1 Wednesday, 4 July 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.
6 Unfortunately, as you can see, Judge Van den Wyngaert is not able
7 to sit again this afternoon but, we believe, will be with us tomorrow, so
8 we will sit under 15 bis.
9 Mr. Saxon, have you a matter that arises.
10 MR. SAXON: Very briefly, Your Honour.
11 The Prosecution understands that the cross-examination of the
12 current witness will continue for some time, and it is obvious that it
13 involves a number of issues, some of which are complex. And the
14 Prosecution would simply like to ask that my colleagues on the Defence
15 side ensure that before they sit down and complete their
16 cross-examinations, that they comply with the Rule 90(h)(2) which requires
17 a cross-examining party to put clearly to the person being cross-examined
18 the nature of the accused's case which is in contradiction to the evidence
19 of the witness. I'd simply like to place that on the record, Your Honour.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
22 Mr. Mettraux.
23 MR. METTRAUX: Would you like us to respond, Your Honour? I don't
24 see the need, but if directed by the Court ...
25 JUDGE PARKER: I had not thought you would need to respond.
1 MR. METTRAUX: I don't see any need, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: It's a provision of the Rule. We would have
3 assumed you would be complying with it.
4 MR. METTRAUX: We hope we are, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Can we have in the witness, please.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 WITNESS: PETER BOUCKAERT [Resumed]
8 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Bouckaert.
9 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.
10 JUDGE PARKER: Once again, the affirmation you made at the
11 beginning is still applicable. And sorry that you were delayed. There was
12 a small procedural matter.
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
15 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux:
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bouckaert.
18 A. Good afternoon.
19 Q. I'd like to ask you, once again, a question about general practice
20 and procedure followed by your organisation in the course of your
22 Is that correct that it is the practice of your organisation, when
23 an individual alleges an abuse of his right, to seek to obtain court files
24 or court records, if available?
25 A. Sorry, can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand.
1 Q. Sure. Perhaps what I'll do is I'll read to you the proposition
2 from your colleague, Mr. Abrahams, when he was asked the same question.
3 He was asked to explain the methodology of your organisation in relation
4 to this matter. It's 1D00-3927. It's Rule 65 ter 1D429. It's
5 Prosecution v. Milosevic of the 3rd June 2002, page 6054. He was asked by
6 Mr. Nice:
7 "Human rights methodology, please, very shortly. The Chamber
8 will be familiar with the general proposition, but we just need on the
9 record what the methodology is."
10 And the answer of Mr. Abrahams was the following:
11 "The primary source for the -- of information for the
12 organisation is fieldwork, that is, interviews with the victims and
13 witnesses of abuse. We conduct interviews with these people, lengthy,
14 in-depth interviews, in a one-on-one setting whenever possible, and we
15 search for corroborative evidence. If someone has had illegal -- is
16 alleging illegal violation, we ask for court records. If they ask -- if
17 they are alleging physical abuse recently, we ask to see scars or bruises.
18 We also collect documents from medical -- medical records, government
19 reports and so on. Whenever possible, we also try to visit crime scenes or
20 the sites of the alleged violations, and we also try to get information
21 from alleged perpetrators."
22 Is that a fair description of the usual practice of your
23 organisation, sir?
24 A. It is a fair description, although I think when Mr. Abrahams was
25 speaking about the legal violation, he was talking about our work
1 monitoring court proceedings and inquests, and in those cases we would be
2 asking for -- or we would try to obtain or monitor the court proceedings
4 Q. And is it correct also that in this particular case, the case of
5 Ljuboten, you've made no request to receive any court documents or any
6 court files? You had no reason to do so; is that what you answered
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And you made no requests to receive any medical records, either;
10 is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Is that also correct that you have no forensic training or no
13 forensic expertise?
14 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask you to make pauses.
15 Our languages are less concise, and we need time to pronounce things.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Mr. Bouckaert is being better than I am.
17 Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, Mr. Bouckaert?
18 A. No, I'm just pausing until the blinker stops blinking, as I've
19 been instructed to.
20 I don't have any formal forensic training. We do have forensic
21 training at Human Rights Watch which is conducted by eminent forensic
22 experts such as Mr. Bill Hagland of Physicians for Human Rights, Mr. Eric
23 Stoffer, who helped the OTP set up its forensic programme, I've also
24 worked with Dr. Helena Hrunta [phoen] of the Helsinki Forensic Institute,
25 so I do believe in the course of my work, in the course of these internal
1 Human Rights Watch trainings, which I helped set up, that I have developed
2 a basic forensic experience as it relates to my work.
3 I've also written extensively about forensic issues related to the
4 2003 Iraq war. I wrote a report about the mass graves of Mah Weil [phoen]
5 and how the lack of forensic programmes in place was destroying important
6 evidence in Iraq.
7 Q. Well, let me read that to you, if I may, Mr. Bouckaert. It's
8 again an answer of your colleague Mr. Abrahams. This time it's from the
9 Milatinovic case. It's Rule 65 ter 1D424, and it's at page 1D00-3813.
10 That's Prosecutor v. Milatinovic, and it's at page 920. The date is 14th
11 of July of 2006. It's again Mr. Abrahams who was being asked about
12 forensic and ballistic. And if I may draw your attention, it's at line 9,
13 what would be -- line 9, yes, I'm grateful. It says this, that's the
14 answer of your colleague:
15 "Both Mr. Bouckaert and I have extensive experience operating in
16 war zones, and as part of that we conduct investigations, multipronged
17 investigations. The essential element is the interview, as I've
18 mentioned, but in addition we survey the scene, we draw a map of the
19 environment, we look at the physical evidence to determine
20 what took place. We do not conduct extensive forensic examination because
21 we do not have that expertise."
22 Is that a correct assessment of yours and Mr. Abrahams' expertise
23 in forensic matters?
24 A. I think the operative word here is we do not conduct extensive
25 forensic examinations as would be done by a forensic pathologist in a
1 laboratory. However, we certainly --
2 Q. Sir, you --
3 A. Can I finish my answer?
4 Q. Certainly.
5 A. We are certainly able to assess basic forensic evidence to assess
6 wounds received during beatings and to tell the difference between an
7 entry an exit wound, for example.
8 Q. But to answer my previous question, and I think it can be answered
9 quite easily, you do not have any forensic training or expertise; is that
11 A. No, that's not correct. I said I partook in an internal forensic
12 training programme at Human Rights Watch, and I have worked with forensic
13 experts in the field, so I certainly have some limited forensic training.
14 Q. But you consider that is sufficient to consider --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down and make breaks. Please make
17 THE WITNESS: Sorry, your answer was -- your question was --
18 MR. METTRAUX:
19 Q. Well, I was simply asking you whether, contrary to what
20 Mr. Abrahams suggested, it was the last part of the sentence that was of
21 interest to me, where he says: "... Because we do not have that
22 expertise." You disagree with his assessment, and you are claiming that
23 you have forensic expertise; is that correct?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 A. I'm waiting for the question to finish appearing on my screen. I
2 don't disagree with what Mr. Abrahams has said. He said, we do not have
3 the expertise, quote, "conduct extensive forensic examinations." With
4 that, I totally agree.
5 I do think as field researchers, we do have the expertise to make
6 basic forensic assessments.
7 Q. Thank you. And is that correct that this is the basics that you
8 used to make a number of findings in relation to what you believe to be
9 injuries sustained to a number of people you have interviews --
10 interviewed, I'm sorry?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And you also made a number of findings as to what happened to a
13 number of deceased persons but also to a number of people that had been
14 injured based not on your own observations but on what you were told by
15 others; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. And on a number of occasions, you did not seek to verify in any
18 way the statements which were given to you by a number of villagers as to
19 how they incurred injuries or as to how a particular individual had been
20 killed; is that correct?
21 A. That's incorrect.
22 Q. Well, perhaps I'll draw your attention to your report, which is
23 P352. And if I could ask the Registry kindly to go to page 10 of that
25 There's a sentence I would like to draw your attention upon. It's
1 in the paragraph -- inside the paragraph which starts with the word:
2 "Two of the bodies were found ..." Can you locate this one?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. I'll just read, I think, the third sentence. It says:
5 "Sulleyman Bajrami was found face down in the road, shot in the
6 head and chest and with a large head wound."
7 Then you go on to say:
8 " Empty 99-millimetre cartridges were lying next to Bajrami's
9 body, and bloody tracks were from an armoured personnel carrier, APC,
10 suggested that his body had been run over by a Macedonian APC."
11 Can you tell this Chamber what is the basis for your belief that
12 the body of Mr. Bajrami had been run over by a Macedonian APC?
13 A. It was -- all of this information was based on a large number of
14 photographs that I was able to review, as well as the field notes of one
15 of the international journalists who had been at the scene on August 14th,
16 as well as my personal visit later on on August 23rd. So it was a
17 combination of those pieces of information.
18 Q. And on that basis, you were satisfied that you could conclude that
19 the body in question had indeed been run over by an APC; is that correct?
20 A. Well, not the entire body, but we believe that part of the body
21 had been run over by an APC, yes.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown the consolidated
23 statement of Mr. Bolton. This is ERN N00-6468-0. It's a "P" exhibit.
24 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, what I'm -- I'm grateful. This is the consolidated
25 statement of Mr. Bolton, which I understand you know, worked for the OSCE
1 in Macedonia at that time, and I'd ask the Registry to move to page 12 of
2 this statement and focus on paragraph 15, 1-5.
3 Were you aware, sir, of the fact that Mr. Bolton had been in the
4 village on the 14th of August of 2001?
5 A. Yes, of course.
6 Q. If you look at paragraph 15 of that statement, that's what
7 Mr. Bolton, who saw the bodies in the village on that day, said:
8 "I was told by local inhabitants that his body had been run over
9 by an armoured vehicle," and he's talking about the same body as you did:
10 "However, I do not believe this to be correct, as the body did not have
11 any obvious crush-type injury that I could see. I do believe, due to tire
12 marks on the road, that a large vehicle did travel down the road from east
13 to west, passing through the blood spilled close to the body. There was
14 no indication that the vehicle had moved through the blood spill
15 travelling west to east."
16 So you would agree that, at least according to Mr. Bolton, who
17 personally observed the body of Mr. Bajrami and who, the paragraph
18 suggests, consulted it quite carefully and concluded that the body had not
19 been run over by an APC; is that correct?
20 A. That's correct, yes.
21 Q. And if Mr. Bolton is to be believed, that would make your finding
22 quite wrong; is that correct?
23 A. On this one single point, there would be a disagreement, yes. When
24 I visited the village, I saw the large blood stain on the street with the
25 APC having run through it, so my own visual inspection of the scene would
1 not be that different from Mr. Bolton, yes.
2 Q. But you didn't see the body; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct, but there's a photograph of the body in our
5 Q. And the photograph was enough for you to draw that conclusion?
6 A. No. And in any case, it would be rather a marginal conclusion in
7 terms of our assessment of the nature of the crime. Our assessment of the
8 nature of the crime committed against Mr. Sulleyman Bajrami did not relate
9 to him being run over by an APC. It related to him being shot dead in a
10 summary manner by the Macedonian police.
11 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters kindly ask you again for
12 pauses and to slow down a bit.
13 MR. METTRAUX:
14 Q. Is that also correct, sir, that in your statement to the Office of
15 the Prosecution, you indicated that you had observed what you believed to
16 be cigarette burns on the body of Mr. Qaili?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. And again this is a finding which you based on what you said were
19 your forensic expertise; is that correct?
20 A. It was based on my very brief inspection of the body which took
21 place as the funeral of Mr. Qaili was taking place at his house, yes.
22 Q. And you did not seek to obtain medical confirmation of that fact;
23 is that correct?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. But you were aware at the time that Mr. Qaili had been autopsied;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes, because he had a large scar down the middle of his chest.
3 Q. And you would agree that if the doctors or the professors who
4 treated -- that wouldn't be a good expression, but who autopsied Mr. Qaili
5 were to give evidence that there were no such burns, cigarette burns or
6 otherwise on the body of Mr. Qaili, that would again be quite a
7 significant discrepancy with your evidence?
8 A. Yes, but I would not necessarily place a whole lot of faith in the
9 autopsy reports of those doctors. We have documented, not in Macedonia
10 but certainly in Kosovo, autopsy reports which failed to acknowledge that
11 people had been beaten to death and tortured in police custody.
12 Q. Well, do you have any such information in relation to Skopje
13 Forensic institute?
14 A. No, but I would just treat the evidence with some caution.
15 Q. Is it correct that you've indicated to me that you've interviewed
16 approximately 35 villagers or so in the context of your investigation,
18 A. I believe I said that I didn't have an exact number, but I would
19 estimate it was between 35 and 40, yes.
20 Q. And that would be during a period of about seven days; is that
22 A. Yes.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Please make the breaks and slow down. Thank you.
24 MR. METTRAUX:
25 Q. Is that correct also that you took an average of an hour to two
1 hours per witness, per interview; would that be a fair assessment?
2 A. That would depend on the nature of the interview. Many of those
3 interviews would be quite shorter, but certainly for the key witnesses,
4 they would be of that period of time, yes.
5 Q. And is that correct that all of those interviews were conducted
6 from English into Albanian and from Albanian back into English through an
8 A. Most of them, yes. There were a few which were conducted directly
9 in English.
10 Q. Is that also correct that this would mean that effectively the
11 length of the interview would be between half an hour and an hour,
12 accounting for the translation of the question and the answers?
13 A. The interviews took as long as it took to get as complete an
14 account as possible from the witness. I don't want to speculate on those
15 kind of divisions of time.
16 Q. I don't think it was a speculation. You would agree that
17 considering that the questions and the answer had to be translated back
18 and forth, that would mean that effectively the interview was between, on
19 average, between 30 minutes and one hour; is that correct?
20 A. The interviews took as long as they took to get a complete
21 account -- as complete account as possible from the witness. So there was
22 no time limits on the interviews. It depended on the amount of
23 information the witness had and the time period that we were talking
24 about. Some witnesses we only interviewed about events which took 10, 15
1 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I'll just kindly ask you at this stage if you can
2 answer my questions as concisely and as precisely as you can. If there's
3 a need for explanation, I will either ask you a question or my colleague
4 will do so. We're under time pressure to try to finish today. I'd be
6 Is that also correct that the information that you've put in your
7 report, and you've indicated that this was evidence which you believe to
8 be sufficiently reliable or sufficiently corroborated to be aired in
9 public; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'd like to ask you a few questions about a number of villagers
12 which you interviewed in the course of your investigation. The first such
13 person is Mr. Qani Jashari, and I would like again the Registry, please,
14 to bring up the report prepared by Mr. Bouckaert. It's P352. At page 11
15 of the report, that would be U0000108.
16 I'd like you to focus on the first full paragraph, Mr. Bouckaert,
17 with the words starting: "The police reportedly ..." Can you see that?
