1 Thursday, 5 July 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Good afternoon.

7 Mr. Mettraux, one hour and five minutes.

8 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

9 WITNESS: PETER BOUCKAERT (Resumed)

10 Further cross-examination by Mr. Mettraux:

11 MR. METTRAUX: Good afternoon, Mr. Bouckaert.

12 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon.

13 MR. METTRAUX:

14 Q. You will recall that yesterday I asked you a number of questions

15 and I've shown you a number of documents about the involvement of the

16 President of the Republic of Macedonia in the events of Ljuboten; do you

17 recall that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And did you have that information at the time of writing your

20 report?

21 A. No.

22 Q. And did you make any inquiry with the commander of the local army

23 battalion in the area of Ljuboten to obtain information from them?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Did you make any inquiry with the commander of the brigade of the

1 army which was present in the area of Ljuboten at the time?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Did you make any inquiry with the General Staff of the Republic of

4 Macedonia Army?

5 A. No.

6 Q. I asked you a question two days ago in relation to your contacts

7 with members of the Office of the Prosecutor. I would also like to ask

8 you whether, during the preparation of your report, the Ljuboten report,

9 you had any contact with Mr. Frederick Abrahams.

10 A. I don't believe so.

11 Q. Can you recall having communicated with Mr. Abrahams while you

12 were in Macedonia, at the time?

13 A. Mr. Abrahams accompanied me for several of my trips to Macedonia.

14 Q. Sorry, I was -- meant to ask about your fourth trip, the trip that

15 you took from the 17th to the 25th or 26th of August. Did you have any

16 phone contacts with Mr. Abrahams during that period of time?

17 A. I don't believe so.

18 Q. Did Mr. Abrahams assist you in relation to the editing of the

19 report on Ljuboten?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Is that correct that on the 25th of August, or prior to that time,

22 you communicated the content of your findings to a journalist, Ms. Jessica

23 Berry; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct. We had a conversation about the contents of the

25 report, yes.

1 Q. And is that correct that at that time, the -- your report or the

2 content of that report had not yet been vetted by your colleagues and

3 superior in New York?

4 A. It was in the process of being vetted, that's correct.

5 Q. And am I correct also to understand that it was your position, at

6 the time of preparing your report and in your conclusions, you took the

7 view that the victims of the incidents had all been civilians; is that

8 correct?

9 A. As I -- that was our opinion based on the evidence available to

10 us. But as our report makes clear, even if there had been an NLA presence

11 in Ljuboten, the attacks that we documented were deliberate attacks

12 against civilians or indiscriminate attacks against civilians or civilian

13 property, so they would still have been violations of the laws of war.

14 Q. Is that correct that you made that assessment without seeing any

15 of the dead bodies, aside from the body of Mr. Qaili; is that correct?

16 A. I had extensive photographic evidence of the bodies.

17 Q. Is that correct that you made that finding without any forensic

18 evidence, is that correct, which related to the deceased, that is?

19 A. I had photographs, the detailed photographs which were available

20 to us, as well as the field notes of Mr. -- the journalist Nicholas Wood.

21 Q. So I take your answer as, no, you did not have any forensic

22 material. Is that correct?

23 A. We had information about the wounds on the victims from both the

24 photographs and the field notes of Mr. Nicholas Wood.

25 Q. And is that correct that in your experience both in Kosovo and in

1 Macedonia, you would be aware of the fact that members of the UCK would

2 not always wear their uniforms and that they would sometimes wear a

3 mixture of civilian and military clothing; is that correct?

4 A. In my experience in Macedonia, whenever I interacted with the UCK,

5 the NLA, they were in uniforms. But I am aware of reports where they were

6 seen -- some members were seen out of uniform.

7 Q. But you would agree that there were times when, indeed, the NLA

8 would mix with the civilian population; is that correct?

9 A. In or out of uniform?

10 Q. Out of uniform.

11 A. I had no personal incidents in which I saw the UCK mix with the

12 civilian population out of uniform.

13 Q. Is that correct that in the first statement which you gave to the

14 Prosecution, you indicated that one way in which you made the

15 determination that an individual or a deceased had been a civilian or not

16 was by looking at the shoes which this person was wearing; is that

17 correct?

18 A. That was a relevant factor, yes.

19 MR. METTRAUX: I would like to show this witness a number of

20 pictures. The first picture would be Rule 65 ter 2D00236.

21 Q. And you indicated to the Prosecution that members of the NLA,

22 in your understanding, would generally wear military boots; is that

23 correct?

24 A. That's correct.

25 Q. If you can focus simply on the gentleman on the right-hand side of

1 the picture. Would you agree that, at least as far as you can tell from

2 this picture, this person on the right would appear to be a combatant; is

3 that correct?

4 A. I have no information about what this picture represents.

5 Q. Well, in your view, would this person be a legitimate target

6 should he take any part in military activities?

7 A. If he was out -- yes, but it's quite common for people in the

8 Balkans, of all ethnicities, to pose with weapons. It doesn't necessarily

9 mean that this person is a UCK combatant.

10 Q. Is that correct, however, that this person is wearing sneakers?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR. METTRAUX: Can we see what is Rule 65 ter 2D00250.

13 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, are you able, from this picture, to say whether any

14 of these individuals is a combatant, and if so, which one? Would you be

15 able to make that assessment?

16 A. Again, I have no information about what this picture represents,

17 but there are a number of people with weapons in the picture. And if this

18 was in a situation of conflict, they could be legitimately targeted.

19 Q. And would you be able to state from that picture which one would

20 be considered legitimate combatants, legitimate targets and combatants?

21 A. Well, the picture isn't very clear, so it's a little bit difficult

22 to tell who exactly is carrying weapons.

23 Q. Perhaps by --

24 A. But even by mixing with combatants, these civilians would be

25 placing themselves at risk.

1 Q. Well, with the assistance of the usher, Mr. Bouckaert, I'll ask

2 you to do -- to mark something on the picture.

3 If you could encircle the first individual on the left side of the

4 picture, the man with longish hair and what would appear to be a beard, if

5 you could simply circle him.

6 A. [Marks]

7 Q. And if you could place the number "1" above that circle.

8 A. [Marks]

9 Q. If you could do the same exercise in relation to the third

10 individual from the left with the number "2".

11 A. [Marks]

12 Q. And if you could do it again, please, with the man who has a --

13 the third -- the fourth man who has a hand up, the man with a beard and a

14 white T-shirt.

15 A. [Marks]

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, could we tender this picture?

17 JUDGE PARKER: For what purpose?

18 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the purpose will become clear in the next

19 picture, Your Honour. I can identify this picture to solve the problem.

20 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked for identification.

21 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65

22 ter 2D00249.

23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be D93 -- 1D93, MFI, Your Honours.

24 MR. METTRAUX:

25 Q. Can you recognise, sir, the individuals whom you marked as number

1 1, 2, and 3 in this picture?

2 A. They certainly look similar, yes.

3 Q. And would you agree that the second person from the right-hand

4 corner of that picture, the man with longish hair and a beard, would be

5 number 1?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And the second --

8 A. Possibly.

9 Q. Well, perhaps what we can do, with the assistance of the Registry,

10 is it possible to put the two pictures, this one and the previous one,

11 side by side on the screen?

12 Thank you. Well, Mr. Bouckaert, are you now able to see the

13 picture -- both pictures at the same time.

14 Would you agree that the person which you marked as number 1 on

15 the extreme left of the picture, on the left, is the same as the second

16 man on the second picture second from the right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Would you agree that the third person on the picture on the left

19 is the same as the first picture on the right from the right of the

20 picture?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And would you agree that the fourth man from the left on the

23 picture on the left is the same as the first man from the left on the

24 right picture?

25 A. Yes.

1 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we wish to tender these two pictures.

2 MR. SAXON: Objection, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Saxon.

4 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, there has been no link established

5 between the gentlemen -- the four gentlemen in the photograph on the right

6 and the events in the village of Ljuboten in August of 2001. We don't know

7 where this picture was taken, nor do we know when it was taken. And the

8 same goes, frankly, with now the photograph on the left.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

10 MR. METTRAUX: Simply, Your Honour, the issue -- there is no

11 suggestion on our part that any of these individuals was in Ljuboten on --

12 Ljuboten. They clearly are members of the NLA. The issue is one which

13 Mr. Bouckaert has touched upon both in his report and in his evidence to

14 the Prosecution as to the status of civilians and/or combatants and the

15 ability of anyone, be it an investigator, a member of the army, or anyone

16 else, for that matter, including the Chamber, to be able to make an

17 assessment as to the status of particular victims, in particular the

18 question of whether the clothing of a particular individual would be

19 evidence relevant in or in any case sufficient to establish the status of

20 the alleged victim.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, my learned colleague says that these four

22 individuals are clearly members of the NLA. That clarity, Your Honour, is

23 not obvious to the Prosecution.

24 JUDGE PARKER: The last photograph will be marked for

25 identification.

1 THE REGISTRAR: That would be 1D94, MFI, Your Honours.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Neither of them at the moment are shown to have

3 relevance sufficient to be an exhibit, and we will evaluate whether that

4 situation changes in light of other evidence.

5 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, is that correct that you did not search any of the

7 bodies in Ljuboten at the time? You arrived after the bodies had been

8 buried; is that correct?

9 A. That's correct.

10 Q. Did you ever become aware that one of the five dead bodies of the

11 village had 26 rounds of live ammunition in his pockets?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did you -- were you in possession at the time of writing your

14 report of any sort of ballistic report which you used for the purpose of

15 preparing your report?

16 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters kindly ask you to slow down and

17 make pauses. Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: We've been warned.

19 MR. METTRAUX: Yet again.

20 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I think I heard your response, but if you were able

21 to state it again.

22 A. No, the answer to your question was "no."

23 Q. Thank you. Were you aware at the time that three guns and

24 ammunition had been found close to the three bodies which were located

25 close-by the Jashari house; were you aware of that fact at the time?

1 A. I was not aware of that fact, and I am not aware of any public

2 statement by the Macedonian authorities, which would have been the usual

3 course of action, making the public aware of that fact and the media aware

4 of that fact. And I would find it quite strange, given the fact that

5 Mr. Boskoski had commented on the events in Ljuboten, that he didn't

6 mention this, considering the international attention on the Ljuboten

7 events.

8 Q. So the answer to the question is: You were not in possession of

9 this information and did not come into possession of this information

10 until a later time; is that correct or not?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Is that also correct that upon the signing of the Orhid

13 Framework Agreement, I believe, on the 13th of August of 2001, discussion

14 were already taking place about the possibility of adopting an amnesty

15 law, is that correct, for crimes committed during the crisis in 2001?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that also correct that the draft of that law was being prepared

18 in the course of the year 2001; do you recall?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. Do you recall also that at several stages during the last few

21 months of the year of 2001, the President of the Republic,

22 Boris Trajkovski, made several announcements about this amnesty and

23 undertook to amnesty a number of crimes committed in the crisis?

24 A. There was, yes.

25 Q. Is that correct, also, and I think you I had shown you the letter

1 yesterday, that Human Rights Watch took a position in relation to that law

2 on the 2nd of October of 2001, addressing the matter with the President

3 and suggesting your concern about this particular amnesty; is that

4 correct?

5 A. Yes. It's the general position of Human Rights Watch in all

6 conflicts that there should be no amnesties for violations of the laws of

7 war, crimes against humanity and genocide.

8 Q. Is that correct also that you expressed this concern again in the

9 year of 2002, when the completion of the preparation for the law were

10 nearing their end?

11 A. That's correct.

12 Q. Is that also correct that it was your understanding, at the time

13 that the amnesty law would apply to both sides of the crisis, that would

14 be members of the NLA and members of forces of the Republic of Macedonia?

15 A. That's correct, yes, and we expressed concern about cases on both

16 sides that should not be included in the amnesty.

17 Q. Is that correct that you also expressed particular concerns about

18 the violence which you had recorded in your Ljuboten incident; is that

19 correct that you specified this particular incident in particular?

20 A. I think we talked about crimes.

21 Q. Is that correct --

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. You did; thank you. Is that correct also that despite the

24 protestations or the concern, I should say, of your organisation, the law

25 was eventually adopted in the early months of 2002?

1 A. I believe so. As I made clear yesterday, by that time I was in

2 Afghanistan and Pakistan, following a different war.

3 Q. Yesterday, we discussed a particular matter, if you recall, about

4 the status of the NLA, and in particular I asked you a number of questions

5 about the position of the United States as regard the NLA. And I would

6 read back to you this very short exchange. I asked you this:

7 "But is that correct that the NLA was regarded by the United

8 States, by the government of the United States, as a terrorist

9 organisation and called as such; is that correct?"

10 And your answer was:

11 "I'm not aware of any statements from the United States

12 describing the NLA as a terrorist organisation, and the NLA was not listed

13 by the United States on its list of terrorists -- terrorist organisations,

14 which does list groups like Hamas and other groups."

15 Do you recall saying this?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR. METTRAUX: This is page 3179, Your Honour, the 4th of July,

18 2007.

