1 Tuesday, 13 November 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 [Albanian interpretation on the English Channel]
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon to everyone. Mr. Registrar, would you
7 please call the case.
8 I do receive a language I do not understand on Channel 4.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
10 IT-04-84-T, the Prosecutor versus Ramush Haradinaj [sic].
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Mr. Re, are you ready to call your next witness, which is Witness
13 30? Through videolink.
14 MR. RE: The -- the information we have received is that Witness
15 30 has not appeared in the location from where the videolink has been
17 In terms of the procedure, we would ask the Trial Chamber to go by
18 videolink to confirm that for themselves and to make the necessary
19 inquiries of the officials there.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. RE: And then I will suggest another course. I will suggest a
22 course following that.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then hear from you later.
24 Let's first establish whether the videolink is functioning at this
25 moment. On my screen, I see the representative of the Registry in an
1 environment not being one of our courtrooms.
2 [Videolink commenced]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Monkhouse, can you hear me and can you see me?
4 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes. Good afternoon, Your
5 Honours. I can hear you and see you loud and clear.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Mr. Monkhouse, please be seated.
7 Could I ask you, in the room where you're in at this moment, are
8 you alone for the time being?
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour, I am.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I was informed that the senior regional
11 director active in the place from where the videolink is functioning would
12 be available to inform us about the activities undertaken in order to get
13 Witness 30 in the place of the videolink. Is that correct? And if so,
14 would you please invite him to join you.
15 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour. He's on
16 stand-by. I'll have him come in the room momentarily.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Good afternoon. I was informed, Mr. Monkhouse, that the person
19 sitting next to you is Mr. Theodore Tax.
20 Before I address him, I'd like to turn into private session for a
21 short while.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 10623 redacted. Private session.
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
22 Mr. Tax, could you please --
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Monkhouse.
25 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Excuse me. I'm sorry for the
1 interruption. I need to let you know that we're no longer receiving audio
2 from The Hague.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then we -- I don't know whether you are able to
4 lip-read, but we'll wait and restore the audio before we continue.
5 THE DIRECTOR: Sean, you're muted.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I see on our screen that the microphone is crossed
8 Do you now hear us?
9 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] No.
10 [Technical Difficulty]
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Monkhouse, can you now hear us?
13 Still not.
14 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Your Honours, unfortunately we're
15 still not receiving any audio from The Hague.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we're in the hands of the technicians.
17 THE DIRECTOR: Do you hear us now, Sean?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Still nothing?
19 I suggest that we wait for another two minutes. If then the
20 videolink has not been restored, that we'll adjourn but remain stand-by
21 until we receive a message that the videolink is functioning again.
22 What we also could do is to address a few other procedural matters
23 while waiting.
24 I suggest to the parties that we continue -- continue with a few
25 procedural matters and that as soon as the videolink has been restored,
1 that the Chamber is informed so that we can directly -- immediately then
2 move to the videolink again.
3 The Chamber would first like to deliver the reasons for the
4 decision on the Prosecution's application for protective measures for
5 Witness 28. These are the reasons for the Chamber's decision granting the
6 protective measures of face and voice distortion and a pseudonym for
7 Witness 28.
8 I am now surprised by someone apparently calling.
9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have to switch our plugs.
11 So therefore I repeat, the Chamber would now like to give reasons
12 for its decision granting the protective measures of face and voice
13 distortion and a pseudonym for Witness 28 on the 1st of November, 2007.
14 On the 1st of November, 2007, the Prosecution applied for the
15 previously mentioned protective measures for Witness 28.
16 To back its application, the Prosecution referred to a former
17 motion of the witness in which she requested to quash a subpoena and, in
18 the alternative, to testify in closed session. The motion provided that
19 the NGO for which the witness works had received threats including - and I
20 quote - "ugly letters" - unquote, and a threatening phone call after the
21 NGO had published an article in February 2007 on certain well-known public
22 figures in Kosovo. In connection with this, an e-mail with photographs of
23 the Kosovo staff of this NGO was also sent in August 2007 to a wide range
24 of persons labeling the staff "traitors" and "spies."
25 While Mr. Haradinaj and Mr. Brahimaj remained neutral, Mr. Balaj
1 opposed granting the requested protective measures, as he did not see any
2 basis for protective measures for the witness.
3 The Chamber recognises that this is not a clear-cut situation for
4 granting protective measures; however, it finds that the specific
5 situation of this witness warrants protective measures. The Chamber has
6 set out the standard for granting protective measures in numerous
7 decisions and therefore needs not repeat them again. Because the Kosovo
8 branch of the witness's NGO received threats by e-mail, through regular
9 mail, and by telephone after it had published an article on issues similar
10 to those which the witness testified about, the Chamber considers that the
11 witness's testimony may antagonise persons in Kosovo.
12 The parties have agreed that there is an unstable security
13 situation in Kosovo which is particularly unfavourable to witnesses who
14 appear before the Tribunal. Even though the witness does not own property
15 there, she does work for an NGO which operates an office in Kosovo. This
16 is sufficiently similar to the situation of a witness who owns property in
17 the area to apply the standard test by analogy, because the NGO's property
18 and local staff are made vulnerable through their association with the
19 witness. Moreover, the witness's employment at the NGO might necessitate
20 travels to Kosovo, which is analogous to the witness who returns to visit
21 property or family in Kosovo.
22 Even though neither the witness herself nor her family received
23 threats, the Kosovo branch of the witness's NGO and its local staff
24 received threats as mentioned above. The NGO's small field office in
25 Kosovo and its staff are closely associated with the witness, and through
1 this association the witness is vulnerable to threats made against staff
2 of the field office. Thus, also the first part of the test for protective
3 measures is fulfilled by analogy, because the threats against the branch
4 of the witness's NGO are in this instance interpreted by the Chamber as
5 threats against each member of the NGO as a whole. And this includes
6 Witness 28.
7 In view of the specific circumstances of this case, the Chamber
8 finds that the conditions for protective measures are met.
9 And this concludes the Chamber's reasons.
10 Mr. Registrar, could you inform us whether the videolink is
11 functioning again. If not, we have other matters on our agenda.
12 THE REGISTRAR: It has been restored, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we ...
14 Good afternoon again, Mr. Tax. You have already introduced
15 yourself. May I just verify whether you could hear us when we were in
16 private session when we discussed the details of Witness 30.
17 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, indeed, Your Honour. We did hear
18 that part, and shortly after that discussion was when we lost the
20 JUDGE ORIE: Then my first question would be: Did the Canadian
21 authorities receive a request for Witness 30 to be subpoenaed?
22 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, we did. The Canadian authorities
23 received a request to subpoena Witness 30, and that request was dated 29
24 August 2007, an official request.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, you wanted to say something?
1 MR. RE: Are we in open session?
2 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session.
3 MR. RE: Does Your Honour require a redaction of what you just
4 said a moment ago? Did I misunderstand what was said earlier about the
5 country in question?
6 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session for a second.
7 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
25 Mr. Tax, of course, my next question would be whether the subpoena
1 was issued; and then, as a follow-up, whether the subpoena was served upon
2 Witness 30. And I again ask you to refrain from any details about Witness
3 30, especially place of residence.
4 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, Your Honour.
5 The proceedings that follow after this country receives an
6 official request are that there is an act, the Mutual Legal Assistance in
7 Criminal Matters Act, and that's the proceedings under which we followed
8 and proceeded to court.
9 Under that act in Canada, it's required that the Minister of
10 Justice first approve the request of the state or entity that has been
11 received in this country to provide evidence by virtual presence of
12 videolink, so to speak, and under that act it allows for an ex parte
13 application before a Superior Court judge in this country.
14 Before going to the judge -- or on making the application to the
15 judge, that judge must be satisfied of two things: One, that the witness
16 resides in his or her jurisdiction; then two, that they have reasonable
17 grounds to believe that an offence has been committed and that the
18 person's evidence or statement would be relevant to that investigation or,
19 in this case, prosecution of an offence.
20 So with those parameters in mind, on the 30th of October the
21 Minister of Justice approved the request to proceed. And on November the
22 7th, I made application before a Superior Court judge under the particular
23 sections, at sections 21.1 and 22.2 out of the Mutual Legal Assistance in
24 Criminal Matters Act before a Superior Court judge.
25 The application was supported by a very extensive affidavit, and
1 the affidavit set out --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- could I ask you to slow down because our
3 interpreters have difficulties in following you on your speed of speech.
4 I'll give you a sign --
5 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- once the French translation is ...
7 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] I was aware that the matter was being
10 interpreted, and I will try to speak with an appropriate rhythm.
11 As I mentioned momentarily ago, the matter then proceeded before a
12 judge of the Superior Court in the province in which Witness 30 resides.
13 That application was made before the judge on the 7th day of November,
15 As I mentioned, the Attorney-General of Canada, who was bringing
16 this on behalf of the Office of the Prosecution, pursuant to the official
17 request, filed a very extensive affidavit before the Justice, and the
18 affidavit really was set into four parts.
