Milosevic Transcript 2005-09-29

⁴⁴⁷⁶⁵

Thursday, 29 September 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9:20 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Just, with your leave, a couple of points. I'm still hoping to be able to establish a final position on the positioning of Gegaj and Kamenica, but I haven't yet been able to resolve it this morning. If I resolve it before the witness goes, I'll let you know. In fact, Gegaj is shown in Exhibit 83, but not Kamenica. It's on page 9 at D-20.

The only other thing I draw to your attention is this: At an earlier stage in the re-examination of this witness there was reference to the Rules of Service. We've checked. They have not been produced in evidence. We have, however, located them, quite a voluminous document, and having a copy printed in both English and B/C/S of those Rules of Service in case they are of any value to the parties or to the Court. I've already made my position on their legality and constitutionality clear in cross-examination, but the document themselves will be available and may perhaps be considered by a later witness. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's for you to re-examine on these matters if you wish.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, certainly. Certainly, Mr. Robinson. I'll take it in the order in which Mr. Nice asked his ⁴⁴⁷⁶⁶ questions and put them to General Delic, and I just have several questions, in fact.

WITNESS: BOZIDAR DELIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Further re-examination by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] General, a number of witnesses before you and you yesterday were asked by Mr. Nice a question linked to the 30th Personnel Centre. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, I do, Mr. Milosevic.

Q. Yesterday, at my request, I received from Mr. Nice a document which was sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro, and in that document we have annex number 4. That is the document I received yesterday. And I'd now like you to quote just a few portions marked in yellow from that document.

So could the document either be placed on the ELMO, on the overhead projector, for General Delic to be able to read what it says in the highlighted portions, although it would be a good idea if he were to read it all, but to save time, the yellow portions will suffice. I'm afraid I don't have a copy in my hands any more, but I would like to ask General Delic to give us the number on the page he's reading from, the ERN number. Otherwise, it has been translated.

A. 03651994 is the number, the ERN number.

Q. General, would you read out the highlighted portions, please.

A. "In the area of the former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, there were about 1.800 persons serving there who, from ⁴⁴⁷⁶⁷ the time JNA dislocated from Bosnia-Herzegovina, had citizenship of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and who were born on that territory, so that pursuant to a decision on dislocation, they had to stay in that area because the condition to move over to the FRY was the possibility of gaining citizenship of the Republic of Serbia or the Republic of Montenegro, which would be a precondition for joining up with the newly created army of Yugoslavia."

Second paragraph: "However, on this occasion there was a great problem of livelihood for the former members of the JNA who had to stay on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The largest number of families of these individuals, because of the war and the fighting on the territory of the former Yugoslavia who came under the rule of the Muslims and Croats found safety and refuge in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as refugees. In the meantime, there were certain -- they had conditions for accommodation and their children started going to school in new schools." "In view of the fact that these individuals were not able to retain their membership as members of the Yugoslav army and that with a situation of this kind they found themselves in a situation which they could not get out of, a solution was found to set up a separate organisational unit, Military Post 3001 Belgrade, that is to say the 30th Personnel Centre in which person -- exclusively persons who had been members of the army of Republika Srpska worked." Next page, please.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I don't know quite the basis for this re-examination. I'm not going to stand in its way if the Chamber thinks ⁴⁴⁷⁶⁸ it's helpful, but the Chamber will remember that this is a document that the witness knew nothing about yesterday. I asked him simply whether he knew that a response to an RFA, a request for assistance, about the 30th Personnel Centre had been prepared by the commission. I suggested that it inevitably had been. He didn't accept that. Of course, I didn't advance one second that this was a reliable document; the reverse. So what the -- what the witness is simply being asked to read out is a document provided in answer to an RFA of which he said he knows nothing. But it's up to the Chamber.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Nice is saying that the question doesn't arise out of his further cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the contrary, it certainly does arise from that, because you will remember full well, I assume, that yesterday Mr. Nice asked a series of questions about the 30th Personnel Centre and that the witness gave answers in principle but without having a concrete text. So I'm showing him this concrete document from the Foreign Ministry in order to be able to ask him whether that is what he was saying in his responses yesterday without having the grounds for doing so on the basis of this document.

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't understand the objection. Plainly the aim of referring to this document was to find out if it explained the 30th Personnel Centre, and here we have the passage which purports to explain it. It's perfectly legitimate re-examination, as far as I see.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Continue, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. ⁴⁴⁷⁶⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Would you go on, please, the beginning of the next page.

A. "The basic and sole task of the 30th Personnel Centre was the administrative preparation of documents regulating the material position of the families of the above-mentioned individuals as well as their social welfare insurance, and health insurance. Although this Personnel Centre had its headquarters attached to the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, it was not within the organisational composition of the army of Yugoslavia but made up a separate, independent organisational entity. In the centre were exclusively members of the army of Republika Srpska worked who during -- in their work used data and records that the personnel department -- administration of the General Staff disposed of for all former members of the JNA. The basis of the authority and competence of the 30th Personnel Centre was as follows: To keep reports of all professional soldiers, officers, non-commissioned officers in permanent service by contract and not on the basis of contracts who from the former JNA remained within the composition of the army of Republika Srpska and were previously serving in the garrisons of the JNA on the territory of that republic," and none of the rest has been highlighted.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters have a copy in English placed on the ELMO, please. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Keeping records of professional soldiers and civilians working in the former JNA who originated from the former Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and were doing their service in other republics of the SFRY, keeping records of military personnel born on ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁰ the territory of the former Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, records about the members -- family members of former JNA members born in BH and with residence in the former Yugoslavia, and administrative work with respect to material and social welfare of these individuals and health insurance and other questions of livelihood for the families of the former members of the JNA."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreter asked for a copy in English.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The copy in English was attached to the document. It was the first document. Might we have a reference?

MR. NICE: They do have them in yesterday's pile of papers, I understand, but it may be not very easy to track them down. The way they'll be able to find them, I think, is that it's attached -- it's attached to the response of -- dated the 21st of November, 2003. So it's underneath a letter that is dated the 21st of November, 2003, the liaison officer of the ICTY, Belgrade.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I hope that assists the interpreter in finding the document.

Mr. Milosevic, I think it is time to -- for you to put a question now.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more paragraph at the end, which was highlighted in yellow, and I've just seen it on the ELMO. Might General Delic be allowed to read that, too, for all of us to see?

JUDGE ROBINSON: One more paragraph, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "It is important to mention that the ⁴⁴⁷⁷¹ Federal Republic of Yugoslavia nor the army of Yugoslavia on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina after May 1992 had any military formations nor did it in any way take part in the combat on that area -- in that area."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, what it says here in this document, does that coincide with your knowledge about the 30th Personnel Centre in a general nature?

A. Yes. As I answered generally speaking yesterday, the centre did exist for the status of individuals to be solved, questions related to their status, whether they originated from the territory of Serbia and lived over there or whether they originated on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because the continuity of the Yugoslav People's Army was transferred to the army of Yugoslavia, and all these personnel documents and files were there.

Q. Thank you, General. Now, do you happen to know, in view of the fact that we have explained here about the personnel files, health insurance, social insurance, and all the benefits, do you know whether the army of Yugoslavia, the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia or any other organ of Yugoslavia, or Serbia or Montenegro for that matter, ever issued any kind of order to the army of Republika Srpska and could it indeed issue orders? Did it have authority to issue orders to the army of Republika Srpska at all?

A. I don't know about that. And the army of Republika Srpska, let me say, was a separate army. I don't think anybody from Serbia could issue orders in view of the fact that that other army had its own organisation, establishment, and its chief of the General Staff and Supreme Commander. ⁴⁴⁷⁷²

Q. Thank you, General. That will be sufficient with respect to that particular document.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Now, gentlemen, I should like to mention that Mr. Nice knows full well what the 30th Personnel Centre was because he received this piece of information in 2003.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we don't need comments at this stage.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just let us take a look at a few other matters. In yesterday's set of documents provided by Mr. Nice, in tab 3, as far as I can see, yesterday you were shown a document which relates to --

MR. NICE: It may have been in closed session yesterday.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It wasn't in closed session, no.

JUDGE KWON: Are you referring to Rules of Procedure?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. "Rules of Procedure pertaining to the Commission's work of the General Staff of Yugoslavia and Federal Ministry of Defence relating to cooperation with the Hague Tribunal." I don't think we discussed that in closed session yesterday.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, it was in open session.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, on page -- on page 7, there's a chapter relating to legal assistance, "Providing Legal Aid" is the title. Do you know if this committee ever provided me with any legal aid at all?

A. As far as I know, it did not. However, I sought legal aid from ⁴⁴⁷⁷³ this commission, or committee, whenever I had any contacts with the investigators. For instance, I asked to be accompanied by a legal advisor working in that commission. Usually I was accompanied by General Bojovic [as interpreted].

Q. Thank you, General. Now, take a look at tab 1, please, which was not a protected document in any way, and would you read out the preamble.

JUDGE BONOMY: Did you say Gojovic or Bojovic?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Gojovic.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. The transcript is wrong. Thanks.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just the preamble of tab 1. It's just three lines long.

A. "For the timely assurance of the necessary conditions for performing certain obligations of the Federal Defence Ministry and the General Staff of the army which emanate from the establishment of cooperation between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Hague Tribunal and in -- in agreement with the federal government, the following decision is made."

Q. The decision refers to the establishment of this expert committee; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, was that committee established to help me in any way or for the reasons stipulated here?

A. For the reasons stipulated here, that is correct, certainly. So the committee was not established to give aid to any individual at all.

Q. Thank you, General. Let's just have a look now. Let's have a ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁴ look at another document. Please look at tab 8, because my name is mentioned in it. Yesterday, Mr. Nice showed you this document as well during his cross-examination.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 8. Put the English on the ELMO.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Tab 8.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've found it, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just read out the first sentence, please. What does it say here? "After ..."

A. "After the trial of Slobodan Milosevic started before the Tribunal in The Hague on the 12th of February, 2002, inter alia also for the crimes allegedly committed by members of the JNA or the army of Yugoslavia in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo and Metohija, the Commission of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia and of the Federal Ministry of Defence for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal --"

Q. There's no need to read on. Does this pertain to me or is simply a reference being made? You read out the wording there, "crimes allegedly committed by the members of JNA or, rather, the VJ."

A. That was my understanding, also on the basis of the request that the Commission for Cooperation sent to us as commanders, namely, that we explain through various documents certain allegations contained in the indictment pertaining to the territories where we were.

Q. Please read out the first line in the second paragraph. It's just a line and a half.

A. "The Hague Prosecutor's presentation of numerous inaccurate and ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁵ biased information as evidence for the Prosecution ..."

Q. Thank you. As for the facts that were presented here, you say that there were numerous inaccurate and tendentious information --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... line of questioning that the Chamber's going to indulge.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I'm going to ask you just to make a submission to the Chamber on that -- on that matter. What is your submission as to what this document says? Very briefly.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This document, let me tell you very briefly, shows that the task of the commission is to present truthful facts. That became necessary because, through the media and following what was going on here, they came to the conclusion that untrue facts were being presented. So the commands in charge and the military organs in charge were asked to present the facts as they were, and all of that should be documented as well.

Is that a sufficient explanation, Mr. Robinson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: In relation to any particular individual charged by the -- by this Tribunal?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No. No. In relation to any fact which is being presented and which is not true, because the point is to present the actual facts with regard to everything that is being referred to. You see that it was from Mr. Nice that people heard about these allegations, and of course then they ask commanders to say what it was that actually happened then and whether that was correct. And as you could see, none of it was correct. You heard General Delic himself for ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁷ his own area of responsibility.

MR. KAY: It has to be said the Prosecution objected, but the accused was reading from a passage of the document. It's the top of page 2, so it was a perfectly valid question.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. It wasn't on the ELMO at the time. Probably that's why the Prosecutor did not see.

Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Please look at page 2 and look at paragraph 1. What does it say there: " ... relevant to the authentication of truthfulness and validity of the facts and other issues ..." Is that what is referred to, General?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. Are those the exact words used in the text?

A. "To ensure ... the timely provision of all relevant data and suggestions by VJ members, which are relevant to the authentication of truthfulness and validity of the facts ..."

Q. Thank you. Thank you. Then in paragraph 2, it says, inter alia, that there should be expertise, under (a), and documents from the archives of Yugoslavia that would refute any allegations made in respect of any current or previous members of the army of Yugoslavia. Any allegations, any accusations --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you must allow us to find it in the English. We have to follow the proceedings.

MR. NICE: Page 305 --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Page -- ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁸

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 2(a), Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who are the addressees of this document?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The document is addressed to the Chief of Staff -- of General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, by the commission. The witness can tell you. I don't have to respond to that. It's on page 1. The Commission for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal of the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia. That's what it says. They sent this to the chief of General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia, this particular piece of information.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In subparagraph 2(a), does it not say that this refutes the incorrect allegations made for any current or former member of the army of Yugoslavia? So what is the task of the commission? What is it that the commission does? Does it collect facts or does it invent things?

