1 Thursday, 14 June 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone.
6 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Mr. Emmerson, I see that you're on your feet. I have a few
11 procedural matters, and if you wouldn't mind it, I would first deal with
12 mine and then -- the first one is that the Chamber still owes you and the
13 public the reasons for granting protective measures to Witness 62 and I
14 will give them now.
15 On the 12th of June, the Chamber granted protective measures for a
16 witness who was given the pseudonym of Witness 62 with reasons to follow.
17 The Trial Chamber hereby gives reasons for its decision.
18 On the 8th of June, 2007, the Prosecution applied for the
19 trial-related protective measures of pseudonym and face and voice
20 distortion of Witness 62. The witness and his family live in Kosovo. The
21 witness has expressed fear for his safety and that of his extended family,
22 should it become publicly known that he gave evidence for the Prosecution.
23 On the 12th of June, 2007, the Chamber put on the record that the Defence
24 did not oppose the motion.
25 The party seeking protective measures for a witness must
1 demonstrate an objectively grounded risk to the security or welfare of the
2 witness or the witness's family should it become known that the witness
3 has given evidence before the Tribunal. This standard may be satisfied by
4 demonstrating a combination of the following three factors: One, the
5 witness's testimony may antagonise persons who reside in a specific
6 territory; two, the witness or his or her family live or work in that
7 territory, have property in that territory, or have concrete plans to
8 return to live in that territory; and, three, there exists an unstable
9 security situation in that territory, which is particularly unfavourable
10 to witnesses who appear before the Tribunal. By common agreement in this
11 case, the last of these three factors is not contested.
12 Given the nature of the witness's testimony, the Chamber is
13 satisfied that it may antagonise persons who reside in Witness 62's
14 community. The Chamber notes that the witness and his extended family
15 live in a village in Kosovo, and the witness feels that should it become
16 publicly known that he testified before the Tribunal his family will face
17 retaliation. Therefore, as the Chamber is satisfied that the requirements
18 for granting protective measures are met, the Chamber granted the
19 Prosecution's request for pseudonym and face and voice distortion.
20 This concludes the Chamber's reasons for granting protective
21 measures to Witness 62.
22 And I would also like to give the reasons for the decision on the
23 Defence request to defer the issuance of a subpoena for Witness 30.
24 On the 12th of June, I announced that the Chamber was not
25 persuaded by the Defence's argument in support of deferring a decision on
1 the issuance of a subpoena for Witness 30. The subpoena was issued on the
2 same day. The Chamber would now like to briefly explain the reasons for
3 its decision.
4 In its joint submissions of the 6th and the 7th of June, 2007, the
5 Defence argued that the credibility and reliability of Witness 30's
6 expected evidence was such as to call into question the probative value
7 and fairness of the admission of the witness's evidence. It follows in
8 the Defence's argument that a decision on the subpoena for the witness
9 must await the Chamber's decision on whether to permit the Prosecution to
10 call this witness at all. The Defence relies on Rule 89(D), which states
11 that evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
12 outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial.
13 The Defence has raised two disclosure issues relating to
14 Witness 30. The details need not to be summarized here. Suffice it to
15 say, that the Chamber expects the parties to resolve these issues and
16 hopes that it will not be required to intervene further. The Prosecution
17 is urged to respond to the Defence's request as soon as possible if it has
18 not done so already. Nonetheless, the fact that these disclosure issues
19 exist is not a reason for us to defer a decision on the issuance of the
20 requested subpoena. We do not know at this stage that the probative value
21 of Witness 30's evidence is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure
22 a fair trial. The Defence argues that there is a possibility that may be
23 realised upon the disclosure of the information that the Defence is
24 seeking to obtain from the Prosecution; however, at this stage it is only
25 a hypothesis.
1 It should be clear from my remarks that our decision does not
2 prohibit the Defence from coming back to us with a further Rule 89(D)
3 motion concerning Witness 30. The fact that the witness has in the
4 meantime been subpoenaed is not an obstacle to that.
5 This concludes the reasons for the Chamber's decision.
6 Then the next issue I would like to deal with is the two
7 Prosecution videos that were attached to forensic reports, portions of
8 which were played. I do understand that it is preferred by the registry
9 that they receive two separate numbers and that they will thus be
10 considered for admission.
11 Mr. Di Fazio.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I understand -- I understand that's the
13 situation. I ask that they be admitted into evidence. Apparently the
14 video-clip depicting the car upside down in the water is 65 ter 1385, and
15 the video-clip depicting the car right-side up in the water, where you can
16 see its red colour, that is identified as 65 ter 1386. And I would ask
17 that they be given their separate exhibit numbers.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if you are referring to these 65 ter
19 numbers, does that mean that the portion that was played is the whole of
20 these 65 ter documents, or 1385 is --
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- not more, not less than the portion.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: No. Purely and simply those clips. That's
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Any objection against admission of these two exhibits which have
2 not received yet a number from what I understand, Mr. Registrar.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 1385 becomes P349, and
4 65 ter number 1386 will become P350.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 In the absence of any objections, P349 and P350 are admitted into
8 On my agenda, the only remaining matter for the moment is
9 something which perhaps should not be raised at this moment by me, but the
10 Chamber is aware that there was -- there is some discussion on the intent,
11 from what I understand, the intent of the Prosecutor for the next witness
12 to seek admission under Rule 92 ter of the statement taken in January of
13 this year. If that comes to us, we'll hear from it.
14 MR. EMMERSON: It's part of what I need to raise with you at this
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed Mr. Emmerson.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Can I put the position in context.
18 Your Honours will have, I think, received an application from the
19 Prosecution that was filed yesterday to amend the indictment to insert
20 into Counts 21 and 22, amongst another -- there were two principal
21 amendments. The one that I'm concerned with at the moment is a proposed
22 amendment to Count 21 and 22, adding particulars of an individual who,
23 until now, is asserted to be an unidentified set of remains, but in
24 respect of whom, the motion explains, the International Commission for
25 Missing Persons at the end of May have produced material, which of course
1 the Defence have not had an opportunity to verify, identifying one of
2 those sets of remains as a woman called Sanije Balaj.
3 Now, Your Honour may remember the name from the evidence of
4 Rrustem Tetaj and from the witness statement of Gani Gjukaj which I put to
5 Rrustem Tetaj, essentially confirming both in the witness statement and in
6 the testimony that there was an investigation into the death of this woman
7 which appeared to have been in some way or another connected to a man
8 called Mete Krasniqi at Barane.
9 The position until now has been that that account, that incident,
10 was not a count in the indictment but was part of the general background
11 to the case and was not, therefore, in any sense, a focal point of Defence
12 investigations. The amendment, which of course one understands is an
13 application that follows on from the discovery during the trial of further
14 forensic DNA material, which plainly places the Prosecution in a somewhat
15 different position in respect of that set of remains, but the proposed
16 amendment sets out a detailed account of how the Prosecution alleged this
17 woman met her death. And part of that sequence of events involves the
18 next witness because, as he is now named in the amended count in the
19 indictment, he took part, as he acknowledges himself in his witness
20 statement, in interviewing this woman on the grounds of suspected
21 collaboration prior to releasing her and allowing her to be taken away by
22 three other named individuals who, the Prosecution allege, then drove her
23 to another location and murdered her.
24 The position is that whenever it was the Prosecution became aware
25 of the ICMP's findings - and no doubt Mr. Re will be able to help us with
1 that in a moment or two - the planning of the Prosecution's case and the
2 presentation of this witness's evidence at this time places the Defence in
3 a very, very real difficulty.
4 Just to recap, if I may, briefly. During May, the second half of
5 May, the Prosecution served on the Defence, on the 25th, in fact, of May,
6 two witness statements from cousins of the victim which related certain
7 matters about the supposed circumstances of her death. On the 8th of
8 June, the Prosecution then served upon the Defence a further witness
9 statement from the next witness, which is dated the 15th of May, 2007.
10 And then yesterday, together with the application to amend, the
11 Prosecution served three further witness statements and transcripts of
12 interviews of two witnesses who've given evidence during the course of
13 proceedings currently taking place in Kosovo to prosecute an individual
14 said to have been the actual perpetrator.
15 Now, I, frankly, have not had an opportunity so far to assimilate
16 or master that material, in part because the Prosecution had indicated
17 until today that a different witness was due to testify first, but that is
18 a problem which may be overcomable with a sufficient interval between
19 evidence in-chief and cross-examination.
20 But there's a somewhat more fundamental problem at stake here. As
21 I indicated, an individual by the name of Idriz Gashi is currently the
22 subject of a prosecution in Kosovo. That cross-examination has not
23 concluded in a verdict. Evidence has been taken. We understand from
24 information that we have managed to obtain since receiving the application
25 to amend the indictment - in other words in the last 24 hours - that the
1 case is due to resume on the 22nd of June for closing submissions but
2 those closing submissions have been adjourned in the past on more than one
3 occasion. We do not have access to the file of evidence that was -- has
4 been compiled in the course of that trial. Only one or two statements
5 that have been selected by the Prosecution and appended to its application
6 to amend the indictment, to which of course we have not yet filed any
7 response. And in the midst of that, the Prosecution elects to put this
8 witness on the witness-stand at this point to give evidence about
9 circumstances surrounding the disappearance and death of this woman, for
10 which he was, himself, a suspect.
11 Now, it is plain, in our submission, that the Defence ought not
12 fairly to be put in the position of having to cross-examine this witness
13 about that aspect of his testimony until we are in a position to
14 assimilate the material that has been served and obtain the material that
15 ought to have been served before this could properly be put forward as an
16 application to amend the indictment, and certainly before we could be put
17 in a position of having to cross-examine.
18 I've had an opportunity to discuss the position with Mr. Re just
19 before Your Honours came into court. His suggestion was that in some way
20 the evidence of this witness might be severable; in other words, that he
21 might give evidence in-chief on all aspects but then be cross-examined on
22 matters other than the death of Sanije Balaj and to return, presumably, at
23 a later stage to be cross-examined in that regard. That is not a solution
24 which I would regard as remotely satisfactory because his relationship
25 with the investigation into collaboration investigations of Sanije Balaj
1 is intrinsic to the account he gives of organisation, distribution -- of
2 disciplinary responsibilities in the Barane HQ. In other words, it's
3 inextricably bound up with the general testimony that he gives. I'm sure
4 there are certain aspects of his account which could be severed at the
5 other end, in the sense that they're not inextricably bound up with this
6 part of his testimony, but it's, in our submission, a most unsatisfactory
7 suggestion, given that it arises so late as a result of the Prosecution
8 having made the decision to put this witness in the witness box without
9 notifying in advance the Defence, that is to say, in advance of -- at the
10 time when witness list was being compiled, of the situation that we were
11 likely to find ourselves in.
12 We have, of course, as I indicated, and as the application to
13 amend indicates, been notified that the identification has occurred, that
14 is to say, the ICMP results have occurred. We were notified of that on
15 the 6th of June and that there would be an application to amend the
16 indictment, but the supporting material, as I say, came yesterday, and we
17 have none of the material from the trial, other than the two extracts that
18 have been provided.
19 In practical terms, my suggestion this: That Mr. Re call the
20 witness to give evidence in-chief and then we adjourn this witness's
21 testimony. I will be in a position, I think, by the end of tomorrow to
22 know whether further investigations in Kosovo are going to be essential
23 before cross-examining the witness on this aspect of the account; in other
24 words, how long it is likely to take us to obtain material relating to the
25 ongoing prosecution of Idriz Gashi for perpetrating this particular
1 offence. But it is, we would submit, a strange and unsatisfactory
2 situation to be putting on the witness-stand an individual who is
3 suspected of being a perpetrator but who gives an account exonerating
4 himself at a time when a trial is taking place of somebody who is alleged
5 by the prosecuting authorities in Kosovo to be the perpetrator when that
6 trial hasn't been concluded, and the parties, that is to say the Defence,
7 have not been furnished with the material that's necessary to
9 All of that, as I say, and I don't wish to repeat myself, all of
10 that comes about solely because the Prosecution has chosen the order of
11 witnesses that it has, and I'm, if I may say so, extremely unhappy about
12 that state of affairs.
13 In addition to that, Your Honour referred to some correspondence
14 this morning concerning the possibility of a Rule 92 ter statement. We
15 received from Mr. Re yesterday afternoon an e-mail --
16 JUDGE ORIE: May I interrupt you there first. Is my understanding
17 right: That what is proposed to be tendered as 92 ter material does not
18 in any way refer to the -- well, let's say for the time being, for the
19 disappearance of Sanije Balaj?
20 MR. EMMERSON: Well, I can't answer that question for this reason.
21 MR. RE: [Microphone not activated] ... the answer is no and I've
22 taken it out. It's not there.
23 JUDGE ORIE: So the answer is --
24 MR. RE: The answer is no --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that my understanding is right that it's not in
1 there. That was my question.
2 MR. RE: We don't intend to lead evidence in 92 ter form about
3 Sanije Balaj, no.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's at least -- please proceed.
5 MR. EMMERSON: If I can just explain, I received an e-mail
6 yesterday evening from Mr. Re indicating that the Prosecution's intention
7 was to seek to rely upon the whole of the January 2007 statement pursuant
8 to the provisions of 92 ter, and that does include reference to Sanije
10 I responded this morning by e-mail indicating that there was
11 certain passages in that statement to which I objected in terms of
12 admissibility, whether the evidence was adduced 92 ter or orally. I
13 didn't receive a response --
14 JUDGE ORIE: I have on my list that from the Defence until now,
15 that's what I took from the e-mails that have been sent to us, that
16 paragraphs 29, 42, 80, and 81 are at least --
17 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so. The particular passages in the first
18 two paragraphs Your Honour has mentioned are opposed solely on the basis
19 and only to the extent that they contain expressions of opinion on what is
20 a matter of law. But I received no direct response or at least I was not
21 aware of having received a direct response. But shortly before we sat I
22 gather that a further 92 ter statement, different from the one that I was
23 asked to respond to, which not only omits certain matters but includes
24 certain other matters from other statements was apparently circulated. I
25 haven't seen it. I haven't had an opportunity to read or assimilate it,
1 and I understand Mr. Re now wishes to make a 92 ter application in respect
2 of it.
3 I see notes being placed in front of me. It was dispatched at 20
4 minutes to 2.00 this afternoon. I'm not in a position to respond to that,
5 and I don't expect that I ought to be asked to.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give you an opportunity, Mr. Re, to respond
7 to what has been raised by Mr. Emmerson, perhaps I would invite other
8 counsel - that's you, Mr. Guy-Smith and Mr. Troop - to add whatever you
9 would like to add to what Mr. Emmerson said so that we can receive a
10 comprehensive response from you.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I fully concur with the remarks made by
12 Mr. Emmerson.
13 I have a laundry list of specific list of information that we have
14 not received that I will not read into the record because I think at this
15 point in time it would not necessarily be the most fruitful use of time.
