1 Tuesday, 16 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 4.21 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
7 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor
8 versus Ramush Haradinaj, et al.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
10 Before we continue with the examination-in-chief of Mr. Zivanovic,
11 I'd like to inform the parties that the Chamber will -- for very practical
12 reasons has to cancel its intention to have a housekeeping session on the
13 25th of October. So therefore we'll not be sitting on that day. It was
14 too difficult to get all the teams together.
15 And another -- the Chamber was informed that the order of
16 cross-examining the present witness was changed slightly. The Chamber was
17 glad to hear that the Defence teams agreed for another sequence, because
18 the Chamber had some concerns that always when we're running out of time
19 it's usually the last Defence counsel that is -- is the target to say, and
20 the Chamber, even if we would not have been informed about this, it was on
21 our list to invite the parties to always consider what would be the best
22 sequence, not to make one of you the standard victim of -- of a lack of
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: We do. And I decided to take on that role today.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- yes.
1 So that really was -- I expressed this not just on the basis of --
2 of our information but also as a genuine concern of the Chamber wanting to
3 give all parties equal opportunities, all Defence parties as well.
4 Then I -- finally, there's one matter, very brief matter. The
5 newest amendment to the indictment, I think that we asked the parties not
6 only to express their views on whether there were any objections against
7 naming one of these witnesses but also whether there would be any problem
8 in adding some of the persons mentioned earlier to the list of witnesses.
9 I think that we did not receive any answer to that.
10 MR. EMMERSON: The answer is that the Trial Chamber, as far as
11 we're concerned, will have an answer in writing before tomorrow.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Before tomorrow.
13 MR. EMMERSON: So, in other words, by the time the Trial Chamber
14 is at its desk tomorrow morning.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then we'll read that response.
16 Then, Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to continue the
17 cross-examination of Mr. Zivanovic?
18 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
20 MR. RE: The Prosecution has filed the fourth amended indictment
21 this afternoon.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. RE: Along with the new -- the proposed addition of the three
24 witnesses and 92 bis applications for all three of them.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But we had invited the Defence to already
1 express their views on an additions to the witness list right away.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Because that's what was already announced in order to
4 speed up matters.
5 MR. EMMERSON: It's a matter, essentially, of the form in which
6 the evidence is proposed to be adduced that may require a short
8 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So not adding to the list but rather the way
9 in which --
10 Okay. Then, Mr. Zivanovic, I'd like to remind you that you are
11 still bound by the solemn declaration you have given at the beginning of
12 your testimony, that is, that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and
13 nothing but the truth.
14 Then, Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.
15 WITNESS: DRAGAN ZIVANOVIC [Resumed]
16 [Witness answered through interpreter]
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson: [Continued]
18 Q. Before going on with the questions I was asking you yesterday
19 evening, I want to go back to one issue that we discussed a little earlier
20 in your testimony. And for those following the transcript, I'm referring
21 to pages 9425 and 6.
22 And could you turn, please, to tab 19 in the bundle, please. Tab
23 19 is annex 40 for this witness's 92 ter statement and marked as P1055.
24 Do you have it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, I asked you yesterday some questions about item number 5 on
2 that order dated the 1st of June, and in particular, the deployment of a
3 tank platoon of the 125th Motorised Brigade BG-3 to provide assistance to
4 MUP forces along the Crnobreg-Prejlep road.
5 Yesterday in relation to that, first of all, I asked you to
6 confirm that that was an order that predated the authorisation to engage
7 the VJ in anti-terrorist operations and you confirmed that that was
9 And then I asked you, and you confirmed, that the role of the tank
10 platoon in that operation was purely for psychological support. And I
11 asked you whether that was in fact the way in which it had been used, and
12 you said, "I think that did actually happen. The tank did not fire a
13 single projectile."
14 I wonder in that context if I could just ask you, please, to turn
15 not in that bundle but perhaps to the screen to annex 41 to your witness
16 statement marked as P1056, which is a regular combat report signed by
17 Colonel Lazarevic for the 3rd of June.
18 Can you, first of all, confirm that that is a correct description
19 of the document? Mr. Zivanovic, I'm just --
20 A. Yes. This is a document dated the 3rd of June, 1998.
21 Q. And it is a -- I'm sorry.
22 A. Which paragraph are you referring me to?
23 Q. Can I -- can I ask you, please, to turn to paragraph 3, which, if
24 you could pick it up, please, on the third line down in paragraph 3, which
25 is, again, the fourth line down, in fact, in -- in the English
2 The English translation reads: "The tank platoon of BG-3 of the
3 125th Motorised Brigade coordinated with MUP units during an attack along
4 the Crnobreg-Prilep village axis. This -- the task was completed by 1400
5 hours with the use of five tank projectiles."
6 A. Yes, that's what it says.
7 Q. Is that the same deployment as the one that we were describing --
8 or you were describing in the previous annex as a deployment in which the
9 tanks did not fire a single projectile?
10 A. There are several orders to provide support to the MUP along the
11 Decani-Prilep axis. This is one of the orders. What I explained was an
12 order according to which a projectile had not been fired; whereas,
13 according to this one, it had been fired. This is a different order.
14 Q. I see. So the order we were discussing yesterday, which is behind
15 tab 19, signed by Major General Pavkovic, and which orders the deployment
16 of the tank platoon of the 125th Motorised Brigade BG-3 to assist MUP
17 forces along the Crnobreg-Prilep village road, that is an order that
18 resulted, you say, in no projectiles being fired; is that right?
19 A. According to what it says here, that's correct. There is no order
20 of the 2nd of June.
21 Q. Yes. This is -- this is a report, though, is it not, dated the
22 3rd of June relating to operations that have been conducted the previous
24 A. On the previous day or on that day, because normally the
25 information referring to a particular day are written on the eve of that
1 same day -- on the evening of that same day.
2 Q. Well, if you look at any other part of this document -- just cast
3 your eye over annex 41, Mr. Zivanovic. It's referring throughout, is it
4 not, to activities on the 2nd of June?
5 A. Yes. But in item 3, it is stated "in the course of the day," and
6 the document is dated the 3rd.
7 Q. Can I understand what your evidence is on this, then, please. Is
8 it your testimony that -- that following the order issued on the 1st,
9 there was a deployment that resulted in no projectiles being fired because
10 the tanks were there purely for psychological support but then the next
11 day there was a second operation in which five projectiles were fired on
12 the same axis by the same tank platoon? Is that what your testimony
13 amounts to?
14 A. This is what I would like -- this is how I would like you to
15 understand what I'm saying, because I don't have the order of the 2nd or
16 the 3rd of June here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
18 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You just included in your question that, looking at
20 annex 41, it's referring throughout, is it not, to activities on the 2nd
21 of June.
22 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: In 2.2, I see at 11.15 hours on the 3rd of June.
24 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore I have some difficulties in following
1 you --
2 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour is quite right. There -- we have
3 references from the beginning to the end to events taking place on the 2nd
4 of June.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but not exclusively.
6 MR. EMMERSON: But not exclusively.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you. Please proceed.
8 MR. EMMERSON:
9 Q. I want to return, please, if I may, to the position we were at
10 yesterday afternoon. And for that purpose, could you please again remove
11 the map that was behind tab 1C. I don't know whether it's separated in
12 your bundle.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Just to recap -- just to recap, if I may, as to where we were.
15 Behind tab 23 in the Defence green file we looked yesterday at annex 51 to
16 your statement, which is Exhibit P1065, which is the order of the 23rd of
17 July, deploying BG-3 along an axis from Dolac to Iglarevo to Kijevo and
18 BG-2 to take part in a blockade of Junik.
19 And we then looked at tab 24, annex 52 to your statement, Exhibit
20 P1066, which is the order by yourself of the 24th of July confirming that
21 BG-2 is in effect to close off the village of Junik and BG-3 to provide
22 support for the PJP on the axis described from Dolac to Iglarevo to
24 Now, I want, please, against that background to look with you
25 behind tab 25. And this should not be shown on the screen. This is
1 Exhibit D78, a situation report filed by Colonel Crosland on the 30th of
2 July relating to a tour of duty on the 28th and 29th of July.
3 And just in order to orientate ourselves on this map, after the
4 summary section of this report, the first entry under the heading "Detail"
5 reads: "Orahovac-Malisevo. Tour departed Prizren 28th of July traveling
6 north to Zrze through MUP VCP vehicle check-point in Bijela Crkva to
8 And then if I can just paraphrase the second paragraph. The tour
9 then entered Malisevo and, picking it up just after the first full
10 paragraph on the second page, it reads, under 2: "Tour released and
11 allowed to proceed north towards main Pec-Pristina road. Prior to
12 junction where six times VJ T-55 facing towards Malisevo. At Lapusnik
13 junction one strike force of approximately 150 mixed SAJ, PJP, and VJ and
14 APCs gathered to launch assault on Malisevo. Comment, commander of the
15 force somewhat surprised to see tour arriving from the direction of his
16 intended objective."
