1 Monday, 22 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everybody, both in the courtroom
6 and those assisting us from just outside the courtroom.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
9 everyone in the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor
10 versus Ramush Haradinaj, et al.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 In view of the next witness to be called by the Prosecution, I'd
13 like to go into private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Page 9618 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will immediately rule on the oral
10 application for protective measures, the standard being an objectively
11 grounded risk to security or the welfare of the witness or the witness's
12 family should it become known that the witness has given evidence before
13 this Tribunal. We have two different ways to meet that standard, since
14 the second three-prong test has been met, there's no need to further
15 consider the factual basis for the threats which are under the first test.
16 The second three-prong test being that combination of the
17 following: That the witness's testimony may antagonise persons who reside
18 in, in this case, in the former Yugoslavia, in Kosovo; that the family of
19 the witness live in that territory; and that there is -- exists an
20 unstable security situation in the territory which is particularly
21 unfavourable to witnesses who appear before the Tribunal.
22 And as it appears from pages 3955 and 56, the parties have agreed
23 upon the -- on the fulfilment of this last condition; therefore, the
24 protective measures are granted.
25 Mr. Registrar, since the reasons for the protective measures have
1 to be delivered in open session, the last few words can be made public on
2 the transcript, because we're still in -- we are still in private session.
3 The protective measures, face distortion -- distortion -- voice
4 distortion, and pseudonym.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: We now turn into open session.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 The Chamber just granted protective measures for the next witness
10 to be called; the relevant portion of the transcript, which is now still
11 in private session, can be made public. That is, only the reasons for
12 granting these protective measures.
13 Now, for the witness to enter the courtroom, we have to pull the
14 curtains down. I do understand that all preparations are put in place for
15 face distortion and voice distortion; the pseudonym of the witness will be
16 Witness 52.
17 Meanwhile, I perhaps already could address a few matters.
18 There is a Prosecution motion, a combined motion for the testimony
19 of -- under 92 bis or to subpoena the relevant witness. That was a motion
20 filed on the 17th of October. And the Chamber would very much like to
21 receive the response by the Defence as soon as possible. That is, this
23 Then -- yes. Similarly, the Chamber would very much like to
24 receive a response to the Prosecution's ninth motion for the testimony via
25 videolink, a motion for which an addendum was filed on the 19th of October
1 in which but a legible and fully translated versions of the medical
2 reports and the certificates are given. That are already two practical
4 [The witness entered court]
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 52, do you hear me in a language you
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I invite you to stand.
10 Before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of Procedure and
11 Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you'll speak the
12 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I usually invite
13 witnesses to read that statement, to make that statement by reading the
14 text. Can you read?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. If I must read, yes, I can
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Perhaps Madam Usher will hand out to you now
18 the text of the solemn declaration and I'll read it first for you. It
19 says: "I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
20 and nothing but the truth."
21 Would you please make that solemn declaration now.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much, Witness 52. Please be seated.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS SST7/52
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Curtains can be drawn up again.
4 Witness 52, I do not address you by your own name because the
5 Trial Chamber has decided that you will testify with a pseudonym, that is,
6 not using your name but calling you "Witness 52"; and also, that your face
7 will not be broadcasted and your voice also will be distorted so that
8 although the outside world can hear the content of your testimony, they
9 can't see your face, they can't hear your own voice.
10 You will first be examined by Mr. Di Fazio, who's counsel for the
11 Prosecution. He's standing over there, so perhaps you look at him.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio:
14 Q. Witness, I'd like you to look at the television screen that's in
15 front of you because I'm going to ask that a document be put up on it.
16 And you can just have a look at it.
17 Can the witness be shown 65 ter 2101, please. Now, that's got
18 some English and some of your own language in writing there. Can you look
19 at those details and can you tell us if those details are correct; namely,
20 your last name, your first name, (redacted) first name, your date of
21 birth, and your place of birth. Are they -- are they correct?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. I --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that would be exhibit number?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, I'll add the allocation of the
1 numbers to Professor Aleksandric's exhibits. This would be P1137.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, and under seal. No objections.
3 Therefore, admitted into evidence.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
6 Q. Just one more personal detail that I need to ask you about.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Is it -- is it -- can that be done --
8 MR. DI FAZIO: We're still in --
9 JUDGE ORIE: We're in open session at this point.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: My apologies. I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Until now you just said what kind of data --
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- there was on the pseudonym sheet but not any
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then turn into private session.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: Private session, yes.
18 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
1 Q. Witness, can you tell us if in the mid-part of 1998 (redacted)
2 was still carrying out his occupation or whether he was retired.
3 A. He had retired.
4 Q. And was that for health reasons?
5 A. He was ill.
6 Q. And was he residing in -- at home with you in your village?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And about -- thinking back to the time that you last saw
9 (redacted), about how long before that would you say that he had retired?
10 A. A year.
11 Q. Thank you. Did (redacted) speak Serbian? I mean by that was he
12 able to? Did he have a command of that language?
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Now, I want you to turn your mind, please, if you
15 would, to the period of time around July of 1998. At that time, were you
16 still residing in your village, in the village that -- whose name you
17 mentioned in private session?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And was your family happy to be living in that village at that
20 time, or did it take decisions about -- about leaving?
21 A. At that time, in July, we wanted to stay.
22 Q. And is that in fact what you did, what your family did?
23 A. Yes. Yes.
24 Q. Was there ever a time when you wanted to leave or tried to leave?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you remember approximately when that was? If you can't
2 remember, just say so; but if you can remember, tell us.
3 A. It was end of June, I think, or maybe the beginning of July.
4 Q. And what -- what happened at the end of June or maybe the
5 beginning of July? Tell us in your own words what -- what -- what
7 A. Yes. We didn't know what was going on and we heard that the
8 police, the Serbian police, were leaving. The whole village was leaving.
9 In fact, it was not like that. It was only the police that -- the Serbian
10 police that were leaving. And we started to leave our village and some
11 people told us, "You can go back to your home, because Albanians are not
12 leaving. It's only the Serbs that are leaving," because the Serbs had
13 been stationed there.
14 Q. Thank you. I -- I just want to ask you, to get a few more details
15 about that answer that you just gave us. You -- you said that the Serbian
16 police were leaving.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How were they leaving? How did you -- did you see anything or
19 hear anything that indicated that the Serbian police were leaving?
20 A. Yes, we heard that they were leaving.
21 Q. And did you hear where they were leaving from? Where were they
22 leaving from?
11 (redacted) But now you've told us that the police were leaving that village,
12 and did that have any effect on -- on your family and on (redacted)?
13 A. We thought that the whole village were leaving, but -- well, I
14 don't know. We went back home, and that was it.
15 Q. Thank you. All right. But let me -- tell me if this -- if I
16 understand you correctly. You -- your family actually left your own
17 village but returned after being told that it was only the Serbian police
18 that were leaving. Is that right?
19 A. We set off. We were trying to leave. We went halfway, and that's
20 where we were told that, "You don't need to leave. It's only the Serbian
21 police that are leaving and not the villagers."
22 Q. All right. Thank you. And can you tell the Trial Chamber, can
23 you tell the Judges if -- if it was just your family alone that was -- was
24 leaving or whether it was lots of families from your village?
25 A. There were other families as well. It was not only us.
1 Q. Okay. And they were also told the same thing, that they could go
3 A. Yes, they returned as well.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, who -- think back and do your best, but who
5 explained to -- to the families, to your family and the other families
6 that were leaving your village, that they could go back to their village?
7 Who actually said that to them?
8 A. Well, when things are said in the village, you get to learn about
9 them very soon.
10 Q. Okay. Let me ask you the question again. I'll try and be a
11 little clearer. Okay? You've told us that you, your family, left the
12 village and so did other families. But along the way, you told us --
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. Along the way you told us that these families, including your
15 family, were told that they could go back and only the Serbian police were
16 leaving. Now, who told the family -- the families that?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Di Fazio, yes, the second or the third time now
18 that you said "only the Serb police was leaving" there. The witness
19 testified that the -- not the Albanians were leaving but the Serbs were
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Not specifically Serb police which --
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I see. I don't want to compound my error and I'm
24 grateful to Your Honours for that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Now, Witness 52 what Mr. Di Fazio very much would
1 like to know, I take it, is that when you were told that you could go
2 back, who exactly told you that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were a couple of young men and
4 they said to us that we could go back because only the police are
5 leaving -- leaving. And that was on the same day that we had set off.
6 MR. DI FAZIO:
7 Q. Can you remember if these -- these young men were in uniform or
8 had any insignia on them?
9 A. They were dressed normally, the ones that told us we could go
10 back. They had their everyday clothes on.
11 Q. Okay. And can you tell us if, in addition to being dressed in
12 their everyday clothes, whether they were armed or not.
13 A. No.
14 Q. All right. Thank you.
15 I just may have missed asking you this: Why did you and your
16 family want to leave? Do you know what the reason was?
17 A. The reason was (redacted).
18 Q. Okay. Perhaps we should go into private session here.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Pages 9630-9634 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry, I jumped the gun.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
16 MR. DI FAZIO:
17 Q. About how long before (redacted) disappearance did -- would you
18 say you saw these -- the last time you saw (redacted), anyway -- would
19 you say that you saw these three men?
20 A. Would you like me to give you a date?
21 Q. If you can. But, of course, if you can't give us a date, that's
22 okay. But you just tell us if -- if it was a matter of --
23 A. Yes. Yes. It was the 1st of August. It was 11.00.
24 Q. Okay. Is this the same day that you last saw your (redacted)?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. So you saw the group of three men on the last day that you saw
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Had you received any other visits from those men before this one?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Did (redacted) own a weapon in 1998?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did he ever give that weapon to anyone?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. To whom -- you don't -- you don't have to use names, but to whom
11 did he give his weapon?
12 A. Unknown persons.
13 Q. And was that on this very same day that he -- you last saw him, or
14 did he give his weapon to unknown persons before, before that last day
15 that you saw him?
16 A. It was on the day when we left the village and then returned.
17 That was the day when these persons came and asked for the gun.
18 Q. All right. Okay. So let's talk about this day. Okay? Don't be
19 nervous. It's -- you're -- just think about the questions and answer
21 Now, we're talking about this day. And -- and you've told us that
22 these three persons came and asked for the gun. Now, apart from the gun,
23 did (redacted) give them anything -- anything else, apart from the gun?
24 A. It was not a rifle. It was a pistol that he had a licence for.
25 Q. Okay. And he -- you've told us that he gave them that weapon.
1 Fair enough.
2 A. Yes.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 9638 redacted. Private session.
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
7 Q. Did -- did (redacted) continue to reside in the house after this
8 occasion when he handed over those items?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And did you have any more visits?
11 A. Yes. Yes.
12 Q. And in relation to the last time you ever saw (redacted), when
13 was the next visit? Or was it, in fact, on that occasion, the -- the last
14 day you saw him?
15 A. Before (redacted) disappeared, two days earlier than that two
16 people came. They searched the house and they couldn't find anything.
17 And they came two days later then and took (redacted).
18 Q. Thank you. Now, tell us a bit more about this visit where the
19 house was searched. Firstly, did you know the -- the names or identities
20 of the persons? And just indicate with a "yes" or a "no" and don't tell
21 us the names, if you know them; but did you know the names, or not?
22 A. No, that day, no.
23 Q. Okay. So now I just want you to tell us more details of these --
24 of these people whose names you did not know and who came and searched
25 your house. Were they -- how were they dressed?
1 A. The last day they came and asked for (redacted) was
2 sleeping at the time because he had had a heart attack, so he was taking
3 medicine for that. Three people came and asked for him. We did not know
5 Q. Can I just interrupt you there. We'll get on to this, but, first
6 of all, I want to know about the occasion when two people came and
7 searched the house before, before (redacted) disappeared. Okay? Now,
8 let's just stick your mind -- keep your mind on that episode. All right?
9 That's -- that's --
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'm -- that's the episode I'm asking you about now.
12 Now, on this day when the two people whose name you did not know
13 came to the house, can you remember how they were dressed? These two
14 people whose names you did not know?
15 A. They were -- they were in uniform, black uniforms.
16 Q. And were they armed?
17 A. I don't know. I cannot say. But they had big jackets on and we
18 did not have time to look properly. But they searched us.
19 Q. Thank you. Okay. They -- they searched the house, you've told
20 us. And did -- did you -- did they ever say what it was that they were
21 looking for? Did you ever get any information about what they -- they
22 were looking for?
