1 Tuesday, 31 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 [The witness entered court]
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Good morning, Mr. Riedlmayer.
7 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Your evidence will continue now, subject to the
9 usual rule that the solemn declaration which you took at the beginning to
10 tell the truth continues to apply to that evidence today.
11 Mr. Hannis.
12 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour. When we stopped yesterday, I
13 said I had no more questions for the witness, but there had been a couple
14 matters that have come up in connection with some satellite photos and
15 regarding whether or not there were additional text pages in his database
16 concerning a couple of the mosques in Vushtrri that we showed photos for
17 but we did not show the related pages, and also some issues about the
18 so-called White Book regarding Serbian allegations about NATO damage to
19 Serbian monuments which he spoke to. And I would like to ask him a few
20 questions about some of those matters, if I may, to confirm whether or not
21 the satellite photos we do have to confirm whether they are the ones he's
22 talking about.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Please carry on, then.
24 MR. HANNIS: And regarding the White Book, a couple of questions
25 as well.
1 WITNESS: ANDRAS JANOS RIEDLMAYER [Resumed]
2 Examination by Mr. Hannis: [Continued]
3 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, yesterday, a couple of times, you mentioned
4 satellite photos and they're referenced in your database as part of your
5 source for the information regarding either the pre-existence of a
6 particular site or the damage or both.
7 MR. HANNIS: I would like the registry officer to bring up P98 for
8 us, please.
9 Q. This regards Bela Crkva. You mentioned that there -- that you had
10 seen a satellite photograph showing damage -- well, both before and after
11 pictures concerning the mosque. I'm not sure of the quality that's in
12 e-court, and I have a hard copy that I could ask the usher to hand you as
13 well. Yes, I think your hard copy may be better, and I don't know if the
14 hard copy will show up better on the ELMO than the e-court version does.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Please put the hard copy on the ELMO.
16 MR. HANNIS:
17 Q. And while we're getting the ELMO started, Mr. Riedlmayer, do you
18 recognise that photograph?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Is that the one you were referring to yesterday?
21 A. It was. On the hard copy, at least, you can see on the left the
22 mosque intact with a minaret and a big dome and a series of little domes
23 to the left.
24 Q. Okay. If we could have you handed the pointer and then if you
25 could point to the photograph on the ELMO and indicate where you're
1 talking about. On the left it's described as --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers please slow down and make
3 pauses between questions and answers.
4 MR. HANNIS:
5 Q. "Buildings Intact, 11 March 1999." Can you tell us where the
6 mosque is on that photograph?
7 A. The left-hand photograph, at the very centre here, is the image of
8 the mosque; in the middle, the tall thin structure is the minaret; to the
9 right is the large dome over the prayer hall; to the left, the small domes
10 over the entrance.
11 Q. And the right half of that exhibit is described as buildings
12 damaged 2 April 1999, and I recall when we had the opening statement, and
13 at the bottom of this photograph there's a notation, that this appears to
14 be the same area but 180 degrees rotated, based on the curve of the
15 river. Would you agree with that?
16 A. Yes. You can also orient yourself again. This time the main dome
17 of the mosque is on the left of the building and the small domes, on the
19 Q. And are you able to tell whether the minaret is still --
20 A. The minaret doesn't appear to be there.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 Next I would like to show you --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Riedlmayer, how did you obtain this photograph?
24 THE WITNESS: This was displayed on the web, on the NATO web site.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
1 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
2 Q. Next, could we show you on the e-court Exhibit P2455. You
3 mentioned yesterday, when we were talking about the library and the mosque
4 in Djakovica, that you had seen a photo, a satellite photo, showing
5 actually that area burning and while the minaret was still intact.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. I have a hard copy that may be slightly better than what's on the
9 A. The screen version isn't very bad.
10 Q. Okay.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's just go with the screen version.
12 MR. HANNIS:
13 Q. Let's go with the screen, then.
14 A. In the centre of the image you see the mosque with the minaret to
15 the left - it's the very thin structure - and to the left of that, the
16 library. And the street running diagonally from top to bottom to the left
17 of that is the street of shops that I was referring to with the individual
18 shops on both sides of the street missing their roofs. Their interiors
19 are vacant; they are burned out. And what's remarkable to me is that none
20 of the buildings of the street, meaning to the left of the street, beyond
21 the row of burnt shops, appears to be damaged in any way.
22 You can see a large cloud of smoke rising just above the mosque.
23 If you look at the hard copy, probably you can see more detail as to
24 exactly where the smoke is rising from. I assume it's rising from some of
25 the shops, but it also appears to be rising from the library building.
1 Q. And where did you obtain this photo?
2 A. This photo is still available on the US Department of Defence web
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, how do we establish the date of this?
6 THE WITNESS: On the web site it appears with the date. I
7 believe, I'm speaking from memory, but I believe the date may be the 25th
8 of March, so the day after the first NATO air-strikes.
9 MR. HANNIS:
10 Q. And is that consistent with other information you obtained about
11 when the damage occurred in that area as far as burning of buildings
12 versus when the minaret was toppled?
13 A. Yes, sir. Your Honour, with respect to this mosque, with your
14 permission, I'd like to say something concerning the question you asked me
15 yesterday ...
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Remind me what the question was, Mr. Riedlmayer.
17 THE WITNESS: The question was who was the person who informed me
18 about the details of the destruction of the mosque.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: And last night I thought about it some more. It was
21 an October morning, seven years ago, almost exactly, and I thought about
22 who I spoke with that morning and I am quite sure it was Mr. Boshi. He
23 was the only person we spoke to at the mosque site, and as I recall now,
24 he wasn't the imam of the mosque but a senior member of the congregation
25 of the mosque.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
2 MR. HANNIS: And finally, if we could show Exhibit P2456 [Realtime
3 transcript read in error "2445"] to the witness.
4 Q. Yesterday, Mr. Riedlmayer, we showed you some photos of a damaged
5 mosque in Vushtrri. The first one we showed you was the one that was
6 completely destroyed, and then we showed you two others from which the
7 minaret had been toppled, but we didn't have related text pages from your
9 I'd like to show you now, if you look at the screen on the first
10 page there, we looked at a photo of the Karamanli mosque. Are these the
11 pages from your database that relate to that mosque?
12 A. Yes, they are.
13 Q. Okay.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, I'm confused by this number, Mr. Hannis,
15 because we had P2445 yesterday and it was a pre-war photo of the mosque at
17 MR. HANNIS: That was 2445, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's what this one bears to be, according to
19 the transcript. Have I got the wrong number?
20 MR. HANNIS: I believe this one should be 2456, thank you.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: It's wrongly recorded, then, on the transcript.
23 MR. HANNIS: I may have misspoken, Your Honour. And if we could
24 just scroll down to the bottom of this page.
25 THE WITNESS: There, you see the two photographs shown in court
2 MR. HANNIS: And if we could go to the next page.
3 Q. That's a pre-war photograph on the right?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. HANNIS: The next page, please.
6 Q. It's just your bibliography concerning that entry.
7 MR. HANNIS: And the next page.
8 Q. Does this relate to the third photograph of a mosque in Vushtrri
9 that we looked at yesterday?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 MR. HANNIS: Scroll to the bottom, please.
12 Q. Okay. And the top photo was the one that we saw yesterday?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And what is on the bottom of that?
15 A. On the bottom is a second photograph of the mosque that I took.
16 MR. HANNIS: Could we go to the next page, please.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. That is a pre-war photo with the minaret intact.
19 MR. HANNIS: And the next page. Thank you.
20 Q. Those are the pages from your database that related to those
21 additional two photographs we showed yesterday?
22 A. Yes, they are.
23 Q. Now, one other thing I wanted to ask you about concerned the
24 so-called White Book. Do you recall what the full title of that document
1 A. It is cited in the last section of my report, of my expert report,
2 among the sources of allegations, and the title is indicated there.
3 Q. Is that "NATO Crimes in Yugoslavia"?
4 A. Yes. And it's two volumes.
5 Q. Divided chronologically between the 24th of March and the 24th of
6 April, in volume 1?
7 A. Yes. I see them in front of you there.
8 Q. Okay. Those are the ones in which you said there were allegations
9 of damage by NATO bombing that you checked out and they appeared to be
11 A. Yes, we tried to check every allegation.
12 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe that's all the additional
13 questions I had.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
15 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I have a question, just to clarify certain things.
16 For purposes of verifications, did you refer only to the University of
17 Harvard repository, or were you able to also check things or verify facts
18 from other such repositories, like Topkapi in Istanbul and the British
19 museum, or the one, the Louvre, as you call it, in France? Because these
20 are also repositories on these areas. Topkapi would be very essential,
21 just to check that.
22 And the second was, when you talk about "NATO Crimes in
23 Yugoslavia," is this a book now?
24 THE WITNESS: It is a two-volume book.
25 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Thanks. I'm grateful for that.
1 THE WITNESS: And with respect to libraries, I worked for three
2 months to gather documentation primarily from the Harvard libraries, but I
3 also approached other libraries when materials were not available at
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Ivetic, do you wish to take up the issue
6 of objections to exhibits?
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, it was brought to my attention that I
8 indicated we would do that at the conclusion of direct. I think the prior
9 witnesses we had similar objections to we waited until all the evidence
10 was in. So I propose we do that so we don't take up cross-examination
11 time with that.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well.
13 Mr. O'Sullivan.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes, Your Honour, the order will be: General
15 Lazarevic, Mr. Sainovic, General Pavkovic, General Ojdanic, Mr.
16 Milutinovic, and General Lukic.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Bakrac:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Riedlmayer, I'm Mihajlo Bakrac,
22 attorney-at-law, one of the Defence counsel for General Vladimir
24 At the outset, I wish to go through your CV. And with respect to
25 professional associations, I see that you're a member of the Society for
1 Turkish Studies, also Historians of Islamic Art, Middle East Librarians
2 Association, Society for Iranian Studies, Art Libraries Society of North
3 America, Middle East Studies Association of North America, and
4 International Association of Orientalist Librarians. Is all of this
6 A. It is.
7 Q. Apart from that, Mr. Riedlmayer, when talking about your
8 professional experience, from the very beginning of your professional
9 career, you worked on the Ottoman Empire and Islamic culture. Is that
10 also correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. When we look at your publications, mostly, they all refer to the
13 Ottoman Empire and the Islamic cultural heritage. Is that also correct?
14 A. Most of them do. I have written about Serbian heritage as well,
16 Q. But, Mr. Riedlmayer, nowhere in your publications have I found
17 anything not about the Serb heritage but about Orthodox or Catholic
18 cultural heritage. Perhaps you may have mentioned it in passing or when
19 discussing Bosnia, but nowhere do I see any publication dealing with that
21 A. I have written on Orthodox heritage in Bosnia. If you have the
22 most recent version of my curriculum vitae, you may see an article on Zito
23 Mislic, the Serbian Orthodox monastery in Herzegovina. That was destroyed
24 during the war in Bosnia. I have also an article about -- two articles
25 that deal with the destruction of Serbian Orthodox monuments in Kosovo,
1 both during the 1999 period and, more recently, in March of 2004.
2 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, perhaps I really do not have your latest CV, but
3 you will agree that the two articles mentioned, compared to everything
4 else in your eight-page CV, is not very much, because most of it refers to
5 the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic cultural heritage. So you will agree
6 with me, will you not, that you spent almost your entire career studying
7 the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic cultural heritage?
8 A. I have no wish to dispute that; it's my academic specialty.
9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. Yesterday, you said that you initiated
10 a project concerning the cultural heritage in Kosovo, in June 1999. And
11 you also told us that in June and July, you had some information about the
12 events in Kosovo. From where did you glean this information?
13 A. In June and July, when I hadn't done my field-work in Kosovo yet,
14 the information came primarily from published sources, as the war ended
15 and Kosovo became accessible to international media. I also had some
16 contact with individuals who had travelled to Kosovo and relayed their
17 information to me via e-mail, both professionals and journalists.
18 Q. Did you then have any contacts with people or experts from Human
19 Rights Watch?
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. Did you read their reports from the ground?
22 A. I am -- I saw their reports. My primary contact, in terms of
23 human rights organisations, was with Physicians for Human Rights, who are
24 mentioned in my report as one of the sources of allegations.
25 Q. Did you also read the reports about allegations made by refugees
1 from Kosovo?
2 A. Yes. That was what I just referred to. Physicians for Human
3 Rights had an interview project during the war where they interviewed
4 heads of households among refugees from Kosovo.
5 Q. In June and July 1999, when you conceived the idea of initiating
6 this action, did you know that an indictment had been brought against
7 Slobodan Milosevic, who was still then the President?
8 A. It was public knowledge.
9 Q. Were you also aware of what the indictment contained? Did you
10 read it?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. Before you set out for the field, you first came to the OTP, in
13 The Hague, to offer your services. Is that correct?
14 A. I offered my services, actually, before setting out. Asking --
15 simply asking the Office of the Prosecutor whether they would be
16 interested in any data I collected. And they suggested, and strongly
17 urged, that I visit The Hague before I go into the field.
18 Q. Wasn't it logical, Mr. Riedlmayer, for you to first go out to the
19 field and gather information in the shortest possible time-period, rather
20 than visiting the OTP before setting out?
21 A. The visit to the OTP took one afternoon, on the way from Boston to
22 Skopije and Pristina. It did not significantly delay our investigations.
23 Q. And what task - if I may call it that - were you given by the OTP?
24 What was to be the subject of your investigation in the field?
25 A. We were not commissioned to do this --
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment, Mr. Riedlmayer.
2 That question has been answered. Now, I know you're entitled to
3 cross-examine, but if there's a particular point on which you wish to
4 cross-examine, Mr. Bakrac, then you should try to focus it more quickly.
5 But the witness already explained in full his contact with the OTP, and if
6 you have a challenge to make, then please focus on that.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, what was your main task in the field? What task
9 did you set for yourself on arrival in Kosovo? What did you focus on
10 mostly in your investigations?
11 A. We focused on -- within the limits of our capabilities, in terms
12 of time available and sites that were accessible, to visit every site
13 concerning which there had been an allegation of damage during or
14 immediately after the war; and having visited, to document what we saw.
15 Q. To document and establish the damage that had been caused. Did I
16 understand you correctly?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. But your task was not to investigate and establish who caused the
19 damage and how. Is that correct?
