1 Thursday, 5 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
7 Mr. Mettraux, one hour and five minutes.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: PETER BOUCKAERT (Resumed)
10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux:
11 MR. METTRAUX: Good afternoon, Mr. Bouckaert.
12 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
13 MR. METTRAUX:
14 Q. You will recall that yesterday I asked you a number of questions
15 and I've shown you a number of documents about the involvement of the
16 President of the Republic of Macedonia in the events of Ljuboten; do you
17 recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And did you have that information at the time of writing your
21 A. No.
22 Q. And did you make any inquiry with the commander of the local army
23 battalion in the area of Ljuboten to obtain information from them?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you make any inquiry with the commander of the brigade of the
1 army which was present in the area of Ljuboten at the time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you make any inquiry with the General Staff of the Republic of
4 Macedonia Army?
5 A. No.
6 Q. I asked you a question two days ago in relation to your contacts
7 with members of the Office of the Prosecutor. I would also like to ask
8 you whether, during the preparation of your report, the Ljuboten report,
9 you had any contact with Mr. Frederick Abrahams.
10 A. I don't believe so.
11 Q. Can you recall having communicated with Mr. Abrahams while you
12 were in Macedonia, at the time?
13 A. Mr. Abrahams accompanied me for several of my trips to Macedonia.
14 Q. Sorry, I was -- meant to ask about your fourth trip, the trip that
15 you took from the 17th to the 25th or 26th of August. Did you have any
16 phone contacts with Mr. Abrahams during that period of time?
17 A. I don't believe so.
18 Q. Did Mr. Abrahams assist you in relation to the editing of the
19 report on Ljuboten?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Is that correct that on the 25th of August, or prior to that time,
22 you communicated the content of your findings to a journalist, Ms. Jessica
23 Berry; is that correct?
24 A. That's correct. We had a conversation about the contents of the
25 report, yes.
1 Q. And is that correct that at that time, the -- your report or the
2 content of that report had not yet been vetted by your colleagues and
3 superior in New York?
4 A. It was in the process of being vetted, that's correct.
5 Q. And am I correct also to understand that it was your position, at
6 the time of preparing your report and in your conclusions, you took the
7 view that the victims of the incidents had all been civilians; is that
9 A. As I -- that was our opinion based on the evidence available to
10 us. But as our report makes clear, even if there had been an NLA presence
11 in Ljuboten, the attacks that we documented were deliberate attacks
12 against civilians or indiscriminate attacks against civilians or civilian
13 property, so they would still have been violations of the laws of war.
14 Q. Is that correct that you made that assessment without seeing any
15 of the dead bodies, aside from the body of Mr. Qaili; is that correct?
16 A. I had extensive photographic evidence of the bodies.
17 Q. Is that correct that you made that finding without any forensic
18 evidence, is that correct, which related to the deceased, that is?
19 A. I had photographs, the detailed photographs which were available
20 to us, as well as the field notes of Mr. -- the journalist Nicholas Wood.
21 Q. So I take your answer as, no, you did not have any forensic
22 material. Is that correct?
23 A. We had information about the wounds on the victims from both the
24 photographs and the field notes of Mr. Nicholas Wood.
25 Q. And is that correct that in your experience both in Kosovo and in
1 Macedonia, you would be aware of the fact that members of the UCK would
2 not always wear their uniforms and that they would sometimes wear a
3 mixture of civilian and military clothing; is that correct?
4 A. In my experience in Macedonia, whenever I interacted with the UCK,
5 the NLA, they were in uniforms. But I am aware of reports where they were
6 seen -- some members were seen out of uniform.
7 Q. But you would agree that there were times when, indeed, the NLA
8 would mix with the civilian population; is that correct?
9 A. In or out of uniform?
10 Q. Out of uniform.
11 A. I had no personal incidents in which I saw the UCK mix with the
12 civilian population out of uniform.
13 Q. Is that correct that in the first statement which you gave to the
14 Prosecution, you indicated that one way in which you made the
15 determination that an individual or a deceased had been a civilian or not
16 was by looking at the shoes which this person was wearing; is that
18 A. That was a relevant factor, yes.
19 MR. METTRAUX: I would like to show this witness a number of
20 pictures. The first picture would be Rule 65 ter 2D00236.
21 Q. And you indicated to the Prosecution that members of the NLA,
22 in your understanding, would generally wear military boots; is that
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. If you can focus simply on the gentleman on the right-hand side of
1 the picture. Would you agree that, at least as far as you can tell from
2 this picture, this person on the right would appear to be a combatant; is
3 that correct?
4 A. I have no information about what this picture represents.
5 Q. Well, in your view, would this person be a legitimate target
6 should he take any part in military activities?
7 A. If he was out -- yes, but it's quite common for people in the
8 Balkans, of all ethnicities, to pose with weapons. It doesn't necessarily
9 mean that this person is a UCK combatant.
10 Q. Is that correct, however, that this person is wearing sneakers?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Can we see what is Rule 65 ter 2D00250.
13 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, are you able, from this picture, to say whether any
14 of these individuals is a combatant, and if so, which one? Would you be
15 able to make that assessment?
16 A. Again, I have no information about what this picture represents,
17 but there are a number of people with weapons in the picture. And if this
18 was in a situation of conflict, they could be legitimately targeted.
19 Q. And would you be able to state from that picture which one would
20 be considered legitimate combatants, legitimate targets and combatants?
21 A. Well, the picture isn't very clear, so it's a little bit difficult
22 to tell who exactly is carrying weapons.
23 Q. Perhaps by --
24 A. But even by mixing with combatants, these civilians would be
25 placing themselves at risk.
1 Q. Well, with the assistance of the usher, Mr. Bouckaert, I'll ask
2 you to do -- to mark something on the picture.
3 If you could encircle the first individual on the left side of the
4 picture, the man with longish hair and what would appear to be a beard, if
5 you could simply circle him.
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. And if you could place the number "1" above that circle.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. If you could do the same exercise in relation to the third
10 individual from the left with the number "2".
11 A. [Marks]
12 Q. And if you could do it again, please, with the man who has a --
13 the third -- the fourth man who has a hand up, the man with a beard and a
14 white T-shirt.
15 A. [Marks]
16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, could we tender this picture?
17 JUDGE PARKER: For what purpose?
18 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the purpose will become clear in the next
19 picture, Your Honour. I can identify this picture to solve the problem.
20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
22 ter 2D00249.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D93 -- 1D93, MFI, Your Honours.
24 MR. METTRAUX:
25 Q. Can you recognise, sir, the individuals whom you marked as number
1 1, 2, and 3 in this picture?
2 A. They certainly look similar, yes.
3 Q. And would you agree that the second person from the right-hand
4 corner of that picture, the man with longish hair and a beard, would be
5 number 1?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And the second --
8 A. Possibly.
9 Q. Well, perhaps what we can do, with the assistance of the Registry,
10 is it possible to put the two pictures, this one and the previous one,
11 side by side on the screen?
12 Thank you. Well, Mr. Bouckaert, are you now able to see the
13 picture -- both pictures at the same time.
14 Would you agree that the person which you marked as number 1 on
15 the extreme left of the picture, on the left, is the same as the second
16 man on the second picture second from the right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you agree that the third person on the picture on the left
19 is the same as the first picture on the right from the right of the
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And would you agree that the fourth man from the left on the
23 picture on the left is the same as the first man from the left on the
24 right picture?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we wish to tender these two pictures.
2 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.
4 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, there has been no link established
5 between the gentlemen -- the four gentlemen in the photograph on the right
6 and the events in the village of Ljuboten in August of 2001. We don't know
7 where this picture was taken, nor do we know when it was taken. And the
8 same goes, frankly, with now the photograph on the left.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
10 MR. METTRAUX: Simply, Your Honour, the issue -- there is no
11 suggestion on our part that any of these individuals was in Ljuboten on --
12 Ljuboten. They clearly are members of the NLA. The issue is one which
13 Mr. Bouckaert has touched upon both in his report and in his evidence to
14 the Prosecution as to the status of civilians and/or combatants and the
15 ability of anyone, be it an investigator, a member of the army, or anyone
16 else, for that matter, including the Chamber, to be able to make an
17 assessment as to the status of particular victims, in particular the
18 question of whether the clothing of a particular individual would be
19 evidence relevant in or in any case sufficient to establish the status of
20 the alleged victim.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, my learned colleague says that these four
22 individuals are clearly members of the NLA. That clarity, Your Honour, is
23 not obvious to the Prosecution.
24 JUDGE PARKER: The last photograph will be marked for
1 THE REGISTRAR: That would be 1D94, MFI, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Neither of them at the moment are shown to have
3 relevance sufficient to be an exhibit, and we will evaluate whether that
4 situation changes in light of other evidence.
5 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, is that correct that you did not search any of the
7 bodies in Ljuboten at the time? You arrived after the bodies had been
8 buried; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Did you ever become aware that one of the five dead bodies of the
11 village had 26 rounds of live ammunition in his pockets?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you -- were you in possession at the time of writing your
14 report of any sort of ballistic report which you used for the purpose of
15 preparing your report?
16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask you to slow down and
17 make pauses. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: We've been warned.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Yet again.
20 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I think I heard your response, but if you were able
21 to state it again.
22 A. No, the answer to your question was "no."
23 Q. Thank you. Were you aware at the time that three guns and
24 ammunition had been found close to the three bodies which were located
25 close-by the Jashari house; were you aware of that fact at the time?
1 A. I was not aware of that fact, and I am not aware of any public
2 statement by the Macedonian authorities, which would have been the usual
3 course of action, making the public aware of that fact and the media aware
4 of that fact. And I would find it quite strange, given the fact that
5 Mr. Boskoski had commented on the events in Ljuboten, that he didn't
6 mention this, considering the international attention on the Ljuboten
8 Q. So the answer to the question is: You were not in possession of
9 this information and did not come into possession of this information
10 until a later time; is that correct or not?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Is that also correct that upon the signing of the Orhid
13 Framework Agreement, I believe, on the 13th of August of 2001, discussion
14 were already taking place about the possibility of adopting an amnesty
15 law, is that correct, for crimes committed during the crisis in 2001?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that also correct that the draft of that law was being prepared
18 in the course of the year 2001; do you recall?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Do you recall also that at several stages during the last few
21 months of the year of 2001, the President of the Republic,
22 Boris Trajkovski, made several announcements about this amnesty and
23 undertook to amnesty a number of crimes committed in the crisis?
24 A. There was, yes.
25 Q. Is that correct, also, and I think you I had shown you the letter
1 yesterday, that Human Rights Watch took a position in relation to that law
2 on the 2nd of October of 2001, addressing the matter with the President
3 and suggesting your concern about this particular amnesty; is that
5 A. Yes. It's the general position of Human Rights Watch in all
6 conflicts that there should be no amnesties for violations of the laws of
7 war, crimes against humanity and genocide.
8 Q. Is that correct also that you expressed this concern again in the
9 year of 2002, when the completion of the preparation for the law were
10 nearing their end?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Is that also correct that it was your understanding, at the time
13 that the amnesty law would apply to both sides of the crisis, that would
14 be members of the NLA and members of forces of the Republic of Macedonia?
15 A. That's correct, yes, and we expressed concern about cases on both
16 sides that should not be included in the amnesty.
17 Q. Is that correct that you also expressed particular concerns about
18 the violence which you had recorded in your Ljuboten incident; is that
19 correct that you specified this particular incident in particular?
20 A. I think we talked about crimes.
21 Q. Is that correct --
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. You did; thank you. Is that correct also that despite the
24 protestations or the concern, I should say, of your organisation, the law
25 was eventually adopted in the early months of 2002?
1 A. I believe so. As I made clear yesterday, by that time I was in
2 Afghanistan and Pakistan, following a different war.
3 Q. Yesterday, we discussed a particular matter, if you recall, about
4 the status of the NLA, and in particular I asked you a number of questions
5 about the position of the United States as regard the NLA. And I would
6 read back to you this very short exchange. I asked you this:
7 "But is that correct that the NLA was regarded by the United
8 States, by the government of the United States, as a terrorist
9 organisation and called as such; is that correct?"
10 And your answer was:
11 "I'm not aware of any statements from the United States
12 describing the NLA as a terrorist organisation, and the NLA was not listed
13 by the United States on its list of terrorists -- terrorist organisations,
14 which does list groups like Hamas and other groups."