17 Now, pausing there for a moment, we can see from this document and
18 from the testimony that we've heard that the --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
20 MR. EMMERSON:
21 Q. That the military attache's tour of duty, if we can look at it
22 on the map, is proceeding in a north-easterly direction from Malisevo
23 towards the Lapusnik junction.
24 And Colonel Crosland testified that it was at that junction that
25 he encountered Milorad Ulemek, or Milorad Lukovic, or Legija who
1 introduced himself as being in overall command of this joint strike force,
2 involving combined SAJ, PJP, and VJ forces.
3 Now, can you help us, please. We know that you had deployed your
4 forces along the main Pec road via Dolac and Iglarevo to Kijevo. Were
5 they your forces also at the junction of Lapusnik?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Thank you. Just dropping down a little further, after the heading
8 "Commensurate proof of VJ involvement in non-border ops," under 3,
9 Colonel Crosland's tour then turned left, or west, on the main road. So
10 having reached the Lapusnik junction, it reads: "Tour turned west on main
11 road in direction of Pec and encountered further MUP elements dug in all
12 along the road. At Kijevo a second strike group of approximately 300
13 mixed JSO with APCs, VJ with M80s, MT55 Bridgelayer, and MUP in six cargo
14 lorries, ready to move in the direction of Malisevo."
15 Now, pausing there. This is Kijevo he's describing. Presumably
16 they would be --
17 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. --
18 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
20 MR. EMMERSON:
21 Q. Presumably they would be the forces of BG-3 that you yourself had
22 deployed along the access from Dolac via Iglarevo to Kijevo. Is that
24 A. That's not correct, if we're referring to the 28th and the 29th of
25 July, for this reason: From the moment the order was issued, Combat Group
1 3 entered Kijevo, spent the night there, and went back. The rest was done
2 by the MUP forces and my neighbour, who was there along that axis. I
3 believe you mentioned Lapusnik.
4 Q. I see. So your forces went as far as Kijevo, spent the night
5 there, is that correct, and then came back the following day?
6 A. That's correct. They joined up with the MUP forces that had been
7 deployed in Kijevo.
8 Q. I see. And would that have been the 25th to the 26th?
9 A. I don't have the report before me. If I issued an order on the
10 25th, then it must have been on the 26th and the 27th, if I'm not
11 mistaken. Please allow me to look at the date of the order. The date of
12 the order is the 24th. Then it must have been the 25th and the 26th.
13 Q. Thank you. If we just look at the comments immediately following
14 that, having encountered this mixed force at Kijevo, you can see
15 Colonel Crosland's tour, it says, "continued west along the main road,
16 which was again held by a mixed force of VJ/MUP up to the Grebnik vehicle
18 And if we look on the map, Grebnik is immediately south of Dolac;
19 is that correct?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. So just so that we're clear, having encountered the joint force at
22 Lapusnik under Milorad Ulemek, the village military attache then
23 encounters a joint force at Kijevo and continues west towards Pec as far
24 as Dolac and Grebnik.
25 And if you just look at the document and the comment that
1 follows: "Every village from Lapusnik westwards have suffered deliberate
2 damage by cannon and heavy mortar gun fire. Many houses burning. Garages
3 and businesses trashed."
4 Now, the damage he's describing is along the axis that your men
5 had been ordered by you to travel 24 hours previously; is that correct?
6 A. For the most part the territory covered by my neighbour at
7 Lapusnik from Kijevo to Iglarevo was covered by that. This was a great
8 difficulty for our unit to go through that area, as we were providing
9 support to the MUP forces.
10 Q. Yes. I'm -- the point is simply this: On the 24th, you order
11 BG-3 along this axis as far as Kijevo.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You say they went there on the 24th and came back on the 26th.
14 And here, apparently, on the 28th the British military attache's tour
15 retraces your steps and on every village west of Lapusnik on the main road
16 as far as Dolac he encounters deliberate damage, houses burning and
17 garages and businesses trashed.
18 Now, presumably you're going to tell us your men were not involved
19 in that. Is that correct?
20 A. That's not correct. My men were involved in that on the 25th and
21 the 26th. I said that they spent the night at Kijevo and withdrew toward
22 Grebnik. They fired upon what was considered to be military targets out
23 of which fire had been opened upon the MUP.
24 Q. And that would have included garages and businesses along the way.
25 A. I can't state exactly whether every garage held a sniper shooter
1 or a sharp shooter, and my forces had the orders to fire wherever a
2 terrorist was present.
3 Q. If we just drop town to 5, to the other part of the operation that
4 you authorised on the 24th in relation to the blockade of Junik. You can
5 see the entry there: "Junik area. Tour heard and observed the fall of
6 shot into Junik throughout the afternoon of the 28th of July. From line
7 of sight approximately 4 kilometres distant. Also heard MBT and APC heavy
8 mortar gun/cannon fire together with mortars."
9 A. I apologise. Is that my order you're referring to?
10 Q. No, I'm reading from the report of the British military attache at
11 item 5.
12 Let me just fill it in for you a little bit by reference to the
13 testimony, which is, for the record, transcript 3084 to 3097.
14 The testimony that the Trial Chamber has heard in relation to this
15 entry is that the military attache was in a position to observe four hours
16 of direct and indirect fire on the village of Junik as well as the
17 villages of Prejlep, Irzniq, and Gllogjan from the south end of the lake.
18 Now, pausing there. Your order of the 24th of July had been part,
19 had it not, of the coordinated action with the PJP to blockade Junik?
20 A. Yes. Only a part of my forces, Combat Group 2, and elements of
21 Combat Group 3. In the encirclement or the blockade that there were more
22 forces of the MUP and the VJ that were not under my command.
23 Q. And were you aware that that operation was to be coordinated with
24 heavy shelling from the south end of the lake to the village of Junik?
25 A. I wasn't aware that this was supposed to be done that way. You
1 know how far the lake was from my positions, and I had no way of
2 influencing the forces over there by the lake.
3 The MUP forces entered Junik, if I'm not mistaken, on the 15th and
4 the 16th of August.
5 Q. Yes. I'm -- I'm speaking at the moment not about the entry on the
6 15th and 16th of August but about an afternoon of continuous shelling for
7 four hours from a long range from the southern tip of Lake Radoniq. And
8 what I'm trying to understand is that we can see from your order of the
9 24th that, just to use your words, the task you authorised BG-3 to do,
10 together with BG-2 or a part of BG-2 and the PJP, was to close off the
11 village of Junik. Is that correct?
12 A. That's correct. And the exact line was mentioned. That was the
13 village of Miroc [phoen], a Muslim cemetery, and I believe it was trig
14 point 505.
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. And I -- you can see in this order here under 5, security
17 measures, fire is to be opened only upon fortified features out of which
18 terrorist forces are active. I tried to prevent any sort of abuse,
19 especially in regard to Junik, because before the date ordered, the 15th
20 or the 16th, we had not been allowed by anyone to enter the area.
21 Q. But you knew there were civilians in Junik and a significant
22 civilian population there at the end of July, didn't you?
23 A. That's debatable whether there were civilians or not. My scouts
24 reported to me that there were no civilians; rather, that there were some
25 300 to 400 terrorists, also in the direction of the village of Jasic.
1 Q. And so are we to understand the position that when you deployed
2 your forces of BG-2 and BG-3 to assist in the blockade of Junik, you did
3 not know that there were plans to mount a shelling operation two days
4 later on the village?
5 A. I did order and I stand by that that my units were in the
6 deblocking, but the units you mentioned down by the Radonjic Lake were not
7 my units. I wasn't informed about heavy Howitzer fire and their
8 engagement. There was fire upon a feature above Jasic. I am aware of
9 that. But I wasn't aware of Junik.
10 At the time, I was in Kosovska Mitrovica.
11 Q. Can we turn, please, now to tab 2 in the bundle, which I -- I
12 think is your report of this collection of operations that had taken place
13 between the 25th of July and the 7th of August. This is D165 and annex 56
14 to your statement.
15 And whilst we're doing that, Your Honour, I should note that the
16 map that we've used with this witness, which differs to some extent from
17 that which is in the e-court system, has been uploaded in its form as used
18 with the witness with Defence identification 1D64-0024 and I believe
19 provisionally allocated the exhibit number D181 and may I ask that it be
20 marked for identification under that number.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that's correct. It will be marked
23 for identification as D181.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. EMMERSON:
1 Q. If we could just look briefly at this order, please -- I'm sorry,
2 this report.
3 First of all, can you confirm, Mr. Zivanovic, this is you
4 reporting on the 8th of August on the deployments that have taken place
5 between the 25th of July and the 7th of August? Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And we can see, if we look under item number 1 -- if I've
8 understood this correctly. This is you describing the deployment of
9 Combat Group 3 on the 25th and 26th of July along the access that -- the
10 axis that we have examined from Dolac via Iglarevo to Kijevo; is that
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. You then indicate that on the 2nd to the 6th of August, the 3rd
14 PJP Detachment with support from BG-1 was deployed on the Novo
15 Selo-Krusevac-Morina village to Rezala village axis. Is that part of the
16 same operation?