18 A. M'mm-hmm.
19 Q. I'll just read it out to you. It says:
20 "The police reportedly continued down Rastak Road burning the
21 garage of Ali Aliu and then shooting up the house up of Aziz Bajrami.
22 They then reached the house of 65-year-old Qani Jashari who was hiding
23 inside with two of his sons, 33-year-old Bajram and 31-year-old Kadri, as
24 well as a cousin, 25-year-old Xhelal Bajrami, a son of Aziz Bajrami. The
25 police officers began firing with RPGs and automatic weapons at the house,
1 causing it to catch on fire. Qani Jashari escaped to a nearby ditch, but
2 the three young men were gunned down while trying to escape from the
3 burning home."
4 Can you see that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And then there's a passage which is somewhat indented. Do I
7 understand that this is essentially a verbatim record of what Mr. Qani
8 Jashari told you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Then I'll read that to you. It says:
11 "The police first surrounded us. I went to hide in a pipe
12 nearby. The boys remained in the house trying to hide. They started
13 shelling the house with grenades and from their APCs. Then the house
14 caught on fire from the grenade. It was made out of wood.
15 When the fire started, the boys climbed out through a window. They
16 ran away, but the police started shooting at them. The police were in the
17 yard, maybe 30 or 40 of them, with their APCs.
18 After the boys were shot, four or five police walked up to them.
19 They went to the farthest one. He was about 20 metres further away than
20 the two others. He had run fastest. It was Kadri. They turned him
21 around. He was lying on his stomach, and they turned him on his back. He
22 was still moving. They shot him again in the neck. Then they took his
23 documents. I later found them by the road."
24 And then there's a footnote and you refer to the interview with
25 Mr. Qani Jashari which you had in Skopje in August of 2001; is that
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is that also correct that you presented Mr. Qani Jashari, in your
4 statement and in this report as well, and that's paragraph 72 of your
5 statement as having been an eyewitness to these killings?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did you obtain or did you seek, rather, any corroboration of
8 Mr. Jashari's information?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you obtain any?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And can you identify the person who gave you information about
13 that matter?
14 A. It was in the field notes of journalist Nicholas Wood of the "The
15 Guardian" who had visited Ljuboten on the 14th and who had obtained
16 similar accounts from the witnesses in the village, which was not Mr. Qani
18 Q. Well, that was my next question. Is that correct that Mr. Wood
19 obtained his information also from the villagers?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you seek to obtain corroboration from any of the villagers
22 yourself to verify this story?
23 A. Yes. During my own visit to Ljuboten, I was told a similar
24 account without any discrepancies by the villagers who accompanied me.
25 Q. And you consider the evidence of Mr. Jashari to be reliable and
1 sufficiently verified to be reprinted in that manner in your report; is
2 that correct?
3 A. Not just me but also the people who reviewed the report prior to
5 Q. And Mr. Jashari did not mention at any stage that fire had been
6 coming from his house at the time; is that correct?
7 A. That's correct, and neither did our own physical inspection of the
8 area find any evidence of fire from the home.
9 Q. And he did not mention escaping the house with his son Afet; is
10 that correct?
11 A. I don't recall him mentioning his son Afet.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is now P350,
14 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, you've just indicated that your physical inspection
15 of the house did not reveal any evidence of fire from the home; is that
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. If you look at the picture, is that correct that the incoming
19 fire, so to say, was directed at the upper floor of the house?
20 A. That's correct, but on this side and on the front side of the
22 Q. Well, let's stick with this side for the time being. You would
23 agree that the fire, the incoming fire, is directed at the upper floor of
24 the house?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is that also correct that the roof and ceiling of the upper floor
2 tumbled down during the incident; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, as I've made clear in my direct testimony.
4 Q. Is that also correct that you could not, therefore, visit the
5 upper floor of the house to look for traces of outgoing fire?
6 A. Yes. The inside of the house was in rubble inside, so we
7 focused -- we did look inside to see if there were any spent bullet
8 casings, which would have been near the top of the rubble if they did come
9 from that second floor, and we also focused on looking at the structures
10 nearby and any trees to see if there was any evidence of outgoing gunfire.
11 Q. But on top of the floor, the second floor, it would be a roof,
12 isn't it, an entire layer coming through the roof, is that correct, so you
13 would have to dig through the rubbles of the roof and try to locate
14 casings; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, but as you can see from the front of the house, the tiles in
16 front, we're not talking about a very thick layer of tiles, and certainly
17 we did not remove all of those tiles and carry out a complete
18 investigation of the floors of the homes, but we did look around to see if
19 there was any evidence of sand-bagging or spent bullet cases inside the
21 Q. And how long did you spend digging through the rubbles of the
23 A. We didn't really dig through the rubble. We walked through the
24 rubble to see if there was anything visible for, I would say, about 10 or
25 15 minutes.
1 Q. And is that correct that you didn't ask the Macedonian
2 authorities, whether it is the police or the army, whether they had any
3 information in relation to that particular house and, in particular,
4 whether anyone would have seen outgoing fire from that house?
5 A. I didn't ask, and as far as I know, no allegations were made by
6 the Macedonian authorities, either in the local or the international
7 press, or by holding any press conferences to suggest that there had been
8 outgoing fire.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is
10 identified as Exhibit 1D87. It's 1D00-3979 and 1D00-3977 in the
12 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is again the same document that I have showed
13 you briefly yesterday, and it comes from the UBK, the Security and
14 Counter-Intelligence Division of the Ministry of Interior at Cair. And if
15 may ask the Registry again to turn to the second page, the next page.
16 I would just like to draw your attention again to the same
17 paragraph, where it says:
18 "At the end of the meeting, Odza informed that the houses which
19 are most damaged in areas of Skamala in the village of Ljuboten are the
20 ones from which that the security forces of the Republic of Macedonia were
21 fired upon by the residents of the aforementioned quarter and that
22 according to him this is the reason why the majority of those killed are
23 residents of that quarter; that is, the houses of Veseli Avdi, Jashari
24 Aziz, Bajrami Qani, and the Zendeli family are located there."
25 Is that correct that refers inter alia to the house of
1 Aziz Jashari, also known as Aziz Bajrami?
2 A. That's what the report refers to, yes.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we would like to tender this document
4 at this stage.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
6 MR. SAXON: Just a point of clarification.
7 Can my colleague tell us when and where this particular document
8 was obtained, and particularly if it was obtained from an archive, which
10 MR. METTRAUX: I certainly can, Your Honour. This is the same
11 source as has been used by the Prosecution in particular in the report of
12 Mr. Beserokenko. It is the same archive, the UBK archives, which has led
13 the Prosecution to making a recent application for an admission of
14 documents from the same source. I can't remember the date off the top of
15 my head, Your Honour, the date which we received the document, but if
16 there is any need to receive a formal letter from the source, we could
17 certainly do so. But in effect it's the same source used by the
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
20 MR. SAXON: I'm not objecting to the admission of the document.
21 It would simply be helpful to the Prosecution if we could be informed of
22 the date when this document was provided to the Defence. Thank you.
23 MR. METTRAUX: We will provide this indication, Your Honour, to
24 the Prosecution.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux. The document will be
2 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D87, Your Honours.
3 MR. METTRAUX:
4 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, there is another document which I would like to
5 show you, and it is 1D24. It is a report prepared by the OSCE. It's a
6 special report on the Ljuboten incident. And I will come back to the
7 report in a moment. At this stage, there are two particular parts that I
8 would wish to show you.
9 As you can see, it is dated the 16th of August, 2001. It is a
10 special report on the Ljuboten incident.
11 I'd kindly ask the Registry to turn to the next page. And if the
12 paragraph started with the words: "In contrast ..." could be somewhat
13 enlarged for Mr. Bouckaert. It would be the fourth paragraph from the
15 I'll read the paragraph to you, Mr. Bouckaert. It says:
16 "In contrast to the situation with the two men in town, the three
17 men, whose bodies were found unevenly spaced apart in a field on the edge
18 of town, appear to have been fleeing uphill from the edge of the village
19 at the time they were killed. With regard to these persons, because of
20 all of the information available to the mission, there is a general sense
21 that their deaths are less suspicious and possibly related to legitimate
22 military action. That cannot be said of the aforementioned two persons
23 who were found in the residential area. As to the two men in town, the
24 question seems more likely to be who is responsible, not whether there is
25 something to be responsible for."
1 Can you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if I can ask the Registry to turn to page 4 of that document
4 and to focus on the paragraph starting with the words: "Near the
5 field ..." that would be the third paragraph from the top or the fourth.
6 I'll just read to you the last two sentences of that paragraph. It says:
7 "The building on the left," and they are talking of the same
8 groups of buildings, "the buildings on the left have been burned and have
9 been the subject of considerable incoming weapon fire. These buildings
10 are located where they could be a useful observation point from which to
11 monitor Macedonian movement or directing fire upon them."
12 Is that an observation you would agree with?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now I'd like to show you another part of the -- to put to you
15 another part of the evidence which has been given in this case. One
16 particular witness who was called earlier by the Prosecution was asked to
17 describe his observation concerning that set of houses, and this is what
18 he said.
19 Your Honour, this is Witness M-84 on the date of the 25th of May,
20 2007. It's at page 1494-1495, and it says this:
21 "I wanted to ask you whether in the morning, as you headed out
22 with your chief, Mr. Karstevski [phoen], whether you noted that there was
23 gunfire coming from one of the houses in Ljuboten and whether, in your
24 preparation for this evidence, you were actually able to show this house
25 to the Prosecution."
1 The witness said:
2 "I saw this. At this moment, what it was about, where the people
3 were, I can't say, because from Radisani you can't see Ljuboten because
4 there is a hill. Radisani is down in a hole."
5 He says:
6 "When I climbed up there, that is what I can see. I can't say
7 some hearsay that there was some shooting or something. It would not be
8 appropriate for me to say -- to speak about hearsay. I will only speak
9 about what I have seen with my own eyes."
10 Then he was asked:
11 "And the house from which you were able to see the gunfire, you
12 pinpointed it on a picture for the Prosecution when you arrived here in
13 The Hague; is that correct?
14 "It is correct. When I went off that house and that elevation,
15 you can see the positions of Ljubanci, the positions that were there, the
16 police positions, the check-points. One could see a reflection of fire of
17 automatic rifles. I don't know whether other weapons, but you could see
18 fire. It was some two kilometres away but through the binoculars one
19 could see that one -- one was shooting from one side to the other side
21 And what this witness pinpointed to in proofing with the
22 Prosecution was, in fact, the house owned by the Jashari family, and my
23 question is: Did you have that information at the time or did you seek to
24 obtain that information?
25 MR. SAXON: Your Honour. I would simply ask that the question be
1 phrased in a form that is accurate. The use of the word "pinpointed," in
2 my recollection, is a rather broad description of a circle that Witness
3 M-84 drew around a series of houses or a neighbourhood during his
4 evidence, and so I'm just wondering whether my colleague might want to
5 consider rephrasing that question.
6 MR. METTRAUX: I think I can assist, Your Honour.
7 I'll read verbatim from the notes taken and given to us by the
8 Prosecution. It's the proofing notes of the 20th of May of 2007, Witness
10 "In the morning on 12 August 2001, I was on an observation point
11 along the road from Ljuboten leading to Skopje. On a small elevation near
12 the area where the garbage is dumped outside Ljuboten. From where -- from
13 there, I could observe some gunfire coming out of houses on the side of
14 the village bordering Rastak."
15 And then there is a note by the Prosecution, and it says:
16 "When the witness was asked to indicate these houses on a
17 photograph of Ljuboten, the witness pointed to the house known to the
18 Prosecution as the houses owned by the Jashari family. The witness
19 did not indicate that he knew who owned this house. The witness did not
20 know who was firing from this house."
21 So perhaps I can put my question to you again, Mr. Bouckaert. Did
22 you, at the time, have that information and did you seek to obtain that
23 information from the authorities?
24 A. No.
25 Q. I have noted earlier that you represented in your report, and also
1 in your statement, the evidence of Mr. Qani Jashari as being that of an
2 eyewitness, is that correct, to the killing of his son; is that correct?
3 A. We -- I don't think we used the word "eyewitness." We say
4 "witness." But he did -- he did witness the incident, yes.
5 Q. Well, at paragraph 72 of your Prosecution statement, you say this:
6 "On 20 August 2001 in Skopje, I had interviewed the father of two
7 of the killed man, Qani Jashari, who had been an eyewitness of the event."
8 Is that --
9 A. Okay, fine.
10 MR. METTRAUX: I'd ask the Registry's assistant to bring up
11 Rule 65 ter 2D32 with an ERN 2D00-0454. There is no Macedonian,
13 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is the -- a statement given to the Office of
14 the Prosecutor by Mr. Qani Jashari on the 7th of October of 2004, and I
15 would ask, with the Registry's assistance, to go immediately to page 3 of
16 that statement and to focus on the last paragraph on that page. That's
17 paragraph 17.
18 In this paragraph, Mr. Bouckaert, Mr. Qani Jashari says this:
19 "I and my son Afet were leaving from my house down the gravel path
20 to the road. I decided to go this way because I was too old to run
21 uphill. Afet was ahead of me. The rest of the family stayed in the
23 And you've indicated earlier that, in fact, Mr. Jashari did not
24 mention his son Afet to you?
25 A. That's correct.
1 MR. METTRAUX: I would ask the Registry to now turn to the next
2 page, and that's page 4, and to focus, please, on paragraph 19. And then
3 he said:
4 "On the road, I separated from Afet, crossed the street, and
5 hided myself in bushes directly beside the road, on the south side of the
6 road. Since I was afraid they would spot me, I crawled further downhill.
7 It was a piece of around 20 to 30 metres open grass."
8 You would agree that Mr. Jashari told the Prosecution that he hid
9 not in a pipe, as he told you, but in bushes; is that correct?
10 A. At that stage, yes.
11 Q. And then if I can draw your attention to what he says in paragraph
12 20. He said:
13 "I reached a bunch of bushes in which I hided myself until the
14 police withdrew from the area. From these bushes, I could see parts of
15 the road. I couldn't see what was going on in my house and at the new
16 houses. My position was too low to have a clear sight."
17 Do you agree that at this stage, as you point out, he couldn't see
18 what was going on near the house?
19 A. Yes.
20 MR. METTRAUX: If I can ask the Registry to turn to the next page,
21 page 5, and to focus on paragraph 30, please.
22 Paragraph 30 says:
23 "Soon afterwards, the house started to burn. I could see the
24 flames coming up, but like I said before, my sight was very limited. I
25 could not see what was going on the ground."
1 Q. Can you see that?
2 A. M'mm-hmm.
3 Q. And in fact what he's saying there again is he could not see what
4 was going on in front of the house and in the house; is that correct?
5 A. I guess so, yes.
6 Q. If we can go to paragraph 33, which is further down. It says:
7 "Short after the police disappeared, Afet and myself left nearly
8 at the same time our hiding places. At this I learned that Afet was
9 hiding himself in the bushes north of the road close to the gravel path to
10 my house."