A. On the basis of this valid documentation, on the basis of what these persons or, rather, these officers have to state, either as eyewitnesses or direct participants. There should be an answer, and the incorrect allegations made should be refuted in this way for every former or current member of the VJ.

Q. All right. Could you now please look at tab 9, which was also shown to you by Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm not dealing with all the tabs. I'm only dealing with what Mr. Nice put to the witness. ⁴⁴⁷⁷⁹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice particularly asked you why the commission, because again we are talking about the Commission for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, why the commission took steps, as he explained it, to make it impossible for persons to make voluntary statements to his investigators. Now, I am asking you to read from page 2, the last paragraph before the section on Providing Legal Aid.

Please, is the word "voluntary" written here or is the word "arbitrary" written here? Please read this out to us. Does it say "arbitrarily" or "voluntarily"?

A. Are you referring to the last paragraph before "Providing Legal Aid"?

Q. Yes.

A. "Measures have been taken to prevent the arbitrary going and giving of statements to The Hague Tribunal office in Belgrade ..."

Q. All right. Since you're not supposed to testify about that --

JUDGE BONOMY: Who's translation is this, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: This is a draft translation provided -- it's a draft translation provided by the office.

JUDGE ROBINSON: By the office?

MR. NICE: Yes, yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's an unfortunate error here.

MR. NICE: Well, I'll check and see whether it's an exact translation or not.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's have the interpreters -- ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁰

JUDGE KWON: We can put the B/C/S version on the ELMO.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And ask the interpreters to say whether the correct interpretation is "voluntary" or "arbitrary."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters said "arbitrary" and "arbitrary" is indeed the word that was used.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. It's a very bad mistake, Mr. Nice, because it gives a completely different sense to the passage.

MR. NICE: I will, of course, look into it. All I can say is that the documents arriving when they did, despite the timeous nature of the request, are subject to the best facilities we can make available where resources are not limitless. There it is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic, continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I hope that this is sufficient. Just one more question in relation to this.

Since you are a top general in terms of your training and education, do you know of a single army where arbitrariness is allowed?

A. Of course not. There is anarchy where there is not discipline. There can be no arbitrariness.

Q. At the very end of this document, as Mr. Nice suggested to you or, rather, he asked you to look at it just before the conclusion, Mr. Nice quoted the last bullet to you. Can you see it?

A. "Cooperation was established and exchange of data and experience ⁴⁴⁷⁸¹ with the representatives of the army of Republika Srpska as regards cooperation with The Hague Tribunal until and after their law on cooperation with the Tribunal was passed."

Q. He asked you about established cooperation. And now please go back one page. What is the title of this paragraph where this bullet is contained?

A. "Exchange of Information and Cooperation."

Q. So Exchange of Information and Cooperation. And then there are one, two, three, four, five, bullets. Mr. Nice quoted the fifth one.

A. Yes.

Q. And what does number four say? What does the fourth bullet say? Let us take things in Mr. Nice's order, because he quoted only the last one. What does the fourth one say? Because this has to do with the exchange of information and cooperation, these five bullets.

A. "Daily contact and cooperation have been established with the military-historical institute as well as with the military archives in Belgrade for the purpose of rendering assistance to accused persons from the army and from the Federal Ministry of Defence using the documentation for the preparation of defence before The Hague Tribunal."

Q. So cooperation with military archives in order to have documents provided. Is that the point?

A. Yes.

Q. And what about before that? What was said in the previous bullet, "Regular cooperation and data exchange --"

A. "Regular cooperation and data exchange with military-judicial ⁴⁴⁷⁸² organs in Belgrade, Nis, and Podgorica has been established, as well as with --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to ask you to read more slowly, for the benefit of the interpreters, and both of you to observe the pause between question and answer.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] " ... as well as with other competent courts which have taken over the further conduct of criminal proceedings from the military courts for criminal acts committed in Kosovo and Metohija during the NATO aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What about the previous page? There are two bullets that pertain to cooperation. What does the first one say? Take it in order, the second one and the first one, because we're doing it in a reverse order anyway.

A. "Contacts have been established, opinions and experiences exchanged with several professors from the Faculty of Law in Belgrade and Novi Sad in order to get information which could increase the level of cooperation with The Hague Tribunal in relation to the VJ and the Federal Ministry of Defence."

Q. What does the first bullet say?

A. "Cooperation with state authorities that are in charge and some ministry departments in the Federal Government has been established." In parentheses, it says, "the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice." ⁴⁴⁷⁸³

Q. So what does this section called "Exchange of Information and Cooperation" have to do with? And Mr. Nice quoted only the last bullet to you that had to do with the army of Republika Srpska.

A. It has to do with the most important contacts with state organs and institutions that may be of assistance in ensuring the highest quality of work of this commission.

Q. Thank you, General. This is what I wanted to deal with in relation to this commission. I just sought explanations for what Mr. Nice quoted and nothing else.

And now the other subject that Mr. Nice dealt with. That is in relation to Paddy Ashdown's report. The report was from 1998, but before I go on to ask you questions about that, I'd like us to see a short video clip from that visit.

I should like to ask the interpreters to interpret. I can't hear the interpretation.

[Videotape played] "That's yours? That's an AK47?

"That's his. "Does he know where it came from? Do you know where it came from?

"He bought it. "He bought it.

"He doesn't know from where. He just bought it. "How much can you buy --

"-- military secrets. The commander said that they gave the ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁴ reference to somebody else.

"It's okay."

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could the interpreters interpret into Serbian, please.

[Videotape played] "I'm sorry, I didn't ask him questions like that. What is the -- have they had any [inaudible]?

"They came [inaudible], they didn't get [inaudible]. There was always firing from a distance.

"From a distance. "Yeah.

"Simonov. [Indiscernible]. "1890 [indiscernible]. Single round. [Indiscernible] magazine, you put your round in, it's a hunting weapon.

"Sniper's rifle. "That's a Simonov, and this one also. [Indiscernible]. Glad you know what you're doing.

"[Indiscernible] in this room. "Shot by you. [Indiscernible] useless, but this one isn't. There's a round up the Chamber.

"This one [indiscernible]. "This one is very serviceable. And there are some rounds here. This one you can use straight away.

"[Indiscernible]. "That one's not been used for a very long time. This one is ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁵ usable now. [Indiscernible] That one's [indiscernible] condition. This is a Simonov."

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that the tape is partly in Albanian and partly in English.

[Videotape played] "[Indiscernible]. Probably.

"This is a -- "This guy doesn't know because [indiscernible].

"That's an assault rifle. [Indiscernible]."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, how much longer is this tape?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just a few more minutes, please.

[Videotape played] "Absolutely right. There's the safety catch there. Yeah, that's the safety catch there. Probably [indiscernible]. Look at that one. What's in those, do you know?

"[Indiscernible]. "[Indiscernible] too close to them because -- let's see. I will just be careful not to move it around too much.

"[Indiscernible]. "Second World War ones.

"[Indiscernible] Serbian [indiscernible]. "Be very careful with handling these. Very careful. I wouldn't move them. I'd leave them with [indiscernible]. We will try to [indiscernible] International community. You can tell him I will be reporting to Prime Minister Blair on Wednesday and I will do everything I ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁶ can. Tell him we can't -- you know, it's a scandal that the international community [indiscernible]. And I can't promise -- be careful of this. And I can't -- and I can't -- I can't promise, but we'll do the very best we can. Prime Minister Blair sent me out here to look. "Thank you very much.

"Let's go. Please be careful with these, very, very careful. These are not --

"In an hour they're -- they're going. "Very, very careful with these. [Indiscernible] good with weapons, but this is --

"[Indiscernible] He has -- forces [indiscernible] America. We have nothing to --

"I promise you we will do everything we can. My purpose here is to try and make sure that the international community notices. "There's no [indiscernible]. Until he kills us, he's [indiscernible] again and again. [Indiscernible]. "Good luck."

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you heard Mr. Ashdown say that it was a scandal for the international community that they had such poor quality weapons. Now, tell me, please, General -- and then he mentioned Blair, that he would do everything in his power for them to receive proper weapons. So what did the KLA use -- who did the KLA use these weapons against, especially in those years?

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I make it clear, I didn't hear that. ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁷

JUDGE KWON: Yes, I didn't hear that either, and I wonder how it arises from the cross-examination of the Prosecution.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, it arises --

MR. NICE: Probably doesn't. I wasn't going to object because I have no desire to protect anyone, particularly a public figure, from what this accused may seek to put in for fear of it being thought I'm trying to protect someone. It doesn't seem to me to arise. First of all, the accused hasn't identified the particular date of the visit or the film or its provenance, and as far as I can see, so far he hasn't asked anything that would enable the witness to identify anything from it, but --

JUDGE BONOMY: Is that film not a Prosecution exhibit?

JUDGE KWON: Is it not part of 76?

JUDGE BONOMY: No.

MR. NICE: I don't think so. We'll hear what the -- if it is, I'll let you know, but it doesn't -- doesn't occur to us.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Of course not. Of course not. Otherwise, it was provided. You saw the date. The 22nd of September, 1998, is the date. Mr. Ashdown was reviewing the weapons of the terrorist organisation, explaining to them what could be used and what could not be used, that they should be careful in using the weapons, and that it is a scandal that they have such poor quality weapons, that Tony Blair had sent him, and so on and so forth. So the arming of terrorists, killing civilians and soldiers and policemen, one can see that, and he is looking through the weapons and says, "You can use these, you can't use these," and so on. ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁸ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁷⁸⁹

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... designed to have a certain effect. I would ask the Chamber to confine him to proper re-examination, if he can make any through this -- this exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, put your questions to the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, it is true that it is my intention to create a certain effect, because what we see here is a scandal. And it is September 1998. What Paddy Ashdown is doing --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I cut you off there, Mr. Milosevic. I have cut you off. Put your question to the witness. And remember, no leading questions.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, this is the 22nd of September -- or was it the 28th of September? I'm not quite sure of the date. I mentioned it correctly a moment ago.

A. It is the 28th of September.

Q. Right, the 28th of September, then. Now, what were you able to conclude, seeing this piece of footage?

JUDGE BONOMY: I don't consider that a proper question in re-examination, or indeed a proper question at all to put to this witness who is not familiar with the video.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Nobody is familiar with the video. Now everybody has become familiar with it.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Now, General, the reports and testimony of Paddy Ashdown, did they relate to that period of time and the descriptions that you saw on the ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁰ maps when he spoke about certain activities on the part of our army and police in the area of Suva Reka or some other localities in Kosovo and Metohija? Do those dates coincide?

A. Yes. Those are precisely those dates, because Lord Ashdown spoke about the 27th and 28th of September, 1998.

Q. On the 27th and on the 28th of September, were there any attacks launched by the terrorist KLA organisation on the organs and police in Kosovo and Metohija?

A. As far as that particular region is concerned, that is the Suva Reka area, during that period of time in the area of Jezerce, Budakovo, or along the Sar, Mount Sar Planina, the fifth stage of anti-terrorist operations, or the final stage of anti-terrorist operations was underway because in that area there were about 2.500 terrorists present. That is a rough estimate. A few days ago I gave you the correct figures. So there were attacks on the army and police along other axes.

Q. Now, during that time when Ashdown was in Kosovo, can you roughly tell us how many civilians were killed, civilians and soldiers killed by the KLA, who fell casualty to the KLA? During that time when he was doing this review of weaponry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that doesn't arise. Ask another question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. If it doesn't arise from the cross-examination, then -- well, that's correct, actually, directly, but not indirectly. It's not indirectly correct. So I'll just be asking a few more questions, then, relating to Ashdown and this report of his. ⁴⁴⁷⁹¹

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. At one point in time you explained to us that one of the maps was a forgery, was false, and that it was done to make it coincide with Paddy Ashdown's report, and Mr. Bonomy cautioned you and said that the first part was a legitimate answer, and as to the second part, you had no grounds to claim that that was done to coincide with the Ashdown report. Now, after this video, do you have grounds to say that that forgery was made to coincide with Ashdown's --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Don't answer that question. It's improper.

MR. NICE: The accused has already made it clear that he's using this process of re-examination to great effect. He knows he's acting outside the rules.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're monitoring it, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I would invite the Chamber either to bring it to an end or get Mr. Kay to conclude the re-examination. That's what he's here for.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're monitoring the re-examination, Mr. Nice. Mr. Milosevic, next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So you're being prohibited from answering that question. Now, I'll just go very briefly through the three sets that were presented to you yesterday by Mr. Nice, indicating just a few points, the first few pages, in fact. Location 1, it says south of Junik there. And it says that the witness, that is to say Ashdown - I assume you can see that - that he was able to see two points from that location. One is Moloc, ⁴⁴⁷⁹² Brovina and Ponosevac, which is where they were located, and the road towards the east, road to the east on which the villages of Nivokaz, Stubla and Berjah were located, and that he also saw a number of soldiers of the army of Yugoslavia, including APCs, tanks and mortars which were attacking from the road, and that he also remarked that he saw tanks --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, ask a question.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Well, that is what Mr. Nice put to you yesterday. Now, what is written here with respect to this location south of Junik, is that correct?

