Milosevic Transcript 2005-10-05

⁴⁵²⁰⁶

Wednesday, 5 October 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9:07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I have something to say. Following the sitting last Friday, I caused an inquiry to be made into the words used by Lord Ashdown in the video shown in the examination-in-chief of this witness on Thursday, the 29th. I did this because of the complaint by the accused that my acceptance of the explanation by Mr. Nice lacked objectivity since, in his words, the film spoke for itself.

Mr. Milosevic, you will recall, had put to the witness that Lord Ashdown had said that it was a scandal for the international community that they, meaning the KLA, had such poor quality weapons. In the English version of the video, Lord Ashdown said the following: "Tell him we can't -- you know, it's a scandal that the international community haven't done this enough." The CLSS interpretation unit notes that the Albanian interpreter in the video accurately translated Lord Ashdown's words into Albanian, and they also confirm that this is what Mr. Milosevic would have heard in B/C/S: "... it's a scandal that the international community haven't done anything. Be careful with this. I can't promise, but we'll do everything we can."

The accused has a right to a fair trial, and this he clearly will ⁴⁵²⁰⁷ not have if the Judges hearing the case are not impartial. When an accusation of lack of objectivity is made and it relates to a matter that is verifiable, then in my view the Trial Chamber should investigate the matter, and this is why I caused an inquiry to be made. The inquiry shows that the gratitude I expressed to Mr. Nice for his clarification, which I note had already been made by Judges Kwon and Bonomy during the examination-in-chief, was well-founded.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: On the same topic, I can --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't wish to continue it at all.

MR. NICE: No, I realise that. On part of the same topic, I was going to tell you in any event, the issue of maps is being pursued and I understand further map material will be available coming from the region by the end of the week. Your Honours will remember the inconsistency between the positions of Gegaj and Kacanik or whatever it was.

WITNESS: BOGOLJUB JANICEVIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

MR. NICE: Returning to the cross-examination of this witness --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I think that what you have just quoted confirms what I asserted because the entire --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It does not. I'm going to move on with the cross-examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued] ⁴⁵²⁰⁸

Q. We return briefly to what was tab 9 in the Racak documents, Exhibit 180, on the overhead projector, with the usher's assistance, the meeting involving this witness and Brigadier General Maisonneuve, a witness in this case.

And I want you, please, to look at, although it's in English, to follow two parts with me.

On the first page, Mr. Nort, towards the bottom. You were asked by the observer Gilbertson: "Who was in charge of the police yesterday?" You were recorded as answering: "Even as chief of police, we cannot make the final decision. HQ must decide. HQ gave the order."

You were asked, "Who here gave the order for police to go to that location?" You effectively declined to answer that by saying, "Why do you ask? Everything I say is clear."

Over the page, please, Mr. Nort. You were asked, six lines down or so: "Who were involved, VJ?" You said, "Who says they were?" And you were told: "The OSCE US KDOM saw it."

And then finally on this topic, at the bottom of that page, please, Mr. Nort.

You were asked this: "US KDOM and OSCE observed people murdered, innocents, there's a body count of 50 plus people, there's an investigation going on, people were executed at close range. Can you explain?"

And the monitor's recorded for the second time explicitly that ⁴⁵²⁰⁹ your answer was evasive.

It would be, of course, Mr. Janicevic, for the Chamber to decide what happened at that meeting, but tell us, were you being evasive with the monitors, as they have clearly revealed was their judgement?

A. Not for a moment. I was not evasive.

Q. Well, if the answer -- who was in charge of the police on that day? Tell us. You didn't tell them.

A. I have said. Well, I have said.

Q. Well, who was it?

A. Goran Radosavljevic.

Q. Please tell us why you didn't tell the monitors the name Goran Radosavljevic. Then they could have gone and spoken to him. Why didn't you tell them?

A. Please. I had my superior command. My superior command was the MUP staff in Pristina. The monitors could have easily gone to the MUP staff in Pristina. They knew exactly what happened, which police participated. It was said. But there's something else in issue probably. I don't know exactly what.

Q. Well --

A. Does it say there that I had told them that the MUP staff in Pristina was superior to me?

Q. We have --

A. They did not translate that for me.

Q. You declined to identify the person who was in charge, and that's all there is to it. I'm going to move on. ⁴⁵²¹⁰ But before I -- as we move on, can I ask, please, for a short private session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁵²¹¹ Page 45211 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁵²¹² Page 45212 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁵²¹³ Page 45213 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁵²¹⁴ Page 45214 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁵²¹⁵

(redacted)

[Open session]

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Janicevic, in the course of the day that you were -- in the course of the 15th, you were, of course, on the radio and you were using a call-sign, weren't you?

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We used call-signs that applied at the time. Everybody had their own call-sign.

MR. NICE:

Q. Your call was Breza Jedinice number 1; correct?

A. Call-sign Breza Jedinice did not exist. Breza Jedan, meaning Breza 1, did.

Q. And that was you?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Radomir Mitic, chief of police, he was Breza Tri, number 3.

A. Yes.

Q. He also used the call-sign Trojka, didn't he?

A. Radomir Mitic was Breza 3, Tri, not Trojka.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The number 3 and Trojka is the same thing. ⁴⁵²¹⁶

MR. NICE: It's not up to the witness to interrupt the cross-examination, with great respect. I'm cross-examining on the basis of material available to me and it's not for him to add evidence at this stage, if I may say so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not sure he is adding evidence. I thought he was seeking to clarify something. He has frequently had to do this, and it has been to our advantage, where the B/C/S is concerned.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I've made the point before that sometimes his interventions may assist, sometimes they may, in our respectful submission, have an agenda.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We'll have to make a judgement on that.

MR. NICE:

Q. My suggestion to the witness is, on the basis, of course, of the information I have, that Mitic used the code Breza Tri, and he also used the code Trojka. What do you say to that?

A. Mitic used the code Breza Tri.

Q. Thank you. In the course of the day, you were overheard in communication with Mitic, and that's all too possible, isn't it? Your radio communications could have been overheard by other people in the police station.

A. Yes.

Q. And --

A. Yes. Anyone who was on the line could have heard them.

Q. The reference to the police were coded to reference to Plavi or blue? ⁴⁵²¹⁷

A. Plavi, did we use it in the police? Yes, sometimes.

Q. Thank you. The military was also coded as Zeleni, or green. Is it Zeleni or Djeleni [phoen]? Zeleni, I think.

A. Zeleni.

Q. Zeleni, or green, and that was the code for the army.

A. The colour of the uniform.

Q. Yes.

A. The army uniform.

Q. Yes. Do you accept that that was the code used for the army?

A. Sometimes. Because the army had its call-signs as well.

Q. Do you accept that at one stage in the course of the 15th of January of 1999, in using code, you asked Mitic if it was necessary to engage the army to assist the police, and Mitic told you not at that time because everything was going as planned?

A. No.

Q. Showing that there was indeed a joint --

A. No.

Q. I see.

A. Never. Mitic -- or rather, I don't remember that Mitic ever asked me whether the army needed to be involved in the action. Had he asked me, I'm sure I would have remembered.

Q. At a later stage, you asked Mitic, again all in using your code names, this: "Be careful not to have consequences or casualties." Mitic replied: "Don't worry." And then Ljubisa Boskovic spoke to someone, and after he had done so - this is somebody else in the police station - he ⁴⁵²¹⁸ explained that there were over 60 casualties in Racak, and this was sometime between 11.30 on 12.00.

So do you remember and accept that there was a conversation where you warned Mitic to be careful of -- not to have consequences or casualties and where Ljubisa Boskovic informed you that by that time, about 12.00, 60 had already been killed. Sixty terrorists, it may be described, had already been killed.

A. The person who told you that lied do you, Mr. Nice, and here is why: Ljubisa Boskovic was the assistant commander of the police station in Kacanik, and he has nothing to do with Stimlje and Racak. Nothing to do whatsoever. And I never had a conversation like that.

Q. And finally, from this particular source, you suggested to Mitic, again all in the appropriate code, that he should recommend to the people in the field to cover their tracks, and Mitic indicated that he would do so. Do you remember doing that?

A. That's nonsense, Mr. Nice. Notorious, nonsensical things.

Q. Well, another proposition, not necessarily from the same source but from the same geographical area, is to this effect, that the word "blitz" had a code value and the radio. Do you remember that, blitz?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember the word "magpies"?

A. I don't remember.

Q. What code word, if any, do you recall the OSCE being known by?

A. No.

Q. Magpies, I suggest to you, was what they were known by, and ⁴⁵²¹⁹ "blitz" was the phrase used in code on the radio to alert people to the presence of the OSCE in an area in order that appropriate steps could be taken to stop them seeing what was going on.

A. Mr. Nice, please. That was never used, never. I state that that was never used. Words like that were never used. KVM was used, KDOM was used, and an SC vehicle was a term used. Those were terms and words that were used when referring to members of the observation mission. Now, had there been any intention of concealing that, well, we wouldn't have informed the KVM to come out on the spot. The police would not inform the public information media and cameras that filmed the operation throughout.

Q. I'm moving on. We've seen, and we can look at it if necessary, that on the 16th of January Milutinovic gave a press conference or -- yes, a statement, suggesting that Racak was a kind of new Markale. We now know from the evidence you gave us yesterday, Mr. Janicevic, that the people in Racak died where they were found. Who gave Milutinovic the idea that he should describe this as a Markale? Was it you or somebody to your knowledge? And by Markale, it's not accepted this is what happened at Markale; by Markale is meant a constructed massacre.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does he agree that the people in Racak died where they were found?

MR. NICE: From his answers yesterday.

JUDGE ROBINSON: If that is so, then go ahead.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not true, Mr. Nice, not correct. I never said that the people were found there, that the KVM ⁴⁵²²⁰ found them where they had died.

MR. NICE:

Q. On the 16th, how did you know otherwise, if that's going to be your suggestion? On the 16th of January, how did you know anything about where the bodies had been found so that Milutinovic could be putting out this press release?

A. You will have to ask Milutinovic that. I never spoke to him over the telephone in my life, nor have I ever seen him. That's the first point.

Secondly, I heard Milutinovic's statement on television in the evening, after the statement made by Ambassador Walker about what he had allegedly seen and found in Racak.

Q. I'm just going to pass you a document. It's tab 23 of the Racak papers. That means that it was originally Exhibit D299, tabs 395 and 396. This is a plan that was dated the 20th of January. Are you familiar with this plan? It seems to have been put together by Dragan Ilic and Vladimir Aleksic.

A. I was -- I've been presented a piece of information, 6/99 of the 20th of January, 1999.

Q. Yes. I think that's the one. It's a plan. Is that the one you're looking at?

A. It's not a plan.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] There's either something wrong with the microphone of the witness or there's a technical problem, but I never ⁴⁵²²¹ hear the first several words of the witness's answer in Serbian and have to read from the transcript what the witness said.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have before me --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll ask the technicians to attend to that. If it continues, then you'll bring that to our attention, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: It's the wrong document on the ELMO, by the way, and we'll hand up the correct one to save time.

Q. Just help me, please: Are you familiar with this plan?

A. Yes. This is the plan compiled by the working group.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nort, I think it's on the third page, or fourth.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. Just to remind us - I don't want to ask very much about it - but you see, what I'm interested in your help with is this: This plan is focused solely on identifying those who'd been killed and finding out things and saying things about them, apparently. Can you explain why there was no plan to investigate those KLA terrorists, if there were any, who had escaped and who were still active? Why was the focus only on those who had been killed?

A. The district public prosecutor's office sent out a request for information, the Ministry of the Interior, to the staff of the MUP and the Secretariat of the Interior. The MUP staff, on the basis of that request from the prosecution, drew up a plan for operational and tactical measures and investigation to establish the facts. I apologise.

Q. There's never any focus of interest on the people who survived and got away. And I would suggest to you as a policeman facing terrorists, ⁴⁵²²² you must be more interested in live terrorists than dead terrorists. I just wonder why it never appears in the documents that come out after Racak.

The reason, I'm going to suggest to you, is because you gave the game away. You're just engaged in a cover-up at this stage for what you know you've done that is illegal. That's why you only focus on the dead. You forget the fact that you should actually be focusing on the living.

A. That is your assertion, not mine. I assert that it is -- that's not how it was, Mr. Nice.

Three days -- for three days, the KVM and the terrorists did not allow us to conduct an on-site investigation, and in the space of three days you could have changed the aspect of the site itself a thousand times. You could have done away with evidence. You could have planted new evidence which indicates something else. So who is responsible for that, then?

Had the investigation taken place on that very day, the day the anti-terrorist operation was completed, then all the evidence, all the proof, all material evidence would have been found on the spot, on the locality, and we wouldn't have the need to discuss all this here and now, together with members of the KVM, of course. The KVM was never excluded from the investigation process, and the team, the on-site investigation team, at no point in time were they excluded.

Q. Very well.

A. But we're dealing with something quite different here, and I'm sure you know what we're dealing with, what it's all about. ⁴⁵²²³ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁵²²⁴

Q. [Previous translation continues]... move to 24 which is a document -- tab 24 in the binder, which is a document of yours. It's formally D299, tab 386, tendered through Stevanovic. This is a report of yours, dated the 25th of January. Just -- only two questions about it really. The Chamber would like to see it on the overhead projector. Its form is as follows: It says: "We have operative information that the following members of the KLA from the village of Racak ... who were killed and identified were involved in the activities of Siptar terrorist gangs," and then you list a number of people whose names will be familiar to the Judges if they are familiar with the schedule dealing with victims in Racak. So all the names on the first page are on that list. If we go over to the next page, please, Mr. Nort. Top of the page there's a name that's not familiar to us, I think; Mustafa Asllani. But apart from that, the next three names: Haqif Hysenaj, Sheremet Syla, and Fatmir Limani are familiar. So the first series of names are people who died who the Prosecution say died as unarmed civilians. Your document goes on, just so we can see its shape, to say the following --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] As far as I can see on the transcript as well, and I heard it too, that it's tab 24 of the exhibits from the binder of Mr. Janicevic, whereas in tab 24, the one I have is another document.