17 A. No. This was an operation in the municipality of Srbica.
18 Q. Can I just pick on just one or two of the bullet points here and
19 ask for your help with those, please. If we look at, I think, bullet
20 point number 6 under 1, it indicates that on the 5th of August the Brazil
21 Group and the 4th PGP -- PJP Detachment with support from BG-3 were
22 deployed on the Malizgan to Ovcarevo axis.
23 Can you just summarise in a sentence or two what that deployment
24 involved, please.
25 A. If I'm not mistaken, this is the axis from Klina to Srbica -- or
1 rather, that road there. And we supported the groups mentioned -- the
2 units mentioned here, the 4th Detachment and the Brazil Group.
3 Q. And did your troops enter Ovcarevo?
4 A. We were not given the tasks to enter there but to stop at the
5 edge; whereas, for the entry into village, that was primarily the task
6 of -- because what this refers to is a tank and a tank can easily be set
7 on fire in a village. It's quite vulnerable in inhabited areas.
8 Q. So the ground troops that went in were the Brazil Group and the
9 PJP; is that right? To Ovcarevo.
10 A. Yes, presumably, because there was no one else who could have
12 Q. This was roughly a week, was it, after the fall of Malisevo, after
13 Serb forces had taken control of Malisevo?
14 A. That's correct. When was it? On the 28th or the 29th. I'm not
16 Q. In that region, certainly. It was either the 28th or the 29th.
17 I wonder if we could just play a short passage of video at this
18 point. And it will be the piece of film for which the transcript is
19 behind tab 30G.
20 This piece of film shows a Serbian military operation in Ovcarevo
21 approximately a week after the fall of Malisevo, according to the
23 JUDGE ORIE: The transcript has been given to the booth,
24 Mr. Emmerson?
25 MR. EMMERSON: The transcript is behind tab 30G in the bundle,
1 which the booth have.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the same instructions, as always, as far
3 as the booth is concerned.
4 [Videotape played]
5 THE NARRATOR: The Serbs know that they have the rebel ethnic
6 Albanians on the run and again today they have been pushing the advantage.
7 This is Ovcarevo village, the latest Kosovo Liberation Army position to
8 fall to the Serb offensive, the latest place to be emptied of its civilian
10 The United States special envoy to the region toured Central
11 Kosovo today. He saw it firsthand, some of the destruction.
12 "We've condemned it very much and it's simply intolerable to see
13 these growing number of refugees. And as you may have heard, there are
14 apparently an additional 30.000 or so in the late few days who have gone
16 The aid effort is beginning to gain pace. One of the first
17 convoys passed through Malisevo. It fell to the Serbs a week ago and
18 since then the town is burned.
19 In the hills the village of Loxhejve serves as a refugee centre.
20 The supplies will be stored here and then distributed to the people.
21 But there are those who have not been reached by the aid efforts.
22 In these woods, we found as many as a thousand refugees. The families try
23 to cope but mostly they sit and wait for news. They don't know it yet,
24 but many of their homes have been destroyed and there is nothing to go
25 back to. She is less than a week old, born as a refugee in a field.
1 Tonight she and everyone else here will once again sleep outside. The
2 forecast is for rain.
3 The people here say they would like to go home, but while the
4 fighting continues, they say they have no choice but to stay here in the
5 woods with no shelter and very little food or water.
6 Jeremy Cooke, BBC News, Kosovo.
7 MR. EMMERSON:
8 Q. Now, pausing there, Mr. Zivanovic, the forces that we saw in the
9 first part of that film, which according to the commentary were in
10 Ovcarevo, are you able to recognise those forces according to their
12 A. Must I answer?
13 JUDGE ORIE: If you can answer the question, yes, of course, you
14 should answer the question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have recognised. These are
16 the PJP forces.
17 MR. EMMERSON:
18 Q. Thank you. And, again, so that we're clear, that -- this would
19 have been the operation that your forces were tasked to support; is that
20 correct? In Ovcarevo a week after the fall of Malisevo.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And we see there in that report a reference to Malisevo being in
23 effect on fire. Again, are you able to help us, was there a great deal of
24 burning as far as you were aware in the area of Malisevo at this part of
25 this operation?
1 A. I have never entered Malisevo. I haven't done that since 1979 or
2 1980. I apologise, but that's outside of my area. That's why I cannot
3 answer your question.
4 Q. I'm just --
5 A. Just like in combat operations anywhere else. If fire was opened
6 from a building, then yes, the fire was returned and that building was
7 treated as a military target. I expect that it was destroyed or burned as
8 a result of that.
9 As for sweeping and verifying, then yes, we normally check the
10 area for terrorists, and there are rules as to how a building is checked
11 for that. Three to five people are assigned to that.
12 Q. Thank you. I'm just turning back for a moment to tab 25. That is
13 D78, and to the observations of the British military attache on the 29th
14 of July. On page 3 under "Bravo," it reads as follows: "Wanton damage.
15 Every village adjacent to both avenues into Malisevo had suffered severe
16 damage. Houses still burning. Businesses and garages deliberately
17 vandalised. Crops, both corn and maize and vineyards burnt. Some animals
19 And did you receive reports that vineyards were being put to the
20 torch in this way?
21 A. I apologise. This is the first time I hear that any vineyard was
22 torched. This is the first I hear of it, now in the courtroom.
23 Q. And then if we go back then, please, to your report of the 8th of
24 August, behind tab 2. This is the report in which you indicate that on --
25 as far as I can understand it, all of the axes apart from those that are
1 listed in 1.2 in the first three bullet points, on all of the remaining
2 axes the Brazil Group carried out deep wedging and burning operations that
3 you described to us in your testimony last week and in the diagram that
4 you drew.
5 Now, have I understood your testimony correctly that -- that
6 "wedging" is a technical military term but "burning" is not? Is that
8 A. We don't use it.
9 As for this particular operation, I watched when the SAJ at a
10 feature near Rezalo was present. There was a hill there that could not be
11 taken. That's what I have to say about that.
12 Q. What I'm trying to understand is if the word "burning" has no
13 specific military connotation as a term of art, how it would be understood
14 by the people reading this report?
15 A. It means that they cover every decimetre of soil with ammunition,
16 with missiles, in 10 to 15 metres of any area.
17 Q. Yes. I'm sorry, my -- my question is rather a narrower one than
18 that. If "burning" is not a military term of art, it's not a technical
19 term used in the military, I wondered how it would be that other people
20 would understand what you meant by it.
21 A. I think that my superior understood me. That meant the use of all
22 resources at his disposal so that this strip of 10 to 15 metres was safe
23 enough, neutralised, for an infantry person or somebody on foot to go by.
24 This does not refer to any inhabited areas. This doesn't refer to
25 burning, use of napalm, or any other incendiary means. No, this just
1 refers or means the use of ammunition, firearms ammunition, artillery.
2 Q. I'm interested as well in the date of -- of -- of this document.
3 We see that it refers at the top, reference your order, strictly
4 confidential, number 880/175 of the 7th of August. Do you see that at the
6 A. I can see this. This is an order of my superior command, which
7 tasked me with sending such a report.
8 The reason for sending this report, I actually don't know why the
9 commander -- or what the commander wanted by way of this report. I can
10 only assume.
11 Q. I am only asking because you'll remember that yesterday behind tab
12 28 - don't bother to turn it up - we looked at an extract from the minutes
13 of the Joint Command for Kosovo dated the 7th of August in which
14 Mr. Sainovic had recorded concern that great damage was being caused to
15 Serbia by unnecessary burning of houses. And I just wondered whether the
16 request that you were receiving on that day for a report was in any way
17 connected to concern being expressed about the wanton damage that was
18 being inflicted.
19 A. I saw yesterday for the first time the page of the minutes.
20 That's the first thing.
21 The second thing, I can only make assumptions as to why the
22 commander asked for that. We complained, we, the army, saying that they
23 asked for us to provide support but they were not skilled enough when it
24 came to supporting our combat vehicles. They would leave our tanks
25 without support. For example, a tank, 72, normally has a three- or
1 four-member crew, and they would leave them at the mercy of the enemy.
2 This is why we asked that they be more careful in providing support to our
3 technical equipment and crews. And this is why there was some friction
4 between us and MUP.
5 Q. Can we look at paragraph 1.4 in this report, please, where --
6 where the engagement of combat equipment during this phase of the
7 operation is recorded. And it -- the indication is that BGs 1, 3, and 4
8 used T-55 tanks and 122-millimetre Howitzers. And then it says: "The
9 only prohibited equipment used were the 122-millimetre Howitzers, with one
10 platoon giving supporting fire to the Brazil Group and another to the 3rd
11 PJP Detachment."
12 First of all, can you just help us. Why were those weapons
13 prohibited, in your understanding?
