1 Monday, 3 September 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
6 please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
8 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor
9 versus Ramush Haradinaj et al.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Before we ask the Prosecution to call its next witness, I'd like
12 to make a few observations. First of all, the parties should keep in mind
13 that Witness 3, which is the witness next to the one who will appear
14 first, should be done by the end of Wednesday. That's clear to everyone
15 so that we make a joint effort to take care that he is able to leave in
17 Before the next witness comes in, we'll go into private session,
18 even for a while in closed session, in view of the still-pending motion
19 for protective measures.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then as far as Witness 3's protective measures are
21 concerned, I was informed although I have not yet carefully read that none
22 of the three Defence counsel objects to the protective measures asked for
23 the last -- the Defence for Mr. Brahimaj confirming this.
24 Then there is a recently filed motion for the Prosecution's fourth
25 motion for testimony via videolink which was filed today. In view of the
1 urgency of the matter, the Chamber would very much like the Defence to
2 make submissions by tomorrow, 5.00, not later. I can imagine looking at
3 the request that you would like to make written submissions.
4 Then, I still have a decision to deliver on the protective
5 measures for Witness 17. May I take it that all the booths have received
6 copies? It is not the decision but these are the reasons for the
7 Chamber's decision on the Prosecution's motion for protective measures for
8 Witness 17.
9 On the 27th of August, 2007, the Prosecution applied for retention
10 of the pseudonym granted during the pre-trial phase of this case, and for
11 face and voice distortion for Witness 17. The Defence did not oppose the
12 motion and the Chamber granted it on the 28th of August 2007.
13 As the Chamber has stated on prior occasions, the party seeking
14 protective measures for a witness must demonstrate an objectively grounded
15 risk to the security or welfare of the witness or the witness's family
16 should it become known that the witness has given evidence before the
18 This standard can be satisfied by showing that a threat was made
19 against the witness or the witness's family.
20 According to the motion, Witness 17 has numerous contacts with the
21 Prosecution expressed concerns about his and his family's safety as a
22 result of his scheduled testimony before the Tribunal.
23 As specified in the motion, threats have been directed against the
24 witness and a member of his family.
25 The Chamber considers that the witness's fear is genuine and
1 objectively based and that there is a risk that if the testimony of the
2 witness were to be made public, physical harm might result to the witness
3 or the witness's family.
4 This concludes the Chamber's reasons for its decision on this
6 Then the Chamber would like first to proceed with discussing the
7 protective measures for the witness now to be called. It might be that
8 Mr. Dutertre, before we ask the witness in -- would you like to add
9 anything to what was submitted before?
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. First of all, I
11 wish to have your own directions on the point of knowing whether the
12 witness should be called in number 3 this afternoon or not. I will myself
13 be quite brief with the next witness. I don't know for the Defence teams.
14 But it would be useful for the protection of the witness to know whether
15 he has -- whether Witness number 3 has to wait for this afternoon.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I remember that indication was given
17 earlier to the Chamber. You said you would need not more than 15 minutes
18 at least on the basis of an agreement on the 92 ter statement. I think we
19 dealt with all of that at the Friday early morning meeting and I think
20 Defence counsel would not need the whole of this afternoon.
21 Mr. Emmerson?
22 MR. EMMERSON: For my part, I think I indicated a maximum of 45
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Absolutely, we won't be that long.
1 MR. HARVEY: Certainly won't either, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore, there is a reason for Witness 3 to
3 stay because there is a fair chance that he'll be called this afternoon.
4 One second, please.
5 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. For the next witness to be called, protective
7 measures have been asked. That is, pseudonym, face distortion, voice
8 distortion. The Defence counsel have not made any submissions on this
9 request, as far as I remember. Mr. Emmerson?
10 MR. EMMERSON: Very shortly, we respectfully submit that the
11 motion as it stands does not satisfy the standard for the grant of the
12 protective measures sought. Plainly the matter can be explored with the
13 witness if that is deemed necessary or appropriate as has been the case
14 with other professional witnesses, if I can use that term to describe
15 those whose function it is to assimilate, acquire and record evidence and
16 then testify in relation to it. The essential position, as described, is
17 that this is a witness who -- whose family still has property in Kosovo
18 but has apparently has no concrete plans to return there and is concerned
19 and has expressed himself concerned primarily about financial
20 implications. That I recall is an approach that's been advanced to
21 advocate it on behalf of other witnesses who are party to this part of the
22 investigation and so far has not resulted in a grant of protective
23 measures and we would respectfully submit that as matters currently stand,
24 justification is not made out.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith?
1 MR. GUY-SMITH: I join.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey?
3 MR. HARVEY: I do too.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre?
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour this witness
6 wished for protective measures and the reason we filed this motion in the
7 annex AA to this motion in paragraph 4, we mention the possibility to come
8 back and live in Kosovo for this witness. And this is definitely one of
9 the points which requires more questions be asked from the witness. I
10 know what are the criteria given by the Chamber on this matter, of course.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I then suggest that we further hear from the witness.
13 To that end, I think the curtains should be down, because -- has any test
14 been made in relation to the voice distortion so that if the Chamber would
15 decide that it's prepared for or is there not, Mr. Dutertre? Voice
16 distortion usually takes some time to prepare for. We earlier have had
17 situation in which the party seeking protective measures, especially if
18 it's voice distortion, already makes a test so that we don't lose time
20 Of course, I cannot anticipate on what the decision will be but I
21 just established at this moment that if we would order a voice distortion
22 that the technical preparation has not yet been performed.
23 Could the curtains be taken down and could we move into it would
24 be closed session?
25 [Closed session]
11 Pages 7817-7826 redacted. Closed session.
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 64, the Chamber has decided to grant the
24 protective measures as requested. That means that your face cannot be
25 seen by the outside world, your voice cannot be heard by the outside
1 world. We'll call you Witness 64 and not use your own name. These
2 protective measures, that is pseudonym, voice and face distortion, does
3 not mean that your testimony cannot be heard. The contents of your
4 testimony can be heard by those who are following the proceedings. If
5 there is any question where you feel the need to ask for private session,
6 that you are concerned about perhaps the implications, security
7 implications, on the basis of your answer, you can indicate so and the
8 Chamber will then decide whether or not for that specific question go into
9 private session, which, if so decided, would mean that the outside world
10 cannot hear the content of your testimony either. You'll now first be
11 examined by Mr. Dutertre who is counsel for the Prosecution. The
12 Mr. Dutertre, the Chamber has not yet received a new 92 ter statement or
13 did we?
14 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it should be on
15 e-court this morning, with the redactions, both for the English and
16 Serbian version. Perhaps the Chamber hasn't received it yet.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Because it's uploaded on e-court that doesn't
18 automatically mean that the Chamber can inspect whatever is uploaded by
19 any of the parties, so therefore, under those circumstances perhaps the
20 first thing to do is perhaps either to provide us with a hard copy or to
21 ask admission right away so that we can consult it on our screens. Please
23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. There is a hard
24 copy for the witness but I have no other for the moment. I could, of
25 course, give mine, my own.
1 JUDGE ORIE: One of them being that the version you uploaded to
2 have that assigned a number as quickly as possible so that we can follow
3 it on our screen.
4 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. I request the version of the
5 (redacted) in order to get a P number.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, do you know what document we are
7 talking about? If you have a 92 -- if you have a 65 ter number or any
8 other document identification, then the registrar could --
9 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It's number 65 ter 1959. 1959,
10 Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
12 THE REGISTRAR: P907, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P907. Thank you, please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
14 Examination by Mr. Dutertre: [Continued]
15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would now like
16 to show to Witness 64 document concerning his identity and his name.
17 Therefore, pseudonym sheet 1964.
18 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Number --
19 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be Prosecution Exhibit
21 JUDGE ORIE: P912 not to be shown on the screen. Also the 65 ter
22 statement not to be shown on the screen. Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
23 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Would it be possible to give a hard
24 copy to the witness so that he may authentify it?
25 Q. Witness 64, you have a document which states your identity. Is
1 all this exact, true and correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you, Mrs. Usher. You can take the document back. You could
4 give the 92 ter document to the witness in this folder.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Usually, Mr. Dutertre, it is shown on our e-court
6 screen so that the Chamber also has a possibility to understand the --
7 yes -- answer of the witness. A hard copy, of course, would do now as
8 well but it's more easy to put it on the screen so that we don't have to
9 run up and down the -- but --
10 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. It's possible to
11 show, 1964, which can be exhibited and it will remain confidential.
13 (redacted) Witness 64, do you confirm that what you can see on
14 the screen is correct?
15 A. Yes. I confirm that it is correct.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 Witness 64, you have a folder, a blue folder, with a certain
18 number of documents. It is your edition in English and in Serbian and
19 annexes which go with these documents. Is this the interview you gave to
20 the Prosecution on 23, 24 October 2007?
21 A. Yes. This is all correct and this is the document indeed.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, Your Honour, I don't know whether or
23 not there was a mistranslation somewhere but I believe that at least on
24 line 16 it says October and I believe it should be August.
25 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know where it comes from but I take it that
1 August was meant.
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, it is August, indeed.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Please once more the complete dates? Is there
4 more than one day?
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] 23, 24 and 27 August 2007.
6 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Witness 64, [In English] Reflects your declaration and what you
9 would say if you were to be asked questions in court today about the same
11 A. Yes. I would definitely say the same things.
12 Q. [Interpretation] I confirm my request to have this document filed
13 in its --
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Version of the
15 92 ter statement.
16 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Tendered.
17 MR. EMMERSON: I think Your Honour is an aware that certain
18 objections were made and the document has been edited in accordance with
19 Your Honour's rulings.
20 JUDGE ORIE: The present version which I still haven't seen is not
21 objected to. Mr. Guy-Smith, the same?
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is correct. I would once again reassert the
23 concerns we had about paragraphs 112 through 115.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Harvey, the same position, as far as I
25 understand. Then, please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Redactions were
2 made following the discussions we had, and I remember that for paragraph
3 112 and 115 no decision was made to redact.
4 Q. Witness 64, [In English] Now have your written statement before
5 them as your evidence and Defence counsel may wish to ask you some
6 questions but before that, I have very few questions. Page -- page 13,
7 paragraph [Interpretation] Paragraphs 77 in the English version and
8 paragraph 15 in the Serbian version, you indicate, and this can be shown
9 on the screen, but this will be exhibited under seal, you say:
10 [In English] "On 12 September 1998, I video recorded a small
11 plastic evidence bag labelled R19 -- 19, containing body parts which I
12 believe belonged to Tush Frrokaj. Tush Frrokaj, identified at a later
13 stage together with his wife. I believe this was the case based on my
14 recollection and this is further confirmed by the video recording; the
15 Trial Chamber also has access to the forensic experts' reports so they can
16 check the allegations contained in my statement." [Interpretation]
17 Therefore, page 1577 -- paragraph 77 in your interview, now I would like
18 to have the video.
19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters didn't catch that.
20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Which is P452 from minute 139, 1
21 hour 39 minutes and 49 seconds, to 1.55 seconds. Could this video be
22 played, please? 1.45.05.
23 [Videotape played]
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I believe there is a mistake on the
25 transcript. It was until 1.45 -- 1.40.05, says the interpreter.
1 Could we go backwards a little bit? Could we have the right image
2 on the screen?
3 Q. Witness 64, this bag bearing number 19 is the one you referred to
4 in paragraph 77 of your interview?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith?