19 Just to give you the -- the extent to which the efforts were made,
20 the first section of the -- the materials in support of the motion for
21 this application was a general overview to the Justice because this is, of
22 course, a very rare application in Canada.
23 The second area referred to the offences committed and the
24 potential relevant evidence that Witness 30 could provide.
25 The third area then related - just leafing through the affidavit
1 very quickly - to the need for the compelling of the testimony.
2 And the final areas related to the security concerns and the
3 aspect that within Canada we also could have this matter, what is referred
4 to in the Canadian courts as "sealed" so that it would not be part of a
5 public record within the court system or available to the general public
6 of Canada.
7 We made that application. The Justice granted that application.
8 And on November 7th, the order was granted to compel Witness 30 to attend
9 this day and give evidence.
10 In addition, the Justice was satisfied that there were significant
11 issues raised in the affidavit material and that the people that would
12 be -- or who would be present in the room today would be very limited and
13 that appropriate security measures be put in place for this day. And that
14 was the extent of the matters which the Justice ordered here.
15 Of course, there was also a subpoena to attend this day at this
16 place and give evidence at this time. And, of course, as I mentioned, the
17 final matter was the sealing order.
18 The documents - in particular, the order granted by the Justice
19 and the subpoena to the witness - were served the day after the
20 application, on the evening of November 8, Thursday, November 8, 2007.
21 JUDGE ORIE: My next question is: Do you -- when you say it was
22 served upon Witness 30, that means that he received it in person?
23 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. The individual who swore the
24 affidavit in support of the motion by the Attorney-General for these
25 applications and orders was known to Witness 30 or has been known to
1 Witness 30 for some time, and it was that individual who served the
2 documents in person on the witness.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, do you have any additional information as
4 to how Witness 30 responded when the subpoena was served upon him?
5 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, in terms of that, Your Honour --
6 JUDGE ORIE: And may I ask you that if any of the information you
7 would like to give to this Chamber would be at risk to identify Witness 30
8 in any way or to reveal any identifying information, then please ask us to
9 go into private session.
10 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Thank you, Your Honour. I believe I can
11 provide this information without the necessity of going to the private
13 My understanding is - and I perhaps should digress for one quick
14 moment - that when we prepared the affidavit material and the
15 requirement -- the section that I had mentioned to the Tribunal of the
16 affidavit material, there is a -- a bit of a history with the witness and
17 the individual who assisted me and swore the information contained in the
18 affidavit to be true that they had developed a relationship and had seen
19 each other on several occasions.
20 So in terms of the requirement to compel the witness, there had
21 been statements made throughout the course of the dealings that: "I would
22 not attend"; "I would attend but not say anything"; "I will go with you";
23 "I will not go with you."
24 The matter had gone through that kind of -- of a back-and-forth
25 throughout, and on the date that the order was obtained, the Justice was
1 told, as it is stated in the affidavit material, that in the days leading
2 up to the application, a day or two before, the witness had indicated that
3 they would attend in this session today and in all likelihood not say a
4 great deal, answer questions, as many as they could.
5 That's what we believed. That's what we told the Justice on
6 November the 7th. Of course, as I mentioned, the Justice granted the
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could I interrupt you just for one second.
9 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If you -- if you allow me.
11 You said: "Indicated that they would attend," which is not --
12 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. I'm -- I'm sorry, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- entirely clear to me.
14 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] I'm trying to be -- not necessarily
15 identify the gender of the witness.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if you -- then if that was the purpose,
17 then I understand that you were talking about he or she would attend.
18 Yes. Please proceed.
19 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. So the next evening my
20 understanding was and I was informed that the subpoena was served and
21 there was little conversation that day, but I believe very shortly after
22 service a statement was made that, "I will not be coming to the
23 video-conference location."
24 And on two occasions since, both -- I believe Friday, November 9th
25 and again either on Sunday last or yesterday again the individual verified
1 with Witness 30 whether or not they would be attending, and the statement
2 was made, "No."
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then finally, of course, that's what we are for
4 here, that you today could establish that Witness 30 did not show up at
5 the place where he was subpoenaed to appear.
6 Is that correctly understood?
7 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] That is indeed the situation, Your
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for that.
10 Now, may I ask you the following question: I take it that all the
11 documents relating to this subpoena will be kept in your archives? Or in
12 your files?
13 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes. Yes, indeed. They are kept in our
14 archives. They are, of course, as I mentioned previously, in the court as
15 well, but they have been sealed.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm not asking you at this moment any further.
17 But so if in future the Tribunal would be in need of receiving certified
18 copies of even the originals, that they are still kept in such a condition
19 that not for -- that they are available if you would decide to grant such
20 a request.
21 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Yes, indeed. I do have an original set
22 of all documents. And I guess what we would have to do is to determine
23 down the road and not speculate today --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] -- on what that application might be or
1 what --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] -- the response would be, Your Honour,
4 but I can confirm that I do have original documentation.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Most important for me was to establish that all
6 the documentation is -- is kept and therefore is physically present if any
7 application would be made in the future to receive copies or originals of
8 those documents. I'm not speculating on whether ever such a request will
9 be there, but it's at least now established that the file is and will be
11 Is there anything else at this moment which you consider to be
12 relevant to bring to our attention?
13 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, having heard the oral reasons just
14 a moment ago involving another witness, I should mention that --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, as a matter of fact, that was public. I was
16 not aware that you were listening in to when we dealt with the procedural
17 matter just in order to fill our time. But you're referring to protective
18 measures. Protective measures -- I don't know whether you want to address
19 that issue. We usually wait for applications by the parties, as an
20 application was made for Witness 30 and where protective measures had been
21 granted in respect of him.
22 So if there's anything relevant to add to that ...
23 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, I would just say obviously Witness
24 30 is not here today, but in the materials there was a request by Witness
25 30 in terms of a letter that was written that they wanted to ensure that
1 myself on behalf of the Attorney General was aware of the witness's
2 concerns on an early date and the individual who assisted me in the
3 affidavit made sure that I received a copy of that letter and indeed that
4 letter was put in the material that went before the Superior Court justice
5 in this country.
6 In addition, we also informed the Justice of concerns that the
7 witness had in terms of safety and security that had come even as late as
8 a day or two before the application was made. And we did inform the
9 justice of those. It was for those reasons that the justice felt there
10 was a need to compel the witness and, of course, provide the security
11 measures that could be placed on the application in this country.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That is then now on the record.
13 I'm now looking at the parties in the courtroom here in The Hague,
14 whether there's anything to be raised at this moment.
15 Mr. Emmerson.
16 MR. EMMERSON: Just one matter that I would like to clarify with
17 this witness in private session, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. "With this witness," I take it that --
19 MR. EMMERSON: With Mr. Tax.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You --
21 MR. EMMERSON: I see --
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- correctly -- well, you say "this witness," and
23 then you say "Mr. Tax."
24 Of course, I've considered whether the information Mr. Tax gives
25 us should be given without any solemn declaration. If the parties
1 would -- would want that, then --
2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm perfectly content for my part with the form in
3 which the --
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're perfectly content.
5 That's true for other Defence counsel as well? For you, Mr. Re,
6 as well?
7 MR. GUY-SMITH: Since I understand that the information being
8 given by Mr. Tax is informative in nature so that the Tribunal is apprised
9 of the situation, I certainly don't require his sworn testimony.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we return for a while --
11 MR. EMMERSON: Just before Your Honour does, I saw that Mr. Re was
12 rising to his feet. If he has issues that he wishes to raise with
13 Mr. Tax, then might I ask that he do them first.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re.
15 MR. RE: The question I have, if I could put to Mr. Tax through,
16 of course, the Trial Chamber, is in relation to the service of the
18 Mr. Tax, you mentioned a few moments ago that it had been served.
19 Is there a -- a document in the nature of an affidavit of service? Could
20 you just describe to us if there is, what the document is, whether it's
21 one which the witness himself has signed or whether it contains the
22 information which the serving officer or the conversation with the
23 witness --
24 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] At the moment, Mr. Re, I can indicate
25 that I have not seen an affidavit of service. The individual who did
1 serve the documents confirmed to me by e-mail on the evening and again the
2 next day of the service. It was my belief at the time that Witness 30
3 would be present in court today by videolink. So I did not ask the
4 individual to prepare an affidavit of service.
5 Obviously, circumstances have changed over the last few days and
6 we may require that affidavit to be executed.
7 MR. RE: Just a procedural follow-up to that. In -- under
8 Canadian procedural law, is -- is it the situation that the person serving
9 the subpoena does an affidavit when serving it, and/or does the person who
10 receives it have to sign a receipt and maybe write something on it? I
11 mean, are there two documents?