20 A. Only in a secondary way. Our primary task was to record the
21 damage. If there were observations to be made about the damage that could
22 establish when and how it was inflicted, then we would record that as
24 Q. It was only you and Mr. Herscher who did the surveys.
25 A. We were the only ones who did the assessments. Obviously we were
1 assisted by photographs and other information that we collected from other
3 Q. Did you have someone in your team who understands ballistics or
4 military matters? Did you have any military experts with you?
5 A. No, we did not.
6 Q. Do you have any knowledge of ballistics or military knowledge?
7 A. I am not a military expert, no.
8 Q. In your analysis, you determined exactly in your expertise that
9 you assessed both the Islamic and the Serb Orthodox and the Catholic
10 cultural heritage. I note that, regarding the Islamic heritage, you
11 stated the exact number of mosques and other cultural property, while your
12 report on the subject of Serb Orthodox and Catholic cultural property does
13 not state the exact number. Why is that?
14 A. For the number of pre-war mosques and pre-war churches, we had to
15 rely on published information. In the case of the mosques, we were
16 fortunate to find a pre-war published source. In the case of the Orthodox
17 churches, if you read my discussion in our expert report, you will see
18 that we discussed the problem that most of the literature does not clearly
19 distinguish between archaeological ruins and intact churches.
20 By the parameters of our study, we excluded archaeological sites;
21 only dealt with buildings that had been intact before the war. The
22 closest we could come was a publication of the Republican Institute for
23 the Preservation of Heritage -- Preservation of Monuments of Serbia,
24 published very shortly before the war, which listed a total of 210 Serbian
25 Orthodox churches and monasteries that were regarded as protected
1 monuments. I assume that that is a subset of a larger number, which
2 includes buildings that were not considered significant enough to be
3 granted legal protection.
4 Q. And outside that list of protected monuments, did you inquire into
5 others? Because you did so with Islamic monuments. With regard to
6 Serbian Orthodox monuments, did you inquire into those that did not have
7 such legal protection?
8 A. Yes. We were fortunate in that the Serbian Orthodox church,
9 especially during the period of our survey, was very active in publicising
10 damage to Serbian Orthodox churches in Kosovo. They published a book
11 called "Crucified Kosovo," which appeared just as we arrived there. They
12 also put this information up on the internet. That listed a total of 80
13 churches that had been damaged or destroyed in the months after the war.
14 We visited as many as we could, and for the remainder, we either
15 took information from the church web site and from "Crucified Kosovo," or
16 we exchanged photographs with Father Sava Janjic. Some of our photographs
17 subsequently appeared on the Orthodox church web site.
18 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, what I would like to know, in light of all my
19 previous questions -- in fact, what I'm especially interested in is that
20 in your expert report regarding Islamic monuments, you stated precisely
21 which mosques are active, which are out of use. And we don't know any
22 such thing regarding Serbian Orthodox temples; we don't know how many of
23 them are in use, how many of them you have seen. Can you tell me why?
24 A. In terms of the number that we have seen, I believe that is listed
25 in our report. In terms of the number that are in or out of use, again,
1 there didn't happen to be a published source that gave that figure.
2 Q. You did not find anywhere a single source where that number would
3 be included?
4 A. As I tried to tell you earlier, we looked at a lot of published
5 information on Orthodox heritage in Kosovo. One of the most recent and
6 comprehensive is a book by Gojko Subotic, "Kosovo Art of the Sacred Land,"
7 which includes many, many sites, but it does not distinguish between sites
8 that are standing, sites which are medieval ruins, and sites which are
9 merely mentioned in medieval charters but of which no traceable ground
10 exists today. Since he did not provide the statistic, we did not feel it
11 necessary to try to calculate our own.
12 Q. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. If I understood your
13 testimony yesterday well, you personally assessed 144 monuments in Kosovo
14 before making your expert report. Is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Do you have any record, perhaps, as to how many of those buildings
17 that you personally visited fall into the category of Islamic heritage?
18 A. I believe it's mentioned in my report. I don't recall it
20 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, the witness does have a hard copy.
21 And your report, Mr. Riedlmayer, is located at tab, I believe,
22 1789, if that assists.
23 THE WITNESS: But I can give you an approximation, if you wish.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Yes. Mr. Riedlmayer, we'll not waste time on details. I'll try
1 to assist you. Do you agree with me that you visited personally around
2 100 buildings of Islamic heritage?
3 A. That is probably correct. In terms of Orthodox heritage, simply
4 as an economy of time, given that so much documentation had been made
5 available by the Serbian Orthodox church, we did not try to duplicate many
6 of their already-documented sites but concentrated on sites for which they
7 did not have documentation, which is how we were able to exchange
8 information with them.
9 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, again, if I understood you correctly when you
10 spoke yesterday, out of 225 damaged Islamic monuments, you visited less
11 than half, that is, around a hundred. Is that correct?
12 A. That is correct. For the rest, we relied on documentation from
13 other sources, photographs and so forth.
14 Q. Therefore, you based your expert report concerning that other half
15 on photographs. You based your assessments on photographs. Is that
17 A. Wherever possible, we would try to confirm any information from
18 multiple, independent sources. We included no sites for which we didn't
19 have photographic evidence, but if there was other corroborating evidence,
20 such as, you know, the Institute for Protection of Monuments mentioning
21 that a site was destroyed, we would mention that in our report. But the
22 photographs were what we primarily relied on.
23 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I'm interested in this: Is it possible for a
24 serious assessment of damage to be made only on the basis of photographs?
25 A. Yes. Given that our criteria were based on plainly observable
1 visual evidence - we were not out there doing technical tests - it was
2 possible as long as the photograph was legible and showed clearly
3 discernible damage to say something meaningful about the damage on the
4 basis of only the photograph. If you see a building without a roof, if
5 you see a building covered with soot, or if you see a pile of rubble,
6 there are certain conclusions that you can draw from that.
7 Q. Yes. Conclusions may be on the degree of damage, but you will
8 agree with me that one cannot make any conclusions, on that basis, about
9 the way damage was inflicted?
10 A. I would disagree with that. If a building has been destroyed by a
11 blast, it leaves a very different kind of ruin than a building which has
12 either been burnt down or vandalised. So I think there are ways in which
13 you can draw conclusions regarding the nature of the damage.
14 Q. When you say "explosives" or "blast," do you know that there are
15 cruise missiles and grenades that also contain explosives; that there are
16 rockets that set on fire the building they hit? Are you aware of that?
17 You did say you were not a military expert, or an expert in ballistics,
18 but you are now making an excursion into that field. So I would like to
19 know whether you can make the distinction.
20 A. I am not a military expert; therefore, I cannot distinguish
21 between different calibres of munitions used or kinds of munitions used.
22 But, first of all, I have, in the course of my field-work, observed
23 hundreds of buildings that have been damaged. I have also read a good
24 deal of the technical literature; and, therefore, for example, know that a
25 building that has been burned from the inside will have a very different
1 look from a building that has been hit by any kind of aerial munitions. I
2 can give you a very specific example, if you like.
3 In many cases, in Kosovo, you saw buildings that had been burned.
4 And if the -- if you went into the building, the entire inside of the
5 building would be carpeted by an even layer of roof tiles, totally
6 undisturbed. I think it is a sensible conclusion, even if you are not a
7 military expert, that the roof simply collapsed due to a fire, rather than
8 that something smashed through the roof. You know, I think a lot of this
9 is simply common sense.
10 Q. Precisely, Mr. Riedlmayer. So when making your assessments, you
11 were guided by common sense. Is that right?
12 A. Common sense informed by experience and research.
13 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I'll move on to a different subject, but I have to
14 tell you, unfortunately, I have lived through a bombardment. And I know
15 that cruise missiles can go through a window --
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: It may be bring some comfort to Mr. Bakrac, but it
18 important that we confine our questions and the evidence to that of the
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just in case, if you
21 have an objection, I wanted to mention that I did live through a
22 bombardment. So you should bear that in mind.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: It doesn't really show, Mr. Bakrac.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour. I
25 hope that was sincere.
1 Q. So, Mr. Riedlmayer, I'll rephrase my question. Do you know that
2 there are rockets with a lower charge, very precise, that can fly even
3 through a smoke pipe? That's my last question on this subject. Are you
4 aware of this?
5 A. I told you, military is not my expertise.
6 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. When you were working on
7 the ground and when you were inspecting these buildings, did you talk to
8 eye-witnesses; purported eye-witnesses, I must say?
9 A. Yes, on occasion.
10 Q. As far as I remember, you told us, yesterday, that you had forms
11 prepared for each of the buildings?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When you talked to the witnesses, did you write down their
14 statements immediately into those forms?
15 A. Basically, in most cases, I just wrote a summary of what they
16 said, along with their contact information, if available. But on the day
17 that we -- at the time that we received the information, Mr. Herscher and
18 I visited every site together. And we would usually have a division of
19 labour. One of us would handle the camera; the other one would be
20 recording information.
21 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you will not hold it against me if I make a
22 mistake, because I had to read a lot of documents. But I think I saw it,
23 somewhere, that you ordered those interviews after you completed your day
24 in Pristina. I mean, you ordered those notes about the talks you had with
1 A. I simply organised the papers that we had from a single day's
2 excursion. Because we were worried about mechanical malfunctions, or the
3 possibility theft, we did not take computers along with us. So every day,
4 when we set out into the field, we would take a large stack of photocopies
5 of all the information we had about the sites we were going to visit that
7 We also had a of blank forms to fill out for each site that we
8 visited. When we would return in the evening, among the tasks would be
9 sorting through these documents, making sure that we had records of which
10 negative numbers referred to which sites, that kind of thing.
11 Q. So in the course of a day, you would talk to certain persons. And
12 then in the evening, when you organised your papers, you would write down
13 the gist of those conversations. Is that a correct understanding?
14 A. No. The conversations were written down at the time that the
15 conversations took place.
16 Q. But since you took notes, immediately, as you were talking, would
17 you read back your notes to the person who gave you that information? And
18 would the person authorise your notes by signing what you had written?
19 A. As I told the Court, we were not in the business of taking
20 depositions. We were simply taking basic information, and it was up to the
21 Court, I believe, to see what -- whether to pursue that, in terms of
22 subpoenaing witnesses.
23 Q. Thank you. In your report, when discussing the objectives and
24 methodology of your research, you said that you did not restrict yourself
25 to monuments designated by the Institute for Culture as protected
1 monuments. Is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Why did you not restrict yourself to those buildings designated as
4 historic monuments by the Institute for the Cultural Heritage Kosovo?
5 A. I believe, I set out the reasons in my expert report, but I can
6 also sum it up now. First of all, because we -- our task, as we set it
7 for ourselves, was to investigate all allegations made with respect to
8 destruction of heritage. And many of those allegations involved sites that
9 had not been granted legally protected status. Secondly, also because the
10 list of protected monuments, in fact, had altered a number of times. And
11 we were not sure really which of those to regard as authoritative.
12 And, most importantly perhaps, because the distribution of sites,
13 among the protected monuments was very uneven. There were many more
14 protected sites that were Orthodox monuments than Islamic monuments. Only
15 a little more than a dozen Islamic monuments, in all of Kosovo, had been
16 designated as legally protected sites, whereas over 210 Orthodox sites had
18 Q. I'm sorry. I'm trying to find it in the record, but I got back in
19 the interpretation that you said, "a dozen Islamic monuments." Is that a
20 misinterpretation or is that what you said?
21 A. I believe the total number was 15.
22 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you said the reason for that was ideological and
23 political. Is that so?
24 A. That's what I said.
25 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, are you aware that in 1977, at the time of
1 Kosovo's full autonomy, even when the Institute for the Protection of
2 Monuments of Kosovo was staffed mainly by Albanians, a law was passed on
3 the protection of cultural monuments that designated a list of all
4 protected cultural heritage?
5 A. I am aware of that.
6 Q. Do you also know that this law was valid all the way until 1994?
7 A. I was not aware of when the law was changed. I do know that in
8 the most recent pre-war document that we examined, that publication by the
9 Institute for the Protection of Monuments, there were a number of
10 designations of buildings that dated from the 1990s and which, I assume,
11 could not have been included on the 1977 list.
12 Q. Are you also aware that, by virtue of an UNMIK decree from
13 December 1999, a decision was made on the laws to be applied in Kosovo,
14 and that it was accepted to apply the law on the protection of the culture
15 of Kosovo from 1977? Do you know that?
16 A. I was aware of the UNMIK decree. I am also aware of subsequent
17 UNMIK decrees that are now -- although I don't know whether they have been
18 enacted into legislation yet, which, in order to avoid any contentious
19 issue, simply designate all religious structures as protected monuments.
20 Q. Since we agreed that this UNMIK decree from December 1999 restored
21 this law from 1977, is it the case that, in the meantime, some new
22 cultural property was included in the list of protected cultural property
23 in Kosovo?
24 A. I don't think I understand your question. Could you repeat it,
1 Q. The gist of my question is this: You said that you doubt that
2 this list of protected cultural monuments is completely free of
3 ideological and political considerations, but what I want to know is,
4 since UNMIK came to Kosovo and issued this decree to apply the law from
5 1977, is it the case that some new monuments found their way into that
7 A. I don't know the situation at present in Kosovo; however, with
8 regard to this whole issue of designations, let me point out that, while
9 there are certain objective criteria that can be used to designate sites
10 for legal protection, such as age or prominence in the world literature,
11 by and large, in addition to factors such as age, the main judgement is a
12 value judgement as to what you consider to be important for a country,
13 important for a government, to protect. And these are always issues that
14 involve subjective considerations.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment. If you don't mind, Mr. Bakrac.
16 I understood the question to be: Was it possible that the list,
17 when reinstated in December 1999, might have been different in content
18 from the list of 1977 because certain buildings had been added to it? Do
19 you know the answer to that?
20 THE WITNESS: I do not.
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, are you aware that the UNESCO expert mission
23 visited Kosovo after the war and the hostilities --
24 A. Yes,
25 Q. -- in 2004 and earlier? Are you aware of that?
1 A. 2004 is after the conclusion of my study. I have read news
2 reports of that; I have not seen what reports they have issued.
3 Q. Yes, I understand that you have not seen what reports they have
4 issued, but do you happen to know whether they had anything to say about
5 the list of cultural property prescribed by the law on the protection of
6 cultural property of 1977?