19 Q. I simply want to clarify with you, Mr. Bouckaert, on that point.

20 Is it your position that the United States government did not call the NLA

21 terrorists or extremists, or simply that you are not aware of that fact?

22 A. Now you're broadening your question to include the issue of

23 extremism. Your original question was about terrorism.

24 Q. Okay. Let's start with terrorism, then. Is it your position that

25 the US government did not qualify the NLA as terrorists or is it a

1 situation of not being aware of the fact that they have?

2 A. The -- to the best of my knowledge, the United States never listed

3 the NLA as a terrorist organisation. It has a list of terrorist

4 organisations, and I do not believe that the NLA was on their list at any

5 time.

6 Q. Well, there's a number of statements and information which I would

7 like to show you at this stage. The first one is Rule 65 ter 1D445. It

8 has an ERN of 1D00-4087.

9 Mr. Bouckaert, this is a press article from Agents France press,

10 AFP, dated 12th of April of 2001, and it's an article called "Powell

11 Presses Macedonia Negotiate with Albanians," by the journalist called

12 James Hider [phoen].

13 And with the Registry's assistance, I would ask that we focus on

14 the bottom of that page.

15 Here, as you can see --

16 ( Speaking foreign language)

17 MR. METTRAUX: I will ask you the question. I will kindly ask you

18 to focus on the second paragraph of that article. There's a comment which

19 is attributed to Colin Powell, then Secretary of State of the United

20 States, where he says:

21 "Powell warned that the conflict is over for the moment, but the

22 danger is still there. There are still terrorist and extremist elements

23 working to make trouble in this country."

24 Were you aware of that statement, Mr. Bouckaert?

25 A. Not of this particular statement. I don't think it was the

1 general position of the United States government to classify the NLA as

2 terrorists, and neither -- Mr. Powell doesn't mention the NLA in this

3 quote.

4 Q. But is that correct that Mr. Powell is a representative of the

5 Government of the United States?

6 A. I am a representative of Human Rights Watch. In our opinion, the

7 NLA was not a terrorist organisation. It carried out most of its attacks

8 against military objectives, including the attack that took place just

9 before the Ljuboten attack, including the attack on the main Skopje-Tetovo

10 highway, which claimed the lives of ten Macedonian policemen. They did

11 carry out very serious violations, but I do not think that they carried

12 out the kind of terrorist attacks that we saw attempted in London just

13 last week.

14 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown Rule 65 ter

15 1D446, please. It's 1D00-4090.

16 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, this is a -- remarks, it's the verbatim, it

17 appears, record of a meeting between Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and

18 the President of the Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, Boris

19 Trajkovski, and it comes from the website of the US State Department, and

20 it relates to a meeting that took place on the 1st of May of 2001.

21 I would ask you to look at the second paragraph of that document.

22 It's a statement taken from Mr. Powell. It says:

23 "And in our meeting today, I once again had the opportunity to

24 express solidarity with Macedonia. The United States' total commitment to

25 territorial integrity of Macedonia, our commitment to this democracy which

1 is facing dastardly and cowardly acts from terrorists and terrorist

2 organisations that are trying to subvert the democratic process in

3 Macedonia.

4 Can you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And then if you go two paragraphs further down, it says:

7 "I make the point to the President that we must not allow

8 terrorists to derail political reconciliation."

9 Can you see that?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And then he goes on to say in the next paragraph:

12 "And I express my condolence and the condolence of the American

13 people to the families of the eight Macedonian soldiers who lost their

14 lives as a result of this terrorist act."

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. If you go further down, there's then a passage which is taken from

18 the statement of Mr. Trajkovski, and if you can focus on the third

19 paragraph started with the words: "First of all ...," and particularly

20 the last sentence, Mr. Trajkovski said this:

21 "It shows that the United States would like and is willing to

22 defeat the terrorists, and also to uphold democracy and the rule of law,

23 and also to support the Republic of Macedonia in everything what we are

24 doing."

25 Can you see that?

1 A. Yes, and I'm sure there are other statements to the same point.

2 But in our legal opinion, an attack carried out against Macedonian

3 soldiers in a remote area, unpopulated area, is not a terrorist attack.

4 It's a very tragic incident, it was a shocking incident for most

5 Macedonians, but under the laws of war it was a legitimate military

6 attack. You know, those NLA members, they could be prosecuted

7 domestically. They don't have the combatants' privilege because it's an

8 internal armed conflict, but we would not classify such an incident as a

9 terrorist incident.

10 Q. Can you focus on the last paragraph on this page, please, and it

11 will go up to the next page in a second. I would like you to look at the

12 second sentence. It says:

13 "I appreciate very ...," and it goes on to the next page:

14 "I appreciate very much that the Secretary stated that we have to

15 isolate the terrorists because they are with one intention, not to

16 encourage the political dialogue, but to destabilise the country, and we

17 have a joint commitment to fight against them with the political sources."

18 Can you see that?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, could this be identified at this

21 stage?

22 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, it will be marked.

23 THE REGISTRAR: That will be 1D95, MFI, Your Honours.

24 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you.

25 Q. And you indicated, I believe, yesterday and again briefly today,

1 Mr. Bouckaert, that it was your understanding that the NLA contrary to a

2 number of other organisations had not been classified or were not regarded

3 as terrorist organisations, is that correct? And you use, I think, as an

4 opposite example the Hamas?

5 A. I said that the NLA is not listed and was not listed at the time

6 on its list of terrorist organisations, yes. Hamas also wasn't

7 at the time. It is now.

8 MR. METTRAUX: Could the witness please be shown what is Rule 65

9 ter 1D448 with an ERN 1D00-416. Yes, thank you very much.

10 Q. This again is a document entitled "Patterns of Global Terrorism,

11 2001". It's published by the United States Department of State. It's

12 dated 2002, the month of May, and it relates to the year of 2001.

13 If I could ask the Registry to go to page 53 of that document.

14 It's 1D00-4140. And if the left column of that document could be enlarged.

15 Yes, thank you, and a bit further down, please. Thank you.

16 As you can see, there's a subheading which concerns Israel, the

17 West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and if we could stroll down a bit further

18 down, please. Then it relates to Hamas conducted several suicide bombings

19 inside Israeli cities from March to June, terminating the attack outside a

20 Tel Aviv nightclub on -- and if we can go on to the next page. It goes

21 on:

22 "1 June that killed 22 Israeli civilians, Israeli teenagers, and

23 injured at least 65 others. On 9 August Hamas mounted a suicide attack in

24 the Jerusalem, its area, killing 50 persons and wounding more than 60

25 others."

1 Can you see that? ?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. If we can now go to page 31 of that document. That's 1D00-4118.

4 And focus again on the left-hand column -- of the right-hand, I'm sorry,

5 the right side. And if I can draw your attention to the paragraph which

6 starts with the words:

7 "In Southeastern Europe, groups of ethnic Albanians have

8 conducted armed attacks against in southern Serbia forces and Macedonia

9 since 1999. Ethnic Albanian extremists of the so-called National

10 Liberation Army, NLA or UCK, launched an armed insurgency in Macedonia in

11 February.

12 The NLA, which announced its disbandment in July, received funding

13 and weapons not only from Macedonian sources but also from Kosovo and

14 elsewhere. The NLA and a group that operated in Southern Serbia called

15 the Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac, had strong ties

16 with Kosovar political organisations, including the Popular Movement of

17 Kosovo and the National Movement for the Liberation of Kosovo. Both NLA

18 and UCPMB killed civilians and government security force members and

19 harassed and detained civilians in areas they controlled. Other ethnic

20 Albanian extremist groups also espoused and threatened violence against

21 state institutions in Macedonia and the region, including the so-called

22 Albanian National Army, ANA or AKSH, and the National Committee for the

23 Liberation and Protection of Albanian Lands."

24 A. I don't see the word "terrorist" mentioned in there.

25 Q. Well, perhaps we can go back to the first page of the document,

1 please. That's 1D00-4106. And the title of the document is "Pattern of

2 Global Terrorism"; is that correct?

3 A. Yes, and I'm sure if they meant to classify the NLA as terrorists,

4 they would have mentioned it in the paragraph that you just read.

5 Q. Is that correct that the content of the report concerns patterns

6 of global terrorism?

7 A. Yes, and it was a descriptive pattern talking about the

8 developments in the Balkans. I didn't see the word "terrorist" mentioned

9 there, and I think it was quite an accurate description of the situation

10 on the ground, both with the UCPMB and UCK in Macedonia and Southern

11 Serbia. I don't have any major disagreements with the description that

12 was given, and it is Human Rights Watch who documented many of those cases

13 of killings of civilians and abuses against civilians by the NLA.

14 I don't think it advances us a lot to try to put the label of

15 terrorism on a group which did not carry out the kind of terrorist actions

16 that Hamas or the IRA or other terrorist groups carry out, or al-Qaeda,

17 for that matter.

18 Q. And is that correct that what you are stating now is the position

19 of your organisation, Human Rights Watch; is that correct?

20 A. Yes. We did not use the label "terrorist" to describe the NLA.

21 Q. Thank you. You've indicated -- Your Honour, we will leave it as

22 an MFI for the time being.

23 Yesterday, Mr. Bouckaert, you've indicated that -- you've made a

24 few comments about a group sometimes known as The Lions and also referred

25 to sometimes as the Paramilitary 2000. Do you recall?

1 A. Yes.

2 MR. METTRAUX: Before I go any further, Your Honour, I understand

3 the document has not been identified. If I can ask that it be. Thank

4 you.

5 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.

6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be 1D96, MFI, Your Honours.

7 MR. METTRAUX:

8 Q. Have you ever sent a request to the Ministry of Interior to obtain

9 information in relation to that particular group?

10 A. No.

11 Q. And if evidence was led in this courtroom that the Ministry of

12 Interior in fact investigated that group, you would simply not be in a

13 position to give any evidence on that point; is that correct?

14 A. That's correct.

15 Q. You've also given evidence on the 2nd of July about an incident

16 which you had reported about in Bitola. Do you recall?

17 A. That's correct.

18 Q. And you recalled a number -- I mean, essentially what were riots

19 in that city; can you recall?

20 A. Yes, riots involving some elements of the police.

21 Q. And in relation to that particular incident, did you make any

22 request to the Ministry of Interior for information pertaining to that

23 incident?

24 A. No.

25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters need to ask you again to slow

1 down and make pauses, please.

2 MR. METTRAUX: Simply for the record, the reference in page 21,

3 line 15, it refers to the 2nd of July. The date of the 2nd of July was

4 the date at which Mr. Bouckaert gave evidence on that point.

5 Q. Were you aware at the time or have you become aware since then,

6 Mr. Bouckaert, that a number of criminal charges were filed in relation to

7 this particular incident?

8 A. I would be happy to hear so.

9 Q. But you haven't that information in your possession; is that --

10 A. No.

11 Q. And should evidence be led in this courtroom in relation to this

12 matter, you would not take issue with it; is that correct?

13 A. That depends on the credibility of the evidence.

14 Q. I'm grateful, Mr. Bouckaert, for your patience.

15 Your Honour, that would conclude the cross-examination.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Mettraux.

17 Mr. Apostolski.

18 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have no questions

19 for this witness, since my colleague has exhausted topics that I wanted to

20 ask questions about.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Apostolski.

22 Mr. Saxon.

23 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, before I begin my redirect examination,

24 the Prosecution would simply like to note for the record that, in its

25 view, the provision of Rule 90(H)(2) has not been followed by my

1 colleague. My colleague has not put to this witness the nature of the

2 case of his client that is in contradiction to the evidence of this

3 witness.

4 Having said that -- and the Prosecution would ask that this be

5 taken into account if there are any arguments raised later on about the

6 credibility of this witness's evidence.

7 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Saxon, we don't want to leave that

8 sort of issue in the air.

9 What is it that you say has not been done?

10 MR. SAXON: This witness, Your Honour, has not been given an

11 opportunity to respond to a clear message from Defence counsel as to what

12 is the case of the Defence in this case which is in contradiction to the

13 evidence and to the work of this witness, since there were a number of

14 questions, Your Honour, challenging the methods, the results, the writing,

15 the findings of the work this witness, I think this witness, who's been

16 very patient with all of this, should at least have the opportunity to

17 have that position put to him so that he may respond and that opportunity

18 has not been given to him, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

20 Mr. Mettraux.

21 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I think the -- obviously the Defence

22 does not share the position of Mr. Saxon in relation to this matter. I

23 think it's been quite clear what our position is in relation to this

24 particular witness.

25 We have no reason to doubt the honesty of this witness, and we

1 haven't sought to challenge this matter. What we have challenged,

2 however, and I think the witness himself would be quite aware of that

3 fact, is the reliability of the material which he has obtained, the manner

4 in which the investigation was conducted, the way in which the material

5 was verified, and all of the issues which are relevant to the weight to be

6 given to the evidence of Mr. Bouckaert.

7 If Mr. Saxon's concern is that we haven't put a suggestion to the

8 witness that he had been dishonest in his work, it's certainly not our

9 position. We have absolutely no reason and will make no submissions to

10 that effect, that he had been dishonest in his evidence.

