⁴⁷⁰⁴⁹

Wednesday, 7 December 2005

[Open session]

[The witness entered court]

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Higgins.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, just before Mr. Nice begins his cross-examination, can I just clarify in relation to the five documents that were shown to General Jelic by Mr. Milosevic towards the end of yesterday, four of them have been previously admitted through the testimony of General Delic. One has not been, and it might be thought prudent in analysing the testimony of this witness that the five short documents are readmitted as a subtab, and the liaison office is preparing copies for the Chamber and the parties this morning.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Would you just identify the documents.

MS. HIGGINS: Your Honour, the first document, which was dated the 2nd of March, 1999, was Delic D300, tab 449. The second document, which was the only document not previously admitted, was in fact dated the 29th of the 10th, 1998, and it was originally D300, tab 166, but not admitted through Delic. The third document, which was admitted through Delic, dated the 3rd of March, 1999, was D300, tab 450.

The fourth document was D300, tab 456, and it's difficult for me to see the date. I think it's the 8th of the 3rd, 1999. ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁰ And the fifth document, dated the 4th of January, 1999, was previously D300, tab 265, for the record.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Higgins. In the third and final session of tomorrow's hearing, the Chamber will hear submissions on the question of extension of the time allocated to the accused for the presentation of his Defence. Each party will be allowed 15 minutes.

Mr. Nice.

WITNESS: KRSMAN JELIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

Q. Mr. Jelic, did you serve in the Croatian conflict?

A. No.

Q. Did you serve in the Bosnian conflict?

A. No, never.

Q. Where were you based in the period of time 1991 to 1995?

A. In the Nis garrison. I was the commander of the police and the commander of a Light Infantry Brigade.

Q. Did you have anything to do with staffing or providing forces for the Serb side in either the Croatian conflict or the Bosnian conflict?

A. I don't understand. I was a brigade commander, holding the border towards Republic of Bulgaria.

Q. Did any of your troops ever go and fight in Croatia or in Bosnia?

A. None of my troops except for those who ended their term of military service and went to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ⁴⁷⁰⁵¹

Q. Did you understand in the course of 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995 how it was that Serb troops were sent to fight in the Krajina or in the Republika Srpska? Did you understand how that was done?

A. Not a single unit of mine went to the Republic of Croatia or to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The units that did go went under orders from the superior command. Those were neighbouring units who gave part of their troops within the scope of the JNA.

Q. What was the method by which it was done, sending troops within the scope of the JNA?

A. Whenever units are sent somewhere to carry out an assignment, whether inside or outside their area of responsibility, it's done pursuant to an order.

Q. Yes, but what was the actual mechanism? Did you understand whether troops were sent frankly, candidly, openly and honestly to serve for the RS or were they sent to some fictional destination?

A. I didn't know about that because nobody from my units went there. As for other units, I know they went in compliance with orders. I was not familiar with the content of the orders. I had some information about it, but I was not fully informed. I was in Nis up to 1994. In 1994, I was at the Urosevac garrison.

Q. And where were you in July 1994?

A. In July 1994, I was in Urosevac; from May onwards.

Q. You were now with the 243rd already, were you?

A. Yes, the 243rd Armoured Brigade.

Q. We've heard something called -- we've heard evidence about things ⁴⁷⁰⁵² called the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres. Do you know anything about them?

A. I heard that this personnel centre existed, but I did not have access to those documents or orders, and I was not fully informed about its functioning. My unit was not covered by those orders.

Q. I see. You had no dealings with the 30th and 40th Personnel Centre, which took Serb soldiers to fight in Croatia or in Bosnia; is that right?

A. No, I never had any dealings.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... take a look at this, please. I'm afraid it's only in B/C/S and we haven't got copies at the moment, but if we can lay it on the overhead projector. Perhaps you would like to look at the second page first.

Bottom of the page, please, Mr. Prendergast, so we can see the signature and everything.

This appears to come from you in 1994 in your role as commander of the 243rd.

If we go back to the first page now, please, Mr. Prendergast. Can you just read out the first paragraph, please. You can see the date. Just read out for us starting from --

A. "The 27th of July, 1994. Urgent."

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker read more slowly, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you please read more slowly for the interpreter.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "From the 26th of July, 1994, we ⁴⁷⁰⁵³ hereby submit the requested information, a list of officers of Serbian and Montenegrin nationality who were born or sent for schooling or admitted for military service from the territory of the Republic of Croatia and the former Bosnia and Herzegovina. 30th Personnel Centre. Jovan Tomic, son of Simo, Serb captain."

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... see another list of the 40th Personnel Centre. So it appears you did know about the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres in 1994. Yes?

A. Just let me have a look. I did know that the centres existed. None of these officers in the period while I was brigade commander was in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in Croatia.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Just a moment.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... marked under the 30th or 40th Personnel Centres. What were they doing, sitting in Belgrade in an office headed 30th or 40th Personnel Centre? What were they doing?

A. I was not present at the conversations they had. I was the garrison command. I did not leave the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. These officers went to attend meetings and this was one of those meetings. However, not a single one of those officers went either to Croatia or to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Up to the 16th of June, 1999, they remained in my brigade.

Q. And you're here clearly identifying officers under the heading 30th or 40th Personnel Centre. You've now referred to a discussion. What was it all about? Did officers who were born in particular places go and ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁴ have meetings together or something?

A. These are persons who were born in the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Q. So what were they doing in the 30th and 40th Personnel Centres? Please help us.

A. It says here that they joined the army from the territory of the Republics of Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's where they joined the army. And they originate from Bosnia and Herzegovina or Croatia, and -- they originated from those areas.

Q. Well, if you can't explain the heading 30th and 40th Personnel Centres, we'll move on.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'd ask for the document to be exhibited, marked for identification pending a translation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be MFI 932.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jelic, we've been looking at the map on the board behind you --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Would a copy of the document please be given to me as well.

MR. NICE: Everybody will have a copy as soon as I've got them brought downstairs.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that is to be done. ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁵

MR. NICE:

Q. Now, Mr. Jelic, the map behind you has got markings on it, and there's no suggestion that the Bench or I or anybody else in this court has military expertise, so we mustn't assume that we do. Who drew this map?

A. The Pristina Corps decision on -- decisions on the use of the brigade are made by the corps commander. This was most probably drawn up by the operations organ of the Pristina Corps. It says here that this is an excerpt for the 243rd Mechanised Brigade. These are documents for subordinate units.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. It's not the entire map that is delivered to them.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... that exhibit so that we don't lose track of what you're looking at.

MR. NICE: Tab 1 of this witness's exhibits, which are Defence exhibit --

JUDGE BONOMY: That's fine, thank you.

MR. NICE: Thank you very much. I'll get the Defence exhibit number but --

JUDGE BONOMY: 329.

MR. NICE: 329, but from now on I'll just use tab numbers. 329, tab 1.

Q. When was it drawn, Mr. Jelic?

A. This map was drawn just before the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁶

Q. Very well. That's what you say. Where did this particular document come from?

A. The document is from the command of the Pristina Corps, the commander, and it's sent to the brigade.

Q. This particular document that the accused has produced through you and is now on the easel, where did it come from?

A. The collaborators of the accused showed it to me in the tabs.

Q. So you don't know where it came from.

A. No.

Q. Thank you. Let's look at another exhibit which is an existing exhibit, Exhibit 319, tab 62, which has been -- just on the overhead projector will do, I think -- which has been highlighted, just to see if you agree with what I'm going to suggest to you, and it may help matters. In general terms, if we look at this map, do we see -- thank you very much, that's fine. Do we see the four parts of Kosovo at the material time, divided up as between the 549th Brigade on the south-west; your brigade, the 243rd, on the south-east; the 125th on the north-west; and then the 150th on the north-east? 15th, I beg your pardon, on the north-east. Is that division of the territory as between those four units roughly correct? We're going to come to precision later so I just want, in order to help the Court, to see if you accept that that is roughly correct.

A. Yes, it is roughly correct.

Q. Thank you very much. Now, the Pristina Corps is in charge of one, two, three, or four of those sectors? ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁷

A. The Pristina Corps commands all the brigades, not sectors. All the brigades listed here are subordinated to the Pristina Corps.

Q. Let's go back, please, to the map tab 1. Can we look at tab 1 now, please?

JUDGE BONOMY: It's a Prosecution, the 319.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

JUDGE KWON: Must be -- I think you're mistaken with the number. 319.

MR. NICE: Did I say 319?

JUDGE KWON: Could you check it out. Thank you.

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

MR. NICE:

Q. Thank you. Now that we've established in general terms and reminded the Chamber what this is, now please look at the map on the easel. You say this is an extract and you say this was, what, prepared in 1999? Is that what you're saying?

A. No, I didn't say that. The army commander then was General Samardzic. As you can see, it's not the same signature on this map where it says "I approve." This is the original map, the one on the board there.

Q. Yes. When was this map produced?

A. This map was produced in March, just before the aggression.

Q. And it was produced by the Pristina Corps you're telling us?

A. Yes, that's right. ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁸

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... the little map we've looked at that the Pristina Corps covered your area of operation, Delic's area of operation, the 125th and the 15th. Now if you'd look at what you say is an extract from this map can you explain to us, please, why there are no military markings to the west of the markings that relate to your unit, your brigade.

Take the pointer, please. Point to the figure of the 549th. Now, to the west of that there is no military marking. So if what you're telling us is true and this is the extract of a Pristina Corps map, it's rather curious because it hasn't marked what it should have been marking for Delic's area of operation. Can you explain that to me?

A. Of course. Every brigade or every subordinate unit, when it is given an assignment by the subordinate command, receives its assignment in detail. The neighbouring units to the left and to the right, in front or behind, their tasks are entered only in principle, only roughly, and the same goes for written orders as well as for maps.

Q. So for some reason you're provided with information that doesn't include what's happening in the adjoining territory.

A. As you can see, only the neighbouring unit next to the brigade is entered, and the brigade is entered as a whole.

Q. Well, what does this map show us, please? Tell us. What does it show?

A. This is the initial disposition of the brigade before the aggression. The brigade carried out full mobilisation. It took up its positions, fortified them, and took all security measures to protect the ⁴⁷⁰⁵⁹ state border, that is the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to protect the men and the equipment, bearing in mind that at the border terrorist forces were building up in a strength of five brigades and NATO forces, one Mechanised Brigade, two Armoured Brigades --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... was the map marked subsequently or is what we've got a map frozen in time at a date mid-March 1999?

A. This map covers the period in the end of March 1999. This is the initial disposition.

Q. You understand my question? It's frozen in time. It doesn't reflect things that happened after the initial disposition.

A. I do not understand. How can you say frozen in time? This is the deployment of the units. Could you please rephrase your question. I don't understand.

Q. We're not military men here. You have to help us. People may have seen, either in entertainment films or in documentaries, military people taking maps and marking them with events as events unfold. Is this a map which has been marked with events as they unfolded, with changes of disposition of troops, with local battles, whatever it might be, or is it a map frozen in time; this is the initial disposition of troops?

A. Precisely, just as you put it. This map shows the initial disposition of the troops, especially for blocking defence. The other thing is completely different. That is a working map following developments in the theatre.

Q. And somewhere the working map? ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁰

A. I don't have the working map here.

Q. Well, where is it?

A. I have -- well, like all documents, they were handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps in Pristina.

Q. And they still exist somewhere but they haven't been brought to court, yes?

A. I cannot say because parts of commands were destroyed, like my own, so I really cannot answer that question whether it still exists or not.

Q. Have you looked at those maps?

A. When I was transferred to be head of the higher military academy when I left the Pristina Corps, I practically had no further access to the unit where I was before, and nobody asked me to do that, to seek these documents, and I don't think that would be my obligation.

Q. I'll come back to that in a second. Mr. Prendergast, if you would be so good. Could you lay on the overhead projector this copy of tab 1. There are three places I've marked with stickers so that we can -- there's no legend. I've been -- no explanation of the entries on it and therefore I'm going to have to try to find out what this map means if you're going to refer to it. So if you just look at three entries on this map. The ones on -- that's fine as it is at the moment. And if you could focus in on the two yellow stickers. Thank you very much.

You'll see these little entries here. One is at Kacanik to the north and is a black oval filled with yellow. What does that mean? Put a ⁴⁷⁰⁶¹ sticker by it with an arrow. What does that circle or oval mean? Down a bit. There it is. What does that oval mean?

A. These were the envisaged areas where chemical weapons could be used. Most probably you see that it is in the blue disposition.

Q. Please -- remember, we're not military men. You've been pointing at this map without the advantage of a legend, with no explanation. It's your map. You tell us, what does that oval mean? Very simple. And if you can't explain it to us, that's fine. We'll then forget all about it.

A. Most probably this is the area where the NATO forces or, rather, the units carrying out the aggression used chemical weapons.

Q. That can't be --

A. That is how these areas are marked.

Q. That can't be right because you've told us this is a map frozen in time with initial dispositions. Now, you're a general. This is your map.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you understand the map or not?