7 A. Are you aware, sir - and, as a member of the Orthodox church, I
8 don't wish to glorify it; I only want to deal in facts - but are you aware
9 that the UNESCO mission which was in Kosovo from the 12th of March to the
10 18th of March, 2004, drew up a report which designated six cultural
11 properties of the Orthodox heritage as the most significant, including
12 Decani, Gracanica, Banjska, Sveti Archangel Mihail, Prizren, and the
13 Church of Our Lady --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: It may be that this is going to turn into something
15 relevant, Mr. Bakrac, but what is the relevance of this particular
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, well, that's why I
18 prefaced my question by saying I didn't want to glorify one culture at the
19 expense of others. I'm dealing with facts. The witness, in his expert
20 report, seems to imply that the list of monuments was politically and
21 ideologically coloured, and his only arguments are based on statistics,
22 the proportion of Orthodox sites on the list compared to Islamic sites. I
23 want to draw a parallel with the findings of an independent UNESCO
24 commission and what it established after the war in Kosovo, whether they
25 established any kind of evident discrepancy with respect to what
1 Mr. Riedlmayer has been saying.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: But do the findings of the body you're now
3 referring to come to the conclusion that roughly 15 Islamic sites was a
4 reasonable proportion to assign protection to in 1999? Which was the law,
5 as I understand it, at the relevant period of this indictment.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm only trying to
7 establish whether there is a foundation for what Mr. Riedlmayer is saying,
8 that these monuments were neglected for political and ideological
9 reasons. If this was so, an independent UNESCO commission, I assume,
10 would have had to correct such an irregularity.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, it appears that they were looking at a
12 situation where the 1977 list had been restored. They weren't comparing
13 the situation in 1999, at the period of the indictment. Or have I
14 misunderstood you?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I want to find out
16 is whether the law of 1977, or rather, whether the witness knows of any
17 cultural monument not in the list of 1977 but subsequently included based
18 on the UNESCO findings. That's what I would like to find out.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: And how is that relevant to the case?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's relevant to assess
21 the objectiveness. All my questions refer to whether the expert report of
22 Witness Riedlmayer is compromised in its objectivity by the facts. One
23 fact is that his main field of research has been Islamic culture. I won't
24 repeat all my questions from the beginning --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't dispute that you followed a line which is
1 clearly comprehensible, and I was confining my question to you to the
2 particular issue you're raising here. Now, it's impossible for us to
3 judge whether this is, in fact, relevant; it doesn't look it. But, on the
4 basis of your assurance that it will prove relevant, then -- sorry,
5 Mr. Hannis.
6 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I didn't mean to interrupt, but before
7 you finish, I had a different objection.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Which is?
9 MR. HANNIS: It has more to do with foundation. I can understand
10 the line that -- I understand him to be pursuing, but without some more
11 information about what this UNESCO report is and what its standards are
12 and what it's based on, I don't know how we can begin to make any
13 comparison that would shed light on whether or not Mr. Riedlmayer's
14 opinion or position was objective.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it may be that the foundation can be
16 established through questioning Mr. Riedlmayer. Of course, if he has
17 insufficient knowledge of these findings to give meaningful answers, then
18 your objection would be well founded, Mr. Hannis.
19 I will allow you to continue this, Mr. Bakrac, but we will be
20 paying close attention to its relevance, bearing in mind that you're the
21 one that's told us that the 1977 law was revoked in 1994, which seems, to
22 me, to be the most relevant feature of this evidence so far.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I was trying to save
24 time. As Mr. Riedlmayer did not deny this, I will refer to PD13, the
25 UNMIK decree, which is in e-court, 5D14, "Decision, World Heritage
1 Committee, 30 com 8(b)" -- [In English] 53 [Interpretation] and 5D15, the
2 same decision, B54. We can look at these in e-court, and these are the
3 documents on which my questions on the UNMIK decree and the UNESCO report
4 were founded.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Your first reference there was to something called
6 PD13. What does that mean?
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 5D13.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: It's 5D13. In any event, I think you should
9 continue to seek an answer to the first question you asked. And if that
10 can't be adequately answered by Mr. Riedlmayer, it may be necessary for
11 you to go into these exhibits.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, are you aware that, pursuant to the decisions I
14 have read out and the inspection carried out by UNESCO in Kosovo, these
15 six monuments, which were Orthodox monuments, were put on the World
16 Heritage List?
17 A. As far as I understand, only the Decani monastery was declared a
18 World Heritage Site.
19 Q. That was in 2004. And in July 2006, all the other monasteries
20 I've mentioned were added to Decani. Are you aware of this?
21 A. Not of the latter, but in any event --
22 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Allow the witness to finish the answer.
24 THE WITNESS: In any event, I wanted to say that all six of these
25 were on the protected list to begin with, but that's six out of 210.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I'm referring to those monuments placed on the World Heritage
3 List --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now it's clear that you're asking about
5 something I didn't understand you were asking about, in the first
6 instance. I thought you were asking, earlier, about the list that
7 related to Kosovo, that's the internal list of Serbia and Montenegro. And
8 it seems to me, Mr. Bakrac, that the placing of these sites on the World
9 Heritage List is immaterial; in 2004 and 2006, is immaterial to this
10 indictment. So you should not pursue that line any further. Move on to
11 something relevant.
12 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I will move on, Your Honours. My
13 last question, however, is whether Mr. Riedlmayer knows whether the UNESCO
14 commission, in respect of the list drawn up by Yugoslavia, or, rather, the
15 1977 law had any monuments to add to that list.
16 Q. Do you know anything about that?
17 A. Whether anyone had anything to add to it, whether UNESCO did? I
18 told you I have not read their report.
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will now move on to
21 the sites listed in the indictment. I hope we will move through this
23 Q. In your report, Mr. Riedlmayer, and also in the course of your
24 examination-in-chief, you said that you visited the Catholic church of St.
25 Anthony in Djakovica.
1 A. I did.
2 Q. As far as I was able to understand, the site of that church was in
3 the immediate vicinity of the JNA barracks. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When you inspected the church, you established that only the glass
6 had been shattered, as a result of the NATO bombing of the JNA barracks.
7 Is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. When you inspected the church on site, did you notice any other
10 damage? And had the glass already been replaced?
11 A. I noticed no other damage, and the glass had been fixed.
12 Q. You said that you received information that, immediately before
13 the beginning of the bombing, the command and operative base of the
14 Yugoslav army was there; that's what your report states.
15 A. Yes. That's what the parish priest told me.
16 Q. Are you aware that there was no command and no operations base
17 there, but, rather, the medical platoon and that surgery was carried out
18 there, with the previous approval of the Catholic priests. Are you aware
19 of those facts?
20 A. This is not what the parish priest told me. I spoke to him in
21 person, without an interpreter.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we have on
23 e-court Exhibit 5D11. As the witness is an English speaker, but, as I
24 understand it, he also reads Serbian; however, I would like to have it in
25 the English version.
1 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, this is the order issued by the commander of the
2 52nd Artillery Rocket Brigade, Anti-Aircraft Defence, of the 19th of May,
3 1999, but the relocation of the medical platoon from the Catholic
4 monastery --
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I see it only talks about being
6 relocated from the present location, without an indication as to what the
7 present location is.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in point 3, it
10 says: "On relocation, hand over the Catholic monastery back in the same
11 state that it was found when it was requisitioned." And it says: "A
12 report is to be made and control damages to be established. The building
13 is to be restored to the same condition it was found before moving in."
14 Q. So are you aware that an unarmed medical platoon, which only dealt
15 with wounded, was located there with the approval of the Catholic priests?
16 A. Again, I only know what the Catholic parish priest told me.
17 Q. And you said that the Catholic priest told you that there were
18 signs of vandalism. Did he describe these signs?
19 A. Yes. He told me that computers, televisions, and other equipment
20 had been looted from the building, and that the walls had been defaced,
21 and that, in short, the place was not inhabitable when they came back.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I think your report said that that was for a period
23 of two months?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: And that's from the beginning of the war?
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Which is fairly consistent of moving out on the
3 19th of May?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. He told me he -- the priest told me he stayed
5 in Djakovica throughout the war.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: This particular order is dated the 19th of May, as
7 you'll see.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. And he told you that somebody had scraped the walls on purpose,
10 and these were the traces of vandalism. Is that what you wanted --
11 A. He didn't say scraped the walls; he said defaced, whatever that
12 may mean. We were speaking in Turkish. He came from Prizren and he knows
13 Turkish. And I lived in Turkey for three years, so I can speak Turkish.
14 Q. I understand that. But he didn't tell you anything about the kind
15 of damage; he just said that it was necessary for the walls to be
16 whitewashed. But he didn't say what kind of damage this was.
17 A. No. He said the doors and windows were broken and that the
18 furnishings, including computers and other equipment, had been taken.
19 Q. Very well. We understand that, the doors and the windows, as a
20 result of the NATO bombing and -- of course, I'm not trying to justify
21 theft. If it's true that the computers and other equipment were stolen, I
22 don't justify it. But it doesn't amount to destruction of cultural
23 property; it's common theft.
24 But let's move on to another site, Mr. Riedlmayer. The stari
25 bazaar in Pec, the old market. Did you, yourself, visit that site?
1 A. I did.
2 Q. I have before me part of your finding, where it says that the
3 photograph was taken by Begolli and the other photograph was taken by
4 Xhavit Lokaj, and it doesn't say anything under who inspected the site.
5 There's no record of the fact that you conducted the inspection, in your
7 A. I specified that in my statement in court yesterday, that it was I
8 who inspected the site.
9 As for the photographs, the pre-war photograph from Mr. Begolli I
10 solicited myself. Mr. Begolli runs a photographic shop in town, and I was
11 told that he had recent pre-war photographs. So I approached him and he
12 went through his negatives and came up with several of them. I chose this
13 one because it happens to match the shot taken by Mr. Lokaj.
14 Now, Mr. Lokaj was there just a month after the end of the war,
15 and I put his photograph in the database because it shows a clear picture
16 of what it looked like immediately after the war. When I was there, some
17 of the shops already were beginning to get fixed up. You could still see
18 the damage quite clearly, but it wasn't as clean a documentation as you
19 would have, you know, immediately in the aftermath of the end of the war.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, what's the exhibit number for that one?
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is part of P1550.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you furthermore did not designate any of the
25 persons you interviewed or who supplied you with information. Is that
2 A. Where? In this particular record?
3 Q. Yes. The old bazaar in Pec. I have your report before me in
4 English. It says "Information Statements" and it's blank. And where it
5 says "Media Reports," it's also blank.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So there was no information, no media reports, but this did not
8 prevent you from assessing the damage to the report, or rather, from
9 saying that it was burnt down by the Serb police in June 1999. Why did
10 you note this where you should have described the nature of the damage,
11 which was your task?
12 A. Okay. In this case, I didn't have a single person who came up
13 and, sort of, formally informed me. I spoke to several residents who
14 barraged me with information. I should have, I assume, kept the
15 information to the description itself, given that I could see that. The
16 damage was quite clear in terms of seeing marks of burning; also,
17 bulldozer tracks where the rubble had been pushed to the backs of sites.
18 What --
19 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer --
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't think he was finished answering
22 the question.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Excuse me, I apologise.
25 A. So when people told me that these shops had been burned and then
1 bulldozed, it seemed like a reasonable remark. As to the time when this
2 happened, I just wrote down what people told me at the time. I should
3 have noted the name of an informant; I regret I did not in this case.
4 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you have just told us that you noted on the spot
5 what people told you. Isn't that what you said just a little while ago,
6 that you noted down everything people told you immediately? Now we see
7 that, in fact, you did not.
8 A. What do you mean? What I have on my entry in the database is what
9 I copied from my handwritten form. The handwritten form consists of the
10 notes I took in the field. You know, I was out in the field and I took
11 very short -- brief notes, in many instances, since we had a lot of field
12 to cover.
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am waiting for the
14 interpretation. I also had the impression that Your Honour wished to say
16 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I've changed my mind, Mr. Bakrac.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, it's almost time for a break. Are you trying to
19 tell me that you have the names and details of the persons you talked to
20 but did not include them in the form?
21 A. No. What I'm trying to tell you is that in this case I neglected
22 to take names.
23 Q. And on site you saw evidence that the Serb police burnt down the
24 bazaar in June. Is that what you were trying to say?
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Don't answer that question, Mr. Riedlmayer.
1 If you are putting a serious point, Mr. Bakrac, then put it in a
2 serious way.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I see it's time for a
4 break, and I will move on to a different site after the break.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, there is no reason why you can't ask the
6 source of that information, but I think we made it clear yesterday that,
7 where a statement of that nature depended on a general proposition coming
8 from, for example, the organisations that Mr. Riedlmayer spoke to who said
9 this was the information they had or, if it's come from, as he describes
10 it here, a barrage of information from people, then we would never draw a
11 conclusion that that accurately reflected who carried out this attack or,
12 indeed, that that what necessarily happened on the occasion. He's already
13 acknowledged the weakness of that material. Mr. Hannis has indicated a
14 number of times yesterday that what actually happened depends on
15 information from other sources. The principal evidence we're getting from
16 Mr. Riedlmayer is the nature of the damage.
17 But also where there is some specific indication of the cause from
18 his investigation or from what was said to him by someone he's identified,
19 then he's reflected that and that's something that may have some weight,
20 in due course. But I think it will be easy for you to identify the parts
21 of that report to which we would give no weight in isolation and those
22 that may carry some weight even on their own.
23 So, we will be adjourning now, Mr. Riedlmayer, for 20 minutes or
24 so. Could you again go with the usher, and we'll see you at ten minutes
25 to 11.00. Just leave the courtroom. The practice we're following now is
1 for the witness to leave before the Court does.
2 [The witness stands down]
3 JUDGE BONOMY: And we'll assume at ten to 11.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, before the break we discussed the Catholic convent
10 and then we moved on to the bazaar in Pec, but I just missed out on one
11 thing in my notes; namely, that in your report you also stated that the
12 army of Yugoslavia used the Catholic church in Pristina; namely, to place
13 an air defence radar on its tower. Is that correct?
14 A. That is what the parish priest told me.
15 Q. I just want to know whether you pursued this interest any
16 further. Do you know how the radar works, and its antenna system? It
17 cannot be placed on a tower because it emits electrical and magnetic waves
18 and cannot deal with obstacles. Doesn't that make the claim of this
19 priest absolutely absurd and illogical?
20 Plus another question which is a part of this: Can you estimate
21 in how many seconds NATO would have located that radar and destroyed it?
22 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I'm going to object. That's a compound
23 question. I don't know which of the three he's supposed to answer.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's take them one question at a time, please,
25 Mr. Bakrac.
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. So, first of all, you received this information from the Catholic
3 priest. My first question is: Did you cross-check this allegation? Did
4 you verify it in any way?
