1 Monday, 15 October 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon to some familiar faces.

6 We have just signed orders for the attendances of certain young

7 people in the gallery, so, yes.

8 Is there any matter that needs to be raised before we continue

9 with the witness?

10 Mr. Saxon.

11 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the current scheduling plan for this week

12 has budgeted today through Thursday, if necessary, for -- to complete the

13 evidence of Witness Hutsch. I have a very short time ago I received a

14 e-mail that was forwarded to me from the Victims and Witness Unit, in

15 which Mr. Hutsch informed the members of the Victims and Witness Unit

16 that "I have to leave on Thursday," to go to a third country where

17 Mr. Hutsch has a professional commitment. The e-mail -- the message is

18 not clear whether by leaving on Thursday Mr. Hutsch is referring to after

19 1345 on Thursday, or at a earlier time.

20 So I have asked the members of the Victims and Witness Unit to try

21 to establish the precise meaning of this message from Mr. Hutsch, so, if

22 necessary, I can bring any problem to the attention of the chamber and the

23 parties.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Given the lengths to which efforts have been made

25 to accommodate Mr. Hutsch, I think it should be fairly clear to him or

1 made clear to him, that he is to give evidence on Thursday, if necessary.

2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it was, to my knowledge made clear to him

3 several times that he needed to be here Monday through Thursday of this

4 week.

5 JUDGE PARKER: By the same token, the Chamber would emphasise that

6 it is, if necessary, because we really on our timing, would anticipate

7 that the evidence of Mr. Hutsch should finish Wednesday evening, and

8 Thursday is a fallback in case things are going slower than planned. So I

9 would like counsel to look at the end of Wednesday evening as the time

10 when they should be able to finish with Mr. Hutsch, bearing in mind the

11 time we spent with him earlier.

12 Thank you, Mr. Saxon.

13 Mr. Mettraux.

14 MR. METTRAUX: Good afternoon, Your Honours.

15 There are two very short applications which we would make at this

16 stage. One of them may sort of spoil the order just made or the

17 recommendation just made by the Chamber.

18 Tomorrow I would have to attend to a appeal matter in the

19 Halilovic case at 2.15 in the afternoon. Considering that tomorrow

20 morning I will be in court all day with a view to cross-examine

21 Mr. Hutsch, I wish to make a application to the Court to see whether the

22 Chamber would be minded not to sit during the last session of the morning

23 or at the least to allow to cut it short perhaps by half an hour with a

24 view to permit me to spend some time with Mr. Halilovic tomorrow morning

25 before the appeals hearing. Mr. Halilovic will be arriving tonight after

1 this session.

2 The second matter, Your Honour, which we would like to apply for

3 at this stage is to make a short application for a brief extension of

4 time. We were supposed today to file our response to the Prosecution

5 motion to amend the indictment. Due to a large amount of work during the

6 past week and preparation in particular of the two present witness, we

7 have encountered some difficulties to be able to file the motion in the

8 course of this day. And we would simply make an application, if possible,

9 for a extension for two days until Wednesday so that the response could be

10 filed at that time.

11 JUDGE PARKER: You have two further days, Mr. Mettraux.

12 MR. METTRAUX: I'm very grateful to Your Honours.

13 JUDGE PARKER: With respect to your first motion, the Chamber

14 would of course try to accommodate you.

15 Given the timing of schedules, if we're able to stretch favours

16 with the people responsible for sound and video recording, we may be able

17 to get one hour 40 minute sessions. If we had two of those we could

18 finish, I believe, at about ten past or quarter past 1.00, after two full

19 one hour 40 minute sessions. And that then would minimise the loss of

20 time and not jeopardise our hope of finishing Mr. Hutsch by the following

21 evening.

22 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: But one way or another, we will finish sometime

24 around 1.15 tomorrow.

25 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.

1 JUDGE PARKER: If there is no other matter, if Mr. Hutsch could be

2 brought back.

3 [Trial Chamber confers]

4 JUDGE PARKER: I think used the words "Wednesday evening," I meant

5 to say at the end of the Wednesday session, which would bring us to 1.45

6 Wednesday.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 [The witness entered court]

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Hutsch, welcome back. In view of the lapse of

10 time I think it would be preferable to re-administer the affirmation.

11 If the court officer would be good enough to give you the card for

12 your affirmation. If you would read aloud the affirmation.

13 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

14 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down now.

16 Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

18 WITNESS: FRANZ-JOSEF HUTSCH [Resumed]

19 Cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux: [Continued]

20 Q. Good afternoon Mr. Hutsch.

21 A. Mr. Mettraux.

22 Q. You will recall, Mr. Hutsch, that when we left off sometime ago I

23 was asking you questions about a particle article that had been written in

24 the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about your testimony in the Milosevic

25 case. Do you recall?

1 A. It was an article about a story about Cesa Iri [phoen], not about

2 the article was just a part of this article.

3 Q. And this article was written by Mr. Rub, do you recall?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And I had been drawing your attention to a number of passages of

6 this articles; do you recall that?

7 A. Yes.

8 MR. METTRAUX: I would like the registry to show you another part

9 of that article. That is Rule 65 ter 1D280. It is 1D00-2799 for the

10 German original.

11 Q. Do you recall that piece, Mr. Hutsch?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And if I can ask the registry to turn to the third page that would

14 be 1D00-2804. I'd like to read a paragraph, Mr. Hutsch. It would be the

15 previous page, please.

16 Thank you. And in the English version it would be 1D00-2804,

17 please.

18 Mr. Hutsch, I will read to you a passage of this article of

19 Mr. Rub where he comments about you. And it says this: "It cannot be

20 surprising that Hutsch became a star in some Serbian media after such

21 testimonies in The Hague. Because of this, he continues with the

22 conspiracy theory which is popular in Serbia and now also more and more

23 popular in Germany. The war about Kosovo was just a rehearsal for the

24 attack on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq is exactly the same as the bombing

25 of Yugoslavia to the smallest details."

1 Do you recall that Mr. Rub suggested that you were propagating

2 conspiracy theories at that time?

3 A. Mr. Rub was wrong because he was quoting a quote from General

4 Lokweit [phoen] that I published I think half a year before and he didn't

5 mark exactly this sentence as a quote from this interview.

6 Q. But you recall that that is the statement he made about you?

7 A. I know that he was doing this statement, yes.

8 Q. And if we can look the bottom of the page, please, in the English

9 it starts with the word: "By the way." He also said this: "By the way,

10 it is also Hutsch's idea the Bosnian Muslims as well as the Kosovo

11 Albanian Muslims are connected to the radical Islamic terror groups, the

12 classic story of the Serbian national propaganda, with that, the ethnic

13 cleansings and mass killings of Bosnians and Albanians can be explained as

14 prevention against the Islamic terrorists. With such stories, one can

15 surf on the anti-American wave which is passing through many German and

16 European media. Hutsch and the Horta Journal have picked an especially

17 nice wave."

18 Do you recall Rub making those pretty serious allegations against

19 you as well?

20 A. I see that Mr. Rub was writing that, but I there was also a

21 translating mistake in this, because Mr. Rub is writing about a

22 insinuation and not about an idea.

23 Q. But do you recall that following that article you had a number of

24 other problems not relating to that article but to your particular story.

25 Do you recall that?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And can you tell this Chamber what sort of problems you had?

3 A. I had discussions with some journalists and also discussions with

4 some clients of mine.

5 Q. And you also had some legal issues relating to this; is that

6 correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And can you tell this Chamber what those were?

9 A. I tried to -- to find out -- not to find out. To forbid this

10 article after the German press law.

11 Q. And is that correct that you were interviewed a second time by the

12 Office of the Prosecutor in July and then December of 2006. Do you recall

13 that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And at that time do you recall telling them that your legal or

16 judicial problems were over? Do you recall that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. But that was not quite true, was it?

19 A. It was true.

20 Q. Well, is it correct that you had legal matters with Mr. Rub at

21 some stage?

22 A. Yes, that's correct. I told to you.

23 Q. And with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung as well, is that

24 correct?

25 A. Yes, that's right.

1 Q. And can you tell this Chamber what sort of legal problems you had

2 with them?

3 A. We had to fight before the land court or land court, I think it is

4 land court and the supreme court in Hamburg about this article and in both

5 courts, Chambers decided that this article was wrong and they were also

6 giving the reasons for that.

7 Q. We're going to come back to this first issue, sir, but when are

8 you saying that your legal problems with Mr. Rub and the FAZ finished?

9 A. I think the last trial of the Chamber was in July 2006.

10 Q. Sir, do you recall saying this when you were interviewed by the

11 Prosecution in December of 2006: "In paragraph 10 of my first statement,

12 I mentioned court proceedings involving me in German Courts. I wish to

13 add now that I have been discharged and exonerated and the proceedings

14 have been dropped."

15 Can you recall saying that to the Prosecution?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. But in fact in your original statement and paragraph 10 to which

18 you refer, you have made no reference whatsoever to court proceedings. Is

19 that correct?

20 A. I don't understand your question.

21 Q. Well, in December of 2006, you told the Office of the

22 Prosecutor --

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

24 MR. SAXON: Out of fairness to the witness, wouldn't it be fair to

25 show the witness his statement and show paragraph 10 to which my learned

1 colleague is referring to?

2 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please bring up what is Rule 65

3 ter 1D234.

4 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this is your statement, your second statement to the

5 Office of the Prosecutor, and I will ask the registry, please, to turn to

6 the third page of that document. That will be 1 -- well, first we'll

7 start with the second statement. I apologise. This is 1D235. And if we

8 can one to the second page of 1D235, please. And if we can focus on

9 paragraph 5 of that statement, please.

10 Mr. Hutsch, what I'm about to show you is a paragraph taken from

11 your statement of July 2006 and 9 December 2006. And it says this: "In

12 paragraph 10 of my first statement I mentioned court proceedings involving

13 me in German Courts. I wish to add now that I have been discharged and

14 exonerated and the proceedings have been dropped."

15 MR. METTRAUX: If the registry can now bring 1D234, please. And

16 go to page 3, please. This would be 1D00-2569.

17 Q. Mr. Hutsch, this is your first statement to the Office of the

18 Prosecutor. It dates from 25th, 6th and 7th of August of 2005.

19 This is the paragraph to which you referred in your second

20 statement and I will let you go through it. And I'll ask you where you

21 mention any court proceedings, and in particular any court proceedings

22 that would relate to your legal situation with the FAZ and the -- Mr.

23 Rub. Do you agree that there is no such reference there?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So in fact during your first statement you had not mentioned any

1 court proceedings that involved you in relation to that story. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. That's right, because it was started I think in September 2005.

4 Q. And what you said in your second statement is also incorrect as a

5 result. Do you agree?

6 A. No, sir. First, my interview in front of the investigator was in

7 August 2005. So we started with the legal process in Germany in September

8 2005. As far as I know, that's correct, what I said, because there was no

9 proceeding going on. And the second is that in December 2006, the -- the

10 legal fight was finished, and we just was working the -- the lawyers were

11 working on compromise. No, not a compromise.

12 JUDGE PARKER: A settlement. Agreement.

13 THE WITNESS: An Agreement, an agreement like to correct this

14 article in FAZ and they were fighting for the words for this following

15 article.

16 So the legal process already was finished in December 2006.

17 MR. METTRAUX:

18 Q. But that is not quite the case, sir. First you mentioned in your

19 second article that you had mentioned court proceedings and that was not

20 the case. But also this is what the situation is, and I will come back to

21 this negotiation which you have mentioned. The court proceedings were

22 pending until that time when your lawyer and the lawyer of the FAZ reached

23 an agreement. Is that correct?

24 A. Not, that was not correct, because it was -- it was finished

25 with -- with this agreement between the lawyers and the judge said, he

1 finished in this moment the law proceedings and he said that the lawyers

2 had to agree or to -- to create an agreement.

3 Q. And is it correct that this agreement you're referring to was

4 reached sometime in June 2007, about two weeks or so before you appeared

5 in this courtroom?

6 A. That's wrong because that was just the moment of the publishing.

7 What I think is this agreement was arranged -- I don't know exactly, but I

8 think it was April. We have to call the lawyer, if it is important for

9 you.

10 Q. Do you recall that in March or April of this year, the Prosecution

11 asked you on behalf of the Defence to provide information about those

12 court proceedings. Do you recall that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And do you recall what your answer was to that?

15 A. I think that what was going on in this proceeding has nothing to

16 do with this trial.

17 Q. But the answer to my question is that you refused to provide this

18 information. Is that correct?

19 A. This information are open in the Internet for everybody to

20 research, as well for you.

21 Q. Is that correct that the Office of the Prosecutor knew about your

22 legal problems and discussion with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

23 Do you agree with that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And they were also aware of your lawsuit against Mr. Rub. Is that

1 correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you mentioned already that you had taken steps to obtain a

4 binding order or restraining order to prevent the publication of this

5 article before the courts in Hamburg. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what you did afterwards also is to sue the FAZ and Mr. Rub for

8 damage. Is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And can you perhaps tell this Chamber what sort of reparation or

11 compensation you were seeking from Mr. Rub?

12 MR. SAXON: Your Honour.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

14 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution does not see the relevance of this

15 particular line of inquiry. Can my learned friend perhaps explain it.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I will only do so if directed to do

17 so. I think the objection already been taken the last time and was

18 decided already by the Trial Chamber, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: It had been decided in a context that has now

20 changed and you're now pursuing even further this issue and it is getting

21 less apparent why it is relevant, so I think you had better.

22 MR. METTRAUX: In that case, Your Honour, I will simply indicate

23 that I believe within the next five minutes we will understand why those

24 are directly related to these proceedings and I have reasons to believe

25 that the Prosecution knows as well what the relationship between those

1 proceedings, and I'm talking of the Boskoski trial, and this lawsuit is,

2 so with the leave of the Chamber I would pursue this matter.

3 JUDGE PARKER: You mean that you have consciously looked at this

4 issue and believe that the line you are pursuing is relevant?

5 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct.

6 JUDGE PARKER: And if pursued, in a short time it bill become

7 apparent.

8 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I think you should be allowed to continue in that

10 circumstance, Mr. Mettraux.

11 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.

12 Q. I apologise, Mr. Hutsch, but could you tell this Trial Chamber

13 what remedy or compensation you sought to obtain from Mr. Rub and the FAZ?

14 A. In the beginning there was the discussion first to correct this

15 article, second, to pay the money that definitely I lost because this

16 article was published.

17 Q. Is that correct that there were also other requests that were made

18 by you, Mr. Hutsch, other things which you wanted in this correction

19 article, apart from what you just mentioned?

20 A. No, there was no other request.

21 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Hutsch, that you insisted that the fact of your

22 appearance as a witness in this case should be expressly mentioned in the

23 piece. Do you agree with that?

24 A. I don't agree.

25 Q. Do you agree also that in the course of the --

1 A. I don't agree also. I agree -- I didn't agree.

2 Q. I'm sorry, could you clarify your answer. Do you mean you made

3 that request or you didn't make that specific request?

4 A. I didn't make this specific request. And that's -- I answered, I

5 don't agree.

6 Q. So if the lawyers of the FAZ or your lawyers were asked to produce

7 the various documents, sir, that they exchanged during those negotiation

8 there would be no such request made on your behalf. Is that correct?

9 A. That's it, yes.

10 Q. Is it correct also that you asked for the assistance of the Office

11 of the Prosecution in relation to your legal problems?

12 A. Myself, I didn't ask the Office of the Prosecution for assistance.

13 Q. Did your lawyer perhaps ask for the assistance of the Office of

14 the Prosecution in this matter?

15 A. Yes, he did.

16 Q. And did you obtain assistance from the Office of the Prosecutor?

17 A. Yes.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would kindly ask the Defence

19 counsel and the witness to pause between the questions and answers. Thank

20 you.

21 MR. METTRAUX: I apologise.

22 Q. Could you tell this Chamber what sort of assistance you received

23 from the Office of the Prosecution in relation to your legal matters?