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, I would note for the record that for
7 the first time the image as it is presented at 1.40.047 has no date or
8 time on it. So whether or not this is in fact an actual continuous shot
9 or not may be of some question.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre? Yes perhaps we could ask the witness
11 and from what I remember from the statement is that sometimes date and
12 time were left out and then reintroduced, which not necessarily affects
13 the sequence of the indication given by the media player by which it is
14 played but perhaps the parties could verify among themselves whether there
15 is any real problem here or whether it's just --
16 MR. EMMERSON: There may well be a real problem.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then if there is, the Chamber would like to have a
18 clear explanation what the real problem is. But for the time being, let's
19 proceed until the real problem has been properly identified so that the
20 Chamber can deal with it. Please proceed.
21 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you, Chairman.
22 Q. Witness 64, when was it that you shot the image we can see right
23 now on the screen? What date?
24 A. This footage was made immediately after the body number 18 was
25 lifted up. That was a woman who was later identified as Illira Frrokaj
1 and that's the footage that precedes this footage that we just saw, where
2 you can see this woman being put into a plastic body bag. In my
3 statement, if you will allow me, indicated quite clearly why there is no
4 date indication in some of the recordings. At that time, I used a VHS
5 camera, it was a Panasonic camera, that did not switch on the date
6 function automatically. It had to do -- had to be done manually. This
7 is when those mistakes occurred resulting in the date indication not
8 appearing on all the footage. It happened until I actually remembered to
9 switch on this function.
10 Q. Thank you. Well, coming back to my previous question, this bag
11 bearing number -- the number 19, is it the one you referred to in
12 paragraph 77 of your statement, written statement?
13 A. I have to tell you that it was taken on the 12th of September
15 Q. The bag referred to in paragraph 77 of your statement?
16 A. Yes. Precisely. Well, you can't really call it a body bag. It's
17 an evidence bag. And it was labelled 19 because it contained body parts.
18 In practice, it is usually the case that when a body part, an unidentified
19 body part, is found, it is marked DT. But here we have the number that
20 indicates the body, as far as I remember, in fact I'm sure that it was
21 Tush Frrokaj.
22 Q. Thank you very much. Moving now to another point, and I will --
23 this is my question before the last one and there will be two questions
24 and I would like document D32 to be displayed now.
25 It's a map so it takes a bit before it can be displayed on the
1 screen. Can we please see, magnify the lower part?
2 My question is the following for the Witness 64. Can you confirm
3 that on the road going from Djakovica to Decani there is a village called
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. You have in the blue folder which I am going to ask
7 you to look at it, you have your statement with the appendices and I would
8 like you to look at appendix 2. These are weather documents in Serbian
9 language. They concerned a period going from March to September 1978 [as
10 interpreted] In the area of Pec and Skivjane. And I would like you more
11 particularly to look at the last page for the Serbian document concerning
12 September 1998.
13 And while you're looking for the document in appendix 2, I would
14 like document 65 ter 1961, the last page of this document, be displayed on
15 the e-court. It's the same document. That's the English version of the
16 document. That's for your own information, Witness 64, this is the --
17 this is annex 2. That's the Serbian version. So you look at the last
18 page of this document. And maybe we could magnify the document on the
19 screen so as to see the last line in the table.
20 Can you see the document, Witness 64?
21 A. Yes, I can see it.
22 Q. My question is the following: The data -- I repeat my question --
23 the data you can see here for September 1998, are these data consistent
24 with what you remember about the weather that day in the Skivjane area?
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'd object to the form of the question with regard
1 to the data being consistent with his memory of weather. He can testify
2 as to what he remembers the weather to be at that time and then the
3 Chamber can draw its own conclusions.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Consistency in such an observation is difficult to
5 follow, Mr. Dutertre, if you do not have the facts underlying such an
6 opinion about consistency.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. First of all, I would like to
8 ask to you display the English version because on the screen we can see
9 the Serbian version which does not allow to you follow since the witness
10 has the hard copy document. No, it seems that it's okay.
11 Q. Witness 64, it is indicated -- well, the following is indicated:
12 [In English] From 12 to 14, 22 and 29 September, there was rain in 16 days
13 in September, which with a maximum daily amount, 27.6 millimetre on 13th
14 September. The thunder processes were registered only on 8 September.
15 [Interpretation] Witness 64, do you remember -- or does your memory of the
16 weather in September 1998 allows you to confirm that it was raining on
17 September the 13th, 1998?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson?
19 MR. EMMERSON: Put in that form, and standing alone, I don't
20 object to the question and answer which is why I sat down. What I'm
21 concerned about is the witness being invited to confirm data which is
22 plainly not going to be in a position to confirm, recorded in the
23 document. But if the question is simply was it from your recollection
24 raining on the day, then, frankly, it could be done without reference to
25 the document at all.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Dutertre, I don't think that the witness
2 could give any details as to in the 10th of millimetres how much rain fell
3 on these days but as you may have noticed there is no objection against
4 exploring the weather at that time. Please proceed.
5 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Well, not mentioning the number of millimetres but I just would
7 like to know whether it was raining in that area in September on the 13th
8 of September 1998.
9 A. Yes. I can confirm that it was a rainy day, because the next day,
10 on the 14th, we had a problem because there was a flood. If you -- a
11 flash flood. So I remember very well that it was on the 13th, not on the
13 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you is there any dispute about heavy rains
14 on the 13th of September? Apart from what the rain may cause but --
15 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour has seen the evidence and we are not in
16 a position at this stage to dispute or agree but Your Honour has seen the
17 evidence and the challenges that have been raised in relation to it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Dutertre.
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation]
20 Q. On the same point, Witness 64, are you in a position to remember
21 whether on September the 8th, 1998, there was any thunder-storm or bad
22 weather as mentioned in this document?
23 A. As for the 8th September, I can't really claim whether there were
24 any thunder-storms on that day, based on my recollection, but from this
25 document from the hydrometeorological institute in Belgrade and some
1 things that I've seen since I've been in touch with you, I can confirm
2 that --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: This is precisely why the objection was interposed
4 at the beginning of this particular colloquy with the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, if the witness reading this says that
6 the document says that on the 8th of September, that only on that date
7 thunder processes were registered, then to ask the witness do you have any
8 recollection and he says no, I've got no recollection but as seen from
9 this document, everybody could see that from this document. Then the next
10 item would be to what extent this document is reliable, and not for the
11 witness to read the document, which everyone can do. Please proceed.
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I am moving on to another point.
13 Q. I would like you to look at annex 3 of your statement, and more
14 particularly the document bearing the number U 0142084 at the top of the
15 page. And while you're looking for this document, I would like to show 65
16 ter 1962, page 11, on the screen. So for you it is document bearing the
17 number U 0142084, at the top of the page on the right. Well, it would be
18 easier if you look at the Post-it which will allow you to find the
19 document more quickly. Below the picture it is mentioned [In English]
20 "Body of the massacred Supec [phoen], captain of police Perovic, Srdjan,
21 1962, kidnapped by the Albanian terrorists on 6 July 1998, in the village
22 of Pec, Pecanac and filmed on the 16th August 1998 in the village of
23 Gllogjan. "
24 [Interpretation] My question is the following and this will be my
25 last question, can you confirm that there is a mistake concerning this
1 picture above? This is not Captain Perovic but rather the body
2 of Milo Rajkovic the other pictures being labelled properly?
3 A. Yes. I can confirm that. I understand the question, yes. I can
4 confirm that this is indeed not Captain Srdjan Perovic. Photograph number
5 1, I don't know whether this label was affixed there by mistake. I don't
6 know who made this mistake but at any rate this is not Captain
7 Srdjan Perovic but this is a reserve police officer, Milo Rajkovic. He
8 was on the force at that time. And the very next photograph does indeed
9 refer to Captain Perovic. That is correct.
10 Q. Thank you very much, Witness 64. I have no other questions for
11 this witness.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre. Mr. Emmerson, are you the
13 first one to cross-examine the witness?
14 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am. I think Your Honour is aware
15 there is a standing objection in relation to the last passage of evidence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 64, you'll now be examined by Mr. Emmerson
17 who is counsel for Mr. Haradinaj. Please proceed.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson: [Continued]
19 MR. EMMERSON:
20 Q. I want to start, if I may, by asking you about the passage in your
21 witness statement that Mr. Dutertre took you to in paragraph 77 and for
22 this purpose could the witness please be provided with the green bundle
23 from the forensics bundles? Now, it would help, Witness 64, if at the
24 same time as looking at your own 92 ter statement that you have attested
25 to in these proceedings, you could have the green bundle open at tab 9,
1 which contains a statement made by you on the 29th and 30th of May 2006.
2 And I want to just ask you about some changes between the two documents.
3 Now, first of all, paragraph 77 in your 92 ter statement is the
4 equivalent of paragraph 78 in the statement you will find behind tab 9 in
5 the green bundle. Can you confirm to us, please, that when you made your
6 original witness statement in respect of that passage of video, you said
7 this: "I videorecorded a body bag with a body inside. I don't know if
8 this body -- this is body labelled R18 or R19." Do you see that passage?
10 A. There is no need for me to look at it. I can remember all this
11 quite clearly and I can give you my answer right away.
12 Q. The first question is you agree that that was what you recorded at
13 the time; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, on the 23rd of June of this year, did you attend a formal
16 meeting in Belgrade when the text of a witness statement was put to you
17 and you were invited to confirm that the witness statement was correct in
18 all respects and to attest to it so that it could be read to the Trial
19 Chamber without you giving evidence?
20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. So in the light of that, I'm going to ask you some questions about
22 some changes that appear between the statement you attested to in June,
23 which is this text, and the statement that you have sworn to today. Now
24 in respect to that same passage of videotape today, you now say in your 92
25 ter statement that you videorecorded a small plastic evidence bag labelled
1 R19 containing body parts which you believe belonged to Tush Frrokaj.
2 When did you remember that this passage in your statement was incomplete?
3 A. Sir, the moment I looked at the original tape that I personally
4 recorded, and I would like you to contact investigator Kelly and to ask
5 him to give you the CD that he showed me, and to have a look at -- on the
6 CD on your laptop and to see whether you can actually identify this number
7 on the bag because this copy is very, very bad. And that was the reason
8 why at that time I said I was not sure about the label on this small bag.
9 So I would like to ask you once again to look at this copy. You will see
10 indeed that this copy is extremely poor. That is why, later on, I changed
11 some other things that I had given -- I changed my statement in relation
12 to the one that I had given to Mr. Kelly because the copies were very
13 bad. And this is why it is very good that we still have the original VHS
14 recordings which are very good and which are at your disposal so that you
15 can look at them too.
16 Q. Thank you. We've seen the videos and we have had plenty of
17 opportunity to look at them, Witness 64. The question I was asking you
18 was a simple question of time because on the 23rd of June of this year you
19 were given a copy of this witness statement made by you with the text
20 recorded by you in May 2006 and at that time, you attested to its
21 completion. In other words you said it was an accurate statement. So
22 something has obviously occurred to you since you made that declaration;
23 is that correct?
24 A. I'm just telling you where the problem was. The problem lay in
25 the fact -- well, it is an uncontroversable fact that this compact disk
1 was a very poor copy.
2 Q. Can I interrupt you, please? Again, if you just listen to the
3 question, I'm not asking you for the explanation yet. I'm simply asking
4 you to confirm that the changes that you've made to your statement were
5 made since you attested to the earlier draft as being complete on the 23rd
6 of June of this year.