5 A. I was there merely to verify what happened to the church during
6 the war. The church seemed to be in good shape. I talked to the priest,
7 who had spent the entire war in the rectory building right next to the
8 church, and when I asked him what had happened to his church during the
9 war, this is what he told me, so I wrote it down. I am, as I have already
10 stated, not an expert on military installations and I had no way of
11 verifying whether this was either technically feasible or whether it, in
12 fact, happened. I took down the information and I took down the priest's
13 contact information and therewith I saw my task in this regard to have
14 been fulfilled.
15 Q. So, if I understand you correctly - and it's necessary for the
16 record - you do not know the weight of that radar or how it was hoisted on
17 the top of the church cathedral.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, Mr. Riedlmayer is not here fighting a
19 case. Mr. Riedlmayer had a job to do. He's explained both to Mr. Hannis
20 and you what that job was, how he did it, and what the limitations were so
21 far as this case is concerned. I don't think it's really fair to him to
22 then go over details as if you're trying to make a point, when it's
23 perfectly plain from his answer that he had no way of verifying the
24 information that was given to him at all. And he is no military expert
25 and he won't know the detail of radar installations or anything of that
2 Now, that's something you can found upon in due course when it
3 comes to assessing the value of the report for our purposes, bearing in
4 mind that he was doing it for a different purpose.
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will move
7 Q. Prosecution Exhibit P1773 deals with a mosque in Orahovac, built
8 in 1916, in modern times. Did you assess the mosque on the spot.
9 A. Which is the mosque? I'm sorry.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Celine.
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. In the village of Celine, Orahovac municipality.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. You, personally, or Mr. Herscher made the assessment of that site.
15 A. We did not personally visit that village. This is one of the
16 sites where we made our assessment based on photographs. I think in this
17 case the assessment that the building was completely destroyed is not hard
18 to conclude from the photograph.
19 Q. And based on the photographs, you concluded that the mosque was
20 burned down by Serbs and that the Serbs razed it to the ground using a
21 bulldozer. That's what you concluded on the basis of photographs.
22 A. No. As I explained in the direct examination, that is the
23 information that was provided for me by the Islamic community, which I
24 note in the report. The visual evidence of what you see there is
25 consistent with that. I noted the pile of rubble, the burnt timbers, and
1 the intact houses in the background.
2 Q. But, Mr. Riedlmayer, wouldn't it have been enough to say that the
3 mosque was burned down and completely destroyed? Wasn't that the mission
4 of your research, to establish damage, rather than who inflicted the
5 damage, from a third-hand source? In this case, you had no witnesses and
6 no media reports.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: We're becoming very impatient, Mr. Bakrac, with
8 this. You know perfectly what the job was that Mr. Riedlmayer was doing,
9 including noting any information that might be of use to establish the
10 circumstances in which the damage was done. But he, by no means, meant to
11 establish that on the basis of what he heard. He made it clear to you
12 that he was hoping to give guidance to others who might find it useful to
13 follow these leads up. And he's made it clear already in his evidence
14 that what he was doing when he noted these circumstances, in the section
15 you're referring to, that he was noting down what he had learned from
16 information given by others.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you said information came from the Islamic
19 community. What I see here is "International Management Group" as the
20 source of this information. It was their database.
21 A. No. If you go down to the bottom, you will see that Mr. Sabri
22 Bajgora is also listed. He was the contact person at the Islamic
23 community who provided me with the photos and some of the information.
24 Q. Why isn't he mentioned in the line that says, "Citizen providing
25 the information"? He's designated only as the photographer.
1 A. No. Down below it says, "Surveyor." "Surveyor" is shorthand for
2 source of information. All the way at the bottom of the page.
3 Q. I see that. But there is also a line, "Citizen Reports," with the
4 names of one or two citizens. You did not mention that Mr. Bajgora made
5 one such report himself. I see him only in a different line, together
6 with the International Management Group database.
7 MR. HANNIS: I'm sorry. Can we have a reference to what page
8 we're on.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: I think it's informants' statements in the English
10 version that Mr. Bakrac is looking at.
11 MR. HANNIS: I understood we were talking about the Celine mosque.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: And there are no informant statements.
15 THE WITNESS: And so your question is, sir?
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. My question is: Did you receive information from the
18 International Management Group?
19 A. I did not. I merely received their database, which consists
20 entirely of photographs and technical descriptions of buildings.
21 Q. From whom, then, did you receive information as to what had
22 happened; that is, who did it?
23 A. This particular information came from Mr. Bajgora. The reason, in
24 case that's what you were aiming at, that his name appears here, rather
25 than as a separate informant statement, is because for convenience sake,
1 since so many of my photographs of mosques came from the Islamic
2 community, for brevity's sake, given that the information was usually very
3 brief and often sketchy, I often incorporated it in the first page, rather
4 than going on to the second page of the survey report.
5 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, now I would like to know about the mosque in
6 Orahovac municipality, Bela Crkva. Did you personally, or Mr. Herscher,
7 perform the assessment of that one yourselves? It's P1774.
8 A. No. Bela Crkva is not one of the sites that we visited
9 personally; however, here we had photographs from multiple sources. We
10 made our assessment on the photographs and information we had, rather than
11 a firsthand site visit.
12 Q. As for information, I also see no informants named. Is that
14 A. If you would scroll down on the e-court display, please.
15 Okay. We had --
16 Q. We can move one page further.
17 You will see informants there.
18 A. And I think it's this similar situation, as to what we had with
19 Celine. We had the photographs, and we had some very minimal information
20 from Mr. Bajgora. We, however, had photographs also from two other
21 sources showing the same damage. And so we felt fairly confident in our
22 damage assessment. It's a building we assessed as having been heavily
23 damaged, and the minaret blown up.
24 Q. In this case you also had some media reports; whereas, yesterday,
25 you said that you never took media reports without other corroborating
1 information from witnesses or eye-witnesses. Did I understand that
3 A. I believe you did not understand it correctly. Our criteria were
4 we never included a site in our report, based exclusively on media
5 reports. Media reports were an add-on, if we had information from the
6 sources we considered reliable, which are listed in our report. And there
7 was also a media report which could help to pin-point the date or stage of
8 the damage, we would include that. But we had no criteria saying we
9 wouldn't include media reports unless we also had witnesses.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, if you look at the media reports, you
11 will see that there are parts highlighted which Mr. Riedlmayer considered
12 relevant. And each of the highlighted parts relates to the state of the
13 mosque, and you have a date for the media report. And the state of the
14 mosque, as described in these, is being said by Mr. Riedlmayer to be
15 consistent with the photographs. And that's the only use to which he was
16 putting these media reports, as he explained yesterday.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I'll move on to another site, P175,
18 the mosque in Brestovac.
19 Q. Do you agree that's another location that you never visited?
20 JUDGE BONOMY: I think --
21 THE WITNESS: Yes --
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that's P1775.
23 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's what I said. Maybe it
24 was a slip of the tongue.
25 Q. So that's another location that you did not visit yourself. Is
1 it also correct that you have no informant statements here or any media
2 reports again?
3 A. No.
4 Could you please scroll down, all the way. Okay.
5 Here, we had photographs from two independent sources, and we made
6 our conclusions on the basis of the photographs.
7 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you say you based it on photographs from the
8 International Management Group database. Didn't you say in your report
9 that that group dealt only with modern buildings?
10 A. I didn't say they dealt only with modern buildings. Their primary
11 mission had to do with establishing the state of infrastructure in these
12 municipalities. So they primarily dealt with public buildings of all
13 sorts; however, as a public facility, they included what they called
14 heritage facilities, which included houses of worship. Insofar as they
15 were able to provide photographs taken in these places, their teams
16 covered many more villages than we were able to visit ourselves, and so
17 they provided that information in the photographs.
18 In every case we made a good-faith effort to corroborate
19 information from multiple sources. So even in the case where we already
20 had photographs from other sources, the IMG data served to corroborate
21 that. It was a professionally run organisation, serving mainly the needs
22 of the European Union, which was tasked with making assessments for
23 reconstruction in Kosovo. The implementation on the local level was
24 somewhat uneven, as I note in my report.
25 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, while we are with this mosque in Brestovac,
1 Orahovac municipality, from what I see you used only the photograph of
2 Sabri Bajgora from 1999. What does the reference "IMG Database" mean?
3 Where are the photographs from that group?
4 A. If you take a look at my expert report, you will see that the --
5 for technical reasons, we could not extract the photographs from the IMG
6 database and insert them into this report, and so we submitted a CD with
7 the IMG database along with the report. So the fact that we are only
8 showing one photograph doesn't include -- imply necessarily that we have
9 only one.
10 Also, in order to limit the size of the database, we tried to put
11 in the minimum number of photographs. If you put in too many, the
12 database slows down and becomes hard to operate. So, in many of these
13 cases, the number of photographs you see in the database entry is only a
14 subset of the number of photographs that were available to us when we're
15 making our assessment.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: That CD is confined to the IMG database, is it?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, does that have an exhibit number?
19 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour, that's a separate item that we have
20 not submitted to you.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
22 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, would you also agree with me that you did not
24 perform a direct assessment of the mosque in Velika Krusa either?
25 A. No, I did not.
1 Q. And that for this mosque, again -- no, strike that.
2 For this mosque, you, again, have a report from the human rights
3 group, without naming the person who provided the report. Is that
5 A. Could you please put it up on the screen.
6 Q. 1776, an exhibit, P1776.
7 A. Here we have our assessment that it's heavily damaged, and - if
8 you can scroll down, please - you can see the description that the
9 minaret's blown up. There's a large hole in the side wall, structural
10 damage; interior of the mosque is vandalised and partially burned. That
11 was the extent of our assessment. And, you know, any informant statements
12 are merely supplementary, to be taken for whatever value the Court chooses
13 to assign to them.
14 You can also see that --
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: This is, perhaps, a good example to clarify the
17 role of Sabri Bajgora. To what extent was the conversation between you
18 and him about the nature of the damage?
19 THE WITNESS: For the most part, we -- well, on our three visits
20 to Kosovo, I visited the offices of the Islamic community each time. Each
21 time I came away with a bag full of photographs. We had, in each case, a
22 several-hour conversation, during which I took notes. As he handed me the
23 photographs, he would identify what they were and, in some cases, say
24 things about them, you know, when it was destroyed or when it had been
25 built. He was speaking from his own notes. He didn't hand me any kind of
2 JUDGE BONOMY: But when you conclude "minaret blown up, leaving a
3 large hole in side wall of the mosque and structural damage" --
4 THE WITNESS: That is my own conclusion from looking at this
5 photo. You can see the stump of a minaret and you can see big cracks in
6 the building radiating from where the minaret used to be, which, to me,
7 having seen many dozens of such buildings, indicates that there was some
8 kind of internal blast in the minaret causing this. You can --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Riedlmayer. But can I
10 take it that that was your approach in every case, to make an independent
11 assessment --
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: -- from the photographs.
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. If there's outside sources, I usually tried to
15 indicate where that information came from.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I'm now interested in P1777, which is a
19 Prosecution exhibit. I see that you personally made the assessment of
20 this building, with due respect to every building in every community. I
21 see that this one was built in 1997, two years before the war. To what
22 extent does it constitute a cultural and historic monument?
23 A. Well, it was a house of worship and, as such, it served a cultural
24 purpose. I don't think a building has to be centuries old to be a
25 cultural monument. And, as I also noted, in the list of monuments granted
1 legally protected status in Kosovo under the Yugoslav administration,
2 there were any number of buildings that were of no great antiquity. I'm
3 thinking, for example, the church built in Djakovica on the various eve of
4 the war, which is almost the same age as this building. It was a memorial
5 church for Serbian war dead.
6 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, although this question may have sounded not
7 sufficiently serious, initially this is precisely the reason why I put it.
8 When you said that the list was coloured by politics and ideology, you
9 gave an examples saying that some buildings, built between 1930 and 1990,
10 were put on the list. This, if I'm not wrong, was also one of the reasons
11 why you challenged the list.
12 A. No. I challenged the list nearly on the basis that the number and
13 age of Islamic monuments in Kosovo would have suggested that more than 15
14 might have qualified; and, in fact, they did not. And given that things
15 like state money for reconstruction and conservation work depended on this
16 official status, I considered that to have been ideological potentially.
17 Q. Is it also correct, Mr. Riedlmayer, that the mosque in Cirez,
18 Srbica municipality, is another one which you did not inspect personally?
19 That's 1778, Prosecution exhibit.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. And you have no information from citizens or newspaper reports
22 concerning this mosque?
23 A. No. All I can describe is its condition.
24 Q. Thank you. Is it also correct, Mr. Riedlmayer - and this is
25 Prosecution Exhibit 1785 concerning the mosque in Vlastica - that you did
1 not visit this site either or inspect it personally?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Is it also correct that in your report no report by citizens is
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. I would now like to know, Mr. Riedlmayer, on what basis you wrote
7 that the village was the scene of a crime committed by Serb forces in the
8 spring of 1999.
9 A. Could you please scroll down so I can see what I actually wrote.
10 Okay. I was merely repeating the information that was in the
11 indictment, I believe.
12 Q. You were using the indictment against Milosevic when compiling
13 this. Do you remember I asked you that before, and you now seem to be
14 confirming that you used the Milosevic indictment.
15 A. No. That's not what I'm saying. In fact, if we had been using
16 the Milosevic indictment as a guideline to -- for sites to visit, we
17 surely would have visited these particular sites. No. In the final stage
18 of compiling the report, we thought it might be helpful for the OTP, for
19 whom we were giving this report, to note the sites which pertained to
20 their indictment. It was, you know, an attempt to be helpful, that's all.
21 But we didn't use the indictment as our guideline.
22 Q. So where it says that the village was the site of an atrocity by
23 Serb forces, you were trying to help the OTP and support the indictment.
24 Is that the only reason why you included this? Let me ...
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Page 49, line 10 of the transcript, you said that you were
3 repeating the information in the indictment; that this could be useful for
4 the OTP.
5 A. I was merely noting which sites might be of interest to them. It
6 was probably foolish because they could have done that work themselves.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: And it's not consistent because you didn't do it in
8 every case.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, the final indictment was actually issued
10 after we submitted this report.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Was the indictment you had access to one which had
12 only one accused on it, or did it have more than one accused?
13 THE WITNESS: Well, we submitted this report in, I believe,
14 September of 2001. The final amended indictment was issued in October of
15 2001. So we used whatever would have been available as of early
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Riedlmayer, is it also correct that you did not
19 inspect the mosque in Kacanik? That's P1786.