16 Needless to say, there are quite a number of items that we do not have as
17 a result of a review of the motion to amend the indictment and nothing
19 In addition, we have been, as you know, for some period of time
20 attempting to get UNMIK information and other information concerning a
21 number of investigations that were extant in Kosovo, and specifically this
22 investigation, the investigation concerning the circumstances surrounding
23 Sanije Balaj. We were informed today through conversation with UNMIK that
24 any information they have they will not be able to get to us before the
25 20th of June. They will give us an interim response to our request
1 sometime before that.
2 This particular request has been an outstanding request before the
3 hearing on May 10th and remains truly a problematic situation. I am
4 certainly not in a position, in any sense whatsoever, and especially in
5 light of the manner in which the Prosecution has chosen to proceed to
6 attempt to amend the indictment. I am not in a position whatsoever at
7 this point in time to review, assimilate, and appropriately represent my
8 client from the standpoint of a cross-examination at this juncture. It
9 would be, as a matter of fact, as far as I'm concerned, irresponsible on
10 my part to proceed.
11 I am extremely troubled by the order of witness calling, and
12 specifically the fact that this particular witness has been called at this
13 time because he is a central witness to issues concerning not only what is
14 becoming clearly a live issue in this trial, that of collaboration, but
15 also his own personal involvement, and we do not even have at this time
16 the entirety of a trial record wherein many facts that I think would shed
17 light on the facts and circumstances concerning this entire matter have
18 been completed.
19 In addition, for purposes of clarity, I believe that paragraph 24
20 of the 92 ter statement - and I'm moving to that for a minute - mentions
21 Sanije Balaj's name.
22 MR. RE: I apologise, I did inadvertently mislead the Court
23 there. That is why I wished to rise before I had re-checked it.
24 In paragraph 24 there is a brief reference but it's a fairly
25 harmless one. There is a reference in paragraph 85 which I thought had
1 been taken out but hasn't. It said: "In the case of Sanije Balaj there
2 was an unfortunate was execution without a fair trial. Such things are
3 not supposed to happen." I won't leave that under 92 ter; I'll take that
5 But I apologise. I --
6 JUDGE ORIE: You'd take out both the references?
7 MR. RE: Well, the first one in paragraph 24 just simply
8 says: "The former police inspector Hasan Gashi became their commander.
9 He was stationed his troops in the red school where Sanije Balaj was
11 In my submission, that's fairly harmless and doesn't go to
13 MR. EMMERSON: May I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: The test is not only whether it's harmless but also
15 whether it has probative value.
16 MR. EMMERSON: May I simply say this.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. EMMERSON: At the moment, I don't understand Mr. Re to be
19 suggesting, and perhaps he can clarify if this is the suggestion, that he
20 intends not to elicit testimony about Sanije Balaj. My understanding is
21 that if it's the Prosecution's intention to elicit oral testimony in-chief
22 about Sanije Balaj, and if that is the case, then whether it's in the
23 92 ter statements or not is really secondary to the fact that the
24 Prosecution would be aiming to elicit that evidence as part of its case,
25 and therefore the Defence is not in a position to deal with it.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Re, I'm trying to find the harmless passage, that is -- should
3 be the interview, 7th and 9th of January of this year, I take it?
4 MR. RE: [Microphone not activated] ... it's paragraph 24 of the
5 92 ter -- proposed 92 ter statement. I have hard copies.
6 JUDGE ORIE: When have you sent that to --
7 MR. RE: That was included in the one I sent last night, and the
8 revised one we sent at, I think, a quarter to 1.00 today.
9 I have hard copies of the signed copy in court for everybody in
10 Albanian and in English.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I think it's good to receive it. At the same
12 time, was that on the basis of recent interviews or was it just the
13 reworking of the former? Because what we have received, not as evidence
14 but just to get an impression of what approximately might be led as
15 evidence, is an interview of the 15th of May and an interview of the -- I
16 think it's the -- of the 3rd of February, and an interview of the 5th of
17 March, 2006. So three of this year: January, February, 15th of May, and
18 March 2006.
19 MR. RE: The 92 ter --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. RE: -- last night I advised Chambers and the Defence that we
22 intended to use the -- one of the statements of January --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. RE: -- 2007. Upon reflecting --
25 JUDGE ORIE: You said -- I think it was said the 9th of January,
1 but I found a combined 7th and 9th of January statement --
2 MR. RE: That's the date --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the wrong one?
4 MR. RE: The date of signing is the 9th of January.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. RE: Upon reflection this morning -- the witness arrived late,
7 and when we managed to speak to him we combined the relevant parts from
8 the three statements into one as a proposed 92 ter statement with nothing,
9 absolutely nothing added to the existing three statements the Trial
10 Chamber and the Defence have and put it together in the one package which
11 we got -- I appreciate it was late, a quarter to 1.00. And I have hard
12 copies -- e-mailed it to everyone at a quarter to 1.00 and had hard copies
13 signed in Albanian and English for everyone in the court.
14 And, I mean, to assuage any fears, it's simply -- it's just simply
15 the three statements put together in a chronological order.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that. But it seems that if you
17 have just combined the earlier statements, the last of which was from the
18 15th of May, that's one month ago, then I must say that 20 minutes prior
19 to the start of court is where it's not based on new information but on
20 just reworking this -- these old statements or all those statements is
21 pretty late.
22 But let's -- let's first receive them and see what we find in
23 there. That also might have caused my confusion that Sanije Balaj was not
24 in the 92 ter statement because I still thought that it would be the
25 January statement that would be the --
1 MR. EMMERSON: So did I when I came into court today.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: And the new statement raises the problem with
3 paragraph 85 once you receive it, because there she's specifically
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. RE: That's what I said, I would not lead that last line. I
7 understood it was just then because it was late, and I asked for it to be
8 taken out but it stayed in.
9 MR. EMMERSON: May I just permit myself one other observation?
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. EMMERSON: In the covering e-mail that was sent to Chambers
12 and to the Defence, the suggestion is made that the late service of this
13 document is somehow connected with the late arrival of the witness, which
14 was a suggestion that Mr. Re just repeated. With the greatest of the
15 respect, I cannot for the life of me see how the late arrival of the
16 witness explains the late disclosure and service of what was an unsigned
17 witness statement. Maybe the signed version which has, I think, only just
18 been disclosed as we've been in court today couldn't been provided, but it
19 is simply --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, if I may interrupt you, I think that my
21 reference to this being cut-and-paste from statements, the last portion of
22 which was taken on the 15th of May, was clear enough in this respect.
23 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, Mr. Re, before I give you an opportunity to
25 respond to what has been said by counsel, I'm just looking at you,
1 Mr. Troop, whether you would like to add anything to what has been said --
2 MR. TROOP: I don't have anything to add, Your Honour, but I would
3 adopt what Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Guy-Smith said and fully support their
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
6 Mr. Re, it's not entirely clear to me yet that proceedings ongoing
7 in Kosovo, were you aware of that any earlier than when you -- well,
8 you -- I don't remember that I've heard about it from the Prosecution.
9 Were you aware of them?
10 MR. RE: Of course. They're quite notorious proceedings. They're
11 one of the few war crimes -- war crimes proceedings which have actually
12 occurred in Kosovo against the KLA.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then -- now another question is: I do understand
14 that the -- a body has been identified recently by DNA. Is that correctly
16 MR. RE: The report is dated 28th of May --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. RE: -- yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I'm trying to understand. Up till that moment
20 there was no -- there were no remains identified as being the remains of
21 Sanije Balaj?
22 MR. RE: I can't answer that in detail. All I can answer is that
23 the DNA result confirmed the identity of a body that was recovered in --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. RE: -- September 1998 as that of hers.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking myself, I don't know anything about the
2 details of this prosecution, but if you prosecute someone for murder, for
3 example, you usually would not engage in such a thing unless there's
4 evidence that the person has died. So therefore, I'm just asking myself
5 to what extent the fact that Sanije Balaj is deceased was already known
6 earlier because it's unclear to me how you could start proceedings for, I
7 take it, a manslaughter or murder of this woman without having evidence
8 that she died, apart from whether it's DNA evidence or not. But has there
9 been other evidence?
10 MR. RE: There is other evidence. Mr. Dutertre is in a much
11 better position to explain that to the Trial Chamber than I am because he
12 is more familiar with forensic --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Because what seems to be -- in view of -- and I have
14 not studied, as a matter of fact, the request for amending the indictment
15 there to seek leave to amend the indictment, but I take it that
16 identifying the remains as the ones of Sanije Balaj, I take it, justifies
17 that this, until now, unnamed victim, of which there apparently is
18 evidence that she died but that this person died, although unnamed in
19 these proceedings.
20 MR. RE: I can't give you the evidence in detail of what is before
21 the court in Kosovo as to what happened to the body. I know the evidence
22 is that there is direct evidence being led of her being shot in a forest
23 by KLA people, being shot and buried, and that's the body. I can't give
24 you as I stand here -- Mr. Dutertre will be able to explain in better
25 detail the forensic evidence of where the body went and how it was
1 recovered. What we now have is a positive DNA identification of her body
2 as one of the unnamed bodies in the indictment found by the Lake Radonjic
3 canal area in September 1998. That's the missing piece for this
4 particular indictment. It -- there is some overlap, of course, with the
5 proceedings in the Kosovo court, but we are relying upon DNA evidence to
6 prove the identity, I think, of some 40 or so bodies, which the case in
7 Kosovo is against one person for the murder based upon direct evidence of
8 him shooting her in a forest.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Thank you for this clarification.
10 I'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to what
11 Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Guy-Smith have raised, and of course one of the
12 issues that might become central for the Chamber is how to proceed. I do
13 understand that you have made a suggestion that Mr. Emmerson opposes the
14 solution you suggest. Mr. Emmerson made a kind of a counter-proposal.
15 Would you apart from other matters also address the solution of the
16 present problems.
17 MR. RE: The statement of Mr. Krasniqi, the next witness, was
18 served, that's the March 2006 statement, containing the material in
19 relation to Sanije Balaj and her death, was served on the Defence I think
20 in May 2006. The Defence has been on notice for a long time, as
21 Mr. Emmerson himself acknowledged, that it was part of the Prosecution
22 case and the general pattern about what happened to people who were
23 suspected of being KLA collaborators.
24 When we received the DNA report from the ICMP, which is dated the
25 28th of May, before we could inform the Trial Chamber and the Defence of
1 our intention to amend the indictment, we first of all had to notify the
2 victims -- sorry, the family and to make some further investigative
3 inquiries in Kosovo. We were not in a position to notify the Trial
4 Chamber or the Defence until the 6th of June. We notified them on the
5 earliest -- at the earliest possible opportunity.
6 Mr. Cufe Krasniqi has been on our witness list since January. His
7 witness statements have contained the information about Sanije Balaj and
8 we always intended to lead that evidence, and, in fact, some evidence was
9 led and cross-examined in the evidence of Mr. Rrustem Tetaj by
10 Mr. Emmerson himself in relation to what happened to Sanije Balaj. The
11 accusation of her being a Serb collaborator and Prosecution case of what
12 happened to Serb collaborators as part of the JCE has always been part of
13 the Prosecution case here, as an example of what happened to KLA
14 collaborators, although we did not have positive identification of a body
15 which we could particularise in the indictment.
16 Now, the Defence has been on notice, of course, since we provided
17 them with the notification on the 6th of June that we were intending to
18 amend the indictment to include the allegation or naming -- naming the
19 unnamed victim as Sanije Balaj and they were also on notice that we were
20 calling Mr. Cufe Krasniqi from last week.
21 The question, why are we calling him now? The answer to these are
22 simple. The Court has issued some 14 subpoenas to date to get our
23 witnesses to The Hague. The Prosecutor, when she opened these
24 proceedings, addressed Your Honours as to the difficulties we were having
25 before trial in getting witnesses to come to The Hague for various
1 reasons. The fact that the Trial Chamber has issued, I think, 14
2 subpoenas is reflective of what the Prosecutor said in her opening and the
3 reality. And Your Honours have seen in each of the applications that we
4 have filed, and we will probably file another one tomorrow in respect of
5 another witness, you have seen the reasons which we have placed in the
6 declarations of the investigators as to why witnesses do not wish or are
7 reluctant to testify here.
8 Mr. Cufe Krasniqi was not supposed to be the witness testifying
9 today, first today. We had another witness who was subpoenaed and the
10 subpoena was returnable today, but the witness has not appeared and we are
11 attempting to have the witness come to court as soon as possible. The
12 situation is that we are having a lot of difficulty in getting witnesses
13 to court and in the order in which we would ideally like to call them.
14 This particular witness, Mr. Cufe Krasniqi, who is a serving
15 police officer, is willing, available, and ready at a relatively short
16 notice to come to court, and we had to call him as one of the few people
17 we could get at short notice, having a visa and being available to travel
18 for this week. There was another witness who was supposed to have come
19 last week and didn't appear because the subpoena had not been served.
20 There was another witness last week who disappeared when he was supposed
21 to be -- Mr. Kabashi, after he was cited for contempt and his evidence
22 should have taken a few more days. The situation was Mr. Krasniqi should
23 really have been called a little bit later but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, if I may interrupt you. I did not hear from
25 the Defence that they were, perhaps apart from some general remarks on
1 scheduling, that -- I didn't hear anything that would be an indication
2 that the Defence would not see the problems that you are facing at this
3 moment, that is, witnesses who disappear, witnesses who do not respond to
4 subpoenas. So you spend a lot of time on that, but I think the main --
5 the major issue raised by the Defence at this moment is how to proceed
6 with this witness under the present circumstances, which are to a large
7 extent unrelated to the unavailability of other witnesses. I mean, took
8 the criticism on to schedule this witness at this moment -- well, perhaps
9 not be totally ununderstandable in view of the information recently
10 received, but nevertheless that seems not to be the major issue. The
11 major issue seems to be how can we proceed in such a way that the Defence
12 is able to digest all the new information in such a way, including
13 considerations of whether any additional investigations have to be done,
14 and proceed with this witness. I think that's the core problem.
15 MR. RE: The suggestion is this: I just wish to correct something
16 Mr. Emmerson said when he said that the 15th of May statement related to
17 Sanije Balaj. It just doesn't. It's all in the statement of the -- of
18 March last year --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. RE: The suggestion I've made is that in our view, the
21 Prosecution's submission, the evidence is severable on cross-examination
22 in relation to Sanije Balaj. We -- the Prosecution had always intended to
23 lead that evidence, and nothing about the application to amend the
24 indictment changes in any way the evidence we would have led about Sanije
25 Balaj. That remains the same. The issue is notice and cross-examination.
1 Now, the material Mr. Emmerson seeks such as the complete UNMIK
2 file, well the Prosecution -- we don't have the complete judicial file.