11 I believe that if an issue of concern for Mr. Saxon is the

12 admissibility or otherwise of the report of Mr. Bouckaert, this is an

13 issue that should not be raised as Mr. Saxon just did in front of the

14 witness, but that it should await the discussion once Mr. Bouckaert is

15 gone, about the admissibility of the report.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, as I understand Mr. Saxon, he is

17 saying, well, while you have questioned particular matters, you have not

18 put what it is you say about those matters yourself, what is your own

19 case. You have questioned Mr. Bouckaert in his methods and perhaps some

20 conclusions, but left unsaid and unspecified is what it is that you will

21 wish to put, if anything, directly to the contrary.

22 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the evidence which we've put to this witness

23 will be put to a number of other witnesses, be it in relation to the

24 status of the civilians, for one, about the circumstances in which the

25 people came to die, about the issue, for example, among other things, of

1 the assertion made by Mr. Bouckaert or by Human Rights Watch, in any case,

2 about the alleged perpetrator having been under the authority of

3 Mr. Boskoski, the issue of the reliability of a number of witnesses who

4 Mr. Bouckaert interviewed and who also appeared in this courtroom as

5 witnesses for the Prosecution, also in relation to the manner in which

6 timing of destruction of houses, about the issue of the nature of the NLA

7 and the legal characterisation of the NLA insofar as it may be relevant to

8 the existence or otherwise of an armed conflict at the time.

9 I believe that we've made those points and a number of others

10 quite clearly through this witness.

11 The issue which is relevant to the credibility of Mr. Bouckaert,

12 in our view, is not whether Mr. Bouckaert did or did not act properly, as

13 he saw it. As I mentioned, we have no reason to believe that

14 Mr. Bouckaert was dishonest in any ways, and we insist again on that

15 point. What we believe, however, is that his investigation, the one man,

16 one week, and we will say also to a large extent one-sided investigation,

17 may not be necessarily be trusted in relation to matter which are not

18 otherwise corroborated by evidence which we have had an opportunity to

19 challenge in this courtroom.

20 One of the issues which we will raise at the time, the report will

21 be sought to be tendered, will be the question of individuals which

22 Mr. Bouckaert interviewed in the course of his investigation and which the

23 Prosecution did not call as witnesses. The situation for us is that we

24 can certainly cross-examine Mr. Bouckaert in relation to his methodology,

25 as we did, to the measures which he took to verify the information, but we

1 are not in a position to cross-examine the witness, himself, or the

2 accuracy of his or her version of events or evidence.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I've got to say, Mr. Mettraux, that what you

4 are there saying seems to me to go much further in respect of a number of

5 these subjects, than anything that was specifically put to the witness.

6 Clearly, it's in your mind, something was in your mind that led

7 you to ask a number of the questions, but it never has come to the point,

8 for example, where you have said to the witness, "I must put to you that

9 it is the case for the accused Mr. Boskoski that the NLA was a terrorist

10 organisation at the time," to allow Mr. Bouckaert an opportunity to

11 comment on that point.

12 You've been testing Mr. Bouckaert on his view that it was not, but

13 you've never gone to the positive side, your own case, if it is your own

14 case, that the NLA was a terrorist organisation. And I think that is the

15 point of the concern and objection.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Well, if it is the Chamber's view that it could

17 have created an unfairness to Mr. Bouckaert in relation to some of those

18 issues, we would certainly be ready and willing to put those propositions

19 to him. We understood Mr. Bouckaert, and I believe he understood the

20 questions from our questioning, in the sense that this indeed was our

21 position, and if Mr. Bouckaert feels or if the Chamber, rather, feels that

22 this might have created an ambiguity or an unfairness to Mr. Bouckaert, we

23 could certainly put these propositions to him.

24 We believe we have done so in relation to the reliability of the

25 evidence, in relation to the status of the alleged victims, in relation to

1 the houses and the circumstances under which the houses had been damaged,

2 and the other issues which we've pointed out above.

3 If Your Honours wishes us to put the proposition more directly to

4 the witness, we would certainly be able to do so.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, the Chamber is concerned because the

6 rule referred to by Mr. Saxon is one designed in this adversarial process

7 to ensure that each party cross-examining, and of course it will be the

8 boot on the other foot when it comes to the Prosecution cross-examining,

9 should we reach that point, the concern of the rule is that each party

10 should make clear to witnesses who are contradicting the party's case what

11 it is that the party's case is on material points of difference between

12 the case and the evidence of the witness so that the witness can comment

13 on it.

14 In that way, the Chamber, at the end of the evidence, is not left

15 with a lot of testing questions, but never the final proposition being

16 able to be faced by the witness, and so it's a very important element in

17 the process of coming to final conclusions in a trial.

18 For that reason, the Chamber would certainly take the view that it

19 would be proper for you to be putting your own case about these matters

20 briefly but clearly to the witness to give him an opportunity of directly

21 commenting on those propositions.

22 MR. METTRAUX:

23 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, following the instructions of the Trial Chamber, I

24 will put a number of propositions to you, and you can indicate whether you

25 agree with the proposition or not.

1 Concerning perhaps the first issue, the issue of the houses in

2 Ljuboten, it is the Defence case, and I'm putting it to you, that a number

3 of houses -- an unidentified number of houses were destroyed not on the

4 12th of August, not on the 10th or 11th of August, but at later dates in

5 the village of Ljuboten. Is that correct?

6 A. That is not our information. We have information that a few

7 houses, one Macedonian house and, according to my notes, one Albanian

8 house, it's possible that there were one or two more, were burned after

9 the events of the 12th of Ljuboten [sic], but certainly not any houses

10 beyond that.

11 Q. It is also the Defence case that a number of the houses were or

12 might have been destroyed by mortar fire. Would you agree with that or

13 not?

14 A. No, not -- actually, there is one house marked on my map which was

15 destroyed by mortar fire. The majority of the homes, as indicated on my

16 map, were destroyed by being set on fire.

17 Q. It is also the Defence case that on the 10th, 11th and 12th of

18 August, members of the NLA were in the village of Ljuboten. Do you agree

19 with that or not?

20 A. We have no indication to suggest that any NLA members were in the

21 direct area that was targeted during the August 12th operation and that

22 there was any return fire from the NLA or other armed persons during the

23 operation.

24 Q. It is also the Defence case that a number of mortars fired on the

25 village of Ljuboten came from the position of the NLA. Do you agree with

1 that or not?

2 A. I have no information as to that point.

3 Q. It is also the Defence case that some of the victims or alleged

4 victims who you regarded as civilians and regarded as having been murdered

5 were or might, in fact, have been members of the NLA or civilians taking

6 part in hostilities. Is that correct?

7 A. According to all of the information available to us, all of those

8 persons who were killed were not members of the NLA, and they were not

9 civilians taking part in hostilities.

10 Q. It is also the Defence case that in 2001, there was -- at no time

11 in 2001, there was no armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia. Do you

12 agree with that or not?

13 A. I'm sorry, there's a double negative. Are you saying that --

14 Q. I'll rephrase it for you, Mr. Bouckaert. It is the Defence

15 position that in the year 2001, there was no armed conflict in Macedonia.

16 Do you agree with that?

17 A. No. According to our analysis, the conflict in Macedonia amounted

18 to an internal armed conflict, as defined under Common Article 3.

19 Q. It is also the Defence position that the NLA was a terrorist group

20 and that its actions against the Macedonian authority were terrorist

21 attacks. Do you agree with that?

22 A. No.

23 Q. It is also the position of the Defence of Mr. Boskoski that

24 contrary to your allegation, Mr. Boskoski -- or the alleged perpetrators

25 were not under his authority or under his command. Do you agree with

1 that?

2 A. No. The abuses in Ljuboten were carried out by Ministry of

3 Interior troops under the authority of Mr. Boskoski, and he was personally

4 present in Ljuboten on August 12th.

5 Q. It is also the position of the Defence that your investigation and

6 the fruit of this investigation is unreliable. Do you agree with that?

7 A. I think our investigation was -- no, I do not agree. Our

8 investigation was reliable. It was based on detailed interviews and

9 analysis of a lot of information available to us, and I have no

10 information to suggest that any of the information in our report is

11 inaccurate or unreliable.

12 Q. It is also our case that you failed to verify many of the

13 allegations contained in your report. Is that correct?

14 A. No.

15 Q. It is also the position of the Defence that Mr. Boskoski and the

16 Macedonian authorities took a great number of steps to investigate the

17 events of Ljuboten. Do you agree with that?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And it is also the Defence position that your conclusion in that

20 respect are based on the fact that you did not possess that information

21 and made no request to obtain that information. Do you agree with that?

22 A. We have no information available to Human Rights Watch and do not

23 know of any information in the public sphere to suggest that a credible

24 investigation took place into the events of Ljuboten.

25 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Mr. Bouckaert.

1 Your Honour, I think -- I hope we have complied with the

2 Rule 90(H)(2).

3 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber can't form a final view on that, but it

4 is at your risk if you don't, you realise, under the rule. There will be

5 consequences later, so it must be for you to give conscientious attention

6 to compliance with the Rule.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Well, perhaps what we could propose is if the

8 Chamber were minded to give us a short break of five minutes, we could

9 very quickly go through the record to see whether there's another matter

10 which, in fairness to Mr. Bouckaert, we should put to him.

11 JUDGE PARKER: That may be a safe precaution, Mr. Mettraux, and

12 it's a precaution that I would also address to Mr. Apostolski, because the

13 issue arises for both accused, and matters that you have raised may not

14 entirely cover issues that the Defence of Mr. Tarculovski would want to

15 raise.

16 So combining all those things and the progress of the clock, what

17 the Chamber might do is to have the first break now, resume at 10 to 4.00,

18 and then allow, if necessary, time for those further matters to be put by

19 Mr. Mettraux and Mr. Apostolski.

20 --- Recess taken at 3.21 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux, are there any further questions?

23 MR. METTRAUX: Indeed, Your Honour, and we're grateful for the

24 time given to us to look through the record. Thank you.

25 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, I'm sorry to delay the matter. There is a number

1 of other propositions that we would like to put to you in manner that we

2 followed prior to the break.

3 The first proposition is that the goal or purpose was not as you

4 concluded, with a view to inflict any sort revenge, but it was a search

5 operation against terrorists; is that correct?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And I should put it again to you, it was not motivated by any

8 intention to exert revenge; is that correct?

9 A. No.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Can the interpreters ask you again to slow down

11 for the transcript, for us, and the audience listening to us, please.

12 MR. METTRAUX:

13 Q. The President of the Republic of Macedonia was the legitimate and

14 constitutionally-empowered authority to order such operations; is that

15 correct?

16 A. The -- such operations could also be initiated from within the

17 Ministry of Interior, so no.

18 Q. Some of the victims mentioned in your report, and I am speaking of

19 the persons who you said were murdered on that day, were or might have

20 been killed by members of the army; is that correct?

21 A. In the case of the victims of shelling, yes. In the case of the

22 people who were shot dead or later died in custody, no.

23 Q. Houses which were targeted in the course of the activities on the

24 10th, 11th, and 12th of August were or might have been legitimate military

25 targets; is that correct?

1 A. We found no evidence to suggest that any of the houses targeted

2 were legitimate military targets. No.

3 Q. The NLA or members of the NLA would at times dress in civilian

4 clothes to carry out operations; is that correct?

5 A. I never saw NLA members in civilian clothes at the times I met

6 them, and that I am not aware of any incident in which they were in

7 civilian clothes during military operations.

8 Q. And I'm putting to you that the dead or the deceased in the

9 village of Ljuboten were killed or might have been killed as a result of

10 combat. Is that correct?

11 A. No.

12 Q. None of the dead or deceased were executed; is that correct?

13 A. No.

14 Q. There was no indiscriminate fire at homes of civilians; is that

15 correct or not?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Some of the people involved in the operation were neither members

18 or de jure members of either the army or the Ministry of Interior; is that

19 correct or not, or you don't know?

20 A. It is possible that other armed civilians were involved.

21 Q. A general assertion about Mr. Boskoski's acceptance of crimes

22 committed by members of the police is wrong and unsubstantiated; is that

23 correct?

24 A. No.

25 Q. There was no indiscriminate attack on civilians; is that correct?

1 A. Our research concludes that there were either deliberate or

2 indiscriminate attacks on civilians at Ljuboten.

3 Q. It is the Defence case that none of the five alleged victims of

4 murders reported in your report were killed in the manner stated by you in

5 your report. Is that correct?

6 A. Is it correct that that is the Defence case?

7 Q. Well, I'm putting to you that your conclusion in relation to the

8 manner in which these five persons were killed is incorrect.

9 A. I stand by the findings of my report and believe that they are

10 correct.

11 Q. And even though we've indicated that you've acted honestly, your

12 judgement has been distorted by your wish to see Mr. Boskoski being

13 convicted; is that correct?

14 A. No, and I think my record of investigating the crimes of NLA

15 members clearly shows that I had a balanced approach in my investigations.

