Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 1790

 1                           Wednesday, 4 March 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.27 p.m.

 5                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Good afternoon.  Unfortunately, the previous trial

 7     in this courtroom had a delayed finish, so we had to start a little late.

 8             I understand there may be a matter before the witness comes in.

 9     Is that right, Mr. Djurdjic?

10             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  Indeed

11     there is.  I feel somewhat embarrassed to keep objecting about something

12     all the time.  During the last session yesterday at 1808 we received an

13     e-mail message from the OTP informing us that due to circumstances beyond

14     their control witnesses Bozidar Protic and Goran Stoparic will not be

15     able to appear as witnesses as previously determined on the 23rd of

16     March, and will therefore be struck from the witness list for the weeks

17     to come.  And then there is a list of the following ten witnesses, the

18     witnesses coming up now.  On this list we have witnesses appearing over

19     the next couple of weeks, their names stated in a summary fashion.  I

20     believe this was on the 25th of February, so some seven or eight days

21     ago, that we were facing problems in relation to this, organising our

22     Defence, witnesses being announced, and the order of appearance being

23     changed.

24             You stated in the clearest terms possible the problems being

25     faced by both the Court and the Prosecution, and then we adopted a set of

Page 1791

 1     rules determined by the Trial Chamber, that being to prepare for the next

 2     witness coming along.  Your Honours, I believe the fundamental problem

 3     here, in view of all your rulings, since the Pre-Trial Conference we said

 4     that there should be a two-week notice served on the Defence about

 5     witnesses to appear over the next weeks.  I don't think this is a

 6     deliberate move on the part of the OTP, but we are facing a number of

 7     problems.  Specifically, let me share a couple of facts with you.  The

 8     Defence received notification from the OTP in relation to the week

 9     starting on the 2nd of March.  We received this notification on the

10     16th of February, with only two witnesses Bogujevci Fatos and

11     Bogujevci Saranda with 05 hours allotted for each.  The Defence can in no

12     way influence the planning procedure nor indeed can we decide who the

13     witnesses will be.  We've got a total of two witnesses for that week; I

14     accepted that.

15             Bearing in mind the problems we had on the 25th, we talked to

16     Ms. Kravetz and we determined that Radojkovic had been subpoenaed at some

17     point without the Defence knowing about this; but now he was also placed

18     on that list for the week starting on the 2nd of March.  Radojkovic,

19     Bosko, Witness Radojkovic, Bosko his evidence scheduled to last for an

20     hour, this notice is dated 23rd February this year.  At the same time the

21     first part of that motion, the OTP informed us that in the week starting

22     on the 9th of March the first witness to appear will be Goran Stoparic

23     followed by K88 followed by K84 followed by Bozidar Protic; and then as I

24     said in relation to the 16th of March week which is what we received

25     yesterday, or rather, on the 2nd of March we see witnesses that are named

Page 1792

 1     a while ago:  Merovci, Adnan; Bala, Nazalie; Kabashi, Emin;

 2     Zyrapi, Bislim; Baraybar, Jose-Pablo.

 3             Now what we get is a summary list, there is no breakdown

 4     according to weeks.  We have one, we have two, and when the actual

 5     witnesses will appear, we don't know that.  After Saranda Bogujevci, the

 6     next witness was Fatos Bogujevci if he doesn't appear then Goran Stoparic

 7     would be appearing.  This was the OTP's plan for the following week

 8     starting on the 9th of March.  Now the OTP has informed us they have

 9     certain notice on us that K88 would be appearing this week to testify.

10             All of our preparations were based on the OTP's plan for the

11     first reserve witness as it were, and we have been using all our

12     resources to work towards that end; and yet all of a sudden the order had

13     been reshuffled and now we are facing a situation in which we are no

14     longer able to organise ourselves.  So these weekly plans of the OTP -

15     and I don't think this is a deliberate subterfuge on their part - have

16     not been consistent.  The problem is we, our Defence team, cannot cope

17     with this method.

18             I think we should comply with the Chamber's order on these weekly

19     plans or schedules.  We can only prepare for the witness coming up.  Now

20     we should be preparing today for Bogujevci, Fatos if Saranda fails to

21     appear.  And Fatos was supposed to be the last week appearing this week

22     based on the existing plan.  Therefore we're thinking that Stoparic was

23     coming along, and that's what we were preparing for.  Things being what

24     they are, we are no longer in a position to make sure our client gets the

25     quality defence that he deserves.  The order of witness appearances being

Page 1793

 1     shuffled all the time as it is.

 2             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Neuner -- I beg your pardon, I didn't see you

 3     hiding there out of sight.

 4             Ms. Kravetz.

 5             MS. KRAVETZ:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just to address this issue

 6     very briefly.  The next witnesses who were scheduled to appear are

 7     Saranda Bogujevci and Fatos Bogujevci.  This hasn't changed.  We had

 8     already notified the Defence about this order in our e-mail dated the

 9     25th of February which was sent following the discussions we had

10     regarding witness scheduling last week in court.  The only changes to

11     this schedule are Goran Stoparic and Bozidar Protic who are no longer

12     being called in the order previously announced.  So Witness K88 will now

13     be testifying after Fatos Bogujevci.  The reasons why Mr. Stoparic is not

14     being called this week I can discuss them if Your Honours would like more

15     details, but we would have to go into private session for that.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Very briefly we will go to private session, and

17     you can just outline in the shortest fashion.

18                           [Private session]

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 1794

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11                           [Open session]

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

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Carry on, please.

14             MS. KRAVETZ:  And I would just like to indicate that the

15     remaining witnesses will testify in the order that have been notified, so

16     it's K88, K84, and then the witnesses who were just notified in our

17     notification of this Monday.  So the only two changes are those two

18     witnesses and for the reasons I have just outlined.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  I would understand the implication of what you

20     have said is that as soon as each of those witnesses is able to be in

21     The Hague it will be proposed to call them?

22             MS. KRAVETZ:  Exactly, Your Honour.  That's what we propose to

23     do.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

25                           [Trial Chamber confers]

Page 1795

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic, as you have heard, what has happened

 2     is that two witnesses that have been in the list to be called over the

 3     next two weeks have had to be dropped from their order in that list

 4     because for two different reasons.  Neither of those witnesses is able to

 5     be in The Hague to be called in the order originally intended.  In other

 6     respects, the witnesses to be called are still to be called as listed and

 7     in the order listed, and the two witnesses, one of whom was to be called

 8     shortly, that is, the third witness from now, will not be able to be

 9     called until that witness is in The Hague and then the witness will be

10     called.

11             In the Chamber's view, if you recall our discussion a few days

12     ago which you have mentioned, this is just the sort of exigency that can

13     arise and for which all counsel have to be prepared.  If the fact that

14     one or two witnesses over the space of a fortnight are not able to be

15     called precisely when indicated, but otherwise the intended list

16     witnesses are being called in the order indicated; if that is the case,

17     in the Chamber's view it is going to be necessary that counsel are in a

18     position to cope with that sort of adjustment in their planning.  And if

19     that's presenting some particular difficulty for the way that you are

20     presently managing the preparation of the Defence case, it would, I

21     think, simply mean that you would have to make some adjustment to the way

22     that you are preparing.  I don't think we need anything more about it --

23     say anything more about it at the moment, and we will continue with the

24     witnesses.

25             As counsel are aware, we're actually running behind the expected

Page 1796

 1     timetable with this list, so that the absence of two witnesses is not

 2     productive of any great disturbance over the space of the next fortnight.

 3     And it will be anticipated that at some future time, perhaps even in the

 4     next fortnight, one or both of these witnesses will arrive.  When that

 5     happens, any preparation that the Defence has made for them will be able

 6     to be called on so that there should be no difficulty anticipated in

 7     dealing with them.

 8             If the witness could be called into court, please.

 9                           [The witness takes the stand]

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Good afternoon, Mr. Radojkovic.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Radojkovic.  Good

12     afternoon.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  Sorry for keeping you waiting.  We had to deal

14     with some other matters.  Mr. Djurdjic is in the middle of asking you

15     questions.

16             Mr. Djurdjic -- I beg your pardon.  We haven't finished

17     Mr. Neuner.  I stopped you to allow you a few minutes.

18             MR. NEUNER:  Thank you, Your Honours.

19                           WITNESS:  BOSKO RADOJKOVIC [Resumed]

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21                           Examination by Mr. Neuner: [Continued]

22        Q.   Good afternoon, Mr. Radojkovic.

23        A.   Good afternoon.

24        Q.   We stopped yesterday at the point when we were talking about

25     graves at Petrovo Selo.  Could you just tell us who pointed out in 2001

Page 1797

 1     where exactly these graves were located.

 2        A.   I do apologise.  I'm not quite sure.  There was some debate going

 3     on between you and the Defence, and then the Chamber stepped in.  I'm not

 4     sure what the ruling was.  Am I supposed to make any statements about

 5     this incident or not?

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

 7             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours, unless

 8     I'm mistaken, Mr. Neuner had moved on to a different topic and then you

 9     said since he wasn't able to finish it we would be picking up today where

10     we left off yesterday.  I think this was discussed yesterday, and it was

11     determined what the circumstances were that the witness would be

12     testifying to.  We have something about it in his statement.  If we look

13     at the June 2001 note it was stated mistakenly that there were KLA

14     uniforms involved, and then the witness confirmed that indeed there were

15     no uniforms there.  Thank you.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  As I understand it, Mr. Neuner, the graves at this

17     location which you have mentioned, Petrovo Selo, have no relevance to

18     this case.

19             MR. NEUNER:  Your Honours, they have relevance to this case.  I

20     don't want to go in front of this witness into any further details, but

21     somebody 's -- that's the Prosecution's position were --

22             JUDGE PARKER:  I'm sorry, I misunderstood yesterday the point of

23     your questioning.  Are you pursuing this issue further with the witness

24     today than the question you have asked?

25             MR. NEUNER:  I understood, Your Honours, that after the

Page 1798

 1     objections I obtained that I was permitted to pursue that line of

 2     questioning, but maybe I misunderstood.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  I understood yesterday that an explanation for

 4     what was said to be a mistake in an official note of the witness was that

 5     he confused the incident we are concerned with with an exhumation from

 6     graves at Petrovo Selo; is that correct?

 7             MR. NEUNER:  This is indeed correct, Your Honours, but in the

 8     Prosecution's view there were some bodies buried in that very same

 9     location which are also relevant for our case but not for the truck

10     incident itself but for another incident.  This witness --

11             JUDGE PARKER:  How is it going to assist us to know who told this

12     witness about bodies in a grave at some other place?

13             MR. NEUNER:  I understood the witness to mean that he was a crime

14     technician at the time when the exhumation was carried out, and I just

15     wanted to elicit a few facts stemming from this work as a crime

16     technician.  And this would be it.

17                           [Trial Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE PARKER:  How does this arise in re-examination, Mr. Neuner?

19             MR. NEUNER:  I believe I'm still in examination-in-chief,

20     Your Honours.  I wanted to complete it but it was not possible due to the

21     objections I received yesterday.  There is no cross-examination yet.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Can I tell you our fundamental difficulty,

23     Mr. Neuner.  We proceeded yesterday on the basis of an understanding that

24     we had from you that there was only one relevance to this issue of

25     exhumation, and that is that by mistake a reference to it had been

Page 1799

 1     included in a document that is otherwise a document dealing with our

 2     case.  What you are now advancing is something that no one of us

 3     understood yesterday that there is some other relevance of this

 4     exhumation or these bodies at Petrovo Selo.

 5             Now, if that's the case, has this been the subject of notice to

 6     the Defence?

 7             MR. NEUNER:  The 65 ter summary doesn't contain any explicit

 8     reference to this place, Your Honours.  So if I get an indication from

 9     the Chamber, I would then ask no further questions about this, only a

10     question about the KLA uniforms found there and this would be it.

11             JUDGE PARKER:  You have that indication, Mr. Neuner.  We're not

12     happy for you to be pursuing that issue.