And before you answer the question, we have something that was not shown you by Mr. Nice in the right-hand column where it says "Remarks." Ashdown notes that he was using [In English] "binocular to observe engagement." [Interpretation] No, that's not important. I was going to refer to something else. Notes. I wasn't thinking of that remark. That's not an important remark.

Anyway, answer this question, please: What was described here, is that correct?

A. I have already said, and I have material proof to bear it out, that that is not correct.

JUDGE BONOMY: This has all been answered in great detail. How can the witness expand on what he has already very clearly stated in relation to all three of these scenarios?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you were being advised by a professional advocate, you would be advised not to re-examine on this. ⁴⁴⁷⁹³ There is nothing for you to re-examine on. You can only harm your case.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson --

JUDGE ROBINSON: If you listen to the further cross-examination, you would see that there is nothing for you to examine on. Your re-examination up to ten minutes ago was quite good. If you have no further questions, you should stop, or you will be stopped.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, all right. Well, just -- just something more and then I'll stop.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. On location 2, west of Suva Reka, you've explained everything to us about that, I'm not going to ask anything about that, you explained it all to us yesterday. I just want to hear your comments about the remarks there. It says "Remarks" in the right-hand column. "[In English] Ashdown notes [Realtime transcript read in error "knows"] that the attack was utilising --" Notes. Notes [Interpretation] Notes. It doesn't say "knows," it says "notes."

"[In English] Ashdown notes that the attack was utilising the full range of weapons available to an armoured brigade." [Interpretation] That's the remark that's contained on this page that Mr. Nice showed you. He notes that the attack was utilising the full range of weapons available to an armoured brigade.

A. There was not a single armoured brigade there. I was there with my unit, only with part of my unit, at that, a smaller part of my unit, namely less than one battalion strong. There was also part of the 243rd Mechanised Brigade. The rest were MUP forces that had light weaponry ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁴ only.

Q. Regardless of what you've said just now, that there was a lot less there, on the basis of anything that he could have seen there, could Ashdown have come to the conclusion that it was a full-range attack of weapons available to an armoured brigade?

A. I've already said that he was so far away that he could not have drawn that conclusion in any way.

Q. And if he were nearby, on the basis of the forces that you are talking about and on the basis of what they were doing, could he draw that kind of conclusion, that an armoured brigade was taking part in these activities?

A. Even if he were within the unit itself, he could not have concluded that kind of thing. That kind of conclusion would not be true.

MR. NICE: Conclusions, speculation, I don't know what else.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Trial Chamber will give what weight it considers appropriate to that answer.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. General, at one point when you were answering Mr. Nice's question you said that the video films were taken from the territory of -- of Yugoslavia, not the territory of Albania, where Ashdown was. On the basis of what have you been saying that?

A. Mr. Milosevic, I was responsible for the border, from the border between three areas; Montenegro, Kosovo, and Albania, and all the way down to Peskovi with the border of Macedonia. I was there several times. I ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁵ was there countless number of times. I know exactly what can be seen from this territory. However, even this presentation of location 1 that was done by Mr. Nice's team shows that what was said on the footage was visible actually is not visible. And Kroni is 350 metres into our territory by the patrol path.

If I can show it on the ELMO, you can clearly even see Mr. Nice's team, that they did that, too, and even on what they did, you can see that that was the case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Delic, I'm interested to learn what precisely in the video film makes you conclude that it was taken from the territory of Yugoslavia and not Albania where Ashdown was.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I'm saying that I was at that place a countless number of times. A countless number of times I viewed the territory of Metohija. I know exactly what one can see. As for this place where the video was filmed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That doesn't explain it to me. What is it in the film? What's the physical feature or why do you come to that conclusion?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you see, the film was taken for a purpose, and then villages are shown; Molic, Brovina, Ponosevac. That is to say that the person who was doing the filming came to a place that is in our territory from which he can film these villages as they can be seen. These villages cannot be seen from that point where the lord claimed that he was.

Then this presentation was made, that the lord was 350 metres into our territory. That was absolutely impossible, because the lord would ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁶ have been arrested the very same instance, and he would have been brought into custody by the border organs.

What is presented here is impossible. Mr. Robinson, our organs monitor the state border. It is impossible to present things this way. It lacks seriousness, perhaps I should put it that way. That someone was on the border viewing Gegaj -- may I just show this, Mr. Robinson, may I show it here so that you can see it clearly as well? Mr. Bonomy yesterday --

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... in relation to this point, if it's to confirm what you just told me.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, precisely. That's what it refers to. Can it be focused a bit?

If you look at the area of the village of Batusa, yesterday Mr. Bonomy also noted but on the other picture, see, Batusa has a red line. You see nothing.

Molic, again a red line. And there's only a green line at one particular place. I was there. My unit was there in Molic. So even this was not done properly.

Then Nivokaz. They said that partly it can be seen, partly it cannot be seen.

Then Brovina, that it cannot be seen. So that's what Mr. Nice did. He confirmed that it could not be seen. And that half of Ponosevac can be seen. I said that even from that position, that highest position, you can see the part around the school and around the poultry farm. ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁷

JUDGE BONOMY: Yesterday, Mr. Delic, you wanted to reject these maps out of hand as amateur maps to which no regard should be paid at all. Do you now want to rely on them?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't want to rely on them.

JUDGE BONOMY: Okay, that's --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But certainly --

JUDGE BONOMY: My second question is this: What you didn't see on the film, what none of us saw was the starting point of the filming of this particular one, but we were told that there was a reference to a grid by the use of a GPS system. Now, that would tell us whether or not it was in Serbia or in Albania, would it not?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, that doesn't mean anything.

MR. KAY: I'm sorry, because it -- the filmer said that the Albanian border was behind him, and it's on the transcript. We've just found it.

JUDGE BONOMY: So what are we arguing about? Nothing.

MR. KAY: It was a simple answer to the question from the Bench, and I was just checking my memory and Ms. Higgins found it, but the filmer said the border was behind him.

JUDGE KWON: So the place that Lord Ashdown was is one thing, and the visibility from that place is another.

MR. KAY: It's still there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Have you now concluded?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question. ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁸

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, if what you are claiming is brought into question, would you accept the following possibility: To go to the site itself with the representatives of the other side and to see the grid references contained in all of Lord Ashdown's statements when he testified here - that's the first one - and the second one that is referred to later when he went 300 metres further up? Would you be prepared to go for this kind of on-site investigation?

A. At any point in time. Even without a GPS I could go there and I could show them what could be seen from any position. I am ready to go at any time.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to the personnel files, Mr. Robinson, I'm not going to put any questions to the general, because this 30th Personnel Centre was explained here, and that just proves that these records were kept there and nothing else.

So I have concluded the re-examination, and I wish to thank General Delic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, the maps that I drew and that I stand by, although they were done by hand, not by a computer, I guarantee their correctness. I would like them to stay. If the other maps are contained in the evidence, why would the maps that I did personally not be part of the evidence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I think that this is perfectly proper, and I ask that this be admitted into evidence. ⁴⁴⁷⁹⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Before the witnesses go -- witness goes, there is one issue that can resolve -- be resolved, and that was Exhibit 76, which is headed -- a title concerning refugees, actually has at the beginning of the exhibit clip film taken by Lord Ashdown of what he was viewing of Suva Reka. That was shown in the Court on the 15th of March, and transcript page 2358 shows that.

We have had a clip of the proceedings of that passage of testimony burnt onto a DVD which they've got in the booth here, and in my submission it would be appropriate to deal with this aspect of the matter, to put that film which was taken by Lord Ashdown from the location he said he was to this witness so that General Delic can deal with that location and position.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been put forward by the Prosecution earlier in this dispute, or any other party, but we've checked it through, we've seen how matters have developed, and it would be, in our submission, appropriate for him to comment on Exhibit 76, which was shown in Court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm quite happy for that to be done.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is there a reason why it wasn't done?

MR. NICE: There's not time to do everything --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, but why are we sending investigators away to take other films when there is one that shows where he was standing?

MR. KAY: This is Suva Reka rather than Gegaj that is shown, but it was Suva Reka. ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁰ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸⁰¹

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, all right. But we've seen two -- hold it. We've seen two films, haven't we, of the area of Suva Reka?

MR. NICE: Yes.

MR. KAY: In the passages --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Kay, please.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. KAY: We've got Exhibit 76 has the clip right --

JUDGE BONOMY: No, but yesterday's films. There were three films shown yesterday.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Two of these related to Suva Reka.

MR. KAY: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's my question. Why have we got an investigator going and taking films and presenting them when there is in existence a film of what the witness claimed to be seeing at the time?

MR. NICE: That covers one of the sites. What we did was --

JUDGE BONOMY: Just deal with that site, then. Why send an investigator to the site to take more films?

MR. NICE: The exercise was done for completeness. Everything is being challenged. Lord Ashdown was asked the precise positions that he could recall, they were then verified by the investigator --

JUDGE BONOMY: Did you overlook the fact that there was in existence a film?

MR. NICE: No, I didn't overlook the fact that there was in existence a film. ⁴⁴⁸⁰²

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I must say that that is something I should have known or omitted to recollect but would have liked to know that before making a decision about whether the additional cross-examination on that material should have been allowed.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry about that. That relates to one site. But I'm perfectly happy for it to be played.

MR. KAY: It's in the booths, this clip, and ready to go. They've got it there if the Trial Chamber would like --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let it be played. It's time for -- well --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: In light of the time, I think we'll adjourn and deal with this afterwards. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10:35 a.m.

--- Upon resuming at 10:58 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, yes.

MR. KAY: The technical booth have prepared a clip of the exact moment in the proceedings, when it was produced and what was seen, so what went into evidence. And if that could be shown now and then General Delic asked to comment on the location and the activity that was happening there at that time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Let it be played.

[Videotape played] "MR. NICE: It lasts about three minutes, and it may be that, providing there's no sound coming over, you'll add the odd comment to it as it's coming, but it will largely speak for itself, I think. ⁴⁴⁸⁰³ "Question: This is you, of course, with binoculars. Now, at what are we looking here?

"Answer: You're looking at villages in the area, which I can point out to you later on the map, but roughly the area between Suva Reka and Budakovo, and the villages are being fired --

"Question: Just pausing there. My screen is almost impossible to see.

"Answer: Yes, as indeed is -- "Question: -- is the same. It's too light. Perhaps the booth may be able to help. I'm not sure.

"Answer: Yes. That's better. "Question: Thank you. So here you'll be able to point out the villages.

"Answer: I think they're self-evident there, the ones that are burning. We're looking across the Suva Reka valley and you can see various villages burning, to the left and in the centre of the screen now. We were able to see -- this is one of the houses taken later in the day. We were able to see in amongst those fires the burst of shell-fire. I should point out --

"Question: What are we looking at here? "Answer: This is really the following day.

"Question: Let's pause there for a minute. "Answer: I wish perhaps to come to this on the following day. "Question: Thank you. Just pause there. We'll come back --"

MR. KAY: Thank you. Should I ask the questions of General Delic? ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Questioned by Assigned Counsel:

MR. KAY:

Q. General Delic, you saw the video clip there that was an exhibit in the case produced on the 15th of March. Are you able to comment on the location where Lord Ashdown was when he was looking across the valley there in Kosovo?

A. Lord Ashdown said that he was near the village of Pecane. This is the same footage that was already shown to me once here in the courtroom where the location of the village of Pecane is shown. That's the first part of this footage.

In this first part, there was also the part that I brought into question when I said that that house in flames cannot be seen from there, and that window too. Now I heard that that was filmed the following day, which is to say that the first part is the 27th and the second part is the 28th. However, on the 27th the lord says that he was in Studencani and that he was at the feature called Grab, above Studencani. This footage was shown to me the first time as if it were near Pecane. The second day you can see that it's raining - that's the 28th - and you can see people who are seeking shelter from the rain. I know that during those days --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Delic, I think Mr. Kay wants you to use your experience of visiting the area so frequently to tell us where Lord Ashdown was from your judgement, having looked at the film. Or have I misunderstood the question? ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁵

MR. KAY: Absolutely right, Your Honour.

Q. Ignore the burning house. Lord Ashdown dealt with that in evidence. Ignore the refugees. Just concentrate on the first 20 seconds where we have a picture of Lord Ashdown with binoculars, we have a picture of green fields, valley, and geography of Kosovo. Are you able to recognise where that precise location was? He described it as being between Suva Reka and Budakovo. Do you disagree with that?

A. As for what you said just now, you probably meant something different. Lord Ashdown certainly could not have been between Suva Reka and Budakovo, because that is in the opposite direction. Lord Ashdown is to the north-west of Suva Reka, somewhere between Studencani and Pecane. Lord Ashdown certainly could not be facing Budakovo, because you see in front of you on this footage a village, and you see part of Suva Reka, which means that he was to the north of Suva Reka, or north-west, rather.