MR. NICE: We're looking at tab 24 of the Racak papers. ⁴⁵²²⁵

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's tab 24 of the Racak papers, not this witness's binders.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Janicevic, your -- your own report, for you signed this, goes on to say: "Pursuant to information --" move the page up a little bit please, Mr. Nort, thanks very much. "Pursuant to information from the Siptar media on the members of the so-called KLA who were killed in the village of Racak ... we have operative information on the involvement of the following people ..." And then you list people for the most part who it's accepted died as members of the KLA in Racak. One or two may have died elsewhere in the same general area, but they're not named -- not names that appear on the Prosecution's list of people said to have died as unarmed civilians. So we've got Mehmet Mustafa, Hanumshahe Mujota -- that's the one exception. That's the daughter, to whom we'll return, or we dealt with her yesterday. Then Skender Qarri - over the page, please - Kadri Syla, and so on. Various names, some of them listed by Shukri Buja and some of them not.

But then at the foot of the page, we see this: "The service has information that the other people killed in Racak ... and who were not identified, were actively involved in or assisted members of the so-called KLA ..."

If they weren't identified, how could you make that assertion? You see? You see the point? Here you are saying in advance of information --

A. The service disposes of operative information that the rest of the ⁴⁵²²⁶ people who died in Racak, in Stimlje municipality on the 15th of January, 1999, and who were not identified were actively involved in or assisted members of the so-called KLA in the village of Racak. This is a piece of information received from the operative police who knew their names but didn't know all the information, didn't have all the information about them. So I'm certain of what I say.

I don't have, however, the report on the basis of which this piece of information was compiled, but it was certainly compiled on the basis of relevant information received from the operative people in Racak.

Q. Mr. Janicevic, if somebody is not identified, you can't really say very much about them, can you? Apart from that you don't know their name. So if you don't know their name, you don't know what they did. Can we distribute --

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, indictments here are full of references to people unknown who are actually are alleged to have committed crimes.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, with great respect, that's a different point, because what's being said there is people were acting in concert and there were others who it may be shown were acting in concert. What is said here is that the service has information, and that's different, in my respectful --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps instead "who were not identified," we should read "who were not fully identified."

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Janicevic, what identification, if any, of these other people did you have by the time you wrote this report? ⁴⁵²²⁷

A. For each person killed in the war, we had either a name, a first name or a last name, or the father's name. For example, Asan's son, and things like that. Although you don't know the complete name, the person wasn't therefore identified. Identification is when you have all the relevant data and confirm that it is indeed the person you think it is.

Q. Well, can you tell us, please, is there a document showing who it was you were saying here on this date, the 25th of January, was partially identified and partially identified as a member of the KLA?

A. When you received this report or piece of information, and I don't know you received it, all the operative data, Official Notes, reports, and pieces of information were attached to it, on the basis of which this document was compiled and sent out. I don't have all those attachments now. I don't even have this report either, and you -- you do have it.

Q. You see, the reason I asked the question and I asked it in the very specific way I did -- I'll assist the Judges by distribution, please, of this document. The Chamber will remember a chart that we produced in the course of Jasovic's statement -- evidence, to assist the Chamber. It's been subject to further consideration in light of the material that's been produced by this witness, and I'll come to that at a little later stage. It's been corrected for one or two errors that were located, and they've been shaded in in grey. It's only a matter of two or three of those. But what this document shows - and perhaps the witness could have one - is, and I'll remind the Chamber and familiarise the witness with the format of this document. You see, this is a document that has along the top some of the names of those people who died in Racak and who the ⁴⁵²²⁸ Prosecution says died as unarmed civilians, and it has down the left-hand side alleged sources of information about KLA involvement, according to material provided by Jasovic and through Marinkovic and Stevanovic. Now, if you'd be good enough, please, Mr. Janicevic, to go over to the third sheet, you'll see a strong horizontal line, and after-- which represents the date of Racak. And after that, on the 16th of January, if you follow the format of the document, you'll see that somebody called Mustafa Afrim was said to have provided a large number of names, starting with Lufti Bilalli and going on then to Buja Hajrizi and various others, as people who were involved in the KLA. And those names, we see, are not exactly matched but very closely matched to the names that appear in the first part of your report of the 25th of January. A large number of the names there match.

Now, we've also produced -- not produced, we've revealed to the Court a 16-year-old boy, as he then was, explains that on the day he was taken to the police station and electrocuted and that this statement is nothing to do with him.

My suggestion to you is that your report, naming as it does some people and having to say of others that they're unidentified but that they nevertheless were involved, actually reflects that you were engaged in the process of trying to get material that would justify killing all these people and you'd only got so far with the exercise. Do you understand me?

MR. KAY: I must say I don't think the chart is a matter that is appropriate to put before the witness at all. This is a matter for closing argument and as a tool for cross-examination and putting it to the ⁴⁵²²⁹ witness, in my submission, it is wholly inappropriate. This is a matter for the final brief of the Prosecution, and these documents should be returned to them. The Trial Chamber shouldn't be considering this material, nor this witness, in cross-examination.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't quite understand your point, Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: The Prosecution has put in a chart which I'm still struggling to interpret. I don't know how the witness is going to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: -- manage that, containing their evidence contradicting Dragan Jasovic's statements, revised version 16/6/2005. It's got the OTP comments, so their arguments. It's got a series of cross-references. This isn't a question at all. Again, it's using a means of cross-examination to try and bolster or produce the argument of the Prosecution. Well, that's a matter for the closing, final submissions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's more in the form of an aide-memoire, is it?

MR. NICE: I think Mr. Kay's problem -- I've forgotten, he may not have been here during Jasovic's cross-examination.

MR. KAY: I was here.

MR. NICE: Then you should remember it from then. This document was, of course essential to make any sense of the vast quantity, and I use that word infrequently but appropriately, of material provided through Jasovic. And I have to say that, in light of the considerable amount of additional material provided by this witness, we have been engaged in trying to assist ourselves and the Chamber to see if this chart --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not in evidence, is it? It's not in ⁴⁵²³⁰ evidence.

MR. NICE: No, it's an aide-memoire. To see if this chart should be changed at all --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, wouldn't it be better just to put the last part of your question, which has just gone off the transcript, to the witness and see whether the witness can answer it, whether with or without the use of this document? Mr. Kay's point, I think, is valid in that it will take a little time for the witness to digest this.

MR. NICE: It may take --

JUDGE ROBINSON: And may confuse him.

MR. NICE: It may not. But as a powerful -- as a powerful way of revealing what his police station produced, in my respectful submission, it's absolutely appropriate to use it, because what I've revealed, what this chart reveals, and it's not -- it's got OTP comments on the right, but it seeks to be an analysis of an otherwise indigestible quantity of material produced by the Defence. And the Defence did nothing to schedule their material, nothing whatsoever. It shows as clear as daylight that a boy aged 16 is said to have provided a whole lot of names on the 16th of January.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not a relevant part of this argument here. As far as I'm concerned, this chart simply confuses me, because I have no idea at the moment how many of the names are common to the report and the chart which would be the statement of Afrim Mustafa. Now, if you were to put the question that way, that they are identical in number or that half of them are referred to or something, then I would begin to ⁴⁵²³¹ understand the position.

MR. NICE: Very well.

JUDGE BONOMY: But I certain -- I also don't see Mr. Kay's point particularly. You can use this device, as far as I'm concerned, for your cross-examination purposes, but it does not assist me, I should make that clear.

MR. NICE: Well, then I'm grateful to the Court.

Q. If we look at it, we'll see, Mr. Janicevic, that the person said to have provided this information on the 16th, that's Mustafa Afrim, provided, and if we now look at your report, the first part of your report, we can see that he is said to have provided the name Lufti Bilalli. That's the first name on your list. He's said to have provided the name Buja Hajrizi -- Myfail Hajrizi, the second name. He is not, I think, said to have provided the name -- yes, he is; Muhamed Mustafa. He's said to have provided that name. Bajram Xheladini, he's said to have provided that name. Buja Hajrizi I think is not a name he's said to have provided. Esref Jakupi is a name he's not suggested to have provided. Asllani is a name that doesn't appear in any event anywhere on our list. Hyseni Acif is a name he is not suggested to have provided although one comes on the following from another witness. And Fatmir Limani and Sheremet Syla are not names he is said to have provided, Fatmir is, I think.

So that there is a coincidence -- not a total coincidence, but a high level of names provided -- allegedly provided by this young boy on the day after and appearing in your report. And my suggestion to you is ⁴⁵²³² that you and your officers, Jasovic in particular, were putting together material to try and justify the killing of these people.

A. That's not true.

Q. Well --

A. First of all, I'm sorry, but I cannot understand this table. It will need time to be able to interpret this. I never had the opportunity of seeing this kind of table. We do things differently. What you've said is absolutely incorrect. I told you that all information related to the identification of persons who were killed in combat with the police in Racak were collected from citizens, people they saw in the streets, and from operative positions in Racak itself. Everything on the basis this information was compiled was sent further on to the higher instance, to the MUP staff in Pristina. If they gave you this, they should have given you that, too, so you would have the entire material.

I had nothing to hide nor do I have anything to hide now.

Q. Before we move from the chart and this topic, I can deal with this very briefly. You occupied the same office, do you -- I don't necessarily mean the same room, but the same office that Jasovic occupies at the police station in exile, yes?

A. I didn't understand. What did I do? I had the same function?

Q. Did you occupy the same office, the same police station as Jasovic occupies?

A. We never had the same functions, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: By office, that's -- ⁴⁵²³³

MR. NICE:

Q. You're at Leskovac, aren't you?

A. Not correct.

Q. Are you aware that Jasovic came and gave a lot of evidence here, producing a lot of statements said to have been provided identifying people as members of the KLA? Were you aware of that?

A. I'm aware of that from Urosevac, not from Leskovac.

Q. Nobody has done an analysis on behalf of the accused of the new material, voluminous as it is, and we've only been able to do the best we can with many documents not translated and with the considerable difficulty of tracing names that sometimes change in the Albanian practice, but our analysis, Mr. Janicevic, is that your material, the additional material you've brought, doesn't add at all to the identification of people killed at Racak as being members of the KLA. It seems to us that you don't add at all to the number of people identified as KLA. It's simply the same people that Jasovic identified. Can you help one way or another whether your statements produced should be changing the number of people identified as members of the KLA or not?

A. I was not involved in that kind of work. I did not compare this or check it.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, that's -- I'll leave that point there. I'm not suggesting that these exercises are easy to do. They're not. Whether you do them manually or whether you do them by electronic search with or without a Cyrillic facility, it's not easy to pick off all ⁴⁵²³⁴ the names. We've done our best, and it's one of the reasons for reprinting this schedule which I venture to suggest can be a document of assistance.

We have identified some corrections, which you'll see shaded in grey, and there's one other correction that I'm going to make in due course, but it seems to us, from the documents provided, that they don't actually add to the picture of KLA association of those who are said to have died as unarmed civilians.

MR. KAY: What I'm concerned with as well is the comments on the side which put Prosecution arguments on the issue, and this has to be noted. Just looking at the first one: "Bajram Hyseni. This person as identified by Jasovic does not exist." I don't know whether that's right or wrong. Comments about beatings and essentially the Prosecution case on each issue in relation to a particular victim or person or deceased. So in those circumstances, in my submission, this material is inappropriate. If Mr. Milosevic was producing argument here that was relevant for his closing submission, he would be told that's relevant for your final submission, we're not concerned with that issue now. The Prosecution, in the same way, must be restrained in the way they produce their material. They are using it in a way that emphasises and supports their argument in their interest without respecting the same rule that is applied to Mr. Milosevic that the argument should be saved for the end of the case, that questions should be put at this stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, the witness has said that he doesn't understand the document. The document is not in evidence. I see it ⁴⁵²³⁵ really at this stage as an internal document that the Prosecutor has used in his case.

MR. KAY: Yes. I hope the Court understands the point I'm making here is that there is argument within it which is part of this process that it is seeking to add to their material constantly as the case progresses.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We understand the argument.

MR. KAY: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, the document is already before you in an earlier format, with all the comments there.

Q. Can we look at one last document from the -- for completeness, from the Racak papers. It's tab 28 in those papers, which makes it Exhibit 178, introduced through General Maisonneuve. And this, Mr. Janicevic, is a record of a meeting at which you were not present, but present at the meeting was Colonel Jelic, who we understand we aren't going to hear from, commander of the 243rd Brigade. And I want your comment on one of the things that he said. If we look at the first page, we can see that Colonel Krsman Jelic is supposed to be identified in the summary as letter D, but in fact he doesn't get identified by that name, he gets identified by the letter J, as we can see.

At the foot of the first page -- well, just leaving it there, we can see that Kotur, Colonel Kotur says at the beginning that: "The VJ were several hundred metres away when the attack started." Does that accord with your recollection, that the VJ were several hundred metres ⁴⁵²³⁶ away, Mr. Janicevic?

A. The army of Yugoslavia was at Canovica Brdo - and I think that that hill is about 700 metres away from Racak - when the anti-terrorist operation started, not attack. We did not attack anyone.

Q. And then on the same point, just two other questions. At the foot of the first page, please, Mr. Nort. General Maisonneuve set out for the assembled gathering that he had some questions. His forces had seen VJ tanks firing on houses with civilians who were not firing back. "Later we went into the houses and found the people in their basement." And he then says, "When were you, Colonel Jelic, there? Did you order the forces to do this? If not, who was the commander on the ground?" And then over the page we see the code for the answer given as J. There's nobody mentioned as J and the context makes it clear that this is Krsman Jelic, because he explains that most of the questions have been answered by K for Kotur. But at the foot of the page, right at the foot of the page, he's asked this question by Maisonneuve -- well, we can see he says -- just on the screen at the moment he says this thing: "Weren't attacked from the village but from the high ground between Racak and Belince. They had 200 to 300 metres higher elevation." Then he says this: "This was not a military operation nor was the VJ responsible for any destruction in the town. Our operation happened at the same time and the MUP operation."