13             MR. NEUNER:  Okay.

14        Q.   Could I just ask then for how many bodies were exhumed in 2001 at

15     Petrovo Selo while you were a crime technician?

16             MR. NEUNER:  I'm only focusing on the uniforms, my learned

17     colleague, I need to establish first how many bodies we are talking about

18     to get something -- some information about the uniforms.  That's all I'm

19     trying to do.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

21             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, no doubt you know

22     this better than I do.  When one looks at this question:  How many bodies

23     were exhumed?  We're going back to the exhumation, aren't we?  As far as

24     I'm concerned the only question that would be legitimate is:  Did you see

25     the uniforms or didn't you see the uniforms, which I believe has been

Page 1800

 1     asked and answered.  He confirmed that there were no uniforms and that

 2     the statement was mistaken in that respect.

 3                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  The Chamber is of the view that you can ask only

 5     as to the number of bodies and the number of uniforms, Mr. Neuner.

 6             MR. NEUNER:  This is exactly what I tried to do, but I may have

 7     omitted before -- Your Honours asked me about --

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Neuner, that's the ruling.  Go on and do it.

 9             MR. NEUNER:  I just -- I've omitted one information.  Certainly

10     the Defence, through a supplementary information sheet, was put on notice

11     about all the facts I was going to elicit from this witness today, and

12     this supplementary information sheet had been sent, of course, in advance

13     of yesterday's examination-in-chief.  But Your Honours asked me for the

14     summary, and in the summary, as I mentioned, there was no indication of

15     Petrovo Selo --

16             JUDGE PARKER:  Ask your question, get your answer, and move on.

17             MR. NEUNER:  Yes.

18        Q.   Witness, the question was:  How many bodies had been exhumed in

19     Petrovo Selo in 2001?

20        A.   There were 16 bodies in one grave and 58, I believe, in the

21     other.  As to the exact figure, I'm now unable to remember.  There were

22     some problems piecing the bodies together, but what we found would

23     indicate a total of between 70 and 80 bodies.

24        Q.   And you personally attended the exhumation of each of these 70 to

25     80 bodies in Petrovo Selo?

Page 1801

 1        A.   Yes, from the beginning to the end.

 2        Q.   What clothes, if any, did these 70 to 80 dead persons wore?

 3        A.   Civilian clothes for the most part, but there were some KLA

 4     uniforms.

 5        Q.   Could you, first of all, give an indication in percentage how

 6     many of these 70 to 80 bodies were civilian clothes -- or were in

 7     civilian clothes?

 8        A.   It would be easier for me to tell you the number of uniforms that

 9     were there.

10        Q.   Take it from this angle, how many persons or bodies wearing

11     uniforms were exhumed?

12        A.   Six bodies had KLA uniforms on them.  Two of these olive-drab

13     with KLA insignia on the armband, and four black KLA uniforms with combat

14     vests - that's how we referred to those.  There were another two bodies

15     with civilian trousers and camouflage shirts.  One of these bodies had an

16     armband with the flag and coat of arms of the Federal Republic

17     of Germany.  Another body had that same short shirt, but in the same

18     spots where the previous body had the flag and the coat of arms of the

19     Federal Republic of Germany this other body that portion had been cut

20     away leaving a blank square there.  Two other bodies had civilian clothes

21     but the same type of boots as the uniformed bodies.  That's about it.

22        Q.   Could I just -- because you mentioned now a couple of numbers.

23     Could you just clarify, is it fair to say that ten or less than ten

24     bodies, corpses, wore what you would describe as uniforms or clothes

25     which could form part of combat gear?

Page 1802

 1        A.   Yes, I can confirm that six were certainly wearing complete

 2     military clothing with KLA insignia, six; two had those shirts that I

 3     have described which need not necessarily mean the same things; and

 4     another two who were wearing military boots, but again I'm not sure

 5     whether they were civilians or KLA soldiers.

 6        Q.   So I've just counted the figures given in your last answer, we're

 7     not talking about more than ten bodies, which could be implicated wearing

 8     some military items?

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  I made the number 14 --

10             MR. NEUNER:  I'm trying to --

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

12             MR. NEUNER:  -- to clarify this very point, Your Honours.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  I thought it was clear.  Six had KLA uniforms, two

14     had -- two of them were olive-drab and four black.  Two other bodies had

15     civilian trousers and camouflage shirts.

16             MR. NEUNER:

17        Q.   Witness, could you just --

18             JUDGE PARKER:  Two of the bodies had civilian clothes but boots

19     the same as uniformed --

20             MR. NEUNER:

21        Q.   Witness, could you clarify, are we talking about a maximum of 14

22     or a maximum of ten persons wearing such items which we could nowadays

23     portray as combat gear?

24        A.   There were ten bodies, I spoke of ten bodies.

25        Q.   You mentioned a couple of times KLA today.  Just in general, what

Page 1803

 1     did you understand at the time and looking at these 70 to 80 bodies, what

 2     did you understand at the time to be the origin wherefrom these persons

 3     had come from in the first place?

 4                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a very broad question.  It

 6     is very difficult for me to answer that question just now.  You want me

 7     to remember what I thought at the time.  I knew certain facts at the

 8     time.  It's not a question of what I thought, so I could not give you an

 9     adequate answer to that question.  Perhaps you would like to clarify it a

10     little.

11             MR. NEUNER:

12        Q.   If you are using the word "KLA uniform," this suggests to me that

13     they may have come from a certain region within Serbia at the time, and

14     this is all I wanted to ask you for.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

16             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think that such a

17     question is not appropriate.  It is asking for guess-work, and my learned

18     friend is expressing his own opinion in an effort to impose it on the

19     witness.

20                           [Trial Chamber confers]

21             JUDGE PARKER:  The question should be withdrawn, Mr. Neuner.

22             MR. NEUNER:  I have no further questions at this point in time,

23     Your Honours.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

25             We now come, Mr. Djurdjic, to your cross-examination.

Page 1804

 1             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 2                           Cross-examination by Mr. Djurdjic:

 3        Q.   [Interpretation] Mr. Radojkovic, my name is Veljko Djurdjic.  I'm

 4     a member of the Defence team for the accused, Vlastimir Djordjevic.  With

 5     me today is Ms. Marie O'Leary, and the lead counsel, Dragoljub Djordjevic

 6     is absent because he's working on the preparations for the Defence.

 7        A.   I bid you a good afternoon to all of you.

 8        Q.   We all speak the same language and everything needs to be

 9     recorded in the transcript and to be translated, and if I speed up a

10     little please wait with your answer until the transcript comes to a full

11     stop.  And don't let this upset your concentration.

12        A.   Yes, I am familiar with this.

13        Q.   Yes, I know.  You have more experience than I do.  I will be

14     asking you about the facts and circumstances that you were aware of at

15     the time of your main testimony here, and when I refer to another period,

16     I will indicate it clearly.  And if you don't understand me, please feel

17     free to tell me that and I shall try and make myself clearer and rephrase

18     the question.  Let us start with the last question put to you by my

19     learned friend.

20             Let me ask you whether you were aware, at the time, whether you

21     knew that the KLA were prone to wear civilian clothes and commit

22     terrorist actions particularly in inhabited areas?

23        A.   Yes, I was aware of that.

24        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, I have studied all your statements closely, and I

25     shall try and focus only on some matters which have not been covered so

Page 1805

 1     far, in view of the fact that we already have the transcripts and the

 2     statements that you gave.  Tell me, please, what are you by training?

 3        A.   I am a policeman, but later on I completed a course for crime

 4     technician.  So I'm a policeman with -- and I completed a secondary

 5     school of internal affairs plus a seminar on crime techniques.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  I didn't manage to establish from 1974 to 1978 where

 7     were you working and what was your position?

 8        A.   In 1974 I started working as a policeman, and I was in -- working

 9     in Zajecar for two months.  After that I was transferred to the police

10     station in Kladovo; I was a policeman.  Then I worked in the analysis

11     service, in the search section; and then I went to Belgrade and Zemun,

12     where I completed my training for a crime technician and this was in

13     1979.  Ever since then, I have been working as a crime technician up

14     until my retirement.

15        Q.   Will you tell me, please, Mr. Radojkovic, in 1999 what was your

16     rank?

17        A.   Crime technician.  I don't remember whether we had ranks, really,

18     in those days, but I was a senior clerk or a sergeant, first class.

19        Q.   But you weren't wearing a uniform?

20        A.   No, no, I worked in civilian clothes.

21        Q.   And what was your title?

22        A.   As I was saying, a senior crime technician.  That's what it

23     should be.

24        Q.   Did you have a separate section for crime techniques?

25        A.   No, no, there were only two of us.

Page 1806

 1        Q.   But you were in charge?

 2        A.   It was too small a unit for one to be in charge -- well, I was

 3     senior in experience.  The other person was Jova Dobric.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Could there be pauses between question and

 5     answer, please.

 6             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   You made a statement to the investigators of the Tribunal in

 8     June 2002.  Can you tell me in what language you were interviewed?

 9        A.   If I were to see now, as certain documents here are considered

10     statements even though they're not statements, I'm in a dilemma as to

11     what you are referring to.  And -- I apologise.  An official note is here

12     treated as a statement and it is not my statement, but there is another

13     document that is a statement which I made to the Tribunal investigator in

14     2002.  It was translated for me into Serbian, and I signed the document

15     in English, and that document was later given to me in the Serbian

16     language in 2006.  Now have I made myself clear?

17        Q.   Thank you.  Yes, I do I understand.  I do make a distinction

18     between a statement to the Tribunal and a statement according to the

19     criminal law of the Republic of Serbia and official notes drafted in

20     Serbia.  In view of the fact that you are a career policeman, we'll come

21     back to that a little later and clear up a few points.  Thank you.

22             The last thing you said was that in 2006 you received that

23     statement.  Did you receive that statement in the proofing for the trial

24     in the Milutinovic case?

25        A.   Yes, in that case.

Page 1807

 1        Q.   Thank you.  And is it right to say that the written statement

 2     that you gave to the Tribunal, you did not receive it in your own

 3     language when you signed it for the first time in 2002?

 4        A.   I didn't receive it in English or in Serbian.  I signed it in the

 5     MUP of Serbia, in Belgrade.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  But where did you make that statement?

 7        A.   In the building of MUP in Makis, in Belgrade.

 8        Q.   So you made this statement to the investigators of the Tribunal

 9     there?

10        A.   Yes, in principle, but this was a very short statement of five

11     sentences.

12        Q.   Did you ever see the original version of your statement once you

13     signed it?  Did you ever see the original version?

14        A.   No, I didn't.  But the contents that I did see is correct.

15        Q.   Thank you.  In view of the fact that that statement has been

16     admitted into evidence as an exhibit as well as the official note that

17     you mentioned, we will go through those documents a little later to see

18     what may not be quite in accordance with what you said.

19             Could you tell me, please, which documents were used by the

20     investigator when you gave your statement for the first time in Belgrade,

21     if any?

22        A.   I have to explain to you that the investigator first came to

23     Kladovo, but I refused to talk to her.  We did have a cup of coffee and

24     we had a normal conversation, but we didn't discuss the issue.  And then

25     he said that he had the official note which I gave to the Working Group

Page 1808

 1     of the MUP.  Then he returned to Belgrade, and then in the evening, that

 2     very evening, I remember it was a Saturday, they called me up to come to

 3     Belgrade on Monday morning; and that is when I made the statement of five

 4     or six sentences and I'll explain later which, which parts are from that

 5     statement.  So I had very little contact with the investigators.  They

 6     presented to me the official note of the Working Group.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right in saying that you saw the official note

 8     for the first time compiled by the Working Group when it was shown to you

 9     by the investigators of The Hague Tribunal?

10        A.   Yes, I saw it in his laptop.  I was the 38th in order among those

11     statements.  I didn't really read it.  I said I wasn't interested in what

12     was written there.

13        Q.   Thank you.  What I'm saying is that the -- the conversation you

14     had with the Working Group was on the 14th of May, 2001, and you saw the

15     note compiled about it for the first time in the laptop of the Tribunal

16     investigator?

