1 Thursday, 20 October 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll now deal with the matters relating to the
6 use of time. The accused had submitted the list of witnesses for the rest
7 of his case as instructed.
8 Mr. Milosevic, that list was submitted ex parte. In order to make
9 it available to the other parties as it should, you should file a redacted
10 confidential version so that the other parties can have it.
11 I am to say that the information that you requested from the
12 Registry with regard to the time used during the Prosecution case is in
13 fact available, and the Chamber instructs the Registry to make that
14 available to you.
15 As for the other matters that you raised with regard to the 199
16 witnesses that you say you have remaining, which would take up 452 hours,
17 the Chamber notes that in fact of the time allotted to you you have
18 remaining 106 hours, and it will be a matter for you to so organise and
19 arrange the presentation of the rest of your case to fit within the 106
20 hours that remain of the allotted time.
21 Do you have anything to say in relation to this, and then we'll
22 hear from the other parties, if necessary.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Mr. Robinson.
24 I consider that this is an approach which cannot be considered the
25 right approach and a fair approach, and I'd like to draw your attention to
1 certain factors.
2 The opposite side's case lasted for 300 days. They produced 352
3 witnesses. You did not take as a criterion either the number of days or
4 the number of witnesses but something different, some number of hours.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] In principle --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, just stop for a minute. One
8 important factor which you have omitted is that of the 352 Prosecution
9 witnesses, only a third of that number was called viva voce. Two-thirds
10 was called by way of written statements, which you have not utilised at
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, that's precisely an argument
13 against this method of proceeding and conclusion, Mr. Robinson. A third
14 of the witnesses testified live. That, in actual fact, means that
15 two-thirds of the witnesses have, according to this formula, non-existent
16 time. What would have happened had all the witnesses testified pursuant
17 to 92 bis without an examination-in-chief? That would mean that I have no
18 time at all for my witnesses. That's what it would come down to. And
19 these are matters of principle, reasons of principle. The right to
20 defence cannot be curtailed and limited by using mathematics, and it is
21 not measured in terms of time, and you know that full well, Mr. Robinson.
22 Of that 114 witnesses who testified live, you only counted time
23 for them. All the other time doesn't exist. So the -- with these
24 viva voce ones. On the other hand, you say 79(F) -- 89(F). If I wanted
25 to avail myself of that Rule, I would not have had time to prepare that
1 kind of use of witnesses. As far as 89(F) is concerned, there were masses
2 of binders presented here practically with no examination-in-chief at all,
3 so we can't base it all on mathematics of that kind to the disadvantage of
4 establishing the truth. You can't base a whole construction here based on
5 time, the time that I am in fact allotted.
6 And in addition to that, take a look at this from another aspect.
7 352 witnesses presented by the other side. Now, I have with all the
8 witnesses taken together that I have produced so far a third less
9 witnesses than they did. Therefore, I consider that it is quite
10 reasonable and fair that more time should be accorded. And please bear in
11 mind the fact that, for example, the other side presented or brought
12 forward dozens of expert witnesses. Regardless of the doubtful character
13 of their expertise, there are years of work behind those expert
14 testimonies and enormous resources. I'm not in the same position. I
15 cannot have as many experts as they did who can invest as much time and
16 effort. My experts, for example, can testify only about something that
17 can be based on some earlier works of theirs or topics that they dealt
18 with earlier on.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, you say it's reasonable and fair
20 that more time should be accorded. Are you making an application for an
21 extension of the time that was allocated to you?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I hope, Mr. Robinson, that
23 that is quite obvious.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well. If you are through, then we'll just
25 hear from Mr. Nice and Mr. Kay, if necessary.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, complete your remarks.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I wish to complete my remarks
4 and say that will throughout this stay -- or the Prosecution case, you
5 never limited the other side in terms of time. All you do is pay
6 attention to time when it comes to me. So they have a vast machinery
7 working for them, a great deal of time. On the other hand, you are only
8 giving me a third of the witnesses they heard viva voce, and there is
9 non-existent time, according to your calculations, for the rest of them in
10 this way, and I don't think that is compatible with the principle of
11 fairness or with any intimations of any desire on your part or anybody
12 else's part who is included in this to learn about the facts and to learn
13 the truth. Therefore, if you're not interested in learning that, if
14 you're not interested in the facts and not interested in evidence and the
15 proof, then of course you can use these time restrictions and that will be
16 that. That's it.
17 And there were attempts made to hear -- here to take away my right
18 to speak. Now you're doing this with time restrictions imposed upon me.
19 So I think that this is an absolutely unfair approach, improper, and I
20 would like to ask you to allow me to bring forward witnesses in the way
21 that Mr. Nice was able to call them, and I'm talking about a lesser
22 number, a much lesser number, a minimum number that you ought to allow me
23 to examine for my side to be heard. Audiatur et altera pars as the
24 proverb goes.
25 So if there has been manipulation of this kind based on
1 mathematics, I have never heard that mathematics can be used to restrict
2 the right to speak and present facts.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I am not allow you --
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Audiatur et altera pars was the
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll not allow you to say that there has been any
7 manipulation. The data that you requested will be made available to you.
8 Mr. Nice.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. Let's just understand
10 each other. It's not a question of just data being manipulated. Isn't it
11 also manipulation -- said yourself 30-something per cent of witnesses
12 testified live, viva voce, and according to this formula those two-thirds
13 of the Prosecution witnesses have no influence on the time that I'm being
14 allowed. Is that not manipulation itself?
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: No. I don't see that as manipulation. Thank
16 you, Mr. Milosevic.
17 Mr. Nice.
18 MR. NICE: Very little and only this. As I understand it, today's
19 hearing is to see the accused is to use the time available to him, not to
20 deal with an application for an extension of time. If he wants to make an
21 application for an extension of time, I would invite the Chamber to say it
22 should be in writing in order that he can set things out in a way that we
23 can respond to in writing.
24 With that said, the following may assist: The Prosecution and
25 indeed the Bench has time and again drawn to this accused's attention the
1 running of time. It has time and again drawn to his attention the
2 desirability of his using 89(F) or 92 bis, and so far as the Prosecution
3 is concerned, it has repeatedly drawn to his attention the potential
4 irrelevance of some of the areas of evidence upon which he has
5 concentrated. He's pressed on regardless with a great deal of evidence
6 about background, expanding that part of the case, doing so knowing that
7 that was coming off a total and limited period of time. These are all his
9 Similarly, it has been his choice not to make use of the services
10 available to him in the form of assigned counsel who would have been able
11 to assist him in abbreviating the time taken by various witnesses, in
12 producing more efficient bundles of exhibits, schedules, all sorts of
13 things. He's declined all of that, and he's done it knowingly, because
14 what he has intended to do is what he is now doing, which is pushing the
15 Court into a position where he will say you have to give him more time.
16 The answer is the Court doesn't have to give him more time. The Court has
17 been scrupulously fair in allocating time, in reminding him that it's his
18 duty if he wishes to be his own advocate, to spend that time wisely, and
19 the appropriate course now, in our respectful submission and in absence of
20 a compelling case in writing for extra time, is simply to require this
21 accused to make the best use of his remaining time, to encourage him to
22 use Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins to assist him, to make the best use that he
23 can of 89(F) and 92 bis.
24 I should perhaps finally observe this: There has in today's
25 hearing and to an extent in the very short hearing a couple of days ago
1 been a change of position by the accused where he said he didn't really
2 have the time to deal with matters under 89(F) and 92 bis. Oh, yes, he
3 did. He has had one way or another the opportunity of using lawyers just
4 like every other party in this court, and if he'd chosen to use lawyers
5 one way or another, there would have been plenty of time to prepare
6 witnesses for 89(F) or 92 bis purposes.
7 So this change of approach by him actually reflects a
8 determination to try and push the Court into a corner against which in my
9 respectful submission the Court should be anxious to show firm resistance.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: It may not only be lawyers who can assist. We have
11 before us at present a good example of a witness who is plainly capable of
12 producing written material covering the issues he's dealing with. In
13 fact, the exhibits contain numerous reports written by the witness. They
14 contain a book that he has written. So it's not just lawyers, I think,
15 Mr. Nice, that you can identify as people who would be able to
16 unilaterally provide the material that the accused seeks.
17 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour is quite right about that. And of
18 course in referring to my learned friends Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins, I must
19 also remind us for the record of the existence of associates, and as we
20 know other lawyers in Belgrade, because not so very long ago, last week or
21 the week before, there was reference by one of the witnesses to a wholly
22 new and hitherto unmentioned lawyer being engaged in preparation of the
23 witnesses. So we know that there are the resources there. It's been the
24 accused who has made the active decision not to call them.
25 And I don't want to descend too much into detail, but Your
1 Honour's observation about -- His Honour Judge Bonomy's observation about
2 the latest witness also obliges me perhaps to remind us all that with the
3 last ten witnesses or eight witnesses, all of who produced positive
4 libraries of documents, it can indeed be argued that the number of
5 documents within those libraries that are at the core of his case are
6 considerably smaller than the total number produced, and given the
7 realities of the time limitations that have been properly imposed on him
8 he, advising himself well, or he, being well advised by lawyers, would
9 have seen the need to prune and substantially to prune those volumes of
10 exhibits, but he didn't do so.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
13 --- Break taken at 9.30 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 10.11 a.m.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: In relation to the matters raised by the accused,
16 I have to say this on behalf of the Chamber: Mr. Milosevic, you continue
17 to make reference to 300 days utilised by the Prosecution in its case.
18 You well know that this is not the basis on which the calculation was
19 made, and your continued reference to 300 days is mischievous if not
20 malicious. The calculation as the Chamber has repeatedly said and as will
21 be made clear to you when you see the records which we have ordered the
22 Registry to be made available to you, that calculation was done on the
23 actual hours utilised by the Prosecution, and the reference to 300 days is
24 erroneous and baseless.
25 Secondly, Mr. Milosevic, you have the very same facilities as the
1 Prosecution to present evidence in writing under 92 bis and 89(F). You
2 said that no limits were placed on the Prosecution in presenting their
3 case. That is not true. You will recall that at a certain stage in the
4 Prosecution case the Chamber gave the Prosecution a hundred days in which
5 to complete its case, and this was in fact appealed by the Prosecution.
6 The appeal was dismissed. And I remind you that the -- in the same way
7 that you have had to trim your witness list from a very high number, the
8 Prosecution also had to trim its witness list. The Prosecution, I
9 believe, started with about a thousand witnesses.
10 We have had occasion to refer, Mr. Milosevic, on more than one
11 occasion to the many support facilities that are available to you and
12 which you constantly fail to acknowledge and to utilise. There is
13 assigned counsel, two assigned counsel and their team funded by the
14 Registry. You have three legal associates, and there is a pro se liaison
15 officer assisting you in administrative matters in the preparation of your
16 case. The Registry has also made available to you office and
17 communication facilities that no other accused has.
18 What you should be doing now is making better use of the time that
19 is left to you. You have 106 days left to you -- 106 hours, rather, left.
20 You should be making better use of those hours utilising the resources
21 available to you, and I need not recall what those resources are. But if
22 they are utilised in a proper way, you will be able to call far more
23 witnesses than you have been calling on the present basis of the
24 management of your case.
25 So we consider an application now for an extension to be
1 premature. We will not consider it. What the Chamber will require you to
2 do, as I said, is to so arrange and to construct your defence and organise
3 your defence that you fit the presentation of your witnesses in the time
4 that remains.
5 Let the witness be called.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't want to comment upon what
9 you said at all. However, since you haven't given me an opportunity to
10 make any comments with respect to what Mr. Nice said, just a few
12 Mr. Nice said that I changed my view, which is not true. My view
13 has been and remains that what happens here should be public, not in
14 writing. And I spoke in the conditional. Even if I wanted to do that, I
15 could not resort to the method that he proposes.
16 The other thing he said is also unfounded. He says that I present
17 facts about the context. I am presenting facts about the context, but
18 that is in contrast to what Mr. Nice has been doing. He takes things out
19 of context and then comes to the completely wrong conclusions.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I've given you a chance to respond
21 to what Mr. Nice said since you have not had the chance to do so. If you
22 wish to do so, then you must do so in as brief a manner as possible, and I
23 don't want remarks addressed relating to personalities.
24 So I will hear you very, very briefly and then we'll call the
25 witness. Do you have anything more to say?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, do I. Mr. Nice wants me
2 to be brief with this time --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not hearing that. Let's call the witness.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Please.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will call the witness.
6 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This request --
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: We will call the witness.
8 Call the witness.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 WITNESS: MILOS DJOSAN [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Before Mr. Nice starts his
15 cross-examination, I, precisely in accordance with your words during this
16 witness's testimony, wanted to ask for the documents that I presented to
17 the witness and the witness commented upon be admitted into evidence. I
18 wanted to ask to have them admitted.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Tabs 6 to 39 --
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay.
