1 Wednesday, 14 March 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 Just for full transparency, yesterday I'd forgotten to instruct
12 the witness not to speak with anyone. I noticed that immediately after I
13 left the courtroom. I took care that this message was conveyed to the
14 witness through the Victims and Witnesses Section.
15 Mr. Radosevic, I'd like to remind you that you're still bound by
16 the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of your testimony.
17 Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to continue the cross-examination?
18 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed.
20 MR. EMMERSON: And if it's of any assistance to Your Honours, I
21 understand that counsel for the other accused will not be cross-examining
22 in terms of time.
23 Could we put up the map P10, please.
24 WITNESS: STANISA RADOSEVIC [Resumed]
25 [Witness answered through interpreter]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson: [Continued]
2 Q. And whilst that's being done, may I ask you one or two questions
3 arising from the matters that were being discussed yesterday afternoon.
4 You were telling us yesterday afternoon, Mr. Radosevic, that after you
5 left your father's house, you stopped off at the Stijovic house in
6 Bandera to try to pick up Novak's father's rifle but that there was no
7 one at the home; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You also told us earlier in your testimony that it was at the --
10 at Bandera that you were stopped by Caus and two other men with guns; is
11 that right as well?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And yesterday you told us that -- in the afternoon, you told us
14 that Caus stopped you at the crossroads in Bandera leading to Gornji and
15 Donji Ratis on one side and Ljubarda on the other side. Again, is that
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Can we just please zoom in on the area which shows
19 Dashinoc, Bandera, Pozhare. Yes, that's fine.
20 Q. Now, can you just locate yourself. You can see Dashinoc, you can
21 see Bandera and you can see Pozhare. You told us that you took the
22 southern road from Dashinoc to Pozhare via Bandera; is that right?
23 A. I don't know about north and south, but that's the one road that
24 I always used.
25 Q. There were two ways you could go from Dashinoc, are there not?
1 You could go north, straight to the road that runs from Decani to Maznik,
2 or you could go on the south road via Bandera to Pozhare; is that right?
3 A. Well, sir, why would I go round about? I could have also gone
4 via Klina. What I took was a shorter road from Dasinovac to Decani. I
5 don't see why I would go --
6 Q. Mr. Radosevic, if you would just listen to what I'm asking you.
7 I'm not asking you why you took it, and I'm not questioning your
8 reasoning for taking it, I'm simply asking you to confirm that you did.
9 And that's right, isn't it?
10 A. Yes. I went to Dasinovac, Bandera, and on.
11 Q. All right. Can you, taking the pen, please, can you mark for us
12 where on the road from Dashinoc to Bandera the Stijovic house is, please.
13 A. [Marks].
14 Q. Thank you.
15 A. Approximately here. I'm not quite certain, but this is roughly
17 Q. And just to orientate ourselves, I think we can see just a little
18 to the left of that the crossroads that you're referring to at Bandera,
19 where the road goes north towards Ljubarda and south towards Gornji and
20 Donji Ratis; is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, before we continue, I missed the
23 moment when the witness marked. Is that just above the letter A in
24 Bandera? Perhaps you could enlarge it a tiny little bit.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I see a red dot on there, but it's hardly --
2 MR. EMMERSON: Could we zoom a little bit on that?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. EMMERSON: Don't mark it again. Let's just zoom in on the
5 picture; we can see it clearly.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Or perhaps add a letter of the family name to that
7 so that we have --
8 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
9 Q. Could you put the letter S against your dot, please, the letter
11 A. [Marks].
12 Q. Yes, thank you. And just to the left of that, I think you were
13 about to confirm, is the crossroads that you're referring to where you
14 were intercepted by Caus; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Radosevic, I'm not asking you to give an explanation at
17 the moment, but we have a signed statement from you made to the
18 Prosecution on the 26th of January, 2002. I'm just asking you to
19 confirm - we will have the document - you didn't, in fact, mention
20 stopping at the Stijovic house in that statement, did you?
21 A. I didn't mention because I had no reason to mention, because I
22 didn't find his rifle. If I had found his rifle there in his house, I
23 would have mentioned it.
24 Q. After you had been to the Stijovic house and failed to find a
25 weapon, you therefore still had only one gun; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And I think you confirmed yesterday that when Caus and the other
3 men stopped you, you told him that you were going to Decane to get the
4 other gun, and you said the same thing a little later on to the men at
5 the crossroads in Pozhare. You told them that you were going to Decane
6 to get the other gun. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. But, in fact, as you told us yesterday, you never had any
9 intention of going to Decane to get the gun; you were just lying to them
10 to get through their checkpoints. Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, to save my skin. Yes.
12 Q. I understand that. But the point I'm asking you to be clear
13 about is that you were lying to them, and you had no intention of going
14 to Decane to get a gun. That's right, isn't it?
15 A. Right.
16 Q. Was Novak living in Decane at that time, or did he have a flat or
17 a premises there?
18 A. They had a flat in which they lived from time to time. When they
19 worked late, they would stay there overnight, but most of the time they
20 did not live there.
21 Q. When you say "they," do you mean the whole family or do you mean
22 Novak and his brothers?
23 A. Novak and brothers.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. Because they worked up there.
1 Q. Did you have any reason to believe that they would have a gun in
2 their flat in Decane?
3 A. I don't understand the question. What are you getting at?
4 Q. Don't worry about what I'm getting at. Please just answer the
5 question. If you don't understand it, I'll repeat it. Did you have any
6 reason at that time to believe that Novak or his brothers themselves had
7 a gun in their flat in Decane?
8 A. I don't know whether their gun was at Decani or at Bandera. My
9 purpose was to save my skin, to lie successfully to that group of people,
10 to save my life. Whether his gun was at Bandera or elsewhere, whether
11 they believed me or not, that was not the point.
12 Q. Well, Mr. Radosevic, I just want to ask you one question, if I
13 may, about an interview that you gave to Mr. Dutertre when you arrived in
14 The Hague on Monday of this week. Do you remember that he showed you
15 those NGO documents that you've been asked to comment on in your
16 evidence, when you first arrived here?
17 A. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
18 Q. When you first arrived in The Hague on Monday, you had a meeting
19 with Mr. Dutertre, the gentleman sitting -- if you just look over on the
20 other side of the court; yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And during that meeting, he showed you some NGO documents, the
23 ones that you were shown during your evidence, didn't he?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And he asked you to then comment on them or correct them, didn't
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: Could we see, please, the notes from that proofing
4 session, which I think are only available in hard copy, but --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar --
6 MR. EMMERSON: -- Madam Registrar has a copy for the ELMO.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps first we'll give a number to the new marked
9 MR. EMMERSON: I'm so sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Are you in need of any further markings that we --
11 MR. EMMERSON: I think not for the time being.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because, of course, we are trying to avoid that
13 we have --
14 MR. EMMERSON: Multiple markings.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, not multiple markings on one map but we have 15
16 maps on the same event.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Perhaps it should stay up for the moment.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll leave it for the moment.
19 And I take it, Madam Registrar, that that's possible, to have the
20 proofing notes on the ELMO and at the same time leave the map on the
22 MR. EMMERSON: I think we simply have to switch channels on the
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Now, these are not translated into Serbian, and so
1 it's the second page, please, rather than the first that we need to put
2 up. If you can just put the second sheet up.
3 Q. I just want to look at the second line. I'm not asking you to
4 read that, Mr. Radosevic, because obviously you won't be able to read it
5 because it is only recorded in English. But at this point, you were
6 being asked about the "Spotlight" report and to correct what was said
7 there. And you are recorded as having said, and I'll read it slowly so
8 it can be translated: "I went with a rifle that belonged to my late
9 father. And then I went to Decane to get Novak's rifle that actually
10 belonged to Novak's father."
11 I just want to understand this, Mr. Radosevic: Were you going to
12 Decane to get Novak's rifle or not? Because you seem to have told
13 Mr. Dutertre that you were; whereas you told the Tribunal that you had no
14 such intention?
15 A. Sir, I'm telling you once again: I stopped by that house, and if
16 I had found that rifle, I would have maybe gone to Glodjane. Since I
17 didn't find it, I went to Decani. I had said to them that I would go and
18 get that rifle, but practically I was lying to them to save my skin,
19 because from Pozare to Decani, a thousand different thoughts went through
20 my head. What will happen if I bring the second rifle as well? Maybe
21 then they wouldn't let me go either. I lied that I would go to Decani
22 and get it, and in the end we all remained alive.
23 Q. It may not be a massive point, Mr. Radosevic. I'm simply trying
24 to ascertain this: If Mr. Dutertre correctly recorded what you were
25 trying to say to him, you seem to have been suggesting that you were
1 going to get a rifle that you believed to be in Decane, whereas in fact,
2 as I understand it, that's not right?
3 A. Sir, I told that gentleman that I was going to Decani to that
4 other rifle, but it was a lie that I told them. I was trying to protect
5 myself, to get out of that situation and to get my mother out and my
6 friend out. What if I had gotten that rifle in Decani and returned to
7 Glodjane? Maybe I wouldn't have returned alive.
8 Q. Very well. Let's move on, if we may. I asked you some questions
9 yesterday about whether these men who assaulted you on the road from
10 Irzniq to Gllogjan when the car broke down, whether they were asking you
11 questions about the police operation on the 24th of March, asking for
12 information about the police, and so forth, or whether you were just
13 being ill-treated because of your ethnicity.
14 And I want to ask you this: You've told us that your mother was
15 not ill-treated, and I want to put to you one passage in the signed
16 statement that you made to the Prosecution.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Again, I don't ask it be brought up, but for the
18 note, it's page 6, the sixth full paragraph.
19 Q. I'm just going to read to you, again slowly for translation, what
20 is recorded there. You said this:
21 "I said that they could do what they wished with me but to leave
22 my mother alone. The man with the sniper rifle asked me, 'Is this your
23 mother?' When I replied in the affirmative, he said, 'Then she is my
24 mother, too,' and he told the other soldiers not to harm her?"
25 Do you remember the man saying to you that if she was your
1 mother, then she was his mother, too?
2 A. That's correct. He said that. I told him that he could do
3 whatever he wanted to me but to leave alone my mother. She was an
4 elderly woman. But I don't see why they wouldn't give her a glass of
5 water to take her pill. Later we were taken into that house. She
6 remained outside. But it's true that that man said that they should
7 leave her alone from that time on, that they shouldn't interrogate her,
8 because they had already started to curse her because she didn't know the
9 Albanian language. I said, Right, she doesn't speak Albanian, don't
10 question her, et cetera.
11 Q. Can I then move to the time that you spent with your father that
12 day. Again, just for clarity, you told us that he had two guns in the
13 house and that you took one of the two guns away; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And, presumably, the reason you only took one gun was you didn't
16 want to leave your father completely unarmed?
17 A. No, that's not correct. He asked me for one rifle and that's why
18 I took one rifle. Why would I give him two rifles? Why would I have to
19 give somebody a rifle just like that? I can't see a reason to do that.
20 Q. What was the gun that you left your father with?
21 A. A hunting rifle.
22 Q. Your father was 55, I think; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. He knew how to use the rifle; is that right?
25 A. Well, he did. He was a -- he used to hunt. He didn't buy this
1 rifle for decoration purposes. He bought it to go hunting, so he knew
2 how to use it.
3 Q. And can I just ask you briefly about the clothes that he was
4 wearing when you saw him. I think you told the Prosecution in a signed
5 statement that when you went to identify your father's clothing, you
6 particularly recognised a camouflage jacket that he'd been wearing on the
7 day; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, you told us yesterday that the following morning, that is,
10 after this incident, you spoke to a friend of yours called Slavisa
11 Markovic; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Now, Your Honours, I'm going to ask the witness
14 some questions arising out of his testimony yesterday. And I wonder if
15 it would be helpful using the -- obviously, I was working overnight from
16 the transcript provided at the end of the day, so I've provided to Your
17 Honours copies of the transcript, so that Your Honours can follow the
19 JUDGE ORIE: We have all the transcripts on our screen in e-court
20 so we can switch from one transcript to another.
21 MR. EMMERSON: The reason I'm asking you to follow it on the
22 paper copy is because the pagination which I was using from last night
23 will not necessarily correspond with the pagination that currently
24 appears on e-court. Obviously, we can cross-refer in due course if there
25 are any differences.