11 And then he says:
12 "We approached the house and were looking for some leftover from
13 my sons. At this moment, I was convinced that there were only two
14 options, either they were killed inside the house and burnt or they were
15 running away."
16 And then he says:
17 "After we didn't find anything in the house, Afet went down to
18 the Ametovski house in order to join with the rest of the family which
19 were at this time in the area of the stream. He was thinking that Kadri
20 and Bajrami had obviously escaped."
21 Can you see that?
22 A. M'mm-hmm.
23 Q. And again that indicates, doesn't it, that contrary to what
24 Mr. Jashari told you, he didn't see the killing; is that correct?
25 A. It is a different account from what he gave us, yes.
1 Q. Then if I can draw your attention to paragraph 36. It says:
2 "After Afet left the place, I found the bodies in the field.
3 Being asked for the time, I say it was around late afternoon."
4 So you will agree that the story that Mr. Jashari gave to the
5 Prosecution is, as you pointed out, quite different than the story that he
6 gave you?
7 A. Yes, there are some significant differences in the account, yes.
8 Q. Including the fact that he didn't witness the killing; is that
10 A. I don't see where it says that he directly witnessed the killing
11 in our report, actually.
12 Q. Well, I've just read to you the passage where you said, in your
13 statement, that he had been an eyewitness to the killing. Would you like
14 me to read it again to you?
15 A. No, I agree that I said in my statement that he was an eyewitness,
16 but I don't see where, in our report, it says that he directly witnessed
17 the killings.
18 Q. Well, your statement says this:
19 "On 20 August 2001 in Skopje, I had interviewed the father of two
20 of the killed men, Qani Jashari, who had been an eyewitness of the event."
21 That's your evidence, isn't it?
22 A. Yes, but --
23 Q. And you go on to say: "His testimony is on page 11 of the
25 And that's the evidence that you gave to the Prosecution, isn't
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Well, if we go on, is it also correct that he could not see what
4 was happening, or he told the Prosecution, in any case, that he could not
5 see what was happening in and around the house other than the flames
6 coming out of the house, is that correct, that's the version that he gave
7 to the Prosecution?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And he also told them -- or he did not claim to the Prosecution
10 that he could see his sons climbing out of the windows, like he had told
11 you; is that correct?
12 A. Can I just see the next paragraph of his statement, actually,
13 the -- where he talks about Kadri's body?
14 Q. Certainly. I will come to the issue of Kadri, Mr. Bouckaert, but
15 which paragraph would you like to --
16 A. I would like to see the rest of paragraph 39.
17 MR. METTRAUX: Could the Registry assist?
18 I'll read it out to you:
19 "Afterwards, I wanted to drag the body of Kadri down. At this
20 moment I heard from the check-point somebody screaming, 'Are you still
21 alive,' and then they started to shoot at my direction. Being asked from
22 what distance this voice came, I say this was far away, maybe 2.000 metres
23 or closer. It came from the check-point of the army on the hills above
24 the village."
25 Q. Is it correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that he didn't claim or didn't tell
1 the Prosecutor that he had seen his sons climb out of the window, unlike
2 what he did with you?
3 A. He didn't say to us that he saw them climb out of the window. He
4 said when the fire started, the boys climbed out through the window.
5 Q. Well, that suggests, doesn't it, that he saw that?
6 A. It can be read either way, can't it?
7 Q. Well, I don't think it can. Who else could have told him that
8 they had climbed out of the windows?
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, Your Honour, this seems to be
10 disintegrating now into simply argument. I would suggest this not helpful
11 to the Chamber.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Saxon.
13 Carry on, Mr. Mettraux.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
15 Q. Is that correct, sir? We really need to try to have short
16 answers, and I think those can be --
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, you're getting short answers, but
18 you're giving terribly long questions.
19 MR. METTRAUX: I will do my best.
20 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that Mr. Jashari did not tell the
21 Prosecution that he had seen his son climb out of the windows, unlike what
22 he had done with you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. No, he didn't?
25 A. Because he didn't tell us that he saw his sons climbing out of the
1 windows. He said, "When the fire started, the boys climbed through the
2 window." That doesn't mean that he saw them. It could have -- even in
3 his statement, he said they either burned in the house or they climbed out
4 of the window and were shot, or whatever he says, so obviously, since he
5 found the bodies later, it was a fair conclusion to make that they climbed
6 out of the window.
7 Q. But is that correct, sir, that the only way in which he could have
8 had that knowledge was by having witnessed that particular incident, since
9 he indicated to you that no one was with him at the time; is that correct?
10 A. No, I disagree. I mean, I think his statement is clear. He says
11 "When the fire started, the boys climbed out through the window. They ran
12 away, but the police started shooting at them."
13 Q. Is that correct also that he did not claim to the Prosecution that
14 he saw them run away; is that correct?
15 A. Look, I don't know exactly what you're trying to get at. I think
16 he left his sons in the house. He came back later and found them dead.
17 He knew the police had been at his house, and he told us that his sons had
18 climbed out of the window, that they had tried to run away and were shot
19 down. I think it's a perfectly logical conclusion to make, and it doesn't
20 suggest -- he doesn't suggest in the statement, in the report, that he had
21 personally witnessed these things. He could just as well have concluded
22 them from what he found just minutes afterwards.
23 Q. But he didn't say that to the Prosecution; correct?
24 A. He didn't say what?
25 Q. He didn't say that he had seen his sons run away from the house?
1 A. Yes. And as I've said time and time again, neither did he say
2 that to us. He said that the boys had run away. He did not say, "I saw
3 the boys climb out of the window and run away."
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpretation kindly ask you to slow down and
5 make pauses.
6 MR. METTRAUX:
7 Q. Is that correct also that he didn't claim to have seen four or
8 five policemen walk up to the three men in the field; is that correct?
9 A. That he didn't claim that to us or to --
10 Q. To the Prosecution.
11 A. I -- I don't know -- I'd have to read his entire statement to
12 say -- see whether he claimed it or not. I mean, you read some specific
13 passages, but unless I'm familiar with the entire statement, how can I
14 make that -- answer that question?
15 Q. Well, from what I've read to you, is that correct that when he
16 came out of the bushes, he did not know whether they had been killed or
17 whether they had run away? That's what he said; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, and in paragraph 45 he also says:
19 "Also beside Kadri we found some papers which indicate that the
20 bodies were searched."
21 So, again, I think it's a logical conclusion for him to make that
22 some police had walked up to the bodies, since they had been --
23 Q. Let's just stick with the questions of the four and five
24 policemen. Is that correct that when he came out of the bushes, he didn't
25 know what had happened to his children, whether they were alive or dead;
1 is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And that indicates, doesn't it, that he didn't know or he didn't
4 claim, in any case, that he had witnessed anyone killing his children; is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you seek to interview any policemen or any member of the
8 Ministry of Interior to verify this story about -- from Mr. Jashari?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Did you visit the location where the three individuals had been
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And did you look for bullet casings around the area where
14 Mr. Jashari said his son had been shot at close range?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did you find any?
17 A. I didn't find any.
18 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown once again what
19 is Exhibit 1D24.
20 Mr. Bouckaert, that's the same OSCE report that I have shown
21 you -- that I have shown you earlier. And I'll ask the Registry to go to
22 page 4 directly.
23 Q. I'll ask you to look at the second paragraphs. That's the
24 paragraph starting with: "There were no bullet casings ..." This is the
25 conclusions of the OSCE after their visit on the 14th:
1 "There were no bullet casings found near the three men located in
2 the field or on the hillside leading to their bodies. There were no
3 superficial indications that they were shot at close range. From the
4 totality of the circumstances at the scene, it appeared the men were shot
5 from a distance while running uphill."
6 Can you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you did not have that information at the time; is that
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. But you have indicated to me earlier that you had had the benefit
12 of the notes, I believe, of Nicholas Wood, a journalist; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct. He had been with the OSCE observer at the time.
14 Q. And you make a reference to those notes in your report; is that
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if we can turn to page 11 again of Mr. Bouckaert's report.
18 It's P352 and go to page 11.
19 And if I could ask the Registry to focus on the paragraph starting
20 with: "The bodies of Bajram Jashari ..." It's the bulky paragraph in
21 the middle.
22 I'd like to read a sentence which you referred to -- where you
23 gave a reference to the notes of Mr. Wood. It says:
24 "25-year-old Xhelal Bajrami's body had multiple gunshot wounds in
25 the back, the buttocks, and the back of his legs, suggesting he was shot
1 in the back while running away. The body of 31-year-old Kadri Jashari was
2 found a few metres farther away from the house of Qani Jashari. His body
3 showed several large exit wounds on the upper front of the chest and his
4 neck, suggesting again that he had been shot in the back while running
6 Then he says:
7 "According to his family, Kadri had just returned 10 days before
8 from working in Austria."
9 Is that correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that the information which
10 Mr. Wood provided to you suggests that Mr. Jashari, Kadri Jashari, was
11 shot and killed by bullets shot in the back and not in the front; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that would be inconsistent with the version given by
15 Qani Jashari to you; is that correct?
16 A. We were unable to confirm that part of Mr. Jashari's story, yes.
17 Q. But you published it; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And I understand that you had no reason, and I think you've
20 indicated, that you had no reason to doubt the reliability of Mr. Qani
21 Jashari at the time. Is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And in your statement, at paragraph 82 you indicate that as a
24 professional investigator, you have been trained to assess the credibility
25 of witnesses; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And did you inquire with anyone whether -- any of the villagers,
3 for instance, whether you should handle the information provided by you
4 from Mr. Jashari with some care; did you make that inquiry?
5 A. I didn't ask any of the other villagers about the reliability of
6 Mr. Jashari, no.
7 MR. METTRAUX: Could we move, Your Honour, for a minute in private
9 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
10 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
14 MR. METTRAUX:
15 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that you did not make any inquiry
16 about the reliability, in general, or in this particular instance, about
17 the information provided to you by Mr. Jashari?
18 A. At the time I interviewed him, Mr. Jashari was a credible and
19 lucid witness.
20 Q. I'd like to ask you a number of questions about another witness
21 which -- or another person which you interviewed, and that's Mr. Elmaz
22 Jusufi. Do you recall interviewing Mr. Jusufi?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And is that correct that the interview of Mr. Jusufi took place in
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And do you recall if and whether he had told you when he had left
3 the village after the incident?
4 A. No.
5 Q. I would like to go back to what is P352; that is, the report of
6 Mr. Bouckaert and ask that the Registry should turn at page 7 of the
8 Mr. Bouckaert, if you can focus on the top of the page, that's the
9 first full paragraph, if you want, which starts with the
10 words: "Elmaz Jusufi ..." Can you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you said the following:
13 "Elmaz Jusufi's home was among the first to be attacked. Elmaz
14 Jusufi, a 58-year-old bedridden paraplegic, told Human Rights Watch how
15 the Macedonian police forces blew away the gate of his home, shot dead his
16 33-year-old son Rami Jusufi through the front door of the home, and then
17 torched his car."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. M'mm-hmm.
20 Q. And then there's a quote which is indented, which comes from the
21 interview of Mr. Jusufi. That's Footnote 14, and it says this:
22 "The moment the attack on the village started, they came to my
23 house. My front yard was full of them. There were about 20. They were
24 all in uniform, but not masked. They bombed the gate to the yard. Then
25 my son went to close the front door. At the moment he closed the door and
1 went back into the room. There was a huge explosion. They blew away the
2 door with machine-gun fire. That was the moment my son was hit in the
3 side and stomach from the shots. He fell down there. It happened right
4 in front of my eyes."
5 Then he goes on to say:
6 "The police did not come into the house. I got into my
7 wheelchair and went close to the door and my son. My son was suffering
8 for about two hours. He was in a lot of pain. My car was parked in the
9 front yard, right next to the gate. They poured gasoline on it and set it
10 on fire. I heard the police say, 'Pour the gasoline.'"
11 Can you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And is that correct, that -- and I will come back to the second
14 person, but you relied upon the evidence given to you by Mr. Muzafer
15 Jusufi in corroboration of the information you received from Elmaz Jusufi;
16 is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And the evidence which you -- or the information which you
19 recorded from Mr. Rami Jusufi was that his son had --
20 A. Rami Jusufi was shot. You mean Elmaz Jusufi.
21 Q. Yes, I'm grateful. The information which you recorded from Elmaz
22 Jusufi was that his son had closed the door and then went back into the
23 house, and then there was a huge explosion, and he was hit and killed; is
24 that correct?
25 A. From what I understood, he was in the process of closing the door,
2 Q. And he died some two hours later; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. On the 8th of May of this year, Mr. Jusufi was read that passage
5 in court, that record of the information which you provided in your
6 statement. And it's -- Your Honour, it's the transcript of the 8th of
7 May, 2007, page 508 to 509. This is the question:
8 "In this report," and this is talking about your report, "it is
9 stated this is a statement that you made on the 20th of August, 2001, as
10 it is stated in the report itself, immediately after the events. You
11 stated the following ..."
12 And then a passage of your report is being read:
13 "At the moment when the attack started, they came to my house. My
14 yard was full. There were about 20 of them there. They were all wearing
15 uniforms, but not masks as well. They shelled the gate to the yard. My
16 son went to close the front door. At the moment when he closed the door
17 and returned back to the room, there was a big blast. They demolished the
18 door by -- they blew up the door by machine-gun."
19 And this is the answer of Mr. Jusufi:
20 "This is a mistake. This is a total and complete mistake."
21 So do you agree that Mr. Jusufi did not adopt that particular
22 version which was given in your report when he gave evidence in court
24 A. Without seeing the full statement of Mr. Jusufi's answer, I don't
25 know what -- what mistake he's referring to.
1 Q. Well, what he said there after is this:
2 "So you've tried to interrupt me, stating that this was not true;
3 is that correct?"
4 And then he answers:
5 "What you read in the beginning, that is not correct. It is
6 correct that he was killed while at the gate, but it's not correct that he
7 went outside and then came back in."
8 And then there's a question:
9 "So if Human Rights Watch wrote what I just read, you are saying
10 that they did not relay correctly what has happened and what you have told
11 them; is that correct?"
12 And then he says:
13 "Partially it is correct, but there's a part that is incorrect.
14 The part that describes how he was killed near the entrance door, that is
15 correct, but the part that was saying that he left and then came back,
16 that is not correct. As he was going to close the door, that's when he
17 was killed."
18 A. I'm sorry, Your Honour, I would just like to object to the
19 unethical nature of this cross-examination. If you compare the statement
20 which is in the report, it's exactly what Mr. Jusufi confirmed. Counsel
21 was trying to mislead me into making a miss -- which is obviously due to a
22 translation error as he was being cross-examined.