22 MR. KAY: Just while we're dealing with exhibits because the issue
23 was raised yesterday about tab 30 and the statement by the other army
24 officer Odak. Checking back in relation to the Delic exhibits and as an
25 example D300, tab 362 which was a statement by an officer called Vukovic
1 put into the Delic exhibit file, that wasn't admitted in evidence. It was
2 just marked for identification. So the observations I made to the Trial
3 Chamber yesterday were correct, and Judge Bonomy's recollection was
4 correct as well.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll make the order on the admission of exhibits
6 after the break, Mr. Milosevic.
7 Mr. Nice.
8 MR. NICE: And on the topic of the break, has the court been
9 reorganised or are we rising at half past 10.00.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll rise at half past 10.00.
11 MR. NICE: Thank you.
12 JUDGE KWON: Just before we start, can you confirm, Mr. Kay, the
13 accused skipped tab 18, 22 and 42?
14 MR. KAY: Yes. 22 and then 40.
15 JUDGE KWON: And 40. Thank you.
16 Mr. Nice.
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:
18 Q. Mr. Djosan, where were you serving in 1991?
19 A. In 1991, I was in Batajnica, commander of the 5th Rocket Battalion
20 of the air defence.
21 Q. In 1992?
22 A. Also.
23 Q. 1993?
24 A. In 1993, I was in Pristina, commander of the 311th Self-Propelled
25 Air Regiment of the air defence.
1 Q. 1994?
2 A. Likewise.
3 Q. 1995?
4 A. In 1995, from the 1st of January, 1995, until the 30th of June,
5 1995, I was within the Serb army of Krajina of the Republic of the Serb
7 Q. What duties did you perform there?
8 A. I was commander of the 44th Rocket Brigade of the air defence.
9 Q. You were paid, were you, by -- at that time, you were paid then by
10 what, the 40th Personnel Centre?
11 A. I was paid by those who paid me all the time. I received my
12 salary on my personal bank account, and I didn't give it a second thought.
13 Q. Well, people sometimes worry about their pensions. Did you
14 through your period of time in the Krajina get double credit for pension
15 purposes or not?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Well, how do you know you got double credit for pension purposes?
18 Who told you?
19 A. I didn't know at that time.
20 Q. Well, how did you --
21 A. And at that time it didn't matter to me.
22 Q. How -- why, because you were engaged on a war effort for the Serbs
23 in another country?
24 A. No. I was engaged in a war for my own people on the territory
25 that was officially under the control of the United Nations.
1 Q. Were you fighting? Were you engaged in activity, in action?
2 A. I was commander of a brigade of the air defence, and I did not
3 take part in fighting on the ground, just like here.
4 Q. Fighting against aircraft, did you engage in that?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. Well, what sort of planes did you attack, please?
7 A. We downed a helicopter.
8 Q. Whose helicopter?
9 A. A helicopter that was illegally flying over the territory of the
10 Republic of the Serb Krajina and that was transporting terrorists.
11 Q. Was the Republic of Serb Krajina at that stage recognised in any
12 international sense? Please help us.
13 A. The Republic of the Serb Krajina at that time was officially under
14 the protection of the United Nations.
15 Q. What were you doing fighting on that territory?
16 A. I was there to help my people.
17 Q. "My people." "My people" being?
18 A. My people are the Serb people anywhere.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... wars are wars about the Serb
20 people, aren't they, because that's the interest that people like you went
21 to fight for. Very simple.
22 A. Mr. Nice, you know, I went there after NATO fought against the
23 people of the Serb Krajina. Before that, NATO bombed the Republic of Serb
24 Krajina, and after every crime those who can help come to the scene.
25 Q. You're not, I imagine, going back, are you, on your answer that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 you were there fighting to help "my people," the Serb people? That
2 remains your position, doesn't it?
3 A. It is still my position that I was helping my people there to
4 protect themselves from NATO Air Force and from the Croatian armed forces.
5 Q. And whose helicopter was it that you downed?
6 A. The helicopter that we downed was a mercenary helicopter with a
7 Ukrainian crew. It was notorious for smuggling. It was transporting
8 terrorists between Zagreb and Cazin.
9 Q. How did you know that, if that was the case? And I'm not in a
10 position to accept it or reject it at all, just tell us how did you know
11 about it.
12 A. I saw when it was downed. I was on the spot. And also we knew
13 about it beforehand. Before any action, one collects information about
14 those are you fighting against. That helicopter was flying for six months
15 before that.
16 Q. Tell us, please, again, if you haven't told us -- if you have told
17 us already, where were you born?
18 A. I was born in the village of Bistrica, municipality of Zepce, the
19 former Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 Q. What were you doing in Croatia, then?
21 A. In Croatia, no. I was in the Republic of the Serb Krajina.
22 That's where my children were born. That is where I served, and that is
23 where there was a predominantly Serb population. I was in the territory
24 of the Republic of Serb Krajina, which was then under the official
25 protection of the United Nations.
1 Q. Well, what I want to know is this, please, we're going to go back
2 to the question of pension and the 40th Personnel Centre but let's deal
3 with it in little bite-sized questions. You know perfectly well what
4 the --
5 A. Please go ahead.
6 Q. You know perfectly well what the 40th and the 30th Personnel
7 Centres are, don't you?
8 A. Of course I know.
9 Q. When did you learn about them?
10 A. Through this centre I went to the Republic of Serb Krajina.
11 Q. Exactly. So you knew about it right at the beginning. You knew
12 about it when you were sent to the Krajina. Would that be correct?
13 A. I went to the Krajina at my own request, and they only made it
14 technically possible for me to go.
15 Q. In what way did they make it technically possible for a soldier
16 from a state not at war to go and fight somewhere else? What do you mean
17 by "technically possible"?
18 A. I'll explain it to you now. I see that it's a bit difficult to
19 explain this to you.
20 I applied for approval to be sent to the Serb Krajina, the
21 Republic of Serb Krajina, for six months after the NATO Air Force attacked
22 people and the Udbina air field. The command allowed me to do so. The
23 40th Personnel Centre explained to me how I could come, when I could go,
24 and who would meet me there and where I should report when I come to
25 specifically Knin. That's the technical part where they assisted me.
1 Q. And they told you or you already knew that while you were there
2 you would be paid as before by the Serb authorities and that you would be
3 given double credit for pension purposes while on active duty, yes?
4 A. At that time I wasn't interested in that at all. I was interested
5 in going to help my own people.
6 Q. As a family man, as any man, you have to be interested in being
7 paid. Since you're going to fight outside your own territory, what did
8 you discover about being paid?
9 A. Mr. Nice, I said that at that point in time I wasn't interested in
10 that at all, and I knew that my family in Belgrade would not die on
11 account of that or starve.
12 Q. Did you -- are you trying to tell us that you gave no thought to
13 the financial consequences of asking to leave -- what you're saying is you
14 wanted to leave your present job and go and be a volunteer somewhere else
15 for an indeterminate period of time perhaps. What arrangements did you
16 make about your pay, please.
17 A. Is it sufficient for you if I say to you that at that time I
18 wasn't interested in that, how I would be paid. I was 20 years younger
19 then. I didn't even think about a pension.
20 Q. I see. Well, were you married at the time?
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. So somehow your wife and family's got to get some money to live.
23 You may not have cared yourself because you were there to save the Serb
24 people elsewhere. What arrangements did you make with your -- your family
25 when you volunteered to go and perhaps not be paid at all? What
1 arrangements did you make?
2 A. I made no arrangements. I received my salary through my personal
3 bank account. When I was in Pristina, I had this separate amount of money
4 that you get when you live apart from your family, a special family
5 allowance. When I went to Krajina, I did not get this family allowance.
6 I only got my regular salary as an officer of the rank I held then.
7 Q. I don't want to labour the point, but I just want to see if we can
8 understand it, your position. If you had decided to go and work in -- as
9 a volunteer in some other theatre of war, in the Middle East, the Far
10 East, or Africa, you wouldn't have expected the taxpayers of Serbia to be
11 funding it, would you?
12 A. Or in the Falklands.
13 Q. By all means choose the Falklands. Why not. Let's take you,
14 then, right down to the Falklands. There, you are. You've gone done
15 there as a volunteer. Do you expect Serbia to pay for you?
16 A. Well, I wouldn't go there because my people are not there.
17 MR. NICE: I'm not going to take this line of questioning further.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we will adjourn for 20 minutes.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.37 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, before you continue, let me just deal
22 with the admission of the exhibits. Tabs 6 to 39 are admitted, except for
23 tabs 14, 18, and 22, which were not used. The VJ commission statements,
24 tabs 8, 11, 11A, 30, 30.1, 30.2, and 30.3 are marked for identification
25 pending further order. 20.1 -- tab 21.1 is marked for identification
1 pending translation. There's a small map which was not in the binder and
2 which will be admitted as tab 48.
3 Yes, Mr. Nice.
4 MR. NICE:
5 Q. Before I move on, Mr. Djosan, just this: The date on which you
6 shot down the helicopter, what date was it?
7 A. I think it was the 29th of April or the month of May. I don't
8 remember the exact date.
9 Q. You -- your service until then had been either in Batajnica or in
10 Kosovo. You made reference, you say, to your children being born
11 somewhere. Where were your children born?
12 A. I served in many different places before that. My first post was
13 in Karlovac, and my wife is in -- is from Karlovac, and my children were
14 born in Karlovac -- or, rather, in the area of Kordun in the village of
15 Popovic Brdo. After that I served in Cerklje, at the Cerklje airport in
16 Brezica. After that in Obrenovac, then in Belgrade, and --
17 Q. So this slight connection with Croatia, as it were, is sufficient
18 to justify your being paid by the 40th Personnel Centre for your service
19 in the Republika Srpska Krajina; is that right?
20 A. I don't know what that means, "slight connection." What do you
21 mean by that when you say "slight connection"?
22 Q. It's not for you to ask questions, but if you need elaboration
23 I'll help you. You weren't born in Croatia, were you? You've never
24 pretended to be Croatian by ethnicity, if that ethnicity or nationality is
25 accepted. You maintain that you're a Serb from Bosnia.
1 A. I'm a Serb from Bosnia, from the former Bosnia.
2 Q. So the only connection that you claim with Croatia is via your
3 wife, and you say the birth of your children and your having served there
4 at much earlier dates?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Let's move on, then. From June 1995 -- I may come back to this
7 period but I need a bit of time to think about it.
8 The next period of your service, June 1995. Where did you go and
9 serve then?
10 A. After June 1995, I returned to Pristina as regiment commander to
11 the same post from which I went to the Krajina, to the Republic of the
12 Serb Krajina.
13 Q. You were there for how long?
14 A. I was in the Republic of the Serb Krajina for six months.
15 Q. I didn't understand. So you actually stayed in the Serb Krajina,
16 Srpska Krajina, from June 1995 onwards.
17 A. No. No. In the Republic of Serb Krajina, I was from the 1st of
18 January, 1995, until the 30th of June, 1995. Those are the six months I
19 spent in the Serb Republic of Krajina. And then I returned to Pristina,
20 to the same post where I had been before that.
21 Q. And how long did you stay in this post in Pristina?
22 A. I stayed in that post all the way up to October 1996.
23 Q. Then where did you serve?
24 A. Then I went to the command of the air force and air defence in
1 Q. How long for?
2 A. Well, 15 to 20 days.
3 Q. And then?
4 A. Then I went to Republika Srpska. I was within the army of
5 Republika Srpska.
6 Q. So this time you're being paid by the 30th Personnel Centre.
7 A. Then, too, I received my salary the way I did when I was in
8 Pristina. I was not interested in who was paying me even then.
9 Q. How long did you serve in the Republika Srpska?
10 A. A year, exactly a year.
11 Q. Whereabouts?
12 A. In Banja Luka I was chief of the department for air defence in the
13 ministry of Republika Srpska.
14 Q. And what did your duties amount to? Did you fire any weapon at
15 anything in the course of that time?
16 A. At that time no one was firing anything. This was after the
17 Dayton Accords.
18 Q. So you're there working for the Republika Srpska. Why was it
19 necessary for you to be there at all?
20 A. I went there to study the experience of the air defence of the
21 army of Republika Srpska, which, as you know, was also the target of an
22 aggression by NATO Air Force.
23 Q. Wait a minute. You went there as chief of a department, but you
24 actually went there to study, did you? Were you in charge of your
25 department of air defence for the ministry of the Republika Srpska?
1 A. No. No. I was in the staff, in the command. I was not the head
2 of air defence. It was the head of the air force, the chief of the air
3 force who was the man in charge.
4 Q. And what was your job then?
5 A. My job was to study the experience from the fighting of the army
6 of Republika Srpska or, rather, the air defence of the army of
7 Republika Srpska against NATO Air Force.
8 Q. We will apply to see your VJ -- your file in due course, but just
9 tell us from your own knowledge. Was this year's service credited at
10 double pension -- at double rate for pension purposes?
11 A. I don't remember.
12 Q. You don't remember?
13 A. Well, you can check that out in the file. That's what you'll do.
14 You'll investigate, so there's no need to get worried about that.
15 Q. You must know what the regulations amount to. Come along. Senior
16 soldier or you were. You're now retired, so you've inspected what you're
17 going to get for pension purposes. Are you being pensioned at a rate that
18 allows double rate for that year in Republika Srpska, please?
19 A. I don't remember, but I can check and then I'm be able to get back
20 to you on that, but I haven't checked it.
