1 Friday, 19 April 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
7 WITNESS: VETON SURROI [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic: [Continued]
10 Q. [Interpretation] In the short time that I have left, I am going to
11 ask questions which can be answered by yes or no answer. Did you become a
12 member of the delegation for negotiations with the government with the
13 Republic of Serbia and the negotiations at Rambouillet at the demand of
14 the Americans?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Were you in a position to be the role of their inside man, their
17 insider in the Albanian delegation?
18 A. I don't understand the question.
19 Q. I didn't understand the answer.
20 A. I did not understand the question.
21 Q. I asked you whether you were their insider in the delegation of
23 JUDGE MAY: The witness wants you to clarify what that means,
24 Mr. Milosevic.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Did you work for the Americans there in that delegation?
2 A. No.
3 Q. You mentioned Robert Gelbard with respect to the events in 1998
4 and 1999. Is it true that the American representatives played the main
5 role, the principal role in reviving the KLA, increasing tensions and
6 preparing the ground for a NATO aggression during that period of time?
7 A. No. I think the main and principal role was played by yourself.
8 Q. And did the German representatives have any role to play?
9 A. Germany, as a country belonging to the European Union, it was
10 involved in the negotiations.
11 Q. And do you think the main role to destabilise the country was one
12 that they played or not?
13 A. I think that the principal role for the destruction of Yugoslavia
14 and for subsequent developments belongs to yourself.
15 Q. And is what I'm claiming -- does it not bear out -- is it not
16 borne out by your direct meeting with Clinton which was a signal to turn
17 your back on the negotiations and apply the use of force against
19 A. I can't see how this relates to President Clinton, but during
20 those talks with President Clinton, the main emphasis was on the
21 establishment of a security framework and setting in train an efficient
22 negotiation process, which the Kosovar Albanian delegation was always
23 ready to apply.
24 Q. You therefore claim that, at the time, the main decision was not
25 to apply force against Yugoslavia. Is that what you're saying?
1 A. Absolutely not. But I can hardly see how this situation is
2 connected to the fact that in Kosova at the time there was an escalation
3 of violence by the Serbian security forces and the continuation of
4 killings of civilians including children, pregnant women, and unarmed
6 Q. That meeting denoted in practical terms the end of communication
7 with the delegation of Serbia and preparations for Rambouillet and, later
8 on, for the war, at least when we're talking about the time sequence of
9 events. Yes or no.
10 A. No. You keep forgetting that following the talks with President
11 Clinton, you personally met his envoy Hill, who conveyed to yourself the
12 attitudes of the Kosovar party. And the Albanian delegation also met
13 Ambassador Hill which conveyed the Serbian positions. This was a
14 negotiation process which you agreed to.
15 Q. But after that, at the 11 meetings that the delegation of the
16 Government of Serbia attended, you did not respond nor did you turn up to
17 talk to them and negotiate. Is that correct or not?
18 A. The delegation from the Serbian government came to attend some
19 demonstrative meetings, and their invitation was urbi et orbi to meet the
20 Albanians. There has never been an invitation for any delegation, and
21 this is in no way connected to developments of the time. According to
22 this invitation from the Serbian government delegation, even unimportant
23 societies have to take part in this -- in this kind of meeting, which did
24 not represent more than a tiny section of Kosova society.
25 Q. When you say "unimportant societies," do you mean the
1 representatives of the other ethnic communities? Just yes or no, please.
2 A. It was said that the invitation was for Albanians.
3 Q. Now, what Thaci Selim and Haradinaj and others did with respect to
4 abduction, killings, the killings of soldiers, policemen, civilians -
5 Serbs and Albanians alike - in your opinion represents a crime or not?
6 A. I think that we've been over this in the course of yesterday.
7 Q. And does it represent a crime or not?
8 JUDGE MAY: It's right that we have been over it. There's no
9 point arguing more about it.
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. And what about the attack, NATO attack, on Yugoslavia; does that
12 constitute a crime or not?
13 JUDGE MAY: That's a matter of opinion. It's something which this
14 Chamber is going to have to deal with.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, the witness is presenting his
16 opinions, more or less, and I don't see why he should not give his opinion
17 on that question too.
18 JUDGE MAY: He's only being asked his opinion by you at the
19 moment, and that opinion is irrelevant. You can ask about -- him about
20 his attitude to the attack, if you want to, but that's not the same point.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, that's precisely what I'm
22 asking him about; does he consider that that was a crime or not.
23 JUDGE MAY: No. That's not the point. What he said was, and you
24 can ask him about it in his evidence, was that the bombings were welcomed
25 with relief by the Albanians. Now, you can ask him about that, if you
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. With respect to the Serbian-Albanian meeting in Munich, which was
5 organised by the German organisation Bertelsmann, you said that the ideas
6 of the European Union about integration, a modern one and a democratic
7 one, would enable the Albanians to realise their aspirations to live
8 together. When you say "live together," do you mean live together with
9 Albanians in Albania? Is that what you meant? Yes or no, please.
10 A. No. What I was referring to was multi-ethnic existence within
12 Q. And what about the idea which was at the heart of the Bertelsmann
13 concept that you talked about and discussed? Did that in fact mean an
14 independent Kosovo?
15 A. No. It was an issue of being able to establish a process. If
16 this process were to result in the independence of Kosova, so much the
17 better, but what we were talking about was a process that would result in
18 the normalisation of that situation at the moment, that would enable the
19 opening of negotiations on the status of Kosova.
20 Q. You said that you had the support in that respect of the Minister
21 of the -- of Internal Affairs, Dusan Mihajlovic. Did you have the support
22 of any other politicians, Serb politicians that were active duty ones,
23 current ones?
24 A. I did not say I enjoyed the support, but I said that one of the
25 participants was -- came from the party of the current Interior Minister
1 Mihajlovic, and personally throughout my talks with Mr. Mihajlovic, has
2 always been committed to a peaceful solution. On this list, over a long
3 period, there have been many members of the opposition of the time, of the
4 Serbian opposition of the time.
5 Q. In that same programme, you mentioned that tension in Kosovo was
6 caused by Greater Serbian hegemonism. Do you consider Kosovo to be
7 outside Serbia and can we talk about hegemonism of a country on the
8 territory of that same country, on its own territory, in fact?
9 A. I've never seen Kosova as being part of Serbia.
10 Q. And following on from that logic and in that connection, can we
11 speak about greater Spanish hegemonism in Pays Basque or a greater Greek
12 hegemonism in Western Thrace following on from that same logic?
13 JUDGE MAY: No. We are dealing with Kosovo.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. In December 1997, you took part in a discussion in the Carnegie
16 Foundation for International Peace in Washington, and you assessed, among
17 others, a policy of non-violence which was advocated by Rugova, and you
18 said that this was a policy of non-action, in fact. Is that correct?
19 A. In his interpretation, yes. That was Rugova's interpretation of
20 peaceful policy, and it was a policy of passivity.
21 Q. When you said that, did you imply that in Kosovo and Metohija it
22 was necessary to set up a policy of violence of Albanians which ensued,
23 actually, one month later, at the beginning of 1998?
24 A. I think I have outlined my attitude, which means that peaceful
25 resistance entails activity and no violence. I think that inactivity
1 devalues the peaceful politics and brings about, as it did, cases of
2 manifestation of violence.
3 Q. You are the signatory of the so-called memorandum of the 23 -- of
4 the group of 23 Albanian intellectuals and of the Secretary-General of the
5 NATO pact, Javier Solana, asked for international military intervention in
6 Kosovo. Is that correct or not?
7 A. I'm not aware of this memorandum, but my demand has always been
8 explicit in the direction of a military intervention to protect the
9 citizens of Kosova.
10 Q. At the conference on Kosovo and Metohija held in Athens, I think
11 it was on the 27th of March, 1998, you said that the process of
12 disintegration of Yugoslavia should be completed with the departure of
13 Montenegro and Kosovo and perhaps even with the disintegration of Serbia
14 itself. Is that correct or not?
15 A. I don't believe I said anything about Serbia, but I think that the
16 natural flow of events relating to the disintegration of socialist
17 Yugoslavia would eventually mean an independence for Kosova and for
19 Q. And you also mentioned the disintegration of Serbia. Is that a
20 plan that is now, as you can see, being implemented with the support of
21 the puppet regime in Belgrade? Now, do you know whose plan it is?
22 JUDGE MAY: No. We're not concerned with that. The witness said
23 he didn't say anything about Serbia.
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Was Morton Abramovitz Thaci's advisor in Rambouillet?
1 A. Mr. Abramovitz was a member -- an advisor of the delegation of
2 Kosova upon my invitation.
3 Q. Is that -- was that him individually or did you mean that whole
4 international crisis group, including Albright, Clark, Ashdown, who
5 testified a few days ago in this courtroom, so the international crisis
6 group in fact which played that role, or do you mean him individually?
7 A. Mrs. Albright could not have been an advisor to us because she was
8 Secretary of State, and General Clark at that time was commander of NATO
9 so neither he could have been our own advisor. Mr. Abramovitz had been
10 invited in his own personal capacity.
11 Q. And do you know about the meeting between Thaci and Clark
12 precisely during the conference in Rambouillet?
13 A. [no interpretation].
14 Not only Mr. Thaci but also other members of the delegation that
15 came from the ranks of the KLA.
16 Q. You mean to say that other people except Thaci met with Clark in
17 Rambouillet as well?
18 A. They met outside Rambouillet, and the principal efforts of General
19 Clark had to do with persuading this part of the delegation not only to
20 sign up to the agreement but also to take steps to transform the KLA into
21 civilian life.
22 Q. At the meeting in 1997 in Munich, you said that it was necessary
23 to revive, and I'm quoting you, "legal Albanian institutions." Did you
24 consider that institutions in Kosovo and Metohija should only be Albanian
1 A. Seen in the continuation, I don't believe that I've said anything
2 to this effect. What I've spoken about is legal Kosovar institutions
3 where the majority are Albanians.
4 Q. Well, judging by what is happening now and where quite obviously
5 ethnic cleansing taking place, do you consider that this is the ideology
6 of ethnic cleansing and the expulsion of --
7 JUDGE MAY: No. We're not concerned with events now. We're
8 concerned with the witness's evidence about what happened in 1999 and
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. In 1999 and onwards, I assume you wanted to say. But let me
12 restate my question.
13 JUDGE MAY: Before. Before. That's the point.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Was that the ideology on the basis of which, at the present time,
16 the largest concentration camp for Serbs in the northern part of Kosovska
17 Mitrovica is being set up at present?
18 JUDGE MAY: No.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. You said in December in Washington in 1997, in the Carnegie
22 Society, that -- Foundation, that the Dayton peace agreement showed up
23 something perverse in human nature and showed that tension was afoot. As
24 soon as tension arrives -- starts, planes full of diplomats start coming.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the accused please be asked to slow down.
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, the interpreters are asking you to slow
3 down, if you're reading, please.
4 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Was that how you justified terrorism in Kosovo?
6 A. It was not a justification of anything. It was just a comment on
7 the real situation. The fact is the Dayton conference brought to the
8 negotiating table those who had carried out violence and rewarded, with
9 the formation of a state, a movement that was fascist and genocidal.
10 Q. You claim that the -- that Republika Srpska was -- was created by
11 a fascist genocidal movement. Is that it?
12 A. Republika Srpska was formed by evicting Muslims and Croats from
13 their own families, destroying whole villages, killing children and women,
14 as this Court has now confirmed. There was a crime of genocide in
16 Q. And you consider that it was the Serbs who perpetrated that
18 JUDGE MAY: These are all points that the Court is going to have
19 to be concerned with. They're not for the witness.
20 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. And are you aware of the fact -- to get back to Kosovo, do you
22 know about the incidents which were linked to the expulsion of hundreds of
23 thousands of Serbs, several thousands; at least 1.300 persons disappeared,
24 1.000 persons killed? At this period of time did you ever make public
25 statements and take a public position with respect to the KLA in Kosovo in
1 connection with those events?