23 A. Yes. Weapons and other uniforms.
24 Q. Did they find anything?
25 A. No, they didn't, because we did not have any.
1 Q. Now, I take it they left and (redacted) continued to stay at
3 A. Yes, they left. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Now, thank you for telling us about that visit. Now,
5 after that visit, were there any more visits?
6 A. Only when he disappeared.
7 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you about that one. So focus
8 your mind on that day, and we'll start getting you to tell us the story
9 about that day. Okay?
10 Now, first of all, can you remember the date of the day that
11 (redacted) disappeared?
12 A. It was the 1st of August.
13 Q. Of what year?
14 A. 1998. It was 11.00.
15 Q. Thank you. Who came to the house?
16 A. Three persons; two that had been two days earlier and another one
17 whom we didn't know.
18 Q. Okay. So the result is that of the three people who came to your
19 house, you didn't know the name of any of those three.
20 A. No, we didn't know them.
21 Q. And tell the Trial Chamber in your own words what happened on the
22 day that they came.
23 A. That day - it was around 11.00 - (redacted) was sleeping, because
24 he had just taken his medicine. The three men came and asked for him and
25 said that they had an order from the commander to take (redacted) for 20
1 minutes and he would be brought back again.
2 Then I went and woke (redacted) up. I told him everything what I
3 had been told, and they stayed for about ten minutes there with us. They
4 were waiting. We didn't know them at all, because they were unknown to
6 (redacted) got up and went.
7 Q. And can you remember how these men were dressed?
8 A. Yes. Two of them in black clothes, while the third one had a
9 camouflage uniform.
10 Q. And can you -- if you can recall, can you tell us if they were
11 armed or unarmed?
12 A. I couldn't say. I don't remember.
13 Q. And how were they traveling?
14 A. They came by car, but when they came into the yard, they were on
15 foot, of course, and they spoke to us.
16 Q. Thanks. Did you -- were you provided with any information about
17 where they were taking him?
18 A. Yes. They said that they had an order from a commander. They
19 didn't say where, though. They just said that they would bring him back
20 in 20 minutes.
21 Q. All right. And these men, were they Albanians or
23 A. Yes. Yes, they were speaking Albanian.
24 Q. Okay. Did you -- did (redacted) return that night?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you in the -- in the day or days following, did you or members
2 of your family start to try and make inquiries about where he was and what
3 had happened to him?
4 A. Yes. We went to make inquiries. We asked in the village. There
5 was a -- what we called a headquarters in the village in a basement. We
6 didn't know about it, as a matter of fact, but by asking people we learned
7 about it, and we asked, "Where is he? Why did he not come back?" And we
8 were told, "He will be back. He will come back. Don't worry."
9 Q. All right. This was --
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Sorry to interrupt. In order to understand
11 completely, the time, was it 11.00 in the morning or 11.00 in the evening
12 when they came and took (redacted)?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the morning.
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 Q. Now, these inquiries, were they made in your -- in your own
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And who was it who was telling you, "He will be back. He will
20 come back. Don't worry"?
21 A. There were many people there. We didn't know who we were talking
22 to. I was with my grandmother and younger brother. We went there to ask
23 about the whereabouts of (redacted). And they just told us, "He will be
24 back." I had the impression they didn't know what to tell us themselves.
25 Q. And were these men who were saying these things to you, that --
1 that he would be back, were they -- can you tell us how they were dressed?
2 A. They were wearing everyday clothes.
3 Q. And this place called a headquarters in the village, headquarters
4 of what?
5 A. Headquarters of what? This was the basement of a villager.
6 Q. But you -- you -- you yourself, your own words are that "there was
7 a headquarters in the village." Now, headquarters of what?
8 A. Of the KLA.
9 Q. Thank you. How many times did you go to the KLA headquarters
10 making inquiries about (redacted)?
11 A. Two or three times, but in vain.
12 Q. And is that the only place that you were able to make inquiries,
13 or did you go elsewhere?
14 A. We only went there because we did not know where else to go.
15 Q. You've told us (redacted) disappeared on the -- or, sorry, the
16 last time you saw him was on the 1st of August, 1998. Using that date as
17 a reference point, how long did you remain in your village living in your
18 house following that?
19 A. If I'm not mistaken, about a month after that we continued to stay
20 there, because the villagers had not left yet. We were waiting for
21 (redacted) to come back. Two or three days later a couple of people came for
22 his medicine, and we gave them his medicine and also a jacket. But as I
23 said, everything was in vain.
24 Q. Thank you. And do you know who these -- do you know the names of
25 these people who came to collect his medicine and his jacket?
1 A. No. No.
2 Q. Had you ever seen them in your village before?
3 A. No. They were not from our village.
4 Q. Can you tell us if -- how they were dressed?
5 A. They were wearing a green -- greenish uniform, multicoloured, I
6 think. It was mixed colours.
7 Q. Thank you. Was there any insignia that you could see on this
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What insignia?
11 A. Of the KLA on their caps and on the sleeve of their jackets.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Could Your Honours just give me a moment, please.
13 [Prosecution counsel confer]
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you for answering my questions, Witness.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Witness 52, you will now be examined by Defence
16 counsel. The first one is Mr. Emmerson?
17 MR. EMMERSON: It is, but I have no questions.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You have no questions.
19 Mr. Guy-Smith?
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: No questions.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No questions.
22 Mr. Harvey?
23 MR. HARVEY: No questions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Where I said that you would be examined by
25 Defence counsel, Witness 52, I did not know yet that they had no questions
1 for you.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 Questioned by the Court:
4 JUDGE ORIE: I have the following question for you: You told us
5 about these several occasions where men came to your house first to obtain
6 a weapon; then there was a search; and then finally, men came and
7 (redacted) joined them and left. Now, did you at any later stage ever learn
8 the names of any of these men?
9 A. Yes. I learnt from (redacted).
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could you explain to us what (redacted) told you
11 about whom when that person visited you.
12 A. On the last day, when I accompanied (redacted) up to the car, we
13 didn't know those persons that day. And (redacted) was trying to calm us
14 down, and he said, "Don't be scared, because this is X person," and he
15 told me the name of that person.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us that name, or would you prefer to
17 do that in private session?
18 A. In private session, please, if we may.
19 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 9647 redacted. Private session.
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Witness 52, you've answered the question put to you by
12 Mr. Di Fazio and the question put to you by the Bench. I'd like to thank
13 you very much for coming to The Hague and to testify, and I wish you a
14 safe trip home again.
15 Madam Usher, before the witness leaves the courtroom, the curtains
16 should be pulled down.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you all.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The curtains can be pulled up again.
20 Yes. The Chamber is -- the legal officer of the Chamber,
21 Mr. Zahar, received copies of some correspondence between the parties
22 about disclosure issues in relation to the next witness to -- to be
24 The parties also indicated that they'd like to raise the issue in
25 court. What I see from this correspondence is that already quite some
1 time ago in relation to the expected testimony of the witness then still
2 on the list, Mr. Delic, that the Defence has asked -- has put six
3 questions, questions relating to documents, questions relating to -- no,
4 that comes later -- that you ask for whether any investigations were made
5 in relation to, let's say, the circles, same circles as where Mr. Delic
6 appeared as well.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Can I?
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. EMMERSON: In essence, on the 10th of May, the request to the
10 Prosecution came in two forms.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 MR. EMMERSON: There was one letter concerned with specific
13 matters of disclosure, which has not been brought to the Trial Chamber's
14 attention because there's no issue outstanding in relation to it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. EMMERSON: But there was also a letter drawing attention to
17 the fact that during the Milosevic trial the position taken by the Office
18 of the Prosecutor was that Colonel Delic, as he then was, was responsible
19 for the commission of systematic war crimes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Including within the indictment region, including
22 within the indictment period.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which we find in the correspondence as having
24 been committed in 1998 and 1999.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so. As well as having been involved, so it
1 was put to him, at least in a supervisory capacity, in the disinterment
2 and transfer for the purposes of concealment of the remains of victims --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. EMMERSON: -- of crimes committed by Serb forces. And in
5 essence, what we were seeking from the Prosecution at that stage - and
6 it's quite right to say "at that stage." It was on the assumption that he
7 was to be a witness for the Prosecution - was clarification the
8 Prosecution maintained those allegations; if so, whether or not they had
9 been investigated; and if not, why not.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Why not.
11 MR. EMMERSON: The next development -- and I -- was the
12 Prosecution's decision to abandon Mr. Delic as a witness and thereby, in
13 Mr. Re's view, rendering those questions moot; and his substitution by the
14 witness who is now to be called without protective measures, as I
15 understand it.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. EMMERSON: Branko Gajic.
18 Mr. Gajic's testimony concerns matters relating to the deployment
19 and activity of the 549th Brigade, even though he was not himself a member
20 of that brigade and it's not been alleged by the Prosecution in past
21 trials that he was personally involved or authorised the sorts of crimes
22 that were alleged by the Prosecution against Colonel Delic.
23 In essence, there were two essential issues outstanding,
24 disclosure having been given of a number of documents and other materials.
25 The first was a request to the Prosecution for an explanation --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Why.
2 MR. EMMERSON: -- for the decision to abandon General Delic; and
3 the second is the outstanding request for clarification as to whether the
4 Prosecution approaches this trial on the same basis as it approached the
5 trial of Milosevic; namely, that General Delic and those under his command
6 committed war crimes systematically in the indictment region during the
7 indictment period and thereafter.
8 Now, as far as the first matter is concerned, Mr. Re's response is
9 contained in the letter of the 17th of October, indicating in essence that
10 the Prosecution's decision to abandon General Delic is a non-reviewable
11 discretion and that there's nothing to be disclosed in relation to the
12 reasons for that decision; and in the letter of the 19th of October, as
13 regards the second matter, in essence the Prosecution's position is that
14 since they have taken the decision not to call General Delic, the issues
15 of substance are moot.
16 In short, whether the first question requires an answer or not is
17 perhaps much less important than whether the second question requires an
18 answer. It isn't simply a matter relevant to the credibility of the
19 witness now abandoned. It is also a matter relevant to the conduct and
20 the deployment of the Serb forces within the indictment region, within the
21 indictment period and thereafter. The potential that that has for
22 alternative explanations for otherwise unexplained deaths and for the
23 removal and manipulation of remains. And so we would respectfully invite
24 the Prosecution or invite the Chamber to request the Prosecution to state
25 what its position is in relation to the conduct of the 549th under the
1 command of General Delic, or Colonel Delic, as he then was.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, that's the question that is put to you.
3 By the way, I suggest to the parties that this whole
4 correspondence will be perhaps in a joint filing be put on the record,
5 because it -- it's not just a practical matter and in line with the policy
6 that the Chamber has set out earlier, that is, either purely practical
7 matters just by e-mail, matters of some substance to be mentioned in
8 court, matters of greater substance to be filed. The Chamber suggests
9 that, to have everything clearly on the record, that this correspondence
10 will be subject to a filing.
11 Mr. Re.
12 MR. RE: I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be responding to.
13 I mean, the Prosecution's view is we're quite mystified by the Defence
14 pursuing a line of inquiry in relation to a witness who we advised the
15 Trial Chamber and the Defence on the 20th of June, that is, close on four
16 months ago, to -- to -- it's more than four months ago that we were not
17 calling the witness.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. RE: Now, Mr. Emmerson is not putting the position correctly
20 when he says the Prosecution suggested in effect, to use his phrase, in
21 terms that General Delic was a war criminal, because we certainly didn't.
22 Some suggestions were put to Colonel Delic as to the state of his
23 knowledge during operations in 1998 and 1999, but the Prosecution has not
24 taken or maintained a view in relation to Bozidar Delic.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. RE: And Branko Gajic has nothing to do with Delic. Gajic was
2 in military intelligence in Belgrade. He was not in the 549th Brigade.
3 As far as -- and I -- and I -- we have no knowledge that the
4 Defence is about to put any allegations to General -- retired
5 General Gajic, and as far as I know, Mr. Emmerson has told me they're not.
6 The matter is not just moot. It's irrelevant. We decided not to
7 call Delic some months ago, four months ago. We've moved on. It's just
8 beating a dead horse.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether the horse is yet dead or still alive is
10 still to be seen.
11 Mr. Re, the way in which I understand it is the following: That
12 the Defence would very much like to know whether the position taken by the
13 Prosecution in the Milosevic case is that a series of crimes are committed
14 and there was concealment of victims of crimes apart from whether
15 Mr. Delic committed them or had some responsibility, because they may have
16 been committed under his command, but these questions they'd like to know
17 what the present position of the Prosecution is, because I take it that
18 the Defence, as they said, would consider in those circumstances that
19 there might be an alternative explanation for bodily remains being found
20 in that area; and therefore, the Defence would like to know whether that
21 is or still is the position of the Prosecution that crimes were committed
22 by other forces at that time in the area so as to -- well, to see whether
23 there's disagreement about that element between Prosecution and Defence.