A. Yes.

Q. If you don't, we'll throw it away, metaphorically speaking. Do you understand this map?

A. I understand it perfectly.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. Have a look at it.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... General, tell us, please, what this map, created before the aggression, as you describe it, in March 1999 means by the black oval with the yellow filling. What does it mean? ⁴⁷⁰⁶²

A. These ovals, I've already said that. These are most probably the regions where the potential aggressor would be likely to use chemical weapons. Now, you say that this map was frozen in time. Can you see the blue, the aggressor, being marked even in-depth in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija? NATO forces never reached that area and the terrorists from Albania never reached that area either, but this shows probably what their likely action would be in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. We have your answer. South-east of that you'll see another little sticker - perhaps you'd like to point to it to make sure you understand where we're getting to - which is a little, small, round thing. There it is. That one. So what does that mean?

A. Let me just compare the two. It's most probably this one here. That is the PVO system, the anti-aircraft system, air defence.

Q. That means that an anti-air system is going to be installed there or located there; is that right?

A. That's right. That's right.

Q. Mr. Prendergast -- Mr. Prendergast --

A. Equipment.

Q. -- last of the three stickers. Now we've put this one here for two reasons. Is this area definitely within your area of operation? It's slightly to the west of Slapuzane.

A. This, right?

Q. Yes.

A. Where the arrow is. That is an anti-armour detachment of the 549th Brigade, its reserve position. ⁴⁷⁰⁶³

Q. So that although this is in part -- I beg your pardon. Although this shows your brigade's disposition, perhaps, as we suspected, this is something that is not part of the 243rd.

A. That's right. It's not part of the 243rd Brigade.

Q. And the symbol means what? You've mentioned it but I just want -- it's anti-armour detachment, is it?

A. Anti-armour detachment. That is to say equipment that is envisaged for anti-armour combat. That is the symbol for that area. It is oval shaped, and it's coloured black.

Q. Thank you.

A. And also it is written here.

Q. Thank you. Now, let's just -- thank you. Can I have that map back, please, Mr. Prendergast.

Can we share another document that is in the process of preparation but until we had your answers we weren't quite sure. It doesn't need to be given an exhibit number at the moment or even -- doesn't become a candidate for an exhibit number at the moment. I just want to check certain things, if you'd like. If the audiovisual booth could come back. This is a map that's in preparation, Mr. Jelic, seeking to identify material locations and events within your area of responsibility. You'll see that the possible extent of your area of responsibility has been marked with locations inside it, but you'll see if you look at the west that there have been a number of places of some uncertainty that we just want to be sure don't relate to you. So if, for example, we start at the bottom: Geljance, Grejkovce, ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁴ Djinovce, Trnje, Vranic, Budakovo, Bukos. Is any of those in your area of responsibility for do they all belong to Delic?

A. What you see here on the left-hand side are for the most part Jezerska Planina, and it is the 549th Motorised Brigade, its area of responsibility, although we don't have strict boundaries, so his zone and my zone overlap considerably. Suva Reka, though, is in his area of responsibility.

Q. Very well, then. Please look at those places. Perhaps -- you start at Papaz and work your way down: Papaz, Bukos, Budakovo, Vranic, and so on. Are there any of those place names that are place names where your brigade functioned and in respect of which you should have knowledge? If so, tell us with ones.

A. Papaz is in my area of responsibility. Budakovo is not, Vranic is not, Trnje is not. Djinovce is not, Grejkovce is not -- is in my area of responsibility, and that is on the road to Strpce or Stimlje, on the border.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... and then I think that leaves Geljance and Prizren.

A. Yes.

Q. Whose area of responsibility --

A. All of that is in the area of responsibility of the 549th Brigade.

Q. Thank you very much. To the north we can see north -- top left-hand side of the map we can see Belanica. Is that something over which you have authority and should have knowledge or does that belong to the next-door brigade? ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁵

A. Belanica was in front of the units at Dulje, Belince also, Racak in my area of responsibility, Jezerce, that's the boundary --

Q. That's fine.

A. -- and Banjica and --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. -- these other places.

Q. Let's just look at the east. We've seen places like Gnjilane, Vladovo, Zegra, Vitina, Drobes, Ljubiste. Is any of those an area over which you had responsibility and for which you should have knowledge? And finally, Smira. Any of those areas over which you had responsibility and over which you should have knowledge? If so, which ones?

A. No. I never commanded that because that was under the command of the 175th Brigade, which is --

THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreter did not hear the end of the sentence.

MR. NICE: Can we get that map back, please. We'll get it prepared to reflect what the witness has said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us hear the end of that sentence. General, would you repeat the answer. The interpreter did not hear the end of your sentence.

THE INTERPRETER: Because the general was facing the map and not speaking into the microphone.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These places you identified or, rather, that I showed here are in the municipality of Vitina and Gnjilane. They were not under my command. They were under the command of the 175th ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁶ Brigade.

MR. NICE:

Q. Were you approached by the VJ Commission for Cooperation?

A. No.

Q. So you made no --

A. What commission do you mean? For cooperation? I don't understand. VJ Commission for Cooperation?

Q. VJ Commission for Cooperation presided over by Terzic, I think. It's been dealing with the evidence from military officers. Did it have contact with you?

A. They did not establish contact with me. They did not address me in any way.

Q. You made no statements for them?

A. I made no statements to them.

Q. Were you aware of their existence?

A. Already in 2002 I retired. Nobody called me. I heard people talking about the existence of that commission. However, since I do not live in Belgrade, since I live in Nis, I could not have contact with them or, rather, nobody contacted me.

Q. You -- you told us yesterday of your war diary. Where is your war diary?

A. I mentioned this in one of these reports. All my documents, according to the decision of the corps commander, were handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps at the Pristina garrison. As for what happened later, I do not know. I don't know anything about them. ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁷

Q. You said you mentioned this "in one of these reports." Which report are you referring to?

A. This is a report that went to the corps command. That's what it said in a telegram, if I'm not mistaken.

Q. So --

A. But these are the usual kind of documents that are kept at brigade level.

Q. You told us yesterday that every officer from the rank -- or every unit from the rank of battalion up in time of war has to keep a war diary. So all the battalions answering to you kept war diaries.

A. That's right. Every battalion level unit has a war diary, keeps a war diary, but in war, once a state of war is declared.

Q. So from the end of -- of March 1999 at the latest, as well as your war diary, there are all the battalion diaries in existence, so far as you know, and stored in an archive?

A. I've said that it was handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps. I don't know of their fate after that. The command was partly destroyed, just like my command. I cannot really say anything about how much is left, whether anything is left.

Q. Well, why do people keep war diaries?

A. That is one of the basic documents. In addition to the order that is written in the text part as a basic document, and the maps, the decision is then depicted on a map and then this is a document where important events are recorded at units which are at the level of a battalion and higher up. ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁸

Q. But why keep one? Because it enables you to know what happened? Would that be roughly right?

A. A diary is kept -- I mean, the word itself is linked to the word "day," so it records daily events that are relevant. It's a document that has a particular form, a way in which it is kept. The essence is that the most important things that happen during the course of a day are recorded there, as well as orders issued.

Q. So that if you ever need to know what happened, you go to the diary. That's why you have a diary.

A. Yes. It is kept in the operative organs, and if an order came a day earlier, then you turn the page, you look at the order, you see whether it was carried through. If not, it is then carried through and then the superior command is informed about this. So the point is that it records everything the brigade does, but it mainly relates to combat activities, not mere correspondence, mail.

Q. The witness before you, a man called Sel, who was a captain promoted to major in charge of a company, kept a personal diary and he made -- gave evidence - we are going to hear more about this - that he'd need such a document if there was ever any, I think, court issues involved, if he ever had to give evidence, or something like that. Did company commanders keep diaries or notebooks as a matter of routine or regulation?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic. Yes?

THE INTERPRETER: Could the microphone please be adjusted. The ⁴⁷⁰⁶⁹ interpreters cannot hear.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the microphones be adjusted. The interpreters cannot hear.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please. This is an incredible assertion. Major Sel never said during his testimony that a war diary is kept if something is supposed to be discussed before a court of law.

MR. NICE: He said something about it and we have to discover what he said, but I want to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did he actually say that, Mr. Nice?

MR. NICE: I haven't got exact quote, but I want -- I still want to know from this witness, not from the accused, if I may say so, what the position --

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, but if you are quoting the evidence, then you must do so accurately.

MR. NICE: As far as I know I am. I'll try and find it for you. But -- perhaps Ms. Dicklich can do that for me. May I ask the witness a question, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead. We'll come back to that.

MR. NICE: Yes, come back to that.

Q. Do company commanders keep contemporaneous diaries of one kind or another for whatever purpose?

A. Company commanders keep work notebooks. That is the lowest ranking officer who can write orders, but not necessarily. Company commanders; that's them.

A work notebook, which is verified with a list of soldiers and all ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁰ information about the unit, that is kept in that company. A war diary, though, is kept by the commander of the battalion or of the artillery battalion.

Q. Staying with just the company commander level, again his notebook, it's not a personal choice whether he keeps such a notebook; he has to keep such a notebook. Is that right?

A. Yes. There are two types of work notebooks: A work notebook that includes all elements for the unit, that is to say the list of personnel, the list of equipment, and that is an official work notebook. Then there is a notebook because he doesn't work in the office, because he is out in the terrain, in the woods, under a tent, on a truck, then he takes notes regarding the orders he receives in that notebook. So then he personally uses it as an aide-memoire.

Q. And he -- but he is obliged, either by regulation, by rule, or by practice of the army, he is obliged to keep such a diary or notebook, whatever we call it. Call it a notebook. He's obliged to keep such a book.

A. Yes. He is obliged because this work notebook is registered, so every company commander, battery commander, is issued with that document, that work notebook. When he fills it out, then he returns it, he is issued with a new one, and he has to copy the basic elements from the earlier notebook.

Q. And his notebook, company commander's notebook will show where he and his company were and in general terms or specific terms what they were doing. ⁴⁷⁰⁷¹

A. In general, yes, but a company commander for the most part issues orders orally.

Q. Yes. But as -- the record he keeps -- well, I'll come back to that.

You gave an example about somebody, a company commander, going out in a truck and leaving his notebook back at the headquarters. If he did that, he'd still be under an obligation to make daily recordings of what he did when he was away from headquarters, wouldn't he?

A. If I understood the first part of your question correctly, none of my officers took a truck to leave their vehicles behind in headquarters. Their notebooks have to be kept in their bags. And then he writes down everything that he considers important, especially the orders he receives and the orders he issues.

Now, it depends from one commander to another. It is not strictly defined what he is going to write down. It is his own judgement. But as a rule, orders received and tasks assigned to subordinate units, that is what he would write down in that notebook.

JUDGE BONOMY: I think the question was based on an answer you gave that there were two types of work notebook, and you gave the impression that one of them was a book that the officer would have with him when he was not in his own base, in his own headquarters. Has that been wrongly interpreted?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The company commander does not have headquarters. He is always with his troops, and he is the only one who is with his troops round the clock, 24 hours a day. ⁴⁷⁰⁷² In this notebook of his, the basic notebook, which is registered, he has all basic elements in it, all basic elements that he needs in terms of the life and work of his company or battery. I repeat, he has to have a list of personnel, a list of equipment, who was issued with what, the vehicles that he was issued with, the ammunition. All these basic elements have to be in that notebook.

As for the other notebook, through wire communications, wireless communications, courier, he has to record what he received from someone or what he sent out or if he has certain remarks to make when he is touring his troops. A day or two later, for example, he would go and see the same platoon and check with the platoon commander and see whether things were done the way he ordered them to be done. So this other notebook is a personal aide-memoir to him for resolving questions on a daily basis.

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

MR. NICE:

Q. What the previous witness, Sel, said at 1324 and 5 seconds - I'm afraid I don't have the page number - of the second day of his evidence, I think, was this, and I'll just read it to you slowly. He said of his notebook -- and he was a company commander: "... all the orders I received orally I entered in there, and later I would receive orders in writing. So in this notebook I would have that -- for example, if I did something wrong, a court of law would only admit the kind of evidence that is contained in a work notebook."

Now, that's the transcript. He then went on to say: "That is the regulation -- that's the way regulations are in our country." ⁴⁷⁰⁷³ Does that explanation of his for the significance of notebooks for legal proceedings make sense to you?

A. If this is a question addressed to me, I don't want to make any comments regarding his statement, but documents are not written for courts of law, and that is quite erroneous if Mr. Sel said that. They are written for documentation and to analyse later the combat tasks carried out. And at a higher level it is used for archives or, rather, history that is being written.

Q. Very well.

A. None of us would accept to write documents for a court of law. We would not accept that kind of job.

Q. Depending on what he may say about this, it may be that what he's saying is that if by chance you land up in a court, then you require your notebook and the court will -- the courts of Serbia or the former Yugoslavia would require to see evidence in that notebook. I'm only guessing at the moment. Would that make sense to you, that this type of notebook would be generally required by a court if you landed up in a court? Does that seem to be sensible?