16 Q. And this bias or this prejudice against Mr. Boskoski has affected

17 the reliability of the findings and explain the facts that you sought or

18 that you failed to seek to verify the information concerning his presence

19 and his actions on that day; is that correct?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Your observations and finding as regard the body of Mr. Qaili are

22 wrong. Do you agree with that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. And it is the Defence case that your finding as regard the

25 involvement of de jure police officers, reservists, or active police

1 officers in beatings are wrong, or unreliable, or not sufficiently

2 verified. Do you agree with that?

3 A. No.

4 Q. On the 12th of August, Mr. Boskoski was not in Ljuboten but in

5 Ljubanci. Do you agree with that?

6 A. No.

7 Q. And he was not in either Ljubanci or Ljuboten on that day during

8 the entire operation, as recorded in your report, but only for a much

9 shorter period of time; is that correct?

10 A. I wish to correct you. Our report does not state that he was

11 present during the entire operation. It states that the Macedonian

12 national media claimed that he was present during the entire operation.

13 Later on in the same paragraph, we state that Mr. Boskoski

14 acknowledged that he was in Ljuboten, but claims that he arrived at about

15 4.00 p.m. Our report only concludes that Mr. Boskoski was present at

16 Ljuboten sometime during the day of August 12th.

17 Q. And it is the Defence case that there were NLA defensive positions

18 and mortar positions of the NLA in the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of

19 August. Do you agree with that?

20 A. No, not to our knowledge.

21 Q. And your information has recounted to the Prosecution in relation

22 to the events of Bitola to the matter of the paramilitary 2000, also known

23 as The Lions, and other incidents which you were asked about and reported

24 about is incomplete or wrong; do you agree?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Your conclusions generally in your reports are unreliable,

2 unverified, or incomplete. Do you agree with that?

3 A. No.

4 Q. You failed to take even the most basic steps to verify the

5 accuracy, the reliability, or the truth of many of the accounts which were

6 given to you by the villagers in Ljuboten; do you agree with that?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Your views about The Lions as you explained to the Prosecution but

9 also in your statement is wrong, uninformed and without any evidential

10 basis. Do you agree with that?

11 A. No.

12 Q. And as regard the allegations which you raised against

13 Mr. Boskoski in your report and in other letters, you failed to comply

14 with the most basic rules of fairness and justice; do you agree with that?

15 A. No.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, I think we have covered the issues

17 which we wish to put directly to the witness.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.

19 Mr. Apostolski.

20 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support all the

21 issues stressed by my colleague Mettraux, and I wish to highlight just a

22 few more issues as follows:

23 Cross-examination by Mr. Apostolski:

24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bouckaert, is it correct that the action of

25 the Macedonian security forces in the village of Ljuboten was legitimate?

1 A. No. Our conclusion is that it was either an indiscriminate or a

2 deliberate attack on civilians.

3 Q. At the same time, it was necessary for the Macedonian security

4 forces to intervene in the village; is that correct?

5 A. No.

6 Q. The action was a joint action with the Macedonian military forces,

7 is that correct, of the army and of the police?

8 A. According to our information, the role of the army was limited to

9 shelling of the village, and we have no information to suggest that they

10 took any role in the ground operation on the 12th. I should also point

11 out that at least some of the soldiers initially objected about becoming

12 involved in the action on Ljuboten, as is clear from the evidence

13 presented by the Defence.

14 Q. Is it correct that it was still a joint operation, as I understood

15 from your previous answer?

16 A. I would not characterise it as a joint operation, especially not

17 the operation which involved the crimes committed on August 12th.

18 Q. Is it correct that your report is based on uncorroborated

19 information received only from ethnic Albanians?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Is it correct that it was prepared without interviewing a single

22 Macedonian inhabitant of the village of Ljuboten; although there are

23 Macedonians who live in that village?

24 A. The Macedonian population of the village was not present during my

25 visit to Ljuboten.

1 Q. You've mentioned that a house of a Macedonian was arsonned. Did

2 you take a statement from that Macedonian?

3 A. No, we --

4 Q. Did you try to interview him?

5 A. We were unable to locate him. We did not have any contact

6 information for him. We did include the information about the burning of

7 his home in our report.

8 Q. But you had data on him, you knew his name and last name; is that

9 correct?

10 A. Actually, we only knew his first name, Zlatko.

11 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] All right, thank you.

12 I have no further questions, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

14 Mr. Mettraux.

15 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

16 Simply as a matter of fairness to the Prosecution before they

17 start with the re-examination, we would like to indicate at this stage

18 that Mr. Bouckaert is being called not as an expert but as a fact witness,

19 and, that as such, we will make submissions in relation to the evidence

20 which is given distinguishing between the factual evidence which is given

21 and the opinions which he has given.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

23 Could the Chamber mention, for all counsel but particularly

24 Defence counsel at this stage, that the process that has just been

25 followed is the sort of process that is to be expected with compliance

1 with the rules, where a witness deals with a range of facts as extensive

2 as this witness. Of course, most witnesses will be dealing with a much

3 more limited range of facts so that the point of the Defence case that

4 might contradict with that witness will be much more limited and confined.

5 But a witness such as this, the process we have just followed is

6 appropriate.

7 Now, Mr. Saxon, we come to you again.

8 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Re-examination by Mr. Saxon:

10 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, a few minutes ago it was put to you by my colleague

11 that your judgement is distorted by your need to see or your desire to see

12 certain persons prosecuted.

13 You mentioned earlier in your testimony that you've been doing

14 some work recently in the Central African Republic. Are you aware that

15 the International Criminal Court is also working or has opened an

16 investigation into the Central African Republic?

17 A. Yes, I am aware of that fact. Their investigation currently

18 focuses on the events of 2002-2003, but they are monitoring the current

19 situation, yes.

20 Q. Have you provided any assistance or advice to the members of the

21 International Criminal Court who are working on these issues?

22 A. I have informed them, as well as the Darfur team, of my work on

23 these two war zones and have offered any assistance they would like.

24 Q. Has anyone in that capacity ever questioned your judgement or

25 suggested that it was distorted by a need to see people prosecuted?

1 A. I spent half of my time working on -- under some of the most

2 difficult conditions because I believe in accountability in general.

3 Working in war zones, getting malaria, getting sick, because I believe in

4 this work.

5 Q. But I need you to answer my question, sir.

6 A. No. Well, certainly, whenever I testify or whenever we

7 accuse anybody of or any government of violating human rights or the laws

8 of war, we get accused of a lack of judgement or a bias.

9 Q. But my question -- I'm sorry, my question wasn't clear enough.

10 Relating to your work with members at the International Criminal Court,

11 have any of the staff there, working on these issues, questioned your

12 judgement?

13 A. No.

14 Q. I believe yesterday, at page 3186 of the transcript, you commented

15 that:

16 "People were beaten to death in the streets of Skopje by police

17 officers in front of large crowds," and that such an event, if unanswered

18 by the Minister of the Interior, would qualify as openly tolerating police

19 abuse.

20 Can we see what is Exhibit P361, please. If we could increase the

21 size of that, please. Can we -- we need to look at the bottom of this

22 page.

23 Mr. Bouckaert, this is a report written in August of 2001

24 describing an event on the 13th of August of 2001. In the paragraph

25 beginning: "On Monday, August 13th ...," it refers to police officers

1 beating, in the last sentence, "four men in the street in front of the

2 hospital." Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Those were ethnic Albanian men; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, on the day after the events in Ljuboten.

6 Q. The following paragraph, it says:

7 "The men were then taken onto the hospital grounds and beaten

8 continuously for several hours with heavy metal cables, baseball bats,

9 police truncheons, and gun butts amidst jeering from the civilian crowd

10 that had gathered."

11 Then it said, "The four men were taken to the Bako 1 police

12 station, they were subjected to more beatings." And at the end of the

13 paragraph, it says:

14 "One of the men, 29-year-old Nazmi Aliu, father of a six-year-old

15 and a two-year-old, died that --"

16 Can we go to the next page, please.

17 " ... Died that day at the hospital from the injuries he received

18 from the police beatings."

19 And then it goes on to talk about the researchers who interviewed

20 two of the surviving men.

21 Were you one of those researchers?

22 A. Yes, I -- yes.

23 Q. Is this the incident that you were referring to yesterday?

24 A. Yes. It was the second incident in which people had been beaten

25 in front of this very public hospital, but it is the incident in which a

1 person was beaten to death, yes.

2 Q. At page 3502 of the transcript, you were asked by my colleague why

3 you did not seek an official response from the Macedonian government or

4 Mr. Boskoski regarding the events in Ljuboten prior to the publication of

5 your report. And you say at page 3502:

6 "I feel that the position of --" or:

7 "We felt that the position of Mr. Boskoski and the government was

8 reflected in our report based on public statements made by him and the

9 government."

10 Do you recall that?

11 A. That's correct.

12 MR. SAXON: I'd like to show, please, what is a video clip, with

13 the assistance of Ms. Walpita. It is 65 ter 305. It comes from

14 ERN V000-5202, and it's a video of a press conference which is also

15 discussed in the testimony of Mr. Bouckaert at page 3192 of the

16 transcript.

17 [Videotape played]

18 MR. SAXON:

19 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, you heard Mr. Boskoski refer -- use the term

20 "terrorist," I think, three times in the clip that I just showed you, one

21 when he said that "serves to prove that a massacre did not occur in the

22 village of Ljuboten," and that there was no killing of civilians but of a

23 terrorist-extremist group, and then more recently when Mr. Boskoski

24 explained that the residents of village of Ljuboten buried these five

25 terrorists, and all that remains now is to establish whether they were

1 from Ljuboten, itself, or whether these terrorists were also imported.

2 Was this one of the public statements of Minister Boskoski that,

3 in your mind, before you wrote the report, reflected his position and the

4 position of his government?

5 A. Yes, and it's mentioned in our report.

6 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time I would seek to tender this

7 video clip, which is from 001655 to 002256, 65 ter number 305.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

9 MR. METTRAUX: Simply to indicate, Your Honour, that the passage

10 in question has been put, it's on the transcript, and the proposition

11 which Mr. Saxon wanted to put has been clearly answered by the witness.

12 We don't see, at this stage, a need to tender this document.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Anything, Mr. Saxon?

14 MR. SAXON: Well, simply that questions were put to this witness

15 on cross-examination as to what material he used to make his professional

16 judgements in the writing of the report, and one of the materials that he

17 used were television news broadcasts, including this one. So it is the

18 video material itself that is actually the most relevant evidence.

19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be admitted, Mr. Saxon.

20 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P362, Your Honours.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, can we move into private session,

22 please, briefly?

23 JUDGE PARKER: Private.

24 [Private session]

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

23 MR. SAXON:

24 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, at page 3056 and 3057 of the transcript, you

25 mentioned that you had discussions with Mr. Henry Bolton and Ms. Sandra

1 Mitchell about the events that occurred in Ljuboten village, and these two

2 persons were part of the OSCE mission in Macedonia at the time. Can you

3 help us, please: Why did you have discussions with these two individuals

4 and not other members of the OSCE?

5 A. As I think our report makes clear, we had some basic disagreements

6 with the OSCE about their monitoring of the conflict and the reporting

7 they were doing. For example, we felt that, although, we knew they had

8 knowledge of the widespread police abuse that was taking place at the

9 time, we knew this because many of the people that we interviewed, who had

10 been abused in police custody, mentioned the fact to us that they had also

11 been interviewed by OSCE monitors. They did not speak publicly about

12 these abuses.

13 So I would say that we had less than cordial relations at the

14 time, and we were concerned about the impartiality of the OSCE and these

15 two people, some -- I mean, Sandra had also worked on Kosovo. They were

16 people that we felt comfortable talking to.

17 Q. You're referring now to Mr. Bolton and Ms. Mitchell?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. When you said in the record, "They did not speak publicly about

20 these abuses" --

21 A. That would be the OSCE.

22 Q. Very well. At page 3159 of the transcript, you refer to fierce

23 discussions within the OSCE after the events in Ljuboten between

24 Mr. Bolton and a person you refer to as the Human Dimension Officer about

25 the reliability of reports from other international observers about the

1 presence of armed ethnic Albanians in Ljuboten and exchanges of fire on

2 the 12th of August, 2001. How do you know about these discussions?

3 A. I don't know if I said that they were specifically between the

4 Human Dimensions Officers and Mr. Bolton.

5 Q. You did.

6 A. I did?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. We were aware that there were basic disagreements within the OSCE

9 about the reliability of some of those reports and also about some of the

10 allegations that were made in the OSCE report of August 16th, I believe,

11 which put forth alternative theories, that some of the people killed could

12 have been killed by ethnic Albanian elements, because we -- there were

13 people within the OSCE who felt that there was no basis to make those kind

14 of statements, yes. So it's based on our informal contacts within the

15 OSCE.

16 Q. At pages 3074 to 3075, and again on page 3078, there are

17 discussions between you and my colleague about sections of the report that

18 you wrote about the events in Ljuboten which describe or refer to the

19 responsibility of the Macedonian security forces and the role of the then

20 Minister of the Interior, Mr. Boskoski, and during that portion of your

21 testimony you were asked questions about your reliance on a video news

22 broadcast from Macedonian State Television on the evening of 12th August.