1 JUDGE ORIE: If you refer to specific wording, you can
2 immediately find it, and this would save, however, would to avoid --
3 MR. EMMERSON: I'll follow that practice, if I may, in future.
4 But I'm looking at the moment at page 12 of the transcript.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. EMMERSON:
7 Q. Now, you told us yesterday that the following morning,
8 Mr. Markovic told you that at about 7.00 to 7.30 in the evening the night
9 before, he had heard a lot of gun-fire which he thought must have been
10 the attack on your father's house, and you told us that he could hear
11 this from a kilometre and a half away. Do you remember saying that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, he told you that there was a lot of gun-fire. Did he tell
14 you how long this gun-fire went on for?
15 A. No.
16 Q. I want to make it clear: I'm not challenging that there was
17 gun-fire. A number of witnesses, I think, heard an exchange of fire
18 coming from the direction of your father's house that night. But I want
19 to come, if I can now, to the conversation that you say you had with your
20 Albanian neighbour, that is, the man that you're not willing to name.
21 Now, that conversation took place on the same day that you went to the
22 scene where your father's body had been found; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. Well, the next day when I went to look where my father had
24 been found, I turned around and I met this man.
25 Q. When you went there to the scene, were there police officers
1 around at the time or not?
2 A. No, not the next day when I went there.
3 Q. And was that the only occasion that you went there?
4 A. I went there once again after that.
5 Q. So this was the first occasion that you went there?
6 A. Yes, that was the first time that I went there. After having
7 found my father, I went there the next day.
8 Q. Let's be clear. When was the first time you went to the place
9 that your father's body had been found? I'm not asking for the date, but
10 was it after your father's body had been removed?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And on that first occasion, do I understand you correctly, there
13 were no police officers there when you got there?
14 A. Well, there was no need for them to be there because -- so there
15 was -- there were no police there when I went to see the place where my
16 father had been found.
17 Q. Thank you. Just please, if you will, just confine yourself to
18 answering the question for the moment.
19 You say you went there again after that?
20 A. Yes, after that.
21 Q. How many times?
22 A. Twice or three times. I can't remember, but I passed by two or
23 three times. Two or three times.
24 Q. Were there police officers there on any of those occasions?
25 A. No.
1 MR. EMMERSON: Can we please look at Defence document
2 identification 1507. I think this is already exhibited as D5. Oh, I'm
3 sorry, could we save the map? I do apologise.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if you don't need the map anymore. Then, Madam
5 Registrar -- if, yes, if we have to show D5, then this one should be,
6 yes, stored. Okay.
7 Madam Registrar, that would be ...
8 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number D6,
9 marked for identification.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is there any objection against admission?
11 There's not, so it can be admitted right away. D6 is admitted. Then the
12 next one to be on the screen is D5, as far as I understand? I think we
13 should use the words "Exhibit D5" for purposes of linking it to the
15 MR. EMMERSON: Exhibit D5, yes. Could we look, please, to page 4
16 of that document, and paragraph 18. And can we enlarge paragraph 18,
17 please, and 19.
18 Q. I'm just going to read to you, again slowly, what you said or are
19 recorded as having said in a statement that you signed on the 23rd of
20 August of 2005 last year. You said this:
21 "I was present when the bodies of Slobodan Radosevic and Milos
22 Radunovic were located by police in September 1998. I was with Zoran
23 Nikic, my cousin, and Novak Vlahovic, my neighbour. Somebody had thrown
24 earth over their bodies, but they had not been buried in a grave, they
25 just lay on the ground with earth covering them. I can't recall the
1 names of the 15 to 20 police officers securing and investigating at the
2 scene, but I will be able to find out their names when I return to work."
3 And then you say: "When I arrived at the scene, the bodies had
4 been removed and placed into body bags?"
5 Now, were there 15 to 20 police officers securing the scene when
6 you arrived?
7 A. Sir, so this is paragraph 18, some things are not quite clear
8 here. I told Mr. Kelly, I think that's his name, that I was with Novak
9 Vlahovic when Zoran Radunovic told me that the remains of Milos Radunovic
10 and Slobodan Radosevic had been found, and he told me that I couldn't go
11 to Dasinovac, telling me that there were 15 to 20 police officers doing
12 the on-site investigation and so on, and that I couldn't go to the
13 village of Dasinovac on that day.
14 Q. So you were told, were you, by Mr. Nikic that there were 15 to 20
15 police officers there?
16 A. Yes, conducting an on-site investigation.
17 Q. Very well. Very well. Now, the records that we have state that
18 your father's remains were removed on the 10th of September, so that
19 would --
20 MR. EMMERSON: We can remove this from the screen now.
21 Q. -- so that would place your first visit there when you say you
22 spoke to your Albanian neighbour as being the 11th of September; is that
24 A. I think it was on the 9th that my father was found, but the 10th
25 -- well, I'm not very sure about the dates, but what I do know is that I
1 went there the next day.
2 Q. Yes. The date I was putting to you was the date on which his
3 remains were removed from the scene, and the records suggest that his
4 remains were removed on the 10th. Now, you're telling us you went the
5 following day, so that would put your first visit at the 11th, wouldn't
6 it, if those records are right?
7 A. I don't know the dates. So my father was found on one day, and
8 then the next day I went there.
9 Q. I just want to clarify with you, please, if we can, a number of
10 points about what you say this Albanian neighbour of yours told you?
11 MR. EMMERSON: And for Your Honours' reference, I'm looking at
12 transcript page 26, first of all.
13 Q. Now, first of all, Mr. Radosevic, I think you told us yesterday
14 that this man told you that he had not seen your father and Mr. Radunovic
15 being captured; is that right?
16 A. Well, it is true that he was not there when they were captured,
17 but after that, when they passed by his house, he stopped the cars and he
18 saw them in the cars. He couldn't see whether they had been wounded.
19 Q. Yes. Pause there. Pause there. So he told you he couldn't see
20 whether they had been wounded, did he?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, you told us that he told you that they were
23 headed from Dashinoc towards the Pozhare crossroads; is that correct?
24 A. Yes. They were moving from Dasinovac in the direction of Decani.
25 That's what he told me.
1 Q. Now, you told us yesterday --
2 MR. EMMERSON: And, Your Honours, this is transcript page 29,
3 line 19.
4 Q. -- you told us yesterday that you assumed that they must have
5 been heading for Gllogjan because that is where you and others had been
6 taken; is that right?
7 A. It is right that I'd said that. They would not have taken them
8 to Decani. They took all of the captives to their headquarters in
10 Q. I'm not asking you about what you assumed. This is not something
11 that the witness you're describing, this Albanian man, told you, is it?
12 A. Yes. These are my assumptions, that they wanted to take them to
13 Glodjane. But he told me that they were actually heading to Pozare. But
14 it wasn't quite clear to me. It was the same situation as it was with
15 me. They had no need to take me to Pozare; they took me to Glodjane.
16 Q. And Pozhare is a crossroads that goes in a number of different
17 directions; is that right? A simple yes or no will do, Mr. Radosevic.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did he tell you whether these men were wearing uniforms or not?
20 A. I think as far as I remember, but I'm not sure, I seem to recall
21 that they were in uniform.
22 Q. You seem to recall. Did he tell it to you or not?
23 A. I think he did tell me that.
24 Q. Did he tell you whether, like Mr. Markovic, he had heard the
25 sound of a lot of gun-fire coming from your father's house and from that
2 A. He said that there had been shooting in the area around my house,
3 and in the morning the people that were taking him to Ratis, they told
4 him about my father, that he had been captured, and that his fate was
6 Q. Pause. You're confusing the two incidents. It may be my fault.
7 The question I'm asking you is not about what Mr. Markovic told you but
8 whether your Albanian friend that you say you spoke to, whether he
9 confirmed that there had been a lot of gun-fire?
10 A. I can't remember. I really can't remember whether he told me
11 that he had heard shooting or not, so I don't want to tell you something
12 that I'm not certain of.
13 Q. Surely, Mr. Radosevic, that's the first question you would have
14 asked him, is it not? Did you hear gun-fire, if you wanted -- if you're
15 really talking to somebody who had seen your father in a car and who
16 couldn't tell you whether he was injured or not, and you tell us you had
17 already heard that there had been gun-fire. Surely the first question
18 you would have asked him is, Did you hear an exchange of fire around my
19 father's house?
20 A. Well, sir, maybe that was an omission on my part that I failed to
21 ask him whether there had been any shooting around my house, but at that
22 time I really didn't care whether he was injured or killed in my house,
23 in Glodjane, in Prilep, in Maznik, because the only thing I wanted at
24 that time was to find out -- to find out who it was. But he wasn't able
25 to tell me who it was.
1 Q. For all you knew, your father may have been shot in an exchange
2 of fire and injured in the back of those cars while he was being driven
3 away; is that right?
4 A. He told me that he was alive.
5 Q. Yes. I'm not disputing that. You told us one of the rumours
6 you'd heard of was that he might have died from gun-shot injuries and
7 bled to death. I'm simply asking you whether you were not concerned to
8 find out from this man if there had been a fire-fight?
9 A. I wanted to say that yesterday, the rumours that I heard, but
10 then His Honour interrupted me. I heard rumours that he had been brought
11 to the village of Prilep, together with Milos Radunovic, that they were
12 wounded, and the rumour had it that Milos had been wounded in the hand.
13 And they took them to the village of Prilep, but the people from the
14 village of Prilep didn't want to let them stay there because they were
15 afraid that then they would be blamed for it. So they went from Prilep
16 to Glodjane, and the rumour had it that they died there or in the village
17 of Dasinovac. But these were just rumours that I heard, that I picked
18 up. I wanted to share that with you yesterday, but then the Judges
19 interrupted me.
20 Q. No, you did share it with us yesterday. It's on the transcript,
21 Mr. Radosevic. The point is, one of the rumours that you heard was that
22 they may have bled to death from injuries sustained to their hands and
23 legs in a fire-fight, isn't it?
24 A. Well, I don't know whether he was wounded in Dasinovac, Glodjane,
25 Prilep, Bandera. I can't tell you because I did not witness that.
1 Q. And you don't know whether he fired first on these people or they
2 fired first, do you, from anything that you've seen yourself or been
4 A. No, I don't know that.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. EMMERSON: Could we just look, please, for Your Honours, at
7 transcript page 26, line 21.
8 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Radosevic, you were asked these questions by
9 Mr. Dutertre. He asked you: "When he," that is, the Albanian man,
10 "stopped them, did he tell you what means of transportation they were
11 using, Milos Radunovic and Slobodan your father?" And you replied:
12 "Well, he said that it was by car, but he didn't specify the make. And
13 he said the persons, the soldiers, were not from the village of
14 Dasinovac." And then Mr. Dutertre asked you: "How many cars were they?
15 Did he tell you?" And you replied: "No, he didn't."
16 Your evidence was, when asked this question by Mr. Dutertre
17 first, that this man didn't tell you how many cars there were. Do you
18 understand what I'm putting to you? Yes?
19 And then a little later on --
20 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honours, page 29, line 13.
21 Q. -- Mr. Dutertre asked you this: "Let me go back a little. How
22 many soldiers were they when he stopped them to try and save your father
23 as well as Milos Radunovic?" And you replied: "Well, from what he told
24 me, they were in two cars, so maybe seven or eight of them."
25 Now, that's your evidence yesterday, Mr. Radosevic. Just to be
1 clear, when you were first asked, you said that this man did not tell you
2 how many cars there were, and then when asked to say how many people
3 there were, you said he told you there were two cars. Now, are you
4 making this account of what this man told you up as you're going along?
5 A. No, sir. If my memory serves me right, I said that there were
6 two cars, and I didn't know what make they were. I don't know how -- I
7 think that if I remember correctly, I said that I didn't know exactly how
8 many cars but that there may have been two, maybe seven or eight people
9 in them. I think that's what I said.
10 Q. That was your second answer, Mr. Radosevic. Your first answer
11 categorically was that he did not tell you how many cars there were. And
12 I'm asking you whether you're making this up as you're going along?
13 A. No, sir, I'm not making this up. But I think that the first
14 question was the make of the car, and then I said that this man didn't
15 know what make those cars were, but that there were two cars and maybe
16 seven or eight people, and that it was, in fact, correct that these
17 people were not from my village.
18 Q. And you also told us --
19 MR. EMMERSON: And this is, Your Honours, pages 26, lines 6 to 8.
20 Q. -- you said this: "When he had been captured, when they headed
21 from my house towards Glodjane, he stopped there. He stood in the road,
22 maybe 5 or 6 metres down the road, and he just stopped them."
23 Did this man tell you that he'd stopped them 5 or 6 metres down
24 the road? Was he as specific as that, or is this something that you
25 yourself have invented?