And then at the foot of the page he's asked: "Confirm your forces did not fire into the village." And he says: "Just between Racak and Belince." Over the page. "You didn't do this to support the MUP ⁴⁵²³⁷ operation?" "No."

Well, now, I'm not accepting the account he gave, but taking it in stages, do you accept that the VJ was firing, at the very least, between Racak and Belince?

A. I said yesterday, Mr. Nice, what I state now as well with full responsibility, that I don't know whether the military had fired. I was not informed about that. But had they been firing, I certainly would have heard it. And be assured that I would have been informed had they fired a single rocket at Racak or Belince. Racak is about 500 metres away from Belince. Belince had nothing to do with the anti-terrorist operation.

Q. You see, I'm suggesting to you in the clearest terms that you're not telling this Court the truth, that you know perfectly well this was a joint operation, that the army was there to support, if necessary, and to deter the other KLA, and it was shelling, including into Racak itself.

A. Well, Mr. Nice, I was there. You were not there. How can you claim that when you don't know? First of all, you don't know. And this is not correct. There was no agreement on support because there was no need for support. There was no need whatsoever.

Q. And so you --

A. Please let me finish.

Q. Had we had support and had there been an agreement on support, the police would not have withdrawn from Racak at 1530 hours under terrorist fire. Around 11.00 - I cannot give the exact time - until 1530 hours, there was constant fire from infantry weapons, from mortars, from the terrorist positions that were in the area of Krsine or behind that hill or ⁴⁵²³⁸ from the direction of Petrovo.

The first shells that fell were terrorist ones in the area of Racak because the police were there. Well, that's the truth, Mr. Nice.

Q. And can you think of any reason why Krsman Jelic should acknowledge shelling Belince? Can you think of any reason why Radosavljevic should have suggested that this was a joint operation made pursuant to the Joint Command? Can you think of any reason for those two things, please?

A. Radosavljevic commanded the radio station. And until about 1515 hours that day, he was not in Racak, so he was commanding at a distance, from a distance. He did not see the army.

What Krsman Jelic said, that they were firing in the direction of Belince, I don't know about that, whether they were firing or not. You'll have to ask him about that. As far as I've heard, he's going to be a witness too.

Q. Yesterday, I asked you some questions generally about OSC -- I'm so sorry.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, your office interviewed Mr. Radosavljevic?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't -- you didn't call him.

MR. NICE: Certainly not. But he was certainly interviewed. I think it was a suspect interview, I'm not sure.

Your Honour, if we called everybody we interviewed -- very different. ⁴⁵²³⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, it seems that his evidence would have been very helpful in relation to Racak.

MR. NICE: -- it depends on whether one accepts --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Relevant.

MR. NICE: Relevant, yes. I would be delighted for him to be here in Court, called by the accused or even by the Chamber. Were he available to us, which I'm not even sure he is, I don't know.

Q. I was asking some questions yesterday, Mr. Janicevic, relating to observers including Marcusson, Fantini and Jendensten.

MR. NICE: Your Honours will not know, but I can now tell you, that I was asking those questions on the basis of a statement that at that time I was not in a position fully to identify but I now can, the sensitivities of the relevant rule having been dealt with.

Q. You see, Mr. Janicevic, there was an American observer called Braddock Scott, and he was present in the area at the time. Between 11.00 and 12.00, I must suggest to you, police cars went up the crest of a hill, identified as hill 685 to Braddock Scott, and they established a firing position on top of the hill.

What hill do you say the police went up? You may not know it as hill 685. What hill do you say the police went up? We can look at it on the map or something like that.

A. I don't know what hill it is. I know that the police were deployed in the morning. Perhaps they changed positions in that sector, but not further than that. The police were at their respective places from 7.00 in the morning onwards, those who were stationed there. From ⁴⁵²⁴⁰ 7.00 up until the end of the operation.

Q. When he speaks of tanks, would the tanks be Serbian T-55 tanks, would those be army tanks?

A. Who spoke about tanks?

Q. Would a T-55 tank inevitably and necessarily be a VJ tank?

A. The tanks that were at Canovica hill were tanks of the army of Yugoslavia, that's for sure.

Q. Because from the same source, I must suggest to you that such tanks were observed by one of the OSCE monitors from the -- firing, from the ridge between Stimlje and Racak, firing between 11.00 and 12.00 p.m. towards Petrovo and Malopoljce. True or false?

A. False. Had they been firing, they certainly would have informed me, because there was a police patrol in that sector as well.

Q. I'm suggesting you're simply not telling the truth and you're hiding what you know to be the VJ's involvement.

JUDGE KWON: Can I clarify one thing? Yes. Answer the question and then I'll --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not correct. What Mr. Nice said is his comment, and my assertion is that I am not hiding anything, nor do I have any reason to hide anything.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. To my question put to you by me yesterday, you answered that you didn't know. You don't know whether the VJ located position around Racak had tanks. But now today you said -- let me find it. "The tanks that were at Canovica hill were tanks of the army of Yugoslavia, that's for ⁴⁵²⁴¹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁵²⁴² sure." That's what you said just now. Could you clarify that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's what I said yesterday, too. That was an armoured Mechanised Brigade, the 249th, which was at Canovica hill, and tanks and other armoured vehicles are there. I don't know what else was there.

So at Canovica hill a combat group of army -- of the army of Yugoslavia was stationed with equipment that was stationed there, and those were tanks and military vehicles.

JUDGE KWON: Does Canovica hill appear on this map, tab 70 of yours?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Where the red circles are in the western part.

JUDGE KWON: Could you put tab 70 on the ELMO, and could you point to the point.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 70? I think it's this. This area is called Canovica hill, and what is marked in red is the location where the military unit was stationed. That is part of the 243rd Motorised Brigade.

JUDGE KWON: Did they have tanks there?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they had tanks there throughout, in accordance with the agreement.

Next to this location, where a large group was, over here, within the police patrol, they had one combat vehicle with a few soldiers that were the crew of that vehicle. Their task was to protect the road from Stimlje to Crnoljevska gorge and Dulje. ⁴⁵²⁴³ There was yet another group that they had between -- below Kostanje or, rather, behind the church and the elementary school east of Racak and Stimlje, about two and a half to three kilometres away.

JUDGE KWON: And minute ago you said Armoured Mechanised Brigade, the 249th, which was at Canovica hill. Was it that you misspoke the name of the brigade?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maybe. Motorised Brigade. Armoured units were within that brigade. I'm sorry, I may have misspoken. 243rd Motorised Brigade of the army of Yugoslavia. And there was an armoured battalion or whatever it was within it. I'm not sure. I don't know about that. It's the army officers who know.

JUDGE KWON: I'm still confused. Please proceed, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, wherever the tanks were, Belince and Racak were within their range, weren't they?

A. I think that the tanks from Canovica hill were not within the range of Belince and Racak. As far as I know, a tank can fire horizontally and vertically, and they were at an elevation which was at least 50 metres above Racak, at least. So they could not target Racak.

Q. You see, Krsman Jelic says they targeted Belince. Are you saying he is completely wrong? He didn't say targeted, he said hit it.

JUDGE BONOMY: Can you remind me where that is.

MR. NICE: I just remembered it myself. It was the very last thing we were looking at.

JUDGE BONOMY: He said just between Racak and Belince. ⁴⁵²⁴⁴

MR. NICE: Between Racak and Belince.

JUDGE BONOMY: And then we had other evidence of firing from a position between Racak and Belince in some other direction. I think you led another piece of evidence that referred to that.

MR. NICE:

Q. Do you accept, Mr. Janicevic, for my next question, that where the tanks were they'd be in range of firing on Petrova and Malopoljce?

A. You will have to ask Krsman Jelic that because I'm not an army officer, and I'm not very knowledgeable about tanks, the firing of tanks, their range, et cetera.

Q. You see, the reason I ask you that question, and we can see where the -- well, the Chamber will know where to the south and the south-east of Racak those two places are. The same United States OSCE observer, Braddock Scott, records that in the afternoon, at about 1500 hours, he saw a tank fire two rounds directly at a house, he having seen tanks and mortars firing at Petrova and Malopoljce generally, and he saw a tank fire at a house, and a short time after that he saw people run away. Now, if the VJ was firing at Petrova and Malopoljce, you'd have to know about that, wouldn't you?

A. If they had fired, I would certainly have been informed by my own people.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, that is a witness who is available.

JUDGE KWON: Just one question.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: Where is -- Mr. Janicevic, where is the headquarters ⁴⁵²⁴⁵ of 243rd Motorised Brigade? Where was it located, the headquarters?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the Milan Zecar barracks in Urosevac.

JUDGE KWON: In Urosevac. Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. And is it right -- again the same source for my question: Is it right that the tanks left between a quarter to four and 4.00, went to an assembly area in the hills north-west of Stimlje? Do you remember that?

A. No.

MR. NICE: I see the time, but may I ask one more question before I --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. The hill to the north-east of Stimlje is the base where the army was. It's Borovi at Canovica hill, marked here in red.

Q. Do you remember, Mr. Janicevic, I asked you about one of the sources of information relied upon by Jasovic and thus by the accused, the 16-year-old Afrim Mustafa, who was picked up before he gave his statement on the 16th of January, at a field in Stimlje. My suggestion to you is that it's something you must know about, is that he was then beaten up by the police in the course of trying to get a statement from him, and I must suggest to you this: In the course of his treatment, he was told by the officer dealing with him - inspector, probably - "How can you be alive? We killed all the people there in Racak."

Does that make sense to you as something that would be said by a policeman on the 16th of January, because that's what you the police tried ⁴⁵²⁴⁶ to do, kill everyone in Racak?

A. That is a pure lie, Mr. Nice. The police was trying to arrest terrorist group that was based in Racak. That's one thing. Second, you're talking about the 16th of January. On the 16th, there were at least 200 verifiers in Stimlje. They were at the police station all day. And you are saying that this inspector beat up this boy in the presence of the verifier. You are simply not right. You have been lied to.

At this moment, you cannot find a single Albanian person who would confirm to you that Serbs or the Serb police did anything right. Two hundred thousand -- 250.000 Serbs have been expelled from Kosovo.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to take the break. Mr. Nice, I have to ask: How much longer will you be in your cross-examination?

MR. NICE: I'd hoped to finish in the next session but things have moved a lot more slowly than I'd hoped for. The -- and it may be that this is a witness with whom I'll have to run on. The problems of Racak are detailed. We've been provided with a great deal of material and I'm certainly not going to be able to go through his exhibits, but I've tried to take the Court through methodically the material upon which, from the way he was explained to us as the authoritative witness, he should be able to help us, and I have some other topics to deal with. I'll do my best.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We'll break for 20 minutes.

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

--- Upon resuming at 10:58 a.m. ⁴⁵²⁴⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may continue.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Janicevic, is it still your case that not only was the army not involved but there were no Serbs dressed as police or as army who were involved?

A. As far as the army is concerned, I assert that they did not take part in the anti-terrorist operation on the 15th. As regards Serbs, I guarantee that no Serbs, apart from active duty policemen, took part in the anti-terrorist operation. No civilians were involved.

Q. Finally, because all sorts of things are mentioned in the overall collection of papers about Racak which we can find if we search for them, is there any question in your judgement or recollection of any paramilitary group being involved?

A. That is a blatant untruth, Mr. Nice. First of all, there were no paramilitary groups in Kosovo as such except for the paramilitaries of the KLA.

MR. NICE: If the Court would find it helpful at some stage to have the map that I produced yesterday which seeks to match the witness's map positions on our own map, that might help them. Not so much now but in the next few minutes.

And if the witness could be shown by Mr. Nort the various pages of the part of Exhibit 156, tab 7, to which I'm going to draw his attention.

Q. I want you to look at various pages here, various pictures, because on your own account, Mr. Janicevic, whoever died in Racak died at the hands of your police, and you were introduced to us as the person who ⁴⁵²⁴⁸ basically knew everything and could say everything about what happened at Racak, so we want your assistance, please.

Mr. Nort, can you show him the first photograph. If you can leave them in the binder on the overhead projector, it may be easier. Now, this is three men who were seen to have died. We can see them there, their names and ages and everything. How did they die? You're the man in charge; tell us.

A. I was not there. I did not see how they got killed.

Q. You've seen the reports. Tell us, please, if you can, how they died.

A. I see here caps on their heads, and during any fall, even the most ordinary fall, a cap falls from one's head. I don't see what this site is or where it is.

Q. Very well. We'll come back to that --

A. I only know that --

Q. It's not near a trench, is it?

A. I don't know.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. This is a picture in the --

Q. Next photograph, please, Mr. Nort. The next photograph shows 65-year-old -- beg your pardon, I may have missed one.

Can you go on to the next one, please, which should be -- the next one that's indicated -- the next one. These are the three men themselves. Next one. And can you go to the next yellow tab, please, or the green ⁴⁵²⁴⁹ tab. That's it. That's fine.

Here we see Ahmet Mustafa, age 65, dead at the side of a house, not in a trench. Can you tell us, please, from your records or recollection how he died? And if not, can you point us to a contemporaneous document that's going to tell us how he died?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does the photograph show him at the side of a house?

MR. NICE: Yes. Or a building. Whether it's a house or not, I'm not sure.

Q. Can you tell us how he died?

A. He is lying next to a wall. I can't tell you how he died. I'm not a medical person, I was not on the spot, I didn't see him die. You have the forensic reports of three teams which describe it.

