999, and are you aware, sir, of an offensive of a village known as Jeskovo?" The answer was: "I was not aware of that." And Mr. Ryneveld said, "Well, that's my phrasing. Did something happen with respect to Jeskovo?"

So that's how the position in the Prosecution case of the date arose; not from the witness himself. I just put that before you so that we don't let this matter go unnoted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kay. We will take the adjournment now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.18 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.43 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we'll hear the results of the witness's overnight labour in relation to Lord Ashdown, not now; at about 1.30.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, we've located the extract from the blue book. Just lay it on the overhead projector, please, Mr. Prendergast, so we -- the Chamber will probably remember the general format. It's part of Exhibit 321. I needn't read it again. The Chamber will recall the blue book is put together on a daily basis with various kinds of concentration of information.

I'm going to move quickly on through this -- thank you very much. That can come off.

If we now go very swiftly on to tab 35 -- sorry, 334.

Q. 334, please, Mr. Delic. I beg your pardon. In fact, I can do ^{42330 BLANK PAGE 42331} better than that. Go straight to 336, I think. Sorry again. 338, actually. 338. Save some time.

And if we look at 338 - foot of the page, please, Mr. Prendergast - this is a confrontation at Korisa Kabas village; is that correct?

A. No, it is not correct.

Q. Summary, just in a sentence, what was it?

A. It was only the village of Kabas, and the village of Kabas is located at a distance of one and a half kilometres towards the east from the village of Korisa.

Q. If we look at the end of our page 1, and for you I think it will be on the second page. There's a couple of lines which explain how the operation ended. It says: "During the operation the STS did not drop their weapons or combat equipment until the last moment, when they changed into civilian clothes and attempted to break through along the Gurit Mahala, where they came across our units in the line of blockade. "During combat operations the inhabitants of Selograzde village, Grejkovce village and Korisa village were seen moving in the direction of Suva Reka and Prizren.

"Our estimate of STS losses: "11 killed, no one captured."

Now -- and then at the end of the document your equipment: Six tanks, two howitsers, anti-aircraft guns, and so on. It is the real position that by this time operations of this kind where you outgunned the KLA massively were simply take-no-prisoners-kill-everyone operations. Is that the position that ⁴²³³² you'd achieved by then?

A. That was not the situation and that was not correct. That is your observation, which is quite inaccurate.

Q. Well, at the time that these men were running away in the way that you described the men in other incident running across the stream or through the stream, they had apparently dropped their weapons and changed into civilian clothes but none of them was captured. Can you explain that, please?

A. Mr. Nice, you're quite simply inventing this. We're talking about this stream. We're saying that everybody saw those people wearing black uniforms, and now you speak about civilian clothing, civilian clothes. They weren't escaping, they hadn't dropped their weapons. They were holding their weapons on them, on their backs or on their breasts.

Q. I'm sorry. I'm only reading your document, or if not your document whoever's document this one is, and the way we've got it in translation -- it may be the translation, you see, who knows -- but the way it reads is -- it says: "During the operation they didn't drop their weapons or combat equipment until the last moment, when they changed into civilian clothes and attempted to break through along the Gurit Mahala." It doesn't say -- maybe this is what happened -- it doesn't say they changed into civilian clothes and then, despite trying to look like civilians, carried AK-41s. It says they changed into civilian clothes and tried to run away. So that's why I'm asking you the question. It looks as though they were then ambushed.

A. You mentioned the stream, and your linking up the previous event ⁴²³³³ in Jeskovo to this one here. This is something quite different. This is something that happened in the area of Kabas, and Kabas is a mountainous terrain between Suva Reka and Prizren, and in that area there was -- there were no civilians. It's just some dozen houses. And the civilian population mentioned here -- the inhabitants of other villages are mentioned which set along this direction. And if you looked at the estimates of the Siptar forces in our assessment and according to what we saw, it was 30 to 35 men. And if you look further on, you will see that some soldiers on our side were killed, some of our soldiers.