15 Do you recall saying this?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. METTRAUX: This is page 3179, Your Honour, the 4th of July,
19 Q. I simply want to clarify with you, Mr. Bouckaert, on that point.
20 Is it your position that the United States government did not call the NLA
21 terrorists or extremists, or simply that you are not aware of that fact?
22 A. Now you're broadening your question to include the issue of
23 extremism. Your original question was about terrorism.
24 Q. Okay. Let's start with terrorism, then. Is it your position that
25 the US government did not qualify the NLA as terrorists or is it a
1 situation of not being aware of the fact that they have?
2 A. The -- to the best of my knowledge, the United States never listed
3 the NLA as a terrorist organisation. It has a list of terrorist
4 organisations, and I do not believe that the NLA was on their list at any
6 Q. Well, there's a number of statements and information which I would
7 like to show you at this stage. The first one is Rule 65 ter 1D445. It
8 has an ERN of 1D00-4087.
9 Mr. Bouckaert, this is a press article from Agents France press,
10 AFP, dated 12th of April of 2001, and it's an article called "Powell
11 Presses Macedonia Negotiate with Albanians," by the journalist called
12 James Hider [phoen].
13 And with the Registry's assistance, I would ask that we focus on
14 the bottom of that page.
15 Here, as you can see --
16 ( Speaking foreign language)
17 MR. METTRAUX: I will ask you the question. I will kindly ask you
18 to focus on the second paragraph of that article. There's a comment which
19 is attributed to Colin Powell, then Secretary of State of the United
20 States, where he says:
21 "Powell warned that the conflict is over for the moment, but the
22 danger is still there. There are still terrorist and extremist elements
23 working to make trouble in this country."
24 Were you aware of that statement, Mr. Bouckaert?
25 A. Not of this particular statement. I don't think it was the
1 general position of the United States government to classify the NLA as
2 terrorists, and neither -- Mr. Powell doesn't mention the NLA in this
4 Q. But is that correct that Mr. Powell is a representative of the
5 Government of the United States?
6 A. I am a representative of Human Rights Watch. In our opinion, the
7 NLA was not a terrorist organisation. It carried out most of its attacks
8 against military objectives, including the attack that took place just
9 before the Ljuboten attack, including the attack on the main Skopje-Tetovo
10 highway, which claimed the lives of ten Macedonian policemen. They did
11 carry out very serious violations, but I do not think that they carried
12 out the kind of terrorist attacks that we saw attempted in London just
13 last week.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter
15 1D446, please. It's 1D00-4090.
16 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is a -- remarks, it's the verbatim, it
17 appears, record of a meeting between Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and
18 the President of the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, Boris
19 Trajkovski, and it comes from the website of the US State Department, and
20 it relates to a meeting that took place on the 1st of May of 2001.
21 I would ask you to look at the second paragraph of that document.
22 It's a statement taken from Mr. Powell. It says:
23 "And in our meeting today, I once again had the opportunity to
24 express solidarity with Macedonia. The United States' total commitment to
25 territorial integrity of Macedonia, our commitment to this democracy which
1 is facing dastardly and cowardly acts from terrorists and terrorist
2 organisations that are trying to subvert the democratic process in
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And then if you go two paragraphs further down, it says:
7 "I make the point to the President that we must not allow
8 terrorists to derail political reconciliation."
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then he goes on to say in the next paragraph:
12 "And I express my condolence and the condolence of the American
13 people to the families of the eight Macedonian soldiers who lost their
14 lives as a result of this terrorist act."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If you go further down, there's then a passage which is taken from
18 the statement of Mr. Trajkovski, and if you can focus on the third
19 paragraph started with the words: "First of all ...," and particularly
20 the last sentence, Mr. Trajkovski said this:
21 "It shows that the United States would like and is willing to
22 defeat the terrorists, and also to uphold democracy and the rule of law,
23 and also to support the Republic of Macedonia in everything what we are
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes, and I'm sure there are other statements to the same point.
2 But in our legal opinion, an attack carried out against Macedonian
3 soldiers in a remote area, unpopulated area, is not a terrorist attack.
4 It's a very tragic incident, it was a shocking incident for most
5 Macedonians, but under the laws of war it was a legitimate military
6 attack. You know, those NLA members, they could be prosecuted
7 domestically. They don't have the combatants' privilege because it's an
8 internal armed conflict, but we would not classify such an incident as a
9 terrorist incident.
10 Q. Can you focus on the last paragraph on this page, please, and it
11 will go up to the next page in a second. I would like you to look at the
12 second sentence. It says:
13 "I appreciate very ...," and it goes on to the next page:
14 "I appreciate very much that the Secretary stated that we have to
15 isolate the terrorists because they are with one intention, not to
16 encourage the political dialogue, but to destabilise the country, and we
17 have a joint commitment to fight against them with the political sources."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, could this be identified at this
22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be 1D95, MFI, Your Honours.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.
25 Q. And you indicated, I believe, yesterday and again briefly today,
1 Mr. Bouckaert, that it was your understanding that the NLA contrary to a
2 number of other organisations had not been classified or were not regarded
3 as terrorist organisations, is that correct? And you use, I think, as an
4 opposite example the Hamas?
5 A. I said that the NLA is not listed and was not listed at the time
6 on its list of terrorist organisations, yes. Hamas also wasn't
7 at the time. It is now.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
9 ter 1D448 with an ERN 1D00-416. Yes, thank you very much.
10 Q. This again is a document entitled "Patterns of Global Terrorism,
11 2001". It's published by the United States Department of State. It's
12 dated 2002, the month of May, and it relates to the year of 2001.
13 If I could ask the Registry to go to page 53 of that document.
14 It's 1D00-4140. And if the left column of that document could be enlarged.
15 Yes, thank you, and a bit further down, please. Thank you.
16 As you can see, there's a subheading which concerns Israel, the
17 West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and if we could stroll down a bit further
18 down, please. Then it relates to Hamas conducted several suicide bombings
19 inside Israeli cities from March to June, terminating the attack outside a
20 Tel Aviv nightclub on -- and if we can go on to the next page. It goes
22 "1 June that killed 22 Israeli civilians, Israeli teenagers, and
23 injured at least 65 others. On 9 August Hamas mounted a suicide attack in
24 the Jerusalem, its area, killing 50 persons and wounding more than 60
1 Can you see that? ?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. If we can now go to page 31 of that document. That's 1D00-4118.
4 And focus again on the left-hand column -- of the right-hand, I'm sorry,
5 the right side. And if I can draw your attention to the paragraph which
6 starts with the words:
7 "In Southeastern Europe, groups of ethnic Albanians have
8 conducted armed attacks against in southern Serbia forces and Macedonia
9 since 1999. Ethnic Albanian extremists of the so-called National
10 Liberation Army, NLA or UCK, launched an armed insurgency in Macedonia in
12 The NLA, which announced its disbandment in July, received funding
13 and weapons not only from Macedonian sources but also from Kosovo and
14 elsewhere. The NLA and a group that operated in Southern Serbia called
15 the Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac, had strong ties
16 with Kosovar political organisations, including the Popular Movement of
17 Kosovo and the National Movement for the Liberation of Kosovo. Both NLA
18 and UCPMB killed civilians and government security force members and
19 harassed and detained civilians in areas they controlled. Other ethnic
20 Albanian extremist groups also espoused and threatened violence against
21 state institutions in Macedonia and the region, including the so-called
22 Albanian National Army, ANA or AKSH, and the National Committee for the
23 Liberation and Protection of Albanian Lands."
24 A. I don't see the word "terrorist" mentioned in there.
25 Q. Well, perhaps we can go back to the first page of the document,
1 please. That's 1D00-4106. And the title of the document is "Pattern of
2 Global Terrorism"; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, and I'm sure if they meant to classify the NLA as terrorists,
4 they would have mentioned it in the paragraph that you just read.
5 Q. Is that correct that the content of the report concerns patterns
6 of global terrorism?
7 A. Yes, and it was a descriptive pattern talking about the
8 developments in the Balkans. I didn't see the word "terrorist" mentioned
9 there, and I think it was quite an accurate description of the situation
10 on the ground, both with the UCPMB and UCK in Macedonia and Southern
11 Serbia. I don't have any major disagreements with the description that
12 was given, and it is Human Rights Watch who documented many of those cases
13 of killings of civilians and abuses against civilians by the NLA.
14 I don't think it advances us a lot to try to put the label of
15 terrorism on a group which did not carry out the kind of terrorist actions
16 that Hamas or the IRA or other terrorist groups carry out, or al-Qaeda,
17 for that matter.
18 Q. And is that correct that what you are stating now is the position
19 of your organisation, Human Rights Watch; is that correct?
20 A. Yes. We did not use the label "terrorist" to describe the NLA.
21 Q. Thank you. You've indicated -- Your Honour, we will leave it as
22 an MFI for the time being.
23 Yesterday, Mr. Bouckaert, you've indicated that -- you've made a
24 few comments about a group sometimes known as The Lions and also referred
25 to sometimes as the Paramilitary 2000. Do you recall?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Before I go any further, Your Honour, I understand
3 the document has not been identified. If I can ask that it be. Thank
5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be 1D96, MFI, Your Honours.
7 MR. METTRAUX:
8 Q. Have you ever sent a request to the Ministry of Interior to obtain
9 information in relation to that particular group?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And if evidence was led in this courtroom that the Ministry of
12 Interior in fact investigated that group, you would simply not be in a
13 position to give any evidence on that point; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. You've also given evidence on the 2nd of July about an incident
16 which you had reported about in Bitola. Do you recall?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And you recalled a number -- I mean, essentially what were riots
19 in that city; can you recall?
20 A. Yes, riots involving some elements of the police.
21 Q. And in relation to that particular incident, did you make any
22 request to the Ministry of Interior for information pertaining to that
24 A. No.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters need to ask you again to slow
1 down and make pauses, please.
2 MR. METTRAUX: Simply for the record, the reference in page 21,
3 line 15, it refers to the 2nd of July. The date of the 2nd of July was
4 the date at which Mr. Bouckaert gave evidence on that point.
5 Q. Were you aware at the time or have you become aware since then,
6 Mr. Bouckaert, that a number of criminal charges were filed in relation to
7 this particular incident?
8 A. I would be happy to hear so.
9 Q. But you haven't that information in your possession; is that --
10 A. No.
11 Q. And should evidence be led in this courtroom in relation to this
12 matter, you would not take issue with it; is that correct?
13 A. That depends on the credibility of the evidence.
14 Q. I'm grateful, Mr. Bouckaert, for your patience.
15 Your Honour, that would conclude the cross-examination.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Mettraux.
17 Mr. Apostolski.
18 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no questions
19 for this witness, since my colleague has exhausted topics that I wanted to
20 ask questions about.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.
22 Mr. Saxon.
23 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, before I begin my redirect examination,
24 the Prosecution would simply like to note for the record that, in its
25 view, the provision of Rule 90(H)(2) has not been followed by my
1 colleague. My colleague has not put to this witness the nature of the
2 case of his client that is in contradiction to the evidence of this
4 Having said that -- and the Prosecution would ask that this be
5 taken into account if there are any arguments raised later on about the
6 credibility of this witness's evidence.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Saxon, we don't want to leave that
8 sort of issue in the air.
9 What is it that you say has not been done?
10 MR. SAXON: This witness, Your Honour, has not been given an
11 opportunity to respond to a clear message from Defence counsel as to what
12 is the case of the Defence in this case which is in contradiction to the
13 evidence and to the work of this witness, since there were a number of
14 questions, Your Honour, challenging the methods, the results, the writing,
15 the findings of the work this witness, I think this witness, who's been
16 very patient with all of this, should at least have the opportunity to
17 have that position put to him so that he may respond and that opportunity
18 has not been given to him, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
20 Mr. Mettraux.
21 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I think the -- obviously the Defence
22 does not share the position of Mr. Saxon in relation to this matter. I
23 think it's been quite clear what our position is in relation to this
24 particular witness.
25 We have no reason to doubt the honesty of this witness, and we
1 haven't sought to challenge this matter. What we have challenged,
2 however, and I think the witness himself would be quite aware of that
3 fact, is the reliability of the material which he has obtained, the manner
4 in which the investigation was conducted, the way in which the material
5 was verified, and all of the issues which are relevant to the weight to be
6 given to the evidence of Mr. Bouckaert.
7 If Mr. Saxon's concern is that we haven't put a suggestion to the
8 witness that he had been dishonest in his work, it's certainly not our
9 position. We have absolutely no reason and will make no submissions to
10 that effect, that he had been dishonest in his evidence.