21 Q. You really haven't checked? Because I'd like to know why, perhaps
22 you can help us, why if you were pensioned or credited with pension at
23 double rate why that should happen when you're simply in a country
24 learning something as opposed to in a country -- not a country, in another
25 sort entity, as it then was, why you should be credited, if you were, with
1 double pension simply for learning something. Can you help me?
2 A. Did you hear me say that I received that -- received double,
3 double pension? I'll check it out, as I said, and I'll tell you.
4 Q. [Previous translation continues]... please. After that tour of
5 duty, where did you go next?
6 A. After that one year, I returned to the command of the air force in
8 Q. And then?
9 A. And after that I became head -- I was appointed head in the
10 inspection for combat readiness for rocket units and air defence in the
11 General Staff of the army of Yugoslavia.
12 Q. Based where?
13 A. At the General Staff headquarters in Belgrade.
14 Q. Staying there until when?
15 A. I stayed there until the 15th or, rather, the 9th of July, 1998,
16 when the terrorist attacks in Kosovo and Metohija started.
17 Q. And you were moved down to the Djakovica area; yes?
18 A. I requested to be moved to Djakovica, yes.
19 Q. Let's go back to something entirely different. In relation to the
20 movement of bodies from Kosovo to the territory of Serbia, His Honour
21 Judge Bonomy asked you if you had accepted or had knowledge of bodies
22 being exhumed from a clandestine mass grave in Batajnica. You said, "I'd
23 heard something about that. It was -- it was rumoured especially after
24 2001. However, I don't believe it, and it seems to me quite unimaginable
25 that somebody could have done something like that."
1 And pressed -- pressed -- asked a further question you
2 said, "Possibly someone brought in the bodies, but I know that it's not a
3 mass grave."
4 And you went on to say, "After Markale, I know all sorts of things
5 that could be done and could happen and I have had experience with
7 Now, we now know that you were actually at Batajnica for a couple
8 of years so you know the area well. Take your time and tell us: How was
9 it that bodies were Kosovo were moved to Batajnica?
10 A. Mr. Nice, you are trying to put words into my mouth, words that I
11 never uttered. And secondly, as far as I'm concerned, the idea of moving
12 bodies --
13 Q. I'm going to interrupt you there.
14 A. Don't interrupt me, please.
15 Q. No, I'm sorry. Please listen to me. I was reading to you from
16 the transcript in English of the answers you gave to His Honour Judge
17 Bonomy. So be so good, please, as not to make suggestions of the kind
18 that I'm putting into your mouth words that you didn't say. I was
19 carefully reading back to you words that you did say. Could you now
20 please answer the question. How was it that bodies were moved from Kosovo
21 to Batajnica?
22 A. I did not say that the bodies were moved. I said that after
23 Markale, anything can be expected, all kinds of planting of things,
24 deceptions, and to say that bodies were moved. How could I know about
25 something that I heard about two years later? How do you expect me to
1 know about that?
2 Q. You are at retirement a senior soldier, a senior member of the
3 military; correct?
4 A. As a general.
5 Q. Can you tell us in order to become a general you reached the level
6 of, equivalent of a Ph.D.; correct?
7 A. That's not the title, doctor of science, Ph.D. I said that I was
8 on the same level as a person with a Ph.D. having completed the schools
9 that I completed.
10 Q. You spend time with the VJ commission and with other officers and
11 former colleagues discussing events in Kosovo; correct?
12 A. For a time I was head of the commission for the application of the
13 military technical or, rather, Kumanovo agreement, as a general already.
14 Q. You must know, I suggest to you, that the following agencies have
15 been actively engaged in discovering how it is that bodies landed up in
16 Batajnica and I'm going to list them for you. First of all, there was the
17 inquiry by Captain Karleusa, who was a witness here. Second, the Belgrade
18 Institute of Forensic Medicine's been engaged in examining and exhuming
19 these sites. The Belgrade district court's been involved in it. The
20 University of Belgrade medical school has been involved in this exercise
21 as has the FRY's committee for compiling data on crimes against humanity
22 and international law.
23 Batajnica has involved a multi-disciplinary exercise maybe forced
24 on Serbia but nevertheless a multi-disciplinary exercise involving
25 high-level bodies. You must have known that, Mr. Djosan. Yes?
1 A. Those are just your insinuations, nor do I know anything about
2 that, nor ought I to know about that. Why do you think I should know
3 about that, all the things that you set out just now?
4 Q. Mr. Djosan, for this reason: Meja was in your area of
5 responsibility, wasn't it?
6 A. No. It was not in my area of responsibility. I explained to you
7 on the first day the second question that I answered that the units of air
8 defence did not have an area of responsibility on the ground, and Meja is
9 a place on the ground. My brigade had its area of responsibility in the
11 Q. We remember your distinction of that kind, and do you remember the
12 answers you gave to the Court about your knowing everything that happened
13 in certain places? Do you remember that? Because we're going to look at
14 a map and see how close things are fairly soon. Do you remember saying
15 those things to the learned Judges?
16 A. I remember all my answers. Of course I do.
17 Q. Very well, then. I suggest to you whether in any way you were
18 technically free of being responsible for what happened in Meja, for a
19 senior soldier not to take an interest in an allegation of hundreds of
20 bodies being dug up from the area of Djakovica and Meja and taken to the
21 very place where you were on duty is inconceivable. It simply is a
22 nonsense answer for you to give.
23 A. I didn't understand what period you're referring to. Could you
24 repeat your last sentence, please.
25 Q. Yes. In light of public inquiry into the most awful allegation of
1 hundreds of bodies being moved from one area where you were if not in
2 charge, we'll come back to that, at least present and with senior
3 responsibility, to an area which you knew well, Batajnica, it is
4 inconceive -- because of your duties there as you told us in 1991 and
5 1992, it's inconceivable that you wouldn't have attended to these
6 inquiries and known what they revealed in the most general terms.
7 A. I did not have any reason whatsoever to think about things like
8 that, because quite simply I don't believe the insinuation being made.
9 Q. Well, then I come back to my question. You say you don't believe
10 it. As an intelligent, educated man belief has to be founded on grounds.
11 On what grounds do you not believe that which -- and I remind you again,
12 bodies such as the Belgrade Institute of Forensic Medicine, the Belgrade
13 district court and the University of Belgrade medical school are engaged
14 in investigating? On what grounds don't you believe these allegations?
15 Tell us.
16 A. I never saw those findings nor did I read them, so why would I
17 have to think about them and believe in them.
18 Q. Let me just look at a document --
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Before you move on, Mr. Nice.
20 May ask something to clarify my understanding of your area of
21 responsibility. I understand the point about you having responsibility
22 for the air and air defence. Did you at one stage at the beginning of
23 your evidence say something about being garrison commander in Djakovica?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Did that give you certain -- an area of
1 responsibility on the ground or is that simply in relation to your aerial
2 area of responsibility?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As garrison commander, I cooperated
4 and was duty-bound to see to certain protocol matters. In peacetime, the
5 duties of a garrison commander are different than in wartime. And as it
6 was wartime at the time, my duty as garrison commander was to see to
7 supplies, supplies for the population. Not I myself but to cooperate with
8 the municipal organs and authorities, representatives of the MUP and so on
9 to ensure that. Secondly, to organise and ensure that the bodies of
10 fallen soldiers and policemen be sent to the places where they came from.
11 A clinic, that is the medical corps, was under my responsibility as I was
12 the brigade commander, and it came within the brigade.
13 However, as a commander --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I interrupt. Can I take it, then, that that,
15 because of the wartime situation, is something supplementary to your
16 normal area of responsibility which is in the air?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The garrison commander's role is far
18 smaller in wartime than it is in peace, because in wartime it is the
19 brigades that are given areas of responsibility, and the air defence
20 brigade does not have area of responsibility. The garrison commander has
21 no rights or possibility of commanding any unit except his own unit, and
22 that is why I was the brigade commander and at the same time garrison
23 commander, simultaneously. So my key role, my principal role was to
24 command the brigade in air defence, and an auxiliary role was my role as
25 garrison commander. So in that sense they're different.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. NICE:
2 Q. I'd like you just to look, please, at a document which I'm
3 distributing. I'm not going to ask necessarily or probably at all that it
4 become an exhibit, but it is an easier way of looking at the questions I'm
5 going to -- want to ask, and it contains an analysis of some of our
7 Mr. Djosan, since this case which has now lasted in court three
8 and a half years started, evidence from various organisations about the
9 bodies found in Batajnica and in Petrovo Selo has increased, and I must
10 suggest to you that you must be aware of the fact that bodies have been
11 found in some five different sites in Batajnica, in two different sites in
12 Petrovo Selo and Lake Perucac.
13 Now, if we look at this document, and perhaps the usher would lay
14 one copy page by page on the overhead projector.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Is that a suggestion that he should answer to?
16 MR. NICE: Certainly. You must be aware that bodies were found in
17 different sites in Batajnica. Yes, please.
18 Q. Could you answer that question. You were aware of that?
19 A. You really do surprise me, Mr. Nice. Just giving a quick glance
20 at this, you will see that this has no sense at all, especially if you
21 expect me to answer this.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just answer the question that was put to you.
23 Mr. Nice suggested to you that you had to be aware of the fact that bodies
24 were found in some five different sites in Batajnica and in Petrovo Selo
25 and Lake Perucac.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could have just heard about
2 rumours and not facts, and there is a world of difference between rumours
3 and fact. So I did hear rumours to the effect that some bodies were found
4 in Batajnica. However, as to facts, I can't speak to that because they
5 weren't facts. So there's an enormous difference between rumours and
6 facts, and I've come here to testify about facts and the truth, and I
7 don't want to deal with rumours at all to waste your time and my time.
8 MR. NICE:
9 Q. If you would be good enough now please to look at the first page
10 of this document to understand its format. The one, two, three, four,
11 fifth column from the left is headed "OTP 92 bis," and then two English
12 words "Witness evidence." Where that column has an entry in it then
13 there's been evidence about a particular named individual in the course of
14 our case. Where the column is -- that line is empty there's been no
15 specific evidence thus far about those people. However, the entries on
16 the left identify in various coded ways, or by various codes, research
17 done at exhumations engaged in by Serb-based bodies in conjunction with
18 international organisations. So that just to look at the first entry, I'm
19 going to suggest to you that there is available evidence to show that
20 Bekim Ademaj, who came from Meja, whose body was found in Batajnica. Thus
21 similar entries going down the page.
22 If we come to the one, the second example where there's an entry
23 in that OTP column, we see Xhavit Bajrami, born on the 3rd of July, 1972,
24 with an OTP exhibit number. There is evidence that that person was killed
25 in Meja or went missing from Meja in the course of the killings, and his
1 body has been positively identified as being found in Batajnica.
2 Now, that's the way the document is constructed, and I'd be
3 obliged if the usher would turn over the page so that we can just see the
4 generality. On this page -- stay with this page for a second. We can see
5 a large number of bodies now said to have gone from Meja but also from
6 Djakovica and from Korenica to Batajnica.
7 The second page, please, Mr. Nort.
8 Another very large number of bodies, again from Meja, Djakovica,
9 and Korenica. Some of them covered by specific in evidence this case,
10 others of them not.
11 Third page yet more. We're only up to the G's now, Mr. Djosan.
12 Meja, Djakovica, some of them covered, the names in the middle Tahir
13 Haxhiu, and Avdi Haxhiu covered.
14 Over the page again. More names, Meja, Djakovica, Korenica, some
15 of them covered by evidence in this case.
16 Fifth page, more again.
17 And the sixth page.
18 And finally the seventh.
19 I'm going to suggest to you, and I want you to deal with this
20 quite clearly, that there is evidence and you must have known that a very
21 large operation was undertaken to move bodies from the very area where you
22 were based in vehicles such as the refrigerator truck that landed up in
23 the Danube to the very place which you'd served for two years in Batajnica
24 and that you must have known about that.
25 A. Have you finished? This document means nothing to me. And as to
1 all those assertions of yours, what I can say is that that is not
2 something I know about. I know nothing about that. All I know is about
3 the rumours, the rumours linked to certain bodies in some Batajnica place,
4 somewhere in Batajnica. But let me tell you that where I lived in
5 Batajnica is the rocket artillery battalion defence, which I toured
6 recently, and there are no bodies, no mass graves, or anything of the
8 Q. Before we move from this, don't feel inhibited in answering,
9 because you must feel free. What do -- what do you say when you use the
10 word "manipulation"? What do you say may have happened or must have
11 happened to cause some bodies to go from the area where you were working
12 to Batajnica? Who do you want to say was involved? NATO, Albanians, the
13 Office of the Prosecutor, anybody. Tell us what your belief is?
14 A. I did not come here to guess. I could guess for as long as you'd
15 like, but then that would not be valid testimony. I pledged to tell the
16 truth and nothing but the truth, so to -- and I'm not going to make any
17 guesses. Just as I said I did not see terrorists in Qerim, which
18 Mr. Bonomy asked me to state, the alleged crimes in Qerim. So I am not
19 going to speculate.