14 A. I think that in early August an order arrived from the commander
15 of the army where he banned the use of Howitzers without his prior
16 consent. This here pertains to a peak near the village of Rezalo when the
17 Brazil Group was making a breakthrough, they needed support from the
18 territory in-depth, which is according to our artillery rules. And this
19 is why the commander issued this order and fired one missile and then he
20 was criticised for doing that without calling me or the army commander
21 prior to doing that.
22 Q. In general terms, Mr. Zivanovic, you had for the purposes of these
23 operations, I think, authorised 120-millimetre mortar platoon to be
24 available for the engagements; is that correct?
25 A. A platoon of Howitzers, 122-millimetre, is a component of BG-1, a
1 battery that has six pieces. So it was an integral part of the equipment
2 of BG-1. Wherever BG-1 went, this Howitzer followed. And it wasn't me
3 who approved it. I said that the commander on his own decided to open
4 fire, and this is why he was called to explain it later on. He was
6 Q. Yes. No, I -- I'm sorry, my question was slightly different. In
7 the order that you issued on the 24th of July, behind tab 24, you
8 personally authorised a 120-millimetre mortar platoon to be ready to
9 support forces both defending the barracks and in isolated installations.
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Yes, correct. A platoon of mortar -- mortars of 120 millimetres,
12 yes. That's an infantry piece.
13 Q. I'm sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, you're going through quite a lot of
15 details here, where we're limited in time, as you know.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. And I will speed up, if I may.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps the level of details is not always
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. EMMERSON:
21 Q. And paragraph 2 in this document is a report on whether there had
22 been excesses in the use of force by units and MUP forces on the axes.
23 And you record that according to your observations there was no excessive
24 use of force but when combat operations were being conducted, due to the
25 high temperature resistance offered from certain houses and the use of
1 tracer ammunitions, haystacks, wheat, and wooden ancillary buildings
2 caught fire.
3 That is a report back -- were you specifically being requested to
4 report back on excesses, or was that part of a standard report?
5 MR. RE: Is this MFI P1066? Can I just ask that the exhibit
6 number be put on the record so we don't lose it.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Where -- what I'm asking about now is tab 2, which
8 is --
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's P --
10 MR. EMMERSON: It's D165. It is annex 56 to this witness's
11 witness statements. It's a previously exhibited document.
12 Q. So the question, Mr. Zivanovic, was: Was that a specific request
13 for you to provide a report back?
14 A. Yes, in this particular case, I was asked to report on this.
15 And I apologise. I misunderstood something that you said. It
16 wasn't that the houses opened fire. The houses cannot do that. It's the
17 terrorists who open fire from buildings, houses, and so on.
18 Q. Could I ask you, please, just to help us with one matter. Could
19 you look at the photographs, please, behind tab 31. And I make it clear
20 these are undated.
21 Could you just help us, please, from the uniforms as to who it is
22 or which contingent it is that appear in that group of photographs.
23 A. Yes. These are members of the army. I'm looking at the person
24 who stands on the left. The first on the left, he has trousers which are
25 atypical for the army.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 A. I can't see any army insignia.
3 Q. Yes. If you would just like to look very briefly at 31C, you will
4 see that the character on the far left has his shoulder turned towards the
5 camera and there is an insignia on his right shoulder, which you will see
6 blown up behind tab 31D. Does that assist you at all?
7 A. Could it be blown up, please, so that I can see the emblem.
8 We did not have such berets. We do not have them at all.
9 Q. If you --
10 A. We do not have the black hats.
11 Q. If you bear with me for a moment. If you look behind tab 31C,
12 which is not, I think, where you're looking at the moment. 31C. Yes. If
13 you look at the gentleman on the left there. No, you're looking at --
14 A. Yes, I can see here that there is an emblem; but I can't tell
15 which one. I apologise, but it's not clear, so I cannot vouch for my
17 Q. Can I just ask you, please, to turn one photograph back in your
18 bundle. No, one photograph towards the front. Can you just go to the
19 next photograph towards the front.
20 Yes, that's the one. Could you just look at that photograph. And
21 at the gentleman on the far left, can you see a patch on his shoulder?
22 A. I can see it a bit better, but this is not a military insignia,
24 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, Colonel Crosland testified before the Tribunal that
25 he had a meeting with General Ojdanic at the end of the summer in which
1 the general agreed in terms that the operations that had taken place
2 across the summer of 1998, specifically the operations by your forces and
3 the forces under the command of General Delic, had been grossly
4 disproportionate. This is transcript 3063.
5 Were you aware that General Ojdanic was expressing the view that
6 your forces had acted in a grossly disproportionate manner?
7 A. I wasn't aware of that, and I doubt that he could have said so,
8 when in mid-1998 there were 25.000 armed members of sabotage and terrorist
9 forces. That has already become a rebellion.
10 Q. Final topic, if I may. You were -- gave us some evidence
11 yesterday in relation to the two maps that you had marked showing
12 deployments in the August and September offensives. I don't ask that they
13 be called up, but, for the record, they're P1103 and P1104.
14 I just wanted to make sure -- whether I had understood your
15 testimony correctly. In relation to that part of the deployments that
16 involved Prejlep and Rznic on each occasion.
17 First of all, in August we can see from the way that you have
18 marked the map that -- that -- this is 1103 -- that forces under your
19 command were stationed on the main road immediately opposite Prejlep.
20 Could I understand the position. Did your forces enter Prejlep and Rznic
21 in the August offensive or not?
22 A. This is the -- the first operation. And if I'm not mistaken, BG-3
23 supported it. I could be wrong, because I don't have the map in front of
24 me. It's a tank unit. It did not enter Prilep until MUP passed Prilep.
25 Only later a column of three tanks passed through. They walked on the
1 left side looking from Rznic. The feature is called Grdaja.
2 Q. And --
3 A. They did not enter Rznic either. They halted outside waiting for
4 the MUP forces to check what the situation was in Rznic.
5 On the left side a part of their neighbour on the left entered.
6 And if I am not mistaken, that's 15/3.
7 Q. In your statement - and I don't call it up - but at paragraph 104,
8 when describing this operation, you indicated that "as a result" -- and
9 I'm quoting: "As a result of using armour-piercing incendiary equipment,
10 hand-held rocket launchers and hand grenades, around 10 houses were set on
12 Were those pieces of equipment used by your forces?
13 A. Yes, my units used tank rounds, and inside of Prilep there were 60
14 terrorists. If each building harboured three of them, that meant that
15 there were 20 buildings there.
16 Q. And, again, so far as the September offensive is concerned, at
17 1104 - that is the map you've marked at P1104 - we have heard evidence
18 from Colonel Crosland who passed through, first of all, Prejlep and then
19 Rznic on the 8th -- I'm sorry, the 9th of September indicating -- he --
20 the testimony that he's given indicates that there was a joint force
21 there, which I think you've confirmed, with both T-55 - presumably battle
22 tanks - and Praga air-defence system in support. Is that right?
23 A. BG-3 did have tanks. I told you that there are seven tanks within
24 a BG. BG-3 did not have Pragas.
25 Q. So -- so is it your testimony that the Praga air-defence system
1 was not deployed in the September offensive in the area of Prejlep and
3 A. Whether they were deployed -- I suppose that they were used,
4 because they were available.
5 Q. So --
6 A. Because their neighbour had them. So I suppose that they were
7 used. And MUP also had some.
8 Q. I see. As far as you understood the position, was it permissible
9 for you to use anti-aircraft equipment such as the Praga for personnel
10 use, for anti-personnel use?
11 A. A combat rule for that piece of equipment envisages also targeting
12 ground targets, fortified buildings and personnel.
13 Q. Colonel Crosland testified that when he passed through Prejlep and
14 Rznic on this occasion there was no sign of the presence of KLA, no return
15 fire, but 300 combined troops, including VJ, firing indiscriminately into
16 buildings, looting, burning animal fodder, and slaughtering livestock
17 before the eyes of the international observers who passed by.
18 Just to be clear, that would have been a force that included
19 soldiers that you had deployed; is that correct?
20 A. I can't answer that question without knowing the exact position of
21 Colonel Crosland. I was, together with the commander of BG-3, in August
22 and no such thing happened. In September, on the other side, opposite
23 from where BG-3 passed, I wasn't present there.
24 MR. RE: Can I just ask for the transcript reference of that. I
25 was looking for it in the transcript. That is, Crosland's evidence on
1 that exact point.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. It's 26 -- sorry, 2969 to 2971 and 4668 to
3 4670. And the relevant sitrep is behind tab 26. And, for the record, is
4 65 ter number 1292.
5 Q. And in answer to your question, Mr. Zivanovic, for the purposes of
6 clarification, the description was given in respect of an operation being
7 conducted in Prejlep and in Rznic.
8 A. Which day?
9 Q. On the 9th of September. I'm sorry -- yes, on the 9th of
11 A. I can't say that with certainty either. BG-2, which was supposed
12 to coordinate with them to the right of Glamoc had reached Rznic. I -- if
13 I'm not mistaken, I don't have the map there but I remember an arrow. And
14 I cannot guarantee you that there were no terrorist forces in that sector.
15 Every commander is responsible for the acts of his forces in any operation
16 of MUP and army combined, and I have to tell you that we invested great
17 efforts in order to prevent any misconduct, abuse, and other things that I
18 spoke of.