1 A. Sir, I think that there may be a misunderstanding. I said 500 to
2 600 metres away from the house, so maybe it was a problem with the
3 interpretation or transcript. I said 500 or 600 metres away from the
5 Q. Did he tell you 500 or 600 metres, or is that something you've
6 made up?
7 A. He told me where he stopped them, 5 or 600 metres away from my
9 Q. So he gave you that specific information, but you didn't ask him
10 whether there'd been an exchange of fire?
11 A. I said I had not asked him about whether there had been a
12 fire-fight or not.
13 Q. Now, Mr. Radosevic, have you had an opportunity to look at the
14 witness statement you made to the Prosecution in this case?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You never told the Prosecution, did you, that there was a man
17 who'd seen your father being driven away, even if you weren't willing to
18 name him. You never told the Prosecution before you came into court that
19 there was a man who'd actually seen them on the night, did you?
20 A. Well, it was not the night, it was day-time. But I didn't want
21 to introduce this person at all because I was afraid that somebody might
22 harm him.
23 Q. You never needed to give his name. You could have told the
24 Prosecution that there was someone whose name you couldn't give who'd
25 actually seen your father being driven away. You didn't tell the
1 Prosecution that at any time before you came into court, did you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And, Mr. Radosevic, you mentioned a man called Deli Lekaj. You
4 were asked by Mr. Dutertre about a man called Deli Lekaj who you'd heard
5 had been involved in the incident. I want to put something to you. Did
6 you know that Deli Lekaj had been shot by your father in the leg that
7 night and taken to hospital?
8 A. I don't know about that.
9 Q. You've never heard that?
10 A. No.
11 Q. I see. Do you know Rade Vlahovic? Do you know him?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And he never told you that, your friend?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Are you telling us the truth, Mr. Radosevic, about this? I'm
16 going to give you another opportunity. Did your friend or any of your
17 friends ever tell you that the man you'd given evidence about, Deli
18 Lekaj, was shot in the leg by your father in a fire-fight at Dashinoc?
19 You seem to have heard quite a lot of rumours.
20 A. No, sir. I'm hearing this for the first time.
21 Q. I see. Let's go back just for a moment, can we, please, to the
22 scene when you went to visit the area where your father's body had been
23 found. You told us you were in that area on three or four occasions, is
24 that right, in total?
25 A. Two or three times. Let's say three. I'm not sure. It's been a
1 long time.
2 Q. Two or three times after the occasion when you first went, or two
3 or three times in all?
4 A. All in all.
5 Q. What were you doing there on those other occasions?
6 A. Well, the second time I was there, I wanted to light a candle at
7 the spot.
8 Q. Well, Mr. Radosevic, forgive me, because you may or may not know
9 this, but there was an international presence in the area around that
10 time. Did you know that?
11 A. The second time I went?
12 Q. At around this period of time, there were international monitors
13 in the area. Did you know that; yes or no?
14 A. When I went there, I didn't see anyone. I wasn't aware of any
15 such thing.
16 Q. Mr. Radosevic, a large number of the Albanian houses in Dashinoc
17 and the surrounding villages had been looted by the police and burnt by
18 the time you say you first went there. Did you see the evidence of the
19 houses of your Albanian neighbours, people you've told us were your
20 friends, had been burnt down? Did you see that or not?
21 A. I saw them, the same as mine.
22 Q. And do you know who burnt them down?
23 A. No.
24 Q. You've got a lot of friends in the police, haven't you? You've
25 told us yesterday that you recognise a lot of people in the police. You
1 really don't know who burnt down all the houses of the Albanians in
2 Dashinoc in September?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Well, I'm sure you can infer from this, Mr. Radosevic, it wasn't
5 the Albanians who burnt their own houses down, was it?
6 A. I have no comment. I don't know.
7 Q. You do know, I suggest, Mr. Radosevic. You know that these
8 houses were looted and burned by paramilitary police along with a group
9 of young Serbs from the area in revenge, don't you?
10 A. I don't know anything about that.
11 Q. Let me give you the names of the houses that were burnt down and
12 see if you recognise your neighbours.
13 Halil Sadikaj?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Shaban and Avdullah Sadikaj?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Qaush Sadikaj?
18 A. I don't know that name. I know the last name but not the first
20 Q. Muharrem Sadikaj?
21 A. Yes, I know him.
22 Q. Sadri Kadrijaj?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Ghafer Kadrijaj?
25 A. Never heard that name. I know the family name.
1 Q. Asmon Gradinaj?
2 A. I knew the man.
3 Q. Dede Gjokaj. Dede Gjokaj?
4 A. I heard about him. I mean I know him.
5 Q. Now, I've just read you a long list of names that covers rather a
6 large number of your neighbours, doesn't it?
7 A. Yes. We lived together in that village.
8 Q. I'm not asking you for the name of the person you say you spoke
9 to on the day that you attended, but can you tell us -- are you willing
10 to tell us whether his name was one of the names I've just read out to
11 you on that long list; yes or no? And you can do it in private session
12 if you wish, just whether his name is on that long list?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson gives you an opportunity to ask for a
14 private session if you'd prefer to answer his question in private
15 session; that is, that no one will hear your answer.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to say
17 anything about that man who tried to save my father.
18 MR. EMMERSON:
19 Q. Can I ask you this, Mr. Radosevic: Was that man's house burnt
20 down as well?
21 A. Yes, probably, just like mine and the other Serb houses.
22 Q. I ask you again: What were you doing on these three or four
23 occasions when you were in that area after the Serb forces had taken
25 A. I visited the place where my father's body was found, I visited
1 my home and nothing else.
2 Q. Do you know Ahmet Sokolaj, or did you know Ahmet Sokolaj?
3 A. I don't think his real name is Ahmed. His name is Ahmet, and he
4 was my neighbour.
5 Q. He was the house very near to yours, wasn't he?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I just want to ask you about an incident that happened involving
8 him, because you've told us how close your relationships were with your
9 friendly neighbours.
10 On the 3rd of April, 1999, a group of Albanians was stopped
11 trying to leave the area by police officers and paramilitaries next to
12 the police station in Decani, and Ahmet Sokolaj, the elderly father, was
13 taken out and beaten and subsequently killed.
14 Mr. Radosevic, I suggest you were there when that happened?
15 A. That is not true. I heard about it from Vela Petar when I went
16 to the village and talked to him.
17 Q. From whom?
18 A. I heard it --
19 Q. From whom?
20 A. From his son Aki, from my neighbours.
21 Q. There were a lot of people there on that day, Mr. Radosevic.
22 You're sure you weren't there, outside the police station in Decane?
23 A. I'm sure.
24 Q. I've just one or two further matters, if I may. The area where
25 you -- which was pointed out to you as the area where your father's
1 remains had been found, is it possible to describe that as Bandera?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Because the records record that your father's body was found in
5 A. As far as I know, and I lived there for 23 years, that place was
6 never called Bandera. It's on the tripartite boundary between Vodolija
7 [phoen], Ratis and Dasinovac.
8 Q. Did you know that your father's remains had been removed from
9 that place and taken to the Lake Radonjic canal before they were taken to
10 Hotel Pastrik? Was that something that you were told or not?
11 A. No, nobody told me that.
12 Q. So this is the first time that you're being informed of that
13 fact, is it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Well, they were, and they were then taken to Hotel Pastrik. Now,
16 I just want to ask you a little bit about the process that followed on
17 from that, because I need some clarification about what it was exactly
18 that was shown to you and when. Could we look, please, at your statement
19 of the 23rd of August again, which I think is D5?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, before you continue, I see on page 28,
21 line 10, you tell us what happened. That's quite extraordinary.
22 MR. EMMERSON: Well, if it's not a matter in dispute, it's as
23 between parties --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm not aware of -- I have not seen any agreed
25 fact that this has happened. So is that confirm, Mr. Dutertre? That's
1 not a matter in dispute, that the body of the witness's father was first
2 taken to the Lake Radonjic canal before they were taken to Hotel Pastrik.
3 Is that not in dispute?
4 Mr. Emmerson is giving us a fact, and Mr. Emmerson is supposed
5 not to give evidence. Therefore, I wonder what -- for what reason he
6 tells us, and he now tells us that this is, more or less, an agreed fact.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Well, it's not in dispute.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Not in dispute.
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this comes out of
10 the evidence which the Prosecution has received. The Prosecution does
11 not deny that the bodies were first taken to the lake, where they were
12 then given to the medical -- at the canal, yes, at the canal, for
13 provisional keeping. Thank you.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry. Perhaps I should have made that clear.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It wasn't clear to me at least.
16 MR. EMMERSON:
17 Q. So we have a statement -- your statement of the 23rd of August,
19 MR. EMMERSON: Could we look, please, at paragraphs 19 and 20.
20 In the English as well. Thank you very much.
21 Q. Now, Mr. Radosevic, in paragraphs 19 and 20, I just want to be
22 clear, you say that the day after you arrived at the scene you went to
23 Hotel Pastrik, and there you saw the skeleton remains of your father, and
24 you saw various other items of his clothing and artefacts as well. And
25 then at paragraph 20, you say this:
1 "When I identified my father's remains ... there was not a full
2 skeleton there, and I recall seeing the bones separate from the clothing.
3 It is possible that the bones located belonging to both Slobodan
4 Radosevic and Milos Radunovic could be mixed up. I don't think that the
5 bones were examined too thoroughly?"
6 Do you see that passage?
7 A. It's in English. I really don't know English.
8 Q. I'm sorry. I do apologise. You should have the Serbian
9 translation in front of you. Oh, I'm sorry, it's an Albanian
10 translation. You don't read Albanian. Do you read Albanian,
11 Mr. Radosevic?
12 A. I speak Albanian, but I really -- but not really well.
13 Q. Well, Mr. Radosevic, in that case let me just read it out to you
14 again, and I'll summarise, I hope, fairly. You say in the statement made
15 in August of last year that when you went to the hotel, you saw the
16 skeleton remains of your father as well as other things belonging to him.
17 You say that it was not a full skeleton, and that you recalled seeing the
18 bones separate from the clothing. You then say: "It is possible that
19 the bones of Slobodan Radosevic and Milos Radunovic could have been mixed
20 up" because you didn't think they had been examined too thoroughly. So
21 that's the first passage I want to take you to.
22 MR. EMMERSON: And I'm happy for that to be marked for
23 identification, but I'm not asking at the moment for it to be -- oh, it
24 is already an exhibit, that one. I'm sorry. The second passage doesn't
25 need to be tendered.
1 Q. Could I ask, please, that we now look at a statement you made
2 four months later in December, slightly less than four months later in
3 December 2005. This is Defence document identification 1522.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It has no number yet?
5 MR. EMMERSON: It has no exhibit number.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Do you want to tender that or do you just want to
7 read from it?
8 MR. EMMERSON: I'm just happy to read from it. So we can mark it
9 for identification, but I shan't, for the moment, be asking for it to be
10 tendered, unless anybody else wants it to.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, that would be ...
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number D7,
13 marked for identification.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. EMMERSON:
16 Q. Now, again, I'll just read this to you slowly. You say here --
17 so we're now at paragraph 7 of this statement, please, which is on page
18 2. In --
19 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, it hasn't come up yet, I think.
20 Q. You say this: "In September I went to Hotel Pastrik to identify
21 the remains of my father Slobodan Radosevic. I was there with my brother
22 Radoje Radosevic, and we identified my father's clothing. My father's
23 remains were in a black plastic bag, and I was not allowed to view the
24 remains," -- "I was not allowed to review the remains because the Serbian
25 investigative team did not want us to see the remains as they believed it
1 was better to remember our relatives the way they were when they were
2 alive. I assumed that the body was incomplete because the body was open
3 to the elements for a long time."
4 You then say: "It's usual to put clothes into a coffin." And
5 you say: "After we identified the clothing, we were told that we would
6 have to wait for the identification procedure to be completed as there
7 was co-mingling of the bones between Milos Radunovic and Slobodan
8 Radosevic, and it would take longer than normal."
9 So you left and you say: "I didn't see the remains of my father
10 either being put into the coffin or being in the coffin at any stage."
11 And then you say: "On the 18th of September, we received the wooden
13 Now, I just want to ask you, first of all: In the first of those
14 two statements, you say that you did see the remains, the bones of your
15 father; and in the second, you say that you did not?
16 Now, I don't want to take a great deal of time on this and I
17 don't want an explanation for the discrepancy. I'm just asking you: Did
18 you or did you not see the bones, or were bones pointed out to you?