Q. I'm reading from his evidence before the Trial Chamber, and he described it as roughly in the area between Suva Reka and Budakovo. We saw in the picture smoke coming from locations, villages. Would that area be between Suva Reka and Budakovo?

A. Yes. Then you didn't put your question right to me a few moments ago. What is seen in the front, this smoke, is the area between Suva Reka and Budakovo. In that area there was fighting, and Lord Ashdown is opposite Suva Reka.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you tell, General Delic, from this whether he's in Serbia or Albania? I'm sorry, yes --

MR. KAY: Yes, Your Honour. That issue doesn't arise on this. ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁶

Q. You described earlier today of there being operations conducted by your force in the region between Suva Reka and Budakovo. Was that what we were seeing --

A. Yes.

Q. -- in the film shot in September by Lord Ashdown?

A. I have already said today that part of my forces were there fighting, but there were other units of the Pristina Corps there as well. Since my units were on the axis Musutiste-Macitevo, that part could not be seen because it's much too far away. As for the refugees, during our combat activities I found a large number of refugees in the woods, and we kept some of them there until aid and food arrived from Prizren, whereas we sheltered another part of the refugees behind our lines. What I can say for certain is that the refugees were never attacked by the army. And there was a concentration between Macitevo, Vranic, and Bukova Glava, a concentration of refugees in that gorge. There were so many of them that it took us several hours to take them back to their original locations, but first we had to wait for aid from Prizren to arrive; flour, food, medical teams, et cetera, to assist the refugees.

MR. KAY: Thank you. I have no further questions, and I think that deals with the matter.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Delic, can you see the still or the clip which ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁷ appears on the ELMO right now?

A. Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Are you in a position to be able to tell us what is the location where Lord Ashdown was at that time, given your experience?

A. He is north-west of Suva Reka, somewhere close to Pecane village probably.

JUDGE KWON: To the direction of Pecane?

A. Well, Pecane should be behind his back, a little further to the north.

JUDGE KWON: So if you could indicate the place in -- using this map. Number 2, somewhere there.

A. Pecane is here, and he was somewhere around this.

JUDGE KWON: From there, can you see Budakovo?

A. In the material that I already worked on, I've pointed this out. It's about 11 kilometres from Budakovo. There are several little townships, mahalas, in Budakovo. Part of Budakovo can be seen.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. KAY: The next clip is the Suva Reka-Budakovo clip. There's obviously been an intercut of film.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I only wanted, Mr. Robinson, to finish things concerning the exhibits now. This film that I've shown, depicting Paddy Ashdown inspecting the weapons of the KLA, I wanted it exhibited. It was filmed on the 28th of September, 1998.

MR. NICE: I don't see how it's relevant. It doesn't arise from ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁸ any questions that I asked. I don't think it's relevant.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we are not with you on that one. It's not linked to anything, it doesn't arise, so we'll not admit that. Mr. Delic, that concludes your testimony. Thank you for coming to the Tribunal to give it, and you may now leave.

[The witness withdrew]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, yesterday you said that at the end of this examination the issue of exhibits related to 3-D images would be resolved, as well as exhibits --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm going to deal with all issues now, Mr. Milosevic, related to exhibits. So let me begin. Exhibits related to the testimony of Mr. Delic. And I should say that there are so many that I don't want to take up the time of the Court with the numbering at this stage. That can be done, we'll just deal with those that are admitted and not admitted.

I will deal first with a reconsideration of items used during cross-examination and already admitted. First, the photograph and video interview of Nura Nurejeva, the woman interviewed in Exhibit D300, tab 476. These were inadvertently admitted. They had not been tendered for admission by the Prosecution and therefore they are not admitted. Next the statements of Lulzim Kolgjeraj, Mihill Bezhi, and Llesh Lekaj were inadvertently admitted. They had not been tendered for admission by the Prosecution and they are not admitted. General Delic's war diary is marked for identification pending ⁴⁴⁸⁰⁹ translation.

It was not necessary to admit the BBC video clips because they are excerpts from Exhibit 15 and they are not separately admitted. Clips 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 15 from the programme "Serb Version of the Split" were inadvertently admitted. They had not been tendered for admission by the Prosecution and are not admitted. I turn next to items used during re-examination on the 20th and 21st of September. The topographical manual that accompanied the 3-D pictures of Lord Ashdown's sight lines will be marked for identification pending translation and will form part of the same exhibit. Ian Hendrie's statement is already in evidence as Exhibit 214 and therefore need not be admitted.

Similarly, William Walker's 92 bis statement was already admitted as Exhibit 228 and therefore need not be admitted again. The three pictures and the extracts from the book "Atlantic Brigade" are admitted, as well as those parts of Wesley Clark's book referred to.

General Delic's order dated September 25, 1998 is admitted. I turn next to exhibits related to the testimony of Mr. Seselj. The transcript of Exhibit 873 is admitted under the same exhibit number as the video clip.

The revised transcript for Exhibit 887 provided by the Prosecution is admitted and will replace the current version of the translated transcript.

I turn next to the Commission for Cooperation documents produced ⁴⁴⁸¹⁰ by the Prosecution.

Mr. Milosevic, are you in agreement with these documents being exhibited, or are you in a position to --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do not oppose the admission of these documents at all, but I would like the document referring to the 30th Personnel Centre admitted as well. I did not deal with the documents that Mr. Nice did not raise. I didn't want to waste time in redirect. I wouldn't have been able to deal with them in redirect.

JUDGE KWON: The question was whether you would agree with the admission of those documents among those Commission for Cooperation documents which were not dealt with by Mr. Nice during his cross-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I cannot answer that question because I haven't dealt with these documents at all.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Then we'll admit only those dealt with by Mr. Nice. That's tab 3, 4, 8, 9.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. And Mr. Milosevic dealt with tab 1 in his re-exam, so those parts will be admitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Lord Ashdown documents, the three location bundles and the two maps, plus the video of Investigator Kelly, we'll not admit that.

Mr. Nice, do you have submissions on that?

MR. NICE: Yes, I'm concerned about the commission documents because although they were put in tab form for the convenience of dealing with them, they were a single -- the reason I put them all to you and made ⁴⁴⁸¹¹ the point that they may yet be incomplete is because they constitute the response of the authorities at the moment to the overall request for commission documents. And the Court will also remember that I urged you to consider the appropriateness, if you're not going to exclude certain documents of Delic, of being able to make written submissions on the totality of these documents to which I confined myself to half an hour's cross-examination, and I would urge you to say with these documents, which are documents that come from the authorities and therefore don't need production by a witness - the fact they came from the authorities doesn't necessarily make them accurate and so on but they -- that's their provenance - I would urge you to admit the documents as a whole because -- and the fact that I only asked questions about a limited number of pages shouldn't compromise that application.

JUDGE KWON: Is there not an opportunity for you to deal with the remainder of the documents at a later stage?

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, there may be. It depends what witnesses come and what priority I give to questioning of witnesses when time is always short. But the reason that the documents are valuable, and you'll remember yesterday that I explained when the accused made an interruption, that yes, the documents contain language of the kind he was identifying today. I accepted that and knew that. But if the documents as a whole need to be reviewed for the effect that they may have on the admissibility of evidence or the weight to be attached to evidence, then it's desirable that they should be admitted as a whole now so that I'm not, as it were, obliged to go through all the other ones with some other ⁴⁴⁸¹² ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸¹³ witness in order to have them admitted.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the decision's already been made and announced, but even reconsidering it in the light of what you say, this is not the Prosecution case, it's the Defence case, and you cannot just throw a bundle of Prosecution material in and expect it to be freestanding in the context of the Defence case. So I can see no basis for the approach that you're suggesting at the moment.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm sorry that Your Honour takes that view, but this is material that arises for the purposes of cross-examination. It would not have been possible, realistically, to, even if we had access to it, to lead it in our part of our case because it wouldn't have been relevant. It arises strictly in relation -- at this stage it arises strictly in relation to the admissibility of Defence exhibits under the rulings that this Court has made, and how can I deal with that -- that it goes to the credibility of the witness, well, that's another matter, but it relates to the admissibility of documents produced by Defence witnesses. It comes as a result of efforts made with the authorities, which were arguably thwarted or in any event nearly thwarted by delay, and in my submission it's material that the Chamber needs to have for the purposes of evaluating the material the witness Delic offers and making the decision whether it should be admitted into evidence.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, give me an example of a document you say has been presented by the Defence that we need these documents to assess the significance of.

MR. NICE: It's been my argument that those post facto documents, ⁴⁴⁸¹⁴ the 2002, 2003 documents, clearly produced with this litigation in mind and on Chamber's own rulings about admissibility of hearsay documents, therefore in contravention of the rules for admissibility. I made that point, I hope, clearly before. And I'll add to it by reminding the Chamber that there is still outstanding the issue of why this witness didn't produce the various contemporaneous documents that were available to him and not available to us despite our RFAs. Why is it that we're relying on statements of his, or the accused through this witness is seeking to rely on statements produced for the commission made in 2002, 2003, not relying on the contemporaneous war diaries and communications of one kind or another?

We know as the Prosecution now, and we accept this, which is why I haven't asked for things to be put into evidence, that if I produce material that's been produced for the purpose of this litigation, like, for example, the statement of the woman and her daughter, which explains how it was that she gives a hearsay account that isn't allowed in, I know that I won't be allowed to put that evidence in because the Chamber will turn to me and say that's produced for this litigation, therefore it's not admissible for some reason. That's fine.

JUDGE BONOMY: But that argument's still available to you but the difference with this witness is that he was there and he is speaking from personal knowledge. So there's that mixed in with the material that you're referring to.

MR. NICE: That problem -- that difference may arise for some of his evidence, and his answers are of course before you, but maps which ⁴⁴⁸¹⁵ were produced by others than himself and witness statements, or what purport to be witness statements produced by others, in my respectful submission, completely offend the Chamber's own ruling, which we now absolutely understand and with which we willingly comply. So that this material which tells us so much more about the VJ commission, and there may be more to come because there are going to be more RFAs sent to flush out material that should have come the first time and hasn't come.

For example, let me just give you an example of -- if I can just get hold of my documents somewhere. I have just a couple -- there was a passage that I didn't take you to in one the other documents, but I must tell you what it says. It's in tab 10, on the second page, under paragraph 5, the tasks of the expert team. Where it sets out the task of the expert team at tab 10, page 2, and it says: "Monitoring and analysing documents and data from the indictments of the Prosecution of The Hague Tribunal against professional VJ members and retired officers, preparation of proposals for defence and rebuttal of allegations in the indictments in the form of professional expert testimonies based on the documentation, preparation of documents regarding the events on the territory," and so on.

So there is an expert team, whose composition hasn't yet been provided to us, preparing documents to rebut allegations in the indictments. And that is just another of the matters revealed here that we need further information about, and of course obviously we're going to seek further information (redacted) which you -- I'm ⁴⁴⁸¹⁶ sorry, could that be redacted? That's at the moment --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: The two plans referred to. So in my submission, the Chamber is ultimately going to be assisted, both in relation to admissibility of documents through this or other military witnesses, and in relation to assessment of the value of documents by knowing what function the commission served, filter or otherwise.

JUDGE BONOMY: All you say may well be true, Mr. Nice, but this is not the way in which to introduce it, in my opinion. If it's not actually used in cross-examination, then it must be another stage and not this one that the Prosecution use to bring this material before us.

MR. NICE: Well, the liberty of one -- of 30 seconds. I have used the material. I've been provided with what is said to be a complete collection of material. If I put it in as a single tab rather than tabs for ease of handling, I could have said, This is the material I've been provided, this tells me all that is available from the authorities about this commission, please look at these pages. In my submission, that would have been an entirely appropriate course to take, and I would urge the Chamber to admit it all.

While I'm on my feet on this topic, if there is a similar application or consideration made in relation to another collection of materials that might have to be dealt with in private session, I would repeat those arguments with the same force, and also urge the Chamber to have in mind the good order and ease of handling of material is much easier if material goes in once and doesn't have to be added to. It goes ⁴⁴⁸¹⁷ in once and is there.

JUDGE KWON: How about marking them -- marking the remainder of the documents for identification until the issue would be resolved at a later stage?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, a very sensible -- not for me to say that. Yes, it's a proposal that I can understand. The only problem with it is if I'm given leave to argue from the documents about issues of admissibility, I would need to have access to all of them, and I forecast that the accused would likewise want access to the material in toto because, as I heralded and as he explored to a degree this morning, there is language in the material which would suggest, of course, a contrary conclusion to that which I invite, another reason for looking at the material as a whole and seeing what, as a whole, it shows.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, let me just ask you again so that we can be clear: Are you in agreement with the admission of the Commission for Cooperation documents in their entirety?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, because I haven't had time to read them even. And Mr. Nice hasn't asked questions about these tabs. And let me remind you that when I skip some tabs, even by mistake and don't ask any questions about them, you don't take them into consideration. I don't see why you would take into consideration the documents that Mr. Nice did not cross-examine on. One more thing, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We reaffirm the order made earlier in ⁴⁴⁸¹⁸ relation to that. It's only tab 3, 4, 8, 9, which was actually used, and tab 1, which are admitted.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please, I'm not clear about the fate of this exhibit that I received from Mr. Nice yesterday that relates to the 30th Personnel Centre. It was quoted from and it was on the overhead projector. Mr. Delic read from it. And Mr. Bonomy just said it was related to --

JUDGE KWON: We'll come to that. That's -- he's referring to the letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, explaining about that institution.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me just clarify that. It's only those parts in tab 3, 4, 8, 9, and tab 1 which were actually used that are admitted. The 30th Personnel Centre, the letter, the explanation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that's admitted. As well as the hand-drawn maps of the witness Mr. Delic.