A. Probably when an important event takes place, when there's some kind of disaster, of course documents are sought that have to do with it , as evidence either for the Prosecution or for the Defence, because it would show whether all measures were taken to protect whatever was at threat and whatever is the subject of the proceedings. But the document itself is not written for a court.

Q. No, I understand that. Thus far, then, we have this picture: For ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁴ your brigade, there will be three records prepared on a daily basis from the moment that the war started -- the conflict, whatever we describe it, started in March. Three documents -- actually, rather more than three. There will be many -- three types of documents. There will be many company commanders' diaries, there will be several battalion commanders' war diaries, and there will be your war diary, and those documents will give a day-by-day account of the disposition of troops and of what they were doing.

A. Yes. As a rule, yes. The units keeping these documents enter the most important events on a daily basis, and they inform the superior command of this.

Q. Moving up from your position as a brigade commander, there will be a Pristina Corps war diary. So that's a fourth tier of record.

A. Yes. Yes, with respect to command. They don't receive war diaries but combat reports. When I get a combat report from a battalion commander, a summary is entered into the war diary and a report is sent to the commander of the Pristina Corps or, rather, to other units at the corps level. And those units also enter the most important events in the units without going into details.

Q. Assume for the time being, please, that none of these documents has been destroyed by any NATO attack, because that's never been claimed for these documents by the authorities. Assume that, please. The Prosecution in this case has been trying through various means for several years to get hold of the diaries from the battalion level and up, and none has been provided. ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁵ Is there any reason known to you as a former officer, now retired, is there any reason known to you why those documents should not be made available to a court inquiring into these events?

A. I don't think there is a single reason why they should not be made available. I'm referring to war documents or any other kind of documents. Unfortunately, most of the documents have been destroyed. I'm not referring to combat documents. I don't want to appear partial, but I will tell you that the families of our officers are still suffering huge problems. They cannot exercise their rights because of the vast amount of documentation that has been destroyed pertaining to their life and work, whether they were members of the army of Yugoslavia, whether they were in the garrison. They cannot solve their housing problems, welfare problems, or any other problems.

Q. Assuming again, carry on with the assumption that none of these documents has been destroyed in NATO attacks, because that's never been claimed, locating a war diary in a headquarters or archive at the battalion level or above should be an easy matter, shouldn't it?

A. If this is kept in a certain place, it's very simple: You find the number and you look it up. However, knowing the actual situation, that the barracks were destroyed, it's impossible for all the documents to be still in existence. Part of the documents, perhaps, have remained behind.

Q. Why do you say that now?

A. Because documents are packed into crates. If the command where the documents are kept is hit, it's more than certain that the documents ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁶ are destroyed. If this was not done, and we see that almost all the commands were hit, then of course the documentation would be complete.

Q. You were in the headquarters, were you? Where was your headquarters?

A. You're referring to the command in wartime?

Q. Uh-huh.

A. In wartime, my command was constantly on the ground. I spent the least time in the barracks because as of the 25th of March, the command building was hit, and the brigade before that had left. It was in the Urosevac garrison, about two kilometres to the east. And during the war -- shall I explain? During the war, the command divided into several parts to avoid being destroyed, so that if part of the command is destroyed, another part can take over and take command over the whole brigade. The brigade for a while was in the village Doganovic, and it's marked here 43.

Q. Pause for a moment. Because I want to save time, but I'm trying to get to the point to help the Court, and I'm sure you want to help us, Mr. Jelic. The Pristina Corps command is the place where these documents would have been sent, and that was not destroyed by bombing and there has been no suggestion that the -- any documents in it were; correct?

A. The command of the Pristina Corps as a building was not destroyed. However, it was abandoned before the beginning of combat activities. At least seven days before, to the best of my recollection. The entire command pulled out of the building of the Pristina Corps.

Q. I still want you to carry on on the assumption -- I think we've ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁷ done this now. Just tell us roughly how many battalion war diaries exist to cover this period, assuming they haven't been destroyed.

A. That's a hypothetical question to which I cannot provide an answer.

Q. Well, how many battalions were there in your brigade? How about that?

A. Eighteen.

Q. Fine.

A. Battalions and divisions.

Q. And if we wanted to identify the 18 battalions and divisions by name so that we can make a request, or it may be even an order if the Court is so minded, to produce those documents today, can you please give us the identity of those 18 battalions so that we can be specific in our request.

A. I think you have it on the map here, all the commanders of the battalions and artillery battalions, starting from the Armoured Battalion, the Mechanised Battalion, the other Mechanised Battalion, the anti-armour detachment, the Howitzer Artillery Battalion, the Police Battalion, the 252, the -- and so on. These are all the units listed here in the brigade area of responsibility.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, can I ask why you spend so much time with witnesses on carrying out Prosecution investigations? Is there not another way of doing this exercise with official channels rather than using all the limited time you have for cross-examination to further the investigation process? Because it doesn't help me in the least, this ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁸ exercise, I have to say this morning. It's getting nowhere.

MR. NICE: I'm sorry about that but in fact it's absolutely essential for the following reason: We've made requests for these documents for years. The Chamber decided that the response of the authorities that the original request was over-broad and burdensome was justified. We narrowed the request down. We got nothing. We reduced it ultimately to a single request for the Pristina war diary. We got nothing. Last week, the Chamber had enormous success in a particular document by an order.

Now, the Prosecution's view is that these trials would have been enormously assisted and reduced in length if the original documents that would or should provide contemporaneous accounts had been available. They've all been kept from us, and I'm going to ask this witness some more questions about these documents so far as he is concerned. The only way we can now get them is through the Court.

JUDGE BONOMY: But since this issue came to light in the evidence of Delic, what discussions have you had with the authorities in Serbia to get these documents which you were then alerted to existed?

MR. NICE: We've known they've existed. We've tried every method. And since --

JUDGE BONOMY: That's not answer I'm looking for. I'm looking for have you been actively discussing with the authorities in Serbia getting these documents, which is a Prosecution task, and you only involve the Court when you fail in your own negotiations to get it. Now, have you been building on what information you got from the likes of Delic and ⁴⁷⁰⁷⁹ others rather than -- or are you waiting to build some sort of case based on cross-examination of witnesses, which seems to me a method of carrying out inquiries rather than presenting evidence.

MR. NICE: Certainly not the latter. We have no interest in spending time in this way if there was any other way of avoiding it. Not only have we gone through all the RFA methods, not only have we tried the 54 bis method, with the success of which -- or limited success of which the Chamber is aware, but there have been direct negotiations at the highest level, leading to promises of the production of documents, all of which have melted away as the traditional snow in spring. And we have got almost nothing.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Be that as it may, Mr. Nice, you must bring this exercise to an end now.

MR. NICE: Well, as Your Honour wishes, but can I ask the witness something -- two other questions.

Q. And if you'd be good enough, please, Mr. Jelic, to go to any one of these tabs. If you go to tab 12, please, in your documents. Now, tab 12 is just an example. If we look at the top of it, this is a document of yours within a series, and it's confidential 305/2. That may be one series of documents. If we go on to a later period, just have a look at it, go on, please, to tab 19 as an example. Can you go to tab 19, please. We see a document headed 400-336. Do you see that? That's the number at the top.

A. Are you referring to 12 or 19 now?

Q. I'm now looking at 19. Number 19. It's strictly confidential, ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁰ 400-336.

A. Yes.

Q. And if you'd take as another example tab 43. You see there at the top of that page 400-1166. So it would appear to be in the same series of documents but 800 further on.

First of all, is it right that there were perhaps two different numbering systems, the second of which begins always with 400, and the earlier system of which begins with different numbers?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did these documents -- who produced, who found these documents that are contained in your file?

A. It was the accused and his associates. I see here the numbers that were entered in that period, and at the same time they were registered in the war period.

Q. And there is no suggestion that this selection of documents that we have here from obviously a very wide selection, a very long list of documents, there's no suggestion that any of these documents has been destroyed, any in the, say, 400 series or in the earlier series of documents coming from your brigade. There's no suggestion any of those have been destroyed.

A. These documents were not in my brigade. They were all outside the brigade because they were handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps. We have not kept any documents in the brigade. According to orders, all documents were handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps. ⁴⁷⁰⁸¹

Q. So it would appear - and that's all I need to ask you on this - from the production to you by the accused's associates of these documents that the correspondence files exist and are complete.

A. I can't say that. I don't know how they corresponded or from whom they sought the documents or where the documents were.

Q. Very well. In coming here to give evidence, did you seek to refer to any of the various contemporaneous documents that we've established existed, and probably still exist, other than the particular exhibits that were selected by the associates for you to look at?

A. It was not my job to procure documents. The documents shown to me here were documents that I saw and studied.

Q. But you didn't seek to look at anything else; your war diary, your own notes if you have any other notes. You didn't seek to look at any of that material preparatory to giving evidence?

A. It's not that I didn't want to. I have no right to request documents, to go to archives, to take documents, or to actively look for them. I feel that the documents I received from them are authentic, they're signed, and I conclude that they were copied from the originals and that they are firsthand documents.

Q. But you really didn't even ask to see your own war diary in order to remember what happened?

A. Please bear in mind that I live almost 400 kilometres away from Belgrade. I have neither the time nor the funds to travel to Belgrade and spend days there. I have my family obligations. I cannot enter into an investigation. That's not my job. I have been called as a witness with ⁴⁷⁰⁸² the documents shown to me. I have been asked whether I wished to testify or not, and I agreed.

Q. You see, reality here is that we've had a lot of military witnesses from various sides, and people with military background, and military witnesses called by the Prosecution for the most part, or if not all of them, have sought to and have referred to contemporaneous notes in order to remind themselves of what happened. Can you explain why it is that you, and if it's a matter of culture that we should understand, other VJ witnesses don't seek to refer to war diaries or notes made contemporaneously. Is there a cultural thing that we should understand, or is there a regulation we should understand?

A. I don't know who used what here or how they presented materials and facts. I'm telling you only about things I know about and only about myself. I studied the materials I was given, and on this basis I came here to testify. I was in no position to obtain documents, to search archives, to look for records, looking for what was destroyed and where. Please don't forget that the corps was moved from its area, that the documentation has been scattered or destroyed, and the documents I received from the accused's associates are the ones that I looked at. I don't know what else to say.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, how long will you be in cross-examination?

MR. NICE: I hope to finish today.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because you have spend an hour and 20 minutes and you have not yet reached the essentials of this witness's evidence. ⁴⁷⁰⁸³

MR. NICE: Let me make my position quite clear, because it may be that in some way I'm not making it clear. The Prosecution takes the view, which it has advanced in its application for assistance from the Court, that contemporaneous documents should have been provided, and it takes the view that witnesses of this kind who don't seek to rely on them may be witnesses against whom there are observations to be made as to credibility. It seems to the Prosecution arguably incredible people should not, when there are such contemporaneous documents available, seek to refer to them. Whenever we have found these documents, and it is we who have found them in the court process because we haven't been able to get them by other means, they have proved to be of great value to the truth-finding function of this Court. I would respectfully remind the Court of what we discovered from the diaries of Delic, Vukovic, Djosan, and what we're going to discover in due course, and I hope it's tomorrow if not next week.

I maintain the position that it is significant and valuable to know that witnesses of this kind make no effort --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But you spend too much time on it. You must move on to the events to which his testimony relates.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You spend far too much time. Let me just say that Mr. Sel, Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Nice and Mr. Kay, will not be testifying this week.

MR. NICE: Very well. ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁴

MR. KAY: Just on Mr. Sel, I know that Mr. Nice is having passages of his notebook translated, and it would certainly help us if those translations were handed over to us as soon as the Prosecution get them in sections, rather than springing them on us when he is in court and relying on passages that way. We would like to see the translations ourselves in advance, because I know that that's being undertaken.

MR. NICE: I'll deal with that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That would be helpful, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'll come back to that perhaps a little later when I know what the position is.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice said that witnesses are not making use of contemporaneous documents. All the documents that have been tendered through witnesses - he mentioned General Jelic, General Delic, General Djosan, Colonel Vukovic - all these documents are contemporaneous documents. This claim cannot be made.

As for what he says about Djosan's, Vukovic's and Delic's diaries, he found only things that go against what he is saying.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Let us move on.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I would press the Court, please, to assist the Prosecution in this problem area by ordering the production of at least four war diaries; the brigade war diary, and the three mechanised battalion -- the three mechanised battalion war diaries, which are likely to be the most valuable ones. The Court's orders made in the course of ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁵ the trial have so far been respected and swiftly. Any other method - we've tried every - doesn't work.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll consider that.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

Q. Let's turn, then, please, to 1998. Turn to 1998. You went -- or you were in Kosovo in 1998. In the spring of 1998 your function was what, you say?

