⁴⁵⁵²⁹

Thursday, 20 October 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll now deal with the matters relating to the use of time. The accused had submitted the list of witnesses for the rest of his case as instructed.

Mr. Milosevic, that list was submitted ex parte. In order to make it available to the other parties as it should, you should file a redacted confidential version so that the other parties can have it. I am to say that the information that you requested from the Registry with regard to the time used during the Prosecution case is in fact available, and the Chamber instructs the Registry to make that available to you.

As for the other matters that you raised with regard to the 199 witnesses that you say you have remaining, which would take up 452 hours, the Chamber notes that in fact of the time allotted to you you have remaining 106 hours, and it will be a matter for you to so organise and arrange the presentation of the rest of your case to fit within the 106 hours that remain of the allotted time.

Do you have anything to say in relation to this, and then we'll hear from the other parties, if necessary.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Mr. Robinson. I consider that this is an approach which cannot be considered the right approach and a fair approach, and I'd like to draw your attention to ⁴⁵⁵³⁰ certain factors.

The opposite side's case lasted for 300 days. They produced 352 witnesses. You did not take as a criterion either the number of days or the number of witnesses but something different, some number of hours.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In principle --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just stop for a minute. One important factor which you have omitted is that of the 352 Prosecution witnesses, only a third of that number was called viva voce. Two-thirds was called by way of written statements, which you have not utilised at all.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's precisely an argument against this method of proceeding and conclusion, Mr. Robinson. A third of the witnesses testified live. That, in actual fact, means that two-thirds of the witnesses have, according to this formula, non-existent time. What would have happened had all the witnesses testified pursuant to 92 bis without an examination-in-chief? That would mean that I have no time at all for my witnesses. That's what it would come down to. And these are matters of principle, reasons of principle. The right to defence cannot be curtailed and limited by using mathematics, and it is not measured in terms of time, and you know that full well, Mr. Robinson. Of that 114 witnesses who testified live, you only counted time for them. All the other time doesn't exist. So the -- with these viva voce ones. On the other hand, you say 79(F) -- 89(F). If I wanted to avail myself of that Rule, I would not have had time to prepare that ⁴⁵⁵³¹ kind of use of witnesses. As far as 89(F) is concerned, there were masses of binders presented here practically with no examination-in-chief at all, so we can't base it all on mathematics of that kind to the disadvantage of establishing the truth. You can't base a whole construction here based on time, the time that I am in fact allotted.

And in addition to that, take a look at this from another aspect. 352 witnesses presented by the other side. Now, I have with all the witnesses taken together that I have produced so far a third less witnesses than they did. Therefore, I consider that it is quite reasonable and fair that more time should be accorded. And please bear in mind the fact that, for example, the other side presented or brought forward dozens of expert witnesses. Regardless of the doubtful character of their expertise, there are years of work behind those expert testimonies and enormous resources. I'm not in the same position. I cannot have as many experts as they did who can invest as much time and effort. My experts, for example, can testify only about something that can be based on some earlier works of theirs or topics that they dealt with earlier on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you say it's reasonable and fair that more time should be accorded. Are you making an application for an extension of the time that was allocated to you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, Mr. Robinson, that that is quite obvious.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. If you are through, then we'll just hear from Mr. Nice and Mr. Kay, if necessary. ⁴⁵⁵³²

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, complete your remarks.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I wish to complete my remarks and say that will throughout this stay -- or the Prosecution case, you never limited the other side in terms of time. All you do is pay attention to time when it comes to me. So they have a vast machinery working for them, a great deal of time. On the other hand, you are only giving me a third of the witnesses they heard viva voce, and there is non-existent time, according to your calculations, for the rest of them in this way, and I don't think that is compatible with the principle of fairness or with any intimations of any desire on your part or anybody else's part who is included in this to learn about the facts and to learn the truth. Therefore, if you're not interested in learning that, if you're not interested in the facts and not interested in evidence and the proof, then of course you can use these time restrictions and that will be that. That's it.

And there were attempts made to hear -- here to take away my right to speak. Now you're doing this with time restrictions imposed upon me. So I think that this is an absolutely unfair approach, improper, and I would like to ask you to allow me to bring forward witnesses in the way that Mr. Nice was able to call them, and I'm talking about a lesser number, a much lesser number, a minimum number that you ought to allow me to examine for my side to be heard. Audiatur et altera pars as the proverb goes.

So if there has been manipulation of this kind based on ⁴⁵⁵³³ mathematics, I have never heard that mathematics can be used to restrict the right to speak and present facts.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I am not allow you --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Audiatur et altera pars was the proverb.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll not allow you to say that there has been any manipulation. The data that you requested will be made available to you. Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Let's just understand each other. It's not a question of just data being manipulated. Isn't it also manipulation -- said yourself 30-something per cent of witnesses testified live, viva voce, and according to this formula those two-thirds of the Prosecution witnesses have no influence on the time that I'm being allowed. Is that not manipulation itself?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I don't see that as manipulation. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Very little and only this. As I understand it, today's hearing is to see the accused is to use the time available to him, not to deal with an application for an extension of time. If he wants to make an application for an extension of time, I would invite the Chamber to say it should be in writing in order that he can set things out in a way that we can respond to in writing.

With that said, the following may assist: The Prosecution and indeed the Bench has time and again drawn to this accused's attention the ⁴⁵⁵³⁴ running of time. It has time and again drawn to his attention the desirability of his using 89(F) or 92 bis, and so far as the Prosecution is concerned, it has repeatedly drawn to his attention the potential irrelevance of some of the areas of evidence upon which he has concentrated. He's pressed on regardless with a great deal of evidence about background, expanding that part of the case, doing so knowing that that was coming off a total and limited period of time. These are all his choices.

Similarly, it has been his choice not to make use of the services available to him in the form of assigned counsel who would have been able to assist him in abbreviating the time taken by various witnesses, in producing more efficient bundles of exhibits, schedules, all sorts of things. He's declined all of that, and he's done it knowingly, because what he has intended to do is what he is now doing, which is pushing the Court into a position where he will say you have to give him more time. The answer is the Court doesn't have to give him more time. The Court has been scrupulously fair in allocating time, in reminding him that it's his duty if he wishes to be his own advocate, to spend that time wisely, and the appropriate course now, in our respectful submission and in absence of a compelling case in writing for extra time, is simply to require this accused to make the best use of his remaining time, to encourage him to use Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins to assist him, to make the best use that he can of 89(F) and 92 bis.

I should perhaps finally observe this: There has in today's hearing and to an extent in the very short hearing a couple of days ago ⁴⁵⁵³⁵ been a change of position by the accused where he said he didn't really have the time to deal with matters under 89(F) and 92 bis. Oh, yes, he did. He has had one way or another the opportunity of using lawyers just like every other party in this court, and if he'd chosen to use lawyers one way or another, there would have been plenty of time to prepare witnesses for 89(F) or 92 bis purposes.

So this change of approach by him actually reflects a determination to try and push the Court into a corner against which in my respectful submission the Court should be anxious to show firm resistance.

JUDGE BONOMY: It may not only be lawyers who can assist. We have before us at present a good example of a witness who is plainly capable of producing written material covering the issues he's dealing with. In fact, the exhibits contain numerous reports written by the witness. They contain a book that he has written. So it's not just lawyers, I think, Mr. Nice, that you can identify as people who would be able to unilaterally provide the material that the accused seeks.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour is quite right about that. And of course in referring to my learned friends Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins, I must also remind us for the record of the existence of associates, and as we know other lawyers in Belgrade, because not so very long ago, last week or the week before, there was reference by one of the witnesses to a wholly new and hitherto unmentioned lawyer being engaged in preparation of the witnesses. So we know that there are the resources there. It's been the accused who has made the active decision not to call them. And I don't want to descend too much into detail, but Your ⁴⁵⁵³⁶ Honour's observation about -- His Honour Judge Bonomy's observation about the latest witness also obliges me perhaps to remind us all that with the last ten witnesses or eight witnesses, all of who produced positive libraries of documents, it can indeed be argued that the number of documents within those libraries that are at the core of his case are considerably smaller than the total number produced, and given the realities of the time limitations that have been properly imposed on him he, advising himself well, or he, being well advised by lawyers, would have seen the need to prune and substantially to prune those volumes of exhibits, but he didn't do so.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

--- Break taken at 9.30 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.11 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In relation to the matters raised by the accused, I have to say this on behalf of the Chamber: Mr. Milosevic, you continue to make reference to 300 days utilised by the Prosecution in its case. You well know that this is not the basis on which the calculation was made, and your continued reference to 300 days is mischievous if not malicious. The calculation as the Chamber has repeatedly said and as will be made clear to you when you see the records which we have ordered the Registry to be made available to you, that calculation was done on the actual hours utilised by the Prosecution, and the reference to 300 days is erroneous and baseless.

Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, you have the very same facilities as the ⁴⁵⁵³⁷ Prosecution to present evidence in writing under 92 bis and 89(F). You said that no limits were placed on the Prosecution in presenting their case. That is not true. You will recall that at a certain stage in the Prosecution case the Chamber gave the Prosecution a hundred days in which to complete its case, and this was in fact appealed by the Prosecution. The appeal was dismissed. And I remind you that the -- in the same way that you have had to trim your witness list from a very high number, the Prosecution also had to trim its witness list. The Prosecution, I believe, started with about a thousand witnesses. We have had occasion to refer, Mr. Milosevic, on more than one occasion to the many support facilities that are available to you and which you constantly fail to acknowledge and to utilise. There is assigned counsel, two assigned counsel and their team funded by the Registry. You have three legal associates, and there is a pro se liaison officer assisting you in administrative matters in the preparation of your case. The Registry has also made available to you office and communication facilities that no other accused has. What you should be doing now is making better use of the time that is left to you. You have 106 days left to you -- 106 hours, rather, left. You should be making better use of those hours utilising the resources available to you, and I need not recall what those resources are. But if they are utilised in a proper way, you will be able to call far more witnesses than you have been calling on the present basis of the management of your case.

So we consider an application now for an extension to be ⁴⁵⁵³⁸ premature. We will not consider it. What the Chamber will require you to do, as I said, is to so arrange and to construct your defence and organise your defence that you fit the presentation of your witnesses in the time that remains.

Let the witness be called.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't want to comment upon what you said at all. However, since you haven't given me an opportunity to make any comments with respect to what Mr. Nice said, just a few observations.

Mr. Nice said that I changed my view, which is not true. My view has been and remains that what happens here should be public, not in writing. And I spoke in the conditional. Even if I wanted to do that, I could not resort to the method that he proposes. The other thing he said is also unfounded. He says that I present facts about the context. I am presenting facts about the context, but that is in contrast to what Mr. Nice has been doing. He takes things out of context and then comes to the completely wrong conclusions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've given you a chance to respond to what Mr. Nice said since you have not had the chance to do so. If you wish to do so, then you must do so in as brief a manner as possible, and I don't want remarks addressed relating to personalities. So I will hear you very, very briefly and then we'll call the witness. Do you have anything more to say? ⁴⁵⁵³⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, do I. Mr. Nice wants me to be brief with this time --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not hearing that. Let's call the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will call the witness.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This request --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will call the witness. Call the witness.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: MILOS DJOSAN [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before Mr. Nice starts his cross-examination, I, precisely in accordance with your words during this witness's testimony, wanted to ask for the documents that I presented to the witness and the witness commented upon be admitted into evidence. I wanted to ask to have them admitted.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Tabs 6 to 39 --

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.

MR. KAY: Just while we're dealing with exhibits because the issue was raised yesterday about tab 30 and the statement by the other army officer Odak. Checking back in relation to the Delic exhibits and as an example D300, tab 362 which was a statement by an officer called Vukovic ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁰ put into the Delic exhibit file, that wasn't admitted in evidence. It was just marked for identification. So the observations I made to the Trial Chamber yesterday were correct, and Judge Bonomy's recollection was correct as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll make the order on the admission of exhibits after the break, Mr. Milosevic.

Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: And on the topic of the break, has the court been reorganised or are we rising at half past 10.00.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll rise at half past 10.00.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE KWON: Just before we start, can you confirm, Mr. Kay, the accused skipped tab 18, 22 and 42?

MR. KAY: Yes. 22 and then 40.

JUDGE KWON: And 40. Thank you. Mr. Nice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Djosan, where were you serving in 1991?

A. In 1991, I was in Batajnica, commander of the 5th Rocket Battalion of the air defence.

Q. In 1992?

A. Also.

Q. 1993?

A. In 1993, I was in Pristina, commander of the 311th Self-Propelled Air Regiment of the air defence. ⁴⁵⁵⁴¹

Q. 1994?

A. Likewise.

Q. 1995?

A. In 1995, from the 1st of January, 1995, until the 30th of June, 1995, I was within the Serb army of Krajina of the Republic of the Serb Krajina.

Q. What duties did you perform there?

A. I was commander of the 44th Rocket Brigade of the air defence.

Q. You were paid, were you, by -- at that time, you were paid then by what, the 40th Personnel Centre?

A. I was paid by those who paid me all the time. I received my salary on my personal bank account, and I didn't give it a second thought.

Q. Well, people sometimes worry about their pensions. Did you through your period of time in the Krajina get double credit for pension purposes or not?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, how do you know you got double credit for pension purposes? Who told you?

A. I didn't know at that time.

Q. Well, how did you --

A. And at that time it didn't matter to me.

Q. How -- why, because you were engaged on a war effort for the Serbs in another country?

A. No. I was engaged in a war for my own people on the territory that was officially under the control of the United Nations. ⁴⁵⁵⁴²

Q. Were you fighting? Were you engaged in activity, in action?

A. I was commander of a brigade of the air defence, and I did not take part in fighting on the ground, just like here.

Q. Fighting against aircraft, did you engage in that?

A. That's right.

Q. Well, what sort of planes did you attack, please?

A. We downed a helicopter.

Q. Whose helicopter?

A. A helicopter that was illegally flying over the territory of the Republic of the Serb Krajina and that was transporting terrorists.

Q. Was the Republic of Serb Krajina at that stage recognised in any international sense? Please help us.

A. The Republic of the Serb Krajina at that time was officially under the protection of the United Nations.

Q. What were you doing fighting on that territory?

A. I was there to help my people.

Q. "My people." "My people" being?

A. My people are the Serb people anywhere.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... wars are wars about the Serb people, aren't they, because that's the interest that people like you went to fight for. Very simple.

A. Mr. Nice, you know, I went there after NATO fought against the people of the Serb Krajina. Before that, NATO bombed the Republic of Serb Krajina, and after every crime those who can help come to the scene.

Q. You're not, I imagine, going back, are you, on your answer that ^{45543 BLANK PAGE 45544} you were there fighting to help "my people," the Serb people? That remains your position, doesn't it?

A. It is still my position that I was helping my people there to protect themselves from NATO Air Force and from the Croatian armed forces.

Q. And whose helicopter was it that you downed?

A. The helicopter that we downed was a mercenary helicopter with a Ukrainian crew. It was notorious for smuggling. It was transporting terrorists between Zagreb and Cazin.

Q. How did you know that, if that was the case? And I'm not in a position to accept it or reject it at all, just tell us how did you know about it.

A. I saw when it was downed. I was on the spot. And also we knew about it beforehand. Before any action, one collects information about those are you fighting against. That helicopter was flying for six months before that.

Q. Tell us, please, again, if you haven't told us -- if you have told us already, where were you born?

A. I was born in the village of Bistrica, municipality of Zepce, the former Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. What were you doing in Croatia, then?

A. In Croatia, no. I was in the Republic of the Serb Krajina. That's where my children were born. That is where I served, and that is where there was a predominantly Serb population. I was in the territory of the Republic of Serb Krajina, which was then under the official protection of the United Nations. ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁵

Q. Well, what I want to know is this, please, we're going to go back to the question of pension and the 40th Personnel Centre but let's deal with it in little bite-sized questions. You know perfectly well what the --

A. Please go ahead.

Q. You know perfectly well what the 40th and the 30th Personnel Centres are, don't you?

A. Of course I know.

Q. When did you learn about them?

A. Through this centre I went to the Republic of Serb Krajina.

Q. Exactly. So you knew about it right at the beginning. You knew about it when you were sent to the Krajina. Would that be correct?

A. I went to the Krajina at my own request, and they only made it technically possible for me to go.

Q. In what way did they make it technically possible for a soldier from a state not at war to go and fight somewhere else? What do you mean by "technically possible"?

A. I'll explain it to you now. I see that it's a bit difficult to explain this to you.

I applied for approval to be sent to the Serb Krajina, the Republic of Serb Krajina, for six months after the NATO Air Force attacked people and the Udbina air field. The command allowed me to do so. The 40th Personnel Centre explained to me how I could come, when I could go, and who would meet me there and where I should report when I come to specifically Knin. That's the technical part where they assisted me. ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁶

Q. And they told you or you already knew that while you were there you would be paid as before by the Serb authorities and that you would be given double credit for pension purposes while on active duty, yes?

A. At that time I wasn't interested in that at all. I was interested in going to help my own people.

Q. As a family man, as any man, you have to be interested in being paid. Since you're going to fight outside your own territory, what did you discover about being paid?

A. Mr. Nice, I said that at that point in time I wasn't interested in that at all, and I knew that my family in Belgrade would not die on account of that or starve.

Q. Did you -- are you trying to tell us that you gave no thought to the financial consequences of asking to leave -- what you're saying is you wanted to leave your present job and go and be a volunteer somewhere else for an indeterminate period of time perhaps. What arrangements did you make about your pay, please.

A. Is it sufficient for you if I say to you that at that time I wasn't interested in that, how I would be paid. I was 20 years younger then. I didn't even think about a pension.

Q. I see. Well, were you married at the time?

A. Of course.

Q. So somehow your wife and family's got to get some money to live. You may not have cared yourself because you were there to save the Serb people elsewhere. What arrangements did you make with your -- your family when you volunteered to go and perhaps not be paid at all? What ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁷ arrangements did you make?

A. I made no arrangements. I received my salary through my personal bank account. When I was in Pristina, I had this separate amount of money that you get when you live apart from your family, a special family allowance. When I went to Krajina, I did not get this family allowance. I only got my regular salary as an officer of the rank I held then.

Q. I don't want to labour the point, but I just want to see if we can understand it, your position. If you had decided to go and work in -- as a volunteer in some other theatre of war, in the Middle East, the Far East, or Africa, you wouldn't have expected the taxpayers of Serbia to be funding it, would you?

A. Or in the Falklands.

Q. By all means choose the Falklands. Why not. Let's take you, then, right down to the Falklands. There, you are. You've gone done there as a volunteer. Do you expect Serbia to pay for you?

A. Well, I wouldn't go there because my people are not there.

MR. NICE: I'm not going to take this line of questioning further.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you continue, let me just deal with the admission of the exhibits. Tabs 6 to 39 are admitted, except for tabs 14, 18, and 22, which were not used. The VJ commission statements, tabs 8, 11, 11A, 30, 30.1, 30.2, and 30.3 are marked for identification pending further order. 20.1 -- tab 21.1 is marked for identification ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁸ pending translation. There's a small map which was not in the binder and which will be admitted as tab 48.

Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Before I move on, Mr. Djosan, just this: The date on which you shot down the helicopter, what date was it?

A. I think it was the 29th of April or the month of May. I don't remember the exact date.

Q. You -- your service until then had been either in Batajnica or in Kosovo. You made reference, you say, to your children being born somewhere. Where were your children born?

A. I served in many different places before that. My first post was in Karlovac, and my wife is in -- is from Karlovac, and my children were born in Karlovac -- or, rather, in the area of Kordun in the village of Popovic Brdo. After that I served in Cerklje, at the Cerklje airport in Brezica. After that in Obrenovac, then in Belgrade, and --

Q. So this slight connection with Croatia, as it were, is sufficient to justify your being paid by the 40th Personnel Centre for your service in the Republika Srpska Krajina; is that right?

A. I don't know what that means, "slight connection." What do you mean by that when you say "slight connection"?

Q. It's not for you to ask questions, but if you need elaboration I'll help you. You weren't born in Croatia, were you? You've never pretended to be Croatian by ethnicity, if that ethnicity or nationality is accepted. You maintain that you're a Serb from Bosnia. ⁴⁵⁵⁴⁹

A. I'm a Serb from Bosnia, from the former Bosnia.

Q. So the only connection that you claim with Croatia is via your wife, and you say the birth of your children and your having served there at much earlier dates?

A. Yes.

Q. Let's move on, then. From June 1995 -- I may come back to this period but I need a bit of time to think about it. The next period of your service, June 1995. Where did you go and serve then?

A. After June 1995, I returned to Pristina as regiment commander to the same post from which I went to the Krajina, to the Republic of the Serb Krajina.

Q. You were there for how long?

A. I was in the Republic of the Serb Krajina for six months.

Q. I didn't understand. So you actually stayed in the Serb Krajina, Srpska Krajina, from June 1995 onwards.

A. No. No. In the Republic of Serb Krajina, I was from the 1st of January, 1995, until the 30th of June, 1995. Those are the six months I spent in the Serb Republic of Krajina. And then I returned to Pristina, to the same post where I had been before that.

Q. And how long did you stay in this post in Pristina?

A. I stayed in that post all the way up to October 1996.

Q. Then where did you serve?

A. Then I went to the command of the air force and air defence in Zemun. ⁴⁵⁵⁵⁰

Q. How long for?

A. Well, 15 to 20 days.

Q. And then?

A. Then I went to Republika Srpska. I was within the army of Republika Srpska.

Q. So this time you're being paid by the 30th Personnel Centre.

A. Then, too, I received my salary the way I did when I was in Pristina. I was not interested in who was paying me even then.

Q. How long did you serve in the Republika Srpska?

A. A year, exactly a year.

Q. Whereabouts?

A. In Banja Luka I was chief of the department for air defence in the ministry of Republika Srpska.

Q. And what did your duties amount to? Did you fire any weapon at anything in the course of that time?

A. At that time no one was firing anything. This was after the Dayton Accords.

Q. So you're there working for the Republika Srpska. Why was it necessary for you to be there at all?

A. I went there to study the experience of the air defence of the army of Republika Srpska, which, as you know, was also the target of an aggression by NATO Air Force.

Q. Wait a minute. You went there as chief of a department, but you actually went there to study, did you? Were you in charge of your department of air defence for the ministry of the Republika Srpska? ⁴⁵⁵⁵¹

A. No. No. I was in the staff, in the command. I was not the head of air defence. It was the head of the air force, the chief of the air force who was the man in charge.

Q. And what was your job then?

A. My job was to study the experience from the fighting of the army of Republika Srpska or, rather, the air defence of the army of Republika Srpska against NATO Air Force.

Q. We will apply to see your VJ -- your file in due course, but just tell us from your own knowledge. Was this year's service credited at double pension -- at double rate for pension purposes?

A. I don't remember.

Q. You don't remember?

A. Well, you can check that out in the file. That's what you'll do. You'll investigate, so there's no need to get worried about that.

Q. You must know what the regulations amount to. Come along. Senior soldier or you were. You're now retired, so you've inspected what you're going to get for pension purposes. Are you being pensioned at a rate that allows double rate for that year in Republika Srpska, please?