23 Q. This was the assessment of Mr. Jusufi --
24 A. Yes, because he objected to --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Please make pauses.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, Mr. Bouckaert has put his finger on a
2 problem with the way you took an answer in the evidence and what that is
3 based upon. The answer you attributed to something or gave to it, in
4 effect, quite different from that which was intended by the witness on the
5 face of the evidence. So instead of arguing what it may have meant or
6 didn't mean, which is taking a lot of time and which is not really going
7 to advance this Tribunal, you can certainly put to the witness, as you
8 have been, a different account that was given on key points and have the
9 witness acknowledge that that is different from what he was told. There's
10 little point in having the witness then debate with you time and again
11 what the differences were or might have been or what their explanation
12 might be. If they're different, they're different. Whether the witness
13 then explored, by way of seeking confirmation, what was told him, I think
14 he's made it clear to you what he did and didn't do about that.
15 The witness, of course, did not have subsequent OTP
16 statements, did not have evidence given in this trial by these people, so
17 the value of what you're putting is really in the fact that he was told
18 one account and a different account is given by the same person at another
19 time. That's the value. That's the point you need to make and can make
20 it much more quickly than you are and then you can move on.
21 THE WITNESS: But, Your Honour, in this case the witness was
22 asked --
23 JUDGE PARKER: We fully appreciate that, Mr. Bouckaert. But as
24 you will see, we do not interfere with counsel a lot, and I made it quite
25 clear at the beginning of my comments --
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: -- to counsel that we saw the point that you are
3 making and accept it.
4 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
6 MR. METTRAUX: And simply for the witness, there was no intent to
7 mislead him in any way. The entire page was to be read, as it has been,
8 although the witness wanted -- I mean, I'm going to ask that first, where
9 it came from and it was read in advance. Mr. Bouckaert can be reassured
10 that the entire passage was to be read to you.
11 Q. You've indicated yesterday in your evidence that you recalled
12 having seen blood inside the house of Mr. Jusufi. Can you recall saying
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you recall where exactly inside the house that pool of
16 blood which you describe had been?
17 A. I recall seeing a pool of blood about one metre inside the house
18 away from the door.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
20 ter 197, and it has an ERN of N001-4925-07. If it could be enlarged a bit
21 for Mr. Bouckaert.
22 Q. Sir, do you recognise the entrance of the house of Mr. Jusufi on
23 this picture?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. If the bottom of the picture could be enlarged somewhat, I would
1 be grateful, and if, Mr. Bouckaert, you could indicate where, in that
2 entrance, you recall having seen a pool of blood.
3 Could the -- I would ask for the assistance of the usher, perhaps,
4 to help Mr. Bouckaert.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. And on that picture, Mr. Bouckaert, can you locate any pool of
7 blood or any marking?
8 A. It's difficult to tell from this picture, but that's the
9 approximate place where I noticed blood on the carpet.
10 MR. METTRAUX: We would seek to tender this document, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit 1D92, Your Honours.
13 MR. METTRAUX:
14 Q. And simply for clarification, Mr. Bouckaert, you've indicated
15 yesterday that you did not take any picture from the inside of the house,
16 I think you said. You said that?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Is that a picture which you took, the present picture?
19 A. I assume it is, yes.
20 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you. We'll ask also that the picture be
21 admitted under seal. We understand the person on picture may be
22 protected, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, I didn't quite grasp that last comment.
24 MR. METTRAUX: We believe that the person on the picture may be a
25 protected witness, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be under seal.
2 Is that a convenient time?
3 MR. METTRAUX: Absolutely, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE PARKER: We will have the first break and resume at a
5 quarter past.
6 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.
10 Hopefully, you won't receive a phone call --
11 THE WITNESS: I turned it off.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Very well.
13 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I'd like to show you another picture, which is P-5,
14 which you had been shown by the Prosecution yesterday.
15 Mr. Bouckaert, do you recall being shown this picture by the
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And it's one of the pictures that you, yourself, took; is that
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if we can enlarge a bit the bottom of the picture, the last
22 third of it. Further down, further down. Well, thank you.
23 And here, Mr. Bouckaert, you had indicated that when you took that
24 picture, you found those casings which were -- bullet casings which were
25 there on the ground; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And if we can simply go back to the normal size of the picture,
3 please. Is that correct that more or less on the extreme left of the
4 picture, there was a wall there, Mr. Bouckaert, that is, that
5 approximately between, I would say, 30 to 60 centimetres from the bullets,
6 if one goes to the left, there was a wall there; is? Is that correct?
7 A. I -- I will take your word for it.
8 Q. But can you recall that there was indeed a wall there that
9 continues from this part?
10 A. I honestly don't recall, no.
11 Q. And would you agree that this casing -- bullet casings which you
12 see on this picture and which you saw at the time are of the
13 7.62-millimetre type; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And is that correct also that this is the sort of ammunition which
16 is used, among other things, with Kalashnikov weapons?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And perhaps I should ask you this, but have you ever, yourself,
19 shot from a Kalashnikov weapon or seen anyone seen from a Kalashnikov
21 A. Yes, the answer is "yes" to both.
22 Q. And is that correct that when you shoot with a Kalashnikov weapon,
23 the bullet or, rather, the casing of the bullet is projected on the right
24 side of the gun; is that correct?
25 A. I believe that's correct, yes.
1 Q. In fact, the projection is towards forwards and to the right; is
2 that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And is that also correct that the projection of the bullet or the
5 casing of the bullet has an ejection projection of two to three metres
6 from --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- from the gun; is that correct? Thank you.
9 I'd like to move on now to another witness, which -- we can remove
10 the picture from the screen. I'm grateful.
11 I'd like to ask you a number of questions about another individual
12 and another villager which you interviewed during your investigation, and
13 that's Mr. Muzafer Jusufi. Do you recall interviewing Mr. Jusufi?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you recall Mr. Jusufi telling you that as Mr. Elmaz Jusufi
16 had said, he had witnessed what he said was the killing of Rami Jusufi; do
17 you recall that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And I would just like to read the information in the report, sir,
20 which you recorded. It's at page 7, Your Honour, of P352. Mr. Bouckaert,
21 this is again your report.
22 It is the section which starts in the middle of the page with the
23 words: "Muzafer Jusufi ..." If the Registry could enlarge somewhat the
24 document for Mr. Bouckaert.
25 I'll read out the quote which you have recorded Mr. Jusufi -- the
1 information which you recorded Mr. Jusufi to tell -- to give you:
2 "The firing started and I went to see Elmaz. A very short time
3 later, heavy firing started all around the village. After two seconds,
4 the gate to the front yard was blown up either from a grenade or an RPG, a
5 rocket-propelled grenade. I don't know. Immediately, they came inside the
6 front yard. Then they shot a burst at the car. One of them shouted,
7 'Give me the gasoline.' They set the car on fire with the gasoline. Then
8 they came towards the entrance to the house. They started shooting
9 automatic bursts in our direction. Rami Jusufi was locking the door, and
10 after he locked the door, he was shot. There were a lot of police
11 officers, maybe 15 or 20. After one and a half to two hours, the boy died.
12 The police did not come in. They just stood at the door. They were
13 swearing at us all the time."
14 And then there's an expletive. Do you recall Mr. Muzafer Jusufi
15 telling you that?
16 A. I mean, it's very difficult for me to recall directly, but if
17 there is -- if it's in the report, I certainly interviewed him, yes.
18 Q. And as you just pointed out, it was --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yes, he had told you that he had witnessed the killing of Mr. Rami
21 Jusufi; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And that was the corroboration of the evidence of Elmaz Jusufi; is
24 that correct?
25 A. Yes, together with our physical inspection.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65
2 ter 1D14. It's at ERN 1D00-0183, I'm sorry, and there is no Macedonian
4 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is again a statement of Mr. Jusufi or
5 Jusufovski Muzafer which he gave to the Prosecution on the 12th of October
6 of 2005, and I ask the Registry to go to page 3 of that statement, please.
7 And I'll ask, Mr. Bouckaert, that you focus on paragraph 9 of
8 Mr. Jusufi's statement. I'll read it out to you. He said this to the
10 "On the question of killing of Rami Jusufi, I wish to state that
11 I was hiding in the room and did not see what happened. When the police
12 left the house, I came out from where I was hiding and found Rami Jusufi
13 covered with blood and barely alive. Rami Jusufi died shortly after he
14 was laid on the couch."
15 Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that would suggest that, in fact, if this statement is to be
18 believed, Mr. Jusufi did not see the killing of Mr. Rami Jusufi; is that
20 A. That's what the paragraph suggests. I'm not sure if -- yeah, I'm
21 not sure why he's stated this in his statement.
22 Q. Thank you. If I can ask you another question about another
23 witness which you've interviewed, Mr. Bouckaert. That is Mr. Aziz
25 Do you recall interviewing Mr. Aziz Bajrami? And I can draw your
1 attention perhaps --
2 A. I believe I interviewed Mr. Bajrami on two separate occasions,
4 Q. That's correct, and that would be the 18th and the 24th of August,
5 if that's correct.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And again this interview took place in Skopje; is that correct?
8 A. Both of them did, yes.
9 MR. METTRAUX: Could we move, Your Honour, just for a second in
10 private session, please.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
12 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
17 MR. METTRAUX:
18 Q. I'd like to turn your attention, Mr. Bouckaert, to page 10 of your
19 statement -- of your report, I'm sorry. And that's again P352. And I
20 would simply draw your attention to the third indented paragraph on that
21 page, and that's the quote which you attribute, I understand, to Mr. Aziz
22 Bajrami. Perhaps we'll go simply to the previous page to establish that
23 matter. I apologise.
24 Mr. Bouckaert, if you look at the bottom of page 9, is that
25 correct that there is -- the very last paragraph, there's an indented
1 paragraph which is your record of what Mr. Aziz Bajrami told you at the
2 time; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, to page 10, please. And I'd
5 like to read out to you the last paragraph which you record from
6 Mr. Bajrami. It says:
7 "I thought that something would happen, so I quickly went back to
8 the garden door and went out. Then I heard shooting. That is when they
9 killed Muharem with two or three shots."
10 The question, Mr. Bouckaert, is: Did Mr. Bajrami tell you that
11 he had witnessed the killing himself or that he had been told that he had
12 witnessed -- sorry, that he had been told that Muharem had been killed in
13 this manner; do you recall?
14 A. I don't believe that he witnessed the killing himself. He was
15 trying to flee from the area.
16 Q. Thank you. There's another matter that I would like to ask you
17 questions about and that's the -- your findings about the alleged presence
18 of the NLA in the village at that time. Do you recall this part of your
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And is that correct that you expressed the view in your report
22 that you had -- and in the letters which you subsequently wrote or the
23 interviews which you subsequently gave, that you had not found any
24 evidence of the presence of the NLA in the village at the time; is that
1 A. We had found no evidence of the presence of the NLA in the area
2 that we looked at, that's correct, although I would like to just mention
3 that our report -- our report's legal conclusions state that even if the
4 NLA rebels responsible for the antitank mine incident were present in
5 Ljuboten, the attack on Ljuboten by the Macedonian police, as documented
6 by Human Rights Watch, involved both indiscriminate and deliberate attacks
7 on civilians in violation of the norms of IHL and international human
8 rights law.
9 Q. Thank you for that. Is that correct also that none of the
10 villagers that you interviewed mentioned the presence of the NLA in the
11 village on that day?
12 A. No, they only mentioned the presence of an NLA position above the
14 Q. And you did not query this matter with any of the Macedonian
15 authorities; is that correct?
16 A. The Macedonian authorities had made general statements that the
17 people who had been killed were terrorists, but they had presented no
18 specific evidence to show that there had been an NLA presence in public at
19 the time of the issuing of the report.
20 Q. Well, I'm simply asking you, Mr. Bouckaert: Did you ask the army
21 or the Ministry of Defence whether they had any information in that
23 A. No.
24 Q. Did you ask the police or the Ministry of Interior if they had
25 information in that regard?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you ask the Ministry of Justice if they had any information in
3 that regard?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you ask the Court or the Investigative Judge or the Prosecutor
6 whether they had information in that regard?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did you ask the security services whether they had information in
9 that regard?
10 A. No. The only person I briefed on our findings within the
11 government at that time was the national security adviser.
12 Q. And that would be Mr. Panderevski; is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Did you ask the OSCE whether they had any such information?
15 A. I had discussions with the OSCE and also with the ICRC around that
17 Q. And did you seek formally to obtain information about this matter
18 from either of those organisations?
19 A. Not formally.
20 Q. And did you seek information in that regard from the EUMM, the
21 European Monitors?
22 A. Yes. No, we didn't -- I didn't.
23 Q. Is that correct also that you had been aware that in June of 2001,
24 a number of journalists had met with members of the NLA in the village of
1 A. With uniformed members of the NLA, yes.
2 Q. There is a point of methodology which I would like to go back. Do
3 you remember that I asked you about your methodology in relation to, I
4 think the report called "Fatal Strike," that's your southern Lebanon
5 report; do you recall?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you explained that in this particular report you sought to
8 establish, from sources outside of Hezbollah influence, whether there had
9 or hadn't been any presence of Hezbollah at the time of the targeting; do
10 you recall?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you also said that where you couldn't find such outside
13 information, you would drop the particular incident from your finding in
14 the report; is that correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Is that correct also that in the Ljuboten investigation, you put
17 the onus on the government rather than on yourself and by that I mean that
18 you asked and expected the Macedonian authority to actively provide you
19 with information pertaining to this matter; is that correct?
20 A. No, I don't think that's correct.
21 Q. I draw your attention again to your report once again, and it's
22 P352 at page 16, 1-6, in particular to the third paragraph of that
23 document where you said this -- I'll wait perhaps until you have it in
24 front of you.
25 A. I do.
1 Q. It says:
2 "It is significant that the government has not presented any
3 credible evidence that there was an NLA presence in Ljuboten, such as
4 confiscated NLA weapons or uniform, despite the growing international
5 concern about the events in the village. Ordinarily, the government
6 displays captured weapons and uniform in the aftermath of successful
7 operations against the NLA."
8 Is that correct that the situation is as follows: You indicated
9 in your report that you had found no evidence of NLA presence, but that
10 you had sought no information from sources outside of the village of
11 Ljuboten to confirm or affirm this finding?
12 A. No, it's not correct.
13 Q. And can you say what request or application you made to obtain
14 that information outside of the village of Ljuboten?
15 A. Well,, what is not correct in your question is that we sought no
16 information from sources outside of the village of Ljuboten to confirm or
17 affirm this finding.
18 As I explained to you, I did have conversations with the OSCE,
19 with the ICRC, and with a large number of journalists, and I found no
20 evidence to indicate -- no information to indicate that our findings on
21 the NLA presence were incorrect.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit 1D24.
23 And that's again the special report of the OSCE on the Ljuboten incidents
24 which I showed to you earlier.
25 And if I can ask the Registry perhaps to move to the second page
1 of this report.