17        A.   Yes, exactly so.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19        A.   And actually I was put in a fait accompli position.

20        Q.   Let me go on and ask you, did you see who compiled the official

21     note?

22        A.   It was -- the signatory of the official note was the Working

23     Group, but these are all my friends, my colleagues.

24        Q.   How many of them signed that official note?

25        A.   As far as I saw it, no one signed it; but I do know who compiled

Page 1809

 1     it, who drafted it.

 2        Q.   Were you present when this note was being drafted?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   How then do you know who drafted it?

 5        A.   It was drafted by those who had this interview with me -- at

 6     least that is what I assume.  After all, that is the Working Group, and

 7     they said that they were the Working Group.

 8        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, let me not count your years of service, but

 9     during those years of service, did you ever see an official note that was

10     not signed?

11        A.   I have not.

12        Q.   Would you agree with me that that is in contravention of all the

13     rules of police procedure in those days and today?

14        A.   You are probably right.

15        Q.   Thank you.  You spent many years of your life working as a police

16     officer.  Would you not agree that the probative value of such an

17     official note in Serbia is non-existent.  The only thing it can be used

18     for is operative work in pre-trial proceedings and may be used by an

19     investigating judge while conducting an investigation during the

20     pre-trial stage?

21        A.   Yes, I know that it has no probative value.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right if I say that such official notes must be

23     separated from any documents used at trial and may never be used during

24     the actual trial?

25        A.   Yes, these are put in separate envelopes and I myself have come

Page 1810

 1     across instances of this being the case, these official notes.

 2        Q.   Thank you very much, which reminds me, the established practice

 3     of Serbia's police was as follows:  Whenever a statement is taken from

 4     anyone at all for any reason whatsoever, although there is no procedural

 5     importance that attaches to this, it has to be handwritten; right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Possibly an official could put together a statement and then have

 8     it signed by the interviewee.  Yet again, this statement would have no

 9     probative value at trial whatsoever, would it?

10        A.   Yes, that's right.  There would be a note saying that the

11     statement has been read back to the witness, the witness identifies the

12     statement as his own, and thereby signs it.

13        Q.   All right.  Now, let me ask you this:  Why did the Working Group

14     not want you to make a statement about particular topics or indeed allow

15     you to write up your own statement based on your recollection concerning

16     incidents that they were looking into?

17        A.   When I was interviewed by the Working Group, I was facing a

18     number of health issues and was in fact in hospital in Kladovo.  Perhaps

19     the conditions were not there for a written statement to be taken or

20     made, but I was not aware of them taking any statements from the other 20

21     people involved, mere official notes, that's all I know about.  I did go

22     to the MUP later on and I did not make a statement about that, not

23     according to the proper procedure under the Law on Criminal Procedure

24     over in our country.  I never made a statement like that.

25        Q.   Am I right when I say that no one was informed as to what note,

Page 1811

 1     precisely, was drafted based on the interviews?

 2        A.   I don't know that.

 3        Q.   Were you yourself informed about the substance of the note that

 4     was produced following your interview before you were eventually shown

 5     it?

 6        A.   No, I was not informed.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  You mentioned that you were at the health clinic.

 8     Was it a sudden problem or a problem that you had been suffering from for

 9     a long time?

10        A.   No.  Some chest pain but nothing more serious than that.

11        Q.   Do you know why I'm asking you this?  Because the note says that

12     of those four days you were kept at the health clinic because they were

13     suspecting the possibility of a stroke; am I right, there is no truth to

14     this at all?

15        A.   Back in 1985 I suffered a hemiparesis which was a convulsion of

16     my facial muscles, but if I had suffered a stroke I probably wouldn't be

17     here today talking to you.

18        Q.   Am I right to state that the official note was inaccurate in that

19     respect then?

20        A.   It wasn't accurately drafted.

21        Q.   Well, the inaccuracy would have been what they said about the

22     stroke, the suspicion of a stroke.

23             Mr. Radojkovic, let us try to clarify the dates back in 1999.  Am

24     I right to say that the first indication you ever had of the truck in the

25     Danube came on the 5th of April, 1999?

Page 1812

 1        A.   Yes, I think it was the 5th of April.

 2        Q.   Let's try to clarify this because sometimes we see the 4th quoted

 3     as the right date, but in most of your statements it is the 5th of April

 4     and that's where the situation evolved from?

 5        A.   Yes, I do know that there is a little problem about that in these

 6     statements, but we can take it day by day.  Why these references to the

 7     4th and then some other references to the 5th, I think there was some

 8     sort of an internal problem as the dates were recorded, but I think it's

 9     of no consequence at all.

10        Q.   All right.  Let us try to clear up about how the truck was hauled

11     up.  On the 5th of April you -- one day you spoke to Mr. Djordjevic?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Since some time had already elapsed you secured a truck which was

14     some 30 metres from the river-bank, you tied a length of rope to a tree,

15     you placed a plastic mark to mark the place where it was.  Your job was

16     finished for the day?

17        A.   Yes, that's right.  That's how I think it happened.

18        Q.   That was the first day.

19             The next day you made sure there was a pulley there which you

20     used to haul the truck back to the river-bank; right?

21        A.   Yes, to the edge of the water itself.

22        Q.   Which is the same thing as pulling it up to the river-bank;

23     right?

24        A.   Yes, but there's a recurring problem here which I believe you

25     have noticed as well.

Page 1813

 1        Q.   Yes, that's precisely why I'm asking.  And then day three you get

 2     a crane or a pulley that is even bigger, and you haul the truck out of

 3     the water and ashore.  Am I right?

 4        A.   Yes, that's quite right.  Again, we pulled it out of the water

 5     before we could get it ashore.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  And on day four you got this truck and put it on to a

 7     vehicle which then you used to transport it further up on to the road;

 8     right?

 9        A.   Day three, day four -- well, first we hauled the truck out of the

10     water altogether, and then we put it on this vehicle.  If you want me to

11     explain, I can tell you why the procedure was what it was.

12        Q.   Let's take it one step at a time.  I know why the procedure

13     worked like this, but please tell me if I'm right.  Once you had pulled

14     out the first 30 bodies, the truck was on the river-bank already, was out

15     of the water.  And then when the next truck was supposed to come, you

16     placed it on these rails, on this vehicle, and you took it further up;

17     right?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Let me go back to day one.  There was the diver, Mr. Djordjevic.

20     You're standing on the banks of the Danube.  He dives into the river.  Is

21     this how it worked:  He subsequently informed you that there was a

22     Mercedes truck, refrigerator truck, that the windshield was missing, and

23     all the other steps that you took?

24        A.   Yes, that's right.

25        Q.   Now, there's something else that I want to know, Mr. Radojkovic.

Page 1814

 1     I'm wondering if this was something that happened by accident or not, but

 2     it wasn't before you gave evidence in the Milutinovic case in addition to

 3     all these facts that I have mentioned.  What is stated is that a large

 4     stone was placed on the gas pedal; right?

 5        A.   Yes, Mr. Djordjevic, the diver, told me about that, that the gas

 6     pedal had a large stone on it to weigh it down.

 7        Q.   But that wasn't there at first.  The only thing that was there

 8     was the missing windshield in the first note that the Working Group drew

 9     up; right?

10        A.   I'm sure I told them.  I'm not sure if they mentioned that

11     subsequently.

12        Q.   Do you perhaps think that they simply didn't want to look further

13     into this large stone weighing the gas pedal down, they just lost over

14     that circumstance?

15        A.   I don't know.  I wouldn't go that far.  I'm sure I told them and

16     the diver did too.

17        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, you are a police officer and you know this is a

18     very important circumstance in an incident like this, a large stone

19     weighing down the gas pedal and a missing windshield and no driver there,

20     the driver is gone, these are material circumstances and would be to any

21     police investigation anywhere in the world.  Do you agree with me?

22        A.   Yes, you are certainly right.

23        Q.   And if you have a group of forensic experts as qualified as

24     those, you would hardly expect them to missing something like that, would

25     you?

Page 1815

 1        A.   Yes, but you in turn would agree that this is not my problem, is

 2     it?

 3        Q.   Yes, I do agree.  Thank you.  Mr. Radojkovic, nevertheless,

 4     before the Milutinovic trial you gave evidence in the Milosevic case.  In

 5     that trial you also said he had told you that the windshield was missing

 6     and that this was a Mercedes refrigerator truck.  The OTP were there, the

 7     Chamber was there, and I'm not mentioning the experts at all.  They were

 8     top-notch experts.  And then you appearing as a witness, yet no questions

 9     about this large stone arising.  How come?

10        A.   No one asked me; that's what is probably was.

11        Q.   I will have to clear this up now, Mr. Radojkovic.

12             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we please have on our screens

13     exhibit -- Defence Exhibit D002-0227, page 3, line 25.  I'm sorry, maybe

14     I misstated the number.  002-0227, Defence exhibit.  I have a hard copy

15     available.  I apologise for my English.  Page 8470, line 25, and 8471,

16     the first seven lines at the top of the page.

17        Q.   It reads like this, Mr. Radojkovic:

18             [In English] "When you saw that, what happened next?  Did you

19     give instructions to anyone to do something or did you investigate in

20     some way ...  it was in fact a truck or a lorry?

21             "A.  Yes, I did.  The diver put on his equipment and dived into

22     the water, and when he re-surfaced, he told me that it was a lorry, that

23     there was no one in the cab, that the front windshield had fallen out,

24     and that it was probably a Mercedes lorry and its trailer box looked like

25     that of a refrigerated lorry."

Page 1816

 1             [Interpretation] You've heard that, Mr. Radojkovic, no

 2     windshield, no driver, and a Mercedes refrigerator truck, the same thing

 3     that was established by the Working Group in its official note; right?

 4     The date being the 23rd of July, 2002.

 5        A.   I accept what you're saying.

 6        Q.   Do you know why I'm talking to you about this?  That same

 7     evening, and I see that when I look at your statements, you said that

 8     this was a traffic accident involving a truck in the Danube.  One of the

 9     reasons for you to say that would have been because there was no driver

10     and there was no windshield.  If the stone was in the truck back then,

11     being the experienced policeman that you were, you wouldn't have

12     described it as a traffic accident, would you, since there was a

13     large-scale stone weighing down the gas pedal.  Would you not agree with

14     me?

15        A.   I wrote up no dispatch that I subsequently sent to Bor.  It

16     wasn't me who informed them.  My associate Nesa Popovic might have,

17     although I don't believe that.  If there was anything that was

18     dispatched, the note probably said that this was probably a traffic

19     accident.

20        Q.   I agree with you.  And I know that that's what was subsequently

21     dispatched -- whether he wrote it or you is no matter at all.  But you

22     have one thing where this is a large-scale stone weighing down the gas

23     pedal and when there isn't that indicates something entirely different,

24     doesn't it?  Yet in your first official note and in your evidence in the

25     Milosevic trial you make no mention whatsoever of any stone in the cabin,

Page 1817

 1     do you?  It is not before 2006 that you mention, for the very first time,

 2     this stone?

 3        A.   Sir, what I can tell you is the diver told me about that stone

 4     weighing down the gas pedal.  Why did I not mention that in the Milosevic

 5     trial?  Why is it a part of the note?  I probably didn't think to mention

 6     that, and no one probably asked me; but there were a lot of things that I

 7     didn't say in the Milosevic trial.  There are a lot of things --

 8        Q.   But, Mr. Radojkovic, the Prosecutor did ask you.  This was your

 9     answer to a question from the Prosecutor.  It wasn't a free conversation

10     in which you were talking nor did Mr. Milosevic ask you anything.  It

11     was -- the Prosecutor asked you what the diver had established, that

12     there was no windshield, no driver, et cetera, but I won't insist.  I'll

13     move on.

14             There's another matter that I'd like to ask you about.  Were you

15     alone with the diver at the Danube or was someone else there?

16        A.   Just me and the diver.

17        Q.   And where were you before that?

18        A.   Before that I was at home because it wasn't my shift.  This was

19     an extraordinary occurrence and I had to go to work and Mr. Nesa Popovic

20     was always with me in patrolling, and again problems arise.  Like all

21     policemen, he had some private business, and he didn't come with me, he

22     went off to do something else.