A. I don't remember, but I can check and then I'm be able to get back to you on that, but I haven't checked it.

Q. You really haven't checked? Because I'd like to know why, perhaps you can help us, why if you were pensioned or credited with pension at double rate why that should happen when you're simply in a country learning something as opposed to in a country -- not a country, in another sort entity, as it then was, why you should be credited, if you were, with ⁴⁵⁵⁵² double pension simply for learning something. Can you help me?

A. Did you hear me say that I received that -- received double, double pension? I'll check it out, as I said, and I'll tell you.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... please. After that tour of duty, where did you go next?

A. After that one year, I returned to the command of the air force in Zemun.

Q. And then?

A. And after that I became head -- I was appointed head in the inspection for combat readiness for rocket units and air defence in the General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Based where?

A. At the General Staff headquarters in Belgrade.

Q. Staying there until when?

A. I stayed there until the 15th or, rather, the 9th of July, 1998, when the terrorist attacks in Kosovo and Metohija started.

Q. And you were moved down to the Djakovica area; yes?

A. I requested to be moved to Djakovica, yes.

Q. Let's go back to something entirely different. In relation to the movement of bodies from Kosovo to the territory of Serbia, His Honour Judge Bonomy asked you if you had accepted or had knowledge of bodies being exhumed from a clandestine mass grave in Batajnica. You said, "I'd heard something about that. It was -- it was rumoured especially after 2001. However, I don't believe it, and it seems to me quite unimaginable that somebody could have done something like that." ⁴⁵⁵⁵³ And pressed -- pressed -- asked a further question you said, "Possibly someone brought in the bodies, but I know that it's not a mass grave."

And you went on to say, "After Markale, I know all sorts of things that could be done and could happen and I have had experience with manipulations."

Now, we now know that you were actually at Batajnica for a couple of years so you know the area well. Take your time and tell us: How was it that bodies were Kosovo were moved to Batajnica?

A. Mr. Nice, you are trying to put words into my mouth, words that I never uttered. And secondly, as far as I'm concerned, the idea of moving bodies --

Q. I'm going to interrupt you there.

A. Don't interrupt me, please.

Q. No, I'm sorry. Please listen to me. I was reading to you from the transcript in English of the answers you gave to His Honour Judge Bonomy. So be so good, please, as not to make suggestions of the kind that I'm putting into your mouth words that you didn't say. I was carefully reading back to you words that you did say. Could you now please answer the question. How was it that bodies were moved from Kosovo to Batajnica?

A. I did not say that the bodies were moved. I said that after Markale, anything can be expected, all kinds of planting of things, deceptions, and to say that bodies were moved. How could I know about something that I heard about two years later? How do you expect me to ⁴⁵⁵⁵⁴ know about that?

Q. You are at retirement a senior soldier, a senior member of the military; correct?

A. As a general.

Q. Can you tell us in order to become a general you reached the level of, equivalent of a Ph.D.; correct?

A. That's not the title, doctor of science, Ph.D. I said that I was on the same level as a person with a Ph.D. having completed the schools that I completed.

Q. You spend time with the VJ commission and with other officers and former colleagues discussing events in Kosovo; correct?

A. For a time I was head of the commission for the application of the military technical or, rather, Kumanovo agreement, as a general already.

Q. You must know, I suggest to you, that the following agencies have been actively engaged in discovering how it is that bodies landed up in Batajnica and I'm going to list them for you. First of all, there was the inquiry by Captain Karleusa, who was a witness here. Second, the Belgrade Institute of Forensic Medicine's been engaged in examining and exhuming these sites. The Belgrade district court's been involved in it. The University of Belgrade medical school has been involved in this exercise as has the FRY's committee for compiling data on crimes against humanity and international law.

Batajnica has involved a multi-disciplinary exercise maybe forced on Serbia but nevertheless a multi-disciplinary exercise involving high-level bodies. You must have known that, Mr. Djosan. Yes? ⁴⁵⁵⁵⁵

A. Those are just your insinuations, nor do I know anything about that, nor ought I to know about that. Why do you think I should know about that, all the things that you set out just now?

Q. Mr. Djosan, for this reason: Meja was in your area of responsibility, wasn't it?

A. No. It was not in my area of responsibility. I explained to you on the first day the second question that I answered that the units of air defence did not have an area of responsibility on the ground, and Meja is a place on the ground. My brigade had its area of responsibility in the air.

Q. We remember your distinction of that kind, and do you remember the answers you gave to the Court about your knowing everything that happened in certain places? Do you remember that? Because we're going to look at a map and see how close things are fairly soon. Do you remember saying those things to the learned Judges?

A. I remember all my answers. Of course I do.

Q. Very well, then. I suggest to you whether in any way you were technically free of being responsible for what happened in Meja, for a senior soldier not to take an interest in an allegation of hundreds of bodies being dug up from the area of Djakovica and Meja and taken to the very place where you were on duty is inconceivable. It simply is a nonsense answer for you to give.

A. I didn't understand what period you're referring to. Could you repeat your last sentence, please.

Q. Yes. In light of public inquiry into the most awful allegation of ⁴⁵⁵⁵⁶ hundreds of bodies being moved from one area where you were if not in charge, we'll come back to that, at least present and with senior responsibility, to an area which you knew well, Batajnica, it is inconceive -- because of your duties there as you told us in 1991 and 1992, it's inconceivable that you wouldn't have attended to these inquiries and known what they revealed in the most general terms.

A. I did not have any reason whatsoever to think about things like that, because quite simply I don't believe the insinuation being made.

Q. Well, then I come back to my question. You say you don't believe it. As an intelligent, educated man belief has to be founded on grounds. On what grounds do you not believe that which -- and I remind you again, bodies such as the Belgrade Institute of Forensic Medicine, the Belgrade district court and the University of Belgrade medical school are engaged in investigating? On what grounds don't you believe these allegations? Tell us.

A. I never saw those findings nor did I read them, so why would I have to think about them and believe in them.

Q. Let me just look at a document --

JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move on, Mr. Nice. May ask something to clarify my understanding of your area of responsibility. I understand the point about you having responsibility for the air and air defence. Did you at one stage at the beginning of your evidence say something about being garrison commander in Djakovica?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.

JUDGE BONOMY: Did that give you certain -- an area of ⁴⁵⁵⁵⁷ responsibility on the ground or is that simply in relation to your aerial area of responsibility?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As garrison commander, I cooperated and was duty-bound to see to certain protocol matters. In peacetime, the duties of a garrison commander are different than in wartime. And as it was wartime at the time, my duty as garrison commander was to see to supplies, supplies for the population. Not I myself but to cooperate with the municipal organs and authorities, representatives of the MUP and so on to ensure that. Secondly, to organise and ensure that the bodies of fallen soldiers and policemen be sent to the places where they came from. A clinic, that is the medical corps, was under my responsibility as I was the brigade commander, and it came within the brigade. However, as a commander --

JUDGE BONOMY: Can I interrupt. Can I take it, then, that that, because of the wartime situation, is something supplementary to your normal area of responsibility which is in the air?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The garrison commander's role is far smaller in wartime than it is in peace, because in wartime it is the brigades that are given areas of responsibility, and the air defence brigade does not have area of responsibility. The garrison commander has no rights or possibility of commanding any unit except his own unit, and that is why I was the brigade commander and at the same time garrison commander, simultaneously. So my key role, my principal role was to command the brigade in air defence, and an auxiliary role was my role as garrison commander. So in that sense they're different. ^{45558 BLANK PAGE 45559}

MR. NICE:

Q. I'd like you just to look, please, at a document which I'm distributing. I'm not going to ask necessarily or probably at all that it become an exhibit, but it is an easier way of looking at the questions I'm going to -- want to ask, and it contains an analysis of some of our exhibits.

Mr. Djosan, since this case which has now lasted in court three and a half years started, evidence from various organisations about the bodies found in Batajnica and in Petrovo Selo has increased, and I must suggest to you that you must be aware of the fact that bodies have been found in some five different sites in Batajnica, in two different sites in Petrovo Selo and Lake Perucac.

Now, if we look at this document, and perhaps the usher would lay one copy page by page on the overhead projector.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that a suggestion that he should answer to?

MR. NICE: Certainly. You must be aware that bodies were found in different sites in Batajnica. Yes, please.

Q. Could you answer that question. You were aware of that?

A. You really do surprise me, Mr. Nice. Just giving a quick glance at this, you will see that this has no sense at all, especially if you expect me to answer this.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just answer the question that was put to you. Mr. Nice suggested to you that you had to be aware of the fact that bodies were found in some five different sites in Batajnica and in Petrovo Selo and Lake Perucac. ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁰

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could have just heard about rumours and not facts, and there is a world of difference between rumours and fact. So I did hear rumours to the effect that some bodies were found in Batajnica. However, as to facts, I can't speak to that because they weren't facts. So there's an enormous difference between rumours and facts, and I've come here to testify about facts and the truth, and I don't want to deal with rumours at all to waste your time and my time.

MR. NICE:

Q. If you would be good enough now please to look at the first page of this document to understand its format. The one, two, three, four, fifth column from the left is headed "OTP 92 bis," and then two English words "Witness evidence." Where that column has an entry in it then there's been evidence about a particular named individual in the course of our case. Where the column is -- that line is empty there's been no specific evidence thus far about those people. However, the entries on the left identify in various coded ways, or by various codes, research done at exhumations engaged in by Serb-based bodies in conjunction with international organisations. So that just to look at the first entry, I'm going to suggest to you that there is available evidence to show that Bekim Ademaj, who came from Meja, whose body was found in Batajnica. Thus similar entries going down the page.

If we come to the one, the second example where there's an entry in that OTP column, we see Xhavit Bajrami, born on the 3rd of July, 1972, with an OTP exhibit number. There is evidence that that person was killed in Meja or went missing from Meja in the course of the killings, and his ⁴⁵⁵⁶¹ body has been positively identified as being found in Batajnica. Now, that's the way the document is constructed, and I'd be obliged if the usher would turn over the page so that we can just see the generality. On this page -- stay with this page for a second. We can see a large number of bodies now said to have gone from Meja but also from Djakovica and from Korenica to Batajnica.

The second page, please, Mr. Nort. Another very large number of bodies, again from Meja, Djakovica, and Korenica. Some of them covered by specific in evidence this case, others of them not.

Third page yet more. We're only up to the G's now, Mr. Djosan. Meja, Djakovica, some of them covered, the names in the middle Tahir Haxhiu, and Avdi Haxhiu covered.

Over the page again. More names, Meja, Djakovica, Korenica, some of them covered by evidence in this case.

Fifth page, more again. And the sixth page.

And finally the seventh. I'm going to suggest to you, and I want you to deal with this quite clearly, that there is evidence and you must have known that a very large operation was undertaken to move bodies from the very area where you were based in vehicles such as the refrigerator truck that landed up in the Danube to the very place which you'd served for two years in Batajnica and that you must have known about that.

A. Have you finished? This document means nothing to me. And as to ⁴⁵⁵⁶² all those assertions of yours, what I can say is that that is not something I know about. I know nothing about that. All I know is about the rumours, the rumours linked to certain bodies in some Batajnica place, somewhere in Batajnica. But let me tell you that where I lived in Batajnica is the rocket artillery battalion defence, which I toured recently, and there are no bodies, no mass graves, or anything of the kind.

Q. Before we move from this, don't feel inhibited in answering, because you must feel free. What do -- what do you say when you use the word "manipulation"? What do you say may have happened or must have happened to cause some bodies to go from the area where you were working to Batajnica? Who do you want to say was involved? NATO, Albanians, the Office of the Prosecutor, anybody. Tell us what your belief is?

A. I did not come here to guess. I could guess for as long as you'd like, but then that would not be valid testimony. I pledged to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so to -- and I'm not going to make any guesses. Just as I said I did not see terrorists in Qerim, which Mr. Bonomy asked me to state, the alleged crimes in Qerim. So I am not going to speculate.