23 Do you recall some of that?

24 A. Yes.

25 MR. SAXON: I'd like to ask Ms. Walpita's assistance again,

1 please, to show you that broadcast, Mr. Bouckaert, from Macedonian

2 Television. It's from 65 ter number 305, ERN V000-5202, and this clip

3 will go from 00.11.52 to 00.15.14.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel switch off one of his

5 microphones? It creates noise for us. Thank you.

6 [Videotape played]

7 MR. SAXON: And if Your Honours wear your earphones, you'd be

8 hearing gunfire.

9 JUDGE PARKER: We are able to hear.

10 [Videotape played]

11 MR. SAXON:

12 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, do you recognise this video material as the

13 Macedonian State Television broadcast that you used as a reference in your

14 report?

15 A. Yes, and we had a still from that broadcast as a photograph in our

16 report also.

17 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, I would seek to tender the clip that I

18 just showed, the same --

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Yes, Your Honour, we have an objection.

21 MR. SAXON: I apologise, Your Honour. That was my mistake, and I

22 think I know what the objection is.

23 At this time, the Prosecution would simply seek to mark this clip

24 for identification, because the news -- the news reporter whose voice we

25 heard will be testifying later on in this case. That was my mistake.

1 JUDGE PARKER: It will be marked.

2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P363, MFI, Your Honours.

3 MR. SAXON:

4 Q. I'd like, Mr. Bouckaert, please, if you could turn your mind to a

5 different topic now.

6 At page 3096 of the transcript, there was a discussion regarding

7 the fact that in your statement to the Office of the Prosecutor, you

8 described Ljube Boskoski as an ultra-nationalist, and you confirmed that

9 description in your testimony. Do you remember that?

10 A. Yes.

11 MR. SAXON: Can I ask the Court Officer's assistance, please, to

12 show us what is a video. It's Exhibit P278.

13 I'm sorry, Your Honour, apparently it's our job to play this but

14 we have to play it on the sanctioned system, so we will play it.

15 [Videotape played]

16 MR. SAXON:

17 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, just so that you know, this particular video --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

19 MR. SAXON: My microphone's on.

20 Q. This video was shot after the conflict. It was shot later on?

21 A. M'mm-hmm.

22 Q. But I wanted to ask you, this comment that Mr. Boskoski makes

23 about: "The only thing that can be condemned is treason," during your

24 time in Macedonia and your research did you -- during 2001, did you have

25 occasion to see or hear Mr. Boskoski make similar kinds of comments in

1 public?

2 A. Yes, and afterwards one of the most vehement attacks Mr. Boskoski

3 made was in January of 2002 against the head of the

4 Macedonia-Helsinki Committee, herself an ethnic Macedonian, whom he

5 accused twice on State Television of being State Enemy Number 1 and

6 working contrary to the interests of the nation because she reported on

7 some of the abuses committed against the ethnic Albanian community. And

8 we issued a public letter to the President and to the Prime Minister

9 expressing our concern for her and her safety. She was afraid to return

10 to Macedonia because she feared arrest.

11 Q. And, again, when you say "we," you're referring to --

12 A. To the Human Rights Watch, yes.

13 Q. During your testimony, you clarified that paragraph 16 of your

14 statement to the Office of the Prosecutor is written in a tone that is

15 perhaps a bit too categorical and that your prior statements about

16 Mr. Boskoski's involvement in the establishment and command of The Lions

17 unit were based on media reports. This is at 3083 to 3084 of the

18 transcript. Do you recall that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. If we can, I'd like to show you an article. I don't believe this

21 article is uploaded into e-court. It's from 65 ter number -- oh, it is

22 uploaded. If we can see, please, what is 65 ter 136.1, please. I have

23 some questions to ask you about this article.

24 If we can't do this on e-court, I believe we have hard copies. If

25 that's preferable for our assistance, that's fine. Perhaps a copy could be

1 placed on the ELMO.

2 Mr. Bouckaert, this is an article originally published in the

3 English periodical "The Economist." It's dated 2nd of June, 2001. It's

4 titled "NATO and the European Union Speak Peace. Macedonians Feel on the

5 Edge of War."

6 Could you look, please, at the very last paragraph on the first

7 page. You need to look at the hard copy, Mr. Bouckaert, perhaps. I don't

8 know if it's coming up on the ELMO. Yes, there it is.

9 Mr. Bouckaert, I'm sorry, you can see it on the screen now.

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. There's a paragraph that begins: "Mr. Trajkovski's ...," that's

12 President Trajkovski's, "...room for manoeuvre is small, however. Last

13 week's offensive was led by police units known as Tigers and backed by

14 poorly-armed artillery and tanks, plus helicopters piloted by Ukrainians.

15 If the Tigers had not been sent in, or so the President was warned by

16 hard-line Slav Macedonians, then other feral creatures might have gone to

17 work, including a group of ..."

18 Can we turn to the next page, please. We need to see the top of

19 the next page:

20 " ... Including a group of toughs called The Lions who threatened

21 to vent their wrath on ethnic Albanians in Skopje, the capital."

22 Were these the kinds of press reports that you heard about this

23 entity called the Lions in 2001, in the summer of 2001?

24 A. Yes, this -- I know the person who wrote this report. I was in

25 very close touch with him. He actually accompanied the Tigers on one of

1 their operations, so he was very familiar with the security structures in

2 Macedonia, and we met on an almost daily basis.

3 Q. I'd like to show you another newspaper article, Mr. Bouckaert, and

4 again I have to bother our Court Usher. This is again from Exhibit 136.

5 You refer to it as 136.2. It has ERN number N004-6244 to 6247. I won't

6 read all of it to you. It's an article that begins at the bottom of the

7 page N004-6244. It's an article originally published in the "Christian

8 Science Monitor" on the 11th of September, 2001, by a journalist named

9 Elizabeth Reuben.

10 Mr. Bouckaert, did you know Elizabeth Reuben?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What can you tell us about her?

13 A. She's a very well-known journalist, and I've worked with her since

14 1998 or 1999, I've known her. She's considered one of the best

15 investigative journalists out there.

16 Q. This article is titled "A Simple NATO Mission Faces Bad-Faith and

17 'Lions'. Macedonian Paramilitaries Fill an Army Vacuum."

18 If we can turn to the next page, please. We need to look at the

19 top of the page. The first paragraph says:

20 "A meeting nearly two weeks ago between NATO Secretary-General

21 George Robertson and Macedonia's government leaders erupted into a verbal

22 balance jousting match that has exposed just how tenuous NATO's mission is

23 here and how easily the country will slip into war if NATO forces withdraw

24 as planned in two weeks."

25 In the next paragraph, we see this:

1 "According to an official who attended the meeting, Lord

2 Robertson accused Prime Minister Ljubce Georgievski and his

3 Interior Minister, Ljube Boskoski, of building up paramilitary forces that

4 threaten the safety of his troops. The Prime Minister lashed back

5 accusing NATO of having a secret agenda here."

6 And then later on we see a sentence:

7 "The Prime Minister threatened to walk out, and Mr. Boskoski, a

8 former sweetshop owner and member of the special forces in Croatia,

9 exploded, telling Robertson that he and his aide should be declared

10 persona non grata in Macedonia, and NATO should be sent to The Hague."

11 Do you see that, Mr. Bouckaert?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Two paragraphs later, we see this:

14 "What's clear on the ground here is that Boskoski does have

15 special forces he has prepared to exploit that vacuum. They're called

16 The Lions, which is the symbol of the ruling VMRO Party. And they've been

17 training at the Centre for Strategic Studies on the outskirts of Skopje.

18 As one moderate Macedonian security official in the government

19 said, Boskoski has threatened to use them 'to clear the terrain on the

20 Sar mountains' where the villages of Albanian rebels-turned-civilians are

21 concentrated."

22 Four paragraphs below, we see the following:

23 "The problem, says a NATO official, is that they," referring to

24 the so-called Lions, "are totally outside the chain of command, pursuing

25 Boskoski's own agenda, and even the police general has no control over

1 them."

2 Do you see that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Again, were these the kind of press reports that you were

5 receiving and reviewing during the summer of 2001?

6 A. Yes, and I should say that Elizabeth Reuben has excellent contacts

7 within the US government and within NATO, so I have no doubt who -- I have

8 no doubt about the credibility of her sourcing.

9 Q. Mr. Bouckaert, at page 3159 of the transcript, you explained to my

10 colleague that the Macedonian government, after the 12th of August, made

11 general statements that the people in Ljuboten were terrorists; however,

12 the government presented no evidence of that claim. In your experience,

13 what was typically the conduct of Macedonian government officials when

14 they announced publicly about operations that had been carried out against

15 terrorists?

16 A. In the ordinary course of events, there would be a press

17 conference where they would display the weapons that were captured, any

18 propaganda, flags, uniforms, or other NLA materials that were found to

19 show that they had actually carried out a raid against the NLA. They did

20 so after an August 5th event in Skopje itself, in which five members of

21 the NLA were killed under, let's say, questionable circumstances. They

22 displayed a large cache of arms on television that evening.

23 Q. Did they ever display, so to speak, captured NLA soldiers or

24 terrorists?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you recall ever seeing any so-called terrorists, any of the

2 people who had been detained at the village of Ljuboten on the 12th of

3 August, displayed or shown on television?

4 A. I saw some footage related to people fleeing from the village,

5 some video footage.

6 Q. All right. But not of --

7 A. But not of people in detention, no. And I was actively looking

8 for that kind of footage because I had spoken to some of the relatives who

9 had visited people who had been detained from Ljuboten and spoke about

10 obvious bruises and signs of beatings.

11 Q. You mentioned this killing of Commander Teli and some other

12 persons on 5th of August, 2001. I would like to show you a bit more sir

13 video material, sir.

14 MR. SAXON: Your Honours, this is another clip from 65 ter 305 --

15 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Before the video clip is shown, I would like a

18 clarification on the part of Mr. Saxon whether he intends to show material

19 which relate to the Teli incident. It's not a matter that we've raised

20 with the witness on cross-examination.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it is a matter that has come up during

22 cross-examination, because this witness talked, at page 3159, about the

23 usual practice of the government was that -- excuse me. He said that:

24 "Macedonian government made general statements that people in Ljuboten

25 were terrorists, but presented no evidence of that." So this is the issue

1 I'm trying to explore with the witness.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

3 MR. METTRAUX: Very briefly, Your Honour, the first thing we

4 notice is that the picture relating to that particular incident was shown

5 to the witness in examination-in-chief. If the Prosecution had intended

6 to explore that matter, it should have done that at this stage.

7 Furthermore, we asked no question of the witness in particular in

8 relation to that incident, and as far as we can see it is irrelevant to

9 the charges in this case.

10 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm not --

11 JUDGE PARKER: Try again, Mr. Saxon.

12 MR. SAXON: Thank you.

13 I'm not aware that I showed a picture to this witness in

14 examination-in-chief related to this incident on August 5th. That's the

15 first point. My memory is not always perfect, I'm the first to admit

16 that, but I'm not aware that I did that.

17 It may be true that on cross-examination my colleague asked no

18 questions about this particular incident. However, the questions that my

19 colleague did ask elicited a response, an information, that in the

20 Prosecution's submission is worthy of clarification, and that is simply

21 the essential purpose of redirect examination.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE PARKER: Please proceed, Mr. Saxon.

24 MR. SAXON: If we can show the clip from 65 ter Exhibit 305. It

25 begins at 11 seconds and goes to 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

1 [Videotape played]

2 MR. SAXON: And this is being played without sound, Your Honour.

3 It was broadcast on Macedonian Television after the 5th of August, 2001.

4 We see what appears to be a camouflage uniform with the word

5 "Teli" written on it.

6 We see some packages that have the words "Explosives" written on

7 it, a number of them.

8 THE WITNESS: These are grenades.

9 MR. SAXON: Parts of weapons. We see what appear to be automatic

10 rifles and then automatic handguns. A cellular phone. We see some, it

11 looks like, camouflage rucksacks, and again more automatic rifles.

12 If we could stop here. Thank you.

13 Q. Is this the video material that you saw broadcast on

14 Macedonian Television after this incident on the 5th of August?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. When you saw -- how can I phrase this question? Again, the fact

17 that you saw no such presentation after the 12th of August, what

18 conclusions, if any, did you draw from that?

19 A. It added to my evaluation that there was no such evidence

20 available for the government to show.

21 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I would seek to tender that last video

22 clip, please.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Mettraux.

24 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, we'll reiterate the objection as to

25 the relevance. We think it is typically the sort of material that falls

1 under Rule 89(D) and Rule 95 [realtime transcript read in error"92(5)"].

2 It has absolutely no relevance to the charges and this witness, insofar as

3 the evidence is concerned, has given his view that this material was

4 relevant to his belief that there had been no terrorists in the village.

5 However, the material itself has absolutely no relevance to the charges.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 JUDGE PARKER: It will be admitted.