23        Q.   I apologise, but it seems to me, judging by your statement, that

24     you were in town and that you were not at home.

25        A.   I was free, and then the duty person called me to come to work

Page 1818

 1     before I was due to arrive.

 2        Q.   Were you wearing the same clothes?

 3        A.   Yes, I took an official vehicle and went there.

 4        Q.   Did you have your equipment with you when you were there with

 5     Djordjevic?

 6        A.   No, I don't think so.  I may have had my camera.  We just went to

 7     see what it was.

 8        Q.   And when you were there for the first time, you didn't take any

 9     photographs of the truck?

10        A.   I took photos of the truck on two occasions, so I can't tell you

11     now whether it was the first day when it was submerged in water.  I just

12     saw a big box.  Nobody knew it was a truck until the diver dived.  I just

13     saw the top part of a big box.  It could have been a container.  And when

14     the diver dived down, he saw that it was a truck; and after that, our

15     activities continued.

16        Q.   So if on a photograph we see a part of the box, then it was taken

17     on the first day; and if we see more than the top of the box, then it was

18     taken the next day?

19        A.   Yes, you are right.

20        Q.   And about what time was it when you finished, you and the diver,

21     on that first day?

22        A.   I can't remember.  It was in the late afternoon.  It took time

23     for us to go there and for me to find him then to go home and for him to

24     get his equipment.  It was already dusk.

25        Q.   Very well.  You said you went back and informed Popovic,

Page 1819

 1     et cetera; we don't know who he went on to inform.  But did you inform

 2     your own duty service about what you found there?

 3        A.   I personally did not.  I don't think Nesa did either, but we did

 4     inform our boss.

 5        Q.   And the duty service had already been informed?

 6        A.   Yes, a fisherman had reported it to them.

 7        Q.   You just said that you informed who, Nesa?  Someone else?

 8        A.   No, I said perhaps Nesa informed the duty officer.  I said our

 9     boss, Milan Stojanovic.

10        Q.   Did you also inform the chief of the --

11             THE INTERPRETER:  I'm sorry, could counsel repeat the name.

12             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it's time for

13     the technical break.

14             JUDGE PARKER:  Perhaps it would be useful just to get the

15     transcript clear.  It was not possible to pick up what you said at

16     line 19:  "Did you also inform the chief of the ..."

17             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I will repeat the question.

18        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, did you inform the chief of OUP Kladovo, Vukasin

19     Sperlic?

20        A.   I did not, and I'm not sure whether Nesa Popovic did.

21        Q.   Thank you.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you, Mr. Djurdjic.  We'll have the first

23     break now and resume at 4.15.

24                           --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

Page 1820

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  I would

 3     like to ask to tender this part of the transcript from the Milosevic

 4     trial which we read to the witness, and it was Defence document

 5     D002-0227, page 3, line 25, or number 8470 as the transcript page; and

 6     page 4 or 8471, lines 1 to 7.  It is the part that I read very clumsily

 7     in English.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  You read well, Mr. Djurdjic.  No need to

 9     apologise.  The document -- the transcript extract will be received.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00039, Your Honours.

11             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Let us now digress a little, Mr. Radojkovic.

13             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see exhibit number, of

14     the Prosecution, P00359, please.

15             I didn't say the transcript.  It should be a photograph, 00359,

16     Prosecution exhibit, that was the number it was given yesterday -- no,

17     no, I'm sorry, you're quite right.  P361.  I do apologise.  I apologise.

18        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, you encircled a leg on this photograph, but I

19     truly do not see that.

20             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Is it possible to zoom so as to

21     make this clearer?

22        Q.   Is this what you meant?  Below the box, is that the leg?

23        A.   This -- I'm afraid what I have is like a mirror.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness doesn't

25     have the image.

Page 1821

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's fine now.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness has

 3     encircled and it's been enlarged and we can see well now.

 4        Q.   I'd like to ask you something.  So this here is what you circled?

 5     Thank you.

 6        A.   Yes, it is the left leg.

 7        Q.   Now, I want to ask you, yesterday on this photograph in eastern

 8     Serbia the Prosecutor asked you to circle Belgrade.  Am I right that you

 9     did so at the request of the Prosecutor?

10        A.   Yes, all the circles I made were at the request of the

11     Prosecutor.

12        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Radojkovic, we've come to the end of the first

13     day.  Tell me, were there any other activities at the end of the day when

14     you went to the Danube river-bank for the first time?

15        A.   No, apart from the markings and the information I was given by

16     the diver, that was all.

17        Q.   Tell me, were any steps taken to secure the crane?

18        A.   I apologise.  Could the usher please switch off the monitor with

19     my image on it, it's disconcerting.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  While that's happening, Mr. Djurdjic, I am a

21     little confused.

22             I take it, Mr. Radojkovic, this photograph was taken by you.  Was

23     it taken on the first day or the second day that you were at the river?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This photograph was taken on the

25     second day.

Page 1822

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.  That was my understanding.  I'm not

 2     sure whether Mr. Djurdjic thought that it had been taken on the first

 3     day.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my question did not

 5     focus on the time the photograph was taken.  My problem was that I

 6     couldn't see the leg on this photograph, so I wanted it to be cleared up

 7     for me and the witness did.  When it was enlarged I saw it better, and

 8     I'm afraid that my intention was simply to clear that up.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

10             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

11        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, the question was:  Who took any steps to secure

12     the crane, if someone did?

13        A.   The head of the OUP, I think Mr. Sperlic, he organised that with

14     the hydro power-station.

15        Q.   Thank you.  So we've now come to the second day.  Tell me, how

16     did that day begin for you?  What did you do?

17        A.   In the morning, early in the morning, I went to the site.  My

18     colleague, Popovic, was with me then because the hydro power-station

19     starts working at 6.00 a.m., and it had already been organised a previous

20     evening that a crane from the power-station?  Should come to the site for

21     us to try and pull out the truck from the Danube.  This was quite

22     customary because they would give us the same sort of assistance in the

23     case of traffic accidents.

24        Q.   Thank you.  I assume you took your equipment as a crime

25     technician that day?

Page 1823

 1        A.   Yes, I did take my equipment, my camera -- may I just add that

 2     the investigating judge of the municipal court in Kladovo was informed

 3     about this as well as the municipal public prosecutor, that there was

 4     this in the Danube, that there was a truck in the Danube, and that we

 5     would be pulling it out.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Did the diver come on that second day?

 7        A.   Yes, yes, he did.

 8        Q.   Tell me, when did he arrive?

 9        A.   I think he also came early in the morning, but I think he came in

10     his own vehicle, but we had agreed for him to come early in the morning

11     because he is the only one who can tie the pulleys.  We needed a diver to

12     pull the lorry out.

13        Q.   Tell me, at what time did you actually start pulling the truck

14     out?

15        A.   This didn't last -- didn't begin much later than we arrived

16     because we had to stop the traffic because there was this large crane on

17     the road, then the diver had to dive and attach the pulleys to the truck,

18     and then the extraction started because the bottom of the Danube there is

19     very muddy, and the diver had to open the door and turn the wheel for the

20     for the wheels to be in a parallel position because of this movement

21     through the mud.

22             So that - let me tell you exactly - about 12.00 it was pulled out

23     roughly to this position that we see on the photograph now, if you still

24     have that photograph.  And I can now also explain why I'm confirming this

25     time, because the investigating judge of the municipal court said that we

Page 1824

 1     should let him know once we've pulled out the truck, and then he would

 2     come, for him not to waste time.  And the judge did arrive about 1.00 or

 3     1.30 in the afternoon.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Would I be right to say that while you were doing

 5     this the workers from the hydro-electric power-plant had already finished

 6     their business and left the scene; right?

 7        A.   No, they stayed until that evening, as did the crane.  There were

 8     about 15 workers from the hydro-electric power-plant.  They had to work

 9     the ropes and the pulleys.  The work involved here is a little risky and

10     peculiar.

11        Q.   Thank you.  These are allegations from the official note of the

12     Working Group, and that's what led me to conclude that.  So you wouldn't

13     say that was an accurate note?

14        A.   Yes, the note is inaccurate.

15        Q.   Inaccurate.  All right.  You had a certain fear that the

16     refrigerator truck might be booby-trapped; right?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   This is the Bor SUP territory, S-U-P; it wasn't your territory.

19     Do they have a specialised team for anti-sabotage work?

20        A.   No, they don't.  In the Kladovo area I would be in charge of that

21     kind of business and the same applies to the teams from Bor and from

22     Zajecar.

23        Q.   When this fear arose, that was before you opened the rear door of

24     the container.  Do you know if the deputy public prosecutor and the

25     investigating judge were there already?

Page 1825

 1        A.   Yes.  They were both there already when the door was opened, and

 2     the coroner from the Kladovo medical centre was present too.

 3        Q.   And what about the foot that you saw?  Did you sort of push it

 4     back into the container and subsequently covered the hole in the door

 5     with the tin sheet?

 6        A.   Yes, I did that beforehand.  As soon as I could access the door,

 7     I did that.  There were about 20 people there and you could see

 8     everything from the road, and there was a bus that had been pulled over

 9     and all the traffic was stopped.  As soon as I could, I pushed it back

10     in.

11        Q.   Isn't that slightly peculiar, Mr. Radojkovic?

12        A.   What, the fact that the foot was sticking out or that I pushed it

13     back in?

14        Q.   The fact that there was a foot sticking out is not strange at

15     all; it's a fact that you found.  But you came there as a forensic

16     technician; you were supposed to secure the scene and all the evidence

17     found on the scene.  You see a foot sticking out of the container, you

18     push it back and you try to close the hole in the door by applying a tin

19     sheet over it.  You thereby altered the crime scene; right?

20        A.   Yes, I agree, I did alter the crime scene.  It would have been

21     highly unpleasant for these workers from the hydro-electric power-plant

22     who are not involved in that kind of work to have to attach ropes to the

23     container and chafe against this foot sticking out.

24        Q.   I know murder is most unpleasant, Mr. Radojkovic, but you are not

25     supposed to alter the scene containing any evidence, you are supposed to

Page 1826

 1     secure it and not touch the evidence at all?

 2        A.   Yes, under normal conditions that would have been the case.

 3        Q.   So what was so unusual or abnormal about this situation?  Let us

 4     try to state the facts:  You have a refrigerator truck submerged in the

 5     Danube.  You think that there is a traffic accident that occurred.  You

 6     pull it up.  You see that a foot is sticking out.  What is your inference

 7     based on that?

 8        A.   The situation itself was abnormal.  There were the air-strikes

 9     and a truck turns up with Prizren licence plates, there is a foot

10     sticking out of the rear of the truck.  I did find the situation slightly

11     unusual or abnormal I have to say.

12        Q.   Yes, I do agree, but you are a professional forensic technician.

13     Whatever you find on a scene must be nothing out of the ordinary, and you

14     should know full well that you are not supposed to touch anything; am I

15     right?

16        A.   I did what I did.  I was not called to account for that.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Nevertheless, at this point in time the only facts

18     that remains is that there was a person in the box before the truck was

19     submerged in the Danube; right?

20        A.   Sir, look, I peeped through this hole.  I saw a heap of something

21     like a stack of hay inside.  It was dark.  I couldn't see.  I tried to

22     use my torch, so obviously I used this tin sheet to cover up the hole.

23     It wasn't something for the workers of the hydro-electric power-plant to

24     do.  They needed someone to deal with these practicalities before they

25     could get on with their work.

Page 1827

 1        Q.   I would like to digress now if I may.  At the time, in your area,

 2     which is a border area, was there any trafficking going on in terms of

 3     people being smuggled across the border, asylum seekers, that sort of

 4     thing.  Did you perhaps ever experience any such incidents?

 5        A.   Yes, generally speaking the Djerdap lake area is an area that is

 6     very good for something like that, and it's much used for these purposes.