Q. I'm going to move on --

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, is this your analysis, Mr. Delic, your own analysis? Because it doesn't have a signature on my English copy.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I was the commander. I have my organs writing for me, but I signed it, which means that I accept it as my own, as my own decision.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... your personal knowledge of this. It is strange the way this reads, actually. You understand the point Mr. Nice is making. He's trying to have it clarified, but it says that while the operation was ongoing the terrorists did not drop their weapons or combat equipment until the last moment, when they changed into given clothes and attempted to break through along the Gurit Mahala, where they came across our units in the line of blockade." So that could suggest - could suggest - that unarmed terrorists trying to escape were actually killed at that point.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is your opinion, ⁴²³³⁴ Mr. Bonomy.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's an interpretation I think that obviously could be made of the document. I am forming and expressing no opinions in the course of this. I'm trying to probe the evidence to see what decisions we should ultimately make.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, then, that means --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'd just like to make one comment. Mr. Bonomy quoted quite correctly and accurately, and it says quite plainly here attempted to break through, attempted to break through. That's not the same as an attempt at escape. This is armed, intentional break through the lines of our unit.

JUDGE BONOMY: I have to say that I find these interventions very unhelpful, because Mr. Delic was there, as you have so often reminded us about witnesses who have been led on your behalf, and he is a gentleman who is perfectly capable of expressing clearly to me what he knows happened without prompting from you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Delic, tell us again what happened, what actually happened.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We're dealing with the village of Korisa, and the number of men there was, according to our assessment, 30 to 35, and when we investigated the area where they had been accommodated, that was established. And our forces were able to launch a surprise on them. They were able to set up a blockade along a long stretch. And when our forces were noticed, that's when the fighting started, and this large ⁴²³³⁵ terrorist group started to pull out towards the north-east, towards the mountains at that time. So one of my units was there. It was the PVO unit, which was supposed to be along the blockade line, and the breakthrough at that point was resorted to because one of my soldiers were killed, one of my soldiers were wounded, and this part of the group that was lacking, about 20 men, that portion managed to break through that part, whereas the rest were killed fighting with the forces or against the forces along the blockade line.

JUDGE ROBINSON: When did they or some of them change into civilian clothes? At what stage?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What -- I do know that some of them were wearing civilian clothes. One of my officers at the place where this breakthrough took place and where my soldier Markovic was killed saw a man in civilian clothing at a distance of just 50 metres with the pump action rifle, and at that point in time he didn't know who the man was. And then he noticed this large group which opened fire, and one soldier was killed as a result and another soldier wounded. But when we say the blockade line, that means that not a large force was there, and the distance between the soldiers in that forest was quite great, 15 to 20 metres, maybe even more, the distance apart. So there was some small problems that occurred there after one soldier was killed and another wounded, because part of that force -- they used part of that force to get out of the blockade, of the siege, and part of those men were dressed in civilian clothes.

If you take a look at, I think, page 2 -- or, rather, on that same ⁴²³³⁶ page, perhaps, if we look at the very end of that portion, you will be able to see what was found in the place where these people spent their time. It's the penultimate paragraph.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The English text presents a difficulty.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can read it out if need be.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, if you're going to read anything, read the part beginning "During the operation..." Yes. Read it out so we can have the translation.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what he's dealing with.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I want you to go back to the beginning: "During the operation the STS did not drop their weapons," so we can have it translated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "During the operation the STS did not drop their weapons or combat equipment --

THE INTERPRETER: A little slower, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "During the operation the STS did not drop their weapons or combat equipment until the last moment when they changed into civilian clothes and attempted to break through along the Gurit Mahala axis, trig point 1613, where they came across our units in the line of blockade. During --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks. That's what's in the exhibit tab 338. It doesn't quite accord with the sequence of events that you have given now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to read four more ⁴²³³⁷ lines, please, a little lower down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "During the search of the houses in Gurit Mahala, the following was found: 200 12.7-millimetre bullets, about seven kilograms of TNT explosive, three TMM1 anti-tank mines, 20 RB rocket launcher shells, 30 camp beds, three tent equipment sets, 20 sleeping bags, some medical equipment and medicine, about 15 sets of uniforms with KLA insignia, 29 pairs of boots, ten combat rucksacks," and so on and so forth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not the issue. The issue raised by the Prosecutor is whether when the men were shot and killed, whether they were armed, and the text here in English suggests that they were not armed.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, those people weren't shot. They died in combat when trying to break through the circle, the encirclement, and a part of them managed to break through the encirclement and took to the mountains, whereas the number mentioned here remained behind on the spot, and at that time one of my soldiers was killed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Were they armed at that time?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All of them were armed. And as you can see here, no mention is made of the fact where they were any weapons remained. It's just ammunition and explosives that remained on the spot where they had been.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I -- I'm sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. You're citing the last passage in support of your contention that they were in fact armed, is that so, that weapons ⁴²³³⁸ and explosives were found?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I'm saying that for the uniforms, for the sake of the uniforms. All that was found, but I'm saying it because of the uniforms. And part them, as I said, was wearing civilian clothes but bearing weapons.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it's an issue which the Trial Chamber will have to resolve on the basis of the evidence before it.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, thank you. Incidentally, I just pass over so that the Chamber can have the material in mind, 342. Just quickly look at it, I don't really want to ask anything about it except to draw your attention to it. 342, Stojimirovic writes on the 19th of March an urgent communication suggesting increased security, and he says: "We believe that the goal of the terrorists is to inflict losses on our unit following the events in Jeskovo village and Kabas village."

