⁴⁷¹⁴⁸

Thursday, 8 December 2005

[Open session]

[The accused entered court]

[The witness entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you are to continue your cross-examination.

WITNESS: KRSMAN JELIC [Resumed]

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

Q. We were dealing yesterday with Kotlina, and there was an outstanding query raised by His Honour Judge Bonomy, and I'll just conclude what I want to deal with so far as Kotlina is concerned and tidy up that question.

Mr. Jelic, I asked you some questions yesterday. You'll remember that the allegations include that 17 people were killed in places described as wells by the use of explosives. May we just have a look, please, at Exhibits 54, 55, and then 57A, just to remind ourselves of what the evidence is about.

The Chamber may recall this object, this picture. If I can put that on the overhead projector.

It was holes in a wood, large holes in a wood in which the bodies were deposited. Do you have any record or recollection of these holes, Mr. Jelic?

A. No record about any holes, or these caves, rather, because I ⁴⁷¹⁴⁹ wasn't there, in the first place, with my units.

Q. Observations have been made about whether the men concerned were KLA. That's never been challenged that there was an element of KLA involved or that people who were killed included people who had a KLA interest. And if we just look at -- I think it's this exhibit, 59A. Again to remind the Chamber, the appearance of the people who were killed. Very rapidly, just so that we can make the point. They are indeed young men, a lot of them. One by -- and the next one, please. Next. And then the next one. Thank you very much. Okay. If I can have those back, please.

If we can now put on the overhead projector Exhibit 1 -- or give me Exhibit 163, tab -- that's fine. Thank you very much. We can have them all back now.

Exhibit 163, tab 4 -- well, tab 3 and tab 4, but, Your Honour, this deals with His Honour Judge Bonomy's point and concern. 163, tab 4, is a report of the Austrian Kosovo crime scene, and, Your Honours, without going through it in detail, if I can just put one passage on the overhead projector.

JUDGE BONOMY: That wasn't my concern, Mr. Nice, to hear again what the Prosecution case was. My concern was that the witness made a distinction between Kacanik and Kotlina and it wasn't clear to me what he was answering and I wanted that cleared up. I don't want a regurgitation of the Prosecution evidence on the point, because we just don't have time for that.

MR. NICE: No, no. I thought Your Honour was concerned because he ⁴⁷¹⁵⁰ said I don't understand why it's Kotlina and Kacanik, and the answer to that is clearly contained. What happened -- just lay that on the overhead projector. To settle the witness's concern, and I thought maybe Your Honour's, it doesn't matter -- it does matter, but it's the Austrians examined the scene, and this is part of what they dealt with, and if the Court will take it from me, the Austrians went to the scene, they discovered the bodies, and then they explain that it was the Swiss autopsy team that conducted the detailed examination, but they conducted the examination at Kacanik, which is five kilometres away. So that -- so that that's the reason that a Kotlina death was actually finally explored. If I could have that piece of paper back. We've dealt with that. And finally, on the question of whether these people were members of the KLA or not, in addition to the evidence that we've called where I think the witness denied KLA activity, we'll look at just one very short passage from "As Seen, As Told," which is page -- well, it appears in both books and I'll just put it on. "As Seen, As Told," page 219, so that there's no doubt about how this has always been made absolutely clear. This is --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice says that the witness denied KLA activity. That's not true at all. He never denied KLA activity. On the contrary; he spoke about KLA activity in the area.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. NICE: On this -- to the extent that -- we'll just deal with ⁴⁷¹⁵¹ that. To the extent there was any denial of activity by those who died, it's dealt with in several places, and if we just look at this passage here, we see that -- this is in "As Seen, As Told," and I'll read it to you, the material parts, in English. It deals with the fact that - at the top of the page 22 - people were allegedly killed, sets out a detailed account, sets out reservations of the OSCE on a follow-up investigation; how they found corroboration broadly of the accounts that were given, deals with the allocation of the bodies in the well, and then says: "Of the whole group of 22 men --" this is right at the foot of the page -- "11 were apparently unarmed UCK soldiers in civilian clothes, selected and taken to the area close to the 'wells' --" right at the bottom of the page -- "where they were beaten, shots (probably of an execution) were later heard, and finally there was the noise of a loud explosion ..."

Q. So that, Mr. Jelic, I come back to the question that I was asking you about right at the beginning. This is a quick summary of the evidence, it deals with the point you were raising about Kotlina and Kacanik, and I'm asking you, finally, having thought about it overnight, can you give any explanation for why these men, found in the wells in a place where your troops were active in the area, were dead, for the most part as a result of explosions consistent with grenade explosions?

A. The area that you mentioned, Kotlina, is about 15 kilometres away from Kacanik, not three to five kilometres. Kotlina is in the border belt, within five kilometres. I mentioned during my testimony so far that from Kotlina there were constant attacks on the in-depth security units. The units was practically engaged in weekly fighting with the terrorists ⁴⁷¹⁵² from the region. Not from the village but from the region Ivaja-Kotlina-Pustenik. So that is the concentration of the terrorist forces. We had an order. I think that I presented it here, that ever since 1998 the army was banned from entering inhabited areas, particularly with heavy equipment, and we strictly observed that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, do you have an answer to the question or don't you, which is whether you have an explanation as to why these men, found in wells in places where your troops were active, were dead for the most part as a result of explosions, which explosions are consistent with grenade explosions.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have no explanation because my units did not enter the village nor do I know of such a pit, and I've never heard of that or, rather, I never heard of it until the end of the war. It was only later, here in court, that I heard about such victims and that they are allegedly civilians.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

JUDGE BONOMY: General, what could conceivably have happened to these people other than that they were attacked in some way? Maybe justifiably, but all the signs are that they died through some form of attack. Now, you just know nothing about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have any information about these people, because in that period the army did not enter the village of Kotlina.

MR. NICE:

Q. And I take it, Mr. Jelic, that you're suggesting that in an area ⁴⁷¹⁵³ which provided the -- well, covered the route down to the Djeneral Jankovic crossing and which was known to have KLA activists in it, you're saying that your army was simply driving up and down the road, because it wouldn't go into the villages, and being attacked, simply, by the KLA. Is that what you're really saying?

A. I don't know what you mean by "driving up and down." Is that some kind of a stroll? I don't understand this. The units were moving along --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... saying that your army never went into the villages where it's known that there was KLA activity. Well, if you didn't go into the villages, how could the KLA ever attack you? What they were doing? We haven't got your logbooks, we haven't got the unit's records; we don't know what you're suggesting. How could the KLA attack you if you didn't go to their villages?

A. I think that five or six times before this Court I stated what KLA tactics were. You say that they're civilians. These are armed civilians that did not attack from villages but they attack along roads north-south, that is to say towards Djeneral Jankovic and Globocica. They never used villages for protection. On the contrary, since this is a highly forested area - you cannot see this on this map because it is a photocopy - the altitude is about 1.000 metres, there's lots of woods there, and it is highly inaccessible. They would walk, they would fire a few bursts of gunfire, and then, when there was gunfire response, then they would flee through the woods, probably to their homes or to their bases. We don't know from what villages they came and where they were from. We could ⁴⁷¹⁵⁴ never obtain accurate information on that, but we assumed that they were people from the neighbouring villages.

As you can see, there are no such problems to the east and west, on both sides. It is all in the areas where the combat disposition of the units is, which in itself indicates that they were incessantly attacking our units.

Q. Are you really saying you never went to a village to try and take out the KLA, in the vernacular? You never did that?

A. We did not go into any village to neutralise KLA members. As for the area of the villages, yes, but there's a world of difference between the two.

Q. Well, let's move to the next topic I was going to ask you about of the other two that I'm going to deal with very briefly. Ivaja. It's mentioned at paragraph 63(k) of the indictment, where it is said that between March and May of 1999, forces of the FRY and Serbia attacked villages in Kacanik municipality and the town of Kacanik itself. This attack resulted in the destruction of houses and religious sites including but not limited to the mosques of Kotlina and Ivaja. Can we just look, please, at a couple of entries in the blue book, which is Exhibit 321. Mr. Jelic, these are records. The format is familiar to the Court, but it may not be to yourself - I'll have to read it to you in English in any event - of the OSCE mission, and this entry is for the 9th of March, so before any question of a declaration of state of emergency or war. And the representatives, the observers recorded that, "The VJ/MUP operation to clear the KLA from the Djeneral Jankovic area ⁴⁷¹⁵⁵ continues."

Well, first of all, were the OSCE wrong in saying that there was a joint exercise by the VJ and the MUP to clear this area, this area leading to Djeneral Jankovic, of the KLA?

A. The area of Djeneral Jankovic is highly populated, and it's a big area. There was no plan for that kind of cleaning. The plan was to defend units from terrorist attacks.

Q. So you were down there with the MUP, and you were doing something but it wasn't to clean the area.

A. If you're asking about me myself, me personally, no. My units were in that area for over a year, and from the secession of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, because that is where there is a border crossing.

Q. You see, I'm asking about your units, not about you personally. So I'll ask the question again: Were your units there with the MUP to do something against the KLA but not to clean the area? Yes or no.

A. The units were there all the time. That could be seen on the diagram here and on the decision of the federal government. There was no police at the border crossing except for Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. Well, let's just read on. How OSCE or KVM reported it was: "Their patrols were initially blocked from proceeding to the affected villages. MUP and VJ forces then followed their pattern of surrounding the local villages, forcing the inhabitants to flee through the use of direct and indirect fire. By mid-afternoon, houses were burning in Gajre, Ivaja, Straza, Alil Mahala. MUP units appeared intent on destroying those ⁴⁷¹⁵⁶ villages."

Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of what the OSCE recorded then, including what it recorded about Ivaja?

A. You mentioned several villages here, practically the entire territory of the municipality. The army did not leave its own areas. It did not leave them. I don't know what patrols you mean were stopped and blocked. Are you referring to MUP patrols, because they are the official ones, or are you referring to some other patrols? I don't understand the way you phrased your question. Which patrols? Are you referring to KLA patrols?

Q. I'll give you one more chance --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand whether Mr. Nice is citing a specific OSCE document, an OSCE report. I have no such document.

MR. NICE: It's Exhibit 321. The accused's memory will remind him that we've looked at this document on many occasions. It's a compilation of daily reports from the OSCE observers in the field.

Q. And, Mr. Jelic, if you really didn't understand what I said, I'll repeat it but I'll make it simpler.

JUDGE KWON: It's now on the ELMO.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, it's on the ELMO.

MR. NICE:

Q. The OSCE report -- ⁴⁷¹⁵⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, just a minute.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's not an OSCE document. That is from that book "As Seen, As Told." It's not a document. It's that book where all sorts of things are written.

MR. NICE: May I get on with the questioning, Your Honours? This is the blue --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Nice, please.

JUDGE ROBINSON: In any event this is the document to which Mr. Nice is referring. It's on the ELMO.

Please proceed.

MR. NICE: Yes.

Q. I'll make the proposition even simpler: The OSCE observers in the field reported that MUP and VJ forces surrounded villages, forced inhabitants to flee by direct and indirect fire, and set light to houses including houses, just make it really narrow, including houses at Ivaja. Is that true? May that be true?

A. This is not true at all. The army never entered the villages. It never set houses on fire, and it never expelled the population. It's our own population. Why would they expel them?

Q. So would you say that there was any question of a joint operation by you and the MUP on the villages of Straza, Ivaja, Gajre, Kotlina? Any question of such a joint operation? Yes or no.

A. There was no joint operation. There was only fighting against terrorists when they would appear.

Q. Can I have the document back. We'll have another look at what is ⁴⁷¹⁵⁸ reported on the following day and then we'll be nearly done with Ivaja but not quite. You see, on the following day the same OSCE mission reported this in respect of Ivaja, that -- their reconnaissance patrol, I think number 5 -- no, forget that. The KVM escorted a UNHCR convoy in the heart of the salient. They were stopped by VJ and MUP but eventually allowed to proceed and three bodies in civilian clothes were found in Ivaja, which is totally deserted, as is Gajre.

Then the observers commented that the VJ was maintaining a small garrison of soldiers and equipment, at least four BOVs and four cargo trucks, in Djeneral Jankovic.

Can you account for three bodies in civilian clothes - dead bodies - in Ivaja?

A. I cannot give an explanation for these three corpses in Ivaja because you're saying that they're in civilian clothes. Not a single terrorist was wearing any kind of uniform as a member of some army. Throughout the war and in 1998, they wore civilian clothing and they carried rifles in their hands. Most probably these three fought against the soldiers and got killed. If this is related to Djeneral Jankovic.

Q. It's related --

A. And you said --

Q. It's related to Ivaja. You were asked questions by the accused about Ivaja, so presumably you knew Ivaja was going to come up. We have seen no documents showing what your troops were doing on any day, let alone the 9th and 10th. Can you account, please, for these three men being killed in Ivaja on the 9th or 10th? ⁴⁷¹⁵⁹

A. I don't know how they got killed, but you mentioned that the army was in the Djeneral Jankovic garrison. So it's not by accident that I mentioned it.

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: Could the witness's other microphone please be turned on. We have difficulty hearing him when he's talking to Mr. Nice. Thank you.

MR. NICE: If the usher could very kindly turn on -- thank you. And that for the witness, that for the overhead projector.