8 Oh, I'm sorry. Before we act, Mr. Apostolski.

9 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may ask the

10 witness to indicate, where was this video clip shot? Does he know the

11 location of this house?

12 THE WITNESS: Yes. As I indicated in my direct testimony, I

13 visited this house on the day after the incident, and we also concluded at

14 that time that the government version, that these men had died during a

15 fierce gun battle, was inconsistent with the evidence we found at the

16 scene.

17 JUDGE PARKER: We're in the process of receiving the exhibit.

18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P364, Your Honours.

19 JUDGE PARKER: And it's received for the fact that it was a basis

20 for an opinion of the witness about a fact that is not central to the case

21 against the accused on this indictment so that Mr. Mettraux and

22 Mr. Apostolski are aware that the Chamber well appreciates the distinction

23 they make and the objection that is raised.

24 MR. METTRAUX: I'm grateful to Your Honour, and if I may correct

25 the transcript. At line 15 of page 58, it was Rule 95 that was referred

1 to.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

3 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I have no further questions for this

4 witness. I do have some -- I would like to tender some documents, but I

5 don't know the witness needs to be here for that.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Residovic.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in -- for the sake

8 of propriety, the comment of my learned colleague Mettraux, referring to

9 the direct examination of our colleague Saxon, was directly based on my

10 suggestion because I thought that Mr. Saxon has asked this question to the

11 witness -- of the witness in direct examination. I was not able to verify

12 whether my suggestion was appropriate, and if someone had made a mistake,

13 it was me, and I apologise, Your Honours.

14 Thank you.

15 JUDGE PARKER: That is most gracious of you, Ms. Residovic. Thank

16 you.

17 Mr. Bouckaert, you'll be pleased to learn that that concludes the

18 questioning of you in this case. The Chamber would thank you indeed for

19 your attendance in The Hague, for the assistance you've been able to give,

20 and the time that you have, in the end, been able to spare to enable your

21 evidence to be concluded.

22 THE WITNESS: I'm glad to have been of assistance, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, and of course you may now

24 return to your other activities.

25 [The witness withdrew]

1 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Saxon.

2 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, there were two documents that had been

3 marked for identification a week or so ago, and I mentioned them

4 yesterday. They were Exhibits P303 and P304, and my colleague indicated

5 that he had no objection that they be admitted into evidence at this

6 point.

7 MR. METTRAUX: Well, Your Honour, what we would like to specify in

8 relation to yesterday's comments about P303 and P304, I understand

9 Mr. Saxon is referring to the reports of Mr. Kostadinov and Kopacev. What

10 we would like to specify is we've indicated that we have no objection to

11 the admission, however, the Defence will certainly challenge the

12 reliability or may, in any case, challenge the reliability of some of the

13 statements made within those documents. The objection may be taken at a

14 later stage, and we still believe it is preferable that the admission or

15 the decision on the admission of the documents be postponed until

16 Mr. Kostadinov, who is the author of one of those two documents, appears

17 as a witness for the Prosecution. At this stage, the Defence believes,

18 will be the time to determine whether the content of those documents in

19 part or in their totality are, indeed, reliable and, as such, are

20 admissible.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Apostolski.

22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to having

23 this written document submitted into evidence on the basis that neither

24 the first nor the second witness have authenticated the accuracy of the

25 text. They did not authenticate the veracity of the text contained in

1 those written documents, and it is for these reasons that I propose that

2 they are not admitted by the Court in evidence.

3 When the witness comes, the witness who is the author of the text,

4 I think that would be the right time for the documents to be tendered and

5 admitted into evidence in case he verifies them as being authentic and

6 accurate.

7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon.

8 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it seems to the Prosecution, with great

9 respect, that the Defence is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It

10 used both of these documents yesterday on cross-examination to make points

11 for its own case, and so it seems, at the very least, contradictory, to

12 now say it is not -- the time has not yet come to admit these documents

13 into evidence.

14 With respect to the creators of the documents, one of the

15 creators, Mr. Kopacev, will not be coming. He is not on the Prosecution's

16 witness list. We don't intend to call him. The other one,

17 Mr. Kostadinov, will be called as a witness. However, we have already had

18 large portions of these documents authenticated not only by Mitre Despodov

19 but now further supported on cross-examination.

20 JUDGE PARKER: I don't think we need to continue the debate

21 backwards and forwards, gentlemen. Could the Chamber indicate that both

22 documents will be received. They were not received yesterday on a very

23 simple procedural point. We were in the middle of cross-examination, and

24 the documents were referred to and relied upon. Mr. Saxon got to his feet

25 then and sought to tender them. The Chamber was simply keeping him to his

1 proper time for doing that, which was re-examination. The conditions for

2 their admission, in the view of the Chamber, having been satisfied at that

3 point, accordingly, therefore, the two are received as exhibits.

4 And that does not mean, of course, that subsequent

5 cross-examination of other witnesses about their content will not be taken

6 into account in assessing what weight, if anything, would be given to

7 them.

8 Now, Mr. Saxon, is there more?

9 MR. SAXON: Yes, and I'm grateful for the Chamber keeping the

10 Prosecution honest, so to speak, in this regard.

11 JUDGE PARKER: We have a limited sight merely in procedural order,

12 Mr. Saxon.

13 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution would also seek to tender what has

14 been marked for identification P352, which was the report which

15 Mr. Bouckaert drafted for Human Rights Watch, and I hope I have the number

16 correct, the press release disseminated by Human Rights Watch regarding

17 that report that has -- has been marked for identification P353. We seek

18 to tender those at this time, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Mettraux.

20 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, with the leave of the Chamber, we at

21 first make a very very short comment in response to Mr. Saxon's suggestion

22 of a cake and the desire to eat it as well.

23 The only portion which the Defence relied upon in the two

24 documents in questions were the part which related to the conversation

25 relevant between the President and other individuals, Mr. Despodov in

1 particular, and the Defence relied on that document because it had been

2 properly corroborated by other evidence which we also put to the witness.

3 The Defence did not intend at this stage to rely on any other parts of

4 these documents. That is the first thing we would like to underline.

5 The second matter, as pertaining to the report of Mr. Bouckaert or

6 Human Rights Watch, we obviously object strongly to the admission of these

7 documents under Article 21 of the Statute and Rule 89 and 95 of the Rules.

8 We submit that there are a number of very serious shortcomings in this

9 report which renders it unreliable. All of these matters have been

10 explored by the Defence with the witness. Many of those have not been

11 explored by the Prosecution in re-examination. I will list them in no

12 particular order, Your Honour.

13 The first one concerns the issue of the translation of the

14 information which was provided by villagers or otherwise to Mr. Bouckaert.

15 Mr. Bouckaert has indicated that he was unable to verify the accuracy of

16 the information which was given to him independently.

17 The interviews were not recorded, whether video, audio or

18 otherwise. No proper statements were taken. The information provided by

19 the witnesses were not adopted, they were not signed. The information was

20 taken, we understand, in summary fashion in notes taken by Mr. Bouckaert,

21 to which the Prosecution has not sought formally to obtain access. These

22 notes have not been produced. The accuracy of the reporting within these

23 notes have not been established. The accuracy of the summary of these

24 notes, which have then been made into the reports, has not been

25 established.

1 There's also a rule which is the rule of best evidence which

2 applies in this Tribunal. We understand it does not necessarily apply to

3 its extreme limits and perhaps shouldn't be. However, the Prosecution has

4 taken the view not to call many of the individuals which are listed by

5 Mr. Bouckaert in his reports as source of information and which, on the

6 face of it, were available to give evidence before this Tribunal.

7 A further matter is the inability of the Defence to test the

8 reliability and credibility of many of the individuals who have given

9 evidence or given information to Mr. Bouckaert. We have only been able to

10 challenge the accuracy or the reliability of the method and methodology

11 which Mr. Bouckaert has used.

12 We also have the matter pertaining to the reliability of the

13 evidence, and the Defence submits that it has established that some of the

14 information provided to Mr. Bouckaert, to the extent that it could be

15 tested by material in the possession of the Defence, is unreliable, it

16 contradicts some of the statements given to the Prosecution office, it

17 also contradicts evidence which was given before this Tribunal. It's not

18 simply a matter of weight, we submit, Your Honour, as the Prosecution

19 would surely submit. The main and principal problem for the Defence would

20 be its inability to test the actual information, the basis for

21 Mr. Bouckaert's conclusion; that is, the evidence on which he relied to

22 come to its conclusion.

23 We've also underlined during the cross-examination of the witness

24 and during the exercise of putting that proposition to this witness, that

25 much of its information, of the information contained in the report, was

1 uncorroborated.

2 Furthermore, we understand that the evidence, and the witness has

3 conceded, was not admitted in compliance with local laws, since there was

4 no presence of an authorised official which would render it inadmissible

5 in local court. This last matter may not be highly relevant to the

6 Tribunal, however it is a matter, we submit, of some weight.

7 We finally indicate this: That we haven't made a direct attack on

8 the honesty of this witness and do not wish to do so in his absence.

9 However, we believe that this investigation was made in a rush, that it

10 was one-sided. We have said it was a one-week investigation conducted by

11 one man, where most of the evidence, as pointed out to him, had been taken

12 by one side without taking any steps to verify many of the allegations

13 made by him, in particular, very serious allegations against Mr. Boskoski.

14 THE INTERPRETER: Can the interpreters ask you to slow down,

15 please.

16 MR. METTRAUX: Well, the interpreters will be happy to understand

17 that I'm almost finished, simply to indicate, Your Honour, the legal basis

18 for our submissions Article 21 of the Statute and Rule 89 and 95 of the

19 Rules; thank you.

20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Mettraux.

21 Mr. Apostolski.

22 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I fully support the

23 objection made by my colleague in relation to the admission of this

24 evidence, and I also wish to stress that this is a one-side view of the

25 events primarily in relation to the interviewing of persons. No

1 statements were taken from the both entities that make up that -- the

2 population of that village, who live there.

3 I furthermore think that by not asking for reports from the

4 legitimate institutions of the Republic of Macedonia, and here I primarily

5 refer to the prosecutor's office and the Court, I think that the report is

6 one-sided, and in this sense I think that it should not be admitted into

7 evidence.

8 And regarding all the other issues, I fully support the statement

9 made by my colleague Mettraux.

10 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE PARKER: In the view of the Chamber, the report, and the

13 press release will be received. We would observe that the issue of the

14 quality of the content of the investigation, so-called, which is reflected

15 in much of the report has been very extensively tested, and it has been

16 tested in a way which has exposed quite glaringly a number of aspects

17 about the procedure and the results which clearly will tell in respect of

18 the weight that can be attached to some parts of the report. But the

19 report covers a very wide range of material, both of factual events and,

20 in a sense, historical matters, and the relevance and weight of those

21 various parts does vary quite a deal. And in some respects, the report is

22 clearly of relevance and valuable. In other respects, while its content

23 are relevant for the reasons that have been tested so carefully in

24 cross-examination and re-examination, the question of the weight that can

25 be attached to them is one that is very open indeed at this stage.

1 The procedure, in a tribunal such as this, of receiving reports

2 from agencies of standing and attempts at independence is one that is well

3 established. It does not follow that because a report is received, that

4 the Chamber accepts the content and the result of the report. The Chamber

5 looks to the direct evidence. There has been quite a body of that, about

6 matters dealt with in the report, and the Chamber, as I'm sure counsel

7 appreciate, is simply not going to pick up a report and treat its content

8 and its conclusions as established facts. They are merely a part of the

9 extensive material which Chamber must take into account.

10 And Mr. Mettraux's submission, that here was a hasty report

11 prepared in only a week or so, underlines the comment I've just made

12 because this Chamber will not be able to spend just a week in assessing

13 the facts of this case. It is clear it is going to spend something in the

14 order of six months or more hearing detailed evidence, and it is upon that

15 evidence primarily and not on this or similar reports that conclusions

16 will be reached by this Chamber.

17 So if the Registrar could note, then, that those two documents

18 which were marked for identification will now become exhibits.

19 Mr. Saxon, is there anything more?

20 MR. SAXON: There is another witness, Your Honour, but not --

21 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. I'm looking at the time before we must have

22 our break, and clearly the witness should wait until after the break.

23 I was wondering whether there was anything more of a procedural

24 nature.

25 MR. SAXON: Not at this time, Your Honour, only that Ms. Motoike

1 will lead the next witness.

2 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

3 Mr. Mettraux.

4 MR. METTRAUX: Your Honour, there is a relatively short

5 application which we would like to make at this stage in relation to the

6 calling of Mr. Ostreni. I simply do not know whether Your Honour would

7 wish to do so at this stage, or perhaps after the break, or tomorrow, or

8 at your convenience.

9 JUDGE PARKER: I suspect it will take longer more than the tapes

10 would allow, so we must hear you after the break.

11 MR. METTRAUX: Very well.

12 JUDGE PARKER: We will adjourn now, and we resume at five minutes

13 to 6.00.

14 --- Recess taken at 5.25 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 5.57 p.m.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Mettraux.