 7     Just before this happened, perhaps a month before, it was somewhere near

 8     Golubovac that a boat had been turned upside down, or rather, was

 9     capsized while travelling and some immigrants and asylum seekers drowned.

10     That's what I heard.

11        Q.   Thank you.  When the investigating judge arrived, did you inform

12     him of any steps that you previously took?  Did you tell him about the

13     fact that you patched up the hole in that door with the screws and the

14     tin sheet?

15        A.   Yes, I told both him and the deputy municipal public prosecutor.

16        Q.   Am I therefore right to say that they knew that inside the

17     truck's container there was at least one body?

18        A.   Yes, they knew that.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Radojkovic, would I be right to say that in order

20     to have proper judicial procedure one must first make sure that such

21     officials as the investigating magistrate and the deputy public

22     prosecutor be on the scene whenever something like this occurs?

23        A.   I'm not quite sure what exactly the Law on Criminal Procedure was

24     that applied at the time.  I do believe that at the time we were

25     authorised, following permission being granted by the investigating

Page 1828

 1     judge, to start our on-site investigation and get on with our work, and

 2     then we were allowed to keep him informed as our work progressed.  That

 3     was the practice, but this was a road that was adjacent to the River

 4     Danube and sometimes vehicles would go flying off the road and into the

 5     river.  Whenever something like this happened, the judges would tell us

 6     to first go there, do our work, get the vehicles out of the water, and

 7     then they would shortly be there.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Radojkovic.  Precisely so.  An investigating judge

 9     may authorise you to carry out an on-site investigation, but you must act

10     upon his permission or authorisation.  In this specific instance, he

11     authorised you to take certain steps and to call him as soon as the

12     refrigerator truck was out of the water and somewhere where it could be

13     accessed.  Am I right?

14        A.   Yes, absolutely.

15        Q.   You weren't trying to conceal anything from these judicial bodies

16     or officials and you brought them there immediately so that they could

17     see what exactly was going on?

18        A.   No, not a single fact was concealed but there were some

19     contradictory things turned up later on but that's a different thing

20     altogether.

21        Q.   Then you opened the door, you, investigating judge, the deputy

22     prosecutor, and your colleague realised that there were a number of

23     bodies inside the truck's container; am I right?

24        A.   The investigating judge never had a look to begin with; rather, I

25     told him.  When the door was opened, everyone withdrew to a distance of

Page 1829

 1     50 to 100 metres and I was the one to actually open the door.  I opened

 2     the door, I looked to see what was inside, and I shut the door -- or

 3     rather, it was like this:  I shut the door and subsequently informed the

 4     investigating judge of the municipal court, whereupon he replied that

 5     this was not something that he would be in charge of, and he left the

 6     scene.

 7        Q.   Thank you.  What about the deputy prosecutor, was he present as

 8     well?

 9        A.   Yes, he was.  You see that the container is aslant, so you must

10     stand on your toes in order to be able to peer into the container because

11     there were those several bodies that were near the door, but most were

12     midway down the -- into the container, as it were, and then towards the

13     bottom.  So he had a look in, and the coroner did as well - there was no

14     need, but he's normally involved in procedures such as this one - so he

15     had a look as well, and that was about that.

16        Q.   Thank you very much.  So what you are telling me now is that as

17     soon as on day two when you started hauling the refrigerator truck out of

18     the Danube he saw a bit of the rear of the container and you already had

19     a coroner who was on the scene; right?

20        A.   Yes, together with the deputy public prosecutor and the

21     investigating judge; that is when Dr. Trajkovic arrived.

22        Q.   From the health centre; right?

23        A.   Yes, he's a general practitioner who also happens to work as a

24     coroner.

25        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, the first day when Djordjevic went into the water

Page 1830

 1     he realised that the driver was missing.  What sort of pre-emptive

 2     measure was this for you to bring a coroner there on day two already

 3     without knowing exactly what the situation was inside the truck and

 4     whether there was anything else there?

 5        A.   You never asked the question, did you; if you had, I would have

 6     answered it so you would know.

 7        Q.   Please explain.

 8        A.   When the procedure was first initiated to get the truck out of

 9     the water, as I said, the diver, Djordjevic, went into the river.  He

10     tried to get the wheels back in a parallel position in order to be able

11     to pull the truck out of the river.  While the truck was still submerged

12     the diver was out and said, Bole, there is a pair of feet sticking out of

13     the rear.

14             Once the truck was in the shallows, it was easier to see what

15     there was.  So he realised that there was a pair of feet sticking out,

16     and he said, What can we do about this?  And I said, What can you do

17     about this?  And I replied, Let's pull it out like this and then we'll

18     see what we do next.  That was the reason that the coroner arrived with

19     the investigating judge and the deputy prosecutor with the entire team.

20        Q.   Thank you.  Would I be right to say that members or officers of

21     the SUP don't have the power to issue any orders to an investigating

22     judge or, indeed, a deputy prosecutor?

23        A.   You're quite right.

24        Q.   Quite the contrary, in fact.  An investigating judge in

25     situations such as these imparts orders to the police and the police are

Page 1831

 1     duty-bound to act upon these?

 2        A.   Yes, you're absolutely right.

 3        Q.   Would I be right to say that the investigating judge present on

 4     the scene, although he believed he was not technically in charge, would

 5     have had to issue orders to you and subsequently inform the appropriate

 6     prosecutor about the fact that there were actions that needed doing

 7     without delay?

 8        A.   Yes, the investigating judge -- yes, I'm sure about him too, but

 9     we informed immediately the district prosecutor in Negotin because this

10     was within his remit.

11        Q.   Thank you very much.  Yes, you also subsequently informed the

12     district investigating judge and the district deputy public prosecutor,

13     but he would have had to give you some instructions before they ever

14     arrived.  The procedure was in the hands of the investigating judge until

15     he arrived; right?

16        A.   Yes, but that's what he said.  He said, Shut the door and wait

17     for the public prosecutor and investigating judge who were in charge to

18     arrive.

19        Q.   Thank you.  Would you agree that this was not a legal step, the

20     one taken by the investigating judge?

21        A.   I'm no expert in matters of law myself, but I would tend to agree

22     with you.  Particularly if we keep in mind the Law on Criminal Procedure

23     that is in force these days.

24        Q.   Given the connotations of this official note, would I be right to

25     say this:  Everything that went on with the refrigerator truck, there was

Page 1832

 1     no information that was withheld from the judicial organs and the state

 2     organs; right?

 3        A.   That's right.  Quite the contrary in fact.  Everything was done

 4     by the book, and the appropriate local prosecutor was immediately

 5     informed.  For some reason, though, the ball was soon back in the

 6     police's court because those other people had said they were simply not

 7     interested.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  You have just confirmed that you made sure that a

 9     coroner was there who was supposed to do his job; right?

10        A.   Yes, it was all very fair and square.  The usual procedure

11     applied, the one that we had always applied, both before this incident

12     and after.  There is a procedure in place and everyone knows what the

13     procedure is.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Once you managed to get the truck ashore or as far as

15     the edge of the river, would I be right to say that there were no plates

16     on the truck?

17        A.   Yes, you're right.

18        Q.   There was an inscription on the front door; right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Do you remember the telephone number that was written on the

21     door?

22        A.   There was a fax number and telephone number -- you're asking for

23     too much.

24        Q.   Do you remember?

25        A.   No.

Page 1833

 1        Q.   Did you ever memorise those numbers?

 2        A.   It's a long number with many digits, not that easy to remember.

 3        Q.   Indeed.  Nevertheless, in one of these documents that we are

 4     using here, we come across a reference to you providing both the fax and

 5     the telephone numbers.  Would I be right in saying that the allegation

 6     that you actually knew that and could inform others about these numbers

 7     is true?

 8        A.   No, quite the contrary, it is true.  I wrote them down.

 9        Q.   No, no, I think you're misunderstanding my point.  Yes, of course

10     you made a note about those at the time but when you were subsequently

11     prompted about the telephone number who did you share this with?

12        A.   I produced a piece of paper, and I gave it to the Working

13     Group --

14        Q.   So it was them, the Working Group, that you gave this to; right?

15        A.   I told the Working Group the telephone number and the fax number,

16     and this can be seen on the photograph when it's enlarged, but certainly

17     I hadn't memorised it.  It's as if you were to ask me whether I know the

18     telephone number of the hotel.

19        Q.   That is why I'm asking you because I thought it strange.  Tell

20     me, what other documents did you hand over to the Working Group?

21        A.   I just handed over the films, not the photographs, the

22     negatives -- no, I'm sorry, maybe I gave them the photographs as well.

23     I'm not sure.  I gave them the negatives.  I think I also gave them the

24     photographs or maybe I tore them up, but I did give them the negatives.

25        Q.   Thank you.  Do you have any evidence that you handed over to the

Page 1834

 1     Working Groups the film, you mean the developed film as we would say no

 2     normal vernacular, you handed over the film?

 3        A.   I took out the film and developed it as early as 1999, and to my

 4     misfortune, this piece of film I kept in a drawer for two years; and it

 5     was only later when all this happened I gave them both the film and the

 6     photographs.  Because in addition to these shots on this 36-picture film

 7     I took some other photographs as well during my normal duties.

 8        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, my question was:  Did you receive anything that

 9     could be used as evidence that you had handed over this film to the

10     Working Group?

11        A.   No, I don't think I was given anything, but later on when I

12     handed over some other documents, then in that receipt it was indicated

13     that among other things I had handed over those photographs, the film, as

14     well as some other material.

15        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, please, what happened next when the

16     investigating judge of the municipal court said he was not competent and

17     you informed the district public prosecutor and the investigating judge,

18     what happened then?

19        A.   When the investigating judge of the municipal court left the

20     scene, everything was closed.  The police stayed there to secure the

21     site.  I think that after that the truck was pulled further onto the

22     bank, because I must explain that the level of the water varied because

23     of the power-plant.  So we pulled out the truck to dry land and then the

24     next day it was already in water because the water-level changes.  The

25     shore is shallow there.  So everything was closed, darkness started to

Page 1835

 1     fall.  The crane was moved from the road several times for traffic to be

 2     able to pass so as to avoid a large column being formed, and we would let

 3     the vehicles and the buses pass.  And then in the evening we went to the

 4     police station and then we talked there.

 5             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could the court usher, if

 6     possible --

 7        Q.   No, let me ask you something first.  Am I right when I say that

 8     in the official note it is wrongly stated that Chief Sperlic came to the

 9     site and that he told you that everything had to be concealed on that

10     second day?

11        A.   No, not to the site.  That was in the evening in the office.  I

12     think he didn't come to the site at all.

13        Q.   Thank you.

14             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar please call up

15     Exhibit P367, page 3, paragraph 1 of the B/C/S; and page 2, paragraph 7

16     of the English version.

17        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, can you see it?  It's the first paragraph on

18     page 3, and I had to count for the English version.  The end of the

19     second page and the beginning of the third page in English.  You see the

20     Working Group says that Sperlic came to the site and immediately told you

21     to conceal things?

22        A.   Could you please show me the B/C/S version.

23        Q.   Here it is.  When the truck was pulled out ...

24        A.   Yes, this is correct, except I can't remember whether he came on

25     site or we talked in the office.  I really don't remember, but I think

Page 1836

 1     this is okay.  We did talk to him as to how we should conceal this.

 2        Q.   Yes, but when?  That is important.

 3        A.   That day when the lorry was pulled out and we established what

 4     was inside; and when the judiciary said that they were not interested,

 5     then we got together to see what we should do to conceal it.

 6        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, why were the licence plates so important, which

 7     were not there as you say?

 8        A.   It is rather important.  It's unusual for a vehicle to move along

 9     the road without registration plates and then to be found in the Danube.

10     It's an offence.  If a vehicle is in traffic without registration plates,

11     that's an offence.

12        Q.   I must admit that I don't understand you.  This is a truck that

13     fell into the Danube.  There's no windshield, there are no licence

14     plates.  You're pulling out something without a licence plate.  He's no

15     longer in traffic, he's no longer -- it's no longer operational.  So why

16     is it important because in this particular case this truck didn't have

17     registration plates?