24 Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Harvey, is that approximately --
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, that's an entirely fair summary.
1 Two matters, just if I may. First of all, I don't recall having
2 indicated to Mr. Re that I did not wish to explore with this witness
3 allegations of war crimes committed by Serb forces, and I certainly do.
4 And secondly, I am slightly surprised by the suggestion that it
5 was not the Prosecution's case in the Milosevic trial that Mr. Delic was
6 responsible for war crimes. We've set out in our letter specific extracts
7 from the allegations put in terms to him by counsel for the Office of the
8 Prosecutor. For example, at paragraph 3: "The reality is that you and
9 the police were engaged in an unrecorded exercise in ethnic cleansing.
10 The army and the police were engaged in criminal conduct to their certain
11 knowledge in 1998 and 1999."
12 And paragraph 4 that: "The grave removal exercise must have been
13 done with your knowledge and consent."
14 It's surprising to hear Mr. Re in those circumstances suggest that
15 that is not a fair summary or it was not fairly summarised in the way in
16 which the matter has been put. And indeed it rather reflects the
17 difficulty of a Prosecution position which -- which lacks clarity in
18 respect of these matters.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
20 MR. RE: I mean, that's just getting worse. Mr. Emmerson told me
21 he wasn't going to cross-examine Mr. Gajic on crimes having been committed
22 by Mr. Gajic. I understand that's the Defence position.
23 In relation to whether Serbian military units committed crimes in
24 Kosovo in 1998 and 1999, well, of course they did. One only has to read
25 the Milutinovic and Milosevic indictments to see that's the Prosecution
1 case. There's absolutely no tension between the Prosecution prosecuting
2 the KLA for crimes committed in 1998 and alleging that the Serbian
3 military also committed crimes in the same -- in the -- in the same year
4 in the same territory.
5 In relation to whether or not there was -- whether the allegation
6 of the Serbs taking bodies to -- from Kosovo to -- to Serbia is in somehow
7 way connected with the allegation, which I think but cannot be sure is
8 being made, because it hasn't been properly put to any witnesses that
9 there was some sort of body-burying operation by the Serbs somehow in
10 September 1998, there's no connection at all. There is nothing in the
11 Milosevic transcript, the Milutinovic transcript, or anything in the
12 Prosecution's possession to suggest that the Serbs planted the bodies by
13 the canal in Lake Radonjic in September 1998.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. RE: If that's what he's getting to.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is that -- therefore, then, what I understand is that
17 there is no disagreement about Serbs having committed in general terms
18 serious crimes in the area during the time also relevant for the
19 indictment but that the main disagreement lies in whether this could ever
20 be an alternative or an alternative explanation for what is charged
21 against the accused in this case. That's how I now understand the
22 position of the Prosecution to be and where it differs from the Defence
23 position and where it does not differ from the Defence position.
24 I further understood that the all-relevant material is, as always,
25 disclosed in the electronic -- in the electronic system and that from
1 whatever the Prosecution has investigated or learned about matters in
2 relation to the witness Delic, who's not on the list any more, or any
3 other witness, if it would amount to Article 68 material, that would be
4 that it could be understood to be exculpatory or may be exculpatory, which
5 means that you might have different views on whether it exculpates or does
6 not exculpate - that's exactly what we are just talking about that is,
7 whether it provides for an alternative explanation for events or whether
8 it does not. That's, of course, the interpretation and the evaluation of
9 the material - that all disclosure obligations have been fully met by the
11 Is that correctly understood, Mr. Re?
12 MR. RE: As far as I know, we have disclosed all relevant
14 But just one other tiny little thing, and that is the references
15 Mr. Emmerson keeps bringing up in the Milosevic transcript. I'm sorry to
16 say this, but he's taking them out of context. The Prosecution did not
17 allege any specific crimes by Colonel Delic. If they had -- if we had,
18 Mr. Emmerson would have quoted them instead of talking in terms or in
19 summary or in paraphrasing.
20 The -- what was suggested to Delic was he must have known
21 something was happening. There was no specific allegation of criminality
22 leveled against Delic, as far as I can see, and in talking to the lawyers
23 who were in court conducting that cross-examination.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I do understand that in you're in a command
25 position, if you know about crimes, if you haven't done anything to
1 prevent them or to punish them, that might amount to criminal
2 responsibility for crimes you have not committed yourself. If that --
3 MR. EMMERSON: I don't, if I may say so, think this is the right
4 moment for know enter a debate on this, but the Prosecution called
5 testimony of crimes allegedly committed on the direct orders of
6 General Delic in the Milosevic trial. Indeed, I'm going to raise some of
7 that in cross-examination, if I may.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Mr. Guy-Smith.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me, if I might too, just to make sure that
11 we all are operating on the same basis. Since you have indicated that
12 it's your understanding that all material has been made available to us in
13 the electronic system, if the Court is relying on that being the
14 electronic disclosure system, as opposed to the Prosecution identifying
15 for the Defence what precise information is either relevant or
16 exculpatory, which not -- has not necessarily been done with regard to --
17 to the --
18 JUDGE ORIE: It may be clear that any exculpatory evidence should
19 be pointed at precisely, not to be hidden somewhere in an electronic
20 disclosure system. That may be clear.
21 I do understand that to the extent the Prosecution itself sees
22 that there is material that could be considered relevant but on which it
23 will not rely, that it nevertheless will be disclosed as relevant material
24 in the electronic disclosure system; whereas, if the Prosecution finds
25 anything which may be interpreted as, well, we know the exact -- just call
1 it briefly exculpatory material, that is, material that tends to
2 demonstrate the innocence of -- well, we have the nice formula which
3 doesn't come literally to my mind at this moment. But under those
4 circumstances, then specifically that attention will be labeled as
5 potential exculpatory material and be brought to the attention of the
7 That's how I understand the disclosure obligations, Mr. Re. And I
8 also understand that in this respect, the Prosecution takes the position
9 that it has met all its disclosure obligations.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: I raise a concern with that and specifically with
11 the guidance that is found in the Karemera decision concerning the
12 electronic disclosure system of the 30th of June, 2006, paragraph 10, in
13 which there is specific reference to the Prosecution's duty with regard to
14 the disclosure of information.
15 I actually would like to note on a separate point and alert the
16 Chamber to something which I think it probably knows from a review of the
17 annexes, that many of the annexes that are being relied upon by the
18 Prosecution for the testimony of the next witness happen to be authored by
19 the very individual, Mr. Delic, who is the subject matter of this
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand. We'll have a look at that.
22 But then it comes more to specific documents to be used during the
23 testimony of the next witness.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: The concern being, of course, that if we're in a
25 situation where there's picking and choosing as between documents, it
1 raises some of the problems that Mr. Emmerson raised initially and some of
2 the difficulties that we have expressed previously with regard to whether
3 or not the Prosecution is taking disparate positions, depending on who
4 they are prosecuting, with regard to the evidence they're presenting.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: We're back -- we're back into the ballet situation
7 of the Prosecution being splayed once again potential.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is an unattractive position.
9 Mr. Harvey, would you like to add anything?
10 MR. HARVEY: No, I fully endorse everything that has been said by
11 my colleagues on this matter, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
13 Then there was another matter and then we'll have a break.
14 There was another matter about recently discovered material which
15 you were seeking to add to the 65 ter list, exhibit list.
16 MR. RE: There's -- I think it was six reports of the 14th, a
17 counter-intelligence brief --
18 JUDGE ORIE: I thought there were eight -- I thought there were
20 MR. RE: There's seven, sorry.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe there's -- there's seven. There's seven
22 and a diagram. And as a result of -- of the assertions made by the
23 Prosecution with regard to the discovery of this material, there certainly
24 is no objection.
25 MR. RE: What do you mean -- what do you mean "assertions"? I've
1 just made a submission as an officer of the court. I don't like being
2 told that they're assertions.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the facts, Mr. Re has pointed to
4 that in support --
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm agreeing.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- of his application, that in view of that that you
7 do not oppose.
8 I take it, Mr. Re, that if there would be serious doubts about the
9 facts you would have presented, that the Defence might not have accepted
10 your proposal.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I certainly don't mean to ruffle his feathers at
12 this point.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 Is that the position of you as well, Mr. Emmerson, and of you,
15 Mr. Harvey?
16 MR. EMMERSON: I think -- unless I misunderstood the position,
17 there was one further document produced this morning for which Mr. Re
18 indicated that an oral application was going to be made in addition to the
19 written application.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then I may have missed that. I'm thinking about the
21 documents of which Mr. Re explained when he found them and where, not in
22 Kosovo but in Belgrade, I think.
23 MR. RE: Yes. They're from the archive of the 14th Intelligence
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. RE: The Prosecution didn't even know existed until the --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, that has been explained --
3 MR. RE: Recently.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson points that there would be one other
5 document. I'm not quite sure they know what document Mr. Emmerson is
6 referring to.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Well, it arrived by e-mail this morning. It's an
8 18th of May proclamation concerning the extending of the border belt
9 within which the VJ constitutionally was permitted to operate to 5
10 kilometres. And it was served upon us as an additional document today
11 with an indication that Mr. Re would be making an oral application to add
12 it to the list.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is that new apart from the -- the 14th - what was
14 it? - the 14th Intelligence Group? Is this a document that is related in
15 any way to it?
16 MR. RE: No, this isn't new. This was disclosed to the Defence in
17 April 2006. It's simply a --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Was it on the list? I think that's issue.
19 MR. RE: It wasn't on the list. It only came up after
20 Mr. Zivanovic gave evidence last week about the border zones,
21 cross-examined about the proclamation of the border zones and when it came
22 into effect. And we found the proclamation of General -- of Colonel
23 Lazarevic dated the 18th of May, 1998, extending the border zone 5
24 kilometres, referable to the Federal Republic of Yugoslav government
25 decision of the 23rd of April, 1998.
1 JUDGE ORIE: So, as a matter of fact, that is now raised because
2 it gains some relevance in relation to the testimony given by
3 Mr. Zivanovic.
4 MR. RE: That's why we went looking for it, yes.
5 MR. EMMERSON: I certainly would have no objection to its being
6 added. I simply note that maybe Mr. Re can clarify the position. I had
7 thought that in re-examination with Colonel Zivanovic, Mr. Re had sought
8 to establish that the day for the extension was the 8th of May. I don't
9 think it was this document that was put in re-examination, but I may be
10 wrong about that. But we can --
11 JUDGE ORIE: If you sort that out during the break. Because if
12 there's no objection --
13 MR. EMMERSON: Certainly no objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: And, of course, now clarifications could be sought
15 during the break.
16 May I take it, Mr. Guy-Smith and Mr. Harvey, that since you are
17 not jumping up that you would agree with the -- with the other documents
18 about the 14th Intelligence - what was it? - Group, that there's no
19 objection against adding them to the 65 ter list? In the absence --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: I've already indicated that --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was looking at Mr. Harvey.
22 Okay. Then that request is granted.
23 MR. RE: Thank you.
24 In relation to the exhibits, could it be -- could they be done in
25 the same way as we did Mr. Zivanovic and Mr. Stijovic, that is, they be
1 given numbers by the registrar in the spreadsheet so that they can
2 sequentially follow with this one.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, would that be a possibility?
4 MR. RE: I think there are 35 -- 37 annexes.
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Mr. Registrar asks me whether it's your
7 intention to have them MFI'd first or whether it -- this is already an
8 announcement of tendering them. I take it that that only comes during the
10 So just first to give them numbers?
11 MR. RE: It's an announcement of an intention to tender them.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. RE: But first get an MFI.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So we'll take it in two steps.
15 Then since we have to change from interpreter teams, we need a
16 break of half an hour.
17 We will resume and -- at 4.30.
18 --- Recess taken at 3.58 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 4.35 p.m.
20 [The witness entered court].
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber has considered the oral submissions by
22 the parties and the order to file the correspondence is still there, but
23 it -- the Chamber finds no reason the exchange of views until now not to
24 start with the witness at this moment.
25 I have another request for you. I asked -- and I said similarly
1 and earlier was talked about this week to receive a response on the
2 videolink. If there would be a possibility, even if by oral submissions,
3 to express yourself at an earlier stage, the videolink has been scheduled
4 for the 31st of October. It needs quite a lot of time to prepare for it.