A. If it's a question for me, I said that from 1994 to the 15th of June, 1999, I was the commander of the 243rd Armoured Brigade, which was later the Mechanised Brigade.

Q. And what were your duties in Kosovo in 1998, the spring of 1998, for example?

A. I've already said that I was a brigade commander in 1998, also the commander of the Urosevac garrison.

Q. What was your brigade doing in the territory? There was no state of emergency. What was it actually engaged in doing?

A. The basic tasks of the brigade. Because it's an old garrison, almost a hundred years old, it's an A brigade, and it was carrying out combat training. That was its basic task. Securing military facilities and the state border.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. And --

Q. Look at a part of this exhibit that wasn't looked at when the accused was exploring it. Tab 3. The first paragraph says this, if you put it on the overhead projector. "The latest operations carried out by ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁶ units of the Corps in coordinated action with units of the Serbian MUP in curbing terrorism ... were carried out very professionally and responsibly, with sound assessment and prudent use of forces." So first of all, you were actually engaged by August in curbing terrorism, yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this a proper military activity when there is no declared state of emergency?

A. Yes. According to the rules of service of the army of Yugoslavia, the army can be used for fighting against terrorists and renegade groups. For me, the order of the corps commander is law, and it has to be carried out.

Q. And it says this a sentence or so later on -- the following sentence: "An analysis of the achievement of the tasks showed that some units overused combat equipment the consequence of which was greater damage to buildings in areas of combat operations. Specifically, a large number of houses were destroyed and torched." Well, how come, if you were doing the action that you initially told us you were engaged in in 1998, how come your troops were destroying and torching houses?

A. This is an order of the commander of the Pristina Corps and it pertains to all units in the corps. What is stated here is that there was great damage of buildings in the area of activity. If one bears in mind the way in which anti-terrorist fighting takes place, especially in urban areas, the balance of power has to be 15 to 20 in order to carry out this ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁷ assignment, and that is according to world standards. That's the ratio. The corps commander will probably carry out an analysis in the corps command, together with his subordinate officers. He came to the conclusion that there was excessive use of force. Perhaps equipment and ammunition were used excessively in order to carry out specific tasks.

In order to prevent that from happening, he is issuing an order as to what should be done.

Q. Torching -- the word "torched" means, does it not, intentionally setting fire to property? How could it be, please, that units of a Pristina Corps were intentionally setting fire to property in August of 1998?

A. I cannot see here that there was any intentional torching. I don't know what passage you saw that in. Fires are possible, though. If there is firing in part of a populated area, if there is mutual fighting, often fires break out due to the ammunition used, and at the same time electric installations, and particularly in summertime, can be set on fire and then sometimes haystacks would start burning, too, and that is how buildings were burned. So the -- it doesn't say here that there was torching.

Q. Well, that's the way we have it in translation. You better read the sentence that begins, "Specifically, a large number of houses were destroyed ..." Can you read that sentence to us and the interpreters will provide a translation -- interpretation. "Specifically, a large number of houses ..." please. ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁸

A. If I'm not mistaken, that is paragraph two?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It's at the beginning. It's at the middle of the paragraph. That's what it says here.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Most of the objections of the international community came due to the unnecessary --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the wrong sentence, General. It's the sentence -- it's the third sentence in the first paragraph, beginning "Specifically ..."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "An analysis ..." is that the first word?

JUDGE ROBINSON: The next one.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The basis of the reactions of the international community --" is that it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: No. No.

MR. NICE: It may be the sentence has been divided in interpretation where not in the original. Can the witness begin the sentence and read through "Analizom ..."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's practically after the first sentence. "An analysis of the achievement of the tasks showed that some units overused combat equipment the consequence of which was greater damage to buildings in areas of carrying out combat activities." Do you want me to go on? "On the basis of the reactions of the international public opinion, especially intelligence services and diplomatic representatives, most of the objections from the international community came with regard to the unnecessary destruction and burning of ⁴⁷⁰⁸⁹ houses in inhabited areas, which can jeopardise all efforts being made to crush terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija and create conditions for a political resolution of the political crisis in Kosovo and Metohija."

MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'll have to go back and discover, if I can, with --

JUDGE ROBINSON: But where is the sentence, "Specifically, a large number of houses were destroyed and torched"?

MR. NICE: -- that needs to be explored now.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That requires an investigation.

MR. NICE: Can I ask one last question about the last passage which I wanted an answer on.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, and then we have to break.

MR. NICE:

Q. It ends, as it's translated, that the international community was concerned about the destruction of houses, the destruction and burning of houses, and it goes on to say, "... which can jeopardise all efforts being made to crush terrorism ... and create conditions for a political resolution ..."

Do you understand that to mean that the international community would impose a political resolution? Is that what you understand General Pavkovic to mean by that?

No, it's "... can jeopardise all efforts being made to crush terrorism in Kosovo and Metohija and create conditions for --"

JUDGE BONOMY: No, that's efforts to create conditions.

MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, perhaps I'll leave that and I won't ⁴⁷⁰⁹⁰ come back to that. I'll investigate this sentence as well.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I asked for the witness to be kept out for just a couple of minutes. With your leave, may we deal with something in private session?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session. Yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ^{47091 PAGES 47091-47094 REDACTED 47095}

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are we in public session?

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in public session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I should say that logistical problems do not make it possible for Mr. Sel, we understand, to return home and back here for Monday, so he will be here. In that event, Mr. Nice, we would wish to have your cross-examination of this witness terminated - end - today, so that we can conclude Mr. Sel's testimony tomorrow. For that purpose, we may start at 8.00 a.m., but we haven't yet decided.

MR. NICE: Thank you. And while the witness is coming in, the interpreters have explained that the document -- the line in the document that was there should not have been there at all. It's an incorporation from another sentence, as it were. So I've struck it through and it simply shouldn't be there at all.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a very bad mistake. Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁷⁰⁹⁶

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please, in relation to what you mentioned just now, whether it would be possible to start working at 8.00 in the morning, please bear in mind the fact that my floor, which is the last one, is moving to a different building tomorrow, and all my time has been planned in order for me to finish certain things in relation to that before I come here. It's a purely technical matter, and - how should I put this? - it would be highly impractical for me to be deprived of that time for an additional hour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will take that into consideration, Mr. Milosevic.

WITNESS: KRSMAN JELIC [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter] Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. We parted from that last document, Mr. Jelic. The line that we were asking you about is not in the original and has been deleted from the copies. Nevertheless, my suggestion to you is this: That in 1998, you were a loyal officer serving an army that was regularly exceeding what was lawful in the use of violence on the population, and you knew that to be the case.

A. That is what you're saying, that I -- well, I was loyal. Of course I was loyal since I made an oath of allegiance to my country and to my people that I would defend my country. Otherwise, I completely reject the other thing you said.

Q. You of course were serving in an army to begin with presided over by or led by General Perisic. Were you aware or have you become aware ⁴⁷⁰⁹⁷ that he complained about the misuse of the army to this accused and was replaced?

A. The chief of General Staff, General Perisic, toured the units in Kosovo and Metohija several times. It so happened that he visited my brigade three or four times, and he toured the units at Dulje, Stimlje, and Birac. In addition to the military protocol and the obligations I had as the brigade commander and the commander of the garrison, I had no other -- I had no other obligations vis-a-vis him.

JUDGE BONOMY: Well, could you answer the question there.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm trying to answer the question. I don't know what Mr. Perisic stated before Mr. Milosevic or the Supreme Defence Council or, rather, in that time to the minister of defence.

JUDGE BONOMY: That's the answer. The rest of it was immaterial.

MR. NICE:

Q. Wesley Clark, the American general, expressed the view that Perisic was replaced because he wasn't supporting the accused's policy of using military force against the population in Kosovo. Is it right that it was effectively this accused's policy in 1998 to use the army against the population? Not just to maintain borders or things of that sort but actually to use the army against population.

A. I'm not aware of what Mr. Clark said. The army had its tasks exactly defined by the rules of service and the laws. So the basic tasks were providing security for the border, training soldiers, and all of that is done in peacetime; and in wartime, defending the country from aggression. ⁴⁷⁰⁹⁸

Q. Let's look at another document, a new document. 8th of August, document, please.

This document is a document of yours, 8th of August, 1998. It goes to the command of the Pristina Corps concerning their telegram identified. Perhaps we can put it on the overhead projector. It says this: "In accordance with orders issued, an analysis has been completed of combat operations carried out and cooperation with MUP military units ... The report is as follows:" And then it deals with the combat group in the Dulje pass, gives the strength of those deployed. Over the page, please. At B -- we can read the document for ourselves. Well, there's already reference to the use and deployment of tanks in Dulje, then in Stimlje, C sector, there are seven tanks deployed. Go over to the next page just so that we don't miss the point. Paragraph 3 asserts that: "MUP and VJ members behaved correctly towards civilians and property without abuse of rights or resorting to theft or crime."

4 says: "The units had fair success ... but with the following problems ..." and then complains about the police refusing to take part in attack on a DTG. A DTG being?

A. Sabotage terrorist group.

Q. So that it's clear, isn't it, that the army was engaged in using heavy weaponry on the territory with no state of emergency being declared.

Mr. Jelic, that's right, isn't it?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Did you hear the question, Mr. Jelic? ⁴⁷⁰⁹⁹

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not understand the question. This is an assertion. I didn't understand it in the form of a question, no.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. He's asking whether the position is that the army was engaged in using heavy weaponry in the territory in the absence of a state of emergency being declared.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The army used all resources available in order to provide security along the roads. We had orders from the corps command to carry out every one of our tasks and assignments. Not a single assignment was carried out if it was not based on an order. This pertained primarily to roads that were supposed to be cleared.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. -- General, the point of the question was whether that was being done without a state of emergency being declared. Just a question of fact. We're not dealing now with the constitutional implications. Yes. Okay.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: The order can be read for itself. May it be produced as an exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit 933.

MR. NICE:

Q. The use of the army continued, and we come to Racak, which I must deal with in a limited amount of detail. You gave a lot of evidence about ⁴⁷¹⁰⁰ the army and Racak, and the position, I think, is that the army really had nothing to do with Racak; is that right?

A. That is right.

Q. We have seen Radosavljevic suggesting that it was a joint -- on an interview with a television programme - we won't rerun it now - we've seen him suggesting that it was a joint operation. Can you explain at all why Radosavljevic should have said that?

A. I don't know which Radosavljevic you are referring to.

Q. The chief of the police who was in charge of the operation, that one, known as Gurij. Do you know who I mean?

A. Goran Radosavljevic, a major. I am not aware of his interview. I haven't seen that.

Q. Very well.

A. He was subordinated to his own command in Pristina, and he carried out orders of his superior command.

Q. Go to tab 8, please. Now, tab 8 precedes, if we look at it, precedes Racak by a few days, about six days. It refers to strictly confidential order, command number 49/1. Have you been shown that document since you've been here?

A. Yes, I have the document.

Q. This document. The document --

A. You mean 107-2?

Q. No, I mean the document that is referred to in the first paragraph. It says: "Pursuant to the strictly confidential order of the Pristina Corps Command no. 49-1 ..." Have you seen that document since ⁴⁷¹⁰¹ you've been here?

A. No. I don't think it's here. That was an original document of that time, and on the basis of that document I drew up my own order.

Q. Because the same paragraph goes on: "... and with a view to ensuring the required level of combat readiness in the forthcoming period, I here by issue the following," and then there's an order. And at number 5 we can see reference to Siptar terrorists. What was the combat readiness that was required of you and why, according to your recollection of that order?

A. This order, which was issued by the Pristina Corps command is an order from which this order here followed. Following the rules of issuing orders in the army, apart from the document on which this order is based, all the other elements have to be enumerated. It has to contain all the elements given by the superior command. The focus has to be expressed.

Q. Combat readiness for what combat?

A. Combat readiness is something that the unit constantly has to have. That's what the army is for. It has to be always ready to respond to any challenge concerning the security of the country, the security of the border, and the protection of the people.

Q. Not specifically related to anything that was going to be happening, say, in Racak in the days to come?

A. No.

Q. Tab 10, please.

A. You can see that from the context here.

Q. You issued an order on the 15th of January. Again, this is ⁴⁷¹⁰² pursuant to, as we can see, a strictly confidential order of the Pristina command number 105-1 of the 15th of January. Have you seen that document since you've been here?

A. No. No, I have not seen that document.

Q. Very well. Over, then, please -- we're going to start looking --

A. I don't think it's here.

Q. Let me just check one or two things that you said about Racak itself. You spoke of a blockade, and you spoke of the MUP forming the blockade about 3.00 a.m. and between then and 7.00 a.m.; is that right?

A. According to the information given to me by the chief of the Urosevac MUP and the plan he had in his staff, the MUP units in the early hours of the morning - and the time is mentioned in several places but I wasn't there so I can't tell you what the precise time was - the MUP forces carried out a blockade of the area where Siptar terrorists forces were believed to be before dawn, and --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ...