Q. Just look at this document, please. It's coming to you in B/C/S, and we'll put the English version on the overhead projector. Now, this is dated the 9th of March, and this is what it says: It says: "Starting at 0530 on the 8th of March ... members of the Urosevac SUP and Gnjilane SUP special police units, together with members of the VJ, launched an operation to clear the villages of Straza, Ivaja, Gajre and Kotlina, Kacanik municipality, of the terrorist gangs which have carried out terrorist operations in this area with attacks on members ..." and so on.

So what do you say about this document? You've denied the accuracy -- the suggestion that there was any joint operation, so what do you say about this document?

A. I have to read the document first in order to say anything about it. Not for a single moment did I deny that there was a joint struggle against terrorism. You said before this that the army entered villages together with the police in order to expel the population. That's not the same thing. This is the area where the units were. This is where the ⁴⁷¹⁶⁰ combat disposition of the units was, and I explained that there were units for the fight against terrorism of battalion size or artillery battalion size. If there was an attack on the army of Yugoslavia, we took measures.

Q. Just let me remind you of a question and answer that happened a couple of minutes ago. I said to you in these terms: "Was there any question of a joint operation by you and the MUP on the villages of Straza, Ivaja, Gajre? Any suggestion of a joint operation?" Your answer: "There was no joint operation. There was only fighting against terrorists when they would appear."

On a simple reading, Mr. Jelic, your answers would appear to be inconsistent. Now, why did you say the first thing and now why have you changed your mind? Is it because you've been caught by that document?

A. On the contrary. I abide by what I said the first time, but you didn't say here what you said before, that there were expulsions and cleansing of the terrain. You left this out on purpose to prove that we did what you're trying to prove.

Q. I'm sorry --

A. Read your entire question. You have it in the transcript and you'll see.

Q. Mr. Jelic, just listen to the questions and answer them. Look at this paragraph. It makes it clear that there was a joint operation to -- with the MUP to clear the villages. Now, ten or 15 minutes ago you were saying you never went into the villages. Well, which is it?

A. Never did the army enter villages. I repeat again: Never did the army enter the villages. ⁴⁷¹⁶¹

Q. Tell us -- tell us what you did in this joint operation that you didn't remember five minutes ago. What was your part in the joint operation?

A. I remembered it very well five minutes ago and five days ago, and now I remember it very well several years later. That's what you say. When the terrorists turned up, the task of the army was to block them. If they were in inhabited places, they left them to the MUP. If they were out in the open, there was a fight to the death.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. General Jelic is a professional soldier --

MR. NICE: Normally when the accused starts doing this he's trying to rehearse the witness and my questions are entirely clear and the accused should not be allowed --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, if you're making a comment, I'll not allow it. If you have an objection to make, then you can make it.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I didn't want to comment but to help understanding.

JUDGE ROBINSON: No, it's not for you. You can raise that in re-examination. It's not for you to help us to understand. You can ask the question in re-examination.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'm helping you to understand what this is about.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but you're not giving evidence. You're not ⁴⁷¹⁶² in the box. You don't understand these proceedings.

MR. NICE: With Your Honours' leave.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Mr. Jelic - and I'm going to move on to my last area in a second - but what the OSCE records about you working together with the MUP, softening up the villages by attacking them, letting the MUP go in and do whatever they had to do, is completely accurate, isn't it? This is -- and remember, this is --

A. The army did not attack villages. That's not correct. Wherever members of the KLA turned up, they blocked those areas. It says here in the village of Ivaja. You didn't let me read it through to the end. Every document has to be analysed and yet you're asking me to comment on it before I've had a chance to do that.

Look what it says about the village of Ivaja.

THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading much too fast.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This confirms what I said previously. In principle, that's what was done in each inhabited place.

MR. NICE:

Q. By all means read it. It says in the bottom paragraph on the screen --

A. Yes.

Q. -- "In the village of Ivaja, the PJPs smashed a large group of terrorists and destroyed the staff of the so-called KLA 162nd Brigade. In the process, a large amount of mines and explosives, hand-held rocket ⁴⁷¹⁶³ launchers," and so on was captured.

And if we could have it a little higher up, please. Now, this was a joint -- let's see how it goes on: "A large amount of medical material was also seized and destroyed, and documentation indicating the organisation of the terrorist groups and their operations were seized too. The operation to clear the terrorist groups in these villages was completed at 1730 ..."

Now, I'm not in a position one way or another to make an assertion about the accuracy of how the conduct -- how the combat in the village occurred and how people died, but it makes it clear that the operation was concluded. Now, this was a joint operation. So you, as one of the parties to the joint operation, will have kept a record of what happened. Why when I asked you not so long ago if you had no -- if you had any explanation for how three people were killed in Ivaja, why didn't you tell us it was the result, one way or the other, of a joint operation?

A. You said that three persons were killed there. I don't know when, at what time they were killed. You can say any time, but without a document I cannot recall because six years have elapsed. It's absurd for someone to remember details on the ground.

Q. Of course without a document you can't recall a thing. Do you not think it's an insult to intelligence, Mr. Jelic, to have come to this court without making any effort to look at any one of the range of contemporaneous documents that existed? Do you not think that's an insult to intelligence?

A. I don't know why it would be an insult. What documents are you ⁴⁷¹⁶⁴ referring to? If I don't have the documents I cannot comment on them nor can I evaluate them.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jelic, just a few minutes ago you said that you remember this whole matter and the answers you gave five minutes ago, "and I remember the incident well five years ago," you used the expression. And you were asked some time ago if you could explain why there would be three bodies in Ivaja, and you put the shutters up completely to that. You didn't even suggest to us, "Well, maybe it was because of a police action that I know was going on between the 8th and 10th of March." Now, why is it you do that? Why don't you try to assist the Bench to get to the truth of these matters?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot help this Chamber, nor can I give general responses. I said that I remembered the questions that were put to me and my responses and the general content of the documents, but where someone was killed and under what conditions, it would be absurd for somebody to recall that without looking at a document in that entire situation.

You're now trying to discuss this particular area, and before that you discussed the cleansing of Djeneral Jankovic and the joint operation of the police and army. It's not the same thing.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Jelic, the question was: "Tell us what you did in this joint operation that you didn't remember five minutes ago. What was your part in the joint operation?" And the answer was, "I remembered it very well five minutes ago and five days ago, and now I remember it very well several years later." ⁴⁷¹⁶⁵ Now, do you want to take that answer back now?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't want to take it back. The army was securing its flanks and wings from the places where the terrorists were emerging, and it was fighting the terrorists. That was the army's main task.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. Before I move on to the last topic, which I can deal with very briefly, just confirm this: To your knowledge, are you the only person from your brigade who is coming here to give evidence on behalf of this accused?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. So that by coming here without any contemporaneous records yourself and just giving generalised answers, if we don't get hold of the records, we'll never be able to find from anyone else what it is said your troops were doing on, for example, the 9th and 10th of March of 1999; is that --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't think that's for the witness to answer. Move on, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases. The Court will want to know that the document we were looking at was Defence Exhibit 312, tab 24.

JUDGE KWON: Janicevic.

MR. NICE: Janicevic, yes.

Q. Can we move now to the third area I'll deal with, very briefly. Stagovo, once again you dealt with in evidence yourself, we can see where ⁴⁷¹⁶⁶ it is on the map there, for the assistance of the Trial Chamber. What's said about Stagovo in the indictment is at 63(k)(ii) and 66(l)(iii). I'll deal just with 66(l)(iii).

"On or about the 21st of May of 1999, the village of Stagovo, or Stagove, was surrounded by the forces of the FRY and Serbia. The population tried to escape towards the mountains east of the village. During the action, at least 12 persons were killed. Most of the village was looted and burnt down."

What do you know about this? Let me help you with the date so that you can give us your best recollection. 21st of May of 1999.

A. I said that the village of Stagovo is a case in point because, from the general area of the village, not the village itself, there were constant attacks towards Kamena Glava and towards our positions. The attacks took place by night, and on three or four occasions the terrorists entered a minefield. The troops could not abandon their artillery pieces to enter into the village. The troops did not enter the village of Stagovo, they only fought the terrorists in the area to the north of the village. There was no joint operation and no entry into the village of Stagovo.

If defence is to be considered an operation, then, yes, that's what it was.

Q. Well, the evidence before the Court about Stagovo includes that on that particular day VJ soldiers were seen in the area by a witness, Dashi. People retreated. Mortars and gunfire could be heard, and after Serb forces left, bodies were found in the village. ⁴⁷¹⁶⁷ Can you please explain how bodies -- how people came to be killed in that village?

A. First of all, this unit does not have mortars. It has anti-army artillery. How those people lost their lives, I really don't know. I can only assume that they participated in fighting. The army was there, but they could have been seen between Stari Kacanik and Stagovo, where their positions were.

Q. So these people who were fighting may have lost their lives, and as I think you told us, when there's a loss of life there has to be a record made, so somewhere in the army's record there will be a record of how these people lost their lives, will there? In general or specific terms there will be some kind of record?

A. In clearing up the terrain, whenever corpses were found, any of -- any provenance - because there was crime there as well - any body that was found was dealt with in the way prescribed by law and according to international law, which means that every body was collected, humanely buried, the grave was marked, and the documentation was handed over to the local authorities, in this case in Kacanik.

Q. So we can be confident, can we, that the material handed over in respect of the Stagovo killings to the authorities in Kacanik will reveal how, in all probability, those who died were armed and engaged in battle at the time; is that right?

A. I couldn't say exactly what is contained in those documents, first of all. Secondly, it depends on who found them. If they were found by the MUP or the army, there would have been an investigating judge. They ⁴⁷¹⁶⁸ would have had to be humanely buried, the graves marked, and there had to be proper documentation.

MR. NICE: With the Court's assistance.

Q. We'll just lay this on the overhead projector. This is part of Exhibit 163, tab 11. It's in English but I can read what's material to you. It comes from the Swiss forensic report, and their investigation happened on the 24th to the 25th of September of 1999 where they dealt with a communal grave in Stagovo. And you can see, because this much will be apparent to you, that included in those killed were a 74-year-old woman, a 7-year-old boy, a woman born in 1954, therefore 45 at the time, a woman born in 1916, another woman born in 1943. Would you care to help us from your memory, Mr. Jelic, with how any operation of which you were a party in this place killed those people? Because their -- everyone who has a remaining interest in them would like to know. Tell us.

A. You say that the army took part in an operation. I have repeated several times that the army did not participate in any operation or enter the village of Stagovo.

As for the death of these people, I have no reason to doubt that they were actually killed, but I don't know where. I don't know who gave this information.

I can doubt it. Maybe they died of natural causes. I don't know what this is about. Please remember that elderly people might have died of natural causes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, General. Let's move on. ⁴⁷¹⁶⁹

MR. NICE: It was gunshot and knife wounds, Your Honours, by which they were killed.

Q. Just last point on Stagovo and then I'll be done apart from two other questions. Apart from the evidence we've laid before the Court, another collection of material deals with the same point, and since it's -- page 221 on the overhead projector. Bottom left-hand corner of that page, please. And it deals with: "On the 30th of April, Stagovo east of highway 2 and just below Stari Kacanik, beside the main railway line, was shelled. Police took up positions around the village but didn't enter it," and there was fighting.

Then it says this: "In May the UCK had a 'stronghold' close to the village, and on the 21st of May Stagovo was attacked again. VJ and police shelled the village from a distance and the villages -- villagers started to flee towards the mountains."

Now, this specifically identifies the VJ. Do you have any recollection of what they did on the 21st of May?

A. You're confirming what I just said; the army was fighting the terrorists. Terrorists were in the village of Stagovo. When you say "village," you're probably referring to the centre of the village, but you shoot at the army from the centre of the village. Wherever there were terrorists, the army fought them fiercely. The village of Stagovo -- I don't really understand this in translation. You say the MUP was searching the village of Stagovo, chasing this gang that you just mentioned.

Q. You may -- ⁴⁷¹⁷⁰

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, I have to express concern that, being pushed for time as you are, you're resorting in cross-examination to material which is not even part of the evidence in the case.

MR. NICE: This book is an exhibit in the case.

JUDGE BONOMY: You've just said it is a collection of material which you haven't so far presented to the Court.

MR. NICE: If I said that, I didn't mean to say that. This is material that is indeed in the case, and indeed it's very much part of the evidence, and I'm sorry about that. But you see, the reason I mention it is for this, and this is the last reason, something I want the witness's assistance with.

Q. This says specifically -- and I've just now lost my place, but -- there we are.

This says that the killings were done by paramilitaries. We can see it there. It says -- deals with the interviews, Mr. Jelic, describes how people, including women and paralysed grandmother, were executed by paramilitaries and how houses were set on fire. Do your recollections of what you the military were doing with the police include recollections that paramilitaries were involved as well? Yes or no.

A. They're lying, absolutely.

Q. I see. So these people who give an account of the death of women and children are either -- is there any chance, do you think, from uniforms, that the military might be confused for paramilitary?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Could you put it back on the ELMO for me. ⁴⁷¹⁷¹ Mr. Nice, where is the passage that you read saying that the village was shelled from a distance -- from a distance?

MR. NICE: "... on the 21st of May Stagovo was attacked again. VJ and police shelled --" top right-hand corner "-- the village from a distance, and the villagers started to flee towards the mountains."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I wanted to ask the general something about that, because he has said consistently that the army never entered the villages.

Is this consistent with what you're saying, that the shelling took place from a distance?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The army never attacks villages or enters villages. We are not authorised to search villages. If from an inhabited, a built-up area, a fortification is created, the army breaks it up. Everything else, every other populated area is left to the MUP, which fights the terrorists in built-up areas, searches houses and does whatever they're authorised to do. In this case there was a group of terrorists near Stagovo. If the army did not respond to that, it would not have been carrying out its task.