5 So if that would be possible already by tomorrow, that would be highly
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: We will meet after court or during one of the
8 sessions and try to get back to the Chamber as quickly as possible.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you very much. Your cooperation is much
11 Then, finally, my attention was drawn to the fact that there might
12 be some unclarity as to the eight documents to be added on the 65 ter
13 list. I think I said at one moment that the request was granted. If I
14 have not said that, then I hereby say that the addition to the 65 ter list
15 of the eight documents is granted. And I noticed that there were no
16 objections against the other document, which you have sorted out over the
17 break, Mr. Emmerson, with Mr. Re, I take it? Or at least there's --
18 there's no major problem there.
19 So therefore no problems with that respect. Neither.
20 Then, Mr. Gajic, it's very unpolite not to address a witness who
21 appears in court and to deal with other procedural matters. Apologies for
23 Mr. Gajic, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
24 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that
25 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher. May I invite
2 you to make that solemn declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Gajic. Please be seated.
6 You'll first be examined by Mr. Re, who's counsel for the
8 Mr. Re, please proceed.
9 WITNESS: BRANKO GAJIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Examination by Mr. Re:
12 Q. Good afternoon. Your name is Branko Gajic. Your date of birth is
13 the 17th of July, 1944. And you are a retired major general from the
14 Serbian army and before that, the VJ and the JNA. Is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And you recently testified in the case Milutinovic, et cetera. So
17 you're familiar with these proceedings and the process here.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. I want to show you a statement which you have a copy there in hard
20 copy, dated the 2nd of October, 2007. It's of some 18 pages in English.
21 It's a statement I wish to tender under Rule 92 ter of the Rules of
22 Procedure. But first I have to ask you two questions.
23 I note that no objection has been made to any portion of this
24 statement to this point.
25 The first one is: Does it bear your declaration and is true?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the second question is: If I were to ask you the questions to
3 which answers are given in this statement, would you give that same
4 testimony in this court?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And it's 65 ter number 2090. May it be received into evidence on
7 that basis.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I think the first question is not whether it
9 was signed by the witness but whether he has read the statement and
10 whether this statement reflects the answers you gave at the time.
11 Is that the reason why you signed it?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, since there are no objections, then,
14 Mr. Registrar, the exhibit number would be?
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that would be P1138.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
17 Since there are no objections, it is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. And in front of you, Mr. Gajic, do you have a folder there
20 containing the 38 documents which you have referred to in your statement
21 including your diagram which is the first annex? Just to confirm that you
22 have it in front of you?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Just reading the transcript, I missed the word "and
24 is true" otherwise, I would not have added that question. I refer to page
25 50, line 24. It says: "Does it bear your declaration and is true?" I
1 understood whether he has signed it. But if I would have read this, I
2 would not have added the question I put to the witness before.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. RE: I'm always confused by the wording of 92 ter myself.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I'm not confused.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. RE:
8 Q. I'm going ask you some questions about the statement to clarify
9 some of the things in your statement to give the Trial Chamber a better
10 picture of the contents of your statement.
11 The first thing I'm going to ask you about is the 29 -- in
12 paragraph 1, you refer to having had 29 years in the counter-intelligence
13 service of the military in which you served and your retirement position
14 was, I understand, as the deputy head of the security administration.
15 A. Assistant and deputy at the same time. This is how it was
16 officially proclaimed.
17 Q. In terms of seniority, where were you in the military hierarchy as
18 of your retirement on the 31st of December, 2001, as a major-general?
19 A. In early October 2000, I, together with General Vasiljevic, who
20 was deputy head of the administration, removed -- was removed from that
21 position and other people were brought in. I was appointed to a different
22 sector, to an additional formation. However, pursuant to the order of the
23 then-Chief of the General Staff, I and General Vasiljevic was reassigned
24 to the security administration and worked there until our retirement.
25 Q. General, please focus on the question, if you can. And the
1 question was: Where were you in the terms of the military hierarchy as of
2 the date of your retirement? Number one, two, three, four, five, six, or
4 A. When it comes to the security administration, I was number three
6 Q. In 1998, in the period covered by the indictment, what was your
7 level of seniority?
8 A. I was both number two and number three. I was deputy head of the
9 administration and assistant to the head of the administration, which
10 means man number two and man number three.
11 Q. That's in the security administration.
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. What about in the military? Could you rank where you were in the
14 military hierarchy?
15 A. The security administration is one of the independent
16 administrations of the General Staff, and the head of the security
17 administration is one of the assistants to the Chief of the General Staff.
18 In his absence, I stepped in for him.
19 Q. Are you saying you were fairly senior in 1998?
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 Q. Were there military secrets to which you would not have had access
22 in 1998?
23 A. Whatever came within the competence of the military security was
24 known to me. There were no secrets in that domain that I was not aware
25 of. And even broadly speaking, in relation to military matters, to the
1 matters of the army.
2 Q. I want you to turn to paragraph 6 of your statement.
3 If that could just be displayed in English in Sanction and if you
4 could look at the hard copy in front of you, please.
5 That's the paragraph where you refer to: "Counter-intelligence
6 reports being distinct from other types of routine reporting in the VJ;
7 namely, operational reporting and command reporting."
8 And then you say: "Counter-intelligence reports would often
9 contain information from operations reports, to the extent that it was
10 relevant to the mandate of the UB."
11 The next paragraph, which is 7, you refer to an independent unit
12 in Kosovo called the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group. What was the role
13 of the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group within the VJ in that time period?
14 A. The 14th Counter-Intelligence Group, as you say - and it is
15 mentioned here - was connected to the security administration and it was
16 the spatial structure, the territorial structure of the
17 counter-intelligence service covering the situation on the ground with
18 regard to the activities placing the army and the defence system in
19 jeopardy, and it went down from the service to the unit commands, and it
20 directly reported to the security administration on its work.
21 Q. You say in that statement that it had about 20 individuals. Where
22 did they work from? Where were they based?
23 A. They were based in Pristina.
24 Q. Did they do fieldwork?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you briefly describe to the Trial Chamber how they went about
2 their fieldwork, that is, how they collected their information in the
4 A. They had, as we called it, their intelligence sources in the
5 territory of Kosovo and Metohija, and these intelligence sources were
6 members of the population, civilians, as well as members of different army
7 structures residing in the area. Furthermore, they exchanged information
8 with the MUP and the State Security Service and had daily contacts with
9 the population which were quite well-developed. The population was not --
10 were not agents as such, but they were informants on whom they relied.
11 And these were the ways on the basis of which they gathered information.
12 And I apologise, they also exchanged intelligence with military
13 intelligence organs, because they also had their infrastructure in the
14 territory of Kosovo and Metohija.
15 Q. Mr. Gajic, I want to ask you about informants. You just referred
16 to "informants upon whom they relied." What was the difference between
17 the type of informants the DB was using and the type of informants that
18 military intelligence was using?
19 A. There was no difference, except for the fact that this was the
20 counter-intelligence department, as it is written here, and the difference
21 lay in the contents of the information that was of interest. The
22 counter-intelligence service was interested in the information concerning
23 whatever placed the army in jeopardy; whereas, the military -- or rather,
24 the State Security Service was interested in the situation in general,
25 including that which concerned the army itself. The sources were more or
1 less the same and the methodology they used was the same.
2 Q. Did counter-intelligence have informants within the KLA?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Are you able to say in 1998 approximately how many informants were
5 within the KLA?
6 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you with any precision. Still there
7 were sufficient numbers of them, because some of the sources were
8 developed in early 1980s and are still being used to this day. Therefore,
9 I can't tell you how many there were.
10 The 14th Department certainly had no less than 50 or 60 different
11 sources of different ranking, quality, and so on and so forth, and I'm
12 only referring to the counter-intelligence department and not referring to
13 the counter-intelligence structures of the different units.
14 Q. The 50 or 60 different sources, were they within the KLA?
15 A. There were those among them who were in the KLA and others who had
16 direct or indirect contacts or links with the KLA. For instance, some of
17 them had close relatives or friends who were members of the KLA, and these
18 were what we call indirect contacts.
19 Q. You said they were of different ranking and quality. First I'm
20 going to ask you about the ranking, then quality.
21 How high up within the KLA - and no names, of course - were these
22 sources placed?
23 A. Well, for the most part they were former officers of the Yugoslav
24 People's Army with whom operative contacts were made in 1981 and later, at
25 the time of those mass-scale demonstrations you're probably aware of, and
1 we had actions combatting such activities.
2 Q. Just concentrate on 1998 for the moment. In 1998, how high up
3 within the KLA were informants for counter-intelligence?
4 A. I wouldn't be able to give you the exact figure now or the exact
5 information. There were those among them who held the rank of major, even
6 lieutenant colonel, and then the occasional colonel as well of the former
7 JNA. I don't know which ranks they held in the KLA. I know the duties
8 they held. They were commanders, chiefs of staffs, and so on and so
9 forth. And, of course, I'm aware of the ranks they held in the former
11 Q. You also said they were of different quality. How did your
12 department assess the quality of the information it was receiving from
13 these informants? In other words, what was the methodology used to assess
14 its reliability and quality?
15 A. The main practice was vetting. Or rather, we double-checked the
16 information that they provided us with against other sources.
17 Secondly, we would have some earlier information about the
18 activities or events they were supposed to gather information on. So we
19 would double-check that with the MUP, with the security service, with the
20 intelligence service, and we did that.
21 If the persons involved had for many years had operative contacts
22 with the intelligence service, we already had some valid indicators of
23 their sincerity, veracity, reliability, and so on and so forth, but we
24 always double-checked the information we received from them, especially if
25 the information was sensitive.
1 Q. I just want to take you to an example of a report. It's annex 3
2 of your statement -- of the -- the bundle there. It's dated the 23rd of
3 January, 1998.
4 If that could be displayed in e-court, please. If you could just
5 go to annex 3. It's the report of Colonel -- Chief Colonel Aco Tomic,
6 23rd of January, 1998 to the VJ -- I think it's GS -- General Staff of the
7 VJ Security Service, 3rd Army. That's -- and it -- it says: "Through
8 operative work by the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group and the Pristina
9 Corps, information was obtained regarding an armed clash on the territory
10 of the Srbica-Donje Prekaze village, kidnapping and maltreatment of Serbs
11 by members of the so-called KLA, the presence of members of the 'Serbian
12 Guard', headed by Arkan, and propaganda by the Albanian media in the state
13 and abroad."
14 And then it refers to the attack on the Jashari compound, and then
15 it goes down to refer to three other particular incidents. The ones I
16 wish to ask you about are on the 22nd of April, 1998, there's an attack on
17 Desko Vasic, an assemblyman in the Zvecan Municipal Assembly --
18 A. 22nd of January.
19 Q. Well, I meant January.
20 MR. EMMERSON: And I'm sorry, whilst there is that interruption,
21 lest the transcript should remain unclear, the reference is not to the
22 attack on the Jashari compound in the sense that we have heard other
23 evidence about the attack in March but to earlier incident in January.
24 MR. RE: Yes, quite. There's one on the 22nd of January, 1998,
1 Q. There are three particular incidents described which I ask you to
2 comment on. That's 22nd of January, 1998; the attack on Desko Vasic, the
3 stopping of a bus on the same day on the Klina-Srbica road by the
4 so-called KLA inflicting serious bodily injuries on Nenad Nikolic; and
5 thirdly, the stopping by a KLA patrol of Ljiljana Ilijev, a public -- or
6 employee of the SDK public auditing service and her sister
7 Darinka Andjelkovic. The two of them were maltreated and then released
8 with the words "your brothers are killing our brothers."
9 What I want you to comment on and tell the Trial Chamber is the
10 source of those three incidents allowing it to come into this particular
11 report by Chief Colonel Aco Tomic.
12 A. The first incident, which took place on the 22nd of January, 1998,
13 relating to Desko Vasic, who was a deputy of the Zvecan Assembly,
14 Municipal Assembly, was reported by his relatives, because the man went to
15 work and never showed up.
16 And then on the 23rd, when the MUP - because this was within the
17 competence of the MUP - tried to conduct an investigation, he was found
18 killed next to his car with another passenger, who was unidentified at the
19 time. That's the first incident.
20 The second incident also had to do with the stopping of the bus on
21 the Klina-Srbica road, where the bus was pulled over. The IDs were asked
22 of the passengers, who were maltreated and beaten up.
23 The information was received from the driver and the other
24 passengers who reported the incident and described the perpetrators. As a
25 result of that, since the perpetrators wore uniforms with the KLA
1 insignia, it was concluded that they were indeed responsible for this.
2 And then the third incident, which also took place on the 22nd of
3 January, 1998, involving this lady Ljiljana and her sister, she reported
4 the incident to the MUP. She described the problems she had and she told
5 them what she had observed, the trench-digging and so on and so forth.