Q. You see, we haven't heard from anybody yet in this case who pulled a trigger and killed anyone, and apparently you're the person who is providing the information. So that's why I'm asking you these questions. Can you go to the next tab, please, Mr. Nort, which simply gives the title that we're now looking at something called "Crime location 3, scene 6."

If the Chamber is looking at its chart, it will see 3, 6 two-thirds of the way down the page, on a road, and it sees the identification of the people who were killed there. If we turn over to the next tab, please, Mr. Nort, we can see that scene shown on the map. No. It should be -- it should be page 945. You may have gone one page too many, I think. Yes. One page back, please. ⁴⁵²⁵⁰ That's it.

If we look at that, this shows where this man died, you see. It's street, not a trench, nothing near a trench, nor is it a bunker. And incidentally, the accused raised the use of the word "bunker." If necessary, there was a long passage yesterday, or the day before yesterday -- the hearing day before yesterday, where this witness used "bunker" about four times as a relevant place for people to be dead. That's his word.

Right. Somebody died here in the street. Is there a report explaining how he died, who killed him, who pulled the trigger?

A. Mr. Nice, during street fighting, when it's practically hand-to-hand battle, when fighting goes on for every corner of a street, every house, when policemen are fighting the terrorists, how can I know and how can even they know who killed whom and who pulled the trigger?

Q. Mr. Janicevic, let me remind you. We looked at the contemporaneous documents yesterday, including documents drafted by you, and you accepted that your account showed people dying in trenches, you suggested, or near to trenches, and nowhere else. Now, can you explain, please -- and this was on the basis of information coming to you from your subordinates, presumably. Can you now please explain to us how it comes about that somebody died in a street if they were only ever going to be killed when they were in trenches?

A. Please. I presented a map that was drawn from memory. There are people who got killed in trenches. Other people were killed in street fighting, close to houses, behind walls, at the entrance to the village. ⁴⁵²⁵¹

Q. [Previous translation continues]... not your evidence yesterday.

A. That's what I said on the first day, Mr. Nice, when I was showing that map. I said that on the first day.

Q. Can we look at the next page. Sorry, it's my mistake. I just want to quickly look at the next page, which is -- just shows a picture of where somebody called Nazmi Imeri died. And then next page, please, which is also the next sticker. It shows the man who had been by now moved into a house. 78-year-old Nazmi Imeri. Can you tell us where, why and how, from contemporaneous reporting to you, this 78-year-old man died? Apparently he died by the -- by the whatever it was, washing line on the previous picture. Can you tell us why he died?

A. I can't tell you. First of all, I can't tell you because in that sector, in that area, shooting came from all sides. There was crossfire. Terrorists were shooting at policemen and policemen were shooting at terrorists. How can I tell you who killed him, who targeted him if anyone targeted him, and who pulled the trigger?

Q. Can we look at the next tab, please, which is a title page. This little next section is Crime Location 3, scene 7. The Court can see that marked and can see that the associate of this witness who drew the map identifies some two bodies as being found in that position, whereas the Prosecution's case is that three bodies -- no, I beg your pardon. The Prosecution's case is indeed that two bodies were found there, a 22-year-old and a 54-year-old. But there was a little boy there. He was able to point out where people died.

And if you go over to the next sticker, please, which is the next ⁴⁵²⁵² page, it's an aerial view, we can see where this scene is, at a road. It's nothing to do with a trench.

You see, Mr. Janicevic? And if we then go over to the next sticker.

A. Yes.

Q. We can see the young boy pointing out where these two people died. And if we go over to the next sticker, we see the woman, young woman, Hanumshahe Mehmeti, and the following photograph is the photograph of her father Bajram. Next photograph, please.

Are there records that are going to tell us how those two people died at that location? Is there anyone who has reported to you how those people died at that location?

A. What I received was a general report on what happened that day. Nobody reported to me on individual people, nor can anybody know who was killed where and when. That's one thing.

Second, the on-site investigation was not carried out. For three days we were unable to perform the on-site investigation because the KVM and the terrorists would not allow us. You would have to ask them why they didn't allow it.

Q. Just a few more of these and we'll be done. Can you look at the next sticker, please, which relates to Crime Location 3, scene 8, which the Court will see -- yes, it's the one at the top which is nearly obscured by the line connecting it, I think.

Right. Now, this reveals that Ijet Emini's body was found in one place and his head in another. From reporting coming to you, ⁴⁵²⁵³ Mr. Janicevic, can you explain that?

A. I cannot explain that, but I told you before that there was street fighting as well, that every wall was used as a shelter, both by the police and the terrorists. Every wall, every house, every shed, every stone practically. And fighting lasted until 1500 hours. In a village of about 200 houses, they managed to take control of everything in about eight hours.

Q. You do understand, Mr. Janicevic, that the reason I went so carefully through the contemporaneous documents available to us yesterday, giving you a chance to comment on your own writing and the writings of others, is because thus far there is no piece of contemporaneous writing that suggests other than that everybody was killed in the trenches from which the weapons were taken. And you're now giving this very detailed account of house-to-house fighting and I suggest it's simply because you've been caught out and you didn't lay enough plans to cover the ground. Isn't that the truth?

Isn't that the truth? You've just been caught out because you know perfectly well that these people were butchered.

A. That's not correct, Mr. Nice. That's simply not true.

Q. Let's look at the next sticker, which for the Chamber's assistance --

A. This is preposterous what you're saying.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... scene 9. It's on the left-hand side of the map, and the Prosecution's case is that three people died there. Let's leave it at that one for the time being, please. It's ⁴⁵²⁵⁴ very similar to a position identified by this witness's colleague in the flat where they drew the map three weeks ago as being one where six bodies were found.

Now, if you look at the first photograph, here's a 21-year-old man. Next page, please. Here's a boy, described here as 14, elsewhere as 12. Can you help us, please, so that we may know - his father died and his brother but he may have other relations - so that everyone can know why he died.

A. I cannot tell you because I don't know.

Q. What was he doing for the KLA, please?

A. I don't know how he died. I don't know where he died, and I don't know what he did for the KLA, but I know -- but I know that a group of 80 members of the terrorist KLA were stationed in Racak. They had committed numerous crimes.

Are you sure that it was the police who killed this boy during the intervention? Can you prove that?

Q. No one else, on your own evidence, is responsible for the death of these people.

A. Please, from 6.30 until 1500 hours a fierce battle was going on and there was shooting from all sides. Terrorists were shooting at policemen, policemen were shooting at terrorists.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Janicevic --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could anybody confirm that?

JUDGE ROBINSON: May I ask whether the information that you had about the group of KLA in Racak, did it indicate whether in that group ⁴⁵²⁵⁵ were children ages 14 or 15?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. No, no. We had information that only about 50 civilians were in Racak.

MR. NICE:

Q. Does it appear, then, that this person may be an innocent victim of the events of Racak? Are you prepared to make that concession, Mr. Janicevic?

A. I don't know whether she was innocent, and I don't know how she died.

Q. I think it's a boy, isn't it, Haljim Beqiri?

A. Have you heard of suicide bombers aged between 12 and 18? Were they involved in terrorist activities?

Q. Mr. Janicevic, do you recognise that the dead are entitled to some dignity? Do you?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Now, then, do you have any material to suggest that this 12 or 14-year-old boy did anything by way of terrorism as you make that suggestion in a public court? Do you? If so, produce it.

A. I do not have any such material. But when 90 per cent of residents were driven away from the village, 50 remained behind, and they were practically the logistical support of the terrorist organisation that was operating from there, and that boy was probably among them.

Q. Probably. You have no material to show that this boy was involved in the KLA at all, do you?

A. Neither do you have any material to show that the police killed ⁴⁵²⁵⁶ this boy. Do you have such proof? Can you claim that the police killed him?

Q. Would you be so good now as to take volume 2 of your exhibits and go to tab 52. Do you want to remind us of what tab 52 is or do you want me to tell you what you said about it?

A. I did not draw up this list. It's the commission who did it.

Q. The commission --

A. It's a list of security related --

Q. The commission? What commission?

A. The commission set up by Urosevac SUP.

Q. To do what?

A. And it worked at the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. To do what?

A. It worked together, record and make a unified report on all security related incidents in Kosovo and Metohija in 1998 and 1999, all incidents, regardless of where and when they happened, all security related incidents involving loss of life as a result of armed clashes in Kosovo and Metohija in the period from the 1st of January, 1998, to the 1st of June, 2001, in the area of Urosevac SUP.

Q. You go on to the item 25, the 40 bodies found on the 15th of January. Have you found it?

A. Yes.

MR. NICE: Perhaps we can put it on the overhead projector, Mr. Nort, if you wouldn't mind.

Q. Now, this boy is identified -- sorry. You see this boy's name ⁴⁵²⁵⁷ appears there. You can see it in the block of the people simply described at the moment as 40 dead bodies found on the 15th of January. If we look in the middle of that block, we can see his name there, this time described as Beqiri Haljim from Racak, aged 12, sandwiched between his father's name and other names.

Do you -- what does that mean, do you say, in that document; that he's a member of the KLA or that he isn't?

A. This document mentions the names of all people who got killed in Racak on the 15th of January. It doesn't say whether they were members of the KLA.

Q. So are you accepting that he may be an innocent victim, if the only one, but an innocent victim?

A. That is a possibility. There is that possibility as well.

Q. Can we come back to that in a minute. Can we go back to the photographs now, please, Mr. Nort. There's one other document I've got to find in relation to this but I'm temporarily misplaced it. Right. Looking at the next photograph in the collection, please, we see his father. So there it is, a father and two sons. Any explanation for their death, as to how they died? Any whatsoever?

A. No, I have no explanation, because I don't know how they died.

Q. But of course the people who pulled the triggers, the people who were doing what you're saying was the hand-to-hand fighting, they're still alive, aren't they, because no one from the police died in the course of this operation, did they?

A. Nobody from the police died, but a certain number of terrorists ⁴⁵²⁵⁸ did die who were also shooting, Mr. Nice, shooting very fiercely at one and all; at the police and at their own men, too, probably.

Q. Was it good luck, great skill, or something else that meant that it was a case of 40-odd terrorists and no police who died when, as you say, all the terrorists were armed? Was it luck or skill? Tell us.

A. The policemen who took part in the anti-terrorist operation had undergone more training, especially of the pursuit group, who were among the first to enter and were in the forefront of the operation, and they were equipped with protective devices. They had special vests and helmets, protective vests and so on, bulletproof vests.

Q. Let's just look at a few pictures of the ravine and then we'll look at something different. If you go on, please, Mr. Nort, to I think the next sticker, we come to the ravine itself. And the Chamber will want to remind itself -- if we look at that photograph, actually. Can we just look at that photograph because it gives quite a good view of the ravine. No, I think the wrong photograph. Yes. Could you go on to the next sticker, please. It shows the ravine. Thank you. It shows the ravine, and we can see how the so-called ravine bifurcates in the middle of this picture and then rejoins, and we'll just look at a couple, if you can put them on sequentially, Mr. Nort, a couple of pictures to remind everybody what the victims looked like in the ravine, or what the dead people looked like in the ravine. Just go through a couple of stickers, please, turn them around. That's Hakip Imeri, age 33. Next one, please, next sticker. This one will do and then we can turn to something else. ⁴⁵²⁵⁹ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁵²⁶⁰ This one, as you see, shows a number of people, 52 years old, 44, 30, 20, and 61 in the ravine, and we can see from the picture that the ravine is comparatively deep and, even in January, although the foliage has gone from the plants for the most part, nevertheless the plants are themselves quite high. Perhaps if you go on one -- two more stickers, Mr. Nort, we can have a picture of that as well. Yes. You can see there on the right-hand side that the bushes and so on are quite high even if they aren't covered in believes.

Now, you're not able to give any detail from records or recollection of how those people died in the ravine, are you?

A. Walker would be best placed to tell you that, perhaps.

Q. What, how they died?

A. Please. Take a look at that ravine little closer and take a look at this side here. The group of verifiers was there from 7.00 a.m. Is it possible that they weren't able to see this distance of 450 to 500 metres, what was going on there?

Q. The account that's been given in evidence is that, as driven up that ravine, people were laying in wait for them and that they were mown down. Even if the verifiers were in position as you state, and even if they were using field glasses, it would be possible for people to obscure themselves behind that foliage -- not foliage, behind that brush, wouldn't it?

A. Which people do you mean? You mean the ones who died?

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. How could they hide behind the foliage when the greatest height is ⁴⁵²⁶¹ one metre? But you can see the area from which the verifiers were able to observe this, and there was a television crew up there as well. For that many people to be killed, you need to do quite a lot of shooting. So how could the policemen bring in the 20-odd people that Walker mentions in his statement under constant fire from the terrorists and bring them in quite calmly and quietly there? There was shooting coming from all sides.

Q. Very well, let's go to the -- just one thing. You're not suggesting, are you, that there's any reason why the OSCE monitors would deliberately suppress observations of the killing of these people in position?

A. I'm not claiming that all the monitors would do that. There were honourable people from different countries. But as for individual observers and monitors, I cannot say anything good about them.

Q. As a policeman with the years experience you have, you can provide some expertise for us, please, on the next exercise, which won't take very long. Same exhibit but the next part of it, I think. Tabs -- if you can hand it to Mr. Nort, please. And to save time we'll go straight to tab 12 of Exhibit 176 -- 156.

JUDGE KWON: Before -- my machine is not working. I'll use Judge Robinson's microphone.

What do you think about the idea of letting the witness mark the point where allegedly the verifiers were --

MR. NICE: Happy to do that.

JUDGE KWON: -- on the previous picture --

MR. NICE: Certainly. ⁴⁵²⁶²

JUDGE KWON: -- so we can verify the evidence later at some stage.

MR. NICE: Yes, I'm entirely content for that to happen.

JUDGE KWON: Now it's working. Thank you.

MR. NICE: Can -- if we --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already marked that on the previous photograph.

JUDGE KWON: On the previous picture. Could you -- could Mr. Nort put the previous picture which shows the ravine.