3 The trial is ongoing, and it should be finished fairly soon. The closing
4 submissions are due this week or next week.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What do we have or what do you have? You say not the
6 complete file but --
7 MR. RE: We have the investigation file and some of the judicial
8 file, and we've asked UNMIK for the overlap since they provided the
9 investigation file last year, and the judicial file. As far as I
10 understand, we don't have the judicial file. The transcript is
11 publicly -- publicly available and we have some of that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So there is a transcript of the court hearings, do I
13 understand that?
14 MR. RE: I don't -- there is, but I don't believe that we have all
15 of it, and the case is certainly ongoing.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I also do understand that it's mainly final
17 submissions rather than hearing additional evidence that is at this moment
18 where we stand.
19 MR. RE: We have requested the entire file, but as far as I know,
20 we do not have it as yet.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, has the -- has all this material you have,
22 even if incomplete, has everything been disclosed and when has it been
24 MR. RE: I can't answer that as I stand here.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. EMMERSON: I can. It has not been disclosed. This is the
2 first I've heard of Mr. Re mentioning it now. All we have, just to make
3 it absolutely clear, and the suggestion that material in relation to this
4 has been in the possession of the Defence for some time is again, with
5 respect, not a fair reflection of the position. On the 25th of May, that
6 is before the DNA results were obtained, the Prosecution disclosed to the
7 Defence statements of the cousins of Sanije Balaj, one of them taken in
8 2002 and one of them taken in March 2006; in other words, they had that
9 material in their possession but had chosen not to serve or disclose it to
10 the Defence.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you, was it not in any way disclosed, not
12 even Rule 68 --
13 MR. EMMERSON: No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- relevant, general material.
15 MR. EMMERSON: No.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely not, and to make matters perhaps a bit
18 clearer, I am looking at the statement of Hazir Balaj which is contained
19 as an appendix to the motion to amend the indictment, paragraph 3, in
20 which the following is said: "I have given two statements to the United
21 Nations submissions in Kosovo, UNMIK, on 21 October 2002 and 26 April 2005
22 concerning the disappearance of Sanije Balaj. Although the 2002 statement
23 is handwritten, I wish to emphasise that this is not my writing. It was
24 written by the interviewer. On 9 May 2007, I testified at the UNMIK trial
25 of Idriz Gashi, who is accused of having murdered her. I have been shown
1 those statements as well as the statement I gave to the Office of the
2 Prosecutor of the ICTY in 2006."
3 The three documents that are referred to there, the 21 October
4 2002, the 26 April 2005, and the testimony of 9 May 2007 have not been
5 supplied to us. The first time I knew about them was yesterday when I
6 received this motion. I -- as I said earlier, I have a laundry list but I
7 did not wish to take up the Court's time with it.
8 MR. EMMERSON: And if I may pick it up at that point, it is
9 perfectly clear from the service of the statements that were served on the
10 25th of May dating back to 2002 and 2006, that the Prosecution must have
11 known before the receipt of the DNA report on the 28th of May that they
12 were proposing to pursue the course of action that they have now pursued;
13 in other words, they must have had advance notice from the ICMP, which is
14 what has happened in the past of what the likely results were going to be,
15 in other words, notification, because they have set in motion the process
16 of disclosing statements that they had --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, could you slow down.
18 MR. EMMERSON: They had set in process the -- set in motion the
19 process of disclosing to the Defence statements which they had in their
20 possession but had chosen not to disclose since this prosecution began.
21 As Mr. Guy-Smith has just indicated, yesterday we received a selection of
22 documents attached to the Prosecution's application to amend the
23 indictment which make two things clear. First, and we've heard
24 confirmation from Mr. Re just a moment ago, is that the Prosecution is
25 currently in possession of material which it has not disclosed to the
1 Defence; the second is that there may well be a considerable body of
2 further material which the Prosecution is not in possession of but which
3 is available in Kosovo.
4 The net result is that for Mr. Re to stand here grandly saying
5 that we've all known for some time that the next witness will say, as he
6 will, no doubt, I've interviewed this woman for suspected collaborate and
7 then released her and I'm innocent of any allegations of what may have
8 taken place thereafter. It is part of the patch-work. But the reality of
9 what actually occurred and the matters that would need to be explored in
10 cross-examination are the material over which the Prosecution has retained
11 exclusive control and chosen not to disclose to the Defence until, first
12 of all, the 25th of May and then yesterday and are in continuing breach of
13 their disclosure obligations.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, well, what is said is -- these are hard
15 words, and I think I'd like to focus on two questions. First, that is
16 that additional disclosure was of material that was already - at least
17 that's the allegation - was already in your possession for quite some
18 time, that this additional disclosure took place just prior to the -- to
19 the moment that the DNA identification was there. This raises some bad
20 thoughts on the minds of the Defence.
21 And the second is that there is still material relevant, at least
22 likely to be relevant, to know in relation to the circumstances under
23 which Sanije Balaj may have been killed not available to the Defence at
24 this moment.
25 MR. RE: The first one in relation to the ICMP, I'm not quite sure
1 what is meant by "bad thoughts on the part of the Defence."
2 JUDGE ORIE: What I hear them say - let me be quite clear - is
3 that suddenly a new flow of disclosure took place just a couple of days
4 before the DNA reports became available. And what the Defence suggests,
5 that's at least how I understand it, is that you had this material for
6 quite some time, that you have chosen not to disclose it, although they
7 consider it to be relevant, and that in just a couple of days before the
8 DNA report was available, you suddenly changed your mind and then
9 disclosed it to the Defence. And as they say, that you earlier violated
10 your obligations in not disclosing that material. That's a clear
12 MR. RE: That's just rubbish.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. RE: It is, it's complete rubbish. The DNA report's dated the
15 28th of May --
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, no. It's about the material disclosed just prior
17 to that date.
18 MR. RE: I was just about to say --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. RE: -- it's dated the 28th of May.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. RE: We became aware within days of that there was likely to
23 be a positive identification --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. RE: -- within days.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. RE: I can't tell you exactly how many days, but it's days.
3 Now, I'm not at liberty to say how and why, but we became aware of that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No.
5 MR. RE: So there's no conspiracy here about this -- and if we
6 would have had this information before, we would have put it in the
7 indictment --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Look, look.
9 MR. RE: Of course we would.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, it seems that you do not -- perhaps I
11 misunderstand the Defence. But I do understand that the issue is that
12 where you may have been aware a couple of days before the 28th of May that
13 DNA identification material would become available, that at that moment
14 you started to disclose other material, other material, that was relevant
15 already, irrespective of the DNA findings, and that you had not disclosed
16 any earlier, where the Defence says that this was in violation of your
17 disclosure obligations that's any relevant material to be disclosed.
18 MR. RE: I fundamentally disagree with that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: It's a coincidence that on the 25th of May additional
20 disclosure was made?
21 MR. RE: Of course, it relates entirely to that DNA. We had, as
22 I've said, some information that the DNA report -- that a positive DNA
23 report had or would be made. I can't tell you exactly when it was, but it
24 was within days of it being dated. It was around then that we disclosed
25 the material. Of course, the two are related.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What I understand is that the Defence says that any
2 statements taken years before that were relevant already, irrespective of
3 whether there would have been any DNA identification in May 2007, and
4 therefore had to be disclosed already for years or at least months and
5 that you should have disclosed that also and earlier and not to wait until
6 there would be any DNA report. That's the allegation.
7 MR. RE: We've got a lot of witness statements we haven't
8 disclosed, for obvious reasons. If they're not spot-on something that's
9 in the indictment, we normally don't disclose them. Of course it's
10 debatable what's within Rule 66(B), but I disagree, the Prosecution
11 disagrees with the interpretation being put forward by the Defence here.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I'm also talking in terms of Rule 68 under (ii).
13 That is not exculpatory material but the general disclosure of material
14 that may be relevant in electronic format.
15 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry to speak across. Mr. Re has based his
16 submissions to Your Honours today on the fact that this has always been
17 part of the Prosecution's case on joint criminal enterprise. It may not
18 have been a named victim in the indictment, but it has always been a part
19 of the Prosecution's case, the Sanije Balaj incident. In disclosure batch
20 120 on the 25th of May they disclosed a statement from her brother dated
21 the 15th of October, 2002, and a statement from her cousin dated the 3rd
22 of March, 2006. Yesterday they disclosed another statement from her
23 brother dated the 25th of April, 2006, and a statement from her cousin --
24 further statement from her other cousin as well.
25 Now, the fact of the matter is that matter has been in their
1 possession for -- in some cases just over a year and a few months and in
2 some cases, certainly from the earliest of it, for several years. If
3 Mr. Re is maintaining, as he does, that the incident with Sanije Balaj has
4 always been a part of the Prosecution's case on joint criminal
5 enterprise. It does not lie in his mouth now to stand here and say of
6 course we are in possession of relevant material that is relevant to
7 issues that are not mentioned on the indictment but we don't consider it
8 part of our prosecutorial duty to disclose it.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: And, once again, to be perfectly clear, one of the
11 individuals whose -- we now have heard testified in the case in Kosovo was
12 considered to be the suspect in the death of Sanije Balaj and they have
13 statements dated, of this gentleman Avni Krasniqi, of August 2005 which is
14 mentioned in the -- which is mentioned in their motion, September 2000,
15 December 2002. They have further statements with regard to a gentleman by
16 the name of Ahmet Ukaj of December 2002, April 2005, June 2005, and
17 February 2006. And the reason that we are aware of that is because these
18 are materials which were referred to in the testimony of these gentlemen
19 but is also contained in their motion.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I understand Mr. Re to say these
21 statements were not specifically relevant for this case because we could
22 have sent all statements of all killing incidents in the past or people
23 disappearing and that would have been too much, is that -- and only since
24 the DNA identification, they became relevant. If I -- have I understood
25 your position well?
1 MR. RE: Since she became a named victim, we had can identify her,
2 we disclosed the surrounding material. She was part of the case in the
3 sense that it was an incident we wish to lead evidence of, but the rest of
4 it, because she wasn't named as a person directly in the indictment, it
5 would appear that these weren't disclosed in the past.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the Defence has drawn --
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Your Honour --
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- the attention of the Chamber to what they consider
9 to be an inconsistency in this. We'll have a look at it.
10 Mr. Guy-Smith.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I think the submission just made by Mr. Re is
12 disingenuous, at best. The entire issue of Sanije Balaj and specifically
13 the issue of these statements has been something that has been of concern
14 and has been discussed in a variety of different fashions, if not -- if
15 not certainly by early this year in February, last year when I wrote a
16 letter asking for UNMIK files specifically dealing with investigations
17 that were going to be involved in this particular indictment. This
18 particular issue was not an issue, and by that I mean the Sanije Balaj
19 incident is not an issue that they in any way were going to avoid or not
20 take a serious look at. They were going to have comprehensive information
21 about it, they went for comprehensive information about it, they knew who
22 the witnesses were who were involved in this particular incident, and as a
23 matter of fact they -- the information that they've given us and the names
24 they've given us are those incidents that they've predicated JCE upon.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. The Chamber --
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: One further matter, which is some of these
4 individuals are percipient witnesses to the allegations that are contained
5 with regard to the death and the matter in which -- whatever happened to
6 Sanije Balaj's body. They are percipient witnesses, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Guy-Smith. I think the best -- let me
8 just ...
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber wants to further consider the matters
11 raised and how to proceed and wants to take the break now, early break.
12 We'll resume at ten minutes to 4.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 3.25 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.00 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the present situation.
16 Without having thoroughly studied the application for leave to amend the
17 indictment and all the annexes thereto, the Chamber doesn't want to hear
18 any evidence of the witness who will now appear on the Sanije Balaj
19 issue. We'd first like to see that material. We also would like to give
20 the Defence an opportunity to see that material. That means that the
21 examination of the witness, not to say that she could not be recalled at
22 any later stage to hear evidence from the witness on the disappearance and
23 killing of Sanije Balaj, but at this moment the Chamber wants to limit the
24 examination of the witness to other issues. That is one.
25 Secondly, the Chamber would like, before the witness comes in, to
1 identify in now the newest 92 ter statement exactly the portions -- first
2 of all, the portions in relation to Sanije Balaj because the Chamber would
3 like to exclude that, but I do understand that that is not in dispute. We
4 do understand that we find in paragraph 24 -- Mr. Re, is that correct?
5 MR. RE: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: 24. Where does that start?
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Page 8, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but what line exactly do we start --
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: It will be right before paragraph 25, moving up --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is it just the last -- I see Hasan Gashi was
11 stationed with his troops in the red school where Sanije Balaj was
12 brought. Is that the first time she is mentioned here?
13 MR. RE: Well, it is, but that piece of evidence is actually
14 necessary about the red school. In our submission, it's a harmless
15 reference whether we hear any evidence on it or not.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any problem on these specific -- these five
17 words where Sanije Balaj was brought?
18 MR. EMMERSON: I'm --
19 JUDGE ORIE: No problems in that?
20 MR. EMMERSON: I'm entirely in Your Honour's hands.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. EMMERSON: I would like at some stage to have the opportunity
23 to address you as to cross-examination but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, if there -- there seems not to be a major
25 problem, so we are not excluding those five words. Where then does Sanije
1 Balaj appear again, Mr. Re?
2 MR. RE: The only other reference I can see is in paragraph 85,
3 which is the last line, which reads: "In the case of Sanije Balaj there
4 was an unfortunate execution without a fair trial. Such things are not
5 supposed to happen."
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that would then be the last sentence of
7 paragraph 85 to be taken out.
8 Now, I'm addressing the Defence. Any other portion where there's
9 objection and then I take it that it's mainly about opinion, because I
10 have not compared where in the 29, 42, 80, 81, where to find it in the new
11 92 ter statement, because I've just not read it. Could you tell me where
12 to find the portions you objected to?
13 MR. EMMERSON: I think that Mr. Re has excised the portions in the
14 latest 92 ter statement that I objected to.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the latest is the one we have on our desk
16 at this moment, that is, ERN numbers last four digits 1114 up to and
17 including 1167.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And that is English and original, English going until
21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I'm -- as I say, I haven't had the
22 opportunity to make the specific comparisons, in part because I think the
23 paragraph numbers no longer correspond, but I understand from Mr. Re's
24 e-mail serving this document that he's taken the point that I made and
25 that he has given effect to it and on that understanding that point has
1 been addressed.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then if the witness appears and if the witness
3 attests what he's supposed to attest under Rule 92 ter, then it's clear.