As for the last question, how can a person, an ordinary citizen, know enough to talk about paramilitaries in some distant, faraway village? Please bear in mind the level of education of these people. Bear in mind their background and their culture. When they see a person in uniform, they call him either a policeman or a soldier. They don't use the term "paramilitary." This is absurd. You're giving a list, and if you tell me ⁴⁷¹⁷² of one single soldier of mine who is said to be a paramilitary, and I will take responsibility for everything that happened.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So the general strategy is that the army operated from a distance and the MUP would enter the villages to deal with the --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, that's the general principle.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. My last question on this --

JUDGE KWON: General. General, do you exclude the possibility that there exists a person or persons who were armed separate from military or police, be it legal or illegal?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't exclude that possibility. There may have been criminal gangs, just as there might be in peacetime. Under ordinary conditions there are criminals, and their numbers may have increased. They may have been linked together more under conditions of wartime.

JUDGE KWON: Some ordinary people call them paramilitaries.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In our language, I do apologise, this is a term introduced recently. I would call it an imported term. You talk either of rebels or renegades or of policemen or soldiers. As for the term "paramilitary," it's something that has been imposed.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And the --

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to organised things.

JUDGE KWON: And turning back to Stagovo, is it true that the army ⁴⁷¹⁷³ shelled the village?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The army did not shell the village. The terrorist group to the north of Stagovo pushed back by the police -- the MUP had been attacked in Kacanik previously and pushed them back, and they attempted to cross the positions of the anti-armour detachment, and that's where the armoured forces were.

JUDGE KWON: Are you saying that army never shelled at any point?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They never shelled the village. They never shelled the village itself. I would have had a report had it been done.

There was a report that there was fighting above Stagovo and that they even entered a minefield, probably attempting to approach the positions or attempting to flee the MUP forces.

JUDGE KWON: I'm sorry. My question was wrong. The army shelled the firing point. That's correct, then?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, yes.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. NICE:

Q. My last question, which in a sense follows on from His Honour Judge Kwon's, is this: You say that -- you said to me that there was no question of your soldiers being mistaken for people described as paramilitaries. It's right, isn't it, certainly that in the 26th of March order you were commanding not only the army but also armed non-Siptar people. That would be Serbs who had been provided with arms. Now, could such people be, in your judgement, confused by those ⁴⁷¹⁷⁴ using the term "paramilitaries"?

A. Now, how people could have used different expressions is something that I cannot answer, and probably no one can answer what somebody would have said for those men then.

As for what it says in that document that you refer to, in addition to the army of Yugoslavia, we had the Ministry of Defence which armed people in order to protect vital facilities, namely post offices, banks, telephone exchanges, transformer stations, and other key facilities that are within the area of responsibility. All these people who were organised, who were placed under the command either of the ministry or the army or the MUP cannot be called paramilitaries because it's not that they're doing something apart from the army. They are, within the scope of their activities, soldiers too, doing a certain job.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, you say the general strategy was that the army would operate from a distance while the police would go into the villages to deal with the rebels or whatever you call them. Was the reason for that merely tactical or -- or were there constitutional, legal reasons?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You see, when terrorist groups appear in an open space, then it is very clear and simple. Then they are surrounded and destroyed. However, if these groups flee into inhabited areas, then the military blocks the village from the side where they are and the MUP enters the village, searches the buildings, and engages in fighting in built-up areas. The army does not enter the village, and the ⁴⁷¹⁷⁵ army does not fire because then you would be firing at random. You don't have a front. You don't have an army in front of you. These were usually groups of ten or 15, up to 50 people at the most.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one other question. How old is the usage of the term "paramilitary" in your country? You said it was of just recent usage.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I must admit that this term "paramilitary" has been used, say, from the 1990s onwards. Unfortunately, these are terms that came into being during the disintegration of Yugoslavia when certain political parties, not only in Serbia but throughout Yugoslavia, used them. All of them used them for their own interests.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're finished?

MR. NICE: Finished on those three topics, Your Honours, yes. And I was going to ask two other questions of a general nature. They are these, with the Court's leave:

Q. Are there any records that you can remember, point us to that detail the taking of any prisoners of war?

A. If this question is for me --

Q. Yes.

A. -- then prisoners of war are usually recorded by the MUP and the security organs, if there are any. I had no prisoners of war, nor did we have any records. There were people who would be detained in custody for a day or two, as you saw from the report of the corps commander, but we did not have any prisoners of war. ⁴⁷¹⁷⁶

JUDGE ROBINSON: Your last question, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE:

Q. Did you ever go to the Obilic electric plant in Prizren?

A. I did not understand your question. As far as I know, there are no electric plants in Prizren.

MR. NICE: That's all I wish to ask this witness. Your Honours --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --

MR. NICE: Your Honours, may I make one point, please, in private session? I'll explain my position, with Your Honour's leave.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session, yes.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁷¹⁷⁷ Page 47177 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁷¹⁷⁸ Page 47178 redacted. Private session.

⁴⁷¹⁷⁹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is no electric plant in Pristina. Like in Prizren, in Pristina there is no electric plant.

JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Nice, is there any reason why the transcript of the exchanges that have just taken place should remain confidential?

MR. NICE: Yes.

JUDGE BONOMY: All right.

MR. KAY: Why? Let's -- too much is assumed here by the ⁴⁷¹⁸⁰ Prosecution that when they make these applications. In my submission, absolutely nothing in what was said that remotely impinges upon the interests of justice in this case. No names are mentioned.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Not the interests of justice; security.

MR. KAY: Where? It's simply not identified in any way. The short answer is given, yes, without any explanation. It may well be a knee-jerk reaction by Mr. Nice not getting his way on something. In our submission, no details were given and the Prosecution should identify what sensitivities there were about the matters in closed session, and point to how --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Nice, justify it. I think Mr. Kay is right.

MR. NICE: Well, the suggestion of knee-jerk reaction is, if I may say so, unhelpful. Of course I thought about this matter in considerable detail, and if you would be good enough -- do you have the facility to wind back the LiveNote? Page 31, lines 12 to 14, and then if you go back to the first part, to line -- lines 22 and 3.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is this in private session or not now?

THE REGISTRAR: We're in public session, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We should be in private session for this.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ⁴⁷¹⁸¹

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic. Let's not have an unnecessary comment. It's your time to re-examine, and I want to tell you that -- or to remind you about the purposes of re-examination. You need not be overly long. Just concentrate on the issues in respect of which you think the witness needs some kind of rehabilitation. Please begin. Re-examined by Mr. Milosevic:

Q. [Interpretation] General, was there a tank in operation in Racak?

A. Not a single tank was operating in Racak. ⁴⁷¹⁸²

Q. Does anybody there have tanks except for you?

A. No; just my brigade, my tanks.

Q. Can you assert with 100 per cent certainty that a tank was not firing?

A. I assert with 100 per cent certainty that on the 15th a tank was not firing. I'm not talking about the 17th, 18th or 19th. I'm only talking about the 15th.

Q. All right. Could it happen that a tank would be operating and that you would not know about it?

A. It's absolutely impossible.

Q. Why is it absolutely impossible?

A. It's impossible because of the command and because of the explosion that could be heard and --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can hear the difficulty the interpreter is having. You must observe a pause between question and answer.

JUDGE KWON: Did the tank not shell to the direction of Belince on 15th?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Fire was not open -- I'm sorry. Fire was not opened in the direction of Belince, hardly ever. The PAM and the Praga fired in the direction of the Belince, that is to say south of Belince, that's where fire was opened from at the army, that elevation without a name, the one that I showed you here.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So even then, when fire was opened, a tank was not used?

A. A tank was not used. ⁴⁷¹⁸³

JUDGE KWON: If you could tell me what PAM is.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An anti-aircraft machine-gun, but that is an abbreviation.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The calibre is 12.7 millimetres.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you're a professional soldier. What does the word "operation" mean from a military point of view?

A. An operation means something that is done at highest level; at corps level or even larger units.

Q. All right. Can any of the activities that were conducted there be called an operation?

A. Not a single one of these activities.

Q. All right. So why are you using the word "operation"?

A. An operation denotes --

Q. No. I'm asking you why are you using the word "operation" when you're answering Mr. Nice's questions?

A. An operation means an activity aimed at taking care of a problem.

Q. All right. This activity that you described, is that the only activity? So if a terrorist group jeopardises a unit by opening fire, then you open fire at that group.

A. Yes, that's right, but that's not an operation. This is combat activity.

Q. All right. Did you have joint combat activities with the MUP regarding some group, some terrorist groups in that area, and when? ^{47184 BLANK PAGE 47185}

A. As for individual groups, we never had plans because we never knew and we could not assess when things would happen. At the moment when things would happen, the army would carry out a blockade and the MUP would search the inhabited areas.

Q. All right. It is the terrorists who are attacking who are dictating when attacks will take place?

A. Precisely. And, Mr. Milosevic, do not forget one thing: This map and the order we have encompasses everything. There are no additional orders. It regulates everything. Unfortunately, we haven't gone through it completely here, but everything is stated there; how fighting is conducted and against who. If you can, look at the last points, who is engaged in anti-terrorist action.

Q. All right. Well, open the order now and please read what it says. It's very important for you, General, to explain that, because this is probably the only place in the world where they are trying to say that it is a crime when terrorists get killed when fighting against an army.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please have an exact reference of what will be read out. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreter is asking for a precise reference --

THE INTERPRETER: Tab number.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- reading from.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I'll find it now. It's in one of the tabs.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I found it. It's in tab 19. ⁴⁷¹⁸⁶

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So tab 19. That is the order that was written by the witness, General Jelic.

So, General, we are not going to go through this order. We did not do it during the examination-in-chief either, but just in relation to this explanation that was provided to you during the cross-examination, fighting against terrorists and everything. So what did you write here?

A. Page 8, paragraph 8.3, what the focus of the activity will be. "During sabotage and terrorist operations, security support must be focussed on detecting, monitoring, crushing and destroying DTG, sabotage and terrorist groups, and insurgent forces in the brigade's zone of responsibility.

"a), for combat against DTG, special forces and insurgent forces attacking military facilities and housing facilities of brigade members. The military police is to be primarily engaged in these tasks."

Q. What does it say, "Engaged 2 VP"?

A. The 2nd platoon of the military police. That is there for that.

Q. So you're talking about engaging a platoon of the military police?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it important to see - how should I put this? - how big the unit that you're engaging for this is.

A. Yes.

Q. So you're engaging a platoon of the military police to react if this happens?

A. That's that. In view of the specific nature of the activity ⁴⁷¹⁸⁷ involved, and they are trained and equipped to fight against smaller terrorist groups.

Q. How many soldiers are in this platoon?

A. 45 to 50 soldiers.

Q. All right. And what does it say here? The 1st Platoon of the military police shall act as reserve?

A. Yes. That is in accordance with my order. So these are the exact tasks, who was doing what in which area. But what is important is subparagraph A, the one that I referred to. Then there is traffic control and so on --

Q. There's no need to explain this any further. So what is stated here in your order is that which actually covers your reaction, your intention, and the point of this kind of behaviour?

A. Yes, precisely. That's it. These are units that are trained and ready to take momentary action against the terrorists. The terrorists are not engaged in frontal fighting. They attack, they carry out sabotage, and they try to run away as fast as possible.

Q. All right. It was stated here that you do not know how to answer the question what your units were doing on the 9th and 10th of March.

A. Of course I know what my units were doing, Mr. Milosevic. We were engaged in fighting in this area all the time. I will give you an example. On the 9th of March there was an attack on Combat Group 3. That is in the area of Globocica. That's when two of our soldiers got wounded. They lost their legs. I know what my losses were but I don't know about the terrorist losses because they certainly got their casualties out, ⁴⁷¹⁸⁸ their wounded and dead.

Q. We've dealt with that as a question. It was said here -- Mr. Robinson asked you whether your strategy was to fight from a distance and for the police to enter certain areas. What kind of strategy is this, General? Let me understand, because I don't understand it.

A. Strategy is a broad notion.

Q. You don't have to tell us what a strategy is, but in what sense did you use the word strategy? That is what I would like to have explained.

A. If there is a terrorist group in any area and they mostly appeared in open areas vis-a-vis the army, the army immediately reacts with the forces that are there for anti-terrorist fighting. If the terrorists flee into inhabited areas, regardless of whether they are from these inhabited areas or not, the army blocks that region where the -- they came. North, south, east, west; it doesn't matter. They immediately report to the MUP organs, they inform them about this. Then the MUP comes in and then they search or, rather, control the houses, the facilities there, whatever was used. Perhaps it was a socially owned facility or a private house or whatever.

Q. That means that, as a rule, the army does not enter villages.

A. As a rule and also in accordance with the order of the chief of General Staff from 1998, we were forbidden from doing that kind of thing.

THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please slow down.

JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic, could you repeat your question. The interpreters couldn't follow you because both of you spoke too fast. ⁴⁷¹⁸⁹

THE INTERPRETER: And at the same time, Your Honour.

JUDGE KWON: And please speak one at a time.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I shall bear that in mind, Mr. Kwon.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. So is this some kind of strategy or is there an order from top levels that the army cannot enter villages?

A. It comes from the chief of General Staff, this order, and it went all the way to battalion commanders that the army cannot enter populated areas to engage in fighting, that fighting can be engaged in only outside populated areas and that populated areas can only be blocked. And also in that order it says that they cannot use heavy equipment, especially for fighting in built-up areas, in order not to have housing facilities destroyed and in order to prevent civilians from being killed.