24 A. I think the -- Ms. Del Ponte wrote a letter where she said that I

25 was a honourful [sic] witness in the Milosevic case.

1 Q. And in fact she reacted against the insinuation of professional

2 dishonesty on your part. Is that correct?

3 A. I don't understand the question.

4 Q. Is that correct that the reason why it was felt that Ms. Del Ponte

5 should get involved in this matter was because of the insinuations or the

6 statements that were made by Mr. Rub and the Frankfurter Allgemeine

7 Zeitung that you were a fabricator and a dishonest person. Is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And is that also correct that in her letter Ms. Del Ponte insisted

11 that she may in fact call you as a witness in any of the Prosecution's

12 case. Is that correct?

13 A. I didn't see the letter that Mrs. Del Ponte was writing. I think

14 you have to ask my lawyer.

15 Q. But surely you have seen the article which was published in the

16 FAZ, Mr. Hutsch?

17 A. I saw one of the first concepts for this article.

18 Q. So are you saying that you didn't see the full version once it was

19 published?

20 A. Before it was published, I didn't see it.

21 Q. Well, perhaps I can assist you there.

22 MR. METTRAUX: And I will ask the registry to bring up what is

23 Rule 65 ter 1D370. It is 1D00-3489 in the English, and the German

24 original is 1D00-3488.

25 Q. Mr. Hutsch, is that correct before we look at this letter that

1 there is only two things in the article that the FAZ agreed to clarify or

2 specify and that was the fact that they had suggested in the article that

3 the word "murder" only came to your lips when referring to Serbian

4 policemen and the other matter was your suggestion that the people had

5 been not massacred but -- or their body massacred but they had been

6 attacked by dogs. Is that correct? That is the only two things which

7 they agreed to qualify?

8 A. No, that is incorrect. That's just the two things they

9 published. But like you said, if you just will take all the documents

10 that the two courts in Hamburg produced to these things you will find a

11 couple of around 20, 25 points just in this article they -- the judges

12 said they were false.

13 Q. Well, let's look at the letter what they published. And I mean,

14 as you can see there is the FAZ and Frans-Josef Hutsch. It says accord or

15 comparison from the German and in the first paragraph it refers to the

16 following: "In May of 2005, Horta Journal wrote about the certain report,

17 Hutsch being co-author of it, under the title "In Doubts With the Accused

18 Milosevic." And it says: The report, among others, says that to Hutsch,

19 as defence witness of the former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, who

20 died in between before the war crime tribunal in The Hague in his

21 testimony the word 'murder' only went across his lips as the Serbian

22 policemen were murdered by UCK. Actually, in his testimony, Hutsch did

23 indeed depict the Serbian atrocities in a drastic way also.

24 Then it goes on to say: "The issue of the report was also the

25 Hutsch's testimony on the massacre in Racak whereby this press accused

1 Hutsch that he hardened in the circumstances that the corpse found in

2 Racak were not dismembered by other people but by stray dogs. Within this

3 context one could clearly claim that this corresponds to the report

4 assembled by the forensic team having examined the corpse and which was

5 interrogated by the EU."

6 And then says this: "The main Prosecutor of the criminal tribunal

7 in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, has in the meantime expressed her opinion

8 to the subject that Mr. Hutsch was a well-balanced and honourable witness

9 who should testify as a Prosecutor witness in cases against the war

10 criminals of the Yugoslavia conflict also in the future. Accordingly,

11 Hutsch so testify before the criminal Tribunal on 17 June 2007 as a

12 Prosecutor witness in case against the former Macedonian minister of the

13 interior, Ljube Boskoski."

14 Is that correct, Mr. Hutsch, that this last sentence was included

15 by you and at your express request. Is that correct?

16 A. That's wrong.

17 Q. So if someone were to claim that this was the case, you would say

18 that he is incorrect. Is that correct?

19 A. That's incorrect, because probably it was done by my -- my lawyer,

20 but definitely not with me.

21 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that you saw this

22 trial, as you did with the Milosevic trial, as a opportunity to make

23 publicity for yourself. Do you agree with that?

24 A. I don't agree.

25 Q. And you see this trial as a opportunity to make up stories and

1 have them published in newspapers as you did in the Milosevic trial. Do

2 you agree with that?

3 A. I don't agree.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, at this stage we will simply make a

5 notification for the record. We still haven't received the letter of

6 Madam Del Ponte. We have made requests to the Office of the Prosecutor

7 for Rule 68 disclosure and have given several indications to the

8 Prosecution to the effect that the credibility and reliability of the

9 witness was a big issue in this case. We raise it at this stage and we'll

10 raise it again after the end of this witness in relation to other recent

11 disclosure, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

13 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would like to say, first of all, on

14 behalf of the Prosecution, that I was not aware of this letter that was

15 sent by Carla Del Ponte nor have I ever seen this letter. I will now

16 search for the letter and see if I can obtain it and provide it to the --

17 the Defence.

18 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Mr. Saxon.

19 Q. Mr. Hutsch, if time permits I will come back on some of the other

20 stories which you have published at some stage. But at this stage I would

21 like to focus on the events of Ljuboten. And before I do that I am

22 required by the rule to put the Defence case to you.

23 And the Defence case is this: I'm putting it to you, Mr. Hutsch,

24 that you are a fabricator. Do you agree with that?

25 A. I don't agree.

1 Q. I'm putting it to you, Mr. Hutsch, that have you given false

2 evidence to this Tribunal. Do you agree with that?

3 A. I don't agree.

4 Q. And I'm putting it to you that events and incidents which you have

5 described as events or incidents that you had personally witnessed or seen

6 were in fact stories that you pieced back together from information that

7 you collected from other people. Do you agree with that?

8 A. I don't agree.

9 Q. Mr. Hutsch, we'll go, if you permit, in reverse order and we'll

10 start with evidence which you've given about the 14th of August. That

11 would be the Tuesday, if you can recall, 14th of August of 2001. Do you

12 remember?

13 A. Yes. But I think, Your Honour, we came to a point where it is

14 absolutely necessary that I will continue my testimony in my mother

15 language. Because the defender is manipulating in various ways my

16 testimony. He is taking -- he is breaking up parts of this testimony and

17 is presenting that to the Chamber but he isn't lightening the whole

18 context and I think it is absolutely necessary to continue in my mother

19 language, because, yeah, it is necessary to answer in a most precise way

20 to the questions of the defender.

21 JUDGE PARKER: The effect of that will necessitate, I fear, some

22 delay. The request is not unreasonable, and we have appreciated

23 Mr. Hutsch's efforts to deal with the matter in English, which is not his

24 first language.

25 Your cross-examination, not reflecting upon it, has often been one

1 which requires very precise understanding of language, and that being so,

2 Mr. Hutsch feels he is at a disadvantage.

3 I would ask, if you would --

4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

5 JUDGE PARKER: We are in the process of finding out how long it

6 will be before German interpretation can be available.

7 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.

8 [Trial Chamber confers]

9 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, perhaps to use the free time, we would

10 simply indicate if the Chamber were minded to have a double session on

11 Wednesday morning and afternoon and if it were possible, we would be

12 willing to -- or capable of doing that, if that became a problem. Simply

13 an indication.

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 [Trial Chamber confers]

16 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying, Mr. Mettraux that you have found a

17 free courtroom tomorrow afternoon?

18 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, that was wishful thinking. What

19 we were saying is that if there is a courtroom, we would be definitely

20 willing and capable of doing it. The alternative, Your Honour, if Your

21 Honour were minded to do that, is I believe that after the Halilovic

22 appeal, there may be some space available and that would also be agreeable

23 to us.

24 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

25 JUDGE PARKER: Another trial is listed following the Halilovic

1 appeal. So that that is not possible.

2 We cannot obtain any German interpretation this afternoon. The

3 possibility of obtaining it for tomorrow is being explored. German is not

4 a language that we do not regularly use. So that if we were to adjourn

5 now because of the interpretation, we will lose the balance of today and

6 perhaps tomorrow. So that's the situation.

7 [Trial Chamber confers]

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

9 MR. SAXON: Just as a alternative to loosing time, would the

10 Chamber prefer that the Prosecution call back Mr. Bezruchenko?

11 JUDGE PARKER: I'm trying at the moment, the Chamber is concerned

12 that we not only continue with Mr. Hutsch but in fairness to him and

13 everybody, that we try to finish his evidence in the time available.

14 I wish to explore with you Mr. Mettraux a further possibility.

15 You have been pursuing with very precise questioning an issue concerning

16 the content of a newspaper article and legal proceedings concerning it and

17 a correction or a further publication concerning that. In other areas of

18 the factual evidence, I think Mr. Hutsch would not be at a language

19 disability continuing in English. It is this area where language which is

20 very precise is important to Mr. Hutsch.

21 Is it possible for us to continue in other areas of

22 cross-examination?

23 MR. METTRAUX: Absolutely, Your Honour. I was over in any case

24 with the issue pertaining to the newspaper. It may come back at a later

25 stage but it can certainly be postponed until that time when we have

1 German translation available.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Hutsch, as you can -- you have been able

3 to follow, I think, what has been happening. The Chamber fully accepts

4 that if you were to be subject to more precise cross-examination

5 concerning the article in the German newspaper and the legal proceedings,

6 that, in fairness to you, you should have the opportunity to speak in your

7 mother language.

8 It is possible, though -- it is not possible to do that now. It

9 may be possible to do it by tomorrow or certainly by the day following.

10 If Mr. Mettraux leaves that area alone and continues with some other

11 areas, would you be prepared to carry on in English?

12 THE WITNESS: I think we can try.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Because one of the hopes is that we can

14 finish the evidence in time to let you get away when you want to get away,

15 and if we can continue using English over some other topics, that will

16 assist that happening.

17 THE WITNESS: Just to make clear, Your Honour, every topic the

18 defender was mentioning till now and he touched till now, he was breaking

19 up just parts like a puzzle but he is presenting just the puzzles and the

20 pieces to you and not the complete material and that's what I think is

21 shameful.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Well, shall we say that that is part of the process

23 of questioning. We are conscious that that process should be done

24 fairly. And if it is apparent that there would be a language difficulty

25 in hampering your answers, we would certainly not be content to allow that

1 to occur. We can see that possibility with the question of the article in

2 the German newspaper and the legal proceedings.

3 There are other areas where questioning will occur, you may want

4 to say more than the question allows. That can be dealt with in two

5 ways. Either you say that the question doesn't present the complete

6 picture and say more or just say, well, the answer to your question is

7 this, but much more needs to be said about that and it will then be a

8 matter which Mr. Saxon could return to in re-examination, if he thought it

9 adequate.

10 THE WITNESS: Okay.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Okay. With Mr. Hutsch's cooperation, and subject

12 to the possibility that he may find some other areas presenting language

13 difficulty, we are able to continue.

14 Thank you Mr. Mettraux.

15 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Mr. Hutsch, as I indicated I would like to ask you a number of

17 questions about the 14th of August of 2001, and just to refresh your

18 memory that would be the Tuesday that followed the events in Ljuboten. Do

19 you recall that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you have indicated both when you talked to the Prosecution and

22 in your evidence in chief that on that day, you said you had visited the

23 village of Ljuboten. Do you recall saying that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And do you recall indicating as well that on that day, the 14th,

1 you had spent the rest of the day in or around Skopje, before and after.

2 Is that correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And you have indicated, I believe, that this visit on the 14th was

5 the second of two visits which you said you made to the village, the first

6 visit having been on the 12th. That would be the Sunday. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And you said that during the second visit, the 14th, the Tuesday,

10 you were accompanied by two interpreters, is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And I will ask you to name those two persons, Mr. Hutsch.

13 A. Mr. Mettraux, you know this Jonathan Wendell decision of the

14 [indiscernible] Tribunal. We don't have to discuss that anymore, I think.

15 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, I will ask you once again. Can you please give

16 the name of the two people who you claim accompanied you on your visit

17 during the 14th?

18 A. Mr. Mettraux, I have to cover my informations and my sources.

19 MR. SAXON: Your Honours.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

21 MR. SAXON: Mr. Hutsch has been asked this question several times

22 now both by the Prosecution and by the Defence.

23 JUDGE PARKER: We're aware of that, Mr. Saxon.

24 Mr. Mettraux has asked. It is becoming repetitive, but in view of

25 the break he is certainly properly within his realm to ask again.

1 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, I think I will move on this

2 one. We will come back to the issue of his -- Mr. Hutsch's sources, as he

3 calls them.

4 Q. But at this stage, Mr. Hutsch, is that correct that on the 14th of

5 August of 2001, you said that you went to the village with other

6 journalists? Do you recall saying that to the Office of the Prosecutor?

7 A. I said there were other journalists there. I didn't tell them

8 that I was going with this journalist to Ljuboten.

9 Q. Do you recall telling the Office of the Prosecutor as well that

10 there were representatives of Human Rights Watch in the village on the

11 14th?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you've indicated, I believe, to the Office of the Prosecutor

14 and to this Court that on that day, you had kept a notebook or reporter's

15 notes as you had done, you say, on the 12th. Is that correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that was the document that you showed -- that was shown to you

18 by the Prosecution in your examination in chief, is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And in this document --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel and the witness please observe

22 a pause between answer and question. Thank you.

23 MR. METTRAUX:

24 Q. Mr. Hutsch, we have just been asked to try to pause between

25 questions an answers.

1 And, Mr. Hutsch, is that correct that in these reporter's notes of

2 the 14th of August you recorded what you said was your interview with

3 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi, is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you indicated that this interview which you say you had with

6 Mr. Jusufi took place in the village of Ljuboten in his home. Is that

7 correct?

8 A. In front of his home.

9 Q. And you also indicated to this Trial Chamber and to the Office of

10 the Prosecutor that on the 14th of August of 2001, you also claimed to

11 have interviewed a person called Aziz Bajrami. Is that correct?

12 A. I would like to see that, yes.

13 Q. I'll turn to your notes in a minute, Mr. Hutsch, so that can you

14 look for yourself.

15 But is that correct that you are suggesting that both of those

16 interviews took place in Ljuboten on that date, the 14th? That's what you

17 told this Chamber. Is that correct?

18 JUDGE PARKER: I think Mr. Hutsch says he would like to be

19 shown --

20 MR. METTRAUX:

21 Q. What I can do, Mr. --

22 JUDGE PARKER: -- to be reminded.

23 MR. METTRAUX:

24 Q. -- Hutsch, is I can read the relevant passage in your examination

25 in chief. This will be the 28th of June of 2007. It be page 2806, 2807.

1 And this is an exchange between yourself and the Prosecutor, Mr. Saxon,

2 and you were being shown these notes of the 14th of August of 2001. I

3 believe they are exhibit P320.

4 And I will show them to you in a minute.

5 And Mr. Saxon asked you this: "And this is information -- is this

6 information that you received from Aziz Bajrami on the 14th?"

7 "Yes, that is." That is page 2806.

8 And then at the bottom of the page it says this, Mr. Saxon

9 again: "Is this the information that Aziz Bajrami gave you on the 14th of

10 August?"

11 "Yes, that is."

12 And if I can be of further assistance to you, I will ask the

13 registry to bring up what is exhibit P320.

14 Do you recognise this document, Mr. Hutsch?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And if we can turn to the first page you will see there's a

17 reference to Mr. Jusufi, is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. METTRAUX: And if we can turn to the next page? In the

20 English, please, at this stage. The second page in English would be

21 N003-0016-ET-02. Thank you.

22 Q. Can you see, Mr. Hutsch, the other reference to Mr. Aziz

23 Bajrami --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. -- that you made in response to Mr. Saxon. Does that help you to

1 refresh your memory?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Can you say with whom you say you went on the -- on these two

4 interviews which you have mentioned to Mr. Saxon, the interview with

5 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi and the interview with Mr. Aziz Bajrami? Did anyone

6 accompany you?

7 A. Mr. Mettraux, you were asking me if I was doing these two

8 interviews in Ljuboten. And you presented me now two paragraphs from my

9 older testimony. And I don't find in this testimony that I said that I

10 was doing these interviews in Ljuboten. I'm not finding that, sorry. But

11 you were asking me that.