19 A. Let me try to explain this. They did not allow me to reveal the
20 remains. I saw a part of the bones. There must be a mistake, just like
21 in the previous instance with 5 and 6 metres, and 5 and 600 metres. I
22 saw some of the bones and I saw the belongings. It is true that it is a
23 custom in our parts to dress the dead body and to follow a certain
24 procedure, but they said that in this case it was not really possible
25 because the remains were highly decomposed. And it's true that Milos
1 Radunovic and Slobodan Radosevic were found together and the bones, I'm
2 sure, did get mixed up. It is true that I took over that coffin which
3 had a tin casket inside.
4 Q. Yes. And, again, I'm --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: My brother actually
6 took that coffin.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.
8 Q. Just to be clear, Mr. Radosevic, I'm at this stage simply seeking
9 to establish the reality of what was given to you, and I think when the
10 coffin finally came, it was sealed; is that right?
11 A. The tin one, yes.
12 Q. Yes. And there had been a delay because of the -- as you had
13 been told, there had been a delay because of co-mingling?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Now, again, I'm going to put something to the
16 witness which is not in dispute between the parties, so that Your Honour
17 is aware. If there's any objection when I put it, Mr. Dutertre will
18 correct me.
19 Q. Mr. Radosevic, there's evidence in this case that your father's
20 bones were co-mingled not only with bones of Milos Radunovic but that
21 there was co-mingling with bones of individuals found at the canal. Was
22 that explained to you or not?
23 A. No. I wasn't told that.
24 Q. Very well.
25 MR. EMMERSON: I see Mr. Dutertre frowning. It may be that this
1 an issue we need to discuss between ourselves. But what is clear on the
2 record is that the witness was not told that, if it is, in fact, the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and there's no evidence for that. At least the
5 witness did not tell us that he heard about it.
6 MR. EMMERSON: That's the important point. That's the important
7 point. It wasn't communicated to the witness. As to whether it's right
8 or not, if Mr. Dutertre is not familiar with the material, then we can
9 discuss it at the break.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So the issue of whether it's in dispute, we'll hear
11 from you at a later stage.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. On the one
14 hand, I don't really quite see what we are getting at, because I think we
15 have agreed on identification by genetic analysis on the first bodies,
16 D-1 and D-2, Slobodan Radosevic and -- the two bodies at any rate.
17 And, in addition, I think we are discussing matters which the
18 following witnesses will discuss. But this does leave an opportunity to
19 the Defence counsel to discuss it. We have discovered human remains
20 which were attributed to those two people that have been compared with
21 the other remains found in the lake. These are things which might be
22 mentioned by following witnesses. These remains have been put in a bag,
23 and together with other bags -- found in other bags, all found. At any
24 rate, I don't think that we can talk about a mixing up or co-mingled, but
25 some bones could not be attributed to the bodies. Some of the remains
1 have been buried in Piskote.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll wait and hear on the matter.
3 MR. EMMERSON: The only question I needed to know from this
4 witness was whether -- his statement indicates that he had been informed
5 that there was co-mingling. I simply wanted to establish whether he had
6 been informed of co-mingling as between the two or co-mingling which
7 included those at the lake. But we'll hear other evidence about what the
8 actual position was in due course.
9 So insofar as my question involved a suggestion, then there is
10 no, as yet, evidence to substantiate that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's clear. Mr. Emmerson, usually I'm late
12 in asking what a convenient moment would be. If somewhere in the next
13 five minutes you find a convenient moment.
14 MR. EMMERSON: One more topic only.
15 Q. Mr. Radosevic, I think in 2005 when Mr. Kelly came to see you, he
16 told you that when he had gone to visit your father's grave, the bones of
17 your father had been found still inside the black plastic body-bag but
18 outside of the coffin, and that the grave had been opened. Do you recall
19 him telling you that?
20 A. Correct. I was an eye-witness. The grave was open, the
21 tombstone was broken, and even the tin casket was opened.
22 MR. EMMERSON: Can we just briefly look at paragraphs 12 and 13
23 of this same statement.
24 Q. Now, paragraph 12, you're commenting on this. You say you don't
25 know why the bones were outside; you could only think that perhaps
1 someone broke in, looking for something, and removed the bones. And then
2 you go on at paragraph 13: "I can only think that a possible explanation
3 for the bones being found "the way you stated" is that perhaps it was
4 because we requested the Serbian investigation team to speed up the
5 repatriation process and maybe they only gave us the coffin with the
6 clothes and left the bones until later. It's only a suggestion, but
7 perhaps the team put the bones there sometime later. This is only a
8 theory. I have no proof whatsoever that this is the case."
9 Did you ever make inquiries about whether the Serbian forensic
10 team had broken into your father's grave and put the bones in afterwards,
11 or not? Did you ever find out any further information about that?
12 A. No, I didn't discuss that at all, but I know for sure that on the
13 14th of June, when I was withdrawing from Kosovo, around 3.00 or
14 4.00 p.m., I stopped by the grave of my father, and nothing had been
15 touched. And after that, every week I visited the grave. Nothing had
16 been dug around it. I would have seen if somebody had done any digging.
17 But in 2005 when I went, the tombstone was vandalised, the grave
18 was opened, the soil had been dug out, the plates had been removed, the
19 wooden coffin was broken, and the tin one was opened. But from the day
20 when I buried my father until the day I left Kosovo, it was intact. And
21 in the first period we went to the grave every day, and later on we went
22 every week, once a week. We would have noticed had anything been
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, those are the only questions I have
1 for this witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And I do understand that other counsel --
3 there's no need to cross-examine the witness.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: There is no need.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. HARVEY: Once again, we have cooperated with each other to
7 ensure that there wouldn't be any duplication, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you very much.
9 Mr. Dutertre, we'll have a break. Would you have any further
10 questions to the witness? I see you're nodding yes. That's now on the
11 record. We'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.05 a.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we'll ask the witness in again, the Chamber
16 would like to give an oral decision on the Prosecution's notification of
17 clarification of paragraph 89 of the indictment and request for leave to
18 add a clarification to its pre-trial brief, filed on the 2nd of March,
20 Paragraph 89 of the indictment reads: "Approximately," and I'm
21 quoting, "approximately ten other people were killed while in KLA
22 custody, and their bodies disposed of in the same location and in a
23 similar manner to the victims identified and described above. They
24 remain unidentified."
25 In its notification, the Prosecution seeks to inform the Chamber
1 that, I quote again, "evidence will be called in respect of eight
2 unidentified victims, and not ten." The Prosecution seeks further to
3 clarify its pre-trial brief through annex 1 of its notification. This
4 annex is a further clarification to the allegations made in paragraph 89
5 of the indictment. The Defence did not object to this notification.
6 Considering that there is no objection to the Prosecution motion
7 by any of the Defence teams, and that in the words of the Prosecution,
8 the motion, and I quote again, "is, in effect, a slight reduction of the
9 allegations against the accused," the Chamber decides that annex 1 of the
10 notification is to be added to the Prosecution's pre-trial brief.
11 This concludes the Chamber's ruling on this matter.
12 As far as UNMIK disclosure is concerned, Mr. Re, if you would
13 have anything more to say than it's still ongoing and that everyone is
14 still working hard on it, you're invited to do so. If that would be the
15 message, however, then you're reminded that the Chamber would very much
16 like to receive more concrete information soon.
17 MR. RE: Yes. I'm talking to the Director of Justice -- Director
18 of the Department Of Justice later today and see if --
19 JUDGE ORIE: So everyone is still doing its utmost best.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Regarding UNMIK, I had a conversation with a
21 representative of UNMIK and understand, I believe, precisely what needs
22 to be done, and the real question, I think at this point, is whether or
23 not there have been requests for assistance which have been specifically
24 made, which is what I discussed at the Pre-Trial Conference and I'll
25 leave it at that at this time. But I believe the March 4th transcript
1 adequately covers the area.
2 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, at this moment, it's rather a
3 reminder than anything else.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry. Your Honour, I do apologise.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: There is one other matter that did cause me some
7 concern. I do not know whether or not there are any UNMIK files that are
8 going to exist with regard to the two witnesses who have just been called
9 that we were going to seek. Part of my concern in that regard is these
10 are witnesses who were not contemplated at the time the matter was first
11 raised on March 1st, we have no way of knowing. I don't know whether a
12 request for assistance has been made with regard to these two particular
13 witnesses who are coming up, 4 and 19. And in the event something comes
14 up at a later point, I don't know how it's going to affect the
15 cross-examination or my client's rights under Article 21.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I take it that you have brought this to the
17 attention of Mr. Re?
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I have, indeed.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I take it that Mr. Re will take action on
20 the request. Yes, I see you nodding yes.
21 MR. RE: Yes, yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then that's on the record.
23 Then on the 12th of March, the parties have mentioned an
24 agreement on a specific forensic issue. We'd like to be informed about
25 it, if perhaps by way of an update to agreed facts, if anything can be
1 reported. I'm not insisting on having it now, but I just remind the
2 parties that if we get these kind of signals of further agreement, that
3 the Chamber is anxious to receive that information as soon as possible.
4 Then I think we could continue.
5 Yes, Mr. Re.
6 MR. RE: Would there be any other administrative matters today?
7 I will probably not be in court for the last hour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I have been informed about that, that we can reach
9 you if need be. Okay, that's understood. Usually if you pass these
10 messages to Chamber staff, we'll hear from it and there's no need to
11 repeat it in court. Only if communication goes wrong, then of course we
12 spend a lot of time on it.
13 Mr. Usher, would you please escort the witness into the
15 MR. EMMERSON: Whilst the witness is being brought in --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. EMMERSON: -- there are one or two procedural matters that I
18 intended to raise at the conclusion of this witness's evidence
19 concerning, in particular, the order of witnesses and questions related
20 to that. So I don't know if Mr. Re was planning to remain, but it would
21 be helpful to have him here after Mr. Dutertre's re-examination is
22 concluded, if only for a short time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 WITNESS: STANISA RADOSEVIC [Resumed]
1 [Witness answered through interpreter]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radosevic, you'll further be examined by
3 Mr. Dutertre.
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you.
5 Will you allow me to make a preliminary statement regarding the
6 explanation I provided when I talked about Dasinovac and the lake and how
7 the bodies had been transported to Hotel Pastrik.
8 The interpretation booths told me that there had been a
9 change-over, and the translation of what I said from French into English
10 did not wholly reflect what I had said, and I would like to address this
11 again, if it is possible. Just very briefly, of course.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only question I always have in this
13 respect is whether it's something that should be said in the presence of
14 the witness and the witness hearing about it, but there's no major
15 problem here, I think. But in general terms, always the parties are
16 invited to consider whether statements, especially if these statements
17 are about the facts, whether it would be appropriate to do it in the
18 presence of the witness. But here it seems to be no problem, I see from
19 the body language of the Defence teams.
20 Mr. Dutertre, please proceed.
21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. If necessary, the Defence
22 counsel can interrupt as they wish.
23 [In English] I said that the remains were found at the
24 intersection of the roads between Dasinovac and Ratis, and these remains
25 have been brought to canal Radonjic to be secured there. When the
1 Serbian forensic team arrived, these remains have been handed over to
2 them in a black plastic bag, in one. During the autopsy and
3 identification process, Milos Radunovic and Slobodan Radosevic were
4 identified by traditional means and their remains have been given back to
5 the families, which means that the body of Slobodan Radosevic has been
6 given back to the family of the witness.
7 But from this bag some parts of bones were not matching with the
8 rest of the bones identified. These bones, therefore, have not been
9 given back to the families but put in a plastic bag, and this bag was put
10 in a coffin that was buried in Piskote cemetery. In this coffin, there
11 were other bones in other plastic bags; that means there were no
12 co-mingling but there were several plastic bags with several bones in one
14 In addition to what I have said, in 2003 the DNA identification
15 process made positively that one of -- part of these bones that were in
16 the coffins from one plastic bag were belonging to the remains of
17 Slobodan Radosevic.
18 So that's what I wanted to tell and that was not completely
19 translated into English.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
21 MR. EMMERSON: I've certainly no objection. I think it goes
22 rather further in detail than simply a repetition of what was said
23 before. I hear what Mr. Dutertre has to say as to how the Prosecution
24 puts its position. The critical point that I was putting to this
25 witness, I think, is not in dispute; namely, that remains were -- the
1 remains were removed from the position where they are recorded as having
2 been found to the Lake Radonjic canal area.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Dutertre, perhaps it's time to
4 re-examine the witness.