2 A. You're talking about after the war.
3 Q. Yes, yes. I'm talking about that too.
4 A. My position was explicit. I was explicit in the use of my words
5 in connection with this ideology in which people -- there were any kind of
6 mentality, there was any idea to expel people from Kosova, whether Serbs
7 or Albanians, on the basis of ethnicity. If any such ideology exists
8 among organised groups, I have always called this fascist. And I have
9 said that anybody who advocates this kind of thing would merely be copying
10 Milosevic's fascist ideology.
11 Q. You said for Reuters on the 22nd of March, 1999, that is to say,
12 two days prior to the aggression, that the Kosovo Albanians were afraid of
13 Serb reprisals in the case of NATO strikes. That is to say, that many
14 Kosovars in Albania would be -- were frightened of the fact that the NATO
15 attacks could be turned against them and that the country was faced with a
16 humanitarian catastrophe which the West saw as a signal for the start of
17 the military intervention. According to the OSCE reports, there was no
18 humanitarian catastrophe prior to the bombing. It came after the bombing
19 and during the bombing. Is that correct or not?
20 A. It's absolutely scandalous to say that in Kosova there had been no
21 humanitarian catastrophe. The moment before the verifying mission was
22 established, there were at least 250.000 internal refugees in Kosova.
23 I have seen with my own eyes, not only in Prishtina but throughout
24 Kosova, how people fled their devastated villages. It turned out that my
25 interpretation was correct, the one I gave on 22nd of March to Reuters,
1 because immediately after the bombing started, these punitive actions
2 started. Serbian revenge started.
3 Q. So you know nothing, you said yesterday, about all these
4 offensives, and even publicly afterwards, for papers and in books, this is
5 what Ramush Haradinaj talked about. He mentioned Decani, Prilep, Drenica,
6 and all those other places and how this about-turn took place and the
7 chaos arose which you ascribe to the Serbs. So you know nothing about
8 that, do you?
9 A. I have seen with my own eyes how artillery, Serbian artillery
10 bombarded villages. I have seen people were displaced from burning
12 Q. All right. You saw some, as you put it, Serb crimes, and you know
13 nothing about a single Albanian crime. Does that seem logical to you?
14 A. As I said to you yesterday, it was a matter of an organised force
15 with the command structure part of a state. These were Serbian forces.
16 This organised force from a headquarters, with a command structure,
17 vertical command structure, systematically destroyed villages and attacked
18 the Albanian civilian population in Kosova.
19 On the Albanian side, there was no state. There was no command
20 structure of -- no vertical command structure, and there were no such
21 forms of organisations which could in any systematic way exercise violence
22 against the Serbian population.
23 Q. And on the Albanian side, was there a terrorist organisation that
24 acted in conjunction with the states that attacked Yugoslavia?
25 A. I have never heard of any Albanian terrorist organisation in
2 Q. Very well. On the 29th of March, the newspapers published that
3 Veton Surroi was killed on Sunday. Do you remember that piece of news?
4 Do you believe that this false piece of information was also meant to
5 justify the aggression that had just started against Yugoslavia?
6 A. I didn't read this report because I was in hiding. I heard it on
7 the radio.
8 Q. You stated in September 1999 for Format, a Vienna weekly, in
9 connection with what the Albanians were doing in Kosovo to the Serbs, you
10 said, "I am ashamed to see the Albanians committing such monstrous crimes
11 for the first time in their history. This has trampled upon all our
12 values. All of those think that -- all of those who think that if
13 violence will stop when the last non-Albanian is expelled from Kosovo are
14 wrong." Do you still abide by that position?
15 JUDGE MAY: First of all, did you say that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's written in the newspaper Koha
17 Ditore, and it was carried by many other international newspapers. I
18 don't change a single word of what I said. If any Albanian in any
19 organised way were to persecute a Serb or a member of another nationality
20 who is not an Albanian because of his ethnicity, I think this would be a
21 disgrace to the community.
22 I called this ideology the -- an ideology that would resemble the
23 ideology put into practice by Milosevic in Serbia for years on end.
24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, your time now, which we gave you, is
25 up. We will allow you to ask one more question.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just one more question?
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] It is hard for me to choose this one
4 question, but...
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. On the 13th of November in Amsterdam, at the parliamentary
7 assembly of NATO, you said, "The KLA does not exist today because it has
8 been transformed and it was never a terrorist organisation." Are these
9 your words?
10 A. Yes. I considered the KLA to be a guerilla organisation, a
11 movement which has now undergone a transformation.
12 Q. And the assertion that some day Kosovo would become independent
13 was presented by you to the Slovenia newspaper Delo in April 2000. Do you
14 think the Serbs will allow that?
15 A. I think it would be in the interest of the Serbs that we should
16 together build a state with the Serbs of Kosova. I think it would be in
17 the interests of Serbia.
18 JUDGE MAY: That is all. That is all. We're not going on with
19 this argument.
20 Mr. Kay or Mr. Tapuskovic.
21 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Questioned by Mr. Tapuskovic:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Surroi, as I address you, I shall only deal
24 with what you spoke about yesterday and what you spoke about during --
25 while you gave your statement to the investigators of the OTP, and I am
1 quite sure that you will be in a position to give yes or no answers to
2 most of these questions.
3 In your previous statement, is it correct that on the 15th of May,
4 during your meeting with Milosevic, he said to you -- he said that the
5 police asked the family -- in connection with the events in Prekaz on the
6 5th of March, that the police asked the family to surrender and that then
7 they gave them a few hours to leave the compound of family houses. Is
8 that what he said to you then?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That was about two months later, perhaps a bit -- even more than
11 that in relation to what had happened. And all of the public in Kosovo
12 and in Serbia, I think, was aware of certain things related to this.
13 A. As we can see, the truth is still not out. We still don't know
14 how this massacre happened.
15 Q. No. I am only interested in hearing whether you were aware of
16 this piece of information that Slobodan Milosevic presented to you, that
17 is, that the police had stopped their fire during this exchange of fire
18 and gave everybody a couple of hours to surrender, or those who want to
19 could leave the compound. Did you know about that?
20 A. The phrasing wasn't like that. I don't know if there was armed
21 confrontation until the point when the gunfire stopped. The accused
22 didn't say this, but he said that the police had given a several-hour
23 ultimatum for them to surrender.
24 Q. All right. Do you know about this or do you not know about this?
25 A. I think -- think this was something said by a police commander
1 immediately after the operation.
2 Q. Thank you. On the 28th of March in Kosovo, the Albanians had
3 elections for the Kosovo parliament, the Kosovo shadow parliament. Is
4 that correct?
5 A. A section of the political spectrum, yes.
6 Q. As for the work of this parliament, was it this view that
7 primarily came to the fore, that there could even be secession from Serbia
8 and Yugoslavia and independence? Did this parliament favour that
10 A. The body that was elected, if these were elections, never even
11 met, not even in 1992 or 1993, or in 1997 or 1998. This means that these
12 so-called elections never resulted in institutions being formed.
13 Q. I have understood that, but were views crystallised with regard to
14 this basic orientation, the independence of Kosovo, its secession
15 or, rather, self-determination leading to secession? Were these views
16 crystallised in some way during the work of that assembly which did not
17 exist institutionally, but were these views identical to those that you
18 presented yourself?
19 A. It was a consensus in Albanian society whether this body met or
20 not. The overwhelming majority of the Albanians of Kosova were in favour
21 of the independence of Kosova. They were and still are.
22 Q. Just after these elections, that is to say, after the 28th of
23 March, Robert Gelbard, an American diplomat, instigated the Kosovo
24 Albanians to establish a team that would represent all the main Albanian
25 protagonists and views. This is what you said, literally, during your
1 statement. Is that correct?
2 A. He encouraged and helped.
3 Q. So was it his suggestion that the G5 group was established?
4 A. No. It was part of -- of an internal debate amongst the
5 Kosovars. Mr. Gelbard helped in this regard.
6 Q. You also said that the members of G5 were decisive in terms of
7 Kosovo's independence and secession. Is it correct that you were decisive
8 advocates of that, and that you were a member of that group?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And was it correct that you advocated only that, that the process
11 be initiated but that the ultimate objective had to be the independence of
13 A. Our position was to enable the opening of a process that had not
14 pre-judged the final status. Even though we remain in favour of
15 independence, our position consisted in inviting the Serbian party to take
16 part in a process where they'd feel equals, a process which would not
17 impose or pre-judge the final outcome on the status of Kosova.
18 Q. Yes. But this is the way you put it: "We were ready to talk
19 about the timing and procedure, although independence continued to be our
20 objective." You were prepared to talk about the procedure of talks in
21 which only independence could be discussed.
22 A. No. This is a misinterpretation. When two parties agree to
23 negotiations, each one of those has got a goal. Our own goal was to
24 attain independence. The goal of the Serbian party could have been
25 something else. We did not want to impose on the Serbs and what their
1 objectives ought to be. And likewise, we did not want them to impose on
2 us as to what the final outcome, the final attainment on our part would
3 have been. This was respecting both parts.
4 Q. But in all the negotiations that you had with the Serb side, that
5 was your dominant position. That is to say, a procedure through which you
6 wished to obtain independence?
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Relevance?
8 MR. NICE: Your Honour, I'm mystified as to the role of the amici
9 in asking questions of this category. I'm going to raise later the
10 continuing function of the amici in cross-examining in light of the
11 reviewed position of Mr. Milosevic and his access to lawyers and so on.
12 But just dealing with this witness, I cannot see that this is adding
13 helpfully to the material before the Chamber.
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Tapuskovic, what is the relevance of this
16 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, only because the
17 witness spoke in a very specific way in his witness statement, the one
18 that he gave to the investigators. And I kindly ask the OTP to provide
19 you with a copy so that you could see what Mr. Surroi said quite decidedly
20 in his witness statement. I would just like Mr. Surroi either to confirm
21 what he said earlier or to give some different kind of interpretation,
22 because since we've already come to this particular point where I was just
23 now --
24 JUDGE MAY: No. What is the relevance of this? What is its
25 relevance, whether he said it in his statement or not?
1 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Inter alia, let it be just that,
2 that he confirmed what he said in his statement to the investigators of
3 the Tribunal. And I tell you where this is.
4 JUDGE MAY: No. It seems to me to be quite irrelevant. I'll
5 discuss it.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MAY: Move on to another topic.
8 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I have to go back to this.
9 Please, I know why I'm putting this question.
10 JUDGE MAY: No. Mr. Tapuskovic, once there is a ruling, then you
11 must follow it. You must go on to another topic.
12 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Oh, I do follow the ruling. I'm
13 just going to move on to a different subject. I just want to give another
14 example from the statement. I have to ask this if I want to carry out my
15 duties conscientiously.
16 Q. The 22nd of May, you had a meeting with Milosevic. As you said,
17 you had a meeting with him on the 15th of May, actually, and it ended the
18 way it ended. And then you only had one more conversation with the
19 delegation of Serbia on the 22nd of May in Pristina. The talks were held
20 in a room. You said then that several times you went out of the room
21 where the negotiations were being held and you went to the room next to
22 it, where Mr. Hill was, and you talked to him, and then you went back to
23 this room. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. I have not tried to get back on what I told the Prosecutors and
2 the investigators.
3 Q. Thank you. So this is correct, isn't it? Next, yesterday you
4 said that there were expectations from Dayton that it would discuss the
5 problem of Kosovo as well, that the problem of Kosovo would be discussed
6 at Dayton too and that that did not happen. So how come other methods
7 were resorted to? You previously spoke of peaceful methods.
8 Can you explain this, how this happened, that after all, a
9 different option was selected, not the peaceful option, the option related
10 to peaceful methods? Can you explain that?