12 Q. Well, isn't that what you told the Prosecution in your evidence in

13 chief, Mr. Hutsch? Are you suggesting that those two interviews took

14 place anywhere else when you just told me you had interviewed Mr. Elmaz

15 Jusufi in front of his house? Are you now trying to tell us something

16 else?

17 A. Mr. Jusufi, I think we were interviewing in front of his house,

18 yes.

19 Q. What about Mr. Bajrami, are you suggesting that it took place

20 somewhere else, Mr. Hutsch?

21 A. What does it mean "suggesting" in this context?

22 Q. Let me ask you this way: Did you or did you not interview

23 Mr. Aziz Bajrami on the 14th of August of 2001, in the village of

24 Ljuboten?

25 A. I didn't interview Mr. Bajrami in the interview in Ljuboten.

1 Q. So can you tell this Chamber where you say now you interviewed

2 Mr. Bajrami?

3 A. No, I can't.

4 Q. Is it because you can't remember, Mr. Hutsch?

5 A. I remember that it was in the house of -- of one source that needs

6 to be protected.

7 Q. And where does that source live, Mr. Hutsch, is that in Ljuboten

8 or somewhere else?

9 A. Somewhere else.

10 Q. So your evidence at this stage, Mr. Hutsch, is that you

11 interviewed Mr. Elmaz Jusufi on the 14th in the village of Ljuboten and

12 that you interviewed Mr. Aziz Bajrami in another place which you are

13 declining to identify and you're also declining to identify the source

14 which you say lent his or her place to interview him. Is that correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Well, we're going to come back to that, but first I'm going to put

17 this to you, sir.

18 Isn't that correct that you had never either interview with either

19 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi, as you claim, or Mr. Aziz Bajrami, as you also claim,

20 but that you made those up based on information that you obtained from

21 other sources. Do you agree with that?

22 A. I don't agree.

23 Q. And I'm putting to you that one of the main sources for the

24 content of this document is a report prepared by the organisation Human

25 Rights Watch. Do you agree with that?

1 A. I don't agree.

2 Q. Can you tell this Chamber at what time you arrived on the 14th of

3 August of 2001, you say, in the village of Ljuboten?

4 A. First, in the morning, I had breakfast together with two

5 colleagues, then I had a phone call because the Ohrid Agreement was

6 signed, I think, on the 13th. Some phone calls. I think we entered the

7 village between 1.00 and 2.00 in the afternoon.

8 Q. And how long did you stay in the village?

9 A. We stood there for 45 minutes. I think 45 minutes, yes. Maximum

10 60 minutes because the newspaper wasn't interested in this story.

11 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Hutsch. Are you suggesting that within that hour

12 you contacted your newspaper and asked them whether they would be

13 interested or not. Is that your evidence?

14 A. My evidence is that I got a phone call from my section, from the

15 head of the political section who told me that I had to investigate much

16 more about the Ohrid Agreement and the role German troops may play in the

17 realisation of the Ohrid Agreement.

18 Q. So sometimes between 2.00 or 3.00 in the afternoon you left

19 Ljuboten again, you say. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes, that is correct.

21 Q. And during that time you say you stayed with your two

22 interpreters. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you went back to Skopje, correct?

25 A. That's correct.

1 Q. And did you go back to your hotel or what did you do when you went

2 back to Skopje?

3 A. I tried -- I started to investigate the story about the Ohrid

4 Agreement. I think I published as well in this day a story about the

5 Ohrid Agreement.

6 Q. And did you spend the evening in Skopje?

7 A. I think I was spending the evening in Tetovo.

8 Q. What about the next day, on the 15th, Mr. Hutsch, do you remember

9 where you were?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Do you remember whether you had travelled to other places? Were

12 you still in Macedonia at that time?

13 A. Definitely in Macedonia.

14 Q. What about the rest of the week? Can you recall, were you still

15 in Macedonia at the time?

16 A. I think I left Macedonia on Friday, if my -- if my memories are

17 right.

18 Q. So that would be the 18th. Or 17th. 17th.

19 A. [No verbal answer].

20 Q. Let me put this to you, then, Mr. Hutsch. In paragraph 151 of

21 your statement you had told the Prosecution that you had met Mr. Jusufi at

22 his home in Ljuboten. Do you recall telling them that and reiterating

23 this here in this courtroom?

24 A. Would you show me?

25 Q. This would be Rule 65 ter 1D234. This would be page 1D00-2587.

1 And as you will see, Mr. Hutsch, you have given the same

2 indication as you gave earlier in this courtroom where you say: "I also

3 visited the crime scene where Rami Jusufi was killed. I spoke with his

4 father, Elmaz Jusufi." Do you recall that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And can we now turn to what is tab 31 of the binder, and that

7 would be again your notes, your reporter's notes of the 14th of August of

8 2001. That's Exhibit P320.

9 Thank you.

10 Do you recognise this document again, Mr. Hutsch? This is the

11 same as I showed you a bit earlier.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And if one may go one page forward in the German but not the

14 English, please. You'll recall, Mr. Hutsch, about being asked about a

15 little drawing on the second page of the German which is on the first page

16 of the English in summary fashion, this drawing. Do you remember me -- do

17 you remember Mr. Saxon asking you questions about that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And I will ask you to focus on the record in the English of this

20 document or in the German. It can be moved one page forward for

21 Mr. Hutsch, if he prefers to read in the German. And it records the

22 following, Mr. Hutsch, as you can see. The first thing it records at the

23 top lefthand is it records the fact, Ljuboten. Do you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And if I may go to the next page, please, in both languages. And

1 that's the place where you had the interview, is that correct? Is that

2 correct, Mr. Hutsch?

3 Perhaps we can go to the previous page so Mr. Hutsch can have a

4 look at it again.

5 Do you see, Mr. Hutsch, that there's a time and a place in your

6 note and it says: "Ljuboten 9.45." Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So this is the place and the time that you noted regarding your

9 interview with Mr. Jusufi, is that correct?

10 A. No, that's not correct.

11 Q. So what does this time and place refer to then, Mr. Hutsch?

12 A. That's the point that I said we have to go to Ljuboten and I was

13 asking the interpreters from 9.45 to have a meeting in the hotel.

14 Q. So you are saying that this note on the top of the page doesn't

15 reflect the start of your interview but the meetings which you had that

16 day with your interpreter. Is that your evidence?

17 A. Exactly.

18 Q. Can we please turn to the next page.

19 Do you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that there's no other time and no other

20 place mentioned prior to the interview which you say you had with

21 Mr. Bajrami? Do you agree with that?

22 A. I agree.

23 Q. If we can go back to the first page, and I apologise to the

24 registry for moving back and forth. I'd like to read the annotations

25 which you made of what you say was your interview with Mr. Elmaz Jusufi.

1 If the registry could focus a bit on the bottom of the page,

2 please. Thank you.

3 It says this: "Elmaz Jusufi, 58, son Rami, 33, shot by MUP,

4 Ministry of Interior, members on Sunday, car destroyed. MUP uniformed but

5 not masked enter the property around 8.20 hour through the front yard.

6 Around 20 of them were in the front yard. Rami reportedly tried to lock

7 front door, which was open. The police in the front yard reportedly

8 threw hand-grenades. Machine-gun was reportedly set up against gate."

9 And if we can turn to the next page, please. The next annotation

10 says this, Mr. Hutsch: "As son turned around to go back into the

11 living-room a strong explosion reportedly occurred. The door was

12 reportedly blasted open. Rami was riddled, hail of bullets, Rami was hit

13 in side and stomach. MUP then reportedly poured petrol on the car,

14 Zastava, and set fire to it." Then there's a little drawing. And then

15 says: "MUP reportedly entered the house around 10.30, about three

16 policemen who then proceeded to fire in the direction of Ljuboten.

17 Witness Elmaz Jusufi, friend," and then a beginning of a telephone

18 number, "MUP members then reportedly shouted 'we are going to kill you

19 all.'"

20 Mr. Hutsch, is it your evidence before this Chamber that this

21 reflects the interview which you say you had with Mr. Elmaz Jusufi on the

22 14th of August of 2001?

23 A. That is what Mr. Jusufi told my interpreter.

24 Q. Well, I'm putting it to you that you never had an interview with

25 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi on the 14th of August of 2001 in Ljuboten. Do you agree

1 with that?

2 A. I don't agree.

3 Q. You see, Mr. Hutsch, Mr. Elmaz Jusufi and his wife have testified

4 before this Tribunal, and their evidence makes it impossible for you to

5 have had this interview with them. And I would like to read to you first

6 what Ms. Jusufi, the wife of Elmaz, said to this Tribunal about this

7 matter.

8 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, it is at -- on the transcript on the

9 7th of May of 2007. It is at page 450. And she is describing what

10 happened in the house at the time and she is talking about the day when

11 Rami Jusufi was killed. And she said this: "We took his body to my

12 daughter's house in the early morning hour, 1.00 or 2.00. But when he

13 died, he was in my own house. I don't know why this has been recorded in

14 this way."

15 And then there's a question to Ms. Jusufi, and it says: "And if I

16 were again to tell you, Ms. Jusufi, that you went to the house of your

17 daughter on Saturday evening together with your daughter-in-law and your

18 grandchildren," and she answered this: "No, no, I didn't go there on

19 Saturday. That's not correct. I didn't go to my daughter's house on

20 Saturday. I was in my house. What you're saying is a mistake. You're

21 putting things the way you like them."

22 And then there was a further question: "At the end, Ms. Jusufi, in

23 your house in the village of Ljuboten, to that house, you have returned

24 only a month later when your son was buried again in the graveyard in

25 Ljuboten, is that correct?"

1 "Yes. Well, we were afraid to take him to the graveyard. There

2 was no place we could take him."

3 So what Ms. Jusufi told this Chamber is that she and the body of

4 Rami, in any case, left in the early hours of what she said was the 134th

5 of August of 2001, that's the Monday, that she went to the house of her

6 daughter and that she didn't return to her house for an entire month. Do

7 you agree with that, that's in substance what she says.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Then I'd like to show you another part of the evidence which was

10 given before this Tribunal and this time this is the evidence of Mr. Rami

11 Jusufi, I'm sorry, Elmaz Jusufi himself, and it is the transcript of the

12 8th of May of 2007. The page is 510.

13 This is the exchange. The question is: "Do you recall,

14 Mr. Jusufi, that after this interview which you went with Muzafer Jusufi,

15 the representatives of Human Rights Watch made that on the 23rd of August

16 they visited your house, made some photographs and you had still not

17 returned. You were still not returned to your house then."

18 And then he answers: Muzafer was in Skopje. We'd stayed in

19 Skopje for more than a month, for about 45 days. I don't know who gave

20 the other statements. I have given my own statement. Muzafer did not

21 come back to Ljuboten for five months. He stayed in Skopje."

22 Then he is asked: "But you are certain that you did not return for

23 the following three or four week to your house, is that correct?"

24 "Six weeks, six full weeks. Now, whether six weeks makes 50 years

25 or 45, that, I don't know. But it is six weeks."

1 And: "Neither you" -- I'm sorry. "Neither your wife Zenep had

2 returned to the house?"

3 "No, nobody. "

4 Do you agree, sir, that in line with what his wife had said,

5 Mr. Jusufi had indicated that after what happened to his son, he left his

6 house and did not come back for what he says could be a month, 45 or 55 --

7 or 50 days, do you agree?

8 A. I don't agree, and I'll tell you why, because you are manipulating

9 the Chamber as well, because that what the people said is exactly that

10 what happened. If they say they return to their house, they say they are

11 living in their house again and not that they just was going there for

12 some hours, for example. And as far as you know, on these four teams,

13 they were organised by the citizens of Ljuboten. I don't say a press

14 conference in Ljuboten, but there was -- they were interested to tell

15 their story to journalists, to NGOs and to everybody. So they organised,

16 I will -- the right word in Germany, it was just a press talk, press

17 discussion, something like that. And not a press conference. And as a --

18 as a citizen of Switzerland like you are, it is right that they didn't

19 return to their house, but they were not living there, and that is what

20 they are saying here. And you are misleading here the Chamber.

21 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that you are

22 misleading the Chamber and I will put to you the evidence of Mr. Kamberi

23 now, which may assist you in that regard. This is the evidence of the 5th

24 of September of 2007 and it is at page 4591 to 4592.

25 And this is what -- this is an exchange between counsel and

1 Mr. Fatmir Kamberi, who is a villager of Ljuboten. Starts in the middle

2 of the page: "When you returned in the village with some of your friends,

3 you went to the house of Rami Jusufi and helped his father to take the

4 body of Rami Jusufi at his sister's place in the Durmisi neighbourhood,

5 right?"

6 And the answer of Mr. Kamberi is: "That's correct."

7 "And the following morning you yourself attended the funeral of

8 Rami Jusufi in the courtyard of his sister and his ceremony was conducted

9 by the elderly Muslim priest from the village, right?"

10 And it's answer is: "Correct."

11 Then there is a question by counsel. It says this: "However, I'm

12 asking you whether you're familiar with the fact that Elmaz went to Skopje

13 on that day together with his wife and that he remained there for over a

14 month. It looks like the information I had as to where they went in

15 Skopje was not correct." And the answer of Mr. Kamberi: "I don't know

16 myself where they went. They went to Skopje and remained there but where

17 I don't know."

18 And then he is asked further this: "And if you recall in your

19 statement, you stated that you went to the yard of Rami Jusufi's house and

20 that at the moment certain persons from the OSCE were taking photographs

21 of the bullet casings in the yard. Do you remember this?" And he

22 said: "Yes, I do.

23 And that, Mr. Hutsch, refers to the 14th of August in Ljuboten.

24 And then he is being asked: "There was nobody in the house,

25 right, because the father and the mother of Rami Jusufi were already in

1 Skopje, right?"

2 And the answer is: "Correct."

3 So, Mr. Hutsch, it is not just a matter of Mr. Jusufi being in

4 another house in the village where you say you could have found him. He

5 was simply not in Ljuboten on that day. Isn't that correct?

6 A. I don't find a discrepance [sic] between that what I said and that

7 what you gave me now as a quote. Because like you said and like Mr. --

8 Q. Kamberi.

9 A. -- Kamberi said, there were interviews taken by members of the

10 OSCE, by other journalists. All these journalists can give -- give

11 evidence that I have been there as well, and so where is the problem now,

12 Mr. Mettraux?

13 Q. Is it correct that what the evidence of Mr. Kamberi reflects is

14 that by the 14th of August when the OSCE was visiting the village,

15 Mr. Jusufi had not returned to the village of Ljuboten and as he and his

16 wife pointed out in their evidence, they did not return to the village for

17 between a month and 50 days? Isn't that what all three people said and

18 agreed upon?

19 A. Like I said, if I am asking people, for example, even ethnical

20 Macedonians, who had disappeared from their houses, and there were, for

21 example, in front of the parliament, accused will know that, everybody of

22 them told us that they didn't return to their home town because they were

23 not living there but they were going there just to visit to see what was

24 going on there.

25 Q. Are you suggesting --

1 A. It is the same in Lesok, in the monastery of Leshoq. The people

2 will tell you they didn't return to Lesok but there was there even when

3 there was the big ceremony.

4 Q. But, you see, Mr. Hutsch, both Ms. Jusufi and Mr. Jusufi have said

5 that they did not return for a month or 50 days. There may be cases, as

6 you said, where people would say that, but those people have testified

7 before there Tribunal and have said that they had not returned, and what

8 I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is you never had that meeting, did you?

9 A. Mr. Mettraux, I told you that I had this meeting. That's the

10 first. Second is I tried to help you what the meaning of returning is,

11 and, yeah, I think it is clear.

12 Q. Well, let's see where you got your information from, Mr. Hutsch.

13 And I would ask the registry to bring up exhibit P320 once more,

14 please.

15 Sorry, Mr. Hutsch, it has disappeared from my screen. But do you

16 have this in front of yours, on your screen?