2 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, if you could look at the first paragraph at the top
3 of the page, I'll read it out to you. It's the first full sentence, it
5 "A government mortar position is now clearly visible on one
6 hilltop above the fields from the position of one of the bodies. In
7 addition to the mortar emplacement outside the town, as noted herein,
8 there is an ethnic Albanian armed group, EAAG presence in town as well."
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And if you can go now to the very bottom --
12 A. That is referring to a presence after the attack on Ljuboten.
13 Q. Well, Mr. Bouckaert, this is the report about the 12th of
14 August --
15 A. Which was made on the 16th, and it's referring to the burning of
16 Macedonian homes in the village.
17 Q. Well, Mr. Bouckaert, perhaps we can go back --
18 A. In addition -- let me read the sentence for the record:
19 "In addition to the mortar emplacement outside the town, as noted
20 herein, there is an ethnic Albanian armed presence in town as well.
21 Within a day of the team's visit to the mission, the mission received the
22 reports that Macedonian houses in the village had been fired upon and
24 So the EAAG presence refers to a presence on the 14th or 15th.
25 Thank you.
1 Q. Well, if perhaps we look at the last paragraph on that page, we
2 may get some clarity on that point. It says this:
3 "Second, OSCE monitors sound rather clear about the sequence of
4 events at the village and, not surprisingly, their reports differ
5 dramatically from press reports and commonly repeated tales. It is now
6 known that there is an EAAG position north of the village, a significant
7 position located in the area of Ljubotenski Racila," and that should be
9 "Reliable sources indicate that the second position may have been
10 associated with the mine strike on government forces in the area and that
11 Macedonian forces appropriately engaged this EAAG positions with mortar
12 fire below the village."
13 Can you see that?
14 A. Yes, it's talking about a position that is mentioned in our
16 Q. And then it goes on to say this:
17 "On 12 August at 805 hours, the first mortar round fell on the
18 village. It landed in the vicinity of the Orthodox Church in the
19 Macedonian section of the village. Two more rounds followed, each closer
20 to the church. All three are believed to have been 120-millimetre
21 mortars. These are more likely to have been EAAG rounds than government's
22 and were the first shots fired into the village. Thereafter, the army
23 fired on the Albanian side of the village with its similar-calibre
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then it goes on to say this. It's the last sentence of the
3 next paragraph, Mr. Bouckaert:
4 "Reports from other international observers in the area indicate
5 that there were EAAG in the village in civilian clothes and that there was
6 an exchange of fire from deer rifle within the village."
7 Are you still of the view that this report refers to a time after
8 the events, Mr. Bouckaert?
9 A. No, but there was quite fierce discussions within the OSCE at the
10 time between Mr. Bolton and the human dimensions officer about the
11 reliability of the latter information, about the reports from other
12 international observers, which I believe refers to reports from the
13 European Union monitors.
14 Q. Well, perhaps I can show you this document, Mr. Bouckaert. It's
15 Exhibit 1D126 -- sorry, it's now Exhibit 1D29.
16 A. I just would like to state that we did not consider some of these
17 alternative theories advanced by the OSCE to be based on reliable
19 Q. I'm grateful for that.
20 If you can perhaps look at the top left-hand corner of the
21 document, Mr. Bouckaert. This is a document which comes from the EUMM.
22 We understand it's Monitor Skopje to HQ EUMM, and it's dated the 13th of
23 August of 2001. Can you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then if you can look at the last part of this document, under
1 the subheading "Security," it says the following:
2 "Reports of fierce exchanges between ARM," and that's the
3 Macedonian army, "and EEAG in the Ljuboten and Ljubanci area at 1400
4 hours," and then it says "12 August" it should be -- It says 12 July --
5 A. It says "12 July" and should be "12 August."
6 Q. That's correct. Thank you.
7 "Were confirmed late in the day by ICRC who had attempted to
8 organise a convoy of vehicles to extract Albanian citizens of Ljuboten
9 from the affected area."
10 And then it says, "The ICRC attempted to conduct the extraction of
11 an estimated 1.000 people along the secondary road running south from
12 Ljuboten-Butel. The primary road south from Ljuboten runs through the
13 Macedonian town of Radisani and it was known that there was a hostile
14 gathering of townspeople awaiting the arrival of the displaced Albanians."
15 Then it says:
16 "The ICRC team reported that when they arrived at the spot between
17 a police checkpoint and an army checkpoint in the general area, DM 385580,
18 they encountered a roadblock manned by armed civilians who were abusive
19 and chased them away from the area."
20 And then it just concludes by saying:
21 "The ICRC team was forced to abandon the attempt to rescue the
23 Is that correct, that again according to the ICRC there had been
24 what they say are fierce exchanges between the army and the EEAG in
25 Ljuboten on 12th August; is that correct?
1 A. Yes, but there was a mistaken conclusion by the ICRC which was not
2 repeated later on. At that time, they did not gain access to the village.
3 As the statement says, they came up to the village and had to leave
4 because of the hostile presence of an ethnic Macedonian crowd. They heard
5 fierce gunfire coming from Ljuboten, and they made a mistaken assumption,
6 as many people would make, that it was an exchange of gunfire between the
7 NLA and the Macedonian army.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit 1D28,
9 please. This is a report obtained by the Defence through an embassy here
10 in The Hague, and as you can see, it's an EUMM situation report on fire on
11 12th August at 1600 hours, and the description of the general situation is
13 "Macedonian security forces continued massive attacks against
14 positions of rebel National Liberation Army positions in the Tetovo area
15 and northeast along the road to the Kosovo border. NLA has moved closer
16 to Skopje by gaining control over the village of Ljuboten, five kilometres
17 north of Skopje outskirts."
18 Can you see that?
19 A. Again, this is based on information from the Crisis Management
20 Centre which turned out to be absolutely incorrect, as was the information
21 provided by the Crisis Management Centre the same day that 300 NLA members
22 had crossed into Macedonia from Kosovo.
23 Q. And on what evidence are you able to base your evidence to the
24 effect that the information that I read to you was incorrect?
25 A. Because it was not repeated by these agencies later on. This is
1 reporting information directly received from the Crisis Management Centre,
2 and during my meetings with the OSCE and the ICRC later on, these kind of
3 reports were seen as inaccurate.
4 Q. Is it also correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that the Crisis Management
5 Centre received information from the field from both the police and the
6 army at times?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Well, if I can --
9 A. It was a coordination body that managed the information during the
10 crisis and then passed on the information to the various monitoring
11 missions on the ground in Macedonia.
12 MR. METTRAUX: If the witness can please be shown what is now
13 Exhibit 1D26, please.
14 Q. As you can see, this is a report in relation to military
15 activities on the 12th of August of 2001, and it is signed by Lieutenant
16 Brasnjarski, Darko, and it is a document that has been provided to us by
17 the Prosecution.
18 Mr. Brasnarski records the following. He says:
19 "On the 12th August 2001, while conducting my regular duties in
20 organising the work during the day, we were informed about 8.00 that
21 machine-gun and sniper fire was opened against the position Smok from
22 Ljuboten village."
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then he says that:
1 "We went immediately together with Lieutenant Jurisic,
2 Jurisic Mario, towards the position."
3 Can you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then if you go down a further, he says that:
6 "The mortar actions started the action against targets in Ljuboten
7 village as a support of our position. At about 9.20, a sniper fire was
8 opened against the position at B-1 and during this a helmet that was on
9 sandbags was hit and damaged. Immediately after that, also, machine-gun
10 fire was opened against us from the houses left from the mosques."
11 Can you see that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then he says, a sentence later:
14 "I fired six projectiles towards the house where the machine-gun
15 fire was coming, and that was neutralised, whereas from the house under
16 the mosque, the sniper continued to shoot, so I fired five projectiles
17 against it and it was destroyed."
18 You would agree, I hope, Mr. Bouckaert, that this suggests that at
19 least there was fire coming from the village towards the position of the
20 army on the 12th of August; is that correct?
21 A. That's what this statement says, yes.
22 MR. METTRAUX: And if Mr. Bouckaert could be shown what is 1D25,
24 Thank you.
25 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is a similar report, a report of a similar
1 nature. It's again from the Army of Macedonia and was again provided to
2 us by the Office of the Prosecution. It's a report related to military
3 activities on 12th August 2001, and it's signed by the commander of a
4 mortar battery, 120-millimetres, Mr. Captain Grozdanovski, Nikolce, and
5 the report says the following:
6 "On 12 August 2001 in the morning, I was at the rest house
7 performing my regular duties. At about eight hour we heard many
8 long-lasting, repeated shots. Later, the commander of the battalion
9 called me and ordered me to visit the observation post at the check-point
10 Smok and to prepare the battery for action."
11 Can you see that?
12 A. M'mm-hmm.
13 Q. If you can go one sentence further down, it starts with the words:
14 "From the observation towards the village, I realised that the
15 terrorists were firing from the area of the church, from an old house
16 about 100 metres on to the mosque. Most probably there was a sniper,
17 whereas above the mosque, from the new houses, the second one, there was a
18 machine-gun firing towards us. Then I informed the commander about the
19 situation and he ordered me to destroy those positions with several mortar
20 shells from 120-millimetre mortars."
21 Can you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And again you would agree that this document would suggest that
24 there was fire from the village towards the position of the army outside
25 of the village; is that correct?
1 A. That's what this document claims.
2 Q. And you indicated as well that you didn't have any information
3 from -- or that you didn't seek to obtain any information from the
4 Ministry of Interior or the police; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is now
7 Exhibit 1D20.
8 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is the daily bulletin which is shared at the
9 CMC, and it comes from the archives of the OSCE in Skopje.
10 And if the Registry could go to page 12 of that document, please.
11 Sorry, Mr. Bouckaert, perhaps I should just read out to you the
12 period on the cover page that you might not --
13 A. I can still see it in the Macedonian one. That's fine.
14 Q. So it covers the period from 18 hours on the 9th of August to
15 18 hours on the 10th of August. Can you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If you can turn to page 12, please. It would be 1D00-1618. Thank
18 you. And if you can focus your attention on the last annotation in this
19 page, Mr. Bouckaert, number 37. It says the following:
20 "16," and that's the time, "At 1530 hours a patrol from the
21 police station Mirkovci reported that in the house of the family
22 Zendolovski [phoen] In the village of Ljuboten, three persons were
23 registered in black uniforms and armed with automatic weapons."
24 My question, Mr. Bouckaert, is: Were you aware of such reports
25 of armed men in black uniforms in the village on the 9th or 10th of
1 August, in the village of Ljuboten?
2 A. No.
3 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness be shown once again what has now
4 been admitted, I believe, as Exhibit 1D87.
5 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this again the same document. I have shown you the
6 second page of that document twice. I would like now you to focus on the
7 last paragraph on the first page with the assistance of the Registry.
8 This is again the record of an interview with an operative source
9 by the UBK, and the source said this:
10 "According to Odza, shots could be heard continually on the night
11 between 8th and 9th August 2001, all coming from the gardens of
12 Duraki Kazim and Fazliu Nedzmedin, and responses to those shots came from
13 the Basinec area.
14 In any case, Dzavid held his last meeting with Ljuboten residents
15 on the month of 9 August 2001, in the house of Osmani Saban. The
16 following day, around 0900 hours, the terrorist attack occurred on Balinec
17 killing eight ARM soldiers and wounding another eight. In that context,
18 according to the source, that same night, after the fighting around
19 Balinec, a large number of unknown individuals in black uniforms were seen
20 in the gardens of the house of Duraki Kazim, Duraku Safit, and Fazliu
21 Nedzmedin, as well as two vehicles, one belonging to OSCE and the other to
22 the UNHDR. At the same time, it was noticed that the women, children, and
23 elderly were leaving the village throughout the night around the river and
24 through the fields in the direction of the village of Radisani."
25 At the time of preparing your report, sir, did you have
1 information of that sort of the presence of NLA members in the village of
2 Ljuboten on the 8th or 9th of August, 2001?
3 A. No, and I also don't know of any reports from the ICRC or the
4 UNHCR mentioning any meetings with large groups of men in black in
5 Ljuboten on August 8th or 9th.
6 Q. There's also the evidence of a particular witness which I would
7 like you to consider.
8 Your Honour, this is the evidence of Witness M-37, a Prosecution
9 witness, of the 15th of May of 2007. It was an open session. It is at
10 page 827 and 828 of the transcript.
11 The witness was asked the following:
12 "You said that occasionally you used binoculars to view the
13 village; right?"
14 The answer is: "Yes."
15 And then the question:
16 "There was sporadic gunfire from the village towards the
17 check-points where you were; is that right?"
18 And the answer is:
19 "Whether there was gunfire from the direction of the village?"
20 And he says:
21 "Yes, and I think that was with -- that was a sniper rifle, and
22 you were able to find one of those bullets in one of the house, it
23 penetrated the walls of one of the houses in the village."
24 So we'd agree that at least this particular witness gave the
25 evidence -- gave evidence to the effect that there was, again, fire coming
1 from the village; is that correct?
2 A. Yeah, yes, that's -- if that's what you read into the record, yes.
3 Q. You've also indicated in your report that you did not find any
4 evidence of defensive position. You said that of sandbagging and that
5 sort of defensive position. Is that correct?
6 A. Yes, I think I had quite a more extensive list of things we were
7 looking for, but yes.
8 Q. And none of the villagers indicated to you at any stage that any
9 such positions had been prepared or made in the village; is that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. I'd like to show you another document, which is identified as an
12 Exhibit 1D30. Can you agree, Mr. Bouckaert, that any such defensive
13 position could have been removed between the time that elapsed between the
14 incident in the village of Ljuboten and the time when you visited the
15 village; would you agree with that?
16 A. It is theoretically possible.
17 Q. Well, if you look at the documents which is now in front of you,
18 this is a letter from the Prosecution. It's a record of an interview
19 carried out by the Prosecution with a person whom the Prosecution intends
20 to call as a witness, and this is the information which this person gave
21 to the Prosecution:
22 "During his duty as an intelligence officer, Kostadinov had
23 personal contact with the person known as Kenan. He described this person
24 as one of the village leaders of Ljuboten. Kenan took over the main
25 authority to lead the village from the other village leader, the school
1 teacher. Kostadinov describes the teacher as the person with the money
2 and Kenan as the person with'power.' After the transfer of power to Kenan
3 took place, the problems with the villagers in Ljuboten started.