4 Mr. Emmerson, by the way, the Chamber discussed the matter. If there
5 would have been opinion evidence in there, of course, and I know it's in
6 accordance with the Rules to say that that could not be admitted because
7 it's opinion rather than facts. If it would slip in, it would not change
8 anything for this professional Chamber. I mean they are not a jury, and
9 it's not because the witness says, well, you see, the armed conflict
10 started on the 3rd of the November that the Chamber would say, Well,
11 that's the evidence, so we adopt that.
12 MR. EMMERSON: No.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, the Chamber would take such an opinion
14 only if the Chamber by itself comes to a similar opinion, so concerns
15 about that --
16 MR. EMMERSON: It may have been oversensitive.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then I think we -- I would like to ask the
18 Prosecution whether you're ready, Mr. Re, to call your next witness to
19 be -- yes, Mr. Guy-Smith.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes, I do believe that I had previously interposed
21 an objection with regard -- and I'm just not sure about the paragraphing
23 MR. RE: 85 and 86.
24 JUDGE ORIE: In the new one?
25 MR. RE: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: New one, 85, 86.
2 Mr. --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I previously objected to what is now 85, 86, and
4 87. I believe that Mr. Re indicated that he would not, because he said he
5 received my e-mail late, that he would lead that information.
6 MR. RE: I said that I hadn't taken it out because I'd received it
7 late, but I think it -- in my view, it really falls within the
8 oversensitive type of objection. It can be led orally, but I mean --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, Mr. Guy-Smith, whether 85 is opinion or
10 not, in the beginning the penalty for being a collaborator was, of course,
11 life imprisonment, and then to say that there were no prisoners, of course
12 you could say that's opinion, but even there I would not be that much
13 concerned that a Chamber would adopt that it would be life imprisonment if
14 there were no prisons, if there were no courts, let's focus on whether,
15 for example, there was military police, yes or no, and -- so if this
16 sufficiently meets your concerns, then we could proceed. One thing is for
17 sure: The last line of 85 -- last line of 85, last sentence of 85, is not
18 subject of the evidence to be given by the witness today.
19 Mr. Re, are you ready to call Mr. Krasniqi?
20 MR. RE: I am ready to call Mr. Krasniqi.
21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: As we are waiting for the witness, Mr. Re, may I
22 ask, the date of this statement is today, 14th of June --
23 MR. RE: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: -- as mentioned on page 25 in the English version,
25 yes? Thank you.
1 MR. RE: Yes, that's correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I'll also use the opportunity, since we are waiting
3 for the witness, of course the Chamber will more thoroughly study not only
4 the application for leave to amend the indictment, but also the annexes to
5 that. And if that would change our minds as far as the course to take is
6 concerned, then of course we'll see. But we are -- at this moment we're
7 just people that are walking in darkness.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Krasniqi.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good day to you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules of Procedure and
12 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you will speak the
13 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now handed
14 out to you by Madam Usher, and I would like to invite you to make that
15 solemn declaration.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
17 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Krasniqi. Please be seated.
19 You will first be examined by Mr. Re, who is counsel for the
21 WITNESS: CUFE KRASNIQI
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examination by Mr. Re:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Krasniqi.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Can you please give the Court your full name.
2 A. Yes. Cufe Krasniqi.
3 Q. That's pronounced Cufe Krasniqi?
4 A. Yes, Cufe Krasniqi.
5 Q. Were you born on the 24th of March, 1959, in Vranoc in Peje?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And are you currently a police officer working in the training
8 school in the KPS in Kosovo?
9 A. Yes, instructor.
10 Q. Police instructor. And I want to show you a statement. Do you
11 have a copy of it there in front of you? It's a statement you signed
12 several hours ago.
13 A. Yes, I have.
14 Q. Do you have it there with you or do you -- or do you want a copy?
15 A. It's here. I have it here.
16 Q. Just to make sure we're all looking at the same thing, it's
17 Exhibit 65 ter 1384. I just want you to look at the document. Have you
18 signed it in English and Albanian on each page, and is it dated the 14th
19 of June, 2007?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And does this statement comprise the evidence you would give if I
22 were to ask you questions and answers based upon everything in the
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And is the statement -- everything in it true to the best of your
2 A. I believe it is true.
3 MR. RE: On that basis may it be tendered?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 Mr. Registrar, that would be exhibit number ...?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit Number P351.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And on the basis of the earlier
8 discussions, I take it that with the exception of the last sentence of
9 paragraph 85, there's no objection against admission. Then it is
10 admitted, with the exception of the last sentence of paragraph 85.
11 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. I'm going to ask you some further questions, additional to some of
14 the material there, and some clarification. Just some personal details
15 which aren't in the statement. Did you do your JNA service in 1979 in
16 Croatia in an anti-aircraft artillery unit before joining the police?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you first hear of Ramush Haradinaj in 1997 after his brother,
19 Luan, was killed near the Albanian border?
20 A. Yes. I heard after 1997, after his brother was killed.
21 Q. And did you first meet him in 1998?
22 A. Yes, I met him then.
23 Q. Did you first meet Lahi Brahimaj in 1997 at the funeral of your
24 cousin Adrian Krasniqi, who had also been killed?
25 A. Yes, I met him there.
1 Q. When was the first time that you became [sic] of a KLA
2 headquarters in Gllogjan?
3 A. For the first time, it was 1998.
4 Q. When was the first time you went there?
5 A. I went there for the first time after March, so after the attack
6 on the village of Gllogjan. So I went there to the school.
7 Q. Whereabouts was the KLA headquarters in Gllogjan?
8 A. At those days it was not located yet. Then later it was located
9 in a house. When I went there, it had no location yet.
10 Q. When it became located in a house, whose house was it? Which
11 family owned that house?
12 A. UCK command was in the house of a relative of Haradinaj, he was a
13 cousin of Ramush.
14 Q. How many times did you go there in 1998?
15 A. I went there two or three times.
16 Q. When was the second time you went there?
17 A. The second time, I think it was after May.
18 Q. Who did you go there with?
19 A. I went alone, with some friends.
20 Q. Do you remember going there with Rrustem Tetaj?
21 A. No, I was not with Rrustem. I was with other people. Rrustem was
22 not with me.
23 Q. Was Ramush Haradinaj there when you went there?
24 A. Yes, he was there. He was having a break. I told the people not
25 to wake him up, and then I went, without meeting him, on that day.
1 Q. Was Rrustem Tetaj there on that occasion?
2 A. I haven't met him there.
3 Q. How many people were in that building when you went there to
4 see -- when you went there?
5 A. It was a courtyard. The doors were open. I saw some young men.
6 There were about 70 up to 100 people, approximately.
7 Q. What were they doing there?
8 A. Some were sitting, some were having a break, some were doing
9 something, some were cleaning.
10 Q. Were they civilians or soldiers?
11 A. Most of them were in civilian clothes.
12 Q. Were any of them involved in training, military training?
13 A. I saw some people who had rifles. Somebody was explaining to them
14 the rifles, some were talking to each other about the rifles.
15 Q. What sort of rifles?
16 A. Usually they were Kalashnikovs, A-47.
17 Q. Can you say approximately what percentage were in civilian clothes
18 and what percentage were uniformed?
19 A. It's difficult for me to say because I was not interested. We
20 would have worn such uniforms, we would have liked to have them, but we
21 did not have such uniforms.
22 Q. Were the 70 to 80 people there, to your knowledge, KLA members?
23 I'm sorry. I should have said 70 to 100 people, that's what you said.
24 A. Yes, all of them were there to become UCK members, but
25 unfortunately there were no uniforms for all of them. Some of them had
1 uniforms, some of them did not have uniforms. That was how it was at that
3 Q. What about KLA patches, were the people there, 70 to 100, wearing
4 or sporting KLA patches?
5 A. No, not all of them had such patches.
6 Q. Why did you go there on that occasion?
7 A. I went there because we wanted to know what we could do to protect
8 the village.
9 Q. Can you elaborate a bit more on that. What do you mean by protect
10 the village, against who? And why did you go there to get protection for
11 your village?
12 A. Very simple. The Serbian police forces and Serbian army were
13 attacking the unprotected villagers, the villages. It was a repression
14 which was exercised not only that year but which had started in 1990, so
15 probably even starting from 1989 when the constitution was changed. So
16 that was the most difficult time for people who lived in that area. There
17 was terror, violence. The schools were closed. The young people left
18 because of repression because they were wanted for taking part in peaceful
19 demonstration under charges of terrorist. So this was a daily phenomenon
20 of the Serbian rule at that time.
21 Q. What protection were you going to get from going to KLA
22 headquarters in Gllogjan? What were you after?
23 A. We wanted to learn about how we could do it or how can -- we
24 wanted to learn about the routes in order to go and collect and get
25 weapons. It was the purpose of everyone to have a weapon in his hand, to
1 die fighting, not by being subdued, not by putting up some resistance.
2 Q. Was there anyone you wanted to speak to in particular when you
3 went to Gllogjan on that second occasion?
4 A. The purpose was to discuss about setting up a group of people so
5 that they could go to Albania to get weapons and return with weapons,
6 carrying as much weapons as they could bear.
7 Q. What was the third time that you went to KLA headquarters in
9 A. The third time was the worst time of that period. It was the
10 attack on Gllogjan taking place on that day. It was a big catastrophe.
11 The village was being bombarded from every quarter. The same thing was
12 happening to other villages. There was shelling with heavy guns, and I
13 could freely say then when we went there, we saw that houses were being
14 demolished and destroyed by shelling. There were victims in civilian
16 Q. Was that in August 1998?
17 A. Yes, this was in August 1998 from the shelling of the whole
18 region, the Serbs were making the shelling from positions in the hills.
19 In the headquarters I met Ramush in front of the door of the
20 headquarters. I talked to him about the situation on the ground. I told
21 him -- asked him about the weakest point so that I could provide support
22 with my soldiers.
23 He explained to me that he had problems in the village of
24 Gramaqel, Suka e Baballoq. There was Serbian positions there. There was
25 the tank units. There are also missile systems positioned in that place.
1 The forces of the UCK were not there in that village, Gramaqel. They were
2 defeated. The area was plains, so the Serbs could penetrate into the
3 village of Dubrave and in a very short -- brief period of time they could
4 reach the village of Gllogjan.
5 Q. When you went there, did you have your soldiers, that is, men
6 under your command, with you?
7 A. Yes, I had my soldiers with me. I went with a truck. There was
8 several soldiers with me. They were well-prepared.
9 Q. I think you said in a statement of May this year that there were
10 27 soldiers there with you. Is that figure correct?
11 A. Yes, the date is correct. It's also correct that I had 27
12 soldiers -- in fact, I had 25 soldiers and two drivers. The drivers would
13 bring the truck back safely. We did not have good vehicles at that time,
14 so we -- after the meeting I was instructed about the place -- the place I
15 should go. So I went to the village of Gramaqel with the best -- with my
16 soldiers. I was told to take position in the bridge near a stream, the
17 stream which heads towards Baballoq.
18 Q. When you met Ramush in the street, was he armed and in uniform?
19 A. Yes, Ramush had a uniform. He did not have any rifle. He had a
20 pistol. He -- that was close to the headquarters. He was waiting for
21 information from the ground because there were attacks taking place from
22 Decan, Baballoq, Crnobreg, Gramaqel, Shaptej. So the attacks were taking
23 place in all those directions and he was there. He had nowhere to go and
24 he was waiting for help to come.
25 Q. Did he have soldiers with him?
1 A. At that moment when I met him, he was alone. Later then, a person
2 came. He talked to him. That person then -- I asked him where we should
3 go so that we could attack Serbian forces.
4 Q. Do you know where his soldiers were when you saw him in the
6 A. These were the soldiers of the village of Gramaqel, but
7 unfortunately when I went there I did not meet anyone. I saw only five or
8 six people on the way. There was big shelling. The Serbs were on the
9 hills. They could see us.
10 Q. How long did you and your soldiers stay in Gllogjan for the day
11 you're describing being under attack?
12 A. We stayed there two days and two nights. On the first day we did
13 not take positions, we did not take the positions of guards. Then we made
14 a small break in the village of Dubrave. These houses were near the front
15 line, and then at about 2.00 at night, I ordered the soldiers to open some
16 trenches because the next day would be a day of heavy fighting. So we
17 worked during all the night. We opened a trench of about 200 metres near
18 the bridge of Dubrave, near the bridge of Gramaqel.
19 Q. What were your men armed with? What sort of weapons did you have?
20 A. My men who were with me included two snipers. They had weapons of
21 calibre M-48. I had five shoulder-launchers. I had two machine-guns of
22 French production. I had Kalashnikovs of Russian and Chinese production.
23 Q. Where had you bought the machine-guns and shoulder-launchers which
24 I think a rocket-propelled grenade is from?
25 A. We had taken these weapons from three areas. Some of them we --
1 were received from Albania, some from Montenegro, and some from Serbia.
2 Q. In your statement of May 2007 you said you bought some
3 machine-guns and RPGs on the black market from a Yugoslav Army contact.
4 Can you tell the Court about that?
5 A. We bought some of the Yugoslav type Zolja, they were anti-tank
6 type of weapons. You could use them only once.
7 Q. And you bought them from within the VJ?
8 A. We bought them from officers of Yugoslav Army. These were weapons
9 confiscated in Croatia and Bosnian and they sold these weapons to us.
10 Q. Where did you get the money from to buy the weapons from the
12 A. We got the money from the peasants, they give money voluntarily
13 without any obligation. They pooled the money. We also had relatives
14 abroad. Everybody was ready to help the families and to provide money to
15 get weapons so that people could protect themselves and their families.
16 Q. Do you remember how much you were paying your contacts within the
17 VJ for machine-guns and anti-tank weapons?
18 A. Yes. The sniper weapons which we got from the Yugoslav Army, they
19 were in good shape and that was what we needed. We paid 1.000 up to 1.500
20 Deutschemarks for each of them.
21 Q. Do you remember how much you paid in total for the weaponry you
22 had on that day from the VJ?
23 A. No, I don't remember. The books in which we had these figures
24 were destroyed during the war so I cannot give you an accurate figure.
25 Q. Well, what was your personal weapon of the day throughout that
2 A. I had a sniper weapon. I had a Zolja, a Yugoslav Zolja.
3 Q. Did you and your men have uniforms?
4 A. No, not all of us had uniforms. Some of them had some signs. I
5 had only a blue bullet-proof velvet and I had only some trousers of the
6 Yugoslav Army.
7 Q. What about a helmet? Did you have a helmet?
8 A. Yes, I had a helmet. That is a green helmet of the Yugoslav
9 Army. I was the only one which had such a helmet.
10 Q. Why were you wearing a Yugoslav Army helmet?
11 A. There is no connection. We had the weapons of Yugoslav Army, of
12 the Chinese army, all the weapons we could lay hands on.
13 Q. A moment ago you're recorded as saying: "Not all of us had
14 uniforms. Some of them had signs." By "signs," do you mean patches or
15 something else?