20 Q. So my last question on this topic is: How on earth do you express
21 disbelief in what the evidence has already shown and may show in yet more
22 detail in light of discoveries made by bodies based in Serbia as well as
23 elsewhere, on what do you base your disbelief?
24 Remember, as you answer this question, Mr. Djosan, that family
25 members still identify the bodies found in Batajnica and give them burials
1 at home. These are not just statistics. These are human beings. Tell us
2 on what you base your disbelief that the evidence shows that these people
3 were moved from your area of interest as part of a calculated, cynical
4 plan to cover up crime at Batajnica. What's the basis of your disbelief?
5 A. I don't believe it because it's a completely fantastical idea in
6 saying that anybody could take bodies from Kosovo and Metohija to
7 Belgrade, no less a place than Belgrade. Why would anybody do that? Why
8 would they take bodies there?
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, could you get the distance, the
10 distance between these places and Batajnica?
11 MR. NICE: We've now had at some stage. I'm sure the witness can
12 tell us.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Can you help us, General, the distance between
14 Meja and Batajnica, as well as Djakovica and Korenica and Batajnica?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Meja and Korenica are quite close
16 but Meja and Batajnica are 500 kilometres away, 500 apart. And during the
17 war I just went to visit my family once. I didn't know which route to
18 take because I didn't know which bridge was still left standing, hadn't
19 been destroyed. And to start out with so many bodies, taking the roads
20 when you don't know which bridge was destroyed and which would be targeted
21 next, that is quite unbelievable. Or perhaps somebody who knew what
22 certainly would not be targeted organised it in some other way. That is
23 an assumption, but I said that I wouldn't delve and speculate about
24 assumptions. I'm asking concrete questions. The distance between Meja
25 and Batajnica. About 500 kilometres taking the roads. And in wartime, of
1 course, it was even more, because many of the bridges had been destroyed
2 and you had to take roundabout routes. And it took me three days to
3 travel from Djakovica to Belgrade in a car, three days. Because I
4 would come to a bridge, saw that it had been destroyed, went round to
5 another bridge, that bridge had been destroyed too.
6 So I really don't understand that anybody could believe anything
7 like that, that something like that actually happened.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Such a journey during wartime you say is
9 impracticable. The whole idea is implausible.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm telling you is this: It
11 was during those 78 days that I just went to Belgrade once to visit my
12 family, just once, and that I was travelling in a passenger vehicle and
13 that it took me three days to get there because the bridges were mostly
15 Now, I'm wondering and asking myself how, if that actually
16 happened, how could it be done? How could you bring in -- how many did
17 you say, Mr. Nice? How many bodies did you mention here? You'd need a
18 whole train to do that, to transport all those bodies.
19 MR. NICE: [Previous translation continues]... was asking
20 questions at the moment.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Nice, please.
22 MR. NICE:
23 Q. The figure I think at present is some 800 bodies have been found.
24 Now, in light of your answer to His Honour Judge Robinson about
25 those who knew what was or wasn't going to be targeted, are you trying to
1 suggest that at a time when there were no forces in either -- no
2 international forces in either Serbia or Kosovo, the Albanians in league
3 with NATO digs up 800 bodies and drives them up to a territory where
4 Albanians would be unwelcome in the extreme, namely the north of Serbia,
5 gets access to the SAJ part of Batajnica and buries the bodies? Is that
6 what you're suggesting, just so we can follow?
7 A. No. First of all, I'm not suggesting anything. Suggesting means
8 just to throw doubt on something and just touch upon a subject. I have
9 nothing to say in that regard.
10 Q. Very well.
11 A. Apart from the fact that the idea is completely insane and that
12 anybody who thought up something like that, and if they actually did it,
13 well, then it's even more insane that anybody could think that it is not
14 some plot or conspiracy of some kind. I said after Markale nothing would
15 surprise me.
16 Q. Another allegation you did make, I mean, you made an allegation or
17 an insinuation about the bodies from Batajnica but you now say you don't
18 want to say anything about that. But you made a slightly more assertive
19 insinuation about the statements of Nika Peraj. You suggested that he may
20 have been under some pressure when he made those statements.
21 Feel free, please, to tell us exactly what pressure you want to
22 suggest Nika Peraj would have been under when he made two statements in
23 2000 and 2001.
24 A. Well, I think that those who do not understand the kind of
25 pressures that are exerted on people in Kosovo and Metohija nowadays in
1 terms of any kind of evidence they could give, that really doesn't make
2 any sense. If Nik Peraj had known such a thing, why didn't he come and
3 tell me about this? He was duty-bound like any soldier to report any
4 crime to me, any allegation of a crime that he later on talked about. At
5 that time, he was under less pressure when he was in my unit, not now --
6 as compared to now when he's down there.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: [Previous translation continues]... you're
8 answering the question, if you were prepared to.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Would you please repeat the question
10 and I will indeed answer.
11 MR. NICE:
12 Q. Please tell us what pressure you want to suggest Nika Peraj would
13 have been under when he made two statements in 2000 and 2001?
14 A. Nik Peraj was in the army of Yugoslavia all the time. For them,
15 that was reason enough -- or, rather, that is reason enough for him to
16 fear for his own life and that of his family.
17 I had Albanians in my own units before. None of them are still
18 alive. While I was in the regiment in Pristina, Tole [phoen] Sabahata, a
19 lady who worked with me, was also killed later on.
20 Every Albanian who worked in the army of Yugoslavia either had to
21 say what they asked him to say or is no longer alive. You can check that
22 at least.
23 Q. Well --
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Are you -- are you saying, Mr. Djosan, that a
25 person would -- an Albanian person would place himself at risk very fact
1 of being a member of the army of Yugoslavia?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. That would be a risk, yes.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: So the question then must be what changed? Why is
4 it you say that he would be brave enough to serve as a member of the army
5 but somehow or other has been manipulated into giving false evidence?
6 What is the change that occurs to create that change in the person?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I did not say that he
8 was brave. I did not say a single word to that effect, that he was brave,
9 or that he went into any kind of anti-terrorist actions. We did not send
10 him out to do that kind of thing. I never referred to any kind of bravery
11 on his part from that point of view.
12 In the army, he worked for the state security organs and people
13 know that. You have to ask someone that he collaborated with. Please go
15 JUDGE BONOMY: With respect, I don't think you're addressing the
16 issue. What I was referring to by bravery was being brave enough to be a
17 member of the army at all. You just acknowledged that that would be
18 putting him at risk.
19 Now, what is it you say changes between 1999 and 2001 to make him
20 into a liar when he was brave enough to remain a member of the army of
21 Yugoslavia in spite of being at risk from his Albanian countrymen?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between 1999 and 2000 and 2001,
23 everything changed in Kosovo and Metohija, everything. So that, too, how
24 a person who was a member of the army of Yugoslavia felt. A lot changed
25 or, rather, everything, I could say, has changed since then. There are no
1 Serbs there any longer, and you know what the situation is like in Kosovo
2 and Metohija.
3 I was on the commission for applying -- or, rather, carrying out
4 the Military Technical Agreement, and I have quite a bit of knowledge
5 about what was going on in Kosovo when KFOR and UNMIK came after the army
6 of Yugoslavia and the police force left Kosovo and Metohija.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
8 MR. NICE:
9 Q. You were seeking to suggest, the day before yesterday, I think, or
10 the hearing day before yesterday, that maybe the investigator of the
11 Office of the Prosecutor would have put any pressure on this man. Now, is
12 that something you wish to advance or suggest, or is that something that
13 you would completely abandon as an explanation for Mr. Peraj's, as you
14 would say, inaccurate statements? And feel free to say whatever you like
15 about the fact that he's an OTP investigator. You feel free to say --
16 A. For the most part inaccurate. For the most part Nik Peraj's
17 statement is inaccurate. There are accurate things in Nik Peraj's
19 Q. What, if anything, you want the learned Judges who will have to
20 decide these issues to consider what the investigator may have done to
21 Mr. Peraj? You raised it.
22 A. I don't remember that I said exactly that this was an
23 investigator, but I can give you other examples. That's why I insisted on
24 this yesterday, that first I say where I worked and what I did. I was
25 head of the commission for carrying out the Military Technical Agreement.
1 We put a question to the representatives of KFOR or, rather, UNMIK, why
2 the investigators from The Hague, when they opened the alleged mass grave
3 in Suva Reka, when they opened it they found Ristanovic's body. I think
4 that's what my book says. They abruptly closed that investigation and, as
5 a matter of fact, that mass grave.
6 I tried to get a hold of this document. So as head of the
7 commission for carrying out the Military Technical Agreement on our side,
8 every seven days I had meetings with the representatives of KFOR, and the
9 UNMIK police was represented, too, and also the section for missing
10 persons, and we put this question to them. That can be found in the
11 records, minutes of these meetings. And by virtue of that fact, I have
12 the right to have my suspicions with regard to most of these statements
13 and the work of investigators from The Hague in the territory of Kosovo
14 and Metohija. After all, the way in which this team was established can
15 also be brought into question.
16 Q. So --
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice --
18 MR. NICE: Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: But I'm not sure that I quite understood why you
20 concluded that you had the right to have suspicions with regard to the
21 statements and the work of the investigators from The Hague. Could you
22 just encapsulate that for me?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I could try to encapsulate
25 Article 93 of the additional agreement stipulates that when
1 violations are investigated of the Geneva Conventions, the composition of
2 these commissions is stipulated who can be on these commissions at all.
3 As far as I know, there was no representative of the Serb side on these
4 commissions. I think that's it's Article 95 or something similar to that,
5 does envisage such a possibility as well.
6 This was a concrete question that was put by our representative of
7 the police, Colonel Bozovic. He asked the representative of the UNMIK
8 police why this had happened. His answer was that that was not exactly
9 the case. At any rate, we did not get a direct answer to the question.
10 That can be found in the documentation of the commission for implementing
11 the Military Technical Agreement.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: How does that relate to the statement that the
13 investigators would have taken from Nik Peraj? Are you saying that the
14 absence of the Serb --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not directly.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Not directly. How?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it could be put that way. It
18 could be put that way.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: That a Serb was not present casts some doubt on
20 the statement collected by the investigator.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. That is what one may
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic.
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I have the impression that the
1 witness did not understand your question. He did not talk about the
2 presence of Serbs when an investigator took the statement. He was talking
3 about the investigation of war crimes and the commission for investigating
4 that. He is not talking about anybody's presence when the investigator
5 was taking a statement from Nik Peraj.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please check this, but I never said
7 that it was the investigator who was exerting pressure. I was saying that
8 Nik Peraj lived in such an environment where he was subject to pressure.
9 But I do not remember saying that an investigator pressured him. But this
10 is my general position, that there were some objections in this regard.
11 MR. NICE:
12 Q. You raised also yesterday -- I'm sorry. Do I take it from that,
13 then, that there's no allegation of any kind or no insinuation of any kind
14 you want to make against the investigator whose name we know in this case,
15 because if you do, please make it, and I have to tell you that the
16 investigator is indeed available to deal with them.
17 A. No. I don't even know who the investigator was. It doesn't
18 really matter to me. What I was talking about now was the principle
19 involved when alleged crimes are investigated in Kosovo and Metohija. I
20 talked about the principle involved. I do not recall saying that
21 specifically a particular investigator was exerting pressure at Nik Peraj.
22 The pressure could have been brought to bear by his compatriots. I don't
23 recall having said that. Could you show me that to me, please.
24 Q. [Previous translation continues]... possibility of his being under
25 some pressure as a result of his children?
1 A. He could have. Why not? Why could he not be under pressure on
2 account of that.
3 Q. I just wondered what sort pressure he might be under in respect of
4 his children?
5 A. Any one of us who have children can be under any kind of pressure.
6 If pressure is being exerted in that way and if this jeopardises the
7 safety of one's children, anybody can be in that position, anybody who has
8 children. And I already said at the very outset that blackmail,
9 extortions, killings of Albanians who were loyal members of the police
10 were being killed, et cetera, that that is everything that had been going
11 on in Kosovo, and the only thing missing was suicide bombers.
12 Q. Yes, I remember that part your answer, but I still fail to
13 understand how any of this should operate through somebody's children.
14 Is it possible, Mr. Djosan, that in fact you revealed that you
15 know a little bit more about pressure that's being put on to Mr. Peraj by
16 his giving of statements and that you know in fact that he has been
17 threatened following making those statements by Serbs?
18 A. I know a man who will testify about how Nik Peraj complained to
19 him that his lieutenant colonel, Goran Jeftovic, was the one who had
20 Nik Peraj as his source, and he can tell a lot more about that. He is
21 prepared to testify before this court.
22 Q. Would you now answer my question, please. As it happens, I'm not
23 going to divulge the country, but as it happens, Mr. Peraj's children live
24 elsewhere in another country, nothing to do with the former Yugoslavia.
25 So he's not really at risk in a sense from that.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 My question to you is: Did you actually know that he had been
2 threatened following his giving statements to the Office of the Prosecutor
3 by Serbs?