7 A. I don't know what you mean. I'm really sorry. I would like to
8 answer your question but I simply can't see what you're driving at. I
9 just don't understand your question.
10 Q. Let me put it to you again because it affects a number of passages
11 in your statement. On the 23rd of June of this year, in Belgrade, you
12 attended a formal meeting with a representative of this Court, together
13 with an investigator from the Prosecution called Roel Versonnen and an
14 interpreter. Do you remember that meeting?
15 A. Yes. I do remember that quite clearly.
16 Q. And during this meeting, you were given the text of your previous
17 witness statement as well as a number of other documents, weren't you, to
18 look at?
19 A. Yes, that's correct. I remember that too.
20 Q. And were you given an opportunity to read them and to correct in
21 them anything that was wrong, weren't you?
22 A. Yes. I was definitely given an opportunity to go through my
23 statement. That statement had been taken in English. And until this
24 moment, I never received -- until that moment I never received the
25 translation into Serbian so, yes, I was given it to read through.
1 Q. And you then signed to indicate that the statement was correct and
2 complete; is that correct?
3 A. Do you mean the statement that was taken last year?
4 Q. Yes. Indeed, the statement that was taken last year, with the
5 same text in it that you see in front of you today, was the statement that
6 you signed on the 23rd of June to indicate that you had read it and it was
7 true and correct.
8 A. Even back then, sir, I insisted that changes be made. I don't
9 know if this was due to an error of interpretation or not, but some
10 significant matters were left out of my statement and I asked that they be
11 put back in.
12 Q. You signed a Serbian translation of this statement, Witness 64, on
13 the 23rd of June?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. But you didn't correct this passage?
16 A. Which one?
17 Q. Paragraph 78.
18 A. What does it refer to? Can you enlighten me, please?
19 Q. It's right in front of you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the very short passage in which --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well. Can you please put the
23 MR. EMMERSON: There is a confusion here. What is on the screen
24 is the 92 ter statement --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. EMMERSON: -- where it refers at paragraph 77 to the testimony
2 the witness has given. I'm seeking to question him, and he has it as does
3 the Trial Chamber, behind tab 9 in the green file.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. EMMERSON: On the equivalent paragraph in his earlier witness
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please, Madam Usher, could you help
8 the witness? Green binder, tab 9, in the B/C/S version --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, this is in Albanian.
10 JUDGE ORIE: This is Albanian, yes, and then perhaps look at the
11 English version. English version page 13, paragraph 78. I'll read it for
12 you. Have you got it?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead and read.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It reads as follows. It's only two lines. "At
15 12.22, on the 12th of the 9th of 1998, I video recorded a body bag with a
16 body inside. I don't know if this is body labelled R18 or R19." Now,
17 what Mr. Emmerson would like to know is whether it's true that you did not
18 correct this passage of your statement when you reviewed it on the 23rd of
19 June of this year. That's what Mr. Emmerson would like to know.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I didn't correct it, then it must
21 have been my fault. I must have been reading it not carefully enough, and
22 overlooked that passage. I'm sure that the problem lay only in the CD,
23 the quality of which was poor. Had I noticed this point, I would have
24 corrected it right away, I'm sure.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
1 MR. EMMERSON:
2 Q. Could you then, please, just turn behind tab 2 in the green
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now talking about the same binder, Witness 64.
5 MR. EMMERSON:
6 Q. And in the English translation, it's page 85 of the 92 ter
7 statement of Dusan Dunjic which is exhibit P618, and it should be
8 paragraph 441.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you'll find that in the original, page 69.
10 MR. EMMERSON:
11 Q. This is a record made by the head of the forensic team about R19
12 and it reads as follows: "This number was used to label a number of
13 civilian items of clothing, both men's and women's that were found on both
14 river banks. There was enough clothing as to belong to several persons,
15 though I cannot guess how many." So the record shows, Witness 64, that
16 bag R19 or exhibit label R19 was a collection of clothing. In your latest
17 witness statement, you have indicated that you have a recollection of it
18 containing body parts belonging to someone identified as Tush Frrokaj; is
19 that right?
20 A. You see, I trust the footage I myself produced in situ. What
21 Dusan Dunjic is saying, that R-19 was used to mark clothing in my view, is
22 certainly not true. R-19 contains body parts, as can be seen in the
23 footage. You can also look at the photo documentation that you certainly
24 have, and then we can discuss this, but I cannot agree that R-19 was the
25 label used to mark clothing. Definitely not. Otherwise it would be
1 clearly seen in the footage. This was on a rock in the very canal, and
2 there was some clothing there too, and R-19 would have been seen somewhere
3 there, if this had been the case. It is not the case because it refers to
4 body parts. I believe that the photo documentation could help solve this
6 Q. Witness 64, there was a body that was misidentified, that is
7 wrongly identified, as the body of Tush Frrokaj, turned out on DNA
8 analysis to be somebody quite different but that body was recorded as
9 having been labelled R-26. Just help us. Is it your testimony that in
10 fact the body that was identified as Tush Frrokaj wasn't labelled R-26 but
11 was labelled R-19?
12 A. To my knowledge, R-19, and this is what I say in my statement, and
13 I will not depart from my statement by an inch, I don't know if the DNA
14 analysis perhaps show that R-19 wasn't Frrokaj's body. I know that the
15 couple named Frrokaj was identified in situ based on the vehicle that had
16 been thrown down into the canyon and based on the pieces of clothing. The
17 fact that, as you say, the DNA analysis proved that the body was
18 misidentified is something I don't know anything about. I was on the spot
19 and saw relatives, brothers and sisters, arrive at the scene and identify
20 the married couple, Tush and Illira Frrokaj. I saw that with my own eyes.
21 Q. Could we move, please, to paragraph 24? I'm sorry, I do
22 apologise. Yes, paragraph 24 of your 92 ter statement and at the same
23 time, for those of us following in English, paragraph 24 of the witness's
24 2006 statement behind tab 9 in the green file.
25 I just want to ask you a little bit more detail about this,
1 Witness 64, because in the statement that you attested to on the 23rd of
2 June of this year, I'm going to read to you the words that appear there,
3 and then ask you to compare them to what's in your 92 ter statement. In
4 your 2006 statement, at paragraph 24, in the last few lines, you say this:
5 "In the canyon, I saw a red Opel Kadett car on its roof. Close to the
6 car there were two bodies, a male and a female. The female and male were
7 later identified. They were a married Catholic Albanian couple." And
8 then in the following paragraph, in the original, which has become
9 paragraph 26 in your 92 ter statement, you say, "After the bodies were
10 identified, the family was brought to the scene to view the red Opel
11 Kadett car. They identified the car as belonging to the couple. These
12 bodies were partly burnt."
13 I'm going to take you to two further passages, please, before
14 asking you the question I want to put to you. Paragraph 32 of your
15 original witness statement from last year, which seems to have no
16 comparison at all in the 92 ter statement reads as follows: "The two
17 bodies in the canyon where the red Opel Kadett was located were recovered
18 with the assistance of the fire brigade who gave us a ladder to get down
19 to the canyon and a rope to haul the body bags with the body inside up to
20 ground level."
21 Now, what on the face of it appears clear, Witness 64, is that in
22 the statement that you made last year, and which you attested to being
23 complete on the 23rd of June of this year, you were suggesting that there
24 were two bodies found close to the car, that of a male and a female, but
25 in the 92 ter statement that you've attested to today, the reference to
1 the male has been removed. Can you help us as to how that happened
2 between the 23rd of June and today?
3 A. I will account for all this, sir, right away. In 2006, when I was
4 first giving my statement, a full eight years had passed since the case.
5 This was quite a long period of time. When I was called to give my
6 statement, I had not had -- I had not consulted the material I had
7 previously produced. I was giving short and clear answers to questions
8 put to me.
9 In my subconscious it was quite clear to me that at the time we
10 had recovered the married couple named Frrokaj. I can clearly describe
11 what the female body looked like at the time and I remember clearly that
12 the male was found some two or three metres away from the female body,
13 that parts of the male body were found. This led me to say in 2006 that
14 the two bodies were indeed in the vicinity of the car.
15 However, when I consulted my original material and went through it
16 step by step, I realised that the male body was not clearly visible on the
17 spot and that's why I changed my statement, in order not to find myself in
18 a predicament in which I'm now, that you're putting unpleasant questions
19 to me. However, there is nothing controversial about it. That's my
20 statement, and I stand by it. If anything I said in my statement does not
21 add up or if you think that I am not presenting them accurately, you have
22 these tapes that you are free to look at and what they show is the truth
23 and only the truth.
24 Let me only add this: You were mentioning a ladder, firefighters'
25 ladder. The problem lay merely in Kelly or the person interpreting
1 because the video footage shows that the height was of less than four
2 metres and there was no need for the ladder to be put down. It had to be
3 put down at Lake Radonjic but not here. We could easily access the area.
4 This is another thing that the video footage shows, that these were not my
5 words. This was why I asked for that part of my statement to be corrected
6 too. As you review the video footage, you will see at one point a ladder
7 placed against a cliff in order for us to reach the bottom of the canyon.
8 Q. Thank you. Whilst I'm asking the next question, I wonder if the
9 registrar could pull up 65 ter 870, page 16, please.
10 There is one --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is that an exhibit number already?
12 MR. EMMERSON: I think it isn't yet exhibited.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Not yet, okay.
14 MR. EMMERSON:
15 Q. Before we look at this photograph I wonder if I could just direct
16 your attention to one passage in your statement that you don't seem to
17 have corrected in relation to the male body that you thought you'd
18 remembered seeing. If you look at paragraph 33 of your 92 ter statement
19 that Mr. Dutertre gave you in the little blue file, this is the statement
20 that you attested to this afternoon. You say in the second-to-last
21 sentence -- don't worry about the photograph, Witness 64, for the moment.
22 You say in the second-to-last sentence in paragraph 33 of the statement
23 that you attested to this afternoon, in relation to the two bodies by the
24 car, you say, "I remember the family identified, the female's ring and her
25 sandals but the male's body was almost 80 per cent burned." That is in
1 the statement that you've sworn today is the truth. Is that right? Was
2 there a male body almost 80 per cent burned, Witness 64?
3 A. That's correct. Evidently, this was a male body that was more
4 than 80 per cent burnt. You have to understand my position, sir, too.
5 When I'm out in the field filming with my camera, I'm concentrating on the
6 work I'm doing in order to record as many details as possible. It is only
7 later when I review the material that I filmed, I notice a number of
8 things that I had not noticed earlier. You can ask any cameraman doing
9 the same job about whether this is the case. It is only after a cameraman
10 reviews the material he filmed back in his office that he will notice a
11 number of details. Why? Simply because the person doing that work has to
12 concentrate, focus, on the work he's doing in order to record as many
13 details as possible. I think it must be quite clear to you.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 64, you earlier talked about nasty questions.
15 You take a very defensive approach in answering the questions.
16 Mr. Emmerson just tries to find out about all the details. There is no
17 need to explain that it's not as bad as you seem to hear in the questions
18 of Mr. Emmerson. Let's just look at the material, let's see whether we
19 can clarify any remaining questions that are raised. Please proceed,
20 Mr. Emmerson.
21 MR. EMMERSON:
22 Q. Witness 64, there was no male's body that was 80 per cent burned
23 recorded as having been recovered from the canal. So can I put the
24 question to you again? Do you recall seeing two to three metres from the
25 car, as you said in your statement made last year, a male body that was 80
1 per cent burnt? Do you recall that?