17 A. I have just a note, one of the reporter's notes now in front of

18 me.

19 Q. Perfect. Well, we will look again at what you say you recorded

20 from your interview, and if the registry could enlarge once again the

21 information which you have recorded in this document.

22 So I will read it out to you once more. It says this: "Ljuboten

23 9.45. Elmaz Jusufi, 58, son, Rami, 33, shot by MUP, Ministry of Interior

24 members, on Sunday. Car destroyed. MUP uniformed but not masked, enter

25 the property around 0820 hours through the front yard. Around 20 of them

1 were in the front yard. Rami reportedly tried to lock front door, which

2 was open. The police in the front yard reportedly threw hand-grenades,

3 machine-gun was reportedly set up against gate. As son turned around to

4 go back into the living-room, a strong explosion reportedly occurred.

5 Door was reportedly blasted open. Rami was riddled hail of bullets. Rami

6 was hit in side and stomach. MUP then reportedly poured petrol on the

7 car, Zastava, and set fire to it. MUP reportedly entered the house around

8 1030 hours, about three policemen, who then proceeded to fire in the

9 direction of Ljuboten." Witness, Elmaz Jusufi - friend and a telephone

10 number. "MUP members then reportedly shouted, 'We're going to kill you

11 all.'"

12 Do you recall that I had read that to you already. Do you recall

13 that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is that correct that but for a few additions or exaggeration of

16 this information, you had taken it all almost verbatim from the report of

17 Human Rights Watch, is that correct that's where you got that information?

18 A. I didn't get this information from the Human Rights Watch report

19 because till today, I didn't read it.

20 Q. Well, perhaps we should compare it then to the report and that's

21 exhibit P352, Mr. Hutsch, and I'm putting it to you that you knew exactly

22 what the content of that report is. Do you agree with that?

23 A. I don't agree.

24 Q. And if we could turn to page 7, please, or, Your Honour, perhaps

25 it would be a convenient time?

1 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I think it would be more practical to have

2 the break now and then you can come back to that passage.

3 So we will have the first break now and resume at a quarter past

4 4.00.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.17 p.m.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

8 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Q. Mr. Hutsch, before we proceed I have been asked to ask you, could

10 you give the name of the lawyer who you say assisted you in those

11 proceedings with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung?

12 A. Tania Irion.

13 Q. And would you agree, Mr. Hutsch, to the confidentiality or any

14 professional confidentiality would that relate to those proceedings to be

15 lifted should either parties wish to obtain that material for the purpose

16 of the present proceedings?

17 Would you accept that the parties, either Mr. Saxon or myself,

18 would have access to the documents that were exchanged between your lawyer

19 and the FAZ and Mr. Rub. Would you agree to that?

20 A. That's something I would like to decide with my lawyer.

21 Q. Mr. Hutsch, I will simply ask you for the record can you confirm

22 whether or not whether the spelling of the lawyers that you've mentioned,

23 which would assist?

24 A. Absolutely correct.

25 Q. Thank you. You will recall, Mr. Hutsch, that before the break I

1 had read out to you the notes that you made of what you said was your

2 interview with Mr. Elmaz Jusufi. Do you recall that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And what I told you as well, what I'm putting it to you now is

5 that in fact all of that information aside from little additions here and

6 there, you took from the Human Rights Watch report. Do you agree with

7 that?

8 A. No, I don't agree.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness be shown what is exhibit P352.

10 I'll ask the registry to go to page 7 of that document. That

11 would be page U000-0106, please.

12 And that's a report, Mr. Hutsch, that is freely available on the

13 Internet.

14 And I will read the passage to you which starts with the

15 words: "Elmaz Jusufi's home."

16 Can you see that on your screen?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I will read it out to you. It says this: "Elmaz Jusufi's home

19 was among the first to be attacked. Elmaz Jusufi, a 58-year-old bedridden

20 paraplegic, told Human Rights Watch how the Macedonian police forces blew

21 away the gate of his home, shot dead his 33-year-old son, Rami Jusufi,

22 through the front door of the home and then torched his car."

23 Can you see that?

24 A. Yes, I see it.

25 Q. And before I proceed, Mr. Hutsch, I will ask you to close the

1 notebook on your right which you are using. I understand you would be

2 permitted to take note if you so wished, but I'm grateful.

3 The report goes on to say this, and that's attributed to

4 Mr. Jusufi: "The moment the attack on the village started, they came to my

5 house. My front yard was full with them. There were about 20. They were

6 all in uniform, but not masked. They bombed the gate to the yard. Then

7 my son went to close the front door. At the moment he closed the door and

8 went back into the room, there was a huge explosion. They blew away the

9 door with machine-gun fire.

10 "That was the moment my son was hit in the side and stomach from

11 their shots. He fell down there. It happened right in front of my eyes.

12 The police did not come into the house. I got into my wheelchair and went

13 to close the door and my son. My son was suffering for about two hours.

14 He was in a lot of pain. My car was parked in the front yard, right next

15 to the gate. They poured gasoline on it, and set it on fire. I heard the

16 police say, 'Pour the gasoline.'"

17 And then there's another statement or another summary of a

18 statement that is given to Human Rights Watch by a person called Muzafer

19 Jusufi.

20 Would you agree, sir, that but for the odd details to which I'm

21 going to turn in a minute this information in the Human Rights Watch

22 report is strikingly similar or in fact perfectly similar to what you put

23 in your notes. Do you agree with that?

24 A. I don't agree. He is -- he is different to mine. The common

25 content is the same, is quite similar, but there are a lot of differences.

1 Q. Well, I'm going to turn to those differences that I could identify

2 then. Perhaps you can identify others. But would you agree that as far

3 as the age of the people, for instance, that we're given here are the same

4 as in your document, which doesn't mean much, but you agree that it's the

5 case?

6 A. I agree that -- but, on the other hand, probably you may explain

7 to me how it can be that Jusufi, Elmaz Jusufi would give a different

8 testimony to two people.

9 Q. That's quite correct. Would it also be correct that the mention

10 of 20 policemen, about 20 policemen is again the same as in your

11 statement?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And also the details about the uniforms but not masks. Do you

14 agree with that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. The way in which the door was said to have been blown away and

17 Mr. Jusufi killed?

18 A. That's a difference.

19 Q. And could you --

20 A. As far as I know, I noticed that he said there was throwing hand

21 grenades, and from my military experience, a hand-grenade can't blow away

22 a door.

23 Q. But there you would agree that there is no reference either for or

24 against a hand-grenade. All he says is the door -- there was a huge

25 explosion and they blew away the door with machine-gun fire. Do you agree

1 with that?

2 A. That's something he didn't tell me.

3 Q. And also what is similar here is the reference to the place in

4 which you say Rami Jusufi had been shot. That is in the side and the

5 stomach. Is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that's right.

7 Q. And as you've indicated, Mr. Hutsch, there's a number of things

8 which differ between this statement and yours. And you will recall that

9 in your notes you mentioned that at 10.30 three policemen came back at the

10 house and they then proceeded to shoot from the house. Do you recall

11 saying that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And you will agree that it is not a claim that is apparent from

14 the statement given by Mr. Jusufi. Do you agree with that?

15 In fact, if I can assist you there, if you go further down the

16 page there is a statement about those three police officers. It starts

17 with the word: "After shooting Rami Jusufi." Can you see that? It is

18 after the quote.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you see that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And if you go to the end of that particular line, you will see

23 that this particular comment which is made by Human Rights Watch is in

24 fact not attributed to anyone in that report. Do you agree with that?

25 A. Yeah, that's right.

1 Q. But it is something that has made it into your notes, is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And there's another matter which I would draw to your attention.

5 And it is -- if we can go back to what is exhibit P320. That's, again,

6 your reporter's note, Mr. Hutsch.

7 And we could please go to the second page. The second page of the

8 English as well, please. Thank you.

9 And if the top of the page could be enlarged somewhat.

10 I draw your attention, Mr. Hutsch, on the last comment which you

11 say you received from Mr. Jusufi during that interview. It says

12 this: "MUP members then reportedly shouted, 'we are going to kill you

13 all.'"

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. But that's not, again, something that you heard from Mr. Jusufi,

17 is that correct?

18 A. That's what the interpreter translated, yes.

19 Q. Well, I'm going to show you where you took it from.

20 MR. METTRAUX: It's -- can we go back to P352, please. That's

21 again the Human Rights Watch report and, please, page 7 once again. It is

22 U 000-01-06. I'm grateful. If you could go to the middle of the page

23 which starts with -- yes, thank you.

24 See, Mr. Hutsch, after the comment or statement which was

25 attributed to Mr. Elmaz Jusufi by Human Rights Watch, there's also a

1 statement which is attributed to another person called Muzafer Jusufi, and

2 if you look at the last paragraph in the last line in that paragraph, that

3 is attributed to Mr. Muzafer Jusufi, there is it a sentence starting with

4 the words: "They were swearing at us."

5 Can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And what Mr. Muzafer Jusufi told Human Rights Watch is: "They

8 were swearing at us all the time." Then there is an expletive and it

9 says: "We will kill you all."

10 Can you see that?

11 A. I can see "Motherfuckers, we kill you all."

12 Q. Well, I'm grateful for that. Can you see that at the end of this

13 sentence there is a footnote?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And can you confirm that this statement about the "we will kill

16 you all" statement is attributed not to Mr. Elmaz Jusufi but to

17 Mr. Muzafer Jusufi?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Do you agree with that? And in fact, Mr. Jusufi never suggested

20 either in his report in his interview with Human Rights Watch or before

21 this Tribunal that he had heard any such things and what you did is you

22 mistakenly picked it up from the statement of another person. Is that

23 correct?

24 A. That's incorrect.

25 Q. What Mr. Elmaz Jusufi recalled from that incident, Mr. Hutsch, is

1 that there were not three policemen that came back but two of them, and

2 none much them entered the house to shoot from it, as you had wrongly,

3 again, suggested, but that they had come to the house and he heard one

4 sentence from them, and that wasn't "We will kill you all." What he heard

5 and the only thing he heard, in his own word is, "Here are only two

6 people," and then he said the policeman turned back and left. That's the

7 transcript on the 8th of May, 2007, page 529.

8 So what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that you have

9 fabricated this story based on the report of Human Rights Watch. Do you

10 agree with that?

11 A. I don't agree.

12 Q. And not only did you fabricate this part of the story with

13 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi, but you did exactly the same with the information which

14 you say from Mr. Aziz Bajrami. Is that correct?

15 A. It is not correct.

16 Q. Well, I'll ask to you go --

17 A. But probably you may show -- you may explain me how now this

18 sketch that you withhold in this whole argument.

19 Q. I can guarantee you, Mr. Hutsch, that nothing will be withheld

20 from you and we will come to the sketch in a minute. I have a lot of

21 question for you about this one.

22 But for the time being, I will ask to you turn to exhibit P320,

23 and that's again your reporter's notes.

24 MR. METTRAUX: And I would ask the registry, please, to turn to

25 the second page of that document. Thank you. And if we can enlarge the

1 part which starts with the words: "Near mosque, Aziz Bajrami."

2 Q. I'll read out to you, Mr. Hutsch, the information which you say

3 you've recorded about this interview which you said you had with

4 Mr. Bajrami on the 16th.

5 It says this: "Aziz Bajrami, 66, father of Bekir, Sulejman, 21,

6 Mevludin." And then: "Hid together with eight women of the family in the

7 house of Zija. MUP members reportedly blasted open the door of Zija and

8 stormed the house. They reportedly fired through the door with a

9 machine-gun? (AK 47)."

10 Then there's a comment, I believe, "Zero injured below. Ordered

11 to leave the house. Men with hands to the back of their heads, kneel.

12 Men separated from women. Hand over passports." And then there's a

13 quote: "Don't look up or you're dead. Aziz had his money with him, 3.000

14 Deutschemark, 7.000 dinars stolen by policemen: "Don't tell anyone.

15 Jewelry belonging to women was also stolen. Jewelry in the family for

16 generations, possessions. Aziz and sons were reportedly ordered to the

17 house of Nexit Ademi. Why? Outside they met young men from the

18 neighbourhood. They all reportedly had T-shirt pulled over their heads.

19 The group was herded together, all kneeled. Sulejman kicked in the head

20 several times. Reportedly began to bleed from the nose. Aziz was

21 reportedly ordered to get up and go home."

22 And if we could turn to the next page, please.

23 Is goes on to say: "Together with Muharem Bajrami, 65, after

24 that, Muharem was reportedly shot," illegible, "soldier border police.

25 MUP members reportedly shouted, 'The pig is still moving,' fresh shots.

1 And then there's: 'Long live Arkan.' Get up A," and then there's a

2 quote: "Go into that house, old man, go back home. All lay down again.

3 Sulejman was kicked again several times. He got up [indiscernible] and

4 tried to run away. Then the Chetnik who had kicked him shot him. Then

5 all started shooting. Aziz was shot in the hand. Do not shoot. He is a

6 soldier ? Macedonian."

7 Do you recall making those notes in your reporter's notes,

8 Mr. Hutsch?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And do you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that all you did was in fact to lift

11 that information, again, from the Human Rights Watch report for the odd

12 few little changes which you inserted in it. Do you agree with that?

13 A. I don't agree.

14 MR. METTRAUX: Can Mr. Hutsch please be shown exhibit P352.

15 Q. This is again, Mr. Hutsch, the Human Rights Watch report and that

16 would be at page 9, please. It is it U000-0108, please.

17 And I'll ask you, Mr. Hutsch, to locate on this document the third

18 paragraph which starts with the words: "66-year-old Aziz Bajrami."

19 Do you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And I will read it out for you: "66-year-old Aziz Bajrami, the

22 father of two of the men killed and three of the men arrested in Ljuboten

23 that day, was hiding in the basement of his neighbour's Zija's home with

24 his son Bekir, Sulejman, and Mevludin and eight female relatives during

25 the attacks on Sunday. This home was adjacent to the house of Nexit Ademi

1 where between 7 and 9 men and also -- had also been sheltering in the

2 basement."

3 Before I proceed, Mr. Hutsch, you made a comment earlier about the

4 age and your comment was quite right that it would be quite logical that

5 if two people interview the same person they would be given the same age.

6 Isn't that is correct, however, Mr. Hutsch, that the only persons whose

7 age you mentioned in your notes are those which are mentioned in this

8 report. Isn't that correct?

9 A. No. It was the only one who was interesting for me in the

10 beginning of a investigation.

11 Q. But isn't that correct that the only person whose name you

12 mention, for example, 66-year-old Aziz Bajrami, or further down in the

13 text the 21-year-old Sulejman, you mention their age. But none of the

14 others who are not mentioned in the Human Rights Watch report. Is that

15 correct?

16 A. As far as I see, of the age of Sulejman isn't also not mentioned

17 here.

18 Q. Well, if you go down the page, Mr. Hutsch, you will see there's a

19 sentence which starts with the word: "Aziz Bajrami." Do you see that?

20 It says: "Aziz Bajrami and his sons were then ordered to lay down

21 next to the men."

22 A. Moment. Aziz Bajrami and his three sons were --

23 Q. No. Further down, two paragraph further down. It is after the

24 quote. Can you see that?

25 A. Yeah, yeah.

1 Q. And then you agree that the 21-year-old age that you mentioned in

2 your notes is also mentioned in this. Do you agree?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And if you go further down in that paragraph you will also see

5 that there's another person whose age you mention, and that's Muharem

6 Bajrami, 68-year-old. Do you agree?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Then I'll going on to read the statement of the Human Rights

9 Watch. It says this: "Suddenly, the police burst into Zija's home and

10 started firing into the basement without warning. They started shooting

11 through the door. It wasn't even closed. Loads of shots were fired

12 through the door from machine-guns. No one in the basement was injured.