Q. So my last question on this topic is: How on earth do you express disbelief in what the evidence has already shown and may show in yet more detail in light of discoveries made by bodies based in Serbia as well as elsewhere, on what do you base your disbelief?

Remember, as you answer this question, Mr. Djosan, that family members still identify the bodies found in Batajnica and give them burials ⁴⁵⁵⁶³ at home. These are not just statistics. These are human beings. Tell us on what you base your disbelief that the evidence shows that these people were moved from your area of interest as part of a calculated, cynical plan to cover up crime at Batajnica. What's the basis of your disbelief?

A. I don't believe it because it's a completely fantastical idea in saying that anybody could take bodies from Kosovo and Metohija to Belgrade, no less a place than Belgrade. Why would anybody do that? Why would they take bodies there?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, could you get the distance, the distance between these places and Batajnica?

MR. NICE: We've now had at some stage. I'm sure the witness can tell us.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you help us, General, the distance between Meja and Batajnica, as well as Djakovica and Korenica and Batajnica?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Meja and Korenica are quite close but Meja and Batajnica are 500 kilometres away, 500 apart. And during the war I just went to visit my family once. I didn't know which route to take because I didn't know which bridge was still left standing, hadn't been destroyed. And to start out with so many bodies, taking the roads when you don't know which bridge was destroyed and which would be targeted next, that is quite unbelievable. Or perhaps somebody who knew what certainly would not be targeted organised it in some other way. That is an assumption, but I said that I wouldn't delve and speculate about assumptions. I'm asking concrete questions. The distance between Meja and Batajnica. About 500 kilometres taking the roads. And in wartime, of ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁴ course, it was even more, because many of the bridges had been destroyed and you had to take roundabout routes. And it took me three days to travel from Djakovica to Belgrade in a car, three days. Because I would come to a bridge, saw that it had been destroyed, went round to another bridge, that bridge had been destroyed too. So I really don't understand that anybody could believe anything like that, that something like that actually happened.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Such a journey during wartime you say is impracticable. The whole idea is implausible.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm telling you is this: It was during those 78 days that I just went to Belgrade once to visit my family, just once, and that I was travelling in a passenger vehicle and that it took me three days to get there because the bridges were mostly destroyed.

Now, I'm wondering and asking myself how, if that actually happened, how could it be done? How could you bring in -- how many did you say, Mr. Nice? How many bodies did you mention here? You'd need a whole train to do that, to transport all those bodies.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... was asking questions at the moment.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE:

Q. The figure I think at present is some 800 bodies have been found. Now, in light of your answer to His Honour Judge Robinson about those who knew what was or wasn't going to be targeted, are you trying to ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁵ suggest that at a time when there were no forces in either -- no international forces in either Serbia or Kosovo, the Albanians in league with NATO digs up 800 bodies and drives them up to a territory where Albanians would be unwelcome in the extreme, namely the north of Serbia, gets access to the SAJ part of Batajnica and buries the bodies? Is that what you're suggesting, just so we can follow?

A. No. First of all, I'm not suggesting anything. Suggesting means just to throw doubt on something and just touch upon a subject. I have nothing to say in that regard.

Q. Very well.

A. Apart from the fact that the idea is completely insane and that anybody who thought up something like that, and if they actually did it, well, then it's even more insane that anybody could think that it is not some plot or conspiracy of some kind. I said after Markale nothing would surprise me.

Q. Another allegation you did make, I mean, you made an allegation or an insinuation about the bodies from Batajnica but you now say you don't want to say anything about that. But you made a slightly more assertive insinuation about the statements of Nika Peraj. You suggested that he may have been under some pressure when he made those statements. Feel free, please, to tell us exactly what pressure you want to suggest Nika Peraj would have been under when he made two statements in 2000 and 2001.

A. Well, I think that those who do not understand the kind of pressures that are exerted on people in Kosovo and Metohija nowadays in ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁶ terms of any kind of evidence they could give, that really doesn't make any sense. If Nik Peraj had known such a thing, why didn't he come and tell me about this? He was duty-bound like any soldier to report any crime to me, any allegation of a crime that he later on talked about. At that time, he was under less pressure when he was in my unit, not now -- as compared to now when he's down there.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... you're answering the question, if you were prepared to.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you please repeat the question and I will indeed answer.

MR. NICE:

Q. Please tell us what pressure you want to suggest Nika Peraj would have been under when he made two statements in 2000 and 2001?

A. Nik Peraj was in the army of Yugoslavia all the time. For them, that was reason enough -- or, rather, that is reason enough for him to fear for his own life and that of his family.

I had Albanians in my own units before. None of them are still alive. While I was in the regiment in Pristina, Tole [phoen] Sabahata, a lady who worked with me, was also killed later on. Every Albanian who worked in the army of Yugoslavia either had to say what they asked him to say or is no longer alive. You can check that at least.

Q. Well --

JUDGE BONOMY: Are you -- are you saying, Mr. Djosan, that a person would -- an Albanian person would place himself at risk very fact ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁷ of being a member of the army of Yugoslavia?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That would be a risk, yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: So the question then must be what changed? Why is it you say that he would be brave enough to serve as a member of the army but somehow or other has been manipulated into giving false evidence? What is the change that occurs to create that change in the person?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I did not say that he was brave. I did not say a single word to that effect, that he was brave, or that he went into any kind of anti-terrorist actions. We did not send him out to do that kind of thing. I never referred to any kind of bravery on his part from that point of view.

In the army, he worked for the state security organs and people know that. You have to ask someone that he collaborated with. Please go ahead.

JUDGE BONOMY: With respect, I don't think you're addressing the issue. What I was referring to by bravery was being brave enough to be a member of the army at all. You just acknowledged that that would be putting him at risk.

Now, what is it you say changes between 1999 and 2001 to make him into a liar when he was brave enough to remain a member of the army of Yugoslavia in spite of being at risk from his Albanian countrymen?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between 1999 and 2000 and 2001, everything changed in Kosovo and Metohija, everything. So that, too, how a person who was a member of the army of Yugoslavia felt. A lot changed or, rather, everything, I could say, has changed since then. There are no ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁸ Serbs there any longer, and you know what the situation is like in Kosovo and Metohija.

I was on the commission for applying -- or, rather, carrying out the Military Technical Agreement, and I have quite a bit of knowledge about what was going on in Kosovo when KFOR and UNMIK came after the army of Yugoslavia and the police force left Kosovo and Metohija.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. You were seeking to suggest, the day before yesterday, I think, or the hearing day before yesterday, that maybe the investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor would have put any pressure on this man. Now, is that something you wish to advance or suggest, or is that something that you would completely abandon as an explanation for Mr. Peraj's, as you would say, inaccurate statements? And feel free to say whatever you like about the fact that he's an OTP investigator. You feel free to say --

A. For the most part inaccurate. For the most part Nik Peraj's statement is inaccurate. There are accurate things in Nik Peraj's statements.

Q. What, if anything, you want the learned Judges who will have to decide these issues to consider what the investigator may have done to Mr. Peraj? You raised it.

A. I don't remember that I said exactly that this was an investigator, but I can give you other examples. That's why I insisted on this yesterday, that first I say where I worked and what I did. I was head of the commission for carrying out the Military Technical Agreement. ⁴⁵⁵⁶⁹ We put a question to the representatives of KFOR or, rather, UNMIK, why the investigators from The Hague, when they opened the alleged mass grave in Suva Reka, when they opened it they found Ristanovic's body. I think that's what my book says. They abruptly closed that investigation and, as a matter of fact, that mass grave.

I tried to get a hold of this document. So as head of the commission for carrying out the Military Technical Agreement on our side, every seven days I had meetings with the representatives of KFOR, and the UNMIK police was represented, too, and also the section for missing persons, and we put this question to them. That can be found in the records, minutes of these meetings. And by virtue of that fact, I have the right to have my suspicions with regard to most of these statements and the work of investigators from The Hague in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. After all, the way in which this team was established can also be brought into question.

Q. So --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice --

MR. NICE: Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But I'm not sure that I quite understood why you concluded that you had the right to have suspicions with regard to the statements and the work of the investigators from The Hague. Could you just encapsulate that for me?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could try to encapsulate that.

Article 93 of the additional agreement stipulates that when ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁰ violations are investigated of the Geneva Conventions, the composition of these commissions is stipulated who can be on these commissions at all. As far as I know, there was no representative of the Serb side on these commissions. I think that's it's Article 95 or something similar to that, does envisage such a possibility as well.

This was a concrete question that was put by our representative of the police, Colonel Bozovic. He asked the representative of the UNMIK police why this had happened. His answer was that that was not exactly the case. At any rate, we did not get a direct answer to the question. That can be found in the documentation of the commission for implementing the Military Technical Agreement.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How does that relate to the statement that the investigators would have taken from Nik Peraj? Are you saying that the absence of the Serb --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not directly.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not directly. How?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it could be put that way. It could be put that way.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That a Serb was not present casts some doubt on the statement collected by the investigator.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. That is what one may conclude.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the impression that the ⁴⁵⁵⁷¹ witness did not understand your question. He did not talk about the presence of Serbs when an investigator took the statement. He was talking about the investigation of war crimes and the commission for investigating that. He is not talking about anybody's presence when the investigator was taking a statement from Nik Peraj.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please check this, but I never said that it was the investigator who was exerting pressure. I was saying that Nik Peraj lived in such an environment where he was subject to pressure. But I do not remember saying that an investigator pressured him. But this is my general position, that there were some objections in this regard.

MR. NICE:

Q. You raised also yesterday -- I'm sorry. Do I take it from that, then, that there's no allegation of any kind or no insinuation of any kind you want to make against the investigator whose name we know in this case, because if you do, please make it, and I have to tell you that the investigator is indeed available to deal with them.

A. No. I don't even know who the investigator was. It doesn't really matter to me. What I was talking about now was the principle involved when alleged crimes are investigated in Kosovo and Metohija. I talked about the principle involved. I do not recall saying that specifically a particular investigator was exerting pressure at Nik Peraj. The pressure could have been brought to bear by his compatriots. I don't recall having said that. Could you show me that to me, please.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... possibility of his being under some pressure as a result of his children? ⁴⁵⁵⁷²

A. He could have. Why not? Why could he not be under pressure on account of that.

Q. I just wondered what sort pressure he might be under in respect of his children?

A. Any one of us who have children can be under any kind of pressure. If pressure is being exerted in that way and if this jeopardises the safety of one's children, anybody can be in that position, anybody who has children. And I already said at the very outset that blackmail, extortions, killings of Albanians who were loyal members of the police were being killed, et cetera, that that is everything that had been going on in Kosovo, and the only thing missing was suicide bombers.

Q. Yes, I remember that part your answer, but I still fail to understand how any of this should operate through somebody's children. Is it possible, Mr. Djosan, that in fact you revealed that you know a little bit more about pressure that's being put on to Mr. Peraj by his giving of statements and that you know in fact that he has been threatened following making those statements by Serbs?

A. I know a man who will testify about how Nik Peraj complained to him that his lieutenant colonel, Goran Jeftovic, was the one who had Nik Peraj as his source, and he can tell a lot more about that. He is prepared to testify before this court.

Q. Would you now answer my question, please. As it happens, I'm not going to divulge the country, but as it happens, Mr. Peraj's children live elsewhere in another country, nothing to do with the former Yugoslavia. So he's not really at risk in a sense from that. ^{45573 BLANK PAGE 45574} My question to you is: Did you actually know that he had been threatened following his giving statements to the Office of the Prosecutor by Serbs?

A. I haven't seen Nik Peraj since ten days prior to the withdrawal of my unit from Kosovo and Metohija. I haven't seen him since, haven't talked to him since, haven't had any contact with him since, so how could I know whether anybody had threatened him?