2 A. I've just given you an explanation about the body of Tush Frrokaj.
3 I know that his lady was found by the car. I know that he was identified
4 on the site, and I know that it was close to her body that his body parts
5 were identified. When I was giving my statement, I said yes, I saw her
6 and him lying by the car. It was almost a mechanical automatic answer.
7 And this was, of course, a full eight years later. However, when I took
8 the material from the MUP, sat down and reviewed it, I realised that the
9 body was not to be seen there, and that was when I corrected myself. I
10 don't know if you understand what I am saying. But this is the way it
12 Q. Can we look now at the photograph that's on the screen, please?
13 And might that be marked for identification?
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
15 THE REGISTRAR: D159, Your Honours.
16 MR. EMMERSON:
17 Q. You invited us earlier on to compare your testimony about R-19
18 with the photographic evidence. There it is. The number 19 having been
19 allocated to a collection of clothing. Now, Witness 64, would you like to
20 revise your testimony at all?
21 A. I can see quite clearly that number 19 is labelling -- or rather
22 labels the clothing, but then I'm asking you in turn what of the evidence
23 bag and the body parts? You can see that there is a letter label too, I
24 can see it here, and why don't we look at that, what that is all about?
25 You see, to the left of number 19, there is this cone with a letter on it.
1 I'm sure it must mean something.
2 Q. Yes. We know what the cone means and you'll remember it yourself,
3 Witness 64. It's a letter R that was being used to identify the exhibits
4 by R number. And the testimony you gave us earlier on --
5 A. Of course.
6 Q. -- was that R-19 was a body bag with a body inside it.
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This question was already asked and
8 the witness already answered.
9 JUDGE ORIE: It is a matter where looking at photographs that
10 there might be good reason to further explore whether, and if so when, and
11 by whom, a mistake was made.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
13 MR. EMMERSON:
14 Q. I just want to be clear, looking at that again, is it still your
15 testimony that the body labelled -- I'm sorry, the exhibit labelled R-19
16 was a bag containing body parts?
17 A. Yes, of course. I stand by the view that these were body parts,
18 yes. In my statement, I even placed a caveat in -- by saying that the
19 Trial Chamber had at their disposal all of the documentation, and were
20 free to see what this was all about. This is something I stated in my
21 statement, that there were documents that can be consulted and -- and on
22 that basis one can conclude whether what I said was correct or not.
23 Q. Yes. If your recollection is clear, Witness 64, it would appear
24 to suggest that the same exhibit label was being used for two different
25 things, a body which has disappeared because it's not on any of the
1 records, and a collection of clothing which is shown in the photograph.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre?
3 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] The witness is being asked to --
4 this question is purely speculative.
5 THE INTERPRETER: There was overlapping.
6 MR. EMMERSON: I won't pursue it. I'm in the Trial Chamber's
7 hands as to how far you would wish to pursue this.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. One second, please.
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one additional question for the witness.
11 Could you please look at the screen carefully? You see that there is the
12 cone with number 19. If you look at the top corner of this, what looks
13 from here, triangle, there is some black thing, more or less horizontally
14 which stretches until the legs of the person right to number 19. Could
15 you tell us from your recollection what that is?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Obviously, this is a body bag.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Dutertre, I'm looking at both of
18 you. There seems to be something which looks a bit like plastic and is
19 close to where number 19 is. My recollection doesn't serve me well enough
20 to know whether we have any other photographs where this plastic --
21 whatever, or at least looks like a plastic item, is sufficiently explained
22 but... You see what I mean? I'm talking about the black item with some
23 folds in it which is behind the two feet.
24 MR. EMMERSON: It may be that we can research the point.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because there seems to be quite a lot of
1 disagreement here on what relates to 19. I wasn't there so I wouldn't
2 know, but I notice that there is at least one object close to 19 which has
3 the appearance of a plastic --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I'm not mistaken, I thought that the beginning
5 of Mr. Dutertre's examination, where he showed that series of videos,
6 whether there is an undated or timed bag was the bag that he was alluding
7 to as being R-19. For this witness's examination.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm just looking at this photograph now and I'm
9 asking myself this question, and we have heard the witness, who several
10 times insisted on that 19 was related to a body bag and not just to a
11 couple of clothes.
12 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. Your Honour has seen the passage I've put to
13 him from Dusan Dunjic's report.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course.
15 MR. EMMERSON: We simply have no other testimony.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I earlier -- -- well, we have the testimony of
17 this witness and the testimony of Professor Dunjic where there seems to be
18 quite some inconsistency. Which, of course, earlier when you said,
19 Mr. Dutertre, that the question had been asked, the question had been
20 answered, that under the present circumstances, that it might be a good
21 thing to further explore whether, when and by whom any mistakes were made.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. EMMERSON:
24 Q. Could you turn, please --
25 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I understand that Mr. Guy-Smith has
1 indicated that in the video clip which was shown, there was first an R-19
2 bag and the witness specified at the beginning of the video it was the
3 R-18 body but the witness indicated this specifically.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If need be, we could always look again at that video
5 to -- because our attention is now especially drawn to this question.
6 MR. EMMERSON:
7 Q. Could we look, please, behind tab 8, Witness 64? This is a
8 witness statement made by a colleague of yours, and I'll pause to see if
9 any objection is taken to the use of the name. I think it's been used
10 before. If we could please look to paragraph 18, I'm afraid we don't have
11 it in B/C/S but only in English and Albanian in the bundle. This is a
12 witness statement made by Goran Jovovic. You worked with him on this
13 operation, did you not, Witness 64? I'm going to read to you an extract
14 from his --
15 A. That's correct, yes.
16 Q. I'm going to read to you an extract from his witness statement,
17 where he says this: "At the beginning of the natural part of the canal,
18 one car was found in the water. In the trunk of this car, an Opel Kadett,
19 the body of a woman who later turned out to be Illira Frrokaj, was found.
20 I remember that it was the body which was labelled number 18 during the
21 course of the exhumation. The trunk was opened by me," and there is then
22 a name given which is your name. "After succeeding to open it, we found a
23 completely naked woman therein."
24 Witness 64, did you find the naked body of a woman inside the
25 trunk of the car, yourself?
1 A. No, no, never. You have my -- you have it that I arrived on the
2 site on the 11th, and you have the recording of the female body being
3 found on that very same day. So I never had any physical contact with the
4 car itself. And as for Jovovic's statement, I don't know where he got
5 that. Believe me, my brief was to video record things. For all the other
6 physical work, moving the car, digging and so on, people from the
7 municipal company were supposed to do that. I had nothing to do with the
8 car. I had -- I never touched the car. And why shouldn't I say now
9 before the Court that I found bodies in the trunk? Had that been the case
10 I would have said that but this is definitely not true at all.
11 Q. Thank you. Could you be shown, please, the blue file for a
12 moment? And whilst that is coming to you, Witness 64, you mention in your
13 92 ter statement, at paragraph 8 and paragraph 39, some photographs
14 showing bodies that you say were not there by the time you arrived. I'm
15 not asking you for any comments or explanation. But I'm asking you to
16 confirm, please, if you look behind tab 1, first of all, by the time you
17 arrived on the scene, the two sets of human remains that are shown behind
18 tab 1 in the blue file, this is Exhibit D31, were not in that location.
19 A. That's correct. On the 11th of September, those bodies were not
20 there on the site.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you now turn, please, behind tab 4, where you
22 will find two photographs of the same body, that is to say not the two
23 bodies we've looked at before but two different photographs of the same
24 body? And can I ask you, please, to confirm also that that body was not
25 there when you arrived? This is paragraph 39, letter E, of your witness
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could you be more precise as to the where?
3 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, absolutely.
4 Q. First of all, perhaps you could just help us with this. You were
5 shown a set of photographs by Mr. Kelly, if we look at 39 A of your
6 witness statement, and you referred there to two colour photographs of
7 bodies that you did not recall seeing. One of those you've described as
8 photo 122. Now what I'm showing you here behind tab 4 B is photograph
9 123, taken in the area towards the foot of the falls. In other words, in
10 the natural section of the canal, beneath the falls. Did you see that
11 body, Witness 64?
12 A. I can see it, but I have to tell you that I don't recognise those
13 photographs at all. I don't know anything about them. Kelly showed me
14 those photographs and I told him that I had not made those photographs and
15 that I could not recognise the body.
16 Q. Yes. That's the second half of that answer I just want to tease
17 out. That body wasn't there when you arrived, was it?
18 A. No, no, no. I know nothing about those photographs. I can't
19 recognise the photographs. I can't recognise the bodies. I really don't
20 know what this depicts, what this is in relation to.
21 Q. Thank you. And then finally, in relation to those first two
22 bodies that you looked at behind tab 1, at paragraph 112 of your witness
23 statement, you say this: "Photograph number 2 shows two bodies in bright
24 colours and they appear not to be too badly decomposed, but I did not see
25 them during my work at Lake Radonjic, from the 11th of September until the
1 investigation was finished."
2 I simply want to ask you this, Witness 64. Does it follow from
3 that answer that despite videoing each set of remains removed from the
4 canal section, you did not ever see those two bodies removed?
5 A. That's correct. It is correct that those two bodies that I see
6 now in front of me in the canal, that to the best of my recollection, they
7 had not been pulled out. I'm sure about it. When this photograph was
8 first shown to me, it was dated the 8th of September 1998, and the first
9 time that I got there on the site was the 11th. And from -- just a
10 moment, sir, please allow me to finish. I mentioned the date of the 8th
11 of September, and from the report of the hydrometeorological institute, we
12 know that there was this big thunder-storm and heavy rain on that day that
13 washed away those bodies.
15 (redacted) Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.
17 Q. You did see all of the bodies removed from the canyon --
18 A. I do apologise.
19 Q. You did see, Witness 64, all of the bodies removed from the canyon
20 section and videoed them, did you?
21 A. With the exception of these two, and what you showed me on the
22 pictures. For all the rest, yes.
23 Q. Just to be absolutely clear, from your recollection, these two
24 bodies weren't removed at any time after you arrived?
25 A. To the best of my recollection, no.
1 Q. Thank you. At paragraphs 28 --
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Could Mr. Emmerson identify -- say
3 after your arrival, is he referring to the concrete part of the canal or
4 the non-concrete part? The question is very vague actually.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think the witness said he arrived on the 11th of
6 September and that Mr. Emmerson was pointing at the photographs showing
7 the two persons in the concrete part of the canal and then later the
8 photographs he just mentioned, the photographs found behind tab 4 in the
9 blue binder, which I think the witness also said that he did not see these
10 bodies being removed. That comes to a total of four, which he has not
11 seen being removed after he arrived on the 11th of September.
12 MR. EMMERSON: I think it's three because tab 4 contains two
13 photographs of the same body. It's two bodies in tab 1 of the file.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I agree with you. That was a mistake on my side.
15 You followed this. This is what you testified, isn't it?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Thank you.
19 Q. And I wonder if I can just ask on another topic, please,
20 paragraphs 28 and 29 of your 92 ter statement, you say that you saw bullet
21 holes in the concrete canal wall and you say: "There were bullet holes on
22 the outer canal wall where I first saw" -- I'm sorry, "where I saw the
23 first five or six bodies were located." And then at paragraph 29 you
24 say: "There were bullet holes on the inside canal wall at the same place
25 where I saw the two bodies in the photograph dated the 8th of September."