11 A. I think that the context in which Dayton took place related to an
12 artificial vision created that Kosova also be a party to the process,
13 an artificial vision created internally by misinformation and less than
14 fruitful political activity. I do not believe I'm competent enough to
15 explain how, when, and where it was decided to move on to an armed
16 movement given that I remained a part of the peaceful movement.
17 Q. But until 1995, 1996, there were no significant clashes in Kosovo
18 between the police, army, people.
19 A. In the sense you refer to, no, even though there has always been a
20 killing of Kosova citizens, and I think they are significant enough.
21 There's been continued killings and human rights reports that bear out the
22 fact that civilians have been killed by Serbian security forces and that
23 the perpetrators have never been punished by the courts. So violence has
24 continued throughout.
25 Q. But yesterday you said, and I wrote that down, "The war in Kosovo
1 started with the attack on Prekaz on the 5th of March, 1998." Can you
2 explain that? Does that mean that before the 5th of March, there were
3 absolutely no clashes between the army of Yugoslavia and the police on the
4 one hand? And does that mean that, before that, the KLA did not exist at
6 A. As I put it, this was a fundamental moment. I'm not asserting
7 here that war started at that very moment, although symbolically it did.
8 But earlier, prior to that, we had the massacre on the Deliaj family.
9 There were continual killings of civilians, and the KLA emerged publicly a
10 few months earlier, I think on Independence Day, 28th of November 1997, as
11 far as I recall.
12 Q. What was the position of the KLA in general towards the
13 possibilities of finding the kind of solution that you advocated?
14 A. As far as I'm -- as I know, the KLA did not subscribe to the
15 solution that I subscribed to. I think the KLA was in favour of war.
16 Q. I'm just interested in what happened in Rambouillet, and then I
17 would bring this to a close. You said earlier on, and I do, after all,
18 have to refer to your previous statement on this, you said: "When they
19 went to Rambouillet, the Albanian delegates explicitly recognised the
20 identity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- integrity of the Federal
21 Republic of Yugoslavia." Did you really recognise the territorial
22 integrity of Yugoslavia at that moment, the way you put it here?
23 A. This was one of the pre-conditions of going to attend talks at
24 Rambouillet. Both delegations agreed to a series of guidelines, and one
25 of those was that, throughout the negotiation process and the
1 implementation of the agreement, there should be no changes in the
2 territorial integrity with the exception of the consent of the parties and
3 at the end of this process.
4 Q. So what it says here is correct, that you said that formally you
5 accepted that at that moment only in order for the talks to start; is that
7 A. This was one of the pre-conditions to enable the clarification of
8 certain positions that enabled the start of negotiations. This was, yes,
9 one of the pre-conditions we had to agree to as a delegation. It was the
10 Contact Group in the international community that set out these
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
14 MR. NICE: Only three things, I think.
15 Re-examined by Mr. Nice:
16 Q. [Microphone not activated]... all about yourself and your own
17 personal experience. You spoke of winning freedom and suffering some
18 repression. You may have understated the things that happened to you, the
19 number of times you were arrested or the number of times you were
20 interfered with. Were you arrested once or more than once or --
21 A. I was arrested several times. I was only convicted once.
22 Q. Were you injured in the course of arrested ever or not?
23 A. No, never. I only suffered injuries during the intervention of
24 police during the peaceful demonstrations.
25 Q. You spoke of a limited number of restrictions on the publication
1 of your newspaper. You explained the reality of the number of papers in
2 publication contrary to what was put to you by the accused. You may have
3 said all there is to say about the restriction on publication of your
4 newspaper but so we have a full picture, were you able to publish fully
5 and freely at all times or not? What do you mean by "limited
7 A. There were three basic categories of obstruction of free speech.
8 Number one was the -- the full suspension of the newspaper Rilindja and
9 the Kosova radio and television station. Rilindja was never published in
10 the course of these ten years.
11 The second category of obstruction included control of the
12 distribution network and the printing presses. And not only in Kosova but
13 in Serbia as well. Independent newspapers were faced with state-owned
14 printing presses and distribution networks, which resulted in what had --
15 the appearances of market obstructions but in fact it was politically
16 motivated to favour pro-government -- the pro-government media and to stop
17 the distribution of opposition papers.
18 The third category included physical intimidation. Working under
19 conditions where every single citizen could easily get killed and the
20 police would go unpunished would actually mean to basically take your own
21 -- the security into your own hands with all that it entails.
22 Q. How, then, in those circumstances were you able, do you think, to
23 survive and to publish in the way that you did?
24 A. It took a lot of courage, not only on my part but also by my
25 staff. It was a new moment. For the first time, we had a free media and
1 many amongst us had to sacrifice to keep it that way, free.
2 Q. And last question. You told us in one of your answers that you
3 were in hiding at the time of the bombing when you returned to Kosovo.
4 Why were you in hiding and for how long and roughly where, but briefly,
6 A. As one of the signatories the Rambouillet agreement and
7 co-signatory to the Paris agreement, after the execution of my friend
8 Bajram Kelmendi and his two sons, after the intervention of police forces
9 in our newspaper and the killing of the guard Rexhep Ramadani, I thought
10 conditions of absolute insecurity had been created for my own person and
11 that any kind of self-restraint on the part of Serbian forces had now
12 ended and well-known figures were to be executed. From that day in the
13 March of 1999 until the 13 June 1999, I remained in hiding in different
14 households in Prishtina.
15 MR. NICE: That concludes my re-examination of the witness.
16 Questioned by the Court:
17 JUDGE MAY: You said, Mr. Surroi, that you saw with your own eyes
18 how the people in Pristina fled their villages or fled the town and how
19 the Serb artillery bombarded villages. Is that right?
20 A. Yes. I saw this on a daily basis. I saw refugees reaching
21 Prishtina on a daily basis during the year 1998. As a matter of fact,
22 I've seen refugees being kicked out of Prishtina during the bombing, and
23 I've seen that artillery in the Cicavica mountains around Vushtrri bombed
24 villages as civilians were trying to flee.
25 I was in an APC with Ambassador Hill, and we were heading towards
1 a village that allegedly sheltered the KLA staff in order to -- to talk to
2 them with a view to having them included in the negotiation process.
3 JUDGE MAY: When was that?
4 A. During the year 1998, the summer of 1998. It must have been
5 sometime in June or July.
6 JUDGE MAY: And did you see what happened to the villagers who
7 were trying to flee?
8 A. The majority started fleeing with the first shells falling on
9 them, and in a village which is -- was called Maker Mal, I think, I could
10 see smoke, plumes of smoke rising up. There was a long convoy of tractors
11 and carts laden with civilians who were fleeing the area.
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Surroi, thank you for coming to give your
13 evidence. You're free to go.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [no interpretation]
15 JUDGE MAY: No, Mr. Milosevic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [no interpretation]
17 JUDGE MAY: You're free to go.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, there are some administrative matters we
20 want to deal with now. What we propose today is, with the indulgence of
21 the interpreters, we would like to sit a bit beyond the usual hour and a
22 half, to 10.40. We'll then take an hour and a half break and then come
23 back and sit until -- I mean a half-hour break, I should say, and then
24 come back and sit until 12.45. So we've got another half hour or so.
25 Now, the administrative matters are concerned with the 92 bis
1 witnesses. Various points were made when we were considering it last, and
2 so to clarify the times which we've mentioned, we would add this: Dealing
3 first of all with the introductory questions allowed to the Prosecution,
4 we will allow questions relating to matters such as the witness's age,
5 occupation, residence, family, circumstances, or other biographical data.
6 We will allow the Prosecution to give a short summary of the
7 contents of the statement made by the witness in skeletal form. That
8 means in short form and, obviously, a short summary.
9 So that it's clear, that summary will not be part of the evidence.
10 It will not be subject to cross-examination. It is simply a summary of
11 the statement which the witness has made so that the witness's evidence
12 may be introduced before he's cross-examined.
13 The next matter I want to deal with is this: That we've been
14 considering the Neill Wright statement and binder. We'll hear argument on
15 -- or any argument there is on admission on that statement under Rule 92
16 bis on Monday.
17 The other matter we wish to deal with is to give a ruling on the
18 binder, the Bela Crkva binder as it's been called, and I'm going to ask
19 Judge Robinson to give the ruling.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: The items in this binder relate to the killing
21 site in Bela Crkva, and the charges relate to counts 3 and 4, which charge
22 the accused with murder as a crime against humanity and murder as a
23 violation of the laws or customs of war. The allegation is that on or
24 about the 25th of May, forces of the FRY and Serbia surrounded and
25 attacked the village of Bela Crkva, and in three separate incidents a
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 number of persons are alleged to have been killed. In the first, 12
2 persons, including ten women and children; in the second, 65 Kosovo
3 Albanians; and in the third, six men.
4 The Prosecution has submitted a binder containing ten items
5 relating to this incident, and this is the ruling in relation to the
6 several items.
7 First, the statement by the OTP investigator John Zdrilic.
8 Following this Chamber's decision in the Tulica matter in the Kordic case,
9 as well as its decision relating to Kevin Curtis in this case, this report
10 is not admissible. It is not contemporaneous, and the investigator is
11 reporting his assessment after the events.
12 Two, photographs of the crime scene. Following the Tulica
13 decision, these are admitted. They are photographs of the crime scene and
14 of bodies and of clothes found at the exhumation site. However, there is
15 a need for some explanatory statement or memorandum as to how the
16 photographed bodies, et cetera, relate to the incident, and the OTP must
17 submit this.
18 Rule 70 materials. To date, the materials have not been provided,
19 and when they are provided, a ruling will be given.
20 Four: X-ray photographs of Isuf Zhuniqi. These are photographs
21 of injuries suffered by Isuf Zhuniqi and, on the basis of the Tulica
22 decision, they are admitted.
23 As well as are the pre-conflict victim photographs of the victims.
24 That's the fifth item.
25 And the sixth item, the injury photographs of Isuf Zhuniqi.
1 The seventh item is a video depicting Bela Crkva, the crime scene
2 and a funeral. The video has footage shot by an OTP investigator in March
3 2000. The first part of the video comprises shots of the village and the
4 surrounding area with a narrative from the investigator as to where the VJ
5 tanks were located, the location of certain sniping incidents, the
6 direction in which the refugees fled and other matters of that kind.
7 The Chamber admits that portion of the video with the narrative
8 that relates to the topography of the area, that is, the shots of the
9 village and the surrounding area. However, following the Tulica decision,
10 it does not admit that portion of the investigator's narrative concerning
11 incidents that are the subject matter of the indictment. Here he is not
12 reporting contemporaneously, rather, he's reconstructing events alleged in
13 the indictment.
14 The second part of the video contains footage of photographs of
15 those alleged to have been killed as well as shots of a memorial ceremony
16 on the first anniversary of the massacre in the village. Again following
17 Tulica, this is admitted.
18 The eighth item is the British forensic team exhumation report,
19 and this report has seven items. Based on the Tulica decision, all these
20 items are admitted. The Chamber observes, however that, the presentation
21 would be improved and rendered more intelligible by a system which
22 identified the deceased persons listed in the schedule to the indictment
23 with the specifically named persons in the schedule of identification.
24 The OTP is required to provide this.
25 The ninth item is a marked military map of the village and the
1 crime scene, and this is admitted following the Tulica decision.
2 And lastly, the hand-drawn map of the crime scene is also admitted
3 following the Tulica decision. Thank you.
4 MR. NICE: We'll comply with all that's required. We'll give
5 further consideration, possibly guided by the Chamber, as to whether the
6 presentation of these binders is effective of judicial economy. As the
7 Chamber may indicate, or as we may ask, location by location, but
8 otherwise, I'll digest that and give further thought to it, if I can.