4 Kostadinov is sure, although he does not have evidence, that Kenan has NLA
6 He states that:
7 "The ARM doesn't have a file about Kenan, but he recommends the
8 DBK and the police station in Cair."
9 And then he says:
10 "With respect to the use of the term 'check-point' in his report
11 to describe the resistance to approaching Macedonians faced on Sunday
12 morning, 12th August, Kostadinov elaborated, it was a machine-gun outside
13 in front of Kenan's house described as a weapon supporting ammunition by a
14 belt, calibre 12 millimetre. The machine-gun was operated by three
15 persons. The machine-gun was positioned by the cover of the terrain, and
16 according to Kostadinov, no fortification like sandbags was used. The
17 machine-gun was operated at the moment of the event. The witness is sure
18 that the fortification or classical machine-gun post would definitely have
19 been spotted by the observation points of the ARM. It is not clear if
20 Kenan was present at the time."
21 Do you agree, sir, that if the information provided by
22 Mr. Kostadinov is to be believed, it would appear, in fact, to have been a
23 defensive position of quite -- of some significance in the village of
24 Ljuboten on the 12th of August?
25 A. The person, Kenan, I actually spoke to. He was the head of the
1 Civil Defence in Ljuboten, and he denied that there had been any such
2 position in the village and spoke about an agreement that they had reached
3 with the villages of Rastak and Ljubanci to keep the NLA out of the
4 village. But I do agree that if this witness is accurate, that it would
5 suggest that there was an NLA position or a machine-gun in the village.
6 But that is contra -- actually, I should say it would suggest that there
7 was a machine-gun in the village. But that was contrary to what Mr. Aliu
8 told us.
9 Q. And is that correct, that you did not take any step to verify -- I
10 think I have made the point already, but you did not verify with the army
11 whether they had spotted such a check-point or not; is that correct?
12 A. No, and no public information available at the time from the
13 Macedonian authorities suggested that, either.
14 Q. And, again, when you say that, you indicate that you didn't make a
15 request for any such information; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. There's a few general questions which I would like to ask you
18 about your experience of the NLA in general. There is a proposition which
19 was made by Mr. Fred Abrahams in an interview which he gave, and I will
20 place it in front of you so you can consult it. It's Rule 65 ter 1D406,
21 and it's 1D00-3678. It's an interview given by Frederick Abrahams to "The
22 Washington Post," and the date is the 27th of June, 2001.
23 And if I could ask the Registry to move immediately to page
24 1D00-3685 of that document.
25 Perhaps I should ask you this, Mr. Bouckaert, first: Is that
1 correct that your organisation, as you indicated, I think, recorded quite
2 a number of criminal incidents or crimes committed by members of the NLA;
3 is that correct?
4 A. Without doubt, some were so serious that we felt that amnesty,
5 which was part of the final peace agreement, should exclude them.
6 Q. I will come back to the issue of amnesty in a moment,
7 Mr. Bouckaert. The statement which I would like to read to you is the
8 following. Mr. Abrahams is recorded as saying:
9 "The NLA is an extreme and violent reflection of frustration felt
10 by many ethnic Albanians. Although many Albanians don't agree with the
11 means, they sympathise with the stated aims."
12 Is that a statement with which you would agree, Mr. Bouckaert?
13 A. I don't see it on the screen.
14 Q. I apologise. It should be page 1D --
15 A. Yeah, the answer is just down the same page.
16 Q. Could the page -- yes, thank you very much. It's the first
17 paragraph with the bolded "Frederick Abrahams."
18 A. I think that I would agree with the assessment made by
19 Mr. Abrahams if it was read in full, rather than just the first two lines
20 of the statement.
21 Q. Well, I wanted to ask you first this part and then the second
22 part, but would you agree with this first part or do you take issue with
23 any of that statement, the first part of the statement of Mr. Abrahams?
24 A. I would not have used those same words.
25 Q. But you would agree that the NLA is, in fact, very -- I mean, it
1 was regarded at the time as an extremist group and by many as a terrorist
2 organisation; is that correct?
3 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask you to slow down and
4 make pauses.
5 MR. METTRAUX: My apologies.
6 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bouckaert?
7 A. It was seen by many organisations this way. I would certainly not
8 classify the NLA as a terrorist organisation.
9 Q. But is that correct that a very large number of states regarded
10 the NLA as a terrorist organisation; is that correct?
11 A. I'm not aware of a very large number of states, no.
12 Q. Are you aware, for instance, that it was the position of the OSCE
13 General Assembly, for instance, or parliamentary assembly --
14 A. Parliamentary assembly, yes.
15 Q. Yes. Are you aware of that fact?
16 A. Well, that was a statement that was adopted by the
17 parliamentarians at an OSCE meeting.
18 Q. And it was also the position, for instance, of the United States;
19 is that correct?
20 A. I think here we need to understand the context in which these
21 diplomats were operating. The United States and many other states did not
22 want to see a spread of violence and a destabilisation of Macedonia. They
23 wanted to send a very clear message to the NLA that what had happened in
24 Kosovo, in terms of an international armed intervention, would not be
25 repeated, and they wanted to put the maximum amount of pressure on the NLA
1 to put down their weapons.
2 Q. But is that correct that the NLA was regarded by the United
3 States -- by the government of the United States as a terrorist
4 organisation and called as such; is that correct?
5 A. I'm not aware of any statements from the United States describing
6 the NLA as a terrorist organisation, and the NLA was not listed by the
7 United States on its lists of terrorist organisations, which does list
8 groups like Hamas and other groups.
9 Q. Well, perhaps we'll come back to that, then, later today or
10 tomorrow. But is that correct also that the NLA was claiming, at all
11 stages of the crisis, that they were abiding by the Geneva Conventions and
12 other humanitarian law treaties?
13 A. Yes, although we've documented many violations of that commitment.
14 Q. Is that also correct that a common excuse for the leaders of the
15 NLA, both -- or I should say the NLA or the KLA in Kosovo was to say that
16 the crimes had been committed by splinter groups and not by the NLA or the
17 KLA itself; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, and I actually had such a conversation with Commander Matusi
19 [phoen], who was one of the -- was the commander for the Tetovo area, when
20 I discussed the case of the -- the road workers and the disappearances of
21 ethnic Macedonians around Tetovo, he did try to claim that it was done by
22 splinter groups rather than NLA.
23 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful.
24 Your Honour, I don't think there's any need to tender the document
1 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I would like to go back to one other finding in
2 your report, and if I may ask you to go back to P352, that's your report,
3 and turn to page 3 of that report.
4 A. Of my report?
5 Q. Yes, please. And if you can go under the "Recommendation," the
6 first recommendation to the Macedonian authority. Is that correct that
7 one of the recommendations you made was as follows, and I will read your
9 "The authorities who carry out the investigation should be
10 independent from the government agencies involved in the Ljuboten
11 operation, particularly the Ministry of Interior."
12 Is that correct that you made such a call? You called for an
13 independent and transparent investigation by the Macedonian authorities
14 which would exclude the Ministry of Interior; is that correct?
15 A. Well, I think it's a general principle that people should not
16 investigate themselves for crimes, so, yes, that was part of our
18 Q. And is that correct, that another recommendation which you made at
19 the time was that Mr. Boskoski himself should be investigated for what you
20 considered to be his acts and conduct?
21 A. It says: "Conduct a credible, impartial and transparent
22 investigation into the allegations of government abuses in Ljuboten,
23 including the role of Minister of Interior Ljube Boskoski and the forces
24 under his command.
25 Q. And is that correct that you made a specific call for the
1 investigation of Mr. Boskoski's own role in another context? Did you make
2 a specific call for, and in particular to the Chief Prosecutor of this
3 Tribunal, that the role of Mr. Boskoski should be investigated; do you
5 A. Yes, we did. There is -- I'm not sure I understand your question.
6 Can you --
7 Q. Well, perhaps I'll show you the documents in question.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It's Rule 65 ter 1D344, and it has an ERN 1D00-3263. There is
10 only an English version.
11 Mr. Bouckaert, this is a letter addressed to the Chief Prosecutor
12 of this Tribunal, Carla Del Ponte. It's dated the 5th of September of
13 2001, and it concerns the Ljuboten investigation.
14 If I may ask the Registry to turn to the third page of that
16 I would like to ask you to focus your attention on the second
17 paragraph of that document, which starts with the words: "We are
18 troubled ..." Can you see that? Can you see it, Mr. Bouckaert?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It reads as follows:
21 "We are troubled by reports that Minister of Interior
22 Ljube Boskoski was in Ljuboten on 12 August, the day that the worst abuses
23 were committed. We respectfully request that your government commence a
24 prompt investigation into his role and the conduct of Macedonian troops
25 under his command. We note that in the absence of an appropriate response
1 by your government, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
2 Yugoslavia is authorised to act, and we are forwarding our findings to the
4 And it is signed by Ms. Elizabeth Andersen. It is sent to the
5 President of Macedonia, Boris Trajkovski, c.c.'ed to the Prime Minister --
6 sorry, c.c.'ed to the embassy of Macedonia in Washington, to Mr. Goce
7 Georgievski, and it's also c.c.'ed to Ms. Del Ponte, Prosecutor of the
8 ICTY. Do you recall that letter?
9 A. Absolutely, it's our position that the Macedonian authorities had
10 a responsibility to investigate these serious abuses, and in the absence
11 of efforts to investigate and punish those abuses, that this honourable
12 Tribunal had jurisdiction over those crimes.
13 Q. And you also requested more specifically that the role of
14 Mr. Boskoski be investigated; is that correct?
15 A. Certainly.
16 Q. And if we can go back to your report at page 3 again, this is
17 P352. And again I'll ask you to look at the section called
18 "The Recommendations."
19 If the Registry could assist with the last paragraph but one. It
20 starts with the word: "Cooperate ..." Thank you.
21 Another recommendation which you made at the time of your report
23 "Cooperate with international organisations, including the OSCE
24 and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY,
25 in the efforts to monitor and investigate alleged violations of
1 international human rights and humanitarian law by both sides to the
2 conflict in Macedonia."
3 Do you recall making that recommendation?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Going back to your first requests or recommendations to the
6 Macedonian authority, did you make any inquiries at the time with the
7 Ministry of Interior whether any investigation was ongoing at the time?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you make any such inquiry with the Court in Macedonia?
10 A. But actually the government's spokesperson had already made a
11 statement at the time that investigations of -- the Macedonian
12 investigations had concluded that no crimes had been committed in
13 Ljuboten, and I believe that this is quoted in our report at some stage.
14 Q. Well, we'll try to take it one step at a time, Mr. Bouckaert. Did
15 you make any inquiry with the Court in Macedonia whether there was any
16 investigation into this matter?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you make any inquiry with an investigative judge or with a
19 prosecutor to query whether there was an investigation at the time in
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you make any such inquiry in the months following the events
23 at Ljuboten with the Court, with the Prosecutor, or with the Ministry of
25 A. Our report was released on September 6th, five days before the
1 tragic events of September 11th, and soon thereafter I went to Pakistan
2 and Afghanistan to monitor the conflict there. So I personally did not
3 play any further role in -- following the events of Ljuboten or the
4 response of the government of Macedonia.
5 Q. So just to clarify the matter, you personally did not make any
6 such inquiry in the month following the report; is that correct?
7 A. Personally, no.
8 Q. And do you know if your organisation, your colleagues, made any
9 such inquiry with any of the Macedonian authorities at the time?
10 A. I don't believe they did.
11 MR. METTRAUX: I'd like the witness to be shown what is Rule 65
12 ter 1D408. It has an ERN range 1D00-3689 to 3690.
13 Q. Sir, this is --
14 A. Yes, I do recall this letter.
15 Q. And if time permits, we will come back to the issue of amnesty,
16 but for the time being would you confirm that this is a letter of Human
17 Rights Watch? It's dated the 2nd October of 2001, and it's directed to
18 the President of the Republic of Macedonia, Mr. Trajkovski.
19 A. Yes, I did review this letter.
20 Q. And if we can turn, please, to -- well, I'll start reading perhaps
21 from the bottom of this page, if I may ask, with the assistance of the
23 Mr. Bouckaert, I'll start reading from the last two lines of that
24 document. It says this:
25 "We also take this opportunity, Mr. President, to call on the
1 Macedonian authorities to objectively investigate the serious abuses
2 against ethnic Albanian civilians committed by the government forces,
3 which Human Rights Watch and other impartial monitors have brought to the
4 government's attention."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. M'mm-hmm.
7 Q. And then you say:
8 "We are particularly concerned by the failure of the authorities
9 to initiate an effective and credible investigation of the August 2001
10 events in the village of Ljuboten, as well as by reports that ethnic
11 Macedonians paramilitary groups continue to intimidate and assault
13 So is that correct that on the 2nd of October of 2001, it was
14 still the position of the Human Rights Watch that the authorities still
15 had not initiated an effective and credible investigation; is that
17 A. We had no indication at all that such an investigation was
18 underway, and the focus should be on effective and credible.
19 Q. You also recall telling the Prosecution that you would receive --
20 or that you were provided with reports of the press in Macedonia in
21 relation to your work; is that correct?
22 A. While I was in Macedonia, that's correct. After I went to
23 Pakistan and Afghanistan, that became more intermittent.
24 Q. Is that also correct, that one of your findings was that -- or one
25 of the statements which you've made, in any case, to the Prosecution was
1 that, in fact, Mr. Boskoski had openly tolerated police abuses and that he
2 had personally refused to investigate such abuses? Do you recall making
3 that assertion, Mr. Bouckaert?
4 A. People were beaten to death in the streets of Skopje by police
5 officers in front of large crowds. I certainly think that qualifies as
6 openly tolerating police abuse.
7 Q. Thank you for that. And concerning your call for a transparent
8 or, I'll use your expression, effective and credible investigation of the
9 August 2001 events in the Ljuboten village, were you aware at the time
10 that on the 12th of August of 2001, an investigation team had been formed
11 with the purpose of entering the village of Ljuboten to investigate? Is
12 that information which you have in your possession?
13 A. I did have information that an investigative judge -- that there
14 had been discussion about bringing an investigative judge to Ljuboten,
16 Q. Are you aware of the fact that on the 14th of August of 2001,
17 there were at least two unsuccessful attempts by an investigation team
18 composed of an investigative judge, a prosecutor, a forensic expert and a
19 team of the Ministry of the Interior, to enter the village of Ljuboten? Is
20 that information that you had in your possession at the time in August,
21 September, October of 2001?
22 A. No, I did not have such specific information.
23 Q. Were you aware that on the 29th of August of 2001, a meeting took
24 place between the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal and the state
25 prosecutor of Macedonia in relation to the situation in Macedonia; is that
1 information that you had in your possession at the time?
2 A. On the 29th of August, 2001?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. No, I'm not.
5 Q. Were you aware that during the period, the weeks and months that
6 followed the incident in Ljuboten, a number of meetings between the
7 investigative judge, between prosecutors of the State of Macedonia and
8 between forensic experts of the Skopje Institute took place in relation to
9 the events of Ljuboten? Were you aware of that? Were you aware of that at
10 the time in the weeks or months following the incident?
11 A. As I've explained, I was rather preoccupied with the events in
12 Pakistan and Afghanistan at the time.
13 Q. And you would agree perhaps that the letter suggests -- the letter
14 of 2nd of October of 2001 suggests that your colleagues were not aware or
15 did not have such information in their possession; is that correct?
16 A. My colleagues did not see any evidence -- any public evidence of
17 an effective or credible investigation, yes.
18 Q. And are you aware of any requests by yourself or by your
19 colleagues to obtain such information during this period to the Court or
20 to the Ministry of Interior?