Q. So described as an event there, Mr. Delic, and the two events linked up. You see?

A. Yes, but I'd like this to be corrected for the transcript. You mentioned Ljubisa Stojimirovic, Lieutenant General. He wasn't the person who wrote this brief order that was coded. It was Lieutenant Colonel Vladimir Stojiljkovic, my Chief of Staff.

Q. Let's move on to the next topic, if I can. Can you just go very briefly to 345, tab 345. This is 20th of March. And the second paragraph of the document, which comes from Stojiljkovic, again, relates to: "Above Velika Krusa village individuals were noticed observing the ⁴²³³⁹ Prizren-Djakovica road." What they did. But then it says this: "In Orahovac we learnt that during the day the local Siptar people left in maybe five or six buses for Macedonia." What was driving them out?

A. Well, in Kosovo and in my country it was clear to one and all that there would be a conflict very shortly, and this is an observation by an officer who was in Orahovac on that particular day and arrived at that knowledge and information. So he is conveying that information to me and informing the corps command. And before that time, too, there were attempts on the part of some people to leave for Macedonia, some Serbs to go to Serbia, and some Albanians also to go to Montenegro. And this then is a presentment that -- because we're already dealing with the 20th here, that's the time when the mission had already left or was leaving the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, so people tried to get away in time, to escape from the war in time, and it was imminent. It was just a question of days when it was going to start.

So that's how I understand these people leaving. Nobody forced them out of Orahovac. They left on regular buses and went to Macedonia. But for us it was telling us that something was happening in the territory and something was afoot, looming in the air.

Q. Let's go on to 356. And this is, of course, the document you were asked a lot of questions about in due course. The accused ended his question saying the document's very clear and well laid out, let's not dwell on it, but you'll remember that because of its title, The Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija, you were asked several questions by the Bench about it. I'm not going to cover that ground again, obviously, and ^{42340 BLANK PAGE 42341} I only have a couple of supplementary points -- not points. I only have a couple of questions to ask.

Would you be good enough, please, to go to paragraph 2. This Joint Command document says at paragraph 2: "With reinforcements and armed non-Siptar population from Kosovo and Metohija --"

A. Please, what tab are you referring to?

Q. I'm sorry if you haven't got there. 356.

A. You said 346, or that's what I heard. That's the interpretation I received.

Q. 356. Different binder. I don't know why. If you've got 356 at paragraph 2, it says: "Assignment: With reinforcements and armed non-Siptar population from Kosovo and Metohija, the Pristina command is assisting the MUP crushing and destroying STS in the zone of responsibility."

So what does "crushing and destroying" mean?

A. We should -- as this is a specific assignment, we should take a look at a map at this point, with your permission, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But are you not able to answer the question without resorting to the map at this stage?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can answer every question without using maps, however, I would like everybody who is following and -- to explain this to you, too, on the ground, what I'm talking about. At this time, and we're dealing with -- let's just take a look at the date. This was written on the 23rd of March, when the mission had already left the country and when we knew that it was just a question of ⁴²³⁴² hours when the NATO aggression would be launched. The terrorist forces at that period of time were grouped along individual axes with the task of cutting across the communication lines between Metohija here and Kosovo, and with the task of, in case of an aggression, attack the logistics parts and rear of the units defending the state border. So on the one hand we had an accumulation of forces in the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Macedonia, and on the other side we had right behind our backs in the rear strong terrorist groups, and no military commander or military strategist can allow himself to have to fight against two enemies at once, simultaneously, because he would certain -- it would be a battle he would certainly lose. So this assignment was issued, this order was issued, and it said that NATO went ahead with the bombing, we should first break down the terrorist forces, crush the terrorist forces which had amassed in our rear in-depth, and that after that we should concentrate our entire force in defending the state territory, our country.