11 I believe that if an issue of concern for Mr. Saxon is the
12 admissibility or otherwise of the report of Mr. Bouckaert, this is an
13 issue that should not be raised as Mr. Saxon just did in front of the
14 witness, but that it should await the discussion once Mr. Bouckaert is
15 gone, about the admissibility of the report.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, as I understand Mr. Saxon, he is
17 saying, well, while you have questioned particular matters, you have not
18 put what it is you say about those matters yourself, what is your own
19 case. You have questioned Mr. Bouckaert in his methods and perhaps some
20 conclusions, but left unsaid and unspecified is what it is that you will
21 wish to put, if anything, directly to the contrary.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the evidence which we've put to this witness
23 will be put to a number of other witnesses, be it in relation to the
24 status of the civilians, for one, about the circumstances in which the
25 people came to die, about the issue, for example, among other things, of
1 the assertion made by Mr. Bouckaert or by Human Rights Watch, in any case,
2 about the alleged perpetrator having been under the authority of
3 Mr. Boskoski, the issue of the reliability of a number of witnesses who
4 Mr. Bouckaert interviewed and who also appeared in this courtroom as
5 witnesses for the Prosecution, also in relation to the manner in which
6 timing of destruction of houses, about the issue of the nature of the NLA
7 and the legal characterisation of the NLA insofar as it may be relevant to
8 the existence or otherwise of an armed conflict at the time.
9 I believe that we've made those points and a number of others
10 quite clearly through this witness.
11 The issue which is relevant to the credibility of Mr. Bouckaert,
12 in our view, is not whether Mr. Bouckaert did or did not act properly, as
13 he saw it. As I mentioned, we have no reason to believe that
14 Mr. Bouckaert was dishonest in any ways, and we insist again on that
15 point. What we believe, however, is that his investigation, the one man,
16 one week, and we will say also to a large extent one-sided investigation,
17 may not be necessarily be trusted in relation to matter which are not
18 otherwise corroborated by evidence which we have had an opportunity to
19 challenge in this courtroom.
20 One of the issues which we will raise at the time, the report will
21 be sought to be tendered, will be the question of individuals which
22 Mr. Bouckaert interviewed in the course of his investigation and which the
23 Prosecution did not call as witnesses. The situation for us is that we
24 can certainly cross-examine Mr. Bouckaert in relation to his methodology,
25 as we did, to the measures which he took to verify the information, but we
1 are not in a position to cross-examine the witness, himself, or the
2 accuracy of his or her version of events or evidence.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I've got to say, Mr. Mettraux, that what you
4 are there saying seems to me to go much further in respect of a number of
5 these subjects, than anything that was specifically put to the witness.
6 Clearly, it's in your mind, something was in your mind that led
7 you to ask a number of the questions, but it never has come to the point,
8 for example, where you have said to the witness, "I must put to you that
9 it is the case for the accused Mr. Boskoski that the NLA was a terrorist
10 organisation at the time," to allow Mr. Bouckaert an opportunity to
11 comment on that point.
12 You've been testing Mr. Bouckaert on his view that it was not, but
13 you've never gone to the positive side, your own case, if it is your own
14 case, that the NLA was a terrorist organisation. And I think that is the
15 point of the concern and objection.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Well, if it is the Chamber's view that it could
17 have created an unfairness to Mr. Bouckaert in relation to some of those
18 issues, we would certainly be ready and willing to put those propositions
19 to him. We understood Mr. Bouckaert, and I believe he understood the
20 questions from our questioning, in the sense that this indeed was our
21 position, and if Mr. Bouckaert feels or if the Chamber, rather, feels that
22 this might have created an ambiguity or an unfairness to Mr. Bouckaert, we
23 could certainly put these propositions to him.
24 We believe we have done so in relation to the reliability of the
25 evidence, in relation to the status of the alleged victims, in relation to
1 the houses and the circumstances under which the houses had been damaged,
2 and the other issues which we've pointed out above.
3 If Your Honours wishes us to put the proposition more directly to
4 the witness, we would certainly be able to do so.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, the Chamber is concerned because the
6 rule referred to by Mr. Saxon is one designed in this adversarial process
7 to ensure that each party cross-examining, and of course it will be the
8 boot on the other foot when it comes to the Prosecution cross-examining,
9 should we reach that point, the concern of the rule is that each party
10 should make clear to witnesses who are contradicting the party's case what
11 it is that the party's case is on material points of difference between
12 the case and the evidence of the witness so that the witness can comment
13 on it.
14 In that way, the Chamber, at the end of the evidence, is not left
15 with a lot of testing questions, but never the final proposition being
16 able to be faced by the witness, and so it's a very important element in
17 the process of coming to final conclusions in a trial.
18 For that reason, the Chamber would certainly take the view that it
19 would be proper for you to be putting your own case about these matters
20 briefly but clearly to the witness to give him an opportunity of directly
21 commenting on those propositions.
22 MR. METTRAUX:
23 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, following the instructions of the Trial Chamber, I
24 will put a number of propositions to you, and you can indicate whether you
25 agree with the proposition or not.
1 Concerning perhaps the first issue, the issue of the houses in
2 Ljuboten, it is the Defence case, and I'm putting it to you, that a number
3 of houses -- an unidentified number of houses were destroyed not on the
4 12th of August, not on the 10th or 11th of August, but at later dates in
5 the village of Ljuboten. Is that correct?
6 A. That is not our information. We have information that a few
7 houses, one Macedonian house and, according to my notes, one Albanian
8 house, it's possible that there were one or two more, were burned after
9 the events of the 12th of Ljuboten [sic], but certainly not any houses
10 beyond that.
11 Q. It is also the Defence case that a number of the houses were or
12 might have been destroyed by mortar fire. Would you agree with that or
14 A. No, not -- actually, there is one house marked on my map which was
15 destroyed by mortar fire. The majority of the homes, as indicated on my
16 map, were destroyed by being set on fire.
17 Q. It is also the Defence case that on the 10th, 11th and 12th of
18 August, members of the NLA were in the village of Ljuboten. Do you agree
19 with that or not?
20 A. We have no indication to suggest that any NLA members were in the
21 direct area that was targeted during the August 12th operation and that
22 there was any return fire from the NLA or other armed persons during the
24 Q. It is also the Defence case that a number of mortars fired on the
25 village of Ljuboten came from the position of the NLA. Do you agree with
1 that or not?
2 A. I have no information as to that point.
3 Q. It is also the Defence case that some of the victims or alleged
4 victims who you regarded as civilians and regarded as having been murdered
5 were or might, in fact, have been members of the NLA or civilians taking
6 part in hostilities. Is that correct?
7 A. According to all of the information available to us, all of those
8 persons who were killed were not members of the NLA, and they were not
9 civilians taking part in hostilities.
10 Q. It is also the Defence case that in 2001, there was -- at no time
11 in 2001, there was no armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia. Do you
12 agree with that or not?
13 A. I'm sorry, there's a double negative. Are you saying that --
14 Q. I'll rephrase it for you, Mr. Bouckaert. It is the Defence
15 position that in the year 2001, there was no armed conflict in Macedonia.
16 Do you agree with that?
17 A. No. According to our analysis, the conflict in Macedonia amounted
18 to an internal armed conflict, as defined under Common Article 3.
19 Q. It is also the Defence position that the NLA was a terrorist group
20 and that its actions against the Macedonian authority were terrorist
21 attacks. Do you agree with that?
22 A. No.
23 Q. It is also the position of the Defence of Mr. Boskoski that
24 contrary to your allegation, Mr. Boskoski -- or the alleged perpetrators
25 were not under his authority or under his command. Do you agree with
2 A. No. The abuses in Ljuboten were carried out by Ministry of
3 Interior troops under the authority of Mr. Boskoski, and he was personally
4 present in Ljuboten on August 12th.
5 Q. It is also the position of the Defence that your investigation and
6 the fruit of this investigation is unreliable. Do you agree with that?
7 A. I think our investigation was -- no, I do not agree. Our
8 investigation was reliable. It was based on detailed interviews and
9 analysis of a lot of information available to us, and I have no
10 information to suggest that any of the information in our report is
11 inaccurate or unreliable.
12 Q. It is also our case that you failed to verify many of the
13 allegations contained in your report. Is that correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. It is also the position of the Defence that Mr. Boskoski and the
16 Macedonian authorities took a great number of steps to investigate the
17 events of Ljuboten. Do you agree with that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And it is also the Defence position that your conclusion in that
20 respect are based on the fact that you did not possess that information
21 and made no request to obtain that information. Do you agree with that?
22 A. We have no information available to Human Rights Watch and do not
23 know of any information in the public sphere to suggest that a credible
24 investigation took place into the events of Ljuboten.
25 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Mr. Bouckaert.
1 Your Honour, I think -- I hope we have complied with the
2 Rule 90(H)(2).
3 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber can't form a final view on that, but it
4 is at your risk if you don't, you realise, under the rule. There will be
5 consequences later, so it must be for you to give conscientious attention
6 to compliance with the Rule.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Well, perhaps what we could propose is if the
8 Chamber were minded to give us a short break of five minutes, we could
9 very quickly go through the record to see whether there's another matter
10 which, in fairness to Mr. Bouckaert, we should put to him.
11 JUDGE PARKER: That may be a safe precaution, Mr. Mettraux, and
12 it's a precaution that I would also address to Mr. Apostolski, because the
13 issue arises for both accused, and matters that you have raised may not
14 entirely cover issues that the Defence of Mr. Tarculovski would want to
16 So combining all those things and the progress of the clock, what
17 the Chamber might do is to have the first break now, resume at 10 to 4.00,
18 and then allow, if necessary, time for those further matters to be put by
19 Mr. Mettraux and Mr. Apostolski.
20 --- Recess taken at 3.21 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, are there any further questions?
23 MR. METTRAUX: Indeed, Your Honour, and we're grateful for the
24 time given to us to look through the record. Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I'm sorry to delay the matter. There is a number
1 of other propositions that we would like to put to you in manner that we
2 followed prior to the break.
3 The first proposition is that the goal or purpose was not as you
4 concluded, with a view to inflict any sort revenge, but it was a search
5 operation against terrorists; is that correct?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And I should put it again to you, it was not motivated by any
8 intention to exert revenge; is that correct?
9 A. No.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Can the interpreters ask you again to slow down
11 for the transcript, for us, and the audience listening to us, please.
12 MR. METTRAUX:
13 Q. The President of the Republic of Macedonia was the legitimate and
14 constitutionally-empowered authority to order such operations; is that
16 A. The -- such operations could also be initiated from within the
17 Ministry of Interior, so no.
18 Q. Some of the victims mentioned in your report, and I am speaking of
19 the persons who you said were murdered on that day, were or might have
20 been killed by members of the army; is that correct?
21 A. In the case of the victims of shelling, yes. In the case of the
22 people who were shot dead or later died in custody, no.
23 Q. Houses which were targeted in the course of the activities on the
24 10th, 11th, and 12th of August were or might have been legitimate military
25 targets; is that correct?
1 A. We found no evidence to suggest that any of the houses targeted
2 were legitimate military targets. No.
3 Q. The NLA or members of the NLA would at times dress in civilian
4 clothes to carry out operations; is that correct?
5 A. I never saw NLA members in civilian clothes at the times I met
6 them, and that I am not aware of any incident in which they were in
7 civilian clothes during military operations.
8 Q. And I'm putting to you that the dead or the deceased in the
9 village of Ljuboten were killed or might have been killed as a result of
10 combat. Is that correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. None of the dead or deceased were executed; is that correct?
13 A. No.
14 Q. There was no indiscriminate fire at homes of civilians; is that
15 correct or not?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Some of the people involved in the operation were neither members
18 or de jure members of either the army or the Ministry of Interior; is that
19 correct or not, or you don't know?
20 A. It is possible that other armed civilians were involved.
21 Q. A general assertion about Mr. Boskoski's acceptance of crimes
22 committed by members of the police is wrong and unsubstantiated; is that
24 A. No.
25 Q. There was no indiscriminate attack on civilians; is that correct?
1 A. Our research concludes that there were either deliberate or
2 indiscriminate attacks on civilians at Ljuboten.
3 Q. It is the Defence case that none of the five alleged victims of
4 murders reported in your report were killed in the manner stated by you in
5 your report. Is that correct?
6 A. Is it correct that that is the Defence case?
7 Q. Well, I'm putting to you that your conclusion in relation to the
8 manner in which these five persons were killed is incorrect.