Private session, please.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁴⁸¹⁹

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm looking at your ruling in respect of clips 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 of the programme The Serb Version of the Split.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE: The position, I believe - Ms. Dicklich is just checking it because we didn't know in advance we'd have to deal with this, they having been admitted - but I think the position is this that I put the clips to the witness and indeed he acknowledged seeing the television programmes concerned, most or all of them, and acknowledged a programme ⁴⁴⁸²⁰ had been made, and I think it may have been inadvertence, it might have been a desire to save time, that I indicated we were going to put that question of applying for them to become exhibits at the end of the evidence of the witness, and that of course, I suppose, would be now unless there was an earlier occasion when we argued about admissibility. And it's our submission that I think he acknowledged seeing these clips at a contemporaneous stage, all bar a couple, but it looks as though His Honour Judge Kwon may have a more detailed and immediate record of what he acknowledged seeing and what he didn't. And it would be our submission that certainly for all those that he acknowledged seeing, then they should be admitted into evidence in accordance with your --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider that.

MR. NICE: I'm much obliged.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Our records indicate that clips 11 and 15 would meet the requirements for admission.

JUDGE KWON: It was not clear to the Chamber whether the Prosecution sought admission of those clips, but once it is clear that --

MR. NICE: From all those that he acknowledged, and if I can have the opportunity this afternoon --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit clips 11 and 15.

MR. NICE: I'm very much obliged. I don't know if the Court's finished with this issue of exhibits -- sorry, in which case I'll sit down.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I said I've already dealt with the Ashdown ⁴⁴⁸²¹ documents, the three location bundles, the two maps and the video of Investigator Kelly.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, we're reconsidering the Ashdown documents, the three location bundles, the two maps and the video of investigator Kelly. We didn't give you an opportunity to make submissions on that.

MR. NICE: Well, I'm very grateful. I indicated yesterday that the most I would seek to adduce was the three maps and possibly the video, the video on the basis that the witness has given answers about it, some acknowledging that it shows the potential to see things that can be seen, some otherwise. And it may well be that it is appropriate, and I so invite the Chamber to say that that video should now be admitted. As to the maps, it appears that some shortcomings in the maps were being both asserted and established. For example, I know His Honour Judge Bonomy thought that he could see -- I say thought, explained that he could see something on one of the maps, I think the visibility of Suva Reka, probably, inconsistent with what was shown on the video, and at that stage I was disposed not to press their admission into evidence although I had earlier asserted that they should perhaps be treated sauce for goose, sauce for the gander. That would remain my position, subject only to the use that's been made of the maps this morning by the witness and indeed his answers to Judge Bonomy who sought clarification of whether he was relying on them or seeking not to rely on them.

I'm content, of course, for them to be produced as exhibits if ⁴⁴⁸²² they're going to help the Chamber, recognising that they are computer generated documents, and in the same way as I was able to make comments about what I thought were the computer generated documents on which the witness Delic was relying, there it is.

So I would apply for the video to be exhibited. I'm content, if it would be helpful, for the maps to be exhibited and can see that it may be appropriate if the Chamber wants to review the answers given about them by the witness in due course.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, on this, on the question of --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The witness challenged the videotapes and established that they had been filmed from the territory of Yugoslavia, so that they have nothing to do with the positions at which Mr. Ashdown was. Now, if Mr. Nice would like to have that admitted into evidence, that is to say that Ashdown wasn't telling the truth, I have nothing against that, but those videotapes are worthless. And in addition to that, the maps for which Mr. Nice -- which Mr. Nice would like to tender, the witness established that one of them was false, a forgery.

JUDGE KWON: We are talking about the computer generated maps which were attached to each -- each paper in relation to location 1, 2 and 3.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can't state my views about any computer generated maps. You should have asked the witness that while he was here. I'm really not an expert in that type of map.

JUDGE KWON: So you do not oppose to admitting them. ⁴⁴⁸²³

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] If you say that the maps are all right, then I have nothing against them, but I doubt -- very much doubt that, in view of what the witness said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. We'll admit the two maps on Suva Reka, the computer generated maps. We'll not admit the video of Investigator Kelly.

JUDGE KWON: The two maps referred to location 2 and 3.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I was not able to conclude from all your quotation -- from everything you said from the exhibits, were the 3-D maps, three dimensional maps admitted with the differences in altitude? Because you just mentioned the topographical data, not the 3-D maps. Were they admitted as well?

JUDGE KWON: It was announced yesterday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we admitted those.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, in connection with the question you asked me on the brief closed session we had, 22nd closed session, I would like to say something with respect to that, so I assume we should go back into closed session. Just 20 seconds.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is this about? Okay. Let's go into closed session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁴⁸²⁴ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸²⁵

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁴⁸²⁶

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE: Three points, actually, because I recognise the difficulties that have been caused, developed with the numbering of the production of exhibits, often as a result of good intentioned efforts to ⁴⁴⁸²⁷ speed the process up, but Ms. Dicklich, who has to deal with the consequences of any difficulties or confusion, reminds me that it makes life much easier if, as the more recent practice has been, we deal with them always one at a time as they come to be dealt with, and I would ask that we carry on in that way.

Two other points. One, so far as titling of exhibits is concerned, the document of explanation about the 30th Personnel Centre may have been provided by a letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but that should -- in my submission, in the way it's titled in the exhibit list not contain within it the suggestion that it's the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who wrote it. Indeed, I'll return to that issue. It's a anonymous document, undated and unsigned, and I'll deal with a later witness of how it actually came to be prepared. It wasn't provided in the sense of written by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The last point is this: Just a matter of correction dealing with Exhibit 76. Memories can play tricks with us all. When my learned friend Mr. Kay said he was surprised that the exhibit hadn't been dealt with before, and we all worked on that basis, in fact, it had been the subject of cross-examination by me on day 398 at 11.51, and he went through it and then the whole issue turned in his answers to questions about it being a forged video and whatever else. So it had been dealt with there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Nice. Are we in open session? The witness Janicevic should now be brought into Court.

[The witness entered court] ⁴⁴⁸²⁸

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Janicevic, you remain subject to the declaration that you made.

WITNESS: BOGOLJUB JANICEVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, please. Examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]

Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Janicevic.

A. Good morning, Mr. President.

Q. I'm just going to remind you that we interrupted your testimony while discussing a series of tabs that related to the question of the goals and features or, rather, the targets of the attacks, where they were targeted, and we went through a series of tabs and stopped off with tab 27, Exhibit 27. So can you find that, please, in the binder containing the exhibits. Tab 27.

A. I apologise, but I've brought in a certificate regarding the signatures that were illegible. The Judge asked for them. A certificate and confirmation.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Kwon will recall that he asked the witness to identify the signatures done by authorised personnel, signed by authorised personnel on one of the statements, and Mr. Janicevic is going back to that question. So he wants to clear that up before we continue.

JUDGE KWON: If you could remind us what the tab number was again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think tab 26.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. At the end of tab 26, you will ⁴⁴⁸²⁹ have -- find three signatures, and you gave the witness authorisation to check that out, because the signatures were illegible. So you asked him who the people were, and he's checked that out.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, please go on. You can put that on the ELMO. Yes, Mr. Janicevic.

THE WITNESS: I received this confirmation from the Secretariat of the Interior of Urosevac, which is at present located in Leskovac, and when an investigation was conducted, it was established that Perica Djordjevic and Milan Zivic are the signatories. They are employees of the state security in Urosevac.

JUDGE KWON: Are there not three signatures at the end of tab --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two signatures. It looks as if there are three but in actual fact there are two signatures because one of them is the same person signing twice.

THE ACCUSED [Interpretation] Or rather, we can see from the second signature, Mr. Kwon, that it is one signature written in larger letters. First of all, you have one on one line and then another one across sort of both lines.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

JUDGE KWON: Would you like to exhibit this certificate was well?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Well, as it is a component part and procured at your request, then it should be admitted within tab 26 because it relates to the signatures in tab 26 and you asked for identification of the authorised people who ⁴⁴⁸³⁰ signed it.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. 26.1. Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, in tab 27, and the date there is the 12th of March, 1999, it is the SUP of Urosevac, is this a document signed by you? Take a look at the next page.

A. Yes, I signed that document myself.

Q. And is it a document of your Secretariat of the Interior, and to whom is it arrested?

A. Yes, it is a dispatch sent to the staff of the MUP of Serbia.

Q. This dispatch, does it relate also to terrorist attacks and activities on the part of terrorist bands in your area during the material time, that is to say the middle of March 1999?

A. Yes, that's right. This is a dispatch informing the MUP that observation posts were attacked on the 12th of March in the Dubrava area, on the left-hand side of the main road, and a column of the Yugoslav army moving towards the border, and that, to protect the army, a reinforced patrol intervened, special police units moving in the same direction. And in the first part of the dispatch it says that on the 11th of March, in the first part of the -- or, rather, paragraph 2 is says on the 11th of March, the police who were in a patrol had observed individual verifiers in the SUP of Urosevac area, or more exactly, towards Strpce, that they were measuring the bridges. They did this throughout that area, one particular group of verifiers; not all of them, a group. Tunnels and bridges, and they were determining the GP points, GPS points. ⁴⁴⁸³¹

Q. And why do you consider that to be important?

A. I consider it to be important because an aggression against the FRY was being prepared.

Q. In this document, do we also have a list of individuals who were taken into custody, taken to your secretariat on suspicion of being members of the KLA?

A. Yes. Individuals were apprehended who were found in the combat area zone of the KLA and the KLA fighting the army and police, and we can see that almost none of the individuals here were from the village of Dubrava itself, which is where they were passing by and where the terrorist attack was launched. They were from Sulejman Ajdari, Reka, and so on, villages two and a half kilometres away from Dubrava. Kovacevac is about 3 kilometres away, south of Dubrava, for example. Then Sulejman Berisha, also from Suva Reka; Sakip Mulaki from Gajre. Gajre is 5 kilometres away from Dubrava. Sabri Karaci, from Kovacevac, about two and a half kilometres away, and so on and so forth, not to have to go through the whole list. But all these individuals had permanent residence outside the Dubrava area, where is where the attack was launched, and they were suspected of being KLA terrorists.

Q. Now, in this document do we see information relating to the kidnapping of anybody?

A. Yes, there is information about a kidnapping, and you'll find that on the second page. An individual taken into custody or, rather, an individual who reported and said that they escaped from a car involved in a accident and had previously been kidnapped, and the man was Agim Idrizi. ⁴⁴⁸³²

Q. Pause there, please. Agim Idrizi, the man who was kidnapped, judging by the name, he was an Albanian; would that be correct?

A. Yes. He was an Albanian from the village of Laniste in the Kacanik area, municipality.

Q. All right. Let's be as brief as possible. This report that you signed speaks of a terrorist attack against the army and the police and the kidnapping of Albanians in that area in mid-March 1999.

A. That's right.

Q. Would that be the gist of your report, the one that you're presenting here?

A. That's right.

Q. Thank you. Now, let us look at tab 28. Is this a dispatch of yours?

A. Yes. This is yet another dispatch of mine in which I informed the Ministry of the Interior, the crime police administration, the police administration, and the operations centre about what happened on the 8th of March, 1999; that is to say, the wounding of two policemen.

Q. All right. It's another terrorist attack?

A. That's right.

Q. Thank you. In tab 29, as far as I can see, it is also from your secretariat, the SUP of Urosevac. It also has to do with the police station of Stimlje, and the date is the 14th of March, 1999. Is this also a document of your secretariat, an authentic document?

A. Also an authentic document of my secretariat. The police station in Stimlje informs the Secretariat of the Interior in Urosevac that an ⁴⁴⁸³³ attack was carried out at a military vehicle, a Puh, and that the person who was injured on the occasion was transferred to the military hospital.

Q. This has to do with a terrorist attack and it's also a document of your secretariat.

A. Yes. On the basis of this kind of document, which is of a local nature, we compiled a collective document, and we informed the police administration, the crime prevention administration, and the police in general.

Q. Is there yet another document of this kind contained in tab 30 sent to the MUP staff of the Republic of Serbia, that is to say an outline of incidents, events, and activities in the territory of the Urosevac SUP?

A. Yes. That's the daily bulletin that was sent every day to the MUP staff of the Republic of Serbia, informing of the activities and all events that were of security interest in the territory of the secretariat.