1 Now, just to be clear, so that the Trial Chamber can follow the
2 testimony, if you imagine you're looking towards Lake Radonjic, what you
3 are describing in paragraph 28 is seeing bullet holes on the outside of
4 the right wall as you look towards the lake; is that correct?
5 A. No. To the left. Look at me now, please. There is this canal
6 where the river flows in the direction of the Radonjic Lake. There was
7 damage to the internal part of the canal and on this side of the canal.
8 So on both walls. On the sides facing the village of Glodjane. That
9 would be the correct way of putting it. On the sides facing the village
10 of Glodjane.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I think that there is some confusion because from
12 what I see you doing, of course that's not visible on the video, and from
13 what I hear you saying, I get the impression that you do not disagree at
14 all, especially in view of the last portion of what you said. I
15 understand that if you're looking downstream, the Glodjane side of the
16 canal is to the right. You just told us that bullet holes were seen on
17 the outer and inner wall facing Glodjane, which I understand to be again
18 still looking downstream, on the outer side of the right-hand wall and on
19 the inner side of the left-hand wall, both facing Glodjane. Is that --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, you're right.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think that there is no disagreement.
22 MR. EMMERSON: Well, there is in fact disagreement.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please sort that out, but now at least we
24 know --
25 MR. EMMERSON: We know what the witness said.
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- what the witness said, yes.
2 MR. EMMERSON:
3 Q. At paragraph 29 of your statement, you say: "There were bullet
4 holes on the inside canal wall at the same place where I saw the two
5 bodies in the photograph dated the 8th. Those bodies were not there on
6 the 11th."
7 Now we can see from the photograph that those two bodies are
8 located against the inner side of the right-hand wall.
9 JUDGE ORIE: There I want to -- this came into my mind when you
10 first put the question to the witness. Let's try first to clarify what
11 the witness meant because that will show us whether there is any
12 disagreement, yes or no.
13 When you said the place where you saw the bodies that were
14 photographed on the 8th, yes, were you meaning to say at that side of the
15 wall or approximately so much downstream as where these bodies were
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The bullet holes or impact
18 holes have nothing to do with the -- these two bodies. I'm merely
19 describing the place where I found them. I am describing those places on
20 this concrete wall where I saw those bullet holes.
21 MR. EMMERSON:
22 Q. (redacted), what I want to suggest to you is that there
23 were also bullet holes in the outer aspect of the left-hand wall and on
24 the inner aspect of the right-hand wall firing, therefore, in the opposite
25 direction. Do you agree with that or not? If not, we can play you a
1 portion of the video you took.
2 A. Sir, please listen to me. Let me explain this for you once and
3 for all. If you look towards Radonjic Lake, the bullet holes were found
4 on the left-hand side wall, on the inner aspect, facing the village of
5 Glodjane, and on the right-hand side wall, on the outer aspect, again
6 facing the village of Glodjane.
7 Q. I understand that that's your testimony --
8 A. So --
9 Q. Witness 64. I'm putting a specific suggestion to you. You're
10 suggesting to the Trial Chamber that the bullet holes that were seen were
11 all fired from the Glodjane side of the canal. And I'm suggesting to you
12 that, on the contrary, there were bullet marks on the outer aspect of the
13 left-hand wall having been fired in the opposite direction as well. Now,
14 can you help us with that? Yes or no?
15 A. That's correct. Yes, it is recorded on the footage at one point,
16 where, from the other -- the outer side of the left-hand side wall facing
17 Radonjic Lake, or if you look in the direction of Radonjic Lake, there are
18 some bullet holes, and then you can see a dead dog, I think, a white dog.
19 It's dead. But we didn't find any bodies there in that area.
20 Q. I understand that but just so that we have it absolutely clear for
21 the record, there was evidence of shots being fired in the opposite
22 direction, towards the Gllogjan side. That's correct, is it not?
23 A. There are a few bullet holes, yes. That can be seen on the
24 footage, on the video recording. That's for sure, yes. But the majority
25 is on the other side.
1 Q. Yes. Thank you. I have just one or two very short questions, if
2 I may. Paragraph 39 E of your witness statement, you refer to some
3 photographs of a body in a field which you say were an entirely different
4 scene and nothing to do with Lake Radonjic. I think it's right to say you
5 videoed that body in the field, did you not, as well?
6 A. This is not completely clear to me. First you talk about the
7 photograph, and then you say that I took it. So I don't know -- I don't
8 understand the way you phrase your question.
9 Q. We've all had an opportunity to look at the footage that you
10 produced, Witness 64, and included in it is some footage of a body seen in
11 a field which appears to be very similar to the photograph that you're
12 referring to in your witness statement. Do you remember, whilst you were
13 involved in this process, videoing a body in a field some considerable
14 distance away?
15 A. Yes, of course. Yes, I'm sure two or three bodies. I recorded
16 two or three bodies in the nearby villages. Because at that time, you
17 have to know that Judge Gojkovic was there in -- on the site that we are
18 talking about, and as soon as a body would be found, I would accompany him
19 there to those estates where those bodies were found. So I'm absolutely
20 sure, I remember that we were there, yes, of course.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre?
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have no interpretation. As a matter of
24 fact, I was -- could you please repeat? I was following your French,
25 Mr. Dutertre, so I didn't look at my screen.
1 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Might be a bit late but I would
2 love Mr. Emmerson to show us the photos he's talking about which nobody
3 can see on the screen so we don't really see what we are referring to.
4 MR. EMMERSON: I can certainly produce them to Mr. Dutertre, they
5 are his own exhibit but I'm sure we can assist him to find them. But may
6 I pursue the matter in a slightly different way.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I see there seems to be some --
8 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I know where they are but maybe the
9 Court --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, there seems to be some confusion about
11 photographs and having videoed because the witness in response to your
12 question about photographs said that he was sent to other places where he
13 videoed the matter, so that confuses me a bit. So before we look at
14 photographs or videos in detail, could we please first clarify this?
15 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, of course.
16 Q. Witness 64, if you could just answer my next question yes or no,
17 was there an occasion after you arrived on the 11th, when you took video
18 footage of at least one body in an entirely separate location?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. How many occasions did that occur between the 11th, when you
21 arrived, and the time when you left? In other words, how many bodies in
22 unrelated locations did you video?
23 A. For the 11th, the first day, we had a body found there at the
24 farm, between the barns. That's the body marked with number 1. I'm sure
25 about that. And later on, I think there were maybe two other bodies that
1 were found on some other unrelated locations. Everything else comes from
2 the canal, from the village of Glodjane.
3 Q. I just want to be absolutely clear so that we avoid any possible
4 confusion. You never went to the village of Dasinoc where some remains
5 were recovered, did you?
6 A. No, never, never. I never went to Dasinovac. I know who was
7 found there, I'm perfectly clear but I wasn't there.
8 Q. You never went to Dasinoc if you leave aside the body that was
9 found at the economic farm, how many other bodies in unrelated locations
10 did you see and video between the time of your arrival, on the 11th, and
11 the time you left the area some days later?
12 A. Well, two or three bodies, not more than that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, I'm looking at the clock.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm pretty much finished. I just wanted to ask the
15 witness this.
16 Q. What happened if you know to those bodies, in other words, where
17 were they taken for forensic examination if they were?
18 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I think they are being a bit
19 confused now but maybe Mr. Emmerson could clarify this point and I'm sure
20 he will do so. Could he ask the witness where the witness has recorded,
21 in what area has he recorded the other two cases he referred to. The
22 other two bodies he referred to. Because we don't know what happened to
23 these bodies but I believe that we should do things in the right order.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it wouldn't be a bad idea to know where it was
25 but first, perhaps, the witness answers the question, short, clear
1 question. These two or not more than three bodies, do you recall where
2 they were taken?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't now say with absolute
4 certainty but they should be at -- should have been at the Pastrik Hotel
5 in this make-shift morgue there at Djakovica.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Another question: This unrelated location, could you
7 tell us where that approximately was? So where the two or three bodies
8 were found, which you said were taken probably to Hotel Pastrik.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was in the Decani municipality,
10 but I can't give you the exact location. I can't remember that. But I
11 know that it was close to Decani, villages around Decani. But now, as for
12 the exact location, I don't know.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson?
14 MR. EMMERSON: Those are my questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: These are your questions. Then we'll have a break
16 and after the break, Mr. Guy-Smith and Mr. Harvey will have an opportunity
17 to further question you.
18 We have a break until 25 minutes to 6.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 5.12 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 5.37 p.m.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith. Witness 64, Mr. Guy-Smith is counsel
22 for Mr. Balaj. You may proceed.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
25 Q. Witness 64, at paragraph 47 of your 92 ter statement, you state
1 that you turned your video camera off because you had to get from one
2 place to the other by car. In the statement that you made on the 23rd of
3 2007, in the same paragraph, paragraph 47, you indicated that you turned
4 your video recorder off because you had to walk from one place to the
5 other. That's of less consequence than the following question that I have
6 to you, which is during the time that you were videoing the scenes, how
7 many times did you turn your video recorder off?
8 A. Several times. Several times. Whenever I had to change the
9 position from which I was filming, I had to switch the video camera off so
10 that there wouldn't be any changes or inconsistencies in the footage due
11 to these breaks. That's why I had to switch it off so that we wouldn't
12 have these -- that panning left and right.
13 Q. Now, apart from switching it off, as you just indicated, so there
14 wouldn't be any breaks when you were changing from one position to
15 another, did you turn your video camera off at any other time, at the
16 direction of any of the individuals who were leading the investigation?
17 A. No. I never received such orders, nor would I expect any such
18 orders, because the assignment was to film as much as possible. There
19 wasn't anyone in situ who would have been able to order something like
20 that to me.
21 Q. When you say that you were given the direction or the assignment
22 to film as much as possible, who was that direction given to you by?
23 A. You misunderstood me. It's not that I'm receiving an order or an
24 assignment from anyone. That's my opinion. And as a crime-scene
25 technician, out in the field, I have the intention to film as much as
1 possible in order to allow the investigation to take the right course.
2 Q. During the time that you were video recording, were various people
3 who were involved in the investigation pointing things out to you to have
5 A. They probably were. Members of the forensic team. Because as
6 professionals in their own field, they were able to see some things more
7 clearly than I was, and it is quite possible that they insisted that I
8 film something that they thought was quite important. Otherwise, any
9 other person wouldn't figure as importantly or be as relevant as they
11 Q. During the time that you were video recording the various scenes,
12 were you ever directed not to film any scenes?
13 A. No, no, certainly not.
14 Q. When you gave your what I'll call your 92 bis statement, which is
15 a statement that you made on June 23rd of this year, the statement you
16 made in Belgrade, that you spoke with Mr. Emmerson about, the statement
17 that you attested to and said it was true, I'd like to refer to you
18 paragraph 11 and the best way for you to probably do that is to look at
19 what is called tab 9 in the green binder. I think that you also may have
20 a copy of it in B/C/S because there may have been a problem before we made
21 a copy available in B/C/S. Let me correct that. Let me get you this
22 copy. If you could -- if you could give him the copy in B/C/S, paragraph
24 A. Yes. I found it.
25 Q. And my question to you, sir, is with regard to the very last
1 sentence in paragraph 11. You stated, "The only time the police would not
2 record a scene being pointed out by a witness would be when it would not
3 be in the best interests of the investigation." Correct?