16 A. If you did not have uniform, they wanted to have a -- saying it
17 was the patch of UCK.
18 Q. Are you saying that some soldiers had uniforms, some didn't have
19 uniforms, but everyone had a patch?
20 A. No. As I said, this was a voluntary army. We tried to organise
21 ourselves as better as we could, but we did not have a factory or somebody
22 who could produce clothes or uniforms or weapons for us. So we took
23 whatever we could lay hands on. So even if they did not have uniforms, we
24 tried to provide these people a kind of a sign, a patch, so that they
25 could be identified.
1 Q. I'm going to ask you about the military police. Mete Krasniqi,
2 Avni Krasniqi, Iber Krasniqi, and Vesel Dizdari, were they members of the
3 military police unit?
4 A. These were members of the local police in the village of Vranoc,
5 and later the military police from the village of Vranoc after the 3rd
6 Dukagjini Brigade was formed, they went to Barane, they participated there
7 as well.
8 Q. Were they then considered to be members of the military police or
9 operating as military police officers?
10 A. They were considered like military policemen, simply military
11 policemen, but I don't know what they said when they went to places, how
12 they introduced themselves. But from what we knew, they were members of
13 the military police and they carried out the duties that they were tasked
15 Q. Hasan Gashi, was he under Nazif Ramabaja's command?
16 A. After the police were transferred from the village to the primary
17 school in Barane, we decided to select the best young men from all the
18 villages to make them members of the military police. So we tried to have
19 two people from each village to become members of the military police so
20 that there would be no misunderstanding between the police and the army.
21 Q. What was Hasan Gashi's role in this?
22 A. Hasan Gashi, because he used to work in the Yugoslav police
23 earlier, he was somebody who knew what his task was and he was a member of
24 the military police in Barane.
25 Q. And was he under Nazif Ramabaja's command?
1 A. Well, we tried to have a brigade commander who could give clear
2 instructions and who would be somebody who knew what was going on.
3 Q. All right. Was he under Nazif's command?
4 A. He was under Nazif's command, but to what extent he carried out
5 the orders, I don't know.
6 Q. I just want to go over the training you provided the young
7 soldiers. Now, you had been a professional police officer. Did you train
8 them in the use of weapons, including rocket-launchers and anti-aircraft
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How many young soldiers did you have under your training?
12 A. Well, the number varied. It was never the same. When I started,
13 there were 21 of them, but the number went up to 700, 800, or even a
15 Q. You said before that there was a shortage of uniforms. What about
16 weapons? Were there enough weapons to go around for these up to 700, 800,
17 or even a thousand soldiers you trained?
18 A. No, we did not have enough weapons.
19 Q. Are you able to say now what percentage of soldiers had weapons
20 and what didn't? 10? 20? 30? 50? 80? Whatever?
21 A. Well, where I was and from what I could see in the primary school
22 in Barane, it could be 50/50, and we tried to share those weapons. If we
23 heard of an attack somewhere, we had to use the same weapons to go to that
24 place to assist.
25 Q. Are you saying you shared weapons?
1 A. Yes, that's true.
2 Q. And just on the issue of uniforms, the Black Eagles, were they
3 uniformed different to the other KLA soldiers?
4 A. I heard about the Black Eagles later. In the beginning we heard
5 that they were military police, and the military police, whoever could lay
6 hands on an uniform, they had uniforms, they were black uniforms. Mostly,
7 in fact, they were civilian clothes. It was an attempt for us to have a
8 unit and to work with that unit.
9 Q. I asked you about Ramush Haradinaj before and your visiting him in
10 Gllogjan. I want to ask you now about his visiting your brigade in
11 Barane. Do you remember him coming to the oath-taking ceremony on the
12 20th of July, 1998? Were you there then?
13 A. Yes, I was there. The date was the 20th of July, 1998, and this
14 was the oath-taking ceremony for new soldiers. It was a solemn event.
15 Ramush came. We were also present. Tahir Zemaj was there. We were all
17 Q. Did Ramush visit your brigade a couple of -- on a couple of
18 occasions there, accompanied by Sali Veseli and Idriz Balaj?
19 A. Ramush came but Balaj was not with him. I did not see him, he was
20 not there. Sali came on his own and Ramush came on his own.
21 Q. What was the purpose of the oath-taking ceremony in July 1998?
22 A. The aim of the visit was because we had made a request to him. We
23 had a great number of soldiers that wanted to join the KLA and we wanted
24 them to pledge their allegiance and we wanted him to be present in this
25 ceremony so that he could see from close what these young men were doing
1 and how they were so eager to join the KLA.
2 Q. Who's the "he"? You're referring to Ramush Haradinaj there?
3 A. Yes, of course, Ramush. We invited him and we wanted him to be
4 part of that solemn ceremony, in the oath-taking ceremony of the new
5 members of the brigade.
6 Q. Why was it so important to you that Ramush participated in this?
7 A. It was important because people loved him. People wanted to see
8 him and to get to know him from close by, because for them, Ramush was an
9 idol and he still is.
10 Q. Did they see him as a strong, powerful commander?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I appreciate Mr. Re may not be getting the answer
13 that he wants, but to seek to put words into the witness's mouth through
14 the form of leading questions, in our submission, is not an appropriate
15 course. Let him ask the questions in a non-leading form and have the
16 answers that he gets.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, could you reformulate the question or put
18 another question to the witness.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. You said a moment ago that for people Ramush was an idol. Why did
21 they see him as an idol?
22 A. I don't know. That's what people thought. They trusted Ramush
23 and they thought that he was a person who sacrificed his own family to
24 protect the whole population, and that's why he was considered an idol.
25 So he was not ready to sacrifice only himself but his whole family.
1 Q. What was the feedback you were getting from these people about
2 Ramush's command style?
3 A. Ramush had no time to command everywhere, but people trusted him.
4 They thought that if Ramush went there, there would be no problem for
5 them, for the people. This is something that occurred among the people.
6 That's how the people loved him.
7 Q. What about the FARK and the KLA, what do you see as the -- what
8 was your perspective on what was happening between the FARK and the KLA at
9 the time when Ramush and Tahir Zemaj were at this oath-taking ceremony?
10 A. This is a very important question because at that time we were
11 calling upon all officers, former officers, to come and join us so that
12 they could train the soldiers and prepare them. And in Kosova at the
13 time, there was no presence of any other force other than the KLA. Later
14 we heard that there was another force which was called the FARK, but on
15 the ground, we knew only of one force, which was the KLA.
16 Q. What was Tahir Zemaj's role? Who did you think he was?
17 A. Tahir Zemaj was a professional. He had graduated the military
18 academy, had been a superior officer in the Yugoslav Army. He left the
19 Yugoslav Army and came to help his own people, just like any other
20 officer. He came to make his own contribution and nobody stopped him.
21 And I remember something that Ramush told him, You're welcome. This is
22 your country. Fight for your own country and for yourself.
23 Q. Were you aware of any differences between Tahir Zemaj and Ramush
25 A. Differences -- well, there were differences between us because
1 Tahir had a higher rank, Ramush was much younger than him, and I was
2 younger as well. So he was a superior officer; we were not.
3 Q. I'm talking about antagonism as opposed to physical or age
5 A. Physical appearance, no, we didn't pay attention to those things.
6 I remember that Ramush came first, then Tahir came later. We were all
7 together. You have the video-recording of that. We were all together.
8 We were not on different sides. We were all members of the Kosovo
9 Liberation Army without any distinction, because if we had any differences
10 or arguments, we wouldn't have been together.
11 Q. What I'm asking you about is were you aware - and if you're not,
12 just say no - of any personal antagonism, difficulties, or rivalries
13 between Ramush and Tahir?
14 A. No, I am not aware of anything like that. There might be rivalry
15 everywhere. People might have different opinions, but I don't think there
16 were any such problems there. Of course, each and everyone has his or her
17 own opinion and in democracy you can have a different opinion, but there
18 was no clash. Well, if I did not agree with something that Tahir said or
19 Ramush said, I could have told them and they could have done the same with
20 each other.
21 Q. I don't think you're suggesting there was a democracy in Kosovo in
22 1998. What I'm asking you about is whether there were any fights or
23 clashes between the two.
24 A. There were no clashes or fights. There was no clash between them,
25 at least I don't know of any. I'm not aware of anything like that.
1 Q. Were you aware of any military clashes or fights between members
2 of the FARK and members of the KLA?
3 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
6 MR. EMMERSON: It's a compound and slightly confusing question,
7 military clashes or fights. I don't know whether Mr. Re has in mind any
8 kind of military engagement; but if he does, none of us in this case are
9 aware of any evidence to suggest such a thing. So perhaps --
10 MR. RE: I'll rephrase the question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Please do, Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. Were you aware of any physical fights involving weaponry between
14 members of the KLA and the FARK?
15 A. As far as I'm concerned, for the time I was there I never heard of
16 anything like that. I heard things after the war, but I don't think they
17 have much weight. At that time I know that we were all together. If
18 there had been any fighting between them, Ramush was with Tahir together
19 in Prapaqan. I did not see anything. Ramush came first, as I said; Tahir
20 came later and there was no clash. I never heard or I never saw any kind
21 of fight.
22 Q. A few moments ago you said that people considered Ramush to be an
23 idol and he still is. Is that your view of Ramush?
24 A. Of course. If 90 per cent think of him like that, why not me?
25 Q. As a commander of soldiers, did you give your subordinates any
1 training in the rules of war or how to treat civilians or prisoners of
3 A. Yes, that's correct. I trained them. I spoke to them every day,
4 one hour each morning, and I spoke to them -- and I told them that, There
5 won't be war forever. One day we will have peace and each and everyone
6 will be held responsible for their actions. For this reason, everybody
7 had to behave properly, to be careful in what they did, not to maltreat
8 civilians, who were numerous and were -- had remained homeless because of
9 the villages that had been burned. There were concentrations of people in
10 various areas, and if they had a prisoner of war or somebody surrendered
11 to them, hands up, these people should not be maltreated. First of all,
12 that person should be given some safety and security, given food and
13 water, and the professionals should deal with them.
14 Q. Did that actually happen or is that just theory?
15 A. This was the theory that I spoke to them about every day, but we
16 did not have the strength to catch anyone.
17 Q. What about collaborators or suspected collaborators, how were they
18 to be dealt with?
19 A. The same as everybody else. If they were suspected, then we had
20 to speak with these people; and in the course of that conversation --
21 however, I must say here that there were not many people that we suspected
22 to be collaborators. If we could investigate, we tried to investigate,
23 but it was very difficult for us to do these things. We just tried to
24 isolate the person, ask him or her what they had been doing, and after the
25 interrogation they were left free.
1 Q. Well, I'll ask you about one of those. Skender Kuci, did you know
2 him in 1998?
3 A. No, I did not know him personally.
4 Q. Did you know his brother, Adem, did you work together in Pristina
5 as police officers before the war?
6 A. Yes, I knew his brother, he was a police officer, but he used to
7 work in Pristina and I worked in Prizren, and he's still there, I think.
8 Q. Now, was Adem brought to you one day when you were in Barane?
9 A. Yes, that's true.
10 Q. Was he brought to you by KLA soldiers?
11 A. Yes, my soldiers brought him. That day Adem had been seen
12 together with Serb police forces in the Kliqine village where the police
13 station was. It was about 10.00 in the morning and after he had left the
14 police station, he got -- had gotten into his car and had been driving
15 into the direction of the Barane area, towards Qallapek. At that time,
16 the Serbs, even the ill people -- they did not even allow the ill people
17 to go to hospital and get a cure, while they allowed him to move freely.
18 And I was notified that this person had entered our area at 10.00, after
19 he had left the Serb area, and I thought maybe he has a big problem,
20 because it's difficult for the Serbs to leave someone move freely in the
21 area. And he came to me and we talked about his problem.
22 Q. Did he come to you or did the soldiers bring him to you?
23 A. No, the soldiers brought him to me, but he was not ill-treated or
25 Q. Was he in their custody or just travelling with them?
1 A. No, he was travelling with them. They just had seen him in the
2 area and had seen him talking to the Serbian police, and they came to me
3 and said, This is a suspicious person. And I said, Wait a minute. You
4 cannot make a judgement on people just like that. First we have to talk
5 to him and then.
6 Q. What did he tell you about his brother, what had happened to his
7 brother, Skender?
8 A. First of all, when he was brought he was a little bit concerned
9 and he did not recognise me, but I recognised him. And I tried to calm
10 him down. I said, You can rest a little while. And I said, What's your
11 problem? Why did you come through the Serb police? Because the Serb
12 police must -- might have killed you, passing in their area, so what's
13 your problem. And he said, This is my problem: A brother of mine has
14 been taken, he must be in your area. I said, I don't know about this
15 case. And he said, No, I know for sure that my brother has been taken and
16 he is in this area. I told him that I have no information about this, but
17 it's not proper for you to go and speak with the Serbs and you could have
18 been killed because people are armed these days.
19 Q. Now, in your statement of the 15th of May, which you signed in
20 Albanian and English, you said that: "Adem told me that his brother had
21 been captured by the KLA and he was looking for him." Is that what he
22 told you?
23 A. Yes, that's what he told me.
24 Q. Who did you tell him he should make further inquiries of?
25 A. He told me that his sister lived in Qallapek and two sons of that
1 household were my soldiers in the area, and I told him, Because your
2 sister lives here, you go and stay with your sister. Take your -- these
3 soldiers and look for your brother with these soldiers. I have no idea
4 about this case. If the soldiers can help you, they will inform you.
5 Q. Where did he find that his brother was taken to?
6 A. I don't know. After I let him go, he left and he did not return
7 to me. So I have no further information.
8 Q. You said in that same statement about two weeks after this you
9 found out that Skender had died. What did you find out or how did you
10 find out that Skender had died?
11 A. I did not say I discovered. Somebody informed me that Skender was
12 dead. I did not make inquiries. I asked somebody in Qallapek what
13 happened, did he find his brother. And They told me, Yes, he found his
14 brother. He was dead. That was -- really happened two weeks after he had
15 met with him me.
16 Q. Did you hear that he had been died after being detained in KLA
17 custody in --
18 MR. TROOP: Your Honour.
19 MR. RE:
20 Q. -- Jablanica?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes Mr. Troop.
22 MR. TROOP: That's a leading question. I would ask --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. TROOP: -- if possible, for Mr. Re to ask questions in an open
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. RE: There's a reason why I've asked this way --
3 MR. TROOP: Your Honour --
4 MR. RE: -- in this form. There's a reason why I've asked the
5 question in this form and it's a credit issue.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the objection is sustained and I invite
7 the -- I -- Mr. Re, I take it that you have reasons to do what you do but
8 that doesn't mean that it's admissible, and I invite the Defence to be
9 brief in their objections. There was --
10 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, Your Honour. I --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- a previous one about leading. The further
12 explanations on what Mr. Re was seeking with his questions were
14 MR. EMMERSON: No, I understand that. May I simply raise --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. EMMERSON: -- what Mr. Re has just said as to his reasoning --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. EMMERSON: -- behind the leading question, because my
19 understanding of what he is implying is that he proposes to now seek to
20 impeach his own witness.