Q. Does this also have to do with a terrorist attack?

A. Yes. A house was attacked. Xhevdet Zumeri is the name of the person whose house it was. The village is Godance. And three persons were injured. All three persons were transferred to the health centre in Stimlje, and that is where they received medical assistance, and from there they were sent further on to the hospital in Pristina, and the OSCE mission in Stimlje was informed about what happened.

Q. What about document 31? Does it also pertain to a terrorist attack from January, the 21st of January, 1999?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us deal with the admission of the tabs, mindful of Ms. Dicklich's admonition and our own earlier ruling. ⁴⁴⁸³⁴

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have that in mind. I have only one more tab in relation to this particular question, and then there are the remaining tabs. But then I would like to tender the documents once I deal with that tab.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is another dispatch in which I informed the Ministry of the Interior there was a terrorist attack in the area of Stimlje. A vehicle of the army of Yugoslavia came across a booby-trap and was totally destroyed. One person was injured -- or, rather, three persons were injured who were on the Praga vehicle, and one tank also came across an anti-tank mine and was in -- and was damaged.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. All right. And tab 32, which has to do with the question that we're dealing with now, and that is your dispatch of the 18th of January, 1999. Is that your signature?

A. Yes. No, no. It's my assistant.

Q. All right.

A. But it is.

Q. On your authority?

A. Yes.

Q. Does all of this have to do with terrorist attacks against the army, the police, and citizens?

A. Yes. Terrorist attacks in the area of the secretariat against civilians, military, and the police.

Q. Is this also an authentic document of your secretariat?

A. Absolutely. ⁴⁴⁸³⁵

Q. The date is the 18th of January, 1999.

A. That's right.

Q. All right, Mr. Janicevic. Now we've gone through these Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. Are all of them authentic documents of your secretariat and do they all pertain to terrorist attacks in the area of your secretariat?

A. Yes. These are all authentic documents of the Secretariat to the Interior of Urosevac and have to do with terrorist attacks in that area.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, as for tabs 27 through 32, I ask that they all be admitted into evidence now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. They're all admitted, but one is untranslated. Is it tab 29? So that's marked for identification pending translation.

I should also say, Mr. Milosevic, that in the earlier part of Mr. Janicevic's testimony we had marked for identification from Exhibit D312 tab 18.13, tab 18.19, and tab 25. We have since ascertained that there was in fact translation for each of those. So those documents are in fact admitted.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, we've been through a series of exhibits that have to do with terrorist attacks in your area. Now, my question is as follows: Were these attacks in a way provoked by the army or the police?

A. No. The army, the police - I'm specifically talking about the ⁴⁴⁸³⁶ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸³⁷ police - never provoked the terrorists in order to attack. They always took measures of self-defence and only responded to fire by the terrorists or provocations from their side, or they took measures to arrest terrorists when the police knew where the terrorists were.

Q. Would you please be so kind as to explain what tab 33 contains. We have a translation here.

A. Tab 33 contains forensic documentation and a criminal report -- or, rather, only forensic documentation of an on-site investigation on the site of a terrorist attack where Mihajlovic Sinisa from Stimlje was killed. The attack took place on the 10th of September, 1998, on the Stimlje-Urosevac road near the village of Kosare. In that attack, a group of terrorists opened fire from automatic rifles at a vehicle that was moving down the road, and on that occasion the late Sinisa lost his life.

Q. Was this a civilian or an official vehicle?

A. It's a civilian vehicle. He was a civilian, although he was a reservist. They could not have assumed that a policeman or a Serb was in the vehicle. This took place during the night, but the vehicle did not stop, and that's probably why they opened fire.

Q. Thank you. What is contained in tab 34?

A. Tab 34 contains a criminal report against perpetrators unknown, as stipulated in Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The terrorist attack was carried out in Petrovic or, rather, Donje Godance, because it's one and the same village, basically. They're right next to each other. Qerimi Vebi's houses and the houses of his sons ⁴⁴⁸³⁸ Fatmir and Bedri. Qerimi Bedri was a policeman in Stimlje, at the police station there, and Fatmir was a policeman at the police station in Lipjan or, rather, the assistant commander of the police station in. Vebi was a social-political worker and he worked in the Red Cross, he dealt in humanitarian affairs.

Q. Did you say the Red Cross? I can barely hear you.

A. Yes.

Q. Is he an ethnic Albanian?

A. Yes, he is.

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

We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12:17 p.m.

--- Upon resuming at 12:39 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. -- contained in tab 34, and the injured party there is an Albanian. Just tell us, who filed this criminal report, your Secretariat of the Interior?

A. Yes. The secretariat in Urosevac, my secretariat. The event took place on the 10th of October -- or, rather, the 9th of October, 1998. The house of Vebi Qerimi, where he lives with his sons, was attacked. A great deal of damage was incurred.

Q. All right. What about the other criminal report that is also in ⁴⁴⁸³⁹ tab 34? What does that say?

A. I haven't got it. Oh, it's 35 in my binder.

Q. All right.

A. Enver Gashi.

Q. All right. In tab 35 there is also a criminal report from your Secretariat of the Interior.

A. Yes.

Q. It also has to do with a terrorist attack against Enver Gashi.

A. Terrorist attack against Enver Gashi on the 2nd of January, 1999. He was killed in front of his town -- his house in Stimlje.

Q. Both of these criminal reports pertain to terrorist attacks against Albanians.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janicevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, could tabs 34, 35 be admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. 33 as well, I understand.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. 33, 34, and 35. That's what I said.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What happened with the population in whose area these KLA staffs and substaffs were?

A. As a rule, the population in whose villages KLA staffs and substaffs were left the area and went to safer places where there were no terrorists. All of it due to their fear of clashes between the terrorists ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁰ and the army and the police.

Q. Give me a very precise answer to this question that I have to put to you right now. The army or the police, or the army and the police together, did they shell villages and destroy the property of citizens?

A. I can confirm that the police never did that, or the army, intentionally shelling villages. And there was no reason for them to do that kind of thing. Both the police and the army used weapons only in situations when they were supposed to defend themselves from terrorist attacks, and when persons who were being arrested resisted and shot at the police, and then they responded in kind.

Q. Tell me, how did the military and the police act? Did they expel the Albanian population from various settlements?

A. Where the terrorists were, where they had their staffs and substaffs, there was no civilian population. The army and the police did not expel the population from anywhere. As a matter of fact, they were always given assistance; medical assistance and aid in food. There is -- there are many examples to that effect.

Q. I'm not going to ask you to go into these specific details now, but I just asked you about the operations of the military and the police, and you told me what you had to say about that.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell me, were there any violations of orders by members of the police and, if so, what measures were taken against the perpetrators?

A. There were individual cases when orders were violated and when the law was violated by individuals from the police force, and lawful action ⁴⁴⁸⁴¹ was taken against them like against any other such perpetrators.

Q. Tell me, was there any difference in terms of how the authorities behaved to perpetrators of crimes who were policemen, for instance, or other perpetrators of such crimes?

A. No, there was no difference whatsoever. All members of the police force who had committed crimes were detained and criminal reports were filed against them.

Q. And now we are going to move on to an entire series of tabs which should pertain to what you've been saying just now. So tab 36. What do we see there?

A. If I may, I would like not to mention the name.

Q. You don't have to mention the name.

A. This is a decision dealing with the remand in custody of certain perpetrators of the crime of murder. Several Albanians were murdered. The named perpetrators committed the crime together with other -- with two other policemen.

Q. This decision against these two members of the police was taken on the 8th of May, 1999.

A. Correct.

Q. That's tab 36.

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign it?

A. Yes. Pursuant to the Criminal Code or, rather, the law on criminal proceedings, the secretariat was able to exercise its right to remand the perpetrators into custody for three days, up to three days. We ⁴⁴⁸⁴² did exercise that right in this case, and we submitted all the documents to the investigative judge.

Q. Thank you. Would you please now look at tab 37. Does this also concern another member --

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move on, what happened in the case we've just been looking at, tab 36? What was the outcome of the case?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know the outcome of the case. This decision on remand in custody was submitted to the public prosecutor together with all the other documents in the case. The public prosecutor submitted all that to the investigating judge who extended the remand in custody. After this, I had to withdraw from Kosovo and Metohija, and I was regrettably unable to follow the case, but I'm certain that all the three perpetrators were convicted.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, these are -- these are police officers within the police department for which you were responsible.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you're telling me you don't know what happened, whether they were convicted of murder or not.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just said they were convicted for murder. I'm sure they were convicted of murder.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not actually what you said. Are you now telling me you're sure they were convicted for murder?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, of course I'm sure they were convicted for murder. That is a crime that is never forgiven. You seem to misunderstand certain things. The secretariat moved ⁴⁴⁸⁴³ out of Kosovo and Metohija, pursuant to the agreement, in June 1999. Most members of the police were transferred to other secretariats in the territory of Serbia. The court was also relocated out of the area of Kosovo and Metohija. This, in particular, is the district court. I am certain that they were convicted, but I don't know what sentence they were given, because I am -- haven't been chief of that secretariat since 2001. And once we withdrew, those policemen ceased to be within the competence of our secretariat.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, is this case reflected in material we've seen already?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm not sure about that. I couldn't answer that question, Mr. Bonomy.

JUDGE BONOMY: I've expressed this concern before, that we get to the stage where somebody is remanded in custody and we never get clear information after that about what happens to them, and it would be of assistance to know.

MR. KAY: It was in D299, tab 163, page 1. We -- I can't link it up with the answer to whether it was further elaborated upon.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I wish you to bear in mind that I asked this witness a question related to violation of orders and offences and crimes committed by members of the police. He answered that every case was treated in accordance with the law, and this is his document. He signed this decision to remand this policeman in custody for, as it says here, a well-grounded suspicion that he was involved in ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁴ murder. Since he was only entitled to keep him in prison for three days, it was the investigating judge who had the right to extend the remand in custody. In this case, the investigating judge did so, but he cannot tell you anything about the follow-up because he hasn't been chief of the secretariat since 2001.

JUDGE BONOMY: He's explained all that. I understand that. I just am concerned that we're not being provided with a link in these cases to show what the final position was and how effective the system in operation actually was.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I continue?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please do.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 37, Mr. Janicevic, we see another decision signed by you. It also has to do with an arrest as a result of murder.

A. Correct. This person was the accomplice in murder of the other person, of the one we saw first under the previous tab.

Q. In tab 38, we see another of your documents.

MR. NICE: Two things.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Ms. Dicklich for picking up the citation given by my learned friend Mr. Kay of the exhibit number. In fact, tab 163 of the Stevanovic documents contains simply the same document we've looked at, the document we're now looking at, and I won't be surprised, I dare say, if I discover in the next document, even after ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁵ -- yes. So this is simply a repetition of the same documents that we've already been taken through once. I can't tell you whether Stevanovic was in a position to and did amplify on what the documents say. I'm afraid that will take a little longer.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So that, Mr. Milosevic, unless this witness has fresh evidence to give on these matters, it's quite pointless, because we have been through that already. Does he have anything new to say about these matters?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, these documents belong to these -- this witness. These documents testify to arrests made in murder cases. They were signed by this witness on the 8th of May, 1999. That's a month before the end of the war.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He's closer to the actual events, is he, than Mr. Stevanovic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is indubitable because it is his document. He signed it. And he is just answering the question about his treatment of perpetrators, in this case, members of the police.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it seems to me you're fighting a shadow here because there is no issue being made over the documents that we are looking at that we have already looked at, so it seems pretty pointless.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. Then with your leave I would suggest that tabs from 36 to 50 be reviewed on their own because we need to save time. From 36 to 50 we have a lot of documents, all of them criminal reports concerning various types of crimes committed in the area of Urosevac SUP where this witness -- ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's a review which you should have carried out. You're managing your case. What I would propose is that you don't lead the witness on those documents. You carry out your review this evening and see whether the evidence is necessary. If it is merely repetitive, then there's no point in it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you able to help on this, Mr. Kay, or is that difficult?

MR. KAY: It's very difficult to achieve -- to achieve that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So let's not spend the time now trying to ascertain whether this evidence is cumulative. You can do that this evening, Mr. Milosevic. So move to tab 51.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I am bearing in mind that all these documents up to tab 50 inclusive are criminal reports drafted under the leadership of Mr. Janicevic in the Secretariat of the Interior of which he was chief. I think they should be exhibited because they are authentic criminal reports submitted by his agency for which he personally was responsible. We are dealing with a large number of criminal reports here, and they represent indubitable proof of conformity with the law and lawful prosecution of crimes. I cannot easily review the exhibits we have seen before, but all these criminal reports originate from the SUP of Urosevac.

I'm asking you if we could review them as a group so that Mr. Janicevic can tell us about specific interesting features in them. If we can't do that, then we'll treat them individually, one by one. That's why I asked this question, because initially I thought we would go through ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁷ each and every one of these criminal reports because they confirm what he's testifying about.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we really need to know whether these documents have already been exhibited, and you're not in a position to tell us. So I repeat what I said earlier, which is that you take some time this afternoon and review the matter and then come back to it. Unless Mr. Kay can help us on that.