4 A. Well, this does not relate to me at all. This is just an off-hand
5 remark that I made, and in my opinion, it has been badly mistranslated
6 because I was not at the scene first, and I was not the first person to
7 see the scene.
8 Q. When you say this was an off-hand remark that you made, I'd like
9 to ask you, is it not accurate that on the 23rd of June, you had an
10 opportunity to review your entire statement including this paragraph with
11 this specific language before you attested to it, sir?
12 A. I read it most likely, but in that context, in a broader context,
13 it didn't mean anything. This was just an arbitrary comment. It had
14 nothing to do with me. It didn't refer to me. So I didn't insist on it
15 being changed.
16 Q. Well, as a matter of fact, in the same statement, at paragraph
17 120, you stated, "This statement was provided for me on the 23rd June
18 2007, translated into Serbian, and as such, I acknowledge it as my own."
19 That was true when you said it then, and that's true now, correct, sir?
20 A. Yes. I agree with you, yes, that's correct.
21 Q. You continue by saying on 23rd June 2007, "I was invited to add
22 things which I deemed necessary and make changes where I deemed necessary.
23 I have added these things and made corrections because I had mentioned
24 them while I was giving my statement but they were not included in my
25 statement. This statement is true." That's what you said at the time
1 that you attested to the statement on the 23rd of June, and that is
2 correct as you sit here today, is it not, sir?
3 A. That's correct, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the attestation of the 23rd of June
5 has been covered. Let's go to the substance. Please proceed.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH:
7 Q. In paragraph 11 of your 92 ter statement, the statement that you
8 have submitted and the statement that was made on the 23rd, 24th and 27th
9 of August, that particular sentence has been deleted, has it not, sir?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. My question is this: When you met with the Prosecution on the
12 23rd, the 24th and the 27th of August, did you have discussions with them
13 about your 92 bis statement and by that I mean the statement that you made
14 on 23rd of June 2007, paragraph by paragraph?
15 A. Yes, definitely.
16 Q. To your knowledge, were those discussions recorded?
17 A. You mean discussions between me and the investigator?
18 Q. Discussions that you had between yourself and the individuals who
19 you met with on the 23rd, 4th and 7th of August.
20 A. Well, to be quite honest, I don't know whether it was recorded
21 anywhere. At least I was not told that what we were talking about was
22 recorded on any kind of media.
23 Q. During that time, on the 23rd, 24th and 27th of August, to your
24 knowledge were notes being taken of the conversation that you were having
25 with investigators and members of the Office of the Prosecutor?
1 A. No, no.
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] I would like to know how relevant
3 these questions are regarding the matter we are dealing with today.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, of course you may respond but it's
5 rather obvious, Mr. Guy-Smith, but please correct me if I'm wrong, is
6 testing the accuracy, completeness of the statements given by the witness,
7 whether there is any other information given to the OTP which is not
8 reflected. I take it that that's your purpose.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: That is indeed one of my purposes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then that makes it sufficiently relevant.
11 Please proceed.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH:
13 Q. During the time that you were having the conversations on the
14 three dates that have been mentioned, did you discuss with members of the
15 OTP the prior testimony of other people who had appeared before this
17 A. If I understood your question correctly, you're asking me if we
18 discussed prior witnesses that appeared.
19 Q. That's correct.
20 A. No. We never discussed any witnesses. I don't know who testified
21 before my evidence and we never, ever talked about that at all.
22 Q. And did you discuss what evidence had been placed before the
23 Chamber prior to your testimony?
24 A. No, no. Absolutely. No, no, I don't -- no, I'm sure we didn't.
25 Q. With regard to the statement that you made at paragraph 77 of your
1 92 ter statement, sir, you stated, "The Trial Chamber also has access to
2 the forensic experts' reports so they can check the allegations contained
3 in my statement." Is that a matter that you discussed with the OTP during
4 the time that you were preparing your 92 ter statement?
5 A. Well, most probably we did, regarding R-19, that body, and when I
6 said that I thought it was Tush Frrokaj, expressing my own opinion, I said
7 that if the Trial Chamber deems it necessary, they can compare my
8 statement with other evidence or other reports provided by the experts.
9 We never discussed this in any greater detail than that. That was the
10 extent of it.
11 Q. Were you aware of the exhibits that had been introduced with
12 regard to R-19? And by that, I mean was this a matter of discussion that
13 you had with the OTP since you used the word "most probably," used the
14 phrase, "Most probably we did."
15 A. No. What I'm telling you is that I was the one who brought up the
16 possibility that the Trial Chamber could compare my testimony, my
17 statement, with the evidence or reports provided by forensic medicine
18 specialists because I claim that the body -- because it's just this fact
19 that needed to be corroborated by other evidence, to check whether this is
20 recorded as a body. This is the first time that I hear from you that you
21 have some evidence related to R-19. I have absolutely no knowledge of
23 Q. After you made the statement on June 23rd, and before you met with
24 the OTP in August, were you supplied material from the MUP, which you sat
25 down and reviewed?
1 A. Well, certainly, yes, of course. I officially requested from the
2 war crimes department, where all this has been filed, all this material,
3 to be allowed to inspect my video recordings that I had made in 1998.
4 Q. And did you inform the Office of the Prosecutor that you had done
6 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I can't remember. I don't remember,
8 Q. During the conversation you had with the Prosecution for three
9 days in preparation of your 92 ter statement, did you discuss with them
10 that you had reviewed information outside of their presence after you had
11 made the statement on June 23rd?
12 A. Well, probably I did. I may have said that I disagreed with some
13 parts of my statement, either because it had been mistranslated or because
14 I had said something that was not correct, now that I've gone through my
15 materials and verified what the actual situation was, I said that I would
16 make some corrections to my statement. So I may have said something like
17 that. But I don't think that it is of any major importance. That's not
18 something that I gave a lot of thought to.
19 Q. Well, I appreciate that. With regard to the concerns you had
20 about your statement of June 23rd being either mistranslated or because
21 something you had said was not correct, did you tell the Office of the
22 Prosecutor on those three days specifically what you thought was
24 A. Well, I probably did, and given time, I would be able to identify
25 those parts in my statement. I'm sure that I indicated that it was
1 mistranslated -- that it was a mistranslation in my first statement where
2 I said that fire brigade ladder was used to pull out bodies of the Frrokaj
3 couple. I'm sure that it was a mistranslation. That's not what I said.
4 And there are numerous instances of this sort. It's enough for just one
5 word to be wrong for the whole thing to come out in a completely wrong
7 Q. Well, the matter that you've just discussed, which is paragraph 32
8 of your 92 bis statement that you gave on June 23rd that you are
9 indicating was mistranslated, that was something that you had an
10 opportunity to review on the 23rd. At that time you found no fault with
11 your statement, did you?
12 A. Well, I read the statement several times, and whenever I went
13 through it again, I would find something that was either a mistranslation
14 or a mistake or something of that sort. I'm sure that if I were to read
15 it again, I would probably find some typos or some things that would catch
16 my eye.
17 Q. Just so we are clear and there is no confusion, it is your
18 position that with regard to the following words being spoken, which is,
19 "The two bodies in the canyon where the red Opel Kadett was located were
20 recovered with the assistance of the fire brigade who gave us a ladder to
21 get down to the canyon and a rope to haul the body bags with the body
22 inside up to ground level," was mistranslated?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre?
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] This question has already been put
25 to the witness, who has already answered the question.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Nevertheless, the witness is -- the question is
2 put to the witness in a bit of a different way, and, therefore, the
3 witness should answer that question. You remember the question,
4 Mr. Guy-Smith just read a portion of your statement that: "The two bodies
5 in the canyon where the red Opel Kadett was located were recovered with
6 the assistance of the fire brigade who gave us a ladder to get down to the
7 canyon and a rope to haul the body bags with the body inside up to ground
8 level." The question was whether this was mistranslated or --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what it was, whether it
10 was a mistranslation or an addition. I know, because I was there on the
11 scene, that there, where the female body was found next to this Opel
12 Kadett car, the fire brigade ladder was not put in. It was used
13 downstream, maybe 300 to 400 metres away but not there at that site.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. Yes. When you were in Belgrade on the 23rd of June and you were
17 making this statement, you were read rules concerning what could
18 potentially occur if you made a false statement, correct?
19 A. Am I supposed to answer? I didn't understand this to be a
21 Q. Let me rephrase?
22 JUDGE ORIE: The question was whether such a rule was read to you
23 because at that time it was still considered just to introduce your
24 statement without your presence, and then the rules require to inform the
25 witness that if his statement is not in accordance with the truth, that he
1 might get punished for that. Was that read to you? That's the simple
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I only speak the truth,
4 ever, so there was no need for that to be read to me. I was fully, and I
5 am fully, aware of that. I'm aware of what I have to do while I'm here.
6 JUDGE ORIE: The question simply was whether it was read to you.
7 Whether there was any need or not is a different question, but
8 Mr. Guy-Smith just asked you whether this was read because the rules
9 require for such a statement that this is read to the witness. Not
10 because of you but because of the rules primarily.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that being read to
12 me. I got the rules. I was handed the rules. And I am fully familiar
13 with the contents of the rules.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith?
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. You understood at the time you made this statement on 23rd of June
17 the importance of what you were saying --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, I earlier said that the attestation of
19 the 23rd of June had been -- I mean, it's perfectly clear that you
20 consider this to be an important matter and you'd like to perhaps ask the
21 witness five, six or seven times whether he thought it important.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry, I apologise.
23 JUDGE ORIE: The point is clear. Yes. Please proceed.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH:
25 Q. When you met with the Prosecution in August, did you bring notes
1 with you concerning those errors that you believed existed in the
2 statement that you had made on June 23rd, 2007?
3 A. Yes, definitely, I brought my notes with me.
4 Q. And the notes that you brought with you are notes that you,
5 obviously, shared with the Prosecution in making the 92 ter statement, the
6 statement that you have sworn to here today, correct?
7 A. I didn't show my notes to anyone. I use my notes as some kind of
8 an aide-memoire. I consider this statement to be my statement, and I
9 represent to you now that it is the truth, my 92 ter statement. That's
10 what it is. I would like you to point me to something that is not correct
11 in it.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's not enter into any debate. First of all,
13 Mr. Guy-Smith, page 65, line 10 --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
15 JUDGE ORIE: -- may I take it that it is 2006?
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, 2007 because that was the date he attested to
17 it. The statement was initially made in 2006. He read it and attested to
18 it on 23rd of June 2007. That's why I'm using that day because it's
19 between the 23rd of June 2007 and the August date that that's the time
20 that there have been any shifts.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm afraid that we do not have the attestation at
22 this moment here in front of us so that has been clarified and now --
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: That was a subject matter of a 92 bis application,
24 motion by the Prosecution sometime ago. I don't know whether we need to
25 put that in evidence with regard to --
1 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that it's part, annexed to one of the
2 submissions although, of course, the Chamber at this moment knowing that
3 the witness would appear that we would operate under Rule 92 ter rather
4 than 92 bis has not paid any further attention to it at this very moment.
5 So therefore, that was correct, 2007. Could there be any confusion as to
6 the notes? Because that's what came into my mind.