12 MR. TAX: [Via videolink] Well, thank you for the question. It can
13 be either way. Normally with nonlegal service, in the sense of on a -- a
14 service on another lawyer of -- in this country, normally you would not
15 sign an affidavit but the lawyer would signify that the document had been
17 When you're dealing with witnesses or other people involved in a
18 court process who may have some testimony to bring or if you're serving a
19 document on an unrepresented litigant, then indeed you would ask the
20 serving officer to prepare an affidavit of service, attach a copy, a true
21 copy, of the documents that were served, and complete that affidavit.
22 In this case, I do not believe that the individual asked for any
23 signature on the documents themselves but, rather, would be prepared to
24 swear an affidavit of service with a true copy attached of what was
1 MR. RE: There is another matter I'd like to raise, but I'd like
2 to do that in private session.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we turn into private session.
4 And, Mr. Emmerson, then I take it that we'll allow Mr. Re to
5 continue and then you would raise the matter you would like to raise after
7 [Private session]
11 Pages 10641-10646 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 If there is no other matter to be raised at this moment in
10 relation to the videolink testimony of Witness 30, I would like to thank
11 you, Mr. Tax, for attending and explaining to us the procedure that has
12 been followed until now. And this concludes the videolink. Therefore it
13 can be disconnected.
14 [Videolink concluded]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we have -- before we call the
16 next witness, that we may have an early break and then hear the testimony
17 of the witness after the break, because we'll not -- certainly not finish
18 it before the break, I take it.
19 But before we do so, I had a few other procedural matters on my
20 list. One serves as guidance for the Defence.
21 We have received a motion --
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We have one motion before us which relates to
24 the admission into evidence of the Human Rights Watch report "Humanitarian
25 Law Violations in Kosovo." And I think, first of all, that Judge Hoepfel
1 as a few questions in relation to one of the paragraphs of this motion.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Thank you.
3 In this motion, which is public -- I see that right; yes?
4 We would like to have some orientation to get it right. Please,
5 Mr. Re, can you help us in paragraph 20.
6 MR. RE: I don't -- I actually don't have it in my hands, Your
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay.
9 MR. RE: I'm just trying to get it up on the computer screen.
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Or could you maybe bring it at a break. We can
11 also --
12 JUDGE ORIE: If you can get it on the screen, that would --
13 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. That would be fine.
14 It would relate to paragraph 20, page 6 of the Prosecution's
15 submission. Once you have it on the screen, you can --
16 MR. RE: I have it. It's in front of me.
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Okay. Please, you are referring to some of the
18 murder victims allegedly named in the fourth amended indictment and being
19 listed in this chapter of the report whose admission you are seeking. And
20 here's a series of names, and I would like to ask you about the second,
21 third, fourth, and fifth name: Milica and Milos Radosevic, first, and
22 then Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic. Please, to get it right, what do you --
23 where do you consider them to be named in the indictment you are giving at
24 footnote 17? And the footnote in itself seems not to be completely in
25 order, but let us first speak of Milica and Milos Radosevic. Would that
1 be Radunovic? Because the report you are seeking to admit speaks of
2 Radosevic, but -- there is a slight mix-up, I think.
3 As, of course, we had all kinds of names.
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And maybe just to give you a clearer idea about
6 the other questions, the next names were Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic,
7 unknown to us at first sight, at least.
8 MR. RE: That -- those are the victims listed in counts 7 and 8,
9 the Serb sisters, Vukosava Markovic and Darinka Kovac are in fact --
10 JUDGE HOEPFEL: No, what I mean -- okay.
11 MR. RE: They are Dara and Vukosava Vujosevic.
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: 7 and 8.
13 MR. RE: There's a statement of -- I think of Witness --
14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.
15 MR. RE: There's a 92 bis statement which --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Maiden names?
17 MR. RE: Which gives their names. Those are their maiden names.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Maiden name, yes.
19 MR. RE: The names in the report are their married names.
20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: I see.
21 MR. RE: I'm sorry, the names in the indictment are the married
22 names, but they're the same people.
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The same people.
24 And as to the name Radosevic, can you help us? I mean, it's maybe
25 a little complicated for you at this very moment to clarify, but then --
1 MR. RE: It's counts 11 and 12. Can I get back to you? I will
2 check it.
3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That would be -- yes, please.
4 MR. RE: I'll get back to you after the break.
5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And then as to the last three names being
6 mentioned here as contained -- as being contained in pages 83 and 84.
7 Gurim, which would be a typo -- a typo in there, the report, in the Human
8 Rights Watch report. But let us say -- Gurim, it says, Bejta,
9 Agron Berisa and Ivan Zaric.
10 MR. RE: That should be counts 23 and 24. I'm sorry, that is a
12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yes. Is it --
13 MR. RE: Yes, I apologise. It's just the wrong counts. It's 23
14 and 24.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That's okay.
16 MR. RE: Footnote --
17 JUDGE HOEPFEL: The counts 11 and 12 as well as the counts -- no,
18 the counts 19 and 20. So easy it is to mix it up. Are they really
19 containing names which would be referred to in the Human Rights Watch
20 report? If you would find --
21 MR. RE: Yes, they're there. Agron Berisa, Gurim Bejta, and
22 Ivan Zaric, counts 23 and 24. And on the Human Rights Watch report --
23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Oh, yes, this is instead of 19 and 20. I see, the
24 23 and 24.
25 MR. RE: Okay. I did -- it's simply -- I've written 19 and 20,
1 but it should be 23 and 24. I correct that.
2 JUDGE HOEPFEL: That's okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And then perhaps in 11 and 12 where you said --
4 when "Milos" is mentioned, it's always Milos Radunovic, not Radosevic. Is
5 that --
6 MR. RE: I think that's right, but I will check it. I just need a
7 moment to check it. I probably have to do it outside.
8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Yeah, whereas in the Human Rights Watch it's
9 Radosevic. That's maybe something you could clarify. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then in relation to this same submission to
11 admit the Human Rights Watch report, the Chamber found that much of the
12 information in the report is unspecific or not easy to test on the
13 basis -- on what the basis of the report. Where, however, the information
14 is specific and if that would also be relevant information, we often have
15 better evidence than this evidence contained in the report.
16 The Chamber further observes that some parts of the report present
17 legal findings which are for the Chamber to be made, and it's not entirely
18 clear how you would consider findings of others when you have to make up
19 your own mind as far as legal issues are concerned. Of course, the
20 Chamber will have to make up it -- its legal findings on the basis of the
21 facts that the Chamber has established.
22 Now, for the Defence, if the Defence responds to it, the Chamber
23 would like to ask the Defence to -- certainly not to forget to address
24 Chapter 3, "Violations in the Drenica Region," pages 18 to 37.
25 Then a few other matters.
1 MR. EMMERSON: Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: [Previous translation continues] ... Passing on, in
4 relation to the passage that Judge Hoepfel was inquiring about concerning
5 paragraph 20, it -- it is our understanding, based not only on the
6 testimony that's been heard in this court and witness statements but also
7 testimony in other cases, that the source of the material in that report
8 that relates to individuals named on this indictment is the interviews
9 conducted by two witnesses whom the Tribunal has directly heard testimony
10 from, Witness 28 and Marijana Andjelkovic. In other words, what one has
11 in this report is a Human Rights Watch re -- re-circulation of information
12 which has been the subject of direct testimony from those two individuals
13 and that is indeed the direct source for that material.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I said before that some of this information
15 that the Chamber has received better evidence, that ...
16 Then the Chamber would like to give an oral decision. It is a
17 one-liner. And, of course, the reasons will follow, but already to inform
18 the parties about the decision the Chamber has taken to strike the
19 testimony of Witness 55 from the record. Reasons will follow in writing.
20 Another matter still pending - and I'm addressing you,
21 Mr. Guy-Smith - that is, excerpts, excerpts of human rights reports you
22 asked to be marked for identification and until now we have 195 up to and
23 including 203.
24 You then announced that you had other reports which you'd like to
25 be marked, MFI'd. As you may remember, the Chamber was not giving you
1 great encouragement to --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: I do.
3 JUDGE ORIE: -- proceed with this. Therefore the Chamber has
4 asked you to reconsider whether what is in the transcript would not do and
5 whether you would still press D195 to 203 to be admitted into evidence.
6 And, of course, a related question is whether you still seek the other
7 human rights reports to be MFI'd, because then they should be identified
8 clearly and then an MFI number should be given to it.
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I believe -- I believe - but I may be mistaken -
10 but I believe that they well already have MFI numbers. I am at the
11 present time considering those specific daily reports and whether or not I
12 may come back with a alternative option, because I do appreciate the fact
13 that there's a fair amount of information in them, or whether or not I am
14 going to take the Chamber's suggestion. I'm in the process of doing that,
15 not right now obviously but it's something that I am in the process of
16 doing, and I will get back to you, hopefully, no later than tomorrow.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That is appreciated. So that would then be in
18 relation to both the numbers I already mentioned and the ones where you
19 said --
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: That's correct, yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: -- they have been MFI'd. So the whole bunch of it.
22 MR. GUY-SMITH: The whole bunch, yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
24 Mr. Re.
25 MR. RE: Can I just -- I just seek a technical clarification, the
1 one-line oral decision. The testimony to be stricken from the record.