19 Q. And --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: If I may also make reference to a transcript page.
23 That's 9440, line -- no, 9439, line 25. It reads: "I will certainly
24 conclude cross-examination within the hour."
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. And -- and I have.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You have.
2 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- then we'll have a break, since the hour is
4 gone by now.
5 We'll have a break until ten minutes to 6.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 5.53 p.m.
8 MR. EMMERSON: I -- I should simply mention.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, yes.
10 MR. EMMERSON: I should simply mention that the transcript behind
11 tab 30G of the second videotape most recently played to the witness --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. EMMERSON: -- needs to be marked for identification.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, that would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be marked for
16 identification as D182.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 We'll later come to what exactly is tendered and what exactly will
19 be admitted.
20 Mr. Harvey.
21 MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Harvey:
23 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, I represent Lahi Brahimaj, and I want to ask you
24 about two occasions when the forces under your command gave assistance to
25 the MUP in attacking Jabllanice. That would be at the beginning of August
1 and the first week of September of 1998. You understand?
2 A. I understand. The axis was, if I'm not mistaken, along the -- or
3 in the direction of the village of Jablanica, but those were not my
5 Q. Those were the forces of the 15th Armoured Brigade; is that
7 A. I believe so. I don't have the map here, so you'll excuse me if I
8 have to think about it for a while.
9 Q. Let's see what -- let's see what we can do with the assistance of
10 the documents.
11 When -- if we could go briefly, please, to Exhibit D80. That's
12 your tab 53. That's the decision by Commander Colonel General Pavkovic
13 to, in his words, crush the terrorist forces centres in Likovac, Ovcarevo,
14 and Jabllanice, and Gllogjan villages and Smonica village by of mounting
15 synchronised operations in the Drenica and Jablanica areas and continuing
16 the blockade of Junik and Jasic villages.
17 Do you have the document in front of you, sir?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. This is described in the first full paragraph as the -- a decision
20 to launch the third stage of the plan. What were the first two stages?
21 A. I'm trying to set a time frame on that, but this is how it went
22 roughly: The first stage was lifting the blockade of Kijevo. The second
23 stage was, I believe, Malisevo. And this was the third stage.
24 I have to express my reservations in telling you this, because I
25 don't feel that I have the competence over the matter to be able to tell
1 you about these stages. I don't know exactly.
2 Q. Okay. Well, this was Colonel General Pavkovic's request for
3 approval to launch this third stage, as it says in that document, and it's
4 followed in the next one by P1067 at tab 54, the same date, the 1st of
5 August, by the same General Pavkovic's decision.
6 Does that document have a military name? Is it a -- an -- a
7 command order? How would you describe that document?
8 A. This is a commander's document which states quite clearly the
9 decision to break up and destroy. You can see that right below the
10 heading where it says "the Command of the Pristina Corps."
11 Q. Yes, indeed.
12 Now, that in itself is a fairly short document by comparison with
13 the one I'm going to ask you to look at next, which is behind -- which is
14 tab 82, P1092, which deals with the September operation; those two first
15 documents dealing with the August operation.
16 Do you have your tab 82?
17 A. 80 ...
18 Q. This is a -- a 17-page document setting out in detail which units
19 are to do what, what -- what preparatory steps are to be taken, et cetera,
20 et cetera. Right?
21 A. Right. I believe that I made a sketch of that on the map
22 yesterday or the day before.
23 Q. Yes. My question is this: Would it be reasonable to assume that
24 there must have been a similarly detailed command for the August
25 operation, as we see here at tab 82 for the September operation?
1 A. I don't understand what you're saying. You're saying "command."
2 You mean the command of the Pristina Corps? Well, it had always existed.
3 Q. No, I'm sorry, the document number 82, it's a very detailed
4 document. Do you agree?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The document at 54 is just one and a half or two pages. It's a
7 much less-detailed document. Would you agree?
8 A. I agree. It can be understood as a preparatory order. It -- or
9 it was taken out of the original document. I only have one page of it in
11 Q. Right. Now, who was responsible for selecting all of the -- the
12 documents attached to your 92 ter statement, Mr. Zivanovic?
13 A. The Prosecutor and I.
14 Q. And would you agree with me that there must have been a much more
15 detailed document than that preparatory order, as I think you just
16 described it?
17 A. I can answer this way: It would be desirable for a clearer and
18 more precise document to exist, although it can be issued on a page a --
19 or a page and a half, because the situation in Smonica had been general
20 knowledge to us ever since the month of May.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.
22 MR. HARVEY: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Are we moving in circles? I do understand that you'd
24 like to know -- at least, I would like to know on the basis of your
25 questions by now, whether such a document exists.
1 MR. HARVEY: Yes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Why not ask the witness. Say: Does there exist such
3 an extensive report as well? Then we'd know and we could move on.
4 MR. HARVEY:
5 Q. You heard His Honour's question: Does there exist a more
6 extensive order?
7 A. No, it doesn't.
8 Q. Well, are you saying that there never was such an order or you
9 simply haven't located one?
10 A. I have never seen one, or else I would have shown it.
11 Q. You were asked a couple of questions by Mr. Emmerson concerning
12 the document that you have at tab 56. That's Defence Exhibit D165. And I
13 want you just to go back to tab 55, P1068, where General Pavkovic ordered
14 all units to report - and I'm looking at item 2 - whether there was
15 excessive use of force by units and MUP forces by axis. And that report
16 is dated the 7th of August, and it relates, of course, to the operation on
17 the 2nd and 3rd of August.
18 Was it standard practice after every operation to request a report
19 on whether there was excessive use of force, or was this an unusual
21 A. It was standard practice for every commander of a combat group to
22 make an analysis of the task implemented and to send it to the superior
23 command according to a specific procedure. It did not have to be made,
24 the analysis, in a couple of days' time. It could have been sent ten days
25 later or two weeks later once all the necessary information had been
2 Q. Mr. Zivanovic, you do understand my question. You're an
3 intelligent man. My question related to the use of excessive force. Was
4 it standard to ask if there was excessive force used?
5 A. That's what I was trying to tell you. In the analysis there is
6 one section of the report set aside for the information concerning a
7 possible excessive force that may have been used. So the answer was
9 Q. Well, the report that we have is the report from your command at
10 tab 56, Defence Exhibit D165. We don't have a report currently before the
11 Tribunal from the 15th Armoured Brigade. Did you not find one as you were
12 going through exhibits with the Prosecutor?
13 A. I didn't find it because I did not want to look for documents
14 authored by my colleagues who had their own respective tasks and
15 obligations, if you understand what I'm saying.
16 Q. If we could have exhibited in e-court, please, 3D01-1161.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Does that need a number?
18 MR. HARVEY: It will need a number, yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Registrar, that would be?
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be marked for
21 identification as D183.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
23 MR. HARVEY: Thank you.
24 And I regret that we do not have a copy of this document in B/S/C,
25 so if you'll allow me, Witness, to describe it briefly to you.
1 Q. This is the report dated the 7th of August of 1998 written by
2 Commander Colonel Mladen Cirkovic. Is it right he was the commander of
3 the 15th Armoured Brigade?
4 A. I only heard the name Mladen mentioned, but it's true that it was
5 Mladen Cirkovic.
6 Q. And this report is responding to General Pavkovic's request, just
7 as your own report at tab 56 responded to that request.
8 I'm going to take you down to number 2, which is, of course,
9 responding to paragraph 2 of General Pavkovic's request about the
10 possibility that excessive force had been used.
11 And it reads there - and I'm reading from the English - "During
12 operations against the armed Siptar" -- and it says here "derogatory term
13 for Albanians" -- "separatists, not once did VJ units and MUP forces on
14 the axes listed in item 1 use excessive force. Fire was opened on the
15 armed Siptar separatists only to neutralise targets which were endangering
16 human lives. The separatists opened fire from infantry weapons,
17 60-millimetre and 82-millimetre mortars and hand-held rocket launchers
18 from bunkers, fortified buildings, trenches and other local features
19 adapted for firing from. In no case was fire opened on the terrorists
20 when it was observed that civilians, diplomatic representatives,
21 humanitarian workers or some Monitoring Missions were in their combat
23 MR. HARVEY: Your Honours, I've just been handed a note, very
24 helpfully, to say that the original of this document is at 65 ter 01290.
25 Q. If we could go to the second page, it reads at item 3: "The
1 behaviour of the members of 15th Brigade and Combat Groups 2 and 3 of the
2 15th Armoured Brigade and the MUP units towards the population and their
3 property during the operations was completely appropriate to the combat
4 situation. We have no information regarding the behaviour of the MUP
5 units' members after the operation, because after the end of the
6 operations our units returned to their previous sectors."