9 A. I stand by the findings of my report and believe that they are
11 Q. And even though we've indicated that you've acted honestly, your
12 judgement has been distorted by your wish to see Mr. Boskoski being
13 convicted; is that correct?
14 A. No, and I think my record of investigating the crimes of NLA
15 members clearly shows that I had a balanced approach in my investigations.
16 Q. And this bias or this prejudice against Mr. Boskoski has affected
17 the reliability of the findings and explain the facts that you sought or
18 that you failed to seek to verify the information concerning his presence
19 and his actions on that day; is that correct?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Your observations and finding as regard the body of Mr. Qaili are
22 wrong. Do you agree with that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And it is the Defence case that your finding as regard the
25 involvement of de jure police officers, reservists, or active police
1 officers in beatings are wrong, or unreliable, or not sufficiently
2 verified. Do you agree with that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. On the 12th of August, Mr. Boskoski was not in Ljuboten but in
5 Ljubanci. Do you agree with that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. And he was not in either Ljubanci or Ljuboten on that day during
8 the entire operation, as recorded in your report, but only for a much
9 shorter period of time; is that correct?
10 A. I wish to correct you. Our report does not state that he was
11 present during the entire operation. It states that the Macedonian
12 national media claimed that he was present during the entire operation.
13 Later on in the same paragraph, we state that Mr. Boskoski
14 acknowledged that he was in Ljuboten, but claims that he arrived at about
15 4.00 p.m. Our report only concludes that Mr. Boskoski was present at
16 Ljuboten sometime during the day of August 12th.
17 Q. And it is the Defence case that there were NLA defensive positions
18 and mortar positions of the NLA in the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of
19 August. Do you agree with that?
20 A. No, not to our knowledge.
21 Q. And your information has recounted to the Prosecution in relation
22 to the events of Bitola to the matter of the paramilitary 2000, also known
23 as The Lions, and other incidents which you were asked about and reported
24 about is incomplete or wrong; do you agree?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Your conclusions generally in your reports are unreliable,
2 unverified, or incomplete. Do you agree with that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. You failed to take even the most basic steps to verify the
5 accuracy, the reliability, or the truth of many of the accounts which were
6 given to you by the villagers in Ljuboten; do you agree with that?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Your views about The Lions as you explained to the Prosecution but
9 also in your statement is wrong, uninformed and without any evidential
10 basis. Do you agree with that?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And as regard the allegations which you raised against
13 Mr. Boskoski in your report and in other letters, you failed to comply
14 with the most basic rules of fairness and justice; do you agree with that?
15 A. No.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I think we have covered the issues
17 which we wish to put directly to the witness.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
19 Mr. Apostolski.
20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support all the
21 issues stressed by my colleague Mettraux, and I wish to highlight just a
22 few more issues as follows:
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bouckaert, is it correct that the action of
25 the Macedonian security forces in the village of Ljuboten was legitimate?
1 A. No. Our conclusion is that it was either an indiscriminate or a
2 deliberate attack on civilians.
3 Q. At the same time, it was necessary for the Macedonian security
4 forces to intervene in the village; is that correct?
5 A. No.
6 Q. The action was a joint action with the Macedonian military forces,
7 is that correct, of the army and of the police?
8 A. According to our information, the role of the army was limited to
9 shelling of the village, and we have no information to suggest that they
10 took any role in the ground operation on the 12th. I should also point
11 out that at least some of the soldiers initially objected about becoming
12 involved in the action on Ljuboten, as is clear from the evidence
13 presented by the Defence.
14 Q. Is it correct that it was still a joint operation, as I understood
15 from your previous answer?
16 A. I would not characterise it as a joint operation, especially not
17 the operation which involved the crimes committed on August 12th.
18 Q. Is it correct that your report is based on uncorroborated
19 information received only from ethnic Albanians?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Is it correct that it was prepared without interviewing a single
22 Macedonian inhabitant of the village of Ljuboten; although there are
23 Macedonians who live in that village?
24 A. The Macedonian population of the village was not present during my
25 visit to Ljuboten.
1 Q. You've mentioned that a house of a Macedonian was arsonned. Did
2 you take a statement from that Macedonian?
3 A. No, we --
4 Q. Did you try to interview him?
5 A. We were unable to locate him. We did not have any contact
6 information for him. We did include the information about the burning of
7 his home in our report.
8 Q. But you had data on him, you knew his name and last name; is that
10 A. Actually, we only knew his first name, Zlatko.
11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] All right, thank you.
12 I have no further questions, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
14 Mr. Mettraux.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Simply as a matter of fairness to the Prosecution before they
17 start with the re-examination, we would like to indicate at this stage
18 that Mr. Bouckaert is being called not as an expert but as a fact witness,
19 and, that as such, we will make submissions in relation to the evidence
20 which is given distinguishing between the factual evidence which is given
21 and the opinions which he has given.
22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
23 Could the Chamber mention, for all counsel but particularly
24 Defence counsel at this stage, that the process that has just been
25 followed is the sort of process that is to be expected with compliance
1 with the rules, where a witness deals with a range of facts as extensive
2 as this witness. Of course, most witnesses will be dealing with a much
3 more limited range of facts so that the point of the Defence case that
4 might contradict with that witness will be much more limited and confined.
5 But a witness such as this, the process we have just followed is
7 Now, Mr. Saxon, we come to you again.
8 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:
10 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, a few minutes ago it was put to you by my colleague
11 that your judgement is distorted by your need to see or your desire to see
12 certain persons prosecuted.
13 You mentioned earlier in your testimony that you've been doing
14 some work recently in the Central African Republic. Are you aware that
15 the International Criminal Court is also working or has opened an
16 investigation into the Central African Republic?
17 A. Yes, I am aware of that fact. Their investigation currently
18 focuses on the events of 2002-2003, but they are monitoring the current
19 situation, yes.
20 Q. Have you provided any assistance or advice to the members of the
21 International Criminal Court who are working on these issues?
22 A. I have informed them, as well as the Darfur team, of my work on
23 these two war zones and have offered any assistance they would like.
24 Q. Has anyone in that capacity ever questioned your judgement or
25 suggested that it was distorted by a need to see people prosecuted?
1 A. I spent half of my time working on -- under some of the most
2 difficult conditions because I believe in accountability in general.
3 Working in war zones, getting malaria, getting sick, because I believe in
4 this work.
5 Q. But I need you to answer my question, sir.
6 A. No. Well, certainly, whenever I testify or whenever we
7 accuse anybody of or any government of violating human rights or the laws
8 of war, we get accused of a lack of judgement or a bias.
9 Q. But my question -- I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear enough.
10 Relating to your work with members at the International Criminal Court,
11 have any of the staff there, working on these issues, questioned your
13 A. No.
14 Q. I believe yesterday, at page 3186 of the transcript, you commented
16 "People were beaten to death in the streets of Skopje by police
17 officers in front of large crowds," and that such an event, if unanswered
18 by the Minister of the Interior, would qualify as openly tolerating police
20 Can we see what is Exhibit P361, please. If we could increase the
21 size of that, please. Can we -- we need to look at the bottom of this
23 Mr. Bouckaert, this is a report written in August of 2001
24 describing an event on the 13th of August of 2001. In the paragraph
25 beginning: "On Monday, August 13th ...," it refers to police officers
1 beating, in the last sentence, "four men in the street in front of the
2 hospital." Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Those were ethnic Albanian men; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, on the day after the events in Ljuboten.
6 Q. The following paragraph, it says:
7 "The men were then taken onto the hospital grounds and beaten
8 continuously for several hours with heavy metal cables, baseball bats,
9 police truncheons, and gun butts amidst jeering from the civilian crowd
10 that had gathered."
11 Then it said, "The four men were taken to the Bako 1 police
12 station, they were subjected to more beatings." And at the end of the
13 paragraph, it says:
14 "One of the men, 29-year-old Nazmi Aliu, father of a six-year-old
15 and a two-year-old, died that --"
16 Can we go to the next page, please.
17 " ... Died that day at the hospital from the injuries he received
18 from the police beatings."
19 And then it goes on to talk about the researchers who interviewed
20 two of the surviving men.
21 Were you one of those researchers?
22 A. Yes, I -- yes.
23 Q. Is this the incident that you were referring to yesterday?
24 A. Yes. It was the second incident in which people had been beaten
25 in front of this very public hospital, but it is the incident in which a
1 person was beaten to death, yes.
2 Q. At page 3502 of the transcript, you were asked by my colleague why
3 you did not seek an official response from the Macedonian government or
4 Mr. Boskoski regarding the events in Ljuboten prior to the publication of
5 your report. And you say at page 3502:
6 "I feel that the position of --" or:
7 "We felt that the position of Mr. Boskoski and the government was
8 reflected in our report based on public statements made by him and the
10 Do you recall that?
11 A. That's correct.
12 MR. SAXON: I'd like to show, please, what is a video clip, with
13 the assistance of Ms. Walpita. It is 65 ter 305. It comes from
14 ERN V000-5202, and it's a video of a press conference which is also
15 discussed in the testimony of Mr. Bouckaert at page 3192 of the
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. SAXON:
19 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, you heard Mr. Boskoski refer -- use the term
20 "terrorist," I think, three times in the clip that I just showed you, one
21 when he said that "serves to prove that a massacre did not occur in the
22 village of Ljuboten," and that there was no killing of civilians but of a
23 terrorist-extremist group, and then more recently when Mr. Boskoski
24 explained that the residents of village of Ljuboten buried these five
25 terrorists, and all that remains now is to establish whether they were
1 from Ljuboten, itself, or whether these terrorists were also imported.
2 Was this one of the public statements of Minister Boskoski that,
3 in your mind, before you wrote the report, reflected his position and the
4 position of his government?
5 A. Yes, and it's mentioned in our report.
6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I would seek to tender this
7 video clip, which is from 001655 to 002256, 65 ter number 305.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Simply to indicate, Your Honour, that the passage
10 in question has been put, it's on the transcript, and the proposition
11 which Mr. Saxon wanted to put has been clearly answered by the witness.
12 We don't see, at this stage, a need to tender this document.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Anything, Mr. Saxon?
14 MR. SAXON: Well, simply that questions were put to this witness
15 on cross-examination as to what material he used to make his professional
16 judgements in the writing of the report, and one of the materials that he
17 used were television news broadcasts, including this one. So it is the
18 video material itself that is actually the most relevant evidence.
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be admitted, Mr. Saxon.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P362, Your Honours.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, can we move into private session,
22 please, briefly?
23 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
24 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
23 MR. SAXON:
24 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, at page 3056 and 3057 of the transcript, you
25 mentioned that you had discussions with Mr. Henry Bolton and Ms. Sandra
1 Mitchell about the events that occurred in Ljuboten village, and these two
2 persons were part of the OSCE mission in Macedonia at the time. Can you
3 help us, please: Why did you have discussions with these two individuals
4 and not other members of the OSCE?
5 A. As I think our report makes clear, we had some basic disagreements
6 with the OSCE about their monitoring of the conflict and the reporting
7 they were doing. For example, we felt that, although, we knew they had
8 knowledge of the widespread police abuse that was taking place at the
9 time, we knew this because many of the people that we interviewed, who had
10 been abused in police custody, mentioned the fact to us that they had also
11 been interviewed by OSCE monitors. They did not speak publicly about
12 these abuses.
13 So I would say that we had less than cordial relations at the
14 time, and we were concerned about the impartiality of the OSCE and these
15 two people, some -- I mean, Sandra had also worked on Kosovo. They were
16 people that we felt comfortable talking to.
17 Q. You're referring now to Mr. Bolton and Ms. Mitchell?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. When you said in the record, "They did not speak publicly about
20 these abuses" --
21 A. That would be the OSCE.
22 Q. Very well. At page 3159 of the transcript, you refer to fierce
23 discussions within the OSCE after the events in Ljuboten between
24 Mr. Bolton and a person you refer to as the Human Dimension Officer about
25 the reliability of reports from other international observers about the
1 presence of armed ethnic Albanians in Ljuboten and exchanges of fire on
2 the 12th of August, 2001. How do you know about these discussions?
3 A. I don't know if I said that they were specifically between the
4 Human Dimensions Officers and Mr. Bolton.
5 Q. You did.
6 A. I did?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. We were aware that there were basic disagreements within the OSCE
9 about the reliability of some of those reports and also about some of the
10 allegations that were made in the OSCE report of August 16th, I believe,
11 which put forth alternative theories, that some of the people killed could
12 have been killed by ethnic Albanian elements, because we -- there were
13 people within the OSCE who felt that there was no basis to make those kind
14 of statements, yes. So it's based on our informal contacts within the
16 Q. At pages 3074 to 3075, and again on page 3078, there are
17 discussions between you and my colleague about sections of the report that
18 you wrote about the events in Ljuboten which describe or refer to the
19 responsibility of the Macedonian security forces and the role of the then
20 Minister of the Interior, Mr. Boskoski, and during that portion of your
21 testimony you were asked questions about your reliance on a video news
22 broadcast from Macedonian State Television on the evening of 12th August.