2 It's a technical question. By that, does the Trial Chamber mean will
3 not -- although it's been given, will not consider that evidence, as
4 opposed to delete it entirely from the record, because it is in fact part
5 of the trial record.
6 I mean the Prosecution's position, of course, should be that it
7 remains on the record but not be considered, given that it's been given.
8 And the Trial Chamber just says we have heard it but just don't -- don't
9 consider it.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll give you a technical answer after the break.
12 Then we'll have a break until ten minutes past 4.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 3.39 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.19 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Before we hear the testimony of the next witness,
16 Mr. Re, you were invited to -- to be ready to announce in court today
17 whether you would have any objection against the admission of D167 up to
18 and including D178.
19 MR. RE: These are the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Stijovic.
21 MR. RE: I'm sorry, I haven't -- I haven't brought them with me at
22 the moment. Could I possibly ask for an indulgence until this witness
23 finishes so I can give you the answer then?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please do so.
25 And then also perhaps check whether D174 is uploaded in e-court.
1 We had some difficulties in locating it. So if you would then include
2 that. That's one issue.
3 Then, Mr. Re, I still owe you a technical explanation, that is,
4 about Witness 55. Where I said the testimony will be stricken from the
5 record, what -- that's not what we are physically doing. What we're
6 doing, we are excluding the evidence of Witness 55 under Rule 89(D). That
7 means it's still on the record for many, many reasons. It could be that
8 the Appeals Chamber ever wants to look at it or to decide whether our
9 decision was correct or not in this respect. But that's the technical
10 part of our decision.
11 Then are you ready to call your next witness?
12 MR. RE: Yes. I call Ahmet Ukaj.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is it Mr. Kearney who -- or is it you? I
14 see Mr. Kearney since a long time be present in court again, so I don't
15 know --
16 MR. RE: He's been on sick leave. I'm taking the witness. But
17 he's -- he's second chair.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And then it's good to hear that he has recovered.
19 MR. KEARNEY: Thank you, Your Honours. And it's good to see
20 everyone as well.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Mr. Ukaj. Can you hear me in a
24 language you understand?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Ukaj, before you give evidence in this
2 court, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn
3 declaration that you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
4 but the truth. The text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher. And I'd
5 like to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
7 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ukaj. Please be seated.
9 WITNESS: AHMET UKAJ
10 [Witness answered through interpreter].
11 JUDGE ORIE: You will first be examined by Mr. Re, who is counsel
12 for the Prosecution.
13 Mr. Re, you may proceed.
14 Examination by Mr. Re:
15 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ukaj.
16 A. Good afternoon.
17 Q. Is your name Ahmet Ukaj, were you born on the 16th of July, 1968?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In Vranoc e Vogel, Decan --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- Kosovo? Are you a farmer by occupation?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you still live there?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. I want to show you a statement which you have --
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you.
3 I want to show you a statement which is in front of you, which has
4 the date of the 11th of November, 2007 and is 65 ter document 2166. Can
5 you please just take a look at the document, which is in Albanian. Does
6 it -- have you signed that document?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Is the statement which you signed on the 11th of November - that
9 was on Sunday - is it a true statement?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you give the evidence contained in that statement if you
12 were asked the same questions in court today?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. RE: May it be received into evidence. I have not received
15 any objections to any portions of it from the Defence.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the Defence, I see that there are no
17 objections. But it first needs a number to be assigned.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1226, MFI, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. And it is admitted into evidence, because
20 there are no objections.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
22 MR. RE: I have a short summary of the statement.
23 I haven't explained it to the witness. If -- if Your Honour
24 wishes to, please.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think it's good for the witness that he
2 Mr. Ukaj, for reasons of efficiency, the Chamber receives most of
3 your testimony through a written statement. But since the -- since the
4 outside world would not know what the questions are about, it will be put
5 to you at a later stage. A summary will be read. That summary is not
6 evidence. The evidence is your statement.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Re.
8 MR. RE: This is the summary of the Rule 92 ter statement of
9 Ahmet Ukaj.
10 Ahmet Ukaj was a KLA soldier in 1998, serving first in his home
11 village of Vranoc and then serving in the KLA unit based in Baran.
12 One morning in August of 1998, Mr. Ukaj saw Sanije Balaj entering
13 the Red School Building in Baran near the military headquarters with a
14 group of men. She left about 15 minutes later with the group of men
15 through the main gate of the school in the direction of the main road and
16 out of sight.
17 Later that day Mr. Ukaj returned to his home village of Vranoc and
18 was told that two men had been seen leading a woman into some woods near
19 Lugu i Isufit and that shots had been heard. Mr. Ukaj went with a group
20 of men to the area to investigate. In the woods, Mr. Ukaj heard someone
21 say, "Stop," followed by the cocking of a rifle. A man named Galani, or
22 Galan, was pointing a Kalashnikov and said, "Yes, I have killed her." He
23 ordered Mr. Ukaj and his brother to remain there and ordered the others to
25 Mr. Ukaj then noticed that another person, Avni Krasniqi, was
1 nearby. Mr. Krasniqi said that he was unable to put the body in the
2 grave. Galani waved his weapon and ordered Mr. Ukaj to help Mr. Krasniqi.
3 Mr. Ukaj saw a shallow grave with the body of a young woman nearby - the
4 same woman he had seen that morning in Baran; that was Sanije Balaj - with
5 a gunshot wound to the chest. Mr. Ukaj, who was very frightened, helped
6 Mr. Krasniqi put the body in the grave. Galani then told Mr. Ukaj and his
7 brother to leave the scene, and they returned to Vranoc.
8 That is -- that completes the summary of the Rule 92 statement of
9 Ahmet Ukaj.
10 Q. Now, Mr. Ukaj, I just want to ask you a few clarifying questions
11 to assist the Trial Chamber understand the evidence which is in your
12 statement and show you one map and some -- three photographs.
13 And, first of all, I want to take you to paragraph 9 of your
14 statement, when you say: "At about 9.00 or 9.30 in the morning" - that's
15 that day in August 1998 - "I saw a young woman whom I later found out was
16 Sanije Balaj being brought into the Red School Building."
17 MR. RE: While the witness is reading that, could Exhibit P326
18 please be put onto the screen, and specifically the second photograph.
19 Q. And you say: "I was about 20 to 25 metres away from the school
20 building in which the Baran headquarters was located. She was with a
21 group of people whom I did not recognise. Nazif Ramabaja had his office
22 in the other school, about 50 to 100 metres away."
23 There's a photograph about to appear on the screen. Is that a
24 photograph of the school?
25 A. No. Not the Red School.
1 Q. Is that a photograph of the other school, where the -- where
2 Nazif Ramabaja had his office?
3 A. The school that is nearby.
4 Q. Thank you. Okay. Now, I want you to describe to the -- can you
5 see in that photograph where you were standing when Sanije Balaj was
6 brought in that morning?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Now, I want you to describe to the Trial Chamber what you saw when
9 you said she was being brought in. How was she being brought in?
10 A. I just saw her entering the school just like anyone would have.
11 Q. Where were the other men -- where was the group of people you did
12 not recognise in relation to her when she was being brought in? What was
13 that group of people doing?
14 A. They were walking along with her and entered the school together.
15 Q. In your next paragraph, paragraph 10, you said: "About 15 minutes
16 later, I saw her leave with four or five men."
17 And then two sentences down: "I learned that her name -- her name
18 was Sanije Balaj only about 10 to 12 days later when Fadil Nimoni called
19 me to Prapaqan to make a statement about what I knew."
20 Can you just tell the Court very briefly what the process was in
21 relation to your making a statement. How did you come to make a statement
22 and what did you do?
23 A. I found out that it was Sanije when I gave the statement in
25 Q. What was the process of giving the statement? What did you do? I
1 mean, was someone asking you questions and recording it, or what process
2 was employed?
3 A. There was the late Fadil Nimoni and someone else whom I didn't
5 Q. Did they ask you questions?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What about?
8 A. They asked me about what I have put in the statement, and I have
9 explained in it what they asked me.
10 Q. When you say "a statement," did they take notes when you spoke to
11 them or did you write something out? Did they type? Did -- was it
12 handwritten? Or was it just a spoken statement?
13 A. I didn't write down anything. They did.
14 Q. Did you sign anything?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did they ask you to read it before you signed it?
17 A. I don't remember.
18 Q. Do you remember whether you got a copy of it?
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. Do you know what they did with the statement?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. What did you tell them had happened? Was it different to what
23 you've told the Court in this statement today?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Now, did you testify in a trial in Kosovo against Idriz Gashi on
1 the 17th of May this year and give evidence similar to what's in your
2 statement in that trial?
3 A. Yes. I was asked to go there, and I went.
4 Q. I'm just going to ask you about -- when you went to the woods and
5 where you went and seeing the body there, and I want to show you two
6 photographs, which are Exhibit P925. And my question is whether you can
7 identify the two locations as where the body was or whether it was that
8 area. So the two photographs will be coming in a moment.