17 MR. METTRAUX: Thank you, Your Honour.

18 There are two matters in relation to which we would wish to be

19 heard at this stage. The first one concerns the evidence of Mr. Ostreni

20 or, rather, the timing thereof. It's an application we make with some

21 reluctance, but we believe we have to make it and to make it at this

22 stage.

23 The Defence has made a number of applications for assistance to a

24 number of state or entities for the provision of material which we believe

25 to be relevant and important in relation to this particular witness and a

1 number of other witnesses in this case. At this stage, two of these

2 requests, we understand, are being processed or are in the process of

3 being fulfilled by the two states in question. Two of the other

4 applications are unfortunately not even there, at this stage. One of the

5 applications has simply been ignored, if I may put it in those terms, and

6 the Defence intend to make a further application with the Trial Chamber in

7 relation to this one. As for the fourth application, we also intend to

8 make a further application with the Trial Chamber because of what we

9 believe to be an incomplete or inappropriate effort on the part of the

10 state in question to provide the Defence with the material that is

11 relevant to this matter.

12 We believe that should we be asked or expected to proceed with the

13 cross-examination of this witness on the 15th, the Defence could be either

14 prejudiced by the absence of this material, which we have requested, or,

15 in any case, we might not even be in a position to go for very long with

16 the cross-examination, which may be good news to the completion strategy,

17 but we believe that this would put the Defence in the position of having

18 to do a very short cross-examination and then reserve its right to call

19 this witness again for further cross-examination once the material come in

20 our possession. We believe that this is an inefficient use of resources

21 and that the Defence, the Prosecution, and, we hope, the Tribunal

22 resources will be much better used if the evidence of that particular

23 witness were postponed until we receive those documents.

24 We highlight also the fact that this witness is called solely for

25 the purpose of cross-examination, his statement having been tendered

1 pursuant to Rule 92 bis.

2 We also explain our reluctance, Your Honour, to do this

3 application because of the fact that we understand that this may have

4 consequences for the Prosecution, for the Trial Chamber, for the Registry,

5 for VWS, for the witnesses, for the witness himself, and we can express

6 our understanding that this application may cause some disruption and some

7 problem. We believe, however, that it is sufficiently important to

8 justify the postponement of the evidence of this witness.

9 And perhaps, Your Honour, while I'm on my feet, so that perhaps

10 Mr. Saxon can answer both matters at the same time, the second application

11 or the second submissions concern an application by the Defence for

12 Mr. Tarculovski concerning a suggested on-site visit to Ljuboten. We wish

13 simply to indicate that we support the application of the Tarculovski

14 Defence.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

16 Mr. Apostolski, is there anything that you would wish to say?

17 MR. APOSTOLSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I support the

18 statement by my colleague Mettraux again, only mentioning that the

19 Prosecutor's Office has given us a large volume of material just a few

20 weeks ago, 5.000 pages related to NLA, Your Honour, so we believe that we

21 need more time to analyse that voluminous material and in relation to the

22 cross-examination of the witness.

23 It might be a mistake on our part, that we haven't analysed that

24 material thus far, but still we believe that if it does not create

25 problems for the Prosecution, the evidence by this witness should be

1 postponed and he should be physically present here in this court after the

2 summer recess.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Apostolski.

4 Mr. Saxon.

5 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, if I can respond, first of all, to the

6 information just provided by my colleague Mr. Apostolski.

7 It is generally correct that several weeks ago, perhaps a month,

8 that the Prosecution provided thousands of pages of material related to

9 the NLA to the Defence. However, there's quite a bit of context to this.

10 First of all, this disclosure was performed pursuant to a specific

11 request from the Defence, not because the Prosecution felt that all this

12 material was relevant under 66(B) or fell within the scope of Rule 68.

13 Indeed, the Prosecution specifically informed the Defence, before any

14 disclosure was made, that it might want to come to the office of the OTP

15 and review the material first before making a decision to receive such a

16 voluminous amount of material, and that indeed was what happened several

17 weeks ago. The Office of the Prosecutor made its staff and its resources

18 available to do that, and it was at that time that the members of the

19 Defence at that time decided, instead of taking only portions of this

20 voluminous amount of material, that they would simply take the entire

21 thing and review it as they saw fit.

22 So this related disclosure, Your Honour, should not have any

23 bearing on whether the video link of Mr. Ostreni is postponed or not.

24 With respect to the application made by Mr. Mettraux, the

25 Prosecution is sympathetic to the difficulties that the Defence are having

1 with their requests for more information. Having said that, I feel it's

2 my obligation to explain to the Chamber as well the difficulties that have

3 become painfully and personally aware to me during the last few weeks as

4 we have struggled to set up the video link that is currently scheduled.

5 A video link conference in the United Nations headquarters in

6 New York City requires the technical capabilities and organisational

7 capabilities of members of the Registry, particularly the section called

8 ITSS. It requires the work of the Court Officer. It requires the work of

9 members of the Prosecution. It also requires the work of a significant

10 number of people at United Nations headquarters in New York, work that has

11 already been performed to arrange the video link that is presently

12 scheduled to begin on the 16th of July, and I simply cannot tell the

13 Chamber at this point how easy or how difficult it will be to reschedule

14 another video link.

15 There are rooms -- a limited number of rooms and a limited number

16 of amount of equipment at United Nations headquarters that make such video

17 links -- video conferencing available. However, there is also great

18 demand for these rooms and this equipment and for the technicians, and

19 they are often, as they are this month, fully booked.

20 I simply need to inform the Chamber of that.

21 I also do not know, Your Honours, the availability of the witness

22 if we try to reschedule the video link. The witness has been gracious

23 enough to make the entire week of the 16th of July open. He will be

24 available for the currently-scheduled video link testimony. But I simply

25 can't make an affirmation to the Trial Chamber at this point about his

1 ongoing availability and whether it will be at a time that is convenient

2 for the Defence.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Saxon, I'm trying to remember, but do not

4 clearly remember, the situation of the witness. He was to be in the

5 United States for a period, but was he not then returning to his normal

6 place of living in the region?

7 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, it is my understanding of the witness's

8 plans, and again I have not spoken to him via telephone in some months

9 now, but it was my understanding that the witness was planning to spend at

10 least three months in the United States. However -- however, the witness's

11 intent was, if it were possible for him to extend his visa and stay

12 longer, he intended to do so. That was my understanding, Your Honour,

13 when we discussed this matter I guess it was in April. I can't tell you

14 now what the witness's current plans are.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Well, unless he gets an extension of his visa, he

16 will need to be out in three months. Am I right?

17 MR. SAXON: That is my understanding, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. Thank you for that, Mr. Saxon.

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE PARKER: When did those three months commence, Mr. Saxon?

21 Are you able to tell us that?

22 MR. SAXON: I'm deeply afraid I'm about to give misinformation,

23 but it's my recollection that Mr. Ostreni travelled from Macedonia to the

24 United States around the 25th or 26th of May.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE PARKER: The view of the Chamber commences from the fact

3 that we sought to accommodate the personal travel plans of this

4 Prosecution witness, when it was his expectation that he would be spending

5 three months in the United States holding only a single entry visa, which

6 meant that he could not have come to The Hague in the course of that three

7 months because he would not then be able to re-enter the United States,

8 and to try and meet that exigency, the Chamber was prepared to entertain a

9 video link with to the United States so that it would hear and see the

10 witness give his evidence with the witness being in the United States,

11 counsel and the Chamber being here.

12 Quite distinctly from that, there have been efforts by the Defence

13 for Mr. Boskoski to obtain information relevant to its cross-examination

14 of that witness from various governments and a government organisation in

15 Europe. Mr. Mettraux advises, in short summary, that at the moment they

16 have not been sufficiently successful in getting responses from those

17 requests, even though there have been orders by the Chamber in respect of

18 them, such that the Defence of Mr. Boskoski would not be in a position to

19 complete, even if it could begin, a cross-examination of the witness

20 during the video link which is planned for the week after next.

21 In those circumstances, given the complications of the procedures

22 involved, it seems to the Chamber that the most practical course at this

23 time is to abandon the plans for a video link from New York during the

24 week after next. That means that the evidence of this witness will not be

25 able to be heard until after the court vacation. When the witness will be

1 heard will be a matter for liaison between the Victims and Witnesses Unit

2 and the Prosecution. Obviously, there will be some consultation with the

3 Boskoski Defence as well to ensure that they have reached a position of

4 being ready, and it will then be a question whether the witness is still

5 in the United States or has returned to his home country. If the latter,

6 there would seem to be no particular difficulty about the witness giving

7 evidence here. If the witness is in the United States, then despite

8 Mr. Apostolski's submissions, the Chamber would remain with the view that

9 the evidence should be heard via video link.

10 That position having been reached, we must ask Mr. Saxon, of

11 course, to then look again at his list of witnesses, undo the arrangements

12 that have been made tentatively for the video link, and look at witnesses

13 during the week after next.

14 MR. SAXON: Very well, Your Honour, we'll do that.

15 Your Honour, my colleague raised one more matter, a motion for a

16 site visit, and just if I can tell the Chamber very briefly.

17 The Prosecution does not intend to object to this motion. However,

18 the Prosecution wishes to respond in writing because there are certain

19 portions of the proposed -- of the proposal that we wish to comment on

20 quite carefully, so we will do that in writing, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Can I say, Mr. Saxon, that the Chamber has received

22 the motion and is well aware of it and the arguments put in support of it,

23 but approaches the proposal with caution at this stage. We do not lightly

24 undertake site visits and have only ever done so once in the course of --

25 this is now the fourth trial we have sat together so that the need for a

1 site visit, given that it involves delay, it involves big administrative

2 problems and cost, the need will have to be demonstrated quite clearly by

3 the arguments advanced by the parties, and the Chamber would need to be

4 persuaded not only of need but that a visit will make a significant

5 difference to its consideration of the case.

6 So be aware that the job lies ahead of the parties, if they want

7 to persuade the Chamber that there is adequate justification for that.

8 At a point earlier today, Mr. Saxon, a discussion between the

9 Judges included the possibility we might ask of you how you saw now the

10 completion date for the Prosecution case. In view of what has happened

11 today, I think it would be asking you to look into a very obscure crystal

12 ball to try and make a guess at the moment, unless you have something you

13 would like to volunteer.

14 MR. SAXON: I think it would be, quite frankly, more appropriate

15 for the Prosecution to ponder the matter at least overnight before making

16 any response, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE PARKER: The Chamber is constantly looking at the question

18 of how to plan the continuation of this hearing and other matters that go

19 with it, and of course if it were to come to a site visit, when and how

20 best to manage that, so that we are trying to get these things within a

21 time scale to assist our planning. So if you could ponder, we would be

22 grateful.

23 MR. SAXON: The Prosecution will ponder, Your Honour, and may I

24 say so, I hope the Trial Chamber is in receipt of a proposal to speed up

25 the trial process which the Prosecution sent last night. Of course, the

1 reaction of the parties and the Chamber to this proposal would obviously

2 have an impact about time estimates.

3 JUDGE PARKER: True, but the starting point of the problem, as I

4 think we have sought to underline, is the time taken by the Prosecution

5 with each witness, which generally exceeds the time allowed in total for

6 the witness. So the remedy could be shorter and simpler in adopting

7 straightened rules.

8 Well, with those matters dealt with, we, I hope, now can turn to

9 Ms. Motoike's witness.

10 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honours.

11 Good afternoon. The Prosecution at this time would call

12 Mario Jurisic.

13 [The witness entered court]

14 JUDGE PARKER: Good evening, sir.

15 Would you please read aloud the affirmation on the card that is

16 shown to you now.

17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

19 WITNESS: MARIO JURISIC

20 [The witness answers through interpreter].

21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much. Please sit down.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Ms. Motoike has some questions for you.

24 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you.

25 Examination by Ms. Motoike:

1 Q. Good evening, sir. Is your name Mario Jurisic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And in August 2001, were you a lieutenant commander of the

4 2nd Infantry Company with the 3rd Battalion, 1st Guardist Brigade with the

5 Army of the Republic of Macedonia?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Had you been assigned to this particular command since July 2001,

8 at that time?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And as a commander during this particular period of time, that is,

11 in 2001, did you have occasions to see orders issued by the President of

12 the Republic of Macedonia?

13 A. Personally, no.

14 Q. Have you seen orders issued by the President of the Republic of

15 Macedonia at any time during your course of being in the army?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Are you still an active member of the Army of the Republic of

18 Macedonia?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And what is your position now?

21 A. I am now in the Chiefs of Staff of the Army of the Republic of

22 Macedonia, and I deal with personal management issues, development --

23 professional development of all military and civil persons in the Army of

24 the Republic of Macedonia.

25 Q. If I could draw your attention back to August of 2001 for a

1 moment.

2 MS.MOTOIKE: Your Honours, with the assistance of the usher, we

3 have binders with the exhibits I'd like to show this particular witness.

4 If we could please display what's already been admitted as P00298.

5 It's tab 1 of today's binders. Thank you.

6 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you see the map that is displayed before you? It

7 has some coloured markings on it. Do you recognise this particular map?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. I'm drawing your attention to a signature, what looks to be a

10 signature under the words -- it says "Map 2" in English. There's a

11 signature in there in the upper-left corner. Is that your signature?