Q. All right. In response to Mr. Robinson's question, you said that you shelled from a distance. Now, could you explain this, please. What was it that you were shelling from a distance? What was it that you were shelling from a distance? Explain what you said. I'm not asking you a different question, I'm asking you what he asked you. You said, yes, we were firing from a distance. What were you shelling from a distance?

A. Stagovo, where a terrorist group was, as the Prosecutor said here, was above Stagovo. And the army automatically responded to the gunfire of that terrorist group. They used artillery pieces to fire at them, and mortars.

Q. Wait a moment. Were you shelling Stagovo from a distance?

A. No, a group -- ⁴⁷¹⁹⁰

Q. Wait a minute, General. You have to bear in mind what you're doing, what you're saying by way of response. If Judge Robinson asked you whether you were shelling Stagovo from a distance, you are shelling a village from a distance.

A. I'm sorry.

Q. I am saying --

A. This was a combat group.

Q. Wait a minute, I'm not interested in your combat group. I'm interested in whether your combat group was firing at a village from a distance.

A. No, not a village but the area where the combat group was. Not the village.

Q. What was it that you were firing at?

A. The terrorists who were expelled from Kacanik.

Q. What were you firing at? Leave the history aside. What were you firing at?

A. Terrorists, military objectives, KLA, armed people.

Q. Where were they?

A. To the north of Stagovo.

Q. How much to the north?

A. About 400 to 500 metres, right by our combat positions.

Q. All right. And where were you firing from at them?

A. Below old Kacanik. You have this here on the map.

Q. Show it on the map.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let him show it, yes. ⁴⁷¹⁹¹

THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot hear the speaker.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We didn't hear. We didn't hear you, General. Please repeat it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again I'm repeating it. This is where the unit took up its positions. This is the village of Stagovo, right here, and the group that appeared was here, to the east of this anti-armour detachment here.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And that, you say, is 400 metres to the north of Stagovo.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. 400 metres east of the combat position. 400 or 500 metres. If you can see, it's in this forested area, on the rim of the forest, that is. There is an elevation here 400, 500 metres, approximately.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we'll have to adjourn now for 20 minutes. We'll take the break. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

--- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, the term "shelling" is often used here. I assume this refers to targeting something with artillery weapons. Is that how you understand the term?

A. Yes. Literally translated, that's right.

Q. Did your units which had artillery weapons -- is that correct?

A. Yes. ⁴⁷¹⁹²

Q. Did they ever shell any village at all?

A. Not a single village was shelled by a single unit. The units were not allowed to do this. As I've already said, they had orders from the superior command, and my own order and these orders were strictly complied with.

Q. Very well. When firing from artillery pieces, does there have to be a clear target or just a general target?

A. The target, first of all, has to be visible with all the measurements, the distance, the size, the resistance of the target, and on this basis the kind of weapon is chosen.

Q. What could have been and what was the target of your artillery in any situation?

A. Artillery weapons and tanks can only be used to target facilities such as buildings made of stone or brick or concrete, and possibly other facilities which can be misused for military purposes, such as houses of worship even.

Q. And when are all these buildings targets for the army? Let's say a house or any other kind of building or facility. When does it become a target?

A. Well, first of all you have to do reconnaissance and know what was in the house, whether there are armed terrorists there, whether they are opening fire on members of the army of Yugoslavia, and so on.

Q. Very well. Does that mean that the target can only be a building from which fire is opened or any building?

A. A building that is fired from and its surrounding area, that is a ⁴⁷¹⁹³ target.

Q. Very well. Was there ever a case in your experience when fire was opened on an unclear target; a village, for example?

A. No. Fire was never opened at random. It was opened primarily in open areas from smaller calibre weapons, such as mortars, in various areas of broken terrain where the terrorists were fleeing or hiding.

Q. Very well. Let's go back to Kotlina. Mr. Nice read from the book "As Seen, As Told" a letter from some people from Kotlina, as he said. Would you please put on the ELMO these photographs. I wish to mention that these are photographs from an on-site investigation of the 24th of March, as is evident from the accompanying report in the text. There are several houses visible here.

A. Yes.

Q. There's one in the upper right-hand corner.

A. Yes, I see three houses here.

Q. Well, three in the top part and at least two in the bottom part.

A. Yes.

Q. Have any of these houses been destroyed?

A. No, not a single one. They're even in excellent condition. You can see there are windows, doors, even a satellite dish. It's not a ruin.

Q. Please proceed and look at the next photograph.

A. Well, this first photograph shows whole houses, complete houses. There are three here, and they are in good order.

Q. Very well.

JUDGE KWON: What is the exhibit number of this? It may be part ⁴⁷¹⁹⁴ of Stevanovic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is part of Stevanovic's exhibit. I don't have the tab number with me here. I do now. It's tab 212.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's go on looking at the photographs, very briefly.

A. Yes. The third house you can see the entrance.

Q. Very well. You don't have to explain in detail. It says here that this was the KLA staff. Does it say that underneath in the caption?

A. Yes. "The headquarters of the so-called KLA in the village of Kotlina."

Q. Please proceed to look at the next photograph. What is visible here?

A. The first photograph shows a room from the entrance.

Q. Please move on.

A. Here you can see equipment, or you can seen furniture, rather. You can see a stove, a TV set.

Q. Let's proceed. Will you turn the page, please.

A. You can see some weapons and equipment here in the room.

Q. Please proceed. Move on.

A. You can see weapons and equipment here.

Q. Very well. So all this shows the equipment and weapons found.

A. Yes.

Q. This is all in Kotlina, photo documentation.

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... rising from. I've ⁴⁷¹⁹⁵ made it clear on several occasions throughout the case that there's a presence of KLA here and that's one of the reasons I reminded you what was on "As Seen, As Told." So, I mean, if he wants to spend the time in this way, it's a matter for him, but it seems rather a waste.

JUDGE KWON: And it was not the witness who conducted this investigation.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Move on to another matter, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, I only wish to ask him as there are photographs here of Mr. Nice's constantly referring to as wells. However, these are not wells but shelters. You can see there are ladders there, that there's no water in those wells. He kept asking the witness what he knew about wells. He couldn't know anything about wells because there were no wells. These were actually dugouts.

JUDGE KWON: We have that in evidence already.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. We won't proceed then. On the photographs you can also see terrorists who lost their lives, with weapons, next to the shelters. You've had a chance to see this.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. General, you were asked how somebody could be killed by a hand grenade in such close fighting. Is both -- are the weapons used, both firearms and hand grenades?

A. Yes, hand grenades actually are weapons used in close combat, and they're used primarily for defence. It can also be an offensive weapon, but as a rule they're used for defence, and you can throw it some 30 to 50 ⁴⁷¹⁹⁶ metres away.

JUDGE BONOMY: Is the suggestion that the three -- or that some of the victims were killed by close combat activity in which grenades were used? Is that the proposition?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is an on-site investigation, and this is the photographic documentation of what was found. The on-site investigation was carried out on the same day as the anti-terrorist action. This is the forensic documentation from the on-site investigation. I don't have the entire report with me, but a group of terrorists was killed in the village of Kotlina, and they had two dugouts which resembled wells.

JUDGE BONOMY: There's no point in these questions unless the witness can then tell us who might have been involved in the close combat confrontation. Now, what does the witness know about that? What do you know about the use of grenades in close contact combat in Kotlina? Do you know anything about that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Most probably hand grenades were used for direct defence. They're thrown by hand, and you can't throw them further away than 50 metres.

JUDGE BONOMY: But who would be using them for defence?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Primarily the terrorists.

JUDGE BONOMY: So they killed themselves, is your theory.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] For defence. For offence they're used by the MUP and the army. There are two uses for hand grenades: In attack it's an offensive use, and in defence it's a defensive use. ⁴⁷¹⁹⁷

JUDGE BONOMY: But the army weren't there. They weren't involved. So who would be using the grenades?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In a built-up area, only the MUP and the terrorists could have used them.

JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. Let's move on to the next topic. At the outset, Mr. Nice showed you a telegram sent by you, dating from 1994.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have received a copy. I don't know whether the witness can be given a copy of the telegram presented by Mr. Nice.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let that be done.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You have this before you?

A. Yes.

Q. You don't have to look at both pages because I'm not going to be asking about details, just a general question. Would you please read the first sentence.

A. Yes. It's about the command of the Pristina Corps, to whom it's addressed. "Pursuant to your telegram number --"

Q. The number don't matter.

A. "-- of the 26th of July, 1994, I hereby submit the requested data."

Q. So does it say you're sending them the information they asked for?

A. Yes. ⁴⁷¹⁹⁸

Q. Does this imply that their telegram that you referred to is a telegram requesting information?

MR. NICE: It sounds a bit like a leading question coming.

JUDGE ROBINSON: "Does it imply ..." You're leading, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] How can I be leading? It says here, "Pursuant to your telegram number so-and-so of the 26th ..." That's what it says here. "... we hereby submit the data requested." Does this imply that in a telegram number such-and-such there is a request for information?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. They requested information.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So it's not a leading question.

JUDGE BONOMY: It is a leading question. You've given him the answer. You may have asked him what it implied, you're perfectly entitled to do that, but you're not entitled to say to him, Did this imply X, Y, and Z. That's a leading question. After four years, one would have thought you would have got to grips with the idea of leading questions.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we've been through this so many times. It's bordering on being abusive.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I truly wonder why Mr. Nice raised this issue. You should have said that to him.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Move on to the next question.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Mr. Nice put a question to you in connection with this map showing ⁴⁷¹⁹⁹ the disposition of the 243rd Brigade.

A. Yes.

Q. And you explained that it was part of an order from the command of the Pristina Corps and that this was an excerpt pertaining to your brigade.

A. Yes, that's what it says in the heading.

Q. And he asked you whether all your units had been entered in the map, and they were; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he asked you why the other units had not been entered into the map. Could you please clarify your answer. Your response was that in your extract your disposition is shown in detail whereas the disposition of other units is shown only in general, and what does that actually mean? The 549th Brigade is not depicted in detail but only in general. What does that actually mean?

A. This is probably specific terminology and not quite clear, so I will clarify. This kind of map is also accompanied by a written order, so a decision is entered into the map. The map for the entire corps is not sent to every unit because it would be too large. Each unit is provided with an extract pertaining to them, and they see who is in front of them, who is behind them, and who their neighbours are and what their fundamental tasks are. That's why the 549th is depicted here with only part of its units, only so that we would know they were there.

Q. So your task is depicted in detail, and you're also provided with information as to who is your neighbour. ⁴⁷²⁰⁰

A. Yes. The 549th and the 175th.

Q. Very well. You were asked what some of the symbols on the map mean. The map which was shown - I don't have it here, Mr. Nice produced some sort of map - and you said that something is indicated in blue. Can you clarify what you meant by that.

A. Well, you see, on this map, everything that is in red refers to our forces, the forces of the army of Yugoslavia.

Q. All right.

A. Blue depicts the enemy, according to our rules of combat.

Q. Very well.

A. That means that apart from my brigade, which is marked in red, and our neighbours, there are also blue markings. These are units grouped on the border of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These are the brigades of the Siptar terrorist forces - there are five of them - and a tactical group comprising one armoured brigade, two mechanised brigades.

Q. Whose brigades?

A. The multi-national forces in Macedonia.

Q. NATO?

A. Yes, a NATO brigade. There was one in Tetovo, more to the south; there was another brigade near Skopje; and there was one in Titov Veles. The Dutch brigade, the assault brigade, was at the airport in Petrovac, and 40 or 50 helicopters were stationed at the airport. They are depicted, this Tactical Group, and their intention was to enter the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. The main axis is shown on the map here. It's Debelbel-Kacanik. That's where the main forces were to go on this ⁴⁷²⁰¹ Kosovo axis.

Q. So could you explain this, General: What is depicted in blue, those forces are not there, it's only the assumed direction of their breakthrough.

A. Yes, their goal, their target in phases 1 and 2.

Q. Very well. I hope we've clarified the map now. Mr. Nice gave you a document here, a document of yours, the commander of the 243rd Brigade. Let me just have a look. The 8th of August, 1998. The 8th of August, 1998. Have you got that document?

JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 933.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm not going to quote what Mr. Nice quoted. I'm going to quote the end of the first paragraph. Look at what it says: "The combat equipment of the army of Yugoslavia." What does it say there? Can you read it out?

A. Just a moment, please.

Q. This is your report. It is signed by Krsman Jelic. On page 1, the one-but-last paragraph before number 2, before paragraph 2.

A. "The combat equipment of the army of Yugoslavia is engaged according to all --"

JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... English.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Just a moment, please. Let us see the English text on the ELMO. It should be lower down, lower down. Lower down. Here it is: "VJ hardware was used in full accordance with ..." So read it out. ⁴⁷²⁰²

A. "VJ hardware was used in full accordance with the rules of combat. It was fired only in cases of extreme necessity --" it's very hard to read this -- "at shelters, routes, bunkers and fortified elements of the Siptar terrorists."

Q. So only at fortified elements of the Siptar terrorists.

A. Yes.

Q. For this kind of action, General, was it necessary to proclaim a state of emergency?

A. No. No. A state of emergency is proclaimed --

Q. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm just asking you about this particular thing.