9 The first photograph has ERN U0143926 and it's got a man taking a
10 photograph and a -- next to a muddy watercourse. Was that in the area
11 where Sanije Balaj's body was buried?
12 A. It must be approximately on the left side, a little bit above.
13 Q. Above it you can see some bushes. Was it in the bushes to the --
14 on the left side, that is, to the right of the man taking the photograph
15 or holding the camera?
16 A. On my left side, approximately.
17 Q. Just to clarify that, was the place where the body was in the
18 bushes in the top left-hand side of that photograph?
19 A. Yes, on the left side.
20 MR. RE: Is that sufficient for the Trial Chamber's purpose?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. RE:
23 Q. If you could turn to the second photograph, please, which has ERN
25 When it appears on the screen, please tell the Trial Chamber what
1 that is a photograph of.
2 A. It is before you go to the forest. I don't see anything specific
3 about it.
4 Q. Okay. Is that the area where you went that afternoon and were
5 shown the body of Sanije Balaj and asked to help put it into a grave?
6 That is, where you encountered Avni Krasniqi and Galani?
7 A. Yes, this is the area.
8 Q. Now, in paragraph 15 of your statement, you said that: "Galani
9 said he had killed her because he had found her with a notebook. He
10 showed us a notebook the size of a cigarette packet and read aloud some
11 Serbian names from the notebook. I can remember the names Vule and Vek. I
12 recognise these names as those of Serb police officers who had I heard
13 were working in Decan. He also said that the notebook contained the phone
14 numbers of some Serbs."
15 My question is: Did you know who these police officers were
16 yourself or you had only heard their names? And if so, how did you know
17 they were Serb police officers?
18 A. No, I didn't know them. I knew them only by name.
19 Q. How did you know they were Serb police officers?
20 A. Everybody knew that. Not only me.
21 Q. And the last thing I want to ask you about is in the last
22 paragraph of your statement, it refers to a map on which you marked the
23 villages under -- which you knew or heard to be under KLA control.
24 MR. RE: Can the witness please be shown 65 ter 2171, which was
25 annexed to the witness's statement.
1 Q. And on it you have said this: "Generally mark the KLA territory
2 from -- KLA territorial control from the end of May until the Serb
3 offensive of September 1998. The villages are identified with a black
4 dot." And you've indicated Serb forces with the letter "S."
5 I just want you to confirm that that is the map that you have
6 marked with a black dot and put the "S" on.
7 A. Yes, this was the map, and these were the areas I knew were under
8 KLA control.
9 MR. RE: May that also be received into evidence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, the "S," where do I find the "S"? I see the
11 black dots, but ...
12 MR. RE: Right at the very bottom.
13 Maybe if the witness marked it in red with --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, then it's --
15 MR. RE: Would you like it --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Outside -- no, I see it's outside the -- more or less
17 I was looking for it on the map itself, where it is just below.
18 Yes. That's clear to me.
19 Mr. Registrar, would you please assign a number to this map.
20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1227, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
22 Any objection? No objections. Then the map marked by the witness
23 P1227 is admitted into evidence.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. RE: That's the evidence in chief.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Emmerson, you are the first one to
2 cross-examine the witness?
3 MR. EMMERSON: I believe so, yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ukaj, you'll now be cross-examined by
5 Mr. Emmerson, who's counsel for Mr. Haradinaj.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Emmerson.
7 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Emmerson:
9 Q. Just one or two matters, Mr. Ukaj, if I may. First of all, in
10 paragraph 12 and 13 of your witness statement, you refer to information
11 that was provided to you by Dul, D-u-l, the son of Zymer Hasanaj. And I
12 just want to be clear about it. The information that Dul provided to you
13 was that he had seen not one, but two men taking the woman into the forest
14 or the woods; correct?
15 A. This is what Zymer told us.
16 Q. And is it also what his son, Dul, told you?
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Emmerson, this answer could create ...
18 In your statement, it says that you were told that -- that Dul had
19 told that he had seen two men taking a woman into the forest. Now --
20 MR. EMMERSON: I think to be -- sorry, just before Your Honour
21 completes the question.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. EMMERSON: Sorry. I think to be fair, at paragraph 12 the
24 witness says: "Zymer said that his young son, Dul, had told him."
25 So at the end of paragraph 12 --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. EMMERSON: -- the witness is referring to communication passed
3 to him. I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The only issue is whether the one or the two
5 was correctly understood.
6 Now, what you heard, what did Zymer tell you about what Dul, his
7 rather young son, had told him, whether it was one or whether there were
8 two men taking a woman into the woods?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He said there were two men.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we look at the transcript, Mr. Emmerson,
11 there could be ...
12 Let me just check whether ...
13 Yes, please proceed.
14 MR. EMMERSON:
15 Q. In paragraph 13, in the last sentence you say: "Dul took us to
16 where he had seen the two men and a woman."
17 Can I be clear: Did Dul tell you that the place that he was
18 taking you to was a place where he had seen two men and a woman?
19 A. Duli came with us, because Zymer took us along with Dul, because
20 it was Dul who had previously told Zymer the place where he had seen the
21 man and the woman.
22 Q. All I want to be clear about is whether you heard Dul himself tell
23 you that there were two men.
24 A. No.
25 Q. Going back, please, to paragraph 9 of your witness statement,
1 where you describe seeing this woman who you later found out to be
2 Sanije Balaj being brought into the Red School Building, you say that she
3 was with a group of people whom you did not recognise, and you say that
4 you were about 20 to 25 metres away at the time.
5 I want to put to you a passage from a statement that has been
6 (redacted) He says
7 in his statement as follows:
8 "About 50 metres from the school which served as the KLA barracks
9 three or four soldiers came out on the road, which was very narrow as it
10 passed through the village. One of them was Mete Krasniqi and he signaled
11 to us to stop. He spoke to Hamdi, who was in the driver's seat. He asked
12 where we were going. And when we answered, he said that Sanije could go
13 no further with us because she had to be questioned. Hamdi said, 'No, she
14 is with us.' Hamdi and I got out of the car. Avni Krasniqi was standing
15 next to a white Mercedes minivan behind our car and I went to speak to
16 him. He showed me a black -- he showed me a black notebook with names of
17 people whom he said had to be interrogated and said that she could not
18 continue with us."
19 Now, I just want to ask you: The group of men that you weren't
20 able to recognise, did they -- are you able to tell us now whether your
21 inability to recognise them is because of the distance that they were away
22 from you, or could you see their features and are you able to say that
23 they were people you did not know?
24 A. The road where Sanije Balaj was stopped is behind the school. I
25 was in front of the school. So from where I was, I couldn't see the place
1 where she was stopped.
2 Q. I see. You did, though, see the group of men who were with her -
3 is that correct - as she was walking towards the Red School?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And were they men whose features you could clearly make out?
6 A. I couldn't make out their features because people were constantly
7 going in and out of the school. She was simply one of the many persons
8 who went in or came out of the school.
9 Q. Do you know whether Mete or Avni Krasniqi were with her as she was
10 walking into the school?
11 A. I don't remember that. I don't remember.
12 Q. You obviously knew what Mete and Avni looked like at the time.
13 A. Yes. Yes.
14 Q. And -- and am I right in thinking you have a family relationship
15 with Mete and Avni Krasniqi?
16 A. [No verbal response]
17 Q. No?
18 A. No.
19 MR. EMMERSON: Okay.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
21 MR. GUY-SMITH: No questions.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Harvey.
23 MR. HARVEY: No questions.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, is there ...?
25 MR. RE: No.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ukaj, this concludes your testimony in this
3 court. You might think that only a few questions were put to you, but of
4 course the Chamber has read your statement, and the questions were mainly
5 clarifying your statement and asking for additional information.
6 Mr. Ukaj, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to this court
7 and to answer the questions the parties have put to you, and I hope you
8 have a safe trip home again.
9 Would you please --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. And through you I want
11 to greet the three accused for whom I cherish great sympathy.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's not for a witness to say, but -- well,
13 you have said it now.
14 Would you please follow Madam Usher --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise then.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Mr. Emmerson, Mr. Guy-Smith, Mr. Harvey, do
20 you have any procedural matters to be raised at this moment? Because we
21 have no witnesses at this moment available, do we?
22 MR. RE: I have one slight procedural matter, which is 65 ter
23 document number 680, which was a photograph shown to Professor
24 Dusan Dunjic during the course of his testimony but did not seem to have
25 received a -- an exhibit number. It is at 7 -- page 7201 of the
2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm very sorry. Can I interrupt? And the reason I
3 did is simply a matter of timing.
4 I had confidently used the name of (redacted) in open session
5 in -- in the knowledge that I thought there was no protective measure in
6 respect of him. But I'm receiving an indication that there may be, and so
7 can I simply - and I apologise for interrupting Mr. Re at this stage - but
8 can I simply ask for a redaction of the use of his name in my question
9 within a time frame and then we can consider it --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Your redaction will be made. And it's a good reason
11 to interrupt because the time limits are rather strict.