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
6 Re-examination by Mr. Dutertre:
7 Q. [Interpretation] I shall address a number of issues step by step.
8 Now, as far as the witness testimony which I gave to a non-governmental
9 organisation, Mr. Emmerson cross-questioned you yesterday about the
10 testimony you gave to this organisation.
11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] And for your information, this is
12 on page 51 and 52 and 53 of the transcript.
13 Q. Mr. Emmerson asked you whether this organisation had made things
14 up as pertains to what you had stated in your evidence. I would like to
15 clarify a number of points here.
16 First of all, could you tell us how much time elapsed between the
17 moment when you were beaten up by KLA soldiers and the moment when you
18 gave this testimony to the said non-governmental organisation, please?
19 A. I think it was maybe seven or eight days, something like that.
20 Seven or eight days after my capture, as far as I can remember. I don't
21 know exactly, but that would be it. Seven or eight days.
22 Q. Secondly, we know that the police took you away so that you could
23 receive medical treatment. Once you were released, what was your
24 physical condition when you gave this testimony to the non-governmental
1 A. I was in a bad state. I had been beaten up, I was under a lot of
2 stress, and I was still very much affected by what had happened to me.
3 Q. Yes. I think you've anticipated my next question. In other
4 words, in what psychological state were you? And you've just answered
5 and you've just said that you were stressed.
6 Another question: Did you sign anything? Did you sign a
7 document when you gave this testimony to this non-governmental
9 A. Well, as far as I can recall, given the state I was in, I did not
10 sign anything. I really can't remember. But as far as I can recall, I
11 isn't sign anything, but I can't be sure because it's been a while.
12 Q. Yes, I understand. Did you receive a copy of your statement
13 provided by this NGO, or not?
14 A. No, I did not.
15 Q. I am now going to move on to another point, Mr. Radosevic. This
16 relates to your -- how you were related to Zoran Nikic. I shall make it
17 short. Mr. Emmerson asked you what degree of kinship there was between
18 you and Zoran Nikic?
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This was on page 58, and this was
20 76 to 82 of yesterday's transcript.
21 Q. Mr. Emmerson, amongst other questions he put to you, referred to
22 the interview via videolink, an interview which it taken place between
23 another lawyer, myself and you. And he read out the notes that had been
24 taken thereof, and he stated: "My cousin Zoran Nikic, head of the Decani
25 police, was told that the bodies had been located."
1 So a very simple question I'd like to put to you: The notes that
2 had been taken during this videolink interview, that had taken place
3 between you, I, and Mrs. Valabhji, were these notes read back to you
4 after the interview?
5 A. Not after the conversation. They were not read back to me. But
6 let me repeat once again: Zoran Nikic is not a member of my -- he is not
7 a close kin. He's a -- I consider him to be a relative far passed, but
8 he informed me about --
9 Q. In the previous question you had said -- the question had been
10 put by the NGO -- I'm going back a little bit. You said that you were
11 stressed. How would you describe this? How stressed were you?
12 A. Well, I was under a lot of stress. I kept remembering about what
13 had happened to me. I kept having those flashbacks. And I was very
14 depressed and I kept thinking about what was happening with my father, so
15 I really was depressed.
16 Q. I shall move on to a third topic which relates to a weapon
17 belonging to the Stijovic family. Mr. Emmerson put you questions
18 yesterday and today on the weapon owned by the Stijovic family, and he
19 asked you whether it was the first time you tried to get hold of the
20 Stijovic weapon in Bandera, and you answered, if I remember correctly, "I
21 don't remember?"
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This is on page 84 of the
24 Q. After this Q and A session with Mr. Emmerson, one had the feeling
25 you'd never mentioned that you wanted to pick up this weapon at the
1 Stijovic's house. Do you remember that during the proofing session we
2 had on the 7th of March via videolink, a session between you, I, and
3 Mrs. Valabjhi, do you remember having mentioned that you wanted to fetch
4 the weapon that was at Novak Stijovic's father's house?
5 A. I really can't be sure. I'm not sure about this question. I
6 have all those things going through my mind and I can't really be sure,
7 and I don't want to confirm anything that I'm not absolutely certain of.
8 Q. The question of the weapon belonging to the father --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
10 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very sorry, but I think if the matter is going
11 to be put arising out of cross-examination, it should be accurately put.
12 What I asked was whether or not he had told Mr. Dutertre, or indeed said
13 in his witness statement, that he had stopped at the house of the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If you agree, would you please reformulate
16 your question, Mr. Dutertre. We can check whether ...
17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I shall rephrase my question.
18 Q. Did you, when we had this videolink interview on the 7th of
19 March, mention the fact that you tried to find Novak Stijovic's father in
20 order to get hold of this weapon?
21 A. I really can't remember discussing this issue. I really can't
23 Q. We are still discussing the same issue. Mr. Emmerson questioned
24 you about the proofing notes of the 12th of March which had to do with
25 the "Spotlight" document and, more specifically, to those portions of the
1 text which related to what you had done with the weapons.
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to display Exhibit 6,
3 and turn to page 18, please.
4 Q. At the bottom of page 18, there is a paragraph - this was written
5 in 1998 - which mentions what you did with these weapons and what your
6 intentions were. Does this tally with what happened in reality?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak up?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Usher, perhaps you could adjust the
9 microphone for the witness.
10 And could you speak a bit louder, Mr. Radosevic.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I don't
12 know what paragraph we're talking about here.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The paragraph which is marked
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not marked anymore. It's the last paragraph
16 above 9.2, and it's now -- yes.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see it now, Your Honour.
18 It is only true that I did not take the carbine to the KLA in Gradina but
19 I gave it to Caus, and then I went to Decani to fetch Novak's rifle. So
20 I didn't go back to the headquarters. I was stopped at Bandera by Caus
21 and then we went to Pozar.
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
23 Q. If I understand correctly, it was your weapon you had on you and
24 not the weapon belonging to the Stijovic family, according to what is
25 written here in this paragraph?
1 A. Well, yes, I handed over my father's carbine, not Novak's. I
2 think there's a translation error here because it says here that I -- it
3 says here Novak Stijovic's carbine, where, in fact, I had told them that
4 I had wanted to go and get Novak's carbine in Decani.
5 Q. This is what it says in the English text, and this is why I
6 elicited a comment from you about this paragraph.
7 Mr. Radosevic, you learnt about your father's death around the
8 10th of September and you went on the spot the next day. What frame of
9 mind were you in and what was your psychological state of mind when you
10 went there?
11 A. Well, I felt bad. Well, you can't really describe this emotional
12 state. I did not lose a chicken; I lost my father, my next of kin. And
13 he was only supposed to put me on my own two feet, and now he would no
14 longer be able to do that, so it was a very difficult time for me.
15 Q. You had this meeting with this friend of yours, this Albanian
16 friend, who reported to you what had happened when your father and Milos
17 Radunovic had been abducted. This was on the same day, was it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Another point I'd like to clarify. This has to do with the
20 identification process of their remains at the Pastrik Hotel in
21 Djakovica. Mr. Emmerson showed you two testimonies, one which was of
22 August 2005 and the other was December 2005. In the first, you indicated
23 having seen the bodies; and in the second, you indicated having not been
24 permitted to see your father's body. Do you remember having addressed
25 this issue during the videolink proofing session on the 7th of March
1 between you, I, and Mrs. Valabhji?
2 A. Yes. Yes, we did talk.
3 Q. And what explanation did you provide?
4 A. The explanation was that we were not allowed to see the remains
5 of our late father, but the explanation was also that there, next to the
6 clothes, the heap of clothes, there was something covered by a black bag,
7 and it was apparent that these were the mortal remains. And the
8 pathologist advised us not to try and identify the mortal remains, just
9 the clothes that he had been wearing.
10 Q. And you identified his clothes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any need to put further questions to the
16 witness? There's one matter I'd like to raise.
17 Mr. Radosevic, do you understand English.
18 THE WITNESS: A little, but I can't answer in English. I know a
19 few words, just to greet somebody and things like that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you to take your earphones off for a
22 Mr. Emmerson, part of your examination was about whether this
23 witness was ever told by his friends about another incident, a person
24 being shot in the knee. Will this Chamber ever get a follow-up to that?
25 Of course, the answer of the witness was clear that -- and there seems to
1 be some case law developing, not in all systems in the world the same
2 approach taken, on whether or not a party should -- if it comes to such
3 specific questions, whether and when a party should lay a foundation or
4 give further information on the basis of these rather specific questions.
5 MR. EMMERSON: Allow me to indicate.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. EMMERSON: The position is that the Prosecution is in
8 possession of a witness statement from the man concerned in which he
9 describes driving to Dashinoc and being shot by this witness's father and
10 being injured in the leg, and so forth. They're also in possession of a
11 statement from a witness who they are proposing to call. They're not
12 proposing at the present time to call the person concerned, but they are
13 proposing to call a man whose name I put to this witness as a friend of
14 his who described having heard that this witness's father shot the man
16 And what I was putting to this witness was whether his friend,
17 whose statement includes that he had heard that that is what had
18 happened, had told him that that is what had happened, and we are going
19 to hear from the witness whose statement includes the fact that he had
20 heard that that is what had happened. Does that make the position clear?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At least, of course, you'll understand that if
22 the Chamber is listening to such a line of questioning, hears the
23 answers, then, of course, the Chamber wonders whether the information
24 might have any relevance for matters of questions of reliability,
25 credibility, and therefore I was just wondering whether we would have any
1 follow-up at any stage, or whether this would just be it. I do
2 understand there will be a follow-up.
3 I see, Mr. Dutertre, you're nodding yes as well.
4 So the Chamber will then just wait at least until there's any ...
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Radosevic, there was a procedural issue I wanted
7 to discuss with the parties. That's the reason why I asked you to take
8 off your headphones, because I did not know whether there would be any
9 further questions for you. It now turns out that there are no further
10 questions for you. This means that this concludes your evidence in this
11 court. I'd like to thank you very much for having answered for quite
12 some time questions from both parties, and I wish you a safe trip home
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Usher, could you show the witness out.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 [The witness withdrew]
18 JUDGE ORIE: There is one technical issue. A few lines have been
19 read to the witness from, I think, proofing notes which were not provided
20 with a number, although usually if something is shown to the witness, it
21 should receive a number so that we know what has been presented to the
22 witness. At the same time, if it's clear -- if the source is clear and
23 if it's just one, two, or three lines read out carefully - and I checked
24 that it was, apart from one word, that was a literal quote - then the
25 Chamber would not insist on having it in evidence unless, of course, the
1 Prosecution would consider that not fair under the circumstances, not
2 even to have it on the record. I mean, what is on the record is the
3 quote read by counsel.
4 MR. EMMERSON: I think, if I may just say, all of the documents
5 that I put to this witness have been marked for identification, apart
6 from that one proofing note.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. EMMERSON: And Your Honour had indicated at the very outset
9 of these proceedings that, as a general proposition, everything should be
10 marked for identification.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I'm entirely content for that one document simply
13 to be referred to on the transcript, but -- unless the Prosecution has
14 any issue with that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Dutertre.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I don't object whatsoever to it,
17 and I think if it's to be tendered into evidence, that this is all part
18 of Mr. Emmerson's cross-examination. I have nothing against it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Interpretation] In that case, we leave it as it is
20 for the time being.
21 [In English] Is the Prosecution ready to -- no, Mr. Emmerson, you
22 had some procedural issues you'd like to raise after the conclusion of
23 the evidence of this witness. You're in a position to do so.
24 But before that, Madam Registrar, is there any document marked
25 for identification, which is tendered and which we would have to decide
1 whether to admit it or not? Could you please read the documents so that
2 we'll hear whether there's any objection. Madam Registrar, that would
3 be ...
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, there are only Exhibits number D5
5 and D7 marked for identification. All the others are already admitted.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, any objection against the admission of
7 D5 and D7?
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No objection, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against D5, D7? I see you nodding
11 "no." That's on the record. D5 and D7 are admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. Emmerson -- I think all the P documents were -- we decided
13 already on admission.
14 Mr. Emmerson, you may proceed.
15 MR. EMMERSON: I wonder if we might take stock of two issues
16 arising in relation to witness order. The position is, as Your Honour
17 knows, is that the next witnesses are the witnesses with the pseudonyms
18 19 and 4. That is on the witness list in their provisional order 27 and
19 29, and they obviously will be giving evidence today and tomorrow.