A. The chief of General Staff and the corps commander issues orders --

Q. All right.

A. If a unit is attacked, then we report to our superior command what was done and what was used.

Q. What does it say on page 3?

A. You mean: "Members of the MUP and the army of Yugoslavia treated the civilian population properly, as well as their property, without looting or crime. And in individual situations, women and children got help in clothing and food."

Q. And towards the end, it says that a tank was hit on the 25th of July and that a soldier was wounded. And on the 26th of July, another tank was hit, killing two members of the unit and wounding two more.

A. Yes, that's right. A major was killed. ⁴⁷²⁰³

Q. Could you please tell me whether this tank that was hit, killing two members of the unit and wounding two more and on the following day, was that a consequence of the behaviour of the civilian population towards you or the consequence of a terrorist attack?

A. All these consequences suffered by the military, and as you see here, the terrorist organisation was very well organised, armed, and equipped, and they could destroy or, rather, damage this major kind of equipment, and it's only Armbrust hand-held rocket launchers that could inflict that kind of harm. He could wear civilian clothing and lie in the grass and fire from that kind of rocket launcher, and once he gets up, he's a civilian again.

Q. All right. We're just briefly going to deal with tab 17. Mr. Nice kept pointing out that these reports of yours are marked "strictly confidential." Have you heard me, General?

A. Yes, I've heard you.

Q. Please, in this binder, is there a single report of yours that is not marked "Strictly confidential"?

A. As far as I know, all documents in my binder are marked as strictly confidential. I think that only one was just "confidential." The rest are "strictly confidential."

Q. Is this the regular regimen of providing military reports --

MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues] ... all confidential. I was only interested in knowing whether we had the incoming documents.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In response to your question, may I say that the system of strictly confidential is classified according to ⁴⁷²⁰⁴ the level of confidentiality of the document concerned. "Strictly confidential" is the highest level of confidentiality so that the documents would not go where they're not supposed to go.

Q. All right. Are most military documents categorised as such?

A. They are categorised in different ways. There is "internal," "confidential," and "strictly confidential," and the highest level of confidentiality is "state secret."

Q. All right.

A. This is the level of confidentiality according to the rules and appropriate acts.

Q. Your reports here are mostly strictly confidential.

A. Yes, that's right, because that is how the superior command defined them.

Q. Mr. Nice said there is nothing here about Racak, and it says here that on the 15th the forces of the MUP blocked, and so on and so forth. Is that everything that you have on Racak?

A. This is only thing that I had and that I sent to my superior command.

Q. All right.

A. I seen it to the corps command, and the corps command further on, probably to the army command.

Q. Does this report show on page 2 what you testified about? It says from the area, the region of the village of Belince. I think you explained very nicely what the village is and what the area is.

A. Yes. ⁴⁷²⁰⁵

Q. You say to the south about 700 metres. Is that 700 metres to the south of the village of Belince?

A. Yes. Fire was opened from a Browning 12.7 millimetre and a mortar 82 millimetres on the combat deployment of the combat group, and after fire was returned from a Praga and a 12.7 PAM, after firing back at the sector south of Belince the shooting stopped. The operations end there after about two hours.

Q. Is that what you testified about and which is contained in your report?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Mr. Nice then -- a daily operative report, which the 1st administration of the General Staff provides every day. Do you see how many pages it has, this report?

JUDGE KWON: Exhibit 934.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you see how many pages it has, this entire daily operative report?

A. Yes. There's three pages here.

Q. Three pages.

A. Yes.

Q. Three pages covering the entire army of Yugoslavia?

A. The entire army of Yugoslavia.

Q. And does it include the navy too?

A. Yes.

Q. The state -- the situation on the state border? ⁴⁷²⁰⁶

A. Yes.

Q. Also regarding foreign forces?

A. Yes. Paragraph 5, important events, the situation in the territory, then logistical support, cooperation.

Q. All right. And what pertains to the 3rd Army here? That is one paragraph -- two paragraphs. Is that right?

A. Yes, that's right; two paragraphs.

Q. All right. And in the first paragraph there's reference to Dara Glava and the fire opened there. Mr. Nice quoted the second paragraph to you. Can you please read out the second paragraph --

JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... in English. Further down. Yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the 24th of January, is that what you mean?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. No, no. The 3rd Army, second paragraph. Do you see where it says 3rd Army, and then the second paragraph there. You see the 3rd Army? It's at the bottom of the second page. There's a total of three pages. Before the logistical support.

A. Just a moment. I'm sorry. It's not --

Q. On page 2 you have logistical support, towards the bottom of the page, and then above it you have three paragraphs that pertain to the 3rd Army.

A. I've found it.

Q. Read out the middle paragraph. ⁴⁷²⁰⁷

A. "During the tactical exercise --"

Q. I said the middle one. I'm not interested in this. He didn't quote it either. The middle paragraph, "Some of the forces ..." Can you see this?

A. "Some of the forces of BG-243-1 were deployed to block the village of Racak --"

Q. Municipality of Stimlje?

A. "-- municipality of Stimlje ..."

Q. Let's stop there now. Are those the forces that we explained here in detail that were here from April the previous year?

A. These were the forces that were checked by the verifiers when they came.

Q. So we had exhibits about that too. They came and they checked them. Did those forces go anywhere to a blockade?

A. No, they didn't go anywhere. They simply took up positions in their own area.

Q. So they did not go into a blockade, but the anti-terrorist action is taking place in their neighbourhood and that is why they are the blockade of that particular axis. Is that right or is that not right?

A. That's right. On the northern side, practically by their very existence they are a blockade. Otherwise, they did not set out in order to carry out a blockade. The Prosecutor asked about the same thing on a map, and he asked me whether it was a blockade. From a certain point of view, it is.

Q. All right. You've just said that by their very existence. They ⁴⁷²⁰⁸ existed there from April 1998?

A. That's right.

Q. They didn't move anywhere?

A. They didn't move anywhere except when they would take up positions in their own area, within that area.

Q. All right. And now tell me, what does it say here further on, in the next line? Of course it has to do with Racak, and then it says, "Where --" Read it out.

A. "... where members of the MUP conducted an action against Siptar terrorists who had killed a MUP member."

Q. All right. What does it say? Who was carrying out this action in Racak?

A. It says here that the MUP members were carrying it out.

Q. All right. So it was the MUP members that were carrying that out. That's what it says in the operative report as well.

A. You have that in the corps too. If you've got that, then you can see it.

Q. There's no denying that. But I just wanted to see this since it does say here that it was the members of the MUP who were carrying this out.

Now, Mr. Nice gave you D395. I jotted that down. A handwritten diary of your commander of combat group Cafa Dulje.

A. Yes.

Q. Have you got that in front of you?

A. No, I don't. ⁴⁷²⁰⁹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could it please be given to the witness. 395.

JUDGE KWON: 935.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, what I wrote down was 395. It was probably misinterpreted.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Do you have the second page? What is this? It says Dragan Todorovic signed it.

A. Yes, he's a lieutenant colonel.

Q. Is that the commander of that combat group of yours which, in accordance with the agreement reached with the OSCE, was in that area?

A. He was acting on behalf of Lieutenant Colonel Djordjevic who was the commander of the group, so at that time he was the commander of that group.

Q. All right. It says there that indeed that is a contemporaneous document from that date, the 15th.

A. I think that this is the original.

Q. Well, Mr. Nice obtained it, as you can see. Please, Mr. Nice said that there's nothing about Racak here. And what does it say here? Cafa Dulje, the 15th of January, 1989 [sic]. And then what does it say?

A. The combat position of the unit is unchanged, if I can see it right.

Q. So that's what written there, the combat disposition of the unit is unchanged. Could the units be engaged somewhere without the combat disposition being changed? ⁴⁷²¹⁰

A. It's impossible because he'd give an order and then it would have to be written down here.

Q. That's why I'm saying it is shown here, and how. When it says the combat disposition of the unit is unchanged, does that mean that the unit did not have anything except for its usual tasks?

A. The disposition is very important. The disposition remained the same.

Q. All right. On the 16th the same thing. What is written there, the next page, number 2, the 16th. "Combat disposition --"

A. Unchanged, in number 2.

Q. General, I'm asking you, had they participated in anything, would it have to be written down here?

A. They would have to write it down here. As I saw -- as I see on the next page, according to my order that I received from the corps commander, he was engaged and he wrote that down. He would have to write that down had there been any changes in the combat disposition.

Q. All right. You explained on the map the deployment, and you mentioned the village of Kostanje and so on. Please. You said that one 30/2 was there.

A. One Praga.

Q. All right, one 30/2?

A. Yes.

Q. So one vehicle.

A. Yes.

Q. When that point was attacked, when fire was opened at it, what ⁴⁷²¹¹ happened then? Do they take up their combat positions or do they remain sitting under tents?

A. The anti-aircraft units are the first ones to take up combat positions.

Q. All right. So are their combat positions marked here for months?

A. Also since April, from the top of Canovica hill. So the green pine wood forest, one goes to Kostanje, and the other one goes down to the road that I showed.

Q. That is their combat disposition every day?

A. That's the one that was done.

Q. Are you trying to say that that's the one that was dug out, fortified, et cetera?

A. Yes.

Q. For -- and how long were they there, prepared that way?

A. From the month of April, when the entire unit went out there.

Q. So from April 1998?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. In this handwritten material, the commander of the working group, it says unchanged on the 15th and on the 16th.

A. That's right.

Q. So the combat disposition of the unit remains unchanged. Thank you, General.

JUDGE KWON: I'm not clear when the position in Kostanje was attacked. Were the troops in Kostanje position attacked ever? Do you mean on 15th of January? ⁴⁷²¹²

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The positions at Kostanje elevation were never attacked. The positions were not in a village, they were on a hill. These were positions for anti-aircraft weapons. They have to be viewed individually, because in the report it says that the unit took up positions at Canovica hill, elevation -- you can't see it here. It's 700 and something -- overlooking Stimlje, about a kilometre and a half a way. And there's one at Kostanjevo, and the next one is at a point near the road.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Very well. This unit was attacked then?

A. This unit was attacked and --

Q. And then they took up their combat disposition?

A. Yes.

Q. And the reason they did that was because they were attacked?

A. Yes, to preserve their men and their equipment.

Q. So they had to disperse to previously established positions?

A. Yes, previously established positions and precisely defined tasks.

Q. All right. Very well.

JUDGE KWON: Can I clarify one thing in terms of the language. While the other witnesses and the accused are saying "Kostanje," but, General, you are saying "Kostanjevo." Are you referring to the same thing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's the same, but this is a hill. On the map it's very hard to distinguish these two points because it's such a small-scale map. ⁴⁷²¹³

JUDGE KWON: When you are saying "Kostanjevo" it means "Kostanje hill."

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kostanje is 691. I found it here now, although it's not clearly visible. It's to the south-east of Stimlje, parallel to the road going to Urosevac.

JUDGE KWON: Thank you.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Let's look now at this conversation of the 4th of February, 1999, shown to you yesterday by Mr. Nice. Brigadier General Maisonneuve and his associates conducted an interview with you, and I see that Colonel Kotur, who was the chief liaison officer of the corps, was also present. He was your liaison officer and so on. Let me just check what you said and what took place there, because Mr. Nice --

JUDGE KWON: [Previous translation continues] ... 78, but it's also part of Racak binder.

MR. NICE: We'll try and find a copy to place on the overhead projector.

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

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. They can put the English on the ELMO to see if what I'm reading is correct.

General, in several places here, and when General Maisonneuve testified, he also said that you didn't want to see him and then he made Kotur convince you, but we'll skip over that. And you say here on page 2 ⁴⁷²¹⁴ of his minutes - so these are his notes, not yours - that's him quoting you: "[In English] Regarding delaying the meeting, we have our daily tasks training soldiers."

A. I can't hear.

Q. "You have come many times unannounced ..."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Try again, Mr. Milosevic. Are you hearing now, General? Are you hearing?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's better now.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. I'm asking you is that what you said to him, more or less? In connection with postponing the meeting, you had your regular duties in the army, and that he had arrived unannounced. "[In English] [Previous translation continues] ... through liaison officer. You asked several questions, most answered by (K) --" [Interpretation] That's probably Kotur. I assume that's Kotur. "[In English] I wouldn't like to add to his answers but can if required. I do as directed for duty and to save the lives of soldiers. I'm very sorry, but that is the case here. I'm sorry you are focused on the results not the cause here. Unit at Stimlje was training and was fired upon. During the summer we lost three soldiers there marching in column. We were fired upon from 500 to 600 metres. I claim that no soldier hit any target closer than 500 metres."

JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the question now, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. The question is: Did he say this and what it's about. "It is incredible you say these things." That's what he says. And before that, ⁴⁷²¹⁵ he says --

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're asking him to confirm whether he actually said those things?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, what is your answer to that?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. There are several questions here. First of all, about the meeting I would like to say that this meeting was unannounced on the 16th. It was with the liaison officer. That was the usual form of communication with the OSCE, through the liaison officer from our units and through the command of the Pristina Corps.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just answer the question: Did you actually say those things?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, there are several questions here. There are things I didn't say here as they are written down, but I have to analyse this document first.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, what of the -- of the statements read by Mr. Milosevic, tell us which ones you did not say.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't say that I didn't want to meet him and that I was forced by Colonel Kotur. On the contrary. At the next meeting that was scheduled, I had to delay it because I was out on the ground and the situation was very difficult.

JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues] ... pass over that and get on to the issue itself. Please do so.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] ⁴⁷²¹⁶

Q. Please, what did you say was incredible of the things that he said? What was incredible? I'm not reading it out on purpose. Do you remember what the incredible thing was that he said to you?