And on the map you can see the deployment of forces; my forces, terrorist forces, and where they were located.

Q. So let's go back to the question I asked you. The words we've got translated are "crushing and destroying." Does that basically mean killing?

A. Crushing means that they should cease to function as a formation, that they should be broken up into smaller groups, if possible to be taken prisoner --

Q. Pause there. I may have missed it at the moment. I'm trying to ⁴²³⁴³ remind myself of the detail of the document. Does this document deal with prisoners somewhere? Let's have a look for that.

A. Well, quite normally there is always a space in a document of this kind which refers to that question, that issue.

Q. Let's just see if we can find it, see what it says.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I be of assistance? It is point 8.2. I was saying if I can be of assistance in this document, it is point 8.2. Yes. It says: "All terrorists captured..." et cetera, "should be taken to places provided for prisoners of war."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Point 8 in our text, Mr. Milosevic, deals with combat security.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps I'm looking at a different document. I'm looking at an order by the brigade commander.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Milosevic, we're talking about the corps order. And in point 10 of that order -- in point 10 is where that is mentioned.

MR. NICE:

Q. It says "Interrogate detained persons --" this is on page 5, Your Honours -- "and hand them over to the MUP organs for further processing," the degree to which it deals with prisoners. That's on page 5. So that -- sorry.

JUDGE BONOMY: Where is the link made, Mr. Delic, between dealing with the KLA, who were behind you, and dealing with the potential threat from the Albanian border?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] How do you mean where is the link? ⁴²³⁴⁴ There is a constant, continuous link. You have one enemy in front of you and one enemy behind you.

JUDGE BONOMY: Just give me a moment to see why I thought your answer was particular to this document.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please read point 2, if you will, point 2. It is the answer to your question. It's contained in point 2. Paragraph 2, where it says "Task:" Or should I read it out if you would like me to?

JUDGE BONOMY: No, I can read it. Thank you very much.

MR. NICE:

Q. Two other questions -- three, about this document. You told us yesterday about arming the non-Albanians, and here you're -- the army is in charge of, is it, the armed civilian population who it's now going to deploy to attack the KLA; is that right?

A. No, that is not right. It's not the proper observation. That absolutely does not correspond to the actual state. The armed non-Siptar population, it had nothing to do with the army. It was within the system of the units of civilian defence, which were linked to the Ministry of Defence. But when you say in co-action, that is to say if they are in our zone we would directly cooperate with them. Their task was never to attack but was to protect their own villages.

Q. You see, what it says -- that's why I ask you. All I can do, Mr. Delic, is look at the document, you see. And it says: "With reinforcements and armed non-Siptar population from Kosovo and Metohija, the Pristina Corps or command of Pristina Corps is assisting the MUP." So ⁴²³⁴⁵ a simple reading of that sentence would say that the armed non-Siptar population are with the military, assisting the police. I can't make any other construction of it, can you?

A. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but I was there on the spot. I know which local residents were armed, I know who had which task and what they were doing.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... command themselves?

A. No, the army did not command them. There were two elements of the Ministry of Defence; the units of civilian defence and units of civilian protection. These residents belonged to civilian defence, and they had old weapons, weapons that were treated as obsolete in the army.

Q. They're not commanded by anybody. If we have time we'll review crimes -- thank you. We'll review crime sites where locals were recognised as perpetrators, and I must suggest to you that this command, this order would suggest that locals were really basically subordinated to or incorporated within the military forces. That's the way it reads. And of course Article 16 of the law on defence says that the army should unite all forces in defence, doesn't it?

A. Mr. Nice, let me refute what you are saying before we move on. First of all, nobody was in command of those units. That's what you said. I don't agree. All those units had each their own responsibility, they had each their own commander, and they were disciplined. They belonged to units of civilian defence. They were not large. They were one squad strong. You know how much -- how strong a squad is; ten men.

Q. Just a simple question: Who commanded civil defence squads? ⁴²³⁴⁶

A. Civilian defence forces were under the command of the municipal civil defence staff. So the Chief of Staff of the civilian defence staff was in command.