MR. KAY: There is an updated schedule that we have which indicates, that's how I'm so easily able to find and mention when a tab has been referred to before, but linking it up to the evidence is very difficult. We were trying to do a search of General Stevanovic's evidence to try and see what he said about Exhibit 299, tab 163.1, and that hasn't produced, through electronic means, an answer, but there is an updated schedule of an index to these exhibits which does indicate where they are to be found elsewhere if they are to be found elsewhere. I think the liaison officer will be able to have that copy.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is Mr. Milosevic making the point that independently of whether they have already been exhibited, he would like this witness, since he was closer to the events, to give evidence which will be confirmatory and which will strengthen Stevanovic's evidence?

MR. KAY: The cross-examination of Stevanovic was that Stevanovic didn't know what happened on the ground, he was just producing the files. And the purpose of the last few questions on these tabs is to demonstrate, well, here is the author of the particular documents that led to the ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁸ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸⁴⁹ arrest of these policemen, and he was able to say that happened and took place.

There has been cross-examination in a way that challenges the authenticity of the records that were produced by Stevanovic and other witnesses which has left hanging in the air the question of what is accepted and what is not accepted. I think that may have caused the accused, certainly, to want to make sure that the points he wishes to produce are topped and tailed.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just reiterate my earlier ruling: Find out this evening whether the documents have already been exhibited and then we'll return to these documents tomorrow. So move to tab 51, which I think is next on the list.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before I do that and move on to my next question, I'd like to ask a collective question, if I can put it that way, related to all these criminal reports.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, all these criminal reports, were they set out on the usual type of form as was customary in the Ministry of the Interior by your organs of the interior?

A. Yes, standard form. And 16 criminal reports were filed against six -- six individuals were detained in the SUP Urosevac area for abusing their professional position and in connection with serious looting, serious theft, aggravated theft.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Let's move on, thank you, to see ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁰ whether we're going to tender all these as exhibits tomorrow. I consider that they should all be introduced, Mr. Robinson, because we're dealing with a witness who was personally responsible for submitting these criminal reports.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What reports are you referring to? Not the same one, because I've dealt with that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. Fine.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I have not excluded them, Mr. Milosevic. I am merely saying let us deal with them tomorrow when you are in a better position to say whether they have already been exhibited.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Can you then give us more extensive explanation about the measures taken against members of the police who did not behave in conformity with the law or pursuant to orders from a superior?

A. In the area of the Urosevac SUP where I was the chief --

Q. Well, it doesn't relate to any of these individual tabs, criminal files including tab 50.

A. Against all policemen who went against the law, who failed to carry out orders or acted unlawfully, contrary to the rules and regulations which were in force for the Ministry of the Interior, disciplinary measures were taken against those persons. And I state again, for criminal acts, criminal reports were filed regardless of whether the perpetrator was a policeman or anybody else. There was no exemption for policemen. They could not sidestep their accountability if ⁴⁴⁸⁵¹ they deserved to be prosecuted on the basis of their conduct.

Q. And disciplinary measures were taken for crimes committed; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us briefly, then, what knowledge do you have about prosecuting crimes committed by terrorists in the area covered by the Urosevac SUP in 1998 and 1999?

A. In 118 cases of terrorist attacks and anti-terrorist operations, the terrorists killed 125 persons. Of that number, 75 were civilians, 18 were ethnic Albanians, 57 were members of the Serb ethnic group and other ethnic groups, non-Albanian ethnic groups, 18 were members of the police and 32 were members of the army. They kidnapped 137 persons of which 50 -- 50-odd, I can't remember the exact figure, were released after a longer or shorter period of time and torture in prison. Five bodies were found. Five of the people were found dead after having been kidnapped, and as for the rest, we don't know the fate of them. Fate unknown.

Q. Tell me, please, Mr. Janicevic, what do we have in Exhibit 51? What is tab 51?

A. Tab 51 is a record on receipt of a criminal report for a crime -- for the crime of terrorism perpetrated to -- against Musah, Mahmut Darlista, and Minusa Haljimi. The crime was committed in Kacanik on the 5th of April, 1999. The terrorists in the hamlet of Rakoci, that's the name of the hamlet or mahala, they intercepted a vehicle with Qamil inside. They opened fire and killed them on the spot. After the killing, the -- they took their bodies into a neighbour's yard, an Albanian ⁴⁴⁸⁵² neighbour's yard - both of them are Albanians, by the way - they kept them there for two days and instilled fear in the population of Kacanik.

JUDGE BONOMY: What is the relevance of the date the 28th of May, 2004, at the top of the first page?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Are you asking me? Well, the relevance is that we were not able to reach the person who reported the crime, Mahmut Darlista, a brother who was expelled from Kacanik with his whole family and now lives somewhere in Macedonia in fact. So the crime was committed on the 5th of April, 1999. The terrorist attack took place on the 5th of April, 1999.

JUDGE BONOMY: What happened on the 28th of May, 2004?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 28th of May, that was the first time when the crime was officially reported to the forward command post of Urosevac SUP, which was in Leskovac by then.

JUDGE BONOMY: So what we're reading here is a report compiled by Mr. Jasovic in May 2004.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. These are the minutes of a criminal report compiled on the basis of a statement made by Musah Darlista, that is to say Mahmut Darlista's brother, who, on the 24th of May -- no, 28th of May came and reported the case, reported the crime to the officials of the Urosevac SUP in Leskovac.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's Mr. Jasovic.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jasovic works there, yes. Jasovic was involved there, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: His name appears at the end of the report. ⁴⁴⁸⁵³

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jasovic took this report and the records of it, the minutes.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's what I think I said.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is given to -- the statement was made either to the public prosecutor or to the official, and the authorised official signs the record on receipt of a criminal report on the basis of operations and knowledge gained on the spot or otherwise. So this is a report made a citizen to an official in official offices, and that is why it says who filed this record, and that was Musah. Musah Darlista. I don't know if I've made myself clear enough.

JUDGE BONOMY: It's not clear to me, but Mr. Milosevic will no doubt get it clarified.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic what does it say, what's the title of this document? What's the heading?

A. The heading reads as follows: "The Republic of Serbia --"

Q. That's the organ, not the title.

A. It says: "Pursuant to Article 224, paragraph 2, of the Law on Criminal Procedure, a record on receipt of a criminal report was compiled ..."

Q. That means that the authorised person compiled a record on the basis of a criminal report filed by a citizen; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So a citizen came to the Secretariat of the Interior, which is dislocated now, dislocated at present and is to be found in Leskovac, and ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁴ filed a criminal report; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And the authorised person, Dragan Jasovic, made a record on receipt of a criminal report; is that right?

A. Yes. He made a record on what the individual who came to file the criminal report told him about.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janicevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I have received information from Mr. Ognjanovic, my associate here, to the effect that stemming from tab 39 and ending with tab 50, 39 to 50 inclusive, the documents were not admitted, and that is a series of criminal reports which, if you agree, we can admit accumulatively. If not, we can go through them individually one by one.

MR. NICE: May I be heard on that?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: And without wishing to be difficult about this morning's application to have documents admitted cumulatively, if I am to deal with this material at all, then at least something's got to be said about each exhibit. Otherwise, I don't really know what I'm dealing with, and what's more, I don't have the time allocated to me to do so. So I would invite the accused to be put to his election as to the way he spends his time; either he deals with them individually if they haven't been produced so far, or they're not produced. I really do not see why in these circumstances he should be allowed to put in a mass of material --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Didn't we admit in the Prosecution case ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁵ Prosecution exhibits in this manner?

MR. NICE: Well, I can't immediately recall anywhere we did. There may be examples which were similar to some degree, I don't know. But we're at this stage of the case, and I would invite you to say that -- I mean, what's going to happen? I get presented with this material, in reality at a very late stage. Here are a lot of reports apparently of investigations. I'm not going to be in a position to take a position on each and every document produced or the underlying facts. Probably, the usual reasons of time, I'll leave the majority because there just won't be time to go into them. What is the value of having these -- this material put in in this way unless it's at least given some detailed explanation so that I can know whether it's a document I should or can leave or whether it's one that I should deal with?

JUDGE BONOMY: Is this the material which was delivered before the summer break?

MR. NICE: That I don't know because it wasn't --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: That I don't -- that I don't know.

JUDGE BONOMY: You're not in a position to take a position about all these criminal reports, whether they appear on the face of them to be genuine or not. You just say you don't know.

MR. NICE: I don't know at the moment. I am doing, you can be sure, everything that resources allow to be able to take positions on whatever it is, nearly 200, is it, exhibits, something like that. But --

JUDGE BONOMY: But do your resources not enable you to check these ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁶ things in a way that you can be broadly satisfied about their genuine nature or otherwise?

MR. NICE: Absolutely not, Your Honour. I mean, I don't -- I don't want to go into the details of the sort of difficulties we have, but the Chamber might be confident that if there was a way of verifying things, if there was a way of getting into records quickly, I would both do it and make concessions wherever I can. I have completely, absolutely no interest in not conceding things which should be conceded because that will enable things to move swiftly.

Your Honour's question, for example, earlier about the disposal of people said to have been arrested and detained and charged is a question very much on my mind because it is simply not possible for me to find those results quickly, either within this building or outside. It's probably a case of dealing with each incident individually if you can track down the people concerned.

JUDGE BONOMY: But you've chosen to charge crimes here extending over a period of almost ten years, and that means that the system that was in place for -- for the prosecution of offenders is of some significance to the trial, and there must be, in that overall context, bearing in mind the need to have a trial completed within a reasonable time, there must be some way of cutting through this.

MR. NICE: I trust Your Honour will work on the basis that I'm doing everything I can to cut through, with the resources available, and asking people to work to the limits of their reasonable ability, and also travelling, so far as is necessary and appropriate, when resources allow. ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider that.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, do you have any recollection of our practice in the Prosecution case in this matter?

MR. KAY: It happened on many occasions that the Prosecution produced a collective of exhibits, or compendium, as it was described, and the witness was able just to put them in. Harland and the UN resolutions went in without us going through them, as a complete series of documents. General DZ and the monitor reports of the KVM. There was another witness who produced quite large tracts of monitoring mission records of the time that went in as a collective. Prosecution referred to one or two as a flavour of what -- what there was.

So what the accused is asking to achieve as a representation of the particular point that he's making with these documents is something that has been applied previously in the case and would make -- make sense, so that the point is understood; he is able to make his point with the witness and the collective of documents be put in together and can be looked at individually if need be.

The witness has attested to the authenticity of them, that they come from his police records, in the same way that the KVM observation logs were produced in that way. And in my submission, that should enable the case to move quickly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Kay. So parity ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁸ of treatment requires that they be admitted. That's -- Mr. Milosevic, is it 36 or 39 to 50?

JUDGE KWON: It's 36 to 50.

JUDGE ROBINSON: 36 to 50.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 36, 37, and 38 were mentioned in the testimony of General Stevanovic. However, these are original documents --

JUDGE ROBINSON: 45 and 47 --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] 36, 37, and 38 were mentioned in the testimony of General Stevanovic, but it was an organ who effected the arrest for those killings, and that's why they're introduced here. From 39 to 50, they have not been admitted yet, or tendered, and they always dealt with policemen. They were authentic documents of the Secretariat of the Interior --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have the point. We'll admit them except for 45 and 47 which are not translated and, therefore, marked for identification pending translation. 39 to 50, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm not sure -- I'm not seeking to make a change to the ruling. I've only just got through to General DZ's evidence. But if it's the exhibit I think it may be in several tabs, it looks to me from the evidence as if he was taken through, albeit briefly, the tabs one by one and said something about all of them, but it may not be the quite the right exhibit, but there it is.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If it's not General DZ, Mr. Nice, it certainly ⁴⁴⁸⁵⁹ happened on other occasions, yes.

MR. NICE: It may have done. I've already made that concession. On General DZ, I think the position was that he probably said something about each exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, please look at the document in tab 52. All of this has to do with the crimes committed in the territory of your SUP.

JUDGE BONOMY: This looks familiar. Any assistance there, Mr. Kay?

MR. KAY: We're just having copied for you the list, and this is not in before.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, it seems familiar to you because this kind of document pertaining to another secretariat whose head was Mr. Paponjak, Colonel Paponjak who testified here, included a list of security related incidents in which deaths occurred, et cetera, et cetera, in the territory of his secretariat, whereas this is a list of security related incidents in which deaths occurred as a result of armed clashes, et cetera, in the territory of the SUP of Urosevac.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, I remember you telling us at the time that we would hear from Mr. Paponjak as a person in charge of an area, and then we would hear from General Stevanovic as the person who would cover the whole of the territory, and it was a surprise, therefore, to see Mr. Janicevic arrive to give evidence about another area. So it ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁰ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁴⁸⁶¹ would appear that Stevanovic didn't cover this, from what you say. That surprises me because I thought his was a complete account of events in the area.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This list pertains only to the territory of the Urosevac SUP. As you can see here, you have 107 incidents listed. And these are only incidents involving loss of life, where at least one person lost his or her life, or there are other incidents where there were two or more people. In one particular incident, there were six fatalities, and so on. Three.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, in tab 52, there is a list of security related incidents in which deaths occurred as a result of armed clashes, et cetera, in the period between the 1st of January, 1998, and the 1st of June, 2001, in the area of the Urosevac SUP. Is this a document that was prepared by your secretariat?