7 Now, were you aware of civilian casualties that were caused during
8 that operation in Jabllanice in August of 1998?
9 A. I wasn't aware of that. This is the first time I hear of it. I
10 did not proceed along that route. My colleague was in charge of that, who
11 was under the same command as I was.
12 Q. Was it part of the duty of a commander to report civilian
14 A. If he knew, he was duty-bound to report on that. But you see that
15 he said that he withdrew right after the action was completed, and I
16 therefore suppose that he did not go into the inhabited area.
17 Q. And so the answer essentially is that if there were civilian
18 casualties, they must have been caused by the MUP, not by the VJ.
19 A. I can't tell you that. You'll understand that when fire is being
20 opened from a building or from a bunker, then fire is returned. And, of
21 course, a civilian has no business being there. The terrorist activity
22 functioned in an interlocked way, wherever -- whenever a village was
23 emptied of terrorists, another village would receive them.
24 Q. I want to have a look with you at your use of the word
25 "terrorists." Now, many armies throughout history have used derogatory
1 terms to describe their enemy, and perhaps this helps motivate troops.
2 For instance, at tab 82, P1092, under heading 6.4 - it's the tenth page -
3 you make a -- a major point about the importance of organising morale and
4 psychological preparations in all units just before execution of the task
5 to make sure that troops are motivated and ready to perform it. And you
6 also make the point that it's important to prevent the incidence of
7 defeatism, fear, and panic. I say "you." In fact, it's General Pavkovic.
8 Those are important as matters of military discipline, aren't
10 A. By all means.
11 Q. And is it also part of the morale and psychological preparations
12 to use derogatory terms about the enemy?
13 A. I explained on the first day that we referred to them as "sabotage
14 terrorist groups," "Siptar terrorist groups," or "Siptar terrorist
15 forces." I don't see anything derogatory in that.
16 Q. You know, surely, don't you, that the word "Siptar" is regarded as
17 derogatory when used by Serbs against or about ethnic Albanians in Kosovo?
18 A. For seven years I was in a military school. I had a room-mate, a
19 Siptar, and he never took offence at that. He, in fact, told me himself
20 that he was a Siptar.
21 Q. The expression, if we could look at P1065, which is your tab --
22 excuse me one second. Your tab 52. I beg your pardon. 1065 is your tab
23 51. You use the expression "Siptar gangs," and that is your document;
24 correct? Under item 5.
25 A. Yes, it's my document.
1 Q. And you see at item 5 there that you use the term "Siptar gangs";
3 A. Yes, that's what it says.
4 Q. And the next document, at tab 52, P1066, the first paragraph, some
5 lines down in the English: "Breaking up the Siptar hordes in the village
6 of Junik." Again, that's your term.
7 You habitually use this in a -- this expression as a derogatory
8 term, did you not, Mr. Zivanovic?
9 A. In this tab, we also have the term "Siptar gangs." It's
10 probably -- there are probably two or three documents where my operations
11 officer used that term. When we say "gang," it's not that we want to term
12 them in a derogatory manner. Rather, we are referring to the activities
13 that they are conducting.
14 Q. Oh, it's -- it's not your document any longer now. This is your
15 operations officer's document, is it?
16 A. No, no, I signed the document, which means that I stand by that
17 document, but my operations officer drafted it.
18 Q. Okay. You never use the expression "KLA forces," or "UCK forces,"
19 do you? Not in any of your documents.
20 A. Well, I don't know. I didn't make the comparison. If I did use
21 that term, then I probably put it in inverted commas, the "KLA."
22 Q. What you do say is "the so-called KLA"; right?
23 A. Yes. Yes, "the so-called KLA." I can't recognise it, since there
24 can be only one army in a country, in one's own country.
25 Q. And you --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey, could you -- the Chamber considers that a
2 lot of attention is paid to something which, unless you come to a
3 important point soon, is -- is not --
4 MR. HARVEY: I'm coming to it right now.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We are aware that the "so-called DDR" was an
6 expression used by the Western Germans for 20/25 years. I think that
7 finally that would not be the prominent aspect of the relationship between
8 Western and Eastern Germany.
9 Please proceed.
10 MR. HARVEY:
11 Q. What it comes down to then, Mr. Zivanovic, is this: You did not
12 recognise that they were really a military force. You regarded them
13 basically as a group of gangs from different localities. Right?
14 A. Initially it started out as classic terrorism known worldwide. In
15 mid-1998 there ensued a stage that was called rebel activities. And then
16 shortly before the NATO aggression, what followed was an armed rebellion.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Rather, the interpreter's correction, for the
18 second stage not rebel activities but insurgent activities.
19 MR. HARVEY:
20 Q. So shortly before the NATO aggression, as you call it, there was
21 a -- an armed rebellion at that stage. So in the -- about April of 1999?
22 A. No, no, the aggressor started attacking on the 24th of March and
23 then it continued from there onwards.
24 Q. Yes. Thank you for that correction. So are we talking about
25 January or February of 1999?
1 A. I'm speaking about February, March, and April.
2 Q. That's when you as a military man consider that an armed rebellion
4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Pardon. In what year are we?
5 MR. HARVEY: 1999, Your Honour. Shortly before the so-called NATO
7 Q. Is that -- is that -- Mr. Zivanovic, is that your evidence?
8 A. I am sorry. If I can add, I used the term "the so-called KLA,"
9 whereas, you use the term "the so-called NATO aggression." That's how
10 matters stand.
11 Q. My question, though, to you Witness - my irony aside - is: Are
12 you saying as a military man that armed -- the armed rebellion started in
13 approximately February of 1999?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. HARVEY: No further questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
17 Mr. Guy-Smith.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Guy-Smith:
19 Q. Good evening.
20 A. Good evening.
21 Q. Yesterday you said "by wherever there are terrorists present, that
22 is a target." And I -- I'd like to discuss the following with you with
23 that in mind: As I understand your testimony, there was a offensive in
24 August of 1998 that included, among other villages, the village of
25 Gllogjan; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And with regard to that offensive, would it be fair to say that
3 the following information is accurate, which is that a military convoy of
4 approximately 110 vehicles left Peje and headed for the villages of
5 Carrabreg, Prejlep, and Gramocelj, the villages of Baballoq, Dubrava,
6 Lluka e Eperme, Shaptej, Gllogjan, and Izniq were targeted?
7 A. It is correct to say that the vehicles left from Pec and they took
8 starting positions as I drew it on the sketch.
9 Q. And that would have been on the 11th of August of 1998; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The -- the previous day, the 10th of August, attacks were launched
12 on Gllogjan and there was fighting in Junik, Dushkaja and heavy artillery
13 was being used for that particular assault; correct?
14 A. I don't know which document you're referring to, especially when
15 it comes to Junik.
16 Q. Okay. If -- I'm referring to, at this time, a report - and this
17 is report number 430, which is in the system as 2D00-1227. And it won't
18 be -- it won't be in the documents you have, sir. It's -- it's a report
19 from the Council for the Defence of Human Rights and Freedoms in Kosovo,
20 in which various activities are -- are documented as just having occurred.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: And if we could have that brought up. It's up?
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Does it need a number, Mr. Guy-Smith?
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. If it could be marked for identification,
24 I'd appreciate it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we'll mark that for identification
2 as D184.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH:
5 Q. And I'm wondering if you can tell us whether the following is
6 accurate or not, which is -- looking at page 1 of that document, and I'll
7 read it to you because it's in English, under August 9th, referring to
8 Decan, it says: "From 9.30 a.m. until 8.00 p.m., an attack was launched
9 on Decan, Carrabreg i Poshtem, Prejlep, Lluka e Eperme, Rastavica, Beleg,
10 Shaptej, Gramocelj, Junik, Gllogjan, Irzniq, and Kodrali.
11 Now, were those -- for the 9th of August, are those all areas that
12 were targeted in the offensive that you were engaged in?
13 A. You know what? From 9.30 in the morning until 8.00 p.m.? No way
14 it could have lasted that long. We would have used up all the ammunition
15 we had at our disposal.
16 Q. I see. You mentioned yesterday that in the types of weapons that
17 you were using that you used different -- you used different kinds of
18 ammunition and every third or fourth bullet could have been an incendiary
19 one. Do you recall giving that evidence?
20 A. Yes. At PKT, every third or fifth could be that. And in PAM it's
21 mandatory that every third one should be. That's a tactical rule on the
22 use of that equipment.
23 Q. Could you by any chance help -- help me here. Do you know what
24 a -- I think it's called a Kaqusha missile is?
25 A. I've never heard of Kacusa.
1 Q. The report that I was just referring to goes on to say forwards -
2 the same date, same page - "Different kinds of weapons were used,
3 including 'Kaqusha' missiles." But that's something you're not familiar
4 with. Correct?
5 A. Oh, you mean Kaqusha. Yes, I'm aware of what that is. It's a
6 Russian system. We have a corresponding system which is a multi-barreled
7 rocket launcher, 128 millimetres.
8 Q. And all of the places that I mentioned on -- that were attacked on
9 the 9th, those are all villages; correct?