18        A.   It is important because there are some 20 people saw two human

19     legs sticking out of that vehicle; that is important.

20        Q.   Yes, that can be important, but why are the registration plates

21     so important?  They're simply not there.  So why is that important?

22        A.   Okay, I agree, it's not important.  They're not there and that's

23     it.

24        Q.   Thank you.  You say that you stopped work then and you left the

25     policemen to secure the site?

Page 1837

 1        A.   Yes, with a patrol vehicle.

 2        Q.   Tell me what you did next.

 3        A.   I went to the police station in Kladovo, and we sat there, there

 4     were four or five of us, Sperlic, Vukasin; Milo Stevanovic; me;

 5     Nenad Popovic.  I can't remember whether there was anyone else and we

 6     discussed the event and we discussed what we should do to conceal it

 7     somehow, to cover it up.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  So is it right to say that it was your decision on

 9     that second day for the event to be covered up?

10        A.   If you mean me personally or the five or six of us?

11        Q.   No, not you personally, but that you made such a decision in

12     Kladovo?

13        A.   Yes, after the district public investigator and prosecutor said

14     that he was not interested in the case.

15        Q.   Did you take any other steps apart from that?

16        A.   After we had agreed, yes.  I --

17        Q.   No, I mean did you make any other -- reach any other agreements

18     as to what else you should do?

19        A.   Yes, I -- I compiled a telegram and sent it to the SUP in Bor

20     indicating that there were about 30 bodies in the truck.  That was my

21     estimate.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right in saying that it was also agreed on that

23     occasion to find a larger crane?

24        A.   Yes, because the crane operator said he could no longer pull the

25     truck out because the ropes had snapped; and then we used some rollers,

Page 1838

 1     but it was very difficult.

 2        Q.   Could you tell me who took care of ensuring the crane?

 3        A.   I can't tell you exactly, but I assume that it must have been the

 4     chief of SUP who called up the manager of the power-station, and then

 5     they agreed about that.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  A moment ago you were saying that the agreement was

 7     to paint over the door of the cabin and to attach licence plates?

 8        A.   Yes, the agreement was that we should paint it over and that we

 9     should cover -- to cover the inscription on the door, and to put on the

10     truck Bor licence plates in the front and behind but to damage them so

11     they shouldn't be too visible so that from a distance one couldn't see

12     the exact numbers on the plates.

13        Q.   Am I right that with respect to these steps you did not inform

14     the SUP in Bor?

15        A.   About the painting and the licence plates, no we didn't.  We just

16     sent this telegram to Bor.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Is it correct to say that you returned during the

18     night with the diver and did what we've just talked about, the painting

19     and the attaching the plates?

20        A.   Yes, yes, you're right.

21        Q.   So we've reached the point -- that is, we've reached the third

22     day now, Mr. Radojkovic.  When you arrived on the site, who did you

23     arrive with?  When did you arrive there?  And what did you find there?

24        A.   Again I arrived early in the morning.  I didn't even sleep that

25     night.  Let me add that I didn't even go home.  And we waited for the

Page 1839

 1     large crane to arrive, and by the time the crane arrived it was about

 2     8.00 or 8.30.  It's a large crane of 30 tonnes capacity.  We had to pull

 3     the truck out of the water again because the water had risen, and the

 4     back part was again in water.  That is what I found and the steps that

 5     were taken were to pull it out again.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  Is the gist of it that you had to move the truck

 7     further away from the water so that it wouldn't be pulled back into the

 8     water?

 9        A.   Yes, we wanted to move it further away from the water, to make

10     sure if the water rises that it shouldn't submerge the truck.

11        Q.   Thank you.  Tell me, Mr. Radojkovic, do you remember when you

12     arrived at the scene whether you saw something that surprised you?

13        A.   No.

14        Q.   Let me try and refresh your memory.  Am I right if I say that you

15     saw on the road a truck loaded with a large number of coffins from a

16     private funeral company?

17        A.   Yes, but you haven't read it properly.  I was already there when

18     about 10.00 or 11.00 a truck appeared with coffins on it.  I was already

19     there.  I arrived there early in the morning, and it was only later in

20     the morning that this truck arrived with the coffins.

21        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, all the things I'm asking you come from the

22     official note that I'm quoting from, so I'll show it to you for you to

23     check whether it is correctly stated or not.

24             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Djurdjic, there is a matter

25     that we need to discuss before this next break.  I think as you're about

Page 1840

 1     to show the witness a document it might be better if we left that until

 2     after the break, and you can then carry on with your cross-examination.

 3             Perhaps the witness could be shown out now and we'll deal with

 4     the matter that has arisen and we'll continue again after the break.  It

 5     will probably be about 10 minutes to 6.00 that we resume again.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           [The witness stands down]

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  A difficulty has been brought to the Chamber's

 9     attention which we've been trying to consider during this session, it

10     concerns the next witness, a young lady, I don't need to name her.

11     Unfortunately, she is in her final year of a course of study and must be

12     back at her educational institution tomorrow and Friday to deal with an

13     essential part of her qualifying to graduate this year.  It had been

14     anticipated on the timetable that she would have finished her evidence by

15     now, and of course she hasn't started.  She is -- has a plane booking

16     that would -- for her to return to where she is living at 9.00 p.m. this

17     evening.  Because we are running late, this problem has arisen.  In

18     fairness to the young lady, it appears to the Chamber that it would not

19     be reasonable to require her to stay to give evidence with the likely

20     consequence that she would not be able to complete her course of study

21     this year.  So what the Chamber has in mind is that she should be

22     released tonight to be able to catch the plane, with a view to her

23     returning to be here on Monday, in the hope that at -- either at the

24     beginning of Monday or during Monday we can reach her and hear her

25     evidence at that point.

Page 1841

 1             Now, there will be another witness on the list who can give

 2     evidence in the meantime.  We mention this to see whether there is any

 3     particular problem with this suggestion which either counsel sees.

 4             Mr. -- Ms. Kravetz.

 5             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, we had discussed this with my learned

 6     colleague during the break, and we were actually trying to reschedule her

 7     flight so she could try to complete her evidence tomorrow and leave

 8     shortly thereafter.  And I'm trying to obtain some information if that

 9     was done or not to see if we could proceed today --

10             JUDGE PARKER:  I can tell you that is not the case.  She has a

11     particular personal exhibition, and she has to prepare that exhibition,

12     so she needs to be there all day tomorrow as well as Friday.

13             MS. KRAVETZ:  Yes, I am aware of her personal circumstances; she

14     had raised them in proofing.  We had actually anticipated to conclude her

15     evidence today.

16             JUDGE PARKER:  So do you see any problem then with it being

17     fitted in at the beginning or early in next week, depending on how we go

18     with the present witnesses?

19             MS. KRAVETZ:  If that accommodates the witness, that's no problem

20     with us.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

22             Mr. Djurdjic.

23             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Most certainly, Your Honour.  Were

24     the witness's evidence somewhat different, the Defence would have no

25     questions at all for that witness if her evidence had only to do with the

Page 1842

 1     circumstances that she experienced.  Unfortunately, in her statement

 2     there are a number of issues on account of which the Defence has no

 3     choice but to ask her a number of questions.  We do accept that she is

 4     unable to be heard today and that she has more important duties to meet.

 5     Any time she is back is all right with this Defence.  The one problem

 6     that I have, Your Honours, is the next witness who has now been

 7     interposed, as it were.  I would like to ask the Chamber to have the

 8     chief for this witness this week and then leave the cross for next week

 9     in order to give our Defence a chance to prepare.

10             We are a little pressed for time.  I must say that.  I'm not sure

11     if there is an understanding.  The witness first announced for this week

12     contained two names, the brother and the sister, Bogujevci, with the

13     addition of Witness Radojkovic at a later date because his name had been

14     omitted by oversight.  There were no other witnesses that were scheduled

15     for this week originally.  At first there were two witnesses and then

16     since last week a total of three.  That is why it is a problem for us

17     that the witness coming is not the one that was announced for next week,

18     and we can't prepare for three or four witnesses ahead of their actual

19     appearance.  So could we please deal with K88 in chief this week and

20     leave the cross of K88 for next week.  That is our motion.  Thank you.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Kravetz.

22             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, I'm just being informed by e-mail that

23     travel arrangements for the next witness have been changed.  I'm trying

24     to obtain confirmation from that, but if that has been the case we could

25     just proceed with her as has been originally scheduled.  But I don't know

Page 1843

 1     if I have incorrect information or if there has been a change in the

 2     meantime.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  We will adjourn now.  Could you confirm what

 4     you're saying.  Our information only comes from the Victims and

 5     Witnesses Unit; we do not have it first-hand.  If you could examine the

 6     issue and find out what can be managed without putting this young lady at

 7     risk of not completing her examination requirements.  And could you

 8     please discuss that with Mr. Djurdjic so he knows.  And if it is that she

 9     will not be here to give evidence tomorrow, would you please examine with

10     Mr. Djurdjic the time that will be taken over the next witness in

11     examination-in-chief.  What Mr. Djurdjic asks is that we do not commence

12     cross-examination until next week, the witness having given his evidence

13     in chief.  Now, at the moment that seems likely to involve the loss of a

14     day's hearing, but if you could examine those issues with Mr. Djurdjic

15     during the break.

16             We will resume at five minutes to 6.00.

17                           --- Recess taken at 5.22 p.m.

18                           --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  Ms. Kravetz.

20             MS. KRAVETZ:  Your Honour, the next witness has indeed been taken

21     back to the airport and she will return home and will be brought back on

22     Sunday to testify on Monday.  The other witness that was to follow,

23     Fatos Bogujevci, I understand that he is also going to be taken -- flown

24     back home because he also is in the same situation.  Both of them are

25     students and are finalising their exams this week and in the coming

Page 1844

 1     weeks.  We have agreed with Defence to have both of them on Monday and

 2     finalise their testimony on Monday so they can both return to their

 3     normal activities and to their studies.  So tomorrow we will be

 4     proceeding with Witness K88.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  And do you anticipate the evidence in chief of

 6     that witness will finish in one session?

 7             MS. KRAVETZ:  My colleague, Mr. Neuner can --

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  If it's Mr. Neuner, we can be confident it will.

 9             MR. NEUNER:  I am a little bit surprised by the situation to a

10     certain extent, but I hope we will finish in one session, yes,

11     Your Honour.  It's one and a half hours as far as I remember for this

12     witness, so -- which is a little bit longer than one session, but I try

13     to complete my evidence in one session --

14             JUDGE PARKER:  No, an hour and a half we can manage.

15             MR. NEUNER:  Yes, we will manage, hopefully, in one session,

16     Your Honours.

17             JUDGE PARKER:  I've got to make other arrangements with my time,

18     that's all.

19             Very well.  Well, I take it then the position that's been

20     reported has the concurrence of all counsel.  The effect of it will be

21     that we will not sit at all in this case on Friday, resuming after the

22     evidence in chief of Witness K88, we will adjourn and resume on Monday

23     morning to deal with two other witnesses and then go to the

24     cross-examination of K88.  Hopefully that will overcome the real problem

25     that was facing the -- particularly the young lady, but it will also, I

Page 1845

 1     hope, provide some relief for you, Mr. Djurdjic.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

 3     You have fulfilled all of our desires.

 4             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you. If the witness could be brought in.

 5                           [The witness takes the stand]

 6             JUDGE PARKER:  Yes, Mr. Djurdjic.

 7             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 8        Q.   Witness, am I right to say that you did not attend the meeting

 9     that was held at Kladovo when the chief of SUP, Caslav Golubovic, arrived

10     as well as the head of the OKP of the Bor SUP and the head of -- the

11     chief of the Bor SUP and the head of the OKP of the Bor SUP?

12        A.   Yes, that's true.  I arrived towards the end of that meeting.

13        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right to say that you took measures to secure

14     blankets and sheets and all the other items necessary for the bodies to

15     be individually carried across and placed in the other truck?

16        A.   No, someone else took care of that.  I merely took delivery at

17     the hotel of these items.