Q. All right. Next question: Paragraph 4 of this document begins: "I have decided." "Odlucio sam," I think. Who is the "I" who has made the decision?

A. The corps commander.

Q. So this document, let's go to the last page, which is unsigned so far as a handwritten signature is concerned, but is typed "the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija" is a document of the corps command, and we've finally got there, have we? Joint Command equals the military command.

A. Yes.

Q. So to review the position, and this may be contrary to things you said before, the Joint Command is actually the military; is that it?

A. Let me say one thing at the outset: You are speaking much too fast and you are trying to say a great deal. Let me clarify one thing. I have been saying throughout that the Joint Command does not exist in the sense that you are trying to present. There was only one coordinating body there, and that was the Joint Command. The words "I have decided" mean it was decided by the corps commander. Look at tab 359.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it that you wish to point out in tab 359?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one point. This is my analysis or, rather, my report on the assignment I had received, and you can see ⁴²³⁴⁷ where it was sent, the command of the Pristina Corps, no Joint Command. I think that is clearly written here.

So I received an order. There is reference to the Joint Command indeed in the order, and I explained why, and I'm not challenging that that is so. But this reference, "Strictly confidential 455/63," that is the number under which it was registered in the Pristina Corps command, in their office. So when the whole thing was over, I did not report about it to the Joint Command. I reported about it to the command of the Pristina Corps, as you can see from tab 359.

MR. NICE: Mindful of the fact that the witness is to deal with another matter at about half past one, I want to deal with a short point now, a general application.

Q. Mr. Delic, you've got the "As Seen, As Told" document in extract form down there. Is that the only extract you've got or have you got the whole "As Seen, As Told" book with you?

A. I don't have the whole book. I took out only the bits --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. No, I don't.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Well, I'm trying to tell you. I received that book for a very short time in 2001 or 2002, I don't remember any more, and I copied the part that relates to my municipality, the municipality where I spent some time. That is Prizren. I know what the cover page looks like.

Q. Did you ever read the book or try to read it in Serbian?

A. I have read most of what has to do with Kosovo and Metohija. And ⁴²³⁴⁸ the rest, concerning areas far from my area of responsibility, I did not read.

Q. And this is a book written by a Natasa Kandic, you say, is it?

A. Well, look. This is a book of the Humanitarian Law Foundation, and the main person in that foundation is Mrs. Natasa Kandic.

Q. It's quite right that she's the main person in the organisation. And you're saying that that organisation wrote this book; is that right?

A. If you look at the footnotes, I believe she used a lot of data collected by others, because I can see a lot of information comes from Albanians who had left Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. Mr. Delic, if you'd actually read the book, you'd have discovered that all that Natasa Kandic's organisation had done was to translate it, and that's why the version you've got -- can you lay it on the overhead project, please, just the page that's there. If Mr. Delic picks it up from down there on his right-hand side, or if Mr. Prendergast does, turn over to the next -- second page, Mr. Delic. We can see it, just put the top of it on the overhead projector and we can all see that the book has on the left-hand side the fund, The Humanitarian Law Fund, and then on the right it has "As Seen, As Told."

But if you'd actually read the book --

A. No, that's not true, Mr. Nice. On the right-hand side, it says: "Section 5, Kosovo municipalities and settlements."

Q. Now just go with me, please, through these statements that I asked you to describe. Remember I asked you to describe how your colleagues' statements were taken earlier today. Would you go, please, to tab 362. ⁴²³⁴⁹ The last paragraph of it.

The Court can see it on page 2. This is one of the proffered statements from -- this time from Zlatko Vukovic, and he says this: "I read something about the crimes in the book "As Seen, As Told" published by Humanitarian Law Centre. Since I am disgusted by the author and the fabrication she sets out in the book, I didn't finish reading it."

Would you go on, please, to tab 363. At the foot of the page, last paragraph of the statement of Major Janos Sel. Second line: "I read about it in a book published by The Humanitarian Law Centre entitled "Kosovo, As Seen, As Told."

364, please. Captain Elifat Feta's statement, another of the statements that's been offered as exhibits in this case. Last paragraph again: "I first heard about the crime allegedly committed in Bela Crkva in late 2001. I read about it at greater length in Natasa Kandic's book "As Seen, As Told."