9 Before I turn to or get Mr. Ryneveld to turn to the next witness,
10 the rulings that you've given this morning about the scope of
11 examination-in-chief within the five minutes of the witness is slightly
12 different from the understanding yesterday, so it will need a word of
13 explanation to the witnesses concerned, but it may actually be that if we
14 are restricted in evidence to just biographical matters, we will be able
15 to save some time and shave some minutes off the five minutes because I
16 don't think that's going to take five minutes.
17 Although the summary may take a minute or so to give, but we may
18 need a minute or so to explain that to the witnesses who are about to be
19 called because I'm afraid they've been prepared on the basis of
20 yesterday's understanding that they would themselves be giving a summary.
21 Before I turn from -- completely from the last witness, the
22 Chamber will recall that there was cross-examination by the accused on the
23 basis of a protected witness, the characterisation by the accused of the
24 statement is not one we accept. That can be dealt with when the witness
25 concerned attends Court, if he does, to give evidence but it's not
1 something we accept.
2 Finally, the observations I made about the utility of
3 cross-examination by the continuing utility in the light of changed
4 circumstances of the cross-examination of the amici is something I'll deal
5 with in a written motion. I'm loath to take time which is so valuable,
6 but just by way of preparatory remarks, our calculations on evidence to
7 date, is that it's about 5 per cent of the time that's been taken in
8 cross-examination by the amici against 40 or 45 per cent -- about 45 per
9 cent by us and 50 per cent by the accused, but they are very rough
11 That would mean, of course, in the remaining year, or just under
12 that's available to us in this trial and again very approximately, the
13 elimination of ten witnesses of the Prosecution if the amici continue to
14 cross-examine on matters of fact at that rate, and my submission will be
15 that the cross-examination by the amici should now broadly speaking and
16 subject to exceptional circumstances cease but I'll put that in writing.
17 I'll try and get it to you at the beginning of next week. I'm,
18 for various reasons, not going to be available myself between next Monday
19 when I will be here, and the following week either the Monday, probably
20 the Wednesday if we're not sitting on the Monday or the Tuesday.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I don't follow the logic but we will of
22 course be getting your motion in writing.
23 MR. NICE: Yes, certainly.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: In my view, the amici has a very important role
25 to play and I think this role will become even more significant as the --
1 as the trial develops and as we approach matters of law, particularly
2 those relating to international law questions. The fact that the Chamber
3 has now made it possible for the accused to communicate with two
4 associates, in my view, in no way affects the role of the amici, and I
5 myself would not accept it as a legitimate basis for diminishing their
6 participation in this case.
7 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I'm sure Your Honour will in due
8 course consider the arguments that we will present. I was given a helpful
9 advanced warning. I was saying nothing about their scope of legal
10 argument, but this is a Prosecution which now has a very considerable task
11 to achieve in presenting the material within one year, and we have to now
12 start looking very critically at the value to the Chamber of the
13 cross-examination. And I have to say I would be critical of the value
14 that was accorded by the cross-examination that's just taken place and I
15 can no longer be generous with time that is extremely limited, insofar as
16 it's within my power to ensure that it's available to us. Ten witnesses
17 in one year is my calculation of what we will lose by the continuing
18 cross-examination by the amici. But I'll put it in writing and ask to be
19 allowed to deal with it on my return the week after next.
20 The next witness is the one who must be taken because he must be
21 free to return to deal with his exams next week. That's Mr. Ryneveld's
22 witness. I don't know whether he's been in a position to recast
23 preparation of examination-in-chief. If he has --
24 JUDGE MAY: I'm sure he -- I'm sure he's been able --
25 MR. NICE: I'll withdraw and leave the floor to him.
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld. One moment.
2 Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] A moment ago, we heard that they do
4 not accept the observations that I made relating to the written statement
5 of a protected witness, and I just wish to take note of the fact that it
6 was a protected witness of the Prosecution and that all the observations
7 that I myself presented through my questions asked of the previous witness
8 were direct quotations from the written statement of the Prosecution
9 protected witness. So I don't know whether we're to understand that the
10 Prosecution does not actually accept its own witnesses and the subject
11 they have brought them here to testify about before this Court and before
12 the public. And I don't see how they cannot accept observations that were
13 -- that it, the Prosecution itself, presented for its own Prosecution
15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, no doubt that will be made clear in due
16 course. We'll hear. Now, let's get on with this witness, if we can,
17 since he wants to get away.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have one more thing to add. Am I
19 understanding you clearly with respect to the witnesses that are not
20 testifying and are to be examined or, rather, have given written
21 statements - and we don't know who wrote those statements for them,
22 probably that side over there across the well - because as far as I was
23 able to understand, that rule of yours, 92 bis, relates to written
24 statements, that is to say, testimony which is not oral and which has no
25 examination-in-chief, according to your own Rules and Regulations, cannot
1 be accepted with respect to the circumstances of the charges brought
2 against the accused and the character and conduct of the accused. Is that
3 so or am I not understanding your procedure correctly?
4 JUDGE MAY: You'll be able to read the Rule. The statements which
5 do not relate to the character or the conduct or acts of the accused have
6 been admitted as statements of evidence relating to the indictment. What
7 we've granted you is the right to cross-examine them, and what you're
8 going to hear is a short summary of the statement, given by counsel, but
9 it's only a summary of the statement, and then you can cross-examine.
10 Now, we'll move on to deal with it.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] So examination only on the basis of
12 a written statement of what somebody has written or on the basis of what
13 the Prosecutor is going to tell us here?
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That is the procedure. Now, let us move on.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Very well.
16 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution calls
17 Xhafer Beqiraj. While we're waiting for the witness, may I ask one
18 question for clarification, because I heard your oral ruling. Is it Your
19 Honours' intention that counsel summarise this while the witness is in the
20 box or prior to doing that?
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
23 JUDGE MAY: No, while he's in the box.
24 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you. This will have to be an oral summary.
25 I've not prepared anything, you appreciate that.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness take the declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
4 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE MAY: Take a seat.
6 WITNESS: XHAFER BEQIRAJ
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.
9 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 Examined by Mr. Ryneveld:
11 Q. Mr. Beqiraj, I understand, sir, that on the 14th of April, 1999
12 and then again on the 6th of October of 2001, you were interviewed by
13 members of the OTP, the Office of the Prosecutor; is that correct?
14 MR. RYNEVELD: Are we getting translation?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Translation?
16 JUDGE MAY: Try again, Mr. Ryneveld.
17 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Beqiraj, can you hear me?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Thank you. Sir, is it true that on the 14th of April 1999 and
21 again on the 6th of October, 2001, you were interviewed by members of the
22 Prosecutor's office?
23 A. I don't have translation into Albanian.
24 Yes. Yes.
25 MR. RYNEVELD: I'll try that again, if I may.
1 Q. You can hear me now, sir, and it's being translated, is it?
2 A. Yes. Ready.
3 Q. All right. Sir, is it true that on the 14th of April, 1999, and
4 then again on the 6th of October, 2001, you were interviewed by members of
5 the Prosecutor's office?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And subsequently on the 29th of January of 2002, that is this
8 year, did you attend before a presiding officer in Prizren at which time
9 you were provided with a copy of your statement in the Albanian language?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And did you read the contents of that statement and confirm before
12 the presiding officer that the contents of that statement were true to the
13 best of your knowledge and belief?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Yes.
16 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, I think at this point I ought to
17 tender the statement. Do you have the --
18 JUDGE MAY: You can do that formally. We've all got copies of it.
19 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
20 JUDGE MAY: You can do that formally.
21 MR. RYNEVELD: Could the usher perhaps give a copy of the
22 statement to the witness.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 103.
24 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
25 Q. While that's being handed to you, sir, can you tell us, are you
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And how many children do you have?
4 A. I have two children.
5 Q. And prior to the war, sir, what town did you live in?
6 A. In Prizren.
7 Q. All right. And what was your occupation?
8 A. I was a teacher and I still am.
9 Q. And the level of education, you were a teacher at a primary
10 school, were you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right.
13 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honours, at this point, if it please the
14 Court, I would propose to read a -- or prepare -- give you a brief summary
15 of what I understand the -- would be a summary of the statement.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
17 MR. RYNEVELD:
18 Q. Sir, if you disagree with any of what I'm about to tell the Court,
19 just let us know.
20 I understand, Witness, that you have, in this statement that you
21 have acknowledged as being true and correct, told the Court about
22 circumstances in 1998 leading up to March of 1999. You then told the
23 Court, in the statement, about the incident of the first night of NATO
24 bombing on the 24th of March, 1999, when the army barracks just outside of
25 town were bombed; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, quite correct.
2 Q. And you described the approach of refugees which had been coming
3 for some months prior to the NATO bombing started, including refugees from
4 Opterusha municipality whose village had been destroyed in August of 1998,
5 and that you described a large number of refugees coming to the city of
6 Prizren. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE MAY: I think it can be summarised without the witness
9 having to comment.
10 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
11 JUDGE MAY: If you can summarise it so we can hear it.
12 MR. RYNEVELD: Your Honour, the statement also describes the fact
13 that when NATO bombing stopped, the local police were creating panic by
14 shooting their guns in the air. He then goes on to describe incidents on
15 the 25th to 26th of March and describes the arrival of further refugees
16 and young men, all of whom were seeking shelter.
17 The statement also refers to the 27th of March, when Serb police
18 had become more aggressive. As a result of that, the witness and his
19 family decided to go to the centre of town and describes an incident where
20 machine-guns were shot and lasted all night.
21 On the 28th of March, he describes an incident of going to the
22 outskirts of Prizren and noted a continuous column of people walking south
23 from the direction of Gjakove, including sick and old people. He
24 describes seeing tens of thousands of refugees.
25 Of particular note is these people were being escorted by mixed
1 forces of police, paramilitary, including regular VJ soldiers, and they
2 were mobile in military and police vehicles. Later, he describes leaving
3 Prizren when he indicated that the police were shooting their automatic
4 weapons, trying to frighten the residents, and describes then at 5.00 on a
5 particular day, there was a knock on the door and the police wearing
6 regular uniform, and at the time there were about 50 people in his house,
7 and the message was that everyone had five minutes to get out of the house
8 or they would be shot. He describes how that happened, leaving the --
9 leaving the courtyard. And of significance, the police told them where to
10 go, and before they left the neighbourhood, that there was a designed
11 route, that if anyone tried to get off the tractor that they would be
12 killed. He indicates that this was very well-planned. He describes their
13 uniforms, indicating both special forces and police. He describes the
14 insults and the fact that they were instructed to go to Albania.
15 He indicated in this statement that they were directed across the
16 railway past the Printex building, towards Albania and that there was a
17 very tight police and paramilitary lines with soldiers and equipment and
18 all kinds of vehicles. They prevented them from taking any streets other
19 than the ones that they wanted them to go, and they were escorted out of
21 He describes, of course, the lengthy convoy, the atmosphere being
22 terrible, that they feared for their lives and they didn't know what was
23 happening to them. He describes a number of incidents that he noted on
24 the way to Zur and the constant insults by special police.
25 Upon arrival at the border, they were told to hand over all their
1 passports and identity documents. He described as well in his statement
2 that en route, he noted an incident where three pretty girls were taken
3 out of line by the police and taken into a house and into the bushes. He
4 also describes that he believes he arrived in Morina on the Albanian side
5 on the 29th of March. He returned to Prizren alone on the 18th of June,
7 That is a very brief summary of the highlights of his statement.
8 Of course there are many more details contained therein.
9 Those are -- that's my summary, and I take it you don't wish me to
10 ask any further questions by way of biographical information.
11 JUDGE MAY: No.
12 MR. RYNEVELD: Thank you.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I put questions to the witness or to
15 the Prosecutor?
16 JUDGE MAY: Don't question the Prosecutor. You know that. If you
17 have any questions for the witness, put them.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Oh, of course I do but I just asked
19 because he was speaking in the name of the witness.