6 And also on the basis of the -- or rather, it was on the basis of -- of
7 our regular exchanges of information with the MUP that we received the
8 information. And the head of the 14th Counter-Intelligence Department
9 thought it interesting enough to be sent to the security administration
10 and the command of the 3rd army and to report to them about it.
11 Q. Why were incidents of this nature being included in
12 intelligence -- or counter-intelligence reports going up through the
14 A. They were significant because we followed what was happening in
15 the area to the civilian population. The strategy of the leadership of
16 the secessionist movement was to carry out ethnic cleansing, not only of
17 Serbs, Montenegrins, but also of many, many Albanians who were deemed
18 loyal to the Serbian state, were styled as spies. They suffered a great
19 deal. They were targeted. And we were monitoring the situation and the
20 developments with regard to that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson.
22 MR. EMMERSON: I appreciate the question did not set out to elicit
23 inadmissible opinion evidence of that nature, but I wonder if Mr. Re might
24 confine the witness or control the answers in a way that doesn't allow
25 them to transgress into areas which are not proper for the witness to be
1 giving opinion evidence about.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. If we come to the next part of the report --
5 Of course, I will endeavour to --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's understood. Please proceed.
7 MR. RE: It's implicit.
8 Q. The next part. Underneath that, you refer to -- sorry, it refers
9 to "operative information" indicated that Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, is on
10 the territory of Zvecan municipality with members of the Serbian Guard.
11 They are staying in the Trojka Hotel.
12 A. Zvecan.
13 Q. I apologise for my sloppy pronunciation.
14 The next paragraph: "This stay was noted a few days ago when
15 Arkan came to this area by helicopter."
16 What the significance of that particular incident, that is,
17 Arkan's presence there, such that it was put in this report? I mean, why
18 was the 14th Counter-Intelligence Group reporting on Arkan's presence?
19 A. Because the unit of Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan, was in view of the
20 army a paramilitary formation. They were in contacts with the State
21 Security Service but in the army's view, they were a paramilitary
22 formation. There existed a strict order of the Chief of Staff according
23 to which paramilitary forces and groups should not be allowed access in
24 Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, they arrived there without the approval
25 or the knowledge of the army and it was considered that this ought to be
1 included in the report. Besides, there were great problems precisely with
2 that formation -- there had been great problems with that formation ever
3 since 1991.
4 Q. [Microphone not activated]?
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
6 MR. RE:
7 Q. Were you aware of KLA communiques being published in the 1990s?
8 A. Yes, I was. Although, I did not have occasion to read them at the
9 time. But I knew that they were releasing these communiques.
10 Q. That's at paragraph 11 of your statement, where you say you first
11 became aware of them in the mid -- of the KLA in the mid-1990s from
12 communiques issued in the name of the organisation.
13 When did you begin to --
14 If paragraph 11 could please be displayed in Sanction at the
16 When did you become aware -- when did you first start to read the
17 KLA communiques?
18 A. That must have been back in 1997. I know that they published two
19 communiques. One was on the 12th of January, and the other one on the
20 19th of January, as far as I remember. They concerned the -- or
21 contained, rather, warnings to the MUP and the army about them having to
22 leave Kosovo, since they were occupiers there. I'm not quoting. I am
24 The first communiques -- communique was dated the 12th of January,
25 and the other one --
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter isn't sure whether the witness
2 said the 29th of January.
3 MR. RE:
4 Q. Did you say the 29th or the 12th of January?
5 A. The 12th of January, 1997 and the 19th of January, 1997.
6 Q. Can you please turn to annex 2, which is 65 ter number 2092. It's
7 an information issued by the counter -- 14th Counter-Intelligence Group of
8 the 5th of December, 1997.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Let's first find out whether the previous document
10 has been assigned an exhibit number.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1997.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
13 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
14 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, annex number 2 is 65 ter number
15 2092. It will be marked for identification as P1140. Annex 3 is 65 ter
16 number 2093, and that's marked for identification as P1141.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
18 MR. RE:
19 Q. Can I take you to the portion where in the English it says: In
20 the most recent underground newspaper of the People's Movement for Kosovo,
21 there is a KLA communique in which the KLA accepts responsibility for the
22 following: First, bomb attack, 11th of November, 1997, against the house
23 of the president of the Podujevo municipality, Tomcic, in Tasec village;
24 next, clash in the villages of the Drenica area between 25th and 28th of
25 November this year; next one, striking down a Cessna-310 on the 26th of
1 November; then the attack on Rznic police station, 27th of November; and
2 the next one, the murder of Danilo Dugolija from Petrastica village,
3 Stimlje, 28th of November.
4 I want you to comment upon those incidents in relation to the KLA
5 and its publication or claiming responsibility for various attacks.
6 A. As far as I can remember - and with regard to the killings, well,
7 that in fact did take place - but as far as the Cessna is concerned, I
8 don't think that happened. I don't think it was struck down. But fire
9 may have been opened on that plane, because they would often open fire on
10 those planes. I remember these events, but I've already told you what I
11 thought about the Cessna. I don't want to repeat that.
12 Q. Okay. You say you don't think the Cessna happened, but other --
13 the other one, two, three, four -- the bomb attack on the 11th of
14 November, 1997; the clash in Drenica; the attack on the police station;
15 and the murder of Danilo Dugolija and --
16 A. That happened.
17 But I'd like to point something out. The police station near
18 Rznic was frequently attacked. It was frequently attacked and finally
19 it -- a point in time came when it was necessary to withdraw the men,
20 because they were really in a very difficult situation. There were
21 frequent attacks.
22 Q. What I'm getting at is the veracity, in your experience, of the
23 KLA communiques. Now, you've said the attack on the Cessna you didn't
24 think happened but the other things did happen. What about other KLA
25 communiques that you read at the time?
1 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: Before the witness answers, I've forborne from
4 intervening in the manner of the questioning because when a witness is
5 asked to give evidence about a particular incident, the Trial Chamber has
6 indicated -- and until now the Prosecution has abided by that
7 indication -- that sources of knowledge need to be specified, that in
8 respect of each particular incident the manner and basis upon which this
9 witness speaks need to be clarified and explained.
10 Now, I left it in respect of this collection of reported
11 incidents, but if Mr. Re is now inviting the witness to extrapolate and
12 give a generalised opinion on documents that are not in the bundle and on
13 which he's not being asked to comment, then -- then, in our submission,
14 that takes it a stage too far.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
16 MR. RE: I'm asking the witness to comment on this particular
17 communique, which is referred to in this document and which has been --
18 which is before the Trial Chamber.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. RE: The witness's experience of this communique vis-a-vis
21 other communiques and whether the KLA was, in his experience --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Let's -- let's limit it at this moment. Let's ask
23 the witness where he says that he has doubts on whether it happened with
24 the Cessna what information he gained which allows him to tell us about
25 the veracity of these documents. Would you please do so.
1 MR. RE:
2 Q. But -- but very shortly, please. I just want the information
3 which allows you to conclude that the attacks there -- described there
4 actually occurred.
5 A. Well, this information was obtained from the MUP. That's for
6 sure, because the MUP acted through its bodies to carry out on-site
7 investigations. On the basis of those investigations, they determined the
8 circumstances under which they were killed and all other relevant factors
9 were also established. So this information was obtained from the MUP.
10 There was an exchange of information with them. And as we followed all of
11 this, Colonel Tomic believed it should be included in the report.
12 And as far as the Cessna is concerned, well, that's an important
13 event. Had a Cessna been struck down, one would have been aware of the
14 fact. An investigation would have been carried out and the department
15 would have been informed of it. I would certainly have remembered an
16 event of that kind. I don't exclude the possibility that fire was opened
17 on a Cessna, but as far as I can remember - and I'm 99.9 per cent sure of
18 this - a Cessna was not brought down. Perhaps there was a helicopter that
19 was forced to land as a result of fire being opened from the ground, and
20 that concerns the entire period we're interested in.
21 Q. In paragraph 11, in the middle, you say: "In 1996 and 1997, the
22 KLA expanded its attacks to include VJ forces along the border with
24 Then at the bottom of the paragraph, you say: "I remember that on
25 the 28th of January, 1998, you received information that in 1997 there
1 were 55 KLA attacks against the VJ along the border and 51 attacks against
2 the VJ throughout the rest of Kosovo. This number increased dramatically
3 in 1998."
4 What was the source of your information about the 106 attacks
5 which you refer to there?
6 A. Well, the inspection of the 28th of January, 1998 involved a team
7 led by myself. We were in the counter-intelligence unit of the 3rd Army
8 and the chief of the counter-intelligence of Rade [as interpreted] Corps
9 was there, the chief of the 14th and 15th, and these are reports of
10 theirs. It was on the basis of their reports that we obtained this
12 They also had the relevant dates, and so on and so forth, but I
13 didn't put the dates in the report. That was for the year 1997.
14 Q. You then go on to say: "This number increased dramatically in
15 1998." What was your information about the number of attacks in 1998?
16 A. On the basis of the reports that we received, on the army's
17 problems with the KLA. In 1998 at the border, there were 196 incidents --
18 or rather, attacks, on the border with the Republic of Albania, and there
19 were 191 attacks in the territory. So that makes a total of 367 attacks.
20 And in comparison with 1997, this was four times more attacks, so there
21 are factors that show when these attacks took place, the dates on which
22 they took place, et cetera. So we do have the relevant documentation.
23 Q. What was the source of your information for the figure you've just
24 given of 367 attacks?
25 A. As far as the border incidents are concerned, we had reports from
1 border units of the 53rd and 55th Border Battalion. We had their reports
2 about attacks on border units that they forwarded to us. And as far as
3 attacks on the territory are concerned, we had unit reports, the reports
4 that were forwarded from the units that had been attacked there.
5 Q. And what do you define as "an attack"?
6 A. Well, I define something as an attack if at least a group is
7 involved, a group of three individuals at the least are involved in an
8 armed attack. So I would exclude individuals, I'd exclude just one
9 person; although, such things can happen too. But such incidents aren't
10 that serious, so to speak. But here I'm referring to an organised group
11 with a particular objective, a particular task in mind, and so on and so
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: I'm sorry. Just for purposes --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- of clarification, are we talking about the
16 entire calendar year of 1998?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you tell us whether these figures covered the
18 whole of the year or ...
19 THE WITNESS: That's correct. That comment is quite correct. I'm
20 referring to the entire period, the entire calendar year 1998. But
21 Mr. Prosecutor, let me add something with regard to 1998. I do apologise.
22 In July and August 1998, out of the total of 196, in July and
23 August there were 71 attacks. 71 attacks on border units, units of the
24 border with Albania, and 18 were on the Kosare point, which was the most
25 exposed point in that area when it came to these attacks, these armed
2 MR. RE:
3 Q. What about before July and August? In, say, March, April, May.
4 A. There were far fewer attacks then. In mid-March there were more
5 attacks. In April there were quite a few attacks. May, June, and July,
6 and so on -- well, it depended on the situation the KLA was in, its
7 reorganisation. It depended on the need to arm. So in light of these
8 factors, the incidents became more frequent and the escalation was
10 Q. What were the estimates of the size and strength of the KLA in
11 early 1998 based upon? When I say "early," I mean January, March --
12 sorry, January, February, March 1998.
13 A. Well, we believed that there were about up to 3.000 armed men who
14 had organised themselves and there were between 6 and 8.000 who had
15 weapons. So the distinction is an important one. There was a group of
16 about 3.000. They were armed, but they were also organised. They formed
17 certain units. But then there was this other group who had -- members of
18 which had weapons, and occasionally they participated in certain
19 operations or they were involved in protective operations in villages, in
20 staffs, et cetera.
21 Q. In which area are you referring to?
22 A. I am referring to the entire area of Kosovo.
23 Q. What -- upon what do you base that assessment?
24 A. The assessment is based on information obtained through the work
25 of special services, and it was also obtained through discussions with
1 imprisoned KLA members and discussions with other individuals who had
2 direct contact with the KLA. They provided such information, and there
3 were also conversations in villages. And then we put all the information
4 together. We collected all this information. This information isn't 100
5 per cent reliable, so we can say it's approximative.
6 Q. How did the information the military have compare with that of the
7 state intelligence? Or state security?
8 A. Yes, we had certain misunderstandings, so to speak. Perhaps the
9 expression is not the most appropriate one, but I think you'll understand
10 what I mean. The army was far more realistic when it came to these
11 assessments. Above all, we are soldiers and we have a professional
12 approach. It's easier for us to assess the situation, and it wasn't in
13 our interest to exaggerate the situation or to diminish its seriousness.