A. I can't remember the details, but it's incredible that the army entered and did what he said.

Q. Very well. I'll read what he said. On page 1 here, he says: "[In English] - on the 15th of January my forces saw VJ tanks firing on houses with civilians who were not firing back."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you asking him whether that was one of the incredible things?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I'm asking him. It's the only thing that's said here. Maisonneuve says this before that. I wanted to hear what the incredible thing was that he said, and the general answered very well; he said the army wasn't there. That's why it's incredible. So he --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on. Let's move on. We have covered that point then.

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. You go on to say: "[In English] VJ did not conduct this operation but were in a position to defend themselves from their own position."

A. That's right.

Q. "[In English] So you surrounded village while the MUP operated in the village. Maybe the interpretation is not good. 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." ⁴⁷²¹⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the question now, Mr. Milosevic?

MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]

Q. Is this correct? Is that what was said at the meeting, and did you tell him what you're testifying about now?

A. Yes. First of all, I didn't understand the interpretation. Not your interpretation here but the interpretation at the meeting. It was quite incredible what was said. Then he said that we were on the hills, but if you look at the topography, not a single combat vehicle could have even reached that area, not even in the summer let alone in the winter.

Q. And he goes on to ask you, because you said only between Racak and Belince, he says you did not give support to the MUP operation, and you said no.

A. That's correct.

Q. Where were you on the 16th of January, a day after the operation, and you said what you said here: "We had a meeting in Pristina headquarters."

A. Yes. It was a planning meeting in the corps command.

Q. Is that what you said here?

A. Yes. I was absent that day because I was attending the meeting in the command of the Pristina Corps.

Q. Very well. Thank you. In tab 19, there is an order issued by you which, according to Mr. Nice, is something we have already seen, so we won't dwell on it, simply an aspect of this. That's what you understood because that's how it was interpreted. My question is: Is this an order pertaining to the 26th of March, or is it a standing order beginning on ⁴⁷²¹⁸ the 26th of March?

A. The commander can issue a new order rendering null and void the previous order. This order entering into force on the 26th of March is a standing order.

Q. That's all I'm interested in. So it's a standing order until a new order is issued.

A. Yes, until a new order is issued.

Q. Very well. So for how long was this brigade [as interpreted] acted upon in your brigade?

A. About 90 per cent of this was until the end of the war. A part referred only to part of the units which later came as reinforcements, after mobilisation.

Q. Just a few more questions. Did you ever receive an order from anyone apart from your immediate superior commander, that is the commander of the Pristina Corps?

A. I think that's well defined in all the rules.

Q. I'm not interested in the rules. I'm asking you did you receive any such orders?

A. No. No one else could have issued an order to me.

Q. Very well. Now, just tell me, what in military terminology does the word "destruction of terrorist groups" mean, "cleansing the terrain of terrorists," and similar expressions? I want to know whether that means their physical destruction, their killing, or breaking down their military strength and eliminating them as a source of danger in the military sense. What in military terminology does "destruction of terrorist groups, and ⁴⁷²¹⁹ "cleansing the terrain of terrorist groups" mean?

A. In our rules, these are rules for the lower levels of command, and it refers to companies, battalions, and units and artillery battalions which fight terrorist groups in certain areas and regions. You said this mentions destruction, imprisoning, and so on. "Destruction" means that unless an enemy unit surrenders, it should be destroyed. If they surrender, if they put aside their weapons, then they undergo criminal prosecution under the law.

Q. What about "cleansing of the terrain"? Have you answered that?

A. Yes, I said that it's cleansing of remaining terrorist groups. You can find this in battalion rules, artillery battalion rules.

Q. Very well. Thank you, General.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I've finished with my examination, Mr. Robinson.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Judge Kwon has one question. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE KWON: General Jelic, you said to us that Colonel Petrovic, Pero Petrovic, had shown you a copy of his record after he had a meeting with Mr. Maisonneuve on the 16th of January, and you alluded to the possibility that we can find that record right now. Is it true? Do you think we can find the -- we can see the document?

A. I'm sorry, I cannot give you a complete reply. After every meeting - that's what I said, if I recall - minutes were drawn up and a report compiled. The liaison officer, Mr. Petrovic, read this to me and then he registered it in the documentation and sent it on to the superior ⁴⁷²²⁰ command, and this was sent at the time it was happening. It had to be done on the same day for operational purposes.

JUDGE KWON: If that document exists today, where do you think we can find it?

A. The order regulates that all documents, workbooks, targeting logs, lists, literally all documents had to be handed over to the command of the Pristina Corps in the Pristina garrison. That's where they all had to be handed over. I don't know what happened to them afterwards.

JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, I'm very much interested in seeing this document, so I would encourage either party, the Prosecutor or the associate of the accused, to locate this document as well. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: General, that concludes your evidence. Thank you for attending at the Tribunal to give it. You may now leave.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. We will take the adjournment now for 20 minutes, and then we'll move into the session where we'll hear submissions on the question that I have identified, and we'll start with the accused.

MR. NICE: Your Honour, on the question raised by His Honour Judge Kwon, if you'll give us leave to rely on His Honour Judge Kwon's observations in a request to the authorities, we'll see if that works, rather than a formal order.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You have our authorisation to do that. We are adjourned.

--- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m. ^{47221 BLANK PAGE 47222}

--- On resuming at 12.23 p.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, as indicated before, we're going to hear submissions on the question of extension of the time allocated to you for the presentation of your Defence. Do you have any submissions? Fifteen minutes for each party.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I thought it was on. Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

I am not going to use up the kindly allotted 15 minutes. I need much less time than that. I just want to remind you of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights speaks in paragraph 3 of the minimum rights, and in subparagraph (b) it says to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, inter alia. And (e) "[In English] to examine or have examined the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him." [Interpretation] There is no need for me to quote Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights, because it says the same thing. I just want to remind you of the fact that Mr. Kay last time familiarised you with that enormous number of documents. He mentioned a figure of 1.200.000 pages. May I remind you of the fact that I never had the time to read that.

So my rights have seriously been impaired already. Although you and Mr. Kwon - I'm not going to say Mr. Bonomy because he wasn't here - but the two of you remember that Mr. May would always say to me that that would be looked into, and it never was, as you know. In the meantime, as ⁴⁷²²³ you know, I have shortened my witness list down to a minimum, so now it is about 190 witnesses altogether, which is truly the smallest possible number I need to call. I think that for that I need about 380 hours, counting on two hours on average for the examination-in-chief. Of course, some will require a lot more time, others a lot less, so I think that that would be a fair average.

So let me be quite specific: I'm asking you for another 380 hours of time for questioning witnesses. That's what I had to say. Nothing else to add to that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, why do you say that your right to examine witnesses under the same conditions as witnesses against you has been infringed, if you have been given the same time in terms of actual working hours as the Prosecution, to present your Defence?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] First and foremost, Mr. Robinson, I quoted these two paragraphs from the International Covenant on the Civil and Political Rights cumulatively. It also refers to time for preparation, which was never given to me. Also, as far as the preparation of witnesses is concerned, I know full well that various witnesses who testified for the other side there spent weeks and weeks here in preparation. My preparation time is very limited and it is boiled town to an hour and a half on working days and several hours on days that you consider non-working days or, rather, that are non-working for you.

So from that point of view, there is hardly a trace of equality of rights. And even as far as the actual number of hours is concerned, ⁴⁷²²⁴ that's not right either. When I added up my hours and Mr. Nice's hours, out of the 300 days of the Prosecution case, there is 70 days lacking. That was certainly not used up by witnesses coming into the courtroom, walking out, taking the solemn declaration and so on. So all of it is rather questionable, I think I should put it that way. You have the same information available, you can look at it. If you add up all the hours and divide it by the number of working hours per day, you get somewhat less than 200 says. So I'm saying that I have the right to adequate --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, your claim that you have 70 days less you had mentioned before, and I did ask you to put that in writing. Do you have anything to substantiate that that you can present to us now? It's not consistent with our records.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, you have the records of the hours that were spent during the first half time when the Prosecution witnesses were called. Those were the hours used by Mr. Nice and the hours used by me. When you add that up together, it is not 300 days, it's 200 something. So that's a document that you have available. The Registrar has it. There's no need for me to submit it to you. You have it. So you cannot say that you have not been informed. Secondly, the fact that Mr. Nice used a great many 92 bis witnesses has to be taken into account. I could not avail myself of that possibility at all because I had no time for preparation. That's impossible.

So if you say, well, you have something made available to you and you don't give me any time for availing myself of that opportunity, then ⁴⁷²²⁵ it boils down to nothing. So this is a distortion. And I'm saying I have the right to adequate time, and that is estimated in accordance with the objective needs to present the Defence case.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that's not a candid submission. You have available to you --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't understand.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- to help you. You have assistance available to you, and you could have relied on that in relation to the preparation of 92 bis statements.

Those are your submissions?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, several times you've said that I'm privileged because I have a room, a telephone, and so on and so forth. I wish to remind you of the following: That I did not get any of that until last year when I was supposed to begin. Throughout the first period of 300 days, I had none of that. I couldn't even meet up with my associates more than once or twice a week, because the area for receiving visitors was restricted, and that was treated like any other visit although all of this was going on here. Secondly, if you're saying privilege, for the time being I'm the only one who is handling his own case and represents himself. I'm the only one. I heard that Mr. Seselj has the intention to do that, that he -- and I think that he will avail himself of that possibility, too, and I think that's possible.

So this is no privilege. On the contrary. It was not made possible for me to prepare my Defence in normal circumstances. So all of ⁴⁷²²⁶ that was substituted for by one room and one telephone when it was finally given to me. So there can be no mention of equality.

JUDGE BONOMY: So can we take it that your position is to stubbornly refuse to modify or alter your way of proceeding? You will continue to refuse to use the facilities which are available to present evidence more speedily by refusing to use counsel, your associates, in a productive way to gather together the statements which could be presented? You will intend, can we take it, to continue as you have done so far, with this unrealistic attitude that representing yourself means that you're entitled to do absolutely everything in the biggest case imaginable single-handedly? That remains your position?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I am not saying at all that I'm doing everything single-handedly. My associates gather documents. I cannot even get to documents, as you know. They look through these documents. They see what can be used. They have enormous problems in obtaining documents. They have a very big job in this regard. As for the questioning of witnesses, I don't know if somebody else would question them faster than I'm questioning them here, so it's not a question of me doing whatever comes to my mind. On the contrary. I just examine witnesses. Everybody has to use time to examine witnesses. The associates cannot do that instead of me or parallel to me. Aren't witnesses supposed to testify here?

JUDGE BONOMY: But we've had many examples of witness's whose evidence could have been presented far more effectively in writing than it has been by the oral examination that's taken place. You are, in fact, ⁴⁷²²⁷ prejudicing your own case in the way in which you present it because of your inability to present and focus on the important issues, and you should be aware of that, that there are facilities available of experienced lawyers who would be able to put material together for you. But I take it from your answer you will continue to refuse to invite them to do that on your behalf.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I hope that you, like I, understand what my right to self-representation is. It is an effective right, not a declarative right. So if I represent myself, then I should effectively be in a position to use that right, not for you to suggest now that somebody else should represent me in order to shorten time.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, would you want to say anything in addition to the accused?

MR. KAY: I won't repeat his argument, Your Honours, I'll just add a few extra features that it occurs to me he could have prayed in aid on his own behalf.

All the Defence teams find it very difficult, in relation to the resources they have available to them, to employ Rule 89(F) and Rule 92 bis as a procedure for the presentation of evidence. They don't have as wide a range of professional investigators or people capable of taking a statement in a professional way. Some of the statements that may, say, take 20 or 40 pages could involve some two, three, or four days' work of a lawyer, and all Defence teams at the Tribunal have found it very difficult to employ counsel in that way, and the support staff available to them ⁴⁷²²⁸ isn't really of the standard capable of producing effectively such material for a trial.

The Prosecution have a different allocation of resources and set-up, and they're more easily able to draw down staff who are able to devote such time and resources to the creation of such statements. Notwithstanding that, one appreciates that they are Rules and decisions of the Tribunal that are within the jurisprudence of the Tribunal and they have to be acknowledged as being there. The point that I would make is that it is harder on the Defence to say, "Well, you can use the same Rules as them," when the reality is that it is a procedure more suited to the Prosecution and their establishment than any Defence team. And whilst it may be there, it is more suited to them. It was a request for a change in the Rules that emanated from the Prosecution. The Defence have never backed that approach in relation to the Rules and jurisprudence, being aware of their own limitations. As I take it at this stage, we're dealing with the issue of not an extended case in relation to a severed indictment of just Kosovo alone but of the whole three indictments and the situation of the accused generally in relation to the indictments that he currently faces. Our concern for the three indictments has been, as I said in the argument in relation to severance, that he has sufficient time to be able to put an effective defence in place as he has asserted there is one in relation to the Croatia and Bosnia indictments, and he has sufficient time available for that. We have only, in the Defence case to date, largely - 85 per cent, 90 per cent of the time - concentrated on the Kosovo indictment. My ⁴⁷²²⁹ concern is that he has sufficient time for Kosovo as well as sufficient time for Croatia and Bosnia.