20 A. Would you bring it up on the screen, please?
21 JUDGE BONOMY: This is such a waste of time, Mr. Bakrac, because
22 we know he didn't from the report itself. If there's another particular
23 question to be put, then we could move on to that.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there is a question. I
25 may have missed it, but I don't see a photograph here. It doesn't say who
1 inspected the site. There's no photograph, no citizen's report.
2 THE WITNESS: It says --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: But it's quite clear there was a photograph from
4 this IMG database. So you know what the source of the information is.
5 Now, you may have a point to make later that the Prosecution haven't
6 bothered to provide us with the database. There's possible a good
7 argument for you in closing arguments, but where are we going with the
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's precisely my
10 intention. I don't know how the inspection was conducted. We don't see
11 the church or mosque. We can't check what kind of damage there was. We
12 don't know what can be seen on the photograph.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: But Mr. Hannis will, no doubt, point to other
14 evidence about this mosque as well. So you've got to take account of
15 everything that relates to it in the case.
16 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Very well. Your Honour, I'm now only
17 asking for Exhibit P1788 to be put on the screen. It's a photograph of
18 this mosque. Or rather, I do apologise. My assistant is now telling me
19 that it's actually P1799. Could we have that on e-court, please.
20 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you said that this was the market mosque in
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And this pre-war photograph was one you compared with the
24 photograph you took on site?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I assume that you made an effort to take the second photograph
2 from the same vantage point that the first was taken from; is that
4 A. Actually, in this case, I wish I had, but I just got lucky.
5 Vucitrn was the very first site we visited in Kosovo, and I didn't have
6 Mr. Virmica's photos until several days later when we visited Prizren,
7 which is where he lives. So it just happened that I happened to have a
8 photograph that shows approximately the same vantage point. At the time I
9 was there, I was not in possession of the pre-war photograph.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to page 2 of this
11 exhibit. But before that, I withdraw that -- sorry, I have one more.
12 Could we have the previous page again, please, to clear up one
13 more detail with Mr. Riedlmayer.
14 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, there's a tall residential building to the left of
15 the mosque, and you stated that this was an identifying element. Is that
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you agree with me that both this building and the mosque, or
19 rather, that the right-hand wall, the right-hand edge of the building, is
20 parallel to the left-hand edge of the mosque and that there is a space in
21 between? The two walls are practically parallel, and the mosque is on
22 the -- to the right of the wall of this building.
23 A. It is, but the residential building is considerably in the back.
24 It is much further from the viewer than the mosque is.
25 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, if I remember well, yesterday, when you were
1 explaining the second photograph, you pointed to an entrance. Would you
2 agree that the entrance to the mosque was facing the building that you say
3 is an identifying element?
4 A. No. If this photograph were clearer, you would see that the
5 mosque, which is actually an old building, has had a modern entrance
6 structure added to it, facing the photographer here. It's got two steps
7 side -- on either side there are steps leading up to it. The minaret is
8 to the right of the entrance.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Could the usher now please show us
10 page 2 of this exhibit.
11 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, do you recognise in the background --
12 A. That's the same building, yes.
13 Q. Do you agree with me, if we established on the previous photograph
14 that the right wall of this tall building is parallel to the left wall of
15 the mosque, that the mosque would have to be completely outside the frame
16 of this photograph? Would you agree with me?
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I object. There's a lack of foundation
19 for that question. We don't know which camera was used and what angle
20 each of the photos were taken. All kinds of things don't support that
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm satisfied that there's an adequate foundation
23 and that the witness will be able to deal with the question.
24 THE WITNESS: Okay.
25 A. Well, first of all, if you look at picture number 1, it was taken
1 at some distance and down hill. This is much closer to the building. It
2 is very hard to orient oneself in the field of rubble, but if you move
3 back to the previous photograph, photograph 1 of this set - could you do
4 that, please; yes - the elements that I was able to identify were parts of
5 the ablution fountain, which is separate from the mosque, and the large
6 utility pole, which was lying across the site with one side very charred,
7 and pieces of rubble, which had carved and painted elements which, I
8 assume, came from the mosque. But since everything had been graded by
9 heavy machinery, identifying particular points within the site was very
11 In addition to the mosque, you can see there were low buildings
12 surrounding it on the rear. Those were parts of the Carshia, the
13 traditional goldsmith's bazaar, which, according to our information - and
14 we cite the name of the informant - had been burned down and pillaged the
15 same time that the mosque was burned down. I was there at the site. I
16 can vouch for the fact that, you know, there is no mosque there now, or at
17 least wasn't in October of 1999. It may have been re-built since then.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac, to help understand this point, can you
19 explain what your case is on this?
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yesterday, the witness
21 identifying the photograph had pointed to the spot where the mosque had
22 been located. The Defence is convinced that the ruin shown by the witness
23 cannot be the correct area, in the correct area, because, looking at this
24 photograph, it's evident that the mosque is to the right, below the road,
25 and that the ruins marked by the witness as the ruins of the mosque
1 cannot, in fact, be the ruins of the mosque, in view of their location.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: So the point isn't that there's something odd about
3 the photograph; the point is that the mosque may well have been destroyed
4 but its ruins are not what the witness examined. Is that your position?
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: May I interject something? As I look more closely
8 at the pre-war photo, you will see the fenced-in ablution fountain to the
9 left of the mosque, which also has a set of low concrete steps. It may
10 well be that I mistook the foundations of the ablution fountain in the
11 post-war photo for the foundations of the mosque proper. But I can vouch
12 for the fact that where the mosque used to be there was only rubble.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Bakrac.
14 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, are you aware how many historical monuments of
16 Serb culture were destroyed after the departure of the Serb forces from
18 A. Yes, and I list them in my database, where the number that I cite
19 and the number cited by the Serbian Orthodox church, in its publication
20 "Rasveta Kosovo," are roughly the same, 80. Of these 80, roughly half
21 were lightly damaged or vandalised, and -- I'm sorry, and roughly half
22 were totally destroyed, so we're talking something less than a hundred
24 Q. So a little less than a hundred Serb cultural historical monuments
25 were damaged or destroyed in the presence of KFOR when these monuments
1 were supposed to be protected and when there were no war operations in
2 Kosovo. Do we agree?
3 MR. HANNIS: I object, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, can I have a basis for this? What's the
5 relevance to the indictment?
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in a part of his expert
7 report, the witness even concluded that the aim of the attack seems to
8 have been to destroy cultural monuments linked to the Albanian population
9 at a time when war was raging in Kosovo. I would like to know whether a
10 similar number of monuments were destroyed at a time when there were no
11 military operations, and the witness himself said that many of these
12 cultural and historical monuments were protected by FOR. In our
13 subsequent analysis, when we look at whether this was part of some kind of
14 joint plan, this should be kept in mind, in my view.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, what's your point?
16 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I don't see how that's relevant.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it does seem, to me, to be relevant because
18 Mr. Bakrac is suggesting that a lot of monuments can be damaged even when
19 they're being guarded by military forces, and that does seem to be a point
20 relevant to the activities in the earlier part of 1999. So let's hear
21 what the witness has to say about it and we'll assess it in due course.
22 Mr. Bakrac.
23 THE WITNESS: So could you very briefly restate what the question
24 was, please.
25 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. My question is: Would I be right in saying that the vast majority
2 of these cultural and historical sites were being guarded by KFOR; and
3 that, in spite of this, they were damaged or destroyed and you yourself
4 drew attention to the need to protect these monuments?
5 A. Yes, I did. During my visit to Kosovo, I tried to impress on the
6 officials we spoke to in Pristina the need to protect even isolated sites.
7 But the fact is during the first summer after the war and in October when
8 we visited, the principal Baedeker sites, the sites that appear in all the
9 guidebooks, like the Pec patriarchy, the Decani monastery, or Gracanica,
10 or the principal monuments in Prizren. All had KFOR guards in the front
11 of them, as did every Serb church in a village which still had Serb
13 The places where we found Serb churches that had been blown up
14 tended to be isolated, rural settlements that had been abandoned by the
15 Serb population in the initial phase after the war. And I assume that
16 KFOR had its priorities as to where it would place guards. But in places
17 like Drsnik and Dolac, we found nobody. It was empty, and we were
18 actually risking life and limb by climbing through the ruins, which could
19 have very easily had land-mines.
20 So it's not true that they were all guarded at the time.
21 Eventually they realised the sensitivity of the issue and started putting
22 soldiers in front of every church that still stood and even some of the
23 ruined ones. As we know, you know, there were attacks even after that.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Riedlmayer, I have one last question for you, which I'm
25 sure will make Their Honours very happy. In the light of your finding
1 that the aim of the attacks seems to have been to destroy the cultural
2 heritage linked to the Albanian population. I wish to ask you whether the
3 majority of cultural and historical monuments in Kosovo originated from
4 the Ottoman Empire.
5 A. That is not a statistic that, you know, I would support. In fact,
6 on the one hand, the Ottoman Empire controlled Kosovo for more than half a
7 millennium, really until 1912. Standing buildings tend to be the most
8 recent ones. So I would say of the standing Orthodox churches, a
9 considerable proportion dates from the 20th century. Some, including
10 parts of the Pecka Patriarchia were constructed during the Ottoman period,
11 and some from the middle ages. Similarly with respect to --
12 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. It seems we did not understand each other. You said or you
15 mentioned the figure of 600 mosques. Is it true that more than half of
16 those originate from the Ottoman Empire, from Turkish times, and that many
17 of those that were damaged originate from Turkish times?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. My question, Mr. Riedlmayer: Is it not the Ottoman heritage, is
20 it not equally the heritage of the Serbs and the Albanians and Turks,
21 Egyptians, and others who have been living in the area, and that there was
22 no destruction until the war broke out?
23 A. Obviously all of the architecture of Kosovo is the joint heritage
24 of the people who live there. But certain communities are obviously
25 connected to certain parts of the heritage in different ways than others.
1 Orthodox religious believers, who tend to be mostly the Serb population,
2 clearly attach special importance and symbolism to Orthodox heritage; and
3 likewise, Albanians are attached to their Islamic or Roman Catholic
4 heritage. It is simply a fact that ethnic divisions in the Balkans tend
5 to follow religious lines.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can you point out for me, Mr. Bakrac, where that
7 conclusion is in the report.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] On page 6, Your Honour. I think it's
9 the same page in English. The paragraph begins: "Three out of four
10 well-preserved town nucleuses in Kosovo suffered serious damage in the
11 spring." It's the sentence the last in the paragraph.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note: They were not quoting
13 the exact wording of the text.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. And it goes on to say: "And religious
15 monuments associated with Kosovo's Albanian population ..."
16 And you'll bear in mind, of course, that the charge we are dealing
17 with, in Count 5, is the charge of persecutions, which is not a question
18 so much of culture, in this case, as religion.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
20 further questions for this witness.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
22 Mr. Fila.
23 MR. FILA: [Microphone not activated].
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Fila:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Riedlmayer, my name is Toma Fila, together
2 with my colleague Mr. Petrovic. I appear for the accused Mr. Sainovic. I
3 will question you very briefly, and if you give me brief answers you'll be
4 rid of me very soon.
5 I have the impression that you somehow rushed this research of
6 yours. I don't know how else to explain this division into parts of
7 cultural heritage that you have seen, which you suddenly abandon in favour
8 of second-hand sources, whether -- regardless of whether this Court
9 tolerates that or not. Is there any reason -- and of course I agree, your
10 research was worthwhile, it was a very good idea to start it. Is there
11 any reason for suddenly abandoning it? Because I cannot escape that
13 A. First of all, I'd like to point out that, as I mentioned in my
14 report, one of the urgencies that gave rise to this project was the simple
15 fact that there had been war and destruction in Kosovo and winter was
16 coming. And if one had to identify damage, for whatever purpose, whether
17 for the purposes of this Court or for purposes of reconstruction and
18 conservation to save what could be saved, it was very important that
19 information be gathered as expeditiously as possible before winter set in.
20 The reason is that if you have a ruined building and its interior
21 is filled with rubble, when you have the winter snow and rain coming and
22 freezing, it can literally push the walls apart. And so after one or two
23 seasons, even a building that might have been salvageable will no longer
24 be salvageable. So that's why we were in a hurry. But we only had a
25 month to do it in, so we did what we could. And we economised our time in
1 such a way that, for example, with the Orthodox sites we tried to cover
2 those sites that the Orthodox church didn't already have photographs of.
3 And similarly, with the Islamic sites, we picked our documentation
4 in such a way that we would visit the sites that were most endangered and
5 which were also accessible to us.
6 I don't know if that answers your question.
7 Q. I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt you. But it's obviously not
8 the case. My objection is not that you went places but that you didn't go
9 everywhere. That's what I'm asking. You told me that you had to work
10 fast because of the weather and all the other restraints. You don't have
11 to pursue any of that; you are knocking at an open door.
12 What I want to know is why you had to wrap some things up so
13 quickly and thus fail to visit some localities at all. Instead, you used
14 some second-hand sources, such as Mr. Bajgora. I'm not saying that those
15 sources were bad. But why didn't you see those sites personally? Why
16 didn't you photograph them personally? What prevented you?
17 A. First of all, as I mentioned, winter was coming. Our research was
18 in October. In that part of the Balkans, the first snow starts coming in
20 The second reason was funding. We had a limited amount of funding
21 and we wanted to make the best use of it. We did make two follow-up
22 visits to Kosovo, to try to fill in some gaps, in 2000 and 2001.
23 Q. The reason I'm asking this is that I have the impression your
24 quick wrapping up has something to do with the arrest of Mr. Milosevic and
25 I think you were receiving instructions from the Prosecutor to wrap things
1 up as quickly as possible so that the indictment can be supplemented.
2 That is the feeling that I have. If I'm not right, please do not take it
3 personally, but it is still my impression.
4 A. Actually, Mr. Milosevic was pretty much the last thing on our
5 minds, because, as of 1999, the notion that he might be overthrown,
6 arrested and handed over to this Tribunal was a very distant possibility.
7 So, in 2000 and 2001, our main focus had to do with the other parts of
8 the -- the other purposes of the study, which is to assist in
10 Q. Then that brings me to my next question. Why, then, later did you
11 not continue? We would not then have to ask these questions at all, the
12 kinds of questions like my colleague Mr. Bakrac asked. Why did you say
13 there were Serbian crimes, et cetera. Why didn't you continue your work
14 in the spring? Because snows do start but they also end at some point.
15 A. In part, it was a question of funding; money, the root of all evil
16 and also, unfortunately, the only thing that makes such work possible.