12 Mr. Re, you were asking a number for 65 ter document 680.
13 Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P1228, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. RE: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And that -- it doesn't come to my mind, P1228. Could
18 we just see it so that I know what we are talking about.
19 And is that photo tendered, Mr. Re?
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Because I think we dealt with most of the Professor
22 Dunjic exhibits, if not with all. So therefore, if we could ...
23 MR. RE: I think it was the last one -- Mr. Dutertre was very
24 anxious that I bring this to the Trial Chamber's attention. I think it
25 was the last one which wasn't in evidence, which was shown to him -- or is
1 attached to his statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then may I take it, in view of the --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: I --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: I probably have no objection it to, but I would
6 like to have the opportunity just to double-check.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll then hear from you, and at the same time
8 we'll hear from Mr. Emmerson and Mr. Harvey.
10 MR. RE: To assist the Trial Chamber and Mr. Guy-Smith, these are
11 the two sisters that Judge Hoepfel asked me about earlier in counts 7 and
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the two sisters with the same maiden name.
14 Then we'll hear from the Defence whether any objections.
15 Mr. Re, could you meanwhile inform us about whether there are any
16 objections against D167 through D178.
17 MR. RE: Looking in e-court, they were marked, as far as I could
18 see, as exhibits, as opposed to MFIs. Could that just be checked? I may
19 have misread it.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, could you please check the status of
21 D167 through 178.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: According to the registrar, they're all MFI'd but not
24 yet exhibits in e-court.
25 MR. RE: All right. Taking them in order, 1 -- D167, there's no
1 objection to that one.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore admitted into evidence.
3 MR. RE: No objection to D1 -- oh, sorry, a number.
4 JUDGE ORIE: No. No, these are MFI'd, so they have numbers. It's
5 just a matter of --
6 MR. RE: I apologise.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- objection or not and admission.
8 MR. RE: 168, no objection.
9 169, objection on the basis of relevance. It appears to be a BBC
10 World report of March 2003, of so limited weight to the -- of so limited
11 relevance to be of meaningless weight, in our submission.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. RE: D170, it's outside the time frame, and for that reason
14 the Prosecution objects to it. It's a May 1999 document.
15 D171, object to that one on the basis of relevance.
16 D172, a similar objection, on the basis of relevance.
17 D173, likewise.
18 D174 is a Prosecution -- it's a statement to the ICTY, an
19 investigator statement.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It -- I was informed that it is uploaded in
21 e-court, so there should be no problem in that respect. D174, objection?
22 MR. RE: The objection the same. And I anticipate Mr. Emmerson
23 will press for the tender, but it falls within the same category --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Category --
25 MR. RE: -- of documents that the Trial Chamber ruled on earlier.
1 It was up to 17 ...?
2 JUDGE ORIE: 174. We now come to 175.
3 MR. RE: Similar. It's also an ICTY statement.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. RE: 176 appears to be a Defence statement.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Dated the 6th of October, 2007, yes.
7 MR. RE: It's -- look, it's in the same category as all of the
8 statements the Prosecution has attempted to tender given to Serbian
9 authorities at the time. In that respect, the Prosecution submission is
10 if the others -- the Prosecution ones go in, this one should go in. If
11 the Prosecution ones don't go in, this one should be treated in the same
12 manner. So we have conditional objections premised upon whether the
13 statements we press for admission are admitted into evidence.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I think on some of them decisions were made
15 already, but there might be others still pending.
16 Now, what if half of them were admitted, others were not admitted,
17 Mr. Re? What -- I mean, conditional objection is -- well, let's --
18 MR. RE: I can't -- I can't take it any further.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Well, there -- you object against admission.
20 MR. RE: 177 is an ICTY statement. The same objection.
21 And 180 -- sorry, 178.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. RE: I'm not quite sure what the relevance of it is. Maybe
24 the Defence could explain.
25 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
1 MR. RE: It appears to be a media report -- sorry.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now we have -- if I -- 168, no objections,
3 admitted into evidence.
4 Then, Mr. Re, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, and 178 are objected to due
5 to lack of relevance. Could you respond to that or --
6 MR. RE: Just on 178 I just make the observation that it seems to
7 be something downloaded from the Internet on the 10th of October. It's --
8 it's completely unsourced as to where the information has come from. It's
9 from American RadioWorks, but it gives no source as to its provenance,
10 whether it's contemporaneous information, whether it was given in 1998 --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that it was-- was it tendered through
12 you, Mr. Emmerson, or was it Mr. Guy-Smith, I think, yes.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: That was -- that was --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Munja, yes.
15 MR. GUY-SMITH: That was -- I was asking a question about Munja
16 and Mr. Salapur. That was the -- and whether or not there was any
17 recognition or identification of Viodimir [phoen] Salapur and Munja.
18 That's where that document was being used.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. GUY-SMITH: And with regard to the -- with regard to the
21 specific objection made by Mr. Re, I would at this point agree that there
22 is no specific date with regard to the -- when that document was compiled;
23 however, it deals with information concerning the period within the
24 indictment and specifically with matters about the PJP or paramilitary
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Are you giving up any objections on your side
2 about unsourced -- I mean, it's American RadioWorks. Is that --
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, that's the source.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's source, yes.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Am I giving up my objection --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, it's the source. And then, of
7 course, where did the source gets its information from, that's -- I
8 mean --
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: If the question is am I giving up my objection to
10 unsourced information, the answer is, no. I will not speak out of both
11 sides of my mouth.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Of course not.
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: And I don't have the difficulty of taking a
14 position in one case and in --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith, the issue might be whether you would
16 not consider this a document which, as far as the possibility to test the
17 source might be very similar to many other documents where objections were
18 made. Now, I'm just -- I'm not playing a word game.
19 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I understand exactly. I extend -- I
20 understand exactly what you're thinking. If I could reflect about that
21 for a moment, and I will come back to you on that issue. I think --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: As much as I would like this document in and as
24 much as I think the document has relevance and importance to the Chamber,
25 you may well be right with regard to the analysis you've just made. But I
1 would like a moment before I concede it.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You get a moment for that.
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Then I do not remember exactly who tendered what
7 MR. EMMERSON: I think I can assist --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. EMMERSON: -- because I have a schedule of the documents
10 tendered by the Haradinaj Defence through the Haradinaj Defence through
11 the witness Stijovic.
12 And can I take them from 169 onwards --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. EMMERSON: -- dealing with the objections as they've been
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.
17 MR. EMMERSON: 169 was a printout of a BBC article describing the
18 history of the JSO and its paramilitary connections.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Called "Serbia's Elite Enemy Within."
20 MR. EMMERSON: Exactly so. I put the passages in
21 cross-examination to Mr. Stijovic and obtained his responses. I do not
22 suggest that the document stands free-standing as evidence of the truth of
23 its contents. And so in those circumstances --
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please -- please proceed.
1 MR. EMMERSON: And so in those circumstances, the -- the news
2 article D169, we do not press for its admission as an exhibit. I am
3 confident that I read onto the transcript the passages that are necessary
4 for understanding the witness's testimony, so --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Then the status of D169 should change from MFI in --
8 no, I think we -- you do not press, so therefore it could be vacated.
9 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm entirely in your hands.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. D169 is vacated.
11 MR. EMMERSON: D170 is a document that was used in
12 cross-examination with more than one witness, and indeed there was some
13 evidence in the testimony of Mr. Branko Gajic as to the circumstances in
14 which this document came to be in VJ intelligence files.
15 It is a letter signed by Colonel General Pavkovic dated the 25th
16 of May, 1999 but referring with -- with unspecified dates to multiple
17 crimes allegedly committed by the MUP and false attribution of those
18 crimes to the VJ.
19 I certainly read passages of it onto the record, but, in our
20 submission, it's not a document the admission of which represents any
21 difficulty from the Prosecution's point of view. There is testimony from
22 Mr. Gajic as to its genuineness. It is put there, as much as anything,
23 for context and background. But we -- we do therefore tender it, but
24 we're in the Trial Chamber's hands as far as the assistance that is
25 necessary to derive from the document itself rather than its contents is
2 JUDGE ORIE: If Mr. Re doesn't have to add anything to it, it
3 is -- of course, it's a bit of a different document compared to 169. The
4 Chamber will consider admission.
5 MR. EMMERSON: 171 and 172, in our submission, are properly
6 admissible and are tendered. 171 is the statement taken by Zoran Stijovic
7 from the former head of the RDB, Rade Markovic, outlining his presence at
8 a meeting to plan --
9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Excuse me. We have a problem with the transcript.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, I didn't look at the transcript. The more I say,
11 the more will not be on the transcript.
12 [Technical Difficulty]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Is it working again?