4 A. I haven't seen Nik Peraj since ten days prior to the withdrawal of
5 my unit from Kosovo and Metohija. I haven't seen him since, haven't
6 talked to him since, haven't had any contact with him since, so how could
7 I know whether anybody had threatened him?
8 Q. Now, the truth is as follows, isn't it: You and Nik -- well,
9 first of all, Mr. Peraj is a comparatively unusual type of Albanian in
10 that he's Catholic Albanian, correct?
11 A. Well, I wouldn't say that all Catholics are unusual. It's not the
12 only thing that made him unusual.
13 Q. If you want to say something adverse about Mr. Peraj, you'll be
14 given every opportunity, but please restrict --
15 A. No.
16 Q. We'll come to your opinion of each other in due course. But he
17 was a Catholic Albanian, there being quite a number of them, I think,
18 living in the area of Janjevo, is that correct, south-east of Pristina,
19 but otherwise not a particularly numerous part of the former Yugoslavia or
20 the former Kosovo.
21 A. In Djakovica there are also quite a few Catholics.
22 Q. It was because he wasn't a Muslim Albanian that it was possible
23 for him at all to stay on in the VJ as long as he did; correct?
24 A. Not correct. Even if he were an Albanian Muslim, nobody would
25 have dismissed him from the army of Yugoslavia on account of that. In the
1 army of Yugoslavia, there were no distinctions of that kind among people
2 whether there were Catholics, Orthodox, whatever. I explained the other
3 day to you what the ethnic structure of the command of the brigade that I
4 was in was.
5 Q. And just to help us with the detail, how many Albanians -- how
6 many men of Albanian ethnicity were still working with the VJ in your area
7 of interest or responsibility in May of 1999? Let's get an idea of the
8 figures. We've got Nika Peraj. How many others?
9 A. I know only how many worked in the brigade where I was commander.
10 There were two, Nik Peraj and Mrs. Berisa Beljdjuzare, in the unit where I
11 was commander then. I don't know about other units, and I cannot speak
12 about them. I simply don't know. If I knew, I would tell you.
13 Q. Now, you and Peraj got on well together. He quite liked you and
14 you quite liked him. And as you explained yesterday, you had no reason to
15 think him other than honest at that time.
16 A. I have said that he carried out his duties properly and honestly,
17 and I had no reason to believe that he was not honest.
18 Q. Have you read his statements made to the Office of the Prosecutor
19 in full?
20 A. No. I just saw the beginning when he referred to me, but I heard
21 very little. But I do remember when he mentioned Colonel Djosan,
22 something like that.
23 Q. Well, apart from the fact that in his statements he reveals you to
24 be perhaps a weak man and a man who wasn't aggressive enough for your --
25 for your own success, he actually says few things adverse to you and
1 several things favourable to you. Are you aware of that? And we'll look
2 at them, if necessary.
3 A. Please go ahead and tell me. I would like to hear what he said.
4 Q. Very well. Well, we'll come to that in the detail when we look at
5 it, but you haven't read them so you're not aware of that. And that is a
6 little aside.
7 These statements of Mr. Peraj's had been produced in evidence well
8 before the conclusion of the work of the VJ commission described as the VJ
9 Commission for Cooperation. To your knowledge, do these exhibits which
10 were public exhibits fall for consideration by the commission?
11 A. I told you that this commission worked very little. I remember
12 from the period when they called me to give a statement about the events
13 that I talked about here and about which I wrote my statement. I was
14 still an active-duty officer at that time. Very soon after that I was
15 pensioned off, but I know that these were people who were experts, doctors
16 of science. There were pensioned officers and generals and --
17 Q. Would you answer the question, please.
18 A. Please go ahead.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... to your knowledge deal with or
20 ask anyone to deal with the statements of Mr. Peraj that were publicly
21 available because they'd been produced in this trial? Yes or no?
22 A. I was asked to give statements about events in Meja, in Qerim,
23 and --
24 Q. [Previous translation continues]... move on.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: That may be because you only offered two options
1 and the third one of I don't know might --
2 MR. NICE: Yes.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: -- have been inappropriate.
4 MR. NICE: Yes. Your Honour is quite right.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
6 MR. NICE:
7 Q. Were these statements by Mr. Peraj considered by the commission?
8 Yes, or no, or you don't know, as His Honour says?
9 A. I don't know because I wasn't a member of that commission. I just
10 know what I was tasked with and what I was asked to give answers to. But
11 whether they looked at his statements, I really don't know.
12 Q. In 2001, the Serbs are essentially, not completely but
13 essentially, out of Kosovo. Mr. Peraj's there. Do you know anything to
14 the contrary of the following: Mr. Peraj was located as a potential
15 witness by an investigator of the Office of the Prosecutor, and following
16 discussions agreed to give voluntary statements setting out the history?
17 Do you know anything to the contrary of that suggestion?
18 A. First of all, I want to say the following: In 1999, the army and
19 the police left Kosovo and Metohija in accordance with the Kumanovo
20 agreement. In 2001, Serbs were expelled from Kosovo and Metohija. So
21 that is your introduction.
22 Now, what is derived from that? Why Nik Peraj most probably had
23 to give a statement under duress, under pressure.
24 Q. Well, first of all, this is a change of position, I think, but you
25 better tell us. What duress? What --
1 A. I haven't changed my statement.
2 Q. Well, what duress and what pressure? Because I want you to tell
3 us. He's there in Kosovo, approached by an investigator. What's the
4 pressure on him that you want us to consider? We're only here to discover
5 the truth. What pressure?
6 A. Pressure is exerted before statements are given. Had he given a
7 different statement, the question is where he would be now. So I assume
8 that his milieu brought pressure to bear on him and that he had to give
9 this kind of statement. I didn't say that it was the investigator who
10 exerted this pressure, but I said that I -- that I understand that he most
11 probably had to give this kind of statement.
12 I do understand him. I don't know what I would do if I were in
13 his position in that situation.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just in plain terms, who would have put the
15 pressure on him before he went to give his statement?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Kosovo and Metohija, who would put
17 pressure on him? Well, pressure is exerted before statements are given.
18 After statements there are no pressures to be made. Either the worst case
19 scenario can be happen after that or he can be left alone.
20 Pressure is always -- can always be brought to bear. We have all
21 seen so many American movies about pressure that is made before --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was asking you to identify in plain terms who
23 would have pressured him. Don't assume that I -- that I know.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. Are you asking me for
25 specific names? I don't know who exactly, but his compatriots, members of
1 the terrorist KLA.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Yes, that's --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, good. We understand each
4 other now.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: [Previous translation continues]... pressured him
6 before he gave the statement to the investigator.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. That is my
8 assumption. I was not present, so I cannot say that that is what happened
9 in actual fact, but it is to be expected.
10 MR. NICE:
11 Q. Well, then -- if we can just look, please, at the first of those
12 statements, please, if we've got them. We've got them in English for the
13 overhead projector, and because they're paragraph numbered and since the
14 statement which was taken in English through an interpreter was
15 subsequently, I think -- at least I think that's the way it was done, was
16 subsequently translated into B/C/S, you can actually follow it with your
17 own text.
18 Just give the B/C/S to the witness.
19 You'll find these statements have got consecutive paragraph
20 numbers. All right? And we're going to show just a few passages on the
21 overhead projector at this stage.
22 MR. KAY: Can we have the exhibit number?
23 MR. NICE: Yes. It's Exhibit 143. I'm sorry not to have given
24 that before.
25 Q. Let's go, if we can, to paragraph 33. It's one of the references
1 which is quite complimentary about you, you see.
2 It deals with -- there it is.
3 No. No, it's the other statement, please, Mr. Nort. There are
4 two statements, and it's the other one. There we are. And make sure that
5 the witness is looking at the first of the two statements, the longer one.
6 Have you got the statement there open in front of you that's the
7 bigger of the two statements? Right.
8 And it reads like this: "Heard that Arkan kept a very disciplined
9 unit insofar as they didn't use drugs. I never saw Arkan's unit using
10 drugs. But based on what my friend told me with his son and their
11 behaviour, I conclude that they must have been using some type of drugs.
12 A lot of alcohol was being consumed in the Pastriku hotel. And Colonel
13 Djosan, being responsible for the forces in Djakovica, tried to ban it
14 unsuccessfully. I was once sent to Djosan to put a stop to the drinking
15 but with the drunken state of the people in the hotel and their weaponry
16 it would have been too risky".
17 Now, here he's praising you for your attempts to control the
18 situation. How would that be something that the KLA would want him to lie
19 about? Can you help us?
20 A. He is not praising me here. He is saying -- well, I don't
21 remember having sent him. I did prevent unruly drinking.
22 Now, as to these Arkan's men, there is no question of that. That
23 introduction, there is no question of that. And I said yesterday and the
24 day before that there were no paramilitary formations, Arkan's men or
25 Seselj's men, or anybody's men. But I see that it's a sort of a leitmotif
1 that you managed to put through and then go on to your concrete
2 questions. But I would like to have concrete questions to which I can
3 give concrete answers. So I have the sort of impression that you're
4 trying to sort of do this in a roundabout way.
5 Q. How would it be responsive to KLA pressure to give a description
6 of you, the local and immediate commander of this man being a good chap
7 and trying to do his best. Maybe incapable of doing his best but trying
8 to do his best. How would that be responsive to KLA pressure? Hmm?
9 A. Djosan Milos means nothing to the KLA. For the KLA what is
10 important is to show the situation and for Nik Peraj to testify to the
11 situation and not about -- tell things about Djosan Milos. This is the
12 best way of placing misinformation.
13 Q. Well, let's go to another paragraph. Let's go to paragraph 52,
14 please, in the same statement. Have a look at that.
15 Now, by this time in his statement, Mr. Peraj has set out the
16 account, as he described it and as he discovered it, of the events at
17 Korenica and Meja. There's so many people, as he would -- or as other
18 evidence confirms been butchered, killed. And he says this: "Djosan" --
19 no, let's go back to the beginning of the paragraph.
20 "For the operation carried out in Korenica and Meja, a week later
21 General Lazarevic, Goran Jeftovic, Novica Stankovic, and other
22 lower-ranked soldiers were given commendations."
23 By the way, is that accurate? Were they given commendations
24 shortly after that time in April of 1989? Just yes or no will do.
25 A. I don't believe so.
1 Q. We can check with the records. "Novica Stankovic was the deputy
2 of the Pristina Corps, Commander Milos Djosan in Djakovica."
3 A. Novica Stankovic was my deputy. The Chief of Staff in the brigade
4 of which I was commander.
5 Q. Uh-huh. Became a general, didn't he?
6 A. Of course he did not. No, he didn't become a general.
7 Q. Very well. Was there a deputy of yours who did become a general?
8 A. No.
9 Q. When did you become a general?
10 A. I became a general in 2001.
11 Q. Had somebody been promoted over and above you, ahead of you, to
12 your surprise and perhaps embarrassment?
13 A. No. In our army, promotions were done in order and we don't
14 have -- we didn't have generals as in Croatia who had been formally
15 butchers and so on and so forth. You could gain a higher rank. For
16 example, I became general when I fulfilled all the legally provided
17 provisions for that, all the legally provided provisions.
18 Q. "Djosan did not agree with the" --
19 MR. KAY: Could I just raise something. It's been troubling me.
20 I've been trying to follow this exhibit from the exhibits that we have on
21 the court database, and I have an entirely different document for
22 Exhibit 143. It's a statement by Nika Peraj, but it's not 52 paragraphs
23 long. I wondering whether my learned friend may have a draft that was the
24 one that wasn't exhibited rather than the actual one, or the one on the
25 court database may be wrong, but I'm trying to follow the questioning and
1 this is not the same document that we have in the court exhibits.
2 MR. NICE: There are --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice.
4 MR. NICE: I'm working from what I take to be the exhibits
5 produced in the binder of exhibits for me and stamped Exhibit 143 are the
6 first of a sequential series of pages. There are two statements made by
7 Mr. Peraj and then the third very short statement that corrects at court
8 one or two slight inaccuracies.
9 JUDGE KWON: What is the date of the interview?
10 MR. NICE: The date of the interview for this first one is the
11 12th to the 15th of February, 2001, and is indeed as Mr. Kay says.
12 JUDGE KWON: The one we have is 24th of October, 2000.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, will you try to sort it out during the
15 MR. NICE: I'll certainly sort it out.
16 JUDGE KWON: Oh, no, I'm sorry, I was mistaken.
17 MR. KAY: The statement I have is 18th of April, 2000, which is
18 from the court exhibits --
19 JUDGE KWON: Yes, yes.
20 MR. KAY: -- what I'm following. Is that what Your Honour Judge
21 Kwon has?
22 JUDGE KWON: Page 5.
23 MR. KAY: Yes. With a supplemental statement of a couple of pages
24 correcting the original typographic errors.
25 MR. NICE: The 18th of April statement is the second one.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Nice, please.
2 MR. NICE: The 18th of April is the second statement. The
3 typographical correction, or effectively the typographical correction
4 statement is the third one. The one I'm reading from is the first.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Would you try to sort it out during the break
6 because it's important for us to have the right exhibit.
7 MR. NICE: Yes.
8 JUDGE KWON: The second statement was the one which the accused
9 showed to the witness yesterday?