10 A. These settlements are villages, that's correct. About 500
11 terrorists were stationed there, according to -- according to our
12 information at the time.
13 Q. On -- on August 10th - and that will be page 2 - you -- you launch
14 an attack using both the Serbian police and military forces on Gllogjan;
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. On August 12th - this is page 3 - the -- the following is
18 reported: "It is the fourth day of the Serbian offensive Defence the
19 videolinks in the districts of Decan and Gjakova. 250 military vehicles
20 were engaged in this action. Many villages are under attack: Junik,
21 Gllogjan, Gramaqel, Baballoq, Shaptej, Dubrava, Lluka e Eperme, Irzniq,
22 Prejlep, Carrabreg i Poshtem, Beleg, Kodrali, and Pozhar."
23 Is that an accurate reflection of the villages that were under
24 attack on the 12th of August?
25 A. If it is within the spirit of the map that I drew, then yes,
1 that's correct.
2 Q. Are you aware of the following occurring on the 6th of August -
3 and that will be found at 2D1209, which is report number 429. And I'm
4 referring the Chamber and counsel to page 2. It indicates the following
5 report: "Last night Serbian police and military forces shelled Shaptej,
6 Prejlep, and Carrabreg -- excuse me, Carrabreg i Poshtem. The village was
7 shelled by" --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, I missed whether we are still on the
9 same document or whether it's a new one that needs a number.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do apologise. It's going to need -- it's going
11 to need a number.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because if it hasn't got a number --
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: You're right.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- then Chambers have difficulties in consulting the
16 Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be D185.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH:
20 Q. "The village was shelled by tanks and armoured cars stationed on a
21 hill near Prejlep and along the road from Decan to Gjakova."
22 Are you familiar with that action being taken?
23 A. I accept everything that I drew on the map. I would like to see
24 it, to be able to see it to verify. You are now referring to the document
25 that I am not familiar with and I cannot follow the interpretation fast
2 Q. If -- if you had a -- a map in front of you, would that be of
3 assistance with regard to the issue of whether or not these actions were
4 taken on these dates?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. I'm thinking that --
7 MR. EMMERSON: I think the witness may be referring to Exhibit
9 JUDGE ORIE: That is the map marked by a witness in another case.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's just what I was thinking, yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please show that to the witness, P1103.
12 Perhaps if you give him a hard copy. That's the -- if that would
13 be possible, so that he could consult that, because the map -- to look at
14 the map on the screen is not easy, because it's rather small.
15 Mr. Emmerson, could you assist? I take it that --
16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
17 MR. GUY-SMITH: Do you have a map right there that you could give
19 MR. EMMERSON: I have one copy of the hard copy that the witness
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps you could ask, first of all, to -- to
22 ask the witness whether he could work on the basis of this.
23 Perhaps, Madam -- well, Madam Usher has the original, I take it.
24 Yes. Could it be shown to the witness, Madam Usher.
25 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you so much.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH:
3 Q. I take it you don't have my last question in mind, and let me
4 repeat it for you to be of assistance, which is -- this is a report of
5 August 6th in which it states the following: "Last night Serbian police
6 and military forces shelled Shaptej, Prejlep, and Carrabreg i Poshtem.
7 The village was shelled by tanks and armoured cars stationed on a hill
8 near Prejlep and along the road from Decan to Gjakova."
9 A. That's why I asked to see the map. And this is what I was able to
10 confirm, that this operation was carried out between the 12th and the 13th
11 of August. Everything else are just stories, so I cannot confirm what
12 you're asking. The military did not participate in this.
13 Q. I see. Were you in contact with MUP forces at that time who were
14 acting independently but engaged in actions that were military in nature?
15 A. My forces were in contact with them. BG-2 was in the area of trig
16 point 505, in the Junik area, and they were touching upon MUP forces in
17 the area Rastavica-Slunj-Pobrdze.
18 Q. So there's a -- so the information that is contained here is
19 information that could possibly be attributed to MUP activity, as opposed
20 to either joint VJ-MUP activity or VJ activity by itself, since we've
21 ruled that out.
22 A. I cannot claim that with certainty, but it wasn't planned for the
23 Army of Yugoslavia to support the MUP units before this period of time.
24 There was some preparatory orders, but they were not implemented due to
25 the fact that the MUP forces were unable to do that.
1 Q. In the month of July, in the latter part of July, you were engaged
2 in shelling a number of areas, were you not?
3 A. I can't say either way without there being more detail.
4 Q. Very well.
5 A. What areas?
6 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... First of all, on July 26th -
7 this would be 2D1241, and it's going to need a number.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be marked for
11 identification as D186.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: [Microphone not activated]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
15 Q. And referring you to page 4 -- I'm sorry, I apologise, page 5 of
16 that document. I read you the following: "Decan. There were fierce
17 clashes in all regions affected with war in the district of Decan. Since
18 4.45 in the morning, Serbian police and military forces are shelling the
19 villages of Junik, Voksh, Carrabreg i Poshtem, Prejlep, and Baballoq."
20 A. As far as I can see, this is dated the 23rd of July. Correct?
21 Q. No, this is dated the 26th of July.
22 A. I don't quite understand the term "shelling." MUP is outside of
23 Crnobreg and also outside of Prilep, so there's no need for any shelling.
24 If I'm not mistaking, Babaloc lies below Erecka Suka. I don't know if
25 it's visible. I think that it is visible from that elevation.
1 As for Decani, that place was encircled.
2 Q. Well, are you -- are you suggesting that -- that you did not
3 engage in shelling at that time because of the proximity of the villages
4 to your units and tanks?
5 A. No, no, I had BG-2 deployed. I told you where. In the area
6 around Junik that was encircled.
7 As for BG-3, it was just being given the task to come there. If
8 you remember, on the 25th and 26th it was marching towards Iglarevo and
9 that area in order to proceed with these activities.
10 As for shelling, I don't know what "shelling" means to this
11 organisation that produced the report. It's quite debatable what they
12 mean under that term.
13 Q. Well, for purpose of our discussion, what do you mean by
14 "shelling"? Yesterday you spoke with Mr. Emmerson about long-range
15 shelling for purposes of supporting certain forward-acting units. That's
16 one form of shelling. I take it that in the world of a military operation
17 there's more than long-range shelling that occurs.
18 A. We, the military people, consider shelling to be fire opened from
19 artillery pieces over 100-millimetre calibre.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, during the time that the villages were being
21 engaged, shall we say, attacked, there was an existing problem of the
22 civilian population and refugees, was there not?
23 A. When this operation was being carried out, we had intelligence
24 that the refugees were in the sector of Baranski Lug, the people that had
1 Q. And when you say you had intelligence that the people were in that
2 area, how many people were in that area at that time?
3 A. If I'm not mistaken, in one of the documents of the corps command
4 there is a figure of 15.000. About 15.000.
5 Q. From -- and I want to do this, if I can, somewhat quickly, because
6 I am taking a look at the clock and I understand we're to finish with this
7 witness today?
8 JUDGE ORIE: We have to finish with the witness today.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH:
10 Q. Yes. From the month of May through September - and listen to what
11 I'm about to tell you - according to the reports that I have from the
12 organisation that I've previously mentioned, I have reports documenting
13 over 50 separate incidents of shelling of villages. And by "shelling of
14 villages," I'm referring to villages in the Decan area and specifically
15 the villages that I have mentioned to you before and others.
16 Does that figure - and by that I mean the figure of 50 separate
17 incidents of shelling of villages - seem to be to you an accurate one,
18 based upon your knowledge of what you were doing in that area at that
20 A. I can't answer your question with precision either with a "yes" or
21 a "no," because when an operation is being carried out, we consider one
22 operation to be one instance of firing.
23 Q. Well, I think it would be fair to say, would it not, that when you
24 shelled a village, the reason -- or the ostensible reason that you gave
25 for shelling the village was that you had information that terrorists were
1 present, therefore it was a target. Right?
2 A. Yes, where the terrorists were deployed. We shelled only if we
3 had a guiding officer observing the target. Remember the tab that had six
4 or seven targets? We used only one of them, because we had the facility
5 of guiding. We couldn't use other ones.
6 Q. How did you make a distinction between the civilian population
7 that was living in a village and your object of shelling?
8 A. The observer, the artillery man in charge of fire, was directly
9 responsible in ensuring that there would be no civilian casualties.
10 Q. So in -- if I -- if I understand your evidence correctly, every
11 time that there was shelling, there was an observer and that observer made
12 the determination before you let loose with any of the cannon fire that
13 there were no civilians present in the area that you were attacking.