20 JUDGE MAY: It was explained to you that he was summarising
21 the statement. He was not giving evidence.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right. This is now a kind of
23 practice that legal courts of law will recognise.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
25 Q. [Interpretation] You worked as an Albanian language teacher in
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Prizren; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Prizren is a town where a large number of Serbs, Albanians, and
4 Turks live, primarily these three ethnic communities, predominantly, and
5 also a number of Romanies. Is that right?
6 A. Yes, there are, but the overwhelming majority are Albanians.
7 Q. The total majority in Prizren? You are a teacher, that is to say,
8 an intellectual. You are aware of the situation in your municipality.
9 What was the percentage of Serbs in Prizren? What was the percentage of
11 A. I don't know about that.
12 Q. Well, was it approximately half were Albanians and the other half
13 were Turks and Serbs, or were Albanians a bit less than a half?
14 A. More than half. About 70 per cent were Albanians.
15 Q. But these three ethnic communities were dominant therefore, that
16 is to say, Serbs, Albanians, Turks and Romanies; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You were in a school that worked in the Albanian language. You
19 taught your pupils in the Albanian language.
20 A. Yes, that's true. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know of Turkish schools where Turkish -- Turkish teachers
22 taught their students in the Turkish language?
23 A. Yes, there are. Nevertheless, they all worked together. Where
24 there was a Turkish community, there were Serbs, Turks, and Albanians
25 working in the same school. But after 1992, there was a kind of
1 classification according to nationality. So Albanians worked in the
2 afternoon and after ten past two to 19.30, whereas the Serbs and the
3 Turks worked together in the morning until 1.00. So we all worked in the
4 same school. So we wouldn't say that there were separate schools in the
5 Turkish language.
6 Q. That is precisely what I wished to ask you. Schools were not
7 separated. It was the teaching that was separated because of the
8 differences in language; is that right?
9 A. No, not -- not right. It was a kind of discrimination for the
10 Albanian schools. This -- we were denied the right to schools in -- after
11 1992, and we were deprived of the right to use all the educational
12 resources. We were barred from the offices, from the secretary's
13 offices. We were not able to use the school library even though most of
14 it was in Albanian. In fact, we were not -- there was -- this division
15 was not because the language but it was a matter of discrimination.
16 That's what I think.
17 Q. All right. That is clear to me the way you qualify it, but did --
18 was it possible for Albanian children to go to Serb classes and to study
19 in Serbian, for example, if their parents wanted that and if those
20 children wanted that?
21 A. Could you ask the question again? I haven't quite understood it.
22 No. There were no such cases. I've never heard of such cases in which
23 Albanian pupils studied with Serbs. It was just a division after 1992.
24 We were denied this right. And it was only primary schools that had even
25 this limited right. In secondary schools and at university level, these
1 institutions were totally barred to Albanians.
2 Q. All right. Since you're a teacher and since you're speaking about
3 that, do you know that in Prizren -- or, rather, how many pupils in
4 Prizren study in the Albanian language? In the district of Prizren, that
6 A. I -- I was talking about Prizren, and I never worked in the school
7 administration, and I have no competence in this area. But I know about
8 my school.
9 In the Albanian language, in 1998, that is, until 12th of March
10 when we suspended classes because of the danger, at the Emin Duraku school
11 there were 1.270 pupils, and in the mornings when the Serbs and Turks
12 worked together, they had 472 or 478, 479 pupils. And there's
13 documentation of this in the school where I work, and it can be verified.
14 Q. So your school was named after an Albanian peoples' hero, Emin
15 Duraku. According to what you've just said, it bore an Albanian name.
16 Serbs and Turks studied in it. You said 470 something was the number;
17 is that right? So therefore, can you explain to me why in your statement
18 you say that you were scolded? The principal of the school was an
19 Albanian; right?
20 A. At first I want to answer the first question, because it seems
21 there were two questions here. The -- the -- for us the school was called
22 Emin Duraku, but for the Serbs, the -- after 1992, the name plate was
23 taken away and a Serbian figure called Obradovic, if I'm not mistaken,
24 became the name of the school for the Serbs, and this name plate was put
25 on the school for the Serbs. And this was discrimination. While the
1 director, the head teacher, we had our Albanian head teacher and -- and
2 the teachers, secretaries, we all worked in the same room. Whereas the
3 Serbs had -- the head teacher had at her disposal a secretary and the
4 administrative offices and the library. And we had no opportunity to use
5 these facilities. Everything was in the hands of the Serbian head
7 JUDGE MAY: We will adjourn there.
8 Mr. Beqiraj, you are giving evidence. We're going to adjourn now
9 for half an hour. Could you be back then. Would you remember during the
10 break not to speak to anybody about your evidence, including members of
11 the Prosecution. Half an hour.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 11.12 a.m.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
15 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. So we have concluded that there were about 1.200 students who
17 studied in the Albanian language in your school; right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And about 470 Serb and Turkish pupils. Are you aware of the fact
20 that it was precisely in your district, the Prizren district, that there
21 was a total of 37.934 pupils that attended school in the Albanian
22 language? In your school it was only 1.200, but in your -- in your
23 district, it was 37.974. Are you aware of that fact?
24 A. I think I would prefer the question to be shorter. As far as I
25 can see, there are too many questions being asked at the same time.
1 JUDGE MAY: The question is: Are you aware that in your district
2 it's alleged there were 37.000 pupils who attended school in the Albanian
3 language? If you don't know, just say so.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not know.
5 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. The figures show that there was 37.974. In the Serb language
8 JUDGE MAY: The witness does not know, so there's no point going
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. All right. The witness knows that in his school there were 1.200
12 students, pupils who attended school in the Albanian language, which is
13 very important, because many claimed that children could not obtain an
14 education in the Albanian language.
15 JUDGE MAY: That's a comment. Now, we'll move on more quickly if
16 we can -- if you would refrain from commenting.
17 Yes, Mr. Beqiraj?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to add that the accused is
19 trying to justify himself, and I remain totally convinced, however, that
20 after 1980 there was total discrimination. In 1991, I enrolled for high
21 school education in Prizren. It was the 1st of October when we wanted to
22 follow the higher pedagogical school at Prizren. Serbian forces would
23 not allow us, although we were protesting. They forced us out.
24 In 1992, then, the same -- the same thing started with secondary
25 schools and primary schools. Secondary schools were closed down
1 completely, whilst primary schools worked in very difficult conditions.
2 That's all I know, and it is all true.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Well, it is true that in your school, 1.200 pupils studied in the
5 Albanian language, and you have just confirmed that yourself. And
6 secondly, it is also true that secondary schools were also operating in
7 the Albanian language, in the Turkish language, in the Serb language. Is
8 that also correct, or is it not correct?
9 A. It is not true, because Albanian schools, as I had the chance of
10 mentioning earlier, often operated out of private premises. I have
11 experienced life as a student in private households, and I have also
12 continued working as a teacher under repression. In the absence of
13 elementary rights we were entitled to. We could not have the right to use
14 the entire object for seven hours on end. The Serbs and the Turks did use
15 it and the Albanians with 102.073 pupils, approximately, had that object
16 at the disposal for five and a half hours. Is this not discrimination?
17 Is this not a curtailment of human rights under international conventions
18 that all pupils should enjoy equal rights?
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Beqiraj, you've made your point.
20 Mr. Milosevic, we've spent a quarter of your time on this
21 educational point. I don't know how much it's going to assist us
22 ultimately to decide about events in 1999.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I don't understand why you are
24 restricting my right to cross-examine this witness.
25 JUDGE MAY: Well, we have restricted it for the reasons we've
1 given, but you would be well advised to get on to some relevant matters.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And do you think that this fact that they attended school, these
4 1.200 pupils --
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is specifically mentioned in
6 his statement. Do you think that this is an irrelevant fact, in view of
7 the fact that in his statement he says that Albanians could not go to
8 school and obtain an education in their own language?
9 JUDGE MAY: You've spent a quarter of an hour, which is a quarter
10 of your time on this particular point. There are other points you may
11 want to ask about.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But of course there are.
13 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. In Prizren, Albanians, Serbs, and Turks all lived there. Can it
15 be stated that relations between and among them were normal and that life
16 in Prizren was based on mutual tolerance and there weren't any real
18 A. There was normal coexistence until 1990. After that, it was not
19 that normal, as you claim. There have been numerous incidents which I'm
20 not competent enough to present here before the Honourable Judges. There
21 are others who will be able to testify, people who are experts of certain
22 fields. All I can say is what I stated in my testimony, that I was
23 displaced through violence and that there has been discrimination in the
24 field of education. This is true. These are the two points that I've
25 made in my statement, and I abide by them.
1 Q. All right. Could you please just answer my questions. As you can
2 see, you are not giving here once again a statement you have already
4 You said that in your house, there were eight refugees from the
5 village of Opterusa. These relatives or friends of yours from the
6 village of Opterusa, did they tell you something about the village of
7 Opterusa that they came from, that -- that crimes were committed against
8 Serbs there. Did they mention to you the abduction of Vesna Bozanic,
9 Mladen Bozanic, Nemanja Bozanic, Nebojsa Bozanic --
10 JUDGE MAY: There's no need to read out the list.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, let me state that the
12 family which came from Opterusha was not one that was known to me. They
13 knocked on the door and asked for shelter, and I did what was possible to
14 do under the circumstances. I offered them the possibility of staying.
15 In conversations with them, they told me that they had fled the
16 fighting at Rahovec, fled to some other villages at some distance, and
17 several days later they returned to their own village to see their own
18 houses burnt down. Following that, they headed towards the city of
20 And on the points that you make for Serbs that had been killed and
21 so on, I have no information. You should ask people that come from that
22 vicinity. I am not aware of it.
23 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Well, I asked you because these people were precisely from that
25 area, and you certainly talked. You simply could have answered no if you
1 did not know. So they did not tell you anything about these abductions
2 of these Serbs?
3 A. No. The answer is no, they haven't told me anything.
4 Q. You mentioned the bombing, the NATO bombing, at the very outset of
5 your statement. Do you know what was bombed?
6 A. Yes, I know this very well. Positions held by the Serbian army
7 were bombed.
8 Q. Is it your assertion that Prizren itself was not bombed except for
9 the barracks?
10 A. Yes. On March the 24th, 1999, at 8.00, NATO bombs started, and
11 the first attack on Prizren hit the military barracks, the army's military
12 barracks, Serbia that is. In the following days, the repeater antenna
13 also came under bombing because it was thought of as being a
14 communications centre containing radar and so on. That is what I've
15 heard. I'm not aware of any other bombardment.
16 Probably after we were forced out someplace might have come under
17 bombs, but I have got no knowledge of that.
18 Q. So even subsequently you did not hear anything about the bombing
19 of Prizren. You don't know anything about it.
20 A. No, I do not know.
21 Q. Were you frightened when the bombing started?
22 A. From what I've heard from other people and from members of my
23 family as well, NATO bombs were our hope. We were not frightened of
24 them. We were sure that NATO would not attack civilians. What we feared
25 was Serbian paramilitaries and policemen, because we had heard what had
1 happened to other villages and towns.
2 Q. Is it your assertion that in the NATO bombing there were no
3 civilian casualties?
4 A. There might have been cases of civilians having been killed, and
5 I'm quite sure that this was accidental. I have heard, I haven't seen
6 them myself, Serbian forces I have heard have mingled with the civilian
7 population, and on these occasions civilians might have suffered too.
8 Q. And are you aware of the bombing of Albanian civilians?
9 A. As I mentioned earlier, there might have been. However, the
10 people of Kosova have not seen that as having been aimed at the Albanian
11 people but only accidental. And this could have also happened on
12 occasions where Serbian police and army forces might have mixed with the
13 civilian population and the civilians might have suffered as such. I have
14 no other information on that.
15 Q. So you have no information on that. The following evening, you
16 said, that 12 young men came to your house. Who were those young men?
17 A. Yes. The other 12 lived in the same quarter. They were
18 frightened and came to stand -- to spend the night with us. They were
20 Q. So they were just young men. They weren't women, children,
21 elderly men, families, just these 12 young men.