Q. Now, the truth is as follows, isn't it: You and Nik -- well, first of all, Mr. Peraj is a comparatively unusual type of Albanian in that he's Catholic Albanian, correct?

A. Well, I wouldn't say that all Catholics are unusual. It's not the only thing that made him unusual.

Q. If you want to say something adverse about Mr. Peraj, you'll be given every opportunity, but please restrict --

A. No.

Q. We'll come to your opinion of each other in due course. But he was a Catholic Albanian, there being quite a number of them, I think, living in the area of Janjevo, is that correct, south-east of Pristina, but otherwise not a particularly numerous part of the former Yugoslavia or the former Kosovo.

A. In Djakovica there are also quite a few Catholics.

Q. It was because he wasn't a Muslim Albanian that it was possible for him at all to stay on in the VJ as long as he did; correct?

A. Not correct. Even if he were an Albanian Muslim, nobody would have dismissed him from the army of Yugoslavia on account of that. In the ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁵ army of Yugoslavia, there were no distinctions of that kind among people whether there were Catholics, Orthodox, whatever. I explained the other day to you what the ethnic structure of the command of the brigade that I was in was.

Q. And just to help us with the detail, how many Albanians -- how many men of Albanian ethnicity were still working with the VJ in your area of interest or responsibility in May of 1999? Let's get an idea of the figures. We've got Nika Peraj. How many others?

A. I know only how many worked in the brigade where I was commander. There were two, Nik Peraj and Mrs. Berisa Beljdjuzare, in the unit where I was commander then. I don't know about other units, and I cannot speak about them. I simply don't know. If I knew, I would tell you.

Q. Now, you and Peraj got on well together. He quite liked you and you quite liked him. And as you explained yesterday, you had no reason to think him other than honest at that time.

A. I have said that he carried out his duties properly and honestly, and I had no reason to believe that he was not honest.

Q. Have you read his statements made to the Office of the Prosecutor in full?

A. No. I just saw the beginning when he referred to me, but I heard very little. But I do remember when he mentioned Colonel Djosan, something like that.

Q. Well, apart from the fact that in his statements he reveals you to be perhaps a weak man and a man who wasn't aggressive enough for your -- for your own success, he actually says few things adverse to you and ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁶ several things favourable to you. Are you aware of that? And we'll look at them, if necessary.

A. Please go ahead and tell me. I would like to hear what he said.

Q. Very well. Well, we'll come to that in the detail when we look at it, but you haven't read them so you're not aware of that. And that is a little aside.

These statements of Mr. Peraj's had been produced in evidence well before the conclusion of the work of the VJ commission described as the VJ Commission for Cooperation. To your knowledge, do these exhibits which were public exhibits fall for consideration by the commission?

A. I told you that this commission worked very little. I remember from the period when they called me to give a statement about the events that I talked about here and about which I wrote my statement. I was still an active-duty officer at that time. Very soon after that I was pensioned off, but I know that these were people who were experts, doctors of science. There were pensioned officers and generals and --

Q. Would you answer the question, please.

A. Please go ahead.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... to your knowledge deal with or ask anyone to deal with the statements of Mr. Peraj that were publicly available because they'd been produced in this trial? Yes or no?

A. I was asked to give statements about events in Meja, in Qerim, and --

Q. [Previous translation continues]... move on.

JUDGE BONOMY: That may be because you only offered two options ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁷ and the third one of I don't know might --

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: -- have been inappropriate.

MR. NICE: Yes. Your Honour is quite right.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.

MR. NICE:

Q. Were these statements by Mr. Peraj considered by the commission? Yes, or no, or you don't know, as His Honour says?

A. I don't know because I wasn't a member of that commission. I just know what I was tasked with and what I was asked to give answers to. But whether they looked at his statements, I really don't know.

Q. In 2001, the Serbs are essentially, not completely but essentially, out of Kosovo. Mr. Peraj's there. Do you know anything to the contrary of the following: Mr. Peraj was located as a potential witness by an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor, and following discussions agreed to give voluntary statements setting out the history? Do you know anything to the contrary of that suggestion?

A. First of all, I want to say the following: In 1999, the army and the police left Kosovo and Metohija in accordance with the Kumanovo agreement. In 2001, Serbs were expelled from Kosovo and Metohija. So that is your introduction.

Now, what is derived from that? Why Nik Peraj most probably had to give a statement under duress, under pressure.

Q. Well, first of all, this is a change of position, I think, but you better tell us. What duress? What -- ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁸

A. I haven't changed my statement.

Q. Well, what duress and what pressure? Because I want you to tell us. He's there in Kosovo, approached by an investigator. What's the pressure on him that you want us to consider? We're only here to discover the truth. What pressure?

A. Pressure is exerted before statements are given. Had he given a different statement, the question is where he would be now. So I assume that his milieu brought pressure to bear on him and that he had to give this kind of statement. I didn't say that it was the investigator who exerted this pressure, but I said that I -- that I understand that he most probably had to give this kind of statement.

I do understand him. I don't know what I would do if I were in his position in that situation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just in plain terms, who would have put the pressure on him before he went to give his statement?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kosovo and Metohija, who would put pressure on him? Well, pressure is exerted before statements are given. After statements there are no pressures to be made. Either the worst case scenario can be happen after that or he can be left alone. Pressure is always -- can always be brought to bear. We have all seen so many American movies about pressure that is made before --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I was asking you to identify in plain terms who would have pressured him. Don't assume that I -- that I know.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. Are you asking me for specific names? I don't know who exactly, but his compatriots, members of ⁴⁵⁵⁷⁹ the terrorist KLA.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, that's --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, good. We understand each other now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... pressured him before he gave the statement to the investigator.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That is my assumption. I was not present, so I cannot say that that is what happened in actual fact, but it is to be expected.

MR. NICE:

Q. Well, then -- if we can just look, please, at the first of those statements, please, if we've got them. We've got them in English for the overhead projector, and because they're paragraph numbered and since the statement which was taken in English through an interpreter was subsequently, I think -- at least I think that's the way it was done, was subsequently translated into B/C/S, you can actually follow it with your own text.

Just give the B/C/S to the witness. You'll find these statements have got consecutive paragraph numbers. All right? And we're going to show just a few passages on the overhead projector at this stage.

MR. KAY: Can we have the exhibit number?

MR. NICE: Yes. It's Exhibit 143. I'm sorry not to have given that before.

Q. Let's go, if we can, to paragraph 33. It's one of the references ⁴⁵⁵⁸⁰ which is quite complimentary about you, you see. It deals with -- there it is.

No. No, it's the other statement, please, Mr. Nort. There are two statements, and it's the other one. There we are. And make sure that the witness is looking at the first of the two statements, the longer one. Have you got the statement there open in front of you that's the bigger of the two statements? Right.

And it reads like this: "Heard that Arkan kept a very disciplined unit insofar as they didn't use drugs. I never saw Arkan's unit using drugs. But based on what my friend told me with his son and their behaviour, I conclude that they must have been using some type of drugs. A lot of alcohol was being consumed in the Pastriku hotel. And Colonel Djosan, being responsible for the forces in Djakovica, tried to ban it unsuccessfully. I was once sent to Djosan to put a stop to the drinking but with the drunken state of the people in the hotel and their weaponry it would have been too risky".

Now, here he's praising you for your attempts to control the situation. How would that be something that the KLA would want him to lie about? Can you help us?

A. He is not praising me here. He is saying -- well, I don't remember having sent him. I did prevent unruly drinking. Now, as to these Arkan's men, there is no question of that. That introduction, there is no question of that. And I said yesterday and the day before that there were no paramilitary formations, Arkan's men or Seselj's men, or anybody's men. But I see that it's a sort of a leitmotif ⁴⁵⁵⁸¹ that you managed to put through and then go on to your concrete questions. But I would like to have concrete questions to which I can give concrete answers. So I have the sort of impression that you're trying to sort of do this in a roundabout way.

Q. How would it be responsive to KLA pressure to give a description of you, the local and immediate commander of this man being a good chap and trying to do his best. Maybe incapable of doing his best but trying to do his best. How would that be responsive to KLA pressure? Hmm?

A. Djosan Milos means nothing to the KLA. For the KLA what is important is to show the situation and for Nik Peraj to testify to the situation and not about -- tell things about Djosan Milos. This is the best way of placing misinformation.

Q. Well, let's go to another paragraph. Let's go to paragraph 52, please, in the same statement. Have a look at that. Now, by this time in his statement, Mr. Peraj has set out the account, as he described it and as he discovered it, of the events at Korenica and Meja. There's so many people, as he would -- or as other evidence confirms been butchered, killed. And he says this: "Djosan" -- no, let's go back to the beginning of the paragraph. "For the operation carried out in Korenica and Meja, a week later General Lazarevic, Goran Jeftovic, Novica Stankovic, and other lower-ranked soldiers were given commendations." By the way, is that accurate? Were they given commendations shortly after that time in April of 1989? Just yes or no will do.

A. I don't believe so. ⁴⁵⁵⁸²

Q. We can check with the records. "Novica Stankovic was the deputy of the Pristina Corps, Commander Milos Djosan in Djakovica."

A. Novica Stankovic was my deputy. The Chief of Staff in the brigade of which I was commander.

Q. Uh-huh. Became a general, didn't he?

A. Of course he did not. No, he didn't become a general.

Q. Very well. Was there a deputy of yours who did become a general?

A. No.

Q. When did you become a general?

A. I became a general in 2001.

Q. Had somebody been promoted over and above you, ahead of you, to your surprise and perhaps embarrassment?

A. No. In our army, promotions were done in order and we don't have -- we didn't have generals as in Croatia who had been formally butchers and so on and so forth. You could gain a higher rank. For example, I became general when I fulfilled all the legally provided provisions for that, all the legally provided provisions.

Q. "Djosan did not agree with the" --

MR. KAY: Could I just raise something. It's been troubling me. I've been trying to follow this exhibit from the exhibits that we have on the court database, and I have an entirely different document for Exhibit 143. It's a statement by Nika Peraj, but it's not 52 paragraphs long. I wondering whether my learned friend may have a draft that was the one that wasn't exhibited rather than the actual one, or the one on the court database may be wrong, but I'm trying to follow the questioning and ⁴⁵⁵⁸³ this is not the same document that we have in the court exhibits.

MR. NICE: There are --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm working from what I take to be the exhibits produced in the binder of exhibits for me and stamped Exhibit 143 are the first of a sequential series of pages. There are two statements made by Mr. Peraj and then the third very short statement that corrects at court one or two slight inaccuracies.

JUDGE KWON: What is the date of the interview?

MR. NICE: The date of the interview for this first one is the 12th to the 15th of February, 2001, and is indeed as Mr. Kay says.

JUDGE KWON: The one we have is 24th of October, 2000.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, will you try to sort it out during the break?

MR. NICE: I'll certainly sort it out.

JUDGE KWON: Oh, no, I'm sorry, I was mistaken.

MR. KAY: The statement I have is 18th of April, 2000, which is from the court exhibits --

JUDGE KWON: Yes, yes.

MR. KAY: -- what I'm following. Is that what Your Honour Judge Kwon has?

JUDGE KWON: Page 5.

MR. KAY: Yes. With a supplemental statement of a couple of pages correcting the original typographic errors.

MR. NICE: The 18th of April statement is the second one. ⁴⁵⁵⁸⁴

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Nice, please.

MR. NICE: The 18th of April is the second statement. The typographical correction, or effectively the typographical correction statement is the third one. The one I'm reading from is the first.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you try to sort it out during the break because it's important for us to have the right exhibit.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE KWON: The second statement was the one which the accused showed to the witness yesterday?