21 A. I am aware that they were in touch with a large number of people,
22 including the OSCE, NATO, the EU, this Tribunal's OTP, the
23 Macedonian-Helsinki Committee, and that we did not receive any information
24 from any of those sources suggesting that an effective and credible
25 investigation was underway.
1 Q. And you were not aware, either, at the time that a formal request
2 for an exhumation and an autopsy had been made by the Prosecutor in
3 relation to the events at Ljuboten; is that correct?
4 MR. SAXON: Excuse me, Your Honour. Can it be clarified which
5 Prosecutor counsel is speaking about?
6 MR. METTRAUX: Yes. I'm talking of the state -- or a prosecutor
7 in Macedonia, a public prosecutor in Macedonia. In Skopje, more
9 A. No.
10 Q. Were you aware of efforts being made by the police in Macedonia to
11 obtain information from the villagers in Ljuboten, to obtain information
12 in particular about the identity of the deceased? Is that information
13 which you had in your possession at the time?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Concerning your finding that -- I don't want to misquote you --
16 that --
17 JUDGE PARKER: Are we moving to a different topic?
18 MR. METTRAUX: Perhaps, Your Honour, it would be a good time.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. It's time, I think, Mr. Mettraux, for me to
21 ask about your progress.
22 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, I think I have a good and a bad
23 news. The bad news is the usual one, namely, that it will be difficult
24 and, I believe, impossible for me to finish tonight. I, in fact, have two
25 good news. The first good news is we have discussed the matter with the
1 Defence of Mr. Tarculovski, and they have very kindly agreed with the
2 proposal that should the Defence of Mr. Boskoski cover two particular
3 issues, their cross-examination would be extremely limited or nonexistent.
4 And the second good news is if the Trial Chamber is minded to
5 allow the Defence to do that, we would be finished within the first
6 session of tomorrow morning, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE PARKER: And if that occurred, Mr. Apostolski, what time
8 would you anticipate taking?
9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that my
10 colleague will encompass the topics which I foresaw. Therefore, I presume
11 that after the cross-examination of my colleagues, I will not be asking
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for your indication, Mr. Apostolski, and
14 the cooperation between both Defence teams.
15 We certainly have some electrical interference.
16 Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution believes it needs -- it
18 would need at least one hour for redirect examination tomorrow, and
19 perhaps a bit -- a bit more time.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bouckaert, as far as the Chamber can anticipate
21 and control things, I would say that you could anticipate being free at
22 this hour tomorrow. I don't know whether that will help you with your
23 plans, but --
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm sure my patience has been tested
25 less than yours, but I talked to the Victims Section and they said that if
1 I can be on the road from here by 6.00, that I will catch my plane.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
3 Now, to facilitate that, could I let Mr. Mettraux have the
4 Chamber's view that at the very most, you should have one hour tomorrow
5 morning, not a full session.
6 MR. METTRAUX: I will go through the rest of the questions, Your
7 Honour, tonight and --
8 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.
9 We adjourn now and resume at 10 minutes past.
10 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 6.14 p.m.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Just before Mr. Mettraux continues, could I
13 mention, an issue has been specifically put to me, whether we are sitting
14 on Monday next week, bearing in mind that we are not sitting Tuesday and
15 Wednesday. A number of the support staff are affected, and I must ask
16 you, Mr. Saxon. You've primarily got the flow of witnesses at the moment,
17 and how it would affect you with a witness to be sure of finishing on
18 Monday of next week, because we then have a two-day break to follow.
19 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, the Prosecution had originally intended
20 to have a witness here specifically for the Monday session. However, the
21 Prosecution decided earlier today to postpone the arrival of that witness
22 for the following reason: Given the length of time that Mr. Bouckaert is
23 taking, and we have another witness waiting here who will probably also
24 take some time, the Prosecution thought the appropriate course of action
25 was not to plan on using any more time on Monday, that it would only use
1 the time required if the following witness carries over beyond Friday,
2 because we had anticipated, Your Honour, in our last witness schedule that
3 we provided to the parties that the following witness would take two full
4 days. Since we were informed last night that the following witness would
5 not start until late Thursday, we anticipate now the following witness
6 will go into Monday. Of course, that remains to be seen.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Your anticipation -- it seems -- microphone that's
8 causing the problem.
9 The anticipation is that we will be sitting on Monday, but with
10 the witness that you have --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Please turn on mic for interpretation.
12 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And I concluded that observation about
14 we will be sitting on Monday, but dealing with the witness that had been
15 listed for the 4th and the 5th of July, which is Witness M-043.
16 Well, given the time estimations, I think there would be slim
17 chance of that witness finishing on Friday, so we will plan to sit on
18 Monday. I think the listing is to commence sitting at 9.00 in the
20 Very well, thank you for that.
21 Sorry to have delayed you, Mr. Mettraux.
22 MR. METTRAUX: I'll feel entitled to ask for five more minutes
23 tomorrow morning, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE PARKER: One hour and five minutes.
25 MR. METTRAUX: That's correct.
1 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, were you aware that on the 13th of August of 2001,
2 there was a press conference between -- or, well, I'll call it a press
3 conference, at least a media gathering, after Mr. Boskoski had met with
4 Ambassador Ungaro of the OSCE; can you recall that event on the 13th of
5 August of 2001?
6 A. Yes. It's reflected in our report.
7 Q. And can you recall that at the time, the ambassador, Ambassador
8 Ungaro, had asked that an investigation into those events should take
9 place; do you recall?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And are you aware that on the same day, the 13th of August of
12 2001, a commission was established to look into the circumstances of the
13 events of Ljuboten; are you aware or were you aware of that fact at the
15 A. No.
16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is P73, for the record.
17 Q. Are you aware that on the 5th of September of 2001, the same day
18 as the day when you issued your report, the commission which had been set
19 up by Mr. Boskoski issued a report about the event in Ljuboten; is that a
20 fact that was within your knowledge at the time?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And you were not aware that the recommendation of the commission
23 at the time was to carry out an exhumation in Ljuboten and an autopsy of
24 the dead bodies; is that correct? You did not have that information?
25 A. That's correct.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this, for the record, Rule 65 ter 239,
2 a Prosecution document.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
4 MR. METTRAUX:
5 Q. Are you aware, sir, that on the 7th of September of 2001, the head
6 or president of the commission set up by Mr. Boskoski had issued what is
7 interpreted as either a motion or as in recommendation for exhumation and
8 that this motion was sent to the public prosecutor office in Skopje and to
9 the duty investigative judge in Skopje; are you aware of that document?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And were you aware of that document at the time? I'm sorry, I
12 should have asked you that first. Were you aware of that document at that
14 A. No.
15 Q. And you are not aware of the fact that the director of that
16 commission, Mr. Mitrovski, asked for exhumation and autopsy in Ljuboten
17 with the aim of identifying the five corpses and establish the cause of
18 death of the five individuals from the village of Ljuboten; you did not
19 have that information in your possession at the time, is that correct?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Did you know at the time or did you have in your possession
22 information suggesting that Mr. Boskoski had personally supported the
23 request or the recommendation made by the commission for an exhumation or
24 an autopsy?
25 A. No.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is would be 1D33, 1D34, both of
2 them exhibits, and Rule 65 ter 130 shown to Mr. Bolton.
3 Q. Were you aware of the fact at the time that the request or
4 recommendation which was made by the head of the commission for an autopsy
5 and an exhumation in Ljuboten was taken on by the public prosecutor office
6 in Skopje; are you aware of that?
7 A. No.
8 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, this is P55.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 MR. METTRAUX:
11 Q. Are you aware, Mr. Bouckaert, that in the month -- in the early
12 month of the year of 2002, Mr. Boskoski offered to assist with the
13 investigation or with the exhumation, rather, in Ljuboten and that his
14 offer of assistance was turned down? Are you aware of that offer on the
15 part of Mr. Boskoski?
16 A. No, the only event I'm aware of in January of 2002 is threats made
17 by Mr. Boskoski against the head of the Macedonian-Helsinki Committee,
18 calling her State Enemy number 1, but I'm not aware of any steps taken
19 towards the investigation or the exhumation.
20 Q. And I'm very grateful for that.
21 Are you aware of a meeting on the 30th of January of 2002,
22 between inter alia the EUMM, the NATO representative, OSCE representative,
23 ICTY representative, the public prosecutor of the State of Macedonia, to
24 discuss the events of Ljuboten; is that information you have in your
1 A. No.
2 Q. Is that correct, Mr. Bouckaert, that your organisation also
3 pressed for a separate investigation by the ICTY into the events of
4 Ljuboten; is that correct?
5 A. We kept the ICTY -- we informed the ICTY of our findings, and as
6 is the general practice of the ICTY, the Office of the Prosecutor, in the
7 absence of a credible investigation, they would then carry out their own
8 investigation, yes.
9 Q. Thank you. But the question is: Is that correct that you
10 actually pressed for a separate investigation by the OTP of this Tribunal;
11 is that correct?
12 A. We kept the OTP informed of all of our statements and letters to
13 the government, and they were c.c.'ed on all of this traffic, yes.
14 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is
15 identified as Exhibit P353, please.
16 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is again the letter which has been shown to
17 you by the Prosecution in relation to the event of Ljuboten, and I'll ask
18 the Registry to focus on the last paragraph but one on this page, which
19 starts with the words: "Human Rights Watch called ...," and so on.
20 If you can look at this paragraph, Mr. Bouckaert, I'd like to read
21 the last or the second sentence of that paragraph. It reads as follows:
22 "Human Rights Watch pressed for a separate investigation by the
23 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia which has
24 jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the Macedonia conflict."
25 Can you see that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that's what you did, you pressed for a separate investigation
3 by the ICTY; is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And to that effect, is that correct also that you sent a letter to
6 the Office of the Prosecutor on the 5th of September, attached to which
7 was your report; is that correct?
8 A. The -- there was no letter. There was just a short --
9 Q. A cover letter?
10 A. A cover letter, yes.
11 Q. And the report was sent to Mr. Morten Bergsmo; is that correct?
12 A. Morten Bergsmo, yes.
13 Q. And can you recall who had suggested that you send this report to
14 Mr. Bergsmo at the time?
15 A. I had a call from somebody in the Tribunal on September 6th.
16 Q. And can you remember who that person is?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Is it correct to understand that your report was prepared, at
19 least in part, with a view to possible prosecution before the ICTY; is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes, that would be correct for all of the reports we do on the
22 former Yugoslavia.
23 Q. Thank you. In your report, you also make an additional finding
24 regarding Mr. -- or two findings, rather. The first finding which you
25 make is that crimes which you believe to be -- or which you recorded in
1 your report were committed by persons whom you say were members of the
2 police; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you also said that the individuals who had committed the
5 crimes were under the authority of Mr. Boskoski at the time; is that
7 A. Yes. He was the Minister of the Interior.
8 Q. But you said specifically that they had been under his authority
9 and also under his command; is that correct?
10 A. Can I check the exact language?
11 Q. Certainly. The first reference is P356, if it could be shown to
12 the witness, please. It's again, Mr. Bouckaert, the record of an
13 interview with Ian Fisher of the "New York Times," and it's the second
14 page of that document. It's 1D00-3576. It's P356.
15 And if we could go to the second page, please. And if we could
16 enlarge the first paragraph on the top left of that document.
17 You are recorded as saying the following, Mr. Bouckaert. It's the
18 last sentence of the first paragraph:
19 "It was done by troops under his authority in an action which he
20 was intimately involved."
21 Can you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And do you recall saying that?
24 A. Yes. I was confused about your language about "also under his
1 Q. Well, isn't that correct, that Human Rights Watch also said that
2 the troops which allegedly committed the crimes were under his command?
3 A. If you can refresh my memory with such a reference.
4 Q. Well, can't you recall or are you saying that it didn't happen?
5 MR. SAXON: Well, Your Honours --
6 JUDGE PARKER: Neither of those things, Mr. Mettraux.
7 MR. METTRAUX: If the witness can be --.
8 JUDGE PARKER: He is saying, "Please refresh my memory."
9 MR. METTRAUX: If the witness can please be shown document Rule 65
10 ter 1D344, and the ERN is 1D00-3263.
11 Q. This is the same document that I have shown you before. It's the
12 letter which you sent to Madam Carla Del Ponte and contained within that
13 letter is a letter which you had sent on the 5th of September of 2001 to
14 President Trajkovski. And if we can turn to the third page. It's again
15 the second page where it's said:
16 "We are troubled by the reports that Minister of Interior
17 Ljube Boskoski was in Ljuboten on the 12th of August, the day that the
18 worst abuses were committed. We respectfully request that your government
19 commence a prompt investigation into his role and the conduct of
20 Macedonian troop under his command."
21 Do you recall that?
22 A. Okay, the word "authority" would have been a better choice of
23 words, yes.
24 Q. And by that, do I understand, then, your position to be that --
25 your suggestion, if I may call it that, that the troops which you believe
1 to have committed the crime were under his authority was based solely on
2 the fact that you believe them to have been police officers and him to
3 have been the Minister of Interior; is that correct?
4 A. I think our report is perfectly clear on this point. Mr. Boskoski
5 was present in the village on the day of the worst abuses which were
6 committed by troops under his authority, and that his role in those abuses
7 should be investigated.
8 Q. Well, my question is simply this: Your suggestion, and you said
9 you prefer the word "under his authority" to "under his command," was
10 that -- what I'm trying to find out is what you meant by "this." Was it
11 simply the fact, as you said, that, (a), he was in the village and, (b),
12 that he was the Minister of Interior at the time, or was there more to it,
13 to your claim?
14 A. As our research has indicated, there was a widespread pattern of
15 police abuse in Macedonia at the time. As I've told this Court, people
16 were beaten to death in the streets of Skopje over a long period of time.
17 There was widespread police abuse at the police stations in Tetovo,
18 Skopje, Kumanovo, Bitola. I think our assessment of Mr. Boskoski's role
19 of the events in Ljuboten should be investigated is related to the whole
20 body of our research. It's not just events in Ljuboten.
21 Q. So if I understand your answer properly, and correct me if I'm
22 wrong, you had no indication, other than the fact that Mr. Boskoski was in
23 Ljuboten at the time and that he was the Minister of Interior at the time,
24 to suggest that the troops had been under his authority; is that correct?
25 A. He is the Minister of Interior.
1 Q. Thank you. Is that correct that because of your experience in the
2 Balkans, you were alert or awake to the possibility of some discrepancies
3 between what I would say is the de jure situation and the de facto
4 situation as far as command or authority is concerned; is that a fair
6 A. Absolutely. Formal command structures were not always reflected
7 on the ground, yes.
8 Q. And at the time of your investigation, did you make any effort to
9 contact anyone within the Ministry of the Interior to investigate the
10 suggestion that the troops had indeed been under the authority of
11 Mr. Boskoski at that time; had you made such a call or a request?
12 A. Mr. Boskoski is the Minister of Interior. All of the troops are
13 under the authority -- all of the police forces are under the authority of
14 the Minister of Interior.