13 And the police then ordered everyone to come out. When we got out, they

14 separated us men and lined us up, the four of us, kneeling down. They

15 asked for IDs and told us not to look up, not to look to the side, just

16 keep our heads down. The police officer who asked for the IDs noticed

17 that Aziz Bajrami had a significant amount of money in his pocket and

18 stole it. The police officer saw that I had 3.000 German marks and 7.000

19 Macedonian dinars and took all of the money, telling me, 'Don't tell

20 anybody.' The police also stole gold jewelry, a traditional means of

21 safeguarding savings from the women of the family."

22 Can you follow?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Then there's a quote which is attributed to Mr. Bajrami and he

25 says: "Aziz Bajrami and his three sons were then told to walk over to the

1 neighbour's house of Nexit Ademi. They said to stand up and keep our

2 hands behind our heads. Again, they told us not to look up and keep our

3 heads down. They took us to a small a gate between the yards. There were

4 these young men from there from the neighbourhood, neighbouring house,

5 about eight or nine of them. I was trying to look and I saw that they all

6 had their T-shirts over their heads."

7 Can you follow that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And then it goes on. But would you agree, Mr. Hutsch, that's

10 where you got your information from which matches almost to the word what

11 you have put in your reporter's notes. Do you agree with that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And that's in fact where you got the information from. Is that

14 correct?

15 A. No, that's not correct.

16 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is as with Elmaz

17 Jusufi, you never interviewed Aziz Bajrami. I'm putting it to you that

18 this is one of your fabrications and I'm also putting it to you that the

19 reason why you thought you were safe to say that because of your belief

20 that Human Rights Watch was in the village on that day, the 14th of August

21 of 2001. Do you agree with that?

22 A. There were members of the Human Rights Watch there.

23 Q. Well, that's what you have indicated earlier in your evidence,

24 sir, and that's also what you have told the Office of the Prosecutor upon

25 a request by the Defence to obtain some information. The problem with

1 that, sir, is that Human Rights Watch was not in the village of Ljuboten

2 on the 14th of August of 2001. Do you agree with that?

3 A. I don't agree.

4 Q. And I'm putting it to you that this is yet another fabrication

5 that you have put in your evidence to this Trial Chamber. Do you agree

6 with that?

7 A. No, I don't agree.

8 Q. Well, you see, Mr. Hutsch, the representative of Human Rights

9 Watch, Mr. Peter Bouckaert, who prepared and wrote this report appeared as

10 a witness in this Tribunal, and he was asked a number of questions about

11 these matters, and he indicated to the Court that before his arrival there

12 had been no representatives of the Human Rights Watch in the village of

13 Ljuboten. Would you agree that this contradicts your evidence, knowing

14 that Mr. Bouckaert arrived on the 17th of August of 2001 in Macedonia?

15 A. No, I didn't know.

16 Q. Well, I'm not asking whether you knew or not, Mr. Hutsch. What

17 I'm asking you is whether you agree that the evidence of Mr. Bouckaert, if

18 believed on this point, would strongly contradict yours. Do you agree

19 with that?

20 A. It's -- that might be, but it might be a Macedonian representative

21 there, because I don't know exactly where -- who of the journalists gave

22 this information. But one of them said there's also a member of Human

23 Rights Watch there.

24 Q. What I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that you're making false

25 statement on the go. Do you agree with that?

1 A. No.

2 Q. Well, I'm going to read to what you the exchange was between

3 myself and Mr. Bouckaert on that point. This is the 3rd of July of 2007.

4 It is Mr. Peter Bouckaert and the page is 3.022 to 3.023, and the question

5 was this: "Is that correct also that at the time of your arrival, there

6 was no other investigator or researcher of Human Rights Watch on the

7 grounds in Macedonia?"

8 "Yes."

9 "Is that also correct that after the incident in Ljuboten, you

10 were the first representative of Human Rights Watch to visit Ljuboten?"

11 "Yes."

12 You see, Mr. Hutsch, if you had looked more carefully at the

13 report of Human Rights Watch you would have seen in foonote 19 of that

14 document that the visit by Human Rights Watch representatives in the

15 village of Ljuboten took place only on the 23rd of August of 2001.

16 So I'm putting it to you to you once again, Mr. Hutsch, do you

17 agree that this entire story of you going to the village of Ljuboten on

18 the 14th of August of 2001, this entire story of interviewing both

19 Mr. Elmaz Jusufi and Aziz Bajrami is completely false? Do you agree with

20 that?

21 A. I don't agree.

22 Q. And if you had looked a bit more carefully again at the reports of

23 Human Rights Watch, you would have seen, contrary to your belief that

24 Human Rights Watch had been in the village on the 14th, that Mr. Jusufi

25 was in fact interviewed not on the 14th but on the 20th and not in

1 Ljuboten but in Skopje, because that's where he was. And what you have

2 said is false. Do you agree?

3 A. I don't agree.

4 Q. There's another thing which I would like to ask you after that

5 happened that make your evidence even more improbable.

6 Do you recall that at the beginning your evidence, I asked you a

7 number of questions, general questions about your practice as a

8 journalist. Do you recall those general questions?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And this was on the 28th of June of 2007, Mr. Hutsch. And one of

11 the question or one of the proposition I put to you was that your practice

12 when you published articles for the Hamburger Adenblatt was to mention the

13 place from which you were writing or you said sometimes researching the

14 article. Do you recall that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. It is page 2837 of the transcript.

17 And another thing to which you agree is that you would not write

18 an article about a particular place or a particular incident unless you

19 had gone there yourself and, if you hadn't and received information about

20 this place, you said that you would make that clear in the article. Do

21 you recall saying that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. That would be transcript 2837, 2838.

24 And you have also explained what the process was about writing

25 articles and sending articles and you said that an article to be published

1 on a particular date would have to be sent, at the latest, the previous

2 day at 8.00 in the evening. Do you recall that?

3 A. In general, yes.

4 Q. And you also indicated that sometimes you would mention two places

5 with a slash in between with Hamburg or another city where you had

6 received information from. Do you recall that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Well, you will recall that earlier I asked you what you had done

9 on the 14th and following day. Do you recall?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And your evidence today was that on the 14th, later in the day, or

12 in the evening, I believe you said, you went to Tetovo. Do you recall

13 that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you recall what time that was, more or less?

16 A. Late evening.

17 Q. Well, in that case, let's me show you first ...

18 MR. METTRAUX: Can the witness please be shown what is tab 51.

19 It's Rule 65 ter 1D254.

20 Q. And what do you consider to be late evening, Mr. Hutsch?

21 A. 9.00.

22 Q. Mr. Hutsch, perhaps it is easier for you if you focus on the

23 German version. Do you have the German version of the document in front

24 of you?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And this is a piece called, in the translation in any

2 case, "Macedonia -- is Learning to Watch Out for Albanian Tricks," and

3 it's written by yourself and a person called Holge Wuchold. Do you agree?

4 ?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You see what is quite astonishing about that piece, apart from the

7 fact that you would write about this issue and pay no attention to what

8 you say -- what information you say about Ljuboten, but the piece is dated

9 the 15th of August of 2001. Do you agree?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And the locations that are mentioned are Berlin, Hamburg and

12 Skopje. Is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And I suppose that Berlin and Hamburg would be the place where you

15 would have obtained information from either Mr. Wuchold or someone else.

16 Is that correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And as you can see from the content of that document, the part

19 that relates to Macedonia rather than Germany or Brussels is in the first

20 two paragraph. Do you agree with that? And the rest -- I mean, I'll ask

21 to you look at the first two paragraph first. I'll read them for you.

22 "There is peace on paper but in reality there is war. The

23 Albanian rebels are involving the Macedonian forces in raging street

24 battles in west Macedonian Tetovo. They even put a factory on fire. This

25 factory was the most modern in the Balkan region and especially known for

1 tailoring for Italian designers."

2 Then another paragraph which says: "On top of that are the

3 Macedonians from Tetovo and the surrounding villages on the run. UNHCR,

4 the refugee aid is counting one to 5.000 refugees in Macedonia."

5 Sir, would you agree that this first paragraph that I've read out

6 to you and also to a lesser extent the second paragraph relate to events

7 that were occurring in the Tetovo area at that time?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And would you agree that this would mean - and again, there is no

10 indication that you received that information from somewhere else, do you

11 agree, in that article?

12 A. So what I think is that was not a -- something I saw with my own

13 eyes because otherwise I would have more described it and I don't remember

14 if I saw street fighting in Tetovo on the -- on the 14th, no, I didn't

15 see, because I haven't been in the city in this moment. I was together

16 with the German soldiers, because what you say or what you see is we are

17 going on to find out if the German soldiers will play a role in this

18 Macedonian peace-building process.

19 Q. That's not what I see, Mr. Hutsch. What I see is an article

20 published on the 15th which would therefore have to have been researched

21 at the latest on the 14th. And it relates to events in the Tetovo area

22 and you have indicated earlier that you don't write about places that you

23 haven't been to or you would indicate that. So what that article suggests

24 is that on the 14th you were in the Tetovo region. Do you agree with

25 that?

1 A. That's wrong. So we are -- we are in a semantic discussion about

2 that what is called "ortsmarke" in German. That means what is written in

3 the beginning of an article. So if in the moment in Iraq in complete

4 Iraq, every day explodes ten car bombs, every journalist in Iraq would

5 right in front "Baghdad" even if a car bomb explodes in Kirkuk or in

6 Mosul, and it is not fair in this moment to say here we have -- we have

7 Skopje here but you have been in Tetovo area and yet you are writing

8 something.

9 As far as I remember, the information about the street fightings

10 in Tetovo came from two Macedonian sources and have been confirmed by an

11 Albanian one by telephone.

12 Q. So I'll stop you there. Is your evidence now, Mr. Hutsch, that in

13 fact you never went to Tetovo to obtain that information, that in fact you

14 obtained that information about Tetovo from Skopje. Is that your current

15 evidence?

16 A. No. I went to Tetovo, that means to the Erebino, if you want to

17 have it precise, that means the German camp. Mr. Boskoski, I think,

18 eight kilometres east of Tetovo, four kilometres, something like that.

19 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, the problem with this is you have indicated to

20 the Chamber that you only reached Tetovo on the 14th in the evening at

21 around 9.00 , which would be too late to contribute any information about

22 Tetovo for this piece. So my question is this: Which one is a lie, that

23 you went to Tetovo and obtained that information for the paper; or that,

24 as you claimed earlier, you were in the village of Ljuboten on the 14th?

25 A. In the moment I don't see the widespread, I don't see. Sorry for

1 that, because if I would have seen the street fightings in Tetovo, I think

2 I would have described them much more. If you would compare that with

3 other articles I did, exactly that you will find.

4 Q. So what you are saying is, contrary to what you had claimed before

5 about only writing about places where you had been, what you are telling

6 now, if I understand you properly, is that you wrote about Tetovo without

7 having any information or - let me rephrase that - without having made any

8 personal observation of the events that you recount. Is that a fair

9 statement?

10 A. The fair statement would have been that within some more sources,

11 at least three, and with a phone call where in the background I heard

12 shooting, somebody was telling me that in Tetovo Albanians and Macedonians

13 security forces were fighting each other and that is what is written

14 there. Then I was calling the -- the director of this factory, textile

15 factory that was personally known to me because he was also manager of the

16 Tetovo Theke hotel in which I used to stay longer before, and he has a

17 weekend house in the [indiscernible] area. So she was telling me that

18 this factory was shot up and -- and was set on fire, so now tell me where

19 did a mistake? I don't see this mistake.

20 Q. Well, the short answer to my question, Mr. Hutsch, is that you

21 have written or contributed information to a piece which you signed about

22 an event which did you not witness yourself, despite having assured the

23 Chamber and the Prosecutor when he took interview that you would not write

24 about events or incidents which you had not yourself witnessed. Is that

25 correct? Unless you had -- unless you indicated that in your piece. Is

1 that correct?

2 A. That's correct. And if that is a critic to every journalism that

3 is done by agencies, I'm willing to say I'm sorry, because that's normal

4 daily life in journalism, but you are an expert for that.

5 Q. But you see, Mr. Hutsch, I think the problem is not one of

6 journalism. I think the problem is is the truth of what you are saying.

7 And I will ask the registry to bring Rule 65 ter 1D255, please.

8 This is under tab 52 and it is ERN as 1D00-2691 in the German and 2693 in

9 the English.

10 Can you see this article in front of you, Mr. Hutsch?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And this is a piece which was dated the 16th of August of 2001 and

13 it is called "Macedonia Count-down for the German Army Deployment."

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then it is written by Franz-Josef Hutsch, yourself, and the

17 location is Hamburg. Is that correct?

18 A. That's right.

19 Q. So is it correct that if the article was published on the 16th of

20 August 2001 and that it mentions Hamburg as the place of writing, that

21 would mean that you were in Hamburg already often the 15th of August. Is

22 that correct? Is that correct?

23 A. That's correct. That's what is written there.

24 Q. And that contradicts the evidence which you gave earlier to the

25 Chamber that you had spent the rest of the week in Macedonia after what

1 you said was a visit in Ljuboten on the 14th. Do you remember saying

2 that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And in fact if you prepared this article on the 15th in Hamburg,

5 as this suggests, you would agree that that would suggest that you were

6 travelling back to Germany on the 14th to be able to make it on time to

7 prepare your article and send it to your editor? Do you agree with that?

8 A. No, I don't agree, and I will tell you why. Because I have here

9 all the original articles I wrote in this time, and if we just have a look

10 to the way I normally wrote articles, you will find that that is not my

11 style. Second is, I wrote my last article on the 15th in Macedonia. It

12 was published on 15th. That was the article we have seen. And the next

13 article is 18/19, and there I have been in Hamburg and I have the original

14 things here with me, and not the Internet things.

15 Q. Well, we have received those directly from the Hamburger

16 Adenblatt, Mr. Hutsch.

17 A. I think that the original is quite more useful.

18 Q. Well, the original, Mr. Hutsch, mentioned the same dates and the

19 dates can't lie. The article was published on the 16th, was written on

20 the 15 in Hamburg, and you were travelling to Germany on the 14th. Do you

21 agree with that?

22 A. I don't agree.

23 Q. And what I'm put to go you, Mr. Hutsch, is that contrary to what

24 you said - and I will come back to this matter - you were not in Skopje or

25 in the Skopje area or around the Skopje area during the period 10, 11, 12,

1 13, 14, and 15 of August of 2001. Do you agree with that?

2 A. I don't agree.

3 Q. And I'm putting it to you to you, sir, that the statements that

4 you've made about this period of time which I have just mentioned are, for

5 the most part, false. Do you agree with that?

6 A. I don't agree.

7 Q. And I'd like now to turn to another date, Mr. Hutsch, if you

8 permit. We'll go --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Before you do, could I intervene? I'm sorry to

10 interrupt, but I would like to be clearer in my mind.

11 Mr. Hutsch, are you saying that you have an original in your

12 possession of this article that is apparently published in the Hamburger

13 newspaper for which you were reporting on the 16th of August?

14 THE WITNESS: Yes.

15 JUDGE PARKER: And what is the date when that original article,

16 according to you, was written?

17 THE WITNESS: I don't have this article in -- in the -- in the

18 things that -- it was given by the Hamburger Adenblatt to me and you see

19 these are the originals, and it is also not my handwriting. It is done by

20 the secretary and she told me the last article was the 15th of August and

21 the next one I wrote was the 18th and 19th of August. That means

22 Saturday, Sunday.

23 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, perhaps I can also assist. I have

24 just been told by our precious assistant that we received the original

25 copies. If that is of any assistance to the Court, we will produce the

1 original.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I'm still not quite clear what Mr. Hutsch is

3 saying.

4 You're saying that this article then was written in Hamburg or in

5 Macedonia?

6 THE WITNESS: What I suppose is just if I -- if I see what is

7 going on that a fellow of mine, Thomas Frankenveld [phoen], did something

8 together with the -- with agency material. Because the style, this

9 article is written not my style to write. So I'm seeing this article now

10 the first time. And have it as well not in the originals I have. And

11 sometimes, sometimes they drop the name of an author over the article if

12 you gave information to this article.