A. The army, when you say "blockade," you mean the area designated, which has to be surrounded by designated units.

Q. Or, I suppose, if not surrounded, certainly blocked in respect of one particular direction of possible escape. Would that be an appropriate use of the word "blockade"?

A. You could say that, but it's not usual to say that. Usually it's when a large area, more than half, is taken by units and then the place is practically under a blockade. The main roads, of course, have to be closed in that case. ⁴⁷¹⁰³

Q. I just want you to have a look at a map that's been used in this trial from time to time. Not a map, an aerial view. While that's being brought in, what was the position so far as your training unit was concerned? You had a training unit, didn't you, engaged at this time in the area of Racak?

A. I think it's wrong to say that, because we had no units undergoing training in the area of Racak. As I explained last time, the unit was at Dulje, according to the agreement. And that unit held the communication or the road from Stimlje to Birac and carried out training on these axes. Racak is to the side of that.

Q. If you look at this map on your right-hand side. If the audiovisual booth could focus on it for us, please. It may be -- yes, I think it can. And if it would draw back so we can see all of the map.

Where do you say on this aerial view - if you can take just a second to familiarise yourself with it - the army was located? Would the figure A be about right?

A. It's this place here, if I understand A correctly. The troops were in this area here, in Borovo Suma, or Borovo forest. The upper part of the forest had already been cut down, and this is where the troops were from April until the beginning of the aggression, part of the combat group the command of which was at Dulje.

Q. Now, if you look, then, to the left of that, B, and the feature running pretty nearly north/south, slightly north-west/south-east. From B, if you look at the bottom of that red area, you will see something that ⁴⁷¹⁰⁴ says in English "VJ MUP tank and vehicles." Is it right that there were VJ tanks and vehicles in that area?

A. I don't know who was there in this period but there were no troops or tanks there.

Q. Well, how do you know that?

A. Because I was the commander of the unit. Of course I knew where my units were on a particular day in a particular period of time. There had to be a plan, an order from the superior command. I had to issue my own order, the subordinate commander of the subordinate units had to issue his command, and only then could a task be carried out.

Q. Further south on the map we can see, I think, C on the bottom right-hand corner. May have to move the map across. We see there "VJ/MUP tanks and vehicles." There has been evidence to this effect, that there were tanks and vehicles there. Do you accept the possibility that those tanks and vehicles were there or do you again say that, because you issued the orders, no such tanks?

A. Not because I issued the order but because I did not issue the order that they should be there, so there were no troops there.

Q. If you look at those three positions, just for the time being assume that they may be correct: A, the second position marked with tanks and vehicles, then the position C, would that operate as something of a blockade to stop people retreating in an easterly direction?

A. First of all, I cannot assume, because the army was not there. The blockade, as it's shown here, this does not actually show a blockade of a village. ⁴⁷¹⁰⁵

Q. Very well. The -- tell us, please: The General Staff's operation centre was based where at this time?

A. Did I understand correctly the General Staff's operation centre? I had my corps command, and as for the operations centre of the General Staff, I assume it was in Belgrade. That's where its place was.

Q. Orders -- I beg your -- yes. Operations of the kind I'm suggesting happened, that is joint operations between the MUP and the army before the declaration of a state of war, to take out a substantial KLA unit, would such an order have to be -- have to originate in Belgrade?

A. Certainly it had to originate in Belgrade. However, the commander of the strategic rotation group has the right to issue certain decisions about the use of troops at a certain point in order to protect an element of the army combat disposition or part of the territory until the Supreme Council reaches a decision. There was no need in this case because the army was not engaged at all. Only the corps commander could issue an order binding on me, and I could only take measures, and all the subordinate commanders from the lowest level, from company commander to brigade commander, could take measures for the protection of people without orders if they were at threat, but then he would have to immediately inform his superior commander.

Q. Where were you on the 15th of January? Where were you yourself? You weren't at Racak, so where were you?

A. I have never been in Racak. On the 15th of January, I was in the brigade command in Urosevac.

Q. And you know perfectly well, Mr. Jelic, that your brigade was ⁴⁷¹⁰⁶ actively engaged in firing rounds into Racak and elsewhere in joint operation with the MUP, and what you're telling us is quite untrue. Am I right?

A. First of all, I don't know anything about this. I deny it. It's not true.

Q. How did communications pass between the General Staff in Belgrade and your brigade; via Pristina?

A. According to all the rules and instructions about command and control of units, a superior commander commands his subordinate units. In exceptional cases, a second superior can issue a command to a second subordinate, but this is very exceptional and I have hardly ever come across it in my career. I always received issues from -- I always received orders from the Pristina Corps command while I was in the brigade.

Q. Now, you told us that your first -- your -- just to complete that: Communication back up to Belgrade would be via the Pristina Corps in the same way as orders coming down to you would come via the Pristina Corps, yes?

A. You've skipped over a rung in the ladder. Issues from the -- orders from the General Staff had to go to the strategic unit, which is the army. The army issued orders to the corps, and the corps to the subordinate units. The subordinate units issued orders to their subordinate units. So this was the chain of command.

Q. And you described a meeting you had, or an encounter you had, a couple of days before Racak, the purpose of which was simply to inform ⁴⁷¹⁰⁷ you, is that right, or for someone to be informed that the Racak exercise was going to happen; is that correct?

A. I don't know what meeting this applies to. You haven't been specific. But if you mean a meeting with the chief of the SUP, then you are right. It's quite normal, when combat operations are being carried out, if my neighbouring units or I are carrying out combat activities, it's normal to inform your neighbouring units. There is reason for that: They have to take precautions, to prevent infiltration of their territory by terrorists. They have to protect their own troops and their own equipment. They have to protect their own area.

Q. And I think you said there has to be the avoidance of friendly fire and the consequences of friendly fire; is that right?

A. I didn't understand. What fire are you referring to?

Q. Where troops of the same side accidentally damage each other. If you don't know where they are and you're firing, there's always a risk you'll damage your own side, injure or damage your own side. That's what "friendly fire" means. Was that something that you were concerned about?

A. We don't usually call it friendly fire. We use a different term for it. If units are acting together, then they have to establish lines where they don't fire at each other, and if they're acting in built-up areas or so on or where they adjoin.

Q. Well, your only involvement on the 15th, you say, was to fire in another direction and because somebody fired at you. What time of the day on the 15th was that?

A. I'm not only saying it, I'm asserting it. On that day when the ⁴⁷¹⁰⁸ MUP units blocked Racak looking for terrorists, fire was opened and the unit that was in the pine wood immediately took up positions. In the meantime, fire was opened on it at around 8.00 or 9.00. It was opened from an elevation that has no name overlooking the village of Belince, some 3 or 400 metres to the south. Not from the village itself but from a nameless elevation.

Q. And this whole incident was completed by what time of the day?

A. Fire was opened intermittently. Several bursts. Three shells, 82-millimetre mortar shells, and this was confirmed by your witness who was in the brigade. I think his name was Sukrim Bura [sic].

Q. And the incident was concluded by what time?

A. Around 10.00.

Q. How --

A. But the unit remained in full combat readiness.

Q. And how was that reported, if at all, to Pristina and upwards in the direction of the General Staff?

A. You mean the incident that occurred toward the army?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes. It's usual for the commander of the battalion, after taking measures to protect his men and equipment and taking up positions for circular defence according to previously approved plans, after he has taken all these measures and repelled the attack, he then sends a report up the chain of command. That's the chain of reporting.

Q. But your report on this incident would not have linked it in any way to the Racak exercise of the MUP, would you? ⁴⁷¹⁰⁹

A. My report could not have had anything to do with the operation because I did not have the information, the elements about what was going on there. I could have known that only if I had participated. In that case, it would have been my duty to report, yes.

Q. Reporting what happened between 8.00 and 10.00 would have contained no reference to Racak because this had nothing to do with Racak.

A. You always have to give specific information, not general information, about where fire was opened from. You say where fire was opened from, what was done, whether there were any casualties or losses of equipment, vehicles, weapons, and so on.

Q. Have you seen your report up the chain of command since you've been here, your report on this incident on the 15th of January?

A. I think the report is here in the file, if I recall. I don't know what tab number.

Q. We have the -- go -- tell us which one you say is the necessary report. You've started about 12, I think, or 11. Tell us which one you say --

A. I'll have a look now.

Q. Thank you.

A. I think it's 17, if that's the one you mean.

Q. Well, it may well be 17 because that does indeed cover these topics. Let's go and look at 17 and see how you expressed yourself then. 17, if we can put it on the overhead projector, please - we must be brief - deals with on the 15th of January the unit from Dulje carrying out regular training, which is why I asked you about training. "While the ⁴⁷¹¹⁰ training programme was in progress along the above-mentioned axis, heavy infantry and RB fire was opened from Rance ... mortar fire from the village ... We fired back ..." No reference to Racak there. "Our forces suffered no consequences."

Then this: "In the early hours of the 15th of January, forces of the MUP/Ministry of the Interior/ ... set up a blockade ..." So it was they, the MUP, that set up the blockade.

And then over the page, please. 0700 hours, at the top. "... heavy infantry fire opened at MUP forces ... training ..." And then again at the end of this: "MUP forces set up a blockade and searched the village of Racak ..."

By the way, the preceding line -- before I come back to the immediate topic, I want you to answer this: Why did you write here: "None of our vehicles entered neither the village of Racak nor any of the surrounding villages"? Why do you think it necessary to put that in your report?

A. Precisely because fire was opened and returned from our weapons, the corps commander had to know what happened on the ground. That's why I had to report that not a single vehicle from the area entered the village. And this here refers to the village of Racak. Because use of combat vehicles requires that you report exactly where the vehicle went, how far it went, and when it came back.

Q. Saying where it did go is different from saying where it didn't go. I'm just wondering why you made a reference in this report to what you didn't do at Racak. Was that because it was a joint operation and you ⁴⁷¹¹¹ were identifying the limits of your involvement?

A. There was no joint operation. If you look at the part here which refers to the opening of fire, it says that the unit returned fire and did not enter the village of Racak. Returning fire is something that's not stationary. These are all highly mobile units, and they respond with fire and assault. They go, take up an area, destroy the target or go on. They're not static, like artillery, linked to one spot so that you have to search for a position for them. That's why this was done.

Q. You're not telling us the truth, Mr. Jelic, as the following document, I'm going to suggest, makes clear.

A. That's your conclusion and your opinion. You have the right to it, but I'm telling you how I reported and answered to my command.

Q. This is from the VJ General Staff. It's dated the 16th of January. On the overhead projector.

Did daily operation reports get sent down to your level of command? Did they? Did daily --

A. Operations reports of the command of the General Staff. They couldn't have been sent to us. It was we who sent operations reports to our superior command.

Q. Well, this is their report for the 16th of January, covering the period 6.00 a.m. the 15th to 6.00 a.m. on the 16th. And for want of time, there is no need to go to any part of it apart from, in the English, page 4 and -- I've now mislaid my copy of the original. It's under the heading "3rd Army." Have you found the bit that's headed "3rd Army"?

A. I don't see the translation here. Where is it? ⁴⁷¹¹²

JUDGE KWON: Second page.

MR. NICE: Second page. I'm grateful to His Honour Judge Kwon. Thank you very much.

Q. If you find the paragraph immediately before number 9, the cross-heading 3A, for 3rd Army. Do you see that?

A. I see that.

Q. And if you look at the second bullet point of that paragraph, perhaps you would just like to read it out for us from the original to make sure there's no ambiguity in the interpretation or error in the interpretation. Can you just read it out.

A. It would be best for me to read out the whole thing so that we'd have the context. That way you can understand it the best. "While a tactical --"

Q. My time is limited, but if you want to read the previous paragraph, read that, because it refers to your unit. Yes, by all means. Go ahead.

A. Yes, yes. "... the 243rd Mechanised Brigade Urosevac in the sector of the Dulje pass near the village of Sefer, Siptar terrorists opened fire with infantry weapons after which they retreated towards the Dara Glava feature. Our forces were unharmed. "Part of the forces of BG-243-1 were deployed to seal off --"

THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please read slower if the interpreters are supposed to interpret what he's saying.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please read more slowly for the benefit of the interpreters. ⁴⁷¹¹³

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "... where MUP members were conducting an operation against Siptar terrorists who had killed a MUP member." That is what is written --

JUDGE KWON: Could you read the second paragraph again.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Part of the forces of Combat Group 243-1 were deployed to block the village of Racak, Stimlje municipality, where MUP members were conducting an operation against Siptar terrorists who had killed a MUP member."

MR. NICE:

Q. Fine. Would you like to explain --

A. But this is not the original. It's not from the corps or from the army. It does not originate from the corps, from the army, or from the brigade. That's where the unit is. And if it is considered that the unit was there in a blockade, then it was, yes, in Stimlje.