Paragraph 365, please -- tab 365. Last paragraph of the statement offered of Oliver Ilijevski. Second line: "I later read about it in greater detail in Natasa Kandic's book "Just told them what you saw." And then if we go on, please -- oh, there's another statement from the same chap Vukovic, at 369, where he says he was disgusted by Natasa Kandic, and there are more statements to the same effect. None of the statements that you seek to produce reveal that the readers -- the writers, I beg your pardon, have actually recognised that the book they're quoting was never written or produced by Natasa Kandic, ^{42350 BLANK PAGE 42351} it was simply translated by her, and it's actually a book of research by OSCE. Can you explain that to us in light of what you remember you told us about how statements were prepared?

A. There's nothing peculiar about that. What people wrote here is what they thought, what they meant. They said that it was the first they heard of those crimes, alleged crimes, since the time the indictment was brought, and they first read about them when this book became available, and it became available through the Commission for Cooperation with the ICTY.

In my personal view, this book is very biased. You can read in it only views of one side, and there is all sorts of nonsense here, and I can prove it at any time, as soon as you give me the opportunity.

Q. I'm going to suggest to you that none of you, it would appear, can conceivably have read this book. You may have been provided with excerpts from it but none of you actually read it, because, although it may have -- and that's why I asked you for the front page -- it may well have Natasa Kandic's organisation's logo on the front in some way, and I just don't know to what extent, once you read it, it's clearly -- it's got a foreword by Justice Louise Arbour, it's got a summary, and it's clearly an OSCE document, and were you -- that's one point. And were you aware indeed that the same organisation published another document, called "As Seen, As Told Part 2"? Were you aware of that?

A. I heard about that one too. However, you just showed a book --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. That's not the one. Part 2 deals with crimes perpetrated after ⁴²³⁵² the arrival of KFOR, as far as I know, and those crimes include those against Serbs. At least part of them.

MR. NICE: I see the time, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, are you suggesting then that these persons never read the book at all?

MR. NICE: Well, I'm drawing to the Court's attention the recurring similar entries in the statements and the fact that if anybody had read the book you could never have thought that it was written other than by the OSCE. That's my point.

As to precisely what explains these curious entries, I can go no further than ask the questions I've asked.

JUDGE KWON: And can I go back briefly to tab 356. General -- General, could you look at the --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let Judge Kwon ask his question first, Mr. Milosevic. Then you can comment.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 356. Could you read the last paragraph, bullet point 13, so that I can hear the interpretation of B/C/S into English.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Coordinated action with MUP forces concerning the issue of preparation of combat activities is to be organised before commencement and during the execution of combat operations. With all forces in the course of executing combat operations, command and control is effected by the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija from the region of Pristina."

JUDGE KWON: Why did you need that last sentence, and what did it ⁴²³⁵³ mean?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, this is not my order. It's the order that came from Pristina. My order is under one of the following tabs, and my order never mentions the Joint Command.

JUDGE KWON: So your answer is you don't know.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, my answer is not that I don't know. I explained more than once how I understand the term "Joint Command," what it means to me.

JUDGE KWON: Why is this last sentence necessary?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, General Pavkovic, who was corps commander then, is here. I as brigade commander have been trying to explain this for days. The Joint Command existed because in 1999, we, the brigade commanders, did not go all together to Pristina to prepare coordination for a certain action. This order was sent down to the MUP, and it was sent down to my unit as well. I received it together with all the other mail, and before that I received a call from the corps commander telling me to prepare my unit for upcoming operations.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And this is a separate matter, but I didn't intervene at the time to not interrupt the flow of evidence. In one of your answers you said that your family is now refugeed in Serbia. I'm not clear about that. If you clarify briefly.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, my family used to live in Kosovo. After these events, they left Kosovo, and the exact status they have is called something different. They are called temporarily displaced persons, but they have been temporarily displaced since 1999. The entire ⁴²³⁵⁴ property we owned in Kosovo was either destroyed or taken over by some Albanians.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just one more thing: I owe an answer to Mr. Nice, who alleged that my officers did not read the book. That is absolutely not true. The book we read has different cover, different binding than the one I just saw in Mr. Nice's hands, and the book my officers read looks a bit different.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I've already indicated that so far as I know, but I haven't got a copy, it has somewhere on the front, and I don't know at what prominence, a mark for the Humanitarian Law Fund. That's all I know about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Milosevic, do you still have a point to make or has it been covered? If it has, then we can hear from the general about his research overnight.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only wanted to object to Mr. Nice's allegation that the book was written by OSCE. With all my experience and age, I still can't understand how OSCE can write a book. It's the same as saying that any document sent by whoever and published by the United Nations was written by the United Nations.