10 MR. NICE: No. The one I'm going through now is the one that we,
11 I think, showed to the witness, or he showed to the witness.
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
13 MR. NICE: Because I found the paragraph numbered version.
14 Indeed, the accused went through one or two of the paragraphs I'm going
15 through now.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'll ask the legal officer to work with the
17 Prosecutor and Mr. Kay during the break to sort this out.
18 We'll break for 20 minutes.
19 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I understand the difficulty has been
22 resolved in relation to the exhibits.
23 MR. NICE: I'm grateful to Mr. Kay for drawing to our attention
24 the occasional difficulties that arise with the electronic scanning --
25 the scanned versions, and obviously we have to be careful to check that
1 the record we left behind of the case is accurate as to all exhibits.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just for the record, would you just say what
4 MR. NICE: I don't know what happened. I think Mr. Kay does. I
5 know what the exhibits presented us no physical form were, but I'll let
6 Mr. Kay explain.
7 MR. KAY: When the 92 bis package was produced, there had been a
8 problem on the dates of some of the statements. The package was produced
9 as an entirety, and obviously what's happened here is they've scanned a
10 document of that date, the 18th of April, but hadn't appreciated that the
11 other statements were of a different occasion and entered that into the
12 electronic record. It's as well to pick these things up because if we do
13 work off electronic search databases as we do, it's important to make sure
14 the court record is accurate. We've actually also used the hard copy here
15 so nothing has been missed in case preparations.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kay, yes.
17 MR. NICE:
18 Q. If we can return, then, please, to paragraph 52. You see,
19 Mr. Djosan, what Mr. Peraj -- what Mr. Peraj said was, having dealt with
20 Korenica and Meja, he said you didn't agree with it and you arrested
21 Mr. Micunovic. Now, you answered questions about Mr. Micunovic yesterday.
22 Just yes or no: Was Mr. Micunovic detained for a few days, or do you say
23 you don't know?
24 A. I did not arrest Micunovic.
25 Q. Did you arrange for him to be arrested?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Well, then, if follows from this that everything that Mr. Peraj
3 said on the topic must be completely wrong. Can you explain to us so that
4 we can understand it how KLA pressure could operate on Mr. Peraj to get
5 him to say something very favourable to you?
6 A. Well, I explained that a moment ago. As for the KLA or, rather,
7 to the KLA an individual means nothing. So praising me and saying that
8 the situation was bad means that nothing was solved. What does it mean
9 that I was a good person and praised and the others weren't?
10 Q. I'm sorry. This is a very detailed statement. We don't have time
11 to go through it all. It sets out his asserted experience of his service,
12 of Meja, of Korenica, in the later parts of intervening to save various
13 people's lives, all of whom are named and identified.
14 Now, why in the course of that should he under pressure single out
15 one person to say that he was actually a decent VJ soldier trying to do
16 his best? I don't understand it. Perhaps you'd help us.
17 A. I wasn't the only decent good officer in the army of Yugoslavia.
18 This is a compliment, and I would like to thank him for giving me, paying
19 me that compliment. But the other officers of the army of Yugoslavia were
20 responsible men and conscientious. So I don't see that he's singled me
21 out in any way, that it's of any importance.
22 Q. Now, would you answer the question. Why would someone under
23 pressure, such pressure that he's going to give a completely fabricated
24 story, choose in the middle of it to give an account of one chap, you, who
25 does his best to try and fight against -- swim against the tide?
1 A. I don't think I heard you properly. I thought that this document
2 was in Serbian so that I could read what it was he actually said or,
3 rather, it says there. Yes.
4 Q. "Djosan did not agree with the operation in Korenica and Meja and
5 arrested Micunovic for his involvement. However, he only remained in
6 prison for three days."
7 And he goes on to say why he was released, but we're not concerned
8 about that at the moment.
9 Well, if you can't answer the question we'll look at one other
10 similar paragraph.
11 A. No, I can answer the question. I didn't need to agree or not
12 agree with the anti-terrorist operation. I was not the person who made
13 the decision. As I told you, I was commander of the air defence brigade,
14 and I was able to command anti-air defence units and to deploy them. That
15 was all. No other unit, even my own unit which had taken part, took part
16 pursuant to orders of the forward command post and the Pristina Corps.
17 Q. Sorry --
18 A. So it wasn't me. I could not in any way influence this and give
19 the go-ahead for an operation or not.
20 Q. Paragraph 65, please, Mr. Nort.
21 Would you go to paragraph 65 in the Serbian version. And here you
22 see we see again what this man who is making everything up on your account
23 says. He says: "Milos Djosan, the commander of the ARBR was
24 theoretically the person who should command military operations in the
25 area of Djakovica, but the operation I saw in the" --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, yes.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] This is -- the distortion that
3 Mr. Nice relates to, he asserts that -- he said that Nik Peraj was
4 thinking everything up. That's not what he asked nor did he say anything
5 like that. All he did say was something in relation to the points that I
6 went through with him and addressing very specific facts, concrete facts
7 that were not true and that were fabrications.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And this paragraph 2 is a
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Very well, Mr. Milosevic.
11 Proceed, Mr. Nice.
12 MR. NICE: Yes.
13 Q. We'll deal with the accused's intervention in a second, but just
14 look at paragraph 65. "Milos Djosan, commander of the ARBR was
15 theoretically the person who should command military operations in the
16 area of Djakovica, but the operation I saw in the Carragojs valley was
17 commanded by General Lazarevic, Colonel Kotur, and the other staff
18 officers in the Pristina Corps. Djosan, from Bosnia originally and about
19 48 years old, was a very sensitive man who had compassion for those
20 suffering. He was not aggressive. He should have become a general, but
21 his deputy was promoted above him after the war."
22 Now, the last bit, the deputy was Colonel Novica Stankovic, wasn't
24 A. Yes. Colonel Novica Stankovic is still a colonel. That's the
25 first part of my answer to your question.
1 And the second part is that not even theoretically speaking was I
2 the person who should have been in command of the military operations.
3 And thirdly, General Lazarevic was my superior commander. So it
4 is not possible for him to take away my competencies and authorisations,
5 to seize them away from me.
6 Let's accept the truth here that my name is Djosan, that I do come
7 from Bosnia originally, that I am 48 years old, and that I am a sensitive
8 man, as it says. We accept that. I accept that. But I don't accept any
9 of the rest. None of it's true. Of course I was not aggressive, as it
10 says. I should have become a general, and I did indeed become a general,
11 and my deputy after the war was not promoted to a higher rank. So in this
12 part where he praises me, the facts are not true.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
14 A. It's only the following paragraph --
15 Q. Forget that for one second. Again, just try and help us. Why
16 should he in giving a statement under pressure say all these nice things
17 about you unless in fact -- let's just have a look at the man again so we
18 can remember him.
19 Mr. Nort.
20 Unless in fact he was simply trying to give --
21 A. I know the man. I know what he looks like.
22 Q. To remind the Court. They haven't seen him for three years. See
23 what he looks like.
24 This man, as you would know if you have the totality of his
25 statement, was trying to give a balanced view of things that actually
1 happened, wasn't he? Wasn't he?
2 A. Well, no, not from what I can see here. He just tried in the
3 individual sections to praise me as if he was marrying me off or something
4 like that.
5 Q. Well, just dealing now and only in a sample with the accused's
6 intervention, let's go back, if we may, to paragraph 47, please. 47.
7 Just remind the Court of what it is.
8 This is paragraph 47, which I think we've look at before and it's
9 the last few lines. This is where he sets out the informal meeting that
10 led to the attack on -- at Meja, rather. And the last few lines says
11 something like: "During the meeting Stojanovic addressed Micunovic and
12 Kovacevic, ordering them to carry out an operation in the Carragojs valley
13 where at least a hundred heads had to be eliminated and all the houses
14 burned in retribution for the killing of Prascevic. The order was phrased
15 in almost exactly this way."
16 Paragraph 48: "In less than a week, the massacre in Meja and
17 Korenica took place."
18 Now, you're saying that that is completely untrue, aren't you?
19 A. Yes, this is untrue as well.
20 Q. It's not something on your account can simply be a
21 misunderstanding or a shading of recollections of history. It's totally
22 untrue. It has to be, doesn't it?
23 A. All of this is untrue and unrealistic.
24 First of all, Colonel Stojanovic could not have been in command
25 over Micunovic or Kovacevic. In the chain of command, he could not have
1 been in command of those two men. Colonel Stojanovic was not a commander
2 of any unit at all, so he was not able to command. And he especially
3 wasn't able to command these two. Colonel Kovacevic was chief of MUP in
4 Djakovica, so couldn't have commanded him.
5 Q. I'm quite happy to go through it again but time is limited. I
6 just simply want to establish in light of the accused's intervention that
7 your position on this statement and the second one has to be that
8 Mr. Peraj has calculatedly lied to make up a false story. That has to be
9 your position, doesn't it, Mr. Djosan?
10 A. Precisely so.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. That's my position. A calculated lie, yes.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. And told you a false story. That's precisely it.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, although the witness has answered and
16 has said no to the entirety of that paragraph and the first sentence
17 in 48, I think it would be better to differentiate the propositions. For
18 example, does the witness agree that there was the killing of Prascevic.
19 MR. NICE: I can certainly deal with that.
20 Q. Prascevic and other officers were killed in the week before the
21 Meja incident, weren't they?
22 A. Yes, they were. I agree there. They were killed. I know that.
23 Q. Let's have a look at this, please. Place it on the overhead
25 This is Prascevic, isn't it, circled?
1 A. I never knew him personally.
2 Q. Didn't you?
3 A. No, I don't know him personally, but I do know that he's from
4 Djakovica. But as I say, I didn't know him personally. I just knew three
5 of the MUP officers in Djakovica.
6 Q. Have a look at this picture, then, please, if you'd be so good,
7 which I must suggest contains the same man, and I must suggest that it's
8 Prascevic. Just have a look at it, please. It contains rather a large
9 number of other MUP officers. Perhaps you'll recognise some of them. Do
10 you recognise any of these MUP officers? Forget the one who is in the
11 circle that I suggest is Prascevic. Do you recognise any of the others?
12 A. Of course not.
13 Q. They are MUP officers, aren't they?
14 A. Yes. There were many MUP members in Djakovica --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
16 A. -- just as I don't expect --
17 Q. Can you think of any reason why they should be photographed
18 looking cheerful in front of burning buildings? That's what's going on in
19 the background.
20 A. Well, you're asking me something I can't answer. There's no sense
21 in you asking me that, why they're cheerful. How would I know? Most
22 people when they have their photographs taken usually smile, except for
23 their passport photos or ID photos perhaps.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you asked for that, Mr. Nice.
25 MR. NICE:
1 Q. Mr. Djosan, please think a little more seriously about the
2 question, will you? This is the forces of law and order standing in front
3 of burning buildings smiling to be photographed. They're not exactly
4 sending for the fire brigade, are they? Can you think of a reason why the
5 forces of law and order should find it entertaining to be photographed in
6 front of a burning building?
7 A. First of all, not all of them are smiling. You didn't look at the
8 photograph carefully. Not everybody is smiling. Take a better look and
9 you'll see that that's true.
10 And now you're asking me to answer something that has no sense.
11 As a brigade commander myself, I cannot be asked to analyse and comment on
12 a photograph, of people being photographed in actual fact.
13 Q. One last thing from Mr. Peraj's materials if the usher would be so
14 good. It's the map on the last page. If you haven't got, I'll give it.
15 143.4 this is. Thank you very much.
16 He provided, did Mr. Peraj, this analysis, summary form, of both
17 the VJ deployment positions and what the MUP were doing in this valley,
18 and it's very simple. The VJ positions were to the north-east and the
19 south-west, cutting off retreat of people who were driven from the
20 north-west to the south-east so that they landed up at the checkpoint at
21 Meja where they were killed. That's the truth of what happened here and
22 you know it. You may not have approved of it at the time, but you know
23 that that's what happened.
24 A. First of all, let me repeat what I've already said. I'm not the
25 person who would okay an operation or not, and I don't approve of the war
1 in Kosovo and Metohija at all. I don't approve of war having broken out
2 and taken place. However, I am not or was not in a position for me to
3 approve or not approve operations or to lead operations or to command
4 operations. Therefore, any question related to that I think is
5 superfluous. As I said, I was exclusively an air defence brigade
6 commander in command of air defence units, and I was not able, I wasn't in
7 a position to be, and that would have been a violation of the chain of
8 command had I been the person to approve the operations. I did not
9 approve them, nor was I placed to approve them. That wasn't my position
10 and duty, to make decisions like that. It was the people in charge who
11 made decisions like that, those whose authority it was.
12 And if you think this map was drawn up by Nik Peraj, it was not.
13 As I said before, Nik Peraj did not have any military training, and he
14 wasn't capable of compiling a map of this kind.
15 Q. Very well. Let's move on now to the circumstances of your
16 statements which --
17 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Nice, if we are leaving off Nik Peraj.
18 General, in the course of your answer you once said to Mr. Nice
19 that every Albanian who worked in the VJ either had to say what they asked
20 him to say or is no longer alive. If you could give us some examples of
21 Albanians who worked in the VJ and refused to say what they asked him to
22 say and is killed or is no longer alive.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know of the members of my former
24 unit from Pristina, Tole Sabahata. That is one name that I can give you.