13 JUDGE PARKER: I think you agree that, according to the -- what

14 was printed in the newspaper, you alone were the author.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE PARKER: And it suggests that you were in Hamburg.

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 JUDGE PARKER: And you agree with that?

19 THE WITNESS: I agree, but what I say is that an article like this

20 one normally is not an article. That is overwritten with the full name,

21 Your Honour, it is just signed with initials in the back, because that

22 what I saw now is -- it's agency material. And just if you compare that

23 to all other articles I was writing in this time, you will find that it is

24 not my style to write.

25 JUDGE PARKER: So you're saying this is not something that you

1 yourself wrote?

2 THE WITNESS: No. Because I saw this -- this article -- I see

3 that -- this article the first time, in this moment. And, for example, I

4 never would write that two armoured infantry companies would have been

5 part of the -- of the German -- of the German mission because it was all

6 the time clear that it would have been parachuters, airborne infantry.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. I'm sorry for having interrupted,

8 Mr. Mettraux.

9 MR. METTRAUX:

10 Q. Mr. Hutsch, are you suggesting that the paper like the Hamburger

11 Adenblatt would publish article under your name without informing you or

12 without giving you knowledge of the fact -- of this fact? Is that your

13 evidence?

14 A. Sometimes things like that happen, yes.

15 Q. So that's a practice you say that is at least well-known in the

16 Hamburger Adenblatt. Is that your evidence?

17 A. My evidence is that it is happening in every newspaper that, for

18 example, in the final edition there's missing one line, somebody is filing

19 things like that with a name of an author, for example, or he is full

20 filing this line with -- with material from agency, things like that.

21 That happens in every newspaper. Even in Switzerland, in Germany and in

22 Macedonia as well.

23 Q. Well, rather, what I'm putting to you, Mr. Hutsch, is that you

24 were not in the places where you claim to have been during that period.

25 Do you agree with that?

1 A. Mr. Mettraux, we have a lot of -- a lot of eye-witnesses, and I

2 presented these eye-witnesses -- I was talking to -- as well to you or to

3 the Defence. And I think to clear this question, ask these eye-witnesses.

4 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, I can assure you and the Court that I haven't

5 talked to you at any time, or anyone in this team. But I would like to

6 turn to the events of the 12th of August, if I may. And that would be the

7 Sunday, when you say you went for the first time in Ljuboten. Do you

8 recall saying that to this Court?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And I will briefly summarize your evidence on this, Mr. Hutsch,

11 and if I make a mistake or if you feel there's anything to add, please do

12 so.

13 Your evidence is that, being certain that something would happen

14 on that date, the 12th of August, you wake up earlier and you leave your

15 hotel in Skopje accompanied by two interpreters, and you arrive in their

16 company at the check-point in Radisani at around 7.15 to 7.20 that

17 morning. Do you agree with that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And upon your arrival there you say that you saw some police

20 officer, and again correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you were

21 saying that some of the police officers were the same as the one that you

22 had seen the day before and with whom you had negotiated your so-called

23 entrance fee. Is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And then you explained both to this Chamber and to the Office of

1 the Prosecutor that on that day, the 12th of August of 2001, you took

2 notes during the day which you recorded chronologically into your

3 notebook. Do you agree with that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And you've also told the Office of the Prosecutor when you were

6 interviewed by the OTP that on that day, the 12th of August of 2001, you

7 eventually left the village of Ljuboten at what you say was 5.30 or 1730

8 on that day. Do you agree?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I'd like first to ask you a number of questions about the

11 check-point which you have mentioned in your statement and in evidence

12 here.

13 Do you agree that this police check-point which you've mentioned

14 is the same one that you referred to in your evidence on the 10th, 11th

15 and the 12th of August 2001?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And it's a check-point which you saw was located in a village

18 called Radisani. Do you agree?

19 A. In the entrance of Radisani, yes.

20 Q. I'm grateful. Entrance or exit, depending which side you come

21 from. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And it is on the exit, if you wish, if you've come from Skopje

24 when you go --

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. -- towards Ljuboten, is that correct?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you -- you have made a marking of that, do you recall, in one

4 of the map that was shown to you by the Prosecution. Do you recall?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And do you recall in the immediate vicinity of that location which

7 you've identified that there was a sort of a open space which serves,

8 among other things, as a bus terminal. Do you recall that?

9 A. No. A bus terminal?

10 Q. At the end of the village of Radisani there is a open space which

11 you may or may not know serves as a bus terminal. If you don't know,

12 that's fine.

13 A. I didn't see a bus terminal.

14 Q. Okay, Well, at this check-point, in any case, you indicated that

15 on the 11th of August of 2001, you had negotiated what you represented as

16 an entrance fee to be allowed to return the next day. Do you recall

17 saying that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And do you recall also suggesting that at that time you had been

20 informed or you say you had been informed by police officer at that

21 check-point that - and I'm quoting - "that is something, something for a

22 operation was prepared, something there." Do you recall saying that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And you've also told this Chamber and the Prosecution when

25 interviewed that from that check-point in Radisani on the 10th, you were

1 -- 10th of August, you were able to see that a number of mortars had been

2 fired into Ljuboten. Do you recall saying that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And do you recall saying also that --

5 A. Sorry, not -- I was able to see. I was able to hear. And that I

6 was told.

7 Q. Well, do you recall saying in your statement and before this

8 Tribunal that you had seen the two main areas of impacts of those

9 mortars? Do you recall saying that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. But in fact, the truth is that this did not happen. Is that

12 correct? You didn't go to a check-point in Radisani?

13 A. That's not correct.

14 Q. You did not go to a check-point in Radisani on the 10th, you did

15 not go to a police check-point in Radisani on the 11th and you did not go

16 to a police check-point in Radisani on the 12th. Do you agree with that?

17 A. I don't agree.

18 Q. And also, what I'm putting to you is not only did you not see any

19 mortar fired but you did not see any areas of impact, as you have claimed

20 before this Tribunal. Do you agree with that?

21 A. No, I don't agree.

22 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is under tab

23 19. It's Rule 65 ter 1D313.

24 Q. Mr. Hutsch, a English version will appear. Thank you.

25 Mr. Hutsch, this is a statement that was taken by the defence of

1 Mr. Boskoski of a person called Saso Georgeivski, and Mr. Georgeivski is a

2 police officer at the police station, the nearby police station of Cair.

3 And I'll just draw your attention first to paragraph 3, which described

4 who he is. It says this: "In 2001, I worked as a police officer. In

5 August 2001, my post was at the police station Cair. The station was

6 responsible inter alia for the village of Radisani and I worked as a

7 police officer at that village in August 2001."

8 Can you see that?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And then we asked him specifically this, asked by the defence: "I

11 can state that in August 2001, perhaps during the whole year of 2001,

12 there was -- there never was a police or army check-point in the village

13 of Radisani."

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And that rather contradicts your evidence. Would you agree,

17 Mr. Hutsch?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. So one of you would not be telling the truth. Is that correct?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Then if I can draw your attention to the next paragraph it says

22 this: "The road that passes through Radisani towards Ljuboten stayed open

23 throughout the entire time, including the month of August 2001. As I

24 already mentioned, there did not exist a check-point with vehicles or

25 people would be stopped or prohibited from continuing towards the village

1 of Ljuboten."

2 Then I'm going go back to read the other paragraph of that

3 statement, Mr. Hutsch. But do you agree that according to

4 Mr. Georgievski, in any case, there was no check-point in Radisani at that

5 time. Do you agree with that?

6 A. According to him, yes.

7 Q. And there's another thing which, as you will see he contradicts

8 you with, is your assertions that from that position in the village of

9 Radisani, you were able to visualize the impact of mortars in Ljuboten.

10 And you recall your evidence was at page -- on the 21st of June of 2007,

11 at page 2502, 2503, among other things, and also in your statement.

12 Before I proceed with that, do you recall the name of any of the

13 police officers that you say were present on that day, the 10th, in

14 Radisani at what you say was a check-point?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Were you on your own or were you accompanied by anyone?

17 A. I was accompanied.

18 Q. And can you tell who accompanied you on that day?

19 A. Both translators.

20 Q. And again, I suppose you're still declining to mention the

21 identity of these alleged persons. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, I think we have to draw upon the Wendell [phoen] decision.

23 Q. But you would agree that had such persons existed, or if they

24 existed, they would also have seen those things which you've described

25 here. Is that correct?

1 A. That's correct.

2 Q. Well, the problem, sir, is that there has been evidence in this

3 trial, and also as you will see from Mr. Georgievski, that in fact not

4 only did you not see what you claim to have seen, but you could not see

5 it? Do you agree with that?

6 A. No, I don't agree, because I don't have the testimony of other

7 people and I don't know if this person really exists, and I just know that

8 since the accused have been in the Tribunal, the pressure on a lot of

9 people in Macedonia rise higher.

10 Q. Are you suggesting, Mr. Hutsch, that our clients have anything to

11 do that?

12 A. I'm just describing the fact. It's your conclusion.

13 Q. And can you explain how does that relate to what you were capable

14 of observing from Radisani?

15 A. What I say is that there were -- people were stopped, people were

16 controlled. They had -- there were normal uniformed policemen. That's

17 what I said, and that's what I saw.

18 Q. Well, I wasn't talking about the policemen, sir. At this stage

19 I'm asking you about the impacts of the mortar which you claim to have

20 seen before this Chamber. Let me ask you this or let me --

21 A. Would you show me where I say that I saw the impacts from the

22 check-point?

23 MR. METTRAUX: Can the registry please bring up what is exhibit,

24 I'm sorry, Rule 65 ter 1D234. Thank you.

25 And I'll ask the registry, please, to bring up page 1D00-2571.

1 Q. It's page 5 of your statement, Mr. Hutsch.

2 And I'll ask you to first focus on paragraph 25 and we will go

3 down the numbers.

4 This is what you said at paragraph 25 of your statement, and it

5 relates, if you look at the previous page, to the 10th of August. It says

6 this: "We stayed at this check-point for around an hour. It was my

7 interest to get more information or at least to monitor more from this

8 point since we were not allowed to proceed beyond this point."

9 Then at paragraph 26 you say this: "I can mark this check-point

10 on a map marked as attachment M1 at the position EM-0372 579." And then

11 you go on to say this: "It was around 17 and 1800 hours when I noticed

12 the impacts. I have heard mortars and I'm pretty sure that it came from

13 120-millimetre mortars. Six to nine mortar rounds were fired in the

14 village of Ljuboten. I have seen mainly two areas of impacts."

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yeah, I see and I'm looking for the point that I saw that from the

17 check-point.

18 Q. Well, this is the paragraph that started two paragraph above, sir,

19 because you say in paragraph 24: "The police check-point was obviously a

20 regular police check-point."

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And then at paragraph 25 you say that you stayed at this

24 check-point for around an hour and that you were not allowed to proceed

25 beyond this point.

1 Are you trying to put yourself in another position now,

2 Mr. Hutsch?

3 A. No.

4 Q. So you agree that you were at the check-point at that time?

5 A. No. What I agree is if you see a impact, I don't know if you ever

6 saw a impact, you will see that something like a tower is rising up

7 with --

8 JUDGE PARKER: Pillar.

9 A. -- smoke and dust and things like that between 25 and 30 metres.

10 And that's what you couldn't see. And I'm telling, I have heard mortars.

11 MR. METTRAUX:

12 Q. No, no, Mr. Hutsch, that's not what you said. What you said is

13 this: "I have seen mainly two areas of impact."

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And that's what you said. You're not talking about hearing,

16 Mr. Hutsch, you're talking about seeing. Is that correct?

17 A. I saw two areas of impact, with that what I saw, I'm sorry for

18 that, I have just the word a tower like with dust, smoke and things like

19 that. And that's what according to the rules of United Nations Military

20 Observers is to identify target areas that you can't see yourself. And

21 sorry for that, that we haven't been more precise in this statement, but

22 what you can see is from this point these, I will say towers of dust.

23 Q. Well, before we break, Mr. Hutsch, I will simply read to you what

24 you had told the Prosecution at that time. It is the 21st of June of

25 2007. It's at page 2503 and it says this, question of Mr. Saxon. He was

1 showing you this particular map, and we can see that you wrote the letters

2 pointing to the inner circle above Radisani, you wrote the words CP. What

3 does that stand for?

4 A. Check-point.

5 Q. That stands for check-point. Okay. "And a bit above and to the

6 right, a bit to the north-east we see a couple of small circle and then

7 another marking above it. Can you explain what those small markings

8 are?" And you said: "These marking of first a mortar position here."

9 Then Mr. Saxon asks: "A mortar position which -- what force?

10 "By the -- probably by the Macedonian army," you said.

11 "All right. And then below that, we see two little circles," and

12 that's your answer, "These are two target areas where this mortar fired in

13 while I was in the area of the check-point and I could monitor myself."

14 So what you told the Prosecutor, Mr. Hutsch, in response to the

15 question is that you could see more than smoke. You claim to have been

16 able to see the mortars firing. That's what you said. That is page 2503?

17 A. That what you can see is first. If a mortar fires, you have a

18 fire tower, that is rising between 10 and 15 metre over the mortar. And

19 it is going on into a smoke and into a dust tower. And if you have

20 impacts, you just see another tower with -- with dust and smoke. And both

21 you could see.

22 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, would that be a convenient time?

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

24 We resume at five minutes past 6.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 5.31 p.m.

1 --- On resuming at 6.06 p.m.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

3 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Perhaps before I start again we'd simply indicate that if the

5 Chamber wished to receive the original of the articles with the date, we

6 have copies for the Judges here and with the assistance of the usher, and

7 there should be a copy for the Prosecutor as well.

8 Q. Mr. Hutsch, do you recall that before the break I was asking you

9 questions about what you claim were your observations, the observations

10 that you made from Radisani. Do you recall that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in fact what I'm putting it to you, sir, is that none of the

13 observation which you claim to have made on that day were yours; in other

14 words, did you not see any of the things which you claim to have seen from

15 that check-point. Do you agree with that?

16 A. I don't agree.

17 Q. I'd like to put to you, because you asked earlier about the

18 evidence or the information provided by other people on that matter and on

19 the 25th of May of 2007, a witness appeared before this Tribunal. It's a

20 person who is referred to as Mr. M-83, and, Your Honour, this is at page

21 1494 to 1495 of the transcript. And he was asked this question that

22 starts at line 21 of that page. He was asked "whether you noticed that

23 there was gun-fire coming from one of the houses in Ljuboten and whether

24 in your preparation for this evidence you were actually able to show this

25 house to the Prosecution."

1 "I saw this," he said, "at the moment, what it was about, were

2 the people were, I can't say, because from Radisani you can't see Ljuboten

3 because there is on a hill, Radisani is down in a hole."

4 And that why, Mr. Hutsch, you could not have seen any of the

5 things which you claim to have seen is because Radisani, in particular the

6 place where you claim to have been, is straight in a hole and between

7 Radisani and Ljuboten, there is a big nice hill. Do you agree with that?

8 A. I don't agree, because this check-point was in the area of a

9 bridge, passing a small river, and even from there you could see -- you

10 have a -- a view to the eastern part of Ljuboten. And you are going

11 uphills in direction to Ljubanci.

12 Q. So what this person called -- told the Trial Chamber was incorrect

13 then. Is that your evidence?

14 A. My evidence is that if you see the pictures that was made by the

15 Prosecutor and which showed the -- the point where I have been, you can

16 see exactly the roofs of -- of Ljuboten. And you can see much more than

17 just the roofs.

18 Q. Well, I'll ask you to have a look again at Rule 65 ter 1D313.

19 This is, again, the statement, Mr. Hutsch, of Saso Georgievski and it is

20 1D00-2949 in the Macedonian and 2951 in the English. That is the same

21 statement as I showed you earlier on. And this time I would ask you to

22 look at paragraph 6, please, of that statement, and I will read it out to

23 you.

24 It says this: "In August 2001 there was a police patrol on the

25 road that passes through Radisani and towards Ljuboten. At one point

1 there was a permanent police patrol on the road where the bus station is

2 located, but there was not a police check-point there, only police

3 presence."