In relation to the overall time that is sought by the accused, I haven't had an opportunity to translate that into any days or temporal figure as to what it works out --

JUDGE BONOMY: I think it's actually quite easy, because it's not a million miles away from the original allocation in the trial, which is it's taking roughly 18 months to present the evidence for the 360 hours that were allocated. So if he seeks another 380, it's roughly another year and a half and a bit more. But we already know that his estimates for leading evidence in chief are way out and often more than twice the length of time that he projects. So the prospects are that the suggestion he's making would involve evidence being led for three years longer than is anticipated at the moment.

MR. KAY: Right, Your Honour. I hadn't factored in the Prosecution element within that --

JUDGE BONOMY: I'm assuming that has to be factored into any evidence that's led. I mean, if it's led, it will be cross-examined no doubt.

MR. KAY: Yes. I think the history, and I have to concede that, shows that the Prosecution will take issue with virtually everything that is put forward by the Defence, so there's no scope here for narrowing of issues on any agreed basis.

The -- the question of the fairness of the time allocated to him, in our submission, should be to enable him to present an effective ⁴⁷²³⁰ Defence. The Trial Chamber doesn't have to consider the parties as being on an equality of strength, because that would not be appropriate, in my submission. We are dealing with unequal professional and resource allocations. No matter what the Prosecution say about their resources and claim this, that, and the other, it is apparent there is a vast body of technical expertise out there that is able to produce matters during proceedings and produce filings, research that is beyond the scope and resources of any Defence team.

So there is an inequality in strength. That has to be taken into account in relation to time for the accused to present his Defence on the indictments, that that has to be factored in in meeting the challenge mounted against him. And I say that as a general matter. I don't know if I can assist you any further.

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, may I just add a sentence?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, in relation to this slowness, please, I wish to remind you of the following, precisely this Article 14 of the International Covenant, paragraph 1, which I did not quote: "[In English] Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing." [Interpretation] Public. I'm doing that by questioning the witnesses in public, orally, and that is perfectly in line with the Rules as stipulated here. ⁴⁷²³¹

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not, Mr. Milosevic. It's a question of how you interpret it. You very well know that the right to a public hearing is not absolute and that it can be derogated from in the interests of protection of victims and witnesses, and our Statute does that. Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: Your Honours, on the question of calculation, I think I'm probably broadly in agreement with the figures estimated by His Honour Judge Bonomy. The accused's calculation of two hours per witness is about a third of our average to date. It's probably about 6 hours per witness. Two hours per witness, I think, would make about 30 weeks for examination-in-chief, so his average to date would be about 90 weeks in examination-in-chief. And then if you put in 60 per cent for cross-examination, you achieve about three years. The Prosecution's position is that there should be no extension of time and that the accused hasn't put up any argument to justify one. The Chamber carefully calculated the amount of time that we used and has allocated the same amount of time to him and has been, from first to last, courteous in two ways in dealing with him. I mean courteous, of course, in the ordinary sense of manners, but courteous in the sense of respecting him as a man of intelligence, and that's been a very proper -- a very proper course to take. It's said to him, This is what you're doing, these will be the consequences of your doing what you're doing. Now, there is -- there is no reason to deviate from that line unless the Chamber takes the view that he has been incapable intellectually of receiving the advice and information you have so ⁴⁷²³² regularly been giving him about what he must do if he is to bring this trial to a safe and satisfactory conclusion on his own behalf. Now, he has steadfastly refused to listen to that advice. Often, as we can see, he actually looks away when procedural matters are raised, as if to say he has no interest in them. But the fact remains that this Chamber gave him always the best advice and told him what he had to do. Now, he not having done that and having, on any view of a professional lawyer, simply wasted his time, he's in no position to say what additional time he might have required had he acted sensibly and economically. Things might be different. If he'd acted -- done all he could to achieve a satisfactory result in the time allowed to him and then at the end of it said, "Well, look, I've done my best but I still need a bit more time," well, then, of course the Court could consider it and indeed it might be people wouldn't oppose it, but we simply have no idea what position he would have reached had he behaved in that sensible and logical way.

JUDGE BONOMY: That is the problem I have with this, Mr. Nice, precisely. But can I ask you about these figures you gave. You're working on the basis of 190 witnesses, are you?

MR. NICE: I think he said two hours examination-in-chief, so that's --

JUDGE BONOMY: But just from what -- is it 190 witnesses; is that right?

MR. NICE: That's what he said.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But six hours for 190 witnesses, if that's what ⁴⁷²³³ you estimate the time would be, will be roughly -- yes, 3 --

MR. NICE: About a thousand hours and a bit.

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.

MR. NICE: And then a thousand hours and a bit divided by four, 250 days --

JUDGE BONOMY: Nearer 300.

MR. NICE: Nearer 300, so it's a huge amount of time.

JUDGE BONOMY: And at three days a week over 40 weeks in the year, or whatever is actually achieved, I think it's a significantly longer period than -- I wasn't using that sort of calculation, but that comes to much longer than the period I was envisaging; a lot longer than the three years.

MR. NICE: It may well be. My arithmetic is very rapidly done. And, Your Honours, the -- one is bound to observe that since the Chamber's hearing a couple weeks ago on severance, there has been no reduction of time taken in examination by the accused or in re-examination save for one instance. Indeed, there has been clearly an extension or certainly a cleaving to the original practice if not an extension of it. I must mention the one exception. The Chamber will remember that, for whatever reason, there was a very settled determination that the witness Farkas should leave on a particular day, and there was a very efficient re-examination conducted of that witness, I think about 20 minutes, showing that this accused well knows how to deal with matters efficiently when he wishes to.

So that it's our firm and respectful position that the Chamber ⁴⁷²³⁴ must have the courage to stand by its decision which was made with the accused's interested in mind, which has been put into effect at all times respectful of his intelligence and of his ability, and that would simply reflect the fact that he has chosen to put himself into a corner or, in reality, to attempt to put the Chamber into a corner, and that is something that, of course, would be inappropriate.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, the accused has been given the same number of working hours as the Prosecution had in presenting its case. What would you say to the argument that equality in these circumstances doesn't necessarily add up to fairness?

THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could Mr. Nice's other microphone please be turned on because the booths have problems hearing him. Thank you.

MR. NICE: The same point I was making earlier, I think: We'll never know. It may well be that an accused doing his best to make use of the procedures available to him to present his case in a proper way to Court would come to the end of his case either shorter than the Prosecution took, and the Chamber would see that time is being wasted on unnecessary witnesses and would bring it to a close, or would exhaust the time and then say, "Please can I have some more," and be granted it. But there is nothing in the different services or resources available to one side or the other automatically to say that there is inequality. Now, Mr. Kay's arguments, I'll deal with just a couple of them, but his arguments that the Defence find it difficult to use 89(F) or 92 bis because counsel won't or can't do the work of preparing witness ⁴⁷²³⁵ statements is something that simply can't affect this trial at this stage. The practice of using written evidence for examination-in-chief is widespread around the world and established for all civil cases in the United Kingdom, as an example, and has been for many years. The experience how to deal with it is therefore experience available to all. If the accused had decided to follow the Chamber's advice and indeed to emulate the Prosecution's practice once 89(F) was permitted as a method of saving time and he was finding it difficult because he had inadequate resources, why, he need only have drawn the matter to the Court's attention and no doubt something would have been done because this Court has been absolutely determined to ensure that when the accused wants something by way of resources, he gets it. So that I'm afraid that argument simply can't do. But it's very important to bear in mind that the argument about resources is a new development in the accused's armoury by which he confronts these proceedings.

I drew to your attention - I can't remember how many weeks ago it was but it was only a few weeks ago - that this was a new part of what he was saying. Up until then it was not practical matter. He simply expressed an absolute determination to deny the advice he was receiving, to thwart the Chamber by saying, thank you very much, he would have everything in writing. Then suddenly, about -- I think probably about a month ago, maybe five weeks, we first heard some suggestion about the difficulties.

It is -- there are no difficulties. We've seen him with his witnesses with sheets of points. Sometimes, when they've been looking at ⁴⁷²³⁶ notes, knowing exactly what question is coming and what document's going to be dealt with. Of course it's within his capability, given that he must use associates and lawyers, so his proposition that he's got to do everything himself is fanciful. Of course it would be within his ability. After all, neither Mrs. Del Ponte nor I see every witness ourselves. She sees none. Of course I see some but not all of them before evidence is given. I prepare or supervise the preparation of witnesses, but I don't do it all myself. How could I?

The proposition of the accused, if ever taken seriously, for a Tribunal like this would be, of course, to make its work completely impossible. And if he had wanted to, contrary to his absolute determination to call everything orally, he could have put in place a system for calling witnesses - 89(F) or 92 bis - a year and more ago, and he should have done that.

Now, Your Honour, I'm not sure that that specifically deals with or sufficiently deals with Your Honour's point about inequality. As to the inequality of resources, yes, of course a Prosecution office, here as in any other jurisdiction, is likely to have immediately to hand more resources of certain kinds than will be available to a Defence lawyer, solicitor, or counsel. That may not make any form of inequality. At this stage of the trial, an accused is meeting allegations where the burden of proof is not on him. He meets those allegations by identifying witnesses to be called and then identifying the exhibits he wants those witnesses to produce.

And we've seen with the last witness a striking example of ⁴⁷²³⁷ inequality, on this occasion the inequality going the other way. It's clear that the last witness, Jelic, or, rather, the accused or his associates, so far as Jelic was concerned, had ready access to a range of documents that we've been trying to -- that's the orders in the file, that we've been trying to get hold of for three years. We've seen earlier examples of him being able to produce overnight war diaries when we've been trying to get them for years. So the inequalities are not always the same way, and indeed, though -- I won't say that. So inequality is in no way to be taken as an assumed reality. It may exist, but we don't know. It hasn't been established as something that requires more time, and even so, if there was any suggestion that it might establish, for some reason, more time, we simply don't know how much more time because of the way the accused has wasted the opportunities given him by this Court.

Your Honours, the only basis upon which we could envisage that the Chamber might allow the accused more time than that presently allowed is if the Chamber, looking back, says to itself: "Well, we treated him as an intelligent person capable of responding to advice, applying his brain to the problems at hand, but we see we were wrong to do that. We should have treated him in some way as incapable or disabled." In the absence of making such a finding that he was simply incapable of responding to Court orders and advice given from the Bench, and no doubt advice available to him from my learned friends, then the proper course is to grant him no extension of time and to work on the basis, as I said in a recent pleading, that by pushing everyone, as he's been seeking to do, into a ⁴⁷²³⁸ corner that will extend and delay the trial to unacceptable lengths, by doing that, he should in fact be treated as someone who has made a voluntary, informed, and intelligent decision to call no evidence beyond that or beyond the issues that he has covered by the time his time runs out. And if that means dealing with him as somebody who has made an informed decision to call no evidence for Croatia or no evidence for Bosnia, so be it.

I should add, I think, this: If one looks back at the history of attempts to deal with various problems of delay in this case, when this Chamber decided to assign counsel, it was very careful to do so solely on the basis of health. Again, it showed the accused courtesy in making no other adverse findings against him. When the Appeals Chamber changed the order of modalities, which inevitably had an effect on the time that the accused's evidence would take, this Chamber respected that decision absolutely. And if it is to any extent the modalities order that leads to the present position, then the Chamber can be confident that reflecting and respecting that order is something that should find favour elsewhere, but that's a matter for another time and another place. The only other matter I might refer to is this: The volume of paper issue. It comes up time and again and is, I fear, a misrepresentation of reality, but I must deal with it. The volume of paper that has to be served on a person in the position of this accused is always going to be enormous given our duty to help him wherever we can with exculpatory material. It's a problem of a particular scale for a case like this but it's a major problem for all ⁴⁷²³⁹ trials. It's a problem that it may be helpful if everyone knows this - by that I don't mean the Chamber but I mean the public as well - it's a problem that's been addressed by making to a greater extent or the greatest extent possible material available electronically so that people can search it themselves, but it -- it is not within our power to reduce the quantity of material it's our duty to make available to the accused save and insofar as the accused would agree to narrower parameters that we have identified as appropriate to search on his behalf. And I think uniquely to this Trial Chamber, from the beginning I set out our parameters and what we were doing on searching, and I asked the parties to -- not the parties, I asked all others in court, including the Bench, to make observations if they had reservations about the way we were searching it, and save for one increase in breadth of parameters, stimulated, I think, by a discussion with Mr. Kay, nothing else has come. So there's nothing that can be done, and of course the vast majority -- not the vast majority, a very large amount of the paper that's been served on the accused has been repeat serving done by Ms. Dicklich, frequently unasked, simply to make it clear that -- make it possible for the accused to have material related to a particular witness.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice.

MR. NICE: One of the things that's been done to help this accused is that Ms. Dicklich has always repeated service of material on him before witnesses were called in order to save him having to go and search for it. He knows that. ⁴⁷²⁴⁰ We also know that he uses the Rule 68 disclosure material, and efficiently, in drawing it out in examination of his own witnesses and earlier in cross-examination of ours.

[Trial Chamber confers]

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm reminded that - this is in paragraph 13 of our recent filing - in February of this year it was His Honour Judge Robinson who cautioned the accused that he shouldn't expect leniency or accommodation on account of matters relating to time when he didn't authorise the services which was -- which were available to him, and that's --

JUDGE ROBINSON: That should have been "utilise," I'm sure.

MR. NICE: There is an absolute unreality on the part of the accused which would lead to the trial either never ending or almost never ending, and that may be what he wants, and it has to be resisted. The Chamber has acted - I repeat this - with consummate fairness and courtesy in all broad senses of that word to the accused and his intelligence and the time has come when the Chamber should say to him: "No more. You will bring this case to a conclusion on the time we allowed you."