17 But also the fact that, by May of 2000, UNMIK had established its own
18 department of culture, we assumed that UNMIK would be carrying out its own
19 assessment. Also, as time had passed, much of what was still quite
20 evident in October of 1999 would be less and less evident as ruins were
21 cleared, as reconstruction was underway.
22 We tried to follow the situation as best we could, but basically
23 the majority of our field-work and the part that we consider most
24 significant was done in the fall of 1999.
25 Q. Allow me not to agree with your first sentence, because I am a
1 lawyer, I mean, that money is the root of all evil. But let us continue.
2 When you set out from Harvard, you said that you flew to The Hague
3 and talked to the Office of the Prosecutor. What I want to know now - and
4 I don't mind that you talked to the Prosecutor; it's not a sin - why
5 didn't you go to the database? First, to your native country, the USA -
6 and I'll tell you at the end why I'm asking these questions - then to the
7 headquarters of NATO in Brussels, where you could have sought reports as
8 to who they bombed, when they bombed, and what they filmed on the ground
9 in Kosovo during the bombing.
10 I'm sorry to be putting this question to you, because I cannot put
11 it to the Prosecutor, and this is a question that has been bugging me
12 since the beginning of the Milosevic trial. NATO shows us some
13 photographs that are convenient to them, and you used them, too.
14 So the question is: Why didn't you ask from NATO information as
15 to exactly what they bombed, which towns, et cetera? I think my question
16 is clear. I don't want to belabour the point.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I think you've also answered it for yourself,
18 Mr. Fila, but see if Mr. Riedlmayer can add anything.
19 THE WITNESS: Well, our procedure actually was --
20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] He's an expert, Your Honour, he's not a
21 regular witness, and I cannot influence him, even if I wanted to.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, I'll be delighted to meet the expert at
23 getting material from NATO.
24 But at any rate, carry on, Mr. Riedlmayer.
25 THE WITNESS: Well, that was not our procedure for a very simple
1 reason. We proceeded on the basis of allegations. So we took all the
2 allegations from all sources seriously, from the Serbian -- from the
3 Yugoslav government White Book, from the Serbian Orthodox church, from the
4 refugee interviews, and so forth, and we operated on that level.
5 As far as going to interview governments and militaries, as His
6 Honour pointed out, this is not the kind of data they are in the habit of
7 sharing with outsiders. So we never approached them.
8 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
9 Q. I know that. I tried, too. My only question is: Did you try to
10 get it? I just want to know how many of us didn't get it. Are you one of
11 those who joined the club of those who sought and didn't get?
12 A. Well, we used everything that was publicly accessible, as you saw,
13 but we had no illusions that if we went to them that they would let us
14 into their database.
15 Q. That is true of the NATO but also your own country, the USA, which
16 leads the NATO, if my understanding is correct.
17 A. We had no dealings with the government at all.
18 Q. My next question would be this: Did you, perhaps, think it useful
19 to visit Paris, as the seat of UNESCO? I'm asking this because you quoted
20 the Ambassador of Yugoslavia to UNESCO, Nada Perisic-Popovic, in her
21 demands concerning restoration of allegedly damaged buildings that
22 suffered from NATO air-strikes. In other words, did you try to get in
23 contact with UNESCO representatives, including the Yugoslav ambassador to
24 UNESCO, who was then in Paris?
25 A. No, we did not. Nada Perisic-Popovic's press conference held at
1 the Yugoslav Cultural Centre in Paris was reported by Agence
2 France-Presse, and I took it off of LexisNexis.
3 Insofar as contacting UNESCO, before we undertook this project, we
4 contacted UNESCO to find out, A, whether they were planning any
5 comprehensive mission to assess what was happening in Kosovo, since we had
6 no intention of duplicating it if they were about to do the same, and they
7 informed us that they didn't. They also informed us that they had no
8 first-hand information about what was happening to cultural heritage in
10 Q. And then you went to The Hague, and from The Hague, you went
11 directly to Kosovo. Where? By which route?
12 A. We flew from Amsterdam to Skopije, and from Skopije by car.
13 Q. Once you came to The Hague, to the Office of the Prosecutor, to
14 get information from the horse's mouth as to what's going on in Serbia,
15 did it not occur to you that you might visit Belgrade as well? Because
16 planes fly from Amsterdam to Belgrade as well, and in Belgrade, at The
17 Academy of Sciences, you could have collected additional information,
18 especially relative to the White Book. Did you try that?
19 A. Well, first of all, we didn't come to the Office of the Prosecutor
20 to find out what was going on in Serbia or anywhere else. The only
21 information we got from the Office of the Prosecutor had to do with
22 protocols and procedure. They, at no point, told us what was going on in
23 Kosovo or instructed us as to how and what we should find.
24 As to Serbia, we had access to all the publications from the
25 Serbian government which was very -- and the Yugoslav government, which
1 were very diligent at publicising this material, both in printed form and
2 in electronic form.
3 Q. Therefore, it was your assessment that you would not get any
4 additional explanation from the government of Yugoslavia as to how the
5 White Book that you quoted in your report was written. You simply thought
6 you didn't need that; is that right?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. And then you took that book and read it; the book that you told us
9 about yesterday. That book is not in evidence. I don't have it in
10 English, but I will remind you that you told us yesterday how Serb
11 authorities told you that in Gracanica, the Church of Ascension of Our
12 Lady had been bombed and damaged. And then you and your colleague, with a
13 camera, established that the Serbian authorities were not telling the
14 truth. Is that correct?
15 A. Well, our aim was not to exonerate NATO or to blacken the name of
16 the Belgrade government. What we were trying to find out is what
17 allegations would pan out and which ones did not. And so we went to
18 Gracanica and we took some photographs. We sent -- we got further
19 information from conservation experts. We talked to the monks, and the
20 information about the damage to the church had been publicised on the
21 Serbian information ministry web site already during the war. So ...
22 Q. I heard that yesterday. Please do not repeat yourself. We must
23 not waste time. My main objection is: Where did you find in the White
24 Book that the Yugoslav authorities had said that the monastery was damaged
25 by an air-strike, by NATO bombs? Because nobody every said that. Let me
1 tell you what was said exactly. I'll read it.
2 "In the night on the 30th of March, the village of Gracanica was
3 bombed for the third time. Four shells fell 500 metres, that is 1500
4 feet, away from Gracanica monastery," and that's all.
5 It's not written anywhere that Gracanica was destroyed, damaged,
6 or anything so that you should go camera in hand to establish that it's
7 not true. That's about Gracanica. Nobody in Serbia ever claimed that the
8 NATO destroyed Gracanica. What is your comment? You said one thing and
9 we find in writing something quite different. That's page 226 of the
11 A. The White Book -- the White Book was not my only source for this.
12 If you look in the footnotes to my report, I cite a number of sources from
13 official bodies in Belgrade, which at various points made allegations. In
14 the case of Gracanica, I remember on one of the Serbian government web
15 sites, blurry photos alleging to show munitions fragments embedded in the
16 walls. I also quite well remember in this very same courtroom one of the
17 amici assisting in the Milosevic case, trying to establish that the
18 paintings had detached from the walls and that there was damage to the
19 historical decoration of the church.
20 Q. Damaged by shock, that's something different. But you said,
21 yesterday, speaking of the White Book, that the Yugoslav government was
22 claiming, in the White Book, that Gracanica had been damaged. I said that
23 was not correct, and now you confirm that it's not correct -- or I am
24 reading from an inaccurate book. Don't tell me what other sources have
25 said; just show me the White Book where the Yugoslav government claims
1 that the NATO alliance burned, set on fire, damaged, bombed, or whatever
2 the Gracanica monastery. The closest location of damage is 500 metres
3 away from the monastery. Do not quote to me other sources. Just agree
4 with me that it's not written in the White Book?
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, where is the reference in the report to
6 the White Book being the source of that information?
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] He said that yesterday at this trial.
8 He mentioned it. That's why I picked it up.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Did you give that as your --
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] No. Let me read it back to you.
11 Footnote 11 of his report, if you can find that. That mentions the White
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Indeed, but that footnote doesn't relate to the
14 particular damage we're looking at at the moment, does it?
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yesterday, in his testimony, he said
16 the monastery was not damaged, contrary to claims.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: But --
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] And in the footnote refers to the White
20 Q. Let's look further on. You spoke yesterday about the Pec/Peje
21 Patriarchy, saying that it was a great monument in Serbia, for Serbia - to
22 us that's another statement because it's the cradle of all of us - anyway,
23 you said that you went there and it was not established, although the
24 White Book makes allegations that the Pec Patriarchy was hit by a NATO
25 air-strike. Is that what you said yesterday?
1 A. I didn't say that it was hit. I said that it was damaged,
2 according to the White Book. There were no claims that it had suffered a
3 direct hit, but that bombing adjacent to it had caused serious damage.
4 And the fact is that people, who are more expert than I, the Italian
5 Conservation Institute carried out a study in which they concluded
6 verbatim that none of the damage they saw was due to anything other than
7 rising groundwater and deferred maintenance.
8 Q. I do not argue with you on that point. I'm saying the White Book
9 does not state that. The White Book states instead: "In the night on the
10 31st of March during NATO attacks, the reservoir station of the
11 water-supply system was hit 500 metres from the Pec Patriarchy."
12 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is reading too fast. Could he slow
13 down, please.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Fila, could you slow, please, for the
16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I finished, in fact, but I have -- I
17 can repeat.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we've got "The reservoir station of the
19 water-supply system was hit 500 metres from the Pec Patriarchy."
20 Now, is that the end of the quotation?
21 THE WITNESS: Um --
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
23 Q. And that's all the reference to the Pec Patriarchy.
24 A. Are you certain? There are two --
25 Q. It's never said that --
1 A. -- two volumes of the White Book, and, in addition, as I tried to
2 explain in two footnotes of my report --
3 Q. I only have volume 1.
4 A. Okay. Well, volume 2 also has a section on cultural heritage.
5 And in footnotes 9 through 11 of my report, at the very end, I speak of
6 the various sources of allegations from Yugoslavia. I wasn't relying
7 entirely on the White Book.
8 [Defence counsel confer]
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
10 Q. The thrust of my questions is this: Both in the case of Gracanica
11 and the Pec patriarchy, you said your source of information was the White
12 Book. I am simply saying that's not correct and I have no other point to
13 make here.
14 The next question I would like to ask you --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it may be suitable to interrupt there,
16 Mr. Fila, if you're moving on to something else.
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That's what I did.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. We'll take our next break now,
19 Mr. Riedlmayer, if you can leave the courtroom again --
20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I have only one more question.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that.
22 MR. FILA: One question.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Very well, Mr. Fila. You finish, please.
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
25 Q. When you were viewing the remnants of the mosque in Kosovska
1 Mitrovica - that's close to a very famous bridge on the Serb side,
2 conditionally speaking - did you experience any problems from Serbian
3 authorities when you wanted to view the remains of that mosque? Did
4 anybody try to prevent you from going there and seeing?
5 A. I was with an UNMIK official at the time and was not bothered.
6 Q. Correct. Because we have information from one Prosecution
7 witness, Mahmut Halimi, that there is a mass grave there where Serbs had
8 buried some Albanians. Did you see anything of the kind?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That was all.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Riedlmayer, we'll resume at ten minutes
13 to 1.00. If you could leave with the usher now, please.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 JUDGE BONOMY: We'll resume at ten to 1.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.20 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Aleksic.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Riedlmayer, or rather, good
24 afternoon. I have only a few questions for you.
25 First of all, something that follows from my colleagues'
1 cross-examination today. At the very beginning of your report, in
2 paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, you mention your investigations concerning
3 buildings which were established to have been seriously damaged by NATO
4 air-strikes. In connection with this, in the following paragraph, you say
5 that there were no signs of damage that could be ascribed to the
6 air-strikes in these buildings.
7 My first question in this respect is what criteria you used to
8 reach this conclusion.
9 A. I explained our criteria as to the description of the damage. As
10 to the cause of the damage, obviously, it's a little more complex, but I
11 can give you some specific examples.
12 For example, there were allegations concerning the mosque in Pec,
13 which was shown in direct examination, the Barakli Xhamia at the centre of
14 the market in Pec, I believe. This was a mosque which had been alleged to
15 have been hit by air-strikes. We visited the mosque and the dome was
16 intact. The door was charred but intact, and the interior had had very
17 serious fire, fire so intense that the marble revetments on the inside and
18 the marble column supporting the women's balcony had split from the heat,
19 and yet there was no sign at all of blast damage. And without being a
20 military expert, I think it's safe to say that this must have been a fire
21 that was set rather than a fire that resulted from any kind of aerial
23 So these kinds of observations -- or, for example, the church that
24 was also shown in direct examination, the church of St. Paraskeva in
25 Drsnik, which was also alleged to have been hit by NATO bombardment.
1 There, too, if you looked at the photographs, you could see the roof was
2 intact, the interior had a small fire set in it, and there were graffiti
3 on the walls; again, not the kind of damage one would expect from aerial
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. But you have said, once more, that you
6 are not a military expert; however, when speaking to my colleague
7 Mr. Bakrac, you said you knew nothing about different kinds of projectiles
8 and weapons. My question is, then: Did you not consider the possibility
9 that a projectile can enter a building from the side rather than through
10 the roof? I'm not now referring to this particular location. My question
11 is a general one.
12 A. Again, in the case, all I can do is illustrate with the cases that
13 we investigated. In these two particular cases, there was no sign
14 whatsoever of blast damage, which you would expect from any kind of
15 projectile. I think they're generally meant to do that kind of damage.
16 And, you know, I think one can employ certain common sense criteria,
17 without having to be a technical expert on munitions, to come to certain
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. Now that we're talking about common
20 sense, one of the sites mentioned in this first paragraph is also the
21 Catholic church of St. Anthony in Djakovica. You mentioned it both
22 yesterday and today when questioned or cross-examined by Mr. Bakrac. I
23 apologise for not having the page number in the transcript, but I think
24 there is no doubt that the Catholic priest told you that the damage to the
25 door and windows was caused by a bomb falling from the air; not hitting
1 the building directly, but rather, landing in its immediate vicinity. Am
2 I right?
3 A. That's not what he told me. Basically he told me they were
4 expelled. The Yugoslav military occupied the building. And when they
5 returned in May, they found the building damaged. Since he wasn't
6 present, he couldn't tell whether that damage was done by those who were
7 in the building or others. The same goes, I assume, with regard to any
8 other loss of property or damage involved.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Is this not the case where you attributed the
10 damage to the windows to blasts?