Q. Mr. Jelic, you've explained how orders of the kind I suggest you were responding to, that is, orders to establish joint operations of this scale would have had to have come from Belgrade. That means they didn't come on the morning. They had to come a day or days before. You explained how the reporting chain went back from you, via Pristina, to Belgrade in respect of, for example, the firing on you of infantry weapons. This document is prepared in Belgrade. If there hadn't -- do you understand this? If there hadn't been a planned deployment to assist the MUP members, then Belgrade would have known about it. How can it be that on the 16th of January Belgrade is recording that part of your forces, number 1 unit, were deployed to seal off -- ⁴⁷¹¹⁴ sorry, to -- to block the village of Racak?

A. You presented a few different things here, but I have to respond to all. First of all, I personally never received orders from Belgrade. We never got a single document from Belgrade in my brigade. Everything went down the chain of command, through the command of the Pristina Corps. The command of the Pristina Corps has my report, and that report is the only valid one for commanding or, rather, for assessing the situation in the unit. The corps commander is the one who accepts or does not accept the report. It is most probable that the gentleman who dealt with this document - and I don't know who it was who dealt with this document, I cannot recognise the initials - he probably thought that the combat group was already there, as approved by the verifiers, and he said that it was there in the blockade.

Now, you look at this. You said yourself a few moments ago that this blockade --

MR. NICE: Just pause. As approached -- as approved or something by verifiers. What verifiers say isn't going to be reflected in a record of what your group is doing. What your group is doing is -- in a report like this, reflects what you report.

Now, can you explain, please, how what you reported or what has already on ordered comes to be reflected in this way? That's what we want.

A. The signature on this document is the same like -- or, rather, the description in this document is like what you said by way of a description of this blockade. We saw during the examination yesterday, too, that ⁴⁷¹¹⁵ there is something that represents a blockade for someone, at least as far as movement is concerned, because through the areas of the units, the combat dispositions, that is, you cannot walk about normally like in a free territory where there are no troops, where there is no army, because it would certainly have been stated here in this report had any part of the unit actually been used.

Q. I must suggest to you that it's as clear as can be that you were engaged in a joint operation authorised in advance from Belgrade, reported back to Belgrade, and that this document proves the lie of what you've been saying.

A. Thank you for the compliment you've just paid me, but that's not true at all.

Q. Look at this document, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Is this to be exhibited?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Please give it a number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 934.

MR. NICE:

Q. I'd just like you to look at this exhibit, already before the Court. You see it relates to the 15th of January between 3.00 and 8.30 in the morning, if you look at the legend at the top left. And it suggests that the 243rd Brigade was present in the position north of Racak, roughly where A is on the overhead view. If you look to the right, right to the east, you'll see another marking, anti-aircraft marking of the army. Was that you there? Just point -- see the place we're pointing to or ⁴⁷¹¹⁶ indicating? Was the army deployed there in the east?

A. This is not a complete map. I don't know whose map it is, but the PVO system -- the PVO system, the anti-aircraft system -- well, it's not a complete map.

So this is not the way you deploy a PVO system. One was at the top of Canovica Brdo - that is here - and one was here by the point, and one was here by Kostanjevo [as interpreted]. Tanks were here and APCs were inside. That is what is contained in the report sent to the corps command. This is a bit distorted. This was after fire was opened at the area of the unit.

Q. You see, this is a map that's been produced by Janicevic, the chief of the SUP, and he says that you were at least present in two places; up there in the north and there in the east. Is he right or is he wrong? He's a Defence witness.

A. He's quite right, but I've said that the symbols were drawn upside down.

Q. So whereas you told us that you were only present in one place, you now accept that you were present in two.

A. You've got things a bit confused here. This is a combat group or part of a combat group for Dulje. When fire was opened, units took up positions for defence, and the PVO system was by the point, which is marked here. Then the second unit was above Canovica Brdo; and the third one, Kostanjevo. That is the system of defence. Tanks were not standing in a column. They were to the east of the area of deployment, and APCs were in the middle, and howitzers were on the western side. I'm giving ⁴⁷¹¹⁷ you the details regarding this particular group now.

Q. Help me, Mr. Jelic, because I may have missed it. At any time in the evidence you gave yesterday or in the previous day of hearings, did you mention the presence of that unit at Kostanjevo?

A. The village of Kostanje, that's where one Praga was. I don't remember whether I mentioned it yesterday. There was one Praga, the one here, and then one up here, 671 on the top here.

Q. You were asked very extensive questions by the Court and by the accused, trying to identify precisely where your troops were located and the short answer is you never mentioned Kostanjevo at all, did you?

A. I never even mentioned 671, not only Kostanje. The question was how come the combat group was here and how come the unit that was training was here, towards the village of Rance? If I remember correctly, that's what it was, and you can look it up in the transcript. And whether their command was at Dulje or not.

Q. Would you look, please, at the board again, the aerial photograph on your right, and at position C. You've denied this morning that there were any troops at position C. It's quite close to Kostanjevo, isn't it?

A. Yes, that's quite close.

Q. Now --

A. But the unit was not blockade as you had put it. You asked whether these were the units that were engaged in the blockade in those early morning hours, the units that blocked Racak.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... go back over the transcript if time allows. You were given every opportunity to say if there were any ⁴⁷¹¹⁸ troops in the Kostanjevo area which you then understood to be the subject of only Prosecution evidence, and you denied it. You're not telling us the truth about what the army did in Racak because you know that the army, along with the MUP, exceeded all conceivable lawful use of force in what turned out to be a dreadful massacre, don't you?

A. No, that's not true at all. That is what you're saying. Not a single shell, not a single bullet was fired at the village of Racak. And if you look at the map, carry out an analysis and see whether it was possible to engage this equipment that was up here or only perhaps here on the rim of the village of Racak. I think that that was confirmed to you by the chief of SUP, who was, after all, carrying out this action. And there is no need to conceal where we carried out joint operations, because we have documents for that. We have orders from the superior command.

Q. Which war diary or similar contemporaneous document would record the various movements of troops, including, for example, the movement of the troops to Kostanjevo?

A. A war diary exists only in wartime. This is peacetime. Units are carrying out training in the ground, and that is what I allow for. So there is no war diary for this period. The unit has --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... record will reveal --

A. -- the plan of defence. Then there is an order to go out into the field where all tasks are defined; size, numbers, and the tasks of the unit on the ground. It has its plan, and the commander of that group elaborates a plan of defence of a feature, and that plan is strictly confidential, and he defends his unit by taking up new positions outside ⁴⁷¹¹⁹ the camp. That is to say that the unit is not only on the camp premises. Once it is attacked, its equipment and personnel take up positions and defend their units.

Q. You see, we do have an operations log that has been provided for your unit or the relevant unit. I can make it available to you, perhaps over the break. There seems to be no reference of any kind to what happened on the 15th of January. Could you explain that? We'll let you have a look at it.

How could the operations log not make reference to these events on the 15th of January?

A. I can just guess now, because I don't see anything in front of me, I don't have the documents, and I don't know what you're talking about at all.

Q. Have a look at this document which has been provided to us, and you can tell us what it amounts to because it's one of your documents. Perhaps we can just lay this on the overhead projector and you can follow, if you would be so good, the original handwritten entries, which we hope are correctly translated. That is a combat group for Dulje Heights, as we can see on the left, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Dragan Todorovic. Is that about right for the unit you've been describing in the single position in which you've said there were troops?

A. Yes. If I'm not mistaken, that's from that period. But it's not very well written, so I'd really have to have a look to see what this is all about. I cannot really comment on it straight away.

Q. Well, I'll take you, for your consideration, item 1 deals with ⁴⁷¹²⁰ something that happened on the 14th of January. Then item 2 simply says that the composition -- disposition of the unit is unchanged. It deals with Frasna and Boja. It deals with Birac. It deals with the consumption of fuel. Nothing else. And then the next day is the 16th of January. Any explanation how this isn't covered at all in this document?

A. I have to have a look first.

MR. NICE: May the witness have the opportunity to look --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that --

MR. NICE: -- at it over the break, if he wants to, to save time?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes --

MR. NICE: I'm not encouraging the Court to break now because I would be very grateful for the opportunity of asking one more question for preparatory purposes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, go ahead.

MR. NICE: Can we distribute this map again now, please. Different topic but I'm trying to save time. Place it on the overhead projector, please.

Q. This is another updated version of the document we were looking at earlier which you helped us with. Now, in giving evidence yesterday, you spoke on no occasion of being present at any particular alleged crime site on the occasion of any particular alleged crime. You only ever told us what you'd been told.

This map attempts to analyse, so far as is possible - and again, this may not be a final version so I only want you to use it for reference purposes at the moment - it attempts to analyse the material before this ⁴⁷¹²¹ Trial Chamber concerning alleged VJ criminal behaviour between 1998 and the end of 1999, with dates. I'm not suggesting it's an exhaustive document, but it's doing its best to guide us through a great deal of material.

Would you please look at this document and tell us if you were in fact personally present at any of the events on the dates referred to so that, for example - I know sometimes the dates are not precise - the first one, top left-hand corner, says that something happened at Jezerce in September 1998 and also in 1999. We can see what it is a bit later if we have time. But then going around, Belince on the 4th of April. Racak, we know you weren't there. Stimlje three dates. Muhadzer Babus, two dates in March. Urosevac, dates in March and April. I want your help, please, Mr. Jelic - and it may be again that the Chamber will allow you to take this document with you to save time - I want you to tell us, either now or after a break, whether you were present at any of these places on the times indicated. Do you follow?

A. I have understood your two questions. First you said that these were crime scenes, and then you asked me whether I was there at the time. So, practically, you are giving ambiguous questions. You are stating that a crime was committed somewhere where people are fighting with arms in their hands and where young men who swore an oath of allegiance to defend their country are getting killed, and you are trying to rehabilitate those who got killed as terrorists in order to --

Q. You misunderstood the question. I'll make it clear.

A. -- our crime. ⁴⁷¹²²

Q. These are places where various crimes or criminal behaviour is said to have been committed by the VJ. It's your area of responsibility. And so far as possible, dates or precise dates have been given. You, yesterday, on no occasion asserted that you were present at any of the scenes that the accused referred to where crimes were said to have been committed on the material dates. Can you please look at these various entries and tell us, perhaps after the break, whether indeed you were.

Let's have a look, for example, at the one that was covered. Slatina, middle of the map, 13th of April, 13th to 15th of April. Were you ever present at Slatina between the 13th and the 15th of April, 1999? Yes or no.

A. I cannot remember. That's a very brief period of time. It's just one day or two days.

Q. Very well. That may apply, then, for Vata and Dubrava. What about Bicevac on the 25th of May? Were you present there in May of 1999?

A. I was in that area for over a month, in this total area. But in the village itself, I was never there. I've already said that the command post of the brigade was there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I will allow the witness to take the document with him during the break and have a look at it, and then equip yourself, if you can, to answer questions. Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, there was reference at the beginning of this session to the order of the 31st of October, which I've now had an opportunity to read. It's a clear prescription of how to obtain ⁴⁷¹²³ documents. It was never -- it doesn't at any stage involve a denial, an outright denial of any part of the Prosecution's application.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In relation to this, I just wish to make an objection, in relation to this question that was put to the witness, telling him to have a look at during the break. Mr. Nice is putting questions to the witness as if he were a tourist and whether he happened to be somewhere. This is a commander of a brigade who is testifying about what happened in his area of responsibility. He is present in the entire area of responsibility throughout his units, and he cannot be questioned as if he happened to be an accidental passerby, whether happened to be somewhere or not on a particular day. He is there 24 hours a day, and General Jelic has already said that he never left his area of responsibility and that he was with his troops on the ground all the time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I don't see the difficulty. The document identifies a number of alleged crime sites, and the question is fairly simple. The witness will look at the document, and if he can, he is to say whether he was present. If he doesn't remember, he can say so. So let us adjourn for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 12.27 p.m.

--- On resuming at 12.53 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: ⁴⁷¹²⁴

Q. The daily operations log that you looked at, which makes no reference to any event on the 15th of January of the kind you've described, can you now explain, please, if at all, why not?

A. This was written by the commander of the combat group who was up there, and his report for the most part corresponds to the report provided in tab 17, which I have before me and which I put forward here two days ago. This lists mainly the combat activities on two axes; those of Luznica and Rance, and there is nothing here about combat operations being carried out. The commander of the combat group probably was of this opinion. He was the one who had to decide what was to be included at any given point in time.

Q. But you do see the problem, don't you? Here's the man preparing his daily report who should have set out all the detail about Dulje because he was there. Nothing in his record. You were at Urosevac. You would have a daily record of the same kind. We've applied for that and it's been denied us or simply has never been provided to us despite specific requests for it, so we have no idea what appears in your daily record. And Belgrade records that you were engaged in effectively a joint operation with the MUP, but also records the firing to and from Rance.

It's impossible, on the material provided, to understand why this man's record is so woefully incomplete.