20 The witness who we had some difficulty dealing with on Friday;
21 that is to say, the witness who was number 8 on the witness list, is not
22 to be called this week. The Prosecution will, however, call the witness
23 who appears on Your Honours' witness list as witness number 11 who had a
24 pseudonym of 49. Does Your Honour have that witness's --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No, I haven't got it yet. Let me have a look.
1 Number 11, pseudonym 49, yes.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Now, Your Honour, the position is that, having
3 considered that witness's statement, it contains a great deal of material
4 which involves an expression of belief and opinion as to various aspects
5 of the state of activity of the KLA. He is a civilian and none of the
6 sources are identified in the witness statement. So there's a lack of
7 transparency in the witness statement -- with one or two exceptions,
8 there is a lack of transparency as to the sources in the statement
10 Now, I understand that he's being brought to The Hague at some
11 point this week and obviously before he gives evidence on Friday, and I'm
12 very anxious that we ought, at this stage, to have on the record a
13 request that the proofing sessions with this witness clarify exactly what
14 is known about sources of any particular statement or conclusion that the
15 witness is purporting to give so that all parties can see, before
16 statements are handed to the Trial Chamber and, indeed, particularly
17 before the witness is called, what the provenance of these conclusions
18 properly is, so that one isn't exploring these witnesses, as happened
19 with the last witness, in the course of his testimony for the first time.
20 It follows on from that that we would request as detailed and as
21 near-to-verbatim as possible a record of that process. Now, I don't wish
22 to trade over old ground, but I think there is an issue that, if I may
23 say so, has been left hanging. With the last witness, it might not be
24 said to be absolutely critical, although potentially whether the word
25 used for "relative" and the word used for "cousin" are the same has some
1 possible significance. But with the first witness where the issue came
2 up, that is, Witness 38, it was an absolutely critical point. If Your
3 Honours will remember, it was whether or not she had told the Prosecution
4 during her proofing session that the jeep had arrived after she had been
5 maltreated and stripped naked. Absolutely an crucial question, because
6 it had never, on the face of the documents, been said either in her
7 statement or in her proofing notes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: How critical it was, of course, depends on who was
9 in the jeep.
10 MR. EMMERSON: Well, of course. But in terms of understanding
11 the reliability of the witness as a whole, which goes to that question --
12 JUDGE ORIE: The matter is clear. It's clear that --
13 MR. EMMERSON: Now, I know Your Honour was -- Your Honours were
14 deciding how to approach the issue, but obviously the longer the trial
15 proceeds - and we have another witness coming where very similar
16 questions are going to arise, and it's not too late to establish how the
17 Prosecution should approach proofing - the longer the trial occurs with
18 the proofing process taking place without those clarifications having
19 been made and without a record being made, the more frequently the sort
20 of issues will arise in which potentially Prosecution counsel could be
21 called upon to make statements which contradict their own witnesses.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's a matter -- okay. The position about
23 Prosecution counsel in this respect is still a matter for consideration.
24 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Nobody is --
25 JUDGE ORIE: But let's not deal with that at this moment.
1 MR. EMMERSON: No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, did you -- do you intend to record, for
3 example, if only an audio record. I know that Mr. Guy-Smith wanted to
4 have a video record as well, but are you considering to, well, let's say,
5 to intensify the recording of proofing sessions to the extent that it's
6 not just short, written notes of the results, but to record them in any
7 other way?
8 MR. RE: We have no present intention to audio or video proofing
9 sessions, no.
10 JUDGE ORIE: And I take it you are aware that, sometimes more
11 important, sometimes less important, issues arose which might have been
12 settled relatively easily by having available an audio recording.
13 MR. RE: We, of course, understand, and I know the Trial Chamber
14 understands the process, which is people are interviewed in the field by
15 investigators, five, six, seven years- years- ago and then they're spoken
16 to by lawyers later, and inevitably there will be differences in what
17 people have said every time they recount a story.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes. I'm not saying that. I mean perhaps even
19 the Judges or the Chamber might be a bit -- might be a bit suspicious if
20 never there was any inconsistency or contradiction that would raise other
21 thoughts. But the issue is that now and then a matter comes up which is
22 sometimes easily resolved by just having a recording there, and I just
23 wonder whether we could not save a lot of time, really at very low
24 expenses, to have this recorded.
25 MR. RE: The matter is under consideration at the moment. There
1 may be a solution, compromised solution, which doesn't go as far as
2 Mr. Gregor Guy-Smith suggests or the present situation. We're
3 considering that at the moment. I'll be able to report back to you, not
4 today but very soon.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the issue has been raised specifically in
6 view of a witness to appear which, from what I understand in earlier
7 statements, has not given much information; whereas, the amount of
8 hearsay evidence, whether firsthand, secondhand, thirdhand, I don't know,
9 seems to be considerable. So therefore to that extent the matter is
10 relatively urgent. And, I mean, equipment in this respect might not be
11 really causes great concern.
12 MR. RE: Nothing will change with the witness Mr. Emmerson is
13 referring to.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Why not?
15 MR. RE: Nothing will change at the moment, as of today, or what
16 happened in terms of speaking to him in the days preceding or the years
18 JUDGE ORIE: Why not?
19 MR. RE: Because he's not here, and we're not planning to talk to
20 him today. He will be here within the next -- probably tomorrow, so
21 nothing is going to change in respect of him and what's happened before.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. RE: Now, what I'm saying to you is, if you leave it with me,
24 it's under consideration, and I can report back to you probably tomorrow.
25 JUDGE ORIE: We can't change the past, that's clear. If the
1 witness arrives tomorrow, I think the -- Mr. Emmerson would very much
2 like you to have at least, to start with, an audio recording of your
3 conversations with the witness.
4 MR. RE: Yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That if any such issue arises, that preferably not
6 in court, because if you have a proofing session of three hours, then, of
7 course, the Chamber is not interested to hear all of the three hours.
8 And I take it that Mr. Emmerson will also consider how important it is
9 before he starts listening to all these three hours. The issue simply
10 is -- but perhaps, listening to your answer, I leave it to the two of you
11 for the time being to see whether the day after tomorrow we have to say
12 that, Nothing changed yesterday, or that perhaps matters --
13 MR. EMMERSON: Would Your Honour just forgive me. Two very short
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. EMMERSON: The point that arose with Witness 38 is an
17 illustration not of a difference between what somebody said seven years
18 ago and what they said in their -- in their testimony but between what
19 they said on Tuesday and what they said in court. The two are, in fact,
20 in contradiction to one another. And I specifically put to her: Did you
21 tell Mr. Di Fazio, whilst he was proofing you, what you are now telling
22 us in evidence? And in a situation like that, it's difficult - and this
23 is the second point - and Mr. Re says there are no current plans to
24 change the arrangements, but so far I haven't heard him indicate why.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, he's also said that he's considering
2 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And I'd like you to discuss during the break -- for
4 you to find out what Mr. Re is considering and perhaps for Mr. Re also to
5 give some information on what keeps him from having plans at this moment.
6 MR. EMMERSON: There is one other matter, but I think
7 Mr. Guy-Smith may have a word to say.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, Your Honour. That's with regard to the
10 issue that is just at hand which is Mr. Re considering. This issue has
11 now been live since January 19th when I wrote a letter.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm more than happy -- and I made a number of
14 suggestions depending on what could work, which was video, audio, or
15 stenographic recording. If the difficulty is a matter of cost, I'm happy
16 to buy Mr. Re a or the OTP a tape-recorder and the appropriate number of
18 I think we're now reaching the point where the statement that's
19 under consideration no longer really -- really answers the question.
20 It's been under consideration now for close -- well, over a month, and I
21 think we need to get an answer to it because this issue most probably
22 will arise again. Based on all of our experiences, this is not something
23 which is new, it is not something which is unusual. And when critical
24 information has this particular kind of a point, we need to have some
25 verbatim understanding of what happened during the proofing.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Parties are invited -- yes, Mr. Harvey.
2 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, unusually, I do have something to add.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. HARVEY: As my learned associate Mr. Troop points out to me,
5 the cost in terms of all the people gathered in this room who have been
6 spending now many or probably at least an hour today and on other days
7 considering this issue, the cost in terms of the time that is wasted
8 going over points which could be resolved absolutely simply outside court
9 by providing us with videotape, audiotape, transcription, whatever it
10 maybe. There is a cost that is out of all proportion to the problem
11 that's being created by failing to record these matters. I just make
12 that observation. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, thank you.
14 Yes, Mr. Emmerson.
15 MR. EMMERSON: The other matters, Your Honour, briefly.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So parties are invited to look at it. And if
17 I may make one suggestion: Tape-recorders is old-fashioned technology,
18 Mr. Guy-Smith. You buy for almost nothing a high quality recording
19 device which uses memory cards, and you can keep them for a couple of
20 days. Memory cards cost approximately $20 each, and then you use them
21 again. They take 30 hours each of recording. Technically, it's a minor
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy, but I do
24 appreciate the suggestion and I'll buy that for him.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
1 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. That deals with the position so far as this
2 week is concerned.
3 We were informed yesterday by Mr. Re that Colonel Crosland, who
4 was scheduled to give evidence on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, is
5 unable to attend, and whilst all of us, I think, would like to see his
6 evidence as early in the trial as possible, because he's a truly
7 independent international to that extent who was on the field -- in the
8 field at the time, somebody who Your Honours might find an important
9 witness, obviously from everybody's point of view we would be keen that
10 he be available as soon after next week as is possible.
11 At present, as I understand it, the position is that we would
12 expect Witness number 8 on the list, that is to say, the witness about
13 whom there was some controversy of timing, to be coming at some point
14 next week, and probably towards the beginning of next week, and then
15 Witness 14 on the list, whose first initial is an M, and Witness 21 on
16 the list, a relative of that witness whose first initial is a G.
17 We've been informed today that, in addition, Witness 23, whose
18 first initial is a B, may also be available next week. That is the
19 present state of our understanding, and I put it on the record lest there
20 should be any changes in relation to it.
21 So the two issues are that those are the witnesses that we have
22 been informed of for next week, together potentially with any of the
23 witnesses who answered to the subpoenas that Your Honours have issued;
24 and secondly, that Colonel Crosland's availability -- he's one of those
25 witnesses for whom cross-examination preparation takes, as Your Honours
1 can imagine, some considerable time. He's given evidence in a number of
2 cases in this Tribunal, and obviously one needs notice of when he's going
3 to come. But also he's a witness that one wouldn't want to leave, if one
4 had the choice, to the back-end of the Prosecution case.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Mr. Re, can you inform us on whether the unavailability of
7 Mr. Crosland would result in a long delay or that he could be called
8 relatively early in the case.
9 MR. RE: All things are relative. The alternative dates the
10 British Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave us were two dates when the
11 courts wasn't sitting, the Easter break, and a later date in April; or
12 the alternative was Monday and Tuesday next week, which just won't work.
13 It would have to be later in April.
14 JUDGE ORIE: If it would be the Easter break, we even could
15 consider, but I'm just suggesting this to the parties, one of the Judges
16 will not be available; at the same time we have, of course, a full
17 recording. Of course, the Chamber could consider to sit with two Judges,
18 which is not perfect, but we have to balance whether it's better to have
19 the evidence of Mr. Crosland at an early stage and then spend one or two
20 days during the Christmas break -- during the Easter break, or whether we
21 would say, No, a full bench is more important and then have that delayed.
22 The parties are invited to express themselves on the matter soon, and
23 perhaps even some conversation amongst the Judges -- among the parties
24 could assist the Chamber in deciding whether or not we'd sit during --
25 which is only a four-day week anyhow, because the second -- I don't know
1 whether there's any specific name, but the day after Easter is a UN
2 holiday, so that would be from Tuesday until Friday.
3 Would the parties please consider that, what option they would
4 prefer. Yes, for example, Wednesday or Thursday. I don't know how much
5 time the witness is scheduled. It might be -- could someone tell me
6 where I'd find him on the ...
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: It goes without saying that even if the parties
9 would agree, that, of course, the Chamber itself also would have to
10 consider whether or not this would be a solution. But I'm just -- it
11 would be an option not to be excluded on from the beginning.
12 MR. EMMERSON: He's witness number 17. Again, I don't want in
13 any way --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Scheduled for two hours, yes.
15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I have to say I think that may prove to have
16 been a conservative estimate of his evidence-in-chief, and he's one of
17 those witnesses in respect of whom we've given Your Honours notice that
18 his cross-examination is likely to be extensive.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. RE: The Prosecution will, of course, take Your Honours'
21 suggestion on board yesterday which was to try and put more evidence into
22 the form under the old 89F, which is Rule 92 ter. In our submission, or
23 my assessment, a lot of his evidence could go into that form.