MR. NICE: No. The one I'm going through now is the one that we, I think, showed to the witness, or he showed to the witness.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE: Because I found the paragraph numbered version. Indeed, the accused went through one or two of the paragraphs I'm going through now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll ask the legal officer to work with the Prosecutor and Mr. Kay during the break to sort this out. We'll break for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I understand the difficulty has been resolved in relation to the exhibits.

MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Mr. Kay for drawing to our attention the occasional difficulties that arise with the electronic scanning -- the scanned versions, and obviously we have to be careful to check that ⁴⁵⁵⁸⁵ the record we left behind of the case is accurate as to all exhibits.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just for the record, would you just say what happened.

MR. NICE: I don't know what happened. I think Mr. Kay does. I know what the exhibits presented us no physical form were, but I'll let Mr. Kay explain.

MR. KAY: When the 92 bis package was produced, there had been a problem on the dates of some of the statements. The package was produced as an entirety, and obviously what's happened here is they've scanned a document of that date, the 18th of April, but hadn't appreciated that the other statements were of a different occasion and entered that into the electronic record. It's as well to pick these things up because if we do work off electronic search databases as we do, it's important to make sure the court record is accurate. We've actually also used the hard copy here so nothing has been missed in case preparations.

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

MR. NICE:

Q. If we can return, then, please, to paragraph 52. You see, Mr. Djosan, what Mr. Peraj -- what Mr. Peraj said was, having dealt with Korenica and Meja, he said you didn't agree with it and you arrested Mr. Micunovic. Now, you answered questions about Mr. Micunovic yesterday. Just yes or no: Was Mr. Micunovic detained for a few days, or do you say you don't know?

A. I did not arrest Micunovic.

Q. Did you arrange for him to be arrested? ⁴⁵⁵⁸⁶

A. No.

Q. Well, then, if follows from this that everything that Mr. Peraj said on the topic must be completely wrong. Can you explain to us so that we can understand it how KLA pressure could operate on Mr. Peraj to get him to say something very favourable to you?

A. Well, I explained that a moment ago. As for the KLA or, rather, to the KLA an individual means nothing. So praising me and saying that the situation was bad means that nothing was solved. What does it mean that I was a good person and praised and the others weren't?

Q. I'm sorry. This is a very detailed statement. We don't have time to go through it all. It sets out his asserted experience of his service, of Meja, of Korenica, in the later parts of intervening to save various people's lives, all of whom are named and identified. Now, why in the course of that should he under pressure single out one person to say that he was actually a decent VJ soldier trying to do his best? I don't understand it. Perhaps you'd help us.

A. I wasn't the only decent good officer in the army of Yugoslavia. This is a compliment, and I would like to thank him for giving me, paying me that compliment. But the other officers of the army of Yugoslavia were responsible men and conscientious. So I don't see that he's singled me out in any way, that it's of any importance.

Q. Now, would you answer the question. Why would someone under pressure, such pressure that he's going to give a completely fabricated story, choose in the middle of it to give an account of one chap, you, who does his best to try and fight against -- swim against the tide? ⁴⁵⁵⁸⁷

A. I don't think I heard you properly. I thought that this document was in Serbian so that I could read what it was he actually said or, rather, it says there. Yes.

Q. "Djosan did not agree with the operation in Korenica and Meja and arrested Micunovic for his involvement. However, he only remained in prison for three days."

And he goes on to say why he was released, but we're not concerned about that at the moment.

Well, if you can't answer the question we'll look at one other similar paragraph.

A. No, I can answer the question. I didn't need to agree or not agree with the anti-terrorist operation. I was not the person who made the decision. As I told you, I was commander of the air defence brigade, and I was able to command anti-air defence units and to deploy them. That was all. No other unit, even my own unit which had taken part, took part pursuant to orders of the forward command post and the Pristina Corps.

Q. Sorry --

A. So it wasn't me. I could not in any way influence this and give the go-ahead for an operation or not.

Q. Paragraph 65, please, Mr. Nort. Would you go to paragraph 65 in the Serbian version. And here you see we see again what this man who is making everything up on your account says. He says: "Milos Djosan, the commander of the ARBR was theoretically the person who should command military operations in the area of Djakovica, but the operation I saw in the" -- ^{45588 BLANK PAGE 45589}

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is -- the distortion that Mr. Nice relates to, he asserts that -- he said that Nik Peraj was thinking everything up. That's not what he asked nor did he say anything like that. All he did say was something in relation to the points that I went through with him and addressing very specific facts, concrete facts that were not true and that were fabrications.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this paragraph 2 is a fabrication.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic. Proceed, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. We'll deal with the accused's intervention in a second, but just look at paragraph 65. "Milos Djosan, commander of the ARBR was theoretically the person who should command military operations in the area of Djakovica, but the operation I saw in the Carragojs valley was commanded by General Lazarevic, Colonel Kotur, and the other staff officers in the Pristina Corps. Djosan, from Bosnia originally and about 48 years old, was a very sensitive man who had compassion for those suffering. He was not aggressive. He should have become a general, but his deputy was promoted above him after the war." Now, the last bit, the deputy was Colonel Novica Stankovic, wasn't it?

A. Yes. Colonel Novica Stankovic is still a colonel. That's the first part of my answer to your question. ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁰ And the second part is that not even theoretically speaking was I the person who should have been in command of the military operations. And thirdly, General Lazarevic was my superior commander. So it is not possible for him to take away my competencies and authorisations, to seize them away from me.

Let's accept the truth here that my name is Djosan, that I do come from Bosnia originally, that I am 48 years old, and that I am a sensitive man, as it says. We accept that. I accept that. But I don't accept any of the rest. None of it's true. Of course I was not aggressive, as it says. I should have become a general, and I did indeed become a general, and my deputy after the war was not promoted to a higher rank. So in this part where he praises me, the facts are not true.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. It's only the following paragraph --

Q. Forget that for one second. Again, just try and help us. Why should he in giving a statement under pressure say all these nice things about you unless in fact -- let's just have a look at the man again so we can remember him.

Mr. Nort. Unless in fact he was simply trying to give --

A. I know the man. I know what he looks like.

Q. To remind the Court. They haven't seen him for three years. See what he looks like.

This man, as you would know if you have the totality of his statement, was trying to give a balanced view of things that actually ⁴⁵⁵⁹¹ happened, wasn't he? Wasn't he?

A. Well, no, not from what I can see here. He just tried in the individual sections to praise me as if he was marrying me off or something like that.

Q. Well, just dealing now and only in a sample with the accused's intervention, let's go back, if we may, to paragraph 47, please. 47. Just remind the Court of what it is.

This is paragraph 47, which I think we've look at before and it's the last few lines. This is where he sets out the informal meeting that led to the attack on -- at Meja, rather. And the last few lines says something like: "During the meeting Stojanovic addressed Micunovic and Kovacevic, ordering them to carry out an operation in the Carragojs valley where at least a hundred heads had to be eliminated and all the houses burned in retribution for the killing of Prascevic. The order was phrased in almost exactly this way."

Paragraph 48: "In less than a week, the massacre in Meja and Korenica took place."

Now, you're saying that that is completely untrue, aren't you?

A. Yes, this is untrue as well.

Q. It's not something on your account can simply be a misunderstanding or a shading of recollections of history. It's totally untrue. It has to be, doesn't it?

A. All of this is untrue and unrealistic. First of all, Colonel Stojanovic could not have been in command over Micunovic or Kovacevic. In the chain of command, he could not have ⁴⁵⁵⁹² been in command of those two men. Colonel Stojanovic was not a commander of any unit at all, so he was not able to command. And he especially wasn't able to command these two. Colonel Kovacevic was chief of MUP in Djakovica, so couldn't have commanded him.

Q. I'm quite happy to go through it again but time is limited. I just simply want to establish in light of the accused's intervention that your position on this statement and the second one has to be that Mr. Peraj has calculatedly lied to make up a false story. That has to be your position, doesn't it, Mr. Djosan?

A. Precisely so.

Q. Thank you.

A. That's my position. A calculated lie, yes.

Q. Thank you.

A. And told you a false story. That's precisely it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, although the witness has answered and has said no to the entirety of that paragraph and the first sentence in 48, I think it would be better to differentiate the propositions. For example, does the witness agree that there was the killing of Prascevic.

MR. NICE: I can certainly deal with that.

Q. Prascevic and other officers were killed in the week before the Meja incident, weren't they?

A. Yes, they were. I agree there. They were killed. I know that.

Q. Let's have a look at this, please. Place it on the overhead projector.

This is Prascevic, isn't it, circled? ⁴⁵⁵⁹³

A. I never knew him personally.

Q. Didn't you?

A. No, I don't know him personally, but I do know that he's from Djakovica. But as I say, I didn't know him personally. I just knew three of the MUP officers in Djakovica.

Q. Have a look at this picture, then, please, if you'd be so good, which I must suggest contains the same man, and I must suggest that it's Prascevic. Just have a look at it, please. It contains rather a large number of other MUP officers. Perhaps you'll recognise some of them. Do you recognise any of these MUP officers? Forget the one who is in the circle that I suggest is Prascevic. Do you recognise any of the others?

A. Of course not.

Q. They are MUP officers, aren't they?

A. Yes. There were many MUP members in Djakovica --

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. -- just as I don't expect --

Q. Can you think of any reason why they should be photographed looking cheerful in front of burning buildings? That's what's going on in the background.

A. Well, you're asking me something I can't answer. There's no sense in you asking me that, why they're cheerful. How would I know? Most people when they have their photographs taken usually smile, except for their passport photos or ID photos perhaps.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you asked for that, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁴

Q. Mr. Djosan, please think a little more seriously about the question, will you? This is the forces of law and order standing in front of burning buildings smiling to be photographed. They're not exactly sending for the fire brigade, are they? Can you think of a reason why the forces of law and order should find it entertaining to be photographed in front of a burning building?

A. First of all, not all of them are smiling. You didn't look at the photograph carefully. Not everybody is smiling. Take a better look and you'll see that that's true.

And now you're asking me to answer something that has no sense. As a brigade commander myself, I cannot be asked to analyse and comment on a photograph, of people being photographed in actual fact.

Q. One last thing from Mr. Peraj's materials if the usher would be so good. It's the map on the last page. If you haven't got, I'll give it. 143.4 this is. Thank you very much.

He provided, did Mr. Peraj, this analysis, summary form, of both the VJ deployment positions and what the MUP were doing in this valley, and it's very simple. The VJ positions were to the north-east and the south-west, cutting off retreat of people who were driven from the north-west to the south-east so that they landed up at the checkpoint at Meja where they were killed. That's the truth of what happened here and you know it. You may not have approved of it at the time, but you know that that's what happened.

A. First of all, let me repeat what I've already said. I'm not the person who would okay an operation or not, and I don't approve of the war ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁵ in Kosovo and Metohija at all. I don't approve of war having broken out and taken place. However, I am not or was not in a position for me to approve or not approve operations or to lead operations or to command operations. Therefore, any question related to that I think is superfluous. As I said, I was exclusively an air defence brigade commander in command of air defence units, and I was not able, I wasn't in a position to be, and that would have been a violation of the chain of command had I been the person to approve the operations. I did not approve them, nor was I placed to approve them. That wasn't my position and duty, to make decisions like that. It was the people in charge who made decisions like that, those whose authority it was. And if you think this map was drawn up by Nik Peraj, it was not. As I said before, Nik Peraj did not have any military training, and he wasn't capable of compiling a map of this kind.

Q. Very well. Let's move on now to the circumstances of your statements which --

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if we are leaving off Nik Peraj. General, in the course of your answer you once said to Mr. Nice that every Albanian who worked in the VJ either had to say what they asked him to say or is no longer alive. If you could give us some examples of Albanians who worked in the VJ and refused to say what they asked him to say and is killed or is no longer alive.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know of the members of my former unit from Pristina, Tole Sabahata. That is one name that I can give you. She was a lady and she was killed last year and that was a case that was ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁶ written about. She was a member, first of all, of the KLA and then later on she worked in the joint - what was it called? - the joint police, not UNMIK police, but in the Kosovo police. And she was killed and I think that you wrote about it here. But she worked in my regiment for a time.