MR. NICE: We have some information about the book. It's in evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. General, you did some work overnight in relation to Mr. Ashdown's evidence, and would you like to tell us now what you found. ⁴²³⁵⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, first of all, let me place this map that I received from Mr. Nice. It shows this same pointer stopped at Pecani village. Can I remove this now? Could I kindly ask you to let us see the video footage again today, and I'll explain why.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. If the control booth can identify the video, then it should be played.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And if possible, could we freeze at two points.

Could Mr. Nice possibly remember the day when this observation took place.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask if there is another case here this afternoon? Yes.

MR. NICE: I think the second observation was on a day about, but I'll try and get the exact date, the 20th or a little later, in September. That's my recollection, and I'll just check if I've got it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We need the exact date.

JUDGE BONOMY: Which one are we dealing with, Mr. Nice, do you know?

MR. NICE: The second one, I think, is the one the witness is concerned with.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's on or after the 26th of September.

MR. NICE: Indeed. I've got a copy of Lord Ashdown's published diaries, which refer to the 27th. So if that's material, I think it's probably the 27th, according to that book. At least for part of his ⁴²³⁵⁶ observation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, the tape is -- the tape is ready now.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] While the tape is being prepared -- "A. So I was positioned approximately here, near the village of Pecani. The -- as we calculated, the guns that were firing were up here, in the area of Blace. The villages we were looking at were the villages of Budakovo, which is here, through to Vranic, which is over here, Macitevo, which is here, and Kruscica, both Gornja Kruscica -- Gornja Kruscica is up here and Kruscica is down here."

MR. NICE: And Your Honour, before the witness goes on reading through the diaries, it may actually not have been the Sunday but the Monday because the diaries begin with an explanation that he was going to find out what happened on the Suva Reka.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Delic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We should need to go on viewing this film. Could we freeze it at the point when Lord Ashdown is watching through binoculars.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right here. Right here, please. Mr. Nice, do you know what kind of binoculars Mr. Ashdown is using? What are its specifications? And could you please just pay attention to one thing: Above the arm of His Lordship, this area here, that's some sort of woods, you can see the road down there below, this is very important, Mr. Nice. It's very important for me to know the type of ⁴²³⁵⁷ binoculars. Is it the military type of binoculars, and what kind of lens, what scale, and what is the magnifying power?

MR. NICE: It comes as no surprise -- ah, there we are.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here. It's important for me to know the type of equipment.

MR. NICE: I'm afraid it's not matter of expertise for me. I know nothing of this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that as far as you can take it, then, Mr. Delic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can we go on with the film, and then when it ends I will say. Can we see those houses in flame.

[Videotape played]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I would like to know one thing: Was the TV crew positioned next to Lord Ashdown when they were filming this? This TV crew that filmed the lord, did they also film this house in the village, and which village was that?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, those are all questions that I'm afraid I'm not in a position to answer. I can -- it's a BBC film. It was a BBC film of the visit, and --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This footage can be relevant only if it was filmed from the point from which Lord Ashdown was observing. What am I trying to say?

We can switch it off. We don't need it any more.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is -- ⁴²³⁵⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Okay.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, this is a map that I made last night. It's a copy of a map that we have seen here, and as you can see the scale, topographic map 1:50000, Prizren-2, number 680-2. This is extremely important. Mr. Nice uses maps of unknown scale. Even the one we just saw a moment ago has an unidentified scale, and it's misleading me, the Trial Chamber, and everybody else. One of the principal characteristics of a map is the scale, because based on the scale you can deduce other things.

The next thing Mr. Nice's map is lacking is the topographic feature. And when we are dealing with such sensitive issues, we should be using topographic maps of 1:50000 to 1:100000 scale. Last night I came to the conclusion that the maps used by Mr. Nice are approximately 1:250000 in scale, and they don't show relief.