MR. NICE: And shows the ravine with the bodies in it. The witness is saying he's marked a similar photograph, as indeed he has.

JUDGE KWON: Yes.

MR. NICE: But nevertheless, this one has the bodies in it, and we can then surrender this version of ours and --

JUDGE KWON: So could you mark the position where the verifiers were at the moment. No, no with a pen, a coloured pen.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this photograph it's a little blurred, that area, so I might get it slightly wrong, a metre here or there, but I think that the verifiers were up here, if I can see it properly on this blurred version.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Janicevic, do you remember you marked with numbers 1, 2, 3, where the verifiers were located? What number is this?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But you can't see it as well here on this photograph. It's blurred. The background is blurred on this particular version, so I can't recognise it that well.

JUDGE KWON: The position you marked right now, is it position ⁴⁵²⁶³ number 1 or 2?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it's 2. Give or take a dozen metres left or right. But anyway, it was 50 to 100 metres. As I say, it's rather blurred here, indistinct.

JUDGE KWON: So could you write down number 2 in there.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't write down the number because I'm not sure which one it is. There was a group there but I'm not sure which one, because as I say, it's very blurred and you can't even distinguish the different houses in that area.

JUDGE KWON: Yes. Thank you. Thank you. We had that picture already, D313. Yes. Thank you. Let us proceed.

MR. NICE: That had better be produced as an exhibit, I think, separately to be copied, and if we could hand that to the Registry and we could go on to the next bundle of photographs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's exhibited.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 929.

MR. NICE: If you could, Mr. Nort, very swiftly -- I don't know if you can get it -- don't bother with the text. Go straight on to the first set of diagrams. It will be picture number 31 -- ERN number 313 at the top.

Q. While this is coming, Mr. Janicevic, were you aware that the European forensic team of which Helena Ranta was a member attended at the time but also attended later with metal detectors in November 1999 and in March 2000? Were you aware of that?

A. Yes, I do know about that. ⁴⁵²⁶⁴

Q. Thank you. If we place that photograph, just to give you a flavour of what this examination revealed. Blue, if you can see it, hands for bullets. Red stands for shell casing. So you see, the preponderance of shell casing is on the side of the ravine, the preponderance of bullets are within the ravine.

As an experienced policeman, that is consistent -- next photograph, please, which has got it in magnification -- that is consistent, is it -- sorry, the next sticker I meant, actually, if you can do that.

That is consistent with the people in the ravine being shot at from those on the side of the ravine. There's another picture of it. We'll look at the next one after that, which is enlargement, please. The next sticker.

A. May I be allowed to answer to that part of your question, because you've asked me several questions.

Q. Next sticker, please, Mr. Nort. It's got --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the witness wanted to answer that question.

MR. NICE: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot agree with your assertions at all, Mr. Nice, and here is why: On the 16th of January, the 17th and 18th and 19th of January, there was heavy fighting between members of the Liberation Army of Kosovo, the so-called Liberation Army of Kosovo, of ⁴⁵²⁶⁵ course, and the police on the other side in that sector in order to take control of the area again and take up positions again in order to ensure the normal functioning of the investigation and that the investigation be completed.

Now, to look for bullets seven or eight months later, a year later, without the presence of the legal authorities, without the presence of legal authorities, is quite preposterous.

Gentlemen Judges, do you have that in any country, that seven or eight months later you look for bullets on a battleground where fighting went on for five days and then to show to the court, or to you yourselves, that those bullets were bullets that were found on the first day, that were there from the very first day, whereas all the other bullets, 16, 17, 18th and 19th, that those were those bullets and these were the bullets that were used on the 15th, that fell on the 15th when the people were killed, as the Prosecutor is claiming. I claim that that is quite preposterous.

MR. NICE: The next --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I as a policeman myself would never do anything like that.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... please. It's the number in the top corner.

Q. This is an enlargement and it shows, as you see, all the bullets -- it's 330 at the top right-hand corner. That's it. You see, it shows the bullets in the ravine, one or two shell casings, and all the rest of the shell casings along the side of the ⁴⁵²⁶⁶ ravine.

Now, this was the European Union's mission. Helena Ranta, the woman who at one stage it was thought was saying it wasn't a massacre, although that's been dealt with. As a policeman -- forget the issue of whether it was right to collect the material then or not. As a policeman, that shows a massacre, doesn't it? It doesn't show a fight.

A. Please, a massacre would -- you could say that it was a massacre only if an investigation were carried out and the people were killed in the spot that you say they were, or if the investigation had been conducted that same day or the following day, with all the ballistic research and everything else necessary to prove that the location and the site was as it was when the crime took place and that it hadn't undergone changes.

Now, more than a year later, the site changed umpteen times, and after the 20th, too, when there was fighting in Racak and around Racak. So that whole region was engulfed by fighting during the war.

Q. Two more pictures for me, Mr. Nort. Sorry? Mr. Nort, could you go and get from the file - it's a bit later on, several stickers later on - 2406. It's a photograph we've already looked at elsewhere but we'll look at it again very briefly, and 2411. If you'd get those two photographs.

A. We've already seen those.

Q. Yes, exactly, but I just wanted to remind you about the disposition of the bodies. Now, if you'd now like to look at the next photograph, 2411. This is what was found, you see, by way of bullets ⁴⁵²⁶⁷ marked in blue where the men's bodies were found. Shell casings grouped together at the right-hand side in white, with three shell casings further over by the bodies, maybe going off to finish one of them off. And no indications of those men firing back.

A. Was that found in 2000 as well?

Q. No. The end of 1999 or 2000, I can't remember exactly which.

A. At the end of 1999, you could have found thousands of casings in Racak and the surrounding parts, thousands. I don't know whether those forensic people of yours had any special powers in order to be able to determine which of the casings had been used to kill the persons who were allegedly killed there. I cannot agree with this at all. Had the investigating judge been able to conduct an on-site investigation, then I say with full responsibility quite certainly the responsibility and accountability of each individual would have been established if they had committed crimes, whether the crime of killing or the crime of wounding or injuring or whatever. However, in this case, one year later, one year on, and after six months of fighting, to present some evidence of this kind, some material of this kind, cannot be valid. I just don't understand how you think they could be. As a policeman, I just don't understand it.

Q. Well, I'll come back to one point about the boy in due course if I can find the document I'm looking for. And I'm now going to deal with as limited in number as possible the exhibits that you've produced and I'll try and deal with them in sequential order. So if the Chamber and the witness would like to take volume 1 of the exhibits. ⁴⁵²⁶⁸ By the way, you used the phrase "so-called KLA" a few minutes ago. That's a phrase, isn't it, that Serb officials use about the KLA?

A. And do you think that it really was a liberation army?

Q. The answer to the question is --

A. I do apologise, but I'm answering your question.

Q. In the same way as you've referred to yourself as the Serb police, and indeed you did refer to yourself as the Serb police rather than the police of Serbia and Montenegro or anything like that, you wouldn't say that I'm a member of, or I was a member of, the so-called Serb police, would you?

A. The KLA was an illegal organisation, and for each and every illegal organisation that's what you say.

Q. I mean, you would never expect a member of the KLA to say, "I'm a member of the so-called KLA." He'd say, "I'm a member of the KLA," wouldn't he? Just like you say, "I'm a member of the Serb police."

A. Well, sometimes they would say that, the people who had left the KLA and who had to flee for some -- well, I assume subjective personal reasons.

Q. Do you remember there was a problem with Jasovic's statements where he says they were signed by people who were either friends, relations or members of the KLA itself, that they all used the phrase the "so-called KLA"? Have you realised there's a bit of a problem with that?

A. There's a problem with respect to the taking of statements or with the so-called term, or the term "so-called"?

Q. All right. I'll come back to that if I find the time. ⁴⁵²⁶⁹ I asked you yesterday about knowledge of Urosevac police station being a police station of violence. Are you still saying that you never heard of any reports of violence being used there?

A. I say with full possibility before this Trial Chamber, before these Honourable Judges, that had I known and heard that violence had been applied, that policeman responsible for that working in the SUP offices would no longer be a policeman, and I say that with full responsibility.

Q. And at the time of the conflict when the Pranvera restaurant was in use by inspectors for holding people, even then?

A. Not even then. We would incarcerate people for crimes, for theft, for stealing vehicles pursuant to the Criminal Code and Article 242.

Q. You may know this, we've had a witness, K5, protected witness who worked in the police station --

A. Yes.

Q. -- explaining ages ago, years ago, he told us how Dragan Jasovic and Sparavalo were beating up somebody taken from the Pranvera bar. Can you think of any reason why that would be said if it wasn't absolutely true?

A. That is a notorious untruth. He had a million reasons to say that, a million reasons, Mr. Nice. Because for -- on thousands of times he was taken into custody because of theft, attempts at violence, rape, and so on, that particular witness of yours, K5.

Q. Why pick on the very two men, Jasovic and Sparavalo, for whom others have said they were violent? Why pick on those two and make up something completely false about them beating up a prisoner? How on earth ⁴⁵²⁷⁰ could that come about, do you think?

A. Well, probably they filed the most reports and conducted the most interviews with him and took him into custody for many crimes that he had perpetrated.

Q. And what about deaths in custody in your police station, people falling out of the window or whatever. Did that happen ever?

A. Falling out of windows? I know of only one case.

Q. Oh, I see. What happened to him, then? Was that from a police inspector's office or was it an accident?

A. I'll tell you all about it in just a moment. Let me tell you about it.

I think it was in 1986 or 1987, that particular incident, when from the office of inspector of state security, from the fourth floor, through the window --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you don't want to know about this, do you?

MR. NICE: No. The only thing I do want to know about is something that was raised by His Honour Judge Bonomy.

Q. It was at the time we were looking at tab 13, but you don't need to turn to it, where you were trying to describe, or where you were describing what happened before any of these Jasovic reports came to be prepared, and you said they were verified by commanders of police stations in some way and it had to go through three or four levels before it reached the head of the SUP. And you then said that for every information that came in, the inspector goes on the spot in the field to check what's ⁴⁵²⁷¹ going on.

Well, is that true or is the reality simply that Jasovic got people off the street, took statements from them, and sent them back on the street again?

A. What you've just said is not true. Every reported event, incident, was recorded properly. There is a diary or logbook of events and incidents, and I think that that was presented, and it exists in Leskovac. And any -- even the most -- the smallest misdemeanour, every person whose ID papers were checked is recorded, and every incident, even minor ones.

Q. So that when -- when Jasovic prepared statements from people saying that other people were members of the KLA, there was a complicated checking process, was there? Every reported incident was recorded, there is a diary or logbook of events. Was there some checking process that he went along to check that everybody was a member of the KLA who had been named, or did he just take it from the statement?

A. In addition to the fact that this was recorded in their statements, it was checked out in the field to see whether the people were really members of the KLA or not. And I said, and I wouldn't want to uncover the names of the people that we contacted, I don't want them to have any problems in Kosovo as a result, but any information coming in to us was checked out a number of times, checked and re-checked. And then it was either rejected as being false or accepted as being true.

Q. So if we've got this right, therefore, when Jasovic produces a statement of 30 KLA names, there should be a whole series of supporting ⁴⁵²⁷² files still available to us in Leskovac and we haven't seen them. Is that right? There should be supporting files for each name, I suppose.

A. Mr. Nice, as far as I know, in 90 per cent of the cases of names which Jasovic and Sparavalo mentioned in their statements or reports, you received files on them from the state security. So every statement by Jasovic, every piece of information regarding terrorist activities, the terrorist KLA organisation in that area, were sent to the public security service in charge of affairs of that kind, and their analysis department processed them and sent them on further.

Q. Well, we haven't seen any such documentation. All we've had is the statements, and I must suggest to you what you're telling us is simply made up to give credit to -- let me finish -- something you've just made up, to give --

A. I'm telling you --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I assume that what was said in English is what the transcript says, and it says public security service, whereas the witness said state security service.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That is to say, the statements pertaining to terrorism were sent to the state security, not to the public security. And he also said that Mr. Nice received a large number of documents from the state security.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry for interrupting, but this ⁴⁵²⁷³ was even publicised. The former deputy head of state security, Mr. Mijatovic, said in his book what documents he sent to The Hague Tribunal, all the documents he sent to The Hague Tribunal. And this is between 19 and 20.000 documents.

Every statement of Jasovic's was re-checked several times. What could not be verified was rejected, and what was confirmed is contained in the documents.

MR. NICE:

Q. Who did this checking process?

A. The state security sector.

Q. Who? Name. Can we have a name for the person who did the checking?

A. They were not my employees. They were not employed by the SUP of Urosevac. They were employed by a completely different unit.

Q. So --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have any idea how many of the statements were rejected?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that, Mr. President. I don't have that information. But may I just add something, please? May I?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this joint work, in order to make the proceedings shorter, often a group of operatives from the state security service were involved together with Sparavalo and Jasovic and they immediately checked and re-checked the information received from the ⁴⁵²⁷⁴ interviewees.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Janicevic, what I still don't understand in this is what was involved in checking the information. How was it done?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Operative information that is obtained from such interviews is checked in several days. An operative that receives this statement takes out the core of the matter, the substance, and then he goes out into the field contacting his own position, as it is called, that is to say the operative of the service who is in that sector, and then through him he checks whether the information is correct or not.

I don't know if I was clear.

JUDGE BONOMY: No. Does that mean he goes and interviews somebody else to see if he confirms the information that's been given by the original witness?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Somebody else who would confirm the accuracy of that information, and that other person is someone who works for the state security service.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, but is the person from the state security service going out and interviewing some other contact of his, or is the representative of the state security service just simply saying whether or not this is consistent with information he has?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Bonomy. He contacts what we call operative position, or source, or a person who works for the state security service. It's not that I'm saying something in public that I shouldn't be talking about. ⁴⁵²⁷⁵

JUDGE BONOMY: Do you mean an informant?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, different terms were used for people from whom information was received; informers, friendly contacts, associates of the service, et cetera. In this case, the state security of the republic used informers and associates, but for real checking they used associates.