7 When you said you brought your notes with you, were these the
8 notes you originally had made or did you make specific notes on any
9 mistakes or matters that needed correction in your 2006 statement?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I prepared the notes the moment when
11 the statement was made available to me in Serbian, and then I was able to
12 ascertain where the mistakes are and later on, of course, once I was
13 allowed to review my video recordings.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed, Mr. Guy-Smith.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH:
16 Q. So we are perfectly clear, when you made notes in June of 2007,
17 was it at that point in time, before you signed the statement, that you
18 recognised that there were mistakes?
19 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Chairman, Your Honour, this
20 question was put on several occasions. It has been repeated on several
21 times and I was wondering whether it is useful.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I do agree with you, Mr. Dutertre, that similar
23 questions, although always in a tiny different shape, are put to the
24 witness. Therefore, Mr. Guy-Smith is encouraged not to.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Slightly deviate in a little bit of a different
1 way? I understand, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH:
4 Q. Finally, with regard to the time that you made the statement on
5 the 23rd through the 27th of August, those three days, 23rd, 24th and
6 27th, at that point in time, when you were making what you call your
7 corrections to your previous statement, did you have a discussion with the
8 Prosecution about those corrections?
9 A. Well, naturally, I did discuss it, but not in the sense of whether
10 I should enter my corrections or not. The only thing I discussed with the
11 Prosecution is that I found those mistakes, inaccuracies, and that I
12 insisted that they be corrected in the statement.
13 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions. But I do once again ask
14 for that which I asked prior to this witness's testimony, which I am told
15 does not exist, which are any proofing notes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Whether there are any proofing notes. Of
17 course, in comparing these statements, we have seen that there are some
18 differences but major parts are literally the same. Mr. Dutertre, are
19 there any proofing notes you made? Or any of your team members?
20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] There is no proofing note made for
21 the 23rd, 4th and 27th of August. The position has always been clear.
22 Either we had signed proofing notes or 92 ter signed. So things are very
23 clear. And they are so clear that we have many various interpretations of
24 the witness concerning the previous and the present version. He has
25 signed one version on the 27th, which corresponds to the testimony made
1 with the modifications and the corrections he decided to introduce.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't think this is the appropriate time to go
3 back and revisit the issue of proofing notes but, obviously, you see the
4 dilemma we find ourselves in.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Harvey, any questions for Witness 64?
6 MR. HARVEY: No, thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre -- let me first --
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Dutertre, is there any need to re-examine the
11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I try to be
12 rather brief.
13 Re-examination by Mr. Dutertre
14 Q. First question to Witness 64. We have what you discussed now
15 where you have signed 92 bis statement on June the 24th and then you
16 signed a 92 ter on August the 27th, recently, and you have indicated, and
17 it's on page 61 of today's transcript, that on -- between June and August,
18 you had access to your footage. My question is the following: On 23rd of
19 June, when Mr. Versonnen asked to you sign a 92 bis, did he show you your
20 videos, your footage, which are the subject of this hearing?
21 A. Do you mean Mr. Barney Kelly?
22 Q. No, Mr. Versonnen on June the 23rd, last when you signed your 92
23 bis statement.
24 A. I don't know the gentleman. I don't know him. I know that he was
25 mentioned as the person who sought the material from the MUP, and that the
1 MUP staff provided him with the material sought, which he in turn handed
2 to Mr. Barney Kelly, but I don't think I ever met the gentleman.
3 Q. Okay. Understood. Name of the people doesn't really matter. On
4 June 2007, have you seen the videos which are the subject of this -- of
5 your statement?
6 A. If you mean to say or ask whether I personally saw the video, yes,
7 but when I was talking to investigators, I saw some clips of these
9 Q. On June the 23rd, when you signed this 92 bis statement in the
10 field office in Belgrade, were you able to see this video?
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. Thank you. I would like us to see video P452, with the number ERN
13 0006-6012, from 14 -- second 14 to minute 1, 15, 37 seconds. And he
14 refers to the starting point of 16 hours and 36 on September the 16th.
15 Can we see this video?
16 [Videotape played]
17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] We can stop now, and it will be a
18 minute 15.05.
19 Q. Witness 64, in your 92 ter statement you said, and I quote, [In
20 English] "At 16.36 on 12 September 1998 -- 1998, I video recorded
21 downstream of the canyon where I focused on a body from approximately 100
22 to 150 metres which could have been dressed in red-pink clothing or maybe
23 the skin was that colour at the moment due to the decomposition of the
24 body and weather conditions. The divers told us about this body as they
25 passed on their way back up the canyon from the lake. Seeing this body
1 now, it could be the body that I saw with bright clothing in the
2 photograph dated 8 September 1998." [Interpretation] My question is the
3 following for Witness 64: Has this body been collected later?
4 A. No. This body was never recovered, was never pulled out.
5 Q. What are the reasons why it was not recovered later, Witness 64?
6 A. Because on that day, we had a terrorist attack already at the time
7 when we were in the canal doing our work. We were just about to recover
8 this body when the investigating judge ordered that we stop working. In
9 the coming days, the weather worsened and I believe that the water flow
10 washed the body away in the direction of Lake Radonjic.
11 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no more
12 questions, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Dutertre. Have the questions in
14 re-examination triggered any need to further examine the witness?
15 Witness 64, this then concludes your testimony before this Trial
16 Chamber. We would like to thank you very much. Unfortunately, you had to
17 wait for a while before you could give your testimony, but finally, you
18 have now given it, you've answered the questions put to you by the parties
19 and by the Bench and I'd like to thank you for coming and I wish you a
20 safe trip home again.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Before I ask Madam Usher to escort you out of the
23 courtroom, are there any attachments or any exhibits we have not dealt
24 with at this very moment, attachments to the 92 ter statement it's a bit
25 difficult for us to because we received only today the final version.
1 Were there any attachments to it?
2 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. There were four
4 JUDGE ORIE: Are these the photographs shown to the witness which
5 were given the numbers PBK or something like that? Is that -- are these
6 the annexes?
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] For the Defence team, I don't know,
8 but regarding annex 1 and annex 4, they certainly include these photos.
9 And as to annex 3 --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I have the 92 ter statement on my screen, and that is
11 20 pages. I see no annexes. Have they been separately tendered? Do they
12 need separate numbers?
13 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. Actually, for the statement,
14 just to avoid repeating ERNs for documents already having an ERN number,
15 based on your suggestion, we have avoided annexing them in 92 ter.
16 Therefore, they should be given a separate number.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we should ask for a separate number. Are
18 these photographs shown to the witness, are they not yet exhibits? I
19 mean, I can imagine that some of the photographs, I don't see them for the
20 first time today, so therefore, I wonder whether they have already exhibit
22 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Some of them do but they are shown
23 in a format which is not the one we used previously. We had the photo
24 albums, we also had photos of four pages so therefore, the photo we are
25 interested in is tendered but what the witness had been shown at that time
1 does not exactly correspond to the photos we have here. For instance,
2 just to be clear, annex 1 has four photos.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I have again -- I have in front of me a 92 ter
4 statement, a redacted version, that's the one that's tendered today,
5 that's 20 pages, and I -- where do I find at this moment the annexes,
6 Mr. Dutertre? Because --
7 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on August the 28th,
8 2007, we sent the Chamber an e-mail with all the documents including the
9 annexes, and there was an Excel table where you have the reference of all
10 these annexes. It's an e-mail which was sent at 6.24 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You can give me the date?
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] It was on August 28th, 2007, at
13 6.24. It was sent to the Chamber.
14 JUDGE ORIE: 6.24 p.m., I take it.
15 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes. It was not sent precisely to
16 you, but Mr. Zahar.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Usually, if there is anything which needs our direct
18 attention, Mr. Zahar would then pass that on to us. But apart from that,
19 even if you sent -- even if you sent --
20 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
21 JUDGE ORIE: If there is something new in it, it should be
22 properly introduced in evidence in this courtroom. Is the -- are the
23 Defence teams aware of the exact data given by Mr. Dutertre?
24 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Before that he had this document
25 before him.
1 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be kind of a table which -- annexes to
2 the 92 ter statement.
3 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I can see the table. We have the table.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. On the basis of that, could I ask the Defence
5 whether there is any objection against admission of these annexes apart
6 from the 92 ter statement?
7 MR. EMMERSON: The short answer to that question is yes, there is
8 an objection, as matters currently stand. I'm sorry it's slightly obscure
9 at the moment on my screen. I do apologise. Annex 2 is the
10 meteorological data which in our submission is not properly produced by
11 this witness and the photographs that cross-refer to paragraph 15, which
12 were dealt with in chief, again we object to the admission of those.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And these were the photographs of one with the wrong
14 -- two photographs, the top one being identified not as the person who
15 appears in that photograph, and the -- yes. That's -- I take it, then,
16 relevance objection. Any other objection?
17 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] In fact, the next three comprises a
18 multitude of photographs, a series of photographs, which are both post
19 mortem of the body of Captain Perovic. The weapons which had been
20 photographed in the village where his body was recovered, as well as
21 damages -- damage to a house. Those are elements which have -- would
22 evidence the attacks against civilians, and that's why there is a
23 reference at the end of the paragraph 15 and 112 to 115.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Any other objections against that?
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, but that's a specific objection that has been
1 specifically made to paragraphs, the annexes which are annex 3 and the
2 information contained in paragraphs 113, 14 and 15.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, if I would have a complete overview here,
4 we could immediately deal with it, but I do not feel at this moment in a
5 position to finally deal with the matter.
6 Mr. Dutertre, you are invited to provide the list of annexes to
7 the extent that these annexes are already in evidence, to point at that,
8 and then we can decide on the matter as soon as possible, and we have
9 already on the record objections against the meteorological data and some
10 photographs, especially annex 3 but also the two pictures of another
11 victim unrelated to the Lake Radonjic canal. When I say victim, I say
12 this in the general term that the two persons shown there died, nothing
13 more, nothing less.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I don't pursue further submissions in relation to,
15 although Your Honours will recall the testimony of the last witness in
16 connection with that sequence of events.
17 I wonder if I could just, just before the witness departs, invite
18 him to remove his ear phones just for one moment.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness 64, first of all, do you understand
20 English? You do understand some English, isn't it? Do you understand --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, I don't understand it.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then would you please take off your ear phones
23 for a second? Mr. Emmerson?
24 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, the penultimate sentence in paragraph
25 112 of the 92 ter statement, that is the last unredacted sentence, which
1 is a matter which I took the witness to and he confirmed on oath --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just -- you said paragraph?
3 MR. EMMERSON: 112.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes.
5 MR. EMMERSON: Where the witness confirms not only that the two
6 bodies floating in the concrete section of the canal were not recovered,
7 but that he did not see them again at any time between his arrival and his
8 departure. Now, I'm not asking anybody to pursue the matter further, but
9 it is plain that that answer cannot be reconciled with the answer elicited
10 by Mr. Dutertre in re-examination, in our submission.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just read it.
12 MR. DUTERTRE: [Interpretation] Yes, but it is for the Chamber to
13 appraise the answer to the questions.
14 MR. EMMERSON: I'm content to leave the matter that way but lest
15 there should be no misunderstanding that there is a categorical statement
16 to that effect in the 92 ter statement.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's clear. We'll not restart any
18 examination of the witness on the matter.
19 Witness 64, you had to wait a while. We just -- yes, could you
20 please put your ear phones again? We asked to you wait for a second to
21 see whether we would still need you for the admission of the evidence. It
22 turns out that we can deal with the matter in your absence. Therefore,
23 you are excused.