25 She was a lady and she was killed last year and that was a case that was
1 written about. She was a member, first of all, of the KLA and then later
2 on she worked in the joint - what was it called? - the joint police, not
3 UNMIK police, but in the Kosovo police. And she was killed and I think
4 that you wrote about it here. But she worked in my regiment for a time.
5 JUDGE KWON: I don't follow. She was killed last year. Was he
6 killed because she didn't -- she didn't say --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The year before. Well, maybe it was
8 last year.
9 JUDGE KWON: Because she refused to cooperate with KLA? Is that
10 what you're saying?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that, but she wasn't
12 killed in a traffic accident. She was assassinated. So she didn't die.
13 She didn't suffer an electric shock and die. She wasn't hit by lightning.
14 She didn't die in a car crash. She died as a result of terrorist action,
15 that is to say they shot at her car and she was killed. And formerly she
16 was a member of our unit from the Pristina days, and she worked in
17 Pristina and I was her commander.
18 JUDGE KWON: And that's the only example you can give us today?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the only one that comes to
20 mind at present.
21 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
22 MR. NICE:
23 Q. We'll now turn to your statements, please. You said several
24 things at the beginning about the VJ commission. Tell us, please, what
25 was its function?
1 A. The title of the commission says it all. Commission for
2 Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia.
3 MKTJ, the Commission for Cooperation. And then there was an expert team
4 set up.
5 Q. What was the expert team there to do?
6 A. The task of the expert team was to deal with certain suspicions
7 that were bandied about, especially after that book was published, and we
8 don't know the author of that book. To throw more light --
9 Q. Don't race on. "We don't know the author of that book." What do
10 you mean by that?
11 A. That's what I mean, that we don't know who the author of that book
13 Q. Let's follow that. How do you know, why are you saying "we don't
14 know who the author of that book is"? What led you to say that?
15 A. Well, quite simply, we don't know who took part in writing that
16 book, who it was that wrote that book. We by way of jargon say the book
17 published by Natasa Kandic, but obviously Natasa Kandic was not in a
18 position to see everything that was written in that book.
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... that answer gives it all away.
20 You've been talking to people. You know that the VJ commission has been
21 caught out by the statements that have been prepared and by what those
22 statements say about Natasa Kandic, don't you? You know you've all been
23 caught out now. And that's why you volunteer that answer about we don't
24 know who wrote that book and by jargon we say it was published by Natasa
25 Kandic. You've been caught out here, haven't you?
1 A. That is just your opinion. That is just your opinion --
2 Q. You see --
3 A. -- on the matter.
4 Q. -- these statements that you've produced apparently dated 2002,
5 when were they actually typed up?
6 A. When they were written.
7 Q. Well, in 2002 or at some later date?
8 A. No, not later. There was no commission later. The commission was
9 abolished as soon as it started working basically.
10 Q. Well, how long did it actually carry on taking statements or
11 getting people to make statements? How long?
12 A. First of all, people were not made to give statements.
13 Specifically I was called and at that time I was general, and I was
14 told, "General, please have a look at this book. Please check this out.
15 Is this the case or is this not the case? Please write a statement about
16 that particular incident." Well, that's the way it went, not as you had
17 put it, that they were the ones who were getting us to make statements or
19 Q. [Previous translation continues]... statements being dealt with
20 via the commission? From what date to what date roughly?
21 A. I don't know about that. I know when I wrote my statement. I
22 know when I was called by them. I was not really in touch with that
23 commission until they called me. That's the only exception. So I cannot
24 give you a precise answer to that question.
25 Q. We've got one of the statements in your exhibits, just one. What
1 was the role of this book in the commission's work? A book is published.
2 So what? What's the role of the --
3 A. What you do you mean so what? I said a few moments ago when this
4 book came out and how it came out. And I said that after Markale nothing
5 was naive any longer, and you could not deal with things simply any
7 Q. The commission was established by Pavkovic, wasn't it, now
8 indicted? Wasn't it? It was established by Pavkovic.
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Provided over by Terzic. And it had an expert committee that
13 included, for example, one person who is actually indicted for Srebrenica.
14 Do you know about that?
15 A. No. No. I don't know who was indicted for Srebrenica.
16 Q. And its purpose was not to cooperate with this Tribunal at all but
17 to shield from this Tribunal anything that would have been harmful to
18 the VJ. Gvero was the chap who was indicted for Srebrenica, or is
19 indicted for Srebrenica and who was on the expert committee. That is the
20 whole purpose of this commission, to obstruct this court. Wasn't it?
21 A. That is your assessment and your view.
22 Q. You see, what I want to ask you is this, when I can find the right
23 one is Vukovic -- 30.1. 30.1 is a statement by Vlatko Vukovic who
24 apparently is going to be the next witness who -- if we look at it please,
25 Mr. Nort, on the overhead projector very rapidly, 30.1, we have Vukovic
1 saying -- it will be handed to you. 30.1 of the Defence witness's.
2 All right. Now at --
3 A. Have you got a version in Serbian?
4 Q. Could you put the English version on the overhead projector.
5 Serbian version for the witness. And if we look at this -- next page,
6 please, Mr. Nort -- we see that on apparently on the 10th of January,
7 2002, Vlatko Vukovic declared -- yes, the next statement. The next page,
8 please. There's another page in English. Right.
9 He says: "I first heard about the alleged atrocities committed in
10 the sectors of Korenica and Meja in late 2001, and read about them in
11 further detail in the book Kosovo As Seen As Told published by the
12 Humanitarian Law Fund."
13 So he carefully makes it clear that the book was simply published
14 by the Humanitarian Law Fund.
15 We can take a look at another document we have. We can look at a
16 statement. It's 362, tab A, or 362A, produced in the Delic evidence. One
17 year later, and apparently again on the 10th of January. Vukovic says --
18 and let's see what he says.
19 Next page, please.
20 "I first heard in late 2001 about the crimes allegedly committed
21 in the Bela Crkva sector on the 25th of March, 1999, and I read something
22 about them in the book, Kosovo As Seen As Told, published by the
23 Humanitarian Law Centre. Since I am disgusted by the author and the
24 fabrications she sets out in the book, I did not finish reading it ..."
25 He seems to have become less informed about the reality of this
1 book in the passing of a year. I just want to ask you this question,
2 there are other examples along the same line, and I want to remind you of
3 your volunteering answers about not knowing who the author of the book was
4 and the slang use, you say, led to your describing the book as being
5 Natasha Kandic's book, have these statements that you say were -- that you
6 produced from Vukovic and others that you say were made in 2002 been
7 re-written to get round the embarrassing problem? Have they?
8 A. First of all, where was it that you heard me say anything about
9 the language that is used in that book? Please tell me. I am educated
10 enough to understand different languages that are spoken in our area. I
11 never said that about language, and I do have my doubts as far as the
12 allegations made in that book are concerned.
13 I would be pleased, though, to see who took part in this. It is
14 one thing to publish a book and another thing is to --
15 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
16 A. -- write a book. I wrote my own book and a company published it.
17 Q. Very simple question and I want to deal with it quickly. In view
18 of the way Vukovic, whose statement you seek to produce as an exhibit, or
19 through you the accused seeks to produce as an exhibit, can you explain
20 how he produces apparently in 2002 a statement well understanding that the
21 book has simply published by the Humanitarian Law Fund while one year
22 later he is so incensed at the author Natasha Kandic of the book that he
23 doesn't even read it? Can you explain that to me? It's material you want
24 to introduce.
25 A. It is very easy to explain that. After the scenes she made when
1 she beat Serb refugees from Kosovo and Metohija, I would also take that
2 book into my hands with a set of pliers only.
3 The way she behaved to Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija who are
4 refugees there and they came to protest the fact that their rights were
5 taken away from them, and she slapped a person there. So it is quite
6 reasonable to expect people who live there and who were in that position
7 to have that kind of view of Natasha Kandic.
8 Q. Which brings us back to the role of this book in the commission's
9 work. Did it have any role and, if so, did you read the book?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you read the book?
12 A. I read the book that pertains to the part that the commission
13 asked me to write a statement about. I didn't read on.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues]... give you the whole book to
15 read in Serbian?
16 A. Yes, yes, the whole book.
17 Q. Can you have, please, the following couple of pages. We've had
18 this book, Mr. Djosan, for a long time in English. It looks like that.
19 A. I would like to have a look, please.
20 Q. We tried to get the front few pages of the Serbian version which
21 we don't have in full here, but we do have the front few pages.
22 And if the Chamber has it -- it may not have brought it with it,
23 its version of As Seen As Told, it may want to compare the pages that we
25 Another copy for the overhead projector, please.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 You see, the front cover, apparently, obtained electronically but
2 there's no reason to doubt it, identifies in one place at the top --
3 A. All right.
4 Q. -- the Humanitarian Law Fund. Then it says As Seen As Told, and
5 you don't even need to be able to read Serbian or B/C/S to work out when
6 Analiza OEBS Verifikacione Misije Kosovo means. This is the OSCE's
8 You go to the next page. We can see a further reference. The
9 next page is the index. After the index we have an introduction from
10 Stoudmann, and then a preface by Louise Arbour.
11 If you read this book at all, you would have known for sure that
12 this was a work of the OSCE, and you would have known how it was compiled.
13 Did you know it was a book of the OSCE?
14 A. I did know that it was a book of the OSCE, and I knew that it was
15 a book of those who were in Kosovo and Metohija after the
16 Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement was signed. And I know how they worked, and
17 I used to meet them. And this is what I expected. I expected things that
18 were even worse. And I wish I could see everybody's name here. Probably
19 every one of these authors has a name and surname. That is very important
20 for me.
21 If there was someone from a country that bombed us, of course he's
22 not going to say that there was no reason for them to bomb us.
23 Q. Well, we've had evidence given in this court as to the method by
24 which this book was compiled. Let's take the English version, please, if
25 we may, and just see a little bit about what it says about Meja on
1 page 179. I'm sorry we don't have the whole version in B/C/S. You're
2 getting one brought up. But I'll read you what is said about Meja before
3 we pass from Meja.
4 A. And I'm going to listen to you carefully.
5 Q. On page 179 of the English version prepared by the OSCE.
6 Right-hand side, right-hand column, please.
7 "Other villages" -- right-hand column, please. That's fine.
8 "Meja and other villages in the area were relatively quiet again
9 until the 27th of April when Serbian forces attacked without warning,
10 shelling and burning the houses. Police and paramilitary forces rounded
11 up the population of Meja close to the school and separated 100-150 men
12 aged between 15 and 50 from the rest. The men were further separated into
13 groups of about 20 and forced to say long live Serbia, before being shot
14 with machine-guns and then with an extra bullet to the head. Villagers
15 from Meja and other villages were forced to join convoys and move towards
16 Djakovica. Another witness described how police and VJ ordered 30 men to
17 get off tractors in a convoy and forced them to lie face down on the
18 ground. The police then shot just over their heads, and the men had to
19 shout 'Slobodan is the master!' Many were beaten by the police and
20 threatened with death if they did not hand over money and valuables."
21 Is that enough? Have you read this before, if you've been
22 preparing to deal with the evidence that concerns you?
23 A. Of course. My first question was whether the person who wrote
24 that had been there, had seen that, or whether had heard that from the
25 local villagers. I said that I was in Meja myself during the NATO
1 airstrikes. And this person who wrote this, was he an eyewitness? Was he
2 actually there?
3 Q. Attended to the book that you say as a man with the equivalent of
4 a Ph.D. as one might have expected you to do and looked at the
5 methodology, you would have known how the people interviewed who are
6 cited, for example, page 188, please, Mr. Nort, under footnote 98, by
7 their pseudonyms, of course. There you are.
8 This passage, a mere one, two, three, four, five, six people were
9 interviewed. All right? So that's what was found in that book.
10 A. Right. You could have talked to 80 persons. Again the statement
11 would have been the same. They could have talked to a person from
12 Suva Reka. Again, that is what he would have said about the event.
13 Q. Are you telling me or telling the Court that any Albanian
14 interviewed by an independent organisation would make up a story like
15 this? Is that really what you're saying? Falsely accounting for people
16 being executed? Hmm?
17 A. My assertion is that most of them or all of them give the kind of
18 statements they have to give, the kind they have to give. Nik Peraj's
19 statement convinced me of that. Of course I don't know these other
20 persons. But if you look at Nik Peraj's statement, perhaps he even had to
21 show even less than he actually knew about the situation in the military
22 when he said that 180 tanks could come from Republika Srpska.
23 I was in Republika Srpska, and I saw the way borders were guarded
24 there and that five soldiers could not leave barracks in Republika Srpska
25 without announcing that to SFOR ten days in advance. When he as an
1 officer as a man who knew more about the military than the local
2 villagers, I assume. When he could have stated things like that, then
3 what can one say of others? What can one say of others? Especially
4 because for a while he was in an armoured brigade and he knew what tanks
5 were like, how big they were.