21 MR. RE: That's just wrong.
22 MR. EMMERSON: That's fine. If it's a credit issue, perhaps he
23 might explain what he means by that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if he just reformulates the question or puts
25 the question in another way, then we avoid further discussions on the
2 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Did you hear that he had been detained by KLA --
5 MR. TROOP: Your --
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. -- from anyone else --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Troop.
9 MR. RE: That's not a leading question. He can answer it in any
10 way. He can say, yes, no, I don't know.
11 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Re, what is a leading question? A leading
12 question is either a question which -- in which an assumption is included
13 of a fact that has not yet been established or a leading question is a
14 question which already leads the witness to a certain answer. Would you
15 please reformulate your question. Perhaps --
16 Did you hear anything about how Skender Kuci died, Witness?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I did not hear how. I only
18 heard that he was dead, but not heard how.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Did you hear where he died?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, please proceed.
22 MR. RE:
23 Q. Paragraph 88 of your statement which is before the Court you refer
24 to: "Sometime before September 1998 I heard about the abduction of the
25 couple Nurija and Istref Krasniqi. Tahir Zemaj called me to Prapaqan to
1 ask if I knew what happened to the couple."
2 I just want to ask you for a little further clarification on
3 that. Were you -- or had you heard anything about suspected collaboration
4 in relation to this particular couple?
5 A. Yes, that is true, what I said in that paragraph. I was called by
6 Tahir. These people were in the area covered by my command. Tahir then
7 decided to ask me. He thought that I was in the best position to know
8 about this. I went there. I explained to him that I know nothing and --
9 I knew that one of the sons was injured. We provided assistance. We took
10 the son to the military hospital to get treatment. This is what I think.
11 On the way then there were Serbian forces, and then later I learned that
12 their bodies were brought from Serbia recently.
13 Q. In paragraph 89 you said: "I later heard different gossips about
14 their killing. Rumours had it that they were collaborating with the
16 If you can, I want you to tell the Trial Chamber what you had
17 heard and who you had heard it from. What were these rumours?
18 A. The rumours are rumours. There are rumours every day and
19 everywhere. If you don't see something with your own eyes, then you
20 cannot prove something. I have heard different variants. Somebody said
21 that they were killed, somebody said different thing, so there are many
22 suppositions, many different opinions. So I was not interested any longer
23 to know anymore. Somebody was lying, somebody was giving his own opinion,
24 different variants, these are rumours in the street.
25 Q. I'm going to show you some photographs and some maps. Now, you
1 marked several maps which were attached to your statement. The first one
2 I want to show you is 65 ter 1027, which is a hand-drawn map which you've
3 marked on Ramush's Gllogjan staff headquarters. It's going to come up on
4 the computer in front of you.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...?
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be number P352.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
8 MR. RE:
9 Q. Can you see the document in front of you, Mr. Krasniqi?
10 A. Yes, I can see it well.
11 Q. I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber about the diagram you
12 have drawn there. In the statement it's described as a rough sketch of
13 three brigades and how they were located in relation to the staff
14 headquarters in Gllogjan and you've shown on that where Ramush had his
15 staff headquarters from where he commanded the Dukagjini operational zone,
16 particularly the three brigades at Barane, Prapaqan, and Bardhaniq and you
17 signed it. I'm just reading that from paragraph -- between paragraph 9
18 and 10 of the statement of 5th of March, 2006 --
19 MR. EMMERSON: Could we just pause for a moment --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. EMMERSON: -- please, and identify those paragraphs.
22 MR. RE: It's headed investigator's notes --
23 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.
24 MR. RE: -- between --
25 MR. EMMERSON: It's a comment by an investigator, as I understand
1 it, rather than by the witness. Is that correct? The words that Mr. Re
2 has just put to this witness as his statement are, in fact - I think I'm
3 right, I stand corrected - actually words of an investigator.
4 MR. RE: I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said: "In the
5 statement it's described s as ..."
6 MR. EMMERSON: Not by this witness.
7 MR. RE: I actually hadn't finished the question, but I'm grateful
8 for Mr. Emmerson's premature interruption.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's keep matters short. If you are quoting from a
10 statement, you -- it would be easily understood as quoting what the person
11 who gave the statement said. Here it clearly is not. Let's avoid further
12 trouble about it, and, Mr. Re, if you put to the witness what it is,
13 please be unambiguous in who said what you are putting to the witness.
14 MR. RE: I actually said I'm just reading from that between
15 paragraphs 9 and 10 and it's headed investigator's notes --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Actually, let's --
17 MR. RE: -- I just read it on to the record a moment ago. I can
18 re-do -- all I'm asking --
19 JUDGE ORIE: You said that you are reading that from between
20 paragraph 9 and 10 of the statement of the 5th of May, and I now further
21 clarify that what we find between paragraph 9 and 10 - the witness might
22 have forgotten about it - is a note of the investigator.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
24 MR. RE:
25 Q. It's headed investigator's notes and it said you created a rough
1 sketch of the three brigades and how they were located in relation to
2 staff headquarters in Gllogjan and you drew on the sketch that Ramush had
3 his staff headquarters at Gllogjan from where he commanded the Dukagjini
4 Operational Zone, particularly through the gates at Barane, Prapaqan and
5 Bardhaniq, and it's signed by you in the annex as A. The question is
6 this: Is that an accurate description of this particular diagram?
7 A. I draw well. I have tried to pin-point the locations of the
8 brigades to the extent that it is possible because you need a lot of time
9 to draw a map; however, I've tried to my best possibilities and these were
10 more or less the locations. You can see also the villages there. This is
11 an accurate map.
12 Q. And is it accurate to say that that is a sketch of where Ramush
13 had his --
14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry. What Mr. Re is trying to do is to lead
15 the witness to agree with an investigator's note which contains within it
16 a suggestion that from Gllogjan, Mr. Haradinaj commanded the three
17 brigades. That's the purpose of this leading question, to try to get the
18 investigator's comment on what the witness was trying to convey into
19 evidence through a leading form of questioning.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you are invited to -- not to lead in this
21 respect. And just for clarification, you earlier said to me, and I'll
22 find exactly what you said. At the risk of making a mistake I think you
23 said, this question is not leading because the witness could say yes, the
24 witness could answer by no and the witness could answer by saying that he
25 doesn't know. If I would put a question to someone whether he had had for
1 lunch ravioli with pea soup, then of course the witness could say yes, the
2 witness could say no, and the witness could say I don't know anymore.
3 Nevertheless, this question is highly leading the witness since it
4 suggests that he had ravioli and pea soup for lunch.
5 So therefore, I have some concern about your understanding of what
6 a leading question is, specifically in view of your explanation why the
7 earlier question was not a leading question. Would you please keep that
8 in mind and refrain in this respect from leading. Apart from that, of
9 course the Chamber has seen this map and has some -- at least I had some
10 difficulties with the geography also. So please try to obtain the
11 evidence which assists us. Please proceed.
12 MR. RE: The Trial Chamber may rest assured that I do have a
13 reasonably attuned appreciation to a leading -- it may not have come
14 across that way before but --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There will be another moment where we can
16 exchange our views on technical matters of criminal procedure. Let's for
17 this moment.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Mr. Krasniqi, just look at the map again. Now, on it you've
20 drawn -- you've written under Gllogjan, Ramush, staff HQ; under Jablanica,
21 Lahi Brahimaj, staff HQ; and you've also drawn on Tahir brigade at
22 Prapaqan; Bardhaniq, Musa brigade; and brigade at Barane under Nazif.
23 What was your purpose in describing Gllogjan as a staff HQ and Jablanica
24 as a staff HQ and the other one as brigades?
25 A. This was a request of the investigator. He asked me about the
1 locations. He asked me whether I could make a sketch of them. We had the
2 map; however, he asked me to make a sketch with my hand. I tried to do my
3 best, so I made this drawing. I showed the locations we had at that
4 time. Each of us worked independently because we did not have means of
5 communications. We did not have radio for communications, telephones,
6 there were no telephones in the villages.
7 Q. Why did you describe Gllogjan and Ramush as the staff HQ on that
9 A. He asked me to make the sketch and this is what I did. I made the
10 sketch as much as I knew. The headquarters were there in the village of
11 Gllogjan. Then he asked me about the location of the 1st Brigade, of
12 Tahir, and then I made the drawing of Tahir. Then in Bardhaniq was Musa,
13 I also made some kind of sketch and then also showed the route with -- I
14 have not mentioned here, specified all the villages. I have also shown
15 the 3rd Brigade in Barane where I was and also I showed Jabllanice where
16 Lahi was there.
17 Q. Paragraph 31 of your Rule 6 -- sorry, Rule 92 ter statement, you
18 referred to the training of UCK soldiers --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. --
20 MR. RE: I'm sorry.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, may I just try to seek some clarification.
22 First of all, I take it that you want this annex A to be exhibited and
23 tender it into evidence?
24 MR. RE: Please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, the legenda are not translated, so
1 therefore, it's not entirely clear. Also, as I said before, the
2 geography, for example, on this map we find Jabllanice and Gllogjan at
3 approximately the same distance from a road which I have to assume is the
4 road between Decani and Djakovica, whereas, of course, in reality on the
5 real maps you find a totally different picture. So therefore -- but with
6 some imagination you can get an idea of what the witness may have intended
7 to do. But let's explore the matter a little more in detail.
8 You -- on this map I find at two places staff HQ, that is,
9 Gllogjan, Ramush, staff HQ; and Jabllanice, Lahi Brahimaj, staff HQ.
10 Could you tell us staff HQ of what exactly? Could you further explain?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were local commands. The
12 striped area, these are the rivers. So that's why they might be a little
13 bit confused. So this -- here you can see the Decan river, the striped
14 area, and also the Peje river. Decan is a municipality. Jabllanice is in
15 the municipality of Gjakove. Therefore, this drawing might create some
16 confusion. We could not use coloured pencils. That's why I put so many
17 lines in this area to show the river. This area here with dots and small
18 lines, these are the routes, the route to Prilep, to Irzniq, to Gllogjan.
19 So these are the signs I used for routes with the dots, small lines, and
20 the other one where you can see more lines and darker, that's the rivers.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you said these are local headquarters,
22 Gllogjan, the same for Jablanica, as I understand. Now, we also find
23 with -- three numbers, brigade. I see one Bardhaniq; one Prapaqan, Tahir;
24 one Barane, Nazif. Are these brigades in any way related or linked to
25 what you just called local headquarters, whether Jablanica or Gllogjan or
1 any other headquarter?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could not hear the interpretation.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll put the question again to you. I asked:
4 Are these brigades, as we find them, Tahir brigade, Nazif, and Musa, are
5 these brigades in any way related or linked to what you just called local
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This was done in order to
8 raise the morale. We set up three brigades of regular army. We did not
9 have the equipment, the means, and the uniforms. However, this was done
10 for propagandistic reason, to tell the people or to show the people that
11 we have three strong armies located in three separate areas in which young
12 people are engaged. This was the purpose. However, they were, let's say,
13 part of the same brigade but only to raise the morale in the people we
14 showed it as if it was three separate brigades.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's still not entirely clear. For example,
16 let's take one example, Prapaqan, Tahir brigade as we find it on the map,
17 was that in any way linked to either staff headquarters in Gllogjan or
18 staff headquarters in Jabllanice?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they were not linked. In
20 Gllogjan there was Ramush, in Prapaqan it was Tahir. Each operated
21 independently, which means that we did not have the means and the
22 possibilities to communicate with each other. However, if there was a
23 problem or if we wanted to send some information, we send a courier in
24 order to ask for some help. When I was in Barane if I had some problems,
25 then I send some soldier with a vehicle in order to ask for help. I sent
1 him to Ramush, to Lahi, or maybe to Tahir, the one which was closer.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you apparently make a distinction between
3 what you call brigade and what you call staff headquarters. Could you
4 explain to us what then exactly the difference is.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no interpretation again.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- I'll try it again.
7 You make a distinction in your description between what you call a
8 brigade and what you call staff headquarters. Could you tell us what the
9 difference is?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The difference is that in the
11 brigade we had the officers, the officers -- the purpose was to have as
12 many officers as possible. There were also officers with Ramush. This
13 was how we decided at that time. This is what we did. This was done in
14 order to attract as many officers as possible. The same thing happened
15 also with other brigades in other parts of Kosova.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That still does not explain why one time you
17 say "staff headquarters" and another time you say "brigade."
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The meaning of "brigade" is
19 different from that of the staff. In fact, we did not have a regular
20 army, not a regular unit. The reasons are various, due to logistics, et
21 cetera. I know what a regular army means. A regular army should have the
22 logistic, the officers, the military equipment, everything. So we tried
23 to set up a brigade, in fact, to give a name to something which was not
24 really a brigade. A brigade should have three battalions. A battalion
25 should have up to 1.000 people. A brigade, it's clear, should have up to
1 3.000 or more people.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: You now describe brigade as a unit of a certain
4 size. Now, you earlier said a brigade is not the same as a staff. What
5 now is a staff for you?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The staff at the wartime is a
7 leading structure, a structure which leads the brigade. Therefore, we set
8 up a staff in every village in order to raise the morale of the people.
9 So there was a staff in every village, an army staff. The young people of
10 the village were engaged in that staff to defend the village. This was a
11 local staff. There are several people in the staff which lead the army --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, for Prapaqan and for Barane and for
13 Bardhaniq, you say "brigade," you do not say "staff." Now, why do you use
14 the word "staff" for Jabllanice and for Gllogjan and why don't you put
15 there "brigade" or whatever, "unit"?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I told you, staff is a leading
17 structure, that is the purpose. In Gllogjan there were also soldiers,
18 probably more soldiers than the soldiers in the brigades in Prapaqan and
19 Barane. But this is how it was described, and we did not have the right
20 names at the time. People joined several units, and then brigades were
21 set up with different names such as Jusuf Gervalla Brigade and others.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, in Gllogjan and Jabllanice where you said
23 these -- the "leading structure," was the function of the leading
24 structure you called "staff," were they limited to Gllogjan itself and to
25 Jabllanice itself, or did they extend any further than those villages?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every village has its own staff.