24 The dates which the British FCO has given us, I think, are the
25 19th and 20th of April, which is after the Easter break. We discussed
1 this with Defence counsel yesterday and there seemed to be no rabid
2 objection to those particular dates.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you consider that. And, of course, the
4 Chamber itself also prefers to be always complete, even though it's
5 possible to watch a recording of the session. That's not what the
6 Chamber prefers to do.
7 Then, Mr. Re, is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness.
8 MR. RE: Yes. There will be a change of Prosecution team. I
9 understand they should be outside the court. The court is a little small
10 to accommodate everyone.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. RE: The next witness is Witness 19, who has a pseudonym,
13 protective measures.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Protective measures ...
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Since the protective measures include voice
17 distortion, which needs some preparation of approximately 20 minutes,
18 we'll have the break first and we'll resume at 12.30.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.07 p.m.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 --- On resuming at 12.34 p.m.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. Witness 19, because that's how I'm
23 going to call you, Witness 19, can you hear me in a language you
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 19, we are not using your name. You will
2 testify in this court where no one will see your face out of this
3 courtroom, no one will hear your voice - that will be distorted as well -
4 and we'll address you by calling you Witness 19 and not use your name.
5 Nevertheless, your testimony ...
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: There was some confusion. Nevertheless, what you
8 tell us can be heard by the public. If there would be any answer you'd
9 like to give in which you say, I'd rather not the outside world hear what
10 I'm telling, if they can't see your face, they don't hear your voice
11 because it's distorted, then please tell us.
12 Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure
13 and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you will speak
14 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the text will
15 now be handed down to you by Mr. Usher. Would you please make that
16 solemn declaration.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
18 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/19
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Witness 19. Please be seated.
22 Mr. Guy-Smith.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. May we go into private session for a brief
24 moment, Your Honour?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we may.
1 [Private session]
11 Pages 1132-1137 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. I want you to cast your mind back to 1998, the early part of
24 1998. Were there any -- did your family know in early 1998 any Serbian
25 police officers?
1 A. Yes. In 1998, you mean.
2 Q. Yes, in 1998. Was your family friends or did they know any
3 Serbian policemen?
4 A. In 1998, no.
5 Q. Do you know a man named Slobodan Prascevic?
6 A. Yeah, I know who he is. In 1998, we had a friendship with
7 Slobodan. He was a Prascevic. He was a friend of my father until he
9 Q. Following your father's death in the year that you told us of,
10 did this man, this Serbian police officer, continue his friendship with
11 your family?
12 A. Yes. Yes, we did.
13 Q. And in early 1998, were you and your brothers and your sisters
14 living in the small village that you mentioned earlier?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did this Serbian police officer visit in early 1998, visit your
17 family in your house?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. Thank you. In 1998 did your mother -- was your mother wounded in
20 any sort of attack?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When this happened, was she with this man, this Serbian police
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I now want to ask you some details with that episode, okay? So
1 focus your mind on that episode?
2 First of all, can you tell us the date that that happened. Now,
3 if you can't, if you can't tell us the date, can you tell us the month?
4 If you can't tell us the month, can you tell us the season? But I want
5 you to think back and try and give us as accurate a time for this
6 episode, first of all, and then I'll ask you about it.
7 A. This event took place in 1998. I don't remember the date. Most
8 probably it must have been the beginning of autumn because it was hot,
9 but not very hot. It was an average hot weather. To my recollection, I
10 think it may have been autumn.
11 Q. Okay. You think it was autumn. Fine. And can you remember
12 where you were at the time that you first became aware of any episode or
13 incident involving this Serbian police officer and your mother?
14 A. Maybe 100, 150 metres far from our house when this happened. I
15 was at home. I was taking care of the cows. I was in the vicinity of
16 the house with my sisters when I heard of the accident.
17 Q. Now, that's a detail you remember, that you were looking after
18 the cows and that was outside, in the open air; is that correct?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. Just to make things easier, don't -- when I ask you a question,
21 don't just nod your head if you agree. Make sure you say yes or no or
22 say something because it needs to be picked up by the microphones. So
23 nodding your head is not enough, okay?
24 Now, just on a side issue, during the winter in your part of the
25 world, are cows kept inside, under shelter?
1 A. At the time of the accident, you mean.
2 Q. During winter, winter. During winter are cows kept inside,
3 sheltered inside?
4 A. No. Inside, inside. We keep them inside.
5 Q. Does the fact that you were outside looking after cows help you
6 with the period of time that this episode might have happened?
7 A. Most probably it was autumn, the beginning, early autumn when
8 there is no snow or it's not very cold, and it was a time that the cows
9 can find something to graze at. So I was taking care of the cows, as I
10 said, not far from the house.
11 Q. All right. Now, turn your mind to the actual episode itself
12 where your mother was injured. You said you were at home looking after
13 the cows. What did you first notice that drew your attention to the
14 episode? What did you see or hear?
15 A. I heard shots and then after a while I saw smoke coming out from
16 that direction, but I was young and scared to go and see what had
17 happened. I talked with my sisters, who were at home, and one of the
18 sisters went to see what happened and she saw also smoke and she came
20 Q. Now, on this day had the Serbian police officer that you knew,
21 that you've mentioned already, had he come to visit?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did he have a car?
24 A. Yes, he had a car.
25 Q. Do you remember the colour and the make of the car?
1 A. The colour was red and the make was Lada. As far as I know, it
2 was a red Lada.
3 Q. Now, did you later ascertain that this car had been shot at and
4 your mother was in it, and she had been injured?
5 A. Yes. We later learnt that she was wounded during this accident
6 with the police -- policeman. We heard about this later.
7 Q. All right.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: I just, unfortunately, need to go, very, very
9 briefly, back into private session.
10 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 MR. DI FAZIO:
8 Q. Was the policeman killed?
9 A. We heard that he died as a result of this accident.
10 Q. Was the brother who you've mentioned to us, who was involved in
11 the -- was there at the scene, involved in the episode, was he okay or
12 was he injured?
13 A. Fortunately, he wasn't wounded or injured. Nothing happened to
15 Q. And finally, do you know what injuries your mother sustained?
16 A. I know that she had three or four injuries, but I cannot explain
17 the nature of the injuries, what kind of injuries these were. I don't
19 Q. Fair enough. Can you tell the Trial Chamber if they -- if she
20 was struck by bullets?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, very briefly, did you eventually, after some weeks, get to
23 see your mother in hospital and did she eventually return, after
24 recovering, back to the family house in the small village that you lived
1 A. Yes. She stayed in hospital for two or three weeks, and after
2 she was released from hospital she returned to the village where we
3 lived, and she lived together with us.
4 Q. Thank you. Just going back to the episode that we've been
5 talking about, very briefly.
6 Firstly, can you tell the Trial Chamber if you recall this as
7 having happened in the morning or the afternoon -- or night, and indeed
8 if you can give us a specific time, do? But if you can't, tell us if it
9 happened morning, afternoon or night?
10 A. Are you referring to the accident that involved my mother and
11 this policeman?
12 Q. That's right, involving the Lada and the shooting.
13 A. It could have been afternoon, between 2.00 or 3.00 in the
15 Q. Okay. Now, in your village, is there an orthodox church?
16 A. Yes. To my knowledge, it is situated at 200 or 300 metres away
17 from our house.
18 Q. What's the name of the church? Do you know?
19 A. I don't remember the name, but I know that it was called the
20 church of the Serbs.
21 Q. Now, from information that -- I'll rephrase that.
22 Can you tell the Trial Chamber where in relation to that church
23 that this incident involving your mother and the Lada and the Serb
24 policeman happened? Using the church as a reference point, have you got
25 any idea where it happened?
1 A. It happened between the church and our house, somewhere halfway.
2 That is where this accident occurred.
3 Q. Thank you. The village in which you lived, can you tell us if
4 there was a predominantly Albanian population living there or
5 predominantly Serb or a mixture?
6 A. It was a mixture.
7 Q. About how many Serbs lived in the village, would you say?
8 A. I don't know the numbers, but there were several households. But
9 as I said, I don't remember the exact number of these inhabitants and of
10 the households.
11 Q. Thinking back, doing the best you can, how often would you say
12 that this Serb policeman visited your family home in this village? I'm
13 speaking about the period of time prior to the episode where your mother
14 was wounded.
15 A. It would happen that he would visit once or twice a week.
16 Sometimes it was once a month or twice a month.
17 Q. Thank you. Did he ever turn up in a police car or was it always
18 a private car?
19 A. His own car, yes, but he used to come with another vehicle, make
20 Niva. But mostly he came with his own private car.
21 Q. Okay. And just before I leave this topic, the Niva that he came
22 with, was that a marked police car or was is an ordinary civilian car?
23 A. It was an ordinary civilian car.
24 Q. Thank you. About this time that the episode happened, did you
25 see the presence of soldiers in your village?
1 A. During that time or you mean later?
2 Q. I mean around that time and in the ensuing weeks, in the ensuing
3 weeks after the episode.
4 A. When this policeman used to come with that Niva car, I didn't
5 happen to see soldiers in our area.
6 Q. What about ensuing weeks?
7 A. I didn't understand the question very well. Could you please
8 repeat it?
9 Q. Sure, no problem. In the ensuing weeks following this episode
10 involving your mother being wounded, did you see the presence of -- did
11 you become aware of the presence of any soldiers in your village?
12 A. You mean after this policeman died, that time?
13 Q. Yes, yes, after the policeman died.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What sort of soldiers were they?
16 A. With black clothes, with car - they would drive up and down the
17 village and in other places - and with the KLA insignia.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, can you describe the KLA insignia that you saw?
19 A. The eagle was in the middle and the sign UCK was on the top. It
20 was a small insignia, not very big, and it was usually worn on the arm
21 and on the cap.
22 Q. Okay. Now --
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What colour did this have?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To my recollection, it was red
25 and with black.
1 THE INTERPRETER: And the witness mentioned another colour. The
2 interpreter didn't hear it.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat the -- you said: "Red,
4 black," and you mentioned another colour?
5 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter doesn't understand this word.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A lily colour, purplish colour.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay.
9 Q. I just want to get a bit more data about this phenomenon that you
10 observed. First of all, you started to see these men. You noticed them,
11 at least, after the episode involving your mother and Serb policeman;
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. They drove up and down the village streets?
15 A. After my mother died, I started to see soldiers with black
16 clothes, with cars, with weapons.
17 Q. No, no, no. I'm not talking about the period of time after your
18 mother died. Let's go back to the period of time -- hear me out. Just
19 listen to what I say. I'm talking about the period of time now, okay,
20 the period of time after your mother was shot at and wounded, okay, the
21 period of time following that, okay, and before anything happened to your
22 sisters, okay? Now, that's the period I'm talking about. Not later but
23 that period of time.
24 Now, you've told us that during that period of time, or within
25 the period of time immediately after your mother was wounded, you saw men
1 and you've told us that they had black uniforms and you've told us about
2 their insignia; you told us about they're driving up and down in cars.
3 That's the period of time I'm talking about. Do you understand?
4 A. Okay. You are referring to the very day when my mother was
5 wounded, to that day, or for another -- to another period of time?
6 Q. I'm talking about -- I'm asking you about general observations
7 you made, what you saw, of soldiers in your village. Now, you've told us
8 that you saw soldiers after your mother was wounded; you've told us that.
9 You've told us that you saw them in cars; you've told us that they were
10 in black uniforms, and you've told us about the little insignia that they
11 had on their uniform. Now, do you remember all that evidence?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. The day when my mother was wounded -- the day when my mother was
15 wounded, I saw two or three soldiers. They were wearing black clothes.
16 They had masks on their heads, and they were driving along the roads.
17 This was on the day when my mother was wounded. After this day, I also
18 saw soldiers but not immediately after the wounding of my mother. Maybe
19 a month later. It started to become more transparent, this presence.
20 Q. Thank you, Witness. And that's exactly what I want to ask you
21 about. You now understand what I'm asking you about. I'm asking you
22 about how often you would see these soldiers in the period of time after
23 your mother was wounded. How often would you say you saw them? Once a
24 month, six times a day, once a fortnight? Try and give the Judges some
25 idea of how often you would see them in your village.
1 A. At that time, I was more or less young. I didn't go out in the
2 village very often. I was scared. Maybe it happened that I saw them
3 twice a week, sometimes once a week.
4 Q. Fine. Thank you. Now, when you saw them on these occasions,
5 were they all dressed in black or were only some dressed in black? Can
6 you remember that?