A. You have made certain claims here, and you've twisted the word order a little bit.

In the Belgrade report, it never says that we participated but ⁴⁷¹²⁵ that the unit was allegedly in a blockade in the area where it was. The commander of this combat group had the right to make a personal judgement as to what he was to enter into the diary. In my report to the corps command, in tab 17, there is a detailed description of what went on during those two days, the 14th and the 15th. That's in tab 17.

Q. I quite understand that tab 17 is a long time later -- not a long time later. It's the 17th of January, two days later. It's not the contemporaneous record that we're looking for. Now, in Urosevac police station, if that's where you were, your daily record would set out what you were receiving by way of information and what you were send on, presumably, to your superiors, and we don't have it, and we don't know what you wrote.

A. I don't know why I would be in the police station and ask them for reports. I didn't give them our daily reports, nor did they give me their daily reports. In the police station in Urosevac and Stimlje in this period, I didn't go there. I neither received reports from them nor sent them reports. There was no reason. Had we been carrying out a joint operation, we would have had a Joint Command post, we would have commanded the units jointly and written joint reports, each to our own superior command.

Q. I didn't mean to say Urosevac police station, your headquarters there, there should be the record of your communication with the Urosevac police, or with anybody else, setting out what you did. That's what I intended to say. Sorry about that. ⁴⁷¹²⁶ How were you able to right tab 17, then, if you didn't have information from the police, if we look at it, if you weren't in communication with the police? It sets out clearly what the police apparently claimed to do. Where did you get that from?

A. The first information I said we had a meeting at the invitation of the chief of the MUP, Bogoljub Janicevic, in Urosevac. On that day they were to carry out an anti-terrorist action in the broader area of the village of Racak.

I saw their plan concerning that action. In the plan, the army of Yugoslavia was nowhere mentioned, nor was there any written order for the army of Yugoslavia to be involved. I only received information from him as to what they would be doing there.

In view of the fact that what was planned was carried out for the most part, on the basis of this I compiled a report about events in the area of responsibility of the whole brigade, and especially in the immediate vicinity of my unit. There are no details here as to what the MUP was doing or anything concerning the events in the village because I had no elements and no need to deal with that.

Q. Look at your own document. You set out what they did, not what they planned to do. You say that they set up a blockade. You say that they returned to base at 1600 hours.

Of course you were in contact with the police. You couldn't provide that information otherwise.

A. Yes, in the exchange of information, but only in exchange of information. ⁴⁷¹²⁷

MR. NICE: Your Honours, can this daily record be produced as an exhibit, not in a sense because it's particularly valuable, it may become valuable later, but because in our efforts to provide a complete file of Racak materials this is the best we've been provided with so far by the authorities because, as I explained, the record of this particular witness has not been provided.

Q. Now, Mr. Jelic, very rapidly, where were you on the 16th of January?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let that be admitted.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 935.

MR. NICE:

Q. Where were you on the 16th of January, please?

A. On the 16th of January, as far as I can recall, I was in the corps command, attending a meeting.

Q. The corps command in?

A. In Pristina.

Q. And you knew, then, did you, that Maisonneuve tried to make contact with you and spoke instead to Petrovic?

A. I didn't know that he was trying to have an interview with me. He established contact with Petrovic and talked to him. That's what I know.

Q. Very well. And we know -- if we can lay tab 28 of the Racak documents on the file -- on the overhead projector - thank you very much - which is Exhibit 178. I gather I'm failing to identify existing exhibits by number often enough for the assistance of those who properly require it, and I apologise for that. ⁴⁷¹²⁸ You see, you haven't brought with you, have you, any record of this meeting, the meeting on the 4th of February? This is in English, I'm afraid. Have you brought with you your own record of the 4th of February?

A. I'll just have a look now. I haven't brought any documents nor do I have any documents. I have no private archive anywhere, but I do have the documents I was given here, if this is it. I'll just have a look.

Q. It's not there unless you've got more documents in your file than I have.

And did you keep a record of your encounter with Maisonneuve on the 4th of February; and, if so, where is it?

A. The whole meeting with him was held in the garrison command, and it was chaired by the liaison officer.

Q. Did you keep a record of it? Where's your record?

A. I noted the main points in the document I had with me, and that is a notebook which was later handed over to the command, along with all the other documents. The corps command, I mean.

Q. Well, can I just take you to the second page - please, Mr. Prendergast - so that we can see if you agree with the record that has been made by those who did make the record which is available to us. Your notebook isn't. You appear as J. I'm sorry it's only in English because I suspect you can't necessarily follow that. And is it right that Maisonneuve explained in your presence that Petrovic had explained the role of the army to him on the earlier occasion?

A. I really cannot recall what Petrovic told him before that at the ⁴⁷¹²⁹ meeting. We had a joint meeting, the two of us, with him, and I can't remember the details because a lot of time has elapsed and I don't have the documents with me.

Q. You confirmed, if we look at the second page, that you were responsible for the whole region. You said that the commander of the operation was a professional soldier and every soldier gets his orders and acts accordingly. You went on to say: "The main thing, the VJ did not conduct this operation but were in a position to defend themselves from their own position." Did you say that to Mr. Maisonneuve?

A. Yes, more or less. I cannot remember the details but every professional soldier is responsible for his unit. I was responsible for the entire area of responsibility where my units were. If I understood you correctly, that was the essence of your question.

Q. Did you go on to say, when asked if the village had been surrounded, that the military defended its position. "If you were in Racak, you could see that the hills and mountains with trees are not good for tanks." And did you then later say that you weren't attacked from the village but from the high ground between Racak and Belince? "This was not a military operation, nor were the VJ responsible for any destruction in the town. Our operation happened at the same time as the MUP operation." Did you say those things to Mr. Maisonneuve?

A. We partially agree here. The army had no plan and no orders to block the village of Racak. Look at the mountains here. You can't actually see it here, but if you have a map on a smaller scale you will see what the hills were like, and the mountains. In view of the ⁴⁷¹³⁰ configuration of the terrain, tanks and combat vehicles cannot reach the point overlooking the village of Racak. It's impossible.

Q. I must suggest to you that by the time of this meeting where Maisonneuve explained how Petrovic had been embarrassed as a result of what had happened, didn't on the note set out what he had said specifically but said that he was embarrassed, I must suggest that by the time of this meeting there was already a plan and you were acting in accordance with that plan to try and eliminate the VJ from Racak because you knew what a terrible event it had been, and that guides both what you wrote in your memorandum, in your document at tab 17, and what you said to Maisonneuve when he managed to reach you. Is that the truth?

A. That is not the truth. There was no plan, either from the superior command or the corps command. That is, there was no document issued by me or my subordinates. The only document I saw the day before was at the Ministry of the Interior, that is with the chief of the SUP in Urosevac.

Q. Thank you. No, something else. I'll move on. Oh, yes. His Honour Judge Bonomy, I gather -- I understand last week was raising, maybe with you or with another witness, I think with you, the question of a report by the VJ into Racak. Now, has there been such an inquiry or such a report, to your knowledge?

A. On the part of the army, no report was sent to the corps command. There was no investigation, because there was no reason where the army was concerned. The investigation was by the MUP. They recruited a lady, I can't recall her name right now, and -- ⁴⁷¹³¹

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... concerned, then apart from the document we've looked at and has been produced by an exhibit coming from the General Staff, is it your evidence that there is unlikely to be any other document coming from the army analysing what happened at Racak on the 15th of January?

A. There is no document investigating that part.

Q. Let's turn --

A. -- either in connection with officers or civilians.

Q. Now, let's turn to this document that we've produced.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, it's an aide-memoire. You'll see -- it's an aid. You will see it's the same format as the document produced for Delic. Of course it isn't evidence in itself. It identifies where evidence may be found and it may that the Chamber will find both documents helpful, and I'd ask therefore that consideration be given to marking it as an exhibit on that basis.

Q. Mr. Jelic, have you been able to look at this map; and if so, are you now able to tell us whether you have firsthand knowledge of any of these identified scenes of alleged crimes? Firsthand knowledge; you there?

A. There is not a village in which the unit was deployed that I did not visit more than once. I told you where the brigade command was, and I spent days and days there, especially in Bogdanovic and Djeneral Jankovic, where the focus of the defence was. If I put this map over my map where the decisions are, it's almost identical, and this confirms what I have been saying over the past few days. ⁴⁷¹³²

Q. Now, did you understand my question or not? Is there any of these --

A. I understand your question fully. You probably expect a different kind of reply from me. These are units where my units were attacked, where allegedly innocent civilians were killed, only don't forget that these civilians were armed. Nobody's asking about the soldiers who were killed. Twenty-four soldiers.

Q. Pause, Mr. Jelic. You haven't answered my question. You've answered another one. Let's go back to my question. Is there any instance drawn from this map where you are in a position to give us firsthand evidence, because you were there, of what happened? Take any one of them. Sojevo, north-east, 8th of April, 1999. Were you in Sojevo on the 8th of April, 1999? Yes or no.

A. I can't recall the date. I can't recall the exact dates on which I visited various places. I had this plan, but I don't have it any more. I don't know when I visited which unit.

Q. Well, you see, the next thing is the answer you gave me was this, you said: "These are units where my units were attacked, where innocent civilians were killed -- where allegedly innocent civilians were killed ..." but don't forget the soldiers.

A. Yes.

Q. Are you saying that looking at all these points that we've identified here, you recall that these are all places where your units were attacked?

A. These are mostly places where units were attacked by two brigades ⁴⁷¹³³ of terrorists which were in the areas of Kacanik and Stimlje, and another one was later established. In the brigade, that's where there were the most casualties, especially on the road leading from Doganovici towards Globocica and Brezovica.

Q. I see. So you now remember these places as scenes of attacks but you have no contemporaneous document with you of any kind that can tell us what was reported to you of what happened; is that right? There is no contemporaneous document with you of any kind?

A. I don't have those documents and those reports. Yesterday, in a part of the tab shown here, I listed the names of soldiers from these combat groups who were killed, from privates to lieutenant colonels. We had enormous casualties. These casualties did not occur by accident. These were attacks by terrorists on military vehicles and the positions of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. Well, then, I'm going to deal very briefly with the crime sites because you simply can't help us with any detail. But before I come to that, my general suggestion to you and one further exhibit. The truth is that from the launch of events in the middle of March, there was a campaign to move people out of areas and to be prepared to kill them when those operations were happening. Right or wrong?

A. This is something that is unknown to me and the army, and it's not correct.

Q. If we look at your tab 19, just to refresh our memories, this is the only order that you've produced -- not only order, but this is an order that you've produced for this particular day, the 26th of March, and ⁴⁷¹³⁴ the previous document that we've been shown is dated -- undated. Undated, the previous one, but in any case, this is the 26th of March. And if we look at it very rapidly, this is to do with the enemy who is identified in three ways under the bullet points as NATO, then as Albanian terrorists, then again as Albanian terrorists from Kosovo and Metohija. So this focuses on NATO but it deals with Albanian terrorists, or alleged terrorists or whatever. It sets out what the various decisions are and what you've got to do. And you told us yesterday about your functions at this time, which were what, to deal with the border principally at this time?

A. First let me add to your comment. It's not "alleged terrorists," but they really were terrorists. Every country in Europe and in America called them terrorists up to about six months ago. Later, when they organised them, they called them the KLA. I cannot respond if the question does not correspond to the truth. I cannot talk about alleged terrorists but only about terrorists, because that's what they were, and the entire world was calling them that.

If we want to analyse this order, I cannot skip over certain things and answer only questions about some bullet points. I have to go into a detailed analysis. We have five brigades on a border where there are terrorists.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, just answer the question that is asked.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot answer a question that is pulled out of context because then I have no response. In order to give a response, I have to explain what this is about and then base my answer on ⁴⁷¹³⁵ that. So I would like to explain this in greater detail.

JUDGE BONOMY: What do you understand the question to be?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Three kinds of terrorists or enemy are being asked about.

JUDGE BONOMY: You weren't asked that question.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then I misunderstood the question. Could it be repeated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Put the question again.

MR. NICE:

Q. On your evidence yesterday this document admittedly identifying three parts of the enemy; NATO, SDS and STS, this document, you told us, says what you were to do; is that correct? I know it's your order but it sets out what you were told to do.

A. Yes.

Q. Do we have the order coming to you from higher command of which this is a reflection?

A. I don't have that order with me, nor is it here.

Q. Would you now please look at this document, which is dated the 24th of March, two days earlier.

MR. NICE: I don't know if the Court wants to make a decision about exhibiting the aid, dealing with the aid as an exhibit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It appears to partake more of an internal aid, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: I'm entirely -- it's a matter for the Chamber's convenience. ⁴⁷¹³⁶

Q. Now, the order that I've now handed to you is dated two days earlier. It comes from something called the Joint Command. Just tell us what the Joint Command was.