24 Madam Usher, could you escort the witness out of the courtroom
25 after you've pulled down the curtains?
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: I was just provided by the Chamber's staff with a
3 copy of the table. We'll deal with the matter once we have given it a
4 more thorough look.
5 Yes. Do I understand that the booth have received copies of a
6 decision on protective measures for Witness 3? That is the witness to
7 follow. I'm listening to the English channel at this moment. We usually
8 provide the booth copies of decisions given orally which, however, we
9 write down.
10 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: The logistics in the Chamber have not functioned
12 properly at this moment. I therefore, although we try to avoid to do
13 that, but perhaps we will first -- no, we keep the curtains down for a
14 moment. We are not in private session, although with the curtains down we
15 are in open session. The Chamber grants the protective measures requested
16 for Witness 3. That is face distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym.
17 Now, the question is, Mr. Registrar, do we have to adapt the voice
18 distortion for the next witness before we can start?
19 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that that has been taken care of.
21 That means, Mr. Di Fazio, are you calling your next witness, Witness 3?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: That's correct, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, the curtains are down at this moment in
24 view of the protective measures granted. The witness first will have to
25 enter the courtroom and we'll then pull the curtains up. Madam Usher left
1 the courtroom I hope also to escort Witness 3 into the courtroom.
2 Mr. Di Fazio, may I expect that you'll use the August 2007
3 statement as 92 ter statements or --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: I don't believe --
5 MR. DI FAZIO: No, I intend to lead his evidence orally. There is
6 no question about that. Defence counsel jumping to their feet there, they
7 don't need to worry.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 3, because that's how we will call you, first
11 of all, can you hear me in a language you understand? Can you hear me in
12 a language you understand, Witness? Could you please speak more loudly?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 3, before you give evidence in this Court,
15 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require to you make a solemn
16 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
17 the truth. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration, of which the
18 text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
20 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
21 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/3
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 3, please be seated.
24 Madam Usher, the curtains can be drawn up.
25 Witness 3, the Chamber has decided that the request for protective
1 measures are granted. That means that we will call you not by your own
2 name but we'll call you Witness 3, and your voice and your face will not
3 be recognisable outside this courtroom. However, the content of your
4 testimony is public.
5 Mr. Di Fazio -- oh, yes, I would like to add to that, if there
6 ever is a question where you would fear that answering that question in
7 public might expose other persons to any risk, as far as security is
8 concerned, please let me know. We will then consider whether or not to go
9 into private session.
10 Mr. Di Fazio.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And I might add that if I have any
12 questions that might tend to elicit evidence that will identify this
13 witness, I'll also seek the Court's permission to go into closed session.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please does so.
15 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio
16 Q. Thank you. Can the witness be shown 65 ter 1965. Witness, have a
17 look at the document that you're going to see on your screen and look an
18 and read it, please?
19 JUDGE ORIE: The document we admitted under seal should not be
20 shown to the public.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
22 Q. Well, in that case, that should not occur and I have a hard copy
23 which I can --
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think the technicians can perfectly show it to the
25 witness and not to the outside world.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful for that. Thank you.
2 Q. Thank you. Just look at that and tell us if the personal details
3 that you see written there are correct.
4 A. Yes, it's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Would you please come a bit closer to the microphone
6 which makes it easier for the interpreters to hear you?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Everything is correct.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, and if Your Honours please I seek to
9 tender that pseudonym sheet into evidence and ask that it be placed under
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
12 THE REGISTRAR: P913, under seal, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that there is no objection against it being
14 admitted. Therefore, it's admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I have some further
16 personal particulars that I need to elicit from this witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll turn into private session, Mr. Registrar.
18 [Private session]
10 [Open session]
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. Please proceed,
13 Mr. Di Fazio.
14 MR. DI FAZIO:
15 Q. Witness, there is no need to refer to the name of your village. I
16 want to ask you, in your village, was the LDK a popular party?
17 A. Yes, yes, it was.
18 Q. Can you give the Trial Chamber some idea of the extent of
19 popularity enjoyed by the LDK in your village?
20 A. At that time, before the war, the LDK was a very popular party in
21 the whole of the territory.
22 Q. And that might be so, but listen to the question. I'm asking
23 about your particular village, in particular. No need to mention the name
24 of it, but in your village, was it a -- what was the extent of its
1 A. Everybody in my village was an LDK member before the war.
2 Q. Was that fact, the fact of the extent of popularity in your
3 village of the LDK, was that known in the wider area, as far as you know?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey?
5 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, this is both leading and calls for
6 speculation on behalf of the witness. I would ask Mr. Di Fazio to be very
7 careful about leading throughout this testimony, and I think he knows
8 exactly what the issues are.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, you're invited to reformulate the
10 question, not to deal with the matter but in a different way.
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. Did you ever have an opportunity to assess what other people in
13 your area knew about the political persuasion of your village? Did you
14 ever have a chance to do that?
15 A. I'm referring to the period before the war, and before the war
16 there was no other party but the LDK, and so the majority of the
17 population supported it.
18 Q. All right. Well, I'll move on. In your village, your particular
19 village, was there a village guard?
20 A. Yes, there was.
21 Q. Who organised that?
22 A. The villagers.
23 Q. Was there any participation of the LDK political party in its
25 A. Yes, certainly.
1 Q. And from when was that village guard organised? When did it first
2 commence, so to speak?
3 A. I can't be very precise, but I think it began sometime in 1994.
4 Q. Were you a member of that village guard?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did that village guard exist in your village in the months
7 leading up to May of 1998?
8 A. Not after May 1998, no, not in the same way it did before.
9 Q. Well, we'll get to that, but up until about at least mid -- up
10 until the 19th of May 1998, did it exist?
11 A. Yes, it did.
12 Q. Thank you. I want you to turn your mind to events in May of 1998,
13 and I'm talking about the period of time now prior to the 19th of May. At
14 that time, or during that time, did your village receive any visits by any
15 KLA officers or members?
16 A. Do you mean May?
17 Q. Yes. I mean the period of time prior to May of -- prior to May
18 19th, 1998. Did your village receive, as far as you're aware, any visits
19 by KLA men?
20 A. Yes. That's what they say but I was not present myself.
21 Q. Now, I don't want you to mention any names but what are you
22 referring to when you say you were not present yourself? What weren't you
23 present at, first of all, and then tell us what you know about whatever
24 you were not present at.
25 A. When they entered the village.
1 Q. Okay. Can you tell us who you're referring to?
2 A. I'm referring to the KLA at the point of entry into the village.
3 Q. Okay. Using the 19th of May 1998 as a reference point, can you
4 say when the KLA appeared at your village?
5 A. I first saw KLA men in uniforms in my village for the first time
6 on the 19th of May, but they say it was present before but I hadn't been
7 there. However, on the 19th I was there to see them.
8 Q. Okay. Did you have any idea of a KLA presence prior to the 19th
9 of May, even if you did not see them?
10 A. I certainly wished they existed but some people, but people
11 disagreed. Some people said the KLA exists, some others said it doesn't.
12 Q. Do you know Lahi Brahimaj?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Prior to the 19th of May 1998, did he go to your village?
15 A. That's what people say but I was never present.
16 Q. Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey? I apologise for not having --
18 MR. HARVEY: Not at all, Your Honour. I was up and I was down
19 again but this is all rather speculative and at least the witness is being
20 clear but I think the questions -- a question such as did Mr. Brahimaj
21 ever go to his village is vague and not particularly helpful.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It is soliciting an answer to whether the witness has
23 any recollection of Lahi Brahimaj going to his village.
24 MR. HARVEY: We have that answer.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
2 Q. Prior to the 19th of May 1998, in your village, were there any
3 meetings that -- attended by the KLA?
4 A. Again, that's what people say but I was never present.
5 Q. Fine. We've heard you and we now understand very, very clearly
6 that you weren't present. But you have said that's what people say. Now,
7 I want to know exactly and precisely what you heard from people, who you
8 heard things from, and what you heard about this. And remember, don't
9 mention names of villagers unless -- yes, don't mention names of
11 MR. HARVEY: Your Honour, with respect.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That's an invitation. If you would mention any name
13 of villagers where you are not confident that it would be without risk,
14 then you should ask to go into private session before giving any such
15 names. Is that clear to you? So if you want to say I heard this from X,
16 Y or Z, and if you're not confident that -- or if you fear that this might
17 have negative consequences for X, Y or Z, then you should ask me to go
18 into private session because then you give the names without the whole of
19 the world hearing them. Is that clear, Witness 3?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's very clear. And even if I
21 were to give the name, there wouldn't be any risk because he no longer
22 lives. He was a former commander in my village.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, if there are no risks, then there is no
24 need but please keep this in mind. Would you please then answer the
25 question put to you by Mr. Di Fazio saying that from whom you heard, and
1 exactly what about, from these people, even though you were not present.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I spoke to Sadri Berisha, who used
3 to be the commander of our village. He had just been nominated a
4 commander in charge of the youth of our village. And he requested of me
5 to join the KLA, which at that stage complied with my wishes as well.
6 MR. DI FAZIO:
7 Q. Thank you. Earlier you said that people had said that there was a
8 meeting involving the KLA. That's what I'm interested in, a meeting in
9 your village concerning -- involving the KLA. What did you hear about
10 that and from whom did you hear about that?
11 A. I heard from the villagers themselves that they had been there,
12 and in time, the youth of the village started joining the KLA ranks.
13 Q. Okay. Now, what did you hear precisely that they -- stating that
14 they had been there? What sort of details did you get from your fellow
16 A. At the time there were various rumours on the existence of the
17 KLA. The people were not certain of it, and so it was a pleasure to know
18 it, that there was a KLA when they appeared in the village and from that
19 moment onwards the youth of the village began joining them.
20 Q. Okay. You've told us that you found out about this KLA appearing
21 in the village from your fellow villagers. Do you know which KLA
22 representatives attended? Did you have any information about that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Who attended?
25 A. I have no idea on who it was. Rumours have it that it was Lahi
1 but having not been present myself, I cannot say it. I mean some people
2 might say he had been there but even that person might not have been
4 Q. Thank you. Did your village have a mill?
5 A. Yes, it did. And it was a necessary thing to have.
6 Q. Can you tell the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, perhaps one question to clarify
8 matters. You said rumours have it that it was Lahi but having not been
9 present myself, you can't say that. Now, did you hear from other
10 villagers that Lahi had been present?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did hear from the villagers.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Now, did these villagers also tell you that they
13 themselves had been present?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never asked.
15 JUDGE ORIE: No. But did they even sometimes without being asked,
16 people, did they say something about the meeting or --
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. They did not say that they had
18 attended or whether they dined with Lahi or anything of the matter, no.
19 They simply said a group had shown themselves and that the KLA really
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Di Fazio.
22 MR. DI FAZIO:
23 Q. You just told His Honour that they, I assume you mean the
24 villagers, said that a group had shown themselves and that the KLA really
25 existed. Did you understand from what the villagers said to you that when
1 this group showed itself and showed that the KLA really existed, that that
2 was the same occasion in which Lahi Brahimaj came to your village?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, this is as logical a time
5 for the break as any.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Witness 3, it's 7.00. We adjourn for the day.
7 I'd like to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about the
8 testimony, neither about the testimony you have already given or testimony
9 still to be given. We adjourn until tomorrow, quarter past 2.00,
10 Courtroom III.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 4th day of
13 September, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.