23 Do you recall some of that?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. SAXON: I'd like to ask Ms. Walpita's assistance again,
1 please, to show you that broadcast, Mr. Bouckaert, from Macedonian
2 Television. It's from 65 ter number 305, ERN V000-5202, and this clip
3 will go from 00.11.52 to 00.15.14.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel switch off one of his
5 microphones? It creates noise for us. Thank you.
6 [Videotape played]
7 MR. SAXON: And if Your Honours wear your earphones, you'd be
8 hearing gunfire.
9 JUDGE PARKER: We are able to hear.
10 [Videotape played]
11 MR. SAXON:
12 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, do you recognise this video material as the
13 Macedonian State Television broadcast that you used as a reference in your
15 A. Yes, and we had a still from that broadcast as a photograph in our
16 report also.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender the clip that I
18 just showed, the same --
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, Your Honour, we have an objection.
21 MR. SAXON: I apologise, Your Honour. That was my mistake, and I
22 think I know what the objection is.
23 At this time, the Prosecution would simply seek to mark this clip
24 for identification, because the news -- the news reporter whose voice we
25 heard will be testifying later on in this case. That was my mistake.
1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P363, MFI, Your Honours.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. I'd like, Mr. Bouckaert, please, if you could turn your mind to a
5 different topic now.
6 At page 3096 of the transcript, there was a discussion regarding
7 the fact that in your statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, you
8 described Ljube Boskoski as an ultra-nationalist, and you confirmed that
9 description in your testimony. Do you remember that?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. SAXON: Can I ask the Court Officer's assistance, please, to
12 show us what is a video. It's Exhibit P278.
13 I'm sorry, Your Honour, apparently it's our job to play this but
14 we have to play it on the sanctioned system, so we will play it.
15 [Videotape played]
16 MR. SAXON:
17 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, just so that you know, this particular video --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. SAXON: My microphone's on.
20 Q. This video was shot after the conflict. It was shot later on?
21 A. M'mm-hmm.
22 Q. But I wanted to ask you, this comment that Mr. Boskoski makes
23 about: "The only thing that can be condemned is treason," during your
24 time in Macedonia and your research did you -- during 2001, did you have
25 occasion to see or hear Mr. Boskoski make similar kinds of comments in
2 A. Yes, and afterwards one of the most vehement attacks Mr. Boskoski
3 made was in January of 2002 against the head of the
4 Macedonia-Helsinki Committee, herself an ethnic Macedonian, whom he
5 accused twice on State Television of being State Enemy Number 1 and
6 working contrary to the interests of the nation because she reported on
7 some of the abuses committed against the ethnic Albanian community. And
8 we issued a public letter to the President and to the Prime Minister
9 expressing our concern for her and her safety. She was afraid to return
10 to Macedonia because she feared arrest.
11 Q. And, again, when you say "we," you're referring to --
12 A. To the Human Rights Watch, yes.
13 Q. During your testimony, you clarified that paragraph 16 of your
14 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor is written in a tone that is
15 perhaps a bit too categorical and that your prior statements about
16 Mr. Boskoski's involvement in the establishment and command of The Lions
17 unit were based on media reports. This is at 3083 to 3084 of the
18 transcript. Do you recall that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If we can, I'd like to show you an article. I don't believe this
21 article is uploaded into e-court. It's from 65 ter number -- oh, it is
22 uploaded. If we can see, please, what is 65 ter 136.1, please. I have
23 some questions to ask you about this article.
24 If we can't do this on e-court, I believe we have hard copies. If
25 that's preferable for our assistance, that's fine. Perhaps a copy could be
1 placed on the ELMO.
2 Mr. Bouckaert, this is an article originally published in the
3 English periodical "The Economist." It's dated 2nd of June, 2001. It's
4 titled "NATO and the European Union Speak Peace. Macedonians Feel on the
5 Edge of War."
6 Could you look, please, at the very last paragraph on the first
7 page. You need to look at the hard copy, Mr. Bouckaert, perhaps. I don't
8 know if it's coming up on the ELMO. Yes, there it is.
9 Mr. Bouckaert, I'm sorry, you can see it on the screen now.
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. There's a paragraph that begins: "Mr. Trajkovski's ...," that's
12 President Trajkovski's, "...room for manoeuvre is small, however. Last
13 week's offensive was led by police units known as Tigers and backed by
14 poorly-armed artillery and tanks, plus helicopters piloted by Ukrainians.
15 If the Tigers had not been sent in, or so the President was warned by
16 hard-line Slav Macedonians, then other feral creatures might have gone to
17 work, including a group of ..."
18 Can we turn to the next page, please. We need to see the top of
19 the next page:
20 " ... Including a group of toughs called The Lions who threatened
21 to vent their wrath on ethnic Albanians in Skopje, the capital."
22 Were these the kinds of press reports that you heard about this
23 entity called the Lions in 2001, in the summer of 2001?
24 A. Yes, this -- I know the person who wrote this report. I was in
25 very close touch with him. He actually accompanied the Tigers on one of
1 their operations, so he was very familiar with the security structures in
2 Macedonia, and we met on an almost daily basis.
3 Q. I'd like to show you another newspaper article, Mr. Bouckaert, and
4 again I have to bother our Court Usher. This is again from Exhibit 136.
5 You refer to it as 136.2. It has ERN number N004-6244 to 6247. I won't
6 read all of it to you. It's an article that begins at the bottom of the
7 page N004-6244. It's an article originally published in the "Christian
8 Science Monitor" on the 11th of September, 2001, by a journalist named
9 Elizabeth Reuben.
10 Mr. Bouckaert, did you know Elizabeth Reuben?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What can you tell us about her?
13 A. She's a very well-known journalist, and I've worked with her since
14 1998 or 1999, I've known her. She's considered one of the best
15 investigative journalists out there.
16 Q. This article is titled "A Simple NATO Mission Faces Bad-Faith and
17 'Lions'. Macedonian Paramilitaries Fill an Army Vacuum."
18 If we can turn to the next page, please. We need to look at the
19 top of the page. The first paragraph says:
20 "A meeting nearly two weeks ago between NATO Secretary-General
21 George Robertson and Macedonia's government leaders erupted into a verbal
22 balance jousting match that has exposed just how tenuous NATO's mission is
23 here and how easily the country will slip into war if NATO forces withdraw
24 as planned in two weeks."
25 In the next paragraph, we see this:
1 "According to an official who attended the meeting, Lord
2 Robertson accused Prime Minister Ljubce Georgievski and his
3 Interior Minister, Ljube Boskoski, of building up paramilitary forces that
4 threaten the safety of his troops. The Prime Minister lashed back
5 accusing NATO of having a secret agenda here."
6 And then later on we see a sentence:
7 "The Prime Minister threatened to walk out, and Mr. Boskoski, a
8 former sweetshop owner and member of the special forces in Croatia,
9 exploded, telling Robertson that he and his aide should be declared
10 persona non grata in Macedonia, and NATO should be sent to The Hague."
11 Do you see that, Mr. Bouckaert?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Two paragraphs later, we see this:
14 "What's clear on the ground here is that Boskoski does have
15 special forces he has prepared to exploit that vacuum. They're called
16 The Lions, which is the symbol of the ruling VMRO Party. And they've been
17 training at the Centre for Strategic Studies on the outskirts of Skopje.
18 As one moderate Macedonian security official in the government
19 said, Boskoski has threatened to use them 'to clear the terrain on the
20 Sar mountains' where the villages of Albanian rebels-turned-civilians are
22 Four paragraphs below, we see the following:
23 "The problem, says a NATO official, is that they," referring to
24 the so-called Lions, "are totally outside the chain of command, pursuing
25 Boskoski's own agenda, and even the police general has no control over
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Again, were these the kind of press reports that you were
5 receiving and reviewing during the summer of 2001?
6 A. Yes, and I should say that Elizabeth Reuben has excellent contacts
7 within the US government and within NATO, so I have no doubt who -- I have
8 no doubt about the credibility of her sourcing.
9 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, at page 3159 of the transcript, you explained to my
10 colleague that the Macedonian government, after the 12th of August, made
11 general statements that the people in Ljuboten were terrorists; however,
12 the government presented no evidence of that claim. In your experience,
13 what was typically the conduct of Macedonian government officials when
14 they announced publicly about operations that had been carried out against
16 A. In the ordinary course of events, there would be a press
17 conference where they would display the weapons that were captured, any
18 propaganda, flags, uniforms, or other NLA materials that were found to
19 show that they had actually carried out a raid against the NLA. They did
20 so after an August 5th event in Skopje itself, in which five members of
21 the NLA were killed under, let's say, questionable circumstances. They
22 displayed a large cache of arms on television that evening.
23 Q. Did they ever display, so to speak, captured NLA soldiers or
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Do you recall ever seeing any so-called terrorists, any of the
2 people who had been detained at the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of
3 August, displayed or shown on television?
4 A. I saw some footage related to people fleeing from the village,
5 some video footage.
6 Q. All right. But not of --
7 A. But not of people in detention, no. And I was actively looking
8 for that kind of footage because I had spoken to some of the relatives who
9 had visited people who had been detained from Ljuboten and spoke about
10 obvious bruises and signs of beatings.
11 Q. You mentioned this killing of Commander Teli and some other
12 persons on 5th of August, 2001. I would like to show you a bit more sir
13 video material, sir.
14 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is another clip from 65 ter 305 --
15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Before the video clip is shown, I would like a
18 clarification on the part of Mr. Saxon whether he intends to show material
19 which relate to the Teli incident. It's not a matter that we've raised
20 with the witness on cross-examination.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it is a matter that has come up during
22 cross-examination, because this witness talked, at page 3159, about the
23 usual practice of the government was that -- excuse me. He said that:
24 "Macedonian government made general statements that people in Ljuboten
25 were terrorists, but presented no evidence of that." So this is the issue
1 I'm trying to explore with the witness.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Very briefly, Your Honour, the first thing we
4 notice is that the picture relating to that particular incident was shown
5 to the witness in examination-in-chief. If the Prosecution had intended
6 to explore that matter, it should have done that at this stage.
7 Furthermore, we asked no question of the witness in particular in
8 relation to that incident, and as far as we can see it is irrelevant to
9 the charges in this case.
10 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm not --
11 JUDGE PARKER: Try again, Mr. Saxon.
12 MR. SAXON: Thank you.
13 I'm not aware that I showed a picture to this witness in
14 examination-in-chief related to this incident on August 5th. That's the
15 first point. My memory is not always perfect, I'm the first to admit
16 that, but I'm not aware that I did that.
17 It may be true that on cross-examination my colleague asked no
18 questions about this particular incident. However, the questions that my
19 colleague did ask elicited a response, an information, that in the
20 Prosecution's submission is worthy of clarification, and that is simply
21 the essential purpose of redirect examination.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed, Mr. Saxon.
24 MR. SAXON: If we can show the clip from 65 ter Exhibit 305. It
25 begins at 11 seconds and goes to 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
1 [Videotape played]
2 MR. SAXON: And this is being played without sound, Your Honour.
3 It was broadcast on Macedonian Television after the 5th of August, 2001.
4 We see what appears to be a camouflage uniform with the word
5 "Teli" written on it.
6 We see some packages that have the words "Explosives" written on
7 it, a number of them.
8 THE WITNESS: These are grenades.
9 MR. SAXON: Parts of weapons. We see what appear to be automatic
10 rifles and then automatic handguns. A cellular phone. We see some, it
11 looks like, camouflage rucksacks, and again more automatic rifles.
12 If we could stop here. Thank you.
13 Q. Is this the video material that you saw broadcast on
14 Macedonian Television after this incident on the 5th of August?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. When you saw -- how can I phrase this question? Again, the fact
17 that you saw no such presentation after the 12th of August, what
18 conclusions, if any, did you draw from that?
19 A. It added to my evaluation that there was no such evidence
20 available for the government to show.
21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender that last video
22 clip, please.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.
24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we'll reiterate the objection as to
25 the relevance. We think it is typically the sort of material that falls
1 under Rule 89(D) and Rule 95 [realtime transcript read in error"92(5)"].