11 THE WITNESS: Well, let's differentiate. There was -- there's the
12 church, which was a major monument built in the 19th century --
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
14 THE WITNESS: -- and adjacent to it, a modern rectory.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
16 THE WITNESS: Both of them were near the Yugoslav military base.
17 What the priest told me was that, before the bombing happened, about a
18 half an hour before, the military came and expelled him and the nuns from
19 the premises. After it was over, the only damage to the church were some
20 shattered windows. In the case of the rectory, it had been vandalised and
22 The allegation that I was -- that moved me to examine these
23 premises was an allegation that the building of the church had been hit by
24 NATO bombs; and in fact, there was no damage. I went inside and outside
25 and it looked in good condition.
1 There was another church a couple hundred metres down the street,
2 which was disused and which they were planning to rebuild but hadn't,
3 which did suffer some damage from air blast. But no allegations
4 concerning that were ever raised by any party.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: But did you not say earlier today that there was --
6 I thought it was that church, where the windows --
7 THE WITNESS: The windows were blown out.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Blown out.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: So this is the one?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: That's fine. Thank you.
13 Mr. Aleksic.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. In paragraph 2.2 of your report, you mention kulla and the
16 destruction, or rather, you mention towers and that towers were the main
17 subject of attack, the main targets. They were perfect for the KLA to
18 engage in military activity from them, weren't they?
19 A. Well, this was already examine -- addressed in the
20 cross-examination by Mr. Milosevic during that trial, where he made the
21 same contention. And my reply to that is that these kulla, most of which
22 were built before World War I, were indeed used as refuges during times of
23 insecurity and especially during blood feuds. But while they were an
24 adequate defence against muskets and hunting rifles, they stood absolutely
25 no chance against modern weapons.
1 In the case of several kulla, where I talked to the owners who
2 said that they had fled to the slopes above and watched the destruction of
3 their kullas, they said the kullas were destroyed by a single projectile
4 held -- hit from a hand-held device, fired into the flammable roof
5 structure, which was enough to cause the whole thing to burn down and
6 collapse. So in a redoubt in late 20th century warfare, they had
7 absolutely no utility.
8 Q. Yes. Yes. But, Mr. Riedlmayer, my question was: Were these
9 suitable places to shoot from? I wasn't asking about the kind of weapons
10 that might be used to destroy them. On pages 28, 29, and 30 of
11 yesterday's transcript, you mentioned two new references not available to
12 you when you testified in the Milosevic trial, and these are publications
13 by Mr. Krasnici and Mr. Krunic.
14 In the course of yesterday, I glanced through these publications.
15 Mr. Krasnici says that the main purpose of these kullas was defensive;
16 that they were two or three storeys high; that usually the ground floor
17 was built of stone; and that instead of windows they had loop-holes.
18 Would you agree with that?
19 A. Like many -- the principal purpose of these was to serve as
20 shelter for people and animals. Like many pre-modern buildings in Europe,
21 the animals and the people generally lived under one roof. The people
22 lived under the upper storeys, which had windows; the lower storeys were
23 used for storage of provisions and stables for the animals.
24 Now, since the kullas did also have this defensive purpose, they
25 had openings on the lower storeys, which could of course be used for
1 shooting. But the fact is that since they were so vulnerable, I think
2 they would make very poor redoubts in any kind of modern warfare. I
3 don't know if that answers your question.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. I'll move on now. In A2.3 of your
5 report on page 19, you speak about information received from the Kosovo
6 Islamic community, and you say that in some cases verbal descriptions of
7 the extent of the damage were exaggerated.
8 And then you say that the dates given for construction should be
9 taken with caution because they often refer to the date when the
10 foundation was laid, rather than when the building was finished. So you
11 were provided with this information that had to be checked. Is that
13 A. Yes. With regard to destruction, this was a problem with all the
14 religious communities, including the Serbian Orthodox church. They tended
15 to speak of destruction in very general terms and did not have a very
16 specific vocabulary.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you need to elaborate on this. If
18 counsel wants more information, Mr. Riedlmayer, he can ask for it.
19 Because you've dealt with this ad longum yesterday.
20 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Yesterday during the examination-in-chief, page 26, lines 1 to 4,
22 when answering Mr. Hannis's questions, you said that evidently if a
23 building was damaged by a projectile and there was a strong blast, there
24 would be holes in the walls and bullet traces on all side; and that in
25 that case, it would be logical to conclude that such damage was not caused
1 in peacetime.
2 Also, when you testified in the Milosevic case, you spoke about
3 the mosque in Djakovica. And on page 26, lines 18 and forward, you said
4 that the minaret had been toppled and that you could see several small
5 round holes in it. Can you describe these holes?
6 A. Yes. I believe I already described them in court here. They were
7 approximately maybe 30 centimetres, 40 centimetres across. I can't give
8 you an exact measurement, since I was looking at them from the ground up.
9 There were approximately four or five of them in the part of the minaret
10 that was still standing. The top of the minaret above the balcony had
11 been sheared off. They looked like the kinds of holes that might be made
12 by some kind of projectile.
13 Q. Maybe I was insufficiently precise. The first part of yesterday's
14 transcript, which I quoted, is one from which it follows that you saw
15 bullet -- traces of bullets on all sides in some locations. Is that
17 A. In some locations, I saw buildings that had clearly been shot up
18 by small arms. This was, by far, the minority of cases. And it wasn't
19 always clear whether this was a building caught in some sort of battle or
20 cross-fire or whether it was an act of vandalism. I can give you an
21 example of the latter in Pec where I visited the mosque called, in
22 Albanian, Xhamija e Kuqe, the red mosque, which had been burnt down.
23 And since it wasn't listed in the literature, I was looking for
24 some kind of inscription to figure out what it was called in Baedeker.
25 And I found an Islamic an inscription on the fountain right next to the
1 mosque, part of complex. And somebody had clearly emptied a whole clip
2 into the inscription. All the bullet impacts were in the Arabic
3 inscription on top of the fountain. So clearly that's not the mark of a
4 battle, but somebody getting very angry about something.
5 Q. Were there other sites where you saw traces of bullets which might
6 be the traces of battles?
7 A. I can't from memory cite any specifically, but there were
8 buildings that were badly destroyed where you did indeed see sprays of
9 bullets in the wall. I would need to have my database in front of me to
10 hunt it down.
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Riedlmayer. One last question on this topic. You
12 testified in the Milosevic case. And on pages 2684, lines 21 to 22, you
13 said, "We saw no signs that the mosques had been hit by small calibre
14 weapons." Is that correct?
15 A. I don't have the transcript in front of me, so I can't comment on
16 the context thereof. But I can say in general, when we saw mosques which
17 had suffered damage, we didn't see -- it was very uncommon to see any kind
18 of small-calibre impacts. And you would expect that, for example, if
19 someone's trying to take down a sniper, the most efficient way is,
20 obviously, to try and shoot him down.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
22 further questions.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.
24 Mr. Visnjic.
25 MR. VISNJIC: No questions, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. O'Sullivan.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No questions.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Riedlmayer. My name is Dan Ivetic and I am
7 one of the attorneys for Mr. Lukic in these proceedings, and I've got some
8 questions to ask you. I'll try to move along quickly and not repeat items
9 that have already been dealt with, since we have time constraints.
10 Now, I'd first like to ask you, you've been asked and you've
11 specified several times that you are not a military expert. I have some
12 other questions about your --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Ivetic, would you kindly slow down a little
14 bit for the interpreters.
15 MR. IVETIC: So much for trying to speed things up. I'll try and
16 keep it slow.
17 Q. You've been asked, and you've answered, about your lack of any
18 military expertise. I would like to ask you about other areas of
19 expertise that I believe are relevant to some of the work you did.
20 Now, first of all, sir, am I correct that you never had any formal
21 education or training in the fields of fire-scene or bomb-scene
23 A. No, I did not. I'm not an arson investigator.
24 Q. Okay. And you did not, in fact, employ or consult with any such
25 expert while you were in the field, did you?
1 A. No. However, I could tell you that, in the course of my
2 investigations both in Kosovo and in Bosnia, I have seen, in person,
3 several hundred sites and, on photographs, several hundred more sites
4 about which I had other information and have accumulated a fair degree of
5 experience. And I've also been reading the technical literature. So, to
6 a certain extent, I have become self-educated in this. But I have no
7 technical training in that field.
8 Q. Okay. And what about forensic structural engineering? You
9 haven't had any formal education or training in that field, have you?
10 A. No, I'm not a structural engineer and we did not try to do
11 structural testing; however, I was accompanied in my field-work in Kosovo
12 by Mr. Herscher, who is a trained architect and who is qualified to make
13 some judgements about the buildings, based on visual inspection. As I
14 said, we had no means to carry out technical tests.
15 Q. And just to be clear, Mr. Herscher is an architect; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with me that, in order to
18 definitively, as an expert, give descriptions of and make conclusions of
19 exactly in what manner these buildings and mosques were damaged, you would
20 need to have had the assistance of such an expert, that is to say, a
21 bomb-scene or fire-scene investigations expert and a forensic structural
22 engineer, as the literature indicates?
23 A. Well, in the best of all circumstances, that's what you would hope
24 to have; however, in our field survey, we had much more modest goals and
25 those were, I think, achievable through simple visual observation and
1 application of certain basic criteria.
2 Q. Fair enough. And you've already talked about the modest goals and
3 the results obtained, so I'm not going to ask you about that.
4 Now, if we can turn to your factual findings on the ground and
5 your knowledge and experience, you've mentioned Bosnia. Would you still
6 agree with your assessment that you stated during the Milosevic
7 proceedings, at page 2714, lines 18 through 21, that as far as the Balkans
8 were concerned, "the biggest driving force for desecration and looting of
9 religious sites was quite aside from any political motives and boiled down
10 to just simple human greed."
11 A. I don't have the reference in front of me, so I don't know the
12 exact context. But as far as I can recall the remark, it was addressed to
13 the fact that, in many of these cases, before a site was destroyed, it was
14 looted. So, for example, in the case of Vucitrn, the market mosque was
15 surrounded by the goldsmith's bazaar, all the shops being endowments of
16 the mosque, meaning the rental income of the shops supported the mosque.
17 And before it was all burned down, according to local residents, the
18 goldsmith's shops were systematically looted and then set on fire.
19 So I think when people talk about ideology or ethnic hatreds or
20 troops getting out of control, what they neglect to mention is the profit
22 Q. Okay. So you've answered my other question, which was going to be
23 if you agreed that this applied to Kosovo and Metohija. I take it from
24 your response, citing an example in Kosovo, that you do agree that human
25 greed and profit motive had a role potentially --
1 A. They certainly had some role.
2 Q. Okay. Now, based upon my reading of the Milosevic proceedings and
3 the transcript therefrom, it's my understanding that at that point in
4 time, while you were being cross-examined, you learned for the first time
5 that certain information that you had received, particularly from
6 Djakovica, came from KLA members, specifically one Petrik Domi, who was a
7 member of the 124th Brigade of the KLA.
8 Now, since the Milosevic case, have you done any more work to
9 check and determine if any of your other informants or sources had any
10 compromising or potentially compromising ties with the KLA?
11 A. The photograph you referred to was one that was shown in court
12 here. It showed the Djakovica market on fire. Now, I didn't acquire it
13 directly from Mr. Domi, I acquired it from the news agency which
14 distributed it in 1999. It was clearly just one piece among several
15 pieces of evidence on the destruction of the bazaar, and, you know, if you
16 throw it out, I don't think it would change my assessment. I'd leave it,
17 obviously, to the Court to determine what utility it has.
18 I only received very few photos from individuals. Most of them
19 came from the religious communities or other institutional sources, but
20 all the individuals are named.
21 Q. Okay.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: This individual is named in relation to one of your
23 sites, is he?
24 THE WITNESS: He's named as a source of one photograph of the
25 burning market. He is a resident of Djakovica and claims to have taken
1 that photograph while the market was being burned.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: But your source of --
3 THE WITNESS: Was --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: -- your copy was Reuters, I think you said
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, it came from a news agency.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
8 MR. IVETIC:
9 Q. Now, sir, to clear up something that my colleague Mr. Hannis, I
10 think, misspoke about yesterday, you were talking of kullas and Mr. Hannis
11 asked you if, in fact, the family compounds, as he called them, that we
12 had heard about in other evidence were, in fact, kullas. Now, am I
13 correct that not all family compounds on the territory of Kosovo and
14 Metohija are, indeed, kullas; that, in fact, there are ordinary residences
15 that are built as compounds?
16 A. Yes. Both rural Albanians and, to some extent, rural Serbs lived
17 in extended families. They're known in the Balkans as zadrugas. And they
18 often are built as compounds, several houses within a walled enclosure.
19 In the areas we're talking about, western Kosovo and northern Kosovo, this
20 is where kullas are concentrated. But family compounds can be found
21 anywhere in Kosovo, and very often they consist of modern buildings.
22 Q. Thank you. And without having reviewed the evidence that
23 Mr. Hannis was generally speaking of, you would have no way of knowing
24 whether the family compounds that are relevant to this case and to other
25 witnesses were, indeed, kullas or these residences, these zadrugas. Is
1 that correct?
2 A. Well, if the sites were identified by name -- the kullas had been
3 studied in the literature, so you could know, for example, the old town of
4 Decani was almost entirely composed of kullas, as was the town of Junik.
5 There are entire villages which are almost exclusively kullas. In other
6 places, you know, I wouldn't expect to see kullas, for example, down in
7 the south of Kosovo.
8 Q. Would you expect -- I have to slow down since we both speak
9 English. If I cut in right after your answer, the interpreters have
11 Would you expect a person testifying about a compound to use the
12 word -- would it be -- would they use the word "kulla"? Would that be the
13 way of differentiating between a zadruga and a kulla?
14 A. Well, a zadruga -- I'm sorry, I should slow down. Zadruga is
15 simply the name of the extended family; it's not the name of the building.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. So extended families can live in modern apartment buildings, if
18 you like. But I can't speak for what a witness would say. If you asked
19 them what type of house it would be, if it was a kulla, they would
20 probably identify it as such. My study was not based on those incidents;
21 it simply notes that of the extant kullas in Kosovo, which various experts
22 estimate around 500, some 90 percent were destroyed in 1998/1999, which
23 seems a very high proportion. It is certainly borne out by local studies,
24 like the one carried out by UNMIK, Urban Institute in Pec, which found
25 that in the municipality of Decani, for example, out of 260-odd kullas,
1 230 had been damaged or destroyed.