22 Now, were they perhaps members of the KLA?
23 A. No way. Those young men had stayed behind to protect their
24 families [as interpreted], the family itself, owing to fears, had fled.
25 And you very well known, I might suppose, that in Prizren there has been
1 no KLA forces because we were encircled on all sides by the forces. And
2 it's absurd to think that the KLA had the presence there. Civilians --
3 there might have been, but I do not know. There has not been, in Prizren,
4 any kind of incident involving the KLA and Serbian forces.
5 Q. You say that the young men turned up at your place to protect
6 their families, but their families weren't with them. They were without
7 their families and took shelter at your place.
8 A. No, not to protect the family. They had stayed behind to protect
9 their homes. The members of their families had left towards the centre of
10 the city, thinking it would be safer there. That is what I've said in my
12 Q. Then it was interpreted wrongly, because according to the
13 interpretation, you said to protect their families. So what you're saying
14 is they just spent the night there and then left the following morning.
15 Is that right?
16 A. Yes. Amongst them it was not only some youths, there were elderly
17 as well, elderly people who lived in that quarter. And I'm fully
18 convinced of what I've stated in my testimony that there's been nothing,
19 no attempt --
20 Q. You returned to your house and then -- there was no attempt at
21 doing what? I didn't hear.
22 A. I said that the young and the elderly came to spend the night
23 together because of being scared. There's been no other activities of
24 what you're alluding to. And as concerns military activity in Prizren by
25 the KLA in Prizren, there's been nothing of the sort as you claim, and
1 you're trying to say the opposite of what I have stated.
2 Q. I am asking you in connection to what you wrote in your statement
3 this, because in the statement you said that 12 young men turned up, and
4 now you add that some elderly people came as well, and that is not what
5 you say in your statement. So when are you telling the truth, in what you
6 wrote or --
7 JUDGE MAY: Whether it has any significance or not will be for the
8 Trial Chamber to tell. Now, there's much more to cover, I suspect, so why
9 don't we move on?
10 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. You said that on that particular evening, when you returned home,
12 that two neighbours came by and told you to go because that would be safer
13 for you. How do you mean "safer"? What did they actually say to you?
14 A. We had -- there were three or four households that had remained in
15 the neighbourhood, and hearing gunshots around and because panic had been
16 -- had come about in this neighbourhood, and there were a lot of children,
17 small children in the families, then we decided it would be better to go
18 to the centre of the city, thinking it would be safer, because Serbian
19 police forces were stationed in the Progress building.
20 Q. From what you've been saying, it was while you were moving towards
21 the centre of town, on the way to the centre of town, in fact, as you
22 claim here, there was repeated bombing. "And then one person opened the
23 door to his yard and told us to go in because that would be safer for us."
24 So this happened in the course of the bombing, according to your
1 A. That's right. Nevertheless, there were some differences from what
2 you say. We didn't set off toward the centre but we passed through the
3 side roads because we had relatives near the centre. And at about 8.00,
4 if I'm not wrong, the Serbian army barracks was attacked, and in that side
5 road where we were, somebody opened a door, and we separated into two
6 groups and that's where we spent the night.
7 Q. All right. But it's quite clear that this took place precisely
8 during the bombing and that they called you inside for you to be safer.
9 Now, is it logical and is it clear that that is because the bombing was
10 under way or not?
11 A. No. At that moment, after the NATO bombing started, there was gun
12 -- gunshots coming from the direction of the Serbian barracks, but we
13 don't know who was firing because it was some way away. And we, as we
14 went into the house, there were bullets falling on the walls and on the
15 tiles. It was a single-storey house. And we were frightened of these
16 gunshots, not of the NATO bombing.
17 Q. So you were afraid only of the shooting from the ground, whereas
18 the bombs that were falling from the sky didn't represent any danger to
19 you. Is that what you're saying?
20 A. That's right, because NATO was not attacking civilians. We were
21 not frightened of NATO. That's what I'm trying to say.
22 Q. Yes, I understand that. That's what you're saying. And you don't
23 even know that NATO attacked civilians, do you?
24 JUDGE MAY: That's an argumentative point.
25 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. The result of that shooting, from what you said, prevented you
2 from sleeping. It says, "The machine-gun fire lasted throughout the night
3 and we couldn't sleep at all." That's what you say.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And then you went to a relative of a refugee family who had been
6 staying with you, and you spent the next two days there.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Then you say, "During this stay, we offered shelter to a lot of
9 young men who were jumping from the tractors." And you're speaking about
10 young men, only young men, and not refugees, families, elderly persons,
11 and so on; just young men, that's all you mention. Is that right?
12 A. That's right, because a lot of families were passing along that
13 road. It was a long convoy that had set off in the direction of Albania,
14 and they had heard that young men were being stopped by the Serbian police
15 on the road, and they had stopped in this neighbourhood out of fear, and
16 they had got off their factors out of fear and stopped in Prizren.
17 Q. But your family, nevertheless, returned home after a few days,
18 didn't it, because you thought that it would be safer there?
19 A. No. That's not right. If I'm not wrong, my family and I went,
20 left our house on the 24th of March, 1999, and the women who were with the
21 children, we accommodated them with a family we knew in the town. And on
22 the 26th, looking -- considering the situation, the town, we thought it
23 would be best to separate. But we fetched the women, and in the evening,
24 we left the house.
25 Q. And you left the house at the request of the owner of the house or
1 did you decide to leave on your own? Did the owner ask you to leave the
2 house or was this a decision you made yourself?
3 A. We were -- we were the householders ourselves. I'm talking about
4 the 26th of March, when we left my house. Not 28th of March. It was on
5 the 28th of March, at about half past four or five, it was also the Bajram
6 holiday, a Muslim festival, as I remember. Somebody said, "It's a holiday
7 today." At about half past four or five, the Serbian police knocked on
8 the door and gave us five minutes' time to leave for Albania. Otherwise,
9 anybody who was left behind would be shot.
10 So we had -- we had a choice, either to go to Albania or be
11 killed. So we set off for Albania where we had been directed.
12 Q. Is that what the policeman told you, that they would kill you
13 unless you left, unless you left your house?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It says here in your statement that the owner of the house told
16 you that and not the policeman, that it was the owner of the house who
17 told you that the policeman had told him that.
18 A. That's right. Not me but in -- they told the head of the
19 household; we were in the same position. Because the owner of house was
20 Ibrahim Culaku and he knew Serbian and he spoke to the police and he had
21 gone out to talk to the policeman.
22 Q. Yes, but you didn't hear that. You heard it from the owner of
23 house, that you had to leave your house in five minutes' time because that
24 was what the policeman had allegedly told him. That's what you say and
25 how you put it in your statement.
1 A. I was near the gate of the door at the entrance, and I heard the
2 conversation. I heard what was -- I heard the conversation, but I didn't
3 hear the contents of the conversation. And this is what the head of the
4 house said to us.
5 Q. But you didn't write that in your statement.
6 JUDGE MAY: What he wrote in the statement, according to the
7 English, is that the police knocked on the door, the owner went to answer.
8 A few minutes later, he came back. "The police had told him relay a
9 message to us to the effect that we had five minutes to get out of the
10 house or they would shoot everyone." That's what his statement says.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's -- that's how it is. That's
12 how it was.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] And that's what I'm talking about.
14 He was -- they were informed of that by the owner of the house and not by
15 the policemen themselves.
16 JUDGE MAY: We've got his evidence on the point. He says the
17 police spoke to the owner and told him to relay the message.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But he heard it from the owner, not
19 from the police.
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's what he said.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] All right.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Now, what happened to this child when the mother put the child
24 under the suitcase and you weren't able to find him and then you did?
25 What has that got to do with any kind of action on the part of what you
1 call the Serb forces?
2 A. I didn't say that the Serbian forces were involved in this but it
3 was because of the haste in which we left. And the child was under all
4 the suitcases, and we saved the child and set off on the road.
5 Q. It would appear that the mother had forgotten where she'd left her
6 child, nothing more than that.
7 JUDGE MAY: It's fairly plain from the statement what happened,
8 and the witness has explained it.
9 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. You go on to speak about the aggressive behaviour on the part of
11 the Serb forces. However, nobody, as far as I'm able to gather from your
12 statement, was injured by anyone. All that you do claim is that they
13 addressed you in harsh terms. Is that correct?
14 A. We were in danger, and we didn't know what would happen to us.
15 They made gestures of cutting our throats, and they insulted us. We
16 didn't know where we were going. We didn't know what would happen to us.
17 We had been thrown out of our own houses, which was our own property. And
18 it's an international right to have your home, to live in it. This was
19 our right. We didn't want to go to Albania of our own free will, but we
20 were ordered to go there.
21 Q. And who ordered you?
22 JUDGE MAY: The point that was made was that nobody was in fact
23 injured by the Serb forces that day that you saw.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true. My family had none of
25 its members wounded, and we crossed the border without any injuries or
1 deaths or anything of that kind, that is true.
2 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. And when you returned, you found your house undamaged, did you?
4 A. Yes. Everything was in order, nothing touched. It wasn't
5 damaged. Whereas further down in the neighbourhood, the houses had been
6 damaged, but many houses in our part of the neighbourhood were untouched.
7 Q. Well, all right. I'm just asking you about you personally. So
8 from the facts that you yourself presented, you were witnesses of two
9 bombings of Prizren, and at the same time, a large exodus by -- from
10 Prizren by whole columns of people. Is it true that when you link up
11 those bombings and the customary image of people fleeing under such
12 circumstances that this fleeing of people was linked to the bombings and
13 that there is cause and effect between the two? Is that correct or not?
14 A. I have heard people who fled from Krusha e Madhe, Landovica,
15 Pirana, and the real reason as I have heard from them was the terror
16 perpetrated by Serbian forces, and this is the terror that we were
17 fleeing. People were -- this was a plan that had been premeditated, and
18 we were fleeing from this terror in the direction of Albania.
19 I do not believe that the people fled for any other reason.
20 Nobody said this.
21 Q. I understand that nobody said this. I'm just talking about the
22 facts that you are testifying to. The first bombing, the second bombing,
23 the panic, and ultimately the fleeing across the border for which you, a
24 moment ago, two minutes ago, said that nobody physically in any way
25 mistreated you and that --
1 JUDGE MAY: He said -- he has said that they fled the terror
2 perpetrated by the Serb forces. Now, that's his evidence.
3 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. And terror -- can you consider something terror in which nobody
5 has been harmed, in which nobody has been mistreated? Do you consider
6 that to be terror?
7 A. The terror took place in other villages around Prizren while we
8 were evicted by force. And this is a form of terror. We were being
9 denied the right to live in our own homes, as I said before. We were
10 taken away. We were removed by violence.
11 Q. And how did they do this by force, evict you by force? Did
12 somebody physically evict you from the houses or does everything boil down
13 to what the owner of the house -- the message he relayed to you?
14 A. There were threats. There were threats. And the whole Ulqin
15 Street was full of all the local inhabitants. They were all forced to
16 go. This is violence.
17 Q. And do you think that at least partially those inhabitants were
18 fleeing from the bombing?
19 A. No, not partially. The convoy was so long. It was longer than
20 you can imagine. It was endless.
21 Q. All right. But is it logical to you that there are such mass
22 bombings taking place that the population is fleeing, that you claim that
23 they're not fleeing from the bombing but because a neighbour told them
24 that they ought to go?
25 JUDGE MAY: Don't follow that question.
1 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I am talking about the facts that the witness set out. I am
3 talking about the bombs, two bombings, in fact. Those are the images
4 conjured up, one bombing and then a second bombing, and a mass of
5 civilians fleeing.
6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, Mr. Milosevic, you may not like the
7 answers you're getting, but his evidence is plain. He says it was not due
8 to the bombing. There's no point arguing continually about that. That's
9 his evidence.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, even that evidence of his
11 differs in -- on two points, on two counts, but I won't dwell on that.