2 It has absolutely no relevance to the charges and this witness, insofar as
3 the evidence is concerned, has given his view that this material was
4 relevant to his belief that there had been no terrorists in the village.
5 However, the material itself has absolutely no relevance to the charges.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be admitted.
8 Oh, I'm sorry. Before we act, Mr. Apostolski.
9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may ask the
10 witness to indicate, where was this video clip shot? Does he know the
11 location of this house?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. As I indicated in my direct testimony, I
13 visited this house on the day after the incident, and we also concluded at
14 that time that the government version, that these men had died during a
15 fierce gun battle, was inconsistent with the evidence we found at the
17 JUDGE PARKER: We're in the process of receiving the exhibit.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P364, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE PARKER: And it's received for the fact that it was a basis
20 for an opinion of the witness about a fact that is not central to the case
21 against the accused on this indictment so that Mr. Mettraux and
22 Mr. Apostolski are aware that the Chamber well appreciates the distinction
23 they make and the objection that is raised.
24 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Your Honour, and if I may correct
25 the transcript. At line 15 of page 58, it was Rule 95 that was referred
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this
4 witness. I do have some -- I would like to tender some documents, but I
5 don't know the witness needs to be here for that.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in -- for the sake
8 of propriety, the comment of my learned colleague Mettraux, referring to
9 the direct examination of our colleague Saxon, was directly based on my
10 suggestion because I thought that Mr. Saxon has asked this question to the
11 witness -- of the witness in direct examination. I was not able to verify
12 whether my suggestion was appropriate, and if someone had made a mistake,
13 it was me, and I apologise, Your Honours.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE PARKER: That is most gracious of you, Ms. Residovic. Thank
17 Mr. Bouckaert, you'll be pleased to learn that that concludes the
18 questioning of you in this case. The Chamber would thank you indeed for
19 your attendance in The Hague, for the assistance you've been able to give,
20 and the time that you have, in the end, been able to spare to enable your
21 evidence to be concluded.
22 THE WITNESS: I'm glad to have been of assistance, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, and of course you may now
24 return to your other activities.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Saxon.
2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, there were two documents that had been
3 marked for identification a week or so ago, and I mentioned them
4 yesterday. They were Exhibits P303 and P304, and my colleague indicated
5 that he had no objection that they be admitted into evidence at this
7 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, what we would like to specify in
8 relation to yesterday's comments about P303 and P304, I understand
9 Mr. Saxon is referring to the reports of Mr. Kostadinov and Kopacev. What
10 we would like to specify is we've indicated that we have no objection to
11 the admission, however, the Defence will certainly challenge the
12 reliability or may, in any case, challenge the reliability of some of the
13 statements made within those documents. The objection may be taken at a
14 later stage, and we still believe it is preferable that the admission or
15 the decision on the admission of the documents be postponed until
16 Mr. Kostadinov, who is the author of one of those two documents, appears
17 as a witness for the Prosecution. At this stage, the Defence believes,
18 will be the time to determine whether the content of those documents in
19 part or in their totality are, indeed, reliable and, as such, are
21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to having
23 this written document submitted into evidence on the basis that neither
24 the first nor the second witness have authenticated the accuracy of the
25 text. They did not authenticate the veracity of the text contained in
1 those written documents, and it is for these reasons that I propose that
2 they are not admitted by the Court in evidence.
3 When the witness comes, the witness who is the author of the text,
4 I think that would be the right time for the documents to be tendered and
5 admitted into evidence in case he verifies them as being authentic and
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it seems to the Prosecution, with great
9 respect, that the Defence is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It
10 used both of these documents yesterday on cross-examination to make points
11 for its own case, and so it seems, at the very least, contradictory, to
12 now say it is not -- the time has not yet come to admit these documents
13 into evidence.
14 With respect to the creators of the documents, one of the
15 creators, Mr. Kopacev, will not be coming. He is not on the Prosecution's
16 witness list. We don't intend to call him. The other one,
17 Mr. Kostadinov, will be called as a witness. However, we have already had
18 large portions of these documents authenticated not only by Mitre Despodov
19 but now further supported on cross-examination.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we need to continue the debate
21 backwards and forwards, gentlemen. Could the Chamber indicate that both
22 documents will be received. They were not received yesterday on a very
23 simple procedural point. We were in the middle of cross-examination, and
24 the documents were referred to and relied upon. Mr. Saxon got to his feet
25 then and sought to tender them. The Chamber was simply keeping him to his
1 proper time for doing that, which was re-examination. The conditions for
2 their admission, in the view of the Chamber, having been satisfied at that
3 point, accordingly, therefore, the two are received as exhibits.
4 And that does not mean, of course, that subsequent
5 cross-examination of other witnesses about their content will not be taken
6 into account in assessing what weight, if anything, would be given to
8 Now, Mr. Saxon, is there more?
9 MR. SAXON: Yes, and I'm grateful for the Chamber keeping the
10 Prosecution honest, so to speak, in this regard.
11 JUDGE PARKER: We have a limited sight merely in procedural order,
12 Mr. Saxon.
13 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution would also seek to tender what has
14 been marked for identification P352, which was the report which
15 Mr. Bouckaert drafted for Human Rights Watch, and I hope I have the number
16 correct, the press release disseminated by Human Rights Watch regarding
17 that report that has -- has been marked for identification P353. We seek
18 to tender those at this time, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, with the leave of the Chamber, we at
21 first make a very very short comment in response to Mr. Saxon's suggestion
22 of a cake and the desire to eat it as well.
23 The only portion which the Defence relied upon in the two
24 documents in questions were the part which related to the conversation
25 relevant between the President and other individuals, Mr. Despodov in
1 particular, and the Defence relied on that document because it had been
2 properly corroborated by other evidence which we also put to the witness.
3 The Defence did not intend at this stage to rely on any other parts of
4 these documents. That is the first thing we would like to underline.
5 The second matter, as pertaining to the report of Mr. Bouckaert or
6 Human Rights Watch, we obviously object strongly to the admission of these
7 documents under Article 21 of the Statute and Rule 89 and 95 of the Rules.
8 We submit that there are a number of very serious shortcomings in this
9 report which renders it unreliable. All of these matters have been
10 explored by the Defence with the witness. Many of those have not been
11 explored by the Prosecution in re-examination. I will list them in no
12 particular order, Your Honour.
13 The first one concerns the issue of the translation of the
14 information which was provided by villagers or otherwise to Mr. Bouckaert.
15 Mr. Bouckaert has indicated that he was unable to verify the accuracy of
16 the information which was given to him independently.
17 The interviews were not recorded, whether video, audio or
18 otherwise. No proper statements were taken. The information provided by
19 the witnesses were not adopted, they were not signed. The information was
20 taken, we understand, in summary fashion in notes taken by Mr. Bouckaert,
21 to which the Prosecution has not sought formally to obtain access. These
22 notes have not been produced. The accuracy of the reporting within these
23 notes have not been established. The accuracy of the summary of these
24 notes, which have then been made into the reports, has not been
1 There's also a rule which is the rule of best evidence which
2 applies in this Tribunal. We understand it does not necessarily apply to
3 its extreme limits and perhaps shouldn't be. However, the Prosecution has
4 taken the view not to call many of the individuals which are listed by
5 Mr. Bouckaert in his reports as source of information and which, on the
6 face of it, were available to give evidence before this Tribunal.
7 A further matter is the inability of the Defence to test the
8 reliability and credibility of many of the individuals who have given
9 evidence or given information to Mr. Bouckaert. We have only been able to
10 challenge the accuracy or the reliability of the method and methodology
11 which Mr. Bouckaert has used.
12 We also have the matter pertaining to the reliability of the
13 evidence, and the Defence submits that it has established that some of the
14 information provided to Mr. Bouckaert, to the extent that it could be
15 tested by material in the possession of the Defence, is unreliable, it
16 contradicts some of the statements given to the Prosecution office, it
17 also contradicts evidence which was given before this Tribunal. It's not
18 simply a matter of weight, we submit, Your Honour, as the Prosecution
19 would surely submit. The main and principal problem for the Defence would
20 be its inability to test the actual information, the basis for
21 Mr. Bouckaert's conclusion; that is, the evidence on which he relied to
22 come to its conclusion.
23 We've also underlined during the cross-examination of the witness
24 and during the exercise of putting that proposition to this witness, that
25 much of its information, of the information contained in the report, was
2 Furthermore, we understand that the evidence, and the witness has
3 conceded, was not admitted in compliance with local laws, since there was
4 no presence of an authorised official which would render it inadmissible
5 in local court. This last matter may not be highly relevant to the
6 Tribunal, however it is a matter, we submit, of some weight.
7 We finally indicate this: That we haven't made a direct attack on
8 the honesty of this witness and do not wish to do so in his absence.
9 However, we believe that this investigation was made in a rush, that it
10 was one-sided. We have said it was a one-week investigation conducted by
11 one man, where most of the evidence, as pointed out to him, had been taken
12 by one side without taking any steps to verify many of the allegations
13 made by him, in particular, very serious allegations against Mr. Boskoski.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Can the interpreters ask you to slow down,
16 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the interpreters will be happy to understand
17 that I'm almost finished, simply to indicate, Your Honour, the legal basis
18 for our submissions Article 21 of the Statute and Rule 89 and 95 of the
19 Rules; thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.
21 Mr. Apostolski.
22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I fully support the
23 objection made by my colleague in relation to the admission of this
24 evidence, and I also wish to stress that this is a one-side view of the
25 events primarily in relation to the interviewing of persons. No
1 statements were taken from the both entities that make up that -- the
2 population of that village, who live there.
3 I furthermore think that by not asking for reports from the
4 legitimate institutions of the Republic of Macedonia, and here I primarily
5 refer to the prosecutor's office and the Court, I think that the report is
6 one-sided, and in this sense I think that it should not be admitted into
8 And regarding all the other issues, I fully support the statement
9 made by my colleague Mettraux.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE PARKER: In the view of the Chamber, the report, and the
13 press release will be received. We would observe that the issue of the
14 quality of the content of the investigation, so-called, which is reflected
15 in much of the report has been very extensively tested, and it has been
16 tested in a way which has exposed quite glaringly a number of aspects
17 about the procedure and the results which clearly will tell in respect of
18 the weight that can be attached to some parts of the report. But the
19 report covers a very wide range of material, both of factual events and,
20 in a sense, historical matters, and the relevance and weight of those
21 various parts does vary quite a deal. And in some respects, the report is
22 clearly of relevance and valuable. In other respects, while its content
23 are relevant for the reasons that have been tested so carefully in
24 cross-examination and re-examination, the question of the weight that can
25 be attached to them is one that is very open indeed at this stage.
1 The procedure, in a tribunal such as this, of receiving reports
2 from agencies of standing and attempts at independence is one that is well
3 established. It does not follow that because a report is received, that
4 the Chamber accepts the content and the result of the report. The Chamber
5 looks to the direct evidence. There has been quite a body of that, about
6 matters dealt with in the report, and the Chamber, as I'm sure counsel
7 appreciate, is simply not going to pick up a report and treat its content
8 and its conclusions as established facts. They are merely a part of the
9 extensive material which Chamber must take into account.
10 And Mr. Mettraux's submission, that here was a hasty report
11 prepared in only a week or so, underlines the comment I've just made
12 because this Chamber will not be able to spend just a week in assessing
13 the facts of this case. It is clear it is going to spend something in the
14 order of six months or more hearing detailed evidence, and it is upon that
15 evidence primarily and not on this or similar reports that conclusions
16 will be reached by this Chamber.
17 So if the Registrar could note, then, that those two documents
18 which were marked for identification will now become exhibits.
19 Mr. Saxon, is there anything more?
20 MR. SAXON: There is another witness, Your Honour, but not --
21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. I'm looking at the time before we must have
22 our break, and clearly the witness should wait until after the break.
23 I was wondering whether there was anything more of a procedural
25 MR. SAXON: Not at this time, Your Honour, only that Ms. Motoike
1 will lead the next witness.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 Mr. Mettraux.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, there is a relatively short
5 application which we would like to make at this stage in relation to the
6 calling of Mr. Ostreni. I simply do not know whether Your Honour would
7 wish to do so at this stage, or perhaps after the break, or tomorrow, or
8 at your convenience.
9 JUDGE PARKER: I suspect it will take longer more than the tapes
10 would allow, so we must hear you after the break.