JUDGE BONOMY: And you're claiming that all the reports of these checks were disclosed to the Office of the Prosecutor?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I claim, on the basis of what I read in the book written by the deputy head of the state security sector, Mijatovic, who is close friends with Mr. Nice. I know that because he says so.

MR. NICE: Some things come as news to people as you're standing in Court. This may be one of them.

Q. So what is the document we've been looking for? Is it a report by this other person who goes out into the field? Just what is it you're saying exists to confirm Jasovic? Because he never told us about it, not one word. What's the document we should be looking for? Come on.

A. I'm repeating this yet again. You probably have those documents here.

Look at the zones. Look at the operative zones, what kind of documentation you have, and you'll see what was checked and what was not checked. What was checked is what is there.

Q. Can we then go to Exhibit -- Exhibit 18.1. If you'd open it up at 18.1. This is an untranslated document with a big list of names. I can't ⁴⁵²⁷⁶ deal with the document itself. You've told us a bit about it. You told us of this, that the most important name was Camil Ilazi, nicknamed Barli, commander of the 161st Brigade. But can you just confirm that as to this document and its alleged voluntary supplier of information, that's Adem Salahu, can you confirm that he was actually arrested when he was about to leave the country at the Djeneral Jankovic border, must have made, insofar as he made a statement at all, then, and thereafter went to prison in Belgrade, or at least in Serbia, where he died, so that he's not somebody to whom we can turn for verification. Is all of that right?

A. I don't know whether that's right, but I have no reason to doubt the fact that he gave such a statement. There is no reason for me to doubt that because names are referred to or, rather, most of the names referred to here were members of the KLA and that is a matter of general knowledge.

I don't have any information to that effect that he died in prison. This is the first time I hear of that.

Q. But of course people who are detained for questioning are dealt with on your basis, I think, exactly the same as those who are arrested for some reason, as it may be this man was. He didn't have a lawyer with him, and he's not apparently offered a lawyer or anything like that, is he, even if he's on his way to prison?

A. I don't know whether you read the Law on Criminal Procedure of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Q. I think it's more important whether you've read the Law on Criminal Procedure and you can tell us what the rights of the person going ⁴⁵²⁷⁷ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁵²⁷⁸ to prison are, the man who is about to be charged with an offence. Did he have the right to have a lawyer present when he was interviewed?

A. Yes, in the presence of an investigating judge. In the pre-trial proceedings there was no right, there was no such right to have a lawyer present, because the only thing that is done then is taking a statement which is not part of the case file.

Q. That's why -- that's why --

A. According to the current law, the presence of a lawyer is mandatory.

Q. That's why it was easy to beat people up when they were in your police station, or to maltreat them, because they had no rights. Once they were in the police station, they were at your mercy.

A. You're wrong, Mr. Nice. Nobody was beaten up at the police station where I was head of the SUP. That is absolutely not true. I said a few moments ago, and I repeat yet again, had I known, had I established or had I heard about something like that and done nothing about it, had I established that someone had done something like that, he would have not stayed on in the service. All legal measures would be taken against such a person, as legal measures were taken against other people, and we have proof for that.

Q. Tab 25, please. Now, in the time available it hasn't been possible to see or make any contact with many of the people whose material you bring, but tab 25 is one who it has been possible to see. This is one who you say deals with events at Kacanik. I must suggest to you -- first of all, I must suggest to you that this man, approached entirely neutrally ⁴⁵²⁷⁹ and simply asked about this statement, explained that it wasn't in any sense a voluntary statement of his, that he was with a number of people in a line of cars at Ferizaj, on the way towards Ferizaj going from Kacanik and there was a police checkpoint where he was removed. Does that fit with your understanding of this statement? You've produced it.

A. No.

Q. He was simply taken, along with a lot of other men from that checkpoint, to Ferizaj or Urosevac police station, belt, shoelaces and valuables removed, and 18 put into that small cell you have there on the ground floor. I've got a picture of it somewhere, but I'm not sure I've got time to find it, show it, but 18 in a cell, and he was then the first person called out.

Do you know anything about the taking of this statement that you've produced that we haven't seen before?

A. No, I don't know anything about what you've been saying just now. I know that the statement had been taken, it was presented to me down there, and I've seen it here.

On the basis of the statement, he claims what is contained in the statement. Now, whether he confirmed that to you now or not, I don't know. You haven't told me about this until now, but I claim to you with full responsibility that you will not find a single Albanian who will dare confirm that he gave a statement that was not under duress, Mr. Nice.

Q. How do you say that? I mean, are you saying that the totality of the Albanian nation is incapable of telling the truth? Because that's pretty well what it amounts to. And if that's your position, we'd better ⁴⁵²⁸⁰ know it. Is that really what you're saying?

A. I claim, I claim that all the persons you ask who were brought into custody or came of their own free will or in some other way came to members of the service to give a statement will not dare confirm that, because they would be no more after doing such a thing.

Q. You see, he says, and I must suggest to you that it's emerged absolutely without prompting of any kind, he explains that he was both beaten with a baseball bat and he was then electrocuted, first on his hands and then the devices were connected to his ears. Then he collapsed. That's what happened in your police station, Mr. Janicevic, and that's why your police station is recorded --

A. That is absolutely not true, Mr. Nice. That is not true, Mr. Nice.

Q. You noticed yesterday, didn't you, that OSCE had complaints on the 13th of January about people being electrocuted at your police station. We know that Human Rights Watch published a report about your police station in February 1995 about people being electrocuted. And you told us that there were rumours of abuse and torture. Just think back to the reality of 1990s. These things happened, didn't they, and you just have to deny them because you can't face them.

A. First of all, I can face everything that I've done and that I know was done. As for the rest that you've been saying, it has nothing to do with the truth, nothing to do with the truth.

Electrocution and electrodes placed on ears and other parts of the body, and beatings, that is a blatant lie, not to use another word. ⁴⁵²⁸¹

Q. Volume 2, please. Now -- volume 2, please. Can we go straight to tab 35. You've produced things like tab 35 as a report of a proper crime and punishment system being in place. Tab 35 concerns the illegal taking of an electric corn husker from a shop. That says nothing, does it, about the policy of your police or your prosecutors or your judges to deal with people who either murdered in the course of ethnic cleansing or engaged in ethnic cleansing, does it? It's an irrelevance to show somebody prosecuted for an electric corn husker. Do you accept that?

JUDGE KWON: What tab is it?

MR. NICE: Have I got the wrong bit?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what was that?

MR. NICE: I thought I was looking at 35. If I'm looking at the wrong bit of it. I've got a translation that --

JUDGE BONOMY: My number 35 is headed "Crime terrorism."

MR. NICE: Mine is a criminal report, and the translation I have has for Zvonko Stakic established that he took an electric corn husker.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's not what we have.

MR. NICE: That's 39, apparently. If it is 39, at least it's 39 in our organisation -- I'm sorry. It should be 39. Sorry. In which case there's been some -- there was some problem of tab numbers, and that relates to 39.

Q. Same point, although I wasn't necessarily going to turn to that, but same point. To deal with the offences of theft against members of your force says nothing about whether people were being prosecuted for the grave offences of ethnic -- involved in ethnic cleansing, does it? ⁴⁵²⁸²

A. Where was this ethnic cleansing, please, and who was doing the ethnic cleansing? Is it not clear to you that Kosovo and Metohija was ethnically cleansed after the 15th of June, 1999?

Q. Can we now look at the three documents that exercise some -- well, revealed some concerns or questions from the Bench? That's tabs, as I've got them, tabs 36, 7, and 8, I think. And these are the three men, Nikolic, Ivanov, and Djeletovic. His Honour Judge Bonomy thinking, or appearing to think, correctly, that we've heard of these names before. Now, these men are charged with what crime?

A. Murder.

Q. And whereabouts was this murder allegedly committed?

A. The area of Kosovo Polje.

Q. Now, what were you doing getting involved in alleged crimes in the area of Kosovo Polje? Outside your area of responsibility, wasn't it?

A. Then you haven't followed what I was saying as well as my CV, Mr. Nice. From the 15th of June, 1999, I was appointed chief of SUP in Pristina. Kosovo Polje is a department within the SUP of Pristina.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The -- there was a mistake made here. The 15th of June --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, I misspoke. From the 15th of April.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] On the 15th of June you left Kosovo.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, that's right.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you. ⁴⁵²⁸³

MR. NICE:

Q. All right. So you're there in Pristina, but let's just learn a little bit more about these three men because we've heard about them and about you before. These three men are the men suspected of being involved in the killing of Fehmi Agani, aren't they?

A. I don't know about that. This is the first time I hear of that, that they were suspected of killing Fehmi Agani.

Q. We may be able to see a document about that if we have time, but are you aware that there's been a letter written by Natasa Kandic to the Serbian public prosecutor dealing with these three men - a long time ago now, three and a half years ago now - identifying them as the Agani killers?

A. Natasa Kandic is no investigating organ. I don't know where she gets the right to be involved in investigations. That is the first thing I wish to say.

Secondly, any citizen has the right to report on his or her suspicion of someone having committed a crime. If that is the way she has acted, then it's all right. I'm not the public prosecutor or the district prosecutor or the republican prosecutor or am I in charge of that branch of government in Serbia. So I'm not in a position to know what's going on there. But I assert that while I was chief of SUP, every crime was identified irrespective of whether the perpetrators were known or unknown. And also, measures were taken to investigate crimes even when the perpetrators were unknown. This was one such --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask you, is this -- is this killing a ⁴⁵²⁸⁴ notorious killing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is multiple killing, multiple.

JUDGE BONOMY: No. The killing of Fehmi Agani, is this a well-known event?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, yes, it is. And a criminal report was filed, an investigation was carried out.

JUDGE BONOMY: How come you don't know whether these are the accused in relation to that killing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that they were not accused.

JUDGE BONOMY: Why didn't you say that at the time? You were asked that earlier by the Prosecutor, and you said you didn't know. But you do know that these are not the accused in that killing. Is that the position?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For the killing of Fehmi Agani, I know that these are not the accused. I knew then. Now, I don't know whether they were accused later. Then that would be a different matter.

JUDGE BONOMY: In relation to the documents we're looking at, do you know who the victim was?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. I cannot remember who the victims were. It's a multiple killing in the area of Kosovo Polje. Let me see. It's written here. I can read out the names, if needed.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are the victims the people set out under the Statement of Reason?

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please repeat that. ⁴⁵²⁸⁵

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the third decision.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Blakcori, isn't it, if my memory's right? Yes, Blakcoris.

A. Yes, there were five persons killed.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's time to break now.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

MR. NICE: Just two questions to round this off, with your leave, if that would be convenient.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, there are two things, I'm going to suggest to you, about this. One is, as Defence Exhibit Stevanovic tab 168 [Realtime transcript read in error "128"] shows, that you were the officer who signed a report about the demonstration of Serb citizens seeking release of these three suspects in June 1999 and that, for whatever reason, these men only ever served a month in gaol. Are those two propositions correct?

A. That's not correct. When we left Kosovo and Metohija, they were still in prison, according to what I know. What happened afterwards, I don't know.

In Kosovo Polje, people wanted to have them released, but I said that all measures should be taken in accordance with the law, and that is what was done. And after all, it was not within my jurisdiction and my powers afterward.

JUDGE BONOMY: Are we going to see that document? ⁴⁵²⁸⁶

MR. NICE: Tab 168. I can look it up for you over the break.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's recorded as Exhibit 128.

MR. NICE: Sorry, I think it's tab 168 of the Stevanovic documents.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn now for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12:26 p.m.

--- Upon resuming at 12:50 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I have 168 from Stevanovic, if the Court wants to see it. I wouldn't myself use it because it's already been given in evidence, but it's available.

Could you place this on the overhead projector, before we move on. It's "As Seen, As Told," which is whatever it is exhibit number. I always forget.

Q. You see, this is the volume of "As Seen, As Told" -- or it will be when it comes up. I'm not getting it. Has the Court got it on its screen?

JUDGE BONOMY: No.

MR. NICE: Right.

Q. This is the volume of "As Seen, As Told" produced very shortly afterwards, and this is about Urosevac. It says: "Numerous Kosovo Albanians were brought to the police stations in Urosevac (as well as in Kacanik) for 'informative talks.'" Refers to chapter 9 for arrest and detention. "Such 'arrests' were made in the villages of Bicevac, Reka, Palivodenica, Mala something else, all in Kacanik, as well as in Urosevac ⁴⁵²⁸⁷ and Stimlje. Brutal interrogations were carried out by police in order to collect information on UCK members, sympathisers and military intelligence. By this time torture with electric shocks was regularly reported, in addition to beatings, as a way of extracting information. Some victims of these 'informative talks' came to report to the OSCE KVM office in Urosevac. For the first time some names of perpetrators were mentioned."

Look this is contemporaneous accounts of what Kosovo Albanians were saying. It's not their position today, which you say makes them all into liars. They were saying these things then. Why, unless they were completely true?

Exhibit 106, I'm reminded. Thank you, Mr. Reid.

A. I didn't say they were all lying. Liars are those who say that this is true. This is not the truth. Of course not everybody is lying. 80 per cent of Albanians are good people who deserve every respect. But there is a group of people who is involved in a different kind of thing.

Q. Before the ICTY features, before coming to give evidence against fellow Albanians in the year 2005, why in 1999, tell us, should people be falsely saying, on apparently quite a widespread basis, that they were electrocuted and beaten up in your police station when all you were doing was trying to help them, from what you tell us?

A. Correct. Anybody who came to me for help, anybody who came to the police station to get assistance, received it, certainly received it. There was no maltreatment. If there had been, I would certainly have heard about it. I would have known, and I would have taken certain legal ⁴⁵²⁸⁸ measures.