2 Q. I hate to cut you short, sir, but I'm try to finish you and leave
3 time for the Prosecution for re-direct. So I apologise if I seem to speed
4 along on some thing. You already talked, I think at length, with my
5 colleagues about whether or not these kullas could be used for -- for
6 battle purposes. Now -- and the question I want to ask you is: With
7 respect to that, you answered that you talked with people who told you how
8 the kullas had been damaged or destroyed. Now, I want to ask you: Is it
9 correct that you cannot actually definitively exclude that some of these
10 instances may be misreported to you, to serve propaganda goals of the KLA
11 and protect the KLA?
12 A. I can't exclude anything, seeing as I didn't take statements under
13 oath. However, I can tell you that in these specific cases, I'm talking
14 of a village called Gornje Streoce, just between Decani and Pec. That's
15 S-t-r-e-o-c-e. The kullas had no bullet-holes on them and they were
16 completely gutted with fire, which seems consistent with what they told
18 Q. Okay. Now, yesterday we went through the -- actually, I guess
19 today as well, we went through the extracts from your report that talked
20 about a variety of sites. And based upon my rough calculation, it would
21 appear that a majority of them, or some seven or eight of the sites, come
22 from -- come from this Sabri Bajgora in the IMG database listed as the
23 surveyors, which you listed today as shorthand for the source of
24 information. Now, am I correct that this IMG database actually does not
25 contain any information relating to how a particular building was damaged;
1 it only contains information as to the extent of the damage and the costs
2 to repair the same?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. So then would it be fair to say that the bulk of the information
5 as to how these structures were damaged came from this Sabri Bajgora?
6 A. Insofar as there is specific information as to when and by whom,
7 it would come from them.
8 Q. And obviously --
9 A. If I say it looks like it's been burned, that may come from me.
10 Q. Right. Okay. And as far as this Islamic community headed by Mr.
11 Bajgora, you don't know whether in fact they conducted any interviews, if
12 at all, or whether they relied upon newspaper accounts or media accounts,
13 do you?
14 A. If there were newspaper or media accounts, I suspect if it was
15 international ones I would have seen them. What I do know, from talking
16 to Mr. Bajgora, is that in July and August and September, for the three
17 months after the end of the war, he said he was continually on the road
18 visiting the various local Islamic communities, taking pictures, and
19 collecting information on what had happened to his communities' properties
20 during the war. So, yes, he did do field-work. So what extent he
21 corroborated this from other sources, I do not know.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. But I assume that his main information was firsthand, talking to
24 local people.
25 Q. You indicate there that if there had been media accounts; you
1 suspect you would have seen them. There are at least several occasions in
2 the excerpts where -- for cites that you received information from Mr.
3 Bajgora, you also had newspaper accounts. My question for you is: If, in
4 fact, it turns out that Mr. Bajgora used those same newspaper accounts for
5 reaching his conclusions, the newspaper accounts that you cited can't
6 really be corroborative or cross-referencing Mr. Bajgora's claims, can
8 A. That is certainly one way of looking at it. The fact is that the
9 instances, where I have newspaper accounts, are mainly limited to a few
10 cites that were particularly notorious and which, therefore, attracted the
11 attention of the international press. I doubt, actually, that in the
12 circumstances prevailing in Kosovo in the immediate aftermath of the war,
13 that Mr. Bajgora or his community would have been so clued in to the
14 international press. There was no power and no telephone communication,
15 and in all of Pristina there was one internet cafe charging outrageous
17 Q. Okay. Now, if I can ask you about one particular site that you
18 did visit, the Rogovo site, the Xhamija e Hasan Ages, that you visited
19 with Mr. Herscher -- I apologise. That's P1784, if anyone wishes to
20 follow along.
21 Now, in that damage description, the last line of that
22 says: "Village site of 29 January 1999 MUP operation in which 24
23 Albanians were killed."
24 Now, I note that there is no reference to Sabri Bajgora, there are
25 no media accounts, and the informant's statement from an unnamed
1 storekeeper does not mention anything from this January of 1999 incident.
2 A. The January of 1999 incident was widely publicised at the time in
3 news accounts. But I had no idea what they were going to include in the
4 final indictment. I simply put this in, essentially saying, "Here it is
5 if you're" -- "if it's of any interest." But, you know, whether the
6 destruction of the mosque actually happened subsequent to that.
7 Q. Right. That's what the -- at least what the informant states. So
8 this is put in here simply to assist the Prosecutor in its other
9 investigations and is not part of your -- of the task that you were --
10 A. No --
11 Q. -- the primary task of your --
12 A. No. And it was put in the at the last moment.
13 Q. Fair enough. Now, for each of these incidents that we've gone now
14 for two days of damage to specific sites, you cannot positively exclude
15 the possibility or the fact that if these acts were done intentionally,
16 the damage may be the spontaneous reaction due to angry, rage, or greed of
17 local Serb inhabitants, either responding to attacks of NATO or the KLA,
18 can you?
19 A. No, I can't.
20 Q. Okay. And, in fact, I believe many of the reported incidents, at
21 least according to the newspaper accounts and the informants' information
22 of when the damage occurred, most of them occurred, if not all occurred,
23 after, immediately after, NATO attacks had commenced. Isn't that right?
24 A. That I cannot speak to.
25 Q. Okay. Now, in fact, where the manpower and facilities were
1 available -- or should I say: Did you have knowledge of the fact that,
2 when manpower and facilities were available, the Serb authorities actually
3 tried to protect and control such Islamic religious sites from mob
4 activity during the course of the NATO bombings?
5 A. I wasn't aware of that.
6 Q. Okay. For instance, had you heard or did you inquire about the
7 Prizren mosque? First of all, are you familiar with the mosque in Prizren
8 that is considered to be the central landmark and symbol of the Islamic
9 community in Kosovo and Metohija?
10 A. Yes, the Sinan Pasha mosque.
11 Q. And are you familiar with the fact that they Serbian police
12 posted, in the city of Prizren, guards on a daily basis to protect and
13 secure that mosque from any potential mob activity on the part of the
14 local populace?
15 A. I hadn't heard that. I did hear that, during the war, both the
16 prayer in the mosques and the call to prayer were forbidden in Prizren.
17 This is according to Mr. Virmica, when I spoke to him. He lives in
18 Prizren. But he never said anything about guards.
19 Q. Okay. Now, yesterday, when testifying about a picture that you
20 bought from a journalist - I forget the name of the journalist, but it was
21 relating to Pristina - you stated in your sworn testimony here that on
22 June 15th, 1999, hours before the arrival of the KFOR units, I believe it
23 was the Islamic library that was set on fire by Serbian police, who ran
24 into the building and ran out.
25 Now, again, we have no source for that, and, in fact, I did not
1 see it referenced in any of the exhibits that were tendered from your
2 report. So, first of all, what was the source of this information? Was
3 it the news journalist who sold you the photographs?
4 A. It was actually another news account which is in my database. I
5 don't believe it was among the pages from the database that was entered
6 into evidence. The photograph was by a Reuters photographer named Oleg
7 Popov. And I didn't buy it from him, I bought it from the Reuters
9 Q. Okay. Are you aware of the fact, sir, that as far as Pristina is
10 concerned, the first KFOR contingents arrived there already on June the
11 12th, 1999?
12 A. I may have had the date wrong, and I believe I indicated that in
13 court because I'm speaking from memory. But the burning of the Islamic
14 archive, which is what it was - it was the archive where all the property
15 records of the Islamic community and other documents were held - did
16 happen in the hours before the arrival of KFOR in Pristina. It wasn't --
17 it doesn't hang on a single photograph. There was news footage on various
18 outlets, from CNN to BBC, showing the burning building. It was a widely
19 reported thing, because reporters were coming in in advance of the troops.
20 Q. Footage showing the burning building but not the perpetrators.
21 A. Not the perpetrators --
22 Q. Okay. Thank you.
23 A. -- but the reporters interviewed people who had seen the
25 Q. Okay. Now, in the course of your personal interviews with
1 informants and sources for your study, isn't it true that you came across
2 instances when persons had misrepresented things to you, trying to
3 actually blame Serbs for damage to sites that, in fact, were damaged in
4 some other way?
5 A. Yes, there was at least one instance of that. It wasn't connected
6 to buildings, but in Vucitrn there were some smashed tombstones. And
7 initially, when I talked to residents, some children said, "Oh, it must
8 have been the Serbs," and then some others said, "No, this just happened
9 last week" and that it was done at the behest of an aid agency from the
10 United Arab Emirates who were working on some sort of fanatical sect. So
11 there were some smashed tombstones. But that's the only instance I know
12 where people were falsely attributing it.
13 Similarly, in Djakovica, there was one other instance where there
14 was a foundation of a mosque and a minaret standing but no mosque. And
15 somebody tried to tell me that this was ruined in the war, and then I
16 asked the Islamic community and they said, "No, it was an old mosque. We
17 tore it just before the war and had intentions to reconstruct it." But
18 these are the only two instances I can think of.
19 Q. All right. Let me go back for a moment to Vucitrn to try and
20 refresh your recollection some, because I think we're talking about the
21 same instance but you've got a couple things turned around in there.
22 The Prosecution tendered today a new exhibit, P2456, and on the
23 fifth page of that, it talks -- this is the report from your database
24 talking about the Gazi Ali Bej mosque in Vucitrn. And according to that,
25 it says: "Old man encountered in mosque courtyard initially tried to
1 blame Serbs for damage to cemetery but several young people said that that
2 was not true," and then it goes on to give the part that you had
3 mentioned. So you, in fact, had heard the mistruth not from children, as
4 you had said here, but from an old man. Does that sound more like the --
5 A. Yes, the -- and then it was corrected.
6 Q. Thankfully it was corrected by persons who had actually seen the
7 damage being done at the bequest of the aid agency. Now, the question I
8 have for you is: Based upon this experience, you cannot, therefore,
9 exclude the possibility that some of the other statements you heard,
10 particularly where there was only one person involved, were, likewise,
11 attempts at misrepresentation, can you?
12 A. As I said, I only recorded what was told to me. I did not depose
13 people under oath.
14 Q. Okay. Now, as far as some of the other informants or news
15 accounts that you relied upon in reaching your reports, I find some, in
16 particular, inconsistent with one another and I'll very briefly
17 summarise. The one, in particular, I'm talking about is Exhibit P1781
18 dealing with the Hadum mosque and bazaar in Djakovica. According to the
19 excerpt from your database that was submitted into evidence, one informant
20 says that Serb police and civilians are to blame for this damage. The
21 other informant that you had in that case said Serb police and military,
22 but makes no mention of civilians, were responsible. And finally, the
23 news report, based upon multiple accounts by Chris Stephen, from The New
24 York Times, says very explicitly that 50 persons in military uniforms
25 alone did the act.
1 Now, sir, all I want to ask you about the inconsistencies is to
2 confirm that you are not in a position, based upon the knowledge that you
3 collected, to reconcile these different accounts, are you?
4 A. Which is why I included them, as they stand.
5 Q. Fair enough. And, in fact, if we can focus for a moment on the
6 essay by Chris Stephen from The New York Times, you only have an excerpt
7 included in there. Do you recall, from reading that article, that
8 immediately after your excerpt in his essay, he describes how the old town
9 where the mosque and bazaar were located were "the epicenter of Kosovo
10 Liberation Army activity, a haven for guerillas at war with the Serbs."
11 A. I don't recall, but it was seven years ago.
12 Q. Okay. Did you recall, or do you know, that, in fact, a KLA
13 headquarters was located precisely in that part of Djakovica city,
14 precisely in March of 1999, as the article that you have identified as a
15 source also indicates?
16 A. I used it as a source only for what it had to say about the
17 building. I was not particularly interested in the other aspects.
18 Q. Okay.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you have an exhibit number for the rest of the
23 MR. IVETIC: I don't have it because I thought that I couldn't use
24 it, given that I did not know of the article until last night, which was
25 obviously after I could have given notice of it. So I do not.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: I think that should be put into the system.
2 MR. IVETIC: Just the excerpts that I've talked about, or --
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the additional excerpt.
4 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: We've got part of the report here and you're
6 supplementing that --
7 MR. IVETIC: Right.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: -- so that should be put into the system and the
9 Chamber notified, in writing, of its number.
10 MR. IVETIC: I will do that, then.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
12 MR. IVETIC: And that, actually, is the last question I had for
13 this witness, so hopefully we have time to finish him today.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
15 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, sir.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis. I mean, you have some time if -- if
17 you just give me a second.
18 MR. HANNIS: Yes.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Since there is no other case in this courtroom this
21 afternoon, we can allow Judge Nosworthy to depart for her other case and
22 we can sit, under 15 bis, a little longer to enable us to clear up issues
23 over exhibits and complete the re-direct. It's only going to take five or
24 ten minutes, I image, and --
25 Mr. Hannis, you look doubtful about that.
1 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, in light of what just happened with
2 supplementing the newspaper article, there was some questions put to this
3 witness concerning the White Book and some of the sources of the Yugoslav
4 authorities and the Yugoslav web sites concerning damage that this witness
5 relied on.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
7 MR. HANNIS: And I had proposed to introduce some of those
8 documents, or portions of those documents, to supplement what was asked
9 him on cross-examination.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, if you're given half an hour, would you
11 manage, then?
12 MR. HANNIS: Well, I could do it in the amount of time if I could
13 find the material, but I don't have it all at hand.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: You have a witness here who you anticipated would
15 be two days and --
16 MR. HANNIS: I did, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: We can accommodate that and it's disappointing that
18 you can't. Does it help if we break briefly and do this? Because --
19 MR. HANNIS: It could.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: -- or is that not going to be of much assistance to
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, that could be of assistance to me. Your
23 Honour, I guess if I can inquire of the witness, if it's inconvenient for
24 him to return tomorrow. I don't know what his travel arrangements are. I
25 would defer to him because he's come here on numerous occasions in the
1 past and I'll adjust my schedule to his.
2 THE WITNESS: My return flight is booked for Friday, so ...
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's regrettable, Mr. Hannis, that we can't
4 make use of these -- the opportunity when it's there to get everything
5 heard at the one time and help our understanding of the situation. But if
6 it's got to be tomorrow, then so be it.
7 MR. HANNIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, Mr. Riedlmayer, you'll need to return, I'm
10 afraid, tomorrow to resume at 9.00. And, again, please bear in mind what
11 I said about no discussion about the evidence meanwhile. You may leave
12 the courtroom now and we will see you at 9.00 tomorrow.
13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE BONOMY: 9.00 tomorrow morning.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of
18 November, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.