Mr. Ashdown pointed certain villages on the map. Since I didn't know where exactly he was standing, I assumed he was standing near the mosque in Pecani village, at an altitude of 480 metres. Let me just note that Mr. Ashdown was enjoying at the time the hospitality of our country whereas Pecani village was under terrorist control. So Mr. Ashdown mentioned the following villages: First, Macitevo village, which is about 13 kilometres away from the point where he was standing. The next one was Vranic village. It is at a distance of 10.5 kilometres. Next, Donja Kruscica, seven kilometres away from him. Next, Budakovo village, nine kilometres away. And he mentioned Gornja Kruscica at a distance of 10.5 kilometres from the place where Lord Ashdown was ⁴²³⁵⁹ standing.

So I tried then to depict this in a different way, assuming that he was in Pecani village. And by the way, I wanted to know the exact point where he was standing in order to make a topographic analysis of what was visible to him. But please, look: Pecani village, Vranic village. Vranic village was mentioned. I will show you how this looks in terms of altitude.

Again we used this map and this scale. This is the mosque in Pecani village, altitude 480 metres, approximately. At a distance of 800 metres towards Vranic village, we have a feature. So at a distance of 800 metres from the mosque we have a feature, trig point 551. At a distance of seven kilometres, we have trig point 959. At a distance of 8.5 kilometres, we have a point at an altitude of 600 metres. And at nine kilometres we have a feature 751 metres high.

So if you're standing here, in front of you is this hill. Then it's followed by valleys at Sentra [phoen], then Vranic 680 metres altitude. In front of Vranic is something that is 750 metres high. So from this point you cannot see Vranic village.

I made the calculations. From this point Mr. Ashdown could see the industrial part of Suva Reka. He couldn't see Suva Reka, he could see the industrial area of Suva Reka. He could see these villages here going south towards Prizren. He could see a part of these villages to the south-east. And as for Macitevo, he could see only those things that are at an altitude over 1.100 metres.

In Budakovo, which consists of five mahalas, he could see only two ⁴²³⁶⁰ mahalas. The camera, if it was positioned here and if it was filming the first village here, Popovljanje and Dvorane with a mixed population Serb-Albanian, they are at a distance of 10.5 kilometres. That's why I would need to know which camera was used, because to film something that is 10.5 kilometres away and to see the windows on houses is simply impossible.

Binoculars would have to have a range of 13 kilometres. All that seems impossible.

I agree that up here on this territory there are points from which you can indeed see part of territories that are higher than what you can see from Pecani village.

MR. NICE: With that in mind, it might help the witness that if this in fact the 27th of September, and the diary of course was not written for precision but if it was the 27th of -- for precision for Court purposes, it was precise for other reasons no doubt -- he describes heading south-west for Djakovica, rising up escarpment out of the town, stopping at a rubbish tip, and back up the hill in the sunlight, rounding a spur to see the whole of the Prizren valley. He could see -- the valley, he could see village after village burning. That's how he describes it in the book.

I suspect, although I don't want to interrupt this long answer if it's helpful to the Court, but I suspect that if it's material, we have to get some more detail in one form or another from Lord Ashdown, and I'm sure he'll be prepared to provide it, 92 bis or in person.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It seems to me that everything depends on ⁴²³⁶¹ exactly where he was at the time.

MR. NICE: I don't think, incidentally, there's any suggestion that the -- that the burning window was necessarily part of the same sequence as the vision from a distance. It was simply part of the BBC's film.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Delic, we have taken some time with this now. Are you concluded? Because we are really beyond the time. I think we have the gist of the point that you wanted to make.

MR. KAY: It was just one matter for clarification; whether we could be advised whether the burning window and building was inserted into the film at that point. That would be perhaps a useful matter of clarification that wasn't dealt with as part of Lord Ashdown's evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, my conclusion is this: I completely challenge Mr. Ashdown's statement. What Mr. Nice just said, that he could see the Prizren valley, I completely agree with that. I say that he could see the entire Prizren valley as well from the area around the village of Pecani, but he could not see part of Suva Reka towards Budakovo, which is where the last stage of the anti-terrorist operation was under way. So my conclusion is that I cast absolute doubt on Mr. Ashdown's statement and testimony.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We have that. I'd like to extend my apologies to the Krajisnik Trial Chamber. My colleagues will endure with me the raps on the knuckles which I undoubtedly will receive for this administrative breach. We are adjourned ⁴²³⁶² until Monday, Monday afternoon, 2.15.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.59 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day

of July, 2005, at 2.15 p.m.