A. Yes. A group of operations officers, headed by the chief of crime prevention. All events were dealt with, and whenever dead bodies were found, photo files were compiled wherever necessary. Criminal reports were filed regardless of whether the perpetrator was known or unknown, as well as all the accompanying documents that is required for starting criminal proceedings with the appropriate prosecutor's office or court.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Janicevic, this was compiled in July 2001; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. ⁴⁴⁸⁶²

JUDGE BONOMY: So you must have had all the records from which to compile it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Where are they?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those records are at the Ministry of the Interior. I don't know if you can see it here. Can I just explain this to you so that it's clearer to you?

Underneath every event -- for example, Kacanik, the 2nd of August, one corpse, and then the number 6/1. So for every event there is an appropriate file.

JUDGE BONOMY: That file is in the office? It's not here.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not in my office. It's at the Ministry of the Interior.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes, please continue.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, for the moment we're going to skip Racak, which is under number 25, and the date is the 15th of January, 1999, because we are going to be dealing with that in greater detail. Can you give us your comments with regard to any one of these incidents that are particularly characteristic and that have to do with cases involving several fatalities?

A. Let me just find this.

Q. I suggest that you look at the period from the 24th of March until the 12th of June. And under number 37, for instance, you have Kacanik, 22 ⁴⁴⁸⁶³ persons who were killed. Could you tell us something about that. And also 48, which also pertains to Kacanik.

I'm just talking about incidents where there was a large number of fatalities.

A. 37. Kotlina, Kacanik, 24th of March 1999, 22 bodies. To the best of our knowledge, in that area 22 bodies were found of terrorists who were killed in a clash with the border battalion of the army and police. When the area was searched, a bunker was found from which the terrorists opened fire at the army and the police. The bunker was about eight metres deep.

Q. You don't have to explain the details. Was an on-site investigation carried out? Does it say so here?

A. Ljiljana Milicevic was the investigating judge, authorised by the district investigating judge. She is a municipal public prosecutor in Urosevac. And the municipal public prosecutor Bozidar Radic was present, and the on-site investigation team from the Urosevac SUP. A record was compiled and photo files were included.

Q. Could you please say something briefly about number 48. It's also Kacanik. Forty-one bodies were found. What was this about?

A. On the 9th of April, 1999, a large group of terrorists attacked the members of the MUP in the town of Urosevac -- rather, Kacanik itself. Eight policemen were wounded, and two vehicles were damaged. Hand-held racket launchers were used in the attack, and automatic rifles too. In the early morning hours -- well, practically all night. This took place late at night or early in the morning, after midnight on the 9th. There was sporadic gunfire throughout the night and the fighting took place ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁴ until 2.00 with a group of terrorists. Part of the group, about 60 of them, managed to get out of the encirclement, and 41 were killed in battle.

An investigation was carried out, a on-site investigation, photo files were compiled, and the MUP staff of the Republic of Serbia was informed about this.

Q. Does it say here that most of them wore KLA uniforms?

A. Yes. Most of them wore uniforms and carried weapons, had weapons in their hands.

Q. Most of them in uniform and some of them wearing parts of uniforms, but all of them had weapons; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. What does it say here further on, that there were no civilians in the zone where the battle took place?

A. That's right. It was on the outskirts of Kacanik, towards the village of Runjevo, and there were no civilians there.

Q. And what about this case file? It says A/VI-48. Is that also at the Ministry of the Interior in Belgrade?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that contain all the original documents from the time?

A. All the documents from the time, including the record of the on-site investigation.

Q. As for every one of these incidents involving fatalities, and there are 107 of them in the territory of your secretariat, are there contemporaneous documents at the Ministry of the Interior? ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁵

A. All documents that were carried out of Kosovo and Metohija are in these case files. I think that there is not a single case that is undocumented. An on-site investigation report, photo file, criminal report, of course, and everything else that's supposed to be done, like the operative work, everything that the secretariat did in order to resolve the case.

Q. All right. Let's not dwell on this document any further.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I want to have this admitted into evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Janicevic, what is contained in tab 53? Is this a statistical survey, or you can see as soon as you glance at it that it's some kind of statistics, but could you explain what this is?

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please speak one at a time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Janicevic, the interpreters are asking you to speak one at a time. Don't overlap. Observe the pause.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a survey of security incidents resulting in death, which is related to the previous list. However, this is statistically processed. The period that is relevant is from the 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001. On this first page we see information about the actual incidents and the number of bodies according to municipalities; Urosevac, Kacanik, Stimlje, et cetera.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁶

Q. All right. Let's look at the entire table. It has to do with the entire secretariat of Urosevac.

A. Yes, that's right. The total number of incidents was 118, involving 258 fatalities, out of which 184 were Albanians and 74 others. Further on, the number of bodies by ethnicity, gender, and status.

Q. Two is the number of Albanians; right?

A. Yes.

Q. And now according to status?

A. Whether they are terrorists.

Q. 125 terrorists?

A. Yes. 55 civilians and 4 unknown; their status was not established.

Below that gender: Men, 173; women, 6; and children up to the age of 14, 5. Others, 74.

As for the status in terms of membership in different units, VJ members, 32; MUP members, 18; civilians, 24.

As for gender, men, 68; women, 6; children up to the age of 14, nil.

The number of bodies by circumstance and ethnicity. In terrorist attacks there were 63 terrorist attacks. The number of bodies, 75. Albanians, 18; the rest, 57. Others, 57.

In anti-terrorist incidents or actions. Number of incidents, 18; number of bodies, 128. Albanians, 128.

In the NATO bombing, number of incidents, 14; number of bodies, 20. Number of Albanians, 5; others, 15. "Others" are Serbs and other ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁷ non-Albanians.

As for crimes, that is to say murders and other related crimes, number of incidents, 17. Number of bodies, 27. Albanians 25; others, 2. Other --

Q. All right. Tell me, paragraph 4 pertains to investigations conducted. 53 were conducted; 38 by an investigating judge, 15 police by the authority of the investigating judge. Partially completed investigation, 1; and investigation not conducted in 64 cases. Could you just give us a brief answer: Why was an investigation not carried out in 64 cases?

A. Due to terrorist operations and the threat posed to the lives of the investigation team when the situation was not right for them to go, or, since there are also incidents that took place after the secretariat left Kosovo, we could not carry out such an investigation because the site itself was no longer accessible to us.

Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. Janicevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Robinson, could these tables, these statistics contained in tab 53, be admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. What does tab 54 contain? As briefly as possible.

A. Tab 54 contains a list of identified victims of armed conflicts in the Urosevac secretariat area in the period from the 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001.

Q. All of these persons are included in these statistics and the ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁸ incidents described in the previous two tabs; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, could this tab also be admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Tab 55 deals with abducted persons and missing persons in the territory of the Urosevac SUP.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Like the previous one, it is a list of registered security related incidents involving abducted and missing persons.

A. That's right. For the period from the 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001.

Q. That list includes 72 incidents?

A. Yes, 72.

Q. Abductions. Let us also look at 56, covering abducted and missing persons. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the total in the area of your secretariat?

A. 137, in 93 incidents.

Q. Including --

A. 93 cases.

Q. Including 55 Albanians, 65 Serbs and Montenegrins, and 17 others such as Roma, Muslims, et cetera. ⁴⁴⁸⁶⁹

A. Shall I go on?

Q. Very well.

A. Now, released and found or escaped, total 137. Sorry, 52, including 33 Albanians, 17 Serbs and Montenegrins, and 2 Romas, Muslims and others. Killed 5, of whom 1 Albanian, 3 Serbs and Montenegrins, and 1 other. Undetermined outcome in the case of 80 persons, including 21 Albanians; Serbs and Montenegrins, 45; Roma, Muslim and others, 14.

Q. And then you have structure by ethnicity, sex, and age of missing persons being traced.

A. Total number 80. Albanians, 21: Men, 20; women, 1; no children. Serbs and Montenegrins, 45: Men, 39; women, 6; no children. Roma, Muslim and others, 14, all of them men.

Q. Thank you, Mr. Janicevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, please can we have 55 and 56 exhibited?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. 55 is not translated, so that will be marked for identification pending translation.

Let's just clarify which one was in fact not translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It has been translated, Mr. Robinson. 55, it says: "List of registered security related incidents involving abducted and missing persons." That's 55.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I understand both are translated.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Both are translated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So they are admitted. We'll just go on to have you finish this -- Mr. Nice. ⁴⁴⁸⁷⁰

MR. NICE: I saw the time --

JUDGE KWON: Microphone.

MR. NICE: I saw the time. There were two administrative matters.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just let the accused complete this -- these tabs.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. In tab 57, we see a table, a survey by municipalities of what we have just seen in other tabs?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a position?

A. Yes. This is structured by municipalities of all missing persons and abducted persons for each municipality individually.

Q. In tab 58, abducted and missing persons again. What is 58?

A. It is a list of kidnapped and missing persons. A single, unified, integral list of all missing and abducted persons.

Q. And finally 59, a report on all cases involving abductions and missing persons in your area. What is that?

A. That is a report on registered security related incidents involving missing and abducted persons between the 1st of January, 1998, and the 1st of June, 2001.

Q. Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, can we please have this admitted into evidence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would now like to move on to another question. If Mr. Nice needs time, I can continue tomorrow. ⁴⁴⁸⁷¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we are well past the time. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Just two things: The indication of upcoming witnesses are three witnesses. They've been provided to us informally so I shan't name them in case there is any sensitivity. As to two of them, we have had their names, I think, for two weeks, they having previously been pseudonym, and the last one we've had the name a day. In all cases the summaries are either one line, literally one line, or barely more than that, and it would be appropriate, in our submission, that we are provided with some detail in order to prepare for these witnesses. The position is becoming evermore difficult as we get these names very late with no advance warning.

The second point -- the second point, if I may -- sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We haven't received the -- that witness list.

MR. NICE: You have received it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: We have not.

MR. NICE: No, I said we received it informally, that's why I'm not giving the names. But as it presently appears, in each case it's just half a line, really. I gather for one of them there may be a slightly expanded summary, we'll have to track that down, but these are exiguous in the extreme. To do our duty by the Court and by our own office, then more detail, or a lot more detail, would make life easier.

JUDGE KWON: Are they Kosovo witnesses?

MR. NICE: Oh, yes, yes. We're still in Kosovo. I would, of course, repeat my request that the Chamber give consideration to the time ⁴⁴⁸⁷² table on that side of issues, but I've made that position known before. The second point I want to make, again not to undo a ruling, but just because sometimes I concede too willingly things that it might be inappropriate for me to concede. My other concession remains, but it may just help the Chamber to remember, because I've reminded myself, that indeed it was acknowledged --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. The witness may be excused. You may leave, Mr. Janicevic. Return tomorrow at 9.00 a.m. Let him go ahead of you. He needs to go, apparently.

[Witness stood down]

MR. NICE: Mr. Harland's production of United Nation's resolutions was at that time of the case proposed as an exception, specifically because the documents concerned were public documents that didn't need to be produced by a witness at all but that it was thought might be conveniently produced as if exhibits or as exhibits compendiously. Indeed, as I've reminded myself from the transcript, I offered this as a useful suggestion and I used the word "library" of documents, and Your Honour interjected that the use of the word "library" was rather daunting or disturbing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I remember that, yes.

MR. NICE: I thought Your Honour probably would. There may be other examples where that which is suggested has happened, and of course there's always the old chestnut of Dragan's computerised records which were put in at some stage, but that is the position. Certainly until Harland, it was recognised that this would be an exception for a reason, ⁴⁴⁸⁷³ and his other exhibits, I think, were gone through tab by tab. Thank you.

MR. KAY: There was Dragan Karleusa and the bodies in the refrigerator truck and all of those investigative materials that went in as a complete file without the documents having been gone through. And Bakalli and his train logs, four binders of them.

JUDGE KWON: Did we go through tab by tab in dealing with Mr. Coo's binder?

MR. NICE: That was an expert report held for different consideration -- there it is, it's working. No, that was an expert report, and of course that falls for different consideration. The train log also fall for different consideration. We've discussed Karleusa before, but there it is.

JUDGE KWON: We also have in mind Ms. Tromp documents and Mr. O'Donnell, which are different.

MR. NICE: They were produced again entirely according to different procedures of the Chamber. And indeed, those documents were produce by a system that the Chamber proposed. Thank you.

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

MR. KAY: We have the cross-reference series of this particular exhibit that we're going through at the moment, the Janicevic exhibits that --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. KAY: We have a cross-reference index for Janicevic for you, indicating what has been produced before in other exhibits. ⁴⁴⁸⁷⁴

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay. We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00 a.m.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1:56 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the 30th day

of September, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.