2 The brigades have their own staffs as well, leading structure. The
3 leading structure of every brigade. In Gllogjan there were many
4 soldiers. There were many soldiers in Jabllanice there as well. This is
5 the character of the situation.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And do I then understand that despite the difference
7 in names, that the function of the leading structure was limited to
8 Gllogjan itself and would not extend to any of the surrounding villages?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, Gllogjan had its own
10 staff, its own leaders; Prapaqan, its own staff, its own leaders; same
11 with Bardhaniq, as well as Jabllanice and Barane and other villages. I
12 mentioned only a few villages just for your information. However, each
13 village had its own command and its own leaders that led them.
14 JUDGE ORIE: What period are we exactly talking about?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are talking about the period of
16 the brigades, that's how they were called on the ground. This is 1998,
17 about June or July of that year.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Judge Hoepfel has a question for you.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, may I ask you an additional question as
21 we have this sketch on the screen you drew in March 2006.
22 [Trial Chamber confers].
23 JUDGE ORIE: One short question at this moment because we will
24 need a break.
25 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Just to understand your description, what does the
1 heading on the left upper corner, these three lines, mean? Give an
2 explanation, please.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question here was about the
4 Gllogjan staff, only about that, not including the other staffs. And the
5 question was: Who was the commander of the staff in Gllogjan, and I said
6 Ramush. The operative commander was Sali Veseli and Rrustem Tetaj. These
7 three were the leaders of the staff in Gllogjan. As regards the duties
8 each of them had, I don't know, especially about Rrustem. But I know that
9 they were there.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Mr. Emmerson.
13 MR. EMMERSON: One word if I may. I'm not sure how much longer
14 Mr. Re has in chief with this witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know, either.
16 Mr. Re, could you already -- I don't know whether we need -- I
17 would like to have a break now quickly, because we are well over time.
18 Mr. Re, how much time you would you still need?
19 MR. RE: However long it takes me to get the witness to tender
20 one -- six photographs --
21 JUDGE ORIE: The maps.
22 MR. RE: -- and maps but that's all.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And some photographs.
24 MR. RE: All I'm asking is, I'm going to seek Your Honour's
25 permission to begin my cross-examination tomorrow rather than this
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give an indication as to how much time you
3 would need for the cross-examination? And I'm now addressing all three
5 MR. EMMERSON: I would expect somewhere in the region of an hour
6 to an hour and a half.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that would mean there would be no other
8 witness available, Mr. Re.
9 So we would finish tomorrow.
10 May I -- I don't know, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Troop, we would easily
11 finish the witness.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: We will easily finish the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. TROOP: I agree, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a break, with the apologises to
16 transcribers and interpreters. Therefore we'll take a bit more time, ten
17 minutes past 6.00 we'll resume.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.44 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, Mr. Re, I'd like to put another
21 few questions to the witness.
22 Mr. Krasniqi, may I put to you some portions of the statement that
23 has been admitted into evidence and I first go to paragraph 33. Your
24 statement in paragraph 33, you could, if you wish, you could follow it in
25 your own language since I do understand that you have a copy in front of
2 It says: "The office of Din Krasniqi was located at his house in
3 Vranoc village. He also had a private clinic at this place. In February
4 1998 not many people had uniforms. Most of them were training in civilian
5 clothes. In February 1998 it was a known fact that an army existed in
6 Jablanica under the command of Lahi Brahimaj. Din Krasniqi had visited
7 Jablanica, and being a trust-worthy person he was allowed to call himself
8 as the commander of the Barane valley."
9 Who allowed Din Krasniqi to call himself the commander of the
10 Barane valley?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, this question according to
12 the translation I received, does not have any meaning.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I'm asking you to answer the question -- to respond
14 to the question, but if there's a translation problem. My question simply
15 was, when Din Krasniqi visited Jabllanice and was allowed to call himself
16 the commander of the Barane valley, my question is, and perhaps more
17 specific: Who then in Jabllanice allowed him to call himself the
18 commander of the Barane valley?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes, now I am clear about the
20 question. Din was an educated person who was well-loved by the people in
21 the area. He was a doctor, and in order to have no misunderstanding, the
22 Barane valley did not have an army. But Din was well-known in the area.
23 He had cured and treated children and the elderly, et cetera. And because
24 the Serbs were --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I'm going to stop you there. My question was not why
1 he was allowed, but who allowed him.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I, myself, said that he can be
3 commander of the area because he's well-loved by the people. He's an
4 educated person, and nobody objected to this idea, neither Lahi nor
5 anybody else. I proposed him to be a commander.
6 JUDGE ORIE: You said neither Lahi. Was Lahi asked about it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Din himself had insisted that I
8 become a commander. Lahi and the others had nothing against me.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please listen carefully to my
10 questions and answer the questions. My last question was whether Lahi was
11 asked about Din Krasniqi calling himself the commander of the Barane
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We were discussing together, yes, of
14 course he was asked.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Were you then when he went to Jablanica?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, we went there together.
17 JUDGE ORIE: You went there together. Why did you go there?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was some fighting going on
19 there in the Suka e Cermjanit and there were some wounded soldiers. So we
20 went there so that Din could offer them first aid and treat them, and
21 that's when we got to discuss about this issue.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, I take you to paragraph 41, which, Mr. Re,
23 a bit to my surprise we have doubles there because the language is, to
24 some extent, exactly the same as we find in 65.
25 But I take you to paragraph 41 of your statement, where you
1 explain that who was the commander of the 3rd Brigade in Barane; who was
2 the commander of the 1st Brigade in Prapaqan; and who was the commander of
3 the 2nd Brigade in Bardhaniq. Then you said: "All three brigades were,
4 in principle, under Ramush Haradinaj, who was the overall commander, but
5 these were also kind of independent because there were no regular systems
6 of reporting on a daily basis. But in case of need or trouble, the zone
7 commander was to be contacted."
8 In your earlier answers, you gave me the impression that what you
9 did put on the map and that the difference in brigades and staff
10 headquarters, that it was all approximately the same, whereas in this part
11 of your statement you clearly explain that although the brigades were
12 instructed to do the job properly and that they were also kind of
13 independent, that nevertheless, there was a structure where the brigades
14 were under Ramush Haradinaj. Could you explain the differences in what
15 you signed as your statement and the testimony you gave just before the
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, there is no
18 difference. In principle, it's the same statement, and I'd like to
19 explain something about it, about the brigades and why they called them
21 JUDGE ORIE: Just --
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- we always thought --
23 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment I do understand that my impression
24 that your testimony was different from what your statement says is a wrong
25 impression. If any of the parties would like further explanation on the
1 brigades, they'll certainly ask you for it. And if at the very end of
2 your testimony no one has asked anything about it and you consider it
3 necessary to add anything to your testimony, you're free to do so.
4 Mr. Re, you may proceed.
5 MR. RE: Is the document P352 still on the screen? Could it
6 please be put back on the screen. I just wish to pick up on Judge
7 Hoepfel's question to the witness in relation to the writing on the top
8 left-hand corner.
9 Q. All I want you to do, Mr. Krasniqi, is just to read what it says,
10 no comment, just read what it says.
11 A. These three lines, as I already said: Commander of the staff is
12 Ramush Haradinaj, deputy or operative commander was Sali Veseli, and
13 together with him was Rrustem Tetaj. This was done --
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. -- I think in June and we tried --
16 Q. No, no. I just asked you to read. Okay. Now --
17 A. I did read them, so Ramush, commander of the staff; Sali Veseli,
18 operative commander; Rrustem Tetaj, deputy.
19 Q. Is that a legend for the map you've drawn there?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 Q. Now, is that consistent with the statement you signed today,
22 paragraph 41, which His Honour Judge Orie's just pointed you to where you
23 said: "The overall commander of the Dukagjini Operational Zone was Ramush
24 Haradinaj who had his commanders" - sorry - "had his headquarters in the
25 village Gllogjan. Sali Veseli was the operations commander for the DOZ
1 while Rrustem Tetaj was the deputy commander."
2 All I'm asking you is, the legend on the map, is that consistent
3 with paragraph 41 of your statement?
4 A. Yes, it is consistent with that.
5 Q. Now, if I could take you to paragraph 31 of your statement in
6 front of you there, that's your 92 ter statement you signed today, and you
7 referred to a map which is attached as annex A to your statement of the
8 5th of March, 2006 --
9 MR. RE: And could you please display 65 ter Exhibit 1028.
10 Q. While that's coming up, I'll just read what it says so we all know
11 where we're going. It says: "From that day on I started training the UCK
12 soldiers at first in Vranoc e Vogel near the river Lumbardh. At that time
13 Dr. Din Krasniqi was the UCK commander for Vranoc and later for the Barane
14 valley. There was 17 villages in the valley. I have shown them on a map
15 marked as annexure A to my statement."
16 Now, as the map comes up I just want you to identify, is this the
17 area within the blue, are those the 17 villages which you were referring
19 A. Yes, that's the area.
20 MR. RE: May that receive an exhibit number.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P353.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Any objection against admission? No. Then it is
24 admitted into evidence.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. The next one I want to take you to is 65 ter Exhibit 1029, and if
2 you could turn to paragraph 49 of your statement, please, Mr. Krasniqi, of
3 today's statement and paragraph 48, just to give you the context, you
4 referred to villages in Peje, Decan, and Klina being under KLA control and
5 the MUP retreating to the Irzniq police station. Then you refer to
6 regular gun battles between the Serbian forces and the UCK forces. And
7 paragraph 49 says: "I have shown in red the Serbian forces' positions and
8 in -- and the Serbian villages mentioned on the map as annexure B."
9 I just want you to have a look at the map and it's referred to --
10 annexure B to your statement of -- paragraph -- the 5th of March, 2006, is
11 that the diagram of the positions in March 1998, of the Serb and KLA
13 A. There are more places where the Serb forces were which are not all
14 marked here on this map.
15 Q. All right. Can you just -- before going further, can you just
16 describe, just name them --
17 MR. EMMERSON: I'm so sorry, just before the witness answers that
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. EMMERSON: It's not entirely clear to me following this that
21 the question that Mr. Re has just put summarizing the statement is an
22 accurate description of what is in the statement. Between paragraphs 46
23 and 48, there is a description of certain events, and then at paragraph 49
24 there is a reference to this map. Mr. Re's question at page 79, line 8
25 reads as follows: "I just want you to have a look at the map," and is
1 referred to your statement 5th of March, "is that a diagram of the
2 positions in March 1998 of the Serb and KLA forces."
3 Again, it's not clear to me that that is what the statement is
5 MR. RE: I apologise. I should have been Serb forces instead of
6 villages, not KLA.
7 MR. EMMERSON: No. It's the dates I'm concerned about as well. I
8 don't understand where Mr. Re derives that date in that question from the
9 statement from.
10 MR. RE: It's written on the map. It says March 1998.
11 MR. EMMERSON: I can see that those words appear on the map. It
12 doesn't appear that the -- in the context of the statement, which was what
13 was being put, that that is what is being described. Maybe, I don't know.
14 MR. RE: I'm sure the witness can explain it. He has the map,
15 it's his map.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is not written by me, the
17 words "March 1998." But the main road Peje-Decan-Gjakove was controlled
18 by the Serbian forces. So the blue dots represent villages where there
19 were a small number of KLA. Then the other marks are the Serbian villages
20 and the Serbian forces, both military and special forces. From the
21 February of that year, they started to control the main road Peje-Gjakove
22 and the surrounding areas close to Peje there is Gorazhdec where lots of
23 Serbs lived, Kerstec, there are Albanians living in Kerstec as well, but
24 most of them were Serbs, and Vragoc. These are the villages that have
25 been circled, while in Gremnik there were Serb forces there, there were
1 Serb forces in Vuljak as well, in the concrete factory, and Arkan's unit
2 was there in Vuljak.
3 Q. Okay. Can you just clarify, you said the other marks, just answer
4 this. Do you mean the red marks when you said the other marks? That's
5 all I want to know.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Those marks are the places where they were stationed.
9 Q. Okay. Can you see the places you just referred to on that map,
10 the other places?
11 A. Yes, I can see them all.
12 Q. I'll ask you to mark the map in a moment, but first of all what
13 time-period does this map refer to?
14 A. This map refers to the time-period when -- well, the question that
15 was asked to me was: Where did the Serb population live.
16 Q. Okay. I'm asking you now, just concentrate on this, what
17 time-period does that map refer to?
18 A. This map covers the period until the end of March. This shows the
19 areas where Serbian forces were stationed.
20 Q. March 1998?
21 A. Yes, March 1998.
22 Q. The other villages you just referred to, I can't read them out,
23 because they were not properly transcribed, that will be later, can you
24 mark them on the map in a different colour - can we have a green or
25 something colour, maybe in green -- no, blue is already on it. Can we
1 have another colour?
2 JUDGE ORIE: We have already red and blue, so therefore -- black
3 would do as well, but then of course, we do not know anymore the writing
4 in black and the original print in black. Do we have any other colours
5 than blue and red?
6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then we need black.
8 MR. RE: It might be a different blue.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Is there a different blue, Mr. Registrar? Is there a
10 darker blue? Okay. Dark blue would do as well because the marking until
11 now is in light blue.
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. Same exercise. You've marked in red. Just draw on the screen in
14 blue the places where there were other Serbian positions.
15 A. Here in Gllogjan with blue colours there were members of Kosovo
16 Liberation Army. In Irzniq, the same, Prilep. I'm not sure whether you
17 are looking at it.
18 Q. No, no, I was only interested in the Serbian positions. You said
19 there was additional Serbian positions you had not marked on the map.
20 That's all I'm interested in at the moment.
21 A. Rakovine, Rakovic Road which leads to Klina and Gjakove, this area
22 of Rakovine here.
23 Q. Can you mark so we can follow it?
24 JUDGE ORIE: One by one, please, so we can see where it is. I see
25 a marking now close to Rakovine. The next one would be?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is also the road, but that is
2 not indicated here, the road to Ponovik -- Kramovik, yes, there is a black
3 arrow. So Rakovine and Kramovik here as well.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. Is that it?
6 A. These were two areas. Then also the area near Gogov, Kadol [as
7 interpreted] here, there were also here. It's the area covering the
8 distance between Gjakove and Klina. Jabllanice, Krstovski [as
9 interpreted] is a village in which there was a population, Decan; then on
10 the other side of Decan, Pishtan, Jabllanice. Then Babiq, it's a village
11 with mixed population. Then there is Doberdol. Then in Gaboc, there were
12 few there.
13 Q. No more?
14 A. There are also in other places, in Zagerme, in Bellopoje, in
15 Strellc, Lybeniq, Libushe, this is after March. This is the highway up to
16 Decan. The same for Carrabreg, then if you continue down to Prilep.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, that is all already marked by red
18 stripings, which I did understand is the presence of Serb forces. So I
19 don't think that additional dark blue marking is necessary there because
20 we find a red marking already.