12 A. Forgive me, Your Honours, but I see "Map 2" in front of me. Is it

13 the same map in question?

14 Q. Yes. Does this assist you, Mr. Jurisic? It is the map you're

15 looking at in hard copy form.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that your signature?

18 A. Yes, this is my signature.

19 Q. And, again, drawing your attention back to August of 2001, are the

20 positions of the 2nd Infantry Company that you commanded indicated on this

21 particular map?

22 A. Yes, they are.

23 Q. And if I can draw your attention, there are -- I know that this

24 is -- appears in English. There are names of particular locations that

25 are on the upper margin of this particular map, and one of them says

1 "Smuk," and I believe that should say "Smok," S-m-o-k; is that correct?

2 A. Yes. I can see it's written "Smuk," it should be "Smok."

3 Q. And there's also a position named Bomba, and further to the right

4 there is a position named Maka, Volk and Oril, and Jastreb. Do you see

5 those?

6 A. Yes, I see them, with a slight correction, if I may. This is not

7 Maka, this is Mecka.

8 Q. And just so that we get the spelling correct, how should that be

9 spelled?

10 A. M-e-c-k-a.

11 Q. Thank you. And these particular points that I've referred you to,

12 are those the observations points for your particular company, that is,

13 the 2nd Company?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And there's also a name above in the middle of the document of the

16 map. It says" Zevro" [phoen]. Do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Is that a mortar battery position within your battalion?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And in 2001, particularly in August of 2001, was your battalion

21 comprised of three companies, with the fourth element being this mortar

22 battery company named Zevro?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And if I could show you a photograph --?

25 MS. MOTOIKE: If we could please display it, it's 65 ter 199.28,

1 which is tab 5 of today's binders.

2 Q. Mr. Jurisic, you see the photo that's displayed before you on the

3 screen?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And do you recognise what is depicted in this particular

6 photograph?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is this photograph taken from the position that you referred to as

9 Smok?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Is it taken from the position called Bomba?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And is the village of Ljuboten visible in this photograph?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. If you could, with the assistance of the usher, would you please

16 mark the area of the photo where you see Ljuboten village, please?

17 A. [Marks]

18 Q. And you've marked that with a rectangular -- loose rectangular

19 figure on the photo.

20 Mr. Jurisic, is the entire village of Ljuboten visible from this

21 particular position?

22 A. No.

23 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may this be tendered, please?

24 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P365, Your Honours.

1 MS. MOTOIKE:

2 Q. And Mr. Jurisic, I would like to please show you another

3 photograph so that we can get a visual of some of the locations you've

4 indicated on the map.

5 MS. MOTOIKE: Can we please show N006-7603. It is not in the

6 binder for today because it is actually in the court binder for this

7 particular case. It's page 5.

8 It's N006-7603 is the ERN.

9 I'm sorry, it might be my fault. It's N005-7603.

10 Thank you.

11 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you recognise what's depicted in this particular

12 photo that's displayed on the screen?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And basically the photo is a shot of Ljuboten village with a

15 mountain range in the far background. Do you see that?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. And if you could, please, tell us whether or not there are any of

18 your positions of your company that are visible along this mountain range

19 that is depicted in the photograph.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And with the assistance of the usher, could you please mark for us

22 the locations or the positions that your 2nd Company had that are visible

23 in this particular photograph?

24 A. [Marks]

25 Q. Now, the circle that you made in the top there, that's to the far

1 right, can we number that with a "1", please.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. Let's start with the "1" to the left, then. So the position

4 marked with a "1", is that position the Bomba or the Smok position?

5 A. This is Smok.

6 Q. And if you could, please, the circle in the middle that you've

7 marked, could you mark that with a number "2", please.

8 A. [Marks]

9 Q. And could you tell us what position that is, the number "2"

10 indicates?

11 A. This is Bomba.

12 Q. And the circle on the far right, could you number that with a "3",

13 please.

14 A. [Marks]

15 Q. And could you also tell us what that position that's marked as a

16 number "3", what is that -- the name of that position?

17 A. This is Mecka.

18 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?

19 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

20 MS. MOTOIKE:

21 Q. Just some general questions, Mr. Jurisic, about your particular

22 battalion in August of 2001. Was the commander of your battalion

23 Major Mitre Despodov?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And who was your commander in August of 2001?

1 A. Major Mitre Despodov was head of my battalion and of my company, I

2 was the head of my company.

3 Q. Okay. So Major Despodov was the commander of your battalion in

4 2001?

5 JUDGE PARKER: We will receive the exhibit number while that is

6 being considered.

7 MS. MOTOIKE: My apologies, Your Honour.

8 THE REGISTRAR: That would be P366, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

10 MS. MOTOIKE:

11 Q. Major Jurisic, Major Despodov then went to the commander of the

12 battalion that your company fell within in 2001; is that correct?

13 A. Yes, the commander of my battalion.

14 Q. And was the command of your battalion in Ljubanci?

15 A. I don't understand the question.

16 Q. Well, did your battalion have a command headquarters?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Was it located in the village of Ljubanci?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And did your command also have an -- not your company command but

21 the battalion command, also have an operational and logistics headquarters

22 in Ljubanci?

23 A. Yes, it did.

24 Q. Was the operational headquarters based in the Ljubanci School

25 building?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. If I could show you another photograph.

3 MS. MOTOIKE: If we could show, please, 65 ter 199.25. This is

4 tab 6, and actually it is also Photo B, page 7 of the court binder.

5 Q. Mr. Jurisic, do you see the photograph that's displayed before you

6 on the screen?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And does this photograph depict the Ljubanci School building where

9 the operational headquarters for your battalion were?

10 A. Yes.

11 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?

12 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.

13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P367, Your Honours.

14 MS. MOTOIKE:

15 Q. And, Mr. Jurisic, did the battalion also have a logistics

16 headquarters that was located at the Children's Rest House?

17 A. Your Honours, if you can state the questions more precise.

18 Logistics headquarters, what does that mean, in fact, what does it entail?

19 Q. I can rephrase. I apologise, Mr. Jurisic. What I was asking

20 was: You had indicated that your battalion had a logistics headquarters;

21 is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I guess what I was asking was: Is the logistics headquarters

24 that you refer to, is that located at the Children's Rest House?

25 A. No.

1 Q. Was it located at the Children's Rest House in August of 2001?

2 A. No.

3 Q. And where was the logistics headquarters, then, located at in

4 2001?

5 A. In the school building.

6 Q. The school building that is still depicted before you on the

7 photograph?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. If I could show you -- sorry. If I could show you another

10 photograph, which is 65 ter 199.26. It is tab 7 of today's binders. It's

11 also photo A, page 7 of the court binder.

12 Do you see this particular photograph, Mr. Jurisic?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And could you tell us, these buildings that are located in the

15 upper right corner of this particular photograph, do you recognise what

16 those buildings are?

17 A. Yes. This is the rest house.

18 Q. And could you tell us, in August of 2001, what was this rest house

19 used for by your company?

20 A. The rest house housed my company, which means that the whole rest

21 for my company, when they were not on duty, was carried out in this rest

22 house. Food was prepared here, showers were taken here, personal hygiene

23 and so forth.

24 Q. And was it also the same with respect to the other companies of

25 your battalion; that is, did the other persons in other companies of your

1 battalion also have access to this rest house?

2 A. Yes.

3 MS. MOTOIKE: Your Honours, may we tender this, please?

4 JUDGE PARKER: Before we do, we did receive tab 6 as Exhibit P367,

5 but it is already Exhibit P233.

6 MS. MOTOIKE: I am being handed a note as to that, Your Honour,

7 yes. Thank you for that. I didn't realise it was already P233. I

8 apologise.

9 JUDGE PARKER: That being so it will not become Exhibit P367.

10 MS. MOTOIKE: Thank you, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE PARKER: And we now turn to tab 7.

12 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P367, Your Honours, for the document

13 bearing 65 ter number 199.26.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

15 MS. MOTOIKE:

16 Q. Mr. Jurisic, if I could draw your attention to a particular day,

17 which is Saturday, 11 August of 2001. Were you on duty that particular

18 day?

19 A. Yes, I was.

20 Q. And do you recall if you saw your -- the commander, which is

21 Mitre Despodov, at any time that day?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And did you, at some point on that morning of Saturday, did you

24 receive any orders or requests from Commander Despodov?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Could you tell us what those orders or requests were?

2 A. The orders which I received from my commander were to prepare the

3 positions from possible attacks, additional attacks by terrorists, that is

4 to say, maximum engagement. As far as I recall, further establishing

5 the -- putting up the personnel who came to the unit, finishing their

6 training, the soldiers who came to join the unit, to increase their combat

7 readiness of the company. And I also -- it was made -- it was told to me

8 by the commander about an order from the President for maximum combat

9 readiness in my part of the defence.

10 Q. At some point do you recall if you were at the Children's Rest

11 House on that Saturday?

12 A. This Saturday, yes, I was there in the rest house, but it depends

13 on which part of the day.

14 Q. Well, at any time at the Children's Rest House on that day, at any

15 time did persons come to that location?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Could you tell us who these persons were?

18 A. They were police officers.

19 Q. And what were these police officers wearing?

20 A. Regular equipment which they usually wear.

21 Q. Were they wearing any type of uniform or dress?

22 A. Yes, they were in camouflage.

23 Q. Did they have any insignia on their camouflage uniforms?

24 A. Yes, they had the police emblems.

25 Q. Do you recall about how many of these police officers you saw at

1 the Children's Rest House that day?

2 A. At this moment, I cannot recall the exact number, but somewhere

3 around ten persons. I truly cannot say the exact number.

4 Q. Do you recall whether these policemen were equipped with weapons?

5 A. Yes, standard weapons worn by the police.

6 Q. And at the time when you saw them, had they already been equipped

7 with these weapons?

8 A. Yes, they were.

9 Q. And when you say "standard weapons worn by the police," could you

10 be more specific? What kind of weapons did you see that they had?

11 A. They had automatic guns, pistols. At this moment, I cannot

12 concretely remember whether they had snipers or something similar, but

13 what does remain in my memory are pistols, automatic rifles. At the

14 moment, this is what I can recollect.

15 Q. Do you know what a Zolja is?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Do you recall if any of these policemen were equipped with Zoljas?

18 A. I do not remember.

19 Q. Were they equipped with bulletproof vests; do you recall?

20 A. Yes, they were wearing them.

21 Q. And do you recall when these policemen arrived at the Children's

22 Rest House?

23 A. I believe it was somewhere in the evening, sometime in the

24 evening, at dusk.

25 Q. Do you recall how these persons arrived at the Children's Rest

1 House?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And how did they arrive?

4 A. They arrived in one police vehicle. When I say "police vehicle,"

5 I mean a police car.

6 Q. Was it just one car or were there several?

7 A. One vehicle and one truck.

8 Q. Do you recall if you received any orders from Commander Despodov

9 with respect to these policemen?

10 A. At this moment, I cannot recall whether I was told in person or by

11 phone or in a command line by the liaison officers, but I do know that I

12 was informed that such people were coming to the rest house.

13 Q. Were you informed as to what these people were going to do at the

14 rest house?

15 A. I was not informed.

16 Q. While these policemen were at the Children's Rest House, were they

17 under your authority?

18 A. They were not under my command.

19 Q. Were you given any other orders by Commander Despodov with respect

20 to any mortars on Saturday, 11 August 2001?

21 A. Yes. This is part of the main order for increasing the maximum

22 combat readiness, which also means the positioning of the mortars.

23 Q. Going back to the policemen at the Children's Rest House, do you

24 recall the identity of any of these policemen?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Can you tell us, please, who it is that you can remember as far as

2 the policemen that were there?

3 A. The person who collected the food.

4 Q. And can you describe this person who collected the food?

5 A. Average height, black hair, this is so. I don't remember the

6 colour of his eyes or any particular distinctions.

7 Q. And when you say "collecting the food," do you mean collecting the

8 food that was served at the rest house?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you recall being interviewed by representatives of the Office

11 of the Prosecutor on 9 November 2004?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And during that interview, do you recall being shown two

14 photo-boards of persons?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And prior to being shown these particular photo-boards, do you

17 recall if you were given certain advisements with respect to the photo

18 lines that you were going to be presented with?

19 A. I did not understand the question. Can you please make it more

20 precise?

21 Q. Do you recall being advised of anything prior to being shown these

22 two photo-boards during your interview with the Office of the Prosecution?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And do you remember what that advisement was?

25 A. To point to a person if I -- if I am sure that I had seen that

1 person before.

2 JUDGE PARKER: I sense what you're about to do, and it's clearly

3 going to take more time than we have. So I think we should adjourn now,

4 and we resume tomorrow morning at 9.00.

5 MS. MOTOIKE: Yes. Thank you very much.

6 JUDGE PARKER: I'm sorry, but we must interrupt your evidence now,

7 to resume in the morning at 9.00.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

9 6.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday, the

10 6th day of July, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25