14 Although, there was a little exaggeration on the other side, but we kept
15 to our military information.
16 Q. Were the DB's estimates, in your view, based on everything you
17 knew, underestimates, overestimates, or just about right of the strength
18 of the KLA?
19 A. Well, there were certain exaggerations. Everything wasn't really
20 as it had been described. So sometimes we would rely on their information
21 and then realise once we were in the field that the information was not in
22 fact correct.
23 So one learned to be cautious. As the people say, once burnt,
24 twice shy.
25 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown Exhibit MFI P955, which
1 is a publication of the Deputy Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
2 16th of March, 1998.
3 When that comes on the screen, I just want you to have a look at
4 the portion that says "Information," and where it says that: "We believe
5 that the operations by organs of the Ministry of Interior in Kosovo cannot
6 be described as an internal armed conflict in the sense of Article 3 of
7 the Geneva Conventions. This concerns a police action directed at
8 preventing crimes, acts of terrorism. This is a very important
9 distinction," and so on.
10 Now, did you see that document at the time?
11 A. No. This is the first time I've seen the document.
12 Q. Now, is the information -- what is the information there
13 consistent with in your military experience?
14 A. No.
15 Q. All right. Maybe I didn't phrase the question well enough. Is it
16 consistent with what was actually occurring on the ground based on
17 everything you saw and was reported to you?
18 A. No. Terrorism was at stake, and here reference is made to
19 preventing crimes. But it was a case of pure terrorism. I don't know
20 whether someone is playing with politics here, but I believe that this
21 document has been drafted very unprofessionally.
22 Q. Is it consistent with the view being expressed by the military to
23 the higher echelons of state?
24 A. No, it isn't.
25 Q. What was the military telling the higher echelons about what was
1 happening in Kosovo? That is, in that period, March 1998.
2 A. Well, they relayed information, had very valid evidence according
3 to which a paramilitary formation was being established in Kosovo. And
4 this was to be the means for realising the political objectives by having
5 recourse to force, by having recourse to terrorist methods, and
6 irrefutable evidence was provided to this effect, because Yugoslavia had
7 its own army.
8 Q. Paragraph 14 of your statement - if that could please be displayed
9 in Sanction - you refer to Colonel Delic proposing -- engaging his units
10 in areas of KLA control to restore security and you say that it must be
11 understood in the context of the constitutional limit on the VJ, which
12 prohibited operations beyond the limited area of the border. The proposed
13 operations would have required the President to declare a state of
15 I just want you to elaborate on that. What was the requirement
16 for a declaration of the state of emergency?
17 A. According to the Law on the Defence of the Federal Republic of
18 Yugoslavia, there is the possibility of declaring three states. One of
19 them is a state of emergency. And such a state is declared when security
20 is under threat in a certain part of the territory and the territorial
21 integrity and sovereignty of the state is at risk. So the threat is posed
22 by an armed organisation that has objectives that it wants to attain
23 through force, and on the basis of such a threat, it is possible to
24 declare a state of emergency.
25 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown MFI 2100. Oh, 65 ter
1 2100, which is a proclamation dated the 17th of May, 1998. Can that --
2 and I don't think that one has a -- an MFI number yet.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be marked for
5 identification as P1174.
6 MR. RE: I said it was dated the 17th of May. I'm in error. It's
7 actually the 18th of May.
8 Q. Just very briefly tell the Trial Chamber the significance of this
9 particular proclamation extending the border zone pursuant to a -- a
10 federal government decision of the 23rd of April, 1998. I mean, what does
11 it mean?
12 A. Well, let me just remind you of the fact that the Army of
13 Yugoslavia had to secure the lines when it came to securing the borders.
14 That means the border itself and an area to the depth of 100 metres from
15 the border. If the border belt or the depth of the border belt is
16 changed, that involves changing the borderline and the federal bodies are
17 responsible for such a thing, the federal government in the former
18 Yugoslavia. So an extension can be made to the depth of 5 or 10
19 kilometres, which in fact results in tracing a new border from a military
20 and security viewpoint.
21 That's what it means. It means that the army then has certain
22 responsibilities, certain military responsibilities to a depth of 5
23 kilometres. So they are not just responsible for the border itself but
24 for the area to the depth of 5 kilometres from the border. They
25 communicate -- they control disarming. They have contact with the
1 population. They try to make sure that the population abides by
2 well-established rules. And the Ministry of the Interior also has greater
3 responsibilities when it comes to public law and order in this area. And
4 this was a very significant decision.
5 Q. If I could just take you back to paragraph 17 -- sorry, 14 and the
6 second part of it.
7 If that could just be displayed in Sanction for a moment, on page
9 You said: "I remember that request to declare a state of
10 emergency were rejected by the state leadership for fear that it could
11 lead to civil casualties and that international reaction would be
13 What -- what sort of international reaction or international
14 discussion had taken place by then?
15 A. International.
16 Q. Yes, international.
17 A. Well, at the time - I won't comment on how sincere this was - but
18 at the time, there was a preference to deal with the problems in Kosovo
19 via political means. As far as the state of emergency is concerned, well,
20 introducing the state gives the army greater responsibility, and if the
21 army had more responsibility, that would have had consequences in relation
22 to the violation of the Geneva Conventions and international war law. So
23 the political leadership didn't want to adopt such a decision. The
24 government believed that a political solution could be found to the
25 crisis, but they also believed that the MUP was sufficient, because MUP
1 had the responsibility of fighting terrorism and they believed that the
2 MUP could be successful in dealing with the terrorist problem in
3 cooperation with the army.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Excuse me. I -- at this point, I would move to
5 strike the answer as non-responsive to the question asked. The question
6 was: Well, what sort of international reaction or international
7 discussion had taken place by then? And there's been no answer to that
9 MR. RE: I'm happy to press the question and -- and use the answer
10 just given.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think more important is that you seek an
12 answer to the question. That's ...
13 MR. RE:
14 Q. Had there been international discussion about these issues and, in
15 particular, the KLA?
16 A. Yes. There were international political discussions about the
17 situation in Kosovo. And I can also say that from the 5th of March until
18 about the 20th of May, 1998, the federal government had 13 contacts with
19 the representatives of Kosovo and Metohija. This was under the auspices
20 of the International Community, but they attempted to find a political
21 solution, but it's a well-known fact that this was all to no avail. So
22 there was much activity, but unfortunately what transpired is something
23 that I, as a human being, did not want to see happen.
24 Q. Was there an intelligence exchange between the Federal Republic of
25 Yugoslavia and other nations about the KLA?
1 A. Yes. Thank you for putting this question to me. First off, back
2 in 1997 the State Security had contacts with the high representatives of
3 the American CIA. I believe that the then-CIA director, who was at the
4 head of the intelligence service in the USA, was involved in these
6 Then in late 1997 and in 1998 we also had contacts with them, and
7 the last one was on the 2nd of March, 1998, that we exchanged information
8 on this matter as well as on the Islam -- on the Islamic factors, because
9 they were quite interested in that. And unfortunately, this transpired
10 later on in September 2001.
11 Q. Did you participate in these particular discussions?
12 A. Yes, I took part in these discussions. I was even given a task to
13 develop a platform for these contacts. We had plans for long-term
14 activities and the platform was given by the then-Chief of the General
15 Staff, General Perisic. There was a total of five meetings.
16 Q. You just referred to the Islamic factors. Is that -- well, what
17 are you referring to there?
18 A. Are you referring to the contacts and exchange of information with
19 the CIA?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. They were primarily interested in the Islamic factor in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They did not speak of al-Qaeda at the time, but they
23 spoke of extremists, fundamentalists, and so on and so forth. They were
24 especially interested in the training centres of the Mujahedin, the
25 largest one being in Zenica in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the other one in
1 Doboj. They were also interested in knowing who these persons were who
2 had come from Arabic countries to Bosnia-Herzegovina and joined the Muslim
3 army. It was general knowledge that a Mujahedin brigade was formed in
4 Zenica called the El Mujahedin. To cut the long story short, we provided
5 them with interesting information that they did not have before, but we
6 also told them that there existed certain contacts that led down to
7 Kosovo. This was something we knew at the time and we were confirmed in
8 that information.
9 They also provided us interesting information with regard to the
10 Islamic situation and the situation in Kosovo.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I am looking at the clock. Would this be a
12 suitable moment --
13 MR. RE: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- to have a break?
15 Then -- one second, please.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the Chamber still owes you a decision
18 on your request to have that answer struck from the record. Although the
19 Chamber does agree with you that it's not responsive to the question, it
20 nevertheless is not irrelevant for those reasons.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: Understood. I really was more seeking a mechanism
22 whereby we get an answer to the question.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. At the same time, we're listening.
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you. I appreciate it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: If you say you request the question be struck from
1 the record, then you'll get a decision.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I appreciate it very much.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Re, could you give us any time indication?
4 MR. RE: I think about 20 minutes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the Defence give us any time indications?
6 MR. EMMERSON: Might we confer amongst ourselves over this
7 adjournment and return to the Trial Chamber afterwards? I -- I'm at --
8 I'm certain that we'll finish with the witness tomorrow if that's what
9 Your Honour is inquiring about.
10 MR. GUY-SMITH: If that's the concern, then the answer is
11 absolutely "yes."
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think there are no other witnesses on the
13 list for this week. And this -- tomorrow's the last day and if you're
14 confident that we'll finish the testimony of this witness by tomorrow,
15 then further details at this moment are --
16 The only thing, Mr. Harvey, I'm always look at you. Take care
17 that you're not the last one on my list.
18 MR. HARVEY: I'm always nodding.
19 JUDGE ORIE: No. My concern was that you might be the victim
20 again at the very end of the cross-examination.
21 MR. HARVEY: I do appreciate your concern, but you'd have seen me
22 on my feet earlier if I'd had any serious worries.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
24 We'll resume at five minutes past 6.00.
25 --- Recess taken at 5.45 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 6.13 p.m.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber apologises for the late start.
3 Mr. Re, you may proceed.
4 MR. RE: Can we just go to annex 31, please, which is an
5 operations -- it's a report -- a regular combat report of the 11th of May,
6 1998, from the Djakovica forward command post, and that is 65 ter 417.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Does it need an exhibit number, Mr. Re?
8 MR. RE: 65 ter number 417.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Would be, Mr. Registrar?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be P1165.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 MR. RE:
13 Q. If you could just, please, turn to paragraph -- or point 5, where
14 it says: "The situation in the territory." And in the middle of that
15 paragraph, it says:
16 "According to operative information from the security service,
17 Mujahedin dressed in traditional Mujahedin dress have been observed in
18 Donji Nec village. Women and children from surrounding armed villages
19 have been accommodated in Junik village."
20 Just before the break, you were referring to the presence of -- or
21 discussions about Mujahedin. Were there Mujahedin operating in the
22 Dukagjin area or zone in the first half of 1998?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How many Mujahedin units were there and where were they?
25 A. There was one unit consisting of some 50 men, the commander of
1 which was Afrim Ljulji, it was active in the area of Smonica and
2 Jablanica. We identified another group. We couldn't determine the
3 strength of it, but it was active in the area of the villages of Prilep
4 and Voksa, somewhere there in that area. In the Dukagjin operational
5 zone, occasionally groups of Mujahedin would arrive from the area of
6 Drenica. There was one group called Abu Bekir Sadik, the commander of
7 which was Ekrem Avdija [phoen], a hodza, who was in Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 fighting in the war in 1992 and in the Mujahedin centre in Zenica, where
9 he completed training. He had connections with Saudi Arabia and so on and
10 so forth. So this was one unit.
11 We had information which was not verified that there was another
12 unit of some 40 Mujahedin active in the area of Drenica.
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't catch the name of it.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And they occasionally entered into
15 the Dukagjin operational zone.
16 MR. RE:
17 Q. I'm only interested in verified information. Were these Mujahedin
18 units within the KLA structure?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was the source of your information about these Mujahedin
22 A. Primarily the tactical units, the VJ and the MUP who were active
23 in the area, came across some soldiers who were killed and had IDs on them
24 so they could be identified. Besides, they had that -- the characteristic
25 dress and they were wearing their typical headwear and they spoke Arabic.