A. I'm just looking to see if I received this order. I don't see that it has anything to do with this order of mine.

Q. Well, if you'd go, please, to paragraph 5.4, which is on English page 6, it clearly has to do with your brigade.

A. Yes. The combat group of my brigade is referred to here, yes.

Q. If you go to the last page, you'll see it's signed by the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija.

A. Exactly. That's what it says, the Joint Command for Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. This is one document that has been provided by the authorities. First of all, you were the man receiving this order, what was the Joint Command?

A. I never saw the Joint Command nor do I know who was at its head. If this did exist, it existed at a higher level, but I would have to know, when I receive an order, who signed it. Like any order, all orders I received were signed by the corps commander. So the brigade is used exclusively by the commands of units.

Possibly this is a plan that was made in coordination with somebody else from the system of the armed struggle or, rather, units of the army of Yugoslavia in order to carry out coordination with all units. In principle and in actual fact the commands of brigades, or at least I'm talking about myself, I only had orders from the corps commander ⁴⁷¹³⁷ registered, and that is how I had them registered, uncertain numbers. I don't know about this command because I didn't participate in it. I am a tactical unit, a joint tactical unit and --

Q. Let me go to paragraph 5.4, and while you're going back to that, let me just inform you that your brother brigade officer, Delic, accepted receiving a broadly -- a broadly similar order relating to his unit. It's tab 356 of the Delic exhibits, with which the Chamber will be familiar. I provide with you that piece of information. Now, look at 5.4. "The 243rd Mechanised Brigade is to be brought in from the deployment sector on the 25th of March to the planned sector in Lapusnik and from the seal-off line of Orlate village - Belince village - Mlecane village, supporting MUP forces in the attack. "Task: Support MUP forces in defeating and destroying the STS on the axes of ..." and then it gives several villages: Mlecane, Murga, Donje Obrinje, Orlate, and so on, "... and destroy the STS in the sector of Plocica."

Now, it goes on: "Continue the attack, destroy any straggling parts of the STS on the attack axes ... Use some of the forces to seal off the line ..."

Understand, Mr. Jelic, this has been provided to us as a legitimate order existing, of the Joint Command, on the 24th of March, 1999. Did you receive those instructions?

A. I really cannot recall whether I received this order. As for the Joint Command, I repeat: I never participated in it, nor do I know who was on it and who made the decisions in this Joint Command. I claim that ⁴⁷¹³⁸ all orders for using units were issued to me by the corps commander. Nobody else but him.

Now, again I'm saying that it's possible there was some coordination involved here as to what should be done and that was derived from that was an order, either on the basis of a telegram or as an order. I'm not sure because I didn't participate in this and I cannot make any comments and it would be unfair vis-a-vis the document, vis-a-vis the people who were there, if they were there.

Q. Mr. Jelic, amongst the various contemporaneous documents that existed and probably still exist, there will be one recording the receipt of written orders; correct?

A. That's right. All documents that come in have to be registered and signed by appropriate individuals.

Q. Next, you say you don't know if you received this order. Did you in fact receive orders in some way so that the description of what you're to do here matches what you did?

A. Specifically it relates to this example, and I cannot remember, in view of the time, whether it corresponds or not or whether it was in that area or not. I'm not sure.

Q. Well, let's just look at it. "Support MUP forces in defeating and destroying the STS ..." That's what you were engaged in as from the 24th of March, wasn't it?

A. It depends. Not every day, but where communications were threatened, where accessibility was threatened, and where units of the sabotage terrorist groups were, in breaking them up, that is. ⁴⁷¹³⁹

Q. So it appears you did receive an order somehow in line with that. And you were there to defeat and destroy the STS, weren't you?

A. As for every activity to support the MUP forces, there had to be an order, written traces, a telegram at least.

Q. Here's an order, and coming in the way it does from the authorities, the reasonable inference is it went to you, and you can't deny it because we haven't got the contemporaneous documents. You acted in accordance with what's instructed here, didn't you, and when you -- let me just finish it. And when you produce to tab 19, which we didn't have time and don't have time to go through in detail, suggesting that you were much more engaged in perhaps looking at NATO and in guarding the border, matters of that sort, you're actually misleading us, and that's what I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Jelic, because this order shows the truth. From the 24th onwards, you were unequivocally in joint operations with the MUP to destroy the STS.

A. Your conclusion is completely wrong. The 24th of March is D-Day for the army of Yugoslavia. You know how the decision was made, and before that, with our units, for the most part we took up defence regions. This is only the final part of the document that I issued and that we got from the corps commander. That is to say, taking up the borders in order to have a blocking defence of the state territory. I think that it is sufficient evidence that on the map it says where the map comes from and what the source is. So it is approved, the Pristina Corps, excerpt from my brigade. So there is no reference to some Joint Command on this map. ⁴⁷¹⁴⁰

Q. Finally, on this document, which I'd ask to be exhibited in a minute, here you are in charge of a brigade. Who did you understand to be your political masters once a state of war had been declared?

A. Political leaders for my brigade? Primarily for me? Were the decisions of -- and the decision of the Assembly. No political leaders or political parties. You know, if you looked at our rules, that in the military, in the army, it is professional soldiers and civilian soldiers employed in the army are actually banned from being members of any political party.

Q. Armies at war respond to civilian leaderships unless they are in -- under martial law. Who was the civilian authority giving instructions to you, the brigade commanders, through Pristina Corps and other higher authorities? Who was the civilian leadership that you understood?

A. No civilian leadership issued orders or decisions. It was the Supreme Defence Council or, rather, the Assembly that declared a state of war. I personally did not contact anyone. It's not that somebody came to me and gave me instructions or support or told me in any way what I was supposed to do during the course of the war.

MR. NICE: May this become exhibited, please?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am saying that I don't understand what document Mr. Nice wants to have admitted into evidence.

MR. NICE: The Joint Command document produced by the authorities pursuant to a request and apparently relating to this witness's brigade and in respect of which it appears he acknowledges acting in some ⁴⁷¹⁴¹ conformity.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Has its authenticity been established?

MR. NICE: Well, documents coming from the authorities are typically regarded as what they appear to be. We can see one other way in which I can verify it -- not verify, but at least ask about it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you are not objecting to this, are you?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand. I think this document was admitted while General Delic was giving evidence, and I tendered it. I think it's the same document. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe it's just similar.

MR. NICE: It's similar.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. In any event, we'll admit it and we'll have it checked out as to whether it was already admitted.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, Mr. Jelic, if you go to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's have the number.

THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit 936.

MR. NICE:

Q. If you go to your tab 19, paragraph 5.1, English page 3, in a document that may focus on other topics such as NATO, we nevertheless do find a reference to crushing and destroying the STS. We can see it in the first part of that. It says: "In the current deployment sector be on standby ..." and so on for various things, and: "... destroying the STS along the following axes: Dulje village, Belanica village, and ⁴⁷¹⁴² Semetiste-Kravoserija, by separate order ..." Now, what do you understand by "separate order"?

A. Do you understand what a separate order is? So if an order is issued, then this is an order as to what the battalion commander is supposed to do. He took up positions in the Dulje pass and he was given a task. It has to be carried through, just like when anti-aircraft defence is concerned. That is to say that if forces move against him, he should attack those forces and destroy them.

Q. What I'm interested in your observations on is this: Is the order I've just presented to you and that has now been exhibited an example of the separate order dealing with destruction of the STS, even though you may now say you don't remember it? Isn't this an example of that separate type of order?

A. No, no. No. First of all, this order that you showed me just now does not pertain to my order, the order I issued, at all. Not in terms of its content, not in terms of the tasks involved. So that's a document that you brought in here from the Joint Command. This is a combat order pertaining to this map on the basis of the decision of the corps commander or, rather, my decision and my order. The order is complete if it is on a map and if the text is written out.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, the Court was aware yesterday that I wasn't going to pass on all the documents I indicated of things to raise. In the time available that's probably the only one I'm going to be able to deal with because there is an enormous number of documents here, but that's one of the ones I wanted to touch on. ⁴⁷¹⁴³

Q. Just tell us, please, you gave some evidence about Kotlina, and I just want to explore one aspect of that with you. When did you get information about Kotlina?

A. I have stated here that our forces did not enter Kotlina but they were just carrying out a blockade from the western side. I received information about this. I think it was in the evening, or perhaps in the morning, in view of communications and in view of the breakdown in communications, and also since there were intercepts, we used wire communications, wireless only exceptionally, and couriers. As for Kotlina and Combat Group 3, I think that six or seven times it was attacked.

Q. Who communicated with you?

A. What do you mean who communicated with me?

Q. Who told you what happened at Kotlina?

A. The commander of the combat group.

Q. Who was that?

A. The commander of the combat group; Major Markovic.

Q. Was what he said to you written down somewhere?

A. Probably. I cannot tell you now whether it was written down. The commander is duty-bound to keep this in his documents. He was not freed from that, just like any other commander wasn't. Proper documentation, combat documentation, had to be kept.

Q. And what do you say he told you? Because you have no contemporaneous documents to look at. You're simply looking back over six years. What do you say he told you? ⁴⁷¹⁴⁴

A. As far as I can remember from this period of time, although it's been quite a while, the forces from Kotlina and Ivaja, several times - I don't know the exact date and I do not recall the exact date - attacked the combat group that was providing in-depth security for the border, probably with the objective of making them suffer the greatest losses possible and getting them out of there so that terrorist forces from Macedonia could get into the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

Q. And how did the deaths and so on happen? Tell us about that.

A. I don't know what deaths you're referring to specifically. All the corpses that we found or, say, all the wounded persons that we found, or possibly prisoners, we acted in the spirit of the documents that I mentioned to you yesterday, within the tabs. I'm not aware of any corpses there. I don't know of any deaths there, because we did not enter the village of Kotlina itself.

Please understand me when I say this. When we are saying something like this, we mean not the village itself but tactical notions.

Q. You see, the evidence about Kotlina, including the reality that some of the people there were KLA, is all before the Court, and it says that men were led away to a hole which was dug to make a well. This comes from the Exhibit 144, if the Chamber wants to cross refer, the statement of Hazbi Loku, where the men were beaten and dragged by about 150 police and VJ soldiers, and that the witnesses then heard a loud explosion consistent with the people being blown up, having been pushed into the hole.

Now, that's not where it ends and this is what I want your comment ⁴⁷¹⁴⁵ on. A Swiss disaster victim team, in September 1999, identified of 25 individuals of Kotlina found at a site in Kacanik cemetery. Cause of death in 84 per cent of the cases was by explosion, and only 12 per cent from gunshot.

Can you explain from what you were told by the, you say, commander on the ground, how it would be - if the Chamber accepts this evidence in due course - that the vast majority of the people from Kotlina who died on this occasion or at about this time died of explosion and not of gunshot?

A. There are a few things that I don't understand here. How come in Kacanik if this is the village of Kotlina? But then never mind. The army did not enter Kotlina, and I'm really not aware of any pits, although the 57th Border Battalion is in this area, and it was providing border security there for years. I never heard from them that there were any pits, depressions, whatever, in that area. So I cannot give you any specific information that would pertain to --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm reminded there is another trial, so we have to adjourn. Are you at the end?

MR. NICE: I'm at the end if the Court determines that it doesn't want to hear any more. Otherwise, I would, of course, have a mass of more material to deal with with this witness. I would prefer, in any event, to keep the position open until tomorrow morning in case there's anything critical I would want to raise. If the Chamber decides that that is the end of cross-examination in principle subject to that, of course I will abide by that decision. I hope I've made it plain to the Court how we put our case in the absence of contemporaneous documents and how we would be ⁴⁷¹⁴⁶ assisted in helping the Court --

JUDGE BONOMY: I mean, I would like to certainly hear the end of this particular chapter and to have the point about the distinction between Kacanik and Kotlina clarified so that we get a clear answer to this.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, yes. That I would prefer to deal with tomorrow morning, and I would actually -- if the Chamber's minded to bring cross-examination to a conclusion, subject to what it may decide about --

JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer will you be?

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I can be as long or short as the Chamber decides.

JUDGE KWON: How long --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I would like a responsible answer.

MR. NICE: With the Chamber's approval, I would like to deal with at least one more or possibly two more of the sites as briefly as I've dealt with this, and probably that would be all I would ask to do tomorrow.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. Two more.

MR. NICE: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, I want to turn, Mr. Nice, to the documents in relation to which you are requesting the assistance of the Chamber.

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you identify them with greater specificity? There's the brigade war diary and the three Mechanised Battalion war diaries. ⁴⁷¹⁴⁷

MR. NICE: Yes. Your Honour, it seemed to us that we should at this stage be economic in our request because simply the ability to handle the material is restricted. And I think those four would exhaust a great deal of our resources at this stage, and they're probably the ones with the most material, and we would like those at this stage.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber will authorise you to have these documents collected from the relevant department. The witness has that said they are available, and the Chamber would expect the government, as it did last week, to cooperate to ensure that these documents are produced, and we would expect them to be produced by Friday.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm very much obliged.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn until 9.00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the 8th day of December, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.