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, do you have anything to say on the recent medical reports? These reports have been passed on to you, I'm sure.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Milosevic. ⁴⁷²⁴¹

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Maybe it was delivered to Mr. Rakic. Maybe. But I have not seen any reports in the last few days.

JUDGE ROBINSON: How could that be? Mr. Legal officer.

[Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, have you received these reports?

MR. KAY: Yes, we've had a copy from the ear expert, is how I described it in my notes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the last one.

MR. KAY: Yes. I think it was the 6 --

JUDGE BONOMY: There's also a report from Dr. van Dijkman.

MR. KAY: Which date is Your Honour talking about?

JUDGE BONOMY: The 2nd, perhaps.

MR. KAY: If I can --

JUDGE BONOMY: The 2nd of December.

MR. KAY: [Microphone not activated].

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can't comprehend, Mr. Milosevic, the circumstances in which you would not have received these reports.

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. KAY: -- is 6th of December, 2005, from the ear expert, which we received on the 7th, and I wasn't had any other in December.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have one from the neuroradiologist?

MR. KAY: We've got Dr. Dijkman's of the 1st of December. That's the first, yes. But no others last -- this week.

JUDGE BONOMY: But you've said you got one dated the 6th, which is ⁴⁷²⁴² Dr. -- that's Dr. Delarts [phoen]; is that correct?

MR. KAY: Yes, Delarts is on the 29th of November, and then there's the other --

JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Dr. Delarts largely confirmed what Professor Andric said, I think, about the hearing problem and the nature of it, and the other reports were more connected with whether there's a link between that and the cardiovascular difficulties, and I think the one from the neuroradiologist deals with the six points that are made by Dr. Shumilina, and there is also one that suggests a method of coping. Dr. Dalal, I think, coping with the hearing difficulties Mr. Milosevic experiences in court.

MR. KAY: That was the technical one, which contained --

JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you've got everything.

MR. KAY: Yes, we've got all those.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, just clarify, have you received the neuroradiologist's report, Dr. Aart?

MR. KAY: Aart?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that's the last one.

MR. KAY: Yes. That's the 6th of December. That happens not to be in this file. That is waiting to be filed and is in the pile in the other room, but yes, that's the one that we received on the 6th.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I can't understand why the accused would not have received it.

MR. KAY: We've had it. Dr. Rakic -- sorry, I shouldn't call him ⁴⁷²⁴³ Dr. Rakic. Professor Rakic is certainly here and would have received it; he's on the mailing list.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KAY: We'll make sure that a copy is provided.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, the submission that you made for another 380 hours would work out to something in the region of another three years' extension of the case. Can you tell me why, if that is so, it would not be reasonable for me to assume that you did not make that submission seriously and responsibly and why should I not be in a position to assume that it reflects a cynical disregard for the duty of this Court to ensure a fair and expeditious conclusion of these proceedings?

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

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, first of all, I cannot understand how you transformed 380 hours into three years. That means you're counting on a hundred hours a year. It's probably a problem with your intelligence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Nice worked it out. It is for you to say why it should not amount to that.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, in my efforts to shorten as much as possible all necessary times and the list of witnesses, I have reduced this to 380 hours. As you know, that's not so much. It must be clear to you how long 380 hours is. I'm pointing out the fact that 380 hours are calculated on the basis of two hours per witness on the average. ⁴⁷²⁴⁴ I want you to know that not for a moment have I tried to prolong the time. On the contrary, I've been trying to make the most rational use of time.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Bear in mind that your actual use of time is about twice your estimated time. That's borne out by what has actually happened. That's not a matter of guessing, of conjecture.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] That's another matter. These estimates of the time required have not always been correct, I have to say. Sometimes a witness requires more time, more questions. There are more responses. Various other circumstances arise which slow down the examination. However, I am calculating on the efficient use of this time. Every working day here has four hours and 15 minutes. Let's say it's only four hours. Therefore, 380 hours is less than a hundred working days, much less. How Mr. Nice turned this into three years is something I fail to understand. Four hundred hours would amount to a hundred working days. But this is less. Ninety, let's say, or something on those lines. You can't say it's a year.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You haven't included cross-examination, Mr. Milosevic.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well. If that's 90, then with cross-examination it would be 150. That's 150 days. It's not a year let alone three years. Some elementary mathematics are in question here. It's not higher mathematics.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: This concludes the hearing. Let the witness Sel ⁴⁷²⁴⁵ be brought in.

MR. NICE: Just before the witness comes in, can I raise a procedural matter concerning him but in private session.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.

[Private session]

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted) ^{47246 PAGES 47246-47248 REDACTED 47249}

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

(redacted)

[Open session] ⁴⁷²⁵⁰

MR. NICE: Your Honour, I fear I shan't be able to conclude the cross-examination today.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is your estimate?

MR. NICE: Subject to the way that our propositions are dealt with, I would have thought it take a session, and although that will -- it would extend --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one session.

MR. NICE: I would hope so but we'll see how he deals with the points that I raise.

[The witness entered court]

WITNESS: JANOS SEL [Resumed]

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may sit, Mr. Sel. Sit, be seated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And you remain under the declaration that you made.

Cross-examined by Mr. Nice: [Continued]

Q. Mr. Sel, you will recall that questioning of you, based on propositions coming to the Prosecution from two men who had spoken to investigators, giving the names Colovic, led to your identifying the existence of diaries. Those diaries were ordered to be produced to the Court, and they were provided. They're handwritten diaries. We have only photocopies of them. The originals have been retained in Belgrade. However --

MR. NICE: Your Honours, we've had a certain limited number of ⁴⁷²⁵¹ pages translated in part only, very small parts. The bundles that I will distribute, if I may, have the translated pages at the beginning and the limited number of pages that have been translated in part following, this to accord with the Chamber's practice for such documents of not producing as an exhibit anything other than is referred to in court. We have a full version for the witness to look at because he may wish to satisfy himself that what he sees is complete. The page numbers of both diaries -- or pages of both diaries are numbered, although the numbers are often faint and sometimes illegibly faint. The Chamber will see, if it casts its eyes to the back of the selection it has, that the pages have been photocopied in open-page format so that you can see frequently one or both numbers. I'm looking at 67, 68, 69 -- 68 and 69, for example, where the numbers are clearly seen. And at the beginning, the Court has the same page numbering used. The Court may be content in the first stages, and for speed, simply to go to the pages in English being referred to the original pages, if necessary.

Q. Mr. Sel, have you looked at the -- can you just have a look at the full copy, please. This is not going to be produced as an exhibit, but it's available for you to refer to. This has been provided from Belgrade, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the army. Just look at it and satisfy yourself that this would appear to be a copy of your two diaries, please.

A. Mr. Nice, I would like to correct you on this point. This is not a diary. This is not a diary. This is a work notebook. I as company ⁴⁷²⁵² commander did not keep a diary.

Q. Very well. It's a notebook. Is it your notebook?

A. Yes, yes, it's my notebook. It's from the period of 1998, 1999.

Q. I'm going to run through pages as quickly as I can by topic, and the first topic, which I'd like to deal with very swiftly, is your saying on the last occasion you knew nothing of either an Ersad or a Semso Colovic. Would you please go to page 33, bottom right-hand corner. And on the right-hand page, immediately under the entry for the 25th of June, 1998, do you see the name --

A. Just a moment, please. I don't have that page.

Q. We'll make sure that the pages are brought to you directly. After 33, it will be --

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The interpretation said another number and I see in the transcript that Nice said 33. It must have been a misinterpretation because the interpretation said 43 and that's why the witness cannot find it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues] Page 33, Mr. Sel, and the date 25/06/98.

MR. NICE:

Q. And in your hand, is it, the reference in search of Colovic?

A. Yes, Mr. Nice, it is written in my hand. Colovic Ersad - let me just explain - was permitted to go on medical leave to be examined by a doctor. It was on the 15th or 16th of June that we got up there and he was allowed to go to the military hospital in Nis to be examined by a doctor. He did not report to the military hospital in Nis and since then ⁴⁷²⁵³ he was seen in the unit.

Q. You remembered nothing about Colovic on the last occasion. What is it that has stimulated your memory on this occasion?

A. Mr. Nice, this is 1998. Without notes -- I mean, that's what I said, I would like to have my own notes, my work notebook, so that I could check things out so that it wouldn't seem that I were not telling the truth or something like that. So I did have Ersad Colovic, who was a young soldier, the 1998 generation -- just a moment, let me finish. He was transferred to my unit around the 15th of June. He was allowed to leave camp to go to see a doctor on account of his illness, but then from then on he never reported back to the unit.

Q. The detail --

JUDGE BONOMY: That doesn't answer the question.

MR. NICE:

Q. You see, on the last occasion you knew nothing about Colovic. We can't decipher everything on the page that you've been looking at, the single first page of the diary, but just tell us, can you read there this account of his going to a hospital and then being -- and not returning? We can only read "In search of Colovic." It doesn't say anything about going to a hospital.

A. Mr. Nice, on the camp premises we had no doctors, so the soldier was taken down to Djakovica, along with an escort, to be examined by a physician. That is the main reason -- that is the main reason why soldiers went to barracks --

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... ⁴⁷²⁵⁴

A. -- from the camping premises.

JUDGE BONOMY: You're being asked why it was you couldn't remember anything about this person the last time and now you can remember all this detail when the only thing in the book is the name. Now, do you understand that question, first of all? And if you understand it, would you please try to answer it.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Bonomy, I understand the question very well but it seems that you don't understand me. On the basis of the note I have here, I remembered the soldier. Without the notes -- I told you very nicely during my last testimony, without notes I cannot confirm whether this is correct or not. That's why I ordered, on the 25th of June, 1998, that the search for Colovic start.

JUDGE KWON: So what you're saying is that, having seen this name, you remembered everything. That's what you're saying?

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: It's not just the name, it's what is written here. It's "In search of Colovic."

MR. NICE: Shall we go on to -- I don't want to trouble you with this, but page 37, please, just to complete this exercise of four entries.

Q. On page 37 you will see, on the left-hand side of you, you'll see a further reference to --

JUDGE KWON: Page?

MR. NICE: Page 36, I beg your pardon.

Q. It hasn't, I think, been translated but it doesn't matter. You can see, I think -- and this has only just been identified by me, we can ⁴⁷²⁵⁵ add it in -- you can see on the left of page 36 another entry, "Still looking for Colovic." Yes? Can you see that there, middle of the page?

A. No. No, Mr. Nice. What it says here Colovic, Ersad. We received a report that he's in hospital, and it says "Hospital." That's what it says here.

Q. Can you just read out the entry. Is it in your hand?

A. "Colovic." I cannot see the name now. Then it says "Hospital." Sorry, no. I'm sorry, he was wanted at that time. An APB was issued because he left of his own free will. He was on the run, and that's why he became a wanted person.

Q. If we go to the next page, which is at 56 for you, we see his name again in a list of names of people. Number 2 on the list: Ersad Colovic.

A. It says up here, Mr. Nice, it says "Fugitive." So he is a fugitive. He's on the run. Legally, an APB was issued through the security organs or, rather, through the relevant services. So from then onwards he was no longer in the unit. That is 1998, Mr. Nice.

Q. Page 68, please. You see, what I want to know, Mr. Sel, where you may have answered the point already, is -- just one moment. We'll move on to -- don't worry about 68.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We can't go beyond 1.43.

MR. NICE:

Q. We'll go on, then, to page -- no, not 35. 170, I think. If it's not there I'll ask the question I want to ask in any event. No, don't worry about 170. It's not there. For the time being, it doesn't matter. We've already seen three references, and there may be two or three ⁴⁷²⁵⁶ others, to Colovic Ersad. When I put allegations to you that I told you had come from the mouth of Ersad Colovic last time, you completely denied his existence in your unit. Is that because you knew that this man was likely to be able to tell the truth about you?

A. Mr. Nice, it's been a long time. If you listen to me carefully and if you understood me, I said very nicely that without my work notebooks I cannot establish whether that soldier was in my unit or not. So in fact from the 20th of June, 1998, this soldier was a fugitive. And how can he make a statement about me from 1999 when he was not in the unit at that time at all?

Q. Develop, with one question, His Honour Judge Kwon's point. Is your brain one where you see a single word, like "Colovic," there is -- even though you'd heard the word, seeing the word on the page stimulates the whole recollection of events surrounding him? Is that what happens with your brain?

A. Mr. Nice, let's not go into how everybody's brain functions. I said that I needed notebooks in order to see whether that soldier was in my unit or not. As you can see, this soldier came to my unit around the 15th of June, but on the 20th of June, 1998, he himself became a fugitive from the unit. From then onwards, he was a fugitive. So as for any statements that he could give about me, they could only pertain to training in camp. In that period of time, the unit did not take part in any kind of activity.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I just want to note it's not the single word "Colovic." There were three or four "In search of Colovic," and that ⁴⁷²⁵⁷ might have triggered --

MR. NICE: I didn't think there was any reference in there to the hospital or anything else, but Your Honour, I see that I have my work cut out to finish in the time allotted, if the answers are going to be similar, on the next week.

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] What I was saying was, Mr. Robinson, there is a phenomenon called visual memory. So isn't it normal that a witness may remember things once he's seen his notebook?

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's a comment you can make at another time.

MR. NICE: We'll see how he does with other words next week.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We are going to adjourn, Mr. Sel. You will have to return -- you will have to return on Monday at 9.00 a.m. We are adjourned.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday, the 12th day

of December, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.