12 The first and second testimony he gave, the second coincides more readily
13 with this alleged Prosecution and the alleged charges about deportation,
14 because the witnesses are giving answers according to a schematic and
15 completely leave aside --
16 JUDGE MAY: You have -- you have -- you have less than ten minutes
17 left. So if there's an important question you want to ask, you should ask
19 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Do you claim that the bombing in Prizren did not cause any panic
21 whatsoever or was any reason for anybody to leave Prizren? Is that what
22 you're saying?
23 A. Absolutely. I said before that the NATO forces were seen as our
24 sole hope of rescue from this terror. That's what I said. And the entire
25 people had this hope for the future.
1 Q. And do you know how many Serbs fled Prizren because of the
3 A. I don't know about that, but I think that the Serbs fled Prizren
4 out of fear of what they themselves had done in Prizren. Of course there
5 may have been many innocent people among them, but I believe that they
6 left out of fear, because of what they had done before. We didn't throw
7 them out. I don't know. I don't know of anybody having driven Serbs out
8 of Prizren by force.
9 Q. I'm talking now about the period of time which you are testifying
10 about, and you are testifying about the beginning, the onset of the war.
11 You are testifying about the bombing, and you are testifying about the
12 departure from Prizren.
13 You claim that you left Prizren because the Serbs had threatened
14 you. Is that right?
15 JUDGE MAY: We've been over this. There's no need to repeat it.
16 Do you know anything -- do you know anything about the Serbs
17 leaving or why they left, of your own knowledge?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After the war, Your Honour, do you
20 JUDGE MAY: [Previous translation continues]... during the war.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know about during the war.
22 Maybe you've got mixed up, but I don't know about Serbs fleeing during the
24 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. And at the time that you were leaving Prizren, did other people,
1 the Serb civilians, leave Prizren as well because of the mass bombing that
2 Prizren was subjected to?
3 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, stop putting points that are in
4 controversy. You've heard the witness's evidence. You've heard it
5 plainly. He fled because he was afraid of the terror which was
6 perpetrated. It's no good just repeating your own side. You can give
7 evidence in due course and we'll hear it. It's just wasting time to go on
8 putting these controversial matters.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am not talking about any
10 repetition. I am saying that the witness testified that he left Prizren
11 under terror, he and thousands of other people, and no one touched anyone
12 at that or mistreated anyone or in any way jeopardised anybody's physical
13 security and safety. That's the only thing I've been saying.
14 JUDGE MAY: There's no point in continuing with this and
15 continuing this argument. Now, if you've got anything else to put to this
16 witness you can put it in the next five minutes, otherwise this
17 cross-examination comes to an end.
18 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. And do you know, since you are from Prizren, since you are a
20 schoolteacher, do you know how many killings were committed in the region
21 of Prizren by the KLA before the bombing started, before the war started,
22 that is; that is to say until the day you left Prizren?
23 A. No. There were no killings in Prizren. There were no murders by
24 the KLA, there were no KLA operations in Prizren, and I saw nothing of
25 the sort. And for the region round about, I don't know. I have no
1 knowledge of this.
2 Q. And have you heard -- this is in the immediate area around
3 Prizren, when somebody is killed, then the newspapers write about this and
4 the radio caries this. Srdjan Simonovic, a soldier who was killed in
5 October 1998, did you hear of this event?
6 A. No, because there were so many killings, so it's impossible to
7 remember these things. And I was more concentrating on my profession. And
8 in the meantime, I was studying in Prishtina. So I don't know anything
9 about this sort of thing.
10 Q. This is October 1998. So you were a student in Pristina at that
11 time? You were not in Prizren?
12 A. I was in Prizren, but I was preparing for exams and at the same
13 time working in the afternoon in the school, and I didn't have much free
15 Q. And do you perhaps remember the killing of the soldier named
16 Vladimir Markovic on the 17th of March 1999, that is to say, a week before
17 the NATO aggression started?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
19 JUDGE MAY: If you don't --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- I don't know --
21 JUDGE MAY: If you don't know anything about it, say you don't.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I don't know.
23 JUDGE MAY: The time is now completed. The witness knows nothing
24 about these matters and can't assist. Now, we've been wasting a great
25 deal of time.
1 Yes, Mr. Tapuskovic, have you got any questions?
3 MR. RYNEVELD: No, thank you, Your Honour.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Beqiraj, thank you for coming to the Tribunal to
6 give your evidence. That concludes it. You're free to go.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 MR. NICE: Immediately before the next witness comes in, might it
10 be appropriate, just once, to lay before any people who want to understand
11 how the process works, the documents that we're speaking of when we speak
12 of a witness attesting a statement, and that will then hold good as a
13 matter of record for the rest of the trial?
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
15 MR. NICE: With the usher's assistance, he can just lay these
16 documents on the overhead projector, if that could be erected. And I'll
17 explain briefly.
18 When a statement is taken under the provisions -- top of the page,
19 please. Top of the page please, Usher.
20 When a statement is taken by a presiding officer pursuant to Rule
21 93 bis - and on this occasion the statements were taken in the territory
22 -- in Kosovo - the presiding officer sets out a form in this form, saying
23 that the person who is the presiding officer, setting out his or her
24 authority, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence certificates
25 that on, and in a particular location. The witness is then identified
1 with his date and place of birth, his identity or passport number and his
3 Further down the page please. Further down the page, please,
5 The officer goes on to explain that the attached statement, dated
6 and certified by the undersigned on a particular date, is identified as
7 being the -- a document authored by that person. The officer goes on to
8 explain that the witness was provided with a version of the statement in a
9 language that he or she understood; that the above-mentioned witness was
10 informed in a language that he or she understood that the presiding
11 officer -- that if the contents are not true to the best of his knowledge
12 and belief, then he or she may be subject to proceedings for giving false
13 testimony; that the witness was provided with a text of Rule 91 of the
14 Rules of Proceedings.
15 Next sheet, please.
16 That the witness declared the contents of the statement to be
17 correct to the best of his or her knowledge and belief; that no pressure
18 was brought to bear on the witness and that he or she voluntarily signed
19 the attached declaration. There's then a list of the persons present and
20 additional remarks, if necessary.
21 That document ends. Next sheet, please.
22 Simply with the attestation of the presiding officer and where the
23 exercise was performed. Next sheet please.
24 Now, this sheet is an English translation of the declaration
25 typically signed, so far as these witnesses are concerned, in the Albanian
1 language, but a similar declaration in an appropriate language would have
2 been signed by every witness subject to the Rule 92 bis procedure. And
3 when we speak of their signing such a statement, it's this statement in
4 their own language to which we refer.
5 The declaration gives the name, date and place of birth, identity,
6 and goes on to say that the witness confirms that in the presence of the
7 presiding officer, who is named, the contents of the written statement
8 made on a particular date attached to the declaration are true and correct
9 to the best of that witness's knowledge and belief.
10 It goes on to say that he or she has been provided with a copy of
11 Rule 91 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence in a language
12 understood, and that he or she understands that he or she may be subject
13 to Prosecution for giving false testimony if the contents of any written
14 statement are not so true and correct. And that's then done and signed.
15 So that is the standard form of documentation provided. Of course
16 there will be have to be adaptation in the case of those who cannot read
17 and write as is the case with the next witness who we're going to hear.
18 The matters will have to be read over to them. But that otherwise is the
19 standard form of documentation used for the production of 92 bis
21 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, for the purposes of the record, if you
22 could add some explanation about the presiding officer. Who -- where do
23 they belong?
24 MR. NICE: Well, the presiding officer -- I'm probably going too
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Your Honour, the presiding officer for this exercise is -- has
2 been an officer appointed by the Registry of the Tribunal. That is not
3 the OTP and not the Chambers. The third pillar of the Tribunal who
4 conducts that operation on an independent basis.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 MR. NICE: The next witness I call is Reshit Salihi. Your Honour,
7 I understand that procedures have been agreed between the OTP and Registry
8 for how documentation is to be lodged, and we will deal with it with the
9 Registry on that basis. We are concerned with Celine, which any members
10 of the Chamber who are using the map can be found on page 10 at K22. The
11 witness will require the oath to be read over to him, the attestation, I
12 beg your pardon, the solemn declaration, get the words right, will require
13 solemn declaration to be read over to him by somebody in the booth if that
14 can be arranged, please.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness come forward. If you would just
17 remain standing for a minute, and if the declaration could be put on the
19 Now, Mr. Salihi, this declaration is going to be read out to you
20 by an interpreter. Would you just follow and say the same as the
21 interpreter says. Yes. If the interpreter would interpret, please.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE MAY: Thank you very much. If you would like to take a
1 WITNESS: RESHIT SALIHI
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you
4 Examined by Mr. Nice:
5 Q. Would you tell the Court, please, your full name.
6 A. Reshit from Celine, Orahovac commune.
7 MR. NICE: I will have one written up and made out for the ELMO.
8 It will have to be in handwriting. Your Honour, I'll summarise this
9 statement of this witness and ask him a few questions but not about my
11 The statement of this witness reveals that he leaves in Celine,
12 that on the 24th of March, 1999, in his village, he recognised VJ units
13 surrounding the village and shelling the village. The pattern was that
14 soldiers shelled the village. The shelling stopped; ground troops
15 entered. The process carried on for some time, until 9.00. In the course
16 of it, buildings were burnt, including the mosque. The witness saw
17 clearly soldiers setting fire to buildings. Buildings were looted by
18 soldiers, and vehicles carrying looted goods were driven away. Property
19 that could not be taken away being destroyed.
20 By noon of that day, most people had left the village, but the
21 witness was there along with his brother Bajram and other family members.
22 No, just with Bajram, all other family members having fled to the forest.
23 At about 3.00, he saw a group of Serbs approaching the farm and
24 entering and setting fire to neighbouring houses. He heard automatic
25 gunfire in the area of his compound and saw his brother shot dead. He
1 heard shots being fired from his own compound from where he was hiding and
2 heard males speaking in the Serbian language.
3 He made his way to the forest, arriving there at about half past
4 nine. The following morning, a group of about 40 police arrived, and he's
5 in a position to describe their uniforms and weapons. They started
6 shooting in the air. His estimate was there were some 10.000 people
8 The police separated the group into women and children or men.
9 Searches took place. The witness himself handed over 5.000 Deutschmarks.
10 His daughter handed over a gold necklace and 6.000 Deutschmarks that he
11 had earlier entrusted to her. They were ordered to hand over identifying
12 document, identity documents, warned that if they declined to hand over
13 such documents, they would be shot.
14 A 22-year-old man, Agim Ramadani, was stripped and shot dead by
15 three bullets to his head. The statement goes on to narrate how papers of
16 identity that had been collected were put in a pile and burnt, everybody
17 being ordered to line up with their hands behind their heads, being
18 thereafter compelled to walk back through the village sat some point,
19 women and children leading the way. En route, he was kicked and beaten by
20 rifle butts on several occasions.
21 In the village, they were handed over to other police who marched
22 them between Velika Krusa and Mala Krusa on the Prizren road. Eventually
23 they were collected by trucks, transported to Zur from where they were
24 ordered off the trucks and compelled to walk to Albania, a distance of
25 some six kilometres.
1 The witness, whose statement says he was never a member of the
2 KLA, eventually returned to his home to discover that it had been looted.
3 Thus a summary of the statement.
4 Q. Mr. Salihi, just about three questions. In which village were you
6 A. In the village of Celine.
7 Q. Have you lived there all your life since?
8 A. All my life and also my father and grandfather before me.
9 Q. What has been your occupation?
10 A. We say farmer. I work my land.
11 Q. Did you make a statement to the representatives of the Office of
12 the Prosecutor for this Tribunal?
13 A. I did it in Tirana when we were seen there, but I didn't know
14 where it would go. But I gave my testimony there in Tirana when we were
15 sent there.