11 MR. METTRAUX: Very well.
12 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now, and we resume at five minutes
13 to 6.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Mettraux.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 There are two matters in relation to which we would wish to be
19 heard at this stage. The first one concerns the evidence of Mr. Ostreni
20 or, rather, the timing thereof. It's an application we make with some
21 reluctance, but we believe we have to make it and to make it at this
23 The Defence has made a number of applications for assistance to a
24 number of state or entities for the provision of material which we believe
25 to be relevant and important in relation to this particular witness and a
1 number of other witnesses in this case. At this stage, two of these
2 requests, we understand, are being processed or are in the process of
3 being fulfilled by the two states in question. Two of the other
4 applications are unfortunately not even there, at this stage. One of the
5 applications has simply been ignored, if I may put it in those terms, and
6 the Defence intend to make a further application with the Trial Chamber in
7 relation to this one. As for the fourth application, we also intend to
8 make a further application with the Trial Chamber because of what we
9 believe to be an incomplete or inappropriate effort on the part of the
10 state in question to provide the Defence with the material that is
11 relevant to this matter.
12 We believe that should we be asked or expected to proceed with the
13 cross-examination of this witness on the 15th, the Defence could be either
14 prejudiced by the absence of this material, which we have requested, or,
15 in any case, we might not even be in a position to go for very long with
16 the cross-examination, which may be good news to the completion strategy,
17 but we believe that this would put the Defence in the position of having
18 to do a very short cross-examination and then reserve its right to call
19 this witness again for further cross-examination once the material come in
20 our possession. We believe that this is an inefficient use of resources
21 and that the Defence, the Prosecution, and, we hope, the Tribunal
22 resources will be much better used if the evidence of that particular
23 witness were postponed until we receive those documents.
24 We highlight also the fact that this witness is called solely for
25 the purpose of cross-examination, his statement having been tendered
1 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.
2 We also explain our reluctance, Your Honour, to do this
3 application because of the fact that we understand that this may have
4 consequences for the Prosecution, for the Trial Chamber, for the Registry,
5 for VWS, for the witnesses, for the witness himself, and we can express
6 our understanding that this application may cause some disruption and some
7 problem. We believe, however, that it is sufficiently important to
8 justify the postponement of the evidence of this witness.
9 And perhaps, Your Honour, while I'm on my feet, so that perhaps
10 Mr. Saxon can answer both matters at the same time, the second application
11 or the second submissions concern an application by the Defence for
12 Mr. Tarculovski concerning a suggested on-site visit to Ljuboten. We wish
13 simply to indicate that we support the application of the Tarculovski
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
16 Mr. Apostolski, is there anything that you would wish to say?
17 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support the
18 statement by my colleague Mettraux again, only mentioning that the
19 Prosecutor's Office has given us a large volume of material just a few
20 weeks ago, 5.000 pages related to NLA, Your Honour, so we believe that we
21 need more time to analyse that voluminous material and in relation to the
22 cross-examination of the witness.
23 It might be a mistake on our part, that we haven't analysed that
24 material thus far, but still we believe that if it does not create
25 problems for the Prosecution, the evidence by this witness should be
1 postponed and he should be physically present here in this court after the
2 summer recess.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.
4 Mr. Saxon.
5 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I can respond, first of all, to the
6 information just provided by my colleague Mr. Apostolski.
7 It is generally correct that several weeks ago, perhaps a month,
8 that the Prosecution provided thousands of pages of material related to
9 the NLA to the Defence. However, there's quite a bit of context to this.
10 First of all, this disclosure was performed pursuant to a specific
11 request from the Defence, not because the Prosecution felt that all this
12 material was relevant under 66(B) or fell within the scope of Rule 68.
13 Indeed, the Prosecution specifically informed the Defence, before any
14 disclosure was made, that it might want to come to the office of the OTP
15 and review the material first before making a decision to receive such a
16 voluminous amount of material, and that indeed was what happened several
17 weeks ago. The Office of the Prosecutor made its staff and its resources
18 available to do that, and it was at that time that the members of the
19 Defence at that time decided, instead of taking only portions of this
20 voluminous amount of material, that they would simply take the entire
21 thing and review it as they saw fit.
22 So this related disclosure, Your Honour, should not have any
23 bearing on whether the video link of Mr. Ostreni is postponed or not.
24 With respect to the application made by Mr. Mettraux, the
25 Prosecution is sympathetic to the difficulties that the Defence are having
1 with their requests for more information. Having said that, I feel it's
2 my obligation to explain to the Chamber as well the difficulties that have
3 become painfully and personally aware to me during the last few weeks as
4 we have struggled to set up the video link that is currently scheduled.
5 A video link conference in the United Nations headquarters in
6 New York City requires the technical capabilities and organisational
7 capabilities of members of the Registry, particularly the section called
8 ITSS. It requires the work of the Court Officer. It requires the work of
9 members of the Prosecution. It also requires the work of a significant
10 number of people at United Nations headquarters in New York, work that has
11 already been performed to arrange the video link that is presently
12 scheduled to begin on the 16th of July, and I simply cannot tell the
13 Chamber at this point how easy or how difficult it will be to reschedule
14 another video link.
15 There are rooms -- a limited number of rooms and a limited number
16 of amount of equipment at United Nations headquarters that make such video
17 links -- video conferencing available. However, there is also great
18 demand for these rooms and this equipment and for the technicians, and
19 they are often, as they are this month, fully booked.
20 I simply need to inform the Chamber of that.
21 I also do not know, Your Honours, the availability of the witness
22 if we try to reschedule the video link. The witness has been gracious
23 enough to make the entire week of the 16th of July open. He will be
24 available for the currently-scheduled video link testimony. But I simply
25 can't make an affirmation to the Trial Chamber at this point about his
1 ongoing availability and whether it will be at a time that is convenient
2 for the Defence.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, I'm trying to remember, but do not
4 clearly remember, the situation of the witness. He was to be in the
5 United States for a period, but was he not then returning to his normal
6 place of living in the region?
7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it is my understanding of the witness's
8 plans, and again I have not spoken to him via telephone in some months
9 now, but it was my understanding that the witness was planning to spend at
10 least three months in the United States. However -- however, the witness's
11 intent was, if it were possible for him to extend his visa and stay
12 longer, he intended to do so. That was my understanding, Your Honour,
13 when we discussed this matter I guess it was in April. I can't tell you
14 now what the witness's current plans are.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Well, unless he gets an extension of his visa, he
16 will need to be out in three months. Am I right?
17 MR. SAXON: That is my understanding, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Thank you for that, Mr. Saxon.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE PARKER: When did those three months commence, Mr. Saxon?
21 Are you able to tell us that?
22 MR. SAXON: I'm deeply afraid I'm about to give misinformation,
23 but it's my recollection that Mr. Ostreni travelled from Macedonia to the
24 United States around the 25th or 26th of May.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE PARKER: The view of the Chamber commences from the fact
3 that we sought to accommodate the personal travel plans of this
4 Prosecution witness, when it was his expectation that he would be spending
5 three months in the United States holding only a single entry visa, which
6 meant that he could not have come to The Hague in the course of that three
7 months because he would not then be able to re-enter the United States,
8 and to try and meet that exigency, the Chamber was prepared to entertain a
9 video link with to the United States so that it would hear and see the
10 witness give his evidence with the witness being in the United States,
11 counsel and the Chamber being here.
12 Quite distinctly from that, there have been efforts by the Defence
13 for Mr. Boskoski to obtain information relevant to its cross-examination
14 of that witness from various governments and a government organisation in
15 Europe. Mr. Mettraux advises, in short summary, that at the moment they
16 have not been sufficiently successful in getting responses from those
17 requests, even though there have been orders by the Chamber in respect of
18 them, such that the Defence of Mr. Boskoski would not be in a position to
19 complete, even if it could begin, a cross-examination of the witness
20 during the video link which is planned for the week after next.
21 In those circumstances, given the complications of the procedures
22 involved, it seems to the Chamber that the most practical course at this
23 time is to abandon the plans for a video link from New York during the
24 week after next. That means that the evidence of this witness will not be
25 able to be heard until after the court vacation. When the witness will be
1 heard will be a matter for liaison between the Victims and Witnesses Unit
2 and the Prosecution. Obviously, there will be some consultation with the
3 Boskoski Defence as well to ensure that they have reached a position of
4 being ready, and it will then be a question whether the witness is still
5 in the United States or has returned to his home country. If the latter,
6 there would seem to be no particular difficulty about the witness giving
7 evidence here. If the witness is in the United States, then despite
8 Mr. Apostolski's submissions, the Chamber would remain with the view that
9 the evidence should be heard via video link.
10 That position having been reached, we must ask Mr. Saxon, of
11 course, to then look again at his list of witnesses, undo the arrangements
12 that have been made tentatively for the video link, and look at witnesses
13 during the week after next.
14 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour, we'll do that.
15 Your Honour, my colleague raised one more matter, a motion for a
16 site visit, and just if I can tell the Chamber very briefly.
17 The Prosecution does not intend to object to this motion. However,
18 the Prosecution wishes to respond in writing because there are certain
19 portions of the proposed -- of the proposal that we wish to comment on
20 quite carefully, so we will do that in writing, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Can I say, Mr. Saxon, that the Chamber has received
22 the motion and is well aware of it and the arguments put in support of it,
23 but approaches the proposal with caution at this stage. We do not lightly
24 undertake site visits and have only ever done so once in the course of --
25 this is now the fourth trial we have sat together so that the need for a
1 site visit, given that it involves delay, it involves big administrative
2 problems and cost, the need will have to be demonstrated quite clearly by
3 the arguments advanced by the parties, and the Chamber would need to be
4 persuaded not only of need but that a visit will make a significant
5 difference to its consideration of the case.
6 So be aware that the job lies ahead of the parties, if they want
7 to persuade the Chamber that there is adequate justification for that.
8 At a point earlier today, Mr. Saxon, a discussion between the
9 Judges included the possibility we might ask of you how you saw now the
10 completion date for the Prosecution case. In view of what has happened
11 today, I think it would be asking you to look into a very obscure crystal
12 ball to try and make a guess at the moment, unless you have something you
13 would like to volunteer.
14 MR. SAXON: I think it would be, quite frankly, more appropriate
15 for the Prosecution to ponder the matter at least overnight before making
16 any response, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is constantly looking at the question
18 of how to plan the continuation of this hearing and other matters that go
19 with it, and of course if it were to come to a site visit, when and how
20 best to manage that, so that we are trying to get these things within a
21 time scale to assist our planning. So if you could ponder, we would be
23 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution will ponder, Your Honour, and may I
24 say so, I hope the Trial Chamber is in receipt of a proposal to speed up
25 the trial process which the Prosecution sent last night. Of course, the
1 reaction of the parties and the Chamber to this proposal would obviously
2 have an impact about time estimates.
3 JUDGE PARKER: True, but the starting point of the problem, as I
4 think we have sought to underline, is the time taken by the Prosecution
5 with each witness, which generally exceeds the time allowed in total for
6 the witness. So the remedy could be shorter and simpler in adopting
7 straightened rules.
8 Well, with those matters dealt with, we, I hope, now can turn to
9 Ms. Motoike's witness.
10 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 Good afternoon. The Prosecution at this time would call
12 Mario Jurisic.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE PARKER: Good evening, sir.
15 Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card that is
16 shown to you now.
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: MARIO JURISIC
20 [The witness answers through interpreter].
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Motoike has some questions for you.
24 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you.
25 Examination by Ms. Motoike:
1 Q. Good evening, sir. Is your name Mario Jurisic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in August 2001, were you a lieutenant commander of the
4 2nd Infantry Company with the 3rd Battalion, 1st Guardist Brigade with the
5 Army of the Republic of Macedonia?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Had you been assigned to this particular command since July 2001,
8 at that time?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And as a commander during this particular period of time, that is,
11 in 2001, did you have occasions to see orders issued by the President of
12 the Republic of Macedonia?
13 A. Personally, no.
14 Q. Have you seen orders issued by the President of the Republic of
15 Macedonia at any time during your course of being in the army?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Are you still an active member of the Army of the Republic of
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what is your position now?
21 A. I am now in the Chiefs of Staff of the Army of the Republic of
22 Macedonia, and I deal with personal management issues, development --
23 professional development of all military and civil persons in the Army of
24 the Republic of Macedonia.
25 Q. If I could draw your attention back to August of 2001 for a
2 MS.MOTOIKE: Your Honours, with the assistance of the usher, we
3 have binders with the exhibits I'd like to show this particular witness.