JUDGE KWON: I don't follow. She was killed last year. Was he killed because she didn't -- she didn't say --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The year before. Well, maybe it was last year.

JUDGE KWON: Because she refused to cooperate with KLA? Is that what you're saying?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that, but she wasn't killed in a traffic accident. She was assassinated. So she didn't die. She didn't suffer an electric shock and die. She wasn't hit by lightning. She didn't die in a car crash. She died as a result of terrorist action, that is to say they shot at her car and she was killed. And formerly she was a member of our unit from the Pristina days, and she worked in Pristina and I was her commander.

JUDGE KWON: And that's the only example you can give us today?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the only one that comes to mind at present.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. We'll now turn to your statements, please. You said several things at the beginning about the VJ commission. Tell us, please, what was its function? ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁷

A. The title of the commission says it all. Commission for Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. MKTJ, the Commission for Cooperation. And then there was an expert team set up.

Q. What was the expert team there to do?

A. The task of the expert team was to deal with certain suspicions that were bandied about, especially after that book was published, and we don't know the author of that book. To throw more light --

Q. Don't race on. "We don't know the author of that book." What do you mean by that?

A. That's what I mean, that we don't know who the author of that book is.

Q. Let's follow that. How do you know, why are you saying "we don't know who the author of that book is"? What led you to say that?

A. Well, quite simply, we don't know who took part in writing that book, who it was that wrote that book. We by way of jargon say the book published by Natasa Kandic, but obviously Natasa Kandic was not in a position to see everything that was written in that book.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... that answer gives it all away. You've been talking to people. You know that the VJ commission has been caught out by the statements that have been prepared and by what those statements say about Natasa Kandic, don't you? You know you've all been caught out now. And that's why you volunteer that answer about we don't know who wrote that book and by jargon we say it was published by Natasa Kandic. You've been caught out here, haven't you? ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁸

A. That is just your opinion. That is just your opinion --

Q. You see --

A. -- on the matter.

Q. -- these statements that you've produced apparently dated 2002, when were they actually typed up?

A. When they were written.

Q. Well, in 2002 or at some later date?

A. No, not later. There was no commission later. The commission was abolished as soon as it started working basically.

Q. Well, how long did it actually carry on taking statements or getting people to make statements? How long?

A. First of all, people were not made to give statements. Specifically I was called and at that time I was general, and I was told, "General, please have a look at this book. Please check this out. Is this the case or is this not the case? Please write a statement about that particular incident." Well, that's the way it went, not as you had put it, that they were the ones who were getting us to make statements or whatever.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... statements being dealt with via the commission? From what date to what date roughly?

A. I don't know about that. I know when I wrote my statement. I know when I was called by them. I was not really in touch with that commission until they called me. That's the only exception. So I cannot give you a precise answer to that question.

Q. We've got one of the statements in your exhibits, just one. What ⁴⁵⁵⁹⁹ was the role of this book in the commission's work? A book is published. So what? What's the role of the --

A. What you do you mean so what? I said a few moments ago when this book came out and how it came out. And I said that after Markale nothing was naive any longer, and you could not deal with things simply any longer.

Q. The commission was established by Pavkovic, wasn't it, now indicted? Wasn't it? It was established by Pavkovic.

A. I don't know.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. I don't know.

Q. Provided over by Terzic. And it had an expert committee that included, for example, one person who is actually indicted for Srebrenica. Do you know about that?

A. No. No. I don't know who was indicted for Srebrenica.

Q. And its purpose was not to cooperate with this Tribunal at all but to shield from this Tribunal anything that would have been harmful to the VJ. Gvero was the chap who was indicted for Srebrenica, or is indicted for Srebrenica and who was on the expert committee. That is the whole purpose of this commission, to obstruct this court. Wasn't it?

A. That is your assessment and your view.

Q. You see, what I want to ask you is this, when I can find the right one is Vukovic -- 30.1. 30.1 is a statement by Vlatko Vukovic who apparently is going to be the next witness who -- if we look at it please, Mr. Nort, on the overhead projector very rapidly, 30.1, we have Vukovic ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁰ saying -- it will be handed to you. 30.1 of the Defence witness's. All right. Now at --

A. Have you got a version in Serbian?

Q. Could you put the English version on the overhead projector. Serbian version for the witness. And if we look at this -- next page, please, Mr. Nort -- we see that on apparently on the 10th of January, 2002, Vlatko Vukovic declared -- yes, the next statement. The next page, please. There's another page in English. Right.

He says: "I first heard about the alleged atrocities committed in the sectors of Korenica and Meja in late 2001, and read about them in further detail in the book Kosovo As Seen As Told published by the Humanitarian Law Fund."

So he carefully makes it clear that the book was simply published by the Humanitarian Law Fund.

We can take a look at another document we have. We can look at a statement. It's 362, tab A, or 362A, produced in the Delic evidence. One year later, and apparently again on the 10th of January. Vukovic says -- and let's see what he says.

Next page, please. "I first heard in late 2001 about the crimes allegedly committed in the Bela Crkva sector on the 25th of March, 1999, and I read something about them in the book, Kosovo As Seen As Told, published by the Humanitarian Law Centre. Since I am disgusted by the author and the fabrications she sets out in the book, I did not finish reading it ..." He seems to have become less informed about the reality of this ⁴⁵⁶⁰¹ book in the passing of a year. I just want to ask you this question, there are other examples along the same line, and I want to remind you of your volunteering answers about not knowing who the author of the book was and the slang use, you say, led to your describing the book as being Natasha Kandic's book, have these statements that you say were -- that you produced from Vukovic and others that you say were made in 2002 been re-written to get round the embarrassing problem? Have they?

A. First of all, where was it that you heard me say anything about the language that is used in that book? Please tell me. I am educated enough to understand different languages that are spoken in our area. I never said that about language, and I do have my doubts as far as the allegations made in that book are concerned.

I would be pleased, though, to see who took part in this. It is one thing to publish a book and another thing is to --

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. -- write a book. I wrote my own book and a company published it.

Q. Very simple question and I want to deal with it quickly. In view of the way Vukovic, whose statement you seek to produce as an exhibit, or through you the accused seeks to produce as an exhibit, can you explain how he produces apparently in 2002 a statement well understanding that the book has simply published by the Humanitarian Law Fund while one year later he is so incensed at the author Natasha Kandic of the book that he doesn't even read it? Can you explain that to me? It's material you want to introduce.

A. It is very easy to explain that. After the scenes she made when ⁴⁵⁶⁰² she beat Serb refugees from Kosovo and Metohija, I would also take that book into my hands with a set of pliers only.

The way she behaved to Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija who are refugees there and they came to protest the fact that their rights were taken away from them, and she slapped a person there. So it is quite reasonable to expect people who live there and who were in that position to have that kind of view of Natasha Kandic.

Q. Which brings us back to the role of this book in the commission's work. Did it have any role and, if so, did you read the book?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you read the book?

A. I read the book that pertains to the part that the commission asked me to write a statement about. I didn't read on.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... give you the whole book to read in Serbian?

A. Yes, yes, the whole book.

Q. Can you have, please, the following couple of pages. We've had this book, Mr. Djosan, for a long time in English. It looks like that.

A. I would like to have a look, please.

Q. We tried to get the front few pages of the Serbian version which we don't have in full here, but we do have the front few pages. And if the Chamber has it -- it may not have brought it with it, its version of As Seen As Told, it may want to compare the pages that we see.

Another copy for the overhead projector, please. ^{45603 BLANK PAGE 45604} You see, the front cover, apparently, obtained electronically but there's no reason to doubt it, identifies in one place at the top --

A. All right.

Q. -- the Humanitarian Law Fund. Then it says As Seen As Told, and you don't even need to be able to read Serbian or B/C/S to work out when Analiza OEBS Verifikacione Misije Kosovo means. This is the OSCE's analysis.

You go to the next page. We can see a further reference. The next page is the index. After the index we have an introduction from Stoudmann, and then a preface by Louise Arbour.

If you read this book at all, you would have known for sure that this was a work of the OSCE, and you would have known how it was compiled. Did you know it was a book of the OSCE?

A. I did know that it was a book of the OSCE, and I knew that it was a book of those who were in Kosovo and Metohija after the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement was signed. And I know how they worked, and I used to meet them. And this is what I expected. I expected things that were even worse. And I wish I could see everybody's name here. Probably every one of these authors has a name and surname. That is very important for me.

If there was someone from a country that bombed us, of course he's not going to say that there was no reason for them to bomb us.

Q. Well, we've had evidence given in this court as to the method by which this book was compiled. Let's take the English version, please, if we may, and just see a little bit about what it says about Meja on ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁵ page 179. I'm sorry we don't have the whole version in B/C/S. You're getting one brought up. But I'll read you what is said about Meja before we pass from Meja.

A. And I'm going to listen to you carefully.

Q. On page 179 of the English version prepared by the OSCE. Right-hand side, right-hand column, please.

"Other villages" -- right-hand column, please. That's fine. "Meja and other villages in the area were relatively quiet again until the 27th of April when Serbian forces attacked without warning, shelling and burning the houses. Police and paramilitary forces rounded up the population of Meja close to the school and separated 100-150 men aged between 15 and 50 from the rest. The men were further separated into groups of about 20 and forced to say long live Serbia, before being shot with machine-guns and then with an extra bullet to the head. Villagers from Meja and other villages were forced to join convoys and move towards Djakovica. Another witness described how police and VJ ordered 30 men to get off tractors in a convoy and forced them to lie face down on the ground. The police then shot just over their heads, and the men had to shout 'Slobodan is the master!' Many were beaten by the police and threatened with death if they did not hand over money and valuables." Is that enough? Have you read this before, if you've been preparing to deal with the evidence that concerns you?

A. Of course. My first question was whether the person who wrote that had been there, had seen that, or whether had heard that from the local villagers. I said that I was in Meja myself during the NATO ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁶ airstrikes. And this person who wrote this, was he an eyewitness? Was he actually there?

Q. Attended to the book that you say as a man with the equivalent of a Ph.D. as one might have expected you to do and looked at the methodology, you would have known how the people interviewed who are cited, for example, page 188, please, Mr. Nort, under footnote 98, by their pseudonyms, of course. There you are.

This passage, a mere one, two, three, four, five, six people were interviewed. All right? So that's what was found in that book.

A. Right. You could have talked to 80 persons. Again the statement would have been the same. They could have talked to a person from Suva Reka. Again, that is what he would have said about the event.

Q. Are you telling me or telling the Court that any Albanian interviewed by an independent organisation would make up a story like this? Is that really what you're saying? Falsely accounting for people being executed? Hmm?

A. My assertion is that most of them or all of them give the kind of statements they have to give, the kind they have to give. Nik Peraj's statement convinced me of that. Of course I don't know these other persons. But if you look at Nik Peraj's statement, perhaps he even had to show even less than he actually knew about the situation in the military when he said that 180 tanks could come from Republika Srpska. I was in Republika Srpska, and I saw the way borders were guarded there and that five soldiers could not leave barracks in Republika Srpska without announcing that to SFOR ten days in advance. When he as an ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁷ officer as a man who knew more about the military than the local villagers, I assume. When he could have stated things like that, then what can one say of others? What can one say of others? Especially because for a while he was in an armoured brigade and he knew what tanks were like, how big they were.