6 Q. You've got -- you see, I'll just tell you what the position is so
7 that you can understand it. We have accounts of this massacre at Meja in
8 the book we've just been looking at, in another book prepared totally
9 differently called Under Orders, from witnesses who come here to give
10 evidence before the Court, and I take it you're saying they're all making
11 it up in the same way as somebody must have in some way found some bodies,
12 moved them up to Batajnica, persuaded their relations back at home to
13 identify the bodies as theirs and falsely to say that they disappeared on
14 or about the 27th or 28th of April, 1999.
15 Perhaps you'd like to tell me, please, who is the originator of
16 this elaborate scheme?
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. Tell us.
19 A. First of all, I did not say that somebody forced parents and
20 relatives or the parents and relatives of these persons to falsely
21 identify their next of kin.
22 Let me tell you something else now. Look at this white shirt,
23 Mr. Nice. Can you see it? A month ago the mother of Stamen Genov, a
24 soldier, gave it to me at his funeral a month ago. And he was abducted in
25 Stimlje in 1998 and she asked me to wear that shirt here today. You never
1 said terrorists or anything, and he was taken off a bus, a civilian bus,
2 wearing civilian clothing. He was a corporal in the medical corps, and
3 personnel like that are protected by all international rules and
4 regulations and international law, and you never ever said to me that this
5 kind of thing was done by terrorists.
6 Q. I've given you a chance to explain how the coincidence of material
7 arises and we have your answer. Let's go back to the commission.
8 You must have appreciated at some stage that the 27th and 28th of
9 April of 1999 were pretty important days for you to be able to deal with
10 in evidence.
11 A. That was not what I appreciated. I was asked to do that or,
12 rather, to write a statement as the commander of the unit that was
13 involved in something on that day.
14 Q. And of course you as the commander that you were at the time would
15 have had a number of contemporaneous materials to refer to, including maps
16 but also various other records of your own; correct? Daily combat reports
17 and such-like things, orders, plans, and the war diary.
18 Now, can you tell us, please, was it your choice or the
19 commission's that you didn't bring anything contemporaneous for the 27th
20 and 28th of April?
21 A. This has nothing to do with what the commission decided. It asked
22 us to write a statement only. What kind of documents would get here was
23 decided by Zdenko Tomanovic, Mr. Milosevic's advisor. And you have the
24 possibility to check all these documents.
25 Q. Are you saying that you handed over to the accused's lawyers
1 contemporaneous documents, orders, daily records, things like that for
2 the 27th --
3 A. No.
4 Q. Where are they?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Where are they?
7 A. The documents are in the archives, in the archives of the army of
9 Q. Did you look at them?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Why not? Surely a careful --
12 A. Because it is protected in a way, and the procedure of obtaining
13 these documents is very complicated.
14 Q. I see. Does that mean that you tried to find them or tried to get
15 a chance to look at them and were not able and so you had to work from
16 memory or that you didn't bother to try because you thought it would be
17 too tricky? Which is it?
18 A. What is correct is this: That at the request of the commission I
19 wrote them a statement of mine which I fully confirm here and now. It is
20 correct that I told Zdenko that I could not get a hold of documents, and I
21 did say what the relevant documents for the period were. I don't know
22 what he got. He showed me some documents, and I said that he should
23 include them, and that's what you've got here.
24 Q. Well, can we look at tab 6, please, of your -- of your documents.
25 And I'm afraid it's probably the last thing I can achieve today. We'll
1 have to look at the original version first, which is at the end of the
2 tab. If we can just hand over the -- I should hand over the whole tab to
3 Mr. Nort. Mr. Nort, go to the -- bring them to me, please. Sorry.
4 And -- that's it. Just take these and show in sequence -- yes, show in
5 sequence those pages and keep the English ones for later.
6 Right. We're just going to show you on the overhead projector
7 what's come to us as your tab 6. Do it quite quickly, please, Mr. Nort.
8 First of all, the cover page, just show them in order. Cover page. Next
9 page. Thank you. Next page. A translation, I think, or a transcript for
10 the 24th of March. Over the page, please. The 25th of March. Next page.
11 29th of March. And then -- next page. Then we have an original document
12 which covers apparently the 24th of March. Next page. 25th of March.
13 Next page. 28th of March. Next page. 29th of March. Next page.
14 31st of March. Next page also 31st of March. Then I have after that,
15 please, next page. We have two more -- one more page apparently covering
16 the 4th and 5th of April and then we have a stamp.
17 Now, this is what's been provided as your exhibit. Are the typed
18 pages in any sense original documents or are they transcriptions of some
19 other document, the original of which has not been produced?
20 Q. What, they're transcriptions. So where is the original? Go back
21 to the second page that you displayed, please, Mr. Nort. Where is the
22 original document for me to look at and inspect for, say, the 24th of
23 March? And why was it transcribed as opposed to being provided in its
24 original form? Can you tell me?
25 A. If it's here, please take a look.
1 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
2 A. We did this -- beg your pardon?
3 Q. This is all we've got, and I want to know why at this stage some
4 pages have been transcribed and other pages are in the original. Do you
5 know why the accused has sought to put in some transcriptions of pages and
6 some originals?
7 A. These pages that have been typed out should match the original
8 pages. Because of differences in handwriting, people were afraid that
9 they could not be translated properly. If necessary, you can use the
10 original pages.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues]...
12 A. In all cases. In this case we simply wanted to do a favour. We
13 thought it would be simpler to have it typed out and then translated,
14 rather than people having to read handwriting. So this diary was written
15 under bombs.
16 Q. We will remember that the only days covered -- well, in fact
17 they're not covered in the originals as the Court will know. There's
18 typed versions for the 4th and 5th of April and we've got nothing beyond
19 the 31st of March.
20 Now let's come back to the English version, Mr. Nort, if you'd be
21 so good, which is in two parts, at least the way I've got it. The first
22 is headed war diary and it's clipped together, and then we have a bit that
23 starts with the 4th of April, 1999.
24 Now, if we look at that -- no, next -- next section. That's
1 This -- you see, this is the 4th of April, 1999. It probably
2 matches what we've got in the typed version in the Serbian script, and the
3 5th of April.
4 Next page, please, Mr. Nort.
5 Then we go to the 6th of April, 1999, and then we go to the 26th
6 of April. Ah-ha. So we're getting very near to Meja. We turn over the
7 page on the 26th of April.
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. And we get to the 29th of April, 1999, conveniently or otherwise
10 omitting the 27th and the 28th of April, 1999, the days of the Meja
12 Now, it would look as though someone has had access to the period
13 of your war diary covering the period of the 27th and 28th of April, 1999,
14 but we don't have in court an original of that document. Can you help me?
15 Where is it?
16 A. All I can tell you is this: I can tell you where my war diary is
17 located and I think I spoke about this yesterday or the day before. You
18 can request it because it is to be found in the archives, and once you
19 receive the diary then you can call me back, and I shall be happy to
20 answer your questions. And I can guarantee that everything that is
21 transcribed here is what is in the war diary.
22 Q. Help me, please: The process whereby someone types up some pages
23 of the original and we get both the original and the typed up version,
24 someone types up some pages of the original, as in the 4th and 5th of
25 April, 1999, and we get the typed up Serb version and we get an English
1 version, and then separate from all that someone somewhere has had access
2 to another part of the diary, and we've only been given a little bit of it
3 in English, and it excludes the 27th and 28th of April, the most important
4 days. Can you just help me with that? What's the process?
5 A. You'll have to check that out with the lawyer. There's no
6 problem. I tell you again that you can come by the war diary. You have a
7 very efficient service, and any request put in by you will give you the
8 diary. There's nothing that I have any reason to hide. I have no reason
9 to hide anything whatsoever. And I'm at your disposal. Look into the
10 situation and take steps accordingly.
11 Q. [Previous translation continues]... allegations, Mr. --
12 Mr. Djosan. I'm not going to make any allegations about the diary until
13 I've seen it because I have no idea what the diary contains. I just want
14 your explanation. Did you have the diary when the accused's lawyers were
15 typing things up from it? And if you didn't have the diary, who did?
16 A. I did not have the diary with me then, but feel free to take the
17 diary and see what it says inside.
18 Q. [Previous translation continues]... answer the second --
19 A. That's the only answer I can give.
20 Q. You who did have the diary that made all these rather strange
21 entries for the exhibit? Who had it?
22 A. That must have been done by one of the advisors, President
23 Milosevic's advisors. I think that must have been Zdenko Tomanovic.
24 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I wouldn't have taken time unless it was
25 on a potentially interesting and import issue because the diary, we don't
1 necessarily accept the diary set out events accurately of course, but the
2 diary for those dates might be of value and of interest to us. The
3 witness seems incapable of giving an accurate account of how the diary
4 fell into anyone's possession, and we don't know where it is at the
5 moment. I must simply ask through the Court that the accused's lawyers
6 make it available for us next week.
7 JUDGE KWON: I wonder he's in the position to answer the question.
8 MR. NICE: He may be able to; I don't know.
9 JUDGE KWON: Whether he has it or his associate doesn't have it in
10 its entirety.
11 MR. NICE: In which case we can have a look -- [Microphone not
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Who can answer the question?
14 Mr. Milosevic, can you help us with the diary and its production?
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know what they have in their
16 hands, but I do know that an official request can be made of the archives
17 and the general has already indicated that, General Djosan, and the diary
18 will be provided.
19 But I'd like to you bear in mind one question. It is very
20 difficult for my associates to access the archives. The procedure is very
21 unwieldy. As to Mr. Nice requests, they are met with and complied with
22 immediately and all documents are received, so he can put in a request for
23 a photocopy of the entire war diary of the 52nd Brigade, and I'm sure that
24 he will receive a copy on Monday, whereas my associates probably won't be
25 able to receive it in the space of a month. And I took it upon myself to
1 enter the procedure and to have the diary delivered.
2 MR. NICE: [Microphone not activated].
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Nice.
4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Mr. Robinson. May I just add
5 something more, Mr. Robinson, just to deal with the mystery of what was
6 typed out. The typed out version is typed out for me so that I don't have
7 to read the handwriting because I find it difficult to read handwritings
8 which are very often illegible and then somebody puts in time and a
9 secretary delves into the handwriting and types it out. It makes it
10 easier for me not to have to read the handwriting myself. And you have
11 been provided with the original here and you've also been provided with
12 the typed out text as an auxiliary to help you out, and it is duty of your
13 translators to compare the two copies to see that everything has been
14 typed out properly because that is why they were supplied with the
15 original. So the typed out version is not the exhibit. It is the
16 handwritten version that is the exhibit, the original.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Does Mr. Tomanovic have a copy of the diary at
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I don't know that. I'll have to ask
20 him. I'll have to ask him what he has. It is not my impression that he
21 has the diary in its entirety but most probably he could come by one. And
22 I'm perfectly certain that if Mr. Nice puts in a request today he will be
23 supplied with a copy of the diary from the archives because they're very
24 prompt in responding to any of his requests.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Deal with it this way then. If he has a copy of
1 it, Mr. Milosevic will see to it that it is produced in court.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Certainly.
3 JUDGE KWON: And one more observation. Among the typed out
4 version, there is a stamps and the signature. I wonder who did it. So
5 could you check it out as well.
6 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I must -- I'm grateful for that. Your
7 Honours, I must make the point that the Prosecution has asked for many war
8 diaries not, as it happens, for reasons I gave this particular one.
9 JUDGE KWON: That's the last page.
10 MR. NICE: Yes. We saw the one of course that Delic has brought
11 us, but that apart, we have never been provided with a single war diary,
12 and methods of -- reasons for non-provision have always been given. And
13 the suggestion that we could put in a request today and get it on Monday
14 morning is totally unrealistic.
15 In any event, it is for this accused to provide exhibits of this
16 kind. And the third point is it is absolutely clear that someone on the
17 Defence side has had access to this diary and must have had access to it
18 in full in order to copy these pages. It may be, incidentally if the
19 Court's interested, that it could ask of the witness the one question
20 about the signature now in case it would help us over the weekend.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] May I just be of assistance straight
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I can help you out now. This is a
25 stamp which was placed there. It hasn't been typed out. It was
1 introduced later after it had been typed out, and it's a stamp that says
2 this war diary contains 198, that is to say 180 pages numbered from 1 to
3 198 inclusively, and this is asserted and certified by the clerk, and it
4 is Captain Dobrivoj Vasic. That's the signature. So he is just the
5 official who states that all this is in order. It is a military post
6 number and it says permanently on top. That means to be stored
7 permanently, I assume. But anyway, it is the signature of the clerk who
8 asserts how many pages the diary has and that the number -- the pages are
9 numbered. That's all it says. This was not typed out by my associates.
10 It's just confirmation and a stamp is placed on it.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, does it mean that 198
12 pages were handed over to Mr. Tomanovic?
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I'll ask him that, Mr. Kwon.
14 I really can't say now. All I can tell you is that I have just seen this
15 part as an exhibit. I don't have time to go into the basic foundations
16 and source and the raw material. But if Mr. Tomanovic has 198 pages, 198
17 pages will be delivered so that Mr. Nice can go ahead with his questioning
18 of this witness next week.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. We are going adjourn until Tuesday of
20 next week, 9.00 a.m..
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.52 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 25th day of
23 October, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.