14 Yes, it seems to be working again.
15 Mr. Emmerson, could you please resume where the transcript
17 MR. EMMERSON: Yes. I -- I think, if I -- I had finished my
18 submission at the last full stop, and the Trial Chamber then raised with
19 Mr. Re whether there was anything further to add and, considering that
20 there didn't appear to be, indicated that the Trial Chamber would consider
22 JUDGE ORIE: Consider the admission of, I think it was, D170, we
23 were talking about.
24 MR. EMMERSON: So may I move on, then, to D171 and D172.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. EMMERSON: D171 is the statement taken by Zoran Stijovic from
2 Rade Markovic concerning a meeting at which the alleged plan to move
3 Albanian bodies from Kosovo to Serbia was discussed and formulated and
4 allocated to, amongst others, General Colonel Vlastimir Djordjevic. And
5 D172 is the MUP information report which set out the context for that
6 interview and, indeed, the working group strategy for investigating the
7 recovery of the refrigerator lorry in the Danube and the subsequent
8 attempts to conceal its contents, which was, as I say, the background for
9 the dispatching of Mr. Stijovic to interview Mr. Markovic.
10 Mr. Re objects on grounds of relevance. The issue of relevance of
11 that line of questioning has already been raised and ruled upon by the
12 Trial Chamber on a number of occasions. Without at this stage making
13 submissions as to weight, up until now the Trial Chamber has accepted that
14 that issue is an issue which crosses the -- the relevance threshold, so we
15 would press for those documents to be admitted.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, Mr. Emmerson is making reference to earlier
17 decisions of the Chamber. Any need to respond to that?
18 MR. RE: The only thing I say is the -- it -- Mr. Emmerson's
19 submission doesn't alter our basic submission that what Mr. Markovic said
20 to Mr. Stijovic in 2001 is of no relevance to the proceedings here, and it
21 refers to something outside of the time frame of the indictment, which may
22 well be under -- in a different case but has nothing to do with this case.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But isn't it the case that, again, apart from
24 what weight it -- it may have or may not have, that the whole issue of the
25 removal of bodies, to say the transport or removal of bodies from Kosovo
1 to places far away from Kosovo is linked by the Defence to Mr. Djordjevic,
2 who also attended the scene at Lake Radonjic?
3 MR. RE: I mean, is that as good as it gets in terms of the
4 admissibility of this evidence? If -- if so, it's of so little weight --
5 JUDGE ORIE: No. You say -- you say it's outside the time period.
6 I think that there's no major problem about that. It's more -- that's at
7 least how I understand the Defence position, that if someone who was
8 involved in such a matter was present at the Lake Radonjic site, that this
9 is not without relevance. That's one.
10 And the second is that we have dealt earlier with these matters
11 and Mr. Emmerson is referring to what the Chamber at those occasions
13 And although I haven't checked it, it -- at first eye it seems
14 that he is referring correctly to decisions taken by the Chamber about
15 approximately the same matter.
16 MR. RE: Look, we -- we maintain our objection and say it's of --
17 of --
18 JUDGE ORIE: We'll --
19 MR. RE: -- absolutely no relevance to the proceedings before the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then on our list of documents to be considered, apart
22 from D170, is now D171, 172, 173.
23 We now move to a different category, Mr. Emmerson. That is the
24 ICTY statements.
25 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
1 JUDGE ORIE: And among them, one statement taken by the Defence.
2 MR. EMMERSON: I'm sorry, if I could just interrupt you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. EMMERSON: I think we got as far as D172. D173 is in a
5 different category.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, you're right. I made a mistake. I
8 MR. EMMERSON: That is a contemporary document concerning
9 allegations lodged with the public prosecutor in Peja by a
10 non-governmental organisation concerning allegedly criminal activity of
11 Vukmir Mrksic, whose evidence formed a part of the - I'm sorry, I'll put
12 that again - whose role formed a part of Mr. Zoran Stijovic. In other
13 words, Mr. Stijovic referred to Mr. Mrksic as one of those who was
14 involved in the collection of information and this is a contemporary
15 indictment allegation lodged with the district prosecutor in Peja not for
16 the purposes of any proceedings, making allegations against Mr. Mrksic.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You say "contemporary indictment." I think
18 it's 2002, isn't it?
19 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But it relates to events in 1999.
21 MR. EMMERSON: Can --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. EMMERSON: Can I just digress for a moment on this. This is
24 part of a body of material which in different ways is put forward to the
25 Trial Chamber in order to make a point which, to some extent, may be a
1 self-evident one; namely, that the statements that the Prosecution have
2 sought to admit of individuals who were detained in Serbian police custody
3 during this period are -- are -- cannot be assumed to be voluntary witness
4 statements, because there was a systematic practice of torturing those who
5 were in custody.
6 Now, to -- to what extent this -- this material is necessary,
7 given some of the indications that the Trial Chamber has thus given in
8 relation to those documents, is a little difficult for us to judge,
9 particularly since at the moment we're -- we're not quite at the point of
10 having final decisions on the admission for that material. But that is
11 the context in which that line of cross-examination was pursued, and it
12 touches upon one or two of the other documents to follow.
13 But can I -- can I indicate that the document is tendered and
14 leave the matter in the Trial Chamber's hands?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, anything to add in relation to D173?
16 MR. RE: I would certainly dispute Mr. Emmerson's attempt to give
17 evidence from the bar table that there was a systematic practice of
18 torturing those who were in custody.
19 I have no recollection of any admissible evidence being given to
20 this Trial Chamber that there was a systematic --
21 MR. EMMERSON: Yes, I'm sorry. It was in the evidence of Witness
23 MR. RE: -- practice of torturing.
24 What Mr. Emmerson put to Witness 28, who gave evidence to the
25 effect that she had not actually been to any police stations or -- there
1 was no evidence from Witness 28 that she had interviewed lawyers who had
2 spoken to people in custody or she was able to -- she was in a position to
3 give evidence of a practice being systematic, as opposed to allegations
4 being made and sustained at times of mistreatment against some - some -
5 detainees in detention. The Prosecution doesn't dispute that. But we do
6 dispute the bold assertion that there was a systematic practice, which
7 seems to imply that it occurred with each and every detainee in Serb
8 custody, because there's simply no evidence of that. And Witness 28
9 couldn't have given that evidence.
10 And if that's the highest Mr. Emmerson can put it, he should
11 withdraw the submission.
12 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider D173.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Emmerson, we now move on to the other
16 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
17 JUDGE ORIE: That is, 174 through is 177, either ICTY OTP --
18 MR. EMMERSON: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: -- statements and one witness statement taken by the
21 MR. EMMERSON: The Defence, yes.
22 Can I deal with them individually. 174 -- or rather, in groups.
23 174 and 175 are both OTP witness statements. I should say in
24 parentheses we believe that the e-court system currently marks D174 as an
25 exhibit. But -- but I don't stand on that, if that has been done in
2 We -- we recognise the rulings that the Trial Chamber has made in
3 respect of material prepared for the purposes of -- of proceedings before
4 the ICTY, and so without withdrawing the exhibits, I don't anticipate any
5 different ruling in respect of D174 and D175 from the rulings that have
6 thus far been made.
7 So far as D176 is concerned, Your Honour is quite right, that is a
8 Defence witness statement of Muhamet Avdija, again in the category of
9 material going to the use of torture by the Serbian police. But Your
10 Honour is quite right to say that it is a statement prepared in connection
11 with these proceedings, and so, again, without withdrawing it, we
12 anticipate the same ruling will follow us, as followed with other material
13 in that category.
14 But may I say simply this: That that is a Defence witness
15 statement from an individual in respect of whom the Prosecution proposes
16 to rely upon a MUP statement. And one of the difficulties is -- and I --
17 I appreciate we're dealing with different categories of -- of
18 admissibility rule, but one of the difficulties here is that -- that the
19 net result is what the Prosecution is inviting the Trial Chamber to do, is
20 to admit and rely upon statements taken by the Serbian MUP but -- and
21 indeed to rely on them as evidence of the truth of their contents but to
22 exclude statements taken from the makers of those statements to say that
23 they were obtained under torture.
24 So I -- I don't anticipate any different ruling in respect of
25 that, but -- but I don't formally withdraw it. I do tender it in those
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. EMMERSON: I think that concludes the exhibits which were
4 tendered by the Haradinaj Defence.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes may I ask you one question.
6 Yes. I'm looking at the link between 173 and 176. In 176 we find
7 Vule Mircic [phoen]. Is that the same person as we find in D173, Vukmir,
8 also known as Mitar Miricic [phoen].
9 MR. EMMERSON: The answer to that is to be found in the testimony
10 of Mr. Zoran Stijovic, where he --
11 JUDGE ORIE: I just don't have it in my --
12 MR. EMMERSON: -- distinguished between the two brothers or
13 cousins who had similar first names: One I think Vule, one I think
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 MR. EMMERSON: But the names appear on various different
17 documents --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. EMMERSON: -- as individuals who engaged in a practice of
20 systematic torture in the relevant police stations.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I didn't just have it fresh in my mind, so
22 therefore I asked.