Q. You've got -- you see, I'll just tell you what the position is so that you can understand it. We have accounts of this massacre at Meja in the book we've just been looking at, in another book prepared totally differently called Under Orders, from witnesses who come here to give evidence before the Court, and I take it you're saying they're all making it up in the same way as somebody must have in some way found some bodies, moved them up to Batajnica, persuaded their relations back at home to identify the bodies as theirs and falsely to say that they disappeared on or about the 27th or 28th of April, 1999.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me, please, who is the originator of this elaborate scheme?

A. No, no.

Q. Tell us.

A. First of all, I did not say that somebody forced parents and relatives or the parents and relatives of these persons to falsely identify their next of kin.

Let me tell you something else now. Look at this white shirt, Mr. Nice. Can you see it? A month ago the mother of Stamen Genov, a soldier, gave it to me at his funeral a month ago. And he was abducted in Stimlje in 1998 and she asked me to wear that shirt here today. You never ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁸ said terrorists or anything, and he was taken off a bus, a civilian bus, wearing civilian clothing. He was a corporal in the medical corps, and personnel like that are protected by all international rules and regulations and international law, and you never ever said to me that this kind of thing was done by terrorists.

Q. I've given you a chance to explain how the coincidence of material arises and we have your answer. Let's go back to the commission. You must have appreciated at some stage that the 27th and 28th of April of 1999 were pretty important days for you to be able to deal with in evidence.

A. That was not what I appreciated. I was asked to do that or, rather, to write a statement as the commander of the unit that was involved in something on that day.

Q. And of course you as the commander that you were at the time would have had a number of contemporaneous materials to refer to, including maps but also various other records of your own; correct? Daily combat reports and such-like things, orders, plans, and the war diary. Now, can you tell us, please, was it your choice or the commission's that you didn't bring anything contemporaneous for the 27th and 28th of April?

A. This has nothing to do with what the commission decided. It asked us to write a statement only. What kind of documents would get here was decided by Zdenko Tomanovic, Mr. Milosevic's advisor. And you have the possibility to check all these documents.

Q. Are you saying that you handed over to the accused's lawyers ⁴⁵⁶⁰⁹ contemporaneous documents, orders, daily records, things like that for the 27th --

A. No.

Q. Where are they?

A. No.

Q. Where are they?

A. The documents are in the archives, in the archives of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Did you look at them?

A. No.

Q. Why not? Surely a careful --

A. Because it is protected in a way, and the procedure of obtaining these documents is very complicated.

Q. I see. Does that mean that you tried to find them or tried to get a chance to look at them and were not able and so you had to work from memory or that you didn't bother to try because you thought it would be too tricky? Which is it?

A. What is correct is this: That at the request of the commission I wrote them a statement of mine which I fully confirm here and now. It is correct that I told Zdenko that I could not get a hold of documents, and I did say what the relevant documents for the period were. I don't know what he got. He showed me some documents, and I said that he should include them, and that's what you've got here.

Q. Well, can we look at tab 6, please, of your -- of your documents. And I'm afraid it's probably the last thing I can achieve today. We'll ⁴⁵⁶¹⁰ have to look at the original version first, which is at the end of the tab. If we can just hand over the -- I should hand over the whole tab to Mr. Nort. Mr. Nort, go to the -- bring them to me, please. Sorry. And -- that's it. Just take these and show in sequence -- yes, show in sequence those pages and keep the English ones for later. Right. We're just going to show you on the overhead projector what's come to us as your tab 6. Do it quite quickly, please, Mr. Nort. First of all, the cover page, just show them in order. Cover page. Next page. Thank you. Next page. A translation, I think, or a transcript for the 24th of March. Over the page, please. The 25th of March. Next page. 29th of March. And then -- next page. Then we have an original document which covers apparently the 24th of March. Next page. 25th of March. Next page. 28th of March. Next page. 29th of March. Next page. 31st of March. Next page also 31st of March. Then I have after that, please, next page. We have two more -- one more page apparently covering the 4th and 5th of April and then we have a stamp. Now, this is what's been provided as your exhibit. Are the typed pages in any sense original documents or are they transcriptions of some other document, the original of which has not been produced?

Q. What, they're transcriptions. So where is the original? Go back to the second page that you displayed, please, Mr. Nort. Where is the original document for me to look at and inspect for, say, the 24th of March? And why was it transcribed as opposed to being provided in its original form? Can you tell me?

A. If it's here, please take a look. ⁴⁵⁶¹¹

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. We did this -- beg your pardon?

Q. This is all we've got, and I want to know why at this stage some pages have been transcribed and other pages are in the original. Do you know why the accused has sought to put in some transcriptions of pages and some originals?

A. These pages that have been typed out should match the original pages. Because of differences in handwriting, people were afraid that they could not be translated properly. If necessary, you can use the original pages.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. In all cases. In this case we simply wanted to do a favour. We thought it would be simpler to have it typed out and then translated, rather than people having to read handwriting. So this diary was written under bombs.

Q. We will remember that the only days covered -- well, in fact they're not covered in the originals as the Court will know. There's typed versions for the 4th and 5th of April and we've got nothing beyond the 31st of March.

Now let's come back to the English version, Mr. Nort, if you'd be so good, which is in two parts, at least the way I've got it. The first is headed war diary and it's clipped together, and then we have a bit that starts with the 4th of April, 1999.

Now, if we look at that -- no, next -- next section. That's right. ⁴⁵⁶¹² This -- you see, this is the 4th of April, 1999. It probably matches what we've got in the typed version in the Serbian script, and the 5th of April.

Next page, please, Mr. Nort. Then we go to the 6th of April, 1999, and then we go to the 26th of April. Ah-ha. So we're getting very near to Meja. We turn over the page on the 26th of April.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And we get to the 29th of April, 1999, conveniently or otherwise omitting the 27th and the 28th of April, 1999, the days of the Meja operation.

Now, it would look as though someone has had access to the period of your war diary covering the period of the 27th and 28th of April, 1999, but we don't have in court an original of that document. Can you help me? Where is it?

A. All I can tell you is this: I can tell you where my war diary is located and I think I spoke about this yesterday or the day before. You can request it because it is to be found in the archives, and once you receive the diary then you can call me back, and I shall be happy to answer your questions. And I can guarantee that everything that is transcribed here is what is in the war diary.

Q. Help me, please: The process whereby someone types up some pages of the original and we get both the original and the typed up version, someone types up some pages of the original, as in the 4th and 5th of April, 1999, and we get the typed up Serb version and we get an English ⁴⁵⁶¹³ version, and then separate from all that someone somewhere has had access to another part of the diary, and we've only been given a little bit of it in English, and it excludes the 27th and 28th of April, the most important days. Can you just help me with that? What's the process?

A. You'll have to check that out with the lawyer. There's no problem. I tell you again that you can come by the war diary. You have a very efficient service, and any request put in by you will give you the diary. There's nothing that I have any reason to hide. I have no reason to hide anything whatsoever. And I'm at your disposal. Look into the situation and take steps accordingly.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... allegations, Mr. -- Mr. Djosan. I'm not going to make any allegations about the diary until I've seen it because I have no idea what the diary contains. I just want your explanation. Did you have the diary when the accused's lawyers were typing things up from it? And if you didn't have the diary, who did?

A. I did not have the diary with me then, but feel free to take the diary and see what it says inside.

Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer the second --

A. That's the only answer I can give.

Q. You who did have the diary that made all these rather strange entries for the exhibit? Who had it?

A. That must have been done by one of the advisors, President Milosevic's advisors. I think that must have been Zdenko Tomanovic.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I wouldn't have taken time unless it was on a potentially interesting and import issue because the diary, we don't ⁴⁵⁶¹⁴ necessarily accept the diary set out events accurately of course, but the diary for those dates might be of value and of interest to us. The witness seems incapable of giving an accurate account of how the diary fell into anyone's possession, and we don't know where it is at the moment. I must simply ask through the Court that the accused's lawyers make it available for us next week.

JUDGE KWON: I wonder he's in the position to answer the question.

MR. NICE: He may be able to; I don't know.

JUDGE KWON: Whether he has it or his associate doesn't have it in its entirety.

MR. NICE: In which case we can have a look -- [Microphone not activated].

JUDGE ROBINSON: Who can answer the question? Mr. Milosevic, can you help us with the diary and its production?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what they have in their hands, but I do know that an official request can be made of the archives and the general has already indicated that, General Djosan, and the diary will be provided.

But I'd like to you bear in mind one question. It is very difficult for my associates to access the archives. The procedure is very unwieldy. As to Mr. Nice requests, they are met with and complied with immediately and all documents are received, so he can put in a request for a photocopy of the entire war diary of the 52nd Brigade, and I'm sure that he will receive a copy on Monday, whereas my associates probably won't be able to receive it in the space of a month. And I took it upon myself to ⁴⁵⁶¹⁵ enter the procedure and to have the diary delivered.

MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated].

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. May I just add something more, Mr. Robinson, just to deal with the mystery of what was typed out. The typed out version is typed out for me so that I don't have to read the handwriting because I find it difficult to read handwritings which are very often illegible and then somebody puts in time and a secretary delves into the handwriting and types it out. It makes it easier for me not to have to read the handwriting myself. And you have been provided with the original here and you've also been provided with the typed out text as an auxiliary to help you out, and it is duty of your translators to compare the two copies to see that everything has been typed out properly because that is why they were supplied with the original. So the typed out version is not the exhibit. It is the handwritten version that is the exhibit, the original.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Does Mr. Tomanovic have a copy of the diary at hand?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know that. I'll have to ask him. I'll have to ask him what he has. It is not my impression that he has the diary in its entirety but most probably he could come by one. And I'm perfectly certain that if Mr. Nice puts in a request today he will be supplied with a copy of the diary from the archives because they're very prompt in responding to any of his requests.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Deal with it this way then. If he has a copy of ⁴⁵⁶¹⁶ it, Mr. Milosevic will see to it that it is produced in court.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly.

JUDGE KWON: And one more observation. Among the typed out version, there is a stamps and the signature. I wonder who did it. So could you check it out as well.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I must -- I'm grateful for that. Your Honours, I must make the point that the Prosecution has asked for many war diaries not, as it happens, for reasons I gave this particular one.

JUDGE KWON: That's the last page.

MR. NICE: Yes. We saw the one of course that Delic has brought us, but that apart, we have never been provided with a single war diary, and methods of -- reasons for non-provision have always been given. And the suggestion that we could put in a request today and get it on Monday morning is totally unrealistic.

In any event, it is for this accused to provide exhibits of this kind. And the third point is it is absolutely clear that someone on the Defence side has had access to this diary and must have had access to it in full in order to copy these pages. It may be, incidentally if the Court's interested, that it could ask of the witness the one question about the signature now in case it would help us over the weekend.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just be of assistance straight away?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can help you out now. This is a stamp which was placed there. It hasn't been typed out. It was ⁴⁵⁶¹⁷ introduced later after it had been typed out, and it's a stamp that says this war diary contains 198, that is to say 180 pages numbered from 1 to 198 inclusively, and this is asserted and certified by the clerk, and it is Captain Dobrivoj Vasic. That's the signature. So he is just the official who states that all this is in order. It is a military post number and it says permanently on top. That means to be stored permanently, I assume. But anyway, it is the signature of the clerk who asserts how many pages the diary has and that the number -- the pages are numbered. That's all it says. This was not typed out by my associates. It's just confirmation and a stamp is placed on it.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, does it mean that 198 pages were handed over to Mr. Tomanovic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll ask him that, Mr. Kwon. I really can't say now. All I can tell you is that I have just seen this part as an exhibit. I don't have time to go into the basic foundations and source and the raw material. But if Mr. Tomanovic has 198 pages, 198 pages will be delivered so that Mr. Nice can go ahead with his questioning of this witness next week.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We are going adjourn until Tuesday of next week, 9.00 a.m..

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of

October, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.