4 Then he says: "It is physically impossible to see the village of

5 Ljuboten from there. There is a hill between that position and the

6 village of Ljuboten, which blocks the view between the two."

7 So you would agree that the place which this witness refers to,

8 which is right at the end of the village of Radisani on the way to

9 Ljuboten, he says you can't see Ljuboten from there. Do you agree that's

10 what he says?

11 A. First, what I see is that this -- this person said there was not--

12 not a check-point, and in paragraph 6 he says, there has been a police

13 presence, so what is the difference between a check-point and a police

14 presence. Second, I don't know where the bus station is. I was locating

15 the bus terminal where this bus terminal is, but what I say is that we

16 have a bridge and if it is necessary for you, we will go there and I will

17 show you.

18 Q. Well, perhaps tomorrow if we have the time, Mr. Hutsch, we'll show

19 you a few pictures, but do you agree that if one accepts the fact that the

20 bus terminal is at the very end of the village in Radisani where you say

21 you were and where you say there was a check-point and that the evidence

22 of this person is that from that location you could not see Ljuboten,

23 there would be a rather serious discrepancy with your evidence again.

24 Would you agree with that?

25 A. I agree just on this point, that if we are talking from the same

1 place, and the place I have been, what I think is much more north than

2 this so-called bus terminal, I could see.

3 Q. Well, Mr. Hutsch, you've told me a bit earlier that you had no

4 idea where this terminal was. Are you saying that now you recall where it

5 is?

6 A. No. I just looked to that paragraph 6, and immediately we have

7 now a check-point or a police presence, whatever that means, and that is

8 in a place what I think is much more south what he is describing a bus

9 terminal, because I didn't see a bus terminal there where the check-point

10 was. And what I say is if you are just going to this area and going into

11 the field, probably after 100 and 200 metres you can see much more and we

12 can go there and you will see exactly from that point that I was drawing

13 to the map that you have a view to the eastern part of Ljuboten.

14 And I'm not sure if the bus terminal that this police officer

15 mentions that is playing now with the police presence, that this bus

16 terminal is the same point where I identified this check-point. And

17 that's -- that's what are you doing all the time, and now you're

18 presenting yourself a document where somebody is confirming that there was

19 a check-point after we have had a discussion for more than 30 minutes if

20 there was a check-point or not.

21 Q. Can you indicate, sir, where in the statement of Mr. Georgievski

22 you see that he mentions the presence of a police check-point?

23 A. He is mentioning a police presence.

24 Q. And do you interpret that to mean that there was a check-point?

25 A. Exactly that's what I'm interpreting.

1 Q. But in fact if the police presence in question was a car with two

2 policemen sitting in or outside of it, you would agree that this would not

3 be a check-point or would you now suggest that it is in fact a

4 check-point?

5 A. I would say if that policeman would go and stop people and control

6 them, in this moment it's a check-point. However how much they are,

7 however how they equipped and however what they are doing and yourself

8 presenting now to the Chamber a document where a police presence that you,

9 you said that there was not a police presence, and this witness as well,

10 said two paragraphs before that there was not a police presence, that

11 immediately there was a police presence. Either if you define that now as

12 a check-point or a police presence, it is up to you.

13 Q. Well perhaps I'll ask you this, Mr. Hutsch: What did this alleged

14 check-point look like in Radisani? What was it made of?

15 A. Exactly that what I said, that there were police officers and

16 police cars.

17 Q. So that's now corresponds exactly to the statement have you in

18 front of you. Is that what you're saying?

19 A. There have been some sand sacks [Realtime transcript read in

20 error "some"] as well in the left side of the street.

21 Q. Sorry. The --

22 A. That doesn't correspond with what this man says.

23 Q. The transcript didn't pick it up. Did you mean sandbags?

24 A. Sands sacks, sandbags.

25 Q. And was there anything else? Did you see a gun mounted or a beret

1 or anything, anything else you saw there?

2 A. No.

3 Q. So you're still claiming that there was reinforcement with

4 sandbags on the side of the road. Is that what you're saying?

5 A. There was some sandbags on the side of the road, yes.

6 Q. Well, what I'm putting to you is that you are changing your story

7 all time, Mr. Hutsch. Do you agree with that?

8 A. I don't agree, because that is exactly what I said to the

9 Prosecutor.

10 Q. Well, let's -- are you suggesting that you mentioned to the

11 Prosecutor that the check-point in question was made up just of a car, two

12 policeman and a few sandbags?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Are you suggesting that?

15 A. I said that there have been much more policemen in this moment,

16 what I think up to six, eight, that some of them were dressed in a

17 camouflage uniform And that there was a police car as well.

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters would like to ask the counsel

19 and the witness to pause between questions and answers. Thank you.

20 MR. METTRAUX:

21 Q. Do you recall, sir, that when you were interviewed for the first

22 time by the Office of the Prosecutor in August of 2005 you described in

23 chronological fashion what you said had happened in Ljuboten on the 12th

24 of August; that's the Sunday. Do you agree with that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And I would ask that the witness be shown again his statement.

2 That is Rule 65 ter 1D234.

3 And I will ask the registry to turn to page 1D00-2576.

4 Do you recall, Mr. Hutsch, also telling the Office of the

5 Prosecutor that a duty book was kept at the check-point which you said you

6 saw in Radisani. Do you recall that?

7 A. I was -- I was talking about -- about notices one officer made.

8 Q. But do you recall suggesting to the Prosecution that a duty book

9 was kept by the police at the check-point? Do you recall that?

10 A. No, I don't recall that, because --

11 MR. METTRAUX: Can the statement please not be shown at this

12 stage. Thank you.

13 A. Because the duty -- we were -- we were looking for a description

14 what was going on. And what I think is now if it is very important for

15 you, and that's exactly the point I made with my mother tongue, I'm not

16 sure if they have duty books or log-books or whatever else you will call

17 them in check-points but one of these officer had notices and he was

18 making notices.

19 Q. So can we agree that you told the Prosecution that there was some

20 sort of a document on paper in which information was noted down by the

21 police officer? Do you agree with that?

22 A. Yeah. But I don't know if he was doing these notices because he

23 was doing that for himself or if that was officially ordered, I don't

24 know. I'm not familiar with that, and just with my experience in the

25 El Masri case, I know that there have been some -- some books in the

1 border stations where they -- where the Macedonian authorities write in

2 that -- that somebody enter Macedonia or leave Macedonia.

3 Q. Can the witness now please be shown Rule 65 ter 1D234, please. It

4 will be page 1D00-2576. Thank you. And if you could enlarge the top of

5 the page, please.

6 Do you recall, Mr. Hutsch, that you described in chronological

7 fashion what you said you knew about the events of Ljuboten of the 12th of

8 August of 2001, and the first such incident which you recorded or you

9 recalled was one that took place at 603 and you will make it clear later

10 that you didn't have that of personal knowledge. But I would like to read

11 to you these few paragraphs.

12 At paragraph 59 it says this: "0603 hours. The 120-millimetres

13 rounds were fired by the army into the direction of the village."

14 Then at paragraph 60 of your statement you say: "0711 hours a

15 second round of mortar rounds were fired from the army position into the

16 village."

17 And then at paragraph 61 you make it clear -- you make the

18 following clear: "The above information of 0603 hours and 0711 hours is

19 hearsay information and was told to me by some police officers from the

20 check-point in Radisani. The police officers took this information from

21 the duty book at the check-point and they also elaborate to me the

22 location where these grenades impacted. I will mark these impacts on the

23 panoramic picture, PP3."

24 So you agree that as far as your statement is concerned and as far

25 as it was taken by the Office of the Prosecutor, they understood you to

1 say that this information about those two particular incidents had been

2 taken or given by you from a -- from the policemen, their duty book at the

3 check-point. Do you agree with that?

4 A. I agree that that's what is written, but I remember exactly that

5 we have had the discussion if that -- that have been notices or whatever.

6 And I don't know if these police officer was taking his notices or if that

7 was a official duty book or something else.

8 Q. Well, first I'll ask you this. You've indicated that at the

9 check-point on that day on the 12th you saw a number of policemen, and I

10 think you mention the number. Did you see anyone else at what you call

11 the check-point?

12 A. Just police officers.

13 Q. Well, you see, this evidence is directly contradicted once again

14 by the evidence of another witness who has already given evidence in this

15 case and who had come precisely from the village of Radisani on that very

16 day and who went towards the village of Ljuboten.

17 But contrary to you, this person did not mention any check-point

18 in Radisani but what he mentioned is that there was a immense crowd of

19 civilians is there. So you would agree that what he saw and --

20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, that would be Mr. Bolton. It's on the

21 7 of June, 2007, page 1686 to 1687.

22 Q. Greatly differs from your description of those events. Do you

23 agree with that?

24 A. I don't know in which times Bolton had been there, where he had

25 been, so I don't know where Mr. Bolton and -- exactly has been and at what

1 time he has been there.

2 Q. Well, you see, Mr. Bolton spent almost the entire day in the area

3 around the village of Ljuboten and Radisani.

4 A. I don't see nothing what Mr. Bolton said. I see just that what

5 are you telling me.

6 Q. Well, the other thing that I'm putting to you, sir, is that if

7 Mr. Bolton is to be believed that, as he said, that was a great crowd of

8 civilians on the road between Radisani there and Ljuboten, you did not

9 mention seeing a single such person in your statement. Do you agree with

10 that and again today?

11 A. I agree that there was not a crowd of people in the outskirts, if

12 you want to say that, or on the entrance of Radisani.

13 Q. So if Mr. Bolton were to give that evidence that in fact between

14 Radisani where had you come from and Ljubanci on that road, there was a

15 great crowd of people showing a great amount of animosity towards him and

16 the other people, you would say that this is incorrect?

17 A. No, I wouldn't say that, because I don't know when Mr. Bolton was

18 passing the street. I don't know where he saw this crowd and where he

19 became -- this reactions.

20 Q. But the fact is, and you will agree with that, that you did not

21 mention seeing any of that. Is that correct?

22 A. I didn't see a bigger crowd in Radisani at the time, yes.

23 Q. And is that also correct, as you confirmed earlier to me, that you

24 explained to the Chamber that on the 11th of August or, rather, on the

25 12th of August at 7.00 a.m., around 7.00 a.m. when you said you reached

1 the check-point in Radisani, you saw some of the same policemen that you

2 had seen the previous day at around 1530 on the 11th of August. Is that

3 correct?

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. But you see --

6 A. Sorry, on the 10th.

7 Q. Well, the 12th is the Sunday.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The 11th is the --

10 A. Saturday.

11 Q. -- the Saturday. So that would be the 12th and the 11th?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You see, one problem we have here is that even if such a

14 check-point had existed at that time, Mr. Hutsch, the same people could

15 not have been at the check-point at the time and I'm going to show you

16 why.

17 MR. METTRAUX: If we can turn once again to what is Rule 65 ter

18 1D313, please.

19 MR. SAXON: Your Honours.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Indeed, Mr. Saxon.

21 MR. SAXON: Before we move on to the next topic, I have reviewed

22 pages 1686 to pages 1687 of the transcript, and I'm wondering if

23 Mr. Mettraux can tell us where there is a reference to a crowd of

24 civilians. There are references to civilians but where is there a

25 reference to crowd of civilians, from the testimony of Mr. Bolton?

1 MR. METTRAUX: Well, we can -- I can read the passage, Your

2 Honour, if you wish.

3 It starts like this: "You could confirm that you did not enter the

4 village on that day, is that correct?"

5 "That's correct."

6 "And do I understand properly that the reason why you did not or

7 could not enter the village on that day was because of the animosity of

8 the civilians or some civilians in any case that were around the village

9 and the animosity which they showed to your team is that correct?"

10 "There was when we approached when we tried to approach the

11 village initially right at the beginning, following the mine strike there

12 was animosity from the villager in Ljubanci. Subsequently we did not

13 meet with animosity when trying to approach Ljuboten from the other

14 direction which was further to the east, avoiding Ljubanci."

15 "And was there any particular reason why you did not attempt to

16 enter the village on that day? Was it the same animosity?"

17 "There was no animosity but there was a determination on one

18 occasion not to let us pass and there was also occasion where we were

19 stopped by the police."

20 "And did you ask it -- did you ask to it go through or was it your

21 own determination that the risk was too great to get into the village on

22 that day?"

23 "We had no intention to drive into the middle of an exchange of

24 fire, but nonetheless, we were on the occasion stopped by civilians."

25 Sir, to go back to the issue that were mentioned to you earlier, I

1 would like to ask you to now turn to paragraph 8 of the document in front

2 of you.

3 Do you have it in front of you?

4 A. Maybe explain something to me. Mr. Bolton says that he was

5 stopped by the police.

6 Q. Well, what I was referring to is not who stopped him, Mr. Hutsch,

7 but the presence of --

8 A. You're asking if I'm saying the truth that I was stopped by the

9 police the whole time. We are discussing this topic now since 60 minutes,

10 and here Mr. Bolton says that he was stopped by the police.

11 Q. No. What I asked you, Mr. Hutsch, is whether you had seen any

12 civilians or any angry civilians on that location and you said no, that

13 you --

14 JUDGE PARKER: I think your emphasis was rather on a crowd of

15 civilians, Mr. Mettraux.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, that was the evidence that

17 Mr. Bolton gave in his statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, which is

18 also admitted and which was reiterated in the terms that I read out in

19 the -- and in the investigator's notes which were used also with

20 Mr. Bolton when he explained the reason why they could not enter on that

21 occasion. We believe that the statement or the passage that was read

22 right now reflects the fact that there was indeed a crowd or at least a

23 number of civilians along the road from Radisani to Ljubanci and Ljuboten,

24 which Mr. Bolton gave evidence about.

25 JUDGE PARKER: That is the interpretation you place on the

1 evidence. It is not expressly so stated by the evidence, and it is a

2 matter about which different conclusions could be formed, I think,

3 Mr. Mettraux.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Q. Mr. Hutsch, if I can ask to you turn to paragraph 8 of the

6 statement which is in front of you. It is the statement again of Mr. Saso

7 Georgievski and it says this: "I have also been asked about the shifts of

8 the police. I can state the following. The shifts were determined upon

9 an order by the commander. They are shifts according to five systems.

10 From system one -- from system number one to system number five. System

11 number one means working all the time non-stop; system number two means 12

12 hours working and 12 hours rest. I think that in August 2001, system two

13 was the one according to which the work was conducted."

14 I will ask you the question and I'll come back in a minute to

15 another matter, Mr. Hutsch, but would you agree that if the statement of

16 Mr. Georgievski is correct again, and according to the police shift system

17 at the time, you could not have seen the same people on the 11th of August

18 at 1530 and at 7.00 a.m. on the 12th. Do you agree that this would not be

19 possible?

20 A. No, that's not -- that's not impossible, because especially when

21 there was going on an operation in an area, the people stood on duty.

22 Q. But you agree that according to Mr. Georgievski, the system would

23 have prevented -- or would -- would have precluded the possibility that

24 the same person be there at the same time. Do you agree with that?

25 A. No, I don't agree. He is talking about the shift. That means how

1 the police forces were structured and organised and were playing under

2 normal circumstances how they was doing their job, and we have had in the

3 time from the 10th up to the -- I will say 12th or 13th -- you are

4 listening to me or do you need a minute for your documents?

5 Q. Don't worry about me, Mr. Hutsch, just go on with your evidence.

6 A. Okay. So just that in this -- in this three days there were

7 special -- a special situation. And special situations, they changed the

8 normal -- the normal things.

9 Q. And how do you know that, Mr. Hutsch, what's your -- the basis for

10 that?