1 So we had that sort of information and we also had information that the
2 service obtained from their own sources, from the MUP, and so on and so
4 Q. What was your information about how they were being funded?
5 A. We had quite accurate information in that regard. I believe that
6 my recollection is right when I recall some nine humanitarian
7 organisations that were formed by some Arabic countries, primarily by
8 Saudi Arabia, but there was also -- there were also some organisations
9 from Iran, Iraq and Yemen. Some of these humanitarian organisations had
10 their branch offices in Kosovo and Metohija too, and they raised funds for
11 them. Some -- I apologise.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Mr. Re, we need -- going into this area,
13 we really need great precision. I take the witness back to -- to the last
14 question. The last question was: Were these Mujahedin units within the
15 KLA structure? And the answer was yes. And then you asked what
16 information there was.
17 If I try to analyse and understand the answer, you said: "Tactical
18 units, VJ and MUP, came across some soldiers who were killed and had IDs
19 on them so that they could be identified." Well, that's what I still
21 "Besides, they had the characteristic dress." That's also
22 something I understand.
23 "And they were wearing their typical headwear and they spoke
24 Arabic." I take it those deceased persons did not speak Arabic any more,
25 would they?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were -- you're quite right in
2 observing this, but there were some individuals who were captured. Some
3 of these individuals had their diaries, kept notes, and it was on that
4 basis that we obtained our information too.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We need greatest precision here, Mr. Re,
6 because it -- it seems that testimony in this respect brings a lot of new
7 elements in where we -- we hardly, if at all, we have any information from
9 So therefore from seeing how they're dressed, what their identity
10 is, to -- to just conclude that, therefore, they are in the KLA structure,
11 that is -- and then go on to financing, that -- and financing seems not to
12 be very much integrated in KLA finances. So therefore if -- if you want
13 to introduce this evidence, then we really have to be very precise,
14 careful, and thoroughly explore the sources used.
15 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MR. EMMERSON: It may be that the point that I was about to make
18 rather dovetails with the point that Your Honour has just made, but I
19 don't know whether Mr. Re is able to help me in identifying where in this
20 witness's statement or in any of the material served by the Prosecution
21 thus far we find that the Defence have been put on notice of this line of
22 examination, because it's not something that I'm aware of at all.
23 MR. RE: Annex 31, the document which refers to the Mujahedin.
24 MR. EMMERSON: It refers to --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. EMMERSON: -- information received from the DB about
2 individuals having been seen in an area some considerable distance remote
3 from the subject of the questions Mr. Re is putting to the witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I think that to that extent perhaps
5 Mr. Emmerson and I are on the same line, that it comes a bit as a surprise
6 and it's relatively new and that, therefore, it needs full exploration in
7 order -- if -- if you want to take this seriously.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. RE:
10 Q. Can I take you, please, Mr. Gajic, to annex 10, which is 65 ter
11 number 2098, and it's on the top peak of KLA weaponry.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Does it need a number?
13 MR. RE: Yes, please.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours that, will be marked for
16 identification as P1148.
17 MR. RE:
18 Q. I just want to take you to the reference to Stinger-type rockets,
19 which is in the 7th paragraph in the Serbian, and it refers to members of
20 the OVK in Glodjane have at their disposal around 10 anti-aircraft rockets
21 of Stinger type.
22 What sort of -- very briefly, what sort of weaponry are Stingers?
23 What's the significance of their having Stingers?
24 A. This is an anti-aircraft weapon, portable. It is fired from the
25 shoulder, of American make. Its significance lies in the fact that the
1 weapon targets aircraft flying low and helicopters too. Since very few of
2 the aircraft were flying low, it was the helicopters that were targeted by
3 these weapons most.
4 Q. Did that present a military threat to the VJ, the presence of
5 these Stingers?
6 A. Objectively speaking, yes. Up to that point, they had had
7 difficulties in obtaining cutting-edge weapons and they mostly carried
9 Q. Could you turn to paragraph 15 of your statement, please, which --
10 in which you refer to the discovery of weaponry apparently abandoned by
11 KLA members attempting to cross the Albanian border into Kosovo.
12 From your position in counter-intelligence, can you give the Trial
13 Chamber a very brief overview of the weaponry that was recovered or
14 discovered in the first six months of 1998.
15 Can that be displayed in Sanction, please. Thank you.
16 A. Yes. According to information we received in the security
17 administration, down -- or up the counter-intelligence line and down the
18 command line, in the first six months some 25.000 weapons of different
19 calibre and type were recovered together with some 500.000 bullets and
20 shells of different calibre, some 10.000 hand-grenades, greater quantities
21 of hand-held launchers and mortars, mostly of 60-millimetre, not that much
22 of 82-millimetre, and several tonnes of military equipment.
23 Q. In which territory was this?
24 A. Roughly speaking, 90 per cent of these weapons crossed the
25 territory -- crossed the border with Albania, and the other quantities of
1 weapons crossed the border of Macedonia and to -- to a lesser extent the
2 border of Montenegro. In essence, there were two channels across which
3 arms were carried in.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I'm sorry, just for my information, I interrupted the
5 witness more or less in the middle of his answer concerning financing of
6 Mujahedin. I then very much encouraged you to further explore details of
7 what had been said before. It -- it seems that you're now covering other
8 ground. Is that that you give up on that or how do I have to understand
10 MR. RE: Well, it's a timing issue, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: It's --
12 MR. RE: If Your Honour wishes -- if the Trial Chamber wishes us
13 to explore the issue of the funding of the Mujahedin, we'll willingly do
15 JUDGE ORIE: No, not that. No, of course. My first concern was,
16 well, the Mujahedin being within the KLA structure. Where I -- and if --
17 I do understand that if you say for reasons of time I'm not further
18 exploring that matter at this moment.
19 MR. RE: At this moment.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
21 MR. RE:
22 Q. Paragraph 23, Mr. Gajic. If you could please turn to paragraph 23
23 of your statement, which refers to attacks on the 52nd Military Police
24 Battalion on the 22nd of April, 1998. And you say: "The 52nd Military
25 Police Battalion responded by" -- I'm sorry: "The attack continued,
1 responded by firing a double-barreled anti-aircraft gun. The attack
2 continued until a 155-millimetre Howitzer was fired at the attackers."
3 Now, that's described in the annexes referred to in that
4 paragraph. I won't take you to those. I just want to ask you: In
5 military terms, what's the significance of firing a Howitzer? Why would
6 they fire a Howitzer?
7 A. The question is an appropriate one, because Howitzer is a very
8 powerful artillery weapon, especially the 155-millimetre Howitzer.
9 This is my answer: The 52nd Military Police Battalion was
10 deployed in the Lake Radonjic area, a very specific area. It was
11 frequently attacked - and I know this on the basis of various reports, and
12 this can be checked. We have the documentation. Between 22nd April and
13 the 20th of July, 1998, the battalion was attacked on 16 different
14 occasions. Sixteen. It was deployed in a -- in an area that was quite
15 problematic because it was cutting off the roads leading to Metohija.
16 This is an opinion of mine and perhaps an explanation for this:
17 It was decided to fire a shell from a 155-millimetre Howitzer because the
18 battalion had been under frequent attacks. This was to have a
19 psychological effect, because when a Howitzer is fired, a large crater is
20 produced by the projectile and it has its psychological impact.
21 To the best of my knowledge, had there been any victims as a
22 result of this attack, this would have been contained in the report.
23 Q. Just go to the paragraph preceding that, paragraph 22, in which
24 you refer to the 52nd Military Police Battalion. And you've just said
25 there were 16 attacks in that period, 22nd April to 20th of July, 1998.
1 In the middle of the paragraph, you say: "These were forward
2 positions and acted as a bone in the throat of the terrorists."
3 Can you explain to the Trial Chamber what you mean by "bone in the
4 throat of the terrorists."
5 A. I believe I explained this. When you look at the position of Lake
6 Radonjic and the entire area, and in view of the continued attempts to
7 expand the territory, to connect Kosovo and Metohija with other parts of
8 Kosovo or vice versa, other parts of Kosovo with Metohija, and to take
9 control of the main roads and secondary roads, you have to look at where
10 the battalion was deployed. It was deployed in the general area which
11 made all of these attempts impossible. It was a well-equipped and trained
12 battalion. These were military police officers. That's why I use this
13 term. Meaning they were a thorn in their side.
14 Q. Can you please turn to paragraph 24 of your statement in which you
15 start off by saying: "Colonel Delic ordered a heightened level of
16 readiness on the 22nd of April, 1998." And you refer to a specific order,
17 which is annex 21, which is 65 ter number 385.
18 Could that please be given a -- a number.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 385 will be marked for
21 identification as P1157.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, I find behind tab 21 a document with clear
23 large letters "tab 22" on the document itself. How should I interpret
25 MR. RE: I don't think you should. I suspect it's come from
1 another trial.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. RE: And has been marked in that way.
4 JUDGE ORIE: But we are then -- because we have no 65 ter -- it's
5 the specific order annex 21. Under annex 21 I've got an order for
6 deployment of stand-by forces dated the 22nd of April, 1998. Is that the
7 document you're talking about?
8 MR. RE: That's the correct document, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
10 MR. RE:
11 Q. Mr. Gajic, I just want you to tell the Trial Chamber the
12 significance of that particular order in your military experience in terms
13 of what was then happening in Kosovo.
14 A. Yes. Well, this is an order the form of which and the content of
15 which is quite standard. It has to do with engaging forces that are
16 ready. Those are forces that are ready to be engaged at any point in time
17 at all times. It's efficient to press a button, as they say. And the
18 commander of the 449th [as interpreted] Brigade, Delic, decided to issue
19 such an order for the reasons you can see expounded in the first paragraph
20 under item 1.
21 Item 1 concerns the escalation of KLA activities, the formation of
22 new units, massing of men; there's the threat to the territory and to the
23 borders and border posts in particular. It wasn't possible to have access
24 to them in order to provide supplies, et cetera. So Delic decided to
25 issue such an order to prevent this from happening and to take preventive
1 action, because he believed that the situation would just become worse,
2 would deteriorate if something wasn't done about it.
3 Q. Was there anything more Delic could have done at the time when he
4 issued this order?
5 A. No, I think he did everything that was possible. Had any other
6 measures been taken, had he planned for any other steps, it would have
7 been necessary for him to receive a preparatory order, as we term it, from
8 the command of the Kosovo Corps. This can be seen in the documents. But
9 this is what it was possible for him to do on the basis of the authority
10 he had at the time, and it wasn't necessary to request a preparatory order
11 for this to be done.
12 Q. I just want to -- to finish, I just want to return to the issue
13 which the Trial Chamber was -- which we were at before, which was in terms
14 of the integration of Mujahedin into the KLA. I'm just trying to find the
16 The question which wasn't -- which needs a little bit of further
17 clarification or expansion was the -- I asked you: Were these Mujahedin
18 units within the KLA structure?
19 Can you precisely, with some precision, tell the Trial Chamber
20 whether they were within the KLA structure, where they were within the KLA
21 structure, and how you know this.
22 A. Well, first of all, not a single outside unit could have come to
23 the territory of Kosovo without those in power in the KLA being aware of
24 the fact and without the political wing of the KLA being aware of the
25 fact. It wouldn't have been possible for any single unit to do this
1 without their knowledge. And similarly, the army or the MUP would also
2 have been aware of the presence of any unit in the territory.
3 And secondly, Abu Bekir Sadik's unit was also the Bravo Unit. The
4 Bravo Unit was divided into two units, Bravo 1 and Bravo 2 and it
5 consisted of about 40 men, and they were in the territory of the Drenica
6 operative zone. This is where they operated. But occasionally, groups
7 from Abu Bekir Sadik's unit went to the territory of Kosovo, or rather
8 Metohija, but they went to other territories too, Malisevo and so on and
9 so forth. But it's essential that they were active in the territory of
10 Drenica, and that concerns both units and the unit under the command of
11 Afrim Ljulji was in Metohija. I have seen a diagram from the beginning of
12 1999, but it was actually part of the establishment of the operative zone
13 of Dukagjin. But that was at a subsequent time.
14 Q. How does presence within Kosovo equate to integration within the
15 KLA? That's what the Trial Chamber is interested in. How do you
16 precisely know that Mujahedin present in Kosovo were actually integrated
17 within the KLA structure?
18 A. Well, they were because there were -- there was combat activity
19 carried out there and they weren't isolated. There were KLA units next to
20 them. So it wasn't a secret formation that no one knew nothing about.
21 And previously they had all been to training centres in Albania
22 and they were then moved to Kosovo. The main centre was located in
24 MR. RE: That's the evidence in chief.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Re.
1 Mr. Emmerson, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
2 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour, I am.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gajic, you'll now be cross-examined by
4 Mr. Emmerson, who's counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.
5 MR. EMMERSON: I'm going, if I may --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, but perhaps I -- I have -- if you would not
7 mind - perhaps you do, Mr. Emmerson, but nevertheless - there was one --
8 there was one question -- one answer you gave which I had difficulties to
9 fully understand. I'll try to find it. It should be yellow somewhere.