Q. If you can hand that back, Mr. Nort. We'll move on now to Exhibits 40 through to about 45.

You've produced here, Mr. Janicevic, accounts of thefts of -- thank you very much indeed -- car tyres, cooking oil, I think, loudspeakers, packages of sanitary towels and dry yeast and a brand heater.

Whatever you were doing to policemen for that sort of offence says nothing about your disciplining, does it, for serious offences? There was a washing machine as well. Untranslated document. And that's the best you can produce, basically, isn't it; theft of a washing machine, theft of some sanitary towels?

A. Mr. Nice, if I as the superior decided to remand them in custody and detained people for the theft of a washing machine, don't you think I would have detained them for murder or any more serious crime if it had happened? I decided to put somebody in detention for stealing something that was worth the equivalent of 300, 400 euros.

Q. Now, tell us, you must have felt very sorry for the people leaving Kosovo, their home country. Did you feel sorry for them leaving their home country because of the NATO bombing or because they were being driven out by the KLA? Did you feel sorry for them?

A. I felt sorry in both cases, because I had many friends among them, and indeed I still have them.

Q. The authorities expressed their concern about people being driven out by forces outside their control by helping their departure; is that ⁴⁵²⁸⁹ right? Perhaps by putting on all those trains. Is that what they were doing, showing their sympathy with people in misfortune? Were they?

A. Please.

Q. Mark the pages I'm about to take you to --

A. Please. Your suggestion has nothing to do with the truth, Mr. Nice.

Q. Well, let's --

A. There is no such force. You're talking about forced expulsion and I'm telling you there was no such thing. It didn't happen. At least, not on the part of the police.

Q. You leapt to a question I hadn't asked. I was asking you if on your account the authorities must have felt sorry?

A. That's what you said.

Q. You see, if we look at this exhibit, which is about the complaint filed against Ljubisa Zoric, and we turn to the English translation, we find that his crime was not to take any money from people as they left the country but to take too much. So is this right that as people were driven out of their own country, they were actually charged an exit tax at the border? This is what it says. Top of the English translation, line 4, tab 50.

JUDGE BONOMY: Which exhibit is this, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: Tab 50.

JUDGE BONOMY: Tab 50.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is not true.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁵²⁹⁰

Q. I'll just read what it says, because perhaps you can explain it to me. It says: "Reasonable grounds to suspect that Ljubisa Zoric abused his office to obtain illegal gain that amounted to 3.455 dinars because on the 23rd of April -" well, that's in the centre of conflict - "while he was collecting the exit tax from citizens leaving the country at the Djeneral Jankovic road border, he charged a higher amount than the one established, with the intention of keeping the difference ..." So is the position that the authorities, facing the terrible consequences of NATO bombing, were charging their citizens to leave? That's what it reads like, doesn't it?

A. This does not refer to those citizens that you have in mind, at least as far as I can see. It says on the 23rd of April, 1999, he collected exit tax from -- that's a different sort of case.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... crossing was a refugee nightmare, to use the word for the first time by me in four years of this case, and not to use it improperly. It was an absolute nightmare for refugees at these crossings. Are you saying that as well as all the poor people who were trying to find somewhere to spend the night, there were others who were passing through respectably with a suitcase in their hand and paying an exit tax? Is that really what you're saying? And while you're thinking about it, did they get a receipt for their payment?

A. Let me just read this, please. "There is reasonable grounds to suspect that reported Ljubisa Zoric from Kosovo Polje, in the official capacity of a counter clerk of Saobracaj Srbija PTT JP - post office VI in ⁴⁵²⁹¹ Pristina abused his office to obtain illegal gain amounting to 3.455 dinars in the following manner: On the 23rd of April, 1999, while he was collecting the exit tax deposit from citizens leaving the country at the Djeneral Jankovic road border crossing, he charged a higher amount than the one established, with the intention of keeping the difference for himself and thus obtaining illegal gain."

Q. It's already been highlighted once, so you must have read it once.

A. Yes.

Q. What does it mean if it doesn't mean what I suggest, and did they get a receipt?

A. It's possible that -- well, he didn't issue any receipts. If he had issued receipts, this criminal report would not have been submitted. He was probably acting unlawfully. That's why the criminal proceedings were instituted against him.

Q. One of the things the accused told us about you is that you knew everything about Racak and, by implication, you knew everything that was going on in your area of responsibility.

Just yes or no, were those unhappy refugees charged an exit tax?

A. I don't know that, whether the tax was collected. If it had been charged, it was certainly -- it must have been according to the law, according to the provision that applied to everybody, including refugees. I certainly didn't collect any taxes.

Q. Tell me --

JUDGE BONOMY: Were you aware of such a law?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was a government decree on exit ⁴⁵²⁹² tax. It was in force -- it had been in force for over two years at the time.

JUDGE BONOMY: What was the provision?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know how it reads, I don't have it with me, but a tax was charged for leaving the country in a motor vehicle or otherwise; the amounts differed.

MR. NICE:

Q. We've -- Mr. Janicevic, we've been given the odd reason, explanation by Defence witnesses in this case for why people might have had their documents or their -- their documents taken away from them at Djeneral Jankovic and other borders. Do you know why people had their documents taken away from them at the borders, if they did?

A. I have told you this already. The first time I heard about documents being seized was when this indictment was made public.

Q. Very well.

A. This was within the jurisdiction of the border police, not within the jurisdiction of Urosevac SUP. If one of my officers had done it, certainly legal measures would have been taken.

Q. Volume 3, please, of your exhibits.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, is this not the first time we're hearing of an exit tax or deposit?

MR. NICE: It certainly is. And I know --

JUDGE KWON: I think it very relevant. Could we explore to find the basis for that. If you could find the law in due course.

MR. NICE: I'll try and find out some more, because it came fresh ⁴⁵²⁹³ to me as it leapt from the page, and I haven't been able to do any research so far. This witness tells us he can't help us, and with your leave, I press on simply because the pressure of time. But I'll try and find out some more elsewhere and see what we can find out about it. It may be if we can speak to the offender himself, if we can get hold of him, which is never that easy, the alleged offender, he might be able to tell us.

Q. In volume 3, the first exercise is a very short one. You will remember that yesterday I took you to a report of yours that you had not included in your papers dated the 15th of January and that showed 60 possible terrorists reported as being killed. If we look at your tab 64.7, we see the report for the 13th of January. If we look at 64.8, we see the 16th of January, suggesting that you had access to a sequence of -- 64.7 and 64.8 are the 13th and 16th of January respectively, suggesting that you had access to a file with a sequence of documents, and I just want to ask you again, did you omit the 15th of January intentionally, realising that it gave the game away?

A. No, that's not correct.

Q. Very well.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honours, the point is made in the question, and unless you need to find them again, you'll see there reports of the same type for the 13th and 16th of January.

Q. If we move on in this bundle. It was in respect of Exhibit 65 that you were asked questions about the -- about things generally, and the accused offered this explanation to His Honour Judge Bonomy when asked ⁴⁵²⁹⁴ whether Radosavljevic was going to be called, he volunteered on your behalf, or said on your behalf: "In relation to what happened in Racak, Mr. Janicevic knows everything."

Now, that was the accused's words, not yours. Do you accept his description of you as somebody who knows everything that happened in Racak, which is why I've been going through documents with you in detail, or is your position now that you don't know everything that happened in Racak on the 15th?

A. I know what I have told you and what I read in the reports. That's what I said in this trial over the past few days.

Q. But manifestly you don't know everything. You don't know what the trigger pullers know. You don't know what the commander in the field knows, and you don't know what Radosavljevic knows, do you?

A. Well, you will have to ask Radosavljevic yourself, because I can't ask him.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, can I invite you to have in mind, if not in possession, the visual aid I used with -- I've mislaid it. Can this be played on the overhead projector, please, and available for distribution, and if the Chamber could go to tab 65.25.

This is a very slightly amended version of the document that was made available to the Court before. I'll explain it to the witness and then the relevance of Exhibit 65 leads to the slight amendment of the document.

Q. This document, Mr. Janicevic, shows in summary form on the left-hand side the names of people who on the evidence of the Prosecution ⁴⁵²⁹⁵ ^{BLANK PAGE} ⁴⁵²⁹⁶ went from Sadik Osmani's house to the ravine and were killed. On the right-hand side it shows, on the Prosecution evidence, the list of people who went from Drita Emini's house, having been instructed to go to the ravine, but they all escaped. The green markings indicate those for whom there are Jasovic or other statements suggesting that they were members of the KLA, and you will see that the survivors, at the moment, have two green shadings, suggesting that two of them may have been associated with the KLA, whereas on the left-hand side, if you move across to that, all those who died, nearly, were marked as KLA, and of the five who survived, although they went up to the ravine, at the bottom there, only one was marked as the KLA, the suggestion being that this shows how the whole thing was a cover-up.

If we look at 65.25 now, please, this is a statement taken from somebody in January 1999, and the Chamber will see at the foot of the page that it is said that Enver --

A. Your suggestion is not accurate, first of all.

Q. In the English, at the foot of the first page, and in the B/C/S at the top of the second page, you'll see a reference in this report to Enver Emini having given 2.000 Deutschmarks.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, for that reason and that reason alone, and out of an abundance of caution, we have shaded the right-hand column now at number 25 in green. It may be thought that it doesn't change the point, but still, for completeness, the exercise of comparing these multiple statements with the lists of names that are material to your deliberation will probably continue. Thank you very much. ⁴⁵²⁹⁷

Q. Then I ask you this question: Can you think of -- Mr. Janicevic, can you think of any reason why all the people, nearly, who survived are free of the allegation that they are members of the KLA where those who did die -- I'll start again. Of all those people who on the evidence were in Racak at the time of this event, can you think of any reason why the survivors are free of the taint of being associated with or members of the KLA whereas all those who died were members of the KLA?

A. That's not correct, Mr. Nice.

Q. What's not correct about it?

A. It's not true that those who survived were free of suspicion of having been associated with the KLA and those who died were members. Through operative work in the field and from sources in Racak itself, in Petrovo village, in Shukri Buja's headquarters itself, we had established who was in the KLA.

Q. Now, I may have missed things. Indeed, the correction we've made actually comes from the original Jasovic papers, not from your papers, and there's a huge number of untranslated material that we've tried -- not a huge number, a large number of untranslated material that we've tried to schedule and sort out, but so far we haven't been able to find any material produced by you, Jasovic, Stevanovic, or Marinkovic to show that those people who escaped with their lives were being described as KLA, and the reason for that, I suggest to you, is because, like the criminals that you were, you forgot to make your story complete. If you were going to make up that the people who died were KLA, then you also ought to have made up that those who survived were, and you forgot to do it. Isn't that ⁴⁵²⁹⁸ the truth?

A. That's not true. Not true, Mr. Nice. And please don't offend me. I am not a criminal and I didn't make anything up. I did not make up a single word. If somebody is inventing, it's you. You made a lot of things up. On the map that you showed me yesterday --

Q. Let me ask you one more question because we are really pressed for time. I am simply presenting to you in pictorial form and doing the best analysis we can what the material you and Jasovic brought to us shows. I am revealing to you that, on the evidence, the people on the right survived; the people on the bottom on the left survived. That's the ones -- the bottom five survived. And the ones on the top left were killed. The material, as analysed, shows that it's only the ones who were killed who were shown on your material as being KLA, apart from three other-odd exceptions.

You're a detective -- or not a detective, you're a policeman. This is where you live. This is all your work. Please explain to us how this comes about. It's not me lying. We're just asking you questions and putting propositions. How did it come about?

A. Do you mean how this separation came about, the separation of people who were in the KLA from those who were not? Those who were carrying guns, who were fighting, died. Those who were not fighting were in their houses.

A month ago, approximately, I heard a witness speaking here who said that a group had been captured by the police and then brought back to their homes. The police brought them to their homes to shield them from ⁴⁵²⁹⁹ crossfire so that they shouldn't get killed in the clash between the police and terrorists.

If we had planned any executions and killings, we would have had to be crazy to invite verifiers and TV crews to watch us. Who would be such a madman? Can you, can anybody explain, maybe you could explain to the Honourable Judges and not to mislead them, why the Verification Mission did not allow us to perform the on-site investigation for three days? Why somebody who will not -- who I will not name was allowed to manipulate the evidence?

Q. If you want to make that good with evidence, you can. We've heard the evidence of how the decision was made that they should go in without a force of arms and that there was a conflict of decision-making, so that's that.

JUDGE BONOMY: You obviously don't need to deal with that in answer to the witness, Mr. Nice, but am I missing something here? Is it not an obvious potential explanation for this situation that the ones who died and were members of the KLA were fighting, and that the ones who survived were civilians?

MR. NICE: Well, there are two points to that, and the answer is that Your Honour is missing something. The evidence is that each household was directed up the ravine --

JUDGE BONOMY: I appreciate that. But that's not the point. I understand that you then have to put everything together and come to a conclusion, but you put the raw position shown on this plan, these are the ones killed and they're all KLA and these are the ones who survived and ⁴⁵³⁰⁰ they are not, then one obvious explanation is the one that the witness has ultimately given.

MR. NICE: I'll deal with it through the witness because it's the next question that was in my mind a minute ago, and it's this:

Q. In all the papers that we've looked at contemporaneously, there is no suggestion, is there, of innocent civilians being allowed -- first of all, there's no suggestion of innocent civilians being in Racak. Your case was that they were all KLA.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This session is improper. The witness himself said several times that according to his information there were about 50 civilians in Racak, and that's precisely what's on record here. We've heard it.

JUDGE BONOMY: That, in my opinion, is a quite inappropriate intervention. I suspect it may even have been a deliberate intervention to somehow or other direct the witness how to answer the question, and I've heard this happen a number of times, and I can't any longer remain silent on the matter.