16 Q. Earlier this year, on the 30th of January of -- I beg your -- yes,
17 on the 30th of January of this year, did you appear before an appointed
18 officer of the Tribunal in Celine and have your statement read over to
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was the statement, as read over to you, accurate?
22 A. Yes, it was accurate.
23 MR. NICE: Your Honour, that will be produced in the normal way.
24 I don't know if it's appropriate to give it an exhibit number now or
1 JUDGE MAY: Give one now.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 104.
3 MR. NICE: Will you wait there, please, Mr. Salihi. You may be
4 asked some further questions.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Milosevic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] In your statement, you wrote that until the 24th
8 of March, when the aggression of NATO started, you lived normally. You
9 led a normal life. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So until that time, there were no incidents or anything that would
12 disturb normal life in your village; is that right?
13 A. There was nothing in the village of Celine until the 25th of
15 Q. You know your area. You said yourself a minute ago that you have
16 lived there all your life, in Velika Krusa, Bela Crkva, Samodreza,
17 Studencane, Zociste and in other villages of the municipality of Orahovac
18 in your neighbourhood, there were no stationed forces of the army and the
19 police; is that right?
20 A. I said in my statement that on the 25th, they came and after -- I
21 have nothing to say after the 28th of March.
22 Q. I am asking you this about the period until you were there. I'm
23 not asking you to answer questions related to the period after you left
24 the village. I'm talking about until then. Is that right or is that not
1 A. I can give no answer regarding the villages round about. I can
2 talk about the village of Celine.
3 Q. But I assume that you knew people from the neighbouring villages,
4 and you knew about events that occurred in neighbouring villages. Yes or
5 no. Is that right?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know anything, are you aware of anything regarding the
8 activities of the KLA in these villages? And when I say "in these
9 villages," I am referring to Mala Krusa, Pirana, Medvece, Samodreza,
10 Studencane, Zociste and the kidnapping of citizens of Serb ethnicity from
11 the municipality of Orahovac.
12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Milosevic, you'll confuse the witness if you go on
13 at this length. The question was: Are you aware of any KLA activity in
14 the surrounding villages? If you're not, just say so, Mr. Salihi.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And did you know that the headquarters of the terrorist
18 organisation of the KLA was in the village of Malisevo? I think that's in
19 your area.
20 A. I don't know about this. I was interested in doing my work and
21 minding my family. That was what I was concerned about. I didn't go into
22 the question of where there was KLA or where there wasn't KLA, but I can
23 say that in Celine there was not.
24 Q. Does that mean that you never encountered or saw a single member
25 of the KLA?
1 A. No.
2 Q. When did you see them?
3 A. I mean no, I didn't see them.
4 Q. Let us proceed according to your statement. On the 25th of March,
5 that is, the first day after the aggression started, after the bombing
6 started, you said that you got up early in order to start your regular
7 activities which you carry out every day.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. At what time do you get up regularly?
10 A. At home? Where? We get up, 5.00 or 6.00, whenever we get up in
11 the morning.
12 Q. And what about that morning? Did you get up earlier or did you
13 get up at your usual time between 5.00 and 6.00?
14 A. Like usually.
15 Q. When is this usual time? You said 5.00 or 6.00? Is it 5.00 or is
16 it 6.00, or is it between 5.00 and 6.00?
17 A. I can't say exactly when I got up at 5.00 or 6.00. I can't tell
19 Q. Well, roughly, because it's still dark in March even at 6.00, let
20 alone at 5.00 a.m. So when did you get up, roughly?
21 A. When I got up, it must have been 6.00. When I got up, the village
22 of Celine had been surrounded during the night by police and tanks and
23 then they started firing, the police and the army. And then that whole
24 livelong day, they entered and those who managed to get out of their
25 houses, they managed to get away, and the others were killed. And this
1 was the 25th. And then they came --
2 Q. I'm just coming to that. I'll be asking you that. Just answer my
3 questions, please, and when I come to that you will be able to answer.
4 But you said that you got up at about 6.00, and in your statement it says
5 that at 5.00 in the morning, you saw units begin the shelling of the
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So how could you see units at 5.00 in the morning if you got up at
10 JUDGE MAY: Well, you've been asking enumerable questions about
11 the time. He's done his best.
12 Help us with this: When you got up, was it light or not?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was.
14 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. At 6.00 on the 25th of March, you therefore got up, and in your
16 statement you say that at 5.00, you saw units who began to shell the
18 JUDGE MAY: We've dealt with that. What's the next question?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'm drawing attention to this
20 fact, the fact that the officials of the Prosecution wrote the statement
21 for him, which is quite obvious from what the witness is saying now.
22 JUDGE MAY: You have asked innumerable questions in order to try
23 and confuse the witness, in my judgement. They're not helpful. Now
24 you're trying to take what I regard as a bad point.
25 Yes, Mr. Nice.
1 MR. NICE: Your Honour, this isn't the first time that the accused
2 has felt free to make unsupported assertions about the conduct of the
3 investigators of this Tribunal. We've been silent so far. He should know
4 that of course none of them is other than rejected, and that it's a
5 privilege to work here with an international group of investigators whose
6 integrity can be tested by evidence that I will lay before him. If he
7 wishes to repeat allegations of that kind, as for this particular witness,
8 the interpreter who read this statement over to the witness will be made
9 available at the conclusion of this evidence.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you have been making comments
11 about the Prosecution. I have heard you on several occasions, and I have
12 been meaning to reprimand you. It is entirely improper and out of order
13 for you to cast aspersions on the Prosecution without any supporting
14 evidence. In the jurisdiction from which I come, that is treated very,
15 very seriously. You did it earlier today, and you are not to do it again,
16 and I want to make that clear. The offices of the Prosecution are offices
17 of the Court, and I am treating you as an officer of the Court. Do not
18 cast aspersions on the character, on the integrity of the Prosecution
19 unless you have any evidence to support it. This is a very, very serious
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson, will you please
22 explain one matter to me? Do you consider it to be vital and essential
23 that in the cross-examination of the witness I test of the facts that are
24 written down in his statement and compare them to his answers in the
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you're entirely at liberty to do that, but
2 you must do that without casting unfounded aspersions on the integrity and
3 character of the prosecuting team. If you have evidence which will cast
4 into doubt that integrity, then you can adduce that evidence. But merely
5 to throw aspersions is entirely unacceptable in a court of law, and we
6 will not accept it. You can test the truthfulness of the statement of the
7 witness, but you must do so without casting aspersions on the character of
8 the prosecuting team. That is what I want to make clear.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I am only comparing the facts, the
10 facts that have been written down and the facts that have been uttered,
11 and the additional fact that we are dealing with a written statement which
12 the witness, in view of the fact that he is illiterate, was not able even
13 to read through himself. So I'm just adding up these three facts and
14 indicating my assumption, voicing my assumption. Now, it is up to you to
15 assess whether it is well-founded or not. I do not wish to hurl
16 aspersions at anybody. Quite the contrary; it is only facts that can hurt
17 anybody here and not intentions and I don't -- and this would be a low
18 blow if I wished to hurl accusations and I never resorted to that kind of
19 thing in my life.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... please
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You described a method that was used by the army of Yugoslavia -
24 so you're talking about the army - and I'm going to read this out. But,
25 unfortunately, as I do not have the witness statement in English, I shall
1 have to read it out in English and I shall read it out slowly so that it
2 can be interpreted into Serbian. [In English] "[Previous translation
3 continues]... that VJ Yugoslav army would shell the village for a period.
4 The shelling would then stop for a while, during which time the Serb
5 ground forces would enter the village. Once they withdraw, the shelling
6 would recommence for a while. This would then be followed by another
7 entry by the ground forces. This action continued for most of the day in
8 this way."
9 [Interpretation] How many times -- and you have described this to
10 us. First of all you say that the army shelled the village, then it
11 stopped shelling the village. Is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Then you go on to say that they go into the village on foot. How
14 long did they stay in the village, then, once they'd entered it?
15 A. When they entered, they stayed there for the day. And they have
16 burned and looted, and we know this. After that, we've just noticed their
17 comings and goings. We left those houses because we saw the infantry and
18 the police coming and houses burning. I thought they were approximately
19 30 to 40 metres away, and I was with my brother, elder brother.
20 Q. I'm not asking you that. That's something you say later on. All
21 I'm asking you about is the passage I read out to you. Now, could you
22 listen to me carefully, please. You said that the army first shelled the
23 village and then entered the village on foot; after that, that it withdrew
24 from the village and then shelled the village again and went back into the
25 village on foot again, and then withdrew from the village, shelled the
1 village again because you said they shelled the village the entire day.
2 After shelling it, they would come into the village, withdraw, shell
4 So I'm asking you how many times this happened because you say it
5 was the method used throughout the day. So what I'm asking you now is how
6 many times they went in and went out; went in and withdrew and how many
7 times they shelled the village.
8 A. They did whatever at their own will. They bombed and paused and
9 entered and left and they did what they thought was right and proper.
10 Q. Yes, but we're talking here, and do try and be as careful as
11 possible, we're trying to establish the facts here, and you're saying that
12 they shelled and then entered the village, then left, then shelled again,
13 then went into the village again, et cetera.
14 JUDGE MAY: Don't repeat the question because we won't get
16 Can you say, Mr. Salihi, how often the forces came into the
17 village that day?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know -- it's so difficult for me
19 to explain whatever I saw, but if you allow me to get all these things in
20 order, I will.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
22 MR. MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. How long did the first shelling of the village last, the one you
24 talk about?
25 A. I cannot exactly say. There was an hour, then they started again
1 after an hour, and then another hour, and after another hour, they started
2 again. Then they came back into the village.
3 Q. So they would shell the village for about an hour, would they?
4 How many times did they shell the village for one hour?
5 A. I can't say exactly how many times. The shelling continued, but I
6 was in no position to say how many times.
7 Q. And how long did the lulls last? You said that the shelling would
8 go on for one hour and that they would then enter the village physically.
9 Now, how long did they stay in the village before they withdrew and
10 started the next round of shelling which you say lasted an hour?
11 A. I can't say. Probably half an hour, 20 minutes. It could have
12 been anything between 10 minutes and one hour. I can't say exactly.
13 Q. Then they would spend an hour shelling the village again and then
14 enter the village themselves; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, were you able to establish any reason? Was there any reason,
17 to your mind? Did you have an opinion on this? Did you think why they
18 were shelling the village and then going into the village and withdrew
19 from the village to shell it once again? What was the reason for this
20 would you say in your opinion? Why did they behave like that?
21 A. They know that. We do not. They came to do whatever they thought
22 they want to do. I don't know why they did that.
23 Q. Was there -- as you say, they started shelling the village. Was
24 there any -- were there any inhabitants in the village? Did anybody stay
25 in the village or had you already fled?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. At that time, they couldn't -- they couldn't go, all of them.
2 Those who were left behind were massacred and killed. Those who could
3 left the village, but some couldn't and they were killed.
4 Q. But you didn't write anything about the soldiers going round the
5 village and killing. That is not something that is contained in your
7 JUDGE MAY: We will look at that. We'll adjourn now.
8 Yes, Mr. Salihi? What did you want to say? Did you want to say
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have a lot to say. I have not
11 come here to lie. I have come here to say what befell us. If you allow
12 me, I mean I could go on.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We'll have to ask you to come back, I'm afraid,
14 on Monday morning to conclude your evidence. Would you remember during
15 the time until then not to speak to anybody about your evidence until it's
16 over? And that does include members of the Prosecution team.
17 We will adjourn now until Monday morning. I will be advised what
18 time. Nine o'clock.
19 Could you be back, please, nine o'clock on Monday.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That's what I came here for.
21 I came here to give my testimony as to what I had to go through.
22 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Thank you.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.45 p.m.,
24 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of April,
25 2002, at 9.00 a.m.