11 A. That's -- first that what I saw the time in Macedonia, for

12 example, if you were going to the -- to the Aracinovo time, in Aracinovo

13 time the police forces they have been all the time the same when the

14 operation against Aracinovo was going on. If you are going to Tetovo

15 time, for example, there were a check-point in front of the football

16 stadium in Tetovo, and especially when we have had an incident where an

17 Albanian-thrown hand-grenade to this check-point, and by the name Mattias

18 Rub, your favourite journalist, he wrote that was just a mobile phone but

19 never the mind when this incident happened. For example, the police

20 forces there have been also been there for more than 12 hours and 20 hours

21 and 24 hours. I spoke to policemen who worked for 48 hours and 72 hours

22 without a minute of sleep.

23 Q. Well, would you agree that at least as far as Mr. Georgievski is

24 concerned, he says that this system was applicable in August of 2001. Do

25 you agree with that?

1 A. That's a normal system, but he wasn't asked if that was the

2 system on the 10th, 11th and 12th.

3 Q. Well, on the 24th of May of 2007, there's a witness who appeared

4 in this case, and he was asked the following question about shifts:

5 "Is it correct that the shifts took place at every 12 hours?"

6 That's the question.

7 "Yes." And then the answer is: "In the morning you would drive

8 your colleagues to the check-points where they were deployed and, at the

9 same time you would bring the previous shift back. Is that correct?"

10 "Yes."

11 And then there's a further question: "Because of the situation

12 that we discussed just now, sometimes it wasn't possible simply to have a

13 sufficient number of regular police officers for all of the check-points

14 or sometimes only reserve police officers would be at the check-points at

15 a given time. Is that correct?"

16 "I said previously that the number of regular police officers was

17 insufficient for such purposes. So the reserve police officer assisted."

18 Again you would agree, sir, that this person who is M-083, did not

19 suggest that at the time there was any other shift system that was

20 applicable in the area. Do you agree with that? He did not make that

21 suggestion.

22 A. What he said is not exactly to the situation that we have had

23 between the 10th and 12th. And for example we have had check-point in the

24 entrance of the Erebino mountain, and sometimes this check-point, there

25 was nobody in. They have just some sand sacks there, and during the

1 trebos crisis, this check-point was -- was -- there have been policemen 24

2 hours. The same if you was going to the highway from Skopje to Tetovo,

3 there have been check-points there, they even didn't control in normal

4 times the cars on this highway. But they did so when something happened,

5 for example, in Tetovo, or something happened at Gobcin [phoen], for

6 example.

7 Q. Well --

8 A. So we are talking about the normal things, but the situation

9 wasn't normal in Ljuboten area between the 11th and -- between the 10th

10 and the 11th.

11 Q. But in fact this is another element which shows that your story is

12 false, isn't that correct, Mr. Hutsch?

13 A. Which element?

14 Q. The fact that you could not have met the same persons on two

15 different occasions at the time and places where you said you met them.

16 Do you agree with that?

17 A. Where are the different occasions?

18 Q. Well, one is 1530 on the 11th of August and the other one is 7.20

19 on the morning of the 12th, as you agreed a moment ago.

20 So do you agree that if the evidence of these two persons, M-083

21 and Mr. Georgievski are to be believed and in fact, as the evidence

22 suggests, there was no change in the month of August to the normal pattern

23 of shifts, you could not have met those same people at what you say was a

24 check-point. Would you agree with me?

25 A. Why not? Because if they set up this check-point at 6.00 and they

1 leave at 6.00 in the evening, they are there for 12 hours. And next

2 morning, they have 12 hours rest and return and next morning at 6.00 and

3 they stay there until 6.00 in the evening, so where is my wide spread? I

4 don't understand what are you discussing.

5 Q. Well, what I'm discussing, sir, is that the fact that if the

6 shifts pattern that was described by these two individuals is applied, the

7 same person could not be at the same place, do you understand?

8 A. No, because they were 12 hours working between 6.00 in the morning

9 and 6.00 in the evening. Then they have 12 hours rest between 6.00 in the

10 evening and 6.00 in the morning, and 6.00 in the morning they start to

11 work again until 6.00 in the evening.

12 Mr. Mettraux, I don't know your questions.

13 Q. Well, see, sir, if Mr. Georgievski were to say, for instance, that

14 the shift start started not at 6.00, as you said, but that they started

15 much earlier, that would make it impossible. Do you agree with that?

16 A. Sir, now you are doing that what you are ask -- what you are --

17 the complete say -- time saying that I'm doing. You are just fixing

18 the -- the -- your testimonies like you need it.

19 Q. Well, what about -- do you know at what time the shifts were

20 organised at the time during -- in that area during at this particular

21 time?

22 A. No, I don't know.

23 Q. And do you recall that earlier you had also mentioned in your

24 statement, and I have read it out to you, that on the 12th of August, the

25 Sunday, you obtained your information at 6.03 and 7.11 from the duty book

1 at the check-point. Do you recall saying that? That's paragraph 61.

2 A. Yes, I recall.

3 Q. This is another one of those element that gives your story away.

4 Isn't that the case, Mr. Hutsch, there was no such log-book. Do you agree

5 with that?

6 A. I think we discussed this matter now.

7 Q. Well, perhaps I will show you paragraph 8 again of

8 Mr. Georgievski's statement.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Paragraph 7, I apologise. This is Rule 65 ter

10 1D313. This would be the previous page, please. Thank you.

11 And if we can focus, please, on the last paragraph on that page.

12 Thank you. It says this: "Asked by the Defence and with regards to the

13 check-points in Macedonia during the time of the crisis, I can say that I

14 have passed through check-points on many occasion during the period. I

15 have never seen a log-book on daily events or any kind of register on any

16 of those check-points. I have never heard of anything like that, and as

17 far as I can say from that fact I have also lived in Macedonia during that

18 period as well as while working as a police officer. Such registers or

19 log-book did not exist."

20 Q. And that's the situation, Mr. Hutsch, isn't it, that there was no

21 check-point and no log-books to get information from. Do you agree with

22 that?

23 A. I don't agree, because your witness himself said there was a

24 police presence in the street between Radisani and Ljubanci. They have

25 had notices. I tried to explain to you with my limited English versions

1 that if -- if it is a official log-book, if is a duty book, or if just

2 private notices, I don't know. Your own witness said if -- if you look to

3 paragraph A -- 8, that he thinks that they had shift system too. That

4 means he is not sure that it was shift 2. But are you presenting all

5 these things like facts to the Chamber.

6 Q. But wouldn't you agree, sir, that you invented this story of the

7 log-book to make it more credible that you had obtained information about

8 events that happened earlier this morning. Do you agree that's what

9 happened?

10 A. No, sir, I don't agree because they have had notices. If private

11 or official, I don't know, but they have had notices.

12 Q. And do you agree that those two times which you mention, which

13 are 6.03 and 7.11 on the morning of the 12th are times at which you say a

14 number of mortars were fired from the army position into the village or in

15 the direction of the village. Do you agree with that? And I can show you

16 your statement, if you want.

17 A. First, Mr. Mettraux, I never agreed with something what you said,

18 and so I would like that you don't say "and do you agree," that means I

19 have had agreed to you a lot of times, and still this moment I didn't

20 agree one time. So the next time is -- so why? Why I need these two

21 information for my story, that I was trying to investigate if at 6.03

22 or 7.11 some mortars were fired into Ljuboten, nobody in Germany was

23 interested in -- even in Macedonia. Nobody was interested in this

24 information, and I got it from the policemen, and that's what I wrote.

25 Q. And those two times, to answer my question, Mr. Hutsch, were,

1 according to you, times at which mortar fire was fired by the army into

2 the direction of the village. Do you agree with that? And I can show you

3 your statement, if you want.

4 A. First, Mr. Mettraux, I never agreed with something what you said,

5 and so I would like that you don't say "and do you agree." That means I

6 have had agreed to you a lot of times and still this moment I didn't agree

7 one time. So the next time is -- so why? Why I need these two

8 information for my story, that I was trying to investigate if at 6.03 or

9 7.11 some mortars were fired into Ljuboten, nobody in Germany was

10 interested in, even in Macedonia, nobody was interested in this

11 information and I got it from the policemen and that's what I wrote.

12 Q. And those two times, to answer my question, Mr. Hutsch, were,

13 according to you, times at which mortar fire was fired by the army into

14 the village or in the direction of the village of Ljuboten. Do you agree

15 with that?

16 A. That's what I suppose, yes.

17 Q. And do you recall that during the --

18 A. Otherwise -- otherwise, the mortar teams would have changed

19 between 7.00 and 8.00. That means before 8.00 or before 7.12 other people

20 would have fired the mortars then afterwards. And like I said as well in

21 my examination by Mr. Saxon, that I got the information that the mortar

22 positions were run with army teams.

23 Q. Well --

24 A. And I got this information but not with my own eyes, and I never

25 said that I saw the mortar teams with my own eyes.

1 Q. Well, no. You made that quite clear, Mr. Hutsch, in your

2 statement, and I will show it to you so that you can see what was said

3 exactly. It's Rule 65 ter 1D234 and that's at page 1D00-2576. And if we

4 can look at the top of the page, please, paragraph 59 and 60.

5 You will agree that the references as to two times 6.03 hours

6 which refers to 120-millimetre rounds being fired by the army into the

7 direction of the village and 7.11, a second round of three mortar rounds

8 fired from armed position into the village.

9 Is that correct, is that's what those paragraphs say?

10 A. That's correct. But in the very first beginning of my testimony

11 Mr. Saxon asked me how I was knowing who was which unit and which unit was

12 placed where, and I told him that this information was given by a source

13 into the army. So if I'm saying here now that these rounds are fired by

14 the ARM, then it's that what I supposed. Probably they might have been

15 also fired by police forces. Probably they might have been fired by

16 civilians. Whoever else?

17 Q. Are you saying now that you got that information from a source in

18 the army, Mr. --

19 A. I'm saying that not now. I'm saying that in the beginning of my

20 testimony, that the information Mr. Saxon asked me several times and we

21 painted that where the positions of the army and the position of the

22 police have been and I told him this -- in this -- on this background that

23 the information that there was army positions there, that I got this

24 information by -- by army sources.

25 Q. Well, if you look at paragraph 61, in fact it suggests that you

1 got that information from the police officers at the check-point. Do you

2 agree with that?

3 A. The information that the mortars have been fired. But they didn't

4 tell me that was Saso Georgievski who was firing the mortar.

5 Q. And are you saying, Mr. Hutsch -- do you remember -- let me ask

6 you that way. You remember being asked about those two times during the

7 examination in chief and I objected to the fact that you had your records

8 or binder open before you. Do you recall that? It was on the 26th of

9 June of 2007, and you closed it. Do you recall that?

10 A. I don't remember if I have had the binder in front of me.

11 Q. Well, is it correct that when you were asked about those times

12 without the benefit of your statement, which is normal, you could not

13 exactly remember these two times as precisely as they are stated in this

14 statement. Do you recall that? You could remember that they were around

15 6.00 and 7.11?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. But you agree that four years after the events when you gave that

18 statement, that's August of 2005, almost four years to the day from the

19 events, you were able to give a record to the minute to the Office of the

20 Prosecutor, 6.03, 7.11. Is that correct?

21 A. Yes, because I have had my notices with me.

22 Q. Well, if you can be shown what is exhibit P308, Mr. Hutsch. This

23 would be tab 30, exhibit P308.

24 And again, Mr. Hutsch, this is your note, but this time the note

25 of the 12th of August of 2001. And I'll ask the registry, please, to turn

1 to the first -- the first page or the second page, I apologise, in the

2 English, please, and in the German.

3 Do you see, Mr. Hutsch, that is the first page or the first

4 annotation that you made on the 12th of August in your book and the first

5 annotation on that day is at 7.48. Do you see that? And it refers to a

6 telephone with Mr. Beqiri. Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And you would agree that there is no references anywhere to the

9 two incidents, the 6.03 and the 7.11 which were given to you as

10 information from either or or and the army and members of the police?

11 A. There was another exhibit that was my map that I was drawing

12 there, and I tried with my limited English words, and obviously you didn't

13 understand, that there was a combination of writing these notices and

14 drawing this map, and if you would be fair, you would show now the map and

15 there you will see these two informations.

16 Q. But do you agree that as far as your note are concerned, you did

17 not mention any such events which you recall in your statement?

18 A. No, I don't, because that is not the truth. There is a

19 combination between the map and this notebook.

20 Q. Did you ever verify this information, Mr. Hutsch, which you gave

21 to the Prosecution about your -- the information which you say you

22 obtained about fires -- mortars having been fired at the village at 6.03

23 and 7.11? Did you make any effort to verify that?

24 A. No, I didn't do.

25 Q. And in fact the information is that there was no mortar fire at

1 that time. Do you agree with that?

2 A. I don't know, because I didn't check it.

3 Q. There's another matter which I would like to turn to and it

4 relates to your notes. Perhaps, we have three more minutes, I can ask you

5 those general questions.

6 You've indicated to the Office of the Prosecutor when you started

7 your evidence that you would keep work notes as part of your work and I

8 think you've indicated that you would do so on a daily basis. Is that

9 correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And as far as can you recall, did you keep any notes for the other

12 days, the 10 and 11 of August of 2001?

13 A. No, I didn't do that in -- in this way.

14 Q. So what you saying is that you only kept notes for the 12th and

15 the 14th of August, as far as the events of Ljuboten is concerned? Is

16 that your evidence?

17 A. No. I was just asked to hand over the notebooks from the 12th and

18 from the 14th, because there are other things in the -- in my notices from

19 the 10th and from the 11th.

20 Q. So what you're saying, so I understand you properly is that

21 although notes exist of what you did on the 10th and 11th, they contain

22 material which does not relate to Ljuboten and this explained why you have

23 not provided those to the Prosecution. Is that correct?

24 A. Exactly.

25 Q. Well, would you agree, sir, that on -- in March or late March or

1 early April of 2007, the Prosecution, on behalf of the Defence, asked you

2 to disclose your notes that covered the period 5 to 24th of August of

3 2001. Do you recall that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And do you recall that you declined to do so?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Well, perhaps I'll show you then what is Rule 65 ter 1D23. First

8 let me show you the request. It's Rule 65 ter 236, please. It's

9 1D00-2655.

10 Mr. Hutsch, what I'm about to show you is a letter sent by the

11 Defence of Mr. Boskoski to the Office of the Prosecution.

12 I'm grateful. If the registry could focus on the bottom of the

13 page, please.

14 This is what the Defence wrote to the Prosecution: "In his

15 statement of 25th to 27th August of 2005 at paragraph 14 Mr. Hutsch claims

16 to have, 'normally used one notebook per day to take notes of his

17 activities during that time.' The Defence has been provided with records

18 of notebooks of 12 and 14 August. The Defence respectfully asks you to

19 request Mr. Hutsch to provide you with his notebooks from the period 5

20 August to 24 August. We would in turn ask to you disclose those

21 immediately to the Defence."

22 Do you recall the Prosecution passing on this request to you?

23 A. That was I think one of the questions Mr. Kuehnel gave to me, yes.

24 Q. And can you recall what at that time you told Mr. Kuehnel?

25 A. No, I don't remember what I gave as a answer.

1 Q. But is it correct that you declined to provide those notes to the

2 Defence?

3 A. Yes. Because -- there were -- there were -- that means you are

4 asking from the 5th up to the 24th of August. For example, on the 10th of

5 August, I have had other investigations and on the 5th of August I have

6 had other --

7 Q. Well, but what you told --

8 A. I just made a break to let you work.

9 I have had a number of other investigations and research in

10 Macedonia where sources are in and all these things. So what you would

11 like to have is the complete archive of 19 days of a journalist with all

12 sources with all their things, and you can't really imagine that I would

13 hand over these notebooks to the -- to the -- to the Defence or even to

14 somebody else.

15 Q. Could we please see Rule 65 ter 1D238.

16 JUDGE PARKER: I think not, Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Caught by the clock.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Two minutes over time here. I thought you were

19 just going to finish a point.

20 We must adjourn for the day. I'm sure that both you and

21 Mr. Hutsch will welcome a rest. You're each having to work with English.

22 We're grateful.

23 We resume tomorrow at 9.00 a.m.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.,

25 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 16th day of

1 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25