21 May I just seek one matter to be clarified. You just mentioned
22 Jablanica. That is a Jablanica different, I take it, from the Jablanica
23 where the headquarters were, as you said before, the Jablanica where Lahi
24 Brahimaj was located, which is more southerly. Is that --
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are different.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They are two different things.
3 There are several Jabllanice. In Peje area there are three Jabllanices.
4 This is in Gjakove.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to make sure that there would be no
6 confusion in that respect.
7 Mr. Re, please proceed.
8 MR. RE: May that be tendered?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 Mr. Registrar, this would be ...?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be P354.
12 JUDGE ORIE: If there are no objections, I hear no objections,
13 P354 is admitted into evidence.
14 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
15 MR. RE: The next one is 65 ter 1030.
16 Q. And I refer you to paragraph 79 of your statement, which you have
17 there -- which you signed today and while it's coming -- it comes from
18 paragraph 74 of your statement of the 5th of March last year and it
19 says: "One month later in July the Serbs entered Loxha and destroyed it
20 completely. I have provided on the map the Serb positions in red and the
21 Albanian positions in blue in the first battle of Loxha. It's annexed as
22 annex E."
23 When this exhibit comes up in front of you - that's 1030 - I just
24 wanted to ask you is that in fact the map of the Serb positions in red and
25 the Albanian positions in blue of the first battle of Loxha in July 1998?
1 A. Yes, in blue is our free area, the area where we could move. In
2 red colours you could see the areas in which Serbian forces were deployed.
3 And there is also Suka e Bitesh. It should have been added in the first
4 map, in the previous map, I'm talking about. In Diga [as interpreted]
5 Radoniq near the lake there was Serbian forces there and also in Bitesh.
6 Q. When you said blue is our free area, did the KLA control that area
8 A. This is how we considered at that time. We considered it was a
9 free area. They also, the Serbian forces, could enter this area sometimes
10 because they had the people and the vehicles. But we moved around those
11 areas. They, the Serbs, could also move into these areas if they wanted
13 Q. Was that because of their greater military might, that they could
14 move in if they wanted to?
15 A. Yes, that is true. We did not have equipment. We had young
16 people, volunteers, without experience, we had no army, regular army, no
17 commanding -- genuine commanding structure.
18 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number ...?
20 THE REGISTRAR: That would be number P355, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. EMMERSON: No objection to that map being received into
24 evidence. What I am slightly concerned about is that the witness has just
25 indicated that two locations in respect of the previous map, which he has
1 said in his evidence should have been inserted --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: -- on the previous map --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Donji Bites, and the other one was?
5 MR. EMMERSON: And Lake Radoniq.
6 JUDGE ORIE: He said close to Lake Radoniq? Now, Donji Bites is
7 not far from Lake Radoniq so therefore --
8 MR. EMMERSON: Although he's indicating two different locations.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If perhaps in cross-examination you --
10 MR. EMMERSON: I'm happy to pick it up in cross-examination but
11 we've just admitted a map that the witness is now saying does not properly
12 reflect his recollection.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, he was talking about the previous map instead
14 of --
15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Not about this map.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the previous map was already admitted into
20 MR. EMMERSON: I'm in Your Honour's hands. I'll deal with it in
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But certainly it is on the record now that the
23 previous map does not reflect, in full, Serb positions and two were added
24 orally now by the witness. If no objections, then P355 is admitted into
1 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
2 MR. RE: Can that please remain on the screen.
3 Q. I just want you to look at that map. I'll refer you to paragraph
4 44 of your statement signed today where you say: "There were 40 to 50
5 villages in the Dukagjini Zone under the control of the KLA in March
7 Are those 40 to 50 villages shown within that blue area on map
9 A. Yes, this is the map of the villages. These are the villages.
10 However, we could not have them under total control. We could not prevent
11 everybody to enter into these areas.
12 MR. RE: Could the witness please be shown 65 ter Exhibit 1380.
13 Q. I'm going to show you a photograph now, Mr. Krasniqi. In your
14 statement on the 17th of May you described -- sorry, signed 21st of May
15 this year, you described this photograph as containing the house of Lahi
16 Brahimaj in Jablanica. You said: "I have driven past it but never been
17 inside. I don't know what it was used for in 1998."
18 Can you circle on that map -- on that photograph the house of Lahi
20 A. Yes, this house here. Should I encircle?
21 Q. Yes, please, large circle.
22 A. [Marks]
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: As P356, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: No objections. Then P356 is admitted into evidence.
3 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
4 MR. RE:
5 Q. Also while in Jablanica -- can you please be shown 65 ter Exhibit
6 1357, which is a photograph. At paragraph 21 of your statement of the
7 21st of May, this year, you described it as building containing the
8 Jablanica KLA staff in 1998 and you said you have been to this building.
9 I just want you to identify if that's the building you're referring to.
10 A. Yes, this is the place I was.
11 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence, too?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Is -- I just wonder whether this is not yet in
13 evidence. It looks very familiar. I think --
14 MR. RE: I think it might be.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, you would say for the Chamber to find out
16 whether it is already.
17 MR. RE: Well, I apologise for that.
18 MR. EMMERSON: I think it may have been introduced during the
19 testimony of Witness 6.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please assign a number to
21 it, but it may be that the number will be vacated at a later stage.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll mark this for identification
23 as P357.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown 65 ter Exhibit 1379.
1 Q. In your statement, paragraph 21 of May 2007 you described it as
2 showing a building of the Jablanica KLA staff compound, and to your
3 knowledge it was used as a kitchen. You saw cooks with food for the KLA
4 soldiers coming in and out of this building. "I never entered the
5 building and I do not know if people were detained there," but you
6 heard, "from my soldiers that KLA soldiers who had sold KLA weapons were
7 interrogated there."
8 Is that the building you're referring to?
9 A. Yes, yes, this is the building when I went there I saw the cook
10 giving bread to some soldiers. That was normal thing to happen.
11 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence too?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but this -- I'm sure that this one is already in
14 MR. RE: I have just been informed by my case manager that it
15 doesn't have an exhibit number. I'm relying on that.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. At the same time, I remember a person looking
17 into the cellar where we heard quite some evidence that there was water in
18 the cellar. So unless at two different moments different pictures were
19 taken of this same house, there's no doubt about that, with a person in a
20 light suit almost on his knees at exactly that same place, then please
21 verify first.
22 MR. TROOP: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. TROOP: Before Mr. Re goes any further, can I just draw the
25 Court's attention to paragraph 21. I believe Mr. Re said that the
1 statement read that the soldiers were detained there. In actual fact, the
2 statement as written says: "I heard from my soldiers that KLA soldiers
3 who had sold KLA weapons were interrogated there."
4 MR. RE: If I said that, I misspoke, I misread it, but definitely
5 see it now. It says --
6 MR. TROOP: It's a quite significant difference.
7 MR. RE: I apologise if I said -- it's entirely innocent. I
8 heard -- it says: "I heard from KLA -- from my soldiers the KLA soldiers
9 who had sold KLA weapons were interrogated there." I take that.
10 MR. TROOP: I'm grateful.
11 JUDGE ORIE: That's now corrected on the record.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Were you referring to the statement of 15th of
14 MR. RE: Yes, 15th of May, 2007.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Because we always have to choose among four
16 statements at this moment to find out where we are. Okay. That's the
17 15th of May. It has been corrected.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. RE: We can't find an exhibit number for this, but I'll move
21 Q. Mr. Krasniqi, photograph D35, can that please be shown to you.
22 It's an overhead photograph of the village of Gllogjan, and I refer you
23 to -- for the Chamber's benefit paragraph 20 of the statement of May this
24 year in which you say that it's a photograph of the village of Gllogjan,
25 Haradinaj family house is in the photograph. It is the big house at the
1 right side of the road when coming from Dubrava. That is the house I went
2 to three times in 1998 and where I met Ramush Haradinaj. Annexed your
3 photograph to your statement. Can you just please when that comes up
4 circle that photograph.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can you just circle the house to which you refer.
7 A. Certainly. Even though I've never seen this place from such an
8 angle, nevertheless I'll try. I came from this area, here, I met him
9 here. This house should be the house used as headquarters. This is the
11 MR. RE: May that be received into evidence.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. This marked photograph.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P358.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Do we have 358 already?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But as I said then, I've never seen
16 this area from this angle.
17 MR. RE: Okay.
18 MR. EMMERSON: I wonder if we might just for absolute clarity look
19 at the last sentence in that paragraph and invite the witness to clarify
20 an apparent contradiction between the passage that Mr. Re has read and the
21 last sentence, which does not appear on the face of it to be entirely
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it seems that the beginning of paragraph 20 and
25 the end of paragraph 20 contradicts. He said: "This is the house where I
1 went three times in 1998." He described that he went three times in 1998
2 to the headquarters in Gllogjan, and now at the very end he says: "The
3 layout of the village has changed since 1998 and I don't recognise any
4 house used by the KLA in 1998 at the picture."
5 MR. RE:
6 Q. Mr. Krasniqi, I just want to clarify. Is that -- do you believe
7 that to be the house where you met Mr. Haradinaj three times or that to be
8 his -- to be something else?
9 A. If I was in that position and see it the way I saw it then, then
10 it would have been easier. Now the view of the village has changed and it
11 is difficult for me to recognise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably I'm mistaken.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we spend a lot of time on it, is there any
15 dispute as this being -- because we have seen this -- this house before
16 and it was described earlier as the place where people went if they said
17 they went to the headquarters. Any dispute about that?
18 MR. EMMERSON: We think it may not be as clear as the Prosecution
19 thinks it is.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then there is dispute about it. Yes.
21 MR. RE: Well, I could ask him a lot more questions, but he's
22 not -- I don't think it's going to assist --
23 JUDGE ORIE: I leave it to you, Mr. Re, whether you think it --
24 what you just circled, on the basis of what did you circle that?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The house was big, the house
1 where I went, the doors were bigger; however, I cannot see the doors and
2 the courtyard. This is a bird's-eye view and I've never seen it from this
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Then the village also looked
6 different then.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour mentioned this photograph having been
8 shown before and I think when -- there have been two photographs shown --
9 two -- sorry.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I beg your pardon. Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
11 MR. EMMERSON: I think this -- I think it may well be the position
12 that this photograph when it was shown before transpired not, in fact, to
13 show the location of what was being used as the KLA headquarters in
14 Gllogjan and that we needed -- and I think it was at a very early stage in
15 the trial I produced for Your Honours a hard copy photograph that showed
16 the village from a different aerial position in which it was possible to
17 identify the building.
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look at it. It will not assist us in
19 better understanding, perhaps, the testimony of this witness.
20 Mr. Re, any further questions?
21 MR. RE: No, there's no further questions. If that could just
22 maybe be marked, that's the completion of my examination.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think I asked already for a number,
24 Mr. Registrar, is that correct?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. We assigned
1 that P358.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 Any objection? Then P358 is admitted into evidence.
4 Mr. Re, I stand corrected as far as the person near the cellar is
5 concerned. Could we have on the screen for a second P332. I'm still
6 waiting for P332. Yes. This is P332. You see that a person is in
7 approximately the same position, but it could be a cut-out of the other
8 one, but it's certainly not the same, so I stand corrected. If you would
9 like to see whether the other photograph is already in evidence, Mr. Re,
10 could you please verify near to P332 whether we find the other photograph
11 shown to the witness already in evidence because -- yes, Mr. Emmerson.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I don't want to take up any time this evening. I
13 am, if I may, going to hand to Your Honours three copies of a witness
14 statement that was disclosed by the Prosecution in batch 130 on the 12th
15 of June. The significance of the statement is that it is a Prosecution
16 witness statement from a crime victim who describes having witnessed the
17 organised multiple rape and mutilation of a group of Albanian women in
18 March 1999 by a group of Serbian paramilitaries, including a man --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Is this a matter to be explained to us in the
20 presence of the witness?
21 MR. EMMERSON: It is entirely immaterial. The witness can remove
22 his headphones.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.
24 MR. EMMERSON: I don't want to detain Your Honours longer than is
25 necessary. It doesn't relate to this witness's evidence. The allegation
1 in the statement is that amongst a group of Serbian paramilitary police
2 who participated in this attack was a man called Momcilo Antic, or Momo
3 Antic, from the village of Lloqan who had lost one of his legs the
4 previous year in the first offensive, and Your Honours may recall the
5 possibility that that might be an individual who has already given
6 evidence in this case.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. EMMERSON: And my concern and my reason for bringing this to
9 Your Honour's attention now is that disclosing a statement like this,
10 which has been in the Prosecution's possession since 1999, after the
11 witness has left the witness box is a growing, mounting evidence of our
12 concern about the way in which the Prosecution is conducting its
13 disclosure functions.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. RE: I really object to this, standing up, throw -- lobbing
16 allegations across the court without any notice. I don't know what
17 statement Mr. Emmerson is referring to - he didn't have the courtesy to
18 speak to me first about this - or whether there has been any issue here,
19 but this is the tactic of throwing as much mud as you possibly can every
20 now and again strategically, hoping that some of it sticks. If they have
21 allegations, they should make them and do it properly. There's a proper
22 way of dealing with it.
23 JUDGE ORIE: This is not --
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's late in the evening -- it's late in the
25 evening and I know it's after 7.00. I take umbrage at what Mr. Re has
1 said. I think there is a serious concern regarding disclosure that needs
2 to be dealt --
3 JUDGE ORIE: I would have preferred, as a matter of fact,
4 Mr. Emmerson, unless -- but I'll look at it this evening, unless there was
5 an absolute necessity to present this five minutes past 7.00, where it
6 would be clear that there would be no time, no opportunity to really
7 discuss this matter.
8 MR. EMMERSON: I simply wanted Your Honours to have the statement
9 to be in a position --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. EMMERSON: -- to read it overnight so -- with in mind --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then --
13 MR. EMMERSON: -- what it is that is relevant.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then you could have limited yourself to saying this
15 was disclosed at this and this moment for -- since it relates to a
16 testimony already heard, I would very much like Your Honours to read it
17 overnight. That would have done, because now Mr. Re is right in saying
18 that there was -- it was not entirely without a strong complaint that you
19 gave it to us and it's also clear that Mr. Re has no opportunity at this
20 moment to respond to that.
21 MR. EMMERSON: I'm not going to engage in a discussion about it
22 unless Your Honour wishes me to at this stage. The purpose of explaining
23 it to Your Honours was so that you wouldn't be puzzled as to why I was
24 giving it to you.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That could have been done in more neutral terms.
1 Mr. Krasniqi, we would like to see you back at quarter past 2.00
2 in this -- in another courtroom, as a matter of fact, in Courtroom III.
3 And I instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about the
4 testimony you have given or you still are about to give.
5 We stand adjourned until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00, Courtroom
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.08 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Friday, the 15th day of
9 June, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.