10 I'll come back to it when I -- once I've found it. It might be at the end
11 of the today,.
12 Mr. Emmerson, please proceed.
13 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I wonder if the witness could be handed the
14 white file of cross-examination documents. And perhaps I should just
15 explain, first of all, to him.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:
17 Q. Mr. Gajic, I'm going to ask you some questions now. And for that
18 purpose, you will be handed a white file of documents which includes some
19 of the annexes to your witness statement, but they're put in this file in
20 a slightly different order because it's the more logical way in which they
21 appear with other documents.
22 And I want to start, if I may, please, by taking you back to
23 paragraph 22 of your 92 ter statement whilst that file is being handed
25 In paragraph 22, you describe the --
1 A. I apologise. Item 22 in my statement? But I don't have it.
2 Could -- could the statement be returned to me.
3 Q. I'm sorry. I wonder if the usher could return to you your 92 ter
4 witness statement?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could the 92 ter statement be returned to the
7 MR. EMMERSON:
8 Q. Yes, I wonder if you could turn to paragraph 22 again.
9 In paragraph 22 you explain the deployment of the 52nd Military
10 Police Battalion after the 24th of March. I think you say sometime in
11 March - to various locations which you've described as a bone in the
12 throat of the terrorists, and you've explained to us just a few moments
13 ago what it was you meant by that.
14 A little lower down, you say: "In areas where both the VJ and the
15 MUP were present, activities were coordinated through mini joint commands.
16 The VJ was authorised to use force if fired upon and also provided limited
17 support to MUP operations to ensure the security of VJ forces."
18 I just want to ask you one or two questions, first of all, about
19 those words, if I may. First of all, was the area or were the areas to
20 which the 52nd Military Police Battalion had been deployed, were those
21 areas where both MUP and VJ were present?
22 A. No, only the army was present. The 52nd Military Police Battalion
23 and to a certain extent the artillery was present.
24 Q. Could you just help us to understand, please, what the position of
25 the 52nd Military Police Battalion was within the structure of the forces
1 deployed in that area.
2 First of all, was it associated with the 549th Brigade?
3 A. Yes, it was in the zone of the 549th Brigade and it was
4 deployed -- or rather, the combat groups were deployed.
5 Q. Sorry, combat groups of the 549th Brigade or combat groups of the
6 52nd Military Police Battalion?
7 A. I'm referring to combat groups of the 52nd Military Police
8 Battalion. But the 549th Brigade also had its own combat groups. On the
9 whole, there were companies. They didn't have the same amount of
11 Q. Just help us understand, if you will. Did the 52nd Military
12 Police Battalion have any other base at this time in Western Kosovo, or
13 were they based exclusively in the locations that you describe in
14 paragraph 22?
15 A. They were in the area of Radonjic Lake, as I have described that
16 in my statement. But in addition to the 52nd Military Police Battalion
17 from the Pristina Corps, there was also the 3rd Battalion, the 3rd
18 Military Police Battalion from the 3rd Army. Perhaps I can assist you by
19 providing you with this information, if this is what you are wondering
21 Q. I just want to be absolutely clear. We need to just make sure we
22 have precision in -- in understanding your answers. The 3rd Military
23 Police Battalion, were they also based in the Lake Radoniq area or were
24 they based somewhere else?
25 A. They were located somewhere else. I don't even think that they
1 were in Metohija.
2 Q. Very well. So let's leave them out of the picture for a moment
3 and concentrate on the 52nd Military Police Battalion.
4 Now, you've told us that they were deployed in the Lake Radoniq
5 area and you've given us some specifics in your witness statement. My
6 question is: Was the whole of the 52nd Military Police Battalion deployed
7 in that area?
8 A. Yes, the whole of the battalion was there. Perhaps part of the
9 battalion remained in Pristina in order to provide security for the
10 barracks, in order to deal with logistics, but the entire battalion was
11 present there. And they also worked in shifts, you know.
12 Q. Yes, I see. And how many combat groups made up the deployment of
13 the 52nd Military Police Battalion in that area?
14 A. Well, I think, although I'm not certain, that there were two or
15 three combat groups. I think that the police battalion was deployed in
16 two or three combat groups.
17 Q. Can you help us, please, because we can see from some of the
18 documents that at various times the 52nd Reconnaissance and Sabotage
19 Company appears to have been deployed with the 52nd Military Police
20 Battalion in the area of the lake. Is that correct?
21 A. Well, I couldn't really say. What kind of sabotage company are
22 you referring to? There is a reconnaissance company, but as to whether
23 it's called the 52nd, well, perhaps, because the Pristina Corps used to be
24 called the 52nd Corps, but it's part of the intelligence structure.
25 Q. We'll look at some of the documents in a moment or two, but you
1 have no independent recollection of the deployment of the 52nd
2 Reconnaissance and Sabotage Company.
3 A. No, I haven't.
4 Q. What about the 2nd Battalion of the 52nd Mixed Artillery Brigade?
5 Same question.
6 A. I can't remember. I couldn't really answer that question. I know
7 that there were some units from the 52nd Artillery Brigade in that area.
8 Their command post was in Djakovica. But the artillery -- the batteries,
9 rather, were in the zone of the 549 Motorised Brigade. And as far as I
10 can remember - I think it's in the documents somewhere - part of this body
11 was provided as assistance in the Radonjicka Suka area. That's all I
12 could say.
13 Q. Yes. Well, we'll -- as I say, we can perhaps just look at some of
14 the documents in a moment or two.
15 Can I ask you one or two other introductory questions, please.
16 The KSJ or special unit corps, could you just explain to the Trial Chamber
17 what that is within the structure of the VJ or what it was in 1998.
18 A. Well, the special unit corps is a unit whose command post was in
19 Belgrade, and this corps was based on the guards brigade, in fact, for a
20 certain period of time and it was occasionally involved in Kosovo, part of
21 that corps was, and that was at the time that it was necessary to send
22 such reinforcements to Kosovo, given the situation. But I believe that it
23 was the 72nd Special Brigade that was present there from that corps.
24 Q. Yes. Help me if I'm -- if I'm misunderstanding this, but KSJ
25 included a number of brigades including the 2nd -- the 72nd Special
1 Brigade, but it also included, did it not, the 25th Military Police
3 A. No.
4 Q. Can I -- can I ask you this, please: Was there any KSJ deployment
5 in --
6 A. I apologise. The 52nd Company of the military police is from the
7 Military Police Battalion. The Military Police Battalion has some
8 companies. It has three companies or four companies. It's a lower-level
9 formation in comparison to a battalion. Below companies you have
10 platoons. And below platoons, you have detachments.
11 Q. I understand that. The question I was asking you, Mr. Gajic, was
12 whether the 25th Military Police Company is properly described as a KSJ or
13 special corps unit.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Very well. Thank you. And the KSJ in general, were they
16 specialist strike troops?
17 A. Well, "special corps unit" means that these were special forces.
18 It was from the 72nd Special Brigade, so it means it was a special strike
19 unit. All such units are strike units. It all depends on the tasks.
20 Q. And were special forces deployed in the Lake Radoniq area during
21 1998, to your knowledge?
22 A. Not to my knowledge. Not as far as I know.
23 Q. Very well. Well, again we can perhaps just return to some of the
24 documents in just a little while.
25 Now, you said, I think a few moments ago, that the area in which
1 the 52nd Military Police Battalion was deployed was not an area where the
2 MUP were present. Is that correctly understood?
3 A. Yes, it was part of the establishment of the 52nd Military Police
4 Battalion. It could have been present there if there was a patrol or
5 something like that, because the MUP organised patrols that controlled the
6 roads, et cetera. So it could have gone to the area. But as far as I
7 know, it wasn't part of the establishment.
8 Q. So -- just so that we understand - and I see time - there was no
9 joint command there but the MUP were patrolling the roads in the area. Is
10 that correctly understood?
11 A. Yes. The MUP was also organised. It was also responsible for
12 controlling the roads. That was one of its tasks. It also had
13 check-points and patrols that they would organise. It's quite possible
14 that they went to the area, but they weren't part of the establishment
15 structure. As far as joint commands are concerned, well, reference is
16 made to many joint commands here. Is there something you wanted to ask me
17 about that? Is that what you had in mind?
18 MR. EMMERSON: What I wanted to do --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. EMMERSON: -- And I don't know whether the Trial Chamber has
21 any matters it wanted to deal with before 7.00.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I would, as a matter of fact, like to put a
23 question to the witness which was totally unclear to me. At least, his
24 answer was unclear to me. And apart from that, the only thing I would
25 like to put on the record is that we were informed that the Defence do not
1 object to the videolink, so that --
2 MR. EMMERSON: Correct.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- that response I asked for earlier has been given
4 by now.
5 So I would have -- I would seek one answer to be clarified, and
6 apart from that --
7 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- but it might take me two minutes.
9 MR. EMMERSON: Well, would this be a good moment?
10 Questioned by the Court:
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Gajic, I would like to take you back to one of
12 the answers you gave when you were examined by Mr. Re. A document was put
13 to you in which it is explained that -- it was a document of the Ministry
14 of Foreign Affairs in which it is explained that what happens in the area
15 is not an internal armed conflict but it's just police action against
16 crime, against terrorism, and that if looked at in any different way, that
17 would mean that the KLA would be recognised as a -- as a warring party and
18 that would have all kind of implications and that, therefore, one should
19 talk about prevention of crime and action against terrorism, rather than
20 referring to internal armed conflict.
21 Now, when asked about this document -- do you remember that?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, first of all, you said it was drafted very
24 unprofessionally. And you started that answer by saying: "No. Terrorism
25 was at stake and here reference is made to preventing crimes. But it was a
1 case of pure terrorism."
2 And then you said: "I don't know whether someone is playing with
3 politics here, but I believe that this document has been drafted very
5 From what I understood from this document, it is rather crimes or
6 terrorism against internal armed conflict and not to make a difference
7 between crime and terrorism. It's, at least from what I understand, the
8 document rather says that here the crime of terrorism is at stake.
9 Could you tell me why you considered it so unprofessionally?
10 A. Well, I don't think the person who drafted the document took
11 certain things into consideration. I don't think he even was familiar
12 with the provisions of the law.
13 According to the law of the way in which -- I don't think he was
14 familiar with the way -- with the law on the use of the army and the
15 regulations that were in force.
16 And here it's quite clearly stated what terrorism is and why the
17 army and the MUP are being used.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, you also said a little bit further on in
19 your answer, when asked what the military was telling the higher echelons
20 about what was happening in Kosovo in March 1998, you said: "Well, they
21 relayed information, had very valid evidence, coordinate with the
22 paramilitary formation was being established in Kosovo and this was to be
23 the means for realising the political objectives by having recourse to
24 force, by having recourse to terrorist methods."
25 I take it that you referred there to what is often called the
1 "KLA"? Is that correctly understood?
2 A. Yes, you have understood that correctly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And then you continued. You said: "And irrefutable
4 evidence was provided to this effect because Yugoslavia had its own army."
5 And I didn't understand that last -- that last part of your
6 sentence: "Irrefutable evidence was provided to this effect." I
7 understand that these were terrorists trying to go after their political
8 aims. "Because Yugoslavia had its own army." What did you mean when you
9 said that?
10 A. Yugoslavia had its own army.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But it sounds, in my ears, as if by saying that
12 you give reasons why it could not be an internal armed conflict, because
13 Yugoslavia had its army. Or is that wrongly understood?
14 A. No. I meant Yugoslavia as a sovereign state has its own armed
15 forces called "the Army of Yugoslavia." Everything else that was
16 established unconstitutionally and unlawfully is nothing other than
17 paramilitary. The KLA in this case. But it could have been some other
18 paramilitary formation. The Serbian Volunteer Guards, well, for example,
19 that's just a paramilitary formation that has to be removed because it --
20 it has no legal or constitutional basis.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No, I'm -- thank you for clarifying this answer. I
22 think I now better understand.
23 We adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00 in this same courtroom.
24 Could you please keep your earphones on for a second, because I
25 wanted to instruct you that you should not speak with anyone about your
1 testimony, whether the testimony you gave already today or whether the
2 testimony still to be given tomorrow. Refrain from speaking about it.
3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Registrar draws my attention to the fact that
5 I mentioned Courtroom I; whereas, we are in Courtroom II tomorrow. But
6 time is the same, 9.00 in the morning.
7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,
8 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 23rd day of
9 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.