18        Q.   Were the bodies arranged in such a way that they could be taken

19     away for post mortems to be performed and all the other steps that needed

20     taking?

21        A.   Yes, given what the conditions were, the best job possible was

22     done.

23        Q.   Thank you very much.  Am I right to say, since that is what the

24     official note claims, that it had become dark already and by that time

25     you got going and started your work, all the preparations had been

Page 1846

 1     carried out already, it was dark already, and then you set about your

 2     work; right?

 3        A.   I don't know what you mean exactly, what work?

 4        Q.   Transferring bodies from the refrigerator truck to the truck

 5     provided by the utilities company.

 6        A.   Yes, you're quite right.

 7        Q.   Am I right to say that this work was in fact so hard that you

 8     could not continue beyond 2.00 a.m. and you stopped working?

 9        A.   Yes, it was exceptionally hard.

10        Q.   Would I be right to say that you saw the truck being dispatched

11     towards Donji Milanovac?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, am I right to say that because of the situation,

14     meaning there was a war going on and the air-strikes and you were in a

15     border area and just across the way from you was the border to Romania

16     and they had allowed NATO forces to use their air-space, this being the

17     reason for your decision to stem the flow of information in order to not

18     disturb the public excessively, despite which all of the state bodies

19     knew what was going on; right?

20        A.   Yes, there's a state border there and on the Danube were Romanian

21     military ships very close to the Arsa Bay.  If they used a perfectly

22     ordinary pair of binoculars, they were still perfectly able to see

23     everything that was going on on the other side.

24        Q.   Thank you.  This is a very busy road, right?  If any roadworks

25     were in progress one would have had to stop all traffic first; right?

Page 1847

 1        A.   Yes, I did say a while ago that this was in fact something we had

 2     to do, including bus traffic, the regular lines, and all of that.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can I now please have the usher's

 5     assistance.  I would like to place on our screens an OTP document,

 6     65 ter list 594.

 7        Q.   Witness, can you see the image there?

 8        A.   No.

 9        Q.   Wait a minute, please.  It's bound to appear.

10        A.   I can see it now.

11        Q.   Witness, am I right to say that this photograph was taken on day

12     two, following your arrival on the scene?

13        A.   Most probably.  I think the truck had been hauled back slightly

14     to some degree already.

15        Q.   Slightly.  It had been pulled back some way already.  We can see

16     now that this is a truck and not a container with no cabin attached?

17        A.   Yes, that much is certain.

18        Q.   So you agree this is day two?

19        A.   Yes, I think I could agree to that.

20             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have

21     65 ter list 00595.

22             JUDGE PARKER:  Are you exhibiting this?

23             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there were three

24     photographs that were shown yesterday that were marked, and I would like

25     to have that admitted -- I would like to have these admitted because they

Page 1848

 1     are unmarked; and if we could have this first photograph exhibited,

 2     please.

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  This photograph will be received as an exhibit.

 4             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00040, Your Honours.

 5             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] And now 65 ter document 00595.  We

 6     have it on our screens.  Thank you.

 7        Q.   Witness, do you agree that this one was also taken on day two?

 8        A.   I think so.

 9        Q.   You see that the rear of the container sticks well out of the

10     water by this point?

11        A.   Yes, I realise that.

12        Q.   What about the third, or rather, my apologies.

13             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I tender this photograph into

14     evidence.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  Is this different from the previous one?

16             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] The angle appears to be slightly

17     different.  All of these are OTP exhibits, so I followed the same order

18     in which I had received these, as we see the truck gradually emerging

19     from the water.  I do not think it is of essence; nevertheless, perhaps

20     this need not be admitted because the difference in angle is very slight.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  You would like this one as an exhibit?

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Given the fact that the angle is

23     nearly the same, I don't think it's of the essence, and I would like to

24     withdraw my motion now.

25             Can we now please, however, have 65 ter 596 shown on our screens.

Page 1849

 1        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, what we see here is the truck already perched on

 2     the edge of the river-bank.  Would I be right in stating that this

 3     photograph was also taken on the same day?

 4        A.   You said day two, right?  Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.

 6             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we have this document

 7     admitted, please.

 8             JUDGE PARKER:  Is this different from the present exhibit that

 9     was marked by the witness?

10             MR. NEUNER:  The only difference is the annotation, Your Honours,

11     but it was tendered in annotated version, with the witness marking the

12     foot.

13             JUDGE PARKER:  It's the same photograph that we presently have as

14     an exhibit, Mr. Djurdjic.

15             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Indeed, Your Honour, but this one

16     is unmarked and the one shown the witness by the OTP yesterday was

17     marked, we saw the foot a while ago that I had failed to observe.  But my

18     questions are moving in a different direction, and that's why I'm using

19     the unmarked photographs.  Actually, this photograph is an exhibit

20     already, P361, Your Honours, admitted as 361, with the circle marked by

21     the witness.  It has been identified, and I don't think we need to

22     enlarge the body of evidence.

23             Can we now please have 65 ter 597, OTP Exhibit 597.

24             MR. NEUNER:  While this is being done I just wanted to clarify

25     that the pictures P361 was shown unannotated to the witness and the

Page 1850

 1     witness has marked in court the annotation.  Thank you, Your Honours.

 2             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, what about this photograph, was this one taken on

 4     the same day as well?  You see that we can see certain openings in this

 5     photograph.  Nevertheless, the forensic technician did a great job

 6     zooming in.

 7        A.   No, this one shows the crack in its lower portion, but the point

 8     of this photograph is to show the chain and the padlock on the door.

 9        Q.   I do see that, but I'm talking about this being taken on day two

10     before you broke the chain?

11        A.   Yes, this was taken on day two.

12        Q.   Thank you very much.

13             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have

14     65 ter Exhibit OTP 603.

15             JUDGE PARKER:  You want this photograph as an exhibit,

16     Mr. Djurdjic?

17             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Thank you,

18     Your Honours.  I do.

19             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

20             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00041, Your Honours.

21             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   Mr. Radojkovic, what we see here is the door pulled more closely

23     together with the screw -- screws and the sheet.  There is no licence

24     plate, and it's perched on the edge of the river, so this must have been

25     taken on day two; right?

Page 1851

 1        A.   I need to have a closer look, please.  Yes, this was taken on the

 2     same day.

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we please have this admitted.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  My memory is that we have this photograph; is that

 6     correct?

 7             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't have this

 8     one as a matter of fact.  There's another one that I have here and then

 9     the next is the one that we do have.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Very well.  This will be received.

11             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00042, Your Honours.

12             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please have

13     OTP 65 ter 598.

14        Q.   Witness, what about this photograph, was it taken on the same

15     day?

16        A.   Yes, it was.

17        Q.   Thank you.

18             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] May we please have this document

19     admitted.

20             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

21             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00043, Your Honours.

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Could I now have Prosecution

23     document 600 on the 65 ter list.

24        Q.   Witness, is the truck still on the edge of the water, on the

25     water's edge?

Page 1852

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Was this photograph taken on the same day?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   On what basis do you say it was not taken on the same day?

 5        A.   Because the inscription on the right side of the door is not

 6     there, and there's something else but I don't know how to explain it.  At

 7     the latitude where Kladovo is I can tell by the shadow cast by the truck

 8     where the sun was.  If you look at the previous photographs you will see

 9     that the sun was about to set, that means it was in the afternoon; and

10     here, it's vice versa.  This photograph was taken in the morning, because

11     the sun rises in the east, of course, from the direction of Romania.  But

12     I could notice this on the basis of the shadow cast by the truck, so this

13     photograph must have been taken the next day.

14        Q.   Thank you.  But the truck is in the same position as it was on

15     the previous two or three photographs.

16        A.   It could be so.  It depended on the changes in the water-level.

17     When you asked me about the process of pulling out the truck, the last

18     one with the leg was when the truck was still.  This photograph was taken

19     the next day, but it's possible that the water-level may have been

20     slightly higher or lower.

21        Q.   Would you agree that all these photographs that we've looked at,

22     including those we saw yesterday shown to you by Mr. Neuner, were taken

23     on the water's edge while the truck was there and not on dry land?

24        A.   The photographs of the truck were made while the truck was in the

25     water and when it was pulled out.  That would be my most precise answer

Page 1853

 1     because there are no more photographs.

 2        Q.   Witness, on this photograph you see that the truck is still in

 3     the water, the front wheels and most of it is still in the water?

 4        A.   Yes, sir, but when I painted that truck I took off my trousers,

 5     and I entered in my underpants to paint the door, which means that the

 6     water was somewhere up to my waist.

 7        Q.   But what I was saying was that all the photographs were taken

 8     while the lorry was partly on land and partly in the water?

 9        A.   In that respect you are right.

10        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Witness, yesterday you told us in connection with

11     the Timok review and its founder certain things and I wanted to ask you,

12     you mentioned that he used to be your colleague.  Do you know where he

13     worked and why he stopped working?

14        A.   He worked in the State Security Service, in Zajecar, and I know

15     him when he came to Kladovo, and I don't know how he stopped working.

16        Q.   Thank you.  Do you know that the son of this person worked in the

17     police?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know whether he stayed on working in the

20     police and what happened to him?

21        A.   If my memory is right, I think he had some problems in connection

22     with some gold.  I think he left the service, but I'm not too sure about

23     that.

24        Q.   And do you know that his son had problems because of human

25     trafficking?

Page 1854

 1        A.   I know that he had some problems with the law, but I'm not too

 2     sure about what you are saying.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know that Mr. Radojkovic was a prominent

 4     member of the party Nova Demokratija in your region?

 5        A.   No, I was never a member of any party.

 6        Q.   I apologise.  I didn't mean you.  That's a slip of the tongue.  I

 7     was referring to Mr. Vitomirovic.

 8        A.   Yes, I know that.  I know he was a personal friend of

 9     Minister Mihajlovic.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11        A.   I apologise.  At least I know this from talking to him.  I never

12     saw them together, but he said that he was a personal friend of the

13     minister.

14        Q.   Thank you.  And do you know a person by the name of Ilija Matic?

15        A.   Yes, yes, I think he was chief of the SUP in Zajecar, I think

16     that was his name.

17        Q.   Thank you.  Known by his nickname Ika Robija?

18        A.   Yes, yes, I'm familiar with the nickname.

19        Q.   And do you know when Mr. Matic was appointed chief of the SUP in

20     Zajecar?

21        A.   Perhaps around 2001 -- no, no.  The police station of Kladovo is

22     not under the authority of SUP in Zajecar, but let me try and remember

23     who was the chief before him.  After 2000, anyway, he became chief,

24     Mr. Matic was appointed chief.

25        Q.   He was appointed by Minister Mihajlovic; am I right?

Page 1855

 1        A.   I think you are.

 2        Q.   And Mr. Matic was also a member of Nova Demokratija, though he

 3     changed parties before that?

 4        A.   I cannot confirm that.  I wasn't in touch with him too often.

 5        Q.   No, these are just matters of general knowledge.

 6             Let me now take you back to a part of your testimony yesterday

 7     towards the end when you said that on the 1st of May, 2001, this article

 8     appeared in the Timok review and that it is of a journalist nature and

 9     that suddenly the entire Belgrade press carried it and public opinion

10     became familiar with it, that this is rather important.  Would you agree

11     with me that this was planned and synchronised?

12        A.   I can just tell you my own opinion.  Mr. Milosevic was already in

13     prison by then, and suddenly reports appeared about Batajnica,

14     Petrovo Selo, the refrigerator truck, Perucac, and I don't know what

15     else, and all this was like a bomb-shell and it appeared on television

16     and in the media, in the newspapers.  My impression was that all this

17     was -- that this was known from before but that the documents were kept

18     in a drawer, they were pulled out of the drawer, and by synchronised

19     action, all of this was published to create a certain impression among

20     the people to undermine the integrity of Mr. Milosevic so that he could

21     be expedited to The Hague.