The question was not about what the witness had said before. The question was about documentary material, and the whole value of the question and answer has been undermined by the intervention.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I allow you to speak when you indicate you wish to speak because you have a right to object. If you're misusing the function, then that's a different matter. If you have an ⁴⁵³⁰¹ objection to make, then I will allow you to object before the witness answers. But if the purpose of your intervention is merely to provide information to the witness, that is wholly improper.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated].

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

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let Mr. Nice move on.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I just wish to remind you that Mr. Nice wasn't telling the truth, because the witness already said that several times, that there were approximately 50 civilians. So I'm not telling him and leading him on to say what he's already stated.

MR. NICE: His Honour Judge Bonomy has made the point.

JUDGE KWON: Just let the witness deal with it. The witness can answer the question. It is not your job to answer in advance on behalf of the witness.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, for want of time I'm going to move on. The value of the point has indeed been undermined by the intervention. Can I draw to the Chamber's attention that from where we were until about 66.25 there are a very large number of untranslated documents that I'm not going to deal with.

At tab 66.25 -- at 66.25 there's a statement taken by Amrush -- allegedly taken from Amrush Gashi. So far as this man is concerned, he was one who's been able to see, and I must suggest to you that on this occasion as well the man was stopped in Stimlje on whatever the date it ⁴⁵³⁰² was, asked to produce his identification, taken for interview, a statement was prepared for him to sign, and throughout the taking of the statement he was beaten by sticks.

Q. That's my suggestion to you. This is a statement you have produced and that's my suggestion to you. Presumably your answer's going to be the same as before, is it?

A. Of course that hasn't got anything to do with the truth. First of all, it is not tab 25. 66.25 is just a piece of information, a report. It's not a statement of any kind. If you mean the tab that I'm looking at.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... Amrush Gashi, and I'm going to move on.

Can we go, please, to 66.36, and this one we do need to be sure is correct. And although the Chamber may have differing views on the utility of the chart, I respectfully invite it to consider its utility now. Do you remember I asked you to help us with the young boy aged 12 or 14 who was shown to be dead? Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, if you look at this statement, which was produced in Jasovic and is also your 66.36, we can see in the English on the middle of page 3, and in the B/C/S -- in B/C/S I think on the same -- on the first page, we can see, just over a third of the way down under a general heading: "I personally know that the following persons were in the so-called KLA in Racak village." Reference to Haljim Beqir and his brother a Haljim Beqiri -- ⁴⁵³⁰³

JUDGE BONOMY: Is this 66.36?

MR. NICE: Page 3 of 66.36.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mine only has two pages.

JUDGE KWON: Second page.

JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, number 3. All right.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. Now, although the names are always a bit variable because that's the way Albanian names can seem to be, this is clearly the same person and the person who gave the -- allegedly gave the interview and has given a statement, the Chamber may recall, Nazmi Zimeri, to the Prosecution, was this boy's school teacher. And he says in terms that he was a young boy and a former student of his and adamantly was, of course, not a member of the KLA, and yet your documents produces it; evidence, some evidence that this 12 or 14-year-old boy was a member of the KLA. And if the Chamber is happy to use the chart, it will see that this is the only time that boy's name is mentioned, and of course it's mentioned -- It's the only time that that boy is mentioned by any one of those coming to Jasovic.

You can't point to this boy being KLA. His schoolteacher says he wasn't. Of course he wasn't. This is just part of the cover-up, isn't it, because if the boy's dead, you've somehow got to justify his killing.

A. I state again, and it seems to me that I can't quite obviously explain things to you: On the 15th there was an anti-terrorist operation carried out. We weren't able to conduct an investigation for three days, and then one year later you are suggesting and putting questions to me and ⁴⁵³⁰⁴ you are answering your own questions, Mr. Nice, and presenting evidence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, there may be some merit in that.

MR. NICE: I'm putting my case to this witness as swiftly as I can, and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let him answer the question.

MR. NICE: Certainly, yes, I'll let him answer the questions.

Q. Anything else you want to add on this proposition that the naming of this boy, who appeared also in that other exhibit, that list of names, is part of a cover-up? What's your answer again?

A. That's not true. It wasn't any cover-up of evidence. At no point was it a question of any kind of cover-up --

Q. Go, please, to volume 4 of your exhibits.

A. -- once.

Q. And straight away to tab 71. You see, this is the chronology. We looked at it yesterday for one purpose and now we must look at it for another. This is the chronology that you say unfortunately somehow became detached from its last and signed page which bore your signature. But if we look on the first page in both versions and to the second paragraph, you on the 29th of January, as you say is the relevant date, wrote this: "One Urosevac SUP company of 110 policemen was assigned to carry out the operation in the village of Racak. Before they were sent on the mission, they were warned the service had information indicating that the village of Racak is a tough stronghold and the main base of Siptar terrorists. They brought a large quantity of weapons to the village which they distributed among the locals who placed themselves at their service ..." ⁴⁵³⁰⁵ And then read this, please: "... and those who refused to accept the weapons, and also women and children, left the village." So your own narrative suggests, whatever you say today, that either your belief at the time or your stated belief was that this place was empty of civilians.

A. At that time and in that place, of the 2.000 or so civilians, I said that we later found that there were 50 persons, whereas the most -- the vast majority of the population of Racak had left the village because they were afraid of the conflicts between the terrorists and the police and because of daily attacks by terrorists against members of the army and police and citizens; kidnapping, ambushes, killings, and so on.

Q. Where did you find these civilians? Were there -- because understand the point: For a policeman, an armed police force or an armed --

A. When the anti-terrorist action was under way.

Q. So by the time of the preparation of this document, your original expectation at finding an entirely armed village had been replaced by an understanding that you were doing dangerous things in a place where there were 40 innocent civilians. Where do you record that in writing? Where do we find that in writing?

A. And who said there were 40 innocent civilians, in the first place, in a place where many evil things had taken place? When was that said? When did I say that? I said that we had operative information according to which in Racak there were 80 members of a terrorist brigade within the composition of the 161st KLA Brigade, in fact, and I said who the ⁴⁵³⁰⁶ commander was, the commander of that terrorist group. And I also said that, roughly speaking, there were about 100 people, according to our information, a total of about 100 people in the village itself, together with the terrorists.

Q. All right. Maybe I misunderstood you in about 50 people. I asked you this question: "When did you find these civilians were there?" And you said: "When the anti-terrorist action was under way." So on your own answer in the last couple of minutes, in the course of the operation you found out that there were some innocent civilians present in the village. Will you please point us to any contemporaneous document --

A. After -- after the anti-terrorist operation, in the reports of the commander, the leaders who were there, and it was a component part of this chronology of events here. Take a look at it carefully. I am sure you have it all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, when he presented this document, said that it was compiled on the 29th of January. Now, not to ask a leading question on my part, could that please be checked out, because the information which I received says differently. It's the 29th of January, according to the transcript here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the 19th.

MR. NICE: My recollection is the witness said it was the 19th yesterday. If I misspoke, my error.

Q. Was it the 19th that you prepared this document? ⁴⁵³⁰⁷

A. 19th of January, yes.

Q. Thank you. I'm going to move on. You see, the young boy is one person of many. There is no -- there is no reference in any of the papers before or after Racak to innocent civilians being there whose interests were protected, is there?

A. Well, if I have to repeat the same thing a thousand times, I'll do so again.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the point now, Mr. Nice? This really is repetitive.

JUDGE BONOMY: The words "flogging" and "horse" are coming to mind, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes, I'll finish. I've just got to deal --

Q. As to the Kotlina-Kacanik passages of your evidence which you dealt with briefly and I'm going to deal with even more briefly, at 82 to 84, our analysis would suggest that the names you produce -- I'll show you what I mean by this --

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we've only been able to, again, cope with the material in the way it is.

Q. The names that you have identified as being in the KLA -- if the usher could just pass this, put this over on the overhead projector. If you look at the top list of names, the Kuqis, the Lokus, the Rexhas and the Vlashis, we haven't been able to find any identified KLA member or associate in the documentation that you've presented, and I just want you to give a chance in case we've missed something or we aren't reading things correctly: Do you know of any of your documentation that ⁴⁵³⁰⁸ suggests any of those people was a member of the KLA?

A. I don't remember whether I have it or not to compare. I haven't got time to do that either. I see your list now. Actually, I'm looking at it for the first time now. But I claim that in Kotlina there were 80 members of the terrorist organisation. On the basis of operative information that we disposed of. And that piece of information is the same one that the verifiers had and the department or, rather, the department that was stationed in Kacanik and at the other place.

Q. I just want to know if any of these names are known to you and if they're traceable to any document that you say shows they're members of the KLA. I think the answer is no, probably.

A. I don't have time to compare it with my documents. I haven't had this list before me up until now, so I can't give you either a positive or a negative answer.

Q. One last question -- one last topic in about two questions. How many police do you say there were in Kosovo in the 1990s, roughly?

A. In total in Kosovo, is that what you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. The whole of Kosovo, you mean?

Q. Yes.

A. About 10.000, I think. Approximately 10.000. I'm not quite sure.

Q. We may hear in due course from a document where the accused was speaking in April of 1995 of the figure of a hundred thousand being present in Kosovo to combat terrorism, explaining that there was also the need to have the army present because fear could guard the house there, ⁴⁵³⁰⁹ could guard Kosovo. Do you accept, if that's what is eventually heard in evidence, that in fact there were many more policemen, up to a hundred thousand?

A. I really don't know how many there were throughout Kosovo, but I know that there were -- I didn't have more than 500 policemen. With the reservists, a total of 600, let's say, in all the five police stations.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Nice. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: I have just one question to the witness. If the witness could have tab 33 from Racak -- sorry, tab -- was it 5? Tab 5 of Racak binder. Yes, tab 5, and as well as tab 71 from his binder -- or tab 33 from Racak binder, which is a chronology.

Mr. Janicevic, do you have them in front of you?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have one.

JUDGE KWON: Tab 5 is a dispatch sent to --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What tab number was it, 30 something?

JUDGE KWON: Chronology, 71 of your binder. Tab 71.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have both of them now.

JUDGE KWON: So the dispatch sent on 15th of January was sent by you around 8.00 in the evening.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: And before this, there was another dispatch which was sent around 2.00 in the afternoon on the same day. ⁴⁵³¹⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: In which the killed terrorists would be at least 15.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: And this tab 5, you said the killed Albanian terrorists would be about 60. At the bottom of the page. Which is a rough estimate. And this is a kind of internal dispatch.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: But in tab 71, which was written on 19th, four days later, you said the number of killed KLA is about 40. That's right. All these, we went over these.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: This chronology is based upon information you gathered so far, so we can call it as kind of informed report compared to the dispatch of 15th.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE KWON: What I'd like to know, what I find interesting, is some paragraph after two paragraphs from the paragraph which dealt with the number of killed terrorists, the 15th dispatch. There you said the following was found on the dead terrorists: Three Brownings, two carbines, 36 automatic rifles, 1.802 rounds of ammunition of various calibre, six hand grenades, two rifle bags for hand grenades, et cetera. Same thing, same paragraph is repeated on the 19th chronology. My question is: How could you at the time describe with this level of exactitude about the ammunitions which were seized at the moment, given that this dispatch, which was sent on 15th, is a rough one, as you said ⁴⁵³¹¹ before. Do you follow my question?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do follow your question, and I'm going to answer it now. On the 15th of January, at about 1400 hours, a dispatch went to the Ministry of the Interior and MUP staff and headquarters. The dispatch was of an informative nature and contained information that the action was under way and that according to the first preliminary reports, in Racak at least 15 persons -- 15 terrorists had been killed. After the terrorist action had been completed and the investigation started, and then of course it was interrupted, the investigation was interrupted, what followed was another dispatch, a second dispatch, prepared on the basis of oral reports by the participants in the anti-terrorist action, that is to say the commanders of the company and platoons who gave their positions and impressions because they didn't know themselves the exact number of dead and where they were killed, in what sector, because an on-site investigation had not yet been conducted. Now, in the chronology of events, it says that about 40 terrorists were killed and the chronology was compiled after the investigation had been carried out. An investigation was carried out, and then in the mosque 40 bodies were found and all 40 bodies were transported for autopsy.

JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Janicevic, that's what we heard yesterday. But my question is how could you describe with this exactitude about the weapons that had been found there without any crime investigation?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The weapons, the weapons, on the same day when the anti-terrorist action was completed, was seized and ⁴⁵³¹² taken to the police station, so it wasn't left to stand by the bodies where the fighting had been. But on the 18th --

JUDGE KWON: That clarifies the matter. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we're going to adjourn now. You will have some time to prepare your re-examination, and I take this opportunity to remind you that, in re-examination, there's no reason to ask a question on every single point that was raised in cross-examination. That is not at all the purpose of re-examination. Look at the witness's evidence, form a general picture of how he came across in cross-examination. Was he positive? I would say this witness was fairly positive, was fairly certain. Focus your re-examination on those areas of his cross-examination where you think there might have been some wavering, some area of uncertainty, where you think your case needs to be supported by further questioning to rehabilitate him. And if you do that, I don't think you would need to spend more than an hour or two in re-examination. So we will adjourn now and we'll --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- resume on the 18th of October at 9.00 a.m.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, of course, but I'd just like to ask, since Mr. Nice mentioned a moment ago some alleged document of mine dating back to 1995 mentioning 100.000 policemen, to provide me with that document. I want to see what document of mine that ⁴⁵³¹³ is.

MR. NICE: I was referring to --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I was referring to the 35th session of the Supreme Defence Council on the 30th of April, 1995, and I think in the English -- 3rd of April, I beg your pardon, 1995, and I -- I've got the extract here, but in English it's on page 24.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That should enable you to find it, Mr. Milosevic. We are adjourned.

You will return, then, Mr. Janicevic, on Tuesday, the 18th of October, at 9.00 a.m., and you are not to discuss your evidence with anybody.

We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.50 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 18th day

of October, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.