14 A. Yes, one could say so, because the artillery man had an artillery
15 compass, also artillery binoculars, and other optical instruments at his
17 Q. I take it from what you've just told us, then, that there is a
18 record of no civilian casualties for those villages that you shelled as a
19 result of the observations that were made before you let loose with cannon
21 A. Yes, we had strict orders not to allow for any civilian casualties
22 to occur.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, if you --
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. I'm looking -- I'm looking at the
25 clock. I should indicate to -- to the Chamber that I have a number of
1 other reports that deal with dates specific, and I will --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- deal with them --
4 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, we have heard from this witness
5 many reports and documents were put to him, and I think --
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I --
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- until now he gave explanations, whether satisfying
8 or not, we might go on with that for another couple of hours.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I'm done at this time, and I'm going to seek
10 another mechanism to -- to deal with the balance of this particular issue.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I cede the balance of my time to the
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, we heard a lot of evidence on all the
15 military activities that were initiated in the area. We have now heard
16 for quite some time questions by the Defence on the appropriateness or,
17 rather, on the inappropriateness of the military action taken. Is there
18 anything at this moment you'd like to ask the witness, without going into,
19 I would say, all of the details which may not have assisted the Chamber
20 very much?
21 Please proceed.
22 Re-examination by Mr. Re:
23 Q. Earlier Mr. Harvey questioned you about the term "Siptar gangs."
24 By that were you referring to the KLA?
25 A. Conditionally speaking, yes.
1 Q. What do you mean "conditionally speaking"?
2 A. I am referring to the so-called KLA.
3 Q. Yesterday you brought to court a diagram you had done over the
4 weekend which was of the wedging and burning.
5 MR. RE: Is that in the court at the moment?
6 JUDGE ORIE: I think the parties had an opportunity to have a look
7 at it. At least, that's what I invited to be done. If you have any
8 further questions on that, of course, then we'd like to have it on the
10 MR. RE: I don't have any further questions. I'd simply like the
11 witness to identify it and to tender it, unless there is any opposition.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 I see already Mr. Harvey nodding "no." Mr. Emmerson? And
14 Mr. Guy-Smith?
15 Then the witness could identify --
16 Is that what you -- the sketch you made?
17 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are nodding "yes."
19 Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
20 THE REGISTRAR: P1106, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Still to be uploaded in e-court. Since there
22 is no objection, P1106, as it appears on the transcript, is admitted into
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. RE:
1 Q. You were asked a number of questions yesterday by Mr. Emmerson --
2 or today, I'm sorry, in relation to - and yesterday - the expansion of the
3 border zone or the border area from 100 metres to 5 kilometres. And you
4 gave some evidence on it. I just wish you to have a look at another
5 document which hasn't been admitted into evidence yet. It's 65 ter number
7 Can that please be shown to the witness.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be number?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be P1107.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Could it be shown on the screen.
12 Q. It's a document dated the 7th of May, 1998, signed by Colonel
13 Vladimir Lazarevic. It's a regular combat report to the Pristina Corps
14 command and the 3rd Army. And I just want to take you to paragraph 3 or
15 point 3 of the document. That's the third page, in which it says in the
16 English: "Warn all DG security organs of the danger of falling prey to
17 terrorist ambushes and prepare them for successful completion of tasks.
18 Complete the system of securing the state border with the Republic of
19 Albania in accordance with the decision by the Federal -- by the FRY
20 federal government on the widening of the border belt. Be at the ready to
21 complete this task by 1700 hours on 8th of May, 1998."
22 Now, that document suggests that the decision had been made before
23 the 7th of May. Does that assist your recollection as to when the FRY
24 government made that decision?
25 A. I can't tell you the exact date. I suppose that it was made,
1 since Colonel Lazarevic is invoking it. I think that on the 26th of April
2 that it could have been the date that you're looking for, but I'm not
3 sure, because I am confusing the dates of when one state was created and
4 the other one ceased to exist.
5 Q. Yesterday Mr. Emmerson asked you about your statement and, in
6 particular, paragraph 83 of your statement tendered under Rule 92 ter.
7 And that's P1017, where it says: "A joint VJ/MUP operation aimed at
8 unblocking the main roads in the Metohija area took place at the end of
10 Ask you -- there was -- because of the time, I'm not going to take
11 you to the questioning. What I want to ask you about is in relation to
12 correcting something in the statement there.
13 I want you to explain to the Chamber what you meant where you
14 wrote or signed "a joint VJ/MUP operation" meant. What did you understand
15 to mean by the term "operation"?
16 A. What I meant is that the MUP and we were in coordinated action in
17 the axis Pavle Ilic [phoen]-Kosare-Morina. We were to take the road
18 Djakovica, Ponosevac, Junik, Pec, and this action operation is very
19 important for me. I kept repeating that on the 23rd of May, I headed a BG
20 leaving from Djakovica. We were sitting ducks basically, and I was
21 praying for the morale in the unit to remain at the level where it was.
22 Fortunately, nobody was wounded or died, and for me that was a fortuitous
24 MR. RE: I note the time. I note the time. It's just past 7.00.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ORIE: I would have one question for you.
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE ORIE: And that's the following: You told us about military
4 material, vehicles painted blue and that it was done on Belgrade orders,
5 to say it briefly. Where did that material come from? Was that imported
6 from elsewhere or was it already present in the area and then on the
7 orders of Belgrade painted in a different colour?
8 A. Special police units were equipped with similar assets as were at
9 the disposal of the VJ. And I meant the PJP. In order for us to
10 distinguish between one and the other force, the Ministry of the
11 Interior and the defence ministry decided that the vehicles of the army be
12 repainted blue so that we could distinguish amongst ourselves.
13 JUDGE ORIE: That was material that was already in the region or
14 was it imported from elsewhere? I mean from elsewhere, well, whatever
15 other part of the Federal Republic at that time. I mean not Kosovo.
16 A. A small number of vehicles, such as the Russian armoured vehicles;
17 then the M-60 APCs were already held by the regular police forces in
18 Kosovo. Everything else arrived with the forces coming from Central
19 Serbia. Therefore, they were outside the territory of Kosovo and
21 JUDGE ORIE: Were they transported just -- were they just
22 transported -- well, let's say loaded onto trucks, or was that military
23 material that was possessed at that moment by active units?
24 A. At the level of Belgrade and the ministries, certain units from
25 the reserve forces re-assigned the assets to the MUP, and we regarded them
1 as MUP assets. We, the military, regarded them this way because we no
2 longer -- we were no longer able to dispose with them.
3 JUDGE ORIE: These certain units, where were they located? Were
4 they located in Kosovo as well, or did they accompany that material to
6 A. For instance, if the 5th Detachment arrived from the area of
7 Belgrade, then the detachment would bring the assets along.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So troops and their material came. Material
9 was made available to the MUP forces and was painted blue. Is that
10 correctly understood?
11 A. Yes. Pursuant to the decision of the Ministry of Defence and
12 Ministry of the Interior. Later on they remained MUP assets permanently.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that those units who brought that
14 material in were without that material once they were made available to
15 the MUP. Or was their material replaced by other material?
16 A. The agreement was that after the war, in 1999 the assets would be
17 returned to the army. But this was never done.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those answers.
19 Then this concludes your testimony. Mr. Zivanovic, I'd like to
20 thank you very much for coming to The Hague. You had to stay for quite a
21 while in The Hague. You've answered all the questions put to you by
22 Defence and Prosecution and by the Bench. I'd like to thank you for
23 coming and I wish you a safe trip home again.
24 Madam Usher, could you escort the witness out of the courtroom.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 [The witness withdrew]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'd like to address the parties. I do
3 understand that there's some difference of views on the admission of the
4 statement, which most likely will be tendered tomorrow. I received some
5 information about objections against -- or at least, well, let's say, a
6 discussion or correspondence between Defence and Mr. Dutertre.
7 Is that correct, Mr. Guy-Smith? I think you were one of the
8 authors of that correspondence.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber urges the parties to see whether
11 they can resolve this matter as quickly as possible. If not, from what
12 I've seen from the correspondence, I'm afraid that I have to use my colour
13 printer late this evening - red and green, I think - and then I would like
14 to meet the parties tomorrow at 7.30. So --
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: 7.30?
16 JUDGE ORIE: If there's no agreement. Of course, we would prefer
17 to have an agreement. But otherwise, because we can't afford to lose any
18 moment tomorrow while we are in court. We have to deal with two
19 witnesses. Therefore, we just --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: 7.00?
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, 7.30 would be -- unless you think that --
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, whatever -- whatever works.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. 7.30 tomorrow morning, if --
24 Yes, Mr. Emmerson.
25 MR. EMMERSON: I'm -- the reason I'm furrowing my brows is because
1 my understanding was that we were sitting in the afternoon tomorrow, but I
2 may be wrong about that.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But the meetings -- I have other things on my
5 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So therefore it would be -- still would be 7.30 so
7 that we are sure and -- that I can follow the programme I had in mind
8 tomorrow morning.
9 But, of course, the Chamber would prefer to have the parties agree
10 on the matters, since we have quite a bit of experience now on where
11 approximately the Chamber draws lines.
12 Then I would like to apologise to the interpreters and to the
13 technicians, and we adjourn until tomorrow, the 17th of October, quarter
14 past 2.00, Courtroom I.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.09 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 17th day
17 of October, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.