22        Q.   Thank you.  Am I right if I say that apart from this inscription

23     in the article, in the Timok crime review, which appeared in September,

24     in 1999, that apart from the heading -- not the inscription, the heading,

25     apart from the heading, everything else is just a journalist's story and

Page 1856

 1     that it is incorrect.  It's like a newspaperman's -- a reporter's report?

 2             MR. NEUNER:  I would just suggest to my learned colleague,

 3     because he's switching here between two articles from May 2001 and from

 4     September 1999 that he has the article on the screen for the witness to

 5     read, and there are a couple of facts in this article and that he then

 6     puts some facts stemming from this article to the witness and then let's

 7     him make a comment as opposed to making here a broad brush about an

 8     article and switching from article to articles.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  There is a possibility of confusion between the

10     two articles, Mr. Djurdjic.  If the witness is clear about what is in

11     each, you may be able to deal with them without them being on the screen;

12     but if the witness doesn't have a clear recollection, what Mr. Neuner

13     suggests could be a way of dealing with it.

14             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I told the witness

15     what I was referring to, and he spoke about this yesterday that in

16     September 1999 an article appeared under the heading:  Refrigerator Lorry

17     in the Danube and bodies, and that it had no echo among the public and

18     the witness answered my questions about that.

19        Q.   So perhaps you can just tell me whether you had that article in

20     mind when you were giving me these answers.

21        A.   Yes, I understood that you were referring to the article in

22     September 1999, and I said that what prompted the article was okay but

23     that it was more like a newspaper report.

24        Q.   And the mention -- the only thing that is correct is the

25     location, that it was close to the monument Koca Captain, the time is

Page 1857

 1     more or less all right but the rest of it is very free interpretation of

 2     his associates.

 3        A.   But that article, the 1999 article, I didn't see it published in

 4     any other newspaper with a larger circulation in Serbia.

 5        Q.   Just one more question:  Do you know at all whether the Timok

 6     review was distributed in Belgrade and other larger cities or was it

 7     circulated only locally?

 8        A.   Only in the Timok Krajina, that's why it was called the Timok

 9     crime review.

10        Q.   And you know who Cucuk Stana is?

11        A.   Yes, I know that from history, it is the wife of

12     Hajduk Veljko Petrovic, the Vojvoda of the first Serbian uprising; am I

13     right?  Yes, he waged war in my part of the country.

14        Q.   Could you tell us what kind of clothing Cucuk Stana wore?

15        A.   Like most Serb women in those days, kind of pantaloons,

16     Cucuk Stana, a combination between a skirt and trousers, like most Serb

17     women in those, days she wore "dimija" or pantaloons.

18        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Radojkovic.  I have no further questions for you.

19             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  That

20     completes my cross-examination.

21             JUDGE PARKER:  Did you want to tender this lasting photograph?

22             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I did, and could

23     it be tendered into evidence, please.

24             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

25             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be D00044, Your Honours.

Page 1858

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Neuner, do you re-examine?

 2             MR. NEUNER:  Yes, I would have a few questions.

 3                           Re-examination by Mr. Neuner:

 4        Q.   And, Witness, we can certainly finish your testimony today.

 5     First of all, my learned colleague asked you just a moment ago about the

 6     Timok Krajina.  Could you tell Your Honours where Timok Krajina is in

 7     Serbia?

 8        A.   The Timok Krajina is in the east of Serbia, it borders on Romania

 9     and Bulgaria, and it includes the regional centres and districts of Bor

10     and Zajecar.  That would be the location of the Timok Krajina.

11             MR. NEUNER:  If we could maybe have again the 65 ter number 1.01

12     on the screen.

13        Q.   I'm not sure,

14             MR. NEUNER:  If we could scroll down a little bit.

15        Q.   -- Witness, whether you can -- whether this map is big enough to

16     encompass what you consider to be Timocka Krajina.  Is it too small or is

17     it too big?

18        A.   We need more of the map.

19        Q.   Okay.

20             MR. NEUNER:  Could we then simply have 65 ter number 1 on our

21     screens and we need to enlarge that certainly, but probably focusing on

22     the same area, east of Serbia, which we had in the previous 65 ter map.

23             Could we please zoom in on the eastern part of Serbia because

24     that's how I understood the witness to direct us, east of Belgrade,

25     please, could we just zoom in.  Yeah, east, could we go a little bit to

Page 1859

 1     the east.

 2        Q.   Witness, you guide us.  We just need to scroll to the right, yes.

 3        A.   Yes, that would be it roughly speaking.

 4        Q.   Could you now with the assistance of the usher who will hand you

 5     a pen mark where the Timocka Krajina is.

 6        A.   Could we zoom in a little, please.  This is the section that

 7     matters.

 8             MR. NEUNER:  If we can even zoom in a little bit further.  I

 9     don't know if it's possible because the witness wants us to zoom in a

10     little bit further.

11        Q.   Is that better now?  Or we can even zoom in further.  Witness,

12     you direct us.

13        A.   Yes, this is fine.  This is fine.  It's very difficult for me to

14     be very specific and draw the border precisely, but I will try to give

15     you a reference point.

16        Q.   If you could draw now where you believe that the outer borders of

17     the region you describe as Timocka Krajina is.

18        A.   I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the outer borders.

19     Bordering on other countries or the Timok region?

20        Q.   The Timok region within Serbia and if it also borders, let's say,

21     to another state, if you could just mark the outer borders of the region

22     itself, whether it's at the state border or within the internal borders

23     within Serbia.

24        A.   Yes, I'll do my best.

25        Q.   I believe what the witness marked is not being displayed.

Page 1860

 1     Maybe -- I don't see -- oh, yes, now I see.  Sorry.

 2        A.   [Marks]

 3        Q.   Thank you.

 4        A.   This is not a large-scale map, really, and I can't read the names

 5     of the towns and villages, but this would roughly correspond to what you

 6     asked.

 7             MR. NEUNER:  I would seek that this map is being tendered,

 8     Your Honours.

 9             JUDGE PARKER:  It will be received.

10             THE REGISTRAR:  That will be P00368, Your Honours.

11             MR. NEUNER:

12        Q.   And now I want to show you again the article about which my

13     learned colleague has asked you a moment ago, and that is Exhibit 364.

14     That's the article from the 16th of September, 1999.

15             MR. NEUNER:  And we need in the English version page 2, the first

16     paragraph; and in the B/C/S we need from the right page, which is

17     displayed here, just the left column, please, the left column, exactly.

18        Q.   It says here, the paragraph -- the relevant paragraph starts

19     with:

20             "A few days before ..."

21             MR. NEUNER:

22             In English it is the first paragraph, but I'm not sure whether

23     the witness can read the -- thank you for English but for B/C/S:  "A few

24     days before the bombing started, a refrigerator truck ..."

25        Q.   Can you read this paragraph?  Do you find it, Witness?

Page 1861

 1        A.   No.  We should move the Serbian article further to the right.

 2             MR. NEUNER:  Could we move to the right.  I was misguiding here.

 3     I think what the witness means we need the left page of that article and

 4     if we could maybe scroll down --

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A little further the way you

 6     started.

 7             MR. NEUNER:  We would need to move to the left, please, the

 8     usher, and now with the last column here on the right-hand page down.

 9     Thank you.  I think even further down.  It states -- it starts:  "A few

10     days before the bombing started ..."

11        Q.   Do you find this paragraph?

12        A.   No.

13             MR. NEUNER:  Maybe we can move up a little bit.  I can also read

14     it in the record if this helps.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, it's fine.  No, it's fine.  Now

16     I can see it.

17             MR. NEUNER:  It talks here about the truck.

18             A few kilometres from the Djerdap hydro-electric plant the truck

19     overturned and landed on the Danube river-bank, the door was slightly

20     deformed, human bodies began to fall out.

21             That human bodies began to fall out, can you confirm that fact to

22     us, it's being accurately reported?  I was asking you:  Could you confirm

23     whether the press article which states that human bodies began to fall

24     out of a slightly deformed door, could you confirm that fact as being

25     accurate?  Witness?

Page 1862

 1        A.   This last sentence you read, I agree, but I can't agree that

 2     bodies were falling out.  They were sticking out as if emerging from the

 3     inside of the container.  If you say "fall out," that means it's out and

 4     down on the ground; and here what we had was something slightly sticking

 5     out, protruding, as it were.  Therefore, my answer is the bodies were not

 6     falling out or were not beginning to fall out.  There were bits of bodies

 7     sticking out through the crack.  That would be the most accurate way of

 8     putting it, and my reply is merely in relation to the last sentence that

 9     you read back to me.

10             JUDGE PARKER:  Mr. Djurdjic.

11             MR. DJURDJIC: [Interpretation] I believe this is not fine because

12     Mr. Neuner started reading the beginning of the paragraph "several days

13     before the start of the air-strikes ..." and then the text goes on like

14     that.  We should put to the witness the entire context, the substance of

15     this piece, and not a single sentence and then the witness should comment

16     on the context in its entirety as opposed to commenting on a single

17     sentence.  We have the Swiss plates here several days before the

18     beginning of the air-strikes, a single truck, refrigerator truck, with

19     Swiss plates was -- and then bodies falling out, and if that's something

20     that the witness agrees with I'll be more than happy.

21             MR. NEUNER:  You had a chance to do this during the

22     cross-examination and I'm at liberty to --

23             JUDGE PARKER:  Now, Mr. Neuner, do you see the clock?

24             MR. NEUNER:  I see the clock.  I would be done after putting one

25     more fact to the witness.

Page 1863

 1             JUDGE PARKER:  About this article?

 2             MR. NEUNER:  Yes.  It was suggested --

 3             JUDGE PARKER:  Then would you put to the witness the particular

 4     matter you wanted him to consider in this article, please.

 5             MR. NEUNER:  That's all I wanted.

 6        Q.   Another fact which is mentioned in this article, and that's the

 7     last fact I wanted to put to you, is that the crane came -- I'm sorry.

 8     It is reporting to a person -- to what a person said.  He said he added

 9     that those were probably the bodies of the Kurds or the Talibans who had

10     mysteriously arrived on our territory.

11             Do you see here the information being reported in that article as

12     being uttered by a person?

13        A.   Yes, the copy is a little poor, but I do see that portion.  I see

14     the rest of the text as well.

15        Q.   What would your comment be on this information that a person who

16     is quoted here in the article mentions that those were probably the

17     bodies of the Kurds or the Talibans?  What is your comment to this?

18        A.   No comment at all.  I mean, I don't know.  I don't know what the

19     source is for this information, particularly if I go on reading,

20     something about trafficking in human organs.  There's a reference to

21     Kurds here.  This is the story that we released after the incident at

22     Tekija.  There is no other way I can understand this.  It was a

23     well-known fact to the public that some Kurds had come to grief.  The

24     Kurds, we refer to them as the Taliban.  Further up from Tekija in a

25     slightly different area.  So it's possible that someone actually stated

Page 1864

 1     this on the record, but we do have to keep in mind the fact that this is

 2     a newspaper piece and that's all it is.

 3             MR. NEUNER:  Thank you.  The Prosecution has no more questions,

 4     Your Honour.

 5             JUDGE PARKER:  Thank you.

 6             The Chamber would make the observation to assist both counsel

 7     that it seems unlikely that it would ever be possible for the Chamber to

 8     place any reliance on a newspaper article of this type in reaching a

 9     decision in this case.  I mention that because both counsel have spent

10     quite a bit of time with this article.  It is a report by a newspaper.

11     We have no means of knowing or verifying the source of the information

12     nor of verifying what is contained in the article.  Counsel can expect

13     that the Chamber will look to more direct identified and reliable

14     evidence for any finding of fact that it makes, and I hope that will

15     assist counsel in assessing whether they need to spend time on this or

16     any similar type of material in the future.

17             Mr. Radojkovic, we would like to thank you.  You'll be pleased to

18     know that that is the end of your questioning.  We're grateful that you

19     have been able to come to The Hague and for the assistance that you've

20     given, and you will now be able to return to your ordinary activities.

21             The Chamber will now adjourn, and we continue tomorrow at 2.15.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.55 p.m.,

24                           to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of

25                           March, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.