7 A. At all times during that time when I saw them, they were in black
8 clothes with the KLA insignia, with weapons. After some time they had
9 camouflage clothes, KLA camouflage clothes.
10 Q. Okay. And do you know what sort of vehicles they would use?
11 Just ordinary passage cars or something else?
12 A. Sometimes, yes; sometimes I would see them using jeeps;
13 sometimes, ordinary cars.
14 Q. Thank you. Right. I now want to ask you if any of these men
15 ever came to your house, your home?
16 A. You're referring to the three accused or ...
17 Q. No, no, no, no, no. I'm not referring to any of the accused.
18 I'm talking about the men that you've just been speaking about.
19 A. I apologise.
20 Q. That's okay. There's no need for apologies. Just listen to what
21 I ask you. These men that you said you saw driving, wearing the black
22 uniforms, who were armed, sometimes in jeeps, wearing the KLA insignia,
23 did any such men ever come to your house, to your home?
24 A. I don't remember that they came. I could not recognise their
25 faces. They were wearing the black KLA clothes. I was scared to look at
1 them from closer distance. I would usually look at them from a longer
3 Q. Do you know a man named Aslan Rexhepi?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know a man named Xhevat Islami?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you know a man named Sokol Zefi?
8 A. Yes, yes, I do.
9 Q. Were they -- did you ever see those men in these black uniforms
10 that you've mentioned, armed?
11 A. Yes. I saw them in black uniforms, armed, but sometimes they
12 were wearing ordinary uniforms.
13 Q. Okay. Did you ever see those men in the vicinity of your home?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Where? How close to your home? Tell the Trial Chamber
16 how close to your home you saw these men.
17 A. Maybe 5, 10 metres away, when they came to talk, to discuss
18 something with my family.
19 Q. Right. Okay. So you've told us that they came to your house,
20 and they came to discuss something with your family. Now, that's what I
21 want to talk about that, okay? You're focused on that? You understand?
22 I'm talking about men --
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. -- KLA men coming to your home, all right? That's what I'm now
25 going to talk to you about, okay? Do you understand that?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. All right. Tell the Trial Chamber how often -- if it happened
3 more than once or only once, tell us? But tell us how often such visits
5 A. First, it was two or three times a week; that is, they came
6 during day-time. They discussed with my family. They asked for some
7 things. Then after a while, a month or so, they came rather more often
8 to discuss with my family, with my mother.
9 Q. Now, did they only ever come during the day?
10 A. At the time they always came during the day-time, when they
11 started coming.
12 Q. And was there always more than one of them?
13 A. Sometimes they were in groups of four or five, sometimes in a
14 group of three, four. More or less around this number.
15 Q. Can you remember what was discussed, what they came to discuss,
16 at your house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Tell us. What was it? What was the topic of conversation?
19 A. They wanted weapons. They talked with my mom about this
20 policeman, how was it that she had contacts with him and such things?
21 Q. As far as you're aware, did your family, your mother and your
22 sisters and brothers, own any weapons?
23 A. No. My dad, some years ago, worked and the state gave him a
24 weapon to use. He was a forest ranger, so he had a licence to carry a
25 weapon. After his death we surrendered his weapon, and because of that
1 weapon they kept asking my family for more weapons.
2 Q. Do you know if your mother provided them any -- with any
3 explanation as to whether or not, as to whether or not, there were any
4 guns in your house, in your home?
5 A. My mom, as far as I know, told them, We don't have any guns. We
6 had one, But after my husband died, she said to them, I gave up the
7 weapon because it was no good to me anymore. And she said, You can come
8 in and search for yourselves. There is no more guns left here. But they
9 still kept asking her for more guns.
10 Q. Did they ever search the place, your house?
11 A. Yes, yes. The day they came, two or three times at the beginning
12 they did not search. Then after that they started to search all over the
13 house, to ransack it.
14 Q. And is this during day-time visits, during light?
15 A. Not during the day. It happened very rarely at day-time. Mostly
16 it happened when they came at night.
17 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you some questions about your sister, one
18 of your older sisters, whose name starts with an S, and I don't think
19 it's in dispute in this case that she disappeared from your family. What
20 I want to know is --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, there are two sisters with an S.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, Your Honour, I'm grateful for that, that's
24 Q. I'm talking about the one that disappeared though later, and I
25 only refer to that episode because I want you to think about time, okay,
1 time, periods of time. The period of time I'm asking you about --
2 A. I understand.
3 Q. All right. Now, the period of time I'm asking you about is the
4 time between your mom, your mother, being wounded, okay, and the time
5 that this sister disappeared, okay? That period of time, those months or
6 weeks, whatever they were.
7 A. I understand.
8 Q. Okay. Now, during that time, did these day-time visits occur,
9 that period of time between your mother being wounded and this sister
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right. During that period of time between your mother being
13 wounded and your sister S disappearing, did the visits also - also -
14 include night-time visits?
15 A. Yes, they did.
16 Q. During that period of time that I've mentioned between your
17 mother being wounded and your sister S disappearing, did the ransackings
18 or searchs of the house occur at night?
19 A. When my mother was taken -- sorry, this sister, S, was taken, a
20 time passed when they came to search the house and do these things.
21 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber if you ever had any night-time
22 visits by these soldiers prior to your sister S disappearing?
23 A. Yes. They came.
24 Q. And how did you feel when these men came into your house at
1 A. I was frightened, but there was nothing I could do. I was too
2 young. And, as I said, I was just scared. I could do nothing about it.
3 Q. Okay. Now, I want you to just provide a few more details before
4 I leave this topic.
5 You've told us about the uniforms that you've seen and the
6 black -- and the insignia, the black uniforms and the insignia. Did the
7 men who came to your house, either during the day or at night, did they
8 ever have anything on their heads, ever wear anything on their heads?
9 A. They had masks and black uniforms with KLA insignia. They were
10 armed. They had -- they were wearing masks over their heads.
11 Q. In that period of time, did the men who came to your house,
12 either during the day or at night, ever give you any more details about
13 where they originated from -- about which army or group in the army they
14 were from?
15 A. It was a special unit. They said, We are a special unit, that we
16 are looking for weapons. They talked with my mother and sisters. I was
17 sitting in a room with my brothers. I was young at the time, and I was
18 sitting in that room when they were talking with my mom and sisters,
19 these men, these soldiers, in black uniforms.
20 Q. Thank you. Think back and do your best to explain to the Trial
21 Chamber why you used that expression "special unit." Think back, doing
22 the best you can with your memory, and try and tell the Trial Chamber why
23 you referred to them as a special unit?
24 A. When they came at the time, they themselves said that, We are a
25 special unit of the night, they said. That's why I referred to them by
1 this name.
2 Q. Thank you. "Special unit of the night," is that the expression
3 that you remember?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, do I -- can I assume that we'll go
7 straight through to 2.15? It doesn't bother me. I'm in Your Honours'
8 hands. I'd just like to know so that --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I had 1.45 in my mind.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because that's when the morning sessions end
12 and the afternoon session start at 2.15.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. I apologise. I'd forgotten, if
14 Your Honours please. That was my mistake. I've got my times wrong.
15 Thank you.
16 Q. All right. I now want you to turn your attention away from this
17 particular topic we've been talking about, and I want you to think about
18 your sister S, the one we call sister S, all right? In 1998, do you know
19 how old she was?
20 A. Maybe she was 23 or 24.
21 Q. She had been living in the village with you?
22 A. Yes, she lived with my family at that time.
23 Q. Now, during 1998, did there ever come a time when she left the
24 family home?
25 A. She would go and visit my uncles together with the other sisters,
1 stay there for three or four days. These were short visits. She would
2 not stay for a week or two there. These were uncles on my mother's side.
3 Q. I'm not really talking about visits to your uncles or things like
4 that. Did there ever come a time when she left the family home for
5 something other than these family -- visits to relatives?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Did she ever join the KLA?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I want you to tell us about that. How did that occur, that your
10 sister S joined the KLA?
11 A. One night I remember when they came wearing masks, three, four,
12 or five of them who came to our house. It was around 10.00 or 11.00 in
13 the evening.
14 Q. Okay. Now, I'm going to ask you some details -- some more
15 detailed questions about this, but what I'd like you to tell the Trial
16 Chamber first is this: Anything you tell the Trial Chamber about this
17 episode, is it based on what you were told or what you saw?
18 A. These were things that my mother told me, because at that time I
19 was asleep. What we are talking about now is what my mother told me.
20 Q. Thank you. That's exactly what I wanted to know, your source of
21 information. When did your mother tell you about this?
22 A. My mother said to me -- well, that night my sister was taken, and
23 as I said I was asleep and I couldn't see anything for myself, and she
24 told me that her sister -- correction, that my sister was taken, because
25 you don't have an elderly brother and the oldest in the family has to
1 join. So she told me the next morning that my sister had been taken the
2 previous night.
3 Q. Did she provide you with any information as to who had taken her
4 to join the KLA?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Think back and be as accurate as you can. The Judges want as
7 much accuracy and detail as you can give them. What precisely were you
8 told about who had taken your sister S?
9 A. The following day my mother told me that it was Toger together
10 with two others that entered the house. My mother invited them for a
11 coffee. They had masks, but Toger had his mask on his head. She invited
12 them, offered them coffee, and then he said to her that, It is necessary
13 that we take, referring to my sister to join the army.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, Your Honour, for a moment, for the
15 record, and for the record only, I would interpose an objection of
16 hearsay and it will be a continuing objection, and I will not stand again
17 with regard to what he was told in terms of this incident. I have a
18 continuing objection on the grounds of hearsay, but I don't want to
19 interrupt the flow.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which suggests that we deny your objection.
21 Yes. Put in these general terms, you're right in your assumption that
22 the Chamber will, of course, take into consideration hearsay evidence to
23 be not first-hand observation by the witness itself, but it's not
24 inadmissible. So that extent, any objection to putting questions in
25 relation to admission is rejected.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
3 MR. HARVEY: Your Honours, I apologise. The witness said
4 something; I don't know what it was. It wasn't translated and it might
5 be of importance. I'm not sure.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we'll ask him. Witness --
7 THE INTERPRETER: "They brought her for a visit." There was
8 overlapping. That's why it wasn't translated on time.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's fully understood that you can't translate
10 two speakers at the same time, but I do ...
11 Witness, we were informed that when I was speaking that you said
12 something as "They brought her for a visit." Could you tell us who you
13 were referring to at that moment? Who was brought for a visit? Where?
14 By whom?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So my statement was that that night
16 my sister was taken, she was taken by Toger together with two other
17 persons, and a week later Toger brought her again for a visit, my sister
18 for a visit.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And if you say "for a visit," you mean to visit your
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And were you present when your sister was brought
23 for a visit? Did you see her at that time?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did see her. I happened to
25 be at home when Toger brought her. He was in the company of two or three
1 other comrades. It was a jeep, a black jeep, that he parked outside.
2 This visit was about 20 or 30 minutes long.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And you did know the person by the name of Toger?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I knew his name. When he brought
5 her for a visit, I could verify very well who Toger was, who Idriz Balaj
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But we have only a couple of minutes left.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not going to get into the second visit now, if
11 Your Honours please. I'll just wrap up a few matters.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. DI FAZIO:
14 Q. This issue of the name Toger, thinking back, when was the first
15 time you heard of this individual Toger? And try and tell us in relation
16 to this night when sister S was taken off to the KLA. Had you heard
17 about the man Toger before that or was that your first acquaintance with
18 the name?
19 A. That night I heard his name very well, that it was Idriz Balaj,
20 known as Toger, so I verified for myself who that person was behind that
22 Q. How did you do that? How did you verify?
23 A. Verifying in a sense that a person who spoke with my mother that
24 night when he took away my sister, he said to her, I am Toger. And to my
25 knowledge, his name is Idriz Balaj, but at that time he was known as
2 Q. And just finally one last question, if I may, before we break.
3 What I want to know is this, tell the Trial Chamber this: Did your
4 mother inform you that the person who had come the night before bore that
5 name? Is that what you're saying?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Is this an appropriate moment, Your Honours?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio, it is.
10 Witness 19, we'll conclude for the day. We'd like to see you
11 back tomorrow morning when you'll continue your testimony. I instruct
12 you that you should not speak with anyone about the testimony, the
13 testimony that you've given today but also testimony still to be given
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand. Everything is in
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 We'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00, same courtroom.
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 15th day of
21 March, 2007, at 9.00 p.m.