15 Q. My question was slightly different, Mr. Bouckaert. I was asking
16 whether you, personally, or whether any member of your organisation made
17 such a request or demand to the Ministry of the Interior for information
18 in relation to this matter.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you query this matter with any other entity, any other
21 government body in Macedonia?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you query this matter with the President's office in
25 A. No.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is now
2 Prosecution Exhibit P303.
3 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I'll go through this document with you. If you can
4 focus first on the top left-hand corner of this document, you will see
5 it's a document from the Republic of Macedonia, it comes from the Ministry
6 of Defence that's the army -- General Staff Army of the Republic of
7 Macedonia, General Staff. It's dated the 12th of August, 2001, and it
8 comes from the First Guardist Brigade Captain First Class
9 Ljupco Kostadinov. Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And just the subject of the note is: "Report on actions and
12 situation in 3rd Guardist Brigade, village of Ljuboten"; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And I would like you to focus on the first paragraph of that
15 document, which starts with the words:
16 "On 10 August 2001. At 2130 hours, a group of around 40 persons
17 came to the school in the village of Ljubanci. The ground was headed by
18 the person Johan Tarculovski, Head of the Agency, Kometa," that's what the
19 document says, "who come from the village Ljubanci. After some time more
20 persons arrived, whereby the number increased to around 60, 70 persons.
21 The MVR truck arrived from which weapons, ammunition, bombs, and
22 bazookas were distributed. The persons were wearing MVR uniforms. These
23 persons asked Major Mitre Despodov, who is commander of the 3rd Guardist
24 Brigade, to provide them with a place to sleep in the mountain lodge in
25 village Ljubanci. Major Despodov asked them on whose orders they had
1 come, they said that this is known to the President and no one else should
2 about their stay. Major Despodov asked them what their role is here, they
3 answered that they have the task to enter the village Ljuboten and to
4 conduct a search and cleaning of the terrain."
5 Can you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And if we can turn to the next page, please. And I will ask you
8 to focus your attention on the second or third paragraph starting with the
9 words: "On Saturday, 11 August 2001 ..." And it reads as follows:
10 "On Saturday, 11 August 2001, the above-listed persons, headed by
11 Johan Tarculovski, conducted reconnaissance in the village Ljuboten and in
12 the village they shot at dogs that barked at them. At around 1700 to 1730
13 the person Johan Tarculovski asked Major Mitre Despodov to shoot at
14 targets in the village Ljuboten which they previously had determined
15 precisely together decided with Major Mitre Despodov. Major Despodov did
16 not want to open fire upon the above-mentioned targets without orders,
17 requested approval from his superior. Around 1800 to 1900 hours, first
18 the person, Johan, talked to the president of the state and then
19 Major Despodov personally talked with the President. The President asked
20 him whether he's under the command of General Sokol. Major Despodov
21 answered, 'Yes.' The President told him, 'Good, I will talk to General
22 Sokol, and I will call you again.'".
23 Can you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then there is simply another paragraph which I would like to
1 draw your attention to. It's two paragraphs down starting with the
2 words: "The reservists ..." Can you see that?
3 A. M'mm-hmm.
4 Q. And it says:
5 "The reservists, wearing MVR uniforms, advanced in the village up
6 to arriving at the bridge, where there was a check-point and the house of
7 person Kenan."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. M'mm-hmm.
10 Q. And that's consistent, isn't it, with the report that -- or with
11 the letter that I read to you earlier from Mr. Kostadinov?
12 A. M'mm-hmm.
13 MR. METTRAUX: I'd like the witness now to be shown what is
14 Prosecution Exhibit P304.
15 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is -- this will be again another military
16 report, dated also the 12th of August of 2001, and it's a Prosecution
18 If you can focus again on the top left corner, you will see it
19 comes from the Republic of Macedonia, Ministry of Defence, General Staff,
20 and this is the 1st Guardist Brigade. And it is dated the 12th of August
21 of 2001. It's a report about the situation in the area of 3rd Guardist
22 Brigade Battalion in the village Ljuboten.
23 And again if you look at the first paragraph, it records the fact
24 that a group of about 40 persons arrived to the house of the owner," and
25 it repeats the same thing of Kometa security company, Johan Tarculovski,
1 "in Ljubanci on 10 August 2001 at 2130."
2 Can you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then if you go to the second paragraph, it says the following:
5 "The action about which none was supposed to know on the order of
6 the President was supposed to begin on 11 August 2001 at 4.30."
7 Can you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then if you go to the last paragraph on that page, there is a
10 statement to the following effect:
11 "Between 1800 and 1900 on 11 August 2001, Johan Tarculovski
12 personally called the President from the command post of the 3rd Battalion
13 of the 1st Guardist Brigade, and after a brief discussion the President
14 requested that Major Mitre Despodov speak to him in person."
15 And there's a parenthesis:
16 "As the commander showed up, the President asked him, 'If you are
17 under the command of General Sokol,' and latter said, 'Yes.' And the
18 President told him, 'Good, I will speak to General Sokol will call you
20 So just at this stage you would agree that this is consistent with
21 the previous one, is that correct, the other military report that showed
22 you a minute ago?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. If we can turn to the third and last page of that document,
25 please. I will ask you to look at the last paragraph, first, as you will
1 see, it's signed by Mr. Kopacev, commander, and the last paragraph says
3 "Finally, I would like to mention that the commander of the 3rd/1
4 Brigade knew about the action on 10th August 2001 and together with
5 Johan Tarculovski were planning the action, but they did not inform
6 anybody. For that, he received guarantee from Johan Tarculovski that he
7 would not bear any responsibility for the action, and he would be
8 protected personally by the President."
9 Can you see that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. I'd like now to draw your attention to the evidence of
12 Mr. Despodov which is referred to on a number of occasions in this report.
13 Your Honour, this is the transcript of the 25th of June, 2007,
14 with Major Despodov, and it is at page 2580-2581. Mr. Despodov was shown
15 one of the reports by the Prosecution, and he was asked about one of the
16 reports, and which states as follows. I will read the question from the
17 Prosecution to you. It says -- the top paragraph on this, actually, it is
18 the second paragraph. It starts with:
19 "On Saturday, 11 August 2001, the above-listed persons, headed by
20 Johan Tarculovski, conducted reconnaissance in the village of Ljuboten,
21 and in the village they shot at dogs that barked at them. At around 1730
22 hours, the person Johan Tarculovski asked Major Mitre Despodov to shoot at
23 targets in the village of Ljuboten which they previously had determined
24 precisely together with Major Mitre Despodov. Major Despodov did not want
25 to open fire upon the above-mentioned targets without orders, requested
1 approval from the superior. Around 1800 to 1900 hours, first the person,
2 Johan, talked to the president of the state, and then Major Despodov
3 personally talked with the President. The President asked him whether he
4 is under the command of General Sokol. Major Despodov answered, 'Yes.'
5 The President told him, 'Good, I will talk to General Sokol and then I
6 will talk to you again.'"
7 And then the witness was asked by the Prosecutor:
8 "Do you recall that event happening?"
9 And the witness said:
10 "I remember, and I confirm that this conversation that is
11 mentioned here with the President as it is stated is correct, and the rest
12 of it, no."
13 And then he is asked:
14 "Did you ever receive a call from the President after this
15 conversation you reference in this paragraph?"
16 And he says:
17 "I already mentioned during this meeting -- during the meeting,
18 while it lasted on Friday with the people that I already mentioned,
19 Mr. Johan talked to the President, and during the moment while he was
20 talking, he handed the phone to me and said, 'Mr. Despodov, somebody wants
21 to talk to you. The President wants to talk to you.' I cannot really
22 recall the wording. However, this was the essence.
23 When I took over the phone, by the voice on the other side of the
24 line, I could recognise the voice of the President. And not to repeat
25 myself, he said what was already mentioned, whether I was really indeed
1 the commander, whether I was Mitre Despodov, the commander of the
2 battalion, whether I recognised the voice, whether I'm sure who the person
3 was, et cetera. I had to say that I had met the President on several
4 occasions before that. I was talking to him on the phone because, beside
5 my regular tasks and obligation in the brigade during the official
6 welcoming parties and sending off of the President, I had the task of
7 being the cameraman and to document these kind of events at the airport
8 before the Parliament building," et cetera.
9 Would you agree that again this evidence, sir, is consistent with
10 the two documents, the two military reports that I have shown to you?
11 A. With the sections I've seen of those reports.
12 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you. There is another document which I would
13 like to show to Mr. Bouckaert --
14 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.
15 MR. SAXON: Could the documents that have been marked for
16 identification, P303 and P304, now be admitted, Your Honour?
17 JUDGE PARKER: They presently are marked. In your re-examination,
18 you may move that.
19 MR. METTRAUX: Simply for the record, Your Honour, the reason why,
20 I believe, we hadn't admitted them at the time was because Mr. Kostadinov
21 is scheduled to appear as a witness, and I believe that this was the
22 reason why it was identified in the first place.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Are you happy to move for their admission?
24 MR. METTRAUX: We would have no objection. We had understood that
25 at the time the position was that it would be better to --
1 JUDGE PARKER: I'm being very technical at this hour of day. It's
2 your cross-examination, so I would like to have the Prosecutor moving and
3 an exhibit to be admitted.
4 MR. METTRAUX: We would have no objection to the admission, Your
6 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I would like to show you another document at this
7 stage, which is Rule 65 ter 760, and it has an ERN number of N001-4885.
8 And the Macedonian version of that --
9 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I see that my answer was recorded
11 THE INTERPRETER: And the interpreters would like to point that we
12 are lagging way behind, so if you could wait a while until we catch up
13 with you.
14 MR. METTRAUX:
15 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, could you indicate the line at which you have
16 identified an error in the record, please?
17 A. It is line 2. My answer says:
18 "With the exception of those sections you've read to me" and it
19 should say -- sorry, it's no longer on my screen. It should say it's --
20 Q. Well, I'll put the question again to you because it's disappearing
21 from the screen. The question was: Would you agree that this is the
22 same as the military report as I had shown to you, is that correct, that
23 the evidence of Mr. Despodov is consistent with those parts of the report
24 which I have read to you, the reports?
25 A. It's consistent with the sections you have read to me.
1 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you. And if the witness could be shown
2 Rule 65 ter 670, please.
3 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is another statement taken by the Office of
4 the Prosecution of Mr. Zlatko Keskovski, and the statement was taken on
5 7th of February of 2005. Mr. Keskovski was a member of the security
6 arrangements of the President of Macedonia, Mr. Trajkovski, at the time.
7 If we can turn to page 9 of this document, please.
8 If we can focus in particular on paragraph 39 first.
9 Mr. Keskovski is recorded as having said the following to the
11 "After the above-mentioned conversation, Johan Tarculovski called
12 on my mobile phone. He said that in Ljuboten there is an action being
13 prepared. I asked him what it means. He replied that in Ljuboten, there
14 are fortifications of terrorists -- of the terrorists. He allegedly
15 received this information from the Ljubanci villagers. They also told him
16 that the people responsible for the death of the soldiers at Ljubotenski
17 Bacila were still in the village Ljuboten. I asked him who was preparing
18 the action, and he replied that it was the police and the army units. I
19 asked him what the problem was. He said that the problem was a certain
20 army major, I do not know his name, who did not want to undertake any
21 activities because he did not receive any orders from his superior
22 officer. The major was allegedly commanding a mortar ARM unit which,
23 according to Tarculovski, was supposed to participate in the organised
24 action. I understood from Johan Tarculovski that the infantry could not
25 enter the village unless they had support from the artillery. As I spoke
1 to Tarculovski, I understood he was in Ljubanci village at the moment
2 along with the major of the army."
3 Can you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And then at paragraph 40 it says this:
6 "I told Tarculovski to put the major on the phone. I did not ask
7 the major about his name, only his rank and superior officer. Therefore, I
8 did not know his name. The person told me that he was in rank of major
9 and his superior was General Sokol Mitrovski, who the President's
10 adjutant. He said that he did not receive any order for firing the
11 mortars and that he will do so only if he receives an order."
12 And it continues:
13 "I still held on the phone, and I explained the President what
14 the situation was. The President asked me to give him the phone because
15 he wanted to talk to the major. Before handing the phone to the
16 President, I asked the Major if he would obey an order coming directly
17 from the Supreme Commander; that is, the President. The Major replied that
18 the President was the supreme superior, and he would have to obey the
19 order from the President. In that period of time, the President was under
20 pressure from the public because he was thought to have failed to use the
21 army appropriately in dealing with terrorists. Therefore, he wanted to
22 speak to the Major."
23 And if we can turn to the next page, at paragraph 41 Mr. Keskovski
24 is recorded as saying the following:
25 "The President asked what his rank and superior's name. I did
1 not hear any replies from the Major to the President, but I heard as the
2 President told the Major to make sure that the operation goes according to
3 the plan, and he would call his superior, General Sokol Mitrovski.
4 There were not any other contacts that I know of from
5 Johan Tarculovski on that day to me. We did not discuss the issue with
6 the President later that day because it was considered regular activity in
7 that period of time."
8 Can you see that?
9 A. Yeah. I'm not sure what the relevance of all this information is.
10 Q. Is that consistent again with the military documents or the
11 passages of the military documents which I have shown to you earlier?
12 A. Yes.
13 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness now be shown what is Rule 65 ter
14 1D444, and it has an ERN 1D00-4086.
15 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is a letter which was sent to us by the
16 Prosecution pursuant to Rule 68. This is exculpatory material, and it is
17 sent by senior trial attorney, Mr. Saxon.
18 Well, it appears that the documents may not be uploaded,
19 Your Honour. It seems to be now.
20 I'll read the text to you, Mr. Bouckaert. This is a letter, as I
21 mentioned, from Mr. Saxon dated the 1st of September of 2006. This is
22 addressed to Ms. Residovic, Mr. Gorgo [phoen], and Mr. Apostolski. The
23 subject of the letter is disclosure of Pec [phoen] 29 potentially
24 exculpatory information under Rule 68.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Now on the screen.
1 MR. METTRAUX: I'm very grateful. If we could focus on the lower
2 part of the document, or the middle part, in fact.
3 Q. You can see Mr. Saxon addressed the letter to us in the following
5 "As part of the Prosecution's continuing obligation, it hereby
6 provides to you the following information that it believes could be
7 potentially exculpatory to the case of one or more accused," and then the
8 section which is provided for us --
9 MR. SAXON: Your Honour --
10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon?
11 MR. SAXON: I'm very sorry to interrupt. I did not anticipate,
12 when I sent this letter nearly a year ago, that it would be used in public
13 session. I believe we are, and I was wondering whether we could simply do
14 this in private session.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Private.
16 [Private session]
11 Page 3213 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
3 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now for the day, to resume tomorrow
4 at 2.15.
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
6 7.02 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday, the
7 5th day of July, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.