23 MR. EMMERSON: I think the transcript is 9158, around about line
25 JUDGE ORIE: That will certainly assist.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then having dealt with all the --
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: That leaves D177.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Which is a --
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Falls into the same category with regard to being
5 an OTP statement. This was a statement made by a protected witness in the
6 Milosevic case who was a deputy prosecutor who in fact discusses the very
7 thing that Mr. Re just took objection to, that being a systematic state
8 practice of torture of individuals in police stations, as well as killings
9 in those places.
10 I understand the court's ruling with regard to this issue;
11 however, I also -- I also know we've had some of this discussion before,
12 and I know that I've been urged not to raise the issue with regard to
13 different theoretical practices, depending on what case is being
14 prosecuted. But with regard to the specific issue of statements and
15 specifically with regard to the -- the manner in which MUP statements are
16 being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, whereas other
17 statements are being wholesale rejected by the Office of the Prosecutor,
18 oftentimes where they have taken them and oftentimes where they have used
19 them in other proceedings or tried to keep them out from other proceedings
20 because of the very same reason, that being their assertion that there was
21 a systematic practice of torture and abuse with regard to statements, I
22 would -- I would tender the document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Re, could you specifically on -- on the
24 last objection raised by Mr. Guy-Smith, as far as the consistency in the
25 approach of the Office of the Prosecution is concerned, could you respond
1 to that briefly.
2 MR. RE: I'm referring to the evidence given in this particular
3 proceeding in relation to that -- the time period within the indictment,
4 which is March to October 1998, and the absence of evidence on the record
5 of systematic torture, which is what --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Well, that's --
7 MR. RE: -- what Mr. Emmerson said of detainees.
8 As far as I know - I could be corrected - there has been no
9 evidence in this case of systematic torture.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But I think that one of the issues Mr. Guy-Smith
11 raises is that -- but I have to look more precisely on the time frame,
12 which appears to be mainly 1999, Mr. Guy-Smith, or am I wrong?
13 MR. GUY-SMITH: No, I believe it's up -- it's up through 1999.
14 That -- that particular individual who was a prosecutor -- was a
15 prosecutor before 1999.
16 But we've also received, with regard to the same issue, evidence
17 both from Witness 28 concerning informative talks, as well as information
18 from those reports that we are presently having a discussion about, the
19 CDHRF reports, in which, once again, informative talks - and I'm using the
20 euphemism there - were addressed as a -- as a practice and pattern of
21 behaviour with the MUP and SUP as regards Albanian civilians and Albanians
22 perceived to be members of or supporters of the KLA.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for these submissions.
24 We'll -- we'll consider them all and we'll let you know as soon as
25 decisions have been taken.
1 So that means for the time being that it is only 167 and 168 that
2 are admitted into evidence. Decisions to follow for the others.
3 Any other matters at this moment to be raised?
4 MR. RE: Your Honours, I was just -- I was just trying to find the
5 Milutinovic indictment. I've only pulled up the pre-trial brief. But
6 paragraph 2 says: "The core allegations concern criminal liability for
7 campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo between mid-March 1999 and the 20th
8 of June 1999."
9 Now, if I can find the -- I just couldn't pull up the indictment,
10 but my memory is it is -- it is within that period. So that's where I
11 confine my submissions.
12 MR. GUY-SMITH: And just so that there's no question whatsoever, I
13 am referring to the Milosevic case in which the Office of the Prosecutor
14 and specifically Mr. Nice went through a relatively lengthy examination of
15 a number of witnesses, not the least of which a gentleman by the name of
16 Dragan Jasovic, who was a SUP inspector in Ferizaj during our indictment
17 period in which a series of statements that were taken, that were being at
18 that time -- well, offered by Mr. Milosevic were objected to because, as
19 Mr. Nice put it, there was a systemic state practice of torture of
20 individuals at police stations during that time, including all of the
21 kinds of abuses that have been discussed here.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 MR. GUY-SMITH: Not the least of which is the list that I at one
24 point discussed with one gentleman in terms of appropriate ways of
25 engaging --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- in interviews.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- the Chamber is sufficiently informed to -- to
4 take a decision on the matter.
5 Then, Mr. Re, your -- my attention was drawn to the fact that
6 there may be quite a lot of mistakes in the meanwhile uploaded 92 ter
7 statement of Witness 69. Would you please in both versions, both the
8 English version and the B/C/S version, would you please check whether
9 there are any mistakes. It's mistakes in the redactions.
10 MR. RE: Are you -- is Your Honour referring to the redactions
11 ordered in the meeting we had or something else?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I -- again, I have not found this myself.
13 Often something that should have been redacted is one of the things my
14 legal officer writes me has not been redacted. Occasionally, something
15 that should not have been redacted has in fact been redacted. That's
16 about the English version.
17 Now, the B/C/S version, he says also contains mistakes that are,
18 as he informs me, are apparent even to him, who does not speak the
19 language, and that the mistakes in the two versions are not always the
21 Just to draw your attention to it, that if you at a later stage
22 seek them to be admitted, that we would know that we have a precisely
23 redacted version of the 92 ter statement.
24 MR. RE: We will attend to that straight away.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 Then ...
2 I'm just checking a few matters at this moment.
3 Yes, Mr. -- yes.
4 MR. GUY-SMITH: Is there --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
6 MR. GUY-SMITH: If I might, among other things, I was reflecting
7 with regard to D178.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what's the result of that?
9 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will withdraw.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You will withdraw.
11 MR. GUY-SMITH: I will withdraw -- I will withdraw that because of
12 the concerns indicated by the Chamber. I think it's --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it's not a concern.
14 MR. GUY-SMITH: It's --
15 JUDGE ORIE: It's not -- it's an observation.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I understand the observation. I accept the
17 observation. And I don't need to -- I'm not asking to -- to muddy up the
18 record that way. And I think it's a legitimate observation.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then about to adjourn.
20 The videolink testimony has been finished today. Do we have a
21 witness tomorrow, Mr. Re?
22 MR. RE: We -- we're going to make another attempt with that
23 videolink. We're making -- we're in communication with the Canadian
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. RE: I can't tell you what the result of them are at the
3 In terms of witnesses tomorrow, I should be able to shortly advise
4 the Trial Chamber and the Defence whether we have a witness to -- for
5 tomorrow. Mr. Versonnen is available. And whether we have another
6 witness, I should be able to inform the Trial Chamber and the Defence
7 within half an hour to an hour, I expect.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: Could we have an idea of who that might be?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, if -- I don't know whether you would need any
10 protective measures for that witness. If there is a chance you would,
11 we'll turn into private session.
12 MR. RE: Can I advise -- can I inform the Defence and the Trial
13 Chamber after we finish? Because I have to make inquiries. I'm not in a
14 position to announce whether we have a witness -- a second witness just
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: Well, I'm -- apparently there's some -- there's
17 someone in mind. I'd appreciate knowing who that is. I don't see the
18 harm in having that information.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move into private session.
20 [Private session]
11 Page 10692 redacted. Private session.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Re, we invited Mr. Versonnen to come back, I
21 think, tomorrow and then we got a message that he would be available
22 today. Then we -- also in view of the ongoing discussions, we suggested
23 that today might not be a good idea, but then we were informed that
24 tomorrow he might not be available for reasons urgent -- urgent matters he
25 had to attend to.
1 Then I think there has been communication between the Chamber and
2 Mr. Re about the scheduling. We suggested that -- or at least we inquired
3 into whether he would be available later tomorrow afternoon or on
4 Thursday. Now you say Mr. Versonnen is available tomorrow.
5 Would that be the whole of the afternoon or just --
6 MR. RE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- at the end of the afternoon?
8 MR. RE: He'll be in The Hague tomorrow.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And if for whatever reason we'd not find time
10 tomorrow to hear his testimony or if you and Mr. Guy-Smith are still
11 communicating about trying to find a solution, would he still be in The
12 Hague on Thursday?
13 MR. RE: He would. But I don't think we're going to reach
14 agreement on that particular issue.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Guy-Smith.
16 MR. GUY-SMITH: I --
17 MR. RE: Being asked to make a stipulation I couldn't make.
18 MR. GUY-SMITH: I've asked him to make an agreement that he's
19 indicated he can't make.
20 And I -- I'm not like the Godfather.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then the Chamber understands it as a
22 notification that the attempts to reach an agreement were not successful.
23 Is there any other matter? If not --
24 MR. GUY-SMITH: I should point out, just so the Chamber is aware
25 for purposes of scheduling, that the questioning will be relatively short
1 and discrete.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And "relatively short" means what, Mr. Guy-Smith?
3 MR. GUY-SMITH: It will certainly be under half an hour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: That's for Mr. Versonnen.
5 MR. GUY-SMITH: Yes. With regard to the other prospective
6 witness --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. GUY-SMITH: -- that's a different matter entirely.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's a different matter.
10 Then we will adjourn until Wednesday, the 14th of November,
11 quarter past 2.00 in the afternoon, Courtroom I.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.44 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 14th day of
14 November, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.