4 If we could please display what's already been admitted as P00298.
5 It's tab 1 of today's binders. Thank you.
6 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you see the map that is displayed before you? It
7 has some coloured markings on it. Do you recognise this particular map?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I'm drawing your attention to a signature, what looks to be a
10 signature under the words -- it says "Map 2" in English. There's a
11 signature in there in the upper-left corner. Is that your signature?
12 A. Forgive me, Your Honours, but I see "Map 2" in front of me. Is it
13 the same map in question?
14 Q. Yes. Does this assist you, Mr. Jurisic? It is the map you're
15 looking at in hard copy form.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is that your signature?
18 A. Yes, this is my signature.
19 Q. And, again, drawing your attention back to August of 2001, are the
20 positions of the 2nd Infantry Company that you commanded indicated on this
21 particular map?
22 A. Yes, they are.
23 Q. And if I can draw your attention, there are -- I know that this
24 is -- appears in English. There are names of particular locations that
25 are on the upper margin of this particular map, and one of them says
1 "Smuk," and I believe that should say "Smok," S-m-o-k; is that correct?
2 A. Yes. I can see it's written "Smuk," it should be "Smok."
3 Q. And there's also a position named Bomba, and further to the right
4 there is a position named Maka, Volk and Oril, and Jastreb. Do you see
6 A. Yes, I see them, with a slight correction, if I may. This is not
7 Maka, this is Mecka.
8 Q. And just so that we get the spelling correct, how should that be
10 A. M-e-c-k-a.
11 Q. Thank you. And these particular points that I've referred you to,
12 are those the observations points for your particular company, that is,
13 the 2nd Company?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And there's also a name above in the middle of the document of the
16 map. It says" Zevro" [phoen]. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that a mortar battery position within your battalion?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in 2001, particularly in August of 2001, was your battalion
21 comprised of three companies, with the fourth element being this mortar
22 battery company named Zevro?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if I could show you a photograph --?
25 MS. MOTOIKE: If we could please display it, it's 65 ter 199.28,
1 which is tab 5 of today's binders.
2 Q. Mr. Jurisic, you see the photo that's displayed before you on the
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And do you recognise what is depicted in this particular
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is this photograph taken from the position that you referred to as
10 A. No.
11 Q. Is it taken from the position called Bomba?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is the village of Ljuboten visible in this photograph?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you could, with the assistance of the usher, would you please
16 mark the area of the photo where you see Ljuboten village, please?
17 A. [Marks]
18 Q. And you've marked that with a rectangular -- loose rectangular
19 figure on the photo.
20 Mr. Jurisic, is the entire village of Ljuboten visible from this
21 particular position?
22 A. No.
23 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may this be tendered, please?
24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P365, Your Honours.
1 MS. MOTOIKE:
2 Q. And Mr. Jurisic, I would like to please show you another
3 photograph so that we can get a visual of some of the locations you've
4 indicated on the map.
5 MS. MOTOIKE: Can we please show N006-7603. It is not in the
6 binder for today because it is actually in the court binder for this
7 particular case. It's page 5.
8 It's N006-7603 is the ERN.
9 I'm sorry, it might be my fault. It's N005-7603.
10 Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you recognise what's depicted in this particular
12 photo that's displayed on the screen?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And basically the photo is a shot of Ljuboten village with a
15 mountain range in the far background. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And if you could, please, tell us whether or not there are any of
18 your positions of your company that are visible along this mountain range
19 that is depicted in the photograph.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And with the assistance of the usher, could you please mark for us
22 the locations or the positions that your 2nd Company had that are visible
23 in this particular photograph?
24 A. [Marks]
25 Q. Now, the circle that you made in the top there, that's to the far
1 right, can we number that with a "1", please.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Let's start with the "1" to the left, then. So the position
4 marked with a "1", is that position the Bomba or the Smok position?
5 A. This is Smok.
6 Q. And if you could, please, the circle in the middle that you've
7 marked, could you mark that with a number "2", please.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And could you tell us what position that is, the number "2"
11 A. This is Bomba.
12 Q. And the circle on the far right, could you number that with a "3",
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And could you also tell us what that position that's marked as a
16 number "3", what is that -- the name of that position?
17 A. This is Mecka.
18 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?
19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
20 MS. MOTOIKE:
21 Q. Just some general questions, Mr. Jurisic, about your particular
22 battalion in August of 2001. Was the commander of your battalion
23 Major Mitre Despodov?
24 A. No.
25 Q. And who was your commander in August of 2001?
1 A. Major Mitre Despodov was head of my battalion and of my company, I
2 was the head of my company.
3 Q. Okay. So Major Despodov was the commander of your battalion in
5 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive the exhibit number while that is
6 being considered.
7 MS. MOTOIKE: My apologies, Your Honour.
8 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P366, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MS. MOTOIKE:
11 Q. Major Jurisic, Major Despodov then went to the commander of the
12 battalion that your company fell within in 2001; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, the commander of my battalion.
14 Q. And was the command of your battalion in Ljubanci?
15 A. I don't understand the question.
16 Q. Well, did your battalion have a command headquarters?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Was it located in the village of Ljubanci?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And did your command also have an -- not your company command but
21 the battalion command, also have an operational and logistics headquarters
22 in Ljubanci?
23 A. Yes, it did.
24 Q. Was the operational headquarters based in the Ljubanci School
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If I could show you another photograph.
3 MS. MOTOIKE: If we could show, please, 65 ter 199.25. This is
4 tab 6, and actually it is also Photo B, page 7 of the court binder.
5 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you see the photograph that's displayed before you
6 on the screen?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And does this photograph depict the Ljubanci School building where
9 the operational headquarters for your battalion were?
10 A. Yes.
11 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?
12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P367, Your Honours.
14 MS. MOTOIKE:
15 Q. And, Mr. Jurisic, did the battalion also have a logistics
16 headquarters that was located at the Children's Rest House?
17 A. Your Honours, if you can state the questions more precise.
18 Logistics headquarters, what does that mean, in fact, what does it entail?
19 Q. I can rephrase. I apologise, Mr. Jurisic. What I was asking
20 was: You had indicated that your battalion had a logistics headquarters;
21 is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I guess what I was asking was: Is the logistics headquarters
24 that you refer to, is that located at the Children's Rest House?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Was it located at the Children's Rest House in August of 2001?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And where was the logistics headquarters, then, located at in
5 A. In the school building.
6 Q. The school building that is still depicted before you on the
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. If I could show you -- sorry. If I could show you another
10 photograph, which is 65 ter 199.26. It is tab 7 of today's binders. It's
11 also photo A, page 7 of the court binder.
12 Do you see this particular photograph, Mr. Jurisic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And could you tell us, these buildings that are located in the
15 upper right corner of this particular photograph, do you recognise what
16 those buildings are?
17 A. Yes. This is the rest house.
18 Q. And could you tell us, in August of 2001, what was this rest house
19 used for by your company?
20 A. The rest house housed my company, which means that the whole rest
21 for my company, when they were not on duty, was carried out in this rest
22 house. Food was prepared here, showers were taken here, personal hygiene
23 and so forth.
24 Q. And was it also the same with respect to the other companies of
25 your battalion; that is, did the other persons in other companies of your
1 battalion also have access to this rest house?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?
4 JUDGE PARKER: Before we do, we did receive tab 6 as Exhibit P367,
5 but it is already Exhibit P233.
6 MS. MOTOIKE: I am being handed a note as to that, Your Honour,
7 yes. Thank you for that. I didn't realise it was already P233. I
9 JUDGE PARKER: That being so it will not become Exhibit P367.
10 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE PARKER: And we now turn to tab 7.
12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P367, Your Honours, for the document
13 bearing 65 ter number 199.26.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
15 MS. MOTOIKE:
16 Q. Mr. Jurisic, if I could draw your attention to a particular day,
17 which is Saturday, 11 August of 2001. Were you on duty that particular
19 A. Yes, I was.
20 Q. And do you recall if you saw your -- the commander, which is
21 Mitre Despodov, at any time that day?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did you, at some point on that morning of Saturday, did you
24 receive any orders or requests from Commander Despodov?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you tell us what those orders or requests were?
2 A. The orders which I received from my commander were to prepare the
3 positions from possible attacks, additional attacks by terrorists, that is
4 to say, maximum engagement. As far as I recall, further establishing
5 the -- putting up the personnel who came to the unit, finishing their
6 training, the soldiers who came to join the unit, to increase their combat
7 readiness of the company. And I also -- it was made -- it was told to me
8 by the commander about an order from the President for maximum combat
9 readiness in my part of the defence.
10 Q. At some point do you recall if you were at the Children's Rest
11 House on that Saturday?
12 A. This Saturday, yes, I was there in the rest house, but it depends
13 on which part of the day.
14 Q. Well, at any time at the Children's Rest House on that day, at any
15 time did persons come to that location?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you tell us who these persons were?
18 A. They were police officers.
19 Q. And what were these police officers wearing?
20 A. Regular equipment which they usually wear.
21 Q. Were they wearing any type of uniform or dress?
22 A. Yes, they were in camouflage.
23 Q. Did they have any insignia on their camouflage uniforms?
24 A. Yes, they had the police emblems.
25 Q. Do you recall about how many of these police officers you saw at
1 the Children's Rest House that day?
2 A. At this moment, I cannot recall the exact number, but somewhere
3 around ten persons. I truly cannot say the exact number.
4 Q. Do you recall whether these policemen were equipped with weapons?
5 A. Yes, standard weapons worn by the police.
6 Q. And at the time when you saw them, had they already been equipped
7 with these weapons?
8 A. Yes, they were.
9 Q. And when you say "standard weapons worn by the police," could you
10 be more specific? What kind of weapons did you see that they had?
11 A. They had automatic guns, pistols. At this moment, I cannot
12 concretely remember whether they had snipers or something similar, but
13 what does remain in my memory are pistols, automatic rifles. At the
14 moment, this is what I can recollect.
15 Q. Do you know what a Zolja is?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. Do you recall if any of these policemen were equipped with Zoljas?
18 A. I do not remember.
19 Q. Were they equipped with bulletproof vests; do you recall?
20 A. Yes, they were wearing them.
21 Q. And do you recall when these policemen arrived at the Children's
22 Rest House?
23 A. I believe it was somewhere in the evening, sometime in the
24 evening, at dusk.
25 Q. Do you recall how these persons arrived at the Children's Rest
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And how did they arrive?
4 A. They arrived in one police vehicle. When I say "police vehicle,"
5 I mean a police car.
6 Q. Was it just one car or were there several?
7 A. One vehicle and one truck.
8 Q. Do you recall if you received any orders from Commander Despodov
9 with respect to these policemen?
10 A. At this moment, I cannot recall whether I was told in person or by
11 phone or in a command line by the liaison officers, but I do know that I
12 was informed that such people were coming to the rest house.
13 Q. Were you informed as to what these people were going to do at the
14 rest house?
15 A. I was not informed.
16 Q. While these policemen were at the Children's Rest House, were they
17 under your authority?
18 A. They were not under my command.
19 Q. Were you given any other orders by Commander Despodov with respect
20 to any mortars on Saturday, 11 August 2001?
21 A. Yes. This is part of the main order for increasing the maximum
22 combat readiness, which also means the positioning of the mortars.
23 Q. Going back to the policemen at the Children's Rest House, do you
24 recall the identity of any of these policemen?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you tell us, please, who it is that you can remember as far as
2 the policemen that were there?
3 A. The person who collected the food.
4 Q. And can you describe this person who collected the food?
5 A. Average height, black hair, this is so. I don't remember the
6 colour of his eyes or any particular distinctions.
7 Q. And when you say "collecting the food," do you mean collecting the
8 food that was served at the rest house?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you recall being interviewed by representatives of the Office
11 of the Prosecutor on 9 November 2004?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And during that interview, do you recall being shown two
14 photo-boards of persons?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And prior to being shown these particular photo-boards, do you
17 recall if you were given certain advisements with respect to the photo
18 lines that you were going to be presented with?
19 A. I did not understand the question. Can you please make it more
21 Q. Do you recall being advised of anything prior to being shown these
22 two photo-boards during your interview with the Office of the Prosecution?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And do you remember what that advisement was?
25 A. To point to a person if I -- if I am sure that I had seen that
1 person before.
2 JUDGE PARKER: I sense what you're about to do, and it's clearly
3 going to take more time than we have. So I think we should adjourn now,
4 and we resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.
5 MS. MOTOIKE: Yes. Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, but we must interrupt your evidence now,
7 to resume in the morning at 9.00